text:
# Relativistic Toda chain at root of unity

## Introduction

The quantum relativistic Toda chain was the subject of paper . There it was considered for Weyl’s parameter $`q`$ inside the unit circle. In this paper we collect several results concerning this model with $`q=\omega `$$`N`$-th primitive root of unity, so that it is possible to realize Weyl’s elements as unitary $`N\times N`$ matrices. The quantum state space of the model becomes the finite dimensional one. The relativistic Toda chain at the root of unity is a relative of, say, chiral Potts model  etc., being the most simple model in the hierarchy of integrable models, associated with the cyclic representations of the affine Lie algebras.

In this notes we collect several interesting features of the relativistic Toda chain at the root of unity. The main result is the proof of the possibility to construct explicitly the eigenvectors of the off-diagonal element $`𝐛(\lambda )`$ of the monodromy matrix, that is the starting point of the separation of the variables method . The main object in this construction is a kind of Baxter’s $`Q`$-operator . The method we use resembles the idea of  to get a projector to an eigenstate of $`𝐛(\lambda )`$ as a product of operators $`Q`$ with special values of the spectral parameter. Actually we prove this hypothesis, but it appear that in the projector one has to take modified $`Q`$-operators which do not commute with the transfer matrix and do not form the commutative family.

Usually at the root of unity one tries to fix the primitive centers of a representation, working in the pure quantum space. Our method implies the consideration of the classical dynamics of these centers . This approach is natural when one formulates a model in the terms of mappings, and then makes the reduction $`q\omega `$. The results of this note is the application of more general scheme, derived for the three dimensional models, to the most simple spatial structure, see . In the more convenient language, we construct a projector to an eigenstate of $`𝐛(\lambda )`$ in terms of modified quantum $`Q`$-operators, whose classical counterparts correspond to the Bäcklund transformations of the classical model .

Mainly we do not prove the propositions and do not fall into the details. The details are rather tedious, they are connected with a lot of extra definitions and parameterizations. The aim of this note is just to describe a general scheme of the investigations. The details are the subjects of the forthcoming papers.

## 1. Formulation of the model

### 1.1. Lax matrices

Define the quantum Lax matrix of $`m`$-th site of the quantum relativistic Toda chain as follows:

(1)
$$\mathrm{}_m(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 1+\frac{\kappa }{\lambda }𝐮_m𝐰_m& ,& \hfill \frac{\omega ^{1/2}}{\lambda }𝐮_m\\ & & \\ \hfill 𝐰_m& ,& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$

Here $`\lambda `$ is the spectral parameter, and $`\kappa `$ is an extra complex parameter, common for all sites. Elements $`𝐮_m`$ and $`𝐰_m`$ form the ultra-local Weyl algebra

(2)
$$𝐮_m𝐰_m=\omega 𝐰_m𝐮_m,$$

and $`𝐮_m`$, $`𝐰_m`$ for different sites commute. Here Weyl’s parameter $`\omega `$ is the primitive root of unity,

(3)
$$\omega =\text{e}^{2\pi i/N},\omega ^{1/2}=\text{e}^{i\pi /N}.$$

This means, the $`N`$-th powers of the Weyl elements are the centers. We will deal with the finite dimensional unitary representation of the Weyl algebra, i.e.

(4)
$$𝐮=u𝐱,𝐰=w𝐳,$$

where $`u`$ and $`w`$ are $``$-numbers, and the popular representation of $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐳`$ is e.g.

(5)
$$𝐱|\alpha =\omega ^\alpha |\alpha ,𝐳|\alpha =|\alpha +1,\alpha |\beta =\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }.$$

Thus $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐳`$ are normalized to the unity $`N\times N`$ dimensional matrices, and the $`N`$-th powers of the local Weyl elements are $``$-numbers

(6)
$$𝐮_m^N=u_m^N\stackrel{def}{=}U_m,𝐰_m^N=w_m^N\stackrel{def}{=}W_m.$$

In general, all $`u_m`$ and $`w_m`$ are different, so we deal with the inhomogeneous chain. Index $`m`$ means the number of Weyl algebra in the tensor product of $`M`$ copies, and the state of this tensor product we denote as

(7)
$$|\alpha _1|\alpha _1\mathrm{}|\alpha _M\stackrel{def}{=}|\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _M|\stackrel{}{\alpha }.$$

The variables $`U_m`$ and $`W_m`$ form the classical counterpart of the quantum relativistic Toda chain, and it is useful to consider the classical Lax matrix

(8)
$$L_m\stackrel{def}{=}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}U_mW_m& \frac{U_m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\\ & \\ W_m& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Here in the spirit of (6) we have implied

(9)
$$\kappa \stackrel{def}{=}\kappa ^N,\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{def}{=}\lambda ^N.$$

### 1.2. Integrability

The quantum Lax matrices are to be multiplied in the natural order,

(10)
$$\widehat{𝐭}(\lambda )\stackrel{def}{=}\mathrm{}_1(\lambda )\mathrm{}_2(\lambda )\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_M(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐚(\lambda )& 𝐛(\lambda )\\ & \\ 𝐜(\lambda )& 𝐝(\lambda )\end{array}\right),$$

and the quantum transfer matrix for the periodic chain of the length $`M`$ is the trace of the monodromy matrix (10):

(11)
$$𝐭(\lambda )=\text{tr}\widehat{𝐭}(\lambda )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}\lambda ^k𝐭_k.$$

In particular, $`𝐭_0=1`$ and $`𝐭_M=\kappa ^M_{m=1}^M𝐮_m𝐰_m`$. The set of $`𝐭_k`$ is commutative, this is provided by the intertwining relation for the Lax operators,

(12)
$$R(\lambda ,\mu )\mathrm{}(\lambda )\mathrm{}(\mu )=(1\mathrm{}(\mu ))(\mathrm{}(\lambda )1)R(\lambda ,\mu )$$

where it is implied the tensor product of two $`2\times 2`$ matrices with the identical Weyl algebra entries $`𝐮,𝐰,\kappa `$, different spectral parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$, and

(13)
$$R(\lambda ,\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda \omega \mu & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda \mu & \mu (1\omega )& 0\\ 0& \lambda (1\omega )& \omega (\lambda \mu )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \lambda \omega \mu \end{array}\right)$$

is the almost usual six-vertex $`R`$-matrix.

We have formulated the inhomogeneous chain in general, the transfer matrix depends on $`\lambda `$, $`\kappa `$ and on set $`\{u_m,w_m\}_{m=1}^M`$:

(14)
$$𝐭(\lambda )=𝐭(\lambda ,\kappa ;\{u_m,w_m\}_{m=1}^M).$$

From (12) it follows

(15)
$$[𝐭(\lambda ,\kappa ;\{u_m,w_m\}),𝐭(\mu ,\kappa ;\{u_m,w_m\})]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

For the classical counterpart one may also define the monodromy matrix

(16)
$$\widehat{T}=L_1L_2\mathrm{}L_M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A(\mathrm{\Lambda })& B(\mathrm{\Lambda })\\ & \\ C(\mathrm{\Lambda })& D(\mathrm{\Lambda })\end{array}\right),$$

and its trace

(17)
$$T(\mathrm{\Lambda })=A(\mathrm{\Lambda })+D(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^kT_M.$$

Integrability of the classical model is provided by

(18)
$$\{T(\mathrm{\Lambda }),T(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

where $`\{,\}`$ means the Poisson braces, defined by

(19)
$$\{U_n,W_m\}=\delta _{nm}U_nW_m.$$

This Poisson bracket can be written in terms of $`L`$-operators (8)

(20)
$$\{L_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })\stackrel{}{,}L_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\}=\delta _{nm}[r(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}),L_n(\mathrm{\Lambda })L_m(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})]$$

with classical trigonometric $`r`$-matrix

(21)
$$r(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})=\frac{1}{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}& 2\mathrm{\Lambda }& 0\\ 0& 2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\end{array}\right)$$

Further in this letter we will never use the Hamilton formalism and the symbol $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ will be reserved for the notion of a set.

### 1.3. Eigenvalues of $`𝐚(\lambda )`$, $`𝐛(\lambda )`$, $`𝐜(\lambda )`$ and $`𝐝(\lambda )`$.

Admit now the following useful notation for the product over $`_N`$:

(22)
$$\underset{\lambda }{}f(\lambda )\stackrel{def}{=}\underset{n_N}{}f(\omega ^n\lambda ).$$

The following proposition clarifies the relation between the quantum model and its classical counterpart:

###### Proposition 1.

(23)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\lambda }{}𝐚(\lambda )=A(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\underset{\lambda }{}𝐛(\lambda )=B(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\hfill \\ \\ \underset{\lambda }{}𝐜(\lambda )=C(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\underset{\lambda }{}𝐝(\lambda )=D(\mathrm{\Lambda }).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus the spectra of the quantum operators $`𝐚(\lambda )`$$`𝐝(\lambda )`$ can be expressed through the classical objects $`A(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$$`D(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

### 1.4. Gauge fixing

For the subsequent considerations we need to introduce a couple of notations and to fix some gauge degree of freedom. It is useful to consider following three operators for the whole spin chain:

(24)
$$𝐗=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}𝐱_m,𝐙=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}𝐳_m,𝐘=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}(\omega ^{1/2}𝐱_m𝐳_m).$$

$`𝐗`$ and $`𝐙`$ obey the following relations:

(25)
$$𝐭(\lambda )𝐗=𝐗𝐭(\omega \lambda ),𝐭(\lambda )𝐙=𝐙𝐭(\omega ^1\lambda ).$$

One can see that the corresponding to $`T_M`$ flow results to the trivial re-scaling of the classical amplitudes $`U_m`$ and $`W_m`$: $`U_mCU_m`$, $`W_mC^1W_m`$. Since $`𝐭_M^N=()^{M(N1)}T_M`$ we may always re-define $`\lambda `$ so that

(26)
$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\omega ^{1/2}u_mw_m\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}(U_mW_m)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}.$$

Also the gauge may be fixed in the most useful way. Define the homogeneous chain via ($`ϵ=()^N`$)

(27)
$$u_m=\omega ^{1/2},w_m=1,U_m=ϵ,W_m=\frac{1}{ϵ},$$

whereas the inhomogeneous chain’s $`u_m`$ and $`w_m`$ we parameterize via sets of $`\tau _m`$ and $`\theta _m`$:

(28)
$$u_m=\omega ^{1/2}\frac{\tau _{m1}}{\tau _m},w_m=\frac{\theta _m}{\theta _{m1}},m_M.$$

### 1.5. Spectral curves

Consider the spectral curve for the classical part of our model By definition, and taking into account (26),

(29)
$$J(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )\stackrel{def}{=}\mu det(\mu ^1\widehat{T}(\mathrm{\Lambda }))=T(\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{1}{\mu }\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^M}.$$

Condition $`J=0`$ in the terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu `$ defines the genus $`g_M=M1`$ hyperelliptic classical spectral curve.

Our interest is the quantum model, and the quantum curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ is to be defined as

(30)
$$(\lambda ,\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }_MJ(\lambda ^N,\mu ^N)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Quantum curve is not hyperelliptic, and its genus in general position is $`g_{N,M}=N^2M2N+1`$. The quantum curve will appear in Baxter’s equation.

### 1.6. Homogeneous chain

Now consider the homogeneous quantum and classical chains. The values of $`u_m,u_m`$ are given by (27). Due to proposition (1), the spectrum of $`𝐛(\lambda )`$ is defined by the value of $`B(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. We can calculate

(31)
$$B(\mathrm{\Lambda })=ϵ\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\underset{k=1}{\overset{M1}{}}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi _k)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right),$$

where

(32)
$$\varphi _k\{\frac{\pi }{M},\frac{2\pi }{M},\mathrm{},\frac{(M1)\pi }{M}\},$$

and the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ is defined by

(33)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )=\text{e}^{i\varphi }\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\kappa }+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right),\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )=\text{e}^{i\varphi }\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\kappa }+\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right),\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi ).\hfill \end{array}$$

From (31) it follows that up to inessential $`N`$-dimensional block the spectrum of $`𝐛(\lambda )`$ is described by the set of $`M1`$ phases of

(34)
$$\lambda _{\varphi _k}:\lambda _{\varphi _k}^N=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi _k).$$

The reason for the above mentioned block which correspond to the spectrum of $`𝐱_M`$ is the same as in the usual quantum Toda chain.

The curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ now factorizes into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^M`$:

(35)
$$J(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )=\frac{1}{\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^M}\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }^M=\mu }{}(\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa )+\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

where the product is taken over all $`M`$-th roots of unity. In particular, $`J(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )=0`$ if there exists $`\varphi `$: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ and $`\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )^M`$.

## 2. Isospectrality problem

This paper is devoted actually to a special class of inhomogeneous chains. In this section we will give some notations and formulate a proposition, which may be proved by the methods, described in the subsequent sections.

At first, define “solitonic tau - functions” recursively as

(36)
$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _m^{(0)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\hfill \\ \\ \tau _m^{(1)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+f_1\text{e}^{2im\varphi _1},\hfill \\ \\ \tau _m^{(2)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+f_1\text{e}^{2im\varphi _1}+f_2\text{e}^{2im\varphi _2}+d_{1,2}f_1f_2\text{e}^{2im(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)},\hfill \end{array}$$

and so on,

(37)
$$\tau _m^{(n)}=\tau _m^{(n1)}(\{f_k,\varphi _k\}_{k=1}^{n1})+f_n\text{e}^{2im\varphi _n}\tau _m^{(n1)}(\{d_{k,n}f_k,\varphi _k\}_{k=1}^{n1}),$$

where all $`\varphi _k`$ are different and belong to the set (32). The phase shift $`d_{j,k}=d(\varphi _j,\varphi _k)`$ is given by (see (33))

(38)
$$d(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi ^{})\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi ^{})\right)}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi ^{})\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi ^{})\right)}.$$

Complex number $`f_k`$ we will call the amplitude of $`k`$-th solitonic wave. Set (32) is finite, so the number of solitons can’t exceed its maximal value $`M1`$. The complete $`(M1)`$-solitonic tau-function is

(39)
$$\tau _m\stackrel{def}{=}\tau _m^{(M1)}=\tau _m(\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}).$$

Obviously, the less then $`(M1)`$-solitonic tau-functions are just particular cases of the complete one, which can be obtained by the vanishing the corresponding amplitudes.

Define a couple of useful functions:

(40)
$$c(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )}\frac{1\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )}{1\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )},$$

and

(41)
$$s(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )}.$$

For given $`\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}`$ besides $`\tau _m`$ we need

(42)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_m(\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1})\stackrel{def}{=}\tau _m(\{c_kf_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}),$$

where $`c_k=c(\varphi _k)`$.

Consider now the inhomogeneous relativistic Toda chain, whose parameters are given by (28) with

(43)
$$\tau _m^N=\tau _m(\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}),\theta _m^N=\mathrm{\Theta }_m(\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1})$$

with arbitrary set of $`\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}`$. For the sake of shortness we shall use the symbolic notation $`𝔰`$, implying the definition of the solitonic data $`\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}`$, construction of $`\tau _m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$ via eqs. (37,42), choice of the phases for $`\tau _m`$ and $`\theta _m`$, and finally – the definition of $`u_m,w_m`$, eq. (28):

(44)
$$𝔰:\left(\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}\{\tau _m,\mathrm{\Theta }_m\}\{\tau _m,\theta _m\}\{u_m,w_m\}_{m=1}^M\right).$$

We will use the symbol $`𝔰`$ instead of sets $`\{f_k\}`$, $`\{\tau _m,\theta _m\}`$ and so on. The quantum transfer matrix we will denote as $`𝐭(\lambda ,\kappa ;𝔰)`$. In part, when all $`f_k=0`$, this $`𝐭`$ becomes the transfer matrix for the homogeneous chain. The state, corresponding to the homogeneous chain, we will denote as $`𝔰_0`$.

###### Proposition 2.

For the values of $`\{f_k\}`$ being in general position, the eigenvalues of $`𝐭(\lambda ,\kappa ;𝔰)`$ do not depend neither on $`\{f_k\}`$ nor on the phases of $`\tau _m,\theta _m`$. In other words, for two states $`𝔰`$ and $`𝔰^{}`$ there exists a matrix $`\underset{𝔰𝔰^{}}{𝔖}`$, invertible in general position, such that

(45)
$$𝐭(\lambda ,\kappa ;𝔰)\underset{𝔰𝔰^{}}{𝔖}=\underset{𝔰𝔰^{}}{𝔖}𝐭(\lambda ,\kappa ;𝔰^{})$$

Actually the proof of this proposition is based on the analogous proposition for the classical counterpart $`T(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. We have solved the problem of the isospectrality for the homogeneous chain, i.e. for the rational classical spectral curve. If one starts from the classical spectral curve in general position, then isospectral $`\tau _m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_m`$ would become theta-functions on the jacobian of the spectral curve. Actually our “solitons” are the rational limit of the finite gap solution.

## 3. Auxiliary Lax operator

In this section we give a scheme for the construction of operators $`𝔖`$, intertwining the states $`𝔰`$ and $`𝔰^{}`$.

### 3.1. “Dimer Self Trapping” Lax matrix

Define the quantum auxiliary lax matrix, acting in the space $`\varphi `$ as follows:

(46)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_\varphi (\lambda ,\lambda _\varphi )=\hfill \\ \\ =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\omega ^{1/2}\kappa _\varphi \frac{\lambda _\varphi }{\lambda }𝐰_\varphi & ,& \frac{\omega ^{1/2}}{\lambda }(1\omega ^{1/2}\kappa _\varphi 𝐰_\varphi )𝐮_\varphi \\ & & \\ \omega ^{1/2}\lambda _\varphi 𝐮_\varphi ^1𝐰_\varphi & ,& 𝐰_\varphi \end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Here as previously

(47)
$$𝐮_\varphi =u_\varphi 𝐱_\varphi ,𝐰_\varphi =w_\varphi 𝐳_\varphi .$$

Also, as previously, define the classical counterpart $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. $`U_\varphi =𝐮_\varphi ^N`$, $`W_\varphi =𝐰_\varphi ^N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =\lambda _\varphi ^N`$ etc:

(48)
$$\stackrel{~}{L}_\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\kappa _\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}W_\varphi & ,& \frac{U_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1+\kappa _\varphi W_\varphi )\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi \frac{W_\varphi }{U_\varphi }& ,& W_\varphi \end{array}\right).$$

### 3.2. Quantum Darboux transformation

Darboux transformation for the classical chain is the following relation:

(49)
$$\stackrel{~}{L}(U_{\varphi ,m},W_{\varphi ,m})L(U_m,W_m)=L(U_m^{},W_m^{})\stackrel{~}{L}(U_{\varphi ,m+1},W_{\varphi ,m+1}),$$

where all contents of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$, $`\kappa `$, $`\kappa _\varphi `$ are implied. Recall, (49) must be identity with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ enters into the mapping

(50)
$$u_m,w_m,u_{\varphi ,m},w_{\varphi ,m}u_m^{},w_m^{},u_{\varphi ,m+1},w_{\varphi ,m+1}.$$

The quantum Darboux transformation is the following intertwining relation:

(51)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_\varphi (u_{\varphi ,m},w_{\varphi ,m})\mathrm{}_m(u_m,w_m)𝐑_{m,\varphi }=\hfill \\ \\ =𝐑_{m,\varphi }\mathrm{}_m(u_m^{},w_m^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_\varphi (u_{\varphi ,m+1},w_{\varphi ,m+1}).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 3.

Eq. (49) is the admissibility condition for eq. (51). In other words, if mapping (50) solves (49), then there exists unique $`N^2\times N^2`$ matrix $`𝐑_{m,\varphi }`$, solving eq. (51).

We do not give the explicit form of the matrix elements of $`𝐑_{m,\varphi }`$ here, it is not necessary in this brief notes.

Eq. (51) is to be iterated for the whole chain. It arises the monodromy of $`\mathrm{}_m`$ and the monodromy of $`𝐑_{m,\varphi }`$,

(52)
$$\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi \stackrel{def}{=}𝐑_{1,\varphi }𝐑_{2,\varphi }\mathrm{}𝐑_{M,\varphi },$$

The monodromies obey the following relation:

(53)
$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_\varphi (\lambda ;u_{\varphi ,1},w_{\varphi ,1})\widehat{𝐭}(\lambda ;\{u_m,w_m\})\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi =\hfill \\ \\ \widehat{𝐐}_\varphi \widehat{𝐭}(\lambda ;\{u_m^{},w_m^{}\})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_\varphi (\lambda ;u_{\varphi ,M+1},w_{\varphi ,M+1}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Cyclic boundary conditions imply

(54)
$$u_{\varphi ,M+1}=u_{\varphi ,1},w_{\varphi ,M+1}=w_{\varphi ,1}.$$

In general (54) have many solutions (they are subject of the next proposition). Suppose we have chosen an appropriate branch. The trace of the monodromy (52)

(55)
$$𝐐_\varphi =\text{tr}_\varphi \widehat{𝐐}_\varphi $$

remembers the branch mentioned, and the reminder is the subscribe ‘$`\varphi `$’ of $`𝐐_\varphi `$. Moreover we will regard $`\varphi `$ as the spectral parameter of $`𝐐_\varphi `$, implying $`\lambda _\varphi ^N=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$, see. eq. (33), etc. Also one may show, parameter $`\kappa _\varphi `$ is responsible for a gauge transformation for $`u_m^{},w_m^{}`$. This may be neglected by the choice $`\kappa _\varphi =\kappa /\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi `$. Matrix elements of $`𝐐_\varphi `$ may be written out explicitly, and their parameterization implies all the information about $`\lambda _\varphi `$ and $`\{u_m,w_m\}`$ and $`\{u_m^{},w_m^{}\}`$ etc. Equation (53) with the cyclic boundary conditions (54) provides

(56)
$$𝐭(\lambda ;\{u_m,w_m\})𝐐_\varphi =𝐐_\varphi 𝐭(\lambda ;\{u_m^{},w_m^{}\}).$$

It is useful to write this relation symbolically in the form

(57)
$$𝐭(\lambda ;𝔰)\underset{𝔰𝔰^{}}{𝐐_\varphi }=\underset{𝔰𝔰^{}}{𝐐_\varphi }𝐭(\lambda ;𝔰^{}).$$

### 3.3. Solutions of the cyclic boundary conditions

Careful and rather tedious investigations of the quantum Darboux relations (49,51) and cyclic boundary conditions (54) allows us to formulate the following

###### Proposition 4.

Let the state $`𝔰`$ is $`n`$-solitonic one with the data $`\{f_k\}_{k=1}^n`$. Then all possible solutions of (54) gives the following mappings $`𝔰`$ $``$ $`𝔰^{}`$, classified by the values of the spectral parameter $`\varphi `$ of $`𝐐_\varphi `$:

* if $`\varphi \{\varphi _k\}_{k=1}^n`$, but $`\varphi `$ belongs to set (32), then $`𝔰^{}`$ is $`n+1`$-solitonic state with the data $`\{f_k^{},\varphi _k\}_{k=1}^{n+1})`$, where

(58)
$$f_k^{}=f_ks(\varphi _k,\varphi ),k=1..n,$$

$`s`$ is given by (41), and

(59)
$$\varphi _{n+1}=\varphi ,f_{n+1}^{}\text{arbitrary complex number}.$$
* If the cyclicity condition is not satisfied, i.e. $`\text{e}^{2iM\varphi }1`$, then the previous formulae are valid, but with $`f_{n+1}^{}0`$.
* If $`\varphi =\varphi _n`$, then $`𝔰^{}`$ is the $`n1`$ solitonic state with the data $`\{f_ks(\varphi _k,\varphi ),\varphi _k\}_{k=1}^{n1})`$. There is an annihilation of the soliton due to zero of the function $`s(\varphi _n,\varphi _n)`$.
* If $`\varphi =\varphi _n`$, then the state $`𝔰^{}`$ corresponds to $`n1`$ solitonic state with the data $`\{f_ks(\varphi _k,\varphi )d(\varphi _k,\varphi ),\varphi _k\}_{k=1}^{n1})`$ up to a gauge multipliers.

As it should be, (49) defines actually the action of the vertex operator of the Bäcklund transformation, creating or annihilating a soliton. Note also, not all the four items of proposition (4) are useful. Namely, we may ignore item ‘d)’: it is equivalent to the item ‘c)’. One may show, ‘d)’ and ‘c)’ produces the same $`U_m^{}`$ and $`W_m^{}`$ due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )`$.

### 3.4. Permutation of $`𝐐_\varphi `$-operators

Consider now the scenario ‘a)’ of the proposition – the creation of the new soliton. Besides the quantization of $`\varphi `$ this means also the additional degree of freedom in the final state: an arbitrary amplitude $`f`$ of the $`\varphi `$-th soliton. Following is the visual notation for it:

(60)
$$𝔰\stackrel{f,\varphi }{}𝔰^{}.$$

It is useful to exhibit the parametric dependence on $`f`$: $`\underset{𝔰𝔰^{}}{𝐐_\varphi }(f)`$.

Compare now two successive creations of solitons: the first one

(61)
$$𝔰\stackrel{f,\varphi }{}𝔰^{}\stackrel{f^{},\psi }{}𝔰^{\prime \prime },$$

and the second one

(62)
$$𝔰\stackrel{g,\psi }{}\stackrel{~}{𝔰}^{}\stackrel{g^{},\varphi }{}𝔰^{\prime \prime }.$$

The initial and the final states are the same, this provides

(63)
$$g^{}=fs(\varphi ,\psi ),f^{}=gs(\psi ,\varphi ).$$

It follows the equivalence:

(64)
$$\underset{𝔰𝔰^{}}{𝐐_\varphi }(f)\underset{𝔰^{}𝔰^{\prime \prime }}{𝐐_\psi }(gs(\psi ,\varphi ))\underset{𝔰\stackrel{~}{𝔰}^{}}{𝐐_\psi }(g)\underset{\stackrel{~}{𝔰}^{}𝔰^{\prime \prime }}{𝐐_\varphi }(fs(\varphi ,\psi )).$$

The sign ‘$``$’ means the existence of some extra multipliers in such pseudocommutation relations.

Consider now the successive creation of the maximal solitonic state. Let

(65)
$$g_1=f_1,g_k=f_k\underset{j<k}{}s(\varphi _k,\varphi _j).$$

Consider

(66)
$$𝔖(\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1})\stackrel{def}{=}\underset{𝔰_0𝔰_1}{𝐐_{\varphi _1}}(g_1)\underset{𝔰_1𝔰_2}{𝐐_{\varphi _2}}(g_2)\mathrm{}\underset{𝔰_{M2}𝔰_{M1}}{𝐐_{\varphi _{M1}}}(g_{M1}),$$

where the initial state $`𝔰_0`$ is supposed to be the homogeneous one. Up to multipliers, operator-valued function $`𝔖`$ is symmetrical with respect to any permutation of $`\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}`$, this follows from (64). The final state $`𝔰_{M1}`$ of $`𝔖`$ has the solitonic data $`\{F_k\}_{k=1}^{M1}`$, where

(67)
$$F_k=f_k\underset{jk}{}s(\varphi _k,\varphi _j).$$

In general all $`𝐐_\varphi `$ are invertible, and so invertible $`𝔖`$ obeys

(68)
$$𝐭(\lambda ;𝔰_0)𝔖=𝔖𝐭(\lambda ;𝔰_{M1}),$$

this proves proposition (2) for the given initial and final states.

### 3.5. Baxter’s equation for operator $`𝐐_\varphi `$

Auxiliary quantum Lax operator (46) factorizes when $`\lambda =\lambda _\varphi `$:

(69)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_\varphi (\lambda _\varphi )=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1\omega ^{1/2}\kappa _\varphi 𝐰_\varphi }{\omega ^{1/2}\lambda _\varphi 𝐮_\varphi ^1𝐰_\varphi }\right)(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\omega ^{1/2}\lambda _\varphi ^1𝐮_\varphi ).$$

This degeneration leads to the Baxter equation in the operator form by rather usual procedure of the triangulization of the monodromy matrix . Details are inessential here, and the final answer reads

(70)
$$𝐭(\lambda _\varphi ;𝔰)𝐐_\varphi =𝐐_\varphi 𝐭(\lambda _\varphi ;𝔰^{})=𝐐_\varphi ^{(1)}+𝐐_\varphi ^{(2)},$$

where in the operator form

(71)
$$𝐐_\varphi ^{(1)}=\frac{1}{\mu _\varphi }𝐗𝐐_\varphi 𝐗^1,𝐐_\varphi ^{(2)}=\frac{\mu _\varphi }{\lambda _\varphi ^M}𝐙𝐐_\varphi 𝐗.$$

$`𝐗`$ and $`𝐙`$ are given by (24). Multiplier $`\mu _\varphi `$ is originated from the detailed consideration of the recursion (51) and (54), providing

(72)
$$(\lambda _\varphi ,\mu _\varphi )\mathrm{\Gamma }_M.$$

In the special case when $`𝔰=𝔰^{}=𝔰_0`$ (this is the case ‘b’ of proposition (4)), $`\lambda _\varphi `$ is arbitrary complex number, and eq. (70) becomes usual Baxter’s relation.

### 3.6. Meaning of the modified $`𝐐`$-operators

Consider now (53) in the degeneration point (69) for the whole chain. It is easy to rewrite (53) in the form

(73)
$$\begin{array}{c}\left(𝐚(\lambda _\varphi )\omega ^{1/2}\frac{u_{\varphi ,1}}{\lambda _\varphi }𝐱_\varphi 𝐜(\lambda _\varphi )\right)\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi =\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi ^{(1)},\hfill \\ \\ \left(𝐛(\lambda _\varphi )\omega ^{1/2}\frac{u_{\varphi ,1}}{\lambda _\varphi }𝐱_\varphi 𝐝(\lambda _\varphi )\right)\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi =\omega ^{1/2}\frac{u_{\varphi ,M+1}}{\lambda _\varphi }\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi ^{(1)}𝐱_\varphi ,\hfill \end{array}$$

or, in the equivalent form

(74)
$$\begin{array}{c}𝐚(\lambda _\varphi )\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi \omega ^{1/2}\frac{u_{\varphi ,M+1}}{\lambda _\varphi }𝐱_\varphi +𝐛(\lambda _\varphi )\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi =\omega ^{1/2}\frac{u_{\varphi ,1}}{\lambda _\varphi }𝐱_\varphi \widehat{𝐐}_\varphi ^{(2)},\hfill \\ \\ 𝐜(\lambda _\varphi )\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi \omega ^{1/2}\frac{u_{\varphi ,M+1}}{\lambda _\varphi }𝐱_\varphi +𝐝(\lambda _\varphi )\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi =\widehat{𝐐}_\varphi ^{(2)},\hfill \end{array}$$

It is interesting to consider these relations for the mapping $`𝔰_0𝔰_1`$, where $`𝔰_0`$ is the homogeneous case, and $`𝔰_1`$ is one-solitonic state with the wave number $`\varphi `$ and the amplitude $`f`$. Note, $`\mu _\varphi `$ and $`\lambda _\varphi `$ do not depend on $`f`$. Consider now the limit

(75)
$$f1.$$

In this limit state $`𝔰_1`$ has the remarkable feature: $`u_{\varphi ,1}u_1^{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ . Then from (73) and (74) it follows:

(76)
$$𝐛(\lambda _\varphi )\underset{𝔰_0𝔰_1}{𝐐_\varphi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Due to the symmetry of $`𝔖(\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{M1})`$ with respect to any permutation of $`\{f_k\}`$, one may conclude

(77)
$$𝐛(\lambda _{\varphi _n})𝔖(\{f_k=1\}_{k=1}^{M1})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}n=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1},\mathrm{},M1.$$

This means that in the special point $`f_k=1`$ operator $`𝔖`$ becomes rather degenerative, and in the $`N`$-dimensional projector decomposition of $`𝔖`$ all left vectors may be regarded as the eigenvectors of operator $`𝐛(\lambda )`$ with zeros $`\lambda _{\varphi _k}`$, see eq. (34) and the discussion around it.

## 4. Discussion

The main object, appeared in this note, is the operator $`𝔖(\{f_k=1\}_{k=1}^{M1})`$. Recall once more, we have the explicit form of the matrix elements of each $`𝐐_\varphi `$-operator, entering to $`𝔖`$. Note, there are some arbitrariness in their definition. The technical reason of it is that one has to deal with the ambiguities $`0/0`$, and the principal reason is that the right vectors of $`𝔖`$ may be chosen in rather arbitrary way. There still exists the problem of the most useful choice of these right vectors. All the details concerning the explicit form of $`𝐐_\varphi `$ and $`𝔖`$, as well as the exact form of the pseudocommutation relation (64) will be the subjects of the subsequent papers. The other subject to be mentioned is the strict investigation of the classical counterpart in the application to the quantum technique. The final aim is the exact solution of the model, i.e. the solution of Baxter’s equation an the construction of the eigenvectors of $`𝐭(\lambda )`$, at least with the help of the separation of the variables method.

What is to be mentioned else. The “dimer self-trapping” Lax matrix at the root of unity belongs to the class of the chiral Potts model Lax matrices . The quantum intertwiner of DST Lax matrices is a particular case of the chiral Potts model $`S`$-matrix. The method of applying a nontrivial classical dynamics to the chiral Potts (or DST - it is much more simple) model will give the analogous scheme for the separation of the variables method, including the exact construction for the eigenvectors of the elements of the CPM monodromy matrix. These we will do separately.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to R. Baxter, V. Bazhanov, V. Mangazeev, G. Pronko, E. Sklyanin, A. Belavin, Yu. Stroganov and A. Isaev for useful discussions and comments.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational lensing: effects of cosmology and of lens and source profiles

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational lensing is well known to be a powerful tool to probe the overall geometry of the universe at $`z\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ and the values of cosmological parameters (curvature, vacuum energy density described either by a cosmological constant or by a dynamical quantity like quintessence, Hubble constant: Bartelmann et al. 1997; Falco et al. 1998; Cooray 1999; Huterer & Cooray 1999; Macias-Perez et al. 2000; Bhatia 2000; Helbig 2000), the evolution of large scale structure (Rix et al. 1994; Mao & Kochanek 1994; Bacon et al. 2000), the masses and the density profiles of dark halos of galaxies and galaxy clusters (Narayan 1998 and references therein; Mellier 1999; Clowe et al. 2000).

Another important effect of gravitational lensing is the modification of the observed luminosity functions of distant sources and of their counts, due to the redshift dependent magnification bias (Peacock 1982; Narayan 1989; Schneider 1992).

In view of all the above applications, it is essential to perform the most accurate modeling of all the ingredients entering into the gravitational lensing process. Quantitative predictions depend on the lens population as a function of mass and redshift, on the lens profiles, on the the luminosity function and size of the sources, and on a correct treatment of the distance-redshift relations, taking into account the effect of density inhomogeneities on the propagation of light rays.

Gravitational lensing by intervening mass concentrations is a statistical process. It can be described by a probability distribution $`F(A,z_\mathrm{s})`$ of the magnification factor $`A`$, which obviously depends on the source redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}`$. It is generally difficult to model $`F(A,z_\mathrm{s})`$ in detail analytically. Some authors estimated it with $`N`$-body simulations (see e.g. Rauch 1991; Pei 1993a,b). Nonetheless, the main features of $`F(A,z_\mathrm{s})`$ can be captured using generic properties of gravitational lensing. Strong lensing occurs near caustic curves, which cause $`F(A,z_\mathrm{s})`$ to decrease $`A^3`$ for $`A1`$, irrespective of the lens model (Peacock 1982; Turner et al. 1984).

In this paper we present detailed calculations of the magnification distribution, including both weak and strong lensing, using very recent solutions of the Dyer-Roeder (1973) equation for light propagation in a inhomogeneous universe with a cosmological constant (Demianski et al. 2000) to compute the relationships between distances and redshift as well as up-to-date models for the evolving cosmological distribution of dark matter halos (Sheth & Tormen 1999; Sheth et al. 1999) that can act as lenses. We address in particular the effect on the magnification distribution of a non-zero cosmological constant, of different density profiles of lenses, of a finite size and of luminosity profiles of lensed sources, three important issues not yet fully settled. The magnification probability distribution has been applied to the counts at $`850\mu m`$: the luminosity function of the source population used here has been inferred by the evolution of the QSOs luminosity function and from the link between the QSOs and the hosting spheroids (Granato et al. 2000). Such luminosity function turns out to fit the SCUBA data.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 and 3, we describe our assumptions on the distribution of lenses in mass and redshift, and on their density profiles, respectively. In Sect. 4, we review the basic definitions of distance and flux magnification in inhomogeneous universes. In Sect. 5, we introduce the probability for a source at given redshift to be magnified by a certain amount, and quantify the magnification bias on source counts, for which a model is described in Sect. 6. In Sect. 7 we face the problem of determining the maximum magnification allowed for extended sources. We summarize and discuss our results in Sect. 8.

Throughout this paper, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ denote the present-day density parameters for the non-relativistic matter and for the cosmological components, respectively, neglecting the radiation energy density. The Hubble constant is $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_01\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the curvature term, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the total density parameter. Our fiducial model has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.7`$ and $`h=0.65`$. Furthermore, $`q_0=\ddot{a}a/\dot{a}^2`$ is the deceleration parameter, and we concentrate on spatially-flat models ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0)`$.

## 2 The Evolving Halo Mass Function

We assume that the lens population consists of collapsed dark matter halos with an epoch-dependent mass function described by the Sheth & Tormen (1999) function, which reproduces fairly accurately the results of extensive numerical simulations over more than four orders of magnitude in mass, for a wide range of Cold Dark Matter cosmologies (Jenkins et al. 2000). This function improves considerably on the familiar Press-Schechter (1974) model which overestimates the abundance of “typical” ($`M_{}`$) halos and underestimates that of massive systems. The comoving number density of halos with mass $`M`$ at redshift $`z`$ is then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}M}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2aA^2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)}{\sigma (M)}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (M)}{\sqrt{a}\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)}}\right)^{2p}\right]`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}M}}\right|\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a\delta _\mathrm{c}^2(z)}{2\sigma (M)^2}}\right);`$
The best-fit values of the parameters are $`a=0.707`$, $`p=0.3`$, and $`A0.3222`$ (Sheth & Tormen 1999; Sheth, Mo & Tormen 1999). The Press-Schechter mass function is recovered for $`a=1`$, $`p=0`$ and $`A=0.5`$.

In Eq. (1), $`\rho _0`$ is the mean mass density at a reference epoch $`t_0`$, which we assume to be the present time, and $`\sigma ^2`$ is the variance of linear density fluctuations at the present epoch smoothed with a spherical top-hat filter $`W_R(k)`$ enclosing a mass $`M`$. The variance $`\sigma ^2`$ is related to the power spectrum $`P(k)`$ by:

$$\sigma ^2(R)=\frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}dkk^2W_R^2(k)P(k),$$
(2)
with

$$W_R(k)=\frac{3}{(kR)^3}[\mathrm{sin}(kR)(kR)\mathrm{cos}(kR)].$$
(3)
A useful expression for $`\sigma (M)`$ and its derivative $`\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}M`$ was obtained by Kitayama & Suto (1996),

$$\sigma (1+2.208m^d0.7668m^{2d}+0.7949m^{3d})^{2/(9d)},$$
(4)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{0m}h\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{0b}(1+\sqrt{2h}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{0m})]`$ being the shape parameter (Bardeen et al. 1986) and we have adopted a present baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0b}h^2=0.03`$. For a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}=0.3`$, the COBE normalization is $`\sigma _8=\sigma (R=8h^1\mathrm{Mpc})=0.925`$ (Bunn & White 1997).

Also in Eq. (1), $`\delta _\mathrm{c}^2(z)`$ is the linear density contrast of an object virializing at $`z`$, evaluated at the present epoch. It can be estimated using the spherical collapse model (e.g. Peebles 1980; Lahav et al. 1991; Lacey & Cole 1993; Nakamura 1996; Eke, Cole & Frenk 1996; Łokas & Hoffman 2000) yielding:

$$\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)=\frac{\delta _\mathrm{c}D_+(z=0)}{D_+(z)},$$
(5)
where $`D_+(z)`$ is the linear growth factor of density fluctuations:

$`D_+(z)`$ $``$ $`(1+z)^1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{4/7}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}/2)(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/70)]^1,`$
in the approximation by Carroll et al. (1992), where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}(1+z)^3/E^2(z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}/E^2(z)`$, and

$$E(z)=H(z)/H_0=[\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]^{1/2}.$$
(7)
$`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ \[Eq. (5)\] is the value of the critical overdensity evaluated at virialization. An approximate expression valid for any cosmological model was reported by Nakamura (1996) and Kitayama & Suto (1996):

$$\delta _\mathrm{c}\frac{3(12\pi )^{2/3}}{20}(1+0.0123\mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}).$$
(8)
## 3 Gravitational Lensing and Halo Models

The ray-tracing equation relates the position of a source to the impact parameter in the lens plane of a light ray connecting source and observer. The light ray passing the lens at an impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }`$ is bent by an angle $`\widehat{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{\zeta })`$. The source position $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$ and the impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }`$ in the lens plane are related through

$$\stackrel{}{\eta }=\frac{D_\mathrm{s}}{D_\mathrm{d}}\stackrel{}{\zeta }D_{\mathrm{ds}}\stackrel{}{\widehat{\alpha }}(\stackrel{}{\zeta }),$$
(9)
where $`D_{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{s},\mathrm{ds}}`$ are the angular-diameter distances between observer and lens, observer and source, and lens and source, respectively. We will specify these distances later in the context of a “clumpy universe”. The deflection angle $`\stackrel{}{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ is the sum of the deflections due to all mass elements of the lens projected on the lens plane,

$$\stackrel{}{\widehat{\alpha }}(\stackrel{}{\zeta })=\frac{4G}{c^2}_{R^2}\frac{\stackrel{}{\zeta }\stackrel{}{\zeta }^{}}{\left|\stackrel{}{\zeta }\stackrel{}{\zeta }^{}\right|^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{\zeta }^{})\mathrm{d}^2\zeta ^{},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the surface mass density of the lens.

It is convenient to introduce the dimensionless impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{\zeta }/\zeta _0`$, where $`\zeta _0`$ is an arbitrary length scale. The corresponding value projected in the source plane is $`\eta _0=\zeta _0D_\mathrm{s}/D_\mathrm{d}`$ and the source position is $`\stackrel{}{y}=\stackrel{}{\eta }/\eta _0`$.

The dimensionless surface mass density $`\kappa (x)`$, also called convergence, is

$$\kappa (x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}}\text{with}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_\mathrm{s}}{D_\mathrm{d}D_{\mathrm{ds}}}.$$
(11)
The dimensionless ray-tracing equation is then,

$$\stackrel{}{y}=\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(12)
with the scaled deflection angle

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{D_\mathrm{d}D_{\mathrm{ds}}}{\zeta _0D_\mathrm{s}}\stackrel{}{\widehat{\alpha }}(\zeta _0\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{2}{x}dx^{}x^{}\kappa (x^{}).$$
(13)
The axial symmetry of the lenses considered here allows us to rewrite the lens equation in terms of the dimensionless “mass” $`m(x)`$ enclosed within the radius $`x`$,

$$\stackrel{}{y}=\stackrel{}{x}\frac{m(x)}{x},$$
(14)
with

$$m(x)=2_0^xdx^{}x^{}\kappa (x^{}).$$
(15)
The Jacobian matrix $`𝒜(\stackrel{}{x})=\stackrel{}{y}/\stackrel{}{x}`$ for the lens mapping \[Eq. (14)\] determines the magnification factor for each image $`i`$,

$$\mu _i=\frac{1}{det𝒜(\stackrel{}{x}_i)}.$$
(16)
The sign of $`\mu _i`$ reflects the parity of the image with respect to the source. The total source magnification is the sum of the absolute values of the magnification factors of all images,

$$\mu =\underset{i}{}|\mu _i|.$$
(17)
For axially symmetric lenses, the Jacobian determinant of the lens mapping can also be written

$`det𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (x)}{x}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}}\alpha (x)\right)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m}{x^2}}\right)\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{x}}\right)\right]=(1\kappa )^2\gamma ^2,`$
where $`\gamma `$ is the shear (cf. Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992). Critical curves are located at the zeros of $`det𝒜`$; their images in the source plane under the mapping described by Eq. (12) are the caustics.

A simple model for the mass profile of a lens (cluster or galaxy) is the singular isothermal sphere (SIS; e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987):

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\sigma _v^2}{2\pi Gr^2},$$
(19)
where $`\sigma _v`$ is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion. In this case, the deflection angle is independent of the impact parameter (cf. Schneider et al. 1992; Narayan & Bartelmann 1997). One of the two critical curves degenerates to a point. Any given source has either one or two images. Two images appear only if the source lies inside the Einstein ring. The Einstein angle corresponding to a SIS is

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}=\widehat{\alpha }\frac{D_{\mathrm{ds}}}{D_\mathrm{s}}$$
(20)
with

$$\widehat{\alpha }=4\pi \frac{\sigma _v^2}{c^2}=1.4^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{\sigma _v}{220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^2.$$
(21)
In order to evaluate the mass of a halo with velocity dispersion $`\sigma _v`$ from Eq. (19), we truncate the sphere at an effective radius computed following Lahav et al. (1991).

If every halo virializes to form a singular isothermal sphere, mass conservation implies that the velocity dispersion is related to the mass and to the virialization redshift by (see, e.g. Porciani & Madau 2000; Kaiser 1986):

$$\sigma _v=\frac{1}{2}H_0r_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}^{1/3}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/6}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}\right]^{1/6}(1+z)^{1/2}$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ is defined in the previous section, $`r_0=(3M/4\pi \rho _0)^{1/3}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ is the mean density of the virialized halo in units of the critical density at that redshift. A useful expression for the dependence of $`\sigma _v`$ on redshift is given in Bryan & Norman (1998),

$$\sigma _v=M^{1/3}[H^2(z)\mathrm{\Delta }(z)G^2/16]^{1/6}.$$
(23)
Bryan & Norman (1998) also give a fitting formula for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ for a flat universe with a cosmological constant and for a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_00`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. For a flat universe, ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0`$) their hydrodynamical simulations yield:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=18\pi ^2+82x39x^2,$$
(24)
where $`x=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}1`$.

The SIS model is useful because it allows to work out analytically the basic lensing properties. On the other hand, high-resolution $`N`$-body simulations (Navarro, Frenk & White 1997) showed that in hierarchically clustering universes, virialized dark matter halos have a universal density profile (referred to as NFW), which is shallower than isothermal near the center and steeper in the outer regions:

$$\rho (x)=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}\delta _{\mathrm{NFW}}}{x(1+x)^2},$$
(25)
where $`x=r/r_\mathrm{s}`$, $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ being a scale radius, $`\delta _{\mathrm{NFW}}`$ is the characteristic density contrast of the halo, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is the critical density at the epoch of the halo virialization. This formula was found to accurately describe the equilibrium density profiles of dark matter halos over a broad range of masses ($`3\times 10^{11}M_{200}/M_{}3\times 10^{15}`$), irrespective of the cosmological parameters and the initial density fluctuation spectrum.

Still higher resolution $`N`$-body simulations indicate a steeper central cusp than that of the NFW profile: $`\rho (x)\left[x^{1.5}(1+x)^{1.5}\right]^1`$ (Moore et al. 1999; Ghigna et al. 2000). Since the slope of the central density profile in this case \[$`\rho (r)r^{1.5}`$\] is intermediate between those of the NFW \[$`\rho (r)r^1`$\] and of the SIS \[$`\rho (r)r^2`$\], the two cases considered here (NFW and SIS) will bracket it.

We parameterize halos by their mass $`M_{200}`$ (defined as the mass within the virial radius $`r_{200}`$, the radius of a sphere of mean interior density $`200\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$; see Navarro et al. 1997), since this is the mass whose distribution is given by Eq. (1). Unless otherwise specified, we abbreviate $`M_{200}`$ by $`M`$. The halo concentration is $`c=r_{200}/r_\mathrm{s}`$. It is related to the density parameter $`\delta _{\mathrm{NFW}}`$ by

$$\delta _{\mathrm{NFW}}=\frac{200}{3}\frac{c^3}{[\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c)]}.$$
(26)
The virial radius of a halo at redshift $`z`$ depends on the halo mass as

$$r_{200}=\frac{1.63\times 10^2}{(1+z)}\left(\frac{M}{h^1M_{}}\right)^{1/3}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)}\right]^{1/3}h^1\mathrm{kpc}.$$
(27)
Alternatively, the halo can be characterized by its circular velocity,

$`V_{200}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{GM_{200}}{r_{200}}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_{200}}{h^1\mathrm{kpc}}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)}}\right]^{1/2}(1+z)^{3/2}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1.`$
The scale radius $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ depends on the halo mass. The halo concentration increases with decreasing halo mass (e.g. Fig. 6 of Navarro et al. 1997). Less massive halos are therefore more concentrated. For a given halo mass, Eqs. (27) and (26) completely specify the density profile \[Eq. (25)\].

The lens equations for the NFW profile are given by Bartelmann (1996) and Maoz et al. (1997). The surface mass-density is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)=\frac{2\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}\delta _{\mathrm{NFW}}r_\mathrm{s}}{x^21}f(x),$$
(29)
with

$$f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{2}{\sqrt{x^21}}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{(x1)}{(x+1)}}\hfill & \text{(}x>1\text{)}\hfill \\ 1\frac{2}{\sqrt{1x^2}}\mathrm{arctanh}\sqrt{\frac{(1x)}{(x+1)}}\hfill & \text{(}x<1\text{)}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{(x=1)}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(30)
The dimensionless lens mass is

$$m(x)=\frac{4\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}\delta _{\mathrm{NFW}}r_\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}}g(x),$$
(31)
with

$$g(x)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{x}{2}+1f(x).$$
(32)
While the NFW profile \[Eq. (25)\] has two critical curves (Bartelmann 1996), the SIS profile has only one. A SIS lens has either one or two images, an NFW lens either one or three.

## 4 The Magnification Bias

In this section, we follow the approach by Schneider et al. (1992) and Schneider (1987a,b). We call $`\mu `$ the magnification of fluxes in an inhomogeneous universe, and relate it to the magnification $`A`$ in a homogeneous universe.

The effect of lensing on flux-limited source counts is quantified by the magnification bias (Turner et al. 1984). If the surface density of galaxies with flux greater than $`S_\nu `$ is $`N(S_\nu )`$, flux magnification alters the counts to $`N^{}(S_\nu )=\mu ^1N(S_\nu \mu ^1)`$, and the magnification bias is given by (Narayan 1989):

$$q(\mu ,S_\nu )=\frac{N^{}}{N}=\frac{N(S_\nu \mu ^1)}{\mu N(S_\nu )}.$$
(33)
The factor $`\mu ^1`$ arises because solid angles are magnified, hence source counts are diluted. Eq. (33) implies that for power-law counts ($`NS_\nu ^\alpha `$), $`q(\mu ,S_\nu )=\mu ^{\alpha 1}`$, so that the magnification bias increases as the counts steepen.

Since the reference to “unlensed” counts has given rise to confusion in the literature, it is important to specify our model for light propagation in the universe when talking about the number of sources seen “in absence of lensing”.

In Eq. (33), $`N`$ is defined as the number count of sources that do not appear behind lenses. Because of energy conservation, the flux of these objects must be reduced compared to a homogeneous universe with the same average density. In other words, since lensing is caused by inhomogeneities, we have to deal with an inhomogeneous universe. While sources observed through lenses are magnified by a factor $`\mu ^+>1`$ compared to a homogeneous universe, unlensed sources must be demagnified by $`\mu ^{}<1`$. When comparing lensed to unlensed sources, the effective magnification is

$$\mu =\frac{\mu ^+}{\mu ^{}}>1$$
(34)
(e.g. Schneider 1984, 1987a,b). This is the “empty beam approach” to light propagation (Dyer & Roeder 1973; Ehlers & Schneider 1986), in which light cones are devoid of clumped matter. The fraction of uniformly distributed matter is denoted by $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$, the smoothness parameter.

In this on-average homogeneous and isotropic universe, the average flux $`S`$ from a source population at redshift $`z`$ with luminosity $`L`$, must be equal to the corresponding flux $`S_{\mathrm{FL}}`$ that would be observed in a strictly uniform Friedman-Lemaître universe,

$$S=S_{\mathrm{FL}}=\frac{LK(L,z)}{4\pi \overline{D}_\mathrm{L}^2(z)},$$
(35)
where $`\overline{D}_\mathrm{L}(z)`$ is the luminosity distance in the uniform universe, and $`K(L,z)`$ is the K-correction. In general, it is not possible to compare mean fluxes of sources in these two different spacetimes. In particular, the notion of distance has no unique meaning in a clumpy universe, as it depends on both redshift and direction. Due to the corrugated structure of the gravitational field, the propagation of light in the inhomogeneous universe is a statistical problem. We can compare fluxes as in Eq. (35) only because we assume that the global geometry of the clumpy universe equals that of the homogeneous universe. Equation (35) implies that the area of a surface of constant redshift on the future light cone of a source is equal to that of the corresponding wavefront in the Friedman-Lemaître model. In order to use redshift-distance relations in an inhomogeneous, partly clumpy universe, which is uniform on average, it is then necessary to introduce a meaningful operational definition of distance. Since light propagation in a clumpy universe depends on the clumps in and near the light beam, Dyer & Roeder (1973) considered the limiting case of a light bundle that propagates far away from all clumps and is thus unaffected by gravitational shear. This is the “empty cone” limit.

The angular-diameter distance is then computed by replacing the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ with the “homogeneous” fraction $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. The resulting “Dyer-Roeder” distance is larger than the angular-diameter distance in a homogeneous universe. For a spatially-flat universe with deceleration parameter $`q_0=0.5`$, the Dyer-Roeder distance between redshifts $`z_1`$ and $`z_2>z_1`$ is

$$r(z_1,z_2,\beta )=\frac{2}{\beta }\left[\frac{(1+z_2)^{(\beta 5)/4}}{(1+z_1)^{(\beta +5)/4}}\frac{(1+z_1)^{(\beta 5)/4}}{(1+z_2)^{(\beta +5)/4}}\right],$$
(36)
where $`\beta =(1+24\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{G})^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{G}=(1\alpha _\mathrm{s})\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ is the density parameter in compact objects ($`\beta =\alpha _\mathrm{s}=1`$ for the homogeneous universe). Hereafter, we abbreviate $`r(0,z,\beta )r(z,\beta )`$ and $`r(z,1)r_1(z)`$. The dimensional angular diameter distance in a homogeneous universe is

$$D_1(z)=\frac{c}{H_0}r_1(z).$$
(37)
The problem is more complicated when the cosmological constant is positive. The Dyer-Roeder equation in a FRW universe with non-zero cosmological constant has been solved exactly by Kantowski (1998), Kantowski & Kao (2000) and, following a different approach, by Demianski et al. (2000). The general solution can be expressed in terms of the hypergeometric functions $`f_{s\pm }`$ introduced by Demianski et al. (2000):

$$r(z,\beta )=A_1\frac{(1+z)^{\beta /4}}{(1+z)^{5/4}}\frac{f_{s+}}{(1+z)^3}+A_2\frac{(1+z)^{\beta /4}}{(1+z)^{5/4}}\frac{f_s}{(1+z)^3},$$
(38)
where the constants $`A_{1,2}`$ are determined by the boundary conditions

$$r(z,\beta )|_{z=0}=0\text{and}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\mathrm{d}z}|_{z=0}=1.$$
(39)
This can be used to generalize the two-point distance of Eq. (36), which, for a non-zero cosmological constant, reads:

$`r(z_1,z_2,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`r(z_1,\beta )(1+z_1)r(z_2,\beta )`$ (40)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{z_1}^{z_2}}dz^{}{\displaystyle \frac{[(1+z^{})^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}]^{1/2}}{r^2(z^{},\beta )(1+z^{})^2}},`$
with $`r(z,\beta )`$ given by Eq. (38).

For practical applications, these exact solutions are rather cumbersome to use. Demianski et al. (2000) give approximate solutions for $`r(z,\beta )`$ and $`r(z_1,z_2,\beta )`$, which we use in this paper in the form kindly provided by R. de Ritis (private communication) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.7`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=0.9`$, implying $`\beta =1.84`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G=0.1`$. We ignore a possible time-dependence of the smoothness parameter. The effect of different choices of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ on the Dyer-Roeder distance with positive cosmological constant is shown in Demianski et al. (2000).

Having introduced the Dyer-Roeder distance, we can interpret the magnification in Eq. (34) as the ratio between the flux $`S`$ actually received from a source at redshift $`z`$, and the flux $`S_{\mathrm{empty}}`$ that would be received if the same source was observed through an empty cone:

$$\mu =\frac{S}{S_{\mathrm{empty}}}=S\frac{4\pi D_\mathrm{L}^2(z,\beta )}{LK(L,z)}>1,$$
(41)
where

$$D_\mathrm{L}(z,\beta )=\frac{c}{H_0}(1+z)^2r(z,\beta )$$
(42)
is the luminosity distance in an empty cone.

Since the clumpy universe is homogeneous on-average, $`\overline{D}_\mathrm{L}(z,\beta )=D_\mathrm{L}(z,1)`$. Using Eq. (41), Eq. (35) reads

$$\mu =\left(\frac{r(z,\beta )}{r_1(z)}\right)^2>1.$$
(43)
$`\mu `$ can be interpreted as the magnification of an average light beam in a smooth universe relative to that for an empty cone in a clumpy universe: $`\mu =S_{\mathrm{FL}}/S_{\mathrm{empty}}`$.

For $`q_0=1/2`$, $`\mu `$ becomes

$$\mu =\beta ^2\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2[0.25\beta \mathrm{ln}(1+z)]}{\mathrm{sinh}^2[0.25\mathrm{ln}(1+z)]},$$
(44)
(Pei 1993b), while for the more general case including the cosmological constant, $`\mu `$ has to be derived from Eq. (43).

Let $`p(\mu ,z)\mathrm{d}\mu `$ denote the probability for a source at redshift $`z`$ to be magnified by a factor of $`\mu `$ within $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$. The normalization and flux conservation conditions require:

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}d\mu p(\mu ,z)=1,_1^{\mathrm{}}d\mu p(\mu ,z)\mu =\mu .$$
(45)
When dealing with source counts on cosmological scales, however, it is often convenient to refer magnifications to the homogeneous universe rather than to the “demagnified” background. We call $`A`$ the magnification relative to the homogeneous universe:

$$A=\frac{S}{S_{\mathrm{FL}}}=\frac{S_{\mathrm{empty}}}{S_{\mathrm{FL}}}\mu ,$$
(46)
where $`\mu =S/S_{\mathrm{empty}}`$ is the magnification of a source seen through an empty beam, as in Eq. (41). Eqs. (35) and (43) imply:

$$A=\frac{\mu }{\mu }.$$
(47)
This is the definition of magnification used, for example, by Blain (1996) and Peacock (1982). It is trivial to show that for a given source redshift $`z`$, $`p(\mu ,z)\mathrm{d}\mu =p(A,z)\mathrm{d}A`$, and the normalization and flux conservation conditions become

$$_{A_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}dAp(A,z)=1,_{A_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}dAp(A,z)A=1.$$
(48)
Here, $`A_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the minimum magnification relative to the FRW universe, that can be produced by compact lenses, i.e. $`A_{\mathrm{min}}=\mu ^1`$. Since $`A=1`$, the sources which are demagnified with respect to the homogeneous universe have $`A<1`$.

## 5 The Magnification Distribution

The number of images produced by a lens, their angular separation and their magnification depend on their relative alignment as seen by the observer. For a fixed geometry of the lens system, one can ask where the source must lie for its images to have a total magnification larger than a given value $`\mu `$. The area of the resulting region in the source plane is the cross section $`\sigma (\mu ,z_\mathrm{d},z_\mathrm{s},\chi )`$, which obviously depends on lens and source redshifts, $`z_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`z_\mathrm{s}`$, on a set of parameters $`\chi `$ describing the lens model, and on the magnification itself. As both SIS and NFW halos are completely characterized by their mass, $`\chi =M`$ here. The cross section quantifies the efficiency of the individual lens on a source. It is generally found numerically, by solving the lens equation and finding the area in the source plane where a source must lie in order to produce images with a total magnification larger than $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}`$. The cross section of a singular isothermal sphere for a total magnification $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}>\mu `$ is

$$\sigma (\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}>\mu )=\frac{4\pi \widehat{\alpha }^2D_{\mathrm{ds}}^2}{\mu ^2}\text{for}\mu 2.$$
(49)
We need to compute the total magnification cross section of an ensemble of lenses distributed according to the mass function of Eq. (1). We denote by $`n_\mathrm{c}(z,M)`$ the comoving lens number density, and $`n(z,M)(1+z)^3n_\mathrm{c}(z,M)`$. As long as the cross sections of individual lenses do not overlap, each light bundle from a source encounters only one lens, and the total cross section is the integral of the individual cross sections over the redshift and mass distributions of lenses:

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(\mu ,z_\mathrm{s})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{H_0}}\right)^3`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{z_\mathrm{s}}}dz{\displaystyle dM\frac{\sigma (\mu ,z,z_\mathrm{s},M)n_\mathrm{c}(z,M)(1+z)^2r_1^2(z)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}},`$
where the proper volume of a spherical shell of width $`\mathrm{d}z`$ at redshift $`z`$ is

$$\mathrm{d}V=4\pi \left(\frac{cr_1(z)}{H_0}\right)^2\times \frac{\mathrm{d}r_{\mathrm{prop}}}{\mathrm{d}z}\mathrm{d}z.$$
(51)
For a spatially-flat universe

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}r_{\mathrm{prop}}}{\mathrm{d}z}=\frac{c}{H_0(1+z)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}.$$
(52)
The probability for a source at redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}`$ to be lensed with magnification $`>\mu `$ is obtained by dividing $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ by the area of the source sphere

$`P(\mu ,z_\mathrm{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{H_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_1^2(z_\mathrm{s})}}{\displaystyle _0^{z_\mathrm{s}}}dz{\displaystyle \frac{r_1^2(z)(1+z)^2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}}`$ (53)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle dM\sigma (\mu ,z,z_\mathrm{s},M)n_\mathrm{c}(z,M)}.`$
The requirement of non-overlapping cross sections restricts the validity of Eq. (53) to $`P1`$, i.e. the total cross section must be much smaller than the area of the source sphere. The net effect of gravitational lensing on the distribution of flux densities expected from a population of distant sources can be described by the probability distribution of magnifications, $`p(\mu ,z)`$ introduced in Sect. 4. While $`P1`$, the differential probability is $`p(\mu ,z)=\mathrm{d}P(\mu ,z)/\mathrm{d}\mu `$; in particular, $`p(A,z)=p(\mu ,z)\mu `$.

The differential probability decreases as $`\mu ^3`$ for $`\mu 1`$, hence the high magnification tail in terms of $`A`$ can be written as $`p(A,z)a(z)A^3`$. On the other hand, Eq. (53) breaks down for small magnifications, where multiple lensing events become important and cross sections overlap (in fact, the probability for many low-magnification lensing events along the line of sight to a source is rather large, while a single interaction producing high magnifications is a relatively rare event). In particular, this implies that there is a critical magnification $`A_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ below which multiple lensing becomes important, resulting in low-magnification events (weak lensing regime). Vietri & Ostriker (1983) analytically described multiple lensing for the SIS model.

Based on general considerations (see Bartelmann & Schneider 2001 for a review), one expects a skewed magnification distribution with a weak lensing peak near $`A=1`$, turning into the high-magnification tail $`A^3`$ at $`A=A_{\mathrm{cut}}`$.

For a Gaussian density fluctuation field $`\delta `$, weak lensing by large scale structure (e.g. Bartelmann & Schneider 2001; Miralda-Escudé 1991; Blandford et al. 1991; Kaiser 1992; Jain & Seljak 1992) produces a Gaussian magnification distribution. In fact, as long as $`\delta AA11`$, the magnification of a source at redshift $`z`$ can be approximated as

$$A(z)=1+\delta A(z)1+2\kappa (z),$$
(54)
i.e. to first order the magnification fluctuation is just twice the convergence $`\kappa `$, which itself is a projection of the density contrast $`\delta `$. The distribution of the magnification fluctuations $`\delta A`$ will then be Gaussian, with mean zero and a dispersion $`\sigma _\mathrm{A}(z)`$ which depends on the source redshift and, albeit weakly, on cosmology. Typical values for $`\sigma _\mathrm{A}`$ run from $`2\times 10^3`$ for $`z=0.05`$ to $`0.44`$ at $`z=7.5`$ (cf. Bartelmann & Schneider 2001).

A convenient choice for $`A_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is $`A_{\mathrm{cut}}=1+1.5\sigma _\mathrm{A}(z)`$, yielding $`A_{\mathrm{cut}}1.52`$ for the redshift range of interest in this paper. We model the probability distribution for $`A<A_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ as

$$p(A,z)=H(z)\mathrm{exp}[(A\overline{A})^2/2\sigma _\mathrm{A}^2(z)],$$
(55)
where the precise location of the peak $`\overline{A}`$ and the amplitude $`H(z)`$ are determined by the normalization and flux conservation conditions \[Eq. (48)\] on the combined (weak plus strong lensing) probability distribution.

The magnification probability for isothermal galaxy models has been derived by Peacock (1982) and Vietri & Ostriker (1983), and, for more complicated galaxy models, by Blandford & Kochanek (1987) and Wallington & Narayan (1993). In this paper, we integrate Eq. (53) also for lenses with NFW density profile (see Sect. 3), and we describe the low-magnification distribution according to Eq. (55). Numerical results are presented in Section 8.

Let us now turn to the magnification bias on a flux-limited source sample. The integrated counts above a flux density threshold $`S_\nu `$ of sources with a comoving luminosity function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z)`$ can be written as (see e.g. De Zotti et al. 1996):

$$N(S_\nu )=_0^{z_0}dz_{L_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}dL\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z)\frac{D_\mathrm{L}^2(z,1)}{(1+z)^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\mathrm{d}z}\text{sr}^1,$$
(56)
where the luminosity distance $`D_\mathrm{L}^2(z,1)`$ is computed from Eq. (42) with $`\beta =1`$ and

$$L_{\mathrm{min}}(\nu )=4\pi (1+z)r^2(z)S_\nu \frac{L(\nu )}{L[(1+z)\nu ]}.$$
(57)
Note that the comoving radial coordinate $`r`$ \[and its element $`dr`$ in Eq. (56)\] must not be confused with the dimensionless angular diameter distance $`r_1(z)`$ \[Eq. (37))\].

The luminosity function modified by the magnification bias reads (e.g. Pei 1995):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(L,z)=_{A_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}dA\frac{p(A,z)}{A}\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{L}{A},z).$$
(58)
Allowance for the effect of lensing on counts is made by replacing $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(L,z)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z)`$ in Eq. (56).

## 6 Source Counts in the Submillimetre Waveband

In this paper, the “unlensed” galaxy counts in the submillimetre waveband are taken from the model presented by Granato et al. (2000), which is in good agreement with the available SCUBA data at $`850\mu `$m (Blain et al. 1999; Smail et al. 1999).

In this model the rate of formation of spheroids at high redshift is estimated exploiting the (i) QSO Luminosity Function and (ii) observational evidence leading to the conclusion that high redshift QSOs did shine in the core of early type proto–galaxies during their main episode of star formation. In their scenario the star formation is more rapid in more massive objects, ranging from $`0.5`$ to $`2`$ Gyr when going from more massive to less massive objects. This Anti-hierarchical Baryonic Collapse is expected to occur in Dark Matter halos, when the processes of cooling and heating is considered. The larger the dark halo and the enclosed spheroid mass are, the shorter will the gas infall and cooling times be, resulting in a faster formation of the stars and of the central black hole. The star-formation process and the quasar shining phase proceed until powerful galactic winds are caused by the quasar itself, which occurs at a characteristic time when its luminosity becomes high enough. Also Monaco et al (2000), in order to account for the observed statistics of QSOs and elliptical galaxies in the framework of hierarchical structure formation, introduced a a time delay decreasing with mass between the beginning of the star formation and the QSO bright phase.

The spectroscopic evolution of galaxies adopted here is based on the model GRASIL (Silva et al. 1998). GRASIL includes: (i) chemical evolution; (ii) dust formation, assumed to follow the chemistry of the gas; (iii) integrated spectra of simple stellar populations (SSP) with the appropriate chemical composition; (iv) realistic 3D distribution of stars, molecular clouds (in which stars form and subsequently escape) and diffuse dust; (v) radiative transfer computation in this clumpy ISM and dust temperature distribution determined by the local radiation field.

With these ingredients, the evolving luminosity functions (LF) at various wavelengths in the millimeter and submillimetre wavebands are evaluated numerically, and they turn out to be significantly different from models of Pure Luminosity Evolution for the $`60\mu `$m LF of IRAS galaxies (Saunders et al. 1990), properly rescaled to the wavelengths of interest. The IRAS galaxy LF, which is based on an empirical model describing the evolution in a parametric way, was used by Blain (1996) to obtain galaxy counts in the submillimetre wavebands, which were then used for estimating the incidence of gravitational lensing on source counts. However, the model by Granato et al. implies steeper source counts, nearly exponentially decreasing at bright fluxes, so that, as explained in section (4), the effect of gravitational lensing is expected to be more important.

All source counts obtained in this paper, with and without magnification bias, the spheroids include elliptical galaxies as well as bulges of Sa galaxies, and we followed the formalism of Granato et al. (2000) on the source properties.

## 7 Maximum magnification for extended sources

As discussed by Peacock (1982), in the case of extended sources the magnification cannot be arbitrarily large. Correspondingly the magnification distribution must be cut-off at large $`A`$ as:

$$p(A)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{A}{A_{\mathrm{max}}}\right),$$
(59)
where the cut-off magnification $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ depends on the physical size of the source.

Since, in some applications, e.g. for the estimate of the influence of lensing on counts of sub-millimeter sources (Blain 1996), the results are sensitive to the adopted value of $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the approximated expression derived by Peacock (1982) \[$`A_{\mathrm{max}}=70(DH_0/c)(d/\text{kpc})^1`$, where $`d`$ is the physical radius of the source, $`D`$ is the angular diameter distance of the source and $`c/H_0`$ is the Hubble radius\] may not be sufficient.

The morphology of strongly lensed sources indicates that most lenses are not circularly symmetric (e.g. Narayan & Bartelmann 1997 and references therein). Therefore, to estimate the maximum possible magnification for a source of physical radius $`r`$ at redshift $`z_s`$, we considered in general an elliptical lensing potential due to a quasi isothermal sphere (Blandford & Kochanek 1987). Defining polar coordinates $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ in the image plane, with origin at the center of mass, and measuring $`\theta `$ from the major axis of the ellipse, the deflection potential may be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )=\theta _\mathrm{E}\sqrt{(s^2+r^2)}(1g\mathrm{cos}2\theta ).$$
(60)
Here $`g`$ is the ellipticity parameter, $`s`$ the core radius and $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$ is defined by Eq. (20). The results for an extended source are weakly dependent on $`s`$, within a relatively broad interval; therefore we simply set $`s=0`$ in the following. With this potential we have computed the expected magnification of a pointlike source $`A(\stackrel{}{y})`$, as a function of its position $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ in the source plane. This has been done by means of the ray-shooting method (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992, pag. 304). Then the magnification of an extended source with brightness profile $`I(\stackrel{}{y})`$, as a function of the position $`\stackrel{}{y}_E`$ of its center, is given by

$$A_E(\stackrel{}{y}_E)=\frac{I(\stackrel{}{y})A(\stackrel{}{y})d^2y}{I(\stackrel{}{y})d^2y}.$$
(61)
For the brightness profile, we have used either a de Vaucouleurs law

$$\mathrm{log}I(R)=\mathrm{log}I_e3.33\left[(R/R_e)^{1/4}1\right],$$
(62)
or the Hubble profile

$$I(R)=I_o/(1+R/R_o)^2.$$
(63)
Observed profiles of spheroidal galaxies are well reproduced by both functional forms over a wide range of $`R`$, provided that $`R_e11R_o`$ (Mihalas & Binney 1981).

We find that, adopting this relationship between the scale-lengths, the estimated $`A_E`$ are very similar in both cases. Therefore in the following we present only results for Eq. (62). We assume in particular $`R_e=5`$ kpc, typical for a bright elliptical galaxy (e.g. Kent 1985). For a SIS, the maximum possible magnification is achieved when the lens is local, i.e. when $`D_{\mathrm{ds}}=D_\mathrm{s}`$ in Eq. (20). We set $`\sigma _v=300`$ km s<sup>-1</sup>, which corresponds to a mass of $`10^{12}`$ M within 25 kpc adopting the isothermal relationship $`M(<R)=2\sigma _v^2R/G`$. With our adopted cosmology, Eq. (20) yields $`\theta _E=2.6^{\prime \prime }`$.

Figure 1 shows the corresponding magnification for an extended source as a function of the offset $`r`$ between its center and the projection of the lens center in the source plane. Here we have set $`g=0`$ into Eq. (60), i.e. we adopt a spherical potential, and the source is at $`z_s=3`$, but very similar plots are obtained for $`z_s`$ in the range $`1÷4`$. As can be seen, the magnification is maximized when the source and the lens are aligned and $`A_{\mathrm{max}}26`$. If the lens is placed instead at $`z_l=0.5`$, then $`b=1.2`$ arcsec and $`A_{\mathrm{max}}13`$.

However, as already remarked, strongly lensed sources are usually explained in terms of potentials with non vanishing ellipticity. A typical value for $`g`$ could be $`0.1`$. In this case the symmetry of $`A_E`$ around $`r=0`$ is lost and the maximum magnification, $`A_{\mathrm{max}}12`$, significantly lower than in the spherical case, occurs when the lens and the source are offset by $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ along the major axis of the ellipse. The results are detailed in Fig. 2.

We conclude that reasonable values of $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for extended sources are in the range 10–30. The lower value is a relatively conservative lower limit, easily exceeded for a wide range of values for the relevant quantities, while the latter is obtained only under rather special conditions.

## 8 Numerical Results and Discussion

### 8.1 Effects from cosmology

To illustrate the effect of the cosmological model on the magnification probability distribution $`p(A,z)`$, we plot in Fig. 3 the amplitude $`a(z)`$ of the high-magnification tail for two different cosmologies, viz. a flat CDM and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}=0.3`$. We have adopted SIS profiles for lenses and a smoothness parameter $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=0.9`$. The two models are normalized to reproduce the local abundance of rich clusters: $`\sigma _8=0.56\mathrm{\Omega }_{0\mathrm{m}}^{0.47}`$ (Viana & Liddle 1999).

The optical depth for a beam of light from a source due to lensing is proportional to the number density of deflectors multiplied by the cross section for a given magnification, integrated along the line of sight. Two competing effects are therefore relevant. On one hand, the path length to a source is larger for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. On the other hand, the structure formation histories within the standard hierarchical clustering scenario are also different for the different cosmologies. If we normalize the models to reproduce the local cluster abundance, the density of lower mass objects is lower in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, because the mass function is flatter (e.g. Eke et al. 1996). This is shown in the upper panel of Fig. 4, where the mass function \[Eq. (1)\] is plotted as a function of the halo mass at $`z=0`$. The number of low-mass objects keeps increasing with redshift above the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, while the opposite is true for high masses.

The next question is then: which is the mass range contributing most to the optical depth? In Fig. 5 we show as a function of the lens mass, both the cross section for magnifications $`A>2`$ and the lens mass function for given values of the source and lens redshifts. A SIS profile is adopted. It may be noted that the magnification cross section is similar for the two models (although slightly higher for the flat CDM model). The product of the two functions peaks at masses between $`10^{11}`$ and $`10^{12}\text{M}_{}`$ for both a flat CDM and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model.

The effective mass of dark matter halos contributing most to strong lensing of a source located at $`z_s`$ can be estimated as:

$$M=dz_\mathrm{l}dMM\frac{\mathrm{d}P(A,z_s)}{\mathrm{d}z_\mathrm{l}\mathrm{d}M},$$
(64)
where $`P(A,z_s)`$ is the probability to have magnification $`>A`$. The inner integral, $`\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}z_\mathrm{l}`$, is plotted as a function of $`z_\mathrm{l}`$, for $`z_s=5`$, a SIS lens profile and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, in Fig. 6. As illustrated by this Figure, the maximum contribution to the magnification probability comes from the mass range ($`10^{11}`$$`10^{12}M_{}`$) for which space densities implied by a CDM model are appreciably higher than in the case of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, in the relevant redshift interval, if the models have to be consistent with the observed cluster abundance. This over-compensates for the larger path length to a source in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and explains why the probability distribution of strong magnifications has a lower amplitude for such model.

It may be noted (Fig. 3) that the difference between the two cases decreases with increasing source redshift, since also the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model approaches an Einstein-de Sitter universe at high redshift.

Also shown in Fig. 3 is the amplitude $`a(z)`$ for a COBE-normalized standard-CDM model. The relatively large values for this quantity for any source redshift are unrealistic since they are due to a mass function of dark halos inconsistent with the cluster abundance.

### 8.2 SIS versus NFW profiles

Figure 7 compares the effect of SIS and NFW lens profiles on the magnification distributions for sources at $`z_s=4`$ and $`z_s=7`$, including the weak lensing effect for $`A<A_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. The magnification distributions are obtained by integrating over lens masses the cross sections in the source plane, weighted by the mass distribution \[Eq. (1)\]. The weak-lensing regime, responsible for magnifications below $`A_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, gives rise to a Gaussian peak near $`A=1`$ whose dispersion increases with increasing source redshift. In the strong-lensing regime, the probability distribution is obtained by solving Eq. (12) numerically and inserting the result in Eq. (53). The asymptotic behaviour $`A^3`$ is reached earlier by the most distant sources. The high-magnification tail of Fig. 7 is shown in closer detail in Fig. 8. Note that the plotted distribution of magnifications has a discontinuity in $`A_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, i.e. at the transition between the weak and strong lensing regimes.

The two density profiles lead to slightly different magnification distributions. In particular, the NFW lens is more efficient than the SIS for moderate magnifications ($`2\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}A\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$), and less efficient for high magnifications. In fact, NFW lenses have smaller high-magnification cross sections than SIS lenses of equal mass, even if the average magnification is higher. This can be read off Fig. 9, where we plot the cross section for magnifications $`A>2`$ and $`A>10`$ as a function of the halo mass for the two models, keeping fixed the configuration of the system. For virtually all halo masses, $`\sigma (10)_{\mathrm{NFW}}<\sigma (10)_{\mathrm{SIS}}`$, while $`\sigma (2)_{\mathrm{NFW}}>\sigma (2)_{\mathrm{SIS}}`$. Even though the latter relation fails for very small lens masses, it still holds when the cross sections are weighted with the appropriate mass function. As mentioned above, the bulk of the contribution to the magnification distribution comes from a limited mass range. The effective mass defined in Sect. 8.1 is nearly equal for SIS and NFW profiles, namely $`10^{1112}M_{}`$. Although $`M`$ depends (albeit weakly) on the lens redshift, massive clusters never contribute substantially to the integrand in Eq. (53) because they are extremely rare.

The SIS and NFW density profiles and the corresponding mass encompassed within the radius $`r`$ for a $`10^{12}M_{}`$ object are shown in Fig. 10. Virial radii are approximately equal in the two cases. For the NFW profile, the virial and scale radii are $`r_{200}140h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{s}15h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$, respectively, for $`h=0.65`$; the concentration is $`c10`$. The convergence $`\kappa `$ for the two profiles is shown in the upper panel of Fig. 11 as a function of halocentric distance. Unlike the surface density, the convergence depends also on the geometry of the lens system. Here, the lens is at $`z_\mathrm{l}=1`$ and the source at $`z_\mathrm{s}=5`$. The two convergence profiles are quite similar, but the shear is also playing a fundamental role to determine the magnification distribution. In the lower panel of Fig. 11, we plot, for the two profiles, $`det^1𝒜`$, i.e. the image magnification $`\mu `$ of an image with impact parameter $`r`$ in the lens plane. Note that, even if some images are demagnified by lensing, the total magnification of the source is always $`>1`$ (e.g. Schneider et al. 1992). The critical curves behave differently. Even though the NFW profile has a singular core, it has tangential and radial critical curves (Bartelmann 1996), while the SIS has only a tangential critical curve (whose caustic degenerates to a point for all axially symmetric lenses). Consequently, the maximum image number is two for SIS and three for NFW lenses.

Figure 11 shows that the tangential critical curve of a SIS occurs at a larger radius than both critical curves of an NFW halo with equal mass. This means that high magnifications are favored in the SIS model, because the corresponding cross sections in the source plane is larger. On the other hand, the SIS profile yields lower total magnifications when the source lies well outside the outer caustic in the source plane. The NFW cross sections for $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}2`$ generally overcome the SIS ones, due to the fact that the lensing potential is less curved for the NFW than for the SIS profile, hence this also occurs for more massive halos. In Fig. 12, we plot the equilibrium configurations for a $`10^{14}M_{}`$ halo. The NFW profile has virial and scale radii of $`r_{200}690h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{s}100h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$, respectively, for $`h=0.65`$ (the concentration is $`c6.5`$).

In Fig. 13, we plot the convergence and the magnification for a single image as a function of its location. After adding all image magnifications, inverting to find the cross section $`\sigma (\mu )`$ vs. source position, and integrating over all lenses up to the source redshift, this explains the enhancement of the NFW probability for low magnifications with respect to the SIS model, shown in Fig. 7, and the opposite effect for large magnifications. However, we see that the probability distributions are quite similar and the effects of lensing on a source population turn out to be nearly identical for lenses with the two density profiles.

We finish with a cautionary note. The simulations resulting in the density profile of Eq. (25) did not have sufficient resolution for halo masses $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}h^1M_{}`$. We are therefore extrapolating the validity of this density profile as well as the relation between halo concentration and mass to a mass range where higher-resolution $`N`$-body simulations would be required. Furthermore, as Porciani & Madau (2000) pointed out, in order to obtain agreement with the data on image separations of QSOs one should consider baryonic cooling in dark matter halos, able to transform NFW halos into isothermal distributions for masses smaller than some threshold. In such a picture, DM halos are modeled as NFW halos only above a threshold that is certainly well above the smallest mass that we are considering here.

### 8.3 Effects on the source counts

We can finally estimate the strongly lensed source counts, and compare them with the “unlensed” and weakly lensed counts, in a given wave band, based on the model by Granato et al. (2000). Using the “corrected” magnification distribution $`p(A)`$ for extended sources, Eq. (59), we compute lensed counts at $`850\mu `$m, using SIS and NFW lenses. In Fig. 14, the solid line shows the integral source counts that we expect at $`850\mu `$m from the source distribution described in Sect. 6, ignoring lensing. The dot-dashed line includes only weak lensing, using the low-magnification tail of the magnification distribution $`p(A,z)`$. Since the latter is modeled as a Gaussian with small dispersion around the mean $`A=1`$, we can see from Fig. 14 that weak lensing by large-scale structures has very little effect on the integral source counts, even though the variance of the distribution increases with source redshift. The weakly lensed counts are therefore quite similar to the unlensed ones given by Granato et al. (2000). Even the weakly lensed counts, however, fall above the unlensed counts where the number-count function falls most steeply.

The effects of strong lensing from a Sheth & Tormen mass distribution of SIS and NFW lenses is plotted in Fig. 14 as short- and long-dashed lines, respectively; for both density profiles, following the results of section 7, we show in Fig. 14 the results obtained plugging either $`A_{\mathrm{E},\mathrm{max}}=10`$ (lower lines)or $`A_{\mathrm{E},\mathrm{max}}=30`$ (upper lines).

We can see that the contribution of strong lensing from a SIS model is here of the order $`10^2`$ in the flat part of the counts, while it dramatically raises up in the steepest region, overcoming the weakly lensed counts. This is due to the very strong magnification bias for these sources. First, the source redshift, $`z5`$, is quite high. The probability for a source to undergo a lensing event with high magnification increases with increasing source redshift. Second, and importantly, the steep source counts, discussed in Sect. 6 and by Blain (1996), provide a huge reservoir of source to be magnified above the flux limit of the observation.

At flux densities around $`100`$mJy, the counts will be dominated by sources magnified by a factor $`A1020`$. As we have seen, such quite high magnifications are less probable for the NFW lenses than for the SIS population, which explains the relative values of strongly lensed source counts from NFW and SIS lenses at flux densities $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}`$mJy of Fig. 14. At higher flux densities, lensed sources are depressed by the effect of having taken a maximum amplification $`A_{\mathrm{E},\mathrm{max}}=30`$.

The substantial magnification bias at flux densities around $`100`$mJy allows to detect sources otherwise not bright enough for detection. This result may have very interesting consequences on the expected number of SCUBA sources to be found in the whole sky maps produced by the incoming Planck Surveyor Satellite, operating at nine frequency channels between 0.3 and 10 mm (Mandolesi et al. 1998). The detailed study of this issue will be the subject of a forthcoming work (Perrotta et al. 2001).

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to L. Danese, L. Moscardini, S. Matarrese, C. Porciani, A. Blain and C. Lacey for useful suggestions and discussions. We remember with gratitude R. De Ritis, and, together with him, we acknowledge E. Piedipalumbo, M. Demianski and A.A. Marino, who kindly provided the coefficients for the approximation of the solution to the Dyer-Roeder equation used in this paper. F.P. wishes to thank the MPA for kind hospitality.

Work supported in part by MURST and ASI.