1: % ROMAN
2: \font\fourteenrm=cmr10 at 14pt
3: \font\twelverm=cmr12
4: \font\elevenrm=cmr10 at 11pt
5: \font\tenrm=cmr10
6: \font\ninerm=cmr9
7: \font\eightrm=cmr8
8: \font\sevenrm=cmr7
9: \font\sixrm=cmr6
10: \font\fiverm=cmr5
11:
12: % MATH ITALIC
13: \font\fourteenmi=cmmi10 at 14pt
14: \font\twelvemi=cmmi12
15: \font\elevenmi=cmmi10 at 11pt
16: \font\tenmi=cmmi10
17: \font\ninemi=cmmi9
18: \font\eightmi=cmmi8
19: \font\sevenmi=cmmi7
20: \font\sixmi=cmmi6
21: \font\fivemi=cmmi5
22: \skewchar\twelvemi='177 \skewchar\eightmi='177 \skewchar\sixmi='177
23: \skewchar\fivemi='177
24: \skewchar\elevenmi='177 \skewchar\eightmi='177 \skewchar\sixmi='177
25: \skewchar\fivemi='177
26:
27: % MATH SYMBOL
28: \font\fourteensy=cmsy10 at 14pt
29: \font\twelvesy=cmsy10 at 12pt
30: \font\elevensy=cmsy10 at 11pt
31: \font\tensy=cmsy10
32: \font\ninesy=cmsy9
33: \font\eightsy=cmsy8
34: \font\sevensy=cmsy7
35: \font\sixsy=cmsy6
36: \font\fivesy=cmsy5
37: \skewchar\twelvesy='60 \skewchar\eightsy='60 \skewchar\sixsy='60
38: \skewchar\elevensy='60 \skewchar\eightsy='60 \skewchar\sixsy='60
39:
40: % BOLD FACE
41: \font\fourteenbf=cmbx10 at 14pt
42: \font\twelvebf=cmbx12
43: \font\elevenbf=cmbx10 at 11pt
44: \font\tenbf=cmbx10
45: \font\ninebf=cmbx9
46: \font\eightbf=cmbx8
47: \font\sixbf=cmbx6
48:
49: % EULER MATH FONTS
50: \newfam\eufam
51: \font\fourteeneu=eufm10 at 14pt
52: \font\twelveeu=eufm10 at 12pt
53: \font\eleveneu=eufm10 at 11pt
54: \font\teneu=eufm10
55: \font\eighteu=eufm8
56: \font\seveneu=eufm7
57: \font\sixeu=eufm6
58: \font\fiveeu=eufm5
59:
60: % TYPEWRITER
61: \font\fourteentt=cmtt10 at 14pt
62: \font\twelvett=cmtt12
63: \hyphenchar\twelvett=-1 % inhibit hyphenation in typewriter type
64: \font\eleventt=cmtt10 at 11pt
65: \font\tentt=cmtt10
66: \font\ninett=cmtt9
67: \font\eighttt=cmtt8
68: \hyphenchar\eleventt=-1 % inhibit hyphenation in typewriter type
69:
70: % SLANTED
71: \font\fourteensl=cmsl10 at 14pt
72: \font\twelvesl=cmsl12
73: \font\elevensl=cmsl10 at 11pt
74: \font\tensl=cmsl10
75: \font\ninesl=cmsl9
76: \font\eightsl=cmsl8
77:
78: % CAPS AND SMALL CAPS FONTS
79: \newfam\cmcscfam
80: \font\fourteencmcsc=cmcsc10 at 14pt
81: \font\twelvecmcsc=cmcsc10 at 12pt
82: \font\elevencmcsc=cmcsc10 at 11pt
83: \font\tencmcsc=cmcsc10
84: \font\ninecmcsc=cmcsc10 at 9pt
85: \font\eightcmcsc=cmcsc10 at 8pt
86:
87: % ITALIC
88: \font\fourteenit=cmti10 at 14pt
89: \font\twelveit=cmti12
90: \font\elevenit=cmti10 at 11pt
91: \font\tenit=cmti10
92: \font\nineit=cmti9
93: \font\eightit=cmti8
94:
95: % AMS-Y MATH SYMBOLS
96: \newfam\msbmfam
97: \font\fourteenmsbm=msbm10 at 14pt
98: \font\twelvemsbm=msbm10 at 12pt
99: \font\elevenmsbm=msbm10 at 11pt
100: \font\tenmsbm=msbm10
101: \font\ninemsbm=msbm9
102: \font\eightmsbm=msbm8
103: \font\sevenmsbm=msbm7
104: \font\sixmsbm=msbm6
105: \font\fivemsbm=msbm5
106:
107: % AMS-X MATH SYMBOLS
108: \newfam\msamfam
109: \font\fourteenmsam=msam10 at 14pt
110: \font\twelvemsam=msam10 at 12pt
111: \font\elevenmsam=msam10 at 11pt
112: \font\tenmsam=msam10
113: \font\ninemsam=msam9
114: \font\eightmsam=msam8
115: \font\sevenmsam=msam7
116: \font\sixmsam=msam6
117: \font\fivemsam=msam5
118:
119: % SANS SERIF FONT
120: \newfam\cmssfam
121: \font\fourteencmss=cmss10 at 14pt
122: \font\twelvecmss=cmss12
123: \font\elevencmss=cmss10 at 11pt
124: \font\tencmss=cmss10
125: \font\ninecmss=cmss9
126: \font\eightcmss=cmss8
127:
128: % LARGE MATH SYMBOLS
129: \font\fourteenex=cmex10 at 14pt
130: \font\twelveex=cmex10 at 12pt
131: \font\elevenex=cmex10 at 11pt
132: \font\tenex=cmex10
133:
134:
135: % ELEVEN-POINT MACRO
136: \catcode`@=11
137: \def\elevenpoint{\def\rm{\fam0\elevenrm}%
138: \textfont0=\elevenrm \scriptfont0=\eightrm \scriptscriptfont0=\sixrm
139: \textfont1=\elevenmi \scriptfont1=\eightmi \scriptscriptfont1=\sixmi
140: \textfont2=\elevensy \scriptfont2=\eightsy \scriptscriptfont2=\sixsy
141: \textfont3=\elevenex \scriptfont3=\elevenex
142: \scriptscriptfont3=\elevenex
143: \def\it{\fam\itfam\elevenit}%
144: \textfont\itfam=\elevenit
145: \def\sl{\fam\slfam\elevensl}%
146: \textfont\slfam=\elevensl
147: \def\bf{\fam\bffam\elevenbf}%
148: \textfont\bffam=\elevenbf
149: \scriptfont\bffam=\eightbf
150: \scriptscriptfont\bffam=\sixbf
151: \def\cmcsc{\fam\cmcscfam\elevencmcsc}%
152: \textfont\cmcscfam=\elevencmcsc
153: \def\msbm{\fam\msbmfam\elevenmsbm}%
154: \textfont\msbmfam=\elevenmsbm \scriptfont\msbmfam=\eightmsbm
155: \scriptscriptfont\msbmfam=\sixmsbm
156: \def\cmss{\fam\cmssfam\elevencmss}%
157: \textfont\cmssfam=\elevencmss \scriptfont\cmssfam=\ninecmss
158: \scriptscriptfont\cmssfam=\eightcmss
159: \normalbaselineskip=13.2pt
160: \smallskipamount=3.3pt plus 1.1pt minus 1.1pt
161: \medskipamount= 6.6pt plus 2.2pt minus 2.4pt
162: \bigskipamount= 13.2pt plus 4.4pt minus 4.4pt
163: \parskip=1pt plus .5pt
164: \normallineskip=1.5pt
165: \normallineskiplimit=1.5pt
166: \widowpenalty=10000
167: \clubpenalty=10000
168: \setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height9.35pt depth3.85pt width0pt}%
169: \def\big##1{{\hbox{$\left##1\vbox to9.35\p@{}\right.\n@space$}}}%
170: \def\Big##1{{\hbox{$\left##1\vbox to12.65\p@{}\right.\n@space$}}}%
171: \def\bigg##1{{\hbox{$\left##1\vbox to15.95\p@{}\right.\n@space$}}}%
172: \def\Bigg##1{{\hbox{$\left##1\vbox to19.25\p@{}\right.\n@space$}}}%
173: \normalbaselines\rm}%
174: \catcode`@=12
175:
176: %%% ====================================================================
177: %%% @TeX-file{
178: %%% filename = "amssym.tex",
179: %%% version = "2.2b",
180: %%% date = "26 February 1997",
181: %%% time = "13:14:29 EST",
182: %%% checksum = "61515 286 903 9155",
183: %%% author = "American Mathematical Society",
184: %%% copyright = "Copyright (C) 1997 American Mathematical Society,
185: %%% all rights reserved. Copying of this file is
186: %%% authorized only if either:
187: %%% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy,
188: %%% including name; OR
189: %%% (2) if you do make changes, you first rename it
190: %%% to some other name.",
191: %%% address = "American Mathematical Society,
192: %%% Technical Support,
193: %%% Electronic Products and Services,
194: %%% P. O. Box 6248,
195: %%% Providence, RI 02940,
196: %%% USA",
197: %%% telephone = "401-455-4080 or (in the USA and Canada)
198: %%% 800-321-4AMS (321-4267)",
199: %%% FAX = "401-331-3842",
200: %%% email = "tech-support@ams.org (Internet)",
201: %%% codetable = "ISO/ASCII",
202: %%% keywords = "amsfonts, msam, msbm, math symbols",
203: %%% supported = "yes",
204: %%% abstract = "This is part of the AMSFonts distribution.
205: %%% It contains the plain TeX source file for loading
206: %%% the AMS extra symbols and Euler fraktur fonts.",
207: %%% docstring = "The checksum field above contains a CRC-16 checksum
208: %%% as the first value, followed by the equivalent of
209: %%% the standard UNIX wc (word count) utility output
210: %%% of lines, words, and characters. This is produced
211: %%% by Robert Solovay's checksum utility.",
212: %%% }
213: %%% ====================================================================
214: %% Save the current value of the @-sign catcode so that it can
215: %% be restored afterwards. This allows us to call amssym.tex
216: %% either within an AMS-TeX document style file or by itself, in
217: %% addition to providing a means of testing whether the file has
218: %% been previously loaded. We want to avoid inputting this file
219: %% twice because when AMSTeX is being used \newsymbol will give an
220: %% error message if used to define a control sequence name that is
221: %% already defined.
222: %%
223: %% If the csname is not equal to \relax, we assume this file has
224: %% already been loaded and \endinput immediately.
225: \expandafter\ifx\csname pre amssym.tex at\endcsname\relax
226: \else\endinput\fi
227: %% Otherwise we store the catcode of the @ in the csname.
228: \expandafter\chardef\csname pre amssym.tex at\endcsname=\the\catcode`\@
229: %% Set the catcode to 11 for use in private control sequence names.
230: \catcode`\@=11
231: %% Load amssym.def if necessary: If \newsymbol is undefined, do nothing
232: %% and the following \input statement will be executed; otherwise
233: %% change \input to a temporary no-op.
234: \ifx\undefined\newsymbol \else \begingroup\def\input#1 {\endgroup}\fi
235: \input amssym.def \relax
236: %% Most symbols in fonts msam and msbm are defined using \newsymbol. A few
237: %% that are delimiters or otherwise require special treatment have already
238: %% been defined as soon as the fonts were loaded. Finally, a few symbols
239: %% that replace composites defined in plain must be undefined first.
240: \newsymbol\boxdot 1200
241: \newsymbol\boxplus 1201
242: \newsymbol\boxtimes 1202
243: \newsymbol\square 1003
244: \newsymbol\blacksquare 1004
245: \newsymbol\centerdot 1205
246: \newsymbol\lozenge 1006
247: \newsymbol\blacklozenge 1007
248: \newsymbol\circlearrowright 1308
249: \newsymbol\circlearrowleft 1309
250: \undefine\rightleftharpoons
251: \newsymbol\rightleftharpoons 130A
252: \newsymbol\leftrightharpoons 130B
253: \newsymbol\boxminus 120C
254: \newsymbol\Vdash 130D
255: \newsymbol\Vvdash 130E
256: \newsymbol\vDash 130F
257: \newsymbol\twoheadrightarrow 1310
258: \newsymbol\twoheadleftarrow 1311
259: \newsymbol\leftleftarrows 1312
260: \newsymbol\rightrightarrows 1313
261: \newsymbol\upuparrows 1314
262: \newsymbol\downdownarrows 1315
263: \newsymbol\upharpoonright 1316
264: \let\restriction\upharpoonright
265: \newsymbol\downharpoonright 1317
266: \newsymbol\upharpoonleft 1318
267: \newsymbol\downharpoonleft 1319
268: \newsymbol\rightarrowtail 131A
269: \newsymbol\leftarrowtail 131B
270: \newsymbol\leftrightarrows 131C
271: \newsymbol\rightleftarrows 131D
272: \newsymbol\Lsh 131E
273: \newsymbol\Rsh 131F
274: \newsymbol\rightsquigarrow 1320
275: \newsymbol\leftrightsquigarrow 1321
276: \newsymbol\looparrowleft 1322
277: \newsymbol\looparrowright 1323
278: \newsymbol\circeq 1324
279: \newsymbol\succsim 1325
280: \newsymbol\gtrsim 1326
281: \newsymbol\gtrapprox 1327
282: \newsymbol\multimap 1328
283: \newsymbol\therefore 1329
284: \newsymbol\because 132A
285: \newsymbol\doteqdot 132B
286: \let\Doteq\doteqdot
287: \newsymbol\triangleq 132C
288: \newsymbol\precsim 132D
289: \newsymbol\lesssim 132E
290: \newsymbol\lessapprox 132F
291: \newsymbol\eqslantless 1330
292: \newsymbol\eqslantgtr 1331
293: \newsymbol\curlyeqprec 1332
294: \newsymbol\curlyeqsucc 1333
295: \newsymbol\preccurlyeq 1334
296: \newsymbol\leqq 1335
297: \newsymbol\leqslant 1336
298: \newsymbol\lessgtr 1337
299: \newsymbol\backprime 1038
300: \newsymbol\risingdotseq 133A
301: \newsymbol\fallingdotseq 133B
302: \newsymbol\succcurlyeq 133C
303: \newsymbol\geqq 133D
304: \newsymbol\geqslant 133E
305: \newsymbol\gtrless 133F
306: \newsymbol\sqsubset 1340
307: \newsymbol\sqsupset 1341
308: \newsymbol\vartriangleright 1342
309: \newsymbol\vartriangleleft 1343
310: \newsymbol\trianglerighteq 1344
311: \newsymbol\trianglelefteq 1345
312: \newsymbol\bigstar 1046
313: \newsymbol\between 1347
314: \newsymbol\blacktriangledown 1048
315: \newsymbol\blacktriangleright 1349
316: \newsymbol\blacktriangleleft 134A
317: \newsymbol\vartriangle 134D
318: \newsymbol\blacktriangle 104E
319: \newsymbol\triangledown 104F
320: \newsymbol\eqcirc 1350
321: \newsymbol\lesseqgtr 1351
322: \newsymbol\gtreqless 1352
323: \newsymbol\lesseqqgtr 1353
324: \newsymbol\gtreqqless 1354
325: \newsymbol\Rrightarrow 1356
326: \newsymbol\Lleftarrow 1357
327: \newsymbol\veebar 1259
328: \newsymbol\barwedge 125A
329: \newsymbol\doublebarwedge 125B
330: \undefine\angle
331: \newsymbol\angle 105C
332: \newsymbol\measuredangle 105D
333: \newsymbol\sphericalangle 105E
334: \newsymbol\varpropto 135F
335: \newsymbol\smallsmile 1360
336: \newsymbol\smallfrown 1361
337: \newsymbol\Subset 1362
338: \newsymbol\Supset 1363
339: \newsymbol\Cup 1264
340: \let\doublecup\Cup
341: \newsymbol\Cap 1265
342: \let\doublecap\Cap
343: \newsymbol\curlywedge 1266
344: \newsymbol\curlyvee 1267
345: \newsymbol\leftthreetimes 1268
346: \newsymbol\rightthreetimes 1269
347: \newsymbol\subseteqq 136A
348: \newsymbol\supseteqq 136B
349: \newsymbol\bumpeq 136C
350: \newsymbol\Bumpeq 136D
351: \newsymbol\lll 136E
352: \let\llless\lll
353: \newsymbol\ggg 136F
354: \let\gggtr\ggg
355: \newsymbol\circledS 1073
356: \newsymbol\pitchfork 1374
357: \newsymbol\dotplus 1275
358: \newsymbol\backsim 1376
359: \newsymbol\backsimeq 1377
360: \newsymbol\complement 107B
361: \newsymbol\intercal 127C
362: \newsymbol\circledcirc 127D
363: \newsymbol\circledast 127E
364: \newsymbol\circleddash 127F
365: \newsymbol\lvertneqq 2300
366: \newsymbol\gvertneqq 2301
367: \newsymbol\nleq 2302
368: \newsymbol\ngeq 2303
369: \newsymbol\nless 2304
370: \newsymbol\ngtr 2305
371: \newsymbol\nprec 2306
372: \newsymbol\nsucc 2307
373: \newsymbol\lneqq 2308
374: \newsymbol\gneqq 2309
375: \newsymbol\nleqslant 230A
376: \newsymbol\ngeqslant 230B
377: \newsymbol\lneq 230C
378: \newsymbol\gneq 230D
379: \newsymbol\npreceq 230E
380: \newsymbol\nsucceq 230F
381: \newsymbol\precnsim 2310
382: \newsymbol\succnsim 2311
383: \newsymbol\lnsim 2312
384: \newsymbol\gnsim 2313
385: \newsymbol\nleqq 2314
386: \newsymbol\ngeqq 2315
387: \newsymbol\precneqq 2316
388: \newsymbol\succneqq 2317
389: \newsymbol\precnapprox 2318
390: \newsymbol\succnapprox 2319
391: \newsymbol\lnapprox 231A
392: \newsymbol\gnapprox 231B
393: \newsymbol\nsim 231C
394: \newsymbol\ncong 231D
395: \newsymbol\diagup 201E
396: \newsymbol\diagdown 201F
397: \newsymbol\varsubsetneq 2320
398: \newsymbol\varsupsetneq 2321
399: \newsymbol\nsubseteqq 2322
400: \newsymbol\nsupseteqq 2323
401: \newsymbol\subsetneqq 2324
402: \newsymbol\supsetneqq 2325
403: \newsymbol\varsubsetneqq 2326
404: \newsymbol\varsupsetneqq 2327
405: \newsymbol\subsetneq 2328
406: \newsymbol\supsetneq 2329
407: \newsymbol\nsubseteq 232A
408: \newsymbol\nsupseteq 232B
409: \newsymbol\nparallel 232C
410: \newsymbol\nmid 232D
411: \newsymbol\nshortmid 232E
412: \newsymbol\nshortparallel 232F
413: \newsymbol\nvdash 2330
414: \newsymbol\nVdash 2331
415: \newsymbol\nvDash 2332
416: \newsymbol\nVDash 2333
417: \newsymbol\ntrianglerighteq 2334
418: \newsymbol\ntrianglelefteq 2335
419: \newsymbol\ntriangleleft 2336
420: \newsymbol\ntriangleright 2337
421: \newsymbol\nleftarrow 2338
422: \newsymbol\nrightarrow 2339
423: \newsymbol\nLeftarrow 233A
424: \newsymbol\nRightarrow 233B
425: \newsymbol\nLeftrightarrow 233C
426: \newsymbol\nleftrightarrow 233D
427: \newsymbol\divideontimes 223E
428: \newsymbol\varnothing 203F
429: \newsymbol\nexists 2040
430: \newsymbol\Finv 2060
431: \newsymbol\Game 2061
432: \newsymbol\mho 2066
433: \newsymbol\eth 2067
434: \newsymbol\eqsim 2368
435: \newsymbol\beth 2069
436: \newsymbol\gimel 206A
437: \newsymbol\daleth 206B
438: \newsymbol\lessdot 236C
439: \newsymbol\gtrdot 236D
440: \newsymbol\ltimes 226E
441: \newsymbol\rtimes 226F
442: \newsymbol\shortmid 2370
443: \newsymbol\shortparallel 2371
444: \newsymbol\smallsetminus 2272
445: \newsymbol\thicksim 2373
446: \newsymbol\thickapprox 2374
447: \newsymbol\approxeq 2375
448: \newsymbol\succapprox 2376
449: \newsymbol\precapprox 2377
450: \newsymbol\curvearrowleft 2378
451: \newsymbol\curvearrowright 2379
452: \newsymbol\digamma 207A
453: \newsymbol\varkappa 207B
454: \newsymbol\Bbbk 207C
455: \newsymbol\hslash 207D
456: \undefine\hbar
457: \newsymbol\hbar 207E
458: \newsymbol\backepsilon 237F
459: % Restore the catcode value for @ that was previously saved.
460: \catcode`\@=\csname pre amssym.tex at\endcsname
461:
462: %\endinput
463:
464: %\input /ga/stein/Interp/amssym.tex
465: %\input amssym.def
466: %\input amssym
467:
468: \input epsf
469:
470: %From Mike Wichura
471: \newcount\equationno
472: \def\Eqn#1/{%
473: \csname EQ#1\endcsname}
474: \def\setEqn#1/#2/{%
475: \expandafter\xdef\csname EQ#1\endcsname{#2}}
476: \def\N/{%
477: \global\advance\equationno 1
478: \the\equationno}
479: \def\SN#1/{%
480: \global\advance\equationno 1
481: \expandafter\xdef\csname EQ#1\endcsname{\the\equationno}%
482: \Eqn#1/}
483: \def\SNM#1/{%
484: \SN#1/%
485: \ifproofmode
486: \rlap{\hskip .25in\sevenrm #1}%
487: \fi}
488: \def\NextN{{\advance \equationno 1 \the\equationno}}
489: \def\NextNN{{\advance \equationno 2 \the\equationno}}
490: \def\NextNNN{{\advance \equationno 3 \the\equationno}}
491:
492: \newcount\smallpenalty \smallpenalty=-50
493: \newcount\medpenalty \medpenalty=-100
494: \newcount\bigpenalty \bigpenalty=-200
495: \def\discouragebreak{%
496: \smallpenalty=-\smallpenalty
497: \medpenalty= -\medpenalty
498: \bigpenalty= -\bigpenalty }
499:
500: \def\afterproclaimskip{%
501: \skip0 = \lastskip
502: % \advance \skip0 \belowdisplayskip
503: \vskip -\skip0
504: \bigskip}
505:
506: \catcode`@=11
507: \def\ninebig#1{{\hbox{$\textfont0=\ninerm \textfont1=\ninei
508: \textfont2=\ninesy
509: \left#1\vbox to7.25pt{}\right.\n@space$}}}
510: \catcode`@=12
511:
512: \catcode`@=11
513: \def\sevenbig#1{{\hbox{$\textfont0=\sevenrm
514: \textfont1=seveni \textfont2=\sevensy
515: \left#1\vbox to 6pt{}\right.\n@space$}}}
516: \catcode`@=12
517:
518: %\newif\ifdate
519: %\newif\iftime
520: %\newcount\pagespersheet
521: %\pagespersheet = 4
522:
523: \def\TwoDigits#1{%
524: % #1 = a TeX register
525: \ifnum \the #1 < 10
526: 0%
527: \fi
528: \the #1}
529:
530: %\newcount\minute
531: %\newcount\hour
532: %\newcount\scrtime
533:
534: \catcode`@=11
535: \def\leftmathdisplay#1{\displ@y\halign {%
536: \hskip\parindent $\displaystyle{##}$\hfil&&
537: \quad $\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr #1\crcr}}
538:
539: \newdimen \displayshortwidth
540: \def\setdisplayshortwidth{%
541: \displayshortwidth=\displaywidth
542: \advance\displayshortwidth -\parindent}
543:
544: \def\blackbox{\vrule height 6pt width4pt depth0pt}
545: \def\emptybox{\vbox{\hrule width 4pt \hbox{\vrule height 5.2pt \hskip
546: 3.2pt
547: \vrule} \hrule width 4pt}}
548:
549: \def\subtopic#1{\bigbreak\noindent
550: {\bold #1.\hskip .5em plus .25em}\ignorespaces}
551:
552: \outer\def\proclaim #1. #2\par{\medbreak
553: \noindent{\bold #1.\enspace}{\sl#2\par}%
554: \ifdim\lastskip<\medskipamount \removelastskip\penalty55\medskip\fi}
555:
556: \def\Not#1{%
557: \setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}%
558: \mathrel{\rlap{$#1$}\hbox to
559: \wd0{\hfil$\not\mathrel{\hphantom{=}}$\hfil}}}
560:
561: \newif\ifproofmode
562: \newif\ifexpressmode
563:
564: \newcount\equationno
565: \def\Eqn#1/{%
566: \csname EQ#1\endcsname}
567: \def\setEqn#1/#2/{%
568: \expandafter\xdef\csname EQ#1\endcsname{#2}}
569: \def\N/{%
570: \global\advance\equationno 1
571: \the\equationno}
572: \def\SN#1/{%
573: \global\advance\equationno 1
574: \expandafter\xdef\csname EQ#1\endcsname{\the\equationno}%
575: \Eqn#1/}
576: \def\SNM#1/{%
577: \SN#1/%
578: \ifproofmode
579: \rlap{\hskip .25in\sevenrm #1}%
580: \fi}
581: \def\NextN{{\advance \equationno 1 \the\equationno}}
582: \def\NextNN{{\advance \equationno 2 \the\equationno}}
583: \def\NextNNN{{\advance \equationno 3 \the\equationno}}
584:
585: \def\In#1{\begingroup \leftskip=#1\parindent \noindent\ignorespaces}
586: \def\EndIn{\par\endgroup}
587: \def\Hang{\hangindent=\parindent \hangafter=1 \noindent}
588:
589: \def\shrink#1{%
590: \multiply #1 by 2
591: \divide #1 by 3
592: \ignorespaces}
593:
594: \def\expand#1{%
595: \multiply #1 by 3
596: \divide #1 by 2
597: \ignorespaces}
598:
599: \newcount \theoremno
600: \def\nexttheorem{%
601: \global\advance\theoremno 1
602: \the\theoremno}
603: \newdimen \oldparindent
604: \oldparindent = \parindent
605:
606: %\input /ga/stein/Interp/amssym.tex
607: \equationno=0
608: %
609: \def\negativeskip{\vskip-36pt}
610: %\def\sbullet{{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}
611: \def\sbullet{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}
612: \def\bu{\sbullet}
613: \def\IV{{\ninerm IV} }
614: %
615: \catcode`@=11
616: \def\fat{%
617: \relax
618: \ifmmode
619: \expandafter\mathpalette
620: \expandafter\f@tmath
621: \else
622: \expandafter\f@tord
623: \fi}
624: \def\f@tord#1{%
625: \setbox\z@=\hbox{#1}%
626: \finishf@t}
627: \def\f@tmath#1#2{%
628: \setbox\z@=\hbox{$\m@th#1{#2}$}%
629: \finishf@t}
630: \def\finishf@t{%
631: \kern-.025em\copy\z@\kern-\wd\z@
632: \kern.040em\copy\z@\kern-\wd\z@
633: \kern-.015em\box\z@}
634: \catcode`@=12
635: %
636: \def\beginsection#1#2{\vskip0pt plus.1\vsize\penalty-250
637: \vskip0pt plus-.1\vsize\smallskip\smallskip\vskip\parskip
638: \message{#1#2}\noindent{{\rm #1} {\it#2}}\par\nobreak\smallskip\indent}
639: %
640: \def\beginref{\par\bgroup
641: \parindent=0pt\everypar={\hangindent=36pt\hangafter=1}}
642: \def\endref{\par\egroup}
643: %
644: \def\specialeq#1#2{{\narrower\noindent
645: #1\null\nobreak\hfill\rlap{#2}\par}}
646: %
647: \def\sump{\mathop{{\sum}'}}
648: \def\sgn{\mathop{\rm sgn}\nolimits}
649: \def\B{{\cal B}}
650: \def\C{{\Bbb C}}
651: \def\D{{\cal D}}
652: \def\F{{\cal F}}
653: \def\I{{\cal I}}
654: \def\J{{\cal J}}
655: \def\P{{\cal P}}
656: \def\R{{\Bbb R}}
657: \def\V{{\cal V}}
658: \def\X{\mathop {\rm X}}
659: \def\Z{{\Bbb Z}}
660: \def\aprime{{}^{'}}
661: \def\calS{{\cal S}}
662: \def\barlim{\mathop {\underline{\lim}}}
663: \def\gprime{\hbox{\`\ }\!}
664: \def\Larrow{\buildrel {\cal L}\over \rightarrow}
665: \def\LIIarrow{\buildrel L^2\over \rightarrow}
666: \def\Lequal{\buildrel {\cal L}\over =}
667: \def\corr{\mathop{\rm corr}\nolimits}
668: \def\cov{\mathop{\rm cov}\nolimits}
669: \def\csc{\mathop{\rm csc}\nolimits}
670: \def\bar{\overline}
671: \def\hat{\widehat}
672: \def\ip<#1>{\langle #1 \rangle} % represents inner product
673: \def\notSigma{\Sigma\kern-8pt \bigm|}
674: \def\varphi{\phi}
675: \def\tilde{\widetilde}
676: \def\frac#1#2{{\textstyle{#1\over #2}}}
677: \def\nullset{{\Bbb\varnothing}}
678: \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}\nolimits}
679: \def\var{\mathop{\rm var}\nolimits}
680: \def\sech{\mathop{\rm sech}\nolimits}
681: \def\tanh{\mathop{\rm tanh}\nolimits}
682: \def\sinh{\mathop{\rm sinh}\nolimits}
683: \def\Kvee{{\breve K}}
684: %\def\Kvee{\buildrel \vee\over K}
685: %\def\Kvee{{\vee\atop K}}
686: %\def\Vvee{\buildrel \vee\over V}
687: \def\Vvee{{\breve V}}
688: \def\Larrow{\buildrel {\cal L}\over \rightarrow}
689: %\def\!{\mskip-\medmuskip}
690: %
691:
692:
693: %
694: \def\blackbox{\vrule height8pt width0.4pt depth0pt
695: \kern-0.4pt\hbox to 8pt{\hrulefill}
696: \kern-3.5pt\vrule height8pt width0.4pt depth0pt
697: \kern-8.2pt\raise8pt\hbox to 8.3pt{\hrulefill}}
698: \def\Corollary#1. #2\par{%
699: \medbreak{\elevencmcsc Corollary #1.\enspace}{\sl#2}}
700: \def\CorollaryEnd{\null\nobreak\hfill\blackbox\par\medbreak}
701: \def\Example.{{\elevencmcsc Example.\enspace}}
702: \def\Lemma#1. #2\par{%
703: \medbreak{\elevencmcsc Lemma #1.\enspace}{\sl#2}}
704: \def\LemmaEnd{\null\nobreak\hfill\blackbox\par\medbreak}
705: \def\Proof.{{\elevencmcsc Proof.\enspace}}
706: \def\ProofEnd{\null\nobreak\hfill\blackbox\par\medbreak}
707: \def\ProofOfLemma#1.{{\elevencmcsc Proof of Lemma #1.\enspace}}
708: \def\ProofOfTheorem#1.{{\elevencmcsc Proof of Theorem #1.\enspace}}
709: \def\ProofOfCorollaries{{\elevencmcsc Proof of Corollaries.\enspace}}
710: \def\ProofOfProposition#1.{{\elevencmcsc Proof of Proposition #1.\enspace}}
711: \def\Proposition#1. #2\par{%
712: \medbreak{\elevencmcsc Proposition #1.\enspace}{\sl#2}}
713: \def\PropositionEnd{\null\nobreak\hfill\blackbox\par\medbreak}
714: \def\Theorem#1. #2\par{%
715: \medbreak{\elevencmcsc Theorem #1.\enspace}{\sl#2}}
716: \def\TheoremEnd{\null\nobreak\hfill\blackbox\par\medbreak}
717: %
718: \def\footer{\footline={\hss\tenrm\folio\hss}}
719: %
720: \hsize=6.5truein
721: \voffset=24truept
722: \advance\vsize by -\voffset
723: \parindent=28pt
724: \overfullrule=0pt
725: \elevenpoint\rm
726: \nopagenumbers
727:
728: \def\foot{
729: }
730: \def\other#1{\ninerm #1}
731: \def\nsf#1{\ninerm This work was supported in part by #1.}
732: \def\grantfootnote#1{\parindent=28pt
733: \everypar={\hangindent=28pt\hangafter=1}
734: \footnote*{\ninerm%
735: \edef\grantno{#1}\ifx\grantno\empty
736: \else
737: \other{#1}
738: \fi
739: \foot
740: }}
741:
742:
743: \def\statistics{%
744: $$\vbox{%
745: \halign{\hfil##\hfil\cr
746: $^1$Department of Statistics\cr
747: The University of Chicago\cr
748: Chicago, Illinois 60637\cr
749: \noalign{\vskip5pt}
750: $^2$Department of Physics\cr
751: Carthage College\cr
752: Kenosha, WI 53140\cr
753: }}
754: $$
755: }
756:
757: \def\author{\centerline{\sl\name}}
758: \def\title{\bf Estimating the $K$ function of a point process with}
759: \def\titleB{\bf an application to cosmology}
760: \def\name{Michael L.~Stein$^1$, Jean M.~Quashnock$^{1,2}$ and Ji Meng Loh$^1$}
761: \def\technicalreportno{\vfill\centerline{TECHNICAL REPORT NO.
762: \trnumber}\vfill}
763: \def\date{\centerline{\day}}
764: \def\revision{\smallskip\centerline{\sl Revised\/\ \revisiondate}}
765: \def\uofc{\centerline{The University of Chicago}\medskip}
766:
767: \def\day{March 1999}
768: \def\revisiondate{May 2000}
769: \def\trnumber{485}
770:
771: \normalbaselines
772: \centerline{\title}
773: \centerline{\titleB%
774: \grantfootnote{\nsf{National Science Foundation
775: grants DMS 95-04470 and 99-71127 (Loh and Stein)
776: and NASA grant NAG 5-4406 and NSF grant DMS 97-09696
777: (Quashnock)
778: }\hfil\smallbreak}}
779:
780: \bigskip
781: \author
782: \technicalreportno
783: \statistics
784: \date
785: \revision
786:
787: \vfill\eject
788:
789:
790: \centerline{\bf\title}
791: \centerline{\bf\titleB%
792: \grantfootnote{\nsf{National Science Foundation
793: grant DMS 95-04470 and 99-71127 (Loh and Stein)
794: and NASA grant NAG 5-4406 and NSF grant DMS 97-09696
795: (Quashnock) }\hfil\smallbreak}}
796: \bigskip
797: \centerline{Michael L.~Stein, Jean M.~Quashnock and Ji Meng Loh}
798: \vfill
799: {\baselineskip=24pt plus .5pt
800: \narrower\noindent
801: {\bf Abstract:}
802: Motivated by the study of an important data set for understanding
803: the large-scale structure of the universe, this work considers
804: the estimation of the reduced second moment function, or $K$ function,
805: of a stationary point process on $\R$ observed over a large number
806: of segments of possibly varying lengths.
807: Theory and simulation are used to compare the behavior of isotropic
808: and rigid motion correction estimators and some modifications of
809: these estimators.
810: These results generally support the use of modified versions of
811: the rigid motion correction.
812: When applied to a catalog of astronomical objects known as absorbers,
813: the proposed methods confirm results from earlier analyses
814: of the absorber catalog
815: showing clear evidence of clustering up to 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc
816: and marginal evidence for clustering of matter
817: on spatial scales beyond 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, which is beyond the
818: distance at which clustering of matter is now generally accepted
819: to exist.
820: \vfill
821: \par\noindent
822: Key words: Reduced second moment function; bootstrapping; large-scale
823: structure of the universe; heavy-element absorption-line systems
824: \par\noindent
825: AMS 1991 subject classifications: Primary 62M30; secondary 62P35, 60G55.
826: \par\noindent
827: Running title: Estimation for point processes
828:
829: \par}
830: \vfill
831: \eject
832:
833: \clubpenalty=10000
834: \widowpenalty=10000
835: \parskip=3pt plus 1pt
836: \baselineskip=24pt plus .5pt
837: \lineskip=4pt plus 2pt
838: \lineskiplimit=4pt
839: \abovedisplayskip=13pt plus 3pt minus 2pt
840: \belowdisplayskip=13pt plus 3pt minus 2pt
841: \pageno=1
842: \footer
843:
844: \beginsection{1.}{Introduction}
845: One way to describe a stationary
846: spatial point processes is through some measure
847: of clumpiness of the events of the process.
848: A commonly used measure of clumpiness is the reduced
849: second moment function $K(t)$, defined
850: as the expected number of events within distance $t$ of a typical
851: event of the process divided by the intensity of the process.
852: For a homogeneous Poisson process on $\R^d\! ,$ $K(t)=\mu_d t^d\! ,$
853: where $\mu_d$ is the volume of a unit ball in $d$ dimensions.
854: Thus, values of $K(t)$ greater than $\mu_d t^d$ are indicative
855: of a process that is clumpier than Poisson and values less than
856: $\mu_d t^d$ are indicative of a process that is more regular than
857: Poisson.
858: When estimating $K(t)$
859: based on observing a process within a bounded window $W$, a central
860: problem is that for any event in $W$ that is within $t$ of
861: the boundary of $W$, we do not know for sure how many other
862: events are within $t$ of it.
863: Baddeley (1998) describes a number of ways of accounting for these
864: edge effects.
865: Although there is
866: quite a bit of asymptotic theory for how these estimators
867: behave when the underlying process is Poisson
868: (Ripley 1988, Stein 1993),
869: much less is known for non-Poisson processes.
870:
871: An interesting aspect of asymptotic theory for point processes is
872: how one should take limits.
873: Ripley (1988) and Stein (1993) consider a single growing window,
874: which might appear to be the obvious way to take limits.
875: However,
876: Baddeley, et al.\ (1993) describe applications in which point processes
877: are observed in many well-separated windows.
878: For this setting, Baddeley and Gill (1997) argue that it is natural
879: to consider taking limits by keeping the size of these windows
880: fixed and letting their number increase.
881: As they point out, one advantage of this approach is that the edge
882: effects do not become negligible in the limit, since for any fixed
883: $t$, the fraction of events that are within $t$ of a window boundary
884: does not tend to 0.
885: Thus, for comparing different approaches for handling edge effects,
886: increasing the number of windows may be more informative than
887: allowing a single region to grow in all dimensions, for which
888: the fraction of events that are within $t$ of a window boundary
889: does tend to 0.
890: Another advantage of taking limits by letting the number
891: of windows increase is that if the process is independent
892: in different regions, then limit theorems are easier to prove.
893: This is particularly the case when the windows are all
894: well-separated translations of
895: the same set so that the observations of the process on the multiple windows
896: can be reasonably modeled as iid realizations.
897: Baddeley and Gill (1997) use this approach to obtain weak convergence
898: results for estimators of $K$ and other functions describing
899: point process behavior.
900: The resulting limiting variances are difficult to evaluate
901: and Baddeley and Gill
902: (1997) only give explicit results for what they call the sparse
903: Poisson limit, in which the intensity of a homogeneous
904: Poisson process tends to 0.
905:
906: This work studies the estimation of $K$ for a process on $\R$
907: when the windows are segments of varying lengths.
908: The fact that the windows are one-dimensional greatly simplifies
909: the calculation of estimators and permits the explicit derivation of
910: some of their properties.
911: The fact that the segment lengths vary provides for an interesting
912: wrinkle on the approach of Baddeley and Gill (1997).
913: Notably, simulation results in Section~6 show that the differences
914: between certain estimators are much greater when the segment
915: lengths are unequal.
916:
917: Section~2 describes a cosmological problem that motivated the
918: present study.
919: Vanden Berk, et al. (1996) put together a catalog of what are known as
920: absorption-line
921: systems, or absorbers, detected along the lines-of-sight of QSOs
922: (quasi-stellar objects or quasars).
923: This catalog, a preliminary version of which
924: can be obtained from Daniel Vanden Berk (danvb@astro.as.utexas.edu),
925: provides important evidence
926: about the large-scale structure of the universe.
927: To a first approximation, in appropriate units, the locations of these
928: absorbers along the lines-of-sight can be viewed as multiple realizations
929: of a stationary point process along segments of varying length.
930:
931: Section~3 describes the estimators of $K$ used in this paper and gives
932: explicit expressions for the commonly used rigid motion correction
933: and isotropic correction estimators
934: when the observation region is a collection of line segments
935: of varying lengths.
936: In addition, Section~3 provides an explicit expression for a modification
937: to the rigid motion correction advocated in Stein (1993).
938: The fact that this estimator can be calculated explicitly is in
939: contrast to the situation in more than one dimension, in which case,
940: calculating this modified rigid motion correction requires numerous
941: numerical integrations even for simple regions such as circles and
942: rectangles.
943: Finally, following on an idea of Picka (1996), Section~3 introduces
944: another approach to modifying the rigid motion correction and
945: isotropic correction.
946: When the underlying process is homogeneous Poisson,
947: Picka's modification of the rigid motion correction has
948: similar properties to the estimator proposed
949: in Stein (1993), but theoretical results in Section~5
950: and simulation results in Section~6 suggest that his approach may
951: have some advantages and we recommend the adoption of the resulting
952: estimator for routine use.
953:
954: When the underlying process is homogeneous Poisson,
955: Section~4 derives some asymptotic theory for the various estimators
956: as the number of segments on which the process is observed increases.
957: As in the case of a single growing observation window studied
958: in Stein (1993), the modified rigid motion correction
959: asymptotically minimizes the variance of the estimator of $K(t)$
960: among a large class of estimators possessing a type of unbiasedness
961: property.
962: Furthermore, if the segments are of equal length, then it is possible
963: to give explicit comparisons between various estimators.
964: In particular, the ratio of the asymptotic mean squared
965: error of the ordinary rigid
966: motion correction to that
967: of the modified rigid motion correction equals 1 plus a positive term
968: proportional to the expected number of events per line segment.
969: Thus, the benefit of the modification is modest when this expectation
970: is small, around 1, say, but can be quite substantial when this
971: expectation is large.
972:
973: Section~5 considers asymptotic results when the underlying process is
974: not necessarily homogeneous Poisson, the segments are all of
975: equal length and the processes on different segments are independent.
976: In this case, it is essentially trivial to obtain a central limit theorem
977: for the estimators of $K$ used here.
978: {}From the general result, it is difficult to make comparisons between
979: the various estimators.
980: However, if the process on the different segments are each homogeneous
981: Poisson but with intensities that vary from segment to segment
982: according to some sequence of iid positive random variables,
983: it is possible to give simple expressions for the asymptotic
984: variances of the rigid motion correction and the two modifications
985: of this estimator.
986: These results show that the modification in Stein (1993)
987: has strictly smaller asymptotic variance
988: than the ordinary rigid motion correction.
989: Furthermore, the modification of Picka (1996) has strictly smaller
990: asymptotic variance than the modification in Stein (1993) unless the
991: random intensities have 0 variance, in which case, the two modified
992: estimators have equal asymptotic variance.
993:
994: Section~6 reports on the results of a simulation study comparing
995: the ordinary rigid motion correction and the two modifications
996: for both Poisson and non-Poisson processes, and equal and unequal
997: segment lengths.
998: While there is no theory showing the general superiority
999: of the modified estimators for non-Poisson processes, the modified
1000: estimators do, for the most part, outperform the unmodified estimator.
1001: The advantage of the modified estimators tend to be larger
1002: when the process is more regular than Poisson,
1003: when the segment lengths are unequal and when $t$ is near the length
1004: of the longest available segment.
1005:
1006: Section~7 applies the rigid motion correction and the two modifications
1007: of it described in Section~3 to the estimation of $K$ for the absorber catalog.
1008: In addition, approximate confidence intervals are obtained using
1009: bootstrapping based on viewing the segments as the sampling units.
1010: All three estimates are similar and confirm the finding
1011: in Quashnock and Stein (1999) of clear evidence of clustering
1012: up to at least 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
1013: In addition, the
1014: confidence intervals based on the modified procedures
1015: produce a slightly stronger case
1016: for clustering of absorbers beyond 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
1017: Whether there is
1018: clustering of matter at such large scales and for the high
1019: redshifts in the absorber catalog is a critical issue in
1020: modern cosmology, since presently used models for the evolution
1021: of the universe have difficulty explaining such clustering (Steidel, et
1022: al.\ 1998, Jing and Suto 1998).
1023:
1024: \beginsection{2.} {The absorber catalog}
1025: The cosmological principle, which states that on large enough spatial
1026: scales, the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous
1027: and isotropic, is a central tenet of modern cosmology (Peebles 1993).
1028: In cosmology, it is convenient to measure distances in units of
1029: $h^{-1}$ Mpc, where Mpc, or megaparsec, is
1030: $3.26\times 10^6$ light years and $h$ is an inexactly known dimensionless
1031: number that is believed to be between 0.5 and 0.75.
1032: As is common in the cosmological literature, in reporting distances
1033: determined from redshifts, we will assume that Hubble's constant,
1034: $H_0$, equals $100\> h\> {\rm km}\> {\rm s}^{-1}\> {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
1035: To help calibrate one's thinking about such distances, 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc is a
1036: typical distance between neighboring galaxies.
1037: It is now generally agreed that galaxies cluster up to scales
1038: of 10--20 $h^{-1}$ Mpc (Davis and Peebles 1983, Loveday, et al.\ 1995).
1039: Furthermore, clustering on such scales can be reproduced
1040: by computer simulations of the evolution of the universe based
1041: on our present understanding of this evolution (see Zhang, et al.\ 1998
1042: and the references therein).
1043: However, there is some evidence of clustering of matter on scales
1044: of up to 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc (see Quashnock, Vanden Berk and York (1996)
1045: and the references therein) and a few cosmologists have
1046: speculated that clustering may exist at all spatial scales (Coleman
1047: and Pietronero 1992, Sylos Labini, Montuori and Pietronero 1998),
1048: despite the fact that clustering at all scales contradicts both the cosmological
1049: principle and the considerable evidence that supports it
1050: (Peebles 1993, p.\ 20, 45 and 221).
1051: Thus, determining the extent to which clustering of matter is present
1052: is of fundamental importance to modern cosmology.
1053:
1054: One way to measure the clustering of matter is through the direct
1055: observation of large numbers of galaxies.
1056: Several galaxy surveys in various regions of the sky
1057: have been done in recent years (Mart\'{\i}nez 1997);
1058: Pons-Border\'{\i}a, et al.\ (1999) describe recent work on estimating
1059: second moment structures of galaxy locations from such
1060: surveys.
1061: The presently ongoing Sloan Digital
1062: Sky Survey will be by far the largest such survey and will contain
1063: roughly $10^8$ galaxies, approximately $10^6$
1064: of which will have spectroscopically measured redshifts (Margon 1999).
1065: An object's redshift gives its velocity relative to the Earth,
1066: which, using Hubble's Law, yields its approximate distance from
1067: the Earth.
1068: Galaxy surveys are limited by the fact that galaxies are
1069: difficult to observe directly beyond several hundred $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
1070: QSOs, on the other hand, are extremely bright and focused objects
1071: that can be readily detected at distances of several thousand
1072: $h^{-1}$ Mpc, going back to nearly the beginning of the universe.
1073: Matter that falls on the line-of-sight between the QSO and the Earth
1074: can absorb light from the QSO and thus be detected from the
1075: Earth even though this matter cannot be directly observed.
1076: Certain types of matter absorb light in a characteristic pattern
1077: of frequencies that can be used to identify the matter and, through
1078: the redshift of this absorption pattern, the relative velocity
1079: of this matter to the Earth.
1080: Astronomical objects detected in this way are called absorption-line
1081: systems or absorbers.
1082: As noted by Crotts, Melott, and York (1985),
1083: catalogs of absorbers provide a means for estimating the clustering
1084: of matter over very large spatial scales.
1085: Vanden Berk et al.\ (1996), Quashnock, Vanden Berk and York (1996)
1086: and Quashnock and Vanden Berk (1998) make use of an extensive catalog
1087: of heavy-element absorption-line systems drawn from the literature
1088: to investigate the clustering of matter at various scales.
1089: York, et al.\ (1991) describe an earlier version of this catalog
1090: and a preliminary version of an updated
1091: catalog is available from Daniel Vanden Berk (danvb@astro.as.utexas.edu).
1092: Here we will use the same absorber catalog as in
1093: Quashnock and Stein (1999), who examined clustering in 352 C~\IV absorbers
1094: (absorbers detected from the absorption-line patterns of C~{\ninerm IV}, or
1095: triply ionized carbon) along 274 QSO lines-of-sight.
1096: Although the relationship between C~\IV absorbers and galaxies is unclear,
1097: they do appear to track the general spatial patterns of galaxies
1098: (Lanzetta, et al.\ 1995, Quashnock and Vanden Berk 1998),
1099: and hence provide a plausible means for
1100: assessing the clustering of visible matter on large scales.
1101:
1102: Because the universe expands over time and, due to the finite
1103: velocity of light, the more distant an object
1104: the further in the past we observe it, the method used for converting
1105: redshifts into distances from Earth is critical to the analysis of
1106: this catalog.
1107: Redshifts are generally denoted by $z$ and, according to Hubble's
1108: law, an object observed at redshift $z$ is seen at a time
1109: when distances between objects were
1110: approximately $(1+z)^{-1}$ times their present values.
1111: To correct for the expansion,
1112: here, as in Quashnock and Stein (1999), we use what are called comoving
1113: coordinates, which scale up all distances to what they would be today if
1114: all the matter in the universe moved exactly with the Hubble flow (Peebles
1115: 1993).
1116: Thus, in examining the clustering of absorbers in comoving coordinates, we
1117: have removed the most important effects of the universe's expansion.
1118: If one did not make this correction,
1119: the volume density of absorbers would drop approximately like
1120: $(1+z)^3$ as $z$ decreases and we move towards the present.
1121:
1122: For various reasons, it is only possible to detect C~\IV
1123: absorbers along a segment of each line-of-sight.
1124: The mean length of these segments in comoving units is 303.3 $h^{-1}$ Mpc,
1125: with a range of 7.5 $h^{-1}$ Mpc to 439.8 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
1126: For this catalog, the median redshift of the absorbers is about
1127: 2.2, with the bulk of absorbers having redshifts from about 1.5 to 3.
1128: Our analysis acts as if clustering is both stationary in time and
1129: homogeneous in space.
1130: We are more accurately examining an average clustering over the range of
1131: redshifts in the sample at a cosmic epoch corresponding to a
1132: characteristic redshift of 2.2 (when the universe was about
1133: 1/3 its present scale and about 1/6 its present age).
1134: %Quashnock and Vanden Berk (1998) show that at scales of tens
1135: %$h^{-1}$ Mpc, clustering of absorbers has substantially increased
1136: %over the range of redshifts in the absorber catalog.
1137: %
1138: %Even in comoving units,
1139: %some of the properties of the absorbers, such as their number per unit
1140: %redshift along lines of sight, do slowly vary with redshift, albeit over
1141: %redshift intervals of order unity or more. In principle, this gradient of
1142: %absorber properties as a function of redshift
1143: %(differences in $z$ of order unity
1144: %correspond to comoving distances of order 1000 $h^{-1}$~Mpc) could lead to
1145: %spurious clustering on those enormous scales.
1146: %It cannot possibly account for the strong clustering of
1147: %absorbers on the scale of tens of $h^{-1}$~Mpc and, considering the limited
1148: %range of redshifts in this catalog, we consider it unlikely that
1149: %such nonstationarities could induce nonnegligible
1150: %spurious clustering even at scales of 100 $h^{-1}$~Mpc.
1151: Section 7 provides further discussion of this issue and its possible
1152: influence on our results.
1153:
1154: As in Quashnock and Stein (1999), we will act as if the absorber catalog
1155: can be viewed as multiple partial realizations
1156: of some stationary point process on $\R$ along a series
1157: of segments.
1158: In particular, we will not attempt to use any information about the
1159: physical location of these segments in
1160: three-dimensional space.
1161: Using this simplification, we will then be able to apply the methods
1162: described in the next section to the absorber catalog.
1163:
1164: \beginsection{3.}{Methodology}
1165: Suppose $M_1,\ldots,M_p$ are simple, stationary point processes on
1166: $\R$ with a common probability law having intensity $\lambda$ and reduced
1167: second moment function $K$.
1168: We do not necessarily assume that $M_1,\ldots,M_p$ are independent.
1169: For a Borel subset $A$ of $\R$, let $M_j(A)$ be the number of events
1170: of $M_j$ contained in $A$.
1171: If $[0,Q_j]$ is the interval on which we observe $M_j$,
1172: then we can write the observation domain as
1173: $D=\mathop{\cup}\limits_{j=1}^p
1174: \{[0,Q_j],j\}$, so that $(x,\ell)\in D$ implies
1175: $\ell\in\{1,\ldots,p\}$ and $x\in[0,Q_\ell]$.
1176: Define $N_j=M_j([0,Q_j])$, $N_\sbullet=\sum_{j=1}^p N_j$
1177: and denote the realized value of $N_\sbullet$ by $n$.
1178: For $j=1,\ldots,N_\sbullet$, let $(X_j,L_j)$ be
1179: the random locations of these observed events with realized
1180: values $(x_j,\ell_j)$ for
1181: $j=1,\ldots,n$.
1182:
1183: The basic principle behind all edge-corrected estimators of $K$
1184: described by Ripley (1988)
1185: is to first find an exactly unbiased estimator of $\lambda^2\times
1186: \hbox{volume of observation domain}\times K(t)$ and then to divide
1187: by an estimator of $(\lambda^2\times\hbox{volume})$.
1188: Here, the volume of the observation domain is $Q_\sbullet=
1189: \sum_{j=1}^p Q_j$.
1190: For a symmetric function $\varphi$ on $D\times D$,
1191: define $T(\varphi)=\sum_{j\ne
1192: k}\varphi\big((X_j,L_j),(X_k,L_k)\big)$.
1193: Then the unbiasedness constraint requires that
1194: $$
1195: ET(\varphi)= \lambda^2 Q_\sbullet K(t) \eqno(\SNM 1/)
1196: $$
1197: for any reduced moment function $K$.
1198: Estimating $\lambda^2$ by $N_\sbullet(N_\sbullet-1)/Q_\sbullet^2$ yields
1199: $$
1200: \tilde K(t) = \cases{ \displaystyle{Q_\sbullet T(\varphi)\over N_\sbullet
1201: (N_\sbullet-1)}
1202: & if $N_\sbullet>1$,\cr
1203: \noalign{\vskip2pt}
1204: 0 & otherwise\cr}
1205: $$
1206: as a natural estimator
1207: of $K(t)$.
1208: \par
1209: There is an infinite array of functions $\varphi$ satisfying (\Eqn 1/).
1210: Two popular choices are the rigid motion
1211: correction (Ohser and Stoyan 1981) and the isotropic correction
1212: (Ripley 1976).
1213: Asymptotic results in Sections 4 and 5 suggest that
1214: modified versions of the rigid motion correction have good large sample
1215: properties when the underlying process is Poisson, so we focus on
1216: this correction here, although we also give some results for the
1217: isotropic correction for comparison.
1218: It is fairly elementary to prove that the rigid motion
1219: correction satisfies (\Eqn 1/)
1220: when the observation domain $D$ is a subset of $\R$.
1221: First, for a stationary point process $M$ on $\R$ with intensity
1222: $\lambda$, define the reduced second moment measure ${\cal K}$ by
1223: $\lambda^2 {\cal K}(ds)dx=2E\{M(dx)M(x+ds)\}$, in which case, the reduced
1224: second moment function $K$ is given by $K(t)=\int_{(0,t]}{\cal K}(ds)$.
1225: Denote the indicator function by $1\{\cdot\}$, use $|A|$ to indicate
1226: the Lebesgue measure of the set $A\subset \R$ and $A_s$ to indicate the set $A$
1227: translated by the amount $s$.
1228: The rigid motion correction is given by
1229: $$
1230: \varphi(x,y)={1\{|x-y|\le t\}|D|\over |D\cap D_{x-y}|}.
1231: $$
1232: We can then write
1233: $$
1234: \eqalignno{
1235: T(\varphi)&=\int_{s\in[-t,0)\cup (0,t]}\int_{x\in \R}M(dx)M(x+ds)
1236: {1\{x\in D, x+s\in D\}\over |D\cap D_s|}\cr
1237: &=2\int_{s\in (0,t]}\int_{x\in \R}M(dx)M(x+ds)
1238: {1\{x\in D, x+s\in D\}\over |D\cap D_s|},\cr}
1239: $$
1240: so that
1241: $$
1242: \eqalignno{
1243: E\{T(\varphi)\}
1244: &= 2\int_{s\in(0,t]}\int_{x\in \R}{1\over 2}\lambda^2{\cal K}(ds)
1245: {1\{x\in D, x+s\in D\}\over |D\cap D_s|}\, dx\cr
1246: &=2\int_{s\in(0,t]}{1\over 2}\lambda^2{|D\cap D_s|\over |D\cap
1247: D_s|}{\cal K}(ds)\cr
1248: &=\lambda^2K(t).\cr}
1249: $$
1250: \par
1251: One way to view the setting where $D$ is a collection of line segments
1252: is to think of these segments as being widely spaced
1253: intervals on $\R$, in which case, we just have a special case
1254: of the treatment in the preceding paragraph.
1255: However, it will be helpful in the subsequent development to think
1256: of $D$ as $\mathop{\cup}\limits_{j=1}^p \{[0,Q_j],j\}$.
1257: The rigid motion correction can then be defined by taking
1258: $\varphi$ to be
1259: $$
1260: \varphi^R\big((x,k),(y,\ell)\big) = {Q_\sbullet 1\{|x-y|\le t, k=\ell\}
1261: \over \sum_{j=1}^p (Q_j-|x-y|)^+},
1262: $$
1263: where $1\{\cdot\}$ is an indicator function.
1264: To write the isotropic correction in terms of a symmetric
1265: function, let
1266: $$
1267: \varphi^I\big((x,k),(y,\ell)\big)={Q_\sbullet 1\{|x-y|\le t,k=\ell\}
1268: \{\alpha_\ell(x,y)+\alpha_\ell(y,x)\}\over
1269: Q_\sbullet-\sum_{j=1}^p\min\{(2|x-y|-Q_j)^+,Q_j\} },
1270: \eqno(\SNM isodef/)
1271: $$
1272: where $\alpha_\ell(x,y)^{-1}= 1\{x+|y-x|<Q_\ell\}+1\{x-|y-x|>0\}$.
1273: Define
1274: $\tilde K_R(t) = Q_\sbullet T(\varphi^R)/\{N_\bu(N_\bu-1)\}$
1275: and $\tilde K_I(t) = Q_\sbullet T(\varphi^I)/\{N_\bu(N_\bu-1)\}$,
1276: where it is understood that
1277: $\tilde K_R(t)=\tilde K_I(t)=0$ for $N_\bu\le 1$.
1278: We have used Ohser's extension of the isotropic correction
1279: to cover the case $t> {1\over 2}\min(Q_1,\ldots,Q_p)$ (Ohser 1983).
1280: As Ripley (1988, p.~32) notes, this extension is generally not
1281: of much practical value when there is a single contiguous observation
1282: window.
1283: However, when there are multiple windows of various sizes, the extension
1284: is critical.
1285: For the absorber catalog, for example,
1286: one is certainly interested in estimating
1287: $K$ at distances greater than $3.75$~$h^{-1}$ Mpc, the value of
1288: ${1\over 2}\min(Q_1,\ldots,Q_p)$ in the catalog.
1289: \par
1290: Note that $\varphi^I
1291: \big((x,k),(y,\ell)\big)=\varphi^R\big((x,k),(y,\ell)\big)=0$
1292: if $k\ne \ell$, which just says that pairs of observations on different
1293: segments do not contribute to the estimate of $K(t)$.
1294: Since we have made no assumption about the joint distribution
1295: of $M_1,\ldots,M_p$, for (\Eqn 1/) to be valid, it is necessary to assume
1296: $\varphi\big((x,k),(y,\ell)\big)=0$
1297: whenever $k\ne \ell$.
1298: Thus, throughout this work, we will only consider $\varphi$ satisfying
1299: \item{(A)}
1300: $\varphi\big((x,k),(y,\ell)\big)=0$ for $k\ne \ell$.
1301: \par
1302: We next show how to apply to the present setting
1303: the method developed in Stein (1993) for improving
1304: upon any estimator of $K$ of the form $Q_\sbullet
1305: T(\varphi)/\{N_\bu(N_\bu-1)\}$ with $\varphi$ satisfying (\Eqn 1/).
1306: Suppose $(X,L)$ is uniformly distributed on $D$ in the sense that
1307: $P(L=\ell)=Q_\ell/Q_\sbullet$ and the density of $X$ given
1308: $L=\ell$ is uniform on $[0,Q_\ell]$.
1309: Then $M_1,\ldots,M_p$ stationary with common distribution imply
1310: that for any real-valued function $g$ for which $E|g(X,L)|<\infty$,
1311: $E\sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu}g(X_j,L_j)=\lambda Q_\sbullet Eg(X,L)$,
1312: so that $\sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu}\{g(X_j,L_j)-Eg(X,L)\}$
1313: is an unbiased estimator of 0.
1314: The idea in Stein (1993) is to choose $g$ to minimize
1315: $$
1316: \var_n\biggl[ T(\varphi) - \sum_{j=1}^n\{g(X_j,L_j)-Eg(X,L)\}\biggr],
1317: $$
1318: where $\var_n$ means to compute the
1319: variance under binomial sampling:
1320: $N_\bu=n$ is fixed and, for $j=1,\ldots,n$,
1321: $(X_j,L_j)$ are independent
1322: and all have the same distribution as $(X,L)$.
1323: Proposition~1 in Stein (1993) shows that for $n\ge 1$ and $(y,m)\in D$,
1324: a minimizing $g$ is $2(n-1)h(y,m;\varphi)/Q_\bu$, where
1325: $h(y,m;\varphi) = \sum_{\ell=1}^p\int_0^{Q_\ell}\varphi\big((x,l),(y,m)\big)
1326: dx$.
1327: Under (A),
1328: $h(y,m;\varphi) = \int_0^{Q_m}
1329: \varphi\big((x,m),(y,m)\big)dx$.
1330:
1331: Now define
1332: $$
1333: T^*(\varphi)=T(\varphi)-{2(N_\bu-1)\over Q_\bu}
1334: \sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu}\left\{h(X_j,L_j;\varphi)
1335: -Eh(X,L;\varphi)\right\}.
1336: $$
1337: Note that if $\varphi$ satisfies (\Eqn 1/),
1338: $Eh(X,L;\varphi)=2t$.
1339: Under binomial sampling, we always have $\var_n\{T^*(\varphi)\}\allowbreak\le
1340: \var_n\{T(\varphi)\}$.
1341: This suggests that the estimator
1342: $\hat K(t) = Q_\sbullet T^*(\varphi)/\{N_\bu(N_\bu-1)\}$ for $N_\bu>1$
1343: and 0 otherwise may be preferred over $\tilde K(t)$.
1344: As with the unmodified estimators, $\hat K_R(t)$ indicates that
1345: $\varphi=\varphi^R$ and $\hat K_I(t)$ indicates that $\varphi=\varphi^I$.
1346: \par
1347: Picka (1996) suggests another approach to modifying estimates of second moment
1348: measures.
1349: He considered random sets for which the probability of any fixed point being
1350: in the random set is positive, but his approach
1351: can also be applied to point processes, for which this probability is 0.
1352: For point processes, his idea corresponds to using an estimator of
1353: $\lambda Q_\sbullet$ other than $N_\bu$ in $\tilde K$.
1354: For any real-valued function $c$ on $D$ satisfying $\sum_{\ell=1}^p
1355: \int_0^{Q_\ell} c(x,\ell)dx=Q_\sbullet$, $\hat\lambda_c=Q_\sbullet^{-1}
1356: \sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu} c(X_j,L_j)$ is an unbiased estimator of $\lambda$.
1357: Let us consider estimators of $K(t)$ of the form $Q_\sbullet T(\varphi)/
1358: \{\hat\lambda_c Q_\sbullet(\hat\lambda_c Q_\sbullet - 1)\}$.
1359: It is not generally possible to calculate the exact variance
1360: of such estimators under binomial sampling.
1361: However, for $Q_\sbullet$ sufficiently large, $\hat\lambda_c-\lambda$
1362: and $Q_\sbullet^{-1}T(\varphi)-\lambda^2 K(t)$ should be small in probability,
1363: which suggests using a first-order Taylor series approximation to
1364: obtain
1365: $$
1366: {Q_\sbullet T(\varphi)\over \hat\lambda_c Q_\sbullet(\hat\lambda_c Q_\sbullet
1367: - 1)}\approx {1\over \lambda^2 Q_\sbullet} T(\varphi) - {2K(t)\over \lambda}
1368: (\hat\lambda_c-\lambda).\eqno(\SNM 1.2/)
1369: $$
1370: For a given $\varphi$ and subject to $c$ satisfying the unbiasedness
1371: constraint, now consider minimizing the variance
1372: of the right side of (\Eqn 1.2/) when $M_1,\ldots,M_p$
1373: are iid Poisson processes with intensity $\lambda$.
1374: It is a straightforward variational problem to show that a minimizing $c$
1375: is given by $c(x,\ell;\varphi)=h(x,\ell;\varphi)/(2t)$.
1376: Define
1377: $$
1378: \Kvee(t) = {Q_\sbullet T(\varphi)\over \sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu}
1379: c(X_j,L_j;\varphi)\big\{\sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu} c(X_j,L_j;\varphi) - 1
1380: \big\}}
1381: $$
1382: for $N_\bu>1$ and $\Kvee(t)=0$ otherwise.
1383: As with $\tilde K$ and $\hat K$, subscripts $R$ or $I$ on $\Kvee$
1384: indicate that $\varphi=\varphi^R$ or $\varphi=\varphi^I$.
1385: \par
1386: When $M_1,\ldots,M_p$
1387: are iid Poisson processes,
1388: $\hat K(t)$ and $\Kvee(t)$ should behave similarly.
1389: To see this, first use Taylor series to obtain
1390: $$
1391: \hat K(t)\approx{1\over \lambda^2 Q_\sbullet} T(\varphi) - {2\over\lambda
1392: Q_\bu} \sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu} h(X_j,L_j;\varphi)+2\{2t-K(t)\}{N_\bu\over \lambda
1393: Q_\bu} + 2K(t).
1394: $$
1395: {}From this approximation and (\Eqn 1.2/),
1396: when $K(t)=2t$, both $\hat K$ and $\breve K$ are approximately
1397: $$
1398: {1\over \lambda^2 Q_\sbullet} T(\varphi) - {2\over\lambda Q_\bu}
1399: \sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu} h(X_j,L_j;\varphi) + 4t.
1400: $$
1401: Thus, for $Q_\sbullet$ large, the two estimators will be similar
1402: when $M_1,\ldots,M_p$
1403: are iid Poisson processes,
1404: but they are not necessarily similar otherwise.
1405: \par
1406: Even for simple regions in two or more dimensions, calculating
1407: $h(\cdot;\varphi)$ requires numerical integrations.
1408: However, when the observation region is
1409: $D=\mathop{\cup}\limits_{j=1}^p
1410: \{[0,Q_j],j\}$, then it is possible to give
1411: an explicit expression for $h(x,\ell;\varphi^R)$ for
1412: $(x,\ell)\in D$.
1413: For convenience, we will assume that the $Q_j$s have been arranged in
1414: increasing order.
1415: For $r<Q_p$, define $j(r)=\min_{1\le j\le p}\{j: Q_j\ge r\}$ and
1416: let $U(r)=\sum_{j=1}^p (Q_j-r)^+$.
1417: For $j=1,\ldots,p$, let $U_j=U(Q_j)$
1418: and set $Q_0=0$ so that $U_0=Q_\sbullet$.
1419: Furthermore, define
1420: $$
1421: \kappa(x,t) = \sum_{j=1}^{j(x\land t)-1} {1\over p-j+1}\log\left(
1422: {U_{j-1}\over U_j}\right)
1423: + {1\over p-j(x\land t)+1}\log\left\{ {U_{j(x\land t)-1}\over
1424: U(x\land t)}\right\},
1425: $$
1426: where a sum whose upper limit is less than its lower limit is defined
1427: to be 0 and $x\land t$ is the minimum of $x$ and $t$.
1428: Then
1429: $$
1430: Q_\bu^{-1}h(x,\ell;\varphi^R) = \kappa(x,t) + \kappa(Q_\ell-x,t)\eqno(\SNM 2/)
1431: $$
1432: (see the appendix).
1433: If the segment lengths are all equal, $\kappa(x,t)=p^{-1}\log
1434: [Q/\{Q-(x\land t)\}]$.
1435: \par
1436: It is also possible to evaluate $h(x,\ell;\varphi^I)$ explicitly,
1437: but the resulting expression is rather cumbersome.
1438: If $t<{1\over 2}\min(Q_1,\cdots, Q_p)$,
1439: then the denominator in the definition of $\varphi^I$ in
1440: (\Eqn isodef/) equals $Q_\bu$ whenever $|x-y|\le t$, which
1441: greatly simplifies matters.
1442: In this case, it is possible to show that
1443: $$
1444: h(x,\ell;\varphi^I)= t + (x\land t) + \{(Q_\ell-x)\land t\} -{1\over 2}
1445: \left({x\over 2}\land t\right)-{1\over 2}\left({Q_\ell-x\over 2}\land t
1446: \right).
1447: $$
1448: A second special case yielding a simple result is when $Q_1=\cdots=Q_p
1449: =Q$.
1450: When $t<{1\over 2}Q$, the preceding expression for $h$ applies
1451: and for $t\ge {1\over
1452: 2}Q$,
1453: $$
1454: h(x,\ell;\varphi^I)=
1455: {3Q\over 4} + \{x\land(Q-x)\} + Q\log\left[{{1\over 2} Q
1456: \over \{x\land(Q-x)\}\lor(Q-t)}\right],
1457: $$
1458: where $x\lor y$ is the maximum of $x$ and $y$.
1459:
1460: There is a considerable literature in astrophysical journals
1461: on estimating second order characteristics of galaxy locations
1462: based on galaxy surveys in large, contiguous regions of the
1463: sky.
1464: Mart\'{\i}nez (1997) and Stoyan and Stoyan (2000) provide two
1465: recent reviews of this work.
1466: Astrophysicists have generally focused on estimating the pair
1467: correlation function, which is, after a normalization, just
1468: the derivative of the $K$ function.
1469: For example, for a stationary point process
1470: $M$ on $\R$, assuming $K$ is differentiable,
1471: the pair correlation function is ${1\over 2}K'$.
1472: Similar to $\hat K$ here,
1473: Landy and Szalay (1993) make use of unbiased estimators of
1474: 0 to modify estimators of second order characteristics.
1475: Moreover, similar to $\breve K$,
1476: Hamilton (1993) describes estimators of the pair
1477: correlation function of the form $T(\phi)/{\hat\lambda}^2$
1478: in which $\lambda^2$ is estimated by something other than
1479: the obvious estimator.
1480: We prefer to estimate $K$ rather than the pair correlation function
1481: because it separates the problem of handling edge effects
1482: from that of density estimation and the consequent smoothing problem.
1483: If one wants to estimate the pair correlation function, we
1484: recommend first computing an appropriately edge-corrected
1485: estimate of $K$ and then differentiating a smoothed version
1486: of this estimate.
1487:
1488: \beginsection{4.}{Asymptotic theory when the truth is Poisson}
1489: There are a number of ways one might take limits to study the properties
1490: of the estimators proposed in the previous section.
1491: One possibility would be to fix $p$ and let the $Q_j$s tend
1492: to $\infty$.
1493: In this approach, the fraction of the observation
1494: region within a fixed distance of an endpoint of a segment tends
1495: to 0 and, as in Ripley (1988) and Stein (1993), the
1496: variance of all reasonable estimators of $K(t)$
1497: for fixed $t$ have the same first-order
1498: asymptotic behavior under binomial sampling.
1499: However, for the absorber catalog, in which $p=274$ and
1500: the number of absorbers per line is $1.28$, a more relevant choice
1501: is to uniformly bound the $Q_j$s and let $p\to\infty$.
1502: This limiting approach keeps the fraction of the observation
1503: region within a fixed distance of an endpoint of a segment bounded
1504: away from 0 with the result that the differences between various
1505: estimators under binomial sampling show up in the leading terms
1506: for the asymptotic variance.
1507: Hansen, Gill and Baddeley (1996) and
1508: Baddeley and Gill (1997) take a similar asymptotic approach
1509: for studying estimators of properties
1510: of spatial point processes based on observing the process
1511: in an increasing number of identical and distantly spaced
1512: windows.
1513:
1514: We now consider adapting the
1515: asymptotic results in Ripley (1988) and Stein (1993)
1516: to the present setting.
1517: First, we give exact expressions for the variance under binomial
1518: sampling of both $\tilde K(t)$ and $\hat K(t)$.
1519: Following Ripley (1988),
1520: for a symmetric function $\varphi$ on $D\times D$ satisfying (A),
1521: define
1522: $$
1523: S(\varphi)=\sum_{j=1}^p \int_0^{Q_j}\! \int_0^{Q_j}
1524: \varphi\big((x,j),(y,j)\big)dx\, dy,
1525: $$
1526: $$
1527: S_1(\varphi)=
1528: \sum_{j=1}^p \int_0^{Q_j}\left\{ \int_0^{Q_j}
1529: \varphi\big((x,j),(y,j)\big)dx\right\}^2\! dy,
1530: $$
1531: and
1532: $$
1533: S_2(\varphi)=\sum_{j=1}^p \int_0^{Q_j}\! \int_0^{Q_j}
1534: \varphi\big((x,j),(y,j)\big)^2 dx\, dy.
1535: $$
1536: Under (A) (Ripley 1988),
1537: $$
1538: \var_n\{T(\varphi)\}={2n(n-1)\over Q_\sbullet^2}\left\{
1539: S_2(\varphi) + {2n-4\over Q_\sbullet}S_1(\varphi) - {2n-3\over
1540: Q_\sbullet^2}S(\varphi)^2\right\}\eqno(\SNM varT/)
1541: $$
1542: and (Stein 1993)
1543: $$
1544: \var_n\{T^*(\varphi)\}={2n(n-1)\over Q_\sbullet^2}\left\{
1545: S_2(\varphi) - {2\over Q_\sbullet}S_1(\varphi) + {1\over
1546: Q_\sbullet^2}S(\varphi)^2\right\}.\eqno(\SNM 3/)
1547: $$
1548: \par
1549: We now want to study what happens as $p\to\infty$.
1550: Suppose $Q_1,Q_2,\ldots$ is a sequence of positive numbers
1551: and the subscript $p$ is used to indicate the dependence of a
1552: term on the number of segments observed, so that
1553: $D_p=\mathop{\cup}\limits_{j=1}^p
1554: \{[0,Q_j],j\}$, $Q_{\sbullet p}=\sum_{j=1}^p Q_j$ and $N_{\bu p}$ is the total
1555: number of events on $D_p$.
1556: Suppose $\{\varphi_p\}$ is a sequence of functions for which the
1557: domain of $\varphi_p$ is $D_p\times D_p$ and $\varphi_p$ is symmetric
1558: for all $p$.
1559: In addition to $\varphi_p$ satisfying (A) for all $p$,
1560: we will assume the following regularity conditions:
1561: \item{(B)} The $\varphi_p$s are uniformly bounded;
1562: \item{(C)} For each $p$, $\varphi_p$ satisfies the unbiasedness
1563: constraint in (\Eqn 1/);
1564: \item{(D)} The $Q_j$s are bounded away from 0 and $\infty$.
1565: \par\noindent
1566: Under (A)--(D), we have $S(\varphi_p)=2tQ_{\sbullet p}=O(p)$,
1567: $S_1(\varphi_p)=O(p)$ and $S_2(\varphi_p)=O(p)$ but is not $o(p)$.
1568: It follows that as $p\to\infty$,
1569: $$
1570: S_2(\varphi_p) - {2\over Q_{\sbullet p}}S_1(\varphi_p) + {1\over
1571: Q_{\sbullet p}^2}S(\varphi_p)^2=
1572: S_2(\varphi_p)\big\{1+O\big(p^{-1}\big)\big\}.\eqno(\SNM 4/)
1573: $$
1574: Comparing (\Eqn 3/) and (\Eqn 4/) suggests that minimizing $S_2(\varphi_p)$
1575: subject to (A)--(D) is nearly the same as minimizing
1576: $\var_n\{T^*(\varphi_p)\}$.
1577: Stein (1993) shows that subject to (C),
1578: the rigid motion correction gives a minimizer of $S_2(\varphi_p)$.
1579: The appendix gives an explicit expression for $S_2(\varphi^R)$ in
1580: terms of elementary functions.
1581: \par
1582: We next obtain an analog to Proposition~2 in
1583: Stein (1993), which demonstrates the asymptotic optimality under
1584: the Poisson model for $\hat K_R$ among a certain class of estimators
1585: as the dimensions of a single observation window increase.
1586: For a sequence of functions $\{\varphi_p\}$ on $D_p\times D_p$
1587: and a sequence of functions $\{g_p\}$ on $D_p\times \{0,1,\ldots\}$,
1588: define the statistic $\Theta(\varphi_p,g_p)$ by
1589: $$
1590: \Theta(\varphi_p,g_p)={Q_{\sbullet p}\over N_{\bu p}(N_{\bu p}-1)}
1591: \left[ T(\varphi_p)-\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\bu p}}\left\{g_p\big((X_j,L_j),N_{\bu
1592: p}\big)-{1\over Q_{\sbullet p}}\sum_{\ell=1}^p \int_0^{Q_\ell}
1593: g_p\big((x,\ell),N_{\bu p}\big)dx\right\}\right]
1594: $$
1595: if $N_{\bu p}>1$ and 0 otherwise.
1596: Write $E_\lambda$ to indicate expectations assuming $M_1,M_2,\ldots$
1597: are independent Poisson processes with constant intensity $\lambda$
1598: independent of $p$.
1599: All ensuing asymptotic results
1600: in the rest of this section involve expectations over the Poisson model
1601: and can be proven by first conditioning on $N_{\bu p}$,
1602: using the fact that under this model,
1603: the conditional distribution of the observed events on $D_p$
1604: follows binomial sampling, and finally, by averaging over the
1605: distribution of $N_{\bu p}$, which follows a Poisson distribution with mean
1606: $\lambda Q_{\sbullet p}$.
1607: \Proposition{1}. Suppose $\{\varphi_p\}$ satisfies (A)--(C),
1608: $E_\lambda\Biggl\{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\bu p}}
1609: \big|g_p\big((X_j,L_j),N_{\bu
1610: p}\big)\big|\Biggr\}<\infty$ for all $p$, the $Q_j$s satisfy (D)
1611: and $p^{-1}\sum(Q_j-t)^+$ is bounded away
1612: from 0 as $p\to\infty$. Then
1613: $$
1614: p^2\left[E_\lambda\left\{\hat K_R(t)
1615: -2t\right\}^2-E_\lambda\left\{
1616: \Theta(\varphi_p,g_p) -2t\right\}^2\right]
1617: $$
1618: is bounded from above as $p\to\infty$.
1619: \TheoremEnd
1620: \par\noindent
1621: The assumption that $p^{-1}\sum(Q_j-t)^+$ is bounded away
1622: from 0 as $p\to\infty$ guarantees that $\{\varphi^R_p\}$ satisfies (B).
1623: Since, under the conditions of Proposition 1,
1624: $E_\lambda\big\{{\hat K}_R(t)-2t\big\}^2=O(p^{-1})$ as $p\to\infty$,
1625: this result says that when the underlying
1626: processes are independent Poisson with equal
1627: intensity, ${\hat K}_R$ asymptotically minimizes
1628: the mean squared error among all sequences of estimators of the
1629: form considered in the proposition.
1630: \par
1631: Let us now make some comparisons of the asymptotic mean squared errors
1632: of some estimators of $K(t)$ under the Poisson model
1633: when all $Q_j$s equal $Q$ and $s=t/Q$.
1634: {}From (\Eqn 3/), we get $E_\lambda\left\{\hat K(t)-2t\right\}^2\sim
1635: {2\over \lambda^2 p^2 Q^2}S_2(\varphi_p)$.
1636: Thus, (17) %!!!
1637: in the appendix implies
1638: $$
1639: E_\lambda\left\{\hat K_R(t)
1640: -2t\right\}^2\sim -{4\over \lambda^2 p}\log(1-s)\eqno(\SNM 4.8/)
1641: $$
1642: and (20) %!!!
1643: in the appendix implies
1644: $$
1645: E_\lambda\left\{\hat K_I(t)
1646: -2t\right\}^2\sim
1647: {4\over \lambda^2 p}\times \cases
1648: { s +{3\over 4}s^2 & if $0<s\le {1\over 3}$,\cr
1649: {1\over 12}+ {1\over 2}s+ {3\over
1650: 2}s^2& if ${1\over 3}\le s\le {1\over 2}$ and\cr
1651: {17\over 24} - \log 2 -\log(1-s)&
1652: if ${1\over 2}\le s<1$.\cr}\eqno(\SNM 5/)
1653: $$
1654: {}From Proposition~1, the right side of (\Eqn 5/) must be at
1655: least as large as the right side of (\Eqn 4.8/) for all $s\in(0,1)$.
1656: In fact,
1657: it is a straightforward exercise to show analytically that
1658: the right side of (\Eqn 5/) is strictly greater than the right
1659: side of (\Eqn 4.8/) for all $s\in(0,1)$.
1660: Thus, as $p\to\infty$, the modified rigid motion estimator $\hat K_R$ performs
1661: nonnegligibly better than either the ordinary
1662: or modified isotropic estimator
1663: for any $t\in (0,Q)$ under the Poisson model, although the improvement
1664: over the modified isotropic estimator is minor.
1665: Figure~1 shows the ratio of the asymptotic variances for
1666: $\hat K_I(t)$ and $\hat K_R(t)$ under the Poisson model, which
1667: reaches a maximum of approximately $1.032$ near $t=0.247Q$.
1668: The asymptotic results in (\Eqn 4.8/) and (\Eqn 5/) are unchanged
1669: if $\Kvee_R$ and $\Kvee_I$ replace $\hat K_R$ and $\hat K_I$.
1670: \par
1671: We next compare the modified and unmodified rigid motion estimators
1672: as $p\to\infty$ when all $Q_j$s equal $Q$.
1673: {}From (\Eqn varT/),
1674: $$
1675: E_\lambda\left\{\tilde K(t) -2t\right\}^2\sim {2\over \lambda^2 p^2 Q^2}
1676: S_2(\varphi^p) + {4\over \lambda p^2 Q^2} S_1(\varphi^p) - {16t^2\over
1677: \lambda p Q}.
1678: $$
1679: Using (17) and (18) %!!!
1680: in the appendix then yields
1681: $$
1682: E_\lambda\left\{\tilde K_R(t)
1683: -2t\right\}^2\sim {4\over \lambda^2 p}\left[-\log(1-s)
1684: +4\lambda Q\{\gamma(s)-s^2\}\right],\eqno(\SNM unmod/)
1685: $$
1686: where
1687: $$
1688: \gamma(s)=
1689: {1\over 4}\int_0^1\left[\int_0^1 {1\{|x-y|\le s\}
1690: \over 1-|x-y|}dy\right]^2 dx.\eqno(\SNM gamma.def/)
1691: $$
1692: Equation (19) %!!!
1693: in the appendix gives a more explicit expression for $\gamma$.
1694: Note that
1695: $$
1696: \gamma(s)-s^2= {1\over 4}\int_0^1\left[\int_0^1 {1\{|x-y|\le s\}
1697: \over 1-|x-y|}dy-2s\right]^2 dx,
1698: $$
1699: which is strictly positive for all $s\in (0,1]$.
1700: \par
1701: Comparing (\Eqn 4.8/) and (\Eqn unmod/) shows that,
1702: in terms of mean squared error,
1703: the asymptotic relative advantage of either modified rigid motion
1704: estimator over the unmodified
1705: rigid motion estimator is proportional to $\lambda Q$, the expected
1706: number of events per segment.
1707: Figure~2 plots $4\{\gamma(s)-s^2\}/\{-\log(1-s)\}$, which is less
1708: than 0.124 for all $s\in (0,1)$ and is less than 0.061 for all $s<0.9$.
1709: Thus, at least for equal $Q_j$s, we should not
1710: expect a large improvement under the Poisson model due to the
1711: modifications when there are only 1.28 events per segment as in the
1712: absorber catalog.
1713: Simulation results in Section~6 show that larger improvements can occur
1714: with unequal $Q_j$s.
1715: \par
1716: \beginsection {5.} {Some asymptotic theory for non-Poisson processes}
1717: There is a decided lack of asymptotic theory that permits useful comparisons
1718: of estimators of $K$ when the underlying process is not Poisson.
1719: Stein (1995) derives results showing the advantage of estimators like
1720: $\hat K$ over those like $\tilde K$, but the asymptotic approach
1721: taken there requires that the distance $t$ at which one is estimating
1722: $K$ be large compared to the distances at which the underlying process
1723: shows nontrivial dependence.
1724: When the observation window is made up of many
1725: segments, especially if the $Q_j$s are equal
1726: and the $M_j$s are independent, it appears feasible to develop
1727: some useful asymptotic results for non-Poisson processes.
1728: This section describes some general asymptotic results for the
1729: estimators $\tilde K$, $\hat K$ and $\breve K$ described in Section~3.
1730: These results are used to demonstrate that if $M_1,M_2,\ldots$
1731: are, conditional on $\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\ldots$, independent Poisson
1732: processes with $M_j$ having intensity $\Lambda_j$, where the
1733: $\Lambda_j$s are iid positive
1734: random variables, then as $p\to\infty$, $\Kvee_R(t)$ is superior
1735: to $\hat K_R(t)$, which is in turn superior to $\tilde K_R(t)$.
1736: \par
1737: Suppose $M_1,M_2,\ldots$ are iid simple, stationary point processes
1738: on $\R$ with intensity $\lambda$ and reduced second moment
1739: function $K$.
1740: Assume $Q=Q_1=Q_2=\cdots$ and
1741: let $X_{1j},\ldots,X_{N_j j}$ be the locations
1742: of the $N_j$ events from $M_j$ on $(0,Q)$.
1743: For a bounded, symmetric function $\varphi$ on $(0,Q)\times (0,Q)$, define
1744: $\Phi_j=\sum_{k\ne \ell}\varphi(X_{kj},X_{\ell j})$.
1745: Analogous to (\Eqn 1/), suppose $E\Phi_j=\lambda^2Q K(t)$ for any
1746: reduced second moment function $K$ for the $M_j$s.
1747: Define $G_j=(2t)^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^{N_j}\int_0^Q \varphi(X_{kj},y)dy$,
1748: so that $EG_j=\lambda Q$.
1749: Using these definitions, the estimators described in Section~3 are
1750: given by
1751: $$\eqalignno{
1752: \tilde K(t) &= {pQ\sum_{j=1}^p\Phi_j\over \sum_{j=1}^p N_j\left(\sum_{j=1}^p
1753: N_j-1\right)},\cr
1754: \hat K(t) &= \tilde K(t) - {4t\sum_{j=1}^p G_j\over \sum_{j=1}^p N_j} + 4t\cr
1755: \noalign{\hbox{and}}
1756: \Kvee(t) &= {pQ\sum_{j=1}^p\Phi_j\over \sum_{j=1}^p G_j\left(\sum_{j=1}^p
1757: G_j-1\right)}.\cr}
1758: $$
1759: Furthermore, since $\{N_j,\Phi_j,G_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is an iid trivariate
1760: sequence, we can readily derive the limiting distribution of these
1761: estimators.
1762: Specifically, if $E(N_1^4)<\infty$, then $\Phi_1$ and $G_1$ have finite
1763: second moments, so as $p\to\infty$,
1764: $$
1765: p^{1/2}\pmatrix{{1\over p}\sum_{j=1}^p N_j-\lambda Q\cr
1766: \noalign{\vskip 2pt}
1767: {1\over p}\sum_{j=1}^p \Phi_j-\lambda^2QK(t)\cr
1768: \noalign{\vskip 2pt}
1769: {1\over p}\sum_{j=1}^p G_j-\lambda Q\cr}
1770: \Larrow N(0,\Sigma),
1771: $$
1772: where $\Larrow$ indicates convergence in distribution and $\Sigma$ is
1773: the $3\times 3$ covariance matrix of $(N_1,\Phi_1,G_1)$.
1774: Using first-order Taylor series, we get $\lambda Q p^{1/2}\{\tilde K(t) -
1775: K(t)\}\Larrow N(0,\tilde V)$, $\lambda Q p^{1/2}\{\tilde K(t) - K(t)\}
1776: \Larrow N(0,\hat V)$ and $\lambda Q p^{1/2}\{\Kvee(t) - K(t)\}\Larrow N(0,
1777: \Vvee)$, where
1778: $$
1779: \tilde V = 4K(t)^2\var(N_1)
1780: +{1\over \lambda^2}\var(\Phi_1)-{4K(t)\over \lambda}\cov(N_1,\Phi_1),
1781: \eqno(\SNM CLT1/)
1782: $$
1783: $$
1784: \eqalign{
1785: \hat V &= 4\{K(t)-2t\}^2\var(N_1)
1786: +{1\over \lambda^2}\var(\Phi_1)+16t^2\var(G_1)-{4\{K(t)-2t\}\over \lambda}
1787: \cov(N_1,\Phi_1)\cr
1788: &\qquad - {8t\over \lambda}\cov(\Phi_1,G_1)+16\{K(t)-2t\}\cov(N_1,G_1)\cr}
1789: \eqno(\SNM CLT2/)
1790: $$
1791: and
1792: $$
1793: \Vvee = 4K(t)^2\var(G_1)
1794: +{1\over \lambda^2}\var(\Phi_1)-{4K(t)\over \lambda}\cov(\Phi_1,G_1).
1795: \eqno(\SNM CLT3/)
1796: $$
1797: As expected, $\Vvee = \hat V$ when $K(t)=2t$.
1798: \par
1799: To calculate the limiting behavior of these estimators
1800: for any given $\varphi$, $Q$ and law of $M_1$, we only have to compute
1801: the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ and plug the results into (\Eqn CLT1/)--(\Eqn
1802: CLT3/).
1803: In some limited cases this computation can be done analytically or
1804: more often by numerical integration; otherwise,
1805: $\Sigma$ is easily approximated by simulation whenever $M_1$ can be readily
1806: simulated.
1807: \par
1808: We now consider a simple setting in which $\Sigma$ can be explicitly
1809: derived.
1810: Suppose $M_1,M_2,\ldots$
1811: are, conditional on $\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\ldots$, independent Poisson
1812: processes with $M_j$ having intensity $\Lambda_j$, where the
1813: $\Lambda_j$s are iid positive
1814: random variables.
1815: Such a model could serve as an approximation for a Cox process
1816: (Daley and Vere-Jones 1988, Section 8.5) observed
1817: over widely spaced segments where the random intensity function
1818: $\Lambda(\cdot)$ of the process has little
1819: variation over distances of length $Q$ but the segments are sufficiently
1820: spaced so that the behavior of $\Lambda(\cdot)$ in different segments is
1821: essentially independent.
1822: \par
1823: Next, suppose $\varphi(x,y)=Q1\{|x-y|\le t\}/(Q-|x-y|)$,
1824: so that we are using the rigid motion estimator.
1825: In this case, the elements of $\Sigma$
1826: can be readily calculated in terms of the moments of $\Lambda_1$.
1827: Writing $m_j$ for $E(\Lambda_1^j)$, we have $\lambda=m_1$,
1828: $K(t)=2tm_2/m_1^2$,
1829: $$\eqalignno{
1830: \var(N_1)&= Qm_1+Q^2(m_2-m_1^2),\cr
1831: \var(\Phi_1)&= 16Q^3\gamma\left({t\over Q}\right)m_3-4Q^2\log\left(1-{t\over
1832: Q}\right)m_2+4t^2Q^2(m_4-m_2^2), \cr
1833: \var(G_1)&= {Q^3\over t^2}\gamma\left({t\over Q}\right)m_1+Q^2(m_2-m_1^2),\cr
1834: \cov(N_1,\Phi_1)&= 4tQm_2+2tQ^2(m_3-m_1m_2),\cr
1835: \cov(N_1,G_1)&=Qm_1+Q^2(m_2-m_1^2)\cr
1836: \noalign{\hbox{and}}
1837: \cov(\Phi_1,G_1)&= {4Q^3\over t}\gamma\left({t\over Q}\right)m_2
1838: +2tQ^2(m_3-m_1m_2).\cr}
1839: $$
1840: Each of these results can be obtained by conditioning on $\Lambda_1$.
1841: For example,
1842: $$\eqalignno{
1843: \var(\Phi_1) &= E\{\var(\Phi_1\mid \Lambda_1)\}+\var\{E(\Phi_1\mid
1844: \Lambda_1)\}\cr
1845: &= E\left[4\Lambda_1^3
1846: \int_0^Q\left\{\int_0^Q \varphi(x,y)dy\right\}^2\! dx
1847: +2\Lambda_1^2\int_0^Q\int_0^Q\varphi(x,y)^2dx\,dy\right]
1848: +\var(2t\Lambda_1^2Q)\cr
1849: &= 16Q^3\gamma\left({t\over Q}\right)m_3-4Q^2\log\left(1-{t\over
1850: Q}\right)m_2+4t^2Q^2(m_4-m_2^2), \cr}
1851: $$
1852: where the second step follows from (10) in Ripley (1988, p.~30) and the
1853: last step uses (17) %!!!
1854: and (18) %!!!
1855: in the appendix.
1856: \par
1857: Plugging these results into (\Eqn CLT1/)--(\Eqn CLT3/) yields
1858: $$
1859: \eqalignno{
1860: \tilde V_R &= {1\over m_1^2}\var(\Phi_1) -16t^2Q{m_2^2\over m_1^3}
1861: +16t^2Q^2 {m_2(m_2^2-m_1m_3) \over m_1^4},\cr
1862: \hat V_R &= {1\over m_1^2}\var(\Phi_1) -16t^2Q{(m_2-m_1^2)^2\over m_1^3}
1863: -16Q^3\gamma\left({t\over Q}\right)\left({2m_2\over m_1}-m_1\right)
1864: +16t^2Q^2 {m_2(m_2^2-m_1m_3)\over m_1^4}\cr
1865: \noalign{\hbox{and}}
1866: \Vvee_R &= {1\over m_1^2}\var(\Phi_1) -16Q^3\gamma\left({t\over Q}\right)
1867: {m_2^2\over m_1^3} +16t^2Q^2 {m_2(m_2^2-m_1m_3)\over m_1^4},\cr}
1868: $$
1869: where the subscript $R$ indicates that the asymptotic variance
1870: is for the appropriate version of the rigid motion estimator.
1871: Thus,
1872: $$
1873: \tilde V_R -\hat V_R= 16Q^3\left({2m_2\over m_1}-m_1\right)
1874: \left\{\gamma\left(t\over Q\right)-{t^2\over Q^2}\right\},\eqno(\SNM V1/)
1875: $$
1876: which is positive on $(0,1)$
1877: since $\gamma(s)-s^2>0$ for $s\in(0,1)$
1878: and $m_2\ge m_1^2$.
1879: Furthermore,
1880: $$
1881: \hat V_R-\Vvee_R= 16Q^3{(m_2-m_1^2)^2\over m_1^3}\left\{\gamma\left({t\over
1882: Q}\right)-{t^2\over Q^2}\right\},\eqno(\SNM V2/)
1883: $$
1884: which is positive on $(0,1)$ whenever $m_2>m_1^2$.
1885: Thus, $\hat V_R>\Vvee_R$ unless $\var\Lambda_1=0$, in which case,
1886: $m_2=m_1^2$ and $\hat V_R=\Vvee_R$.
1887: \par
1888: The arguments in this section largely carry over to estimators
1889: for the reduced second moment function of iid point processes
1890: on $\R^d$ observed over
1891: $\mathop{\cup}\limits_{j=1}^p
1892: \{A,j\}$ for some $A\subset \R^d$.
1893: In particular, (\Eqn CLT1/)--(\Eqn CLT3/) still hold if, at the appropriate
1894: places, $2t$ is replaced by $\mu_dt^d$,
1895: the volume of a ball of radius $t$ in $\R^d$.
1896: Furthermore, the comparisons between $\tilde V_R$, $\hat V_R$ and $\Vvee_R$ in
1897: (\Eqn V1/) and (\Eqn V2/) still hold after replacing $\gamma(t/Q)-t^2/Q^2$
1898: by $\int_A\big\{\int_A \varphi(x,y) dy-\mu_d t^d\big\}^2dx$.
1899: \par
1900: \beginsection {6.} {Simulation study}
1901: The asymptotic results in the preceding two sections provide only limited
1902: information about the relative advantages of the various estimators, especially
1903: for non-Poisson processes or unequal $Q_j$s.
1904: Because the estimators $\tilde K_R$, $\hat K_R$ and $\Kvee_R$ can all be
1905: explicitly calculated, it is fairly straightforward to study the behavior
1906: of these estimators via simulation.
1907: This section reports some results from a simulation study that considers
1908: equal and unequal $Q_j$s and three models for the law of the point processes.
1909: For the unequal segment length case, $p=50$ and $Q_j=0.1j$ for $j=1,\ldots,p$
1910: and for the equal segment length case, $p=50$ and each $Q_j=2.55$, so that
1911: $Q_\bu=127.5$ in both cases.
1912: The three processes reported on here are all stationary renewal processes;
1913: that is, the waiting times between consecutive events are iid random variables.
1914: In each case, the intensity of the process is 1, so that $EN_\bu=127.5$
1915: in all simulations.
1916: Stationary renewal processes are straightforward to simulate on an
1917: interval $[0,Q]$.
1918: If $F$ is the cdf (cumulative distribution function) for the waiting
1919: times and $\mu<\infty$ is the mean waiting time, then to obtain
1920: a stationary process on $[0,\infty)$, use $\mu^{-1}\int_0^x
1921: \{1-F(y)\}dy$ for the cdf of the time of the first event after 0
1922: (Daley and Vere-Jones 1988, p.~107).
1923: Simulate a random variable from this distribution; if it is greater than
1924: $Q$ then one is done and there are no events in $[0,Q]$ for this realization
1925: of the process.
1926: If not, simulate random waiting times with cdf $F$ until
1927: one gets the first event after $Q$ and use the preceding events as
1928: the realization of the process on $[0,Q]$.
1929: Here, we consider waiting time densities $f$ that are exponential with
1930: mean 1 (in which case the $M_j$s are Poisson processes),
1931: $f(x)=4xe^{-2x}$ for $x>0$
1932: (a gamma density with parameters 2 and ${1\over 2}$)
1933: and $f(x)=24/(2+x)^4$ for $x>0$.
1934: Figure~3 plots $K(t)-2t$ for renewal processes
1935: with the last two waiting time densities,
1936: which shows that the first of these corresponds to a process more
1937: regular than the Poisson and the second is more clumped than the Poisson.
1938: For the gamma waiting times, it is possible to show that for $x\ne 0$,
1939: $P\{M_1(dx)=1\mid M_1(\{0\})=1\}=1-e^{-4x}$ and hence that $K(t)=2t-{1\over 2}
1940: (1-e^{-4t})$.
1941: For the third waiting time density, we cannot give an analytic expression
1942: for $K(t)$, although Theorem~1 in Feller (1971, p.~366) implies that
1943: $K(t)-2t\to 2$ as $t\to\infty$.
1944: The values for $K(t)$ in Figure~3 for this process were obtained by simulation.
1945: Since the mean waiting times are all equal, the variances of the waiting
1946: times provide another measure of clumpiness with larger variances
1947: corresponding to a clumpier process.
1948: For the exponential
1949: waiting times, the variance is 1, for the gamma case, the variance is ${1\over 2}$
1950: and for the last case the variance is 3.
1951: \par
1952: Figures 4--6 show the results of simulations
1953: for both sets of segment lengths and all three processes.
1954: For each scenario, the three
1955: estimators were calculated at a range of distances
1956: for $10{,}000$ simulations.
1957: Generally speaking, $\hat K_R$ and $\Kvee_R$ behave similarly and
1958: are superior to $\tilde K_R$, especially at longer distances when
1959: the $Q_j$s are unequal.
1960: Figure~4 shows the mean squared errors for $\hat K_R$.
1961: In all cases, the contributions of the squared biases to the mean
1962: squared errors are practically negligible and are always less than $0.5$\%.
1963: As expected, the mean squared errors grow with $t$, especially
1964: for the unequal segment length case as $t$ gets near~5, the longest
1965: segment length available.
1966: Another expected result is that the mean squared errors increase
1967: with increasing clumpiness of the underlying process.
1968: Figure~5 compares $\tilde K_R$ and $\hat K_R$.
1969: We see that $\hat K_R$ is generally superior, although $\tilde K_R$ is sometimes
1970: slightly better for smaller $t$.
1971: The relative advantage of $\hat K_R$ (and $\Kvee_R$) over $\tilde K_R$
1972: tends to be greater for more regular processes, which qualitatively agrees
1973: with the asymptotic results in Stein (1995).
1974: The advantage also tends to be greater for unequal segment lengths,
1975: demonstrating that theoretical results obtained for equal segment lengths
1976: may not accurately reflect the differences between estimators when
1977: segment lengths are unequal.
1978: Figure~6 compares $\hat K_R$ and $\Kvee_R$.
1979: {}From the theoretical results in the previous section, we should
1980: expect these estimators to behave similarly when the waiting
1981: time density is exponential so that the underlying model
1982: is Poisson.
1983: The simulations show that the estimators also tend to behave
1984: very similarly for some non-Poisson models, especially when
1985: the segment lengths are equal.
1986: Neither estimator dominates the other, although $\Kvee$ tends to
1987: be slightly superior for $t$ nearly as large as the longest segment length.
1988: \par
1989: For highly regular processes, $\hat K_R$ can be substantially inferior
1990: to either $\tilde K_R$ or $\breve K_R$ for $t$ sufficiently small.
1991: The problem is caused by the fact that in such circumstances,
1992: having a pair of events within $t$ of each other is rare, so that
1993: $\var\{T(\varphi)\}$ is much smaller than under a Poisson model
1994: with the same intensity, whereas the variance of
1995: $$
1996: T(\varphi)-T^*(\varphi)
1997: = {2(N_\bu-1)\over Q_\bu} \sum_{j=1}^{N_\bu}\{h(X_j,L_j;\varphi)
1998: -Eh(X,L;\varphi)\}
1999: $$
2000: is not much different for a highly regular
2001: process than for a Poisson process.
2002: As a consequence, subtracting off $T(\varphi)-T^*(\varphi)$ from
2003: $T(\varphi)$ tends to inflate the variance of the estimator.
2004: As an example of a highly regular process, consider the
2005: stationary renewal
2006: process with waiting time density ${6^6\over 5!}x^5 e^{-x/6}$ for
2007: $x>0$, a gamma density with parameters $6$ and ${1\over 6}$.
2008: This waiting time distribution has mean~1 and variance ${1\over 6}$
2009: and corresponds to a highly regular point process.
2010: It is possible to show that
2011: $$
2012: K(t)=2t-{5\over 6}+{1\over 6}e^{-12t}+{1\over 3}\cos(3^{3/2}t)(e^{-9t}
2013: +e^{-3t})+{1\over 3^{1/2}}\sin(3^{3/2}t)\left({1\over 3}e^{-9t}
2014: +e^{-3t}\right)
2015: $$
2016: for this process.
2017: Figure~7 shows that $\hat K_R$ is notably inferior to either $\tilde K_R$
2018: and $\breve K_R$ for $t$ sufficiently small; for larger $t$, it is
2019: competitive with $\breve K_R$ and clearly superior to $\tilde K_R$.
2020: The overall winner is $\breve K_R$, which performs well for all $t$.
2021: \par
2022: We are unaware of any circumstances in which $\breve K_R$ performs
2023: substantially worse than either $\hat K_R$ or $\tilde K_R$.
2024: Thus, we recommend routinely using $\breve K_R$ to estimate
2025: $K$, although routine adoption for processes in more than
2026: one dimension will require the development of the necessary
2027: software.
2028: \par
2029: \beginsection {7.} {Application to absorber catalog}
2030: Figure~8 displays the estimators $\tilde K_R$, $\hat K_R$ and $\Kvee_R$
2031: as applied to the absorber catalog described in Section~2.
2032: The three estimators are very similar and, as expected, show
2033: clear evidence of clustering of absorbers.
2034: To obtain some idea about the uncertainty of these estimates,
2035: as in Quashnock and Stein (1999),
2036: approximate 95\% pointwise confidence intervals were obtained
2037: by bootstrapping using the 274 segments as the sampling units.
2038: Specifically, using the notation in Section 5,
2039: simulated absorber catalogs were produced by
2040: sampling with replacement from $(Q_j;X_{1j},\ldots,X_{N_j j})$ for
2041: $j=1,\ldots,274$, so that when one
2042: selects a segment, one automatically selects the absorber locations
2043: that go with this segment.
2044: The confidence bands displayed in Figure~8 are then what Davison and Hinkley
2045: (1997, p.~29) call the basic bootstrap confidence limits and are based
2046: on 999 simulated catalogs.
2047: All three estimators yield similar confidence intervals, which is disappointing
2048: but perhaps not unexpected given the strong clustering that exists in
2049: the absorber catalog and the finding in the simulation study that the
2050: advantage of the modifications decreases as clustering increases.
2051: For these bootstrapping intervals to
2052: be appropriate, $(Q_j;X_{1j},\ldots,X_{N_j j})$ for
2053: $j=1,\ldots,274$ should be iid random objects.
2054: Since the segments are of widely varying lengths, if the $Q_j$s are
2055: viewed as fixed, the identically distributed assumption is false.
2056: However, if we view the $Q_j$s as being a sequence of iid positive
2057: random variables that are independent of the locations of absorbers,
2058: then the identically distributed assumption may be reasonable.
2059: Whether or not the independence assumption is reasonable depends
2060: on the spatial extent of clustering among absorbers.
2061: If there is no spatial dependence in absorber locations beyond, say,
2062: 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, then the independence assumption is not seriously
2063: in error, since few pairs of segments are within this distance
2064: of each other.
2065: If, however, nonnegligible
2066: clustering exists well beyond 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, then the independence
2067: assumption is more problematic.
2068:
2069: Analyses of galaxy surveys (Davis and Peebles 1983, Loveday, et al.\
2070: 1995) show that visible matter clusters on scales
2071: of up to 20 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
2072: Thus, it is more interesting to investigate how
2073: $K(t)-2t$ changes at distances beyond 20 $h^{-1}$ Mpc than to look
2074: at $K$ itself.
2075: Figure~8 shows that $\hat K_R(t)-2t$ generally increases until about
2076: 200 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and it is important to assess the uncertainty in
2077: this pattern.
2078: Applying the bootstrapping procedure to $\tilde K_R(t)-\tilde K_R(t_0)$
2079: for $t_0=20, 50, 100$ and 150 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, Quashnock and Stein (1999)
2080: concluded that there was strong evidence for clustering from
2081: 20 to 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and from 50 to 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, but at best
2082: marginal evidence for clustering beyond 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
2083: The results with the modified
2084: estimates (not shown) confirm the clear evidence for clustering from
2085: 20 to 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and from 50 to 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
2086: Figure~9 shows the lower bounds for pointwise 95\% confidence intervals
2087: for $K(t)-K(100)-2(t-100)$.
2088: The modified estimators yield slightly stronger evidence of clustering
2089: beyond 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc, which is mostly due to the fact that the
2090: modified estimates of $K(t)-K(100)-2(t-100)$ are slightly larger
2091: than the unmodified estimates for $t$ around 200 and not because
2092: the modified intervals are narrower.
2093: If one used 99\% pointwise confidence intervals in Figure~9, then
2094: for all $t>100$ and all three estimators, the lower confidence
2095: bounds are negative.
2096: Thus, the conclusion in Quashnock and Stein (1999) that there is
2097: perhaps marginal evidence for clustering beyond 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc is
2098: not altered by using the modified estimators.
2099: \par
2100: As discussed in Section 2, the broad range of redshifts in the absorber
2101: catalog implies that we are looking at the universe at a broad range
2102: of times.
2103: The use of comoving units largely equalizes the intensity of absorbers
2104: across redshifts, but it does not equalize the clustering.
2105: Indeed, by dividing the absorber catalog into groups based on their
2106: redshift, Quashnock and Vanden Berk (1998) found evidence that as redshift
2107: decreases, clustering on the scales of 1 to 16 $h^{-1}$ Mpc
2108: strongly increases across the range of redshifts in the absorber
2109: catalog.
2110: Quashnock and Vanden Berk (1998) further note that this
2111: increase in clustering with decreasing redshift is
2112: consistent with what is known through theory and simulations about
2113: how gravity should affect the evolution of the clustering of
2114: absorbers over time.
2115: Using the various forms of the rigid motion estimator of $K$ described
2116: here on groups of the absorber catalog with similar redshifts, we also find
2117: that on the scale of a few tens of $h^{-1}$ Mpc,
2118: clustering increases substantially with decreasing redshift
2119: over the range of redshifts in the absorber catalog (results not
2120: shown).
2121: Thus, on these shorter scales,
2122: our estimates of $K$ measure an average clustering
2123: over the range of redshifts in the absorber catalog.
2124: \par
2125: In contrast,
2126: Quashnock, Vanden Berk and York (1996) found no evidence that
2127: clustering at scales of 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc changes over the redshift
2128: range in the absorber catalog.
2129: Similarly, when looking at, say, $\breve K_R(t)-\breve K_R(100)$
2130: for $t>100$ based on higher and lower redshift parts of the catalog,
2131: we find no systematic difference in the estimates as a function
2132: of redshift.
2133: For example, dividing the 274 segments in the catalog into two groups
2134: of size 137 based on redshift, $\breve K_R(150)-\breve K_R(100)$
2135: equals 150.8 for the lower redshift group and 151.4 for the higher
2136: redshift group.
2137: Thus, we do not believe that the modest evidence we find for clustering
2138: at these larger scales is due to
2139: inhomogeneities across time in the distribution of absorbers.
2140: \par
2141: \beginsection {8.} {Summary}
2142: For studying the behavior of edge-corrected estimators of the $K$ function
2143: of a point process, taking the observation domain to be a sequence
2144: of segments has a number of desirable consequences.
2145: First, explicit expressions are available for a number
2146: of the more popular estimators, which is often not the case for regions
2147: in more than one dimension.
2148: The availability of such explicit expressions eases the study of the
2149: properties of these estimators via both theory and simulation.
2150: In addition, studying settings in which the number of segments is
2151: large yields results that highlight the differences between the
2152: various methods of edge-correction.
2153: In particular, simulation results show that
2154: allowing the segment lengths to vary generally
2155: increases the differences between estimators.
2156: The overall conclusion about the merits of the various estimators
2157: is that $\breve K_R$, a modification of the rigid motion estimator
2158: based on an approach suggested by Picka (1996), is
2159: the estimator of choice.
2160: \par
2161: The absorber catalog studied here shows that multiple windows of
2162: varying size can arise in practice.
2163: Although it is somewhat disappointing that the bootstrap confidence
2164: intervals for the ordinary rigid motion corrected estimator and its
2165: modifications are very similar, this result is not too surprising
2166: in light of the simulation results showing that the benefit of
2167: the modifications is smaller for clustered processes.
2168: The simulation results indicate that the modified estimators
2169: can have substantially smaller mean squared errors for Poisson
2170: or more regular processes, especially if the segment lengths
2171: vary substantially.
2172: \par
2173: \beginsection {Appendix.} {Proofs}
2174: We first derive (\Eqn 2/) assuming, for convenience,
2175: the $Q_j$s have been arranged
2176: in increasing order. We have
2177: $$\eqalignno{
2178: {1\over Q_\bu}h(x,\ell;\varphi^R)
2179: &= {1\over Q_\sbullet}\sum_{j=1}^p\int_0^{Q_j}\varphi^R
2180: \big((x,\ell),(y,j)\big)dy\cr
2181: &= \int_0^{Q_\ell} {1\{|x-y|\le t\} \over U(|x-y|)}\,
2182: dy\cr
2183: &= \int_0^x {1\{|x-y|\le t\} \over U(|x-y|)}\,
2184: dy + \int_x^{Q_\ell} {1\{|x-y|\le t\} \over
2185: U(|x-y|)}\, dy\cr
2186: &= \int_0^x {1\{|x-y|\le t\} \over U(|x-y|)}\,
2187: dy + \int_0^{Q_\ell-x} {1\{|Q_\ell-x-y|\le t\} \over
2188: U(|Q_\ell-x-y|)}\, dy.\cr}
2189: $$
2190: Thus, to verify (\Eqn 2/), we need to show that
2191: $$
2192: \kappa(x,t)= \int_0^x {1\{|x-y|\le t\} \over U(|x-y|)}\, dy.
2193: $$
2194: Now
2195: $$
2196: \eqalignno{
2197: \int_0^x {1\{|x-y|\le t\} \over U(|x-y|)}\, dy
2198: &= \int_{(x-t)^+}^x {dy \over U(x-y)} \cr
2199: &= \sum_{k=1}^{j(x\land t)-1}\int_{x-Q_k}^{x-Q_{k-1}}
2200: {dy \over \sum_{j=k}^p (Q_j-x+y)} \cr
2201: &\qquad + \int_{(x-t)^+}^{x-Q_{j(x\land t)-1}}
2202: {dy \over \sum_{j=j(x\land t)}^p
2203: (Q_j-x+y)},\cr}
2204: $$
2205: which equals $\kappa(x,t)$ by calculus.
2206: \par
2207: We next derive $S_2(\varphi^R)$, again assuming the $Q_j$s have been arranged
2208: in increasing order.
2209: By the symmetry of $\varphi^R$,
2210: $$
2211: S_2(\varphi^R)=2Q_\sbullet^2\sum_{j=1}^p
2212: \int_0^{Q_j}\int_0^x {1\{x-y\le t\}\over
2213: U(x-y)^2}\, dy\,dx,
2214: $$
2215: so taking $v=x-y$ and then switching the order of integration yields
2216: $$\eqalignno{
2217: {S_2(\varphi^R)\over 2Q_\sbullet^2}
2218: &= \sum_{j=1}^p \int_0^{Q_j} \int_0^{x\land t}
2219: {1\over U(v)^2}\, dv\, dx\cr
2220: &= \sum_{j=1}^p \int_0^{Q_j\land t} {Q_j-v\over U(v)^2}
2221: \,dv\cr
2222: &= \sum_{j=1}^p \sum_{\ell=1}^{j\land \{j(t)-1\}}
2223: \int_{Q_{\ell-1}}^{Q_\ell} {Q_j-v\over \left\{\sum_{k=\ell}^p
2224: (Q_k-v)\right\}^2}\, dv
2225: + \sum_{j=j(t)}^p \int_{Q_{j(t)-1}}^t {Q_j-v\over
2226: \big\{\sum_{k=j(t)}^p (Q_k-v)\big\}^2}\, dv\cr
2227: &= \sum_{j=1}^p \sum_{\ell=1}^{j\land \{j(t)-1\}}
2228: \left\{ {Q_j-Q_\ell\over (p-\ell+1)U_\ell} - {Q_j-Q_{\ell-1}\over
2229: (p-\ell+1)U_{\ell-1}} - {1\over (p-\ell+1)^2}\log\left(
2230: {U_\ell\over U_{\ell-1}}\right)\right\}\cr
2231: &\qquad + \sum_{j=j(t)}^p
2232: \left[ {Q_j-t\over \{p-j(t)+1\}U(t)} - {Q_j-Q_{j(t)-1}\over
2233: \{p-j(t)+1\}U_{j(t)-1}} - {1\over \{p-j(t)+1\}^2}\log\left\{
2234: {U(t)\over U_{j(t)-1}}\right\}\right].\cr
2235: }
2236: $$
2237: Using the definition of $U(t)$, the second sum simplifies to
2238: $\{p-j(t)+1\}^{-1}\log\{U_{j(t)-1}/U(t)\}$ and by switching
2239: the order of summation and using the definition of $U_\ell$,
2240: the first sum equals
2241: $$
2242: \eqalignno{
2243: & \sum_{\ell=1}^{j(t)-1}\sum_{j=\ell}^p
2244: \left\{ {Q_j-Q_\ell\over (p-\ell+1)U_\ell} - {Q_j-Q_{\ell-1}\over
2245: (p-\ell+1)U_{\ell-1}} + {1\over (p-\ell+1)^2}\log\left(
2246: {U_{\ell-1}\over U_{\ell}}\right)\right\}\cr
2247: & \quad =
2248: \sum_{\ell=1}^{j(t)-1} \left\{
2249: {U_\ell\over (p-\ell+1)U_\ell}
2250: - {U_{\ell-1}\over(p-\ell+1)U_{\ell-1}} +{1\over p-\ell+1}
2251: \log\left({U_{\ell-1}\over U_{\ell}}\right)\right\}\cr
2252: & \quad = \sum_{\ell=1}^{j(t)-1} {1\over
2253: p-\ell+1}\log\left({U_{\ell-1}\over U_{\ell}}\right).\cr
2254: }
2255: $$
2256: Thus,
2257: $$
2258: S_2(\varphi^R)= 2Q_\sbullet^2 \sum_{\ell=1}^{j(t)-1} {1\over
2259: p-\ell+1}\log\left({U_{\ell-1}\over U_{\ell}}\right)
2260: + {2Q_\sbullet^2 \over p-j(t)+1}
2261: \log\left\{{U_{j(t)-1}\over U(t)}\right\}.
2262: $$
2263: If $Q_1=\cdots=Q_p=Q$, then for $t<Q$, $j(t)=1$, so
2264: $$
2265: S_2(\varphi^R)=-2pQ^2\log\left(1-{t\over Q}\right).\eqno(\SNM 6/)
2266: $$
2267: \par
2268: Calculating $S_1(\varphi^R)$ is more difficult and we only
2269: give the special case $Q_1=\cdots=Q_p=Q$.
2270: Setting $s=t/Q$, we then have
2271: $$
2272: S_1(\varphi^R) = p \int_0^Q\left\{\int_0^Q
2273: {Q1\{|x-y|\le t\}\over Q-|x-y|}dy\right\}^2\! dx
2274: = 4pQ^3\gamma(s),\eqno(\SNM S1.form/)
2275: $$
2276: where $\gamma$ is defined in (\Eqn gamma.def/).
2277: To evaluate $\gamma$, write
2278: $$\eqalignno{
2279: \gamma(s) & = {1\over 2}\int_0^1\left[\int_0^x {1\{x-y\le s\}\over 1-x+y}
2280: \,dy\right]^2 dx\cr
2281: &\qquad +{1\over 2}\int_0^1\left[\int_0^x {1\{x-y\le s\}\over 1-x+y}\,dy\right]
2282: \left[\int_x^1 {1\{z-x\le s\}\over 1-z+x}\,dz\right]dx \cr
2283: &= {1\over 2}\int_0^1\log^2\{ 1-(x\land s)\}\,dx
2284: +{1\over 2}\int_0^1\log\{ 1-(x\land s)\}
2285: \log\{ (1-s)\lor x\}\,dx.\cr}
2286: $$
2287: Now
2288: $$
2289: \int_0^1\log^2\{ 1-(x\land s)\}dx=
2290: 2s+2(1-s) \log (1-s)
2291: $$
2292: and for $s\le{1\over 2}$,
2293: $$
2294: \int_0^1\log\{ 1-(x\land s)\}
2295: \log\{ (1-s)\lor x\}dx
2296: = -\log^2(1-s)-2s\log(1-s)
2297: $$
2298: whereas for $s>{1\over 2}$,
2299: $$
2300: \eqalignno{
2301: &\int_0^1\log\{ 1-(x\land s)\}
2302: \log\{ (1-s)\lor x\}\,dx\cr
2303: &\quad = -2(1-s)\log(1-s)
2304: -2s \log s \log (1-s) + \int_{1-s}^s \log(1-y)\log y\, dy.\cr}
2305: $$
2306: Hence,
2307: $$\eqalignno{
2308: \gamma(s)=
2309: s & +(1-2s)^+\log(1-s) -1\left\{s\le {1\over 2}\right\}{1\over 2}
2310: \log^2(1-s)\cr
2311: & -1\left\{s>{1\over 2}\right\}s\log s\log(1-s)
2312: +\int_0^{(s-1/2)^+}\log\left({1\over 2} -y
2313: \right)\log\left({1\over 2}+y\right)dy. &(\SNM gamma/) \cr}
2314: $$
2315: \par
2316: Let us next consider computing $S_2(\varphi^I)$.
2317: Defining $R(v)=Q_\sbullet-\sum_{j=1}^p(2v-Q_j)^+$, then for $y<x<Q_\ell$
2318: we have
2319: $$
2320: \varphi^I\big((x,\ell),(y,m)\big)= {1\{x-y\le t,\ell=m\}Q_\sbullet\over
2321: R(x-y)}\left[{1\over 1+ 1\{2x-y<Q_\ell\}} + {1\over 1+ 1\{2y-x>0\}}
2322: \right].
2323: $$
2324: Thus, taking $v=x-y$,
2325: $$
2326: \eqalignno{
2327: {S_2(\varphi^I)\over 2Q_\sbullet^2} &= \sum_{\ell=1}^p \int_0^{Q_\ell}
2328: \!\int_0^x {1\{x-y\le t\}\over R(x-y)^2}
2329: \left[{1\over 1+ 1\{2x-y<Q_\ell\}} + {1\over 1+ 1\{2y-x>0\}}
2330: \right]^2 dy\, dx\cr
2331: &= \sum_{\ell=1}^p \int_0^{Q_\ell}\! \int_0^{x\land t} {1\over R(v)^2}
2332: \left[{1\over 1+ 1\{x+v<Q_\ell\}} + {1\over 1+ 1\{x>2v\}}
2333: \right]^2 dv\, dx\cr
2334: &= \sum_{\ell=1}^p \int_0^{t\land Q_\ell}{1\over R(v)^2}\int_v^{Q_\ell}
2335: \left[{1\over 1+ 1\{x+v<Q_\ell\}} + {1\over 1+ 1\{x>2v\}}
2336: \right]^2 dx\, dv.\cr}
2337: $$
2338: Now $[1+ 1\{x+v<Q_\ell\}]^{-1}+ [ 1+ 1\{x>2v\}]^{-1}$
2339: takes on values $2$, ${3\over 2}$ and 1 depending on,
2340: respectively, whether none, one or both of
2341: $x+v<Q_\ell$ and $x>2v$ are true.
2342: Thus,
2343: $$
2344: \eqalignno{
2345: {S_2(\varphi^I)\over 2Q_\sbullet^2} &=
2346: \sum_{\ell=1}^p\left\{\int_0^{t\land {1\over 3}Q_\ell}
2347: {{9\over 4}2v+ 1(Q_\ell-3v)\over R(v)^2}\,dv\right.\cr
2348: &\quad\qquad\left. +\int_{t\land {1\over 3}Q_\ell}^{t\land{1\over 2}Q_\ell}
2349: {{9\over 4}(2Q_\ell-4v)+ 4(3v-Q_\ell)\over R(v)^2}\,dv
2350: +\int_{t\land {1\over 2}Q_\ell}^{t\land Q_\ell}
2351: {4(Q_\ell-v)\over R(v)^2}\,dv\right\}\cr
2352: &= \sum_{\ell=1}^p\left\{\int_0^{t\land {1\over 3}Q_\ell} {Q_\ell+
2353: {3\over 2}v\over
2354: R(v)^2}\,dv + \int_{t\land {1\over 3}Q_\ell}^{t\land{1\over 2}Q_\ell}
2355: {{1\over 2}Q_\ell+3v\over R(v)^2}\,dv + \int_{t\land {1\over
2356: 2}Q_\ell}^{t\land Q_\ell}{4(Q_\ell-v)\over R(v)^2}\,dv\right\}.\cr}
2357: $$
2358: \par
2359: While it is possible to evaluate these integrals explicitly, the
2360: resulting expressions do not appear to simplify as in the case for
2361: the rigid motion estimator.
2362: When $Q_1=\cdots=Q_p=Q$, we do obtain a fairly simple
2363: explicit result.
2364: By taking $u=v/Q$, we get
2365: $$
2366: \eqalignno{
2367: S_2(\varphi^I) &=2pQ^2\left[ \int_0^{s\land{1\over 3}}
2368: {1+{3\over 2}u\over\{1-(2u-1)^+\}^2}\, du +\int_{s\land {1\over 3}}^{s
2369: \land{1\over 2}}{{1\over 2}+3u\over\{1-(2u-1)^+\}^2}\, du\right.\cr
2370: &\left.\qquad\qquad + \int_{s\land{1\over 2}}^s {4-4u\over
2371: \{1-(2u-1)^+\}^2}\, du\right]\cr
2372: &=2pQ^2\left\{ \int_0^{s\land {1\over 3}}
2373: (1+{3\over 2}u)\, du+ \int_{s\land {1\over 3}}^{s\land{1\over
2374: 2}}\left({1\over 2}+3u\right) du
2375: + \int_{s\land{1\over 2}}^s {1\over 1-u}\, du
2376: \right\},\cr
2377: }$$
2378: so that for $s=t/Q<1$,
2379: $$
2380: S_2(\varphi^I)= 2pQ^2\times \cases
2381: { s +{3\over 4}s^2 & if $0<s\le {1\over 3}$,\cr
2382: {1\over 12}+ {1\over 2}s+ {3\over
2383: 2}s^2& if ${1\over 3}\le s\le {1\over 2}$ and\cr
2384: {17\over 24} - \log 2 -\log(1-s)&
2385: if ${1\over 2}\le s<1$.\cr}\eqno(\SNM 8/)
2386: $$
2387: \par
2388: \beginsection {References}
2389: \beginref
2390: Baddeley, A. (1998). Spatial sampling and censoring.
2391: In {\it Stochastic Geometry: Likelihood and Computation\/}
2392: (O.\ E.\ Barndorff-Nielsen, W.\ S.\ Kendall and
2393: M.\ N.\ M.\ van Lieshout, eds.) Chapter 2.
2394: Chapman and Hall, London.
2395:
2396: Baddeley, A.\ and Gill, R.\ D. (1997). Kaplan-Meier estimators of
2397: distance
2398: distributions for spatial point processes. {\it Ann.\ Statist.\/}
2399: {\bf 25} 263--292.
2400:
2401: Baddeley, A.\ J., Moyeed, R.\ A., Howard, C.\ V.\ and Boyde, A. (1993).
2402: Analysis of a three-dimensional point pattern with replication.
2403: {\it Appl.\ Statist.\/} {\bf 42} 641--668.
2404:
2405: Coleman, P.\ H.\ and Pietronero, L. (1992). The fractal structure
2406: of the universe. {\it Phys.\ Reports\/} {\bf 213} 311--389.
2407:
2408: Crotts, A.\ P.\ S., Melott, A.\ L.\ and York, D.\ G. (1985).
2409: QSO metal-line absorbers: the key to large-scale structure?
2410: {\it Phys.\ Letters B\/} {\bf 155B} 251--254.
2411:
2412: Daley, D.\ J.\ and Vere-Jones, D. (1988). {\it An Introduction to the
2413: Theory of Point Processes.\/} Springer-Verlag, New York.
2414:
2415: Davis, M.\ and Peebles, P.~J.~E. (1983). A survey of galaxy redshifts.
2416: V. The two-point position and velocity correlations.
2417: {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 267} 465--482.
2418:
2419: Davison, A.\ C.\ and Hinkley, D.\ V. (1997). {\it Bootstrap Methods
2420: and Their Application.\/} Cambridge University Press.
2421:
2422: Feller, W. (1971). {\it An Introduction to Probability Theory and
2423: Its Applications\/}, vol.~II. Wiley, New York.
2424:
2425: Hamilton, A.\ J.\ S. (1993). Toward better ways to measure the galaxy
2426: correlation function. {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 417} 19--35.
2427:
2428: Jing, Y.~P.\ and Suto, Y. (1998). Confronting cold dark matter cosmologies
2429: with strong clustering of Lyman break galaxies at $z\sim 3$.
2430: {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 494} L5--L8.
2431:
2432: Landy, S.\ L.\ and Szalay, A.\ S. (1993). Bias and variance of
2433: angular correlation functions. {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 412} 64--71.
2434:
2435: Lanzetta, K.~M., Bowen, D.~B., Tytler. D.\ and Webb, J.~K. (1995).
2436: The gaseous extent of galaxies and the origin of Lyman-alpha absorption
2437: systems: A survey of galaxies in the fields of
2438: Hubble Space Telescope spectroscopic target QSOs.
2439: {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 442} 538--568.
2440:
2441: Loveday, J., Maddox, S.~J., Efstathiou, G.\ and Peterson, B.~A. (1995).
2442: The Stromlo-APM redshift survey. II. Variation of galaxy clustering with
2443: morphology and luminosity. {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 442} 457--468.
2444:
2445: Margon, B. (1999). The Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
2446: {\it Phil.\ Trans.\ R.\ Soc.\ Lond.\ A\/} {\bf 357} 93-103.
2447:
2448: Mart\'{\i}nez, V.\ J. (1997). Recent advances in large-scale structure
2449: statistics. In {\it Statistical Challenges in Modern Astronomy II\/}
2450: (G.\ J.\ Babu and E.\ D.\ Feigelson, eds.) 153--166. Springer, New
2451: York.
2452:
2453: Ohser, J. (1983). On estimators for the reduced second moment measure of
2454: point processes. {\it Math.\ Oper.\ Statist.\ ser Statist.\/} {\bf 14}
2455: 63--71.
2456:
2457: Ohser, J.\ and Stoyan, D. (1981). On the second-order and
2458: orientation analysis of planar stationary point processes.
2459: {\it Biom.\ J.\/} {\bf 23} 523--533.
2460:
2461: Peebles, P.\ J.\ E. (1993). {\it Principles of Physical Cosmology\/}.
2462: Princeton University Press.
2463:
2464: Picka, J. (1996). Variance-reducing modifications for estimators of
2465: dependence in random sets. Ph.\ D.\ dissertation, Department of Statistics,
2466: University of Chicago.
2467:
2468: Pons-Border\'{\i}a, M.-J., Mart\'{\i}nez, V.\ J., Stoyan, D., Stoyan, H.
2469: and Saar, E. (1999). Comparing estimators of the galaxy correlation
2470: function. {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 523} 480--491.
2471:
2472: Quashnock, J.\ M.\ and Stein, M.\ L. (1999).
2473: A measure of clustering of QSO heavy-element absorption-line systems.
2474: {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 515} 506--511.
2475:
2476: Quashnock, J.\ M.\ and Vanden Berk, D.\ E. (1998). The form and
2477: evolution of the clustering of QSO heavy-element absorption-line
2478: systems. {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 500} 28--36.
2479:
2480: Quashnock, J.\ M., Vanden Berk, D.\ E.\ and York, D.\ G. (1996).
2481: High-redshift superclustering of quasi-stellar object absorption-line
2482: systems on 100 $h^{-1}$ Mpc scales.
2483: {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 472} L69-L72.
2484:
2485: Ripley, B.\ D. (1988). {\it Statistical Inference for Spatial
2486: Processes.\/} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2487:
2488: Steidel, C.~C., Adelberger, K.~L., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M. Pettini,
2489: M.\ and Kellogg, M. (1998).
2490: A large structure of galaxies at redshift $z\sim 3$ and its cosmological
2491: implications.
2492: {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 492} 428--438.
2493:
2494: Stein, M.\ L. (1993). Asymptotically optimal estimation for the reduced
2495: second moment measure of point processes. {\it Biometrika\/} {\bf 80}
2496: 443--449.
2497:
2498: Stein, M.\ L. (1995). An approach to asymptotic inference for spatial
2499: point processes. {\it Statist.\ Sinica\/} {\bf 5} 221--234.
2500:
2501: Stoyan, D.\ and Stoyan, H. (2000). Improving ratio estimators
2502: of second order point process characteristics. {\it Scand.\ J.\ Statist.\/} in
2503: press.
2504:
2505: Sylos Labini, F., Montuori, M.\ and Pietronero, L. (1998).
2506: Scale-invariance of galaxy clustering.
2507: {\it Phys.\ Reports\/} {\bf 293} 61--226.
2508:
2509: Vanden Berk, D.\ E., Quashnock, J.\ M., York, D.\ G., Yanny, B. (1996).
2510: An excess of C~\IV absorbers in luminous quasars: evidence for
2511: gravitational lensing? {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 469} 78--83.
2512:
2513: York, D.~G., Yanny, B., Crotts, A., Carilli, C., Garrison, E.\ and
2514: Matheson, L. (1991).
2515: An inhomogeneous reference catalogue of identified intervening heavy element
2516: systems in spectra of QSOs.
2517: {\it Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\/} {\bf 250} 24--49.
2518:
2519: Zhang, Y., Meiksin, A., Anninos, P.\ and Norman, M.~L. (1998).
2520: Physical properties of the Ly$\alpha$ forest in cold dark matter
2521: cosmology. {\it Astrophys.\ J.\/} {\bf 495} 63--79.
2522:
2523: \endref
2524: \par
2525:
2526: \vfill\eject
2527: \epsfbox{fig1.eps}
2528:
2529: \vfill\eject
2530: \epsfbox{fig2.eps}
2531:
2532: \vfill\eject
2533: \epsfbox{fig3.eps}
2534:
2535: \vfill\eject
2536: \epsfbox{fig4.eps}
2537:
2538: \vfill\eject
2539: \epsfbox{fig5.eps}
2540:
2541: \vfill\eject
2542: \epsfbox{fig6.eps}
2543:
2544: \vfill\eject
2545: \epsfbox{fig7.eps}
2546:
2547: \vfill\eject
2548: \epsfbox{fig8.eps}
2549:
2550: \vfill\eject
2551: \epsfbox{fig9.eps}
2552:
2553: \bye
2554:
2555: