9

In a paper I'm trying to understand, the following time series is generated as "simulated data":

$$Y(i)=\sum_{j=1}^{1000+i}Z(j) \:\:\: ; \:\:\: (i=1,2,\ldots,N)$$

where $Z(j)$ is a Gaussian noise with mean $0$ and standard deviation $1$.

The paper is about estimating the fractal dimension of $Y$ (not to mention some other series). The author says that the fractal dimension of $Y$ is $1.5$, but doesn't explain why.

My first question is why should we expect the fractal dimension of $Y$ to be $1.5$?

My second question is: can anyone think of a reason why I keep getting a fractal dimension of about $2$ for $Y$, when using the technique described in the paper?

That technique, summarized, is:

1) Create a new set of time series based on the original $Y$ as follows:

$$X^m_k=Y(m),Y(m+k),Y(m+2k),\ldots,Y\left(m+\left \lfloor \frac{N-m}{k}\right \rfloor k\right) \:\:\:\: ; \:\:\:\: (m=1,2,\ldots,k)$$

where the notation $\left \lfloor \right \rfloor$ denotes the floor function, and $k=1,2,3,4,\ldots$. But for $k>4$, $k=\lfloor 2^{(j-1)/4} \rfloor$ where $j=11,12,13,\ldots$

2) Define and calculate the "length" of each "curve" $X^m_k$ as follows:

$$L_m(k)=\frac{1}{k} \frac{N-1}{Qk} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{Q} \left | X(m+ik)-X(m+(i-1)k) \right | \right)$$

where $Q=\left \lfloor\frac{N-m}{k} \right \rfloor$

3) For each $k$, define the average $L_m(k)$ (averaged over $m$) as $y(k)=\langle L_m(k) \rangle$, and then scatter plot $\ln(y(k))$ against $\ln(k)$ and fit a line via least squares. The line should be straight. And the slope of the line should be about $-1.5$, the negative of which is then interpreted as an estimation of the fractal dimension.

When I follow these steps, I get a straight line, but slope of $-2$.

The paper is Higuchi. 1988. "Approach to an irregular time series on basis of fractal dimension."

EDIT: Did has given an answer which I originally accepted, but then un-accepted. I un-accepted the answer because I do not completely follow the steps in his proof, especially the last step; and because it is well known within fractal dimension theory that any space filling curve should have a fractal dimension close to 2. Gaussian noise (a.k.a. white noise), is space filling, and my code gives me the slope of -2. I include my matlab code below. Appreciate if anyone can point out an error in the logic, but as far as I can tell it is exactly the algorithm described by Higuchi, and frankly it has been working quite well for me. For eg., it gives sensible results for so-called "Brown(ian)" noise (FD=1.5), which is halfway between the total randomness of white noise and the total determinism of a sine wave.

function [fractdim]=FractDim(Data,jstart,jend)

kvec=[1:4 floor(2.^([jstart:jend]./4))];
indkend=length(kvec);
%--------
% Fractal Dimension
for indk=1:indkend
    k=kvec(indk);
    for m=1:k
        Xend=floor((N-m)/k);
        Xsum=sum(abs(X(m+[1:Xend]*k)-[0; X(m+[1:Xend-1]*k)]));
        Lmk(m)=1/k*1/k*(N-1)/Xend*Xsum;
    end
    AvgLmk(indk)=mean(Lmk);
    Lmk=[];
end
%--------
x=log(kvec);y=log(AvgLmk);
p=polyfit(x,y,1);m=p(1);b=p(2);
fractdim=-m;
Did
  • 284,245
ben
  • 2,185
  • Is there suddenly a problem with my answer, explaining that you (silently) unaccept it? – Did Mar 05 '14 at 22:07
  • @Did Yes. Thanks again for that answer, which is instructive in and of itself. However, recently I have had occasion to revisit this matter in light of new readings and must reconsider its acceptance. It is fractal Brownian noise (a.k.a. red noise) which should have a FD of 1.5. The term "Gaussian noise," which I used to think referred exclusively to white noise, can also refer to fBn. Even so, the noise formula $Y(i)$ Higuchi gives yields an FD of 2, not 1.5. This is confirmed by plotting the periodogram and seeing that it is flat (i.e. power law index a=0). – ben Mar 06 '14 at 04:01
  • Which part of the argument in this answer do you have trouble with? – Did Mar 06 '14 at 06:27
  • @Did Your answer asserts that the series $Y$ has FD=1.5 when in fact it has FD=2.0. – ben Mar 06 '14 at 12:14
  • No my answer does not "assert" that, it proves it. You, on the contrary, are invoking results which might or might not correspoond to the setting you described in your question. Please refer to what is written in my answer (did you actually read it?) to mention its specific faulty steps, if any. – Did Mar 06 '14 at 16:02
  • @Did Look, just generate the series $Y(i)$ as defined by Higuchi, do a fourier transformation, plot the periodogram, and you will see that its power law index is 0, which corresponds to white noise and a FD of 2. There's no arguing this. So, whatever you have proven, it is not that the series $Y(i)$ has an FD of 1.5. – ben Mar 09 '14 at 01:15
  • Carefully avoiding the (very simple) mathematical proof in my answer. This could go on forever... – Did Mar 09 '14 at 06:29
  • I think I had forgotten the user's bad manners. Still no valid explanations after all this time... – Did Nov 04 '15 at 22:20
  • @Did See the edit. I have included my code. I appreciate it if you can point out where my code has an error, or where it is different from Higuchi's algorithm. – ben Nov 05 '15 at 01:22
  • "I do not completely follow the steps in his proof, especially the last step" OK, care to be more specific (as is the usual approach on a maths website)? Oops, it seems I just repeated my comment from Mar 6 '14 at 6:27... (By the way, I removed a ludicrous mention in your Edit, which was again showing you do not understand the way the site works.) – Did Nov 05 '15 at 06:26
  • Regarding your code, I did not touch it (and I would not now, even with a long pole) but it seems another user addressed this aspect of your problem 9 months ago. Reacting to their answer would be a good idea, unless you insist on being as uncivil to them than you are to me. – Did Nov 05 '15 at 06:28
  • @Did A moderator has already responded to the non-answer you refer to. As for being more specific, please edit your answer to cite a reference for the first step in your proof, or derive it yourself. You state this step as though it were common knowledge, which perhaps it is for you and your peers, but it is unfamiliar to me. – ben Nov 05 '15 at 22:15
  • Not a mod. Yes the first step is trivial, and your bad manners prevent me to add a reference for it. – Did Nov 05 '15 at 22:19
  • @Did I'm trying to work with you here Did. First you complain that I do not include my calculations, then insult me when I do provide my code. You complain that I do not ask for specific clarification of your answer, and then when I do ask for such clarification you sneer at me again. If this ridiculous back and forth weren't so amusing I would be offended. Let me know if there's something I can do to make you happy. – ben Nov 05 '15 at 23:38
  • There is a confusion here: I am neither asking anything nor complaining about anything, you are the one asking. – Did Nov 05 '15 at 23:53

3 Answers3

1

T. Higuchi, Approach to an irregular time series on basis of fractal dimension, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 31, Issue 2, June 1988, Pages 277–283.

My second question is: can anyone think of a reason why I keep getting a fractal dimension of about 2 for Y, when using the technique described in the paper?

This question is difficult to answer since you do not show your computations but $D=\frac32$.

To show this, note that for every process with stationary increments such as $(Y(i))_i$, $$ \mathbb E(L(k))=\frac1k\frac{N-1}{Qk}Q\,\mathbb E(|Y(k)-Y(0)|), $$ and that in the present case $\mathbb E(|Y(k)-Y(0)|)=\sqrt{k}\,\mathbb E(|Z|)$ since $Y(k)-Y(0)$ is the sum of $k$ i.i.d. standard normal random variables hence equals $\sqrt{k}|Z|$ in distribution with $Z$ standard normal. Thus, $D=\frac32$ since $$ \mathbb E(L(k))=\frac{N-1}{k\sqrt{k}}\,\mathbb E(|Z|). $$ The same computation yields $D=2$ when $(Y(i))_i$ is i.i.d. and $D=1$ when $(Y(i))_i$ is regular, say $Y(i)=Y(0)+iT$ for some integrable random variable $T$.

Did
  • 284,245
0

I've repeated Higuchi calculations and got precisely the same answer as he promised D=-1.5143. Pay close attention to the number of times he divides the series length Lmk by k. That was my mistake for the first time, when I've lost the final averaging between the set of k series and we moved from Lkm to <Lkm>. Here the pointy brackets stands for additional averaging.

And if you want to know "why?" ... I think it does not matter here. As far as I understand you, you are frustrated that your code isn't working ))

0

Concerning your second question, in Higuchi's paper Y(i) is Brownian motion generated by integrating over a N = 2^17 + 1000 length Gaussian noise signal Z(j) such that

Y(1) = sum(Z(1:1001))

and

Y(end) = sum(Z(1:end)).

If you used a for loop to generate Y(i), and were (accidentally) recreating Z each loop, you would end up calculating a FD of ~2 for Y.

Jack
  • 1