text:
# Lensing Properties of Cored Galaxy Models

## 1 Introduction

For smooth, non-singular lenses, it is well-known that the total number of images is odd and that the number of even parity images exceeds the number of odd parity images by one (e.g., Burke 1981; Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992, chap. 5). When the source lies within both the tangential and radial caustics, it is lensed into 5 images. When the source lies outside one caustic but inside the other, then it is lensed into 3 images. If the surface density at the galaxy centre is cusped and that cusp is stronger than isothermal, then the situation changes. There is no radial caustic and there are either 4 or 2 images depending on whether the source lies inside or outside the remaining tangential caustic (Evans & Wilkinson 1998).

In fact, almost all the known sixty or so gravitational lens systems are 2 or 4 image configurations (see Pospieszalka et al. 1999 for details of the gravitational lensing database which maintains a list of candidates). There are two systems in which the presence of a weak, central image has been claimed. APM08279+5255 is an ultraluminous broad absorption line quasar. Originally, two images were detected serendipitously by Irwin et al. (1998) in the optical. Subsequently, Ibata et al. (1999) found convincing evidence for a central third image using higher resolution infrared imaging. The source of MG1131+0456 is a radio galaxy. One extended radio component is lensed into a ring, another is lensed into two images. There seems to be a weak central image at the center of the ring, and this may be the third or fifth image of parts of the background radio source (Chen & Hewitt 1993); however, this could also be emission from the lensing galaxy. The almost total absence of the central image from the known lens systems sets strong constraints on the core radius and the steepness of the lensing potential (e.g., Narayan, Blandford & Nityananda 1984, Wallington & Narayan 1993, Rusin & Ma 2000).

The aims of this paper are twofold. On the theoretical side, our aim is to find expressions for the sums of the magnifications of any subset of the images produced by multiply lensed quasars or galaxies, at least within the framework of a class of flexible and popular models. We do this by extending the analysis of our earlier work (Hunter & Evans 2001, henceforth Paper I) to lensing potentials stratified on similar concentric ellipse but this time with cores. In doublet (or quadruplet) systems, there are one (or two) even parity images, one (or two) odd parity images, together with the missing central image. We provide contour integrals which find the sums of the magnifications of the even parity images, the odd parity images and the central image separately. On the astrophysical side, our aim is to set constraints on the cusp profile and core size of lensing galaxies by requiring that the central image be too weak to be detectable. For the 2 and 4 image systems, we investigate the permissible core radius as a function of the steepness and the flattening of the lensing potential and the external shear.

The paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 develops the contour integral representation needed for lensing potentials that are elliptically stratified. Section 3 specialises the analysis to models in which the lensing potential is a power-law of the elliptic radius combined with external shear of arbitrary orientation. The conditions for triple and quintuple imaging are found in terms of the depth and shape of the potential, as well as the position of the source. The contour integrals for the sums of the magnifications of the two even parity, the two odd parity and the missing central image are evaluated. Section 4 uses Monte Carlo simulations to set limits on the lensing potential by requiring the central image to be unobservable. Finally, our conclusions are given in Section 5.

## 2 Contour Integrals for Observables

This section develops contour integrals for computing the magnifications of images assuming only that the lensing potential is stratified on similar concentric ellipses.

### 2.1 The Lens Equation

In this paper, we always assume that the lensing potential $`\psi `$ is stratified on similar concentric ellipses with constant axis ratio $`q`$ with $`0<q1`$ so that

$$\psi =\psi (\tau ),\tau =x^2+y^2q^2.$$
(1)
For a thin lens with potential $`\psi `$, the lens equation is (e.g., Schneider et al., section 5.1)

$$\xi =x+\gamma _1x+\gamma _2y2x\psi ^{}(\tau ),\eta =y+\gamma _2x\gamma _1y\frac{2y}{q^2}\psi ^{}(\tau ),$$
(2)
where ($`\xi ,\eta `$) are Cartesian coordinates of the source. Here $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ allow for a constant external shear in an arbitrary direction. We always assume that the lens is not circularly symmetric (that is, either $`q1`$ or $`\gamma _10`$ or $`\gamma _20`$).

Complex numbers often simplify calculations in lensing theory (e.g., Bourassa, Kantowski & Norton 1973, Bourassa & Kantowski 1975, Witt 1990, Rhie 1997). As in Paper I, we shall find it helpful to use

$$\zeta =\xi +\mathrm{i}q\eta =|\zeta |e^{i\varphi },z=x+\mathrm{i}y/q,\tau =z\overline{z}.$$
(3)
The lens equation (2) then becomes

$$\zeta =P_0z+Q\overline{z}2z\psi ^{}(\tau ),$$
(4)
where

$$P_0=\frac{1}{2}[1+q^2+\gamma _1(1q^2)],Q=\frac{1}{2}[1q^2+\gamma _1(1+q^2)+2\mathrm{i}q\gamma _2].$$
(5)
It and its conjugate can be written in matrix form as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta \hfill \\ \overline{\zeta }\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}P\hfill & \hfill Q\\ \overline{Q}\hfill & \hfill P\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z\hfill \\ \overline{z}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`P=P_02\psi ^{}(\tau )`$, from which it follows that

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}z\hfill \\ \overline{z}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{P^2|Q|^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}P\hfill & \hfill Q\\ \overline{Q}\hfill & \hfill P\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta \hfill \\ \overline{\zeta }\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(7)
When we form the real quantity $`\tau =z\overline{z}`$ from eqn. (7), we find that the solutions of the lens equation also satisfy the real equation

$$K(\tau ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })\frac{1}{\tau }(P\zeta Q\overline{\zeta })(P\overline{\zeta }\overline{Q}\zeta )\left[P^2|Q|^2\right]^2=0.$$
(8)
We designate $`K(\tau ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })=0`$ as the imaging equation. Its real and positive solutions for $`\tau `$ provide the image positions $`z`$ for a given source location $`\zeta `$. Once a solution for $`\tau `$ is found, the image positions are given by equation (7). Any solution of the original lens equation (2) gives a solution of the imaging equation. However, the imaging equation may have negative real or complex solutions which do not correspond to true images.

### 2.2 Sums of Magnifications

The lens equation defines a map from the complex $`(z,\overline{z})`$–lens plane to the $`(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$–source plane. The Jacobian of this mapping is

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\zeta }{z}|_{\overline{z}}\hfill & \hfill \frac{\zeta }{\overline{z}}|_z\\ \frac{\overline{\zeta }}{z}|_{\overline{z}}\hfill & \hfill \frac{\overline{\zeta }}{\overline{z}}|_z\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}P+\tau P^{}(\tau )\hfill & \hfill Q+z^2P^{}(\tau )\\ \overline{Q}+\overline{z}^2P^{}(\tau )\hfill & \hfill P+\tau P^{}(\tau )\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
where the second form has been evaluated using eqn (6). The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`J`$ determine the distortion of images. If the eigenvalues are both positive, the image is direct; if the eigenvalues are both negative, the image is doubly inverted. These are the even parity cases. If one eigenvalue is positive, the other negative, then the image is inverted and the parity is odd. The reciprocal of the determinant of the Jacobian of the mapping from the real $`(x,y)`$–lens plane to the $`(\xi ,\eta )`$–source plane corresponds physically to the signed magnification of an image (Schneider et al. 1992, chapter 5). With our choice (3) of complex coordinates, we find

$$\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{det}J}|_{x_i,y_i}=\mu _ip_i,$$
(10)
where $`\mu _i`$ is the absolute value of the magnification and $`p_i`$ is the parity of the image located at $`(x_i,y_i)`$. For certain positions, $`\mathrm{det}J`$ vanishes and the magnification is infinite. These are the critical points and lines. The caustics are the images of the critical points and curves under the lens mapping (2). Evaluating the determinant of (9) gives

$$\mathrm{det}J=P^2|Q|^2+(2\tau PQ\overline{z}^2\overline{Q}z^2)P^{}(\tau ).$$
(11)
Differentiating the imaging equation (8) for $`K`$ partially with respect to $`\tau `$, holding $`\zeta `$ and $`\overline{\zeta }`$ fixed, and then using the lens equation (6) to express $`\zeta `$ and $`\overline{\zeta }`$ in terms of $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ gives

$$\frac{K(\tau ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })}{\tau }|_{\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }}=\frac{(P^2|Q|^2)}{\tau }[P^2|Q|^2+(2\tau PQ\overline{z}^2\overline{Q}z^2)P^{}(\tau )].$$
(12)
Consequently, we get the following compact expression for the signed magnification of an image as

$$\mu p=\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{det}J}=\frac{q^2(P^2|Q|^2)}{\tau \frac{K}{\tau }|_{\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }}}.$$
(13)
Our contour integral representation relies on the special structure of equation (13). Images correspond to simple zeros of $`K(\tau ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ and $`1/(K/\tau )`$ is the residue of $`1/K`$ at a simple zero. We continue the right hand side of equation (13) into the complex $`\tau `$-plane and write the sum of the signed magnifications of the images as the contour integral

$$\underset{\mathrm{images}}{}\mu _ip_i=\frac{q^2}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_𝒞\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\frac{(P^2|Q|^2)}{K(\tau ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })}.$$
(14)
Here, $`𝒞`$ is a contour in the complex $`\tau `$-plane which excludes $`\tau =0`$ and encloses only the simple poles corresponding to whichever visible images we wish to analyse.

Let us note that our analysis here shows how the methods first developed in Paper I can do more than we achieved there. We here exploit them in two new ways. We first relax the restriction that the lensing potential be scale-free and allow it to have a core. Cored potentials produce either one, three, or five images depending on the strength of the potential, the size of the core and the position of the source. Second, we derive formulae for sums of signed magnifications for separate image pairs, and for the central image. Hence, the present results are more detailed and informative than those of Paper I, most of which were for sums over the four bright images, consisting of two pairs of opposite parity, and which therefore partially cancel.

## 3 Power-Law Galaxies with Cores

We now specialize the analysis to the case of power-law galaxies with a core radius $`a`$, which have the lensing potential

$`\psi =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{A}{\beta }(a^2+\tau )^{\beta /2}\hfill & \text{if }0<\beta <2,\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{A}{2}\mathrm{ln}(a^2+\tau )\hfill & \text{ if }\beta =0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (18)
These models were first studied by Blandford & Kochanek (1989) in the context of gravitational lensing (see also Kassiola & Kovner 1993; Witt 1996; Witt & Mao 1997, 2000; Evans & Wilkinson 1998 and Paper I). They are the projections of three-dimensional power-law galaxies familiar in galactic astronomy and dynamics (Evans 1993, 1994). For example, they have been used to model the nearby elliptical galaxy M32 (van der Marel et al. 1994), the inner parts of the Galactic bulge (Evans & de Zeeuw 1994), as well as the dark halo of our own Galaxy in the interpretation of both the Sagittarius stream and the microlensing results (Alcock et al. 1997; Ibata & Lewis 1998). The convergence (or surface density in units of the critical density) is

$$\kappa =\frac{A}{2q^2}\frac{a^2(1+q^2)+x^2(1+q^2(\beta 1))+y^2(1+q^2(\beta 1))}{(a^2+\tau )^{2\beta /2}}.$$
(19)
It is easy to see that

$$2\psi ^{}(\tau )=A(a^2+\tau )^{1/B},$$
(20)
where the parameter $`B=2/(2\beta )`$ and has the range $`1B<\mathrm{}`$. The positive parameter $`A`$, to which the magnitude of the lensing potential is proportional, can be removed by a rescaling. Specifically, we scale all lengths by $`A^{B/2}`$. The net effect is to set $`A=1`$ in eqs (18)-(20). The dependence of our results on $`A`$, which is needed in applications, can be recovered by multiplying all powers of $`a`$, $`z`$ and $`\zeta `$ and their conjugates by the same powers of $`A^{B/2}`$.

### 3.1 Images and Caustics

In this section, we establish the conditions for the numbers and types of images, and the forms of the caustics. It is convenient to use the variable $`t=(a^2+\tau )^{1/B}`$. It reduces to the same variable $`t`$ used in Paper I in the limit of no core ($`a0`$). When there is a core, the physically relevant range of $`t`$ is restricted to $`0<ta^{2/B}`$. In terms of the variable $`t`$,

$$\frac{1}{\tau }=\frac{t^B}{1a^2t^B},2\psi ^{}(\tau )=t,P=P_0t.$$
(21)
The imaging equation (8) requires the balance

$$\frac{t^B(P\zeta Q\overline{\zeta })(P\overline{\zeta }\overline{Q}\zeta )}{1a^2t^B}=(P^2|Q|^2)^2=(tt_1)^2(tt_2)^2,$$
(22)
for those real and positive values of $`t`$ at which the images occur. The values of $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ depend only on the flattening and the shear, and are defined by

$$t_1=P_0+|Q|,t_2=P_0|Q|.$$
(23)
It follows from the definitions (5) that $`P_0>0`$ and $`P_0^2|Q|^2=q^2(1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2)>0`$ provided that $`\gamma _1^2+\gamma _2^2<1`$. Hence, both $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are positive with $`t_1>t_2`$ and $`t_2<1`$. Fig. 1 shows how image positions can be found graphically by plotting separately the two sides of equation (22). The full curve represents the right hand side of that equation. It depends only on the parameters of the lens. The left hand side depends also on the position of the source. The three dashed curves display it for three different source positions. The lowest dashed curve intersects the full curve curve five times and there are five images. When the source is sufficiently close to the center of the galaxy, the left hand side remains small until it rises to its asymptote at $`a^{2/B}`$. A requirement for quintuple imaging is that $`t_1`$ must lie to the left of this asymptote, and hence that the core radius must satisfy $`a<t_1^{B/2}`$. Images disappear in pairs either when the two curves touch in the $`(t_2,t_1)`$ interval, which corresponds to a crossing of the tangential caustic, or when they touch in the $`(t_1,a^{2/B})`$ interval, which corresponds to a crossing of the radial caustic. If the former happens first, then the three images that remain form a “core triplet”; if the latter happens first, then the three images form a “naked cusp triplet” (e.g., Kassiola & Kovner 1993). The intermediate dashed curve in Fig. 1 represents a naked cusp triplet case of a source which lies outside the radial caustic but inside the tangential one. The topmost dashed curve is for a source which lies outside both caustics, and gives a single image. There is now just a single image corresponding to a single crossing on $`(0,t_2)`$. The three different source positions are shown in Fig. 2a.

The maximum number of images diminishes as the core radius increases. If the core radius satisfies $`a<t_1^{B/2}`$, then quintuple imaging is possible, and there are two caustics. For core radii in the range $`t_1^{B/2}at_2^{B/2}`$, the vertical asymptote of the dashed curve in Fig. 1 lies between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$. There are then three images for the source sufficiently close to the center of the galaxy that it lies within the tangential caustic, and there is no radial caustic. For still larger core radii satisfying $`at_2^{B/2}`$, then only a single image can occur and there are no caustics. Appendix A justifies the statements concerning images and caustics, and gives equations for determining the caustics, and an approximate formula for the radial caustic for small $`a`$ and $`B2`$.

Image positions and points on caustics must generally be determined numerically. Cusps are an exception because they occur in pairs when either $`t=t_2`$ or $`t=t_1`$ is a triple root of the imaging equation. The sole caustic is tangential and of lips type for the range $`t_1^{B/2}<a<t_2^{B/2}`$ as in Fig. 2c because it has only the $`t=t_2`$ pair of cusps. When $`a<t_1^{B/2}`$ and quintuple imaging is possible, there are two pairs of cusps and three possible configurations of caustics. Either both pairs of cusps lie on the tangential caustic, which is of astroidal shape, or else both caustics are lips-shaped with the radial caustic lying within the tangential and oriented oppositely to it (Schneider et al. 1992, Section 8.6.1). This double lips configuration occurs when

$$1>a^2t_1^B>1\frac{B}{2}\left(1\frac{t_2}{t_1}\right),$$
(24)
as in Fig. 2a. The $`t=t_2`$ pair of cusps are then naked. The stage at which those cusps become naked is described by the coupled pair of equations (A), which must be solved numerically. The results are plotted in Fig. 3. The tangential caustic has a pair of naked cusps in the regions of parameter space below the curve for the appropriate value of $`B`$. Above that curve, the tangential caustic has four cusps and lies wholly within the radial caustic as in Fig. 2b. Below that curve, but where $`t_2/t_1`$ is sufficiently large that the condition (24) is violated, the two caustics intersect as in Fig. 2d, and two of the four cusps of the tangential caustic are naked.

We note that our results extend previous calculations in the literature. For example, Kassiola & Kovner (1993) give the conditions for multiple imaging in the isothermal case ($`\beta =1`$) in the absence of shear ($`\gamma _1=0=\gamma _2`$), while Evans & Wilkinson (1998) give the results for the scale-free cases ($`a=0`$) with on-axis shear only ($`\gamma _2=0`$).

### 3.2 Magnifications of Pairs of Images

Changing the variable in the contour integral (14) for the magnification to $`t`$ gives

$$\underset{\mathrm{images}}{}\mu _ip_i=\frac{q^2B}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_𝒞\frac{dt}{t}\frac{P^2|Q|^2}{(1a^2t^B)K}.$$
(25)
We write the denominator term as

$$(1a^2t^B)K=\widehat{K}_1+K_2,$$
(26)
where we have labelled its two parts as

$`\widehat{K}_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1a^2t^B)(P^2|Q|^2)^2=(1a^2t^B)(tt_1)^2(tt_2)^2,`$
$`K_2`$ $`=`$ $`t^B(P\zeta Q\overline{\zeta })(P\overline{\zeta }\overline{Q}\zeta ).`$ (27)
The component $`K_2`$ is the same as in Paper I, whereas $`\widehat{K}_1`$ differs from the $`K_1=(tt_1)^2(tt_2)^2`$ of Paper I only through its extra $`(1a^2t^B)`$ factor, which is unity when there is no core.

In Paper I, we were interested primarily in sums over the four bright images. However, the contour integral (25), like the corresponding result in equation (23) of Paper I, applies equally well to any subset of the images provided that the contour $`𝒞`$ is chosen to enclose only the zeros of $`(1a^2t^B)K`$ which correspond to that subset. If $`a<t_2^{B/2}`$ for instance, we define a contour $`𝒞_2`$ to be a simple closed contour in the complex $`t`$–plane which encircles the two direct images of even parity. These approach $`t=t_2`$ as $`|\zeta |0`$, and so the contour $`𝒞_2`$ also encloses $`t_2`$ which lies in between, but it excludes all the other images, as well as $`t=0`$, $`t=t_1`$, $`t=a^{2/B}`$ and any complex zeros of $`(1a^2t^B)`$. Then, we obtain the formula

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 direct}}{\text{images}}}{}\mu _ip_i=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 direct}}{\text{images}}}{}\mu _i=\frac{q^2B}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_{𝒞_2}\frac{dt}{t(tt_1)(tt_2)(1a^2t^B)\left(1+\frac{K_2}{\widehat{K}_1}\right)}.$$
(28)
We require that $`𝒞_2`$ keep a finite distance from $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$, and every zero of $`(1a^2t^B)`$. Then, with $`|t|`$ bounded above, and $`|tt_1|`$, $`|tt_2|`$, and $`|1a^2t^B|`$ bounded from below, it follows that

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{\widehat{K}_1}}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{t^B}{1a^2t^B}}\right|\left|{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda |^2}{(tt_1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|\nu |^2}{(tt_2)^2}}\right|`$ (29)
$``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{t^B}{1a^2t^B}}\right|\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda |^2}{|tt_1|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|\nu |^2}{|tt_2|^2}}\right],`$
and hence $`|K_2/\widehat{K}_1|<1`$ on $`𝒞_2`$ for sufficiently small $`|\zeta |`$. We have here used the result

$$(P\zeta Q\overline{\zeta })(P\overline{\zeta }\overline{Q}\zeta )=[\lambda (t_2t)+\nu (t_1t)][\overline{\lambda }(t_2t)+\overline{\nu }(t_1t)]=|\lambda |^2(t_2t)^2+|\nu |^2(t_1t)^2,$$
(30)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`\nu `$ are the following two linear combinations of the complex source coordinates

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta +\frac{Q\overline{\zeta }}{|Q|}\right),\nu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\zeta \frac{Q\overline{\zeta }}{|Q|}\right),$$
(31)
which have the property $`|\lambda |^2+|\nu |^2=|\zeta |^2`$. With $`|K_2/\widehat{K}_1|<1`$, we can now expand the $`(1+K_2/\widehat{K}_1)^1`$ term in the integral (28) as a geometric series to get

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 direct}}{\text{images}}}{}}\mu _ip_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2B}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle _{𝒞_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t(tt_1)(tt_2)(1a^2t^B)}}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2B}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{𝒞_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{Bj1}[|\lambda |^2(tt_2)^2+|\nu |^2(tt_1)^2]^j}{(tt_1)^{2j+1}(tt_2)^{2j+1}(1a^2t^B)^{j+1}}}𝑑t.`$
The restrictions that we imposed earlier on $`𝒞_2`$ guarantee that this series converges for sufficiently small $`|\zeta |`$. Every integral in it can be evaluated from its residue at $`t=t_2`$ alone because that is the only singularity within the contour $`𝒞_2`$. The leading order term is the residue of the simple pole at $`t=t_2`$, which is positive because both parities are even. The full expansion for the sum of the two magnifications is

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 direct}}{\text{images}}}{}\mu _i=\frac{q^2B}{2|Q|t_2(1a^2t_2^B)}+C_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;\lambda ,\nu ).$$
(33)
Here, $`C_2`$ is a correction term which vanishes if the source is exactly aligned with the center of the lensing galaxy. More generally, it takes the form:

$$C_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;\lambda ,\nu )=q^2B\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{m}\right)|\lambda |^{2m}|\nu |^{2j2m}R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,2m,2j2m),$$

where we have defined

$$R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_{𝒞_2}\frac{t^{Bj1}dt}{(tt_1)^{\mathrm{}+1}(tt_2)^{k+1}(1a^2t^B)^{j+1}}.$$
(34)
In fact, we can obtain closed form expressions for all of these integrals without any further residue calculus by simple partial differentiation because

$`R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}{\displaystyle \frac{^k}{t_2^k}}R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}{\displaystyle \frac{^k}{t_2^k}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(t_2t_1)^{\mathrm{}+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_2^{Bj1}}{(1a^2t_2^B)^j}}\right].`$
If the conditions for quintuple imaging are satisfied, then there is a pair of inverted images which approach $`t=t_1`$ as $`|\zeta |0`$. We can perform a similar analysis for a simple closed contour $`𝒞_1`$ in the complex $`t`$-plane which encloses the images and $`t_1`$, but not $`t=0`$, $`t=t_2`$, $`t=a^{2/B}`$ or any complex zero of $`(1a^2t^B)`$. The result is that

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 inverted}}{\text{images}}}{}\mu _ip_i=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 inverted}}{\text{images}}}{}\mu _i=\frac{q^2B}{2|Q|t_1(1a^2t_1^B)}+C_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;\lambda ,\nu ),$$
(36)
where the correction term $`C_1`$ is

$$C_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;\lambda ,\nu )=q^2B\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{m}\right)|\lambda |^{2m}|\nu |^{2j2m}R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,2m,2j2m).$$
(37)
Here, we have defined

$`R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{𝒞_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{Bj1}dt}{(tt_1)^{\mathrm{}+1}(tt_2)^{k+1}(1a^2t^B)^{j+1}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}!}}{\displaystyle \frac{^{\mathrm{}}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}}}}R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,0,k)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}!}}{\displaystyle \frac{^{\mathrm{}}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(t_1t_2)^{k+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_1^{Bj1}}{(1a^2t_1^B)^j}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`R_2(t_2,t_1,a^2;j,k,\mathrm{}).`$
In fact, the coefficients $`R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ and $`R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ can be expressed as finite sums, as is demonstrated in Appendix B.

Neither series (33) nor (36) remains convergent at the tangential caustic where one of the direct and one of the inverted images merge; the magnifications of the merging images become infinite and one cannot then construct the $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ contours. However, the sum of series (33) and (36) can remain convergent at the tangential caustic because the infinities of the signed magnifications of the two merging images cancel. The series (36) ceases to converge at the radial caustic where an inverted and a doubly inverted image merge, but the series (33) for the direct images converges there if, as in Fig. 2a, it lies inside the tangential caustic.

Let us note some interesting special cases of the preceding formulae. In the scale-free limit ($`a=0`$) when $`B=1`$ or $`B=2`$, then remarkably the correction terms have the property that $`C_1C_20`$. As first discovered by Witt & Mao (2000; see also Paper I), the sum of the four signed magnifications is then an invariant completely independent of the source position

$$\underset{\text{4 images}}{}\mu _ip_i=\frac{B}{1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2}.$$
(39)
Even though this result is not exact for other values of $`B`$, it is often an extremely good approximation. If the core radius is non-zero, then the sum of the signed magnifications becomes

$$\underset{\text{4 images}}{}\mu _ip_i\frac{B}{(1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2)(1a^2t_1^B)(1a^2t_2^B)}\left[1\frac{a^2(t_1^{B+1}t_2^{B+1})}{t_1t_2}\right],$$
(40)
and this approximation remains remarkably accurate inside the radial caustic. An example is the cored isothermal lens of Fig. 2b. The sum of the four signed magnifications is constant to within tenths of one percent over all of the region inside the tangential caustic except very close to the cusps. However, the smallness of the dependence of that sum on the source position is due to a near-cancellation of the correction terms in the two image sums. Fig. 4 shows how much the sum of the magnifications of the two direct images varies over the same region. Numerically, the leading coefficients in expansion (3.2) for $`C_2`$ are $`R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;1,2,0)=13.77`$ and $`R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;1,0,2)=21.64`$. The sums $`R_1+R_2`$ for the same sets of indices are -0.01. Though numerical values vary, $`R_1+R_2`$ is typically at least two orders of magnitude less than $`R_2`$ for lenses with small cores and with an inner tangential caustic. In Section B.3, we show how near-cancellation can occur more generally from the contour integral formula (14), and is not a peculiarity of power-law galaxies. However, this behavior is not universal. The sum of the four signed magnifications has large variations over the region inside the inner radial caustic of Fig. 2a, while the sum of the magnifications of the two direct images changes little in the middle third of that region. That middle third lies well inside the tangential caustic at which the direct image sum becomes large.

The separate sums of the pairs contain more information than their signed combination. Physically speaking, it is the total magnification (that is, the sum of the magnifications) which is more interesting, but this varies considerably with source position. The minimum magnification $`A_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in the scale-free limit $`(a=0)`$ is

$$A_{\mathrm{min}}=\underset{\text{4 images}}{}\mu _i=\frac{B}{1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2}\frac{P_0}{|Q|}$$
(41)
This corresponds to the case when the source is aligned with the center of the lensing galaxy. It is a good approximation only when the source offset is small. For non-zero core radius, it becomes

$$A_{\mathrm{min}}=\underset{\text{4 images}}{}\mu _i=\frac{B}{1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2}\frac{1}{2|Q|}\left[\frac{t_2}{1a^2t_1^B}+\frac{t_1}{1a^2t_2^B}\right].$$
(42)
In the next section, we discuss another nearly constant four-image sum which reduces to the sum of the unsigned magnifications when the source is aligned with the center of the lensing galaxy.

### 3.3 Configuration Moments

The contour integral method can also be used to calculate configuration moments, that is, sums over the images of products of the signed magnifications with position coordinates. Those sums are obtained by adding the complex position coordinates from (7) to the sum (14) to obtain

$$\underset{\mathrm{images}}{}\mu _ip_iz_i^m\overline{z}_i^n=\frac{q^2}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_𝒞\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\frac{(P\zeta Q\overline{\zeta })^m(P\overline{\zeta }\overline{Q}\zeta )^n}{K(\tau ;\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })(P^2|Q|^2)^{m+n1}}.$$
(43)
We expand for moments in the same manner as for the magnifications, with the result that

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 direct}}{\text{images}}}{}\mu _iz_i^m\overline{z}_i^n=\frac{qB^2}{2\pi i}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{𝒞_2}\frac{t^{Bj1}[\lambda (t_2t)+\nu (t_1t)]^{m+j}[\overline{\lambda }(t_2t)+\overline{\nu }(t_1t)]^{n+j}dt}{[(tt_1)(tt_2)]^{2j+m+n+1}(1a^2t^B)^{j+1}}.$$
(44)
After the two numerator factors are expanded binomially, we see that every integral is of the same form as (34), and so, provided $`m+j0`$ and $`n+j0`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 direct}}{\text{images}}}{}}`$ $`\mu _iz_i^m\overline{z}_i^n=(1)^{m+n}q^2B{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{2j+m+n}{}}}R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},2j+m+n\mathrm{})`$ (45)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{max}(0,\mathrm{}nj)}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{},m+j)}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+j}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+j}{\mathrm{}k}}\right)\lambda ^k\overline{\lambda }^\mathrm{}k\nu ^{m+jk}\overline{\nu }^{n+j+k\mathrm{}}.`$
The corresponding sum for the indirect pair is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{2 inverted}}{\text{images}}}{}}`$ $`\mu _iz_i^m\overline{z}_i^n=(1)^{m+n+1}q^2B{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{2j+m+n}{}}}R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},2j+m+n\mathrm{})`$ (46)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{max}(0,\mathrm{}nj)}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{},m+j)}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+j}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+j}{\mathrm{}k}}\right)\lambda ^k\overline{\lambda }^\mathrm{}k\nu ^{m+jk}\overline{\nu }^{n+j+k\mathrm{}}.`$
In either case the same $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ functions as arise with the magnifications, and which are evaluated in Appendix B, are all that is needed.

Whereas the present paper is mostly concerned with magnifications, our modeling in Paper I made use of configuration moments too. The analysis of this paper, and especially that of Appendix Section B.3, shows that four-image sums of moments may also be far more uniform than the separate sums (45) and (46) because of cancellations. However it is possible to mitigate the cancellations which arise from signed magnifications by using specially contrived configuration moments. As an example, consider the zeroth order $`m=1`$, $`n=1`$ moment \[see eqn. (48) of Paper I\] in which the magnifications are weighted by the complex exponential $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, where $`z=|z|e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. The angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for each image is $`\mathrm{arctan}(y_i/qx_i)`$This factor exactly compensates for the different signs of the magnifications when the source offset is zero and the two kinds of images lie on perpendicular lines through $`O`$. We obtain the $`j=0`$ terms directly from the integral (44) and its pair because the binomial expansions used to obtain equations (46) and (45) are not valid when $`n+j<0`$. This gives us two $`R(t_1,t_2,a^2;0,0,0)`$ integrals whose sum gives

$$\underset{\text{4 images}}{}\mu _ip_ie^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_i}\frac{B}{(1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2)}\frac{1}{2\overline{Q}}\left[\frac{t_2}{1a^2t_1^B}+\frac{t_1}{1a^2t_2^B}\right],$$
(47)
because $`\lambda /\overline{\lambda }=\nu /\overline{\nu }=Q/|Q|`$. The sum (47) is minus the sum in equation (42) when there is no off-axis shear and $`Q`$ is real because $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }}=1`$ on the major $`x`$-axis where the inverted images initially lie and $`e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }}=1`$ on the minor $`y`$-axis. Off-axis shear rotates the configuration and $`\overline{Q}/|Q|`$ is then the complex factor which makes $`\underset{\text{4 images}}{}\mu _ip_i(\overline{Q}e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }}/|Q|)`$ real. This four-image sum can remain nearly constant as the source offset changes because the changing angular positions of the images counteracts their changing magnitudes. For the cored isothermal lens for which Fig. 2b and Fig. 4 are plotted for example, the $`m=1`$, $`n=1`$ moment of equation (47) displays the same near constancy over the region inside the tangential caustic as does the sum of the four signed magnifications. Estimates of $`q`$ and the orientation of the lens must be combined with observed positions to evaluate the sum in (47), but the result should be real when multiplied by $`\overline{Q}/|Q|`$.

### 3.4 The Magnification of the Central Image

There is no fifth central image in the absence of a core for $`B2`$. When there is a core, the central image is given by the root of the imaging equation (26) for which $`ta^{2/B}`$ and $`\tau 0`$ as $`|\zeta |0`$. We can obtain formulae for its signed magnification involving another set of $`R`$-functions, defined by

$$R_a(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{𝒞_a}\frac{t^{Bj1}dt}{(tt_1)^{\mathrm{}+1}(tt_2)^{k+1}(1a^2t^B)^{j+1}}$$
(48)
where $`𝒞_a`$ is a loop enclosing $`t=a^{2/B}`$ but not $`t_1`$ or $`t_2`$ or $`0`$ or any other zeros of $`(1a^2t^B)`$. These functions can be calculated by evaluating residues at $`t=a^{2/B}`$. This is a simple pole when $`j=0`$, and we then get

$$R_a(t_1,t_2,a^2;0,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{a^{2(\mathrm{}+k+2)/B}}{B[1a^{2/B}t_1]^{\mathrm{}+1}[1a^{2/B}t_2]^{k+1}}.$$
(49)
The signed magnification of the central image is given by

$$\mu _ap=\frac{q^2a^{4/B}}{[1a^{2/B}t_1][1a^{2/B}t_2]}+C_a(t_1,t_2,a^2;\lambda ,\nu ).$$
(50)
where the correction term $`C_a(t_1,t_2,a^2;\lambda ,\nu )`$ has the form

$$C_a(t_1,t_2,a^2;\lambda ,\nu )=q^2B\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{m}\right)|\lambda |^{2m}|\nu |^{2j2m}R_a(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,2m,2j2m).$$
(51)
The lowest order term in (50) is positive if $`a^{2/B}>t_1`$ when this image is doubly inverted, negative if $`t_1>a^{2/B}>t_2`$ and the image is simply inverted, and positive if $`t_2>a^{2/B}`$ and it is the only and direct image.

When $`a`$ is small, as in our applications, so that $`a^{2/B}t_1`$ and the central image occurs for a large value of $`t`$, equations (50) and (51) can be approximated by

$$\mu _ap=\mu _a=q^2a^{4/B}+q^2B\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\zeta |^{2j}R_a(0,0,a^2;j,2j,0).$$
(52)
These special cases of integrals (48) can be evaluated by residues (change to $`a^2t^B1`$ as integration variable) and give a series expansion for the magnification of the central image as

$$\mu _a=q^2a^{4/B}\left[1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _j(|\zeta |^2a^{2(2B)/B})^j\right],\alpha _j=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{2(j+1)}{B}+1\right]}{j!\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{2(j+1)}{B}+1j\right]}.$$
(53)
The series is especially simple for $`B=2`$ when it is binomial and gives

$$\mu _a=\frac{q^2a^2}{(1|\zeta |^2)^2}.$$
(54)
There are also two cases for which the series is hypergeometric and can be summed explicitly. They are $`B=1`$, for which

$$\mu _a=\frac{4q^2a^4}{\sqrt{14|\zeta |^2a^2}[1+\sqrt{14|\zeta |^2a^2}]^2},$$
(55)
and $`B=4`$, for which

$$\mu _a=q^2a\left[\frac{|\zeta |^2}{a}+\frac{1+|\zeta |^4/2a^2}{\sqrt{1+|\zeta |^4/4a^2}}\right].$$
(56)
The reason for the simplifications is that they are most easily obtained directly from the basic magnification formula (25) after its integrand is approximated for large $`t`$ to give

$$\mu _a=\frac{q^2B}{2\pi i}_{𝒞_a}\frac{dt}{t^3[t^{B2}|\zeta |^21+a^2t^B]}.$$
(57)
The root for the central image and its residue can be calculated directly without any need for series expansion for the three special values of $`B`$. More generally, series expansion is needed. This analysis makes it clear that the basic requirement for the approximation (53) to be valid is that $`t`$ be large at the central image.

It is evident that the series (53) shows $`\mu _a`$ to be an increasing function of $`|\zeta |^2a^{2(2B)/B}`$ for $`B2`$ because all its coefficients $`\alpha _j`$ are then positive. Numerical evaluation, as in Fig. 5, shows that $`\mu _a`$ remains an increasing function for larger $`B`$. Those plots extend to $`96\%`$ of the radius of convergence. The series converge for

$$|\zeta |^2<\left(\frac{B}{2}\right)a^{2(B2)/B}\left|\frac{B}{2}1\right|^{(2B)/B},$$
(58)
as follows from using Stirling’s formula to approximate the gamma functions and standard convergence tests. Hence the range of usefulness of the series depends considerably on the value of $`B`$. For $`B2`$ and $`a`$ small, the radius of convergence is large, and the series converges out to the radial caustic as approximated by equation (A7). The magnification of course becomes large as the caustic, at $`|\zeta |=1`$ for $`B=2`$ and $`|\zeta |=1/2a`$ for $`B=1`$, is approached. For $`B>2`$ on the other hand, the radius of convergence is caused by the breakdown of the approximation that the central image occurs for large $`t`$ and, as with equation (56), $`\mu _a`$ remains finite as the condition (58) is violated. That radius of convergence in $`|\zeta |`$ is proportional to the positive power $`a^{12/B}`$. Consequently, the approximation (53) is useful for only a small part of the region within the radial caustic when the core radius $`a`$ is small, and $`\mu _a`$, which is growing with source offset on a short length-scale, can continue to become considerably larger before the radial caustic is approached.

Numerical tests shows that the approximation (53) works well where the theory predicts that it will; over much of the region within the radial caustic for $`B2`$, but only in limited central regions for $`B>2`$. It underestimates $`\mu _a`$ because of the neglect of denominator terms such as those at the leading order in equation (50). That underestimate can be by 10 % or more for $`a=0.1`$, but accuracy increases substantially for smaller $`a`$.

## 4 Application: The Missing Central Images

Here, we study the problem of missing central images from the standpoint of the structure of the lensing galaxy. In optical lenses, the experimental constraint is weak, as any central image can be masked by emission from the lensing galaxy. Radio-loud lenses provide much stronger constraints, as they have typically been probed with high dynamic range radio maps. The Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) is the largest statistically homogeneous search for gravitational lenses (e.g., Myers 1999). The survey sample contains $`10^4`$ flat-spectrum radio sources. In the best cases, such as B0218+357 (Biggs et al. 1999) and B1030+074 (Xanthopoulos et al. 1998), the magnification ratio of the faintest to the brightest image $`r`$ is constrained to $`<0.1\%`$ from the absence of a detectable central image in the map. As a typical detection limit in the below calculations, we adopt $`r1\%`$ for central images. This is appropriate for radio lenses, but not for optical lenses.

We perform Monte Carlo simulations using the power-law galaxies (18). Sources are placed randomly within the outermost caustic for choices of $`\beta `$, $`q`$ and core radius $`a`$. The imaging equation (22) is solved numerically to find the roots $`t`$ of the images. We then evaluate the magnifications using (13), and work out the ratio of the brightest to the faintest image. Repeating this many times gives us the raw probabilities of observing a central image.

Figs 6-8 show the probability of observing a central image as a function of the slope of the projected density ($`2/B=2\beta `$) for the case of the quintuplets, the core triplets and the naked cusp triplets respectively. The panels show how the raw probabilities depend on the core radius $`a`$, while the different lines in each panel show different flattenings. The models have a singular density profile if $`a=0`$, and are very nearly singular when $`a`$ is small. We describe the parameter $`2/B`$ as the slope index, as it controls the fall-off of the projected density. For the isothermal cusp, $`2/B=1`$ and so the projected density $`\kappa \mathrm{distance}^1`$. Models steeper than isothermal have $`2/B>1`$, models shallower than isothermal have $`2/B<1`$.

There are a number of things to notice in Fig. 6. As the core radius $`a`$ is diminished, the régime in which the central image is visible shrinks. Visible central images occur only for $`B>2`$ when the central image is stronger as the simple estimate $`\mu _aq^2a^{4/B}`$ from §3.4 predicts. The full curves for the flattened ($`q=.7`$) models lie above the dashed curves for the rounder ($`q=.9`$) models. This is due to a stronger dimming of the brightest image with increasing flattening which outpaces the dimming of the central image. All magnifications share a $`q^2`$-dependence which comes from the basic magnification formula (25). The brightest image is direct for vanishing shear and zero source offset, and has magnification $`\mu _1q^2B/(4|Q|t_2)=B/2(1q^2)`$. Hence we estimate the ratio of the central image to the brightest image at zero source offset to be $`\mu _a/\mu _12q^2(1q^2)Ba^{4/B}`$. This ratio increases with increasing flattening. For small $`a`$, the magnification of the central image does not vary greatly with increasing source offset within the quintuplet region for $`B2`$. This region inside the tangential caustic is but a small part of that within the radial caustic, and hence the abscissa of Fig. 5 varies little. Conversely, the brightest image strengthens considerably with increasing source offset as it gets closer to the tangential caustic. The result is that the ratio $`\mu _a/\mu _1`$ of central to brightest magnifications decreases with increasing source offset for $`B2`$. For $`B>2`$ on the other hand, $`\mu _a`$ grows so strongly across the quintuplet region that it can outpace the growth of $`\mu _1`$. The net result is that the flatter the potential, and the larger the core radius, then the greater is the likelihood that the central image is bright enough to be visible.

Fig. 7 shows the raw probability of observing a central image for core triplets. The behavior of the curves as a function of slope index $`2/B`$ has the following explanation. If $`2/B`$ is too large, then the central image is highly demagnified and so the raw probability is vanishingly small. As the slope index $`2/B`$ diminishes, the central image becomes brighter and the probability rises quickly to $`100\%`$. The brightest image is generally the remaining direct one. It dims with increasing source offset whereas the central image brightens. The tangential caustic also grows in size as $`q`$ decreases for constant slope index. That is the main reason why central images are more visible with increased flattening for $`B>2`$; the average source offset in the core triplet region between the tangential and radial caustics is then larger, and hence $`\mu _a`$ is significantly larger. As $`2/B`$ decreases further, the astroidal tangential caustic grows, and the area in the source plane generating core triplets diminishes and eventually vanishes, as the tangential caustic becomes larger than the radial caustic as in Fig. 2c. The smaller $`q`$ is, the sooner this happens and, as Fig. 7 shows, the size of the core has little effect on the stage at which the core triplet region disappears. The second and third terms of the inequality (24) become equal at that stage and, in the absence of shear, $`2/B`$ is then $`(1q^2)/(1a^2)`$ (See Appendix A). If the core radius $`a>0.01`$, then even models steeper than isothermal ($`\beta <1`$) can provide observable central images. For smaller core radii ($`a<.01`$), the visible central images are confined to models less steep than isothermal. Notice that the constraints on the maximum possible steepness of the lensing potential provided by the missing image are stronger for doublets than quadruplets once $`a<.01`$. For small core radii, the fifth image in quintuplet systems is significantly more demagnified than the third image in triplet systems. However, for larger core radii, it is the quadruplets that provide the stronger restriction.

Fig. 8 shows the raw probability of observing a central image for naked cusp triplets. Naked cusps are much less abundant for elliptic potentials as opposed to elliptic densities (Kassiola & Kovner 1993). Almost as soon as naked cusps appear, all three images are of roughly similar brightness and they are all detectable. Hence, the raw probability of observing a central image shows a swift transition from nearly $`0\%`$ to nearly $`100\%`$ as soon as naked cups become possible. The Monte Carlo results are consistent with the transitions given in Fig. 3. Equations (A) predict that the transitions occur at the values $`2/B=0.565,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.913},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.157},`$ for $`a=0.1`$ and $`2/B=0.542,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.850},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.004},`$ for $`a=10^5`$. There are no strong observational candidates for naked cusp triplets, and so we must conclude that Fig. 8 sets a firm lower limit on the slope index $`2/B`$. This must be larger than the critical value which permits naked cusps (given in Fig. 3), otherwise naked cusps would be common.

To compare with data from surveys, we must allow for the amplification bias. Lens systems with a high total magnification $`\mu `$ are preferentially included in a flux-limited survey (e.g., Turner 1980, Turner, Ostriker & Gott 1984). The flux distribution of the sources in CLASS is well described by $`dN/dSS^{2.1}`$, where $`N`$ is the number of sources with flux greater than $`S`$ (Rusin & Tegmark 2001). For a flux limited sample, the probabilities that take into account amplification bias are

$$P=_𝒜𝑑\xi 𝑑\eta \left[\mu (\xi ,\eta )\right]^{1.1}$$
(59)
where $`𝒜`$ denotes the area enclosed by the caustics in the source plane for which the central image passes the threshold (e.g., Rusin & Ma 2001). Fig. 9 is the analogue of Fig. 7 when amplification bias is taken into account. Only the rightmost branch of the curve is plotted, as this is the most relevant for constraining the core size and the slope index. Notice that the effects of the amplification bias cause only slight changes in the shapes of the curves. Once the core radius falls below $`a0.01`$, then irrespective of the flattening, the lensing potential is constrained to be at least as steep as isothermal to ensure that the fraction of triplets with an observable central image remains low. As Fig. 10 shows, this conclusion remains valid even in the presence of shear. Shear has little direct effect on the magnitude of the central image as equation (53), which is independent of shear, predicts. However, shears of the order of 0.1 cause the inner tangential caustic to grow significantly in size for the $`2/B`$ values at which the curves of Fig. 10 rise sharply, while the radial caustic merely tilts a little. The greater visibility of the central image is again because the average source offset in the diminished core triplet region has become larger, now as a result of shear. The total shear produced by internal misalignments, large-scale structure and neighboring galaxies is typically constrained by $`|\gamma |<0.3`$.

What restriction is implied on the core radius $`a`$ from the data on radio lenses? The CLASS survey found no triples, but 7 doublets. There is perhaps only 1 definite triple system (APM08279+5255) out of a total of $`50`$ doublets and triplets on Pospieszalka et al.’s gravitational lensing database (which contains both radio and optical lenses). So, the probability of detecting a triple with an observable central image is certainly very low. In this paper, we take it to be $`<2\%`$ for radio lenses (i.e., at the $`1\%`$ threshold). Using Fig. 9, the top left panel showing curves for $`a=0.1`$ suggests that detectable central images are common for isothermal (or nearly so) galaxies. The smallest core radius $`a`$ seemingly compatible with the missing central images is $`a0.01`$ if the galaxy is isothermal. At a typical lens redshift of $`z_\mathrm{l}0.5`$ and a typical source redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}2.5`$, this corresponds to a physical size of $`50`$ pc (using formula (11) of Young et al. (1980) and formula (2.4) of Wallington & Narayan (1993)). The result holds good for a flat, matter-dominated Friedman-Robertson-Walker universe with a Hubble constant $`H_0=75\mathrm{kms}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. Suppose instead we use the currently popular cosmological model in which $`70\%`$ of the mean energy density required to make space flat is in the form of material for which gravity acts repulsively and the remaining $`30\%`$ is carried by collisionless massive particles of some type. Then the physical size of the core radii of isothermal galaxies is $`70`$ pc. These results are good for $`2/B=1`$. From the top right panel of Fig. 9, the dimensionless core radius can be increased to $`a0.05`$ if the galaxy has a larger slope index (say $`2/B1.3`$, which we will argue shortly is appropriate for giant ellipticals). In the same two cosmological models and with the same assumptions as to typical source and lens redshifts, this gives physical sizes of the core radius of $`260`$ pc and $`350`$ pc respectively, consistent with almost all the central images being absent.

Most of the optical depth to strong lensing resides in giant elliptical galaxies. Faber et al. (1997) analyse Hubble Space Telescope surface photometry of nearby ellipticals. They provide convincing evidence that giant elliptical galaxies have cuspy cores with steep outer power-law profiles and shallow inner profiles separated by a break radius. This is in contrast to low luminosity ellipticals, which have power-law surface brightness profiles. There are 26 giant ellipticals with cuspy cores presented in Table 2 of Faber et al. The mean value of the asymptotic outer slope of the surface brightness is $`1.28`$ with a standard deviation of $`0.21`$. This corresponds to the slope index or $`2/B`$ in the notation of this paper. The mean break radius is $`330`$ pc, which corresponds to only a few tens of millarcseconds at a typical lens redshift of $`z_\mathrm{l}0.5`$. The bright images of strong lenses are therefore probing the steep outer part of the cuspy core profile. The light profile is much steeper than isothermal; however, the projected mass may be less steep depending on the distribution of dark matter. Central images are absent because break radii are small in cuspy core galaxies and so the steep slope continues to small radii. In fact, only 2 out of the 26 galaxies listed by Faber et al. (1997) have a sufficiently shallow profile for the central image to stand any chance of being visible at the $`1\%`$ threshold. This provides an explanation of why most central images are unobservable at the current thresholds.

Other than a central black hole, there is little evidence for dark matter inside the inner 10 kpc of early-type galaxies that cannot be simply assigned to the stellar mass (e.g., Gerhard et al. 2001). Beyond 10 kpc or so, there probably is dark matter, although there are few hard facts on its distribution in ellipticals because of the absence of tracers at large radii. The dynamical evidence refers to the mass within spheres, whereas lensing is concerned with the mass within cylinders. Dark matter at large radii may alter the slope of the projected mass distribution in the inner few kpc. However, provided the slope remains isothermal or steeper and the break radius remains small, then the central image remains unobservable.

Fig. 11 shows the percentage of triplets with a visible central image as a function of the threshold for four different slope indices. Notice that for models with slopes steeper than isothermal, flattening typically makes the central image less visible, the reverse of the case when the slope is weak. The latter case shows the same trends as in the $`a=0.01`$ panel of Fig. 7. The radial caustic is large when $`B<2`$ and the tangential caustic occupies a much smaller part of the space within it. Both $`\mu _a`$ and $`\mu _1`$ now decrease as $`q`$ decreases, but $`\mu _a`$ decreases faster to make the central image less visible. Fig. 11 shows us that the fraction of detectable images is a strong function of the threshold. It enables us to predict the threshold required to find the missing central images. Using the third panel of Fig. 11 as typical of the outer parts of cuspy core profiles, we see that the threshold has to be $`0.001\%`$ for the central image to be detectable in half the triplet systems. Even the most sensitive CLASS radio map (for B0218+357) probes only to a threshold of $`0.05\%`$, so this provides an explanation of why the central images have so far remained missing despite deeper searches.

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown how contour integration can ease the evaluation of the magnifications of images. This work extends the ideas presented in Hunter & Evans (2001) in two significant ways. First, our earlier analysis was restricted to scale-free power-law potentials. We have now generalized it to cover all elliptically stratified potentials. Second, we have obtained separate formulas for sums of the two direct images, for sums of the two inverted images, and for the magnification of the central image. Previously, we found only formulas for sums over all four images weighted with the signed magnifications. Our detailed applications are to power-law galaxies with cores. We have shown that the caustics are then always simple closed curves, and have given conditions for each of the four different caustic configurations. We have found an approximation for the magnitude of the central image which applies throughout the region inside the large outer radial caustic when the core is small and the slope index $`2/B1`$. For small cores and weaker cusps, that approximation is directly useful only in a smaller inner region, but shows the magnitude of the central image to grow on a short length scale. We find that, for power-law lenses with small cores and an inner tangential caustic, the sums over separate pairs vary considerably with the image positions while the signed sums over all four images are generally remarkably uniform. That near-uniformity is a consequence of large cancellations between terms which vary with the position of the source. Hence uncertainties in the magnification can have major effects on estimates of those four image sums. This lessens their usefulness for the modeling of lenses as proposed by Witt & Mao (2000) and as used also by us in our Paper I. We have shown that similar large cancellations can arise with any elliptically stratified potential, and not just power-laws. Hence, they will occur also with elliptically stratified densities in the limit of low eccentricity, and perhaps more generally, though this needs to be verified.

As an application, we have examined the constraints implied by the missing central images of triplet and quintuplet systems. There is only one convincing example of a gravitational lens system with a central image, namely the triplet of the ultraluminous quasar APM08279+5255. However, there are a total of $`50`$ doublets known. Although this is a heterogeneous sample, discovered by different observers using different techniques in different wavebands, nonethless the probability of detecting central images does seem to be very low. We take a central image as observable if the magnification ratio of the faintest to the brightest image is $`>1\%`$ (although some of the lens systems studied with the highest sensitivity by CLASS do go deeper). A rough summary of the observations is that the probability of observing a central image for a triplet is $`<2\%`$. The absence of central images is understandable if the mass distribution in the lensing galaxy population is nearly cusped, and the cusp is isothermal or stronger. For typical source and lens redshifts, the size of the core radius $`a`$ must be $`<300`$ pc. The slope of the gravitational potential $`\beta `$ must be $`<1`$.

Most of the optical depth to strong lensing resides in the most massive galaxies, namely giant ellipticals. We know from high resolution imaging of nearby giant ellipticals that they typically have cuspy cores with $`\beta 0.7`$ or $`2/B1.3`$ outside the break radius of a few hundred parsecs (Faber et al. 1997). The break radius corresponds to only a few tens of millarcseconds at a typical lens redshift. Hence, strong lensing is primarily probing the steep outer part of the cuspy core profile. This is much steeper than isothermal, as the surface density is falling typically like $`r^{1.3}`$. The cuspy cores by themselves can provide the explanation of the missing central images. Dark matter at large radii may alter the slope of the projected mass distribution in the inner few kpc. However, provided the slope remains isothermal or steeper and the break radius remains small, then the central image remains unobservable. The ratio of the faintest to the brightest image in cuspy core profiles is typically $`0.001\%`$. Even the most sensitive radio maps available probe only to a threshold of $`0.05\%`$, so this explains why the central images have so far remained missing despite deeper searches. The sensitivity of the searches must be increased by a factor of $`50`$ to find them.

NWE thanks the Royal Society for financial support. The work of CH is supported in part by NSF through grants DMS-9704615 and DMS-0104751. We thank an industrious referee for a helpful report.

## Appendix A Caustics

In this Appendix, we show that the power-law galaxies with cores in the presence of external shear give rise to either one, three or five images, depending on the position of the source and the extent of the core radius. A point-like source is never lensed into more than five images. The caustics are simple closed curves and there is exactly one point on a caustic in each radial direction from the center of the lens. The models differ from elliptically stratified density distributions. For these, Witt & Mao (2000) and Keeton, Mao & Witt (2000) showed that external shear can cause butterfly and swallowtail cusps to develop on the caustics and so sextuple imaging and higher does occur.

The caustics are curves in the source plane on which the imaging equation (26) has double roots. The partial derivative of the imaging equation with respect to $`t`$ vanishes at a double root and hence we find caustics from the common solutions of the two equations

$`t^B[L(t)a^2K_1(t)]=K_1(t),`$ (A1)
$`Bt^{B1}[L(t)a^2K_1(t)]+t^B[L^{}(t)a^2K_1^{}(t)]=K_1^{}(t).`$ (A2)
Here, we have introduced the functions

$$K_1(t)=(tt_1)^2(tt_2)^2,L(t)=[(P_0t)\zeta Q\overline{\zeta }][(P_0t)\overline{\zeta }\overline{Q}\zeta ].$$
(A3)
Dividing the two sides of equations (A1) and (A2) gives a sextic polynomial in $`t`$, whose coefficients involve $`\zeta `$. Alternatively, we can solve for $`L(t)`$ and $`L^{}(t)`$ and divide the results to obtain a non-polynomial equation, but one which is independent of $`|\zeta |`$ and depends only on the angular argument $`\varphi `$ of $`\zeta `$. This equation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1a^2t^B)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_1^{}(t)}{K_1(t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}(t)}{L(t)}}\right],`$ (A4)
$`=`$ $`(1a^2t^B)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2P^3+6P^2|Q|\mathrm{cos}\theta 6P|Q|^2+2|Q|^3\mathrm{cos}\theta }{(P^2|Q|^2)(P^2+|Q|^22P|Q|\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}\right].`$
As $`a0`$, it reduces to equation (A2) of Paper I. It contains the complex angle $`\theta `$ defined by $`Q\overline{\zeta }/\zeta =|Q|e^{i\theta }`$ rather than $`\varphi `$. We find caustics by searching for roots for $`t`$ along each angular direction in the source plane. Once $`t`$ is known, $`|\zeta |`$ follows from equation (A1). In general, this search must be done numerically, but one can deduce from the graph of the term in square brackets (which has vertical asymptotes at $`t=t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ and is plotted in Figure 7 of Paper I) and the extra $`(1a^2t^B)`$ factor, that there will always be a root in $`(t_2,t_1)`$ for a point on the tangential caustic if $`a<t_2^{B/2}`$, and another in $`(t_1,a^{2/B})`$ for a point on the radial caustic if $`a<t_1^{B/2}`$. There are four special directions for which points on the caustics can be found explicitly. They are directions in which $`Qe^{2i\varphi }`$ is real, and we now consider them in turn.

When $`Qe^{2i\varphi }=|Q|`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$, then $`t=t_2`$ at which $`P=|Q|`$ is a triple root of equation (A4). It gives a cusp at $`|\zeta |=2|Q|t_2^{B/2}\sqrt{1a^2t_2^B}`$ on the tangential caustic provided $`a<t_2^{B/2}`$. The other solution of equation (A4) is the root of $`B(tt_1)=2t(1a^2t^B)`$ in $`(t_1,a^{2/B})`$ for $`a<t_1^{B/2}`$, which gives a point on the radial caustic. The $`t=t_2`$ cusps on the tangential caustic are naked if their value of $`|\zeta |=2|Q|t_2^{B/2}\sqrt{1a^2t_2^B}`$ exceeds the value of $`|\zeta |`$ for the fourth root for $`t`$ of equation (A4). That value is given by equation (A1) evaluated for that root. The root cannot be found explicitly when $`a0`$. Hence the marginal cases shown in Fig. 3 are found numerically by eliminating $`t/t_1`$ between the equations

$`B(tt_1)`$ $`=`$ $`2t(1a^2t^B)`$
$`t^B(1a^2t_2^B)(t_1t_2)^2`$ $`=`$ $`t_2^B(1a^2t^B)(tt_1)^2,`$ (A5)
and solving for $`t_2/t_1`$ for given $`B`$ and $`a^2t_1^B`$. The second of equations (A) comes from equating the two values for $`|\zeta |^2`$. We can solve for $`t`$ explicitly in the coreless $`a=0`$ case, to give the condition

$$\frac{t_1}{t_2}>1+\frac{2}{B}\left[\frac{(B2)t_2}{Bt_1}\right]^{(B2)/2},$$
(A6)
for naked cusps.

The other special directions are those for which $`Qe^{2i\varphi }=|Q|`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =1`$. Then $`t=t_1`$ at which $`P=|Q|`$ is a triple root of (A4), and gives a cusp point on a caustic at $`|\zeta |=2|Q|t_1^{B/2}\sqrt{1a^2t_1^B}`$ provided $`a<t_1^{B/2}`$. The other solution of equation (A4) satisfies $`B(tt_2)=2t(1a^2t^B)`$. Such a solution exists provided $`t_2<a^{2/B}`$. It gives a point on the radial or tangential caustic according to whether it is greater or less than $`t_1`$. The $`t=t_1`$ cusp is on the tangential caustic in the first case, and on the radial caustic in the second, giving condition (24) as that for which the double lips configuration occurs. Double lips occur because the $`t=t_1`$ cusp always lies on whichever is the inner caustic in this special direction; its $`|\zeta |`$ value never exceeds that for the other root of equation (A4). The two $`t`$ and $`|\zeta |`$ values are equal only when $`t=t_1`$ is a quadruple root of equation (A4) and then $`B(t_1t_2)=2t_1(1a^2t_1^B)`$. This latter case is the transitional one in which the two caustics share a cusp and coincide locally, and marks the stage at which the region for core triplets has shrunk to zero.

A simple analytical approximation for the radial caustic can be found for $`a`$ small and $`B2`$. This caustic, which does not exist for $`a=0`$, is large. It is found by looking for large roots of equations (A1) and (A2) for $`t`$, and approximating $`K_1`$ by $`t^4`$ and $`L`$ by $`t^2|\zeta |^2`$. Eliminating $`t`$ then gives the approximation

$$|\zeta |^2=\xi ^2+q^2\eta ^2=\frac{B}{2}\left[\frac{2B}{2a^2}\right]^{(2B)/B}[1+O(a^{2/B})].$$
(A7)
Hence the radial caustic is approximately an ellipse elongated in the $`\eta `$-direction, as in Figs. 2b and d. The reason why those two ellipses for $`a=0.1`$ are not well described by equation (A7) is that its limit of $`\xi ^2+q^2\eta ^2=1`$ is not accurate in the marginal case of $`B=2`$ until $`a1`$. A more accurate formula for the radial caustic for $`B=2`$ is

$$\xi ^2+q^2\eta ^2=13a^{2/3}\left[(1+\gamma _1)\xi ^2+2q\gamma _2\xi \eta +q^4(1\gamma _1)\eta ^2\right]^{2/3}+O(a^{4/3}).$$
(A8)
We showed in Paper I, by an analysis of the quartic obtained when $`a=0`$ so there is no complicating $`t^B`$ power in equation (A4), that there is never more than one root in $`(t_2,t_1)`$ and one in $`(t_1,\mathrm{})`$. The additional $`(1a^2t^B)`$ factor now present has only a small effect at finite $`t`$ when $`a`$ is small. However, it does ensure that equation (A4) always has a root in $`(t_1,a^{2/B})`$ when this interval exists, which is not the case when $`a=0`$ if $`B2`$. If more roots are to occur at larger values of $`a`$, there must be transitional cases at which the pair of equations (A1) and (A2) have a multiple root. We show next, using the sextic derived from those equations by eliminating the $`t^B`$ terms, that this cannot be, and hence that the cases listed in the previous paragraph are the only ones possible.

To study the roots for $`t`$ in $`t>t_1`$, we work with the variable $`\sigma =(tt_1)/|Q|`$, for which the sextic is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2B|Q|^2}{|\zeta |^2}}`$ $`\sigma ^3(\sigma ^3+6\sigma ^2+12\sigma +8)+(B2)\sigma ^4+2[(B2)(2+\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$
$`(p_0+\mathrm{cos}\theta )]\sigma ^3+2(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )[3(Bp_03)\sigma ^2`$
$`+2(B3p_05)\sigma 4(1+p_0)]=0,`$
where $`p_0=P_0/|Q|>1`$. We let $`C_n`$ denote the coefficient of $`\sigma ^n`$ and apply Descartes’ rule of signs (Henrici 1974) which shows that there is just one positive root for $`\sigma `$ when there is a single sign change in the coefficient sequence $`(C_6,C_5,C_4,C_3,C_2,C_1,C_0)`$. We take $`(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta )>0`$ because the equations simplify in the special cases for which $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\pm 1`$ as discussed earlier and look for possible sign changes in the coefficient sequence. For $`B>2`$, $`C_6`$, $`C_5`$, and $`C_4`$ are positive and $`C_0`$ is negative. Also $`C_2>C_1`$ as in Paper I, and $`C_3>0`$ if $`C_20`$. For $`B=2`$, $`C_6`$, $`C_5`$, and $`C_4`$ are positive, while $`C_2`$, $`C_1`$, and $`C_0`$ are negative. For $`B<2`$, $`C_6`$ and $`C_5`$ are positive, $`C_2`$, $`C_1`$, and $`C_0`$ are negative, and $`C_4>C_3`$. In each case, only one sign change can and does occur.

To show that there is just a single root in $`t_2<t<t_1`$, we re-express the sextic in the variable $`\tau =(tt_2)/(t_1t)`$ which runs from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$. It is then

$$\frac{8a^2B|Q|^2\tau ^3}{|\zeta |^2}+(1+2\tau +\tau ^2)(c_4\tau ^4+c_3\tau ^3+c_1\tau +c_0)=0,$$
(A10)
where $`c_4>0`$, $`c_3>0`$, $`c_1`$, and $`c_0<0`$ are the coefficients of equation (A4) of Paper I. Labelling this sextic as $`C_6\tau ^6+C_5\tau ^5+C_4\tau ^4+C_3\tau ^3+C_2\tau ^2+C_1\tau +C_0=0`$, one finds that $`C_6`$, $`C_5`$, and $`C_4`$ are always positive and $`C_0`$ always negative. For $`B>2`$, $`C_2>C_1`$ and $`C_3>0`$ if $`C_20`$. For $`B2`$, $`C_2`$ and $`C_1`$ are both negative. In either case, there is exactly one sign change in the coefficient sequence, and therefore exactly one root for $`t`$ in $`(t_2,t_1)`$.

## Appendix B Evaluation of the $`R`$ Coefficients

In this Appendix, we show how to evaluate the coefficients $`R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ and $`R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ of the powers $`|\lambda |^{\mathrm{}}|\nu |^k`$ introduced in Section 3. They can always be expressed as finite sums. We consider first the scale-free case for which we give compact explicit expressions, and then the cored case for which we derive recursive relations. We give explicit expressions for sums of coefficients $`R_1+R_2`$ needed for four-image sums in the scale-free case. Then we derive a compact expression for the $`R_1+R_2`$ sums valid for any elliptically stratified potential, and discuss its consequences.

### B.1 Scale-free Case

Compact representations for the $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ terms can be derived for the coreless $`a=0`$ case by partial differentiation using Leibniz’s rule. We find:

$`R_1(t_1,t_2,0;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}!}}{\displaystyle \frac{^{\mathrm{}}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t_1^{Bj1}}{(t_1t_2)^{k+1}}}\right]`$ (B1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{jB1}{m}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{t_1^{Bj1m}}{(\mathrm{}m)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\mathrm{}m1}(\mathrm{}+km)!}{k!(t_1t_2)^{\mathrm{}+k+1m}}}.`$
This sum of $`(\mathrm{}+1)`$ terms can be written as the terminating hypergeometric series

$$R_1(t_1,t_2,0;j,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}t_1^{Bj1}}{(t_1t_2)^{\mathrm{}+k+1}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}+k}{\mathrm{}}\right)_2F_1(\mathrm{},1jB;k\mathrm{};1\frac{t_2}{t_1}),$$
(B2)
with the proviso that, when $`k=0`$ and the hypergeometric series becomes a geometric one, only the first $`(\mathrm{}+1)`$ terms of that series are to be used. A similar expression for $`R_2`$ can be found from it by using the transformation relation in eq (3.2). It is

$$R_2(t_1,t_2,0;j,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{(1)^{\mathrm{}}t_2^{Bj1}}{(t_1t_2)^{\mathrm{}+k+1}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}+k}{\mathrm{}}\right)_2F_1(k,1jB;k\mathrm{};1\frac{t_1}{t_2}).$$
(B3)
In obtaining separate formulae for the two pairs of bright images rather than for all four, the present work extends that of Paper I for the coreless $`a=0`$ case. We showed there that the coefficients for the sums of four images can all be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions; that is we showed that

$`R_1(t_1,t_2,0;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ $`+`$ $`R_2(t_1,t_2,0;j,\mathrm{},k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{}+k+1)!}}`$ (B4)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{k+\mathrm{}+1}{}}}(jBs){\displaystyle \frac{t_2^{jBk1}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}+1}}}_2F_1(\mathrm{}+1,jB;\mathrm{}+k+2;1{\displaystyle \frac{t_2}{t_1}}).`$
We also showed in Appendix C of Paper I that the infinite hypergeometric series (B4) can be represented as the sum of the two finite components (B2) and (B3). We did not appreciate the significance of the two separate components as two-image sums. We did warn of the tendency of the separate $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ components to cancel for small $`(1t_2/t_1)`$, and that their sum could be computed more easily using the rapidly convergent infinite series (B4). A simple instance of this is the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ case for which

$`R_1(t_1,t_2,0;j,0,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_1^{Bj1}}{(t_1t_2)^{k+1}}},`$
$`R_2(t_1,t_2,0;j,0,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_2^{Bj1}}{(t_1t_2)^{k+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{jB1}{s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_1}{t_2}}1\right)^s.`$
The sum here for $`R_2`$ consists of the first $`(k+1)`$ terms in the infinite binomial expansion of $`(t_1/t_2)^{Bj1}`$ in powers of $`(1t_1/t_2)`$; and hence the first $`(k+1)`$ terms in the expansion of $`R_1`$. Another instance occurs when $`B=1`$ or $`B=2`$. Then $`R_1+R_20`$ for $`j>0`$ with the result that the sum of the four signed magnifications are then independent of the position of the source (Witt & Mao 2000; see also Paper I). These examples are simple instances of the large cancellations which can occur when contributions of the direct and the inverted image pairs, weighted with the signed magnifications, are combined.

### B.2 Cored Case

The idea is to use Leibniz’s rule to evaluate

$$R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}!}\frac{^{\mathrm{}}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\frac{1}{(t_1t_2)^{k+1}}\frac{t_1^{Bj1}}{(1a^2t_1^B)^j}\right].$$
(B5)
The general derivative of the second factor is of the form

$$\frac{^m}{t_1^m}\left[\frac{t_1^{Bj1}}{(1a^2t_1^B)^j}\right]=\frac{t_1^{Bjm1}}{(1a^2t_1^B)^j}\underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}\alpha _{m,n}\left[\frac{a^2t_1^B}{(1a^2t_1^B)}\right]^n,$$
(B6)
where the coefficients $`\alpha _{m,n}`$, $`mn0`$, can be found iteratively from the relation

$$\alpha _{m,n}=[B(j+n)m]\alpha _{m1,n}+B(j+n1)\alpha _{m1,n1},\alpha _{0,0}=1.$$
(B7)
Use of Leibniz’s rule then gives

$`R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}t_1^{Bj1}}{k!(t_1t_2)^{\mathrm{}+k+1}(1a^2t_1^B)^j}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+km)!}{m!(\mathrm{}m)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_2}{t_1}}1\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\alpha _{m,n}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^2t_1^B}{1a^2t_1^B}}\right]^n.`$
In an analogous manner, we find;

$`R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\mathrm{}}t_2^{Bj1}}{\mathrm{}!(t_1t_2)^{\mathrm{}+k+1}(1a^2t_2^B)^j}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+km)!}{m!(km)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_1}{t_2}}1\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\alpha _{m,n}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a^2t_2^B}{1a^2t_2^B}}\right]^n.`$
The only $`\alpha `$’s for which it is simple to derive explicit expressions are

$$\alpha _{n,0}=\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}(Bjs),\alpha _{n,n}=\frac{B^n(j+n1)!}{(j1)!}.$$
(B10)
The first set are the only ones that appear in the $`a=0`$ case when the double sums (B.2) and (B.2) reduce to the hypergeometric sums (B2) and (B3) respectively.

### B.3 Coefficient sums

We begin by rewriting equation (34) for $`R_2`$ as

$$R_2(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}!k!}\frac{^{\mathrm{}}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{^k}{t_2^k}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{𝒞_2}\frac{G(t)dt}{(tt_1)(tt_2)}\right].$$
(B11)
The choice $`G(t)=t^{Bj1}/(1a^2t^B)^j`$ is needed for equation (34), but a similar equation with a different $`G`$ will arise for some other elliptically stratified potential $`\psi (\tau )`$ with $`t=2\psi ^{}(\tau )`$. We again choose $`𝒞_2`$ to be a contour which encloses $`t=t_2`$ but not $`t`$ or any singularity of $`G`$. Then a residue calculation gives

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{𝒞_2}\frac{G(t)dt}{(tt_1)(tt_2)}=\frac{G(t_2)}{t_1t_2}.$$
(B12)
There is a similar relation

$$R_1(t_1,t_2,a^2;j,\mathrm{},k)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}!k!}\frac{^{\mathrm{}}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{^k}{t_2^k}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{𝒞_1}\frac{G(t)dt}{(tt_1)(tt_2)}\right],$$
(B13)
for the $`R_1`$ coefficient. When we evaluate its integral by residues, and combine the results, we obtain

$$R_1+R_2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}!k!}\frac{^{\mathrm{}}}{t_1^{\mathrm{}}}\frac{^k}{t_2^k}G[t_1,t_2]=G[t_1,\mathrm{}t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}t_2].$$
(B14)
Here

$$G[t_1,t_2]=\frac{G(t_1)G(t_2)}{t_1t_2},$$
(B15)
is a simple divided difference, while $`G[t_1,\mathrm{}t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}t_2]`$ has $`t_1`$ repeated $`(\mathrm{}+1)`$ times and $`t_2`$ repeated $`(k+1)`$ times, and is a divided difference of order $`(\mathrm{}+k+1)`$ (Milne-Thomson 1960, chap. 1).

The significance of formula (B14) is as follows. Divided differences are well-behaved when $`(t_1t_2)`$ becomes small. More specifically, a mean value theorem shows that

$$R_1+R_2=G[t_1,\mathrm{}t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}t_2]=\frac{G^{(\mathrm{}+k+1)}(\overline{t})}{(\mathrm{}+k+1)!},$$
(B16)
where $`\overline{t}`$, at which the $`(\mathrm{}+k+1)`$th derivative of $`G`$ is evaluated, is some value of $`t`$ in the interval $`(t_2,t_1)`$. Thus, when the axis ratio $`q`$ is close to 1 so that $`(t_1t_2)`$ is small, while the function $`G`$ varies smoothly in $`(t_2,t_1)`$ as in Section B.1, then both $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ become very large when $`(t_1t_2)`$ is small because both contain negative powers up to and including $`(t_1t_2)^{\mathrm{}k1}`$, while their sum varies little. But this is not the case with the lensing potential of Fig. 2a. Then $`a`$ is large and the negative $`(1a^2t^B)^j`$ powers cause the derivatives of $`G`$ to be large, so that $`R_1+R_2`$ is then also large.


format: text

text:
# Detecting gravitational lensing cosmic shear from samples of several galaxies using two-dimensional spectral imaging

## 1 Introduction

Weak gravitational lensing is a valuable tool for studying the mass distribution along and around the line of sight to distant galaxies (Bartelmann & Schneider 2001). Away from galaxies and clusters, the effect is small: the axis ratio of high-redshift galaxies is modified by a few percent. Because the intrinsic shapes of distant galaxies are not known, it is necessary to stack many thousands of galaxy images to detect a signal. This requires large, high-quality images, and so cosmic shear can only be detected statistically over areas extending more than about 0’.5. Cosmic shear has been detected in both deep optical images (Bacon, Refregier & Ellis 2000; Wittman et al. 2000; Maoli et al. 2001; Pirzkal et al. 2001; van Waerbeke et al. 2001; Wilson, Kaiser & Luppino 2001) and very wide, shallow optical surveys (Fischer et al. 2000), but at present it is not possible to measure the shear towards a specific point on the sky.

Here we investigate the possibility of detecting weak lensing in observations of individual galaxies, by obtaining high-fidelity, two-dimensional, resolved spectroscopic measurements of morphology and dynamics. This may be possible using an integral field unit (IFU) adaptive optics (AO) optical or near-infrared(IR) spectrograph to image the narrow stellar absorption and hydrogen recombination lines. It should definitely be possible using the interferometric imaging of CO rotation line emission at millimeter wavelengths using the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA; Wootten 2001), or using meter-wave Hi imaging using a Square Kilometer Array (SKA)111www.ras.ucalgary.ca/SKA/ska\_science.shtml radio interferometer.

Measuring cosmic shear galaxy by galaxy would provide many new scientific opportunities, and a very valuable check on systematic errors in conventional techniques. Along several closely spaced lines of sight, a tomographic survey of the mass distribution out into the distant Universe could be made. The properties of the weak lensing shear field on very small (arcsec) galactic scales are unknown. Substructure in dark matter halos could lead to significant variations in the shear field on these scales. This would be washed out by averaging over both arcminute-scale fields in existing cosmic shear surveys (Pirzkal et al. 2001) and the stacked images analyzed for galaxy-galaxy lensing around the positions of bright galaxies (McKay et al. 2002).

## 2 The effect of weak lensing shear on rotation curves

We consider the illustrative case of representing a galaxy as an inclined rotating circular ring centered on the origin, with an inclination angle $`i`$ between the rotation axis and the line of sight. The position angle (P.A.) of the projected elliptical ring on the sky is free to vary. The line-of-sight velocity of a point on the ring $`v\mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the angle between the point and the major axis of the ellipse. The dependence of the radial position and the line-of-sight velocity of a point on the ring on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are shown for a model with $`i=0.57`$ rad ($`33^{}`$) in Figures 1 and 2.

Weak gravitational lensing shears the ellipse without changing its area (Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992). The transformation of angular position $`(\theta _\mathrm{x},\theta _\mathrm{y})`$ to $`(\theta _\mathrm{x}^{},\theta _\mathrm{y}^{})`$ due to lensing by a shear field $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }=(\gamma _1,\gamma _2)`$ is described by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta _\mathrm{x}^{}\\ \theta _\mathrm{y}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\kappa \gamma _1& \gamma _2\\ \gamma _2& 1\kappa +\gamma _1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta _\mathrm{x}\\ \theta _\mathrm{y}\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
In the weak lensing regime, $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ is small and the convergence $`\kappa 1\sqrt{1+|\gamma |^2}0`$, with $`|\gamma |^2=\gamma _1^2+\gamma _2^2`$. The $`\gamma _2=0`$ shear component is aligned along $`\theta _\mathrm{x}=0`$, while the $`\gamma _1=0`$ component is aligned along $`\theta _\mathrm{x}=\theta _\mathrm{y}`$. The frequency of radiation is not affected by lensing, and so the line-of-sight velocity remains the same. The velocity and position of a ring is thus modified by weak lensing in a straightforward way.222The velocity field of strongly lensed giant arcs in clusters, for which $`\kappa `$ is large, was discussed by Narasimha & Chitre (1993).

Weak lensing by a large 10% shear field ($`|\gamma |=0.1`$) aligned in different directions is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 for a galaxy with $`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}.=0`$ and $`i=0.57`$ rad. In most orientations, the effect of lensing is similar to modifying the P.A. and $`i`$. If $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ is perpendicular to the projected rotation axis, as shown in the second to leftmost panel of Figure 1, then the effect of shear is indistinguishable from modifying $`i`$. Based on position data alone, there is always a degeneracy between $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, $`i`$ and P.A. However, velocity data reduces the degeneracy significantly. As shown by the bottom panel of Figure 2, the velocity field defines P.A. accurately, even when $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ is large.333This of course requires that the measured velocity field traces the general potential of the galaxy and is not affected strongly by a bar, a warp or a ‘lop-sided’ $`m_1`$ asymmetry. Shear affects the position much more significantly than the velocity. If $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ is not perpendicular to the rotation axis, then the sheared ellipse cannot be described self-consistently by a rotating ring: for example, neither shifting the radial curves in Figure 2 to the left or right, as expected for changing P.A., nor modifying the amplitude of their modulation, as expected for changing $`i`$, can fully mimic the effects of lensing if $`\gamma _20`$.

If sufficiently accurate spatially resolved two-dimensional spectroscopic images of a distant rotating galaxy were available, then a shear signal should be detectable unambiguously without stacking or averaging images. The results of a maximum likelihood fit to the P.A. and $`i`$, taking into account both simulated position and velocity data are shown in Figure 3, for both zero shear and a typical shear value of 4%. An accurate self-consistent fit is obtained for zero shear, whose quality is significantly improved by including the velocity data, especially for low-inclination disks ($`i0`$). With shear, there is a clear offset between the best-fit values of the P.A. and $`i`$ determined from the velocity and position data separately, the detection of which could be used to diagnose that significant shear is present in real data. The probability of the joint velocity-position fit is also reduced by a factor of about 2. For an almost edge-on disk ($`i\pi /2`$), the extra information provided by velocity measurements is less significant, both for determining P.A. and for detecting a shear offset in the best-fit parameters. Projected circular rotating galaxies are good targets for measuring shear directly. Note that without measuring the velocity field, it is impossible to be sure that a galaxy is rotating and therefore accurately elliptical rather than just having a moderate intrinsic aspect ratio.

Figure 4 shows the results of fits to a common shear field $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ for simulated position and velocity data representing two disks with P.A.’s $`45^{}`$ apart. The P.A.’s are fixed, and assumed to be determined accurately from the velocity data. The maximum probability of the fit is shown for each value of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ by solid lines, each of which is associated with a specific value of $`i`$ for the best fit that is shown by dashed lines for the galaxy with $`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{A}.=0.285`$ rad. There is a very significant degeneracy between the fitted values of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ and $`i`$. The direction of this degenerate strip in the $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ plane is fixed by the P.A., and rotates by $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$P.A. if P.A. changes by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$P.A. Hence, observations of two galaxies that sample the same shear, with P.A.’s that differ by about 45 or 135, can be used to determine the shear accurately and unambiguously, as shown by the overlapping solid contours in Figure 4. The target galaxies should be at comparable redshifts, to ensure that they sample the same foreground structure and the nearer galaxy does not significantly lens the farther one.

If more than two galaxies are observed, then the accuracy of the correspondence between the various tracks can be used as a test of the reliability of the method. Note that $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ measurements from the rotation curves of several galaxies do not rely on a correlation technique. Hence spin or alignment correlations between pairs of galaxies (Crittenden et al. 2001; Lee & Pen 2001) should not affect their accuracy, provided that the galaxy velocity fields are not distorted strongly by tidal interactions. Rather than determining a single average value of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ over each 10 arcmin2 area of sky, or a correlation spectrum of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ on scales of 0’.5–10’, it should be possible to determine a value of $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ in a tube on the order of a few arcseconds wide along the line of sight to a specified point on the sky.

Such a measurement would provide a direct test of systematic effects in shape-based statistical shear measurements by comparing their results at specific positions. The shear from individual mass concentrations, including subcritical groups of galaxies, could be mapped in detail without stacking groups (Hoekstra et al. 2001) by measuring the shear along closely spaced lines of sight around the target. It may also be possible to probe for significant structure in the shear field on arcsecond angular scales, as expected if dark matter halos contain a large amount of substructure, by measuring differences in the shear field determined for galaxies only a few arcseconds apart. 444 Combining the measured CO rotation curve of highly inclined disks, which are often expected to strongly lens background galaxies (Blain, Möller & Maller 1999), with the positions of serendipitous multiple background images is unlikely to provide more accurate constraints on cosmological parameters than observing multiple images in rich clusters (Golse, Kneib, & Soucail 2002). Because both lensing and rotation-curve measurements are sensitive to the ratio of enclosed mass to radius, it is not possible to measure a ‘standard ruler’ across the galaxy to determine $`H_0`$.

## 3 Requirements for detection

In order to exploit this effect, it will be necessary to measure very accurate rotation curves of distant galaxies. The shear signal is significant only at moderate redshifts ($`z>0.3`$; Bartelmann & Schneider 2001), at which the total extents of galaxies are only a few arcseconds. Sub-0.1” spatial resolution is thus necessary. Measurements of velocity with 5% 1-$`\sigma `$ accuracy should be achievable based on low-redshift CO and Hi observations of rotation curves traced by clouds with 10 km s-1 internal velocity dispersions and scatter from cloud to cloud. The errors expected from 100 simulated position-velocity data points of this accuracy are shown in Figure 3. Even in the most disturbed extra-nuclear molecular cloud regions, the maximum velocity dispersion is about 20 km s-1 (Bally et al. 1999). It is essential that the velocity field faithfully traces rotation, and is not due to outflowing gas moving at up to several 100 km s-1, as is possible for optical nebular emission lines. The required sensitivity and resolution could probably be achieved either by using AO IFU spectroscopy of near-IR absorption or recombination lines or by measuring high-/low-excitation CO lines using ALMA/SKA or Hi emission using SKA. We will consider the prospects for ALMA and SKA.

The ALMA bands at 230 and 345 GHz can be used to detect CO lines excited in star-forming regions of ordinary disk galaxies at $`z0.51`$. CO is likely to be distributed within the inner several kiloparsecs of the disk, probably more centrally concentrated than the stellar light; however, there is a possibility that the CO emission may be concentrated very close to the nucleus, in which case resolved ALMA observations would be impossible, and centimeter-wave SKA observations of CO(1-0) or Hi would be required. At 230 GHz, CO(3-2) from $`z0.5`$ and CO(4-3) from $`z1`$ can be detected. At 345 GHz, CO(5-4) can be detected from $`z0.65`$. The expected luminosity can be calculated by scaling the high-resolution images of CO(1-0) from the low-redshift Berkeley–Illinois–Maryland Association Survey Of Nearby Galaxies (BIMA SONG; Regan et al. 2001) to higher redshifts and excitations or by scaling down the flux density of CO(3-2) detected in high-redshift ultraluminous galaxies (Frayer et al. 1999). The scaled-down high-redshift result implies a total integrated CO(3-2) line flux of 0.5 Jy km s-1 from $`z=0.5`$ for a Milky Way-like galaxy with a luminosity of about $`6\times 10^{10}L_{}`$. Scaling from CO(1-0) for NGC 4414 from BIMA SONG, assuming the Large Velocity Gradient model presented in Blain et al. (2000), line fluxes of 0.43, 0.49 and 0.16 Jy km s-1 are expected in CO(3-2) from $`z=0.5`$ at 230 GHz, CO(5-4) from $`z=0.65`$ at 345 GHz, and CO(4-3) from $`z=1`$ at 230 GHz, respectively. ALMA has a 1$`\sigma `$ sensitivity of 6.1 and 11 mJy km s-1 in the 230 and 345 GHz bands, respectively, for a 1 minute observation: 70$`\sigma `$, 44$`\sigma `$ and 27$`\sigma `$ detections are thus expected integrated over the whole disk of the galaxy in 1 minute for these three lines, respectively. For the most promising case, CO(3-2) from $`z=0.5`$, this means that 100 independent spectra on the galaxy could be measured at 10$`\sigma `$ significance in about $`(100)^2/7^2`$ minutes or 3.2 hr. At 230 GHz, ALMA has a maximum resolution of about 30 mas (on a 10 km baseline), and therefore has sufficient spatial and spectral resolution to measure $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$. Note that the time required to make a coarse measurement of the total luminosity and extent of CO emission using ALMA is very much less than that required to produce a fully resolved image for shear measurements. Hence, only galaxies that seem to be regular rotating disks in short snapshot observations need be subjected to 1–10 hr integrations to measure accurate rotation curves. The morphology of the dust emission from the target is determined simultaneously, for comparison with that of radio emission and near-IR/optical starlight.

The SKA detection limit for Hi emission from $`z1`$ is several 10$`{}_{}{}^{8}M_{}^{}`$ in many tens of hours of integration. Hence, it should be possible to detect several tens of 0”.1 resolution elements across a high-redshift galaxy similar to the $`5\times 10^9M_{}`$ NGC 4414 in a reasonable time at 1 GHz, for baselines longer than about 600 km. SKA has a much larger field of view than ALMA and will image a very large number of galaxies simultaneously. As discussed in its web-based science case (see footnote 1) SKA could carry out conventional ‘statistical’ cosmic shear studies using just the shapes of galaxies.

In order to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio for the velocity measurements, a reasonable figure of merit is the product of the resolved area of the galaxy on the sky (which determines the number of independent velocity measurements) and the size of the change in the projected line-of-sight velocity across the disk. These functions depend on cos $`i`$ and sin $`i`$ respectively. Only in the most edge-on disks would CO emission be obscured by and blended with foreground clouds in the target galaxy, and therefore the total integrated flux in a CO line is not expected to depend on $`i`$. The figure of merit thus depends on sin $`2i`$ and is maximized at $`i45`$ deg: edge-on galaxies yield too few independent data points, while the velocity gradient in face-on galaxies is too small to be sure that the motion is rotational.

The shear signal is expect to increase as $`z^{0.6}`$ at source redshifts $`z0.5`$–1 (Bartelmann & Schneider 2001). Note that the integrated flux of a line decreases as $`D_\mathrm{L}^2`$, and the number of resolved spectra decreases as $`D_\mathrm{A}^2`$, where $`D_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{A}`$ are the luminosity and angular diameter distances, respectively. $`D_\mathrm{A}=D_\mathrm{L}(1+z)^2`$, leading to $`(1+z)^4`$ surface brightness dimming, and therefore it is easier to detect and resolve lines from galaxies at lower redshifts. A conservative figure of merit for the redshift dependence of the detectability of lines for measuring $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ would be $`D_\mathrm{L}^2`$, which decreases as $`z^{2.4}`$ from $`z0.5`$–1, much more steeply than $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }(z)`$ increases. This is before the likely systematic decrease in galaxy disk size/mass with increasing redshift is taken into account. Hence, in order to detect shear it is sensible to observe relatively low redshift galaxies: this favors 230 GHz ALMA observations of CO(3-2) from $`z0.5`$.

## 4 Caveats

In order to detect the velocity structure of weakly lensed galaxies and determine $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, observations with very high spatial and spectral resolution are required. The measurements need to be accurate to within about 5%, and so low-level systematic effects could potentially confuse and affect the results. We have illustrated the effect for a ring geometry. Spatially resolved spectroscopy of any disk built from a series of circular rings should allow this signal to be extracted. Even a galaxy with a series of irregularly distributed knots within a disk or spiral structure without radial inflow should allow an accurate rotation curve to be derived. If appreciable inflow does occur, then the galaxy would quickly be recognized as a poor target for a deep rotation-curve measurement. Low-redshift galaxies observed in Hi can be well fitted by circular rotation; however, the P.A. can vary with radius (e.g., Mulder & van Driel 1993). This type of effect could prevent the detection of weak shear ring by ring within the galaxy.

To measure shear, the detected velocities must be assumed to be associated with regular circular orbits. If the galaxy has a bar, warp, or $`m_1`$ asymmetry, then this model may not be adequate, and low-level corrections to a simple circular model may mimic weak lensing. Bars appear to be less common at high redshifts (Abraham et al. 1999); however, warps are likely to be more common since galaxy interactions are more common. At low redshifts, bars tend to affect the dynamics within 2–3 kpc of the centers of disks, while warps affect orbits outside 10 kpc. Their signatures should be easy to see after much shorter ALMA integrations than are required to detect accurate rotation curves. In order to assess the detailed feasibility of the proposed observations, very high resolution CO and Hi rotation curves at radii $`5`$ kpc at low and moderate redshifts will be required to check for systematic effects.

## 5 Conclusions

The use of measured high-resolution rotation curves of distant disk galaxies to determine cosmic shear has been described. The effects of lensing on the velocity and position of gas clouds in the galaxy are different, and so adding velocity information can provide a much more accurate shear measurement than shape alone. By observing two or more galaxies at relative P.A.’s of about 45, a direct measurement of the shear can be made, without requiring correlations or averages of large numbers of faint galaxy images. Such observations are not possible at present, but will become so with AO IFU spectrographs, and future radio and millimeter-wave interferometers. Velocity measurements are essential in order to be sure that the observed galaxy is rotating (and has an exact intrinsic elliptical morphology) and to allow searches for systematic deviations from uniform rotation.

I thank Eric Agol, Richard Ellis, Jean-Paul Kneib, Ole Möller, Priya Natarajan and Kartik Sheth for helpful conversations.