multi-colour detection of gravitational arcs - arxiv

Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. maturi˙arcfinder˙v6 c© ESO 2018November 3, 2018

Multi-colour detection of gravitational arcsMatteo Maturi1?, Sebastian Mizera2, and Gregor Seidel3

1 Zentrum fur Astronomie der Universitat Heidelberg, Institut fur Theoretische Astrophysik, Philosophenweg 12, 69120 Heidelberg,Germany2 University of Cambridge, The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United Kingdom3 Max-Planck-Institut fur Astronomie, Konigstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

Astronomy & Astrophysics, submitted

ABSTRACT

Strong gravitational lensing provides fundamental insights into the understanding of the dark matter distribution in massive galaxies,galaxy clusters and the background cosmology. Despite their importance, the number of gravitational arcs discovered so far is small.The urge for more complete, large samples and unbiased methods of selecting candidates is rising. A number of methods for theautomatic detection of arcs have been proposed in the literature, but large amounts of spurious detections retrieved by these methodsforces observers to visually inspect thousands of candidates per square degree in order to clean the samples. This approach is largelysubjective and requires a huge amount of eye-ball checking, especially considering the actual and upcoming wide field surveys, whichwill cover thousands of square degrees.In this paper we study the statistical properties of colours of gravitational arcs detected in the 37 deg2 of the CARS survey. We havefound that most of them lie in a relatively small region of the (g′ − r′, r′ − i′) colour-colour diagram. To explain this property, weprovide a model which includes the lensing optical depth expected in a ΛCDM cosmology that, in combination with the sources’redshift distribution of a given survey, in our case CARS, peaks for sources at redshift z ∼ 1. By further modelling the colours derivedfrom the SED of the galaxies dominating the population at that redshift, the model well reproduces the observed colours.By taking advantage of the colour selection suggested by both data and model, we show that this multi-band filtering returns a sample83% complete and a contamination reduced by a factor of ∼ 6.5 with respect to the single-band arcfinder sample. New arc candidatesare also proposed.

Key words. Cosmology: Dark Matter, Galaxies: clusters: general, Methods: observational, Gravitational lensing: strong

1. Introduction

Strong gravitational lensing is a powerful tool used to probe darkmatter and cosmology. The power is in its high non-linearityand sensitivity to mass distributions and the geometry of space-time (e.g. see reviews, Wambsganss, 1998; Schneider, 1999;Kochanek, 2006; Bartelmann, 2010). It finds many applications,such as (1) study of high redshift objects which strongly magnifyimages allowing them to be examined further, which would bevery difficult otherwise (e.g. Kneib et al., 2004; Richard et al.,2008; Zitrin & Broadhurst, 2009; Richard et al., 2011; Bradacet al., 2012; Coe et al., 2013), (2) determination of the Hubbleconstant via time delays (e.g. Coles, 2008; Suyu et al., 2010;Tewes et al., 2012), (3) measurement of dark matter amountand distribution of the lenses, in particular of galaxy clusters(Broadhurst et al., 2005; Zitrin et al., 2009; Merten et al., 2009),and (4) study of intrinsic properties of dark matter, such asits collisional cross section, thanks to major merger events be-tween galaxy clusters (Clowe et al., 2004; Merten et al., 2011).Moreover, giant arcs are a valuable tool to constrain cosmology,since their number is very sensitive to cosmological parametersand structure formation (Meneghetti et al., 2013). Of particu-lar interest is the tension between their predicted and observednumber in the sky as highlighted by Bartelmann et al. (1995,1998); Meneghetti et al. (2000); Dalal et al. (2004); Meneghettiet al. (2003), even if recent studies alleviated this tension byintroducing more accurate cluster models based on numerical

? e-mail: [email protected]

N-body simulations (Meneghetti et al., 2000; Torri et al., 2004;Meneghetti et al., 2003; Li et al., 2005; Horesh et al., 2005) andhalo-models (Fedeli et al., 2006).

So far, a relatively small number of gravitational arcs hasbeen found. In particular, only few giant arcs caused by galaxyclusters are known. The search for them is mostly focused onbright X-ray clusters, due to their large efficiency in producingstrong lensing features. This selection biases the actual sample,since these clusters tend to be non-relaxed, limiting the possi-bilities of this powerful observable. Up to now, only few hun-dred of cases have been confirmed (see e.g. Fassnacht et al.,2004; Cabanac et al., 2007; Faure et al., 2008; Jackson, 2008;Limousin et al., 2009; Verdugo et al., 2011; More et al., 2012;Bayliss et al., 2011; Oguri et al., 2012). To face these issues,automatic arc detection methods have been proposed in the liter-ature in order to produce unbiased samples, but the actual meth-ods still suffer from strong contamination and require heavy hu-man intervention by eye-ball checking thousands of candidatesper square degree. The need of a large amount of human re-sources and the subjective outcome both limit the applicabilityof these procedures (see e.g. Cabanac et al., 2007; More et al.,2012).

In this work, we aim at enlarging the sample of gravitationalarcs by using the arcfinder proposed by Seidel & Bartelmann(2007) combined with a new colour selection procedure dis-cussed in this work. The method allows a strong reduction of thesample contamination alleviating the efforts devoted to the fi-nal validation of the most promising candidates. In this work weprocess the CFHTLS-Archive-Research Survey (CARS, Erben

1

arX

iv:1

305.

3608

v2 [

astr

o-ph

.CO

] 6

Mar

201

4

Maturi et al.: Multi-colour detection of gravitational arcs

et al., 2009) data, covering 37 square degrees in order to verifythe efficiency of the method and to detect new gravitational arcs.

The paper is organised as follows: in Section (2) and (3)we introduce the basics of strong gravitational lensing and thedata set characteristics, in Section (4) the arcfinder and its appli-cations are described, while in Section (5) we characterize thecolour properties of arcs to be used for the subsequent selection.In Section (6) the full method is discussed and in Section (7)we present the final sample of arcs. Our conclusions are finallydrawn in Section (8).

2. Basics of strong gravitational lensing

All lensing quantities derive from the gravitational potential, Φ,of the matter placed along the line of sight on a thin plane placedbetween the observer and the background sources

ψ(θ) ≡2c2

Dds

DdDs

∫Φ(Ddθ, z) dz . (1)

Here, ψ(θ) is the so-called lensing potential which depends onthe angular position, θ, in the plane of the sky, c is the speed oflight, Dds, Dd and Ds are the lens-source, the observer-lens andthe observer-source angular-diameter distances, respectively.

Gravitational lensing maps the lens plane into the sourceplane via the lens equation

β = θ − ∇ψ(θ) , (2)

which can be linearised because sources, such as distant galax-ies, are much smaller with respect to the typical scale on whichthe lens properties vary. The induced image distortion is thusexpressed by the Jacobian of the linearised lens equation

A ≡∂β

∂θ=

(δi j −

∂2ψ(θ)∂θi∂θ j

)=

(1 − κ − γ1 −γ2−γ2 1 − κ + γ1

), (3)

where κ is the convergence and γ = γ1 +iγ2 is the complex shear.Since A is symmetric, it can always be diagonalized and its tworeal eigenvalues, λt = 1 − κ − γ and λr = 1 − κ + γ, representthe distortion of an infinitesimal source in tangential and radialdirections relative to the lens centre, respectively. The length-to-width ratio (L/W hereafter) of the image is thus defined asq = λt/λr and its magnification factor reads

µ =1

(1 − κ)2 − γ21 − γ

22

. (4)

For more details on gravitational lensing see for exampleWambsganss (1998), Schneider (1999) or Bartelmann (2010).

3. Data set

To test our arcfinding method and possibly discover new stronglensing features, we processed stacked images belonging tothe CFHTLS-Archive-Research Survey (CARS) (Erben et al.,2009), a set of three high-galactic-latitude patches covering atotal of 37 deg2 and produced with the publicly available obser-vations obtained with the MegaPrime camera mounted an theCanada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) within the Canada-France-Hawaii-Telescope Legacy Survey1. The MegaPrime is anoptical camera with a mosaic of 9 CCDs of 2048 pixels, eachsampling 0.186 arcseconds over a field of view of one squaredegree (see e.g. Boulade et al., 2003). All observations were ob-tained through the filters u?, g′, r′, i′ and z′. The three patches ofsky covered by CARS are:

1 www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Science/CFHLS

Fig. 1. One of the arcs detected by More et al. (2012), in the cen-tre, used to initialize arcfinder parameters. The arc is clearly de-tected and the number of false detections is very small, in com-parison to all objects in the field, already at the segmentationstage, before further selection process.

field RA Dec. area (deg2)W1 02:18:00 07:00:00 21W3 14:17:54 +54:30:31 5W4 22:13:18 +01:19:00 11

The deep co-added images were produced using theGaBoDS/THELI pipeline on a pointing/colour basis afterrejecting all exposures with a problematic CFHT quality assess-ment (Erben et al., 2005). All details about CARS can be foundin Erben et al. (2009).

The depth of images (AB magnitude), defined as the 5σ de-tection limit in a 2′′ radius aperture, is typically 25.24, 25.30,24.36, 24.68 and 23.20 for the u?, g′, r′, i′, and z′ bands, respec-tively. The measured seeing for all co-added images is well be-low 1.0 arcsecond in all bands, except for the W1p3p3 u?-bandimage, having a seeing of 1.1 arcseconds, which therefore wasignored in this work. The seeing quality is crucial to detect arcsbecause of their very small width. A large seeing would stronglyaffect their signal-to-noise ratio and reduce the L/W ratio, whichbeing their most distinctive signature would make the detectionsignificantly more difficult.

In addition to the publicly available data, we use the g′ andr′ bands to produce a weighted co-addition for each field toobtain a higher signal-to-noise ratio image, over which we runthe arcfinder segmentation, as will be discussed later. In the co-addition, we ignored the u? and z′ bands because of their smallerintrinsic depth, and the i′ band because of large elliptical galax-ies being too prominent. Arcs tend to be close to such objectsand would likely blend with them, strongly affecting their seg-mentation.

4. Image segmentation

As a first step of searching for gravitational arcs, we adoptedthe arcfinder described in Seidel & Bartelmann (2007) to pro-duce the image segmentation necessary to detect elongated ob-jects, and obtain important geometrical information, such astheir length, L, and length-to-width ratio, L/W. Both are funda-mental quantities for a subsequent object selection. In this workwe briefly summarize the arcfinder algorithm in Appendix (A).

We calibrated the arcfinder parameters on an empirical basisby selecting cut-outs centred on arcs previously discovered in theCARS data, and by adjusting parameters so that arcs are recog-nised as such. At the same time, we controlled and evaluated thenumber of spurious detections to minimize their presence. At

2

www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Science/CFHLS


33 34 35 36 37 38

-8.5

-8

-7.5

-7

-6.5

-6

-5.5

-5

-4.5

-4

Dec

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

209 210 211 212 213

RA

51.2

51.4

51.6

51.8

52

52.2

52.4

52.6

52.8

53

Dec

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

332 333 334 335

RA

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Dec

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Fig. 2. Maps representing the number density per arcmin2 of all objects identified by the arcfinder before applying geometrical andcolour selection criteria, which will be applied in subsequent steps to identify the arc candidates. Since the more stringent constraintsare not yet applied, these maps are dominated by spurious detections, thus showing their distribution in the survey. The fluctuationsin number density are expected because of the intrinsic inhomogeneous distribution of the sources and the large inhomogeneities ofthe image depth across the survey. We cope with this by measuring the noise locally. The three CARS fields, W1, W3 and W4, areshown.

this stage, we set the final segmentation parameters but definedonly very relaxed geometrical constraints, i.e. length and length-to-width ratio, for the very first selection of suitable sources.This is to obtain a wide overview of statistics of their geomet-rical properties to gain the necessary information for the actualcalibration of the arcfinder as discussed in the next paragraphs.As an additional rejection criterion we removed circular areassurrounding bright stars, which might create false detections be-cause of their halos and diffraction spikes. The radius in pixels,r = 420 f 1/3, of these areas is related to the stellar flux, f , asderived from the UCAC3 catalogue (Zacharias et al., 2010). Thesame catalogue is also used to define their locations in the fieldof view. Moreover, we set an upper limit in the surface brightnessof candidates, because arcs tend to be faint. This limit is set to0.6ADU/s, and was empirically chosen given the surface bright-nesses of the arcs used in the calibration. The most important pa-rameters used for the segmentation are listed in Appendix (A).These parameters could be refined by iterating the process ofinclusion of new arcs discovered at each step. This might bestrictly necessary if none or only few known arcs are present inthe field under investigation. In our case we have a sufficientlylarge sample for a proper and robust calibration. In fact, with aunique set of parameters, we detected arcs with very differentshapes, length-to-width ratios, curvature and environment, rang-ing from cluster to galactic arcs.

In Figure (1) we present a small portion of one of the cut-outsused for the calibration together with the related segmentationproduced by the arcfinder. Clearly, only very few objects appearon the right panel of the figure. Detected objects include a giantarc in the middle, one object facing edge-on, and an elongatedfeature resulting from blending of two objects. Blending of thelower right detection may appear excessive, given the large sep-aration of the two objects, but we have to keep in mind that thesegmentation is not based on a brightness cut-off criterion as inthe case of many other algorithms. In ours, the segmentation al-gorithm measures coherent patterns in local second brightnessmoments which, for these two objects, is aligned along a com-mon direction resulting in their merging as a single detection.We use an aggressive parameter for blending to avoid splittingof arcs with strong luminosity variations along their major axis.

With the discussed segmentation and very loose filtering ap-plied so far to the CARS data, with very relaxed geometricalconstraints used to acquire a wide statistical understanding ofthe data (the final selection still has to come), we obtained an

initial sample of 201 699 sources, the number density of whichacross the survey is shown in Figure (2). The clear fluctuations innumber density follow the intrinsic variations of the object dis-tribution and, more importantly, depend on the large variationsof the image depth across the survey field. We account for thesevariations during the arcfinding process, where we perform a lo-cal estimate of the noise level to retrieve a sample with uniformsignal-to-noise ratio properties. Note that this initial catalogueis largely dominated by spurious objects, since the most strin-gent constraints are not yet applied. In Figure (3) we plot theprobability distribution and cumulative function of the main ge-ometrical properties, i.e. length and length-to-width ratio, of theentire sample of sources obtained with the arcfinder.

In this step, we aim at completeness by setting only weakconstraints on the detection shapes we expect from strong lens-ing in combination with the PSF convolution, hence we choosea minimal length-to-width ratio of L/W > 4 instead of boldervalues, e.g. 7 or 10, typical for well resolved strong lensing fea-tures. Lower values cannot be adopted, as they are typical formost of the sources in the field (e.g. galaxies, amongst others).The lack of an additional length constraint would allow for ob-jects smaller than the image PSF. Because of this reason, we set aminimum length of L > 15 pixels (2.9 arcsec). These constraintsare shown as green vertical lines in Figure (3). With these selec-tion parameters we reduced the sample size to 36 026 objects,i.e. an average of about 970 detections per square degree. This isthe final sample as provided by the arcfinder when applied onto asingle band. Even if the number of candidates seems large (andin fact it still contains a large number of false detections), wehave to keep in mind that we started with 7 106 objects detectedwith SExtractor within the survey (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996) andthat we search for objects down to the noise limit. This showshow, with the arc segmentation alone, we already have an effi-cient and powerful filter, even if not sufficient to obtain a reliableautomatic procedure. In the next section we show how expand-ing the method onto three bands improves the situation.

5. Colour properties of the sample

Once we obtain the source segmentation, curvature, length andL/W ratio, we get a sample of objects with the right geomet-rical properties, i.e. faint, thin and elongated sources. This ishowever still not enough for a clear distinction between gravita-tional arcs and other astrophysical sources or noise fluctuations.

3


0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fre

qu

en

cy

Cu

mu

lative

fre

qu

en

cy

length

Entire arcfinder sample

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fre

qu

en

cy

Cu

mu

lative

fre

qu

en

cy

length/width

Entire arcfinder sample

Fig. 3. Probability distribution (filled bars) and cumulative function (blue line) of the length, expressed in pixels of 0.186 arcsec insize, and the length-to-width ratio of all objects detected with the arcfinder before the application of the final geometrical and colourselection, in the left and right panels, respectively. The vertical green lines represent the respective lower limits adopted for the finalcandidates selection to maximize the completeness given the limits imposed by the data PSF.

In this work we address this issue with photometry, in particu-lar of colours. We show, in fact, that the population of sourceswith the largest probability to experience strong lensing (thusresulting in gravitational arcs) is dominated by a fairly uniformpopulation of galaxies at redshift z ≈ 1. These objects are mainlysmall galaxies with large star forming regions and therefore spe-cific colour properties (Willmer et al., 2006).

5.1. Theoretical motivation

The probability of observing sources with strong lensing fea-tures is given by their number-density distribution dependent onredshift,

n(z) =za

zb + c z2 + d, (5)

where a = 1.79, b = 0.17, c = 8.62, d = 0.03, which is theredshift distribution proposed by Benjamin et al. (2007) with anadditional term in the denominator, and the lensing cross sectionof an intervening lens,

σd(zs) = η2∫

Bl

d2x|µ(x)|

, (6)

defined as the area on the source plane, where sources are im-aged as arcs with L/W ratio larger than a given minimum, d.Here µ is the lensing magnification as introduced in Equation (4),Bl represents the area in the lens plane for which the conditionL/W > d is met, x = θ/θ0 are dimensionless coordinates scaledby θ0 and η0 = (Ds/Dl)θ0 in the lens and source plane, respec-tively. For simplicity we assume point sources and sphericallysymmetric lenses modelled as NFW halos (Navarro et al., 1997)with scale radii rs. The redshift distribution of the number den-sity of expected arcs, Γd(zs) = n(zs) τ(zs), is obtained by mul-tiplying the sources number density, n(z), with the sum of thecross section of all lenses between the observer and the sourcesdivided by the area of the source plane, i.e. the lensing opticaldepth,

τd(zs) =1

4πD2s

∫ zs

0

∫ ∞

0N(m, z)σd(m, z, zs) dzdm . (7)

Here, N(m, z)dz is the total number of haloes with mass m en-closed in the cosmic volume within redshifts z and z + dz as de-fined by the Sheth & Tormen (2002) differential mass function.

In the left and right panels of Figure (4) we show the sourcesdistribution of the CARS galaxy sample together with the lens-ing optical depth, τd, and the resulting distribution of the arcs,Γd, respectively. Here, we can safely use the redshift distribu-tion of all sources in the survey, which is dominated by weaklylensed sources, and fully ignore their flux enhancement, whichwould be caused by a strong lens. This is because while lens-ing does increase the total flux of a source, it does not affect itssurface brightness, which is what the initial arcfinder detectionis more sensitive to. The peak of the number of strongly lensedsources at z ≈ 1, is caused by the steep rise of the optical depthand the drop of the source number density with increasing red-shift. The high redshift tail of our model overestimates the actualnumber of expected arcs because the best fit of the sources over-estimates the actual data, which drop for z > 1.3 to become zerofor z > 2. For this reason, we can assume that the largest numberof strongly lensed sources in our data are confined to a relativelynarrow redshift interval around z ≈ 1.

Many different works based on numerical N-body simula-tions and halo-models have been devoted to the evaluation of thelensing optical depth with extended sources, the lens intrinsicellipticity and the presence of substructures within large haloes(see e.g. Meneghetti et al., 2003; Li et al., 2005; Fedeli et al.,2006). These additional details mostly increase the efficiency oflenses to produce arcs and only marginally affect its redshift de-pendence, which we are interested in. With our simple model wejust focus the attention on the sources rather than on the lenses,in contrast to most of these studies. It is neither meant to pro-duce a detailed prediction of the number of observable arcs norto define the actual parameters used to perform the object iden-tification. Here, we highlight the priciples which motivate ourselection criteria aiming at the objects with the highest probabil-ity to be strongly lensed, i.e. those at z ≈ 1. The actual selectionwill be performed by calibrating the method on the colours ofknown arcs as it will be detailed in the following section.

5.2. Observational evidence

To substantiate our line of argument, we measured photomet-ric properties of the entire sample for all available bands.Magnitudes were measured via aperture photometry

m = ZP − 2.5 log10(I − S A) , (8)

4


0.01

0.1

1

10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0.001

0.01

0.1

1N

[%]

τ [

10

−4]

zs

τ(zs)n(zs)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Γ [

10

−6 %

]

zs

Fig. 4. Left panel: Lensing optical depth, τd, based on NFW haloes following the Sheth & Tormen (2002) differential mass function,together with the actual data and best fit of the CARS source redshift distribution, n(zs). Right panel: redshift distribution of theexpected number density of arcs, Γd, based on the best fit of the sources’ redshift distribution. Note that the best fit of the sourcedistribution used in this model overestimates the actual counts which drop for z > 1.3 and vanish at z ≈ 2, thus suppressing the highredshift tail of Γd. The vertical line marks the redshift limit of the observable sources.

where ZP is the zero-point magnitude (as given in the CARS fitsheaders), I is the total flux in the aperture given in ADUs, A isthe number of pixels within the aperture, and S = 2.5 median −1.5 mean is the background mode (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996)evaluated on the area enclosed within 4.5 arcsec from the outeredge of the aperture. The so-defined background correction ac-counts for a possible flux contribution of the lens candidate,which should be close to the arc it produces. This implicitlyassumes that the lens light profile decreases linearly in the im-mediate vicinity of the arc, as justified by its small width. Weremind the reader that the aperture of each individual object isdefined by the segmentation produced with the arcfinder fromthe weighted stack of the g′ and r′ images (see Section 3), and iskept fixed for all bands.

In the left panel of Figure (5) we plotted a colour-colour di-agram (g − r,r − i) showing, as red circles, the most evident arcsalready known in the literature (More et al., 2012) for whichwe could derive photometry based on the arcfinder segmenta-tion. The other points refer to a sub-sample of galaxies, groupedin redshift bins, observed with the SUBARU telescope in theCOSMOS field (Ilbert et al., 2009). The colour redshift depen-dence of the galaxies is clear, and shows how lensed sourcesare indeed associated to galaxies at redshift z ≈ 1, as expected.The black arrow represents colours of a Scd galaxy, with largespiral arms dominated by a population of young stars for red-shifts ranging from z = 0.7 (start of line) to z = 1.3 (arrow-head), as derived from a synthetic spectral energy distribution(SED) produced by Coleman et al. (1980). This is not used todefine the colour cuts but to show the region where we expectto find galaxies with bright star-forming regions and thereforewell defined colour properties. In the right panel of Figure (5)we repeated the same exercise, but with all sources detected bythe arcfinder. It is visible how the covered by the arcs excludesa very large fraction of sources (number density is shown in thebackground), helping to drastically reduce sample contamina-tion. With these arguments, supported by our theoretical modeland data alike, we now have a robust basis to help us in distin-guishing arcs from other astrophysical sources. We favour thissimple colour based method in contrast to a full photometric red-shift estimate, because the redshift catalogues available in the lit-

erature are not well tailored for the task. This is because usuallyadopted segmentation and de-blending are likely to merge arcswith relatively bright galaxies to which they are associated, re-sulting in misleading and largely incomplete results. The colourselection is sufficient to constrain the redshift range which has tobe investigated.

We can now proceed to define colour selection, where forconvenience we use the flux related quantity

fx = A−1 10 0.4 (K−mx) , (9)

to express the difference in flux over area for neighbouring bandsin the fashion of usual colour-colour plots, instead of the typi-cal definition based on magnitudes. Here, mx is the object mag-nitude in x-band, where x stands for x = [u?, g′, r′, i′, z′], andK = 26.42 is the magnitude average of all sources in the r′-bandresulting in a multiplicative factor introduced for convenience.

In this “colour-colour” space, based on Equation (9), the arcspreviously known in the survey, and plotted in Figures (5) and(6) as red circles, appear nicely aligned along a relatively narrowregion in colour-colour space. These objects were used to definethe region, marked with red lines in Figure (6), that we used toselect other arc candidates. In the same figure we also plot theobjects we identified in the survey as arcs, where details will begiven in Section (6). For the moment, it shall suffice to say thatall objects marked in these plots were not selected according totheir colour properties, making them an independent check sam-ple. These detections as well predominantly populate the samecolour-colour space we used to define the colour selection, lend-ing further support to the validity of our approach.

It is difficult to extract detailed statistics from the small sam-ple of known arcs, hence we decided not to use a more sophis-ticated colour selection criterion. The sample of detections afterthe colour selection reduces to 5 597 candidates, i.e. approxi-mately 150 per square degree, versus 970 per square degree inthe catalogue obtained with the single-band arcfinder, with com-paratively less contamination. This colour selection clearly re-stricts the detection of arcs to a certain type of lensed sources.Nevertheless, we do not consider this as a limitation, because (1)we expect the population of lensed sources selected in this wayto be the most numerous, ensuring that only a small fraction of

5


-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

r-i

g-r

1<z<1.51.5<z<2

2<z<33<z<4

Scd, 0.7<z<1.3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

r-i

g-r

Fig. 5. Left panel shows a colour-colour diagram for previously known arcs, in red, and a sub-sample of galaxies observed in theCOSMOS field subdivided in redshift bins. The red points denote the arcs previously known in the survey and which are used tocalibrate the colour selection. The small colour region where arcs are present shows how the lensed sources lie at redshift z ≈ 1 (aspredicted by our optical depth model) and have well defined colour properties (as shown by the black arrow referring to a Scd galaxy,for which we derived the photometry out of a synthetic SED, here the arrowhead points in the direction of increasing redshifts). Theright panel shows the same colour-colour diagram, but for all objects detected by the arcfinder.

arcs is lost, as will be shown later in the text, (2) sources andlenses are completely uncorrelated, because of their large rela-tive separation, avoiding any bias which may be due to physicalcorrelations, and (3) gravitational lensing is a completely achro-matic phenomenon independent of the colour of the sources.The giant arcs count, used to infer cosmological information, de-pends on this colour selection, but this can be easily accountedfor just by applying the same colour selection to the expectednumber density of background sources, which is a trivial task.

6. Visual validation and catalogue

The candidates produced with the discussed procedure are fi-nally verified by visually inspecting their colour composite im-ages obtained using the g′, r′ and i′ bands. We associated a rankto each detection based on three levels:

– 1=unlikely: arc structures which seem physically associatedto an astrophysical object, or which are relatively far from apossible lens,

– 2=unclear: arc structures with a very promising shape, butstill of dubious origin,

– 3=very likely: a clear curved arc structure around a possi-ble lens causing its origin, i.e. large ellipticals or significantconcentrations of galaxies.

A rank 0 is also used to label artefacts, evident spiral galaxies, orclear noise fluctuations. This simple ranking yields stable resultswith respecto to different observers and even the same observerbut at different times. In addition we also inspected the full sur-vey to evaluate the completeness and purity of the sample againsta full visual investigation. This very important topic will be cov-ered in Section (7).

The final catalogue listing all arcs with rank r ≥ 2 is shownin Tables (1, 2 and 3) with their positions, geometrical proper-ties, photometry, redshifts and ranks. The first two tables containthe 56 detections satisfying the colour criterion, while the 34 de-tections in the third table, most of them found only by visualinspection, do not. The candidates detected by the arcfinder, i.esatisfying the tight geometrical constraints, are labelled with ‘a’.Only five of them do not meet the colour criterion. Three of those

(arc58a, arc59a, arc60a) are located in the vicinity of very brightstars whose halos might have spoiled their photometry, and one(arc61a) belongs to a complex object of unclear nature, possiblyshowing multiple arcs. The objects segmented by the arcfinderbut discarded by it because they do not fulfil the geometrical con-straints are labelled with ‘b’ and all but three of them satisfy thecolour constraints. Finally, the candidates detected via eye-ballchecking the whole survey and missed entirely by the arcfinderare labelled with ‘c’. The majority of the visually identified ob-jects fall into Table (3) of detections rejected by the colour se-lection because of their low surface brightness and heavy blend-ing, which makes them generally the most difficult candidates tofind. The complete sample consists of 90 objects, 73 of whichare newly proposed arc candidates. Postage stamp cut-outs oftheir images are available online2.

We obtained more candidates with respect to those proposedby More et al. (2012) and Cabanac et al. (2007) not only becauseof the different arcfinder adopted but also because of the differentselection criteria and because they restricted their sample withrespect to the arc-lens separation to r > 14 arcsec. Note that wedropped two of their candidates, i.e. SA98 and SL2SJ021932-053135, which in our opinion are not lensing features but struc-tures physically associated to the galaxy believed to be the lensin the first case, and a spiral arm of a nearby galaxy in the lat-ter. The arcfinder used in this work clearly detected SA38, butthis was rejected because of its high luminosity exceeding themaximum we allowed.

7. Completeness and purity of the colour-selectedsample

We now evaluate the completeness and contamination of thesample, discussed in Section (6) for these three candidate sub-samples:

a) 29 objects, among 36 026 detected by the arcfinderb) 20 objects, among 165 673 segmented but discarded by the

arcfinder’s morphological filter,

2 http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/˜maturi/Public/arcs

6

http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/~maturi/Public/arcs

http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/~maturi/Public/arcs


Tabl

e1.

Fina

lgra

vita

tiona

larc

cand

idat

essa

tisfy

ing

the

colo

urcr

iteri

a.D

etec

tions

with

RA

NK≤

1,i.e

.cle

arar

tefa

cts

orfe

atur

espo

ssib

lyre

late

dto

spir

alga

laxi

esor

tidal

stre

ams,

are

notl

iste

d.T

heob

ject

sla

belle

dw

ith‘a

’wer

ede

tect

edby

the

arcfi

nder

Tho

sela

belle

dw

ith‘b

’wer

ese

gmen

ted

byth

ear

cfind

erbu

trej

ecte

dby

ourt

ight

geom

etri

cal

cons

trai

nts.

Tho

sela

belle

dw

ith‘c

’wer

ede

tect

edon

lyvi

aey

e-ba

llch

ecki

ng.T

heta

ble

lists

:the

arc

iden

tifica

tion

num

ber‘

ID’,

the

CA

RS

field

‘FIE

LD

’,th

eR

ight

Asc

ensi

onan

dD

eclin

atio

n,‘R

A’a

nd‘D

EC

’,th

ear

cle

ngth

‘LE

N’i

nar

csec

,the

leng

th-t

o-w

idth

ratio

‘L/W

’,th

ecu

rvat

ure

‘CU

R’i

nar

csec−

1 ,the

area

‘A’i

nar

csec

2 ,the

u?,g′,r′,i′

mag

nitu

des,

the

lens

reds

hift

‘zle

ns’,

the

arc

cand

idat

ere

dshi

ft‘z

arc’

,the

dete

ctio

nra

nkin

g‘R

AN

K’,

and

the

iden

tifica

tion

num

ber

inM

ore

etal

.(20

12)

orC

aban

acet

al.(

2007

)if

pres

ent.

The

arc

reds

hift

isen

clos

edw

ithin

brac

kets

tost

ress

itslo

wre

liabi

lity.

IDFI

EL

DR

AD

EC

LE

NL

/WC

UR

Am

u′m

g′m

r′m

i′z l

ens

RA

NK

CA

Tar

c1a

W1m

1p1

02:1

3:17

.2-0

6:25

:58

2.91

4.66

0.21

2.0

25.6±

0.6

24.3±

0.2

23.7±

0.5

23.1±

0.2

0.39

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc2

aW

1m1p

202

:14:

08.0

-05:

35:2

77.

928.

650.

148.

123.0±

0.2

22.3±

0.1

21.6±

0.1

21.0±

0.1

0.49

+0.

22−

0.21

3SA

22ar

c3a

W1m

1p1

02:1

4:40

.5-0

6:31

:16

4.56

5.06

0.18

4.0

24.7±

0.3

23.8±

0.1

23.1±

0.2

22.3±

0.1

0.34

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc4

aW

1m1p

102

:16:

00.2

-05:

57:0

44.

084.

820.

183.

625.1±

0.4

24.0±

0.2

23.1±

0.3

22.4±

0.1

0.36

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc5

aW

1m0p

302

:17:

13.2

-04:

01:1

34.

285.

920.

733.

524.7±

0.4

24.2±

0.2

23.5±

0.3

22.6±

0.1

0.68

+0.

11−

0.11

2-

arc6

aW

1m0p

202

:18:

05.0

-05:

19:4

95.

534.

230.

286.

523.2±

0.2

22.8±

0.1

22.4±

0.1

21.5±

0.1

0.77

+0.

12−

0.12

2-

arc7

aW

1m0p

102

:19:

03.9

-05:

51:2

54.

035.

150.

003.

725.1±

0.6

24.2±

0.2

23.3±

0.2

22.3±

0.1

0.44

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc8

aW

1m0p

302

:19:

09.6

-04:

01:4

35.

664.

900.

125.

924.1±

0.3

23.3±

0.1

22.5±

0.1

21.7±

0.1

0.33

+0.

09−

0.09

3SA

35ar

c9a

W1m

0p3

02:1

9:37

.5-0

4:16

:18

3.59

4.57

0.23

3.0

24.4±

0.3

23.9±

0.1

23.5±

0.3

22.7±

0.1

0.49

+0.

22−

0.21

2-

arc1

0 aW

1m0p

202

:19:

56.4

-05:

27:5

63.

734.

830.

212.

923.8±

0.2

23.0±

0.1

22.4±

0.1

21.8±

0.1

0.32

+0.

09−

0.09

3SA

36ar

c11 a

W1p

1p1

02:2

0:44

.4-0

5:37

:46

4.34

4.76

0.07

4.1

24.4±

0.3

23.4±

0.1

22.9±

0.2

22.1±

0.1

0.72

+0.

11−

0.11

2-

arc1

2 aW

1p1p

302

:21:

34.5

-04:

24:3

87.

4412

.03

0.32

6.0

23.5±

0.2

22.6±

0.1

22.0±

0.1

21.3±

0.1

0.70

+0.

11−

0.11

3-

arc1

3 aW

1p2p

202

:25:

32.0

-04:

50:5

95.

498.

200.

374.

423.2±

0.2

22.6±

0.1

21.9±

0.1

21.3±

0.1

0.62

+0.

11−

0.11

2SL

2SJ0

2253

2-04

5100

arc1

4 aW

1p3p

102

:31:

06.7

-05:

55:0

23.

524.

500.

512.

825.1±

0.5

24.1±

0.2

23.4±

0.4

22.8±

0.2

0.53

+0.

10−

0.10

3SA

57ar

c15 a

W3m

3m2

14:0

0:21

.2+

52:1

5:47

7.21

10.0

00.

406.

223.1±

0.2

22.3±

0.1

21.8±

0.1

21.1±

0.1

0.76

+0.

12−

0.12

2-

arc1

6 aW

3m3m

214

:01:

44.6

+53

:02:

093.

674.

200.

133.

524.0±

0.2

23.4±

0.1

22.8±

0.2

22.0±

0.1

0.47

+0.

10−

0.10

3SA

91ar

c17 a

W4m

1m2

22:0

9:18

.3+

00:5

0:03

3.17

4.16

0.45

2.4

25.3±

0.5

23.7±

0.2

23.0±

0.3

22.4±

0.1

0.49

+0.

22−

0.21

2-

arc1

8 aW

4m0m

022

:12:

22.0

+01

:36:

464.

084.

610.

374.

424.5±

0.3

23.7±

0.1

23.1±

0.2

22.4±

0.1

0.72

+0.

11−

0.11

3-

arc1

9 aW

4m0m

122

:12:

55.3

+00

:17:

076.

376.

340.

246.

724.0±

0.2

23.0±

0.1

22.2±

0.1

21.4±

0.1

0.58

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc2

0 aW

4m0m

222

:13:

06.9

+00

:18:

305.

344.

260.

205.

923.8±

0.2

22.9±

0.1

22.3±

0.1

21.7±

0.1

0.49

+0.

22−

0.21

3-

arc2

1 aW

4m0m

022

:13:

14.2

+00

:50:

097.

806.

080.

158.

224.6±

0.3

23.4±

0.1

22.5±

0.1

21.6±

0.1

0.45

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc2

2 aW

4m0m

022

:14:

18.9

+01

:10:

356.

148.

760.

604.

924.4±

0.3

23.3±

0.1

22.4±

0.2

21.6±

0.1

0.56

+0.

10−

0.10

3SA

125

arc2

3 aW

4p1m

022

:15:

13.4

+01

:02:

416.

856.

620.

077.

323.8±

0.3

22.7±

0.1

22.1±

0.1

21.2±

0.1

0.69

+0.

11−

0.11

2-

arc2

4 aW

4p1m

222

:16:

58.7

+00

:01:

533.

995.

650.

002.

924.2±

0.4

23.4±

0.2

22.7±

0.2

22.1±

0.1

0.67

+0.

11−

0.11

2-

arc2

5 bW

1m1p

302

:14:

11.1

-04:

05:0

31.

683.

240.

331.

224.5±

0.4

24.2±

0.2

23.9±

0.3

23.1±

0.2

0.77

+0.

12−

0.12

3SA

23ar

c26 b

W1m

1p1

02:1

4:26

.4-0

5:39

:39

3.73

3.56

0.19

3.8

24.6±

0.3

23.7±

0.1

22.9±

0.2

22.0±

0.1

0.55

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc2

7 bW

1m0p

202

:16:

06.4

-04:

49:3

54.

192.

530.

525.

723.8±

0.2

23.4±

0.1

22.9±

0.1

22.0±

0.1

0.30

+0.

14−

0.09

3-

arc2

8 bW

1m0p

202

:17:

37.4

-05:

13:3

02.

722.

760.

212.

824.8±

0.4

24.1±

0.2

23.7±

0.4

22.8±

0.2

0.82

+0.

12−

0.12

3SL

2SJ0

2173

7-05

1329

arc2

9 bW

1m0p

202

:18:

07.4

-05:

15:3

62.

723.

610.

072.

125.5±

0.7

24.0±

0.1

23.4±

0.2

22.6±

0.1

0.60

+0.

11−

0.10

3SA

33ar

c30 b

W1m

0p1

02:1

9:28

.3-0

5:44

:59

2.00

2.33

0.45

1.7

25.2±

0.6

24.3±

0.3

23.9±

0.4

23.2±

0.2

0.26

+0.

08−

0.08

3-

7


Table2.C

ontinuedfrom

Table(1).

IDFIE

LD

RA

DE

CL

EN

L/W

CU

RA

mu′

mg′

mr′

mi′

zlens

RA

NK

CA

Tarc31

bW

1p1p102:21:14.9

-05:42:421.92

2.050.27

2.124.7±

0.4

23.6±

0.1

22.9±

0.3

22.3±

0.1

0.28

+0.09

−0.08

2-

arc32b

W1p1p1

02:23:15.3-06:29:03

2.333.39

0.262.0

24.9±

0.4

23.6±

0.1

22.9±

0.1

22.2±

0.1

0.57

+0.10

−0.10

3SA

40arc33

bW

1p2p202:24:27.3

-04:55:431.34

2.010.21

1.025.2±

0.6

24.4±

0.2

23.9±

0.5

23.3±

0.2

0.56

+0.10

−0.10

3-

arc34b

W1p4p3

02:33:07.2-04:38:38

2.233.98

0.111.5

25.5±

0.7

24.1±

0.2

23.6±

0.3

22.9±

0.2

0.66

+0.11

−0.11

3SA

59arc35

bW

3m3m

213:57:02.4

+52:30:39

2.434.71

0.171.6

25.7±

0.8

24.7±

0.4

23.8±

0.6

23.0±

0.3

0.38

+0.09

−0.09

3-

arc36b

W3m

3m2

13:58:22.4+

52:43:192.56

2.930.31

2.323.9±

0.2

23.5±

0.1

23.2±

0.3

22.5±

0.2

0.55

+0.10

−0.10

3-

arc37b

W3m

3m2

13:58:46.6+

52:21:001.58

2.250.00

1.126.2±

1.3

24.9±

0.4

24.2±

0.8

23.4±

0.3

0.35

+0.09

−0.09

2-

arc38b

W4m

0m1

22:12:29.9+

00:17:252.47

2.800.00

2.424.6±

0.5

23.5±

0.1

23.1±

0.3

22.3±

0.1

0.58

+0.10

−0.10

3-

arc39b

W4m

0m2

22:13:07.1+

00:30:373.06

3.750.32

2.524.9±

0.4

24.1±

0.1

23.3±

0.3

22.4±

0.1

0.58

+0.10

−0.10

3SA

122arc40

bW

4p2m2

22:20:18.6+

00:24:282.56

2.801.01

2.125.2±

0.6

24.4±

0.3

23.9±

0.6

23.0±

0.1

0.52

+0.10

−0.10

2-

arc41b

W4p2m

122:21:41.8

+00:19:09

2.152.65

0.561.8

24.6±

0.3

23.4±

0.1

23.1±

0.2

22.7±

0.1

0.64

+0.11

−0.11

2-

arc42c

W1m

1p102:12:31.6

-06:11:547.56

7.330.18

8.525.4±

0.5

23.9±

0.1

22.8±

0.2

21.8±

0.1

0.36

+0.09

−0.09

3-

arc43c

W1m

1p302:15:13.5

-03:53:443.17

3.520.11

3.024.8±

0.5

24.1±

0.2

23.0±

0.2

22.1±

0.1

0.51

+0.10

−0.11

2-

arc44c

W1m

1p302:15:57.1

-04:10:272.19

2.201.10

1.924.7±

0.5

24.1±

0.2

23.1±

0.2

22.4±

0.1

0.82

+0.12

−0.12

3-

arc45c

W1m

0p102:19:32.7

-06:28:443.71

3.540.32

4.525.2±

0.5

24.5±

0.3

23.4±

0.2

22.4±

0.2

0.65

+0.11

−0.11

2-

arc46c

W1p3p1

02:29:32.1-06:15:32

2.222.02

0.002.4

24.9±

0.4

24.2±

0.2

23.7±

0.3

22.8±

0.1

0.58

+0.10

−0.10

2-

arc47c

W3m

3m3

13:57:23.9+

51:21:302.70

3.040.61

2.625.6±

0.7

24.3±

0.2

23.4±

0.3

22.3±

0.1

0.60

+0.11

−0.10

2-

arc48c

W3m

3m3

14:00:09.5+

52:06:244.97

5.670.67

7.324.4±

0.3

23.2±

0.1

22.4±

0.1

21.5±

0.1

0.54

+0.10

−0.10

2-

arc49c

W3m

3m2

14:00:28.6+

52:55:262.16

2.510.47

1.925.3±

0.6

24.3±

0.2

23.3±

0.3

22.6±

0.1

0.53

+0.10

−0.12

2-

arc50c

W3m

3m2

14:01:02.7+

52:37:238.06

7.550.30

11.024.8±

0.4

23.3±

0.1

22.5±

0.2

21.6±

0.1

0.50

+0.10

−0.11

3-

arc51c

W3m

1m3

14:12:35.8+

51:33:244.61

3.940.87

5.923.9±

0.3

22.8±

0.1

22.0±

0.1

21.2±

0.1

0.74

+0.11

−0.11

3-

arc52c

W4m

1m2

22:07:53.1+

00:39:386.08

4.290.20

8.523.3±

0.2

22.6±

0.1

22.1±

0.1

21.4±

0.1

0.48

+0.10

−0.10

2-

arc53c

W4m

1m1

22:10:33.1+

00:23:511.80

1.990.92

2.325.6±

0.7

24.4±

0.2

23.4±

0.5

22.4±

0.2

0.58

+0.10

−0.10

2-

arc54c

W4p2m

022:20:51.5

+00:58:14

2.492.07

0.303.3

24.0±

0.2

23.3±

0.1

23.0±

0.2

22.5±

0.1

0.41

+0.09

−0.09

2-

arc55c

W4p2m

222:21:58.5

+00:59:02

2.502.57

0.332.9

25.4±

0.7

24.2±

0.2

23.5±

0.7

22.8±

0.1

0.33

+0.09

−0.09

2-

arc56c

W4p2m

022:22:23.0

+01:16:05

4.464.25

0.404.7

24.5±

0.6

23.1±

0.2

22.5±

0.3

21.9±

0.1

0.53

+0.10

−0.10

2-

8


Tabl

e3.

Sam

eas

Tabl

e(1

)an

d(2

)bu

tref

erri

ngto

alld

etec

tions

nots

atis

fyin

gth

eco

lour

crite

ria.

Thi

ssa

mpl

eis

mos

tlyco

mpo

sed

byca

ndid

ates

pure

lyid

entifi

edby

visu

alin

spec

tion. ID

FIE

LD

RA

DE

CL

EN

L/W

CU

RA

mu′

mg′

mr′

mi′

z len

sR

AN

KC

AT

arc5

7 aW

1m1p

202

:14:

16.6

-05:

03:1

54.

274.

430.

234.

623.5±

0.2

22.8±

0.1

21.7±

0.1

21.0±

0.1

0.37

+0.

09−

0.09

3SL

2SJ0

2141

6-05

0315

arc5

8 aW

1p1p

102

:22:

33.6

-06:

06:2

43.

335.

410.

002.

324.6±

0.4

23.5±

0.1

22.7±

0.2

22.0±

0.1

0.45

+0.

10−

0.11

2-

arc5

9 aW

1p2p

302

:24:

01.0

-03:

46:2

74.

907.

200.

246.

324.6±

0.5

23.5±

0.2

23.1±

0.3

22.4±

0.3

0.81

+0.

12−

0.12

3SA

42ar

c60 a

W1p

2p2

02:2

5:34

.1-0

5:02

:10

4.88

5.16

0.30

4.7

24.5±

0.4

23.9±

0.2

23.4±

0.4

22.6±

0.1

0.67

+0.

11−

0.11

3-

arc6

1 aW

3m3m

313

:59:

53.7

+51

:39:

534.

6713

.80

0.46

2.3

24.5±

0.3

23.4±

0.1

22.7±

0.2

22.0±

0.1

0.53

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc6

2 bW

1p2p

302

:23:

45.6

-04:

24:0

32.

192.

490.

332.

224.6±

0.3

23.1±

0.1

22.1±

0.1

21.7±

0.1

0.37

+0.

09−

0.09

2SL

2SJ0

2234

5-04

2402

arc6

3 bW

1p3p

202

:28:

34.3

-05:

09:4

81.

502.

660.

011.

026.2±

1.0

25.4±

0.5

24.9±

1.0

24.4±

0.8

0.57

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc6

4 bW

1p3p

102

:30:

11.6

-05:

50:2

13.

293.

160.

053.

823.7±

1.7

22.6±

0.2

0.0±

0.1

20.7±

0.1

0.49

+0.

22−

0.21

3SL

2SJ0

2301

1-05

5023

arc6

5 cW

1m1p

102

:12:

33.8

-06:

12:1

01.

321.

480.

061.

225.5±

0.5

24.1±

0.1

23.0±

0.2

22.3±

0.1

0.31

+0.

11−

0.09

2-

arc6

6 cW

1m1p

102

:13:

08.7

-05:

37:2

63.

213.

010.

173.

524.3±

0.2

22.7±

0.1

21.6±

0.1

21.0±

0.1

0.29

+0.

08−

0.08

2-

arc6

7 cW

1m1p

202

:13:

28.4

-05:

11:4

52.

882.

460.

084.

424.2±

0.3

23.1±

0.1

21.8±

0.1

21.0±

0.1

0.49

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc6

8 cW

1m1p

202

:15:

29.4

-04:

40:5

42.

363.

250.

181.

825.6±

1.1

24.2±

0.2

22.9±

0.2

22.1±

0.1

0.31

+0.

09−

0.09

3-

arc6

9 cW

1m1p

102

:15:

34.8

-05:

45:1

52.

072.

780.

131.

825.7±

0.8

23.9±

0.2

22.6±

0.2

22.0±

0.1

0.31

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc7

0 cW

1m0p

302

:19:

09.1

-04:

02:1

47.

984.

800.

4611

.123.6±

0.2

22.5±

0.1

21.5±

0.1

20.8±

0.1

0.49

+0.

10−

0.10

3-

arc7

1 cW

1p1p

102

:19:

56.5

-06:

02:0

25.

202.

310.

0612

.523.5±

0.2

22.5±

0.1

21.6±

0.1

20.5±

0.1

0.42

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc7

2 cW

1p1m

102

:20:

56.4

-07:

43:1

03.

552.

790.

326.

122.6±

0.2

22.1±

0.1

0.0±

0.0

20.8±

0.1

0.56

+0.

23−

0.24

3-

arc7

3 cW

1p1p

102

:21:

00.3

-06:

06:1

22.

891.

960.

184.

224.2±

0.4

22.3±

0.1

21.1±

0.1

20.5±

0.1

0.26

+0.

10−

0.08

2-

arc7

4 cW

1p2p

302

:25:

36.7

-04:

15:1

71.

882.

200.

561.

525.1±

0.4

24.1±

0.2

23.1±

0.1

22.1±

0.1

0.56

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc7

5 cW

1p2p

202

:25:

38.0

-05:

14:4

93.

022.

160.

054.

824.0±

0.2

22.7±

0.1

21.6±

0.1

21.0±

0.1

0.42

+0.

09−

0.10

2-

arc7

6 cW

1p3p

202

:29:

08.8

-05:

19:5

42.

993.

760.

122.

624.9±

0.5

23.8±

0.2

23.1±

0.2

22.4±

0.1

0.37

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc7

7 cW

1p4m

002

:32:

54.3

-06:

39:1

62.

383.

080.

501.

824.8±

0.4

24.2±

0.2

23.8±

0.5

23.5±

0.4

0.60

+0.

11−

0.10

2-

arc7

8 cW

1p4m

002

:33:

30.1

-06:

51:4

26.

166.

050.

067.

623.0±

0.2

22.4±

0.1

21.5±

0.1

20.5±

0.1

0.65

+0.

11−

0.11

1-

arc7

9 cW

3m3m

313

:57:

39.1

+51

:48:

464.

214.

220.

405.

624.9±

0.4

23.6±

0.1

22.4±

0.2

21.1±

0.1

0.38

+0.

09−

0.09

3-

arc8

0 cW

3m3m

213

:58:

19.8

+52

:52:

532.

732.

370.

083.

125.0±

0.5

23.3±

0.1

22.0±

0.1

21.2±

0.1

0.35

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc8

1 cW

3m3m

214

:02:

06.4

+52

:57:

072.

053.

900.

411.

027.4±

3.6

24.9±

0.3

23.7±

0.4

22.5±

0.1

0.51

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc8

2 cW

3m1m

314

:12:

07.1

+51

:29:

433.

193.

340.

333.

925.3±

0.7

23.6±

0.1

22.5±

0.1

21.1±

0.1

0.30

+0.

13−

0.09

2-

arc8

3 cW

4m1m

122

:08:

51.3

+00

:46:

221.

832.

610.

501.

424.9±

0.4

23.9±

0.1

22.8±

0.2

22.0±

0.1

0.49

+0.

22−

0.21

2-

arc8

4 cW

4m1m

222

:09:

35.5

+00

:31:

269.

096.

080.

1613

.024.0±

0.2

22.2±

0.1

21.4±

0.1

21.0±

0.1

0.32

+0.

09−

0.09

2-

arc8

5 cW

4m0m

122

:12:

35.5

+00

:43:

113.

752.

920.

774.

723.9±

0.2

22.9±

0.1

22.0±

0.1

21.6±

0.1

0.29

+0.

11−

0.08

2-

arc8

6 cW

4m0m

222

:13:

28.9

+00

:44:

535.

998.

240.

424.

824.7±

0.3

23.4±

0.1

22.1±

0.1

21.1±

0.1

0.38

+0.

09−

0.09

3-

arc8

7 cW

4m0m

122

:15:

02.6

+00

:49:

503.

743.

690.

533.

825.0±

0.4

23.7±

0.1

22.3±

0.1

21.4±

0.1

0.51

+0.

10−

0.10

3-

arc8

8 cW

4p1m

122

:18:

21.1

+00

:01:

532.

001.

600.

582.

823.9±

0.2

23.1±

0.1

22.4±

0.1

21.7±

0.1

0.50

+0.

10−

0.10

3-

arc8

9 cW

4p2m

222

:19:

00.9

+00

:54:

562.

582.

240.

192.

724.9±

0.8

22.5±

0.2

21.3±

0.3

20.4±

0.1

0.46

+0.

10−

0.10

2-

arc9

0 cW

4p2m

122

:22:

17.6

+00

:12:

022.

192.

570.

452.

124.9±

0.4

23.5±

0.1

22.5±

0.1

21.7±

0.1

0.51

+0.

10−

0.10

3-

9


-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1

f r-f

i

fg-fr

visual only (c)segmented only (b)

arcfinded (a)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

f r-f

i

fg-fr

visual only (c)segmented only (b)

arcfinded (a)

Fig. 6. Flux related “colour-colour” space for all arcfinder detections (background intensity), the previously known arcs present inthe field for which we derived their photometry (red points), and the region, within the red lines, used to select the final arcs sample.The white squares (a) are the candidates detected by the arcfinder, the white asterisks (b) are those segmented by the arcfinder butrejected by its geometrical filters and the cyan void squares (c) are those found purely by visual inspection. The latter are the mostdifficult sources and are scattered in a very wide area, far from most of the other sources, because of their uncertain photometry.

Table 4. Completeness of the final arc candidates sample listedin Tables (1, 2 and 3), comparing the results obtained before andafter the colour selection. Columns refer to the objects detectedby the arcfinder (arcf., labelled with ‘a’), those segmented butnot recognized as arcs by the arcfinder (arcf. seg., labelled with‘b’), those identified with the visual inspection only (visual only,labelled with ‘c’ in the sample catalogue) and the complete sam-ple (all). This demonstrates how the colour selection looses only17% of the single-band arcfinder sample (first column). The lossis greater when the visual detections are included, 48%, sincemany of those have poor photometry, being blended, faint orfragmented (last column).

arcf. (a) arcf. seg. (b) visual only (c) allbefore col. sel. 29 20 41 90

after col. sel. 24 17 15 56completeness 83% 85% 36% 62%

c) 41 objects identified only with the visual inspection,

and subdivided in those passing the colour filtering and thosewhich do not, both within their subsamples and with respect tothe total sample. To evaluate the sample completeness, only de-tections that passed visual inspection have to be used. In con-trast, the complete sample has to be used for the evaluation ofthe contamination level.

The 20 objects segmented by the arcfinder but failing to ful-fil all geometrical constraints were the results of the initial cal-ibration run with reduced filtering, not the final detection pro-cess. Since they were rejected, counting them as arcfinder detec-tions would be misleading. Since they illustrate the impact of themorphological filter, we still keep them as separate items. Thefull automatic procedure for the selection of candidates is repre-sented by the 29 objects recognized by the arcfinder and passingall of its filters. While this number might seem to be small, wehave to keep in mind that it is comparable to the number of arccandidates identified in the CARS fields by previous works anddetected with the combined use of arcfinders and visual inspec-tion (e.g. More et al., 2012).

The completeness of the colour selection for the three sub-samples and of the total sample is detailed in Table (4). As weshow there, the multi-band arcfinder implementing the colour se-

lection is complete at a 83% level with respect to the single-bandarcfinder for our sample. Very similar results are obtained for theobjects segmented but in a further filtering step discarded by thearcfinder due to their geometrical properties: here, the complete-ness of the colour sample is at a 85% level. The completenessis smaller, at 62%, once the detections idsentified only by vi-sual inspection are included in the complete sample. This is be-cause these detections are faint, fragmented or heavily blendedand therefore have very poor photometry and consequently notwell defined colours. This is clear from Figure (6) where theseobjects fall in a colour-colour region where no other fall.

Finally, the contamination level is measured by evaluatingthe ratio between the number of sources detected by the arcfinderbut considered not to be arcs before (35 997 objects) and after(5 573 objects) the colour selection. The improvement gained bythe use of colour information is evident: a reduction of a factor of6.5 in the sample contamination. This result largely compensatesthe relatively small loss of detections due to multi-band filtering.Even if the sample is still heavily contaminated and other criteriahave do be included to move in the direction of a fully automatedmethod, such a strong reduction in the sample contamination isof crucial importance for the present and for upcoming surveys,which will cover between 1 500 deg2 and 15 000 deg2 in the nearfuture (see e.g. KiDS and EUCLID, de Jong et al., 2012; Laureijset al., 2011) and which can only be handled in an automatic orsemi-automatic way.

8. Conclusions

The present and upcoming wide field surveys, such as for ex-ample the KiDS survey with 1 500 square degrees or the ESAEuclid mission with 15 000 square degrees of sky coverage, areposing a pressing need for a method to automatically detectstrong lensing features in a reliable way. The minimization ofhuman intervention in the detection process is fundamental toavoid a massive use of eye-ball checking, which is subjectiveand extremely time consuming. We proposed a detection methodand tested it against the CARS data employing, on one hand, atailored image segmentation based on coherent patterns in lo-cal second brightness moments, which is capable of isolatingelongated objects and of retrieving their length and width, fun-damental quantities to characterize and select the gravitational

10


arc candidates (Seidel & Bartelmann, 2007). On the other hand,a colour-colour based selection, in our case g′ − r′ against r′ − i′,is motivated by the fact that most of the lensed sources havesimilar emission properties. We describe this behaviour with amodel reproducing the expected redshift distribution of arcs. Themodel implies the lensing optical depth expected in a ΛCDMcosmology which, in combination with the sources’ redshift dis-tribution of the CARS galaxy catalogues, peaks for sources atredshift z ∼ 1. By further modelling the colours derived fromthe SED of the galaxies dominating the population at that red-shift, the model well reproduces the colour of the observed arcs.The colour selection of arcs is not a limitation, because the pop-ulation of the lensed sources selected in this way is the mostnumerous, ensuring that only a small fraction of arcs is lost. Itdoes not bias measures derived from gravitational lensing, whichis a completely achromatic phenomenon and the sources are notcorrelated with the lenses because of their large separation alongthe line of sight.

To verify the reliability and efficiency of the colour selec-tion we applied our procedure to the CARS data consisting in37 deg2 derived from the W1, W3 and W4 fields of CFHTLS,and containing 7 106 (detected with SExtractor). Each step canbe summarized as follows:

1. Preprocessing: we create a weighted co-addition of the g′and r′ stacks to produce an image with an enhanced signal-to-noise ratio, over which we run the arcfinder. The u? and z′bands are ignored because of their low S/N ratio, as well asthe i′ band to avoid blending, potentially caused by the lens(likely one or more massive elliptical galaxies) being in thevicinity of a gravitational arc, which we expect to be moresevere in this band.

2. Arcfinder segmentation: we segment images with the arc-finder to detect all elongated objects and derive their geo-metrical properties, such as length, length-to-width ratio andcurvature. These geometrical properties are used to select theobjects with L > 2.9 arcsec (15 pixels) and L/Wmin > 4,obtaining a sample of 36 026 candidates (∼ 970 per squaredegree).

3. Colour selection: the largest probability of obtainingstrongly elongated arcs is given by sources located at redshiftz ≈ 1, where the population is dominated by galaxies withlarge star forming regions characterized by relatively uni-form colour properties. We thus selected the sources with re-spect to their “colour-colour” (fg − fr, fr − fi) diagram shownin Figure (6). This returns a sample of 5 597 candidates au-tomatically selected.

Note that data acquired by space-based instruments would returnresults with more depth and, more importantly, purity, not onlybecause of larger sensitivity but also because of the higher res-olution. In fact, because of their very small width gravitationalarcs are very sensitive to the image PSF, easily becoming shal-lower and of smaller L/W ratio, which is the most stringent prop-erty to discriminate them from other astrophysical sources.

To validate the candidates we visually inspected their colourcomposite images (based on the g′, r′ and i′ bands) removingclear spiral galaxies and image “artefacts” caused mainly bybright stars and blended sources. We selected only the arcs witha curvature compatible with a possible lens such as a large ellip-tical or an evident over-density of galaxies. This led to the finalsample of 49 arc candidates, 20 of which were segmented by thearcfinder but did not satisfy the geometrical constraints we im-posed to define arcs and were therefore not recognized as suchby the automatic procedure. In addition, we visually inspected

the full survey in order to evaluate the completeness and purityof the sample retrieved by the arcfinder against such an inspec-tion. In this process, an additional sample of 41 detections, foundpurely by visual inspection, were included in the final catalogue,which in the end lists 90 objects, 73 of which new proposed arccandidates.

In conclusion, a fully automatic arcfinder is not jet avail-able but the colour selection discussed in the paper turned outto be very effective in isolating the most promising arc candi-dates: while completeness is decreased to 83% with respect tothe single-band arcfinder, the sample contamination is drasti-cally reduced by a factor of 6.5. This large gain in purity is ofcrucial importance for the existing and upcoming surveys, whichwill cover thousands of square degrees and can only be handledin an automatic or semi-automatic way.

Acknowledgements. This work was supported by the TransregionalCollaborative Research Centre TRR 33 (MM). S.M. is supported by contractresearch ”Internationale Spitzenforschung II/2-6” of the Baden WurttembergStiftung.

Appendix A: Arcfinder segmentation

We briefly describe the arcfinder method introduced in Seidel &Bartelmann (2007), the automatic filtering, and post-processingthat was added to the basic detection algorithm. This segmen-tation and first filtering was used for the final colour selectiondiscussed in the paper.

Introduction

To measure the orientation of a local source pattern, e.g. an areaof higher flux inside an ellipse, a simple formalism can be used:the second moments

Qi j ∝

∫A(xi − xi)(x j − x j)I(x) d2x (A.1)

in an area A surrounding the pattern at (x1, x2) and - usuallyreweighed - pixel values I combine into an ellipticity vector(Q11 − Q22, 2Q12)T that encloses twice the angle to the x1 axisas the pattern itself. For an ellipse, we recover its orientation aslong as the area centre is on the major axis. On a constant slopethe orientation is parallel to the gradient vector. For an extendedsource, like a gravitational lensing arc, we can derive its localorientation as long as the area is (1) large enough to compen-sate for noise and (2) small enough to avoid blending with othersources and effects from any arc curvature. Also, to recover theorientation directly, the centre pixels must be selected, such thatthey are close to the top of the feature and the integration area isnot measuring the slope on both sides.

Arc detection

The arcfinder method tests for coherent orientations in areaspreferentially centred on features of locally higher intensity. Toachieve this, a regular grid of overlapping, disk shaped areas ofequal radii is first placed on the complete image. In three itera-tions, each area is then displaced to its previous centre of bright-ness, using a reweighed pixel flux. Areas originally close to afeature move up the slope on both sides, increasing their num-ber density on any significant features’ ridge-lines. On a flat orconstantly sloped background, areas only move relative to eachother due to pixel noise. At their final positions, each area’s ori-entation is measured using second moments as described above.

11


Fig. A.1. Top-left: I-band SL2S J02140-0535 observation, alsofeaturing a giant arc. Top-right: regular grid of disk shaped ar-eas providing the initial condition of the displacement iterations.Only every second row and column of areas are shown. Bottom-left: areas after three iterations, each moving them to their centreof brightness, and the path they traced. Bottom-right: local ori-entations for each area, determined using the second brightnessmoments. Lines corresponding to coherent areas are highlighted.The red contours show the segmentation of the objects.

To determine coherence, the relative orientations together withthe relative placement of areas initially placed close to each otherare taken into account. Finally, the centre coordinates of coher-ent areas are grouped together using a friend-of-friend type al-gorithm. These groups of coordinates correspond to the initialarcfinder detections.

Filters and post processing

To reduce the number of spurious detections and to expand onthe spatial information provided by the area positions and ori-entations in each detection, filters are applied to the originaldetections and the shape and flux of each detection are deter-mined. Each of the small detection areas is subjected to a sim-ple fitting procedure that preferentially removes areas centred onpoint sources and on a background of constant noise without sig-nificant structure in the flux distribution. Then, detections withless than a minimal amount of valid areas left or shorter than athreshold are removed. Using a fully automatic active contourevolution method (Kass et al., 1988), isophote contours aroundeach detection are determined, which in turn allows for the de-termination of the flux. Using the flux and a measurement ofthe background noise in the larger area surrounding each detec-tion, the signal to noise ratio is set. A more precise length and alength-to-width ratio is computed from the contour, and minimalthresholds are applied to both photometric and morphologicaldata.

ReferencesBartelmann, M. 2010, Class. Quantum Grav. 27

Bartelmann, M., Huss, A., Colberg, J. M., Jenkins, A., & Pearce, F. R. 1998,A&A, 330, 1

Bartelmann, M., Steinmetz, M., & Weiss, A. 1995, A&A, 297, 1Bayliss, M. B., Hennawi, J. F., Gladders, M. D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 8Benjamin, J., Heymans, C., Semboloni, E., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 702Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393Boulade, O., Charlot, X., Abbon, P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical

Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Societyof Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed.M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 72–81

Bradac, M., Vanzella, E., Hall, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, L7Broadhurst, T., Benıtez, N., Coe, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 53Cabanac, R. A., Alard, C., Dantel-Fort, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 813Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A., & Markevitch, M. 2004, ApJ, 604, 596Coe, D., Zitrin, A., Carrasco, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 32Coleman, G. D., Wu, C.-C., & Weedman, D. W. 1980, ApJS, 43, 393Coles, J. 2008, ApJ, 679, 17Dalal, N., Holder, G., & Hennawi, J. F. 2004, ApJ, 609, 50de Jong, J. T. A., Verdoes Kleijn, G. A., Kuijken, K. H., & Valentijn, E. A. 2012,

Experimental Astronomy, 34Erben, T., Hildebrandt, H., Lerchster, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 1197Erben, T., Schirmer, M., Dietrich, J. P., et al. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten,

326, 432Fassnacht, C. D., Moustakas, L. A., Casertano, S., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L155Faure, C., Kneib, J.-P., Covone, G., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 19Fedeli, C., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., Dolag, K., & Moscardini, L. 2006,

A&A, 447, 419Horesh, A., Ofek, E. O., Maoz, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 768Ilbert, O., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1236Jackson, N. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1311Kass, M., Witkin, A., & Terzopoulos, D. 1988, International Journal of Computer

Vision, 1, 321Kneib, J.-P., Ellis, R. S., Santos, M. R., & Richard, J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 697Kochanek, C. S. 2006, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course 33: Gravitational Lensing:

Strong, Weak and Micro, ed. G. Meylan, P. Jetzer, P. North, P. Schneider,C. S. Kochanek, & J. Wambsganss, 91–268

Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, ArXiv e-printsLi, G.-L., Mao, S., Jing, Y. P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 795Limousin, M., Cabanac, R., Gavazzi, R., et al. 2009, A&A, 502, 445Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., Dahle, H., & Limousin, M. 2013, ArXiv e-

printsMeneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., & Moscardini, L. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 105Meneghetti, M., Bolzonella, M., Bartelmann, M., Moscardini, L., & Tormen, G.

2000, MNRAS, 314, 338Merten, J., Cacciato, M., Meneghetti, M., Mignone, C., & Bartelmann, M. 2009,

A&A, 500, 681Merten, J., Coe, D., Dupke, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 333More, A., Cabanac, R., More, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 38Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493Oguri, M., Bayliss, M. B., Dahle, H., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3213Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P., Ebeling, H., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, L31Richard, J., Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 705Schneider, P. 1999, Gravitational lensesSeidel, G. & Bartelmann, M. 2007, A&A, 472, 341Sheth, R. K. & Tormen, G. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 61Suyu, S. H., Marshall, P. J., Auger, M. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 201Tewes, M., Courbin, F., Meylan, G., et al. 2012, ArXiv e-printsTorri, E., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 476Verdugo, T., Motta, V., Munoz, R. P., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A124Wambsganss, J. 1998, Living Reviews in Relativity, 1, 12Willmer, C. N. A., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 853Zacharias, N., Finch, C., Girard, T., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2184Zitrin, A. & Broadhurst, T. 2009, ApJ, 703, L132Zitrin, A., Broadhurst, T., Umetsu, K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1985

12


Table A.1. List of the arcfinder parameters used in this work. For a detailed description refer to the text.

Ridge detectionGridsize 7 Length and width of each cell [pix]Cell spacing 0.45 Distance between cells is Cell spacing x GridsizeThreshold cell 0.45 Coupling threshold for average coupling over the cell neighbourhoodThreshold object 0.75 Coupling threshold for inclusion of a single cell into an objectThreshold graph 0.75 Coupling threshold for graph generationFilteringDeblending asymmetry 30 median intensity difference for deblendingDeblending distance 21 minimum deblending distanceStars saturation intensity 500 critical intensity above which pixels are considered as saturatedStar intensity 50 intensity above which pixels are likely to belong to stars creating diffraction spikesStar-fluxcoeff spike 3200 compute spike radius as fluxcoeff-spike × flux1/2

Star-fluxcoeff disk 420 compute disk radius as fluxcoeff-disk × flux1/3

Maxpeakflux 0.6 maximal peak flux in ADUs above the background

13

multi-colour detection of gravitational arcs - arxiv

Documents