All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{12cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90,clip]{NEW/3166fg01.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 1: NFW best fit model for strong lensing constraints. Left: caustic lines with the position of the 26 knots in the source plane. Right: critical lines with the observed (resp. model) position of the 26 knots represented with circles (resp. + signs). Geometrical units are arcsec.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg02.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 2: Scatter plot showing the projection of MCMCs on some planes of the parameters space of the NFW lens modelling. The color codes for the ellipticity parameter according to the scale at the bottom right corner. The axes are the virial mass $M_{\rm 200}$ , the concentration c and the rest-frame V band stellar mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon _V \equiv M_*/L_V$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{12.6cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg03.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 3: Projected total mass (stars+DM) profile within cylinder of radius R for the best fit NFW model (solid black), the best fit general "gen'' model with $\alpha =1.26$ and $\beta =2.6$ (solid red), the best fit model of Sand et al. (2004,2002) (dashed black) and the best fit NFW model from X-rays constraints (Allen et al. 2001) (solid magenta). The contribution of stars for the NFW model is the red dotted domain. The width on the curves is representative of the 1 $-\sigma$ uncertainties (except for the Sa04 profile). The blue region is the domain constrained by the weak-lensing $\zeta$ -statistic. The location of the tangential (resp. radial) critical lines is reported by a blue "T'' (resp. "R''). The "gen'' and NFW models match well from the center to the inner radius probed by weak-lensing. Beyond, they are consistent within the weak-lensing uncertainties. For $R\lesssim40~{\rm kpc}$ both profiles present large (a factor $\sim$ 2) discrepancies with the curves inferred by Sa04 and Al01. See text.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.8cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg04.ep... ...cm}{5cm}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg05.eps}}\hspace*{1.5mm}} \end{figure}$ Figure 4: Upper panel: circularly averaged deflection angle for our best NFW fit (solid black curve) compared to that of Sa04 (solid red curve). From left to right, the blue vertical lines represent the radial and tangential critical radii, the Sa04 and our prediction of the radial arc counter-image. The critical radii match from one model to another but the radial arc length significantly differs. The dotted y=r line gives the solution of the tangentiel critical radius. The dashed lines y=r+u (with u the source location) give the solution of the radial critical radius where it is tangent to the curve y=r. Lower panel: magnification profile. The Sa04 model predicts high magnifications close to the center with another radial critical line at the very center ( $r\sim 0.1\hbox {$^{\prime \prime }$ }$ ).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.3cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg06.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 5: Velocity dispersion $\sigma _{\rm los}(R)$ (solid black line) and biased velocity $\sigma _{\rm h_4}(R)$ (dashed blue line) profiles for isotropic orbits. The measurements of Sa04 are represented by red boxes. Top: our best fit NFW model. In this panel we have also represented another couple of ( $\sigma _{\rm los},\sigma _{\rm h_4}$ ) curves (magenta dotted and dot-dashed respectively) which correspond to an anisotropic Osipkov-Merritt case with $r_{\rm a}=10~{\rm kpc}$ . The introduction of anisotropy does not improve the fit quality but leads to huge departures between $\sigma _{\rm los}$ and $\sigma _{\rm h_4}$ . Middle: best fit model of Sa04 which matches the data well. Bottom: best fit model of Al01, inferred from X-rays analysis. This model also matches the measurements of Sa01 whereas none of these latter profiles are consistent with lensing observations.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg07.eps}}\... ....5mm} \resizebox{8cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg09.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Radial behavior of ratio between mass estimates for various values of the axis ratio q=0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1., 1/0.8, 1/0.6, 1/0.4, 1/0.2. Top Panel: ratio $M_{\rm lens}(r; q)/M_{\rm true}(r; q)$ . Middle Panel: ratio $M_{\rm kin}(r; q)/M_{\rm true}(r; q)$ . Bottom Panel: ratio $M_{\rm X}(r; q)/M_{\rm true}(r; q)$ . In this latter case, one can see much lower values whatever the axis ratio. The asymptotic behavior is slightly affected by numerical instability for $r\gtrsim 10$ and extreme values of q.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg10.eps}... ...mm} \resizebox{8.4cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg11.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Upper panel: distribution for the mass ratio $\eta$ for three different radii r=0.03 (the broader black curve), r=0.3 (the intermediate red curve) and r=3.0 (the narrower green curve). At small scales, the distribution is broad and clearly not centered on $\eta =1$ , leading to unreliable direct normalization between 2D and 3D mass estimates like in strong lensing and X-rays/stellar dynamics comparisons. With increasing radius ( $r\gtrsim 3.0$ ), departures significantly vanish and explain the overall agreement between large scale weak lensing and X-rays mass estimates. Lower panel: mean (thick black curve) and 68.3, 95.4 and 99.7% quantiles (thin red, blue and magenta curves respectively) of the $\eta$ distribution as a function of radius.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg12.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure 8: For r=0.3, we show the dependence of $\eta$ on the projected axis ratio q. The conditional PDFs $p(\eta\vert q>0.9)$ (blue) $p(\eta\vert q>0.7)$ (red) and $p(\eta\vert q<0.7)$ (green) are compared to the overall distribution $p(\eta )$ (black). The rounder the halo is, the more likely is the major axis of the halo oriented toward the line of sight and the higher is $\eta$ .
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.8cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg13.eps}} \end{figure}$ Figure A.1: Line-of-sight velocity probability distribution for stars with a projected radius in the innermost $-0.5<R<1.5~h_{\rm 70}^{-1}~{\rm kpc}$ (the upper black histogram) and outermost bins $6.5<R<8.5~h_{\rm 70}^{-1}~{\rm kpc}$ (the lower red histogram)of Sa04. In each case, we plot a Gaussian distribution with the same dispersion for comparison. One can see non-Gaussian tails for the innermost stars. In this example, we consider the the best fit NFW model of Sect. 2.3 and orbits are isotropic.

In the text

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{12cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90,clip]{NEW/3166fg01.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 1: NFW best fit model for strong lensing constraints. Left: caustic lines with the position of the 26 knots in the source plane. Right: critical lines with the observed (resp. model) position of the 26 knots represented with circles (resp. + signs). Geometrical units are arcsec.
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg02.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 2: Scatter plot showing the projection of MCMCs on some planes of the parameters space of the NFW lens modelling. The color codes for the ellipticity parameter according to the scale at the bottom right corner. The axes are the virial mass $M_{\rm 200}$ , the concentration c and the rest-frame V band stellar mass-to-light ratio $\Upsilon _V \equiv M_*/L_V$ .
Open with DEXTER

$\begin{figure} \par\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[clip]{NEW/3166fg12.eps}} \end{figure}$	Figure 8: For r=0.3, we show the dependence of $\eta$ on the projected axis ratio q. The conditional PDFs $p(\eta\vert q>0.9)$ (blue) $p(\eta\vert q>0.7)$ (red) and $p(\eta\vert q<0.7)$ (green) are compared to the overall distribution $p(\eta )$ (black). The rounder the halo is, the more likely is the major axis of the halo oriented toward the line of sight and the higher is $\eta$ .
Open with DEXTER