Astron. Astrophys. 344, 721-734 (1999)
2. Probability of multiply imaged sources
In this section we briefly review the statistical concepts introduced
in K96; this also serves to define our notation. Note that with regard
to cosmogical notation we follow that of Kayser et al. (1997),
repeating here only 2 equations needed for discussion in this paper:
the comoving spherical volume element at redshift z reads
![[EQUATION]](img6.gif)
where
![[EQUATION]](img7.gif)
Following the K96 approach, we assume that the light deflection
properties of the gravitational lenses can be modelled with a
particular type of circularly symmetric lens models with a
monotonically declining radial mass profile. Such lens models
generally create three images and have two critical radii on which the
magnification diverges (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992). It is possible to
estimate the probability of the
event
A source at redshift is triply
imaged. The total apparent magnitude of the three images
ism. The image configuration meets the selection
criteriaSand, particularly, shows the
propertiesC.
If the outer and inner critical angular radii of the lens potential
are respectively and
, the image magnification at radial
angular position r is , the
total magnification of the three images of a source at angular
position y is , the functions
and
are
valued selection functions, the
comoving density of lenses of luminosity L is
and the number-magnitude counts of
sources are , then
![[EQUATION]](img19.gif)
where
![[EQUATION]](img20.gif)
The critical radii, the image magnifications and the source
position are functions of the lens model, the luminosity of the lens
galaxy and the redshifts of the source and the lens galaxy. If the
underbraced functions are dropped, Eq. (3) yields the optical depth -
the fraction of the sky included within the caustics of all lenses
between us and the sources at redshift
. The inclusion of these functions
accounts for magnification bias, survey selection effects (including
what is defined as a lensing event) and allows the observed image
separation to be taken into account.
Eq. (3) parametrically depends on
and through Eq. (1) and through the
angular size
distances, 1
which are needed for calculating observable quantities from the lens
model (these also depend on the source and lens redshifts). Eq. (3)
additionally depends on parametric submodels required to model the
lens population and the number-magnitude counts of sources. Since
throughout this paper we are principally interested in
and ,
hereafter we refer to the submodel parameters as nuisance parameters
(although technically they are on the same footing with
and ,
there are not of as much interest here and thus a nuisance). In
principle, one could also incorporate other observables into the
parametric model; the reasons for not doing so are practical.
Assuming the survey selection function S is known, we can
numerically compute Eq. (3) and reasonably estimate the probability
that the quasar i is singly
imaged or the probability that the
quasar i is multiply imaged and its images (within some
tolerance) are separated by . If the
survey data D contains M singly and N multiply
imaged quasars, we can estimate the probability of the event
In a model universe fixed by the cosmological parameters
, and
the nuisance parameters , a multiply
imaged quasar survey collects the observational
data D.
by applying the parametric model (or likelihood function)
![[EQUATION]](img25.gif)
where the logarithm was expanded
to first order. We can combine surveys of different objects by adding
the logarithms of the likelihood functions for the individual surveys,
and can combine surveys containing the same objects by applying their
joint selection function.
In Bayesian theory the model parameters
, ,
are regarded as random quantities
with known joint prior probability density function
. Applying Bayes's theorem, the
appropriate posterior probability distribution given the observational
data D is
![[EQUATION]](img28.gif)
where the operation ` ' denotes
multiplication followed by normalisation. Marginalising the nuisance
parameters
![[EQUATION]](img30.gif)
yields the (marginal) posterior probability density function for
the parameters and
. In the limit where all nuisance
parameters take a precise value, ,
the joint prior probability density function
factorises into
and a delta distribution
, and Eq. (7) simplifies to
![[EQUATION]](img34.gif)
On the basis of Eq. (7) or Eq. (8), we can calculate confidence
regions for two parameters or perform further marginalisations and
calculate mean values, standard deviations and marginal confidence
intervals for one parameter.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1999
Online publication: March 29, 1999
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |