1: \documentclass{article}
2: %\documentclass[showpacs,showkeys,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Multifractality in the Random Parameters Model}
9: \author{Camilo Rodrigues Neto\footnote{camiloneto@usp.br} and
10: Andr\' e C.R. Martins\footnote{amartins@usp.br} \\
11: \\GRIFE -- Escola de Arte, Ci\^encias e Humanidades,\\
12: Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, Av. Arlindo Bettio 1000, \\03828-000 S\~ao
13: Paulo, Brazil}
14:
15: \maketitle
16:
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19:
20: The Random Parameters model was proposed to explain the structure of the covariance
21: matrix in problems where most, but not all, of the eigenvalues of the covariance
22: matrix can be explained by Random Matrix Theory. In this article, we explore other
23: properties of the model, like the scaling of its PDF as one take larger scales.
24: Special attention is given to the multifractal structure of the model time series,
25: which revealed a scaling structure compatible with the known stylized facts for a reasonable
26: choice of the parameter values.
27:
28: \end{abstract}
29: %\pacs{}
30: %\keywords{Correlation Matrix; Multifractality; Random Matrix Theory; Time Series}
31:
32:
33:
34: \section{Introduction}
35:
36: The problem of determining the correct structure of the correlation
37: matrix is an important one in several different applications. In order
38: to explain that structure of the correlations in different problems,
39: Random Matrix Theory (RMT)~\cite{wigner, mehta} has been used in many
40: areas, such as magnetic resonance images~\cite{sengupta},
41: meteorology~\cite{santhanam}, and financial time
42: series~\cite{laloux99, plerou99}. This suggests that much of the
43: structure of the correlation matrix is due to noise.
44:
45: In Finance applications, the estimation of the correlations is a
46: fundamental for portfolio choice~\cite{markowitz}. However, RMT does
47: not claim to explain all the eigenvalue spectrum of financial time
48: series, since a few large eigenvalues remain outside its scope. Also,
49: a number of results have been observed that are not in perfect
50: agreement with RMT, such as the observation that noise eigenvalues
51: seem to be a little larger than expected~\cite{kwapien2006} and that
52: correlations can be measured in the supposedly random part of the
53: eigenvalue spectrum~\cite{burda, burdafinancial}. It has also been
54: verified different behaviors of the eigenvalues corresponding to
55: different points of time, suggesting that non-stationary effects might
56: play an important role~\cite{drosdz2000, drosdz2001}.
57:
58: The Random Parameter model, recently proposed by one of the
59: authors~\cite{martins2007a,martins2007b}, tries to fit the complete
60: structure of the correlation matrix, based on
61: parameters that can be interpreted as typical observations of the
62: system.
63: However, more than just explaining the covariance structure, a model for
64: financial time series should also
65: exhibit other empirical properties called stylized facts \cite{rama2001},
66: such as volatility clustering, fat tails and multifractal long range
67: correlations. Here, we will explore the consequences of the
68: Random Parameter model under those aspects.
69: The former two (volatility clustering and fat tails) are studied with usual
70: statistical approaches,
71: whereas the later (multifractal correlations), can be studied using
72: the autocorrelation functions, power spectral
73: densities (either from Fourier or wavelets transforms) and
74: probability distribution functions. In addition, the fractal and the
75: multifractal analysis provide more insights on the scaling exponents.
76: Here we use the singularity spectrum obtained from the Wavelet
77: Transform Modulus Maxima (WTMM) method \cite{muzy91, arneodo95}
78: to determine the multifractal structure of signals generated by this
79: model.
80:
81: % There are several ways to characterize the long-range
82: % correlations from the real time series and from its models.
83:
84: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the
85: model and present some statistical properties related to the PDF's
86: and the moments for the simulated return time series.
87: Section 3 explains the multifractal concept and the method used to
88: detect it. The results of the multifractal analysis are discussed in
89: the Section 4. Finally, in the last section we present our conclusions.
90:
91: \section{The Model}
92:
93: Here, the returns $\mu_{i}$ and the correlation matrix $P_{il}$, where
94: both $i=1,\cdots, N$ and $l=1,\cdots, N$ refer to the assets, will
95: obtained from a $N\times P$ matrix $\mathbf \Phi$, that can be a
96: function of the time $t$, $\mathbf \Phi$(t). The matrix $\mathbf \Phi$
97: components $\varphi_{ij}$, where $i=1,\cdots , N$ represents the
98: different assets and where each value of $j$, $j=1,\cdots , P$,
99: $P\geq3$, can be seen as a collection of $P$ vectors $\mathbf
100: \varphi$, each with $N$ components. Each one of those vectors
101: represents a possible, typical state of the system and they are
102: divided in two types of vectors, $M$ main vectors, corresponding to
103: the true parameters of the model, and $R$ secondary ones, randomly
104: drawn at each time as explained bellow, where $M+R=P$.
105:
106: Given $\mathbf \Phi$ and the average return vector $\mathbf \mu$, the
107: covariance matrix $\mathbf \Sigma$ and the correlation matrix $\mathbf
108: P$ will be given by
109:
110: \[
111: \mu_{i} = E\left[ \varphi_{i} \right]= \frac{1}{M} \sum_{j=1}^{M} \varphi_{ij}
112: \]
113: \begin{equation}\label{eq:parametrization}
114: \Sigma_{il} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{j=1}^{M} \varphi_{ij}\varphi_{lj} - \mu_{i}\mu_{l},
115: \end{equation}
116: \[
117: P_{il}=\frac{\Sigma_{il}}{\sqrt{\Sigma_{ii}\Sigma_{ll}}}.
118: \]
119: \noindent
120: The observed (simulated) returns $r_{i}(t)$, at instant $t$, are generated, as usual,
121: by a multivariate normal $N(\mu,\Sigma)$ likelihood.
122:
123: In this model, the $M$ vectors are associated with the permanent,
124: non-random, eigenvalues of the correlation matrix. The $R$
125: pseudo-parameters will cause the return vector and correlation matrix
126: to change in time, even in the stationary case where each of the
127: $\varphi_{ij}$ elements are held constant (at least, for finite values
128: of $R$) and are the responsible for the bulky region of the
129: correlation matrix eigenvalues. They are drawn according to a Normal
130: distribution $N(0,\Sigma_{ii})$ for each asset $i$.
131:
132:
133: An interesting aspect of this choice of parameters is that it allows
134: for the introduction of non-stationarity in the main paremeters, while
135: preserving, by definition, all the properties of the correlation
136: matrix. That can be done by making each of the components
137: $\varphi_{ij}$ follow a random walk, such as
138: $\varphi_{ij}(t+1)=\varphi_{ij}(t)+\sigma_\epsilon$. However, for long
139: periods of time, this causes the variance associated with each asset
140: to explode and a mean reversal term becomes necessary.
141:
142: \begin{equation}\label{eq:meanrevrandomwalk}
143: \varphi_{ij}(t+1)=(1-\alpha)\varphi_{ij}(t)+\sigma_\epsilon,
144: \end{equation}
145: where $\alpha$ is a small number that measures the strength of the
146: mean-reversal process ($\alpha=0$ corresponds to no mean-reversal, while
147: $\alpha=1$ means that the system has no memory of its previous states).
148:
149: The choice of $\alpha$ and $\sigma_\epsilon$ is equivalent to a choice of
150: a value for variance for the $\varphi_{ij}$ that tends to remain the
151: same for the next time instant. This can be seen by
152: calculating the variance of Equation~\ref{eq:meanrevrandomwalk} and
153: equating the variances of $\varphi_{ij}$ for $t$ and $t+1$ and one
154: obtains that the variances tend to the point
155:
156: \begin{equation}\label{eq:variance}
157: \sigma_{\epsilon}^{2}/(2\alpha-\alpha^2).
158: \end{equation}
159: This point corresponds to the variance value around which the variance
160: of $\varphi_{ij}$ will oscillate.
161:
162: One important particular case for the purpose of the present analysis is when we make
163: $\alpha=\sigma_\epsilon=R=0$. With this choice, the $M$ main vectors will
164: not change in time and, since no random vectors are introduced, this
165: choice means that the average returns and correlation matrix will also not
166: change and we have a simple random walk model for the observed returns,
167: following a Normal distribution, with a correlation matrix with $M-1$
168: non-zero eigenvalues. This fact can be used to make comparisons with the
169: cases where the returns and correlation matrix do change.
170:
171: The basic statistical characterization of the actual model was presented
172: in \cite{martins2007a,martins2007b}.
173: The next section introduces the wavelet transform modulus maxima method
174: for multifractal analysis.
175:
176: \section{Multifractal analysis}
177: \label{multi}
178:
179: The multifractal scaling analysis have been largely used in the study of turbulence
180: and financial markets \cite{frisch95,financeiro}.
181: A first access to the multifractal scaling can be done using the
182: Structure Function (SF) analysis.
183: The SF are defined in the following way \cite{sf}:
184: \begin{equation}
185: S_q(Y,\tau) \equiv \langle |Y(t+\tau) - Y(t)|^q \rangle \propto
186: \tau^{q h(q)},
187: \label{scaling}
188: \end{equation}
189: where $Y_{i}(t)=\sum_{{t^\prime}=0}^t r_{i}(t^\prime)$, $\tau$ is the scale and
190: $\langle~\rangle$ denotes the ensemble average.
191: The SF can be regarded as a generalization of the correlation functions
192: (when $q=2$).
193: We will also refer to $\tau$ as the scale of analysis.
194: For a signal that is scale invariant and self-similar, the signal is said fractal
195: when $h(q)$ has the same value for all $q$, otherwise, multifractal
196: \cite{paladin87,feder88}.
197: The scaling exponent $h$ is known as the H\"older exponent and, although
198: can be computed using the Structure Function approach \cite{sf},
199: this method has the disadvantage of not being able to obtain the
200: the scalings of the negative moments.
201: Another feature of the SF methods is its capability to
202: identify nonstationarity in the data. For stationary time series the exponent of
203: $S_q(r_i,\tau)$ is zero, due to the translational invariance of all statistics.
204:
205:
206: To obtain the full multifractal spectrum, i.e. positive and negative $q$ moments,
207: we make use of the Wavelet Transform Modulus Maxima (WTMM).
208: The wavelet family used in this paper were the
209: $n^{th}$-derivative of Gaussian (DOG$n$), whose wavelet transform has $n$
210: vanishing moments and removes polynomial trends of order $n-1$ from the
211: signal. Because the scaling properties of the signal are preserved by the
212: wavelet transform, it is possible to obtain its multifractal spectrum using
213: this method. The number of vanishing moments for the wavelet basis ($n$) is
214: chosen to match the order ($n-1$) of the polynomial trends in the signal.
215:
216: The wavelet transform of a signal $Y(t)$ is defined as:
217: \begin{equation}
218: T_{\psi}(\tau,b_0)=\frac{1}{\tau}\sum^{N}_{t=1} Y(t)\psi^*
219: \Big(\frac{t-b_0}{\tau}\Big),
220: \end{equation}
221: where $\tau>0$ is the scale being analyzed, $\psi$ is the mother wavelet and
222: $N$ is the number of discretized time steps.
223: In this paper, we used $n=4$ for all analyses.
224:
225: The statistical scaling properties of the singular measures found in time
226: series are characterized by the singularity spectrum, $D(h)$, of
227: the H\"older exponents, $h$, obtained
228: with the WTMM method \cite{muzy91, arneodo95}, by the following equations:
229: \begin{equation}
230: h(q)=\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\ln \tau}\sum_{\{ b_i(\tau) \}}
231: \hat{T}_{\psi}[q;\tau,b_i(\tau)] \ln \left |T_{\psi}[\tau,b_i(\tau)] \right |
232: = \lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\ln \tau} Z(q;\tau)
233: \label{wtmm_a}
234: \end{equation}
235: \begin{equation}
236: D(h)=\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\ln \tau}\sum_{\{ b_i(\tau) \}}
237: \hat{T}_{\psi}[q;\tau,b_i(\tau)] \ln \big |\hat{T}_{\psi}[q;\tau,b_i(\tau)] \big |
238: = \lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\ln \tau} Z^*(q;\tau)
239: \label{wtmm_b}
240: \end{equation}
241: where
242: \begin{equation}
243: \hat{T}_{\psi}[q;\tau,b_i(\tau)] = \frac{\left | T_{\psi}[\tau,b_i(\tau)] \right |^q}
244: {\sum_{\{ b_i(\tau) \}} \left | T_{\psi}[\tau,b_i(\tau)] \right |^q}
245: \end{equation}
246: and the summing is over the set of the WT modulus maxima \cite{footnote}
247: at scale $\tau$, ${\{b_i(\tau) \}}$.
248: The singularity spectrum, i.e., the dependence of $D(h)$ with the
249: H\"older exponents, $h$, is obtained from the scaling range on the linear-log plots of
250: Equations (\ref{wtmm_a}) and (\ref{wtmm_b}).
251: The whole procedure is now a standard \cite{superficie2006} and, for brevity,
252: it is not repeated here.
253:
254: One way to interpret the multifractal spectrum in a physical sense is by
255: comparison with the Hurst exponents expected for known signals, for
256: instance, the \textit{fractional Brownian motion}
257: \cite{feder88,mandelbrot68}.
258: The fractional Brownian motion can be
259: classified following the probabilities of its fluctuations: the usual
260: Brownian motion, obtained from the integration of a Gaussian distributed
261: white noise, has the same probability of having positive or negative
262: fluctuations and has $H=0.5$.
263: A fractional Brownian motion with $H < 0.5$ is more
264: likely to have the next fluctuation with opposite sign of the last one --
265: it is said to be antipersistent.
266: Reversely, a fractional Brownian motion
267: with $H > 0.5$ is more likely to have the next fluctuation with the
268: same sign of the last one -- it is said to be persistent.
269: Antipersistent signals have more local fluctuations and seem to be more irregular in small
270: scales. Their variance diverges slower with time than the variance of
271: persistent signals. The latter ones fluctuate on larger scales and seem to be smoother.
272: This discussion is done in \cite{superficie2006} and a similar,
273: but more detailed interpretation is given in \cite{whatcolor2000}.
274:
275: \section{Simulations and Results}
276:
277: In order to study the multifractality effects for different values of
278: $\alpha$ and $\sigma_\epsilon$, simulations of time series with $2^{15}+2^{14}$
279: observations each, where the first $2^{14}$ were ignored as transient, were performed.
280: The parameters $\alpha$ and $\sigma_\epsilon$ were chosen in a way that they follow the
281: curve that keeps the variance constant, that is $\sigma_\epsilon$ was calculated from $\alpha$ by
282: Equation~\ref{eq:variance}.
283: The different values for $\alpha$ were chosen in the interval between $\alpha=0$ (and therefore $\sigma_\epsilon=0$,
284: meaning the true parameters remain constant) and $\alpha=1$, when there is no memory and
285: the previous values of the true parameters are forgotten at each time step and new
286: ones are generated. Different numbers of random vectors ($R=1$, 2, 5 and 10) were also chosen for the
287: simulations, in order to investigate the effects of introducing more randomness in the
288: model (as $R\rightarrow\infty$, the model tends to the Random Matrix Theory model
289: for the problem, except for the bulk eigenvalues).
290:
291: An interesting property of the model is how the observed distributions scale when we
292: take larger time . For a window of one observation, $t=1$, the model clearly shows
293: fat tails. As expected, if we take windows of larger size, the distributions converge to
294: the Normal.
295: Figure~\ref{Fig:pdfs} shows the observed upper tail of the distribution for the different
296: window sizes and it is typical of what we observe for different values of the parameters,
297: even though the convergence may happen at different rates. The curves correspond to the
298: average over 10 different realizations of the
299: problem. It is easy to see that for larger windows, the curve tends to the Normal
300: distribution.
301:
302: The effect of the choice of the values of $R$ and $\alpha$ on the tails can be better
303: observed in Figure~\ref{Fig:kurtosis}, where average values of the kurtosis (averaged
304: over the 10 realizations) are shown. Again, as the window size increases, we get closer
305: to the Normal distribution, with kurtosis of 0. However, other properties can also be
306: observed. Notice that, as $R$ increases, so does the kurtosis for most values of $\alpha$.
307: Near $\alpha=1$, the kurtosis becomes closer to zero for all cases. It is interesting to notice
308: that, as was observed in a previous work~\cite{martins2007b}, when $R$ grows, the
309: eigenvalues of the correlation matrix tend to those of a Random Matrix model, suggesting that
310: large values of $R$ might be associated with a gaussian noise. But Figure~\ref{Fig:kurtosis}
311: shows it clearly that the observed noise has much fatter tails. The obvious conclusion is that,
312: in that region, while the covariance structure tends to the results of Random Matrix, as
313: $R$ grows, the PDFs have much fatter tails than a gaussian PDF.
314:
315: The error bars associated with
316: the different realizations are not shown in Figure~\ref{Fig:kurtosis} to avoid cluttering.
317: Instead, Figure~\ref{Fig:kurtosiserror} shows the errors for the averages, when $S=2$, for
318: a time window of one. Notice that the error is large for small values of $\alpha$ (meaning
319: that different realizations provide different values for the kurtosis) and decreases
320: as $\alpha$ goes closer to 1. This behavior is typical and observed in the other cases.
321:
322: The fact that a larger value of $R$ means that larger time windows are necessary to ensure
323: convergence to a Normal distribution can be explained by the fact that the random parameters
324: are randomly drawn using the covariance matrix of the previous time instant. Since the $R$ random
325: vectors influence this matrix, as $R$ grows larger, the changes in the volatility will take a
326: larger time to happen and this should make the convergence slower, as it was observed.
327: This fact suggests that large values of $R$ are useful for describing higher frequency data,
328: while smaller values of $R$ should fit lower frequency observations better.
329:
330: Another interesting step in the exploration of the model
331: was to check the stationarity of the returns time series, $r$.
332: One signal is said stationary if it is statistically invariant under translations,
333: what can be evaluated using the SF approach \cite{sf}.
334: A stationary signal will have a flat, horizontal, structure function plot, $S_q \times \tau$.
335: As it is evident from Eq.~\ref{scaling}, a stationary signal presents $h = 0$ for all values
336: of $q$ and $\tau$ ranges.
337: This procedure determines the range of stationary scales for $\tau$,
338: inside which we should look
339: for the scaling regimes of the price time series, $Y$.
340: If there is such a scale range, we then check for the linear or non-linear behavior
341: of $q.h(q)\times q$, what reveals, respectively, the fractal or multifractal
342: time series dynamics.
343: For all values of $R$ studied, the model presented multifractal scaling for
344: intermediary values of $\alpha$.
345: Although the SF approach had shown the multifractal character of the model,
346: it is not able to work with negative values of $q$, necessary to obtain the full
347: multifractal spectrum, what was done with the WTMM technique, described
348: previously, in section \ref{multi}.
349:
350: To proceed with the analyses, we used the WWTM method to obtain
351: the multifractal spectrum of $Y$, presented in Fig.~\ref{mfs}.
352: This figure shows the multifractal spectrum for $\alpha = 0,\: 0.01$ and $1$.
353: For both extrema, the MS spectra are much narrower than for the intermediary value
354: $\alpha = 1$.
355: Both techniques, SF and WTMM, had been successfully applied in the study of simulated
356: and experimental time series \cite{superficie2006,chuva1999} and the
357: intermediary steps to obtain the multifractal spectrum will not be shown
358: in detail here. The interested reader is referred to the cited bibliography.
359:
360: Now we will look for the multifractal properties of the model dynamics
361: as a function of the model parameters $R$ and $\alpha$.
362: The multifractal spectrum may be represented by its extrema points, i.e.,
363: its minima on the left, $h_l$, and on the right, $h_r$, as well as the maximum (top), $h_0$.
364: It worths to note that wider the spectrum, i.e. bigger the difference between $h_r$ and $h_l$,
365: more evident it is the multifractality character.
366: Fig. \ref{pn} shows that the
367: multifractal spectrum is narrow for small and high values of $\alpha$.
368: The smallest value simulated was $\alpha = 0$, a system with no mean-reversal.
369: The highest, $\alpha=1$, is also non-realistic, since it represents a system
370: with no memory.
371: As it was already expected, these regions are clearly fractal, since
372: the time series for the returns are probably close to gaussians (zero kurtosis).
373: For intermediary values, $\alpha\sim 0.01$, values close to what would be spected
374: in real markets, the multifractal spectrum is wide, a sign of multifractality.
375: In this and all other figures we used time series of 32k points long --
376: for longer time series, the multifractal spectrum for small and high $\alpha \,$'s
377: almost collapses into a single point, indicating a tendency to fractal behavior.
378:
379: The multifractal character of the time series is more evident from the plot for
380: the spectrum width as a function of $\alpha$, shown in Fig. \ref{mfs_w}.
381: This figure shows the difference between the
382: maximum and the minimum values of $h$ for each value of $\alpha$, for all four
383: values of $R$ studied ($R=1,\; 2,\; 5$ and $10$).
384: As $\alpha$ increases, the spectrum width goes from a fractal to a multifractal regime
385: and then returns to a fractal one.
386: This transition is smooth exhibiting large fluctuations for $h_l$ and $h_r$ in the
387: intermediary values of $\alpha$.
388: It worths to note that the point $h_l$ shows the scaling of the large fluctuations
389: on the time series, while the $h_r$ captures the scaling of the small fluctuations.
390:
391: Another representative point of the multifractal spectrum is the value of the Hurst
392: exponent, obtained from $h(q=2)$.
393: As shown by the Fig. \ref{hurst}, the Hurst exponent for small and high values of $\alpha$
394: is close to $0.5$, the value expected for Brownian random walks.
395: For intermediate, more realistic values $\alpha \sim 0.01$, the time series
396: becomes more persistent, as the Hurst exponent increases, coherent with the
397: real persistent behavior of the market.
398: We could still speculate about the interpretation of the meaning of the $\alpha$ parameter.
399: At intermediary values of $\alpha$, the parameters of the system have some mean-reversal,
400: some memory and the series show increasing values of $H$, all features presented in the
401: real markets. Under this regime, a fluctuation that made the value of the parameters temporarily
402: larger will take longer to bring them back and, therefore, some the observation of
403: persistent behavior makes sense. Under these circumstances, it makes more sense, to predict near
404: future behavior, to use smaller recent series.
405: This is not the case in the no memory and complete memory regimes.
406:
407: \section{Conclusion}
408:
409: The Random Paremeter model was build to explain the covariance structure of time series where
410: non-stationarity might be an important feature, since it allows to implement non-stationarity in
411: the parameters, while trivially respecting the properties of the covariance matrix.
412: We have seen here that the model can also be used to
413: explain other stylized facts, as the multifractal spectrum of financial series. By exploring the
414: PDFs of the generated time series, we have seen how to adapt the model to describe data of high and
415: low frequency; as $R$ is larger, the series match the behavior of high frequency series better.
416: The multifractal spectrum appears when the mean-reversal term is not too large, something that is
417: compatible with real markets. This means that this model is a good choice in describing several
418: properties of the real series and, therefore, should be further investigated.
419:
420:
421:
422:
423:
424:
425: \label{final}
426:
427: %\bibliography{multifractality}
428:
429: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
430:
431: \bibitem{wigner} E. P. Wigner, Ann. Math. 53 (1951) 36.
432:
433: \bibitem{mehta} M. L. Mehta (1967) \textit{Random Matrices and the Statistical Theory of Energy Levels}. New York, Academic Press, Inc.
434:
435: \bibitem{sengupta} A.M. Sengupta and P.P. Mitra (1999)
436: \textit{Distributions of singular values for some random matrices}. Phys. Rev. E,
437: 60, 3389-3392.
438:
439: \bibitem{santhanam} M.S. Santhanam and P.K. Patra (2001) Statistics of Atmospheric Correlations,
440: Phys. Rev. E, 64, 016102.
441:
442: \bibitem{laloux99} L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, J.-P. Bouchaud and M. Potters, Phys. Rev. Lett., \textbf{83}, 1467-1470 (1999)
443:
444: \bibitem{plerou99} V. Plerou, P. Gopikrishnan, B. Rosenow, L. A. N. Amaral, H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett., \textbf{83}, 1471-1474 (1999)
445:
446: \bibitem{markowitz} H. Markowitz, Portfolio Selection, Wiley, New York, 1959.
447:
448: \bibitem{kwapien2006} J. Kwapie\'n, S. Dro\.zd\.z, P. O\'swie\c{e}cimka, Physica A 359 (2006) 589-606.
449:
450:
451: \bibitem{burda} Z. Burda, A. G\"orlich, A. Jarosz, \& J. Jurkiewicz, Physica A (2004) 343, 295-310.
452:
453: \bibitem{burdafinancial} Z. Burda, \& J. Jurkiewicz, Physica A (2004) 344, 67-72.
454:
455: \bibitem{drosdz2000} S. Dro\.zd\.z, F. Grummer, A.Z. Gorski, F. Ruf, J. Speth, Physica A 287 (2000) 440.
456:
457: \bibitem{drosdz2001} S. Dro\.zd\.z, F. Grummer, F. Ruf, J. Speth, Physica A 294 (2001) 226.
458:
459: \bibitem{martins2007a} Martins, Andr\'e C. R. (2007). Random, but not so much: A parameterization for the returns and correlation matrix of financial time series. Physica A, 383, p. 527-532. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2007.02.108.
460:
461: \bibitem{martins2007b} Martins, Andr\'e C. R. (2007). Non-Stationary Correlation Matrices and Noise. Physica A, 379, 2, p. 552-558. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2006.12.020.
462:
463: \bibitem{rama2001}
464: Rama Count,
465: Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues,
466: {\em Quantitative Finance} {\bf 1} 223--236, 2001.
467:
468: \bibitem{sf}
469: C.X.Yu, M.Gilmore, W.A.Peebles and T.L.Rhodes,
470: Structure fuction analysis of long-range correlations in plasma turbulence,
471: {\em Physics of Plasmas} {\bf 10} (7) 2772--2779, 2003.
472:
473: \bibitem{muzy91}
474: J.Muzy, E.Bacry and A.Arneodo,
475: Wavelets and Multifractal Formalism for Singular Signals: Application to Turbulent,
476: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 67}(25) 3515--3518, 1991.
477:
478: \bibitem{arneodo95}
479: A.Arneodo, E.Bacry and J.Muzy,
480: {\em Physica A} {\bf 213} 232--275, 1995.
481:
482: \bibitem{frisch95}
483: U.Frisch {\em Turbulence\/}, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
484:
485: \bibitem{financeiro}
486: F.Schmitt, D.Schertzer and S.Lovejoy,
487: Multifractal fluctuations in finance,
488: {\it Int. J. Theor. App. Fin.} {\bf 3} 361--364, 2000.
489:
490: \bibitem{paladin87}
491: G.Paladin and A.Vulpiani, {\em Phys.~Rep.} {\bf 156}(4) 147--225, 1987.
492:
493: \bibitem{feder88}
494: J.Feder, {\em Fractals\/}, New York: Plenum Press, 1988.
495:
496: \bibitem{footnote}
497: While we used routines for the wavelet transforms from C. Torrence
498: and G. Compo, available at URL:
499: http://paos.colorado.edu/research/wavelets/, the WTMM method itself
500: was our own implementation.
501:
502: \bibitem{superficie2006}
503: K.Bube, C. Rodrigues~Neto, R.Donner, U.Schwarz and Ulrike Feudel,
504: Surface characterization of laser beam melt ablation process,
505: {\em Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics} {\bf 39} 1405--1412, 2006.
506:
507: \bibitem{chuva1999}
508: E.Faleiro and J.M.G.Gozmez,
509: Multifractal characterisation of fluctuations in simulated Extensive Air Showers,
510: {\em Europhys.Lett.} {\bf 45} 437-443, 1999.
511:
512: \bibitem{mandelbrot68}
513: B.Mandelbrot and J.{van~Ness} {\em SIAM Review} {\bf 10} 422--437, 1968.
514:
515: \bibitem{whatcolor2000}
516: J.B.Cromwell and W.CLabys and E.Kouassi,
517: What color are commodity prices? A fractal analysis,
518: {\em Empirical Economics} {\bf 25} 563--580, 2000.
519:
520: \end{thebibliography}
521:
522: \newpage
523:
524: \begin{figure}[bbb]
525: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{pdfs2a01av.eps}
526: \caption{The tails of the observed probability distributions, averaged over 10 realizations, for different time windows ($t=1$, $t=10$ and $t=100$) for the case $R=2$ and $\alpha=0.01$.}
527: \label{Fig:pdfs}
528: \end{figure}
529:
530:
531: \begin{figure}[bbb]
532: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{kurtosisallsav.eps}
533: \caption{Kurtosis as a function of $\alpha$ for different values of $R$, averaged over 10 realizations. Curves for time windows of size $t=1$, $t=10$ and $t=100$ are shown.}
534: \label{Fig:kurtosis}
535: \end{figure}
536:
537: \begin{figure}[bbb]
538: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{curterrorbars2.eps}
539: \caption{Kurtosis as a function of $\alpha$ for different values of $S=2$, averaged over 10 realizations, with error bars corresponding to the standard deviation of the observed kurtosis over the realizations.}
540: \label{Fig:kurtosiserror}
541: \end{figure}
542:
543: \begin{figure}[bbb]
544: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{mfs_s1_a0_a01_a1.eps}
545: \caption{Multifractal spectrum for the model ($R=1$) with $\alpha=0$, $\alpha=0.01$ and
546: $\alpha=1$.
547: It worths to note that the multifractal spectrum for $\alpha=0$ is the same of a
548: fractal Brownian motion with $H=0.5$.
549: All the analyzed signals had 32k points long.}
550: \label{mfs}
551: \end{figure}
552:
553: \begin{figure}[bbb]
554: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{pn_s1.eps}
555: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{pn_s2.eps} \\
556: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{pn_s5.eps}
557: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{pn_s10.eps}
558: \caption{Multifractal spectrum dependence with $\alpha$ for (a) $R=1$, (b) $R=2$,
559: (c) $R=5$ and (d) $R=10$.
560: The error bars are obtained from $10$ realizations.}
561: \label{pn}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: \begin{figure}[bbb]
565: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{mfs_width_s1_s2_s5_s10.eps}
566: \caption{Multifractal spectrum width as a function of $\alpha$ for all four values of
567: $R$ studied. Surprisingly, all the four values of $R$ have the same width
568: dependence with $\alpha$, although their multifractal spectrum have different absolute values and
569: different values for $h(q=2)$, the Hurst exponent.}
570: \label{mfs_w}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573: \begin{figure}[bbb]
574: \includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{hurst_s1_s2_s5_s10.eps}
575: \caption{The Hurst exponent dependence with $\alpha$ for all the
576: values of $R$ simulated. Curves for increasing values of $R$ show smaller values of the Hurst
577: exponent.}
578: \label{hurst}
579: \end{figure}
580:
581: \end{document}
582:
583: