text:
# References

UA/NPPS-20-00

Polyakov’s spin factor and new algorithms for efficient perturbative computations in QCD

A. I. Karanikas and C. N. Ktorides

University of Athens
Department of Physics
Nuclear and Particle Physics Section
Panepistimiopolis
GR-15771 Athens, Greece

## Abstract

Polyakov’s spin factor enters as a weight in the path-integral description of particle-like modes propagating in Euclidean space-times, accounting for particle spin. The Fock-Feynman-Schwinger path integral applied to QCD accomodates Polyakov’s spin factor in a natural manner while, at the same time, it identifies Wilson line (loop) operators as sole agents of interaction dynamics among matter and gauge field quanta. A direct application of such a separation between spin content and dynamics is the emergence of master expressions for the perturbative series involving either open or closed fermionic lines which provide new, comprehensive approaches to perturbative QCD.

1. Introductory remarks. The Fock-Feynman-Schwinger path integral, also known as worldline formalism \[4-7\], constitutes a tool by which one is able to study a quantum field theoretical system in terms of the propagation of its particle quanta. Polyakov’s path integral , on the other hand, amounts to a direct formulation regarding the (Euclidean) space-time propagation of particle-like entities. Its novel ingredient is the so-called spin factor which enters the path integral as a weight accounting for the spin of a particle that traverses a given closed contour111Polyakov actually addressed himself to the case of spin-1/2 entities. Subsequently, Korchemsky and Korchemskaya  discussed extensions to higher spins.. Polyakov’s scheme is distinquished by its geometrical mode of description and serves, via its extension to two-dimensional worldsheets, as a prototype for discussing the propagation of quantum strings.

Inspired by Polyakov’s work we have been able to reformulate  the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger path integral for gauge field systems with spin-1/2 matter fields so that the spin factor, associated with the propagation of the latter, explicitly makes its entrance. At the same time, the dynamics operating on the matter particles is carried by Wilson line (loop) operators.

Let us display relevant expressions corresponding to the ‘effective’ action functional $`𝒲[A]`$ and the full fermionic propagator $`G(x,y|A)`$ in the presence of background gauge fields. They read, respectively, as follows:

$`𝒲[A]={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dT}{T}}e^{Tm^2}{\displaystyle _{x(0)=x(T)}}`$ $`𝒟x(\tau )e^{\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2(\tau )}trPexp\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \sigma \omega \right\}`$ (1)
$`\times Tr_cPexp\left[ig{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \dot{x}A(x(\tau ))\right],`$
where $`tr(Tr_c)`$ denotes trace over $`\gamma `$-matrix (color)and $`P`$ stands for path ordering, and

$`iG(x,y|A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Te^{Tm^2}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{x\left(0\right)=x}{x(T)=y}}}𝒟x(\tau )[m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma \dot{x}(T)]exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2(\tau )\right]`$ (2)
$`\times Pexp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \sigma \omega \right]Pexp\left[ig{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \dot{x}(\tau )A(x(\tau ))\right].`$
In the above formulae colour indices have been supressed as $`A_\mu A_\mu ^aT^a`$, with the generators $`T^a`$ in the fundamental representation, while $`\sigma \omega `$ actually stands for $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }`$, with $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2i}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]`$ and

$$\omega _{\mu \nu }(x)=\frac{T}{2}(\ddot{x}_\mu \dot{x}_\nu \dot{x}_\mu \ddot{x}_\nu ).$$
(3)
We normalize our expressions so that, for vanishing gauge potentials, $`𝒲[A]`$ is unity and $`G(x,y|A)`$ coincides with the free fermionic propagator.

We shall refer to the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(C)Pexp\left\{\frac{i}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \sigma \omega \right\},$$
(4)
with $`C`$ some path path parametrized by $`\tau [0,T]`$, as spin factor expression or, simply, spin factor, even though the latter characterization strictly holds for a closed path, as in (1), and is given by $`tr\mathrm{\Phi }(C)`$. It serves to properly account for the reentry of the contour by a spin-1/2 matter particle through the involvement of the geometrical entity of torsion. The exact same expression enters the Green’s function, only now it pertains to an open path $`L`$. As it turns out , its impact is exclusively associated with points at which a four-momentum is conveyed to the fermionic contour through the emission or absorption of a gauge field quantum.

As already mentioned, the sole agent of the dynamics which involves the matter particles is the Wilson line (loop) operator whose corresponding contours coincide with the spin-1/2 particle paths. One might view the overall situation as if the $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi A^\mu `$ term in the field Lagrangian has been re-organized into a geometrical and a dynamical factor operating independently (albeit at the same points) on the aformentioned paths. The full dynamical treatment of gauge fields implicates the corresponding functional integration weighted by the Yang-Mills action along with whatever else it entails (gauge fixing terms, etc.).

In what follows we shall apply the above formalism to perturbative QCD illustrating the role played by the spin factor in arriving at general expressions which provide alternative ways of forming perturbative expansions. Two different viewpoints will be taken. The first, to be considered in the next section, entails carrying the path integral from the very beginning with the spin factor surviving as a momentum dependent quantity. In this way one is able to bring each term of the perturbative expansion into a form that can be directly compared with the Feynman diagrammatic logic, albeit through a different and hopefully more economical organization. A relevant analytic computation to low order, will be conducted, cf. section 3, nevertheless the real usefulness of our results can be fully assessed once numerical methodologies are applied towards the evaluation of higher order perturbative contributions. A second possibility offered by our approach leads to a perturbative expansion which is characterized by its space-time perspective. The basic computational task, in this case, reduces to determining correlators with respect to a particle-like, i.e. one dimensional, action over bosonic and fermionic variables into which the spin factor is incorporated. The relevant analysis will be presented in section 4.

2. Master expressions for Feynman-type perturbative expansions. Relations (1) and (2), as well as similar ones for higher order Green’s functions, amount to a recasting of the given quantum field theoretical system by which nothing of its original content has been lost222This is so because terms in the field theoretical action that have been integrated over are the ones involving the spin-1/2 fields, i.e. they are of Gaussian form.. The question of interest, then, is whether the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger reformulation of the quantum field theory, QCD in particular, presents advantages at a practical level. As already indicated, our focus, in this paper, will lie on perturbation theory algorithms. For closed fermionic contours it is already known, from the work of Strassler , that the worldline framework reproduces the string theory-inspired rules of Bern and Kosower  which promote efficient perturbative computations in QCD. For open contours, on the other hand, the situation is somewhat more demanding on account of qualitatively different boundary conditions that one needs to accomodate. It is to this case that we shall direct our attention throughout this paper, restricting ourselves to situations where a single fermionic line is involved. A point of reference is furnished by expression (2) for the quark propagator in a background of gluonic fields, even though we shall eventually generalize our considerations so as to include gluons as dynamical entities in both virtual and external states. The specific methodology that will characterize our work in this section aims at direct comparisons with the Feynman diagrammatic logic.

Expanding the Wilson (line) exponential in (2), we readily obtain a series of parametric integrations of the form

$$(ig)^M_0^T𝑑\tau _M\mathrm{}_0^T𝑑\tau _1\theta (\tau _M,\mathrm{},\tau _1)A(x(\tau _M))\dot{x}(\tau _M)\mathrm{}A(x(\tau _1))\dot{x}(\tau _1)$$
(5)
which find themselves immersed into larger expressions. Here, $`\theta (\tau _M,\mathrm{},\tau _1)\theta (\tau _M\tau _{M1})\mathrm{}\theta (\tau _2\tau _1)`$.

Let us now go to the full theory by (functionally) integrating over the gauge potentials and treating the interaction terms in the Yang-Mills Lagrangian as perturbations. Correlators, with respect to the quadratic terms in the action, of a given $`A_\mu (x(\tau _m))`$ entering (5) with another gauge field produce gluonic propagators attached to fermionic lines. In our specific case, pairing two $`A_\mu (x(\tau _m))`$’s leads to a situation where a gluon is emitted and subsequently absorbed by the fermionic line. Pairing with an external field operator produces an attached external gluon. Finally, a correlator with a field entering an interaction term in the gluonic Lagrangian density connects the attachement with a three or four point vertex333It is important to keep in mind that the fermionic line has a space-time and not a Feynman diagrammatic interpretation.. Typical examples are displayed in Fig. 1.

We isolate the following generic expression, after transcribing to momentum representation for the gauge fields,

$`i\mathrm{\Delta }^{(M)}(x,y|A)`$ $`=`$ $`(ig)^M{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Te^{Tm^2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=M}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau _n\right)\theta (\tau _M,\mathrm{},\tau _1){\displaystyle _{\stackrel{x\left(0\right)=x}{x(T)=y}}}𝒟x(\tau )[m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma \dot{x}(T)]`$ (6)
$`\times Pexp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \sigma \omega \right]\stackrel{~}{A}(k_M)\dot{x}(\tau _M)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{A}(k_1)\dot{x}(\tau _1)`$
$`\times exp\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2(\tau )i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}k_nx(\tau _n)\right],`$
which makes its appearance once we expand the Wilson line.

In order to achieve direct comparisons with the Feynman diagram perturbative logic we must first execute the path integral while rendering the spin factor independent from the details of the specific path. This can be achieved by employing the functional derivative operator

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta s_{\mu \nu }(t)}lim_{\epsilon 0}_\epsilon ^{+\epsilon }𝑑\sigma \sigma \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta x_\mu (t+\sigma /2)\delta x_\nu (t\sigma /2)}.$$
(7)
One easily determines

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta s_{\mu \nu }(t)}exp\left[\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2(\tau )\right]=\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu \nu }(x(t))\left[\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2(\tau )\right].$$
(8)
Introducing the anticommuting $`\xi `$ variables by $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n\dot{x}(\tau _n)=𝑑\xi _n𝑑\overline{\xi }_ne^{\overline{\xi }_n\stackrel{~}{A}_n\dot{x}(\tau _n)\xi _n}`$ and setting $`\widehat{k}_\mu (\tau _{n\mu })k_{n\mu }++g\overline{\xi }_n\xi _n\stackrel{~}{A}_{n\mu }\frac{}{\tau _n}`$ we obtain

$`i\mathrm{\Delta }^{(M)}(x,y|A)`$ $`=(ig)^M{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Te^{Tm^2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=M}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau _n\right)\theta (\tau _M,\mathrm{},\tau _1)\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=M}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi _n𝑑\overline{\xi }_n}\right)`$ (9)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\stackrel{x\left(0\right)=x}{x(T)=y}}}𝒟x(\tau )[m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma \dot{x}(T)]e^{\left[\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2(\tau )i_{n=1}^M\widehat{k}_nx(\tau _n)\right]}\mathrm{\Phi }[\widehat{k}],`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[\widehat{k}]=`$ $`exp\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\widehat{k}_nx(\tau _n)\right]`$ (10)
$`\times Pexp\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑s\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta s_{\mu \nu }}}\right)exp\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\widehat{k}(\tau _n)x(\tau _n)\right]`$
is the spin-factor expression in the “$`\widehat{k}`$-representation”.

The integral over paths can now be easily performed as the particle-like action functional $`S[x]=\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2(\tau )i_{n=1}^M\widehat{k}_nx(\tau _n)`$ does not contain non-linear terms. The procedure has been deliberated in Ref.  and will be carried out, in this paper, for the more complex ‘particle action functionals’ that will arise in section 4. Here, we give the final result which reads, in Fourier conjugate space,

$`i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(M)}(p,p^{}|A)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4(ig)^M\delta \left(p+p^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}k_n\right){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Te^{Tm^2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=M}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau _n\right)\theta (\tau _M,\mathrm{},\tau _1)`$ (11)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{n=M}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi _n𝑑\overline{\xi }_n}\right)[mi\gamma pig{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\overline{\xi }_n\xi _n\gamma \stackrel{~}{A}_n\delta (\tau _nT)]`$
$`\times exp\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M+1}{}}}\widehat{k}(\tau _n)\widehat{k}(\tau _m)\mathrm{min}(\tau _n,\tau _m)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }[\widehat{k}]`$
with $`k_{M+1,\mu }p_\mu ^{},\tau _{M+1}T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{M+1,\mu }0_\mu `$.

The spin factor expression assumes a form, for a given $`M`$, which explicitly displays its path independence. It reads as follows

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[\widehat{k}]`$ $`=`$ $`Pexp\left(ig{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\sigma _{\mu _n\nu _n}f_{\mu _n\nu _n}(\widehat{k})\right)`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{def}{=}`$ $`1+(ig){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\sigma _{\mu _n\nu _n}f_{\mu _n\nu _n}+(ig)^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\sigma _{\mu _n\nu _n}\sigma _{\mu _m\nu _m}f_{\mu _n\nu _n}f_{\mu _m\nu _m}+\mathrm{},`$
where444It is evident that, due to the presence of the $`\xi `$-variables, the sums entering (12) have, at most, $`M`$ terms. One should also take note of the fact that the subscript $`n`$ implicitly incorporates group indices.

$`f_{\mu _m\nu _n}`$ $``$ $`\overline{\xi }_n\xi _n(\stackrel{~}{A}_{n\mu _m}k_{n\nu _n}\stackrel{~}{A}_{n\nu _n}k_{n\mu _m})`$ (13)
$`ig\overline{\xi }_{n+1}\xi _{n+1}\overline{\xi }_n\xi _n(\stackrel{~}{A}_{n\mu _m}k_{n+1,\nu _n}\mu \nu )\delta (\tau _{n+1}\tau _n).`$
It can be easily verified that $`\mathrm{\Phi }[\widehat{k}]`$ provides the numerator resulting from the string of fermionic propagators for $`M`$ gluonic insertions on the the quark (world)line, with the corresponding denominators cast in the form $`p^2m^2+iϵ`$.

One concludes that, according to the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger path integral casting of the field theory, a perturbative computation involving gauge field attachments to a given fermionic line555Actually, if more than one fermionic lines are involved, e.g. quark-quark “scattering” process, the total number of attachments to all lines should be counted. can be organized according to the number $`M`$ of points where the gauge fields “strike” the spin-1/2 particle (world)line(s). For a given Green’s function and to a given perturbative order the aformentioned number $`M`$ takes more than one value. On the other hand, for fixed $`M`$ the parametric integrations should take care of all possible rearrangements, including those of colour indices, of the struck points along the contour. An example, corresponding to a “Compton gluon scattering process”, will occupy our attention next.

3. A low order analytic computation. Consider the QCD “Compton” process depicted in Fig. 2. At second perturbative order we have to contend with an $`M=2`$ and an $`M=1`$ contribution.

For $`M=2`$ and given that for incoming/outgoing gluons $`ϵ_ik_i=0`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[k]`$ $`=`$ $`1ig\overline{\xi }_1\xi _1\gamma ϵ_1\gamma k_1ig\overline{\xi }_2\xi _2\gamma ϵ_2\gamma k_2`$ (14)
$`g^2\overline{\xi }_2\xi _2\overline{\xi }_1\xi _1[\gamma ϵ_2,\gamma ϵ_1]\delta (\tau _2\tau _1).`$
Substituting into the expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$, allowing for momentum conservation, choosing $`ϵ_ip=0`$ and performing the integrations over the Grassmann variables we obtain

$`i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(2)}(p,p^{}|\{ϵ\})`$ $`=`$ $`g^2(2\pi )^4\delta (p+p^{}+k_1+k_2){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑Te^{T(m^2+p^2)}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau _2{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau _1\theta (\tau _2\tau _1)`$ (15)
$`\times exp[T(m^2+p^2)2p^{}k_2(\tau _2\tau _1)]\{(mi\gamma p^{})`$
$`\times [2\gamma ϵ_1\gamma ϵ_2\delta (\tau _1\tau _2)+2ϵ_2p^{}\gamma k_1\gamma ϵ_1\gamma k_1\gamma ϵ_1\gamma k_2\gamma ϵ_2`$
$`+i\gamma ϵ_2\gamma k_1\gamma ϵ_1\delta (\tau _2T)\}.`$
Standard manipulations involving the gamma matrices along with the restoration of (basically group) factors, omitted in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$, easily lead to the following $`M=2`$ contribution to the amplitude

$`A_{Comp}^{(2)a_1a_2}`$ $`=`$ $`g^2(2\pi )^4\delta (p+p^{}+k_1+k_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m+i\gamma p^{}}}`$ (16)
$`\times \left[T^{a_2}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ϵ_2\gamma k_1\gamma ϵ_1}{2p^{}k_2}}T^{a_1}+T^{a_1}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ϵ_1\gamma k_2\gamma ϵ_2}{2p^{}k_1}}T^{a_2}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mi\gamma p}}.`$
For the $`M=1`$ contribution we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[k]`$ $`=`$ $`Pexp[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\overline{\xi }\xi \sigma _{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{~}{A}(k)_\mu k_\nu \stackrel{~}{A}(k)_\nu k_\mu )]`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\overline{\xi }\xi [\gamma \stackrel{~}{A}(k),\gamma k]`$
(note that this time the attached gauge field is internal) leading to

$`i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}(p,p^{}|\stackrel{~}{A})`$ $`=`$ $`g(2\pi )^4\delta (p+p^{}+k_1+k_2){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dTe^{T(m^2+p^2)}{\displaystyle _0^T}d\tau \{(mi\gamma p^{})`$ (18)
$`\times ((p^{}p)\stackrel{~}{A}(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\gamma \stackrel{~}{A}(k),\gamma k])+i\gamma \stackrel{~}{A}(k)\delta (\tau T)\}`$
which, after some gamma-matrix algebra routine and once taking into account the presence of free spinor wavefunctions at each end of the fermionic line, gives

$$i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(1)}(p,p^{}|\{k\})=ig\frac{1}{m+i\gamma p^{}}\gamma \stackrel{~}{A}(k)\frac{1}{mi\gamma p}.$$
(19)
The remaining work leading to the amplitude contribution involves standard perturbation theory manipulations related to the ‘merging’ of the attached gluon with the three point Yang-Mills vertex. It now becomes imperative to restore the color indices for the gauge fields, so let us assign index $`a`$ to the gluon coming from the Wilson line, corresponding to the attachment on the fermionic contour, and indices $`b,c,d`$ to the vertex gluons. Clearly, two of the latter register as incoming/outgoing states hence they are associated with polarization vectors.

In all, the final $`M=1`$ contribution to the amplitude is

$`A_{Comp}^{(1)a_1a_2}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^4\delta (p+p^{}+k_1+k_2)g^2T^cf^{ca_1a_2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m+i\gamma p^{}}}\gamma _\rho ϵ_{1\mu }ϵ_{2\nu }`$ (20)
$`\times \left[\delta _{\mu \nu }(k_2k_1)_\rho \delta _{\rho \nu }(2k_2+k_1)_\mu +\delta _{\mu \rho }(k_2+2k_1)_\nu \right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1+k_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mi\gamma p}}`$
which, combined with equ (16), yields the correct final result.

A few comments are in order at this point. First, the present example serves more as an illustration of the fact that the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger recasting of QCD, aided by the presence of the spin factor, provides a viable methodology for conducting perturbative calculations. The real test concerning possible advantages of this approach should come with respect to higher order calculations where a plethora of Feynman diagrams enters. Efforts are under way to probe such a prospect via the employment of numerical methodologies. Second, the fact that purely gluonic perturbative contributions have been treated conventionally in the above application does not preclude the possibility of furnishing the gluonic sector with a worldline description. Of special notice, in this respect, is the work in Ref  which, even though conducted in the string context, adopts a space-time mode of description while addressing itself to the gauge field sector. An alternative possibility within the framework of our approach is viable and will be presented next. Its basic feature is that, as a perturbative scheme, it deviates from the Feynman diagram logic by sidesteping the momentum representation and arriving at final expressions which solely involve (one-dimensional) path integrations.

4. A space-time approach to perturbative expansions. We shall now switch policy and leave the task of carrying out the path integral until after we have explicitly dealt with the gauge field sector. Insisting on the perturbative treatment let us consider a given configuration entering a process of interest contributing to some fixed order. Introducing for each pairing of gauge fields the corresponding space-time correlator, we obtain expressions which no longer involve vector potentials.

Now, the general form of a gauge field correlator in configuration space, in the Feynman gauge, is

$$<A_\mu ^a(x)A_\nu ^b(y)>_0=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}1\right)}{4\pi ^{D/2}|xy|^{D2}}.$$
(21)
Clearly, if $`x=x(\tau )`$ and/or $`y=y(\tau )`$, then one, or both, arguments of the gauge fields lie on a fermionic particle’s contour, hence the corresponding correlator is directly fed into the path integral. Under these circumstances the latter cannot be performed in the same manner as before. One might say that the induced ‘disappearance’ of the gauge fields from our expressions calls for a readjustment on how the separation between geometry and dynamics is to be effected. Our new strategy will be to incorporate both the spin factor and the gauge field correlator into an overall expression that will define a ‘particle action functional’ with respect to which velocity-velocity correlators are to be computed. The latter arise as remnants of the expansion of the Wilson exponential(s), once the gauge fields have been removed.

In order to form the aformentioned action functional it becomes imperative to get rid of the second derivatives entering the expression for $`\omega _{\mu \nu }(x)`$. To confront this task we must first devise an alternative way of displaying the $`\gamma `$-matrix path ordering in the spin factor. To this end we follow Ref  and introduce auxiliary anticommuting variables $`\psi _\mu (\tau )`$ obeying the relations $`\{\psi _\mu (\tau ),\psi _\nu (\tau ^{})\}=0`$ and $`\{\psi _\mu (\tau ),\psi _\nu (\tau )\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. One can then show that

$$trPexp\left\{\frac{i}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \sigma \omega \right\}=\frac{1}{D}_{\psi _\mu (0)+\psi _\mu (T)=0}[d\psi ]exp\left[_0^T𝑑\tau \psi (\tau )\dot{\psi }(\tau )_0^T𝑑\tau \psi _\mu \psi _\nu \omega _{\mu \nu }\right]$$
(22)
relevant for closed and

$`Pexp\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \sigma \omega \right\}`$ $`=`$ $`exp(i\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}){\displaystyle _{\psi _\mu (0)+\psi _\mu (T)=\lambda _\mu }}[d\psi ]exp[{\displaystyle _0^T}d\tau \psi (\tau )\dot{\psi }(\tau )`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle _0^T}d\tau \psi _\mu \psi _\nu \omega _{\mu \nu }+\psi (T)\psi (0)]_{\lambda =0}`$
relevant for open particle contours, respectively.

We shall look upon the factor $`exp\left[_0^T𝑑\tau \psi (\tau )\dot{\psi }(\tau )\right]`$ entering (23) as furnishing a fermionic sector to the ‘particle action’ thereby formulating a ‘super particle’ description. For future reference we note that

$`<\psi _\mu (t)\psi _\nu (t^{})>_{\psi ,\lambda }`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\psi _\mu (0)+\psi _\mu (T)=\lambda _\mu }}[d\psi ]exp\left[{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \psi (\tau )\dot{\psi }(\tau )+\psi (0)\psi (T)\right]\psi _\mu (t)\psi _\nu (t^{})`$ (24)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta _{\mu \nu }sign(tt^{})\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu `$
with $`sign\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=0`$.

The next step is to write

$$_0^T𝑑\tau \psi _\mu \psi _\nu \omega _{\mu \nu }=T_0^T𝑑\tau (\psi \dot{x})^{}(\psi \dot{x})+T_0^T𝑑\tau (\psi \dot{x})(\dot{\psi }\dot{x})+\frac{T}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}\ddot{x}$$
(25)
whose usefulness will become evident once we specify the correlators $`<\dot{x}_\mu (t)\dot{x}_\nu (t^{})>_x`$ and $`<\psi _\mu (t)\dot{\psi }_\nu (t^{})>_\psi `$ in the limit where the two arguments coincide. To this end we define

$`<\dot{x}_\mu (t)\dot{x}_\nu (t)>_x`$ $`\stackrel{def}{=}`$ $`lim_{ϵ0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle _ϵ^{+ϵ}}𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta J_\mu (t+\frac{\sigma }{2})\delta J_\nu (t\frac{\sigma }{2})}}`$ (26)
$`\times <e^{i_0^T𝑑\tau J(\tau )\dot{x}(\tau )}>_x|_{J=0}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{T}}\delta _{\mu \nu },`$
reflecting the fact that we are integrating over paths with $`|\dot{x}|=const`$ and, similarly, ($`\eta _\mu `$ and $`\theta _\mu `$ anticommuting sources)

$`<\psi _\mu (t)\dot{\psi }_\nu (t)>_\psi `$ $`\stackrel{def}{=}`$ $`lim_{ϵ0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle _ϵ^{+ϵ}}𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \eta _\mu (\tau +\frac{\sigma }{2})\delta \theta _\nu (\tau \frac{\sigma }{2})}}`$ (27)
$`\times <e^{i_0^T𝑑\tau (\eta \psi +\theta \dot{\psi })}>_\psi |_{\eta =\theta =0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}\delta _{\mu \nu }`$
whereupon we are led to the substitution rules666Note that only the $`_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2`$ part of the bosonic particle action contributes to (26) so any additional terms are imatterial as far as our definition of velocity-velocity correlators at equal times is concerned. $`\dot{x}_\mu (t)\dot{x}_\nu (t)\frac{2}{T}\delta _{\mu \nu },\psi _\mu (t)\dot{\psi }_\nu (t)\frac{1}{2T}\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. It, thereby, follows that (25) assumes the form

$$_0^T𝑑\tau \psi _\mu \psi _\nu \omega _{\mu \nu }=T_0^T𝑑\tau (\psi \dot{x})(\psi \dot{x})^{}+const.$$
(28)
Designating $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}\psi _5(\tau )\psi (\tau )\dot{x}(\tau )`$ and enforcing this definition through a delta-function costraint (enter Grassmann path variable $`\chi (\tau )`$) we find777From hereon we restrict our attention to open line expressions.

$`Pexp\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑\tau \sigma \omega \right\}`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left(i\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}\right){\displaystyle _{\psi _\mu (0)+\psi _\mu (T)=\lambda _\mu }}[d\psi (\tau )]{\displaystyle [d\psi _5(\tau )][d\chi (\tau )]}`$ (29)
$`\times exp\{{\displaystyle _0^T}d\tau \psi \dot{\psi }+{\displaystyle _0^T}d\tau \psi _5\dot{\psi }_5+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{T}}}{\displaystyle _0^T}d\tau \chi (\tau )\psi _5(\tau )`$
$`i{\displaystyle _0^T}d\tau \chi (\tau )\psi (\tau )\dot{x}+\psi (T)\psi (0)\}_{\lambda =0}.`$
For the purpose of computing velocity-velocity correlators we need to extract from the expression on the right hand side that part which is relevant to forming the ‘bosonic sector’ of the ‘particle action’. This is furnished by the term $`i_0^T𝑑\tau 𝒥\dot{x}`$, where

$$𝒥_\mu (\tau )\chi (\tau )\psi _\mu (\tau ).$$
(30)
A further contribution to the ‘bosonic particle action’ comes from the propagator expression. Exponentiating the denominator entering (21), via the employment of (Feynman) auxiliary integration variables $`\alpha _i`$ we obtain

$$S_2[x]=\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2+i_0^T𝑑\tau 𝒥(\tau )\dot{x}(\tau )+\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _i[x(\tau _{a_i})x(\tau _{b_i})]^2$$
(31)
representing all double-ended gauge field attachments and

$$S_1[x]=\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2+i_0^T𝑑\tau 𝒥(\tau )\dot{x}(\tau )+\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _i[x(\tau _i)z_i]^2$$
(32)
for single-end attachments to the matter field contour.

Clearly, unattached gauge field propagators are ‘averaged’ with a ‘particle action’ that does not contain the third term. Moreover, one should not forget that there are fermionic path integrals which need to be performed. In what follows we shall focus our efforts on determining velocity-velocity correlators for each of the above two action functionals.

Consider, first, the case of a single attachment, i.e. functional $`S_1[x]`$. The ‘classical equations of motion’ read

$$\ddot{x}_\mu ^{cl}(\sigma )=2i\dot{𝒥}_\mu (\sigma )+4\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _i[x(\tau _i)z_i]\delta (\tau _i\sigma ).$$
(33)
Making a variable change specified by $`x_\mu (\sigma )=w_\mu (\sigma )+\frac{(yx)_\mu }{T}\sigma +x_\mu `$, which obeys the, simpler, boundary conditions888Recall that the corresponding conditions for $`x_\mu (\sigma )`$ are $`x_\mu (0)=x_\mu `$ and $`x_\mu (T)=y_\mu `$. $`w_\mu (0)=w_\mu (T)=0`$ the equations of motion assume the form

$$\ddot{w}_\mu ^{cl}(\sigma )b(\sigma )w_\mu ^{cl}(\sigma )=f_\mu (\sigma ),$$
(34)
where $`f_\mu (\sigma )2i\dot{𝒥}_\mu (\sigma )+4_{i=1}^M\alpha _i[\frac{(yx)_\mu }{T}\tau _i+x_\mu z_{i\mu }]\delta (\tau _i\sigma )`$ and $`b(\sigma )4_{i=1}^M\alpha _i\delta (\tau _i\sigma )`$.

Introducing the Green’s function $`K^{(N)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ by

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{d\sigma ^2}b(\sigma )\right]K^{(N)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),$$
(35)
obeying boundary conditions $`K^{(N)}(0,\sigma ^{})=K^{(N)}(T,\sigma ^{})=0`$, we write

$$w_\mu ^{cl}(\sigma )=_0^T𝑑\sigma ^{}K^{(N)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})f_\mu (\sigma ^{}).$$
(36)
Manipulations involved in the determination of the Green’s function $`K^{(N)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ proceed along the lines employed in Ref , adopted also in Ref , leading to the result

$$K^{(N)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\sigma ,\tau _i)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau _i,\tau _j)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau _j,\sigma ^{}),$$
(37)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=<\sigma ^{}|^2|\sigma >=\frac{\sigma (T\sigma ^{})}{T}\theta (\sigma ^{}\sigma )+\frac{\sigma ^{}(T\sigma )}{T}\theta (\sigma \sigma ^{})$$
(38)
while the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$’s are related to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s through a multiplication of the latter by a factor $`\sqrt{\alpha _i}`$ for each $`\tau _i`$ in the argument.

Consider, finally, the velocity-velocity correlator

$`<\dot{x}_\mu (t_1)\dot{x}_\nu (t_2)>_{S_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta 𝒥_\mu (t_1)\delta 𝒥_\nu (t_2)}}{\displaystyle _{x(0)=x,x(T)=y}}𝒟x(\tau )e^{S_1[x]}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`𝒩(\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta 𝒥_\mu (t_1)\delta 𝒥_\nu (t_2)}}exp\{S_1[x]\},`$
where

$$𝒩(\alpha )=_{x(0)=x(T)=0}𝒟x(\tau )exp\left[\frac{1}{4}_0^T𝑑\tau \dot{x}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _ix^2(\tau _i)\right]=\frac{1}{(4\pi T)^2}det^{2N}(1+4\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}).$$
(40)
Straight forward manipulations lead to the result

$$<\dot{x}_\mu (t_1)\dot{x}_\nu (t_2)>_{S_1}=𝒩(\alpha )\left[\dot{x}_\mu ^{cl}(t_1)\dot{x}_\nu ^{cl}(t_2)2\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{^2}{t_1t_2}K^{(N)}(t_1,t_2)\right]e^{S_1[x^{cl}]}$$
(41)
with all the ‘classical’ quantities readily calculable.

The case with $`S_2[x]`$, even though technically somewhat more complex, proceeds along parallel lines. It becomes convenient to introduce  the kernel

$$B(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _i[\delta (\sigma _1\tau _{a_i})\delta (\sigma _1\tau _{b_i})][\delta (\sigma _2\tau _{a_i})\delta (\sigma _2\tau _{b_i})]$$
(42)
which allows us to cast the third term on the right hand side of equ (31) in the form $`_0^T𝑑\sigma _1_0^T𝑑\sigma _1B(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)x(\sigma _1)x(\sigma _2)`$. Accordingly, the relevant Green’s function $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(N)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ now satisfies the equation

$$_0^T𝑑\sigma _1\left[\delta (\sigma \sigma _1)\frac{^2}{\sigma _1^2}4B(\sigma _1,\sigma )\right]\mathrm{\Delta }^{(N)}(\sigma _1,\sigma ^{})=\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{}),$$
(43)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(N)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\sigma ,\tau _{a_i})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\sigma ,\tau _{b_i})]\widehat{D}_{ij}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\sigma ,\tau _{a_j})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\sigma ,\tau _{b_j})]$$
(44)
with

$$\widehat{D}_{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau _{a_i},\tau _{a_j})+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau _{b_i},\tau _{b_j})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau _{a_i},\tau _{b_j})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau _{b_i},\tau _{a_j}).$$
(45)
The final result for the velocity-velocity correlator acquires the corresponding form

$$<\dot{x}_\mu (t_1)\dot{x}_\nu (t_2)>_{S_2}=\widehat{𝒩}(\alpha )\left[\dot{x}_\mu ^{cl}(t_1)\dot{x}_\nu ^{cl}(t_2)2\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{^2}{t_1t_2}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(N)}(t_1,t_2)\right]e^{S_2[x^{cl}]},$$
(46)
where,

$$\widehat{𝒩}(\alpha )=\frac{1}{(4\pi T)^2}det^{2N}(1+4\widehat{D}).$$
(47)
Path integrals over the fermionic variables are much simpler, as can be witnessed from the relevant manipulations performed in Ref . The basic result is displayed by equ (24).

5. Summary. We have applied the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger path integral to perturbative expansions in QCD for processes involving an open fermionic line. The novel feature of the formalism is that it contains a spin factor and a dynamical factor (Wilson line) whose distinguishable roles facilitate the emergence of comprehensive expressions for the perturbative series. Two alternative approaches have been discussed. According to the first one the path integral is performed right away while the spin factor is recast into a momentum representation form which communicates with the gauge sector. In this way one achieves direct comparison with the Feynman diagrammatic expansion as the gauge fields enter through conventional momentum space propagators while the spin factor expression provides the contribution coming from a fermionic line that has a given number of gauge field attachments. All this enters a master expression with parametric integrations which account for all possible rearrangements of the points on the fermionic line where the attachments occur. The second approach has as its starting point the removal (in pairs) of the gauge fields in favor of correlator expressions in a space-time representation. The spin factor, on the other hand, is now trancribed into a form that contributes to a superparticle-like (one-dimensional) action given that it involves anticommuting coordinates as well. The result of this procedure is the emergence of a space-time picture for the perturbative series which boils down to computing correlators of the type $`<\dot{x}_\mu (t)\dot{x}_\nu (t^{})>_x`$ and $`<\psi _\mu (t)\psi _\nu (t^{})>_\psi `$ in a particle-based representation of the theory (QCD). All that remains is to perform integrations over the Feynman parameters. Non-trivial applications of the proposed scheme are currently in pursuit.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1: Gluonic field attachments on a fermionic (world)line. The Wilson line, which carries the dynamics between matter and gauge field quanta in the Fock-Feynman-Schwinger path integral approach to QCD, is responsible for the emergence of master expressions organized according to the number M of such attachments. The spin factor, on the other hand, provides the numerator of the string of fermionic propagators corresponding to a given number of insertions.

Fig. 2: Configurations entering the ‘QCD Compton Scattering amplitude’, to the lowest order, organized according to number of attachments onto the fermionic (world)line.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational lensing by elliptical galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The fraction of high-redshift quasars which are multiply-imaged due to gravitational lensing is determined mainly by the cosmological model and the population of potential lenses. Many of the early investigations into the statistics of quasar lensing (e.g. Press & Gunn 1973; Turner, Ostriker & Gott 1984; Kochanek & Blandford 1987; Fukugita & Turner 1991; Maoz & Rix 1993) focussed on the deflector population, but more recent studies have emphasised the cosmological possibilities. Specifically, Turner (1990) and Fukugita, Futumase & Kasai (1990) found that the lensing probability increases very rapidly with the (normalised) cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$, but depends only weakly on the (normalised) matter density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}`$. One of the most stringent upper limits that can be placed on the value of the cosmological constant is due to the low number of lenses detected – both Kochanek (1996b) and Falco, Kochanek & Muñoz (1998) found that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}0.65`$, with 95 per cent confidence. These results are only marginally consistent with a number of independent cosmological measurements, such as high-redshift supernova observations (e.g. Schmidt et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999) and cosmic microwave background measurements (e.g. Lineweaver 1998; Efstathiou et al. 1999), which imply that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0.7\pm 0.2`$, again at the 95 per cent confidence level. Further, the low density implied by cluster observations (e.g. Bahcall, Fan & Cen 1997), combined with the inflationary requirement of a flat universe (e.g. Guth 1981; Kolb & Turner 1989) also imply a high value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$. It is thus very important to accurately assess both the random and systematic uncertainties on the lensing constraints.

Some of the random uncertainties in the lens statistics are being steadily reduced as new surveys better constrain the deflector and source populations and more lenses are discovered. If ellipticals do completely dominate the lensing probability (e.g. Turner et al. 1984; Kochanek 1996b), any improvements in the knowledge of the number density of galaxies must be accompanied by accurate type information. Both the the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (e.g. Szalay 1998; Loveday & Pier 1998) and the 2 degree Field galaxy redshift survey (e.g. Colless 1999; Folkes et al. 1999) should decrease the errors on the type-specific luminosity functions by up to an order of magnitude. These two projects will also greatly reduce the uncertainties in the quasar luminosity function, as well as yielding more lensed quasars than are known to date (e.g. Loveday & Pier 1998; Boyle et al. 1999a,b; Mortlock & Webster 2000b).

However, comparable progress in reducing the various systematic uncertainties is unlikely to be as rapid or as certain. Firstly, dust in the lensing galaxies can obscure multiply-imaged quasars from lens surveys. There is some evidence that it is an unimportant effect (e.g. Kochanek et al. 1999; Falco et al. 1999), but it is also possible that it dominates the statistics (Malhotra, Rhoads & Turner 1997). There are a number of studies of dust in local galaxies, but it is reddening in high-redshift galaxies that is more important to lensing statistics. The only measurements of obscuration in such galaxies comes from lensed quasars, as the colours of the various images of the one source can be compared. Using this technique Falco et al. (1999) found that ellipticals with redshifts of up to $`1`$ have minimal dust content (the difference in the extinctions between different lines-of-sight being only $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(BV)0.2`$ mag).

Another potential limitation on the accuracy of lens statistics is uncertainty in the mass evolution of galaxies. Keeton, Kochanek & Falco (1998) and Kochanek et al. (2000) have used lens galaxies to measure the fundamental plane (e.g. Dressler et al. 1997) of field ellipticals at moderate redshifts, but very little could be inferred about the mass evolution of the population. Assuming the present-day population of ellipticals formed from the mergers of spirals (or other smaller halos), the high-redshift deflector population should consist of a larger number of less massive objects. If the total mass in halos is conserved the lensing optical depth is independent of the evolution, but the average image separation is decreased (e.g. Rix et al. 1994). Mao & Kochanek (1994) used this fact to show that the known quasar lenses were best explained if there was little or no evolution in the elliptical population to redshifts of order unity. Thus a non-evolving population of elliptical galaxies is adopted here.

The mass profile of the deflectors has a greater impact on the frequency of multiply-imaged sources, as well as the resultant image configurations. Constant mass-to-light ratio de Vaucouleurs (1948) models of ellipticals can be matched to either the galaxy dynamics (Kormendy & Djorgovski 1989; van der Marel 1991) or lens statistics (Maoz & Rix 1993; Kochanek 1996b), but not to both simultaneously. The mass-to-light ratios required to reproduce the observed image separations are approximately double those suggested by dynamical arguments. This implies that ellipticals are dominated by dark matter halos, which might be expected to follow the Navarro, Frenk & White (1996, 1997) mass profile inferred from $`N`$-body simulations of cold dark matter-dominated galaxy formation. However, in the inner regions – which determine the strong lensing properties – this profile is only marginally steeper than the de Vaucouleurs (1948) model, and is inconsistent with lensing observations for the same reasons. The inferred dark matter halos can be modelled as isothermal spheres (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987), which are consistent with both dynamical considerations (e.g. Kormendy & Richstone 1995) and lensing data (e.g. Kochanek 1993, 1996b). There is, however, some uncertainty as to the correct mass normalisation of this model (characterised by a velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$), due to both its relationship with the observed line-of-sight velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _{||}`$, and the possibility of a finite core. The lensing cross-section of an isothermal galaxy is proportional to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^4`$ (Turner et al. 1984), so even small variations in the normalisation are important.

The surface brightness of ellipticals is flatter than an isothermal profile near the centre (and steeper at large radii, although this is less relevant), which results in higher observed velocity dispersions for a given mass distribution than constant mass-to-light ratio models (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987). Gott (1977) used the conversion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=(3/2)^{1/2}\sigma _{||}`$ to account for the extended nature of the dark matter halo, but more recent calculations imply that the correct scaling is much closer to unity (e.g. Kochanek 1993, 1994). This result is supported by lens statistics (e.g. Kochanek 1996b), but the uncertainties are quite large.

If ellipticals do have finite cores (within which the density is roughly constant), the the maximum deflection angle is reduced, making them less effective lenses (e.g. Hinshaw & Krauss 1987; Blandford & Kochanek 1987). However, the mass normalisation is increased for a given observed $`\sigma _{||}`$, as the central potential well of the galaxies are shallower; this tends to increase their lensing effectiveness (Kochanek 1996a,b). Further, non-singular lenses tend to produce more highly magnified images (e.g. Blandford & Kochanek 1987), resulting in an increased lensing probability due to magnification bias (Turner 1980). The qualitative arguments are quite clear, but the relative importance of the various effects, and their overall impact on lens statistics, are not.

In Section 2 the normalisation and resultant scalings of the mass distribution are derived, and the effects these have on the optical depth and lensing probability of elliptical galaxies are discussed in Section 3. The conclusions reached on the effect of core radii on lens statistics are then summarised in Section 4.

## 2 Elliptical galaxies

A simple model for the population of elliptical galaxies (Section 2.1) is adopted here, in which individual galaxies are assumed to be spherically symmetric objects, completely defined by their radial mass distribution (Section 2.2), radial luminosity density (Section 2.3), and dynamics. Given that the line-of-sight velocity dispersion in the central regions is usually used for the dynamical normalisation of ellipticals, this observable must be related to the model parameters for self-consistency (Section 2.4).

### 2.1 Population

If elliptical galaxies follow a Schechter (1976) luminosity function, and obey the Faber-Jackson (1976) relationship, their local co-moving number density is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{||}}=\frac{\gamma n_{}}{\sigma _{}}\left(\frac{\sigma _{||}}{\sigma _{}}\right)^{\gamma (1+\alpha )1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{\sigma _{||}}{\sigma _{}}\right)^\gamma \right],$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _{||}`$ is the observed line-of-sight velocity dispersion, $`\alpha =1.07\pm 0.05`$ and $`n_{}=(0.0019\pm 0.003)h^3`$ Mpc-3 (Efstathiou, Ellis & Peterson 1988). Here $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 is Hubble’s constant, and $`\sigma _{}=225\pm 20`$ km s-1 and $`\gamma =3.7\pm 1`$ (de Vaucouleurs & Olson 1982). There is the possibility of systematic uncertainties in equation (1) for low $`\sigma _{||}`$ (e.g. Folkes et al. 1999), but the larger galaxies dominate the strong lensing by ellipticals. Further, any scatter in the Faber-Jackson (1976) relation effectively increases $`\sigma _{}`$ by an amount comparable to the scatter in $`\sigma _{||}`$ (Kochanek 1994).

Under the assumption that the galaxy population is non-evolving (See Section 1.), the differential number of galaxies at redshift $`z`$ and and with velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{||}`$ is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{d}z\mathrm{d}\sigma _{||}}=\frac{\mathrm{d}V_0}{\mathrm{d}z}\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{||}},$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{d}V_0/\mathrm{d}z`$ is the co-moving volume element at redshift $`z`$. Its full cosmological dependence is rather complex (e.g. Carroll, Press & Turner 1992; Kayser, Helbig & Schramm 1997) and so only three simple, limiting cases are used here: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0`$ (the Einstein-de Sitter model); $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0`$ (the empty Milne model); and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=1`$ (a cosmological constant-dominated flat model). In these models the volume element becomes

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}V_0}{\mathrm{d}z}=$$
(3)
$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}4\pi \left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3\frac{4\left(z+2\sqrt{1+z}+2\right)}{(z+1)^{5/2}},\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=1\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ 4\pi \left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3\frac{z^2(z+2)^2}{4(z+1)^3},\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ 4\pi \left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3z^2,\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 2.2 Mass distribution

Despite its unbounded total mass, the non-singular isothermal sphere is consistent with the dynamics of elliptical galaxies (and their lensing properties). The Hinshaw & Krauss (1987) model has a mass density given by

$$\rho _\mathrm{M}(r)=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2}{2\pi G}\frac{1}{(r^2+r_\mathrm{c}^2)},$$
(4)
where $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is the core radius and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion away from the core for a constant mass-to-light ratio galaxy. The integrated mass is given by

$$M(<r)=\frac{2\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2r_\mathrm{c}}{G}\left[\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{c}}\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{c}}\right)\right]$$
(5)
and the projected surface density by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{M}(R)=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2}{2G}\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+r_\mathrm{c}^2}},$$
(6)
which can also be integrated analytically to give

$$M(<R)=\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2}{G}\left(\sqrt{R^2+r_\mathrm{c}^2}r_\mathrm{c}\right).$$
(7)
As discussed in Section 2.3, the luminosity density of many ellipticals appears to be effectively singular, but such observations cannot directly constrain the mass distribution. Nonetheless, there are at least two strong arguments to suggest that $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is small as well. Firstly, most lensed quasars have even numbers of images (e.g. Keeton & Kochanek 1996), which implies that the galaxies’ mass distributions are very nearly singular (e.g. Wallington & Narayan 1993; Kassiola & Kovner 1993). Secondly, dynamical modelling, combined with high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope imaging of nearby ellipticals, reveals that a number have large black holes at their centres, and so are formally infinitely dense there (e.g. Kormendy et al. 1996, 1997). If the core radius is non-zero, its scaling with $`\sigma `$ is important (Kochanek 1991; Section 3), and is taken to be

$$r_\mathrm{c}=r_\mathrm{c}\left(\frac{\sigma _{||}}{\sigma _{}}\right)^{u_\mathrm{c}},$$
(8)
where $`u_\mathrm{c}=4\pm 1`$ (e.g. Fukugita & Turner 1991).

### 2.3 Light distribution

Two models of the surface brightness of ellipticals are used here; both are compatible with observations, and the difference between the results of the two models is an indication of the uncertainty of this calculation.

The first is a de Vaucouleurs (1948) profile, given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{L}(R)=296.7\frac{L}{\pi R_\mathrm{g}^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[7.67\left(\frac{R}{r_\mathrm{g}}\right)^{1/4}\right],$$
(9)
where $`R_\mathrm{g}`$ is the effective or half-light radius of the galaxy and $`L`$ is its luminosity. This is shown in Fig. 1 as the solid line. The luminosity density is given by an Abel integral (Binney & Tremaine 1987) as

$$\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)=\frac{1}{\pi }_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{L}}{\mathrm{d}R}\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2r^2}}dR.$$
(10)
It must be computed numerically for most $`r`$, but can be approximated by $`\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)1096.6L/(\pi ^2R_\mathrm{g}^3)`$ $`(r/R_\mathrm{g})^{3/4}`$ for $`r0`$ (Young 1976).

The second model is based on a Hernquist (1990) profile, which was developed as an analytical approximation to the de Vaucouleurs (1948) profile, but fits the data just as well in its own right. With $`R_\mathrm{H}0.55R_\mathrm{g}`$,111The definition $`R_\mathrm{H}0.45R_\mathrm{g}`$ is sometimes used (e.g. Kochanek 1996b), but it is more relevant for the dynamics of constant mass-to-light models than for luminosity profiles alone. the surface brightness is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{L}(R)=\frac{L}{2\pi R_\mathrm{H}^2}\frac{\left[2+(R/R_\mathrm{H})^2\right]\left[f_\mathrm{H}(R/R_\mathrm{H})3\right]}{\left[1(R/R_\mathrm{H})^2\right]^2},$$
(11)
where

$$f_\mathrm{H}(x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\mathrm{a}rccosh(1/x)}{\sqrt{1x^2}},& \mathrm{i}f& x<1,\\ & & \\ 1,& \mathrm{i}f& x=1,\\ & & \\ \frac{\mathrm{arccos}(1/x)}{\sqrt{x^21}},& \mathrm{i}f& x>1.\end{array}$$
(12)
This is shown as the dashed line in Fig. 1, and is qualitatively similar to the de Vaucouleurs (1948) profile for $`0.1R_\mathrm{g}R10R_\mathrm{g}`$. The fraction of the flux in the discrepant regions is only a few per cent. The resultant luminosity density is given by

$$\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)=\frac{L}{2\pi R_\mathrm{H}^3}\frac{1}{r/R_\mathrm{H}(1+r/R_\mathrm{H})^3}.$$
(13)
The spatial scale of both distributions is determined by the effective radius, which, like the core radius of the mass distribution, is assumed to increase with the velocity dispersion of the galaxy as

$$R_\mathrm{g}=R_\mathrm{g}\left(\frac{\sigma _{||}}{\sigma _{}}\right)^{u_\mathrm{g}},$$
(14)
where $`R_\mathrm{g}=(4\pm 1)h`$ kpc and $`u_\mathrm{g}=4\pm 1`$ (Kormendy & Djorgovski 1989).

### 2.4 Dynamical normalisation

The population of galaxies is given in terms of $`\sigma _{||}`$ in Section 2.1, but the mass distribution, and hence lensing properties of individual galaxies are determined by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ (Section 2.2). For a given $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, the central dispersion decreases with increasing core radius, but also depends on both the stellar dynamics within the galaxy and the luminosity profile. Radial orbits result in higher dispersions, as the stars fall through the core of the galaxy, and more extended luminosity profiles also result in faster central stellar motions. The galaxy model is specified by $`\rho _\mathrm{M}(r)`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)`$, given in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively, and the (assumed constant) velocity anisotropy, $`\beta _\sigma `$. This is defined as $`\beta _\sigma =1\sigma _\theta ^2/\sigma _r^2`$, where $`\sigma _\theta `$, $`\sigma _\varphi `$ (which are equal in a non-rotating system) and $`\sigma _r`$ are the angular and radial components, respectively, of the velocity dispersion tensor of the luminous matter. Both theoretical and observational results suggest that $`0.0\beta _\sigma 0.5`$ for ellipticals (Binney & Tremaine 1987; van der Marel 1991; Kochanek 1994), but a broader range of values is explored here.

Under the above assumptions, the Jeans equation reduces to (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987)

$$\sigma _r^2(r)\left[\frac{2}{\sigma _r(r)}\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _r}{\mathrm{d}r}+\frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)}\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho _\mathrm{L}}{\mathrm{d}r}+\frac{2\beta _\sigma }{r}\right]=\frac{GM(<r)}{r^2},$$
(15)
which can be integrated to give

$$\sigma _r(r)=\left[\frac{r^{2\beta _\sigma }}{\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)}_r^{\mathrm{}}GM(<r^{})\rho _\mathrm{L}(r^{})r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2(\beta _\sigma 1)}\mathrm{d}r^{}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(16)
This can be found analytically in the regions where $`\rho _\mathrm{M}`$ is purely isothermal and $`\rho _\mathrm{L}`$ can be approximated by a global power law, given by $`\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)r^\xi `$ \[and hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{L}R^{(\xi 1)}`$, provided that $`\xi >1`$\]. The Hernquist (1990) model approaches $`\xi =1`$ for small $`r`$ and $`\xi =4`$ for large $`r`$; the de Vaucouleurs (1948) law has $`\xi =3/4`$ for small radii. The radial dispersion in these regimes is then

$$\sigma _r(r)=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{2}{\xi 2\beta _\sigma }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(17)
In the outer regions the core radius has no effect, but for $`rr_\mathrm{c}`$ the lowered central density is more important than both $`\rho _\mathrm{L}`$ and the velocity anisotropy (assuming $`\beta _\sigma 0.5`$). If $`\beta _\sigma 1`$, the orbits are predominantly radial, and luminous material ‘plunges’ through the central regions of the galaxy, greatly increasing $`\sigma _r`$.

The line-of-sight velocity dispersion at a given position on the galaxy is given by a projection integral (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987) as

$$\sigma _{||}(R)=\left[\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{L}(R)}_R^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(1\beta _\sigma R^2/r^2)r}{\sqrt{r^2R^2}}\rho _\mathrm{L}(r)\sigma _r^2(r)dr\right]^{1/2}.$$

(18)
The power law approximations discussed above are also valid here; insertion of equation (17) into the integral yields

$$\sigma _{||}(R)=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{2}{\xi 2\beta _\sigma }\frac{\xi (\xi 1)\beta _\sigma }{\xi }\right]^{1/2}.$$
(19)
In the special case of $`\xi =3`$, the standard result (Gott 1977), valid for all $`\beta _\sigma `$, that $`\sigma _{||}(R)=(2/3)^{1/2}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, is recovered. It is also clear that the line-of-sight dispersion is lower in regions with a steeper luminosity density. Fig. 2 shows $`\sigma _{||}/\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ as a function of $`R`$ for the de Vaucouleurs (1948) and Hernquist (1990) models. For both singular models and those with $`\beta _\sigma 1`$, the central dispersion results is much higher than the dispersions at large radii. Conversely, the central dispersion decreases with core radius, as the galaxy’s gravitational well is shallower, and bound orbits must be slower. Again the core radius is more important than the anisotropy of luminosity profile, provided only that $`\beta _\sigma 0.5`$.

A real velocity dispersion is measured from a spectrum taken over a finite region of the galaxy, in the form of either a linear slit or, more commonly now, an optical fibre. Assuming a circular aperture of projected radius $`R_\mathrm{f}`$ centred on the galaxy, the observed line-of-sight velocity dispersion is

$$\sigma _{||}(<R_\mathrm{f})=\frac{_0^{R_\mathrm{f}}2\pi R\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{L}(R)\sigma _{||}(R)dR}{_0^{R_\mathrm{f}}2\pi R\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{L}(R)dR}.$$
(20)
Atmospheric seeing would have the effect of smoothing the function $`\sigma _{||}(R)`$, but its importance is minimal as this tends to be a slowly varying function for $`RR_\mathrm{g}`$. For a fixed angular size, $`\theta _\mathrm{f}`$, the aperture will vary from galaxy to galaxy as $`R_\mathrm{f}=d_\mathrm{A}(0,z)\theta _\mathrm{f}cz\theta _\mathrm{f}/H_0`$, where $`z1`$ is the galaxy’s redshift, and $`d_\mathrm{A}`$ its the angular diameter distance. Only nearby galaxies are practical targets for dynamical studies – for instance the samples of van der Marel (1991) and Lauer et al. (1995) contain galaxies with $`0.002z0.02`$ and $`0.0006z0.06`$, respectively. Hence an aperture a few arcsec in diameter implies $`0.01`$ kpc $`R_\mathrm{f}1`$ kpc, as compared to core radii of $`0.1`$ kpc and effective radii of $`4`$ kpc. Figs. 3 and 4 show the normalisation for singular models as a function of $`R_\mathrm{f}`$ and $`\beta _\sigma `$, respectively. The normalisation increases with $`R_\mathrm{f}`$ as the observed dispersion is less dependent on the extreme orbital speeds near the core. Conversely, the normalisation decreases with $`\beta _\sigma `$, as the maximum orbital speeds are higher for radial orbits. Fig. 5 shows $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}/\sigma _{||}(<R_\mathrm{f})`$ as a function of core radius. The general trend is that the observed velocity dispersion decreases (and so the dynamical normalisation increases) with core radius and also with $`R_\mathrm{f}`$. It is also clear that the quantitative behaviour varies comparably with the dynamical model and luminosity density assumed. For smaller apertures this dependence is more extreme, as only the core region is directly observed.

Calculation of $`\sigma _{||}(<R_\mathrm{f})`$ is computationally expensive, especially for the de Vaucouleurs (1948) model; fortunately its dependence on core radius is very nearly linear. For the subsequent lens calculations, the normalisation used is

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{||}(<R_\mathrm{f})(A+B\frac{r_\mathrm{c}}{R_\mathrm{g}}),$$
(21)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ independent of core radius. Kochanek (1996b) used $`A=1`$ and $`B=2`$ for galaxies with $`R_\mathrm{f}R_\mathrm{g}`$, but this underestimates the normalisation by up to $`15`$ per cent (See Fig. 5.), and hence underestimates the lensing probability by up to $`80`$ per cent. As defined above, $`A`$ is determined purely by the singular models, for which the normalisation in plotted in Figs. 3 and 4. Also, $`A`$ should match the power-law approximation given by equation (19) for very small apertures, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}/\sigma _{||}(<R_\mathrm{f})(3/2)^{1/2}1.225`$ for $`R_\mathrm{f}\mathrm{}`$, as shown by Kochanek (1993). For intermediate apertures, the variation between the results for the two luminosity profiles can be used as a guide to the uncertainty in the above results. Given this discrepancy, analytical expressions for $`A`$ and $`B`$ were developed for both the de Vaucouleurs (1948) and Hernquist (1990) profiles, and these were used in the lensing calculations presented in Section 3. The analytical forms are given in Mortlock (1999), and, for all reasonable galactic models, agree with the numerical results to within a few per cent; the uncertainty in the normalisation caused by the ambiguity in the choice of luminosity profile is considerably larger at around 10 per cent.

Having found a relationship between the isothermal mass normalisation and observables for a given galaxy, there still remains the question of how best to make the conversion from the observed Faber-Jackson (1976) relation. A ‘natural’ choice is to consider the aperture to be a specified fraction of the effective radius of each galaxy in the sample although this is unrealistic for large surveys undertaken using fibres of a fixed radius. (However, if the data is available, it is preferable to measure the velocity dispersion out to $`R_\mathrm{g}`$, as the results are more robust.) The other possibility is to treat measured dispersions as being averaged over a given physical scale, independent of $`\sigma _{||}`$, but this breaks down for small galaxies as only the central regions are likely to be registered due to surface brightness considerations. One way to circumvent these ambiguities is to fit the mass model directly from dynamical measurements on a galaxy-by-galaxy basis (e.g. van der Marel 1991; Kockanek 1994). This is not only more time-consuming, but also requires spatially resolved surface brightness and velocity dispersion measurements.

The ‘default’ model ($`\beta _\sigma =0`$; $`R_\mathrm{f}R_\mathrm{g}`$; $`r_\mathrm{c}=0`$) has $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}/\sigma _{||}1.1`$, leading to a 50 per cent increase in the lensing probability, due to its $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^4`$ dependence (e.g. Turner et al. 1984; Kochanek 1994). For most of the other plausible sets of parameter values the differences are even greater. Similar increases in the lensing probability can also result from the spread in the Faber-Jackson (1976) relation – a dispersion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{}}0.2`$ increases the lensing optical depth (Section 3.2) by a factor of $`1+6(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\mathrm{}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{}})^21.25`$ (Kochanek 1994). If a number of other common simplifications used in lensing calculations are correct (e.g. that spiral galaxies are unimportant; that obscuration by dust is minimal; etc.), the dynamical normalisation is probably the greatest uncertainty in lens statistics at present. Further, whereas uncertainty in $`n_{}`$ can be greatly decreased by simple counting procedures, accurate normalisation (or, equivalently, measurement of $`\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$) requires much more detailed data.

## 3 Lensing probability

From the introduction of finite cores to lens galaxies by Hinshaw & Krauss (1987) it was generally believed that the fraction of quasars which are multiply-imaged drops sharply with increasing core radius. However as shown by Kochanek (1996a,b) the requirements of self-consistent dynamical normalisation (Section 2.4) imply that the lensing probability declines only slowly, or possibly even increases with core radius. Once the lens equation has been solved (Section 3.1), these possibilities are quantified in terms of both the optical depth (Section 3.2) and a simple but self-consistent calculation of lensing probability of a distant quasar (Section 3.3).

### 3.1 The lens equation

The lens equation relates the angular position (relative to the optical axis joining the observer and the centre of the lens) of the source, $`\beta `$, to those of its image(s), $`\theta `$. These quantities can only be related via $`d_\mathrm{A}(0,z_\mathrm{d})`$, $`d_\mathrm{A}(0,z_\mathrm{s})`$ and $`d_\mathrm{A}(z_\mathrm{d},z_\mathrm{s})`$, the angular diameter distances from observer to deflector, observer to source, and deflector to source, respectively. In the filled-beam approximation (Dyer & Roeder 1972, 1973), the angular diameter distances in the cosmological models described in Section 2.1 are given by

$$d_\mathrm{A}(z_1,z_2)=$$
(22)
$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{c}{H_0}\frac{2}{z_2+1}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{z_1+1}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{z_2+1}}\right),\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=1\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \frac{c}{H_0}\frac{z_2(z_2+2)z_1(z_1+2)}{2(z_1+1)(z_2+1)^2},\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \frac{c}{H_0}\frac{z_2z_1}{z_2+1},\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

For a thin lens with a cumulative surface mass distribution $`M(<R)`$, standard techniques (e.g. Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992) give the lens equation as

$$\beta =\theta \frac{1}{\pi \theta }\frac{M[<d_\mathrm{A}(0,z_\mathrm{d})\theta ]}{d_\mathrm{A}^2(0,z_\mathrm{d})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{c}rit}(z_\mathrm{d},z_\mathrm{s})},$$
(23)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{c}rit}(z_\mathrm{d},z_\mathrm{s})=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{d_\mathrm{A}(0,z_\mathrm{s})}{d_\mathrm{A}(0,z_\mathrm{d})d_\mathrm{A}(z_\mathrm{d},z_\mathrm{s})}$$
(24)
is the surface density required for a rotationally-symmetric lens to be capable of forming multiple images (e.g. Subramanian & Cowling 1986; Schneider et al. 1992).

Using the mass distribution given in equation (7), the lens equation becomes

$$\beta =\theta \theta _\mathrm{E}\frac{\sqrt{1+\theta ^2/\theta _\mathrm{c}^2}1}{\theta /\theta _\mathrm{c}}.$$
(25)
where $`\theta _\mathrm{c}=r_\mathrm{c}/d_\mathrm{A}(0,z_\mathrm{d})`$ and

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}=4\pi \left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}{c}\right)^2\frac{d_\mathrm{A}(z_\mathrm{d},z_\mathrm{s})}{d_\mathrm{A}(0,z_\mathrm{s})}$$
(26)
is the Einstein angle222If the source, lens and observer are colinear, a circular image is be formed. The angular radius of this circle is the Einstein angle. of the singular ($`r_\mathrm{c}=0`$) lens. The dynamical normalisation, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, is given in terms of observables in Section 2.4.

Equation (25) and ‘a little algebra’ (Hinshaw & Krauss 1987) give

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^32\beta \theta ^2+(\beta ^2+2\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c}\theta _\mathrm{E}^2)\theta 2\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c}\beta `$ (27)
$`=`$ $`\left(\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta \right)^33p\left(\theta {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta \right)2q,`$
where $`p=(3\theta _\mathrm{E}^2+\beta ^26\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c})/9`$ and $`q=\beta (9\theta _\mathrm{E}^2+9\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c}\beta ^2)/27`$. There are three solutions for $`\theta `$ if $`q^2<p^3`$, two if $`q^2=p^3`$ and only one if $`q^2>p^3`$. Note that not all solutions need not correspond to image positions, as equation (27) is not strictly equivalent to equation (25).

If $`\theta _\mathrm{c}>\theta _\mathrm{E}/2`$, equation (27) can have only ever have one solution, as the central surface density of the lens is less than $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{c}rit}`$ \[equation (24)\]. However, all but the most nearby galaxies have $`\theta _\mathrm{c}<\theta _\mathrm{E}/2`$ and so can form multiple images. In this case, expanding $`p`$ and $`q`$, and disregarding multiple solutions that do not correspond to images, yields the result that a source is multiply-imaged is $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}=\beta _{}`$, where

$$\beta _\pm =$$
(28)
$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\left[\theta _\mathrm{E}^2+5\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c}\frac{1}{2}\theta _\mathrm{c}^2\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\theta _\mathrm{c}(\theta _\mathrm{c}+4\theta _\mathrm{E})^3}\right]^{1/2},\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \theta _\mathrm{c}<\theta _\mathrm{E}/2,\hfill \\ & & \\ 0,\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \theta _\mathrm{c}\theta _\mathrm{E}/2.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`r_\mathrm{c}=0`$, the lens is always critical, and $`\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}=\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. The cross-section for multiple-imaging is then simply $`\pi \beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}^2`$, but the image positions and magnifications are needed for the more realistic lensing calculation (Section 3.3). If $`\theta _\mathrm{c}\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ and $`\sigma _{||}`$ is fixed, $`\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$ decreases slowly with core radius, as there is little increase in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. For larger core radii, however, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ increases nearly linearly with $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, so, from equation (26), $`\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}\theta _\mathrm{E}r_\mathrm{c}^2`$. Hence $`\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$ eventually increases with core radius. For large galaxies this only occurs for unrealistically large values of $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, but it can come into effect for very small galaxies if the fibre integration area is small (Section 3.2).

If $`(0)`$ $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$, the source is lensed, and the three images are located at

$$\theta _i(\beta )=\frac{2}{3}\beta +2\sqrt{p}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{q}{\sqrt{p^3}}\right)+\frac{2i\pi }{3}\right],$$
(29)
where $`i=`$1, 2 or 3, and two of the images are coincident if $`\beta =\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$. Note that this formula breaks down if the lens is singular, in which case only two images are formed. They are located at $`\theta _1=\beta +\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ and $`\theta _2=\beta \theta _\mathrm{E}`$. To within 10 per cent, the angular separation between the outer pair of images is independent of source position, and is given by (Hinshaw & Krauss 1987)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \{\begin{array}{ccc}0,\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \theta _\mathrm{c}>\theta _\mathrm{E}/2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \theta _\mathrm{E}\sqrt{12\theta _\mathrm{c}/\theta _\mathrm{E}},\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & \theta _\mathrm{c}\theta _\mathrm{E}/2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
This expression becomes exact in the singular case.

If $`\beta >\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$, the source is unlensed, and there is only one image. For the range $`\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}=\beta _{}<\beta \beta _+`$ the single image position is

$$\theta (\beta )=\frac{2}{3}\beta +\left(q\sqrt{q^2p^3}\right)^{1/3}+p\left(q\sqrt{q^2p^3}\right)^{1/3}.$$

(31)
If $`\beta >\beta _+`$, equation (27) has three solutions, two of which do not represent image positions. The one solution that does is

$$\theta (\beta )=\frac{2}{3}\beta +2\sqrt{p}\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{q}{\sqrt{p^3}}\right)\right].$$
(32)
Again the singular case is much simpler: if $`\beta >\theta _\mathrm{E}`$, the single image is located at $`\theta =\beta +\theta _\mathrm{E}`$.

The lens mapping (from $`\theta `$ to $`\beta `$, or image to source) changes the area subtended by an object; this manifests itself as an increase or decrease in flux, as surface brightness is conserved by gravitational lensing. The area change is given by the Jacobian of the mapping, and so the magnification is the reciprocal of this. For spherically-symmetric lenses (See Schneider et al. 1992.) the magnification of a point source is given by

$$\mu (\theta )=\left|\frac{\beta }{\theta }\frac{\beta }{\theta }\right|.$$
(33)
Equation (25) then gives

$`\mu (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2}{\theta ^2+\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c}\theta _\mathrm{E}\sqrt{\theta ^2+\theta _\mathrm{c}^2}}}\right|`$ (34)
$`\times `$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^2\sqrt{\theta ^2+\theta _\mathrm{c}^2}}{\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c}^2+\left(\theta ^2\theta _\mathrm{E}\theta _\mathrm{c}\right)\sqrt{\theta ^2+\theta _\mathrm{c}^2}}}\right|.`$
This expression breaks down for for small $`\theta `$ if $`\theta _\mathrm{c}<\theta _\mathrm{E}/2`$, but a Taylor expansion about $`\theta =0`$ gives

$$\mu (\theta )\frac{4\theta _\mathrm{c}^2/\theta _\mathrm{E}^2}{(2\theta _\mathrm{c}/\theta _\mathrm{E}1)^2+(2\theta _\mathrm{c}/\theta _\mathrm{E}1)\theta ^2/\theta _\mathrm{c}^2},$$
(35)
for $`\theta \theta _\mathrm{E}`$. If $`r_\mathrm{c}=0`$, equation (34) reduces to $`\mu (\theta )=|\theta /(|\theta |\theta _\mathrm{E})|`$.

The total magnification of a source is simply the sum of the magnification of its images, and is thus

$$\mu _{\mathrm{t}ot}(\beta )=\underset{i}{}\mu \left[\theta _i(\beta )\right].$$
(36)
The flux ratio is less well-defined, due to potential presence of three images and observational effects (e.g. Kassiola & Kovner 1993). For three image configurations it is taken to be the flux ratio of the two brightest images.

### 3.2 Optical depth

The lensing optical depth, $`\tau `$, as introduced by Turner et al. (1984), is the fraction of the source plane within which the lens equation has multiple solutions. It is a useful estimate of the lensing probability that is independent of observational restrictions and the source luminosity function. In the filled-beam approximation, the contribution to the optical depth by any one lens galaxy, $`\tau _\mathrm{g}`$, is the fraction of the sky covered by its cross-section. Hence $`\tau _\mathrm{g}=\pi \beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}^2/(4\pi )`$, with $`\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}`$ given in equation (28). The optical depth is given by integrating $`\tau _\mathrm{g}`$ over the population of deflectors, under the assumption that the individual cross-sections do not overlap. For a source at redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}`$,

$$\tau (z_\mathrm{s})=_0^{z_\mathrm{s}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{d}z_\mathrm{g}\mathrm{d}\sigma _{||}}\tau _\mathrm{g}d\sigma _{||}dz_\mathrm{g}.$$
(37)
If the lenses are singular and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{||}`$ is assumed, $`\tau _\mathrm{g}=\theta _\mathrm{E}^2/4`$ and the integrals can be performed analytically (e.g. Turner et al. 1984; Schneider et al. 1992; Krauss & White 1992; Kochanek 1993) to give

$$\tau _{\mathrm{S}IS}(z_\mathrm{s})=16\pi ^3n_{}\left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3\left(\frac{\sigma _{||}}{c}\right)^4\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\alpha +\frac{4}{\gamma }\right)$$
(38)
$$\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{4}{15}\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{z_\mathrm{s}+1}}\right)^3,\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=1\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \frac{2\left(z_\mathrm{s}^4+4z_\mathrm{s}^3+10z_\mathrm{s}^2+12z_\mathrm{s}+6\right)\mathrm{ln}(z_\mathrm{s}+1)3z_\mathrm{s}(z_\mathrm{s}+2)\left(z_\mathrm{s}^2+2z_\mathrm{s}+2\right)}{8z_\mathrm{s}^2(z_\mathrm{s}+2)^2},\hfill & & \\ & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \frac{1}{30}z_\mathrm{s}^3,\hfill & \mathrm{i}f\hfill & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0\mathrm{a}nd\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where equations (1), (2), (3), (22) and (26) have been used. The prefactor is the same as the $`F`$-parameter introduced by Turner et al. (1984) to scale the lensing effectiveness of a galaxy population; for the elliptical galaxy population described in Section 2.1, $`F=0.008\pm 0.002`$. Fig. 6 shows $`\tau _{\mathrm{S}IS}(z_\mathrm{s})`$ for the three cosmological models, showing the expected increase with redshift as well as the strong dependence on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$.

The optical depth (normalised to the above analytic cases) is shown as a function of core radius in Fig. 7. Independent of cosmology, the linear conversion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}1.1\sigma _{||}`$ results in $`\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{S}IS}1.5`$; if the conversion is $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}1.2\sigma _{||}`$, then $`\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{S}IS}2.1`$, and the optical depth is doubled. The lower set of lines in Fig. 7 show the marked decrease in $`\tau `$ with core radius that was first demonstrated by Hinshaw & Krauss (1987). The upper set of lines use the normalisation described in Section 2, and show not only the higher optical depth for singular models, but a very different dependence on core radius. For large $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, the effects of the normalisation becomes very important, and ‘small’ galaxies (with $`\sigma _{||}\sigma _{}`$) dominate the optical depth as their measured dispersion is purely that in the under-dense core. The up-turn in $`\tau `$ is not necessarily realistic, and occurs for core radii that are greater than observed – Kochanek (1996b) found $`r_\mathrm{c}0.08R_\mathrm{g}`$ at 95 per cent confidence. For moderate core radii the normalisation is still important – in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=1`$ cosmology, $`\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{S}IS}1`$ for all values of $`r_\mathrm{c}`$. It is also potentially important that a finite core radius actually enhances the cosmological dependence of $`\tau `$, as most of the lenses are at high-redshift if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}>0`$ (Kochanek 1992).

The dependence of $`\tau `$ on the various galaxy population parameters is shown in Mortlock (1999), but there is little difference between the resultant plots and those shown in Fig. 9 for the quasar lensing probability, and so the optical depth plots are omitted here.

### 3.3 Quasar lensing probability

The optical depth is a useful measure of lensing likelihood, but it cannot be directly compared to measured lensing frequencies. Hence the probability that a quasar is observed to be lensed, $`p_\mathrm{q}`$, must be calculated. In the case of the generic lens survey, all the quasars in a parent survey are re-examined for secondary lensed images. Under these conditions, $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ is the fraction of all redshift $`z_\mathrm{q}`$ quasars of magnitude $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ (as measured in the parent survey) that would be revealed as lenses if examined with the resolution and sensitivity of the secondary search. The resolution limit implies a minimum image separation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$, and the depth of the follow-up observations leads to a maximum magnitude difference between the primary and secondary images, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{max}}`$. In general there is also a maximum image separation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, defined by the extent of the search for companion images.

Most lensed sources are magnified by a factor of 2 or more, so the number of lenses at magnitude $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ is determined by the quasar number counts at least one magnitude fainter. The quasar luminosity function is so steep that this magnification bias (Turner 1980) can double or triple the estimated lensing probability. The quasar luminosity function is taken to satisfy

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_\mathrm{q}}{\mathrm{d}z\mathrm{d}m}\frac{1}{10^{\alpha _\mathrm{q}(mm_{\mathrm{q0}})}10^{\beta _\mathrm{q}(mm_{\mathrm{q0}})}}$$
(39)
at all redshifts, where $`m_{\mathrm{q0}}=19.0\pm 0.2`$ is the magnitude of the break in the number counts, $`\alpha _\mathrm{q}=0.9\pm 0.1`$ is the bright-end slope, $`\beta _\mathrm{q}=0.3\pm 0.1`$ is the faint-end slope (Boyle, Shanks & Peterson 1988; Kochanek 1996b), and the normalisation unimportant.

The probability a quasar is lensed by a particular galaxy is given by integrating over the source position as (e.g. Kochanek 1995, 1996b)

$$p_{\mathrm{q},g}=\frac{_0^{\beta _{\mathrm{c}rit}}2\pi \beta S(\beta )\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_\mathrm{q}}{\mathrm{d}z_\mathrm{q}\mathrm{d}m}|_{m=m_\mathrm{q}+5/2\mathrm{log}[\mu _{\mathrm{t}ot}(\beta )]}\mathrm{d}\beta }{4\pi \frac{\mathrm{d}^2N_\mathrm{q}}{\mathrm{d}z_\mathrm{q}\mathrm{d}m_\mathrm{q}}},$$
(40)
where $`S(\beta )`$ is the selection function. It can be approximated by

$`S(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`H\left[\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{m}ax}\mathrm{\Delta }m(\beta )\right]`$ (41)
$`\times `$ $`H\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{m}in}\right]H\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{m}ax}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\beta )\right],`$
where $`H(x)`$ is the Heavyside step function. Hence $`S(\beta )=1`$ if the images of a source at position $`\beta `$ satisfy the resolution and sensitivity limits, and is zero otherwise. The use of $`\mu _{\mathrm{t}ot}(\beta )`$ \[given in equation (36)\] in the calculation of the magnification bias implies that the all the images of the source were unresolved in the parent survey333This is almost always a valid assumption in the case of galactic lenses, but can result in a serious over-estimate of the magnification bias for more massive deflectors (Mortlock & Webster 2000a)., and the pre-factor converts the expression from the surface density of lenses to the fraction of quasars which are lensed.

Integrating $`p_{\mathrm{q},g}`$ over the deflector population yields (c.f. Kochanek 1996b)

$$p_\mathrm{q}=_0^{z_\mathrm{q}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}V_0}{\mathrm{d}z_\mathrm{g}}\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{||}}p_{\mathrm{q},g}d\sigma _{||}dz_\mathrm{g}.$$
(42)
This is somewhat simpler for the standard singular lens models (e.g. Kochanek 1993), but no closed form expression for $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ is available unless a simpler form of the quasar luminosity function is used as well.

Fig. 8 shows the probability that an $`m_\mathrm{q}=19`$ quasar is observed to be lensed by an elliptical galaxy as a function of source redshift. The survey parameters chosen are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{m}in}=1`$ arcsec, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}`$444Galactic lenses are incapable of producing image separations of more than a few arcsec, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{m}ax}`$ is usually unimportant. and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{m}ax}=3`$. These values affect the overall probability considerably (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992), but do not strongly influence the relative dependence on the other parameters. The lens probability is consistently a factor of $`2`$ higher than the optical depth shown in Fig. 6. Although some lenses are lost due to the angular separation cut-off, many more are magnified into the survey. As with the optical depth, $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ is strongly-dependent on the cosmological model – the similarity of Figs. 6 and 8 demonstrates the generic nature of the cosmological dependence.

Fig. 9 shows the dependence of $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ on various galaxy population parameters. Firstly, Fig. 9 (a) shows the variation of lensing probability with core radius, in analogy with the optical depth dependence shown in Fig. 7. In the case of the unnormalised model (the single solid line), the high-$`r_\mathrm{c}`$ cut-off is even more pronounced than for $`\tau `$, despite the effects of the magnification bias. This occurs as the image separation drops below $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{m}in}`$ quite quickly. For the correctly normalised models (the set of three lines), the enhancement in $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ is even greater than that for the optical depth (Fig. 7). This comes about both due to the magnification bias and the increased deflection angles of the smaller deflectors. The increase in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ for a given $`\sigma _{||}`$ is another important effect of the dynamical normalisation.

Fig. 9 (b) shows that the velocity anisotropy, $`\beta _\sigma `$ is not as important as the core radius in lens statistics. Whilst the difference between $`\beta _\sigma =1`$ and $`\beta _\sigma =1`$ can be a factor of several, most results suggest that $`\beta _\sigma 0`$ for ellipticals, as discussed in Section 2.4. The lensing probability decreases with $`\beta _\sigma `$ as the observed dispersion within a fixed mass distribution increases with the dominance of radial orbits.

The variation of core radius and effective radius with velocity dispersion is usually unimportant in lensing calculations, as illustrated by the flat parts of the curves in Fig. 9 (c) and (d) as well as Krauss & White (1992). However, in some situations, the values of $`u_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`u_\mathrm{g}`$ \[as defined in equations (8) and (14), respectively\] can be important (e.g. Kochanek 1991). The sharp increases in $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ seen in Fig. 9 (c) and (d) occur when $`|u_\mathrm{g}u_\mathrm{c}|3`$, and the smaller galaxies have core radii comparable to both their effective radius and to the scale over which the dispersion is measured. The massive increase in $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ is probably unrealistic, but a weaker form of the effect will occur.

The greatest assumption in these calculations is involved with the choice of $`R_\mathrm{f}`$, the scale over which the line-of-sight velocity dispersion is measured. Fig. 9 (e) and (f) show $`p_\mathrm{q}/p_{\mathrm{q},SIS}`$ as a function of the typical scale of $`R_\mathrm{f}`$; in the former panel it scales with the effective radius of the galaxies, whereas in the latter it does not vary with the properties of the galaxy in question. If ellipticals are singular, a given observed dispersion results in a higher optical depth if $`R_\mathrm{f}R_\mathrm{g}`$, as the orbital speeds are much lower in the outer regions. Conversely, if ellipticals have significant core radii, the optical depth is highest for small apertures, in which case the measured dispersion is only a fraction of the dynamical normalisation. These arguments are true irrespective of how $`R_\mathrm{f}`$ scales with $`R_\mathrm{g}`$, as can be seen from the similarity of panels (e) and (f) in Fig. 9.

#### 3.3.1 Cosmological implications

The above formulation for $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ was extended to arbitrary cosmologies, the relevant distance and volume element formulæ for which are given in e.g. Carroll et al. (1992). Fig. 10 shows the interdependence of $`p_\mathrm{q}`$ on the cosmological model and $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, both with and without the self-consistent dynamical normalisation. In the models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0`$ shown in (a), the core radius is considerably more important than the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m}_0}`$, as expected. Further, the difference between the normalised and unnormalised models is greater than that between any $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=0`$ cosmological model. The spatially-flat models shown in (b) have a much stronger cosmological dependence, but even then the core radius becomes more important as it approaches the effective radius of the lens galaxies. For more realistic values of $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, a slightly larger cosmological constant is permitted than if $`r_\mathrm{c}=0`$, but not relative to the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{||}`$ models. For instance, if a given data-set implied an upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}0.7`$ for unnormalised singular lenses, the limit becomes lower ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}0.5`$) with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}1.2\sigma _{||}`$ singular galaxies. Even if $`r_\mathrm{c}=0.1R_\mathrm{g}`$, the upper limit on the cosmological constant would still be $`0.6`$. The application of self-consistent dynamics shows that the standard models with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{||}`$ and no core radius provide the weakest (i.e. very conservative) upper limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$.

## 4 Conclusions

If the mass distribution of elliptical galaxies is essentially isothermal, one of the biggest uncertainties in their effect as gravitational lenses is their dynamical normalisation, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. The mass scale depends on their internal dynamics (given by $`\sigma _{||}`$ and $`\beta _\sigma `$), the luminosity profile and the aperture used to calibrate the Faber-Jackson (1976) relation. A range of non-rotating, spherical galaxy models reveals that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}1.1\sigma _{||}`$ for singular models, but that $`1\sigma _{\mathrm{}}/\sigma _{||}2`$ if ellipticals have significant core radii.

The dynamical normalisation can have a strong effect on both the lensing optical depth and the more correct lensing probability. In the case of the singular lens model, both are increased (by up to a factor of 2) by the application of the correct normalisation, irrespective of the cosmological model. The effect of the normalisation is even greater with the presence of a core radius. Both the optical depth and lensing probability increase with very large core radii, purely due to these self-consistency requirements. For a given observed Faber-Jackson (1976) relation, the optical depth can vary by a factor of several with both the size of the dispersion aperture and the velocity anisotropy.

If lensing statistics are treated primarily as a cosmological probe, the above uncertainties place limits on the accuracy of any cosmological inferences. However, because the correct normalisation almost certainly increases the calculated lensing probability in a given cosmological model, it strengthens arguments against a high cosmological constant. The weakest limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ obtained with the correct normalisation and an arbitrarily large core radius are comparable to the limits obtained for the standard singular models with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{||}`$. The dynamical conversions must be determined more precisely, theoretically and especially observationally, to make full use of gravitational lensing statistics.

## Acknowledgments

Many thanks to John Magorrian and Jon Willis for stimulating discussions. DJM was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award.