1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
4: %\usepackage{amssymb}
5: %\usepackage{epsfig}
6: %\usepackage[round]{natbib}
7:
8: %\setlength{\topmargin}{5bp}
9: %\setlength{\topskip}{0in}
10: %\setlength{\headsep}{0pt}
11: %\setlength{\headheight}{0pt}
12: %\setlength{\textwidth}{6.4in}
13: %\setlength{\textheight}{8in}
14: %\setlength{\footskip}{0.25in}
15: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{5bp}
16: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{5bp}
17: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.66}
18: %\setlength{\emergencystretch}{2em} % Add a little slop
19: %\DeclareMathSizes{12}{12}{10}{10} % Make large super/subscripts
20: %\setlength{\footnotesep}{0.6cm}
21:
22:
23: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}
24: %\tolerance=500
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28: %
29:
30: \bibliographystyle{apj}
31:
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33:
34: \title{Estimating Third-Order Moments for an Absorber Catalog}
35: \author{J. M. Loh}
36:
37: \affil{Dept of Statistics, Columbia U, New York}
38: \email{meng@stat.columbia.edu}
39:
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: Due to recent availability of large surveys, there is renewed interest
43: in third-order correlation statistics. Measures of third-order
44: clustering are sensitive to the structure of filaments and voids in
45: the universe and are useful for studying large-scale
46: structure. Thus statistics of these third-order measures can be used to
47: test and constrain parameters in cosmological models.
48:
49: Third-order measures such as the three-point correlation function are
50: now commonly estimated for galaxy surveys. Studies on third-order
51: clustering of absorption systems will complement these analyses.
52: We define a statistic, which we denote as $\mathcal{K}$, that
53: measures third-order clustering of a
54: dataset of point observations, and focus on the estimation of this
55: statistic for an absorber catalog. The statistic
56: $\mathcal{K}$ can be considered
57: a third-order version of the second-order Ripley's $K$ function
58: and
59: allows one to study the abundance of various
60: configurations of point triplets. In particular
61: configurations consisting of point triplets that lie close to a
62: straight line can be examined.
63:
64:
65:
66: Studying third-order clustering of absorbers requires
67: consideration of the absorbers as a three-dimensional process,
68: observed on Quasi-stellar object (QSO) lines of
69: sight that extend radially in three-dimensional space from the
70: Earth. Since most of this three-dimensional space is not probed by the
71: lines of sight, edge corrections become important. We use an
72: analytical form of edge correction weights and
73: construct an estimator of the statistic $\mathcal{K}$ for use with an absorber catalog.
74: We show that with these
75: weights, ratio-unbiased estimates of $\mathcal{K}$ can be obtained.
76: Results from a simulation study also verify
77: unbiasedness and provide information on the decrease of standard
78: errors with increasing number of lines of sight.
79:
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82: \keywords{cosmology:large-scale structure of universe, methods:statistical}
83:
84:
85: \section{Introduction} \label{sect:intro}
86:
87: The C \textsc{iv} and Mg \textsc{ii} Quasi-stellar object (QSO)
88: absorption systems or absorbers
89: appear to trace the same structure as that of galaxies on very large
90: scales and have been shown to be effective probes of large-scale
91: structure in the universe \citep{crotts85a, crotts85b,
92: tytler93}. See \citet{tripp05} for a discussion on the connection
93: between galaxies and QSO absorbers using observations at low redshift.
94:
95: The clustering of such absorbers were studied in a series of
96: investigations \citep{vanden96, quashnock96, quashnock98} using an
97: extensive catalog of absorbers drawn from the
98: literature. Specifically, they performed a second-order correlation
99: analysis in one dimension, restricting to absorber pairs lying on the
100: same QSO lines of sight, and found clustering on very large scales, up
101: to 50 to 100 $h^{-1}$Mpc. This superclustering has also been found in
102: other studies, e.g.\ \citet{heisler89, dinshaw96}. This work on the
103: second-order clustering of absorbers complements the analyses of second-order
104: structure of other astronomical objects such as galaxies, quasars and
105: the cosmic microwave background.
106:
107: In astronomy, a common measure of second-order structure is the
108: two-point correlation function $\xi$ \citep{peebles80, peebles93}, and this is the
109: function used in the above-mentioned studies.
110: Another measure of second-order clustering is the reduced second
111: moment function, also called Ripley's $K$ function
112: \citep{ripley88, martinez02}. In three dimensions, the $K$
113: function is related to the two-point correlation function by
114: $$K(r) = 4\pi \int_0^r u^2[1+\xi(u)] \, du.$$
115: \citet{martinez98} applied the $K$ function to galaxy surveys, while
116: \citet{quashnock99, stein2001} used it to examine
117: clustering of the \citet{vanden96} C \textsc{iv} absorber
118: catalog.
119:
120: \citet{loh01}
121: extended the work of \citet{quashnock99} in the study of second-order
122: clustering of the \citet{vanden96} absorber catalog
123: by considering the absorbers as a process occurring in three
124: dimensions. By treating the absorbers as a three-dimensional process,
125: absorber pairs that lie on different lines of sight were included in
126: estimates of the $K$ function. As a result, the
127: estimates obtained were shown to have dramatically smaller standard
128: errors than estimates obtained by only considering the absorbers as a
129: one-dimensional process on the lines of sight, when there is a large
130: enough number of lines of sight.
131:
132: More recently, there has been interest in higher-order clustering,
133: in particular in third-order clustering, partly because of limitations
134: of restricting to second moments and partly because datasets are now
135: large enough for third-order statistics to be estimated. In
136: particular, the structure of filaments and voids that is present in
137: galaxy surveys is more readily, though still inadequately, described by
138: third-order statistics \citep{gaztanaga05a, sefusatti05}.
139: See \citet{jing98, gaztanaga05, nichol06, kulkarni07} for some examples
140: of the three-point correlation function \citep{fry80} applied to
141: galaxy surveys. The \citet{vanden96} absorber catalog, which has 276
142: lines of sight and 345 C \textsc{iv} absorbers, is too small for
143: investigating third-order structure, but the catalog being gathered by
144: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep{york00} will have many more absorbers and
145: lines of sight, making a
146: study of the third-order structure of absorbers feasible.
147:
148: Here, we are concerned with estimating the third-order structure of an
149: absorber catalog.
150: With estimates describing the third-order structure of an absorber catalog,
151: one can compare these estimates with corresponding estimates from
152: galaxy surveys. For example, one can study whether absorbers lie
153: along filaments like galaxies do.
154:
155:
156: In Section \ref{sect:thirdmoment} we will define a third-order version
157: of the $K$ function and relate it to the three-point correlation
158: function. We provide edge correction weights for its estimation for an
159: absorber catalog. We provide mathematical details in the Appendix
160: and results of a simulation study (Section \ref{sect:sim}) to show that
161: these weights do properly account for the edge effects.
162: Since these weights make use of the weights found in \citet{loh01}, we briefly
163: summarize their method of finding correction weights (Section
164: \ref{sect:absSecond}). Section \ref{sect:conclusion} contains a brief
165: summary and discussion of the application of this work for studying
166: galaxy clustering and large-scale structure.
167:
168:
169:
170:
171: \section{Estimation of $K$ for an absorber catalog}
172: \label{sect:absSecond}
173:
174: Here we briefly describe the method of \citet{loh01} for finding
175: correction weights for estimating the $K$ function from an absorber
176: catalog.
177:
178: Figure \ref{fig:pair} is a schematic diagram that shows
179: absorbers lying on some lines of sight.
180: The solid lines represent lines of sight, and the solid circles, absorbers at $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$.
181: The dashed circles represent a shell centered at
182: $\mathbf{x}$ with radius $|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|$ and thickness $du$,
183: which we will denote by $\delta B_{du}(\mathbf{x},
184: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)$. This shell has volume $4\pi
185: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|^2 du$. The point $\mathbf{b}$ represents an
186: intersection point of $\delta B_0(\mathbf{x},
187: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)$ and $L$, the set of
188: lines of sight. Note that with regards to notation, in this paper we will use
189: $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y},
190: \mathbf{z}$ to represent locations of absorbers on $L$ and $\mathbf{a},
191: \mathbf{b}, \mathbf{c}$ to refer to general locations on $L$ which may
192: or may not have absorbers present.
193:
194: \clearpage
195: \begin{figure}
196: \begin{center}
197: \plotone{f1.eps}
198: \caption{A schematic diagram showing absorbers at $\mathbf{x}$ and
199: $\mathbf{y}$. The solid lines represent lines of
200: sight, and the dashed lines the shell centered at $\mathbf{x}$, with
201: radius $|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|$ and thickness $du$. Each of the
202: shaded rectangles represents cylinders in three-dimensional space
203: and shows where an absorber center must lie
204: in order to be detected at that particular location on a line of
205: sight.}
206: \label{fig:pair}
207: \end{center}
208: \end{figure}
209: \clearpage
210:
211:
212: The two shaded rectangles on this shell represent cylinders in
213: three-dimensional space. If the center of the absorber $\mathbf{y}$
214: lies in a cylinder, it will be observed on the line of sight
215: that passes through the center of that cylinder.
216: When the absorber at $\mathbf{x}$ is at the center, the contribution
217: of the absorber at $\mathbf{y}$ to the estimate of $K$ needs to be
218: corrected for boundary
219: effects, i.e.\ for the points in the shell $\delta B_{du}(\mathbf{x},
220: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)$ not probed by the lines of
221: sight so that an absorber could be present there but not observable. Using
222: Ripley's method of edge correction, the
223: weight is the reciprocal of the probability of detecting an absorber,
224: given that the absorber is present in the shell. This weight is
225: approximated by the ratio of the volume of the shell $\delta B_{du}(\mathbf{x},
226: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)$ to the volume of the cylinders.
227: Specifically, the weight is given by
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: w_\mathbf{x}(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|) & = & \frac{4\pi
230: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|^2 du}{ \pi d^2(du) \sum_{\mathbf{p}\in
231: I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}}(1/\cos
232: \theta_\mathbf{p})} = \frac{4\pi
233: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|^2 }{ \pi d^2 \sum_{\mathbf{p}\in
234: I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}}(1/\cos
235: \theta_\mathbf{p})}, \label{eqn:2ndorderwt}
236: \end{eqnarray}
237: where $I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}$ is the set of points in $\delta B_0(\mathbf{x},
238: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|) \cap L$, and $\theta_\mathbf{p}$ is the angle
239: subtended by the line of sight that point $\mathbf{p}$ lies on, and
240: the line
241: joining point $\mathbf{p}$ and absorber $\mathbf{x}$. In Figure
242: \ref{fig:pair}, $I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}$ just consists of the
243: points $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{b}$. The angles $\theta_\mathbf{y}$
244: and $\theta_\mathbf{b}$ are
245: also indicated in Figure \ref{fig:pair}. The variable
246: $d$ is the radius of an absorber in comoving units, and we assume it
247: to be unknown, but
248: fixed. The value of $d$ does not need to be specified because it gets
249: cancelled away and does not appear in the estimator for $K$. For more
250: details, see
251: Section \ref{sect:thirdmoment} where this cancellation also occurs for
252: the estimator of the third-order statistic $\mathcal{K}$.
253:
254: With weights specified by (\ref{eqn:2ndorderwt}),
255: \citet{loh01} show that estimates for $\lambda^2 K$ are unbiased.
256:
257:
258: \section{Estimating third-order statistics for the absorber catalog}
259: \label{sect:thirdmoment}
260:
261: It is well-known that second-order statistics do not completely
262: describe the clustering properties of point processes. For example,
263: \citet{baddeley84} provide an example of a non-Poisson process with
264: the $K$ function identical to that of a homogeneous Poisson process.
265: Third- and higher-order statistics will allow a more detailed
266: study of clustering than just second-order statistics.
267:
268: \citet{peebles75} defined a three-point correlation function $\zeta$ and
269: applied it to the Zwicky catalog. With three volume elements $dV_1,
270: dV_2$ and $dV_3$ that define a triangle with lengths $r_{12}, r_{23}$
271: and $r_{13}$, \citet{peebles75} wrote the probability of finding an
272: object in each of these elements as
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: dP & = & \lambda^3 [1+\xi(r_{12})+\xi(r_{23})+\xi(r_{13})
275: +\zeta(r_{12},r_{23},r_{12})]dV_1dV_2dV_3, \label{eqn:threept}
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: where $\lambda$ is the intensity or number density of the point
278: process.
279: Subsequent studies using the three-point correlation function
280: frequently used a different description of the configuration of
281: triplets, employing two distance measures and one angle measure:
282: $s=r_{12}, q=r_{23}/r_{12}$ and $\theta$, the angle between $r_{12}$
283: and $r_{23}$. See, for example, \citet{gaztanaga05,
284: nichol06, kulkarni07}. Note that in the above notation the angle is
285: subtended at the
286: second point. We will use the parametrization of two distances
287: and an angle in this work.
288:
289: For the study of galaxy surveys, a related quantity $Q$, called
290: the reduced three-point correlation function is often used, where
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: \zeta(s,q,\theta) = Q(s,q,\theta)\times [\xi(r_{12})\xi(r_{23}) +
293: \xi(r_{23})\xi(r_{13}) + \xi(r_{13})\xi(r_{12})]. \label{eqn:Q}
294: \end{eqnarray}
295: The hierarchical form of (\ref{eqn:Q}) was proposed in
296: \citet{peebles75} based on their analyses of the Lick and Zwicky
297: catalogs. It is an empirical form without theoretical support
298: \citep{jing98}, but has been found to hold in other studies e.g.\
299: \citet{szapudi01}. In analyses of the
300: 2dFGRS and SDSS galaxy surveys, there appears to be variation of $Q$
301: with $\theta$ \citep[e.g.][]{gaztanaga05, nichol06}.
302:
303:
304:
305: In the statistics literature, the quantity $dP$ in (\ref{eqn:threept})
306: above is more commonly expressed in terms of a function $g^{(3)}$:
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: dP & = & \lambda^3g^{(3)}(r_{12},r_{23},\theta) dV_1dV_2dV_3, \label{eqn:g3}
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: where we have used two distances and an angle for the parameters of
311: $g^{(3)}$.
312: \citet{moller98} refer to $\lambda^3 g^{(3)}$ as the third-product
313: density.
314: \citet{moller98} also
315: designed a third-order statistic to distinguish between certain
316: classes of point process models, while \citet{hanisch83} used a
317: third-order statistic to examine inner linearities in point patterns.
318: See also \citet{schladitz00}. These third-order statistics
319: are integrated versions of the third-product density, and
320: can be considered third-order versions of the second-order $K$ function.
321: For our purposes, we define such a third-order function, which we
322: denote by $\mathcal{K}$:
323: \begin{eqnarray}
324: \mathcal{K}((0,R_1], (R_2,R_3], \Omega) & = &
325: \int_0^{R_1}\!\int_{R_2}^{R_3}\!\int_\Omega 4\pi r_{12}^2
326: r_{23}^2 g^{(3)}(r_{12},r_{23}, \theta) (2\pi \sin\theta)d\theta dr_{23}dr_{12}, \label{eqn:K}
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: where $(a,b]$ denotes an interval that includes $b$ but not $a$ and
329: $\Omega=[\alpha_1, \alpha_2], 0\le \alpha_1 < \alpha_2 \le \pi$
330: is a range of angles.
331: The third-order statistic of \citet{moller98} corresponds to
332: $\mathcal{K}$ with $R_2=0, R_3=R_1$ and $\Omega=[0,\pi]$.
333: The quantity $\mathcal{K}((0,R_1],
334: (R_2,R_3], \Omega)$ has an intuitive interpretation:\ given a randomly
335: chosen object at $\mathbf{x}$, $\lambda^2\mathcal{K}((0,R_1],
336: (R_2,R_3], \Omega)$ is the expected number of object pairs at $\mathbf{y}$ and
337: $\mathbf{z}$ such that $|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|\in (0, R_1],
338: |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}| \in (R_2, R_3]$ and the angle subtended by
339: $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{z}$ at $\mathbf{x}$, $\angle \mathbf{yxz}$,
340: is in
341: $\Omega$. To relate to the notation in (\ref{eqn:K}), note that $r_{12}
342: = |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|$ and $r_{23} =
343: |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|$, so that $\mathbf{x}$ is point 2, at which
344: the angle is subtended. Of
345: particular interest is the case
346: when $\theta$ is close to 0 or $\pi$, since this describes the property of
347: finding triplets of points that lie close to a line. We will also be
348: interested in the variation of $\mathcal{K}$ with $\Omega$.
349:
350: Both the three-point and reduced three-point correlation functions can
351: be obtained from $\mathcal{K}$.
352: Consider $\mathcal{K}((0,R_1], (0,R_3], \Omega)$ where $\Omega$ is a
353: small angle range, $(\theta-\delta\theta/2, \theta+\delta\theta/2)$,
354: say. Then from (\ref{eqn:K}) we have,
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: \frac{d^2\mathcal{K}}{dR_1dR_3} & = & 4\pi S(\Omega)R_1^2R_3^2
357: g^{(3)}(R_1, R_3, \theta), \label{eqn:dK}
358: \end{eqnarray}
359: where $S(\Omega)$ is the solid angle formed by the part of the unit
360: sphere that subtends an angle $\theta \in \Omega$ to the $x$-axis.
361: Using (\ref{eqn:threept}), (\ref{eqn:Q}) and (\ref{eqn:g3}), $\zeta$ and
362: thus $Q$ can be expressed in terms of $g^{(3)}$.
363: Therefore estimates for one
364: quantity can be converted to estimates for the other quantities.
365:
366: There are different advantages to estimating $\mathcal{K}$ versus
367: $\zeta$. Since $\mathcal{K}$ is an integral quantity, it is often
368: smoother and thus its estimates might have better theoretical
369: properties. It also separates the choice of bin size from the edge
370: correction weights, so if a study of the effect of bin size or of
371: different edge correction methods is desired, it may be more
372: appropriate to use $\mathcal{K}$ \citep{stein2001}. On the other
373: hand, the hierarchical form of (\ref{eqn:Q}) is more simply expressed
374: using $\zeta$ and $Q$.
375: Having estimates of $\mathcal{K}, \zeta$ and $Q$ allows for more
376: flexibility in studying the clustering present in a dataset, so
377: rather than advocating for one statistic over another, we recommend
378: using all these statistics as tools for a detailed analysis.
379:
380: When studying clustering of a point pattern observed in a finite
381: region, it is important to account for the boundary of the observation
382: region. If a point falls near a boundary, we do not get to
383: observe all its neighboring points. This is a particularly important
384: issue for
385: an absorber catalog, since only a small portion of the
386: three-dimensional space is probed by the lines of sight. In order to
387: obtain unbiased estimates, point pairs that are observed have
388: to be reweighted to account for the boundary effect. There are various
389: methods to do the edge correction. These can be numerical such as in
390: the estimators of the two-point
391: correlation function introduced by \citet{davis83} and
392: \citet{hamilton93}, or analytical such as those introduced by
393: \citet{ripley88} and \citet{ohser83} for the $K$ function. See
394: \citet{kerscher2000} for a good review in the astronomy context.
395:
396: \citet{loh01} found correction weights, based on the same correction
397: procedure suggested by \citet{ripley88}, for estimating the $K$
398: function for the \citet{vanden96} C \textsc{iv} absorber catalog.
399: \citet{loh02} found expressions of the
400: correction weights based on Ohser's and Stoyan's correction
401: methods \citep{ohser81, ohser83}. Here, we obtain edge correction weights
402: for estimating the third-order moment function $\mathcal{K}$ using
403: Ripley's method.
404:
405: Note that since estimating a third-order statistic involves counting
406: triplets of points,
407: the more common analysis approach of treating the absorbers
408: as a one-dimensional process on the lines of sight cannot be used. The
409: absorbers have to be treated as a three-dimensional process, and the
410: edge effects caused by the large regions of unobserved space have to be
411: accounted for.
412:
413:
414: For fixed values of $R_1, R_2, R_3, \alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$,
415: we estimate $\mathcal{K}$ by first estimating $\lambda^3A\mathcal{K}$ with
416: \begin{eqnarray}
417: \sum_{\mathbf{x}\ne \mathbf{y}\ne \mathbf{z} \atop \mathbf{x},
418: \mathbf{y}, \mathbf{z} \in L}
419: 1_{(0,R_1]}(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)1_{(R_2,R_3]}(|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|)
420: 1_\Omega(\angle\mathbf{yxz})
421: \omega_\mathbf{x}(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|,\Omega)
422: V(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|, |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega), & &
423: \label{eqn:estimator}
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: and then dividing the estimate $\widehat{\lambda^3A\mathcal{K}}$ by an
426: estimator of $\lambda^3A$. Here, $L$ is the set of lines of sight,
427: $A =\pi d^2|L|$ is the volume
428: probed by the lines of sight, $d$ is the constant radius of an
429: absorber in comoving units, $\angle\mathbf{yxz}$
430: is the angle subtended by $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{z}$ at
431: $\mathbf{x}$, and for any set $S$, $1_S(u )$ is an
432: indicator function, equal to 1 if $u\in S$ and $0$ otherwise.
433:
434: We find that with
435: \begin{eqnarray}
436: \omega_\mathbf{x}(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega) &=
437: & \frac{4\pi S(\Omega)|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|^2
438: |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|^2(du)^2}{(\pi d^2)^2 (du)^2
439: \sum_{\mathbf{p}\in I_{\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}}}
440: \sum_{\mathbf{q}\in I_{\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}}}
441: 1_\Omega (\angle \mathbf{pxq})/(\cos \theta_\mathbf{p} \cos\theta_\mathbf{q})} \nonumber \\
442: & = & \frac{4\pi S(\Omega)|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|^2
443: |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|^2}{(\pi d^2)^2\
444: \sum_{\mathbf{p}\in I_{\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}}}
445: \sum_{\mathbf{q}\in I_{\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}}}
446: 1_\Omega (\angle \mathbf{pxq})/(\cos \theta_\mathbf{p} \cos\theta_\mathbf{q})},
447: \label{eqn:w} \\
448: V(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|, |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega) & = & \frac{A}{\pi
449: d^2|L(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|,\Omega)|} = \frac{|L|}{
450: |L(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|,\Omega)|},
451: \label{eqn:V}
452: \end{eqnarray}
453: the estimator in (\ref{eqn:estimator}) is unbiased for
454: $\lambda^3A\mathcal{K}$.
455: The quantity
456: $w_\mathbf{x}(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega)$
457: is the correction weight needed to account for the edge effects. It is
458: also called the local weight in
459: \citet{kerscher2000}. The quantity $V(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,
460: |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega)$ is sometimes
461: referred to as Ohser's factor \citep{ohser83}, and makes the estimator
462: valid for longer distances. It is called a global weight in
463: \citet{kerscher2000}. For the rest of this section, we explain how the
464: expressions in (\ref{eqn:w}) and (\ref{eqn:V}) are obtained.
465:
466:
467: The denominator in the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:w}) is
468: related to the weights found in \citet{loh01}, specifically, to the
469: denominator in the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:2ndorderwt}).
470: In (\ref{eqn:2ndorderwt}), the denominator is the sum of the volumes of
471: the cylinders associated with the intersection of $\delta
472: B_{du}(\mathbf{x}, |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)$ with the set of
473: lines of sight $L$, less a factor of $du$. These cylinders
474: are shown in Figure \ref{fig:pair} and are shown again in the lower
475: left portion of Figure \ref{fig:triplet}.
476:
477:
478: \clearpage
479: \begin{figure}
480: \begin{center}
481: \plotone{f2.eps}
482: \caption{A schematic diagram similar to Figure
483: \ref{fig:pair}, with an additional absorber at $\mathbf{z}$, and a
484: shell centered at $\mathbf{x}$, with
485: radius $|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|$ and thickness $du$. The triplet of
486: absorbers $\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}$ is of the desired
487: configuration. The triplet of points $\mathbf{b},
488: \mathbf{x},\mathbf{c}$ corresponds to a set of locations in $L$ where
489: a triplet of absorbers of the desired configuration could potentially
490: have been observed.}
491: \label{fig:triplet}
492: \end{center}
493: \end{figure}
494: \clearpage
495:
496: For (\ref{eqn:w}), we need to consider the intersections of $\delta
497: B_{du}(\mathbf{x}, |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|)$ with $L$ as well,
498: represented by the outer shell in Figure \ref{fig:triplet}.
499: Like in (\ref{eqn:2ndorderwt}),
500: $I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}} = \delta
501: B_0(\mathbf{x},|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|) \cap L$
502: where $\delta B_0(\mathbf{x},|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)$ is the sphere
503: centered at $\mathbf{x}$ with radius $|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|$. The
504: definition for $I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z}}$ is similar. With respect to Figure
505: \ref{fig:triplet}, $I_{\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}}$ contains the locations
506: $\mathbf{b}$ and $\mathbf{y}$, while $I_{\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}}$
507: contains the locations
508: $\mathbf{c}$ and $\mathbf{z}$.
509:
510: To get the denominator on the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:w}), we
511: consider pairs of cylinders, one on the outer shell and one on
512: the inner
513: shell, i.e.\ a cylinder associated with a point $\mathbf{q}$ in
514: $I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z}}$ and another associated with a point
515: $\mathbf{p}$ in
516: $I_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}$. Each product of the volumes of these
517: pairs of cylinders, equal to $\pi d^2
518: (du) /\cos\theta_\mathbf{p} \times \pi d^2 (du)
519: /\cos\theta_\mathbf{q}$, is included in the
520: sum only if the angle subtended at $\mathbf{x}$ by the centers of the
521: cylinder pair is in the range specified by $\Omega$, i.e.\ if $1_\Omega
522: (\mathbf{\angle pxq})=1$. In Figure
523: \ref{fig:triplet}, these pairs are highlighted by rectangles that are
524: similarly shaded. Note that the $(du)^2$ term cancels because there
525: is a corresponding term in the numerator of (\ref{eqn:w}). It is also
526: worth noting that the numerator of (\ref{eqn:w}) has a form
527: similar to
528: the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:dK}).
529:
530:
531:
532:
533: There may be locations in $L$ that cannot be a possible location for
534: the absorber $\mathbf{x}$ of a triplet $\mathbf{y},\mathbf{x},
535: \mathbf{z}$ of the desired configuration. Which locations these are
536: depend on the actual
537: positions and lengths of the
538: lines of sight in $L$. The quantity $V$ in (\ref{eqn:V}) accounts for
539: this. Each location $\mathbf{a} \in L$ is in the set
540: $L(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|, |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega)$
541: if there are points $\mathbf{b},\mathbf{c} \in L$ such that
542: $|\mathbf{b}-\mathbf{a}| = |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|$,
543: $|\mathbf{c}-\mathbf{a}|=|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|$ and the angle
544: subtended by $\mathbf{b}$ and $\mathbf{c}$ at $\mathbf{a}$,
545: $\angle \mathbf{bac}$, is in $\Omega$, i.e.\
546: $L(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|, |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega)$ is just
547: the set $\{ \mathbf{a}\in L: \exists
548: \mathbf{b}, \mathbf{c}\in L \mbox{ with } |\mathbf{b}-\mathbf{a}| =
549: |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,
550: |\mathbf{c}-\mathbf{a}|=|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \angle
551: \mathbf{bac}\in\Omega\}$. So, by definition, $\mathbf{x}$ of Figure
552: \ref{fig:triplet} has to be in
553: $L(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|, |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega)$.
554:
555: To get an estimate of $\mathcal{K}$, we
556: divide the estimator (\ref{eqn:estimator}) by an estimate of $\lambda^3A$,
557: e.g.\ $(N^3/A^3)A = N^3/(\pi d^2)^2|L|^2$. Thus, although the
558: expression for $\omega_\mathbf{x}$ includes a $(\pi d^2)^2$ term,
559: the value of $d$ need not be specified when estimating $\mathcal{K}$
560: since it gets cancelled away by the same term in the estimate of $\lambda^3A$.
561:
562: The proof of unbiasedness is provided in the Appendix. Note that it is
563: the estimator of $\lambda^3A\mathcal{K}$ that is unbiased. The
564: estimate $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$ that is obtained by dividing by an
565: estimate of $\lambda^3A$ may be slightly biased. Such a property is
566: called ratio-unbiasedness, and is a feature of estimators of the
567: second-order $K$ function as well.
568:
569:
570: \section{Simulation Study}
571: \label{sect:sim}
572:
573: We ran a simulation study to explore the performance of the estimator
574: given in (\ref{eqn:estimator}), with weights given in (\ref{eqn:w})
575: and (\ref{eqn:V}). Note that distances referred to here are comoving distances.
576: We first generated a set of 1000 lines of sight in a region similar to
577: that to be probed by the QSO lines of sight of the SDSS Catalog: a
578: cone with half-angle of $45^\circ$ with Earth at its tip, bounded by
579: comoving distance $2000 < r < 3300 h^{-1}$ Mpc from
580: Earth. This range of distances corresponds to the comoving distances
581: probed by QSO lines of sight for Mg \textsc{ii} and C \textsc{iv}
582: absorbers under the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology.
583: A thousand realizations of a Poisson point process are then
584: simulated on to these lines of sight, with density equal to that found
585: in the
586: \citet{vanden96} catalog, 0.004 per $h^{-1}$ Mpc. We chose Poisson
587: processes since the
588: theoretical value of $\mathcal{K}$ is known for the Poisson model:
589: $P=\mathcal{K}_{\mbox{\small Poi}}((0,R_1],(R_2,R_3],\Omega) = 4\pi S(\Omega)
590: (R_3^3-R_2^3)R_1^3/9$. For each realization, we
591: estimate the third-order function $\mathcal{K}$. We then find the mean
592: and variance of these estimates, and compare it with the theoretical
593: Poisson value $P$. The results are shown in Figures \ref{fig:K3toP3} and
594: \ref{fig:K3toP3byangle}.
595:
596:
597: Figure \ref{fig:K3toP3} shows the ratio of the mean estimates of
598: $\mathcal{K}((0,50], (250, r], \Omega)$ to the expected Poisson value,
599: for $\Omega=(0^\circ,5^\circ)$ (top
600: left), $\Omega=(40^\circ,50^\circ)$ (top right),
601: $\Omega=(55^\circ,60^\circ)$ (bottom left) and
602: $\Omega=(80^\circ,90^\circ)$ (bottom right), plotted as a function of
603: $r$, for $250 <r\le 330$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc (solid lines).
604: The dashed lines show the pointwise error, equal to
605: two times the standard deviation of the 1000 estimates. Notice that in
606: each case, the true value of 1 lies within this band. Furthermore the
607: mean estimated value is very close to 1 for the smaller angle ranges,
608: with a slight bias appearing with angles close to $90^\circ$.
609: We believe this is because the edge correction approximation becomes
610: less accurate at angles close to $90^\circ$.
611:
612:
613: Figure \ref{fig:K3toP3byangle} shows plots of the same ratio
614: as a function of $\theta$, the midpoint of $\Omega$, from $0^\circ$ to
615: $90^\circ$, for values of $r$ fixed at 260, 280, 300 and 320 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. The
616: angular bin size used is $10^\circ$. Again, we find that the pointwise
617: confidence band contains the true value 1, with the mean
618: value also close to 1. These plots show the bias
619: appearing as the angle is increased to $90^\circ$, with this bias
620: becoming slightly less as the range $(250,r]$ increases.
621:
622:
623:
624: \clearpage
625: \begin{figure}
626: \begin{center}
627: \plotone{f3.eps}
628: \caption{Plots of the mean, over 1000 simulated realizations, of the
629: ratio of $\hat{\mathcal{K}}((0,50],
630: (250,r], \Omega)$
631: to the expected Poisson value as a function of $r$ from 250 to
632: 330 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. The $\Omega$ for each plot is specified at the top of
633: plot. The dashed lines refer to pointwise errors that are twice the
634: standard deviation obtained from the simulations.}
635: \label{fig:K3toP3}
636: \end{center}
637: \end{figure}
638: \clearpage
639:
640: \clearpage
641: \begin{figure}
642: \begin{center}
643: \plotone{f4.eps}
644: \caption{Plots of the mean, over 1000 simulated realizations, of the
645: ratio of $\hat{\mathcal{K}}((0,50],
646: (250,r], \theta)$
647: to the expected Poisson value as a function of $\theta$ from 0 to
648: $90^\circ$, using angular bins of $10^\circ$. The value of $r$ for each plot is specified at the top
649: of plot. The dashed lines refer to pointwise errors that are twice
650: the standard deviation obtained from the simulations.}
651: \label{fig:K3toP3byangle}
652: \end{center}
653: \end{figure}
654: \clearpage
655:
656: We chose the distance 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for $R_1$ since it corresponds roughly to
657: the scale of superclustering that has been detected
658: \citep{quashnock96}. With the values of $r_{23}\in (250, 330]$ that we used, the ratio
659: $r_{23}/r_{12}$ is then about 5 or 6, close to the values considered in
660: e.g.\ \citet{kulkarni07}, although the values of $r_{12}$ considered
661: there are much smaller.
662: We also considered values of
663: 10 to 40 $h^{-1}$ Mpc for $R_1$. The results are qualitatively
664: similar to the results for $R_1=50 h^{-1}$ Mpc, except with slightly larger
665: standard errors.
666:
667: We also performed a simulation study using 10,000
668: lines of sight in the same region. The corresponding plots are similar
669: to those of Figures \ref{fig:K3toP3} and \ref{fig:K3toP3byangle}, but
670: with standard errors smaller by a factor of about 10 to 15, i.e. roughly of the
671: order of the increase in the number of lines of sight. For $\Omega =
672: (0^\circ,5^\circ)$, standard errors dropped only by about a factor of
673: 5, however. This approximate relation between standard errors and the
674: number of lines of sight is similar to that found by \citet{loh01}.
675:
676:
677: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
678: \label{sect:conclusion}
679:
680: Measures of the third-order clustering of galaxy surveys and the
681: cosmic microwave background are useful for the additional information
682: they provide over measures of second-order clustering. In particular,
683: the filamentary structure that has been found in galaxy data is more readily
684: described by third- and higher-order measures of clustering.
685: Recently, due to the availability of larger datasets and advances in
686: computing, such study of higher-order clustering has been the subject
687: of active research.
688:
689: It will be desirable to study the third-order clustering of absorption
690: systems. Absorbers are often detected at extreme
691: comoving distances from the Earth. Since absorbers are believed to be
692: due to gas clouds near galaxies, an analysis of the third-order
693: clustering of absorbers can serve as a complementary analysis to that
694: of large galaxy surveys, enabling comparison of the local filamentary
695: structure to that of the early universe.
696: Studying the third-order structure of absorbers might also provide greater
697: understanding of their nature. Finally, absorption systems consist of
698: non-luminous matter. Understanding the clustering of absorbers can
699: yield insight into the link between luminous and non-luminous matter
700: in the universe.
701:
702: In this paper, we define a third-order moment function $\mathcal{K}$
703: that is an integrated version of the three-point correlation function,
704: much like the relation between the second-order Ripley's $K$ function
705: and the two-point correlation function. We provide expressions for the
706: weights necessary to correct for the boundary effects so that this
707: function can be estimated for an absorber catalog. Our
708: simulation study shows that the estimator gives correct results (i.e.\
709: including correctly accounting for the boundary effects), at least for
710: the theoretically simple Poisson process.
711:
712: Studies on large-scale structure with galaxy surveys have shown the
713: existence of structures of the order of
714: 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc in size \citep{kirshner81, geller89,
715: costa94}. In analyses of second-order clustering of the Las Campanas
716: and SDSS surveys, \citet{landy96} and \citet{eisenstein05} respectively found peaks on
717: scales of around 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. \citet{quashnock96} also found
718: evidence of superclustering on these scales in their analysis of C
719: \textsc{iv} absorption systems. \citet{loh01} also found evidence of
720: clustering up to 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and possibly beyond.
721: Studies on galaxy clustering have focused on smaller
722: scales. \citet{gaztanaga05, nichol06} and \citet{kulkarni07} followed
723: the example of \citet{jing98}, using $r_{12}$ from 1 to 10 $h^{-1}$
724: Mpc and $r_{23}/r_{12}$ between 1 and 4, and studied the variation in
725: the reduced three-point correlation function $Q$ with angle.
726:
727: The choice of $R_1, R_2, R_3$ and $\Omega$ for $\mathcal{K}$ would thus
728: depend on the aim of the analysis. For comparisons with the findings
729: of e.g. \citet{jing98}, the focus will be to study the variation of
730: $\mathcal{K}$ with $\Omega$, with the distance measures close
731: to the values used there. For studies on superclustering and
732: large-scale structure, comoving distances of 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and
733: beyond for one or both of $r_{12}$ and $r_{23}$ will be of
734: interest. An initial study will probably use $\Omega=[0,\pi]$,
735: studying clustering at various distances, followed by more detailed
736: analyses with smaller angular ranges.
737:
738: We are not aware of any other work
739: on estimating third-order clustering specifically
740: for absorber catalogs. Unfortunately, we do not have a large
741: enough catalog of absorbers to obtain meaningful estimates of the
742: third-order function.
743: With the much larger absorber catalog that is being collected by the
744: Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a detailed study of the third-order
745: clustering of absorbers will become feasible.
746: From our simulation studies,
747: we found that the standard errors of estimates of $\mathcal{K}$ for an
748: absorber catalog scale roughly on the order of the reciprocal of the
749: number of lines of sight. This agrees with the findings of \citet{loh01} for
750: standard errors of estimates of the $K$ function for absorber
751: catalogs. Thus we expect that with the SDSS absorber catalog with
752: approximately 50,000 lines of sight, the standard errors of the
753: estimates of $\mathcal{K}$ will be roughly a factor of 50 smaller than
754: the standard errors found in our simulation study with 1000 lines of
755: sight. The actual increase in precision for a particular absorber
756: catalog will of course depend on factors such as the actual
757: spatial locations of the lines of sight and the density of the
758: observed absorbers.
759:
760:
761:
762: \acknowledgments
763:
764: This research is supported in part by
765: National Science Foundation award AST-0507687.
766:
767:
768: \appendix
769: \section{Appendix}
770: \label{sect:appendix}
771:
772: Here, we prove that the estimator (\ref{eqn:estimator}) with weights
773: $\omega_\mathbf{x}$ and $V$ given by (\ref{eqn:w}) and (\ref{eqn:V}) is
774: unbiased. Let $L$ represent the lines of sight, $\delta B_\Delta
775: (\mathbf{x}, h)$ denote a shell with center $\mathbf{x}$, radius $h$
776: and thickness $\Delta$. We write $(h,\gamma)$ for the polar
777: coordinates of vector $\mathbf{h}$, $|\cdot |$ for Euclidean distance,
778: area or volume depending on the context, $A=\pi d^2 |L|$ for the
779: volume probed by the lines of sight and $1_L(\mathbf{x})$ for the
780: indicator function, with $1_L(\mathbf{x})=1$ if $\mathbf{x}\in L$ and
781: 0 otherwise.
782:
783:
784: Write $f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z}) =
785: 1_L(\mathbf{x})1_L(\mathbf{y})1_L(\mathbf{z})1_{(0,R_1]}
786: (|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|)1_{(R_2,R_3]}(|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|)
787: 1_\Omega(\angle \mathbf{yxz})
788: \omega_\mathbf{x}(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|,|\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|,\Omega)
789: V(|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{x}|, |\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x}|, \Omega))$,
790: where $\Omega = [\alpha_1, \alpha_2]$ represents the range of angles between
791: $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. Then the estimator in (\ref{eqn:estimator})
792: is $\sum_{\mathbf{x}\ne \mathbf{y}\ne \mathbf{z}}
793: f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})$, with
794: \begin{eqnarray*}
795: E\left(\sum_{\mathbf{x}\ne \mathbf{y}\ne \mathbf{z}} f(x,y,z)\right) &= & \lambda^3 \int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int
796: f(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}, \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{k})
797: g^{(3)}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}, \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{k})\,
798: d\mathbf{h}\, d\mathbf{k}\, d\mathbf{x} \\
799: & = & \lambda^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_0^{R_1}\!\!\! \int_{R_2}^{R_3}
800: \!\!\!\int_{\delta B_0(\mathbf{0}, k)} \int_{\delta B_0(\mathbf{0},
801: h)} 1_L(\mathbf{x})
802: 1_L(\mathbf{x}+(h,\gamma))1_L(\mathbf{x}+(k,\beta)) \\
803: & & {}\times 1_\Omega(\gamma-\beta ) \omega_{\mathbf{x}}(h,k,\Omega)
804: V(h,k,\Omega) h^2k^2 g^{(3)}((h,\gamma), (k,\beta) )\, d\gamma \,
805: d\beta \, dh\, dk \, d\mathbf{x}.
806: \end{eqnarray*}
807: In the first equality above, we have expressed $g^{(3)}$ in terms of
808: three vector quantities $\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}$ and
809: $\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{k}$. If stationarity is assumed,
810: the specification of $\mathbf{x}$ in $g^{(3)}$ is redundant. Thus we
811: have removed the dependence on $\mathbf{x}$ in $g^{(3)}$ in the next
812: line. We have also expressed $\mathbf{h}$ and $\mathbf{k}$ in polar
813: coordinates.
814: Now, with the further assumption of isotropy,
815: $g^{(3)}(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{k})$ depends only on the direction of
816: $\mathbf{h}$ relative to $\mathbf{k}$ (or vice versa). This simplifies
817: the expression above, so that
818: \begin{eqnarray*}
819: E\left(\sum_{\mathbf{x}\ne \mathbf{y}\ne\mathbf{z}}
820: f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})\right)
821: & = & \lambda^3 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_0^{R_1}\!\!\! \int_{R_2}^{R_3}
822: \!\!\! V(h,k,\Omega) 1_L(\mathbf{x}) \omega_\mathbf{x}(h,k,\Omega)
823: \\
824: & & {}\times \int_{\delta B_0(\mathbf{0},k)} 1_L(\mathbf{x}+(k,\beta))
825: k^2 \\
826: & & {} \quad \times
827: \left[ \int_{\delta B_0(\mathbf{0},h)} 1_{\Omega}
828: (\alpha)1_L(\mathbf{x}+(h,\beta+\alpha)) h^2 g^{(3)}(h, k,
829: \alpha)\, d\alpha \right] \, d\beta\, dh\, dk\, d\mathbf{x},
830: \end{eqnarray*}
831: where $\alpha$ denotes the angle on the sphere relative to $(k,\beta)$.
832: Under the assumption that $g^{(3)}$ is slowly varying over
833: $\Omega$, the expression in the square bracket above is equal to
834: $$1_{L(h,\beta+\Omega)}(\mathbf{x})g^{(3)}(h, k, \Omega)
835: \sum_{\mathbf{p} \in \delta B_0(\mathbf{x},h) \cap L}
836: 1_{\Omega} (\angle \mathbf{px}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{k})) \frac{\pi d^2}{\cos
837: \theta_\mathbf{p}},$$
838: so that
839: \begin{eqnarray*}
840: E\left(\sum_{\mathbf{x}\ne \mathbf{y}\ne \mathbf{z}}
841: f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})\right)
842: & = & \lambda^3A \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_0^{R_1}\!\!\! \int_{R_2}^{R_3}
843: \!\!\! \frac{1_L(\mathbf{x})}{\pi d^2|L(h,k,\Omega)|}
844: \omega_\mathbf{x}(h,k,\Omega) g^{(3)}(h,k, \Omega)\\
845: & & {}\times \left[ \int_{\delta B_0(\mathbf{0}, k)}
846: 1_{L(h,\beta+\Omega)}(\mathbf{x}) 1_L(\mathbf{x}+(k,\beta)) \right.
847: \\
848: & & {} \quad \times \left. \left\{
849: \sum_{\mathbf{p} \in \delta B_0(\mathbf{x},h) \cap L} 1_\Omega
850: (\angle \mathbf{px}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{k})) \frac{\pi d^2}{\cos
851: \theta_\mathbf{p}}
852: \right\} k^2\, d\beta \right]\, dh\, dk\, d\mathbf{x} \\
853: & = & \lambda^3A \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_0^{R_1}\!\!\! \int_{R_2}^{R_3}
854: \!\!\! \frac{\omega_{\mathbf{x}} (h,k,\Omega)}{\pi d^2|L(h,k,\Omega)|}
855: 1_{L(h,k,\Omega)}(\mathbf{x}) g^{(3)}(h,k, \Omega) \\
856: & & {}\times \left( \sum_{\mathbf{p} \in \delta B_0(\mathbf{x},h) \cap
857: L} \sum_{\mathbf{q} \in \delta B_0(\mathbf{x},k) \cap L} 1_\Omega
858: (\angle\mathbf{pxq})\frac{\pi d^2}{\cos \theta_\mathbf{p}}\frac{\pi
859: d^2}{\cos \theta_\mathbf{q}} \right)\, dh\, dk\,
860: d\mathbf{x}.
861: \end{eqnarray*}
862: The above expression in the round brackets is the denominator of
863: $\omega_\mathbf{x}(h,k,\Omega)$. Further simplification yields
864: \begin{eqnarray*}
865: E\left(\sum_{\mathbf{x}\ne \mathbf{y}\ne \mathbf{z}}
866: f(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})\right)
867: & = & \lambda^3A \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_0^{R_1}\!\!\! \int_{R_2}^{R_3}
868: \!\!\! \frac{1_{L(h,k,\Omega)}(\mathbf{x})}{\pi d^2 |L(h,k,\Omega)|} 4\pi
869: h^2k^2 S(\Omega) g^{(3)}(h,k, \Omega)\, dh\, dk\, d\mathbf{x} \\
870: & = & \lambda^3A \int_0^{R_1}\!\!\! \int_{R_2}^{R_3}
871: \!\!\! 4\pi h^2k^2S(\Omega) g^{(3)}(h,k,\Omega)\, dh\, dk \\
872: &= & \lambda^3A\mathcal{K}((0,R_1], (R_2,R_3], \Omega).
873: \end{eqnarray*}
874:
875: \begin{thebibliography}{42}
876: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
877:
878: \bibitem[{Baddeley \& Silverman(1984)}]{baddeley84}
879: Baddeley, A.~J., \& Silverman, B.~W. 1984, Biometrics, 40, 1089
880:
881: \bibitem[{Crotts(1985)}]{crotts85a}
882: Crotts, A. P.~S. 1985, ApJ, 298, 732
883:
884: \bibitem[{Crotts {et~al.}(1985)Crotts, Melott, York, \& Fry}]{crotts85b}
885: Crotts, A. P.~S., Melott, A.~L., York, D.~G., \& Fry, J.~N. 1985, Phys.
886: Lett. B, 155, 251
887:
888: \bibitem[{{da Costa} {et~al.}(1994){da Costa}, {et~al.}}]{costa94}
889: {da Costa}, L.~N., {et~al.} 1994, ApJ, 424, L1
890:
891: \bibitem[{Davis \& Peebles(1983)}]{davis83}
892: Davis, M., \& Peebles, P. J.~E. 1983, ApJ, 267, 465
893:
894: \bibitem[{Dinshaw \& Impey(1996)}]{dinshaw96}
895: Dinshaw, N., \& Impey, C.~D. 1996, ApJ, 458, 73
896:
897: \bibitem[{Eisenstein {et~al.}(2005)Eisenstein, Zehavi, Hogg, \&
898: Scoccimarro}]{eisenstein05}
899: Eisenstein, D.~J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D.~W., \& Scoccimarro, R. 2005,
900: ApJ, 633, 560
901:
902: \bibitem[{Fry \& Peebles(1980)}]{fry80}
903: Fry, J.~N., \& Peebles, P. J.~E. 1980, ApJ, 238, 785
904:
905: \bibitem[{Gazta{\~n}aga {et~al.}(2005)Gazta{\~n}aga, Norberg, Baugh, \&
906: Croton}]{gaztanaga05}
907: Gazta{\~n}aga, E., Norberg, P., Baugh, C.~M., \& Croton, D.~J. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 620
908:
909: \bibitem[{Gazta{\~n}aga \& Scoccimarro(2005)}]{gaztanaga05a}
910: Gazta{\~n}aga, E., \& Scoccimarro, R. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 824
911:
912: \bibitem[{Geller \& Huchra(1989)}]{geller89}
913: Geller, M.~J., \& Huchra, J.~P. 1989, Science, 246, 897
914:
915: \bibitem[{Hamilton(1993)}]{hamilton93}
916: Hamilton, A. J.~S. 1993, ApJ, 417, 19
917:
918: \bibitem[{Hanisch(1983)}]{hanisch83}
919: Hanisch, K.-H. 1983, Math. Oper. Ser. Statist., 14, 421
920:
921: \bibitem[{Heisler {et~al.}(1989)Heisler, Hogan, \& White}]{heisler89}
922: Heisler, J., Hogan, C.~J., \& White, S. D.~M. 1989, ApJ, 347,
923: 52
924:
925: \bibitem[{Jing \& B\"{o}rner(1998)}]{jing98}
926: Jing, Y.~P., \& B\"{o}rner, G. 1998, ApJ, 503, 37
927:
928: \bibitem[{Kerscher {et~al.}(2000)Kerscher, Szapudi, \& Szalay}]{kerscher2000}
929: Kerscher, M., Szapudi, I., \& Szalay, A.~S. 2000, ApJ, 535, L13
930:
931: \bibitem[{Kirshner {et~al.}(1981)Kirshner, Oemler, Schechter, \&
932: Shectman}]{kirshner81}
933: Kirshner, R.~P., Oemler, A., Schechter, P.~L., \& Shectman, S.~A. 1981,
934: ApJ, 248, L57
935:
936: \bibitem[{Kulkarni {et~al.}(2007)Kulkarni, Nichol, Sheth, Seo, Eisenstein, \&
937: Gray}]{kulkarni07}
938: Kulkarni, G.~V., Nichol, R.~C., Sheth, R.~K., Seo, H.-J., Eisenstein, D.~J., \&
939: Gray, A. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1196
940:
941: \bibitem[{Landy {et~al.}(1996)Landy, Schectman, Lin, Kirshner, Oemler, \&
942: Tucker}]{landy96}
943: Landy, S.~D., Schectman, S.~A., Lin, H., Kirshner, R.~P., Oemler, A.~A., \&
944: Tucker, D. 1996, ApJ, 456, L1
945:
946: \bibitem[{Loh {et~al.}(2001)Loh, Quashnock, \& Stein}]{loh01}
947: Loh, J.~M., Quashnock, J.~M., \& Stein, M.~L. 2001, ApJ, 560,
948: 606
949:
950: \bibitem[{Loh {et~al.}(2003)Loh, Stein, \& Quashnock}]{loh02}
951: Loh, J.~M., Stein, M.~L., \& Quashnock, J.~M. 2003, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.,
952: 98, 522
953:
954: \bibitem[{Mart\'{\i}nez {et~al.}(1998)Mart\'{\i}nez, Pons-Border\'{\i}a,
955: Moyeed, \& Graham}]{martinez98}
956: Mart\'{\i}nez, V.~J., Pons-Border\'{\i}a, M.-J., Moyeed, R.~A., \& Graham,
957: M.~J. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 1212
958:
959: \bibitem[{Mart\'{\i}nez \& Saar(2002)}]{martinez02}
960: Mart\'{\i}nez, V.~J., \& Saar, E. 2002, Statistics of the Galaxy Distribution
961: (Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC)
962:
963: \bibitem[{M{\o}ller {et~al.}(1998)M{\o}ller, Syversveen, \&
964: Waagepetersen}]{moller98}
965: M{\o}ller, J., Syversveen, A.~R., \& Waagepetersen, R.~P. 1998, Scand.
966: J. Stat., 25, 451
967:
968: \bibitem[{Nichol {et~al.}(2006)Nichol, {et~al.}}]{nichol06}
969: Nichol, R.~C., {et~al.} 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1507
970:
971: \bibitem[{Ohser(1983)}]{ohser83}
972: Ohser, J. 1983, Math. Oper. Ser. Statist., 14, 63
973:
974: \bibitem[{Ohser \& Stoyan(1981)}]{ohser81}
975: Ohser, J., \& Stoyan, D. 1981, Biometric J., 23, 523
976:
977: \bibitem[{Peebles(1980)}]{peebles80}
978: Peebles, P. J.~E. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (New Jersey:
979: Princeton University Press)
980:
981: \bibitem[{Peebles(1993)}]{peebles93}
982: ---. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology (New Jersey: Princeton University
983: Press)
984:
985: \bibitem[{Peebles \& Groth(1975)}]{peebles75}
986: Peebles, P. J.~E., \& Groth, E.~J. 1975, ApJ, 196, 1
987:
988: \bibitem[{Quashnock \& Stein(1999)}]{quashnock99}
989: Quashnock, J.~M., \& Stein, M.~L. 1999, ApJ, 515, 506
990:
991: \bibitem[{Quashnock \& {Vanden Berk}(1998)}]{quashnock98}
992: Quashnock, J.~M., \& {Vanden Berk}, D.~E. 1998, ApJ, 500, 28
993:
994: \bibitem[{Quashnock {et~al.}(1996)Quashnock, {Vanden Berk}, \&
995: York}]{quashnock96}
996: Quashnock, J.~M., {Vanden Berk}, D.~E., \& York, D.~G. 1996, ApJ, 472, L69
997:
998: \bibitem[{Ripley(1988)}]{ripley88}
999: Ripley, B.~D. 1988, Statistical Inference for Spatial Processes (New York:
1000: Wiley)
1001:
1002: \bibitem[{Schladitz \& Baddeley(2000)}]{schladitz00}
1003: Schladitz, K., \& Baddeley, A.~J. 2000, Scand. J. Stat., 27,
1004: 657
1005:
1006: \bibitem[{Sefusatti \& Scoccimarro(2005)}]{sefusatti05}
1007: Sefusatti, E., \& Scoccimarro, R. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 063001
1008:
1009: \bibitem[{Stein {et~al.}(2000)Stein, Quashnock, \& Loh}]{stein2001}
1010: Stein, M.~L., Quashnock, J.~M., \& Loh, J.~M. 2000, Ann. Stat., 28,
1011: 1503
1012:
1013: \bibitem[{Szapudi {et~al.}(2001)Szapudi, Postman, Lauer, \&
1014: Oegerie}]{szapudi01}
1015: Szapudi, I., Postman, M., Lauer, T., \& Oegerie, W. 2001, ApJ, 548, 114
1016:
1017: \bibitem[{Tripp \& Bowen(2005)}]{tripp05}
1018: Tripp, T.~M., \& Bowen, D.~V. 2005, in Probing Galaxies through Quasar
1019: Absorption Lines: Proc. IAU 199
1020:
1021: \bibitem[{Tytler {et~al.}(1993)Tytler, Sandoval, \& Fan}]{tytler93}
1022: Tytler, D., Sandoval, J., \& Fan, X.-M. 1993, ApJ, 405, 57
1023:
1024: \bibitem[{{Vanden Berk} {et~al.}(1996){Vanden Berk}, Quashnock, York, \&
1025: Yanny}]{vanden96}
1026: {Vanden Berk}, D.~E., Quashnock, J.~M., York, D.~G., \& Yanny, B. 1996,
1027: ApJ, 469, 78
1028:
1029: \bibitem[{York {et~al.}(2000)York, {et~al.}}]{york00}
1030: York, D.~G., {et~al.} 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
1031:
1032: \end{thebibliography}
1033:
1034:
1035: \end{document}
1036:
1037: