1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % Eggers, Dziekan, Greiner
4: %
5: % Translationally invariant cumulants
6: % in energy cascade models of turbulence
7: %
8: % Submitted to Physics Letters A
9: %
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11:
12: \documentclass{elsart}
13: \usepackage{psfig}
14:
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: %%%%%%%%%%% TITLE PAGE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: \begin{document}
19: \begin{frontmatter}
20:
21: %% \begin{flushright}
22: %% {\bf nlin.CD/0005044}\\
23: %% MPIPKS *** \\
24: %% STPHY 38/00
25: %% \end{flushright}
26:
27: \title{Translationally invariant cumulants \\ in energy cascade
28: models of turbulence}
29:
30: \author{
31: Hans C.\ Eggers$^{1,2}$,
32: Thomas Dziekan$^{3}$
33: and Martin Greiner$^{2,3,4}$
34: }
35:
36: \address{$^{1}$Department of Physics, University of Stellenbosch,
37: 7600 Stellenbosch, South Africa }
38: \address{$^{2}$Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik komplexer Systeme,
39: N\"othnitzer Str.\ 38, D--01187 Dresden, Germany }
40: \address{$^{3}$Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Technische Universit\"at,
41: D--01062 Dresden, Germany }
42: \address{$^{4}$Department of Physics, Duke University,
43: Durham, NC 27708, USA }
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: In the context of random multiplicative energy cascade processes, we
47: derive analytical expressions for translationally invariant one- and
48: two-point cumulants in logarithmic field amplitudes. Such cumulants
49: make it possible to distinguish between hitherto equally successful
50: cascade generator models and hence supplement lowest-order
51: multifractal scaling exponents and multiplier distributions.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \end{frontmatter}
55:
56:
57: Although the underlying hydrodynamic equations are deterministic, the
58: statistical description of fully developed turbulence has by now a
59: long tradition \cite{MON71}. Random multiplicative energy cascade
60: models form a particularly simple and robust class of such statistical
61: models. While different theoretical models can reproduce
62: experimentally observed multifractal scaling exponents rather easily
63: \cite{SRE97}, observed multiplier distributions \cite{SRE95,JOU99}
64: eliminate many candidate cascade generators. Nevertheless, a number
65: of competing generators remain, equally successful in reproducing both
66: scaling exponents and multipliers. To make further progress in
67: ferreting out the best cascade generator within this approximation,
68: new observables are clearly called for.
69:
70:
71: While most experiments have concentrated on measuring statistics in
72: the energy dissipation density $\varepsilon$, we recently found a
73: complete and analytical solution working in $\ln\varepsilon$ rather
74: than $\varepsilon$ itself \cite{GRE98}. In this letter, we show that
75: cumulants in $\ln\varepsilon$ are analytically calculable even when
76: restoring translational invariance to the solutions to emulate the
77: spatial homogeneity of experimental turbulence statistics. Cumulants
78: turn out to be powerful tools which for third and fourth order differ
79: not only in magnitude but even in sign for the relevant cascade
80: generators and can hence be expected to distinguish between different
81: models which are otherwise indistinguishable in terms of observed
82: lowest-order multifractal scaling exponents and multiplier
83: distributions.
84:
85:
86: In the simplest versions of random multiplicative energy cascade
87: models, energy flux densities $\varepsilon$ are generated as follows:
88: in successive steps $j = 1,\ldots, J$, the integral scale $L$ is
89: divided into equal intervals of length $l_j = l_{j-1}/2 = L/2^j$ and
90: dyadic addresses ${\bf \kappa} = (k_1 \cdots k_j)$ with $k_i=0$ or
91: $1$. At each step $j$, the energy flux $\varepsilon_{k_1 \cdots k_j}$
92: generates fluxes in the two subintervals via
93: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
94: \begin{equation}
95: \label{rev1}
96: \varepsilon_{k_1 \cdots k_j k_{j+1}}
97: = q_{k_1 \cdots k_j k_{j+1}} \; \varepsilon_{k_1 \cdots k_j}
98: \;,
99: \end{equation}
100: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
101: where the random variables $q_L = q_{k_1 \cdots k_j 0}$ and $q_R =
102: q_{k_1 \cdots k_j 1}$ for the left and right subintervals are drawn
103: from a given cascade-generating probability density $p(q_L,q_R)$,
104: independently of other branches and generations of the dyadic tree.
105: When after $J$ cascade steps the smallest scale $\eta = l_J = L/2^J$
106: is reached, the local amplitudes of the flux density field
107: $\varepsilon_{t(\kappa)}$ are interpreted as the energy dissipation
108: amplitudes at positions $1 \leq t(\kappa){=}(1+\sum_{j=1}^{J} k_j
109: 2^{J-j}) \leq 2^J$ in units of $\eta$, which are to be compared to
110: experimental time series converted to one-dimensional spatial series
111: by the frozen flow hypothesis.
112:
113:
114: We have shown previously that, since the product of multiplicative
115: weights $\varepsilon_{k_1 k_2 \cdots k_J} = \prod_{j=1}^J q_{k_1
116: \cdots k_j}$ becomes additive on taking the logarithm,
117: $\ln\varepsilon_{k_1 k_2 \cdots k_J} = \sum_{j=1}^J \ln q_{k_1 \cdots
118: k_j}$, the multivariate cumulant generating function for
119: $\ln\varepsilon$ has the analytical solution \cite{GRE98},
120: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
121: \begin{eqnarray}
122: \label{rev2}
123: \ln Z(\lambda_{0 \cdots 0},\ldots,\lambda_{1 \cdots 1})
124: &=& \ln
125: \left\langle \exp\left(
126: \sum_{k_1,\ldots,k_J=0}^1
127: \lambda_{k_1 \cdots k_J} \ln\varepsilon_{k_1 \cdots k_J}
128: \right) \right\rangle
129: \nonumber \\
130: &=& \sum_{j=1}^J \; \sum_{k_1,\ldots,k_{j-1} = 0}^1
131: Q(\lambda_{k_1 \cdots k_{j-1}0} , \lambda_{k_1 \cdots k_{j-1}1})
132: \; ,
133: \end{eqnarray}
134: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
135: where the branching cumulant generating function $Q$ (with arguments
136: $\lambda_{k_1 \cdots k_j} = \sum_{k_{j+1},\ldots,k_J = 0}^1
137: \lambda_{k_1 \cdots k_J}$) is the Mellin transform of the cascade
138: generator,
139: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
140: \begin{equation}
141: \label{rev3}
142: Q(\lambda_L,\lambda_R)
143: = \ln\left[ \int dq_L \, dq_R \, p(q_L,q_R) \,
144: q_L^{\lambda_L} \, q_R^{\lambda_R} \right]
145: \;,
146: \end{equation}
147: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
148: which can often be found analytically. A host of analytical
149: predictions for statistics in $\ln\varepsilon$ for a given cascade
150: generator follow, starting with multivariate cumulants obtained
151: directly from $\ln Z$ through
152: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
153: \begin{equation}
154: \label{rev4}
155: C(\kappa_1,\kappa_2,\cdots,\kappa_n)
156: = \left\langle
157: \ln\varepsilon_{\kappa_1} \ln\varepsilon_{\kappa_2}
158: \cdots \ln\varepsilon_{\kappa_n}
159: \right\rangle_c
160: = {\partial^n \ln Z \over
161: \partial\lambda_{\kappa_1} \partial\lambda_{\kappa_2}
162: \cdots \partial\lambda_{\kappa_n}
163: }\biggr|_{\lambda=0}
164: \; .
165: \end{equation}
166: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
167: Due to the additivity of $\ln Z$ in (\ref{rev2}), these cumulants in
168: $\ln\varepsilon$ become simple sums \cite{GRE98} of same-lineage
169: cumulants $c_n$ and splitting cumulants $c_{r,s}$ in $\ln q$,
170: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: \label{rev5}
173: c_{n}
174: = \left\langle (\ln q)^{n} \right\rangle_c
175: &=& {\partial^{n} Q \over \partial \lambda_L^{n}
176: }\biggr|_{\lambda_L=\lambda_R=0}
177: \; , \\
178: \label{rev6}
179: c_{r,s}
180: = \left\langle (\ln q_L)^r(\ln q_R)^s \right\rangle_c
181: &=& {\partial^{r+s} Q \over
182: \partial \lambda_L^r \partial \lambda_R^s
183: }\biggr|_{\lambda_L=\lambda_R=0}
184: \; ,
185: \end{eqnarray}
186: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
187: where without loss of generality we have assumed
188: $Q(\lambda_L,\lambda_R)$ to be symmetric in its arguments. When all
189: $n$ addresses are the same, the $n$-th order theoretical one-point
190: cumulant is simply
191: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
192: \begin{equation}
193: \label{rev7}
194: C_n(\kappa)
195: = \langle (\ln \varepsilon_\kappa)^n \rangle_c
196: = Jc_n \,,
197: \end{equation}
198: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
199: while the theoretical two-point cumulant of order $(r,s)$ for bins
200: $\kappa_1=(k_1 \cdots k_j k_{j+1} \cdots k_J)$ and $\kappa_2=(k_1
201: \cdots k_j k_{j+1}^\prime \cdots k_J^\prime)$ with $k_{j+1} \neq
202: k_{j+1}^\prime$, separated by the ultrametric distance $D=J-j$, is
203: given by \cite{GRE98}
204: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
205: \begin{equation}
206: \label{rev8}
207: C_{r,s}(D)
208: = \left\langle
209: (\ln\varepsilon_{\kappa_1})^r (\ln\varepsilon_{\kappa_2})^s
210: \right\rangle_c
211: = (J-D) c_{r+s} + (1-\delta_{D,0}) c_{r,s}
212: \;.
213: \end{equation}
214: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
215: Three- and higher-point cumulants take on a form very similar to the
216: two-point expression \cite{GRE98}.
217:
218:
219: Before theoretical cumulants can be compared to experimentally
220: observed ones, two complications must be dealt with. The first is that
221: the generating function (\ref{rev2}) and its cumulants are not
222: translationally invariant, in conflict with the homogeneous statistics
223: characterising experimental results. The second complication arises
224: because experimental cumulants are derived from measured moments
225: rather than the other way round \cite{CAR90}, requiring translational
226: averaging over two-point moments rather than two-point cumulants for
227: theory also. The proper procedure is hence to convert theoretical
228: cumulants (\ref{rev8}) to moments, average these to restore
229: translational invariance, and then convert them back to
230: translationally invariant cumulants for experimental comparison.
231:
232:
233: For one-point statistics, this procedure is trivial, yielding
234: translationally averaged one-point cumulants $\overline C_n = Jc_n$.
235: Although the latter cannot distinguish between a spatially ordered
236: cascade process and one whose field amplitudes are spatially
237: randomised, useful information can nevertheless be extracted from
238: them. To show this we introduce three factorised model cascade
239: generators,
240: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
241: \begin{equation}
242: \label{rev20}
243: p(q_L,q_R)
244: = p(q_L) \; p(q_R)
245: \;,
246: \end{equation}
247: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
248: which have proven successful in reproducing multifractal scaling
249: exponents,\footnote{
250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
251: We note that other popular log-stable or log-Poisson weight
252: distributions are good at reproducing multifractal scaling exponents
253: but fail to account for the proper scale-correlations observed in
254: multiplier distributions \cite{JOU99}.
255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
256: } namely a simple binomial weight distribution
257: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
258: \begin{equation}
259: \label{rev21}
260: p_{\rm binomial}(q)
261: = {\alpha_2 \over {\alpha_1+\alpha_2}}
262: \delta\left( q-(1-\alpha_1) \right)
263: + {\alpha_1 \over {\alpha_1+\alpha_2}}
264: \delta\left( q-(1+\alpha_2) \right)
265: \end{equation}
266: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
267: with parameters $\alpha_1=0.3$ and $\alpha_2=0.65$, a lognormal
268: distribution
269: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
270: \begin{equation}
271: \label{rev22}
272: p_{\rm lognormal}(q)
273: = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma q}
274: \exp\left[ - {1 \over 2 \sigma^2}
275: \left( \ln q + \frac{\sigma^2}{2} \right)^2
276: \right]
277: \end{equation}
278: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
279: with parameter $\sigma=0.42$, and a Beta distribution
280: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
281: \begin{equation}
282: \label{rev23}
283: p_{\rm Beta}(q)
284: = \frac{ \Gamma(\beta_1+\beta_2) }
285: { \Gamma(\beta_1)\Gamma(\beta_2) } \;
286: 8^{1-\beta_1-\beta_2}
287: q^{\beta_1-1} (8-q)^{\beta_2-1}
288: \end{equation}
289: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
290: with parameters $\beta_1=4.88=\beta_2/7$ and $q \in [0,8]$. All quoted
291: parameter values were obtained from fitting to the observed multiplier
292: statistics, including scale correlations \cite{JOU99}.
293:
294:
295: As shown in Fig.\ 1a, all three cascade generators yield almost
296: identical results for the lowest-order multifractal scaling exponents
297: $\tau(n)=\log_2\langle{q^n}\rangle$. Since $\langle q \rangle = 1$ by
298: construction, $\tau(1) = 0$ for all three distributions. For $n=2$ we
299: get $\tau(2) = 0.26$ for the first two distributions and $0.23$ for
300: the beta distribution, i.e.\ indistinguishable within the uncertainty
301: of the experimental intermittency exponent $\mu = 0.25 \pm 0.05$
302: \cite{SRE97}. Note that the $\tau(n)$'s for the binomial and the Beta
303: distributions remain indistinguishable even for $n \geq 3$.
304:
305:
306: While the multiplier distributions and lowest-order scaling exponents
307: of the three cascade generators (\ref{rev21})--(\ref{rev23}) are hence
308: demonstrably indistinguishable, Fig.~1b shows that, while $c_1$ and
309: $c_2$ are very similar for the three models, the same-lineage
310: cumulants exhibit clear-cut differences in third order, with
311: respective values $c_3=0.05$, $0.00$ and $-0.05$. In fourth order,
312: the same-lineage cumulant $c_4$ also exhibits a different sign for the
313: binomial and Beta distribution. For the lognormal distribution, $c_4$
314: is of course again zero.
315:
316:
317: The relation between the exponents and cumulants is easily
318: demonstrated using the cumulant branching generating function
319: (\ref{rev3}):
320: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
321: \begin{equation}
322: \label{rev24}
323: c_n
324: = \left.
325: {\partial^n Q(\lambda,0) \over \partial \lambda^n}
326: \right|_{\lambda=0}
327: = \left.
328: {\partial^n \ln\langle{q^\lambda}\rangle \over \partial \lambda^n}
329: \right|_{\lambda=0}
330: = \left. \ln 2 \;
331: {\partial^n \tau(\lambda) \over \partial \lambda^n}
332: \right|_{\lambda=0}
333: \;,
334: \end{equation}
335: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
336: i.e.\ the cumulant $c_n$ in $\ln{q}$ is the $n$-th derivative of the
337: scaling exponent $\tau(\lambda)$ at $\lambda{=}0$. In principle,
338: therefore, the complete set of same-lineage cumulants $c_n$ with
339: $1{\leq}n{<}\infty$ contains the same information as the complete set
340: of multifractal exponents $\tau(n)$ with $0{\leq}n{<}\infty$: for the
341: former case an inverse Mellin transformation recovers the (factorised)
342: cascade generator, while the latter uses the inverse Laplace
343: transform. Once, however, we truncate the two sets of observables to
344: the lowest orders, $1{\leq}n{\leq}4$, they sample different aspects of
345: the complete information. This is the reason why the three cascade
346: generators given above can be hard to distinguish by means of
347: lowest-order multifractal scaling exponents while still exhibiting
348: significant differences for the third- and higher-order same-lineage
349: cumulants.
350:
351:
352: As mentioned previously, one-point statistics are not sensitive to the
353: nested spatial hierarchy of the cascade. By contrast, eq.~(\ref{rev8})
354: shows that two-point cumulants depend on the cascade geometry through
355: the ultrametric distance $D$. To access such spatial information, we
356: now concentrate on two-point cumulants.
357:
358:
359: For two-point moments, spatial homogeneity can be emulated by creating
360: a theoretical time series consisting of a chain of $m\to\infty$
361: independent cascade fields with $L/\eta=2^J$ finest-scale bins each
362: \cite{GRE97}. While this scheme is simple, it has previously played a
363: decisive role in explaining scale-correlations for observed multiplier
364: distributions \cite{SRE95,JOU99} and observed Markov properties
365: \cite{NAE97,CLE00}. For two-point statistics with constant bin-bin
366: distance $d < L/\eta$, the appropriate averaging is given by
367: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
368: \begin{equation}
369: \label{rev9}
370: \overline \rho_{r,s}(d)
371: = \lim_{m\to\infty} \frac{1}{(m-1)2^J} \sum_{t=1}^{(m-1)2^J}
372: (\ln\varepsilon_t)^r (\ln\varepsilon_{t+d})^s
373: \,,
374: \end{equation}
375: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
376: where $t$ and $t{+}d$, corresponding to $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ of
377: (\ref{rev8}), are
378: in base-ten notation. Operationally, these bins are moved over the
379: series in bin-sized steps, successively ``seeing'' parts of adjacent
380: cascade configurations. For $d<L/\eta$, the $t$-average over the infinitely
381: long chain of the independently and identically distributed cascade
382: configurations can hence be replaced by a combination of an ensemble
383: average $\langle \rangle$ and a $t$-average restricted to two adjacent
384: cascade configurations, so that (\ref{rev9}) simplifies to $\overline
385: \rho_{r,s}(d) = 2^{-J} \sum_{t=1}^{2^J} \rho_{r,s}(t,t+d)$, where
386: $\rho_{r,s}(t,t{+}d) = \langle (\ln\varepsilon_{t})^r
387: (\ln\varepsilon_{t{+}d})^s \rangle$. Since furthermore the two-point
388: correlation density factorises whenever bins $t$ and $t+d$ belong to
389: independent cascade field configurations, the averaged two-point
390: moment finally becomes
391: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
392: \begin{equation}
393: \label{rev10}
394: \overline \rho_{r,s}(d)
395: = \frac{1}{2^J} \left\{
396: \sum_{t=1}^{2^J-d} \rho_{r,s}(t,t+d)
397: + \sum_{t=2^J-d+1}^{2^J} \rho_{r}(t) \rho_{s}(t+d)
398: \right\} \,.
399: \end{equation}
400: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
401: Analytic expressions for $\rho_{r,s}(t,t{+}d)$ and $\rho_r(t) =
402: \langle (\ln\varepsilon_t)^r \rangle$ are readily derived by inserting
403: the cumulants (\ref{rev8}) into the usual relations between
404: $n$-variate moments and cumulants \cite{CAR90} and thence into
405: (\ref{rev10}).
406:
407:
408: Because they are functions of the two-point cumulants,
409: two-point densities with
410: $d \geq 1$ also depend on the ultrametric distance $D(t,t+d)$ between
411: bins $t$ and $t+d$, so that (\ref{rev10}) will contain sums of the
412: type
413: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
414: \begin{equation}
415: \label{rev11}
416: G_n(J,d)
417: = \frac{1}{2^J}
418: \sum_{t=1}^{2^J - d} \left(J - D(t,t+d)\right)^n \,.
419: \end{equation}
420: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
421: In terms of a discrete probability distribution $p(D|d,J)$,
422: proportional to the times each value of the $D$ is taken on while $t$
423: runs its course, this becomes
424: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
425: \begin{equation}
426: \label{rev12}
427: G_n(J,d)
428: = \sum_{D=1}^J p(D|d,J) \, (J-D)^n \; ,
429: \end{equation}
430: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
431: with $p(D|d,J)$ empirically found to be
432: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
433: \begin{equation}
434: \label{rev13}
435: p(D|d,J)
436: = \left\{
437: \begin{array}{lrl}
438: 0 \qquad & (1 \leq D < A) & \\[-2mm]
439: 1 - (d/2^A) \qquad & (D = A) & \\[-2mm]
440: d/2^D \qquad & (A < D \leq J) & \; ,
441: \end{array}
442: \right.
443: \end{equation}
444: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
445: where $A = \lceil \log_2 d \rceil$ is the ceiling of $\log_2 d$.
446: Insertion of (\ref{rev13}) into (\ref{rev12}) leads to analytical
447: expressions for the geometrical coefficients
448: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
449: \begin{eqnarray}
450: \label{rev14}
451: G_0(J,d)
452: &=& (1 - 2^{-J}d)
453: \; , \\
454: \label{rev15}
455: G_1(J,d)
456: % &=& (J-A) \, (2^A - d) 2^{J-A}
457: % + \sum_{D=A+1}^J (J-D)\, d 2^{J-D}
458: % \nonumber \\
459: &=& (J-A) - 2d(2^{-A} - 2^{-J})
460: \; , \\
461: \label{rev16}
462: G_2(J,d)
463: &=& (J-A)^2 - 4d(J-A)2^{-A} +6d(2^{-A} - 2^{-J}) \,,
464: \end{eqnarray}
465: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
466: which in turn yield analytical results for the averaged two-point
467: densities $\overline{\rho}_{r,s}(d)$. From these, spatially
468: homogeneous two-point cumulants are constructed via the inversion
469: formulae \cite{CAR90}
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: \label{rev17}
473: \overline{C}_{1,1}(d)
474: &=& \overline{\rho}_{1,1}(d)
475: - \overline{\rho}_{1}^2
476: \quad ,
477: \nonumber \\
478: \overline{C}_{2,1}(d)
479: &=& \overline{\rho}_{2,1}(d)
480: - 2 \overline{\rho}_{1} \overline{\rho}_{1,1}(d)
481: - \overline{\rho}_{2} \overline{\rho}_{1}
482: + 2 \overline{\rho}_{1}^3
483: \quad ,
484: \\
485: \overline{C}_{3,1}(d)
486: &=& \overline{\rho}_{3,1}(d)
487: - 3 \overline{\rho}_{1} \overline{\rho}_{2,1}(d)
488: - \overline{\rho}_{3} \overline{\rho}_{1}
489: - 3 \overline{\rho}_{2} \overline{\rho}_{1,1}(d)
490: + 6 \overline{\rho}_{1}^2 \overline{\rho}_{1,1}(d)
491: + 6 \overline{\rho}_{2} \overline{\rho}_{1}^2
492: - 6 \overline{\rho}_{1}^4
493: \quad,
494: \nonumber \\
495: \overline{C}_{2,2}(d)
496: &=& \overline{\rho}_{2,2}(d)
497: - 4 \overline{\rho}_{1} \overline{\rho}_{2,1}(d)
498: - 2 (\overline{\rho}_{1,1}(d))^2
499: - \overline{\rho}_{2}^2
500: + 8 \overline{\rho}_{1}^2 \overline{\rho}_{1,1}(d)
501: + 4 \overline{\rho}_{2} \overline{\rho}_{1}^2
502: - 6 \overline{\rho}_{1}^4
503: \,.
504: \nonumber
505: \end{eqnarray}
506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
507: With Eqs.\ (\ref{rev10})--(\ref{rev17}) we arrive for
508: $\overline C_{r,1}(d)$ at
509: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
510: \begin{equation}
511: \label{rev18}
512: \overline C_{r,1}(d)
513: = G_1(J,d) \, c_{r{+}1} + G_0(J,d) \, c_{r,1} \,.
514: \end{equation}
515: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
516: This turns out to be equivalent to direct translational averaging of
517: (\ref{rev8}), i.e.\ $2^{-J} \sum_{t=1}^{2^J} C_{r,1}(t,t+d)$. For
518: $s{\neq}1$, however, such direct averaging is wrong and the full
519: conversion from cumulant to moment to averaged moment and back to
520: averaged cumulant is mandatory. For $r{=}s{=}2$ we get, for example,
521: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: \label{rev19}
524: \overline{C}_{2,2}(d)
525: &=& G_1(J,d) \left( c_{4} + 4c_{2}c_{1,1} \right)
526: + G_0(J,d) \left( c_{2,2} + 2c_{1,1}^2 \right)
527: \nonumber \\
528: &&\ - 2 \left[ G_1(J,d) c_{2} + G_0(J,d) c_{1,1} \right]^2
529: + 2 G_2(J,d) c_{2}^2
530: \; ,
531: \end{eqnarray}
532: %%%---------------------------------------------------------------
533: where the additional terms are a consequence of the quadratic
534: $(\overline{\rho}_{1,1}(d))^2$ term in the expression for $\overline
535: C_{2,2}(d)$ in (\ref{rev17}).
536:
537:
538: Equation (\ref{rev18}) has a simple structure, consisting of two terms
539: each of which is the product of a geometrical prefactor and a
540: branching cumulant. We note that the geometrical prefactor $G_n(J,d)$
541: depends only on the geometric structure of the cascade but not on the
542: cascade generator $p(q_L,q_R)$; in particular, as $G_n$ is independent
543: of the cumulant order $r$, it is the same for all $\overline C_{r,1}$.
544: The cascade generator, on the other hand, enters only via the
545: branching cumulants $c_{r+1}$ and $c_{r,1}$.
546:
547:
548: For factorised cascade generators (\ref{rev20}), eq.\ (\ref{rev18})
549: simplifies even further to $\overline C_{r,1}(d) = G_1(J,d)\,c_{r+1}$.
550: The distinguishability of $c_{r+1}$'s for the three model generators
551: (\ref{rev21})--(\ref{rev23}) therefore implies that two-point
552: cumulants $\overline C_{r,1}(d)$ of the models will differ
553: significantly also as they amplify $c_{r+1}$ by the geometrical
554: prefactor.
555:
556:
557: In order to check whether our analytical results remain statistically
558: significant for finite data samples, we simulated a chain of $m=10^7$
559: cascade configurations mimicking a time series of $m$ integral
560: lengths, corresponding in size to a typical experimental data set.
561: The length of the inertial cascade range was set to $L/\eta=2^8$. One-
562: and two-point densities were sampled according to Eq.~(\ref{rev9}) and
563: then converted into two-point cumulants using relations (\ref{rev17}).
564: Variances on translationally averaged moments were estimated
565: for each $d$ by picking, with a random $t$, just one pair of energy
566: fluxes $(\varepsilon_t,\varepsilon_{t+d})$ per two adjacent cascade
567: configurations, thereby avoiding correlations between picked pairs.
568: Variances for $\overline C_{r,s}$ were calculated from (\ref{rev17})
569: using standard error propagation.
570:
571:
572: Results for $\overline C_{2,1}$ are depicted in Fig.~2, with the solid
573: lines representing the analytical function $G_1(J,d)\,c_3$ and
574: simulations yielding the shaded bands. Based on Fig.~2, it would
575: appear that statistically significant values for same-lineage
576: cumulants $c_{r+1}$ up to at least $r=2$ can likely be extracted
577: experimentally. As standard errors increase with increasing order,
578: meaningful statements on higher orders become successively more
579: difficult.
580:
581:
582: While one-point cumulants $\overline C_n$ should no doubt be measured,
583: the two-point cumulants contain significant additional information.
584:
585: Firstly, one-point cumulants cannot distinguish between the ordered
586: chain of cascade configurations and its spatially randomised
587: equivalent, while two-point cumulants can do so. This is true because
588: for the randomised case two-point cumulants are simply zero while in
589: the ordered case they retain memory of the ordered cascade tree
590: through the geometric coefficients $G_n(J,d)$, which according to
591: relation (\ref{rev12}) can be understood as $n$-th order moments of
592: the probability distribution $p(D|d,J)$. Thus, two-point cumulants
593: yield information on the cascade generator via the branching cumulants
594: $c_{r+1}$ as well as testing the spatially nested cascade hierarchy
595: via the geometric coefficients $G_n(J,d)$. To date, the probing of the
596: treelike structure of the underlying process has not received much
597: attention in the literature; we only know of Refs.\
598: \cite{MEN90,BEN97}, which discuss multifractal phase-transition-like
599: behaviour for two-point densities, and of Ref.\ \cite{ARN98}, which
600: concerns itself with wavelet scale-scale correlations.
601:
602:
603: Secondly, when cascade generators $p(q_L,q_R)$ do not factorise as in
604: (\ref{rev20}), the splitting cumulant $c_{r,s}$ is nonzero, and so
605: same-lineage cumulants plus multifractal scaling exponents are
606: insufficient for their complete reconstruction. Indeed, more realistic
607: cascade generators, attempting as best possible to reproduce the
608: observed one-dimensional energy dissipation data, will typically exhibit
609: small but nonzero residual correlations between $q_L$ and $q_R$. This
610: expectation follows from a projection argument \cite{JOU99}
611: stating that the energy cascade evolves in three dimensions but is
612: observed only in one. Through their dependence on a nonzero $c_{r,s}$,
613: the $\overline C_{r,s}$ should thus provide a more complete
614: characterisation of the cascade generator.
615:
616:
617: To conclude: In the pursuit of finer statistical facets of the energy
618: dissipation field in fully developed turbulence, translationally
619: averaged cumulants of logarithmic field amplitudes appear to be a
620: promising new tool. We have demonstrated for random multiplicative
621: cascade processes that two-point cumulants can be written as simple
622: products of geometrical coefficients times cumulant moments of the
623: cascade generator and can thus distinguish between cascade generators
624: which have more or less identical lowest-order multifractal scaling
625: exponents and multiplier distributions. Through their dependence on
626: the cascade geometry, two-point cumulants are also able to test the
627: treelike cascade structure.
628:
629:
630: It is tempting to apply two-point cumulants of $\ln\varepsilon$
631: directly to the experimental energy dissipation field deduced from
632: hot-wire time series to learn about the best approximate random
633: multiplicative cascade model and then to study possible dependences on
634: the Reynolds number and the flow configuration. We suggest, however,
635: that studies of other and more elaborate models such as hierarchical
636: shell models \cite{BEN97}, effects of finite inertial range etc.\ be
637: undertaken before this new tool is applied to data. Also, practical
638: problems such as choosing the finest resolution scale for the analysis
639: and finite sample size effects should be pondered in more detail.
640:
641:
642: The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with J\"urgen Schmiegel,
643: Jochen Cleve and Jahanshah Davoudi. This work was funded in part by
644: the South African National Research Foundation. HCE thanks the MPIPKS
645: for kind hospitality and support.
646:
647:
648: %\newpage
649: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
650: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
651:
652: \bibitem{MON71}
653: A.S.\ Monin and A.M.\ Yaglom,
654: {\em Statistical Fluid Mechanics}, Vol.\ 1 and 2,
655: (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1971);
656: U.\ Frisch,
657: {\em Turbulence}
658: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
659: \bibitem{SRE97}
660: C.\ Meneveau and K.R.\ Sreenivasan,
661: J.\ Fluid Mech.\ {\bf 224}, 429 (1991);
662: K.R.\ Sreenivasan and R.A.\ Antonia,
663: Ann.\ Rev.\ Fluid Mech.\ {\bf 29}, 435 (1997).
664: \bibitem{SRE95}
665: K.R.\ Sreenivasan and G.\ Stolovitzky,
666: J.\ Stat.\ Phys.\ {\bf 78}, 311 (1995);
667: G.\ Pedrizzetti, E.A.\ Novikov and A.A.\ Praskovsky,
668: Phys.\ Rev.\ E{\bf 53}, 475 (1996);
669: J.\ Molenaar, J.\ Herweijer, and W.\ van de Water,
670: Phys.\ Rev.\ E{\bf 52}, 496 (1995).
671: \bibitem{JOU99}
672: B.\ Jouault, P.\ Lipa, and M.\ Greiner,
673: Phys. \ Rev.\ E{\bf 59}, 2451 (1999);
674: B.\ Jouault, M.\ Greiner, and P.\ Lipa,
675: Physica D{\bf 136}, 125 (2000);
676: B.\ Jouault, J.\ Schmiegel, and M.\ Greiner,
677: chao-dyn/9909033.
678: \bibitem{GRE98}
679: M.\ Greiner, H.C.\ Eggers, and P.\ Lipa,
680: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 5333 (1998);
681: M.\ Greiner, J.\ Schmiegel, F.\ Eickemeyer, P.\ Lipa,
682: and H.C.\ Eggers,
683: Phys.\ Rev.\ E{\bf 58}, 554 (1998).
684: \bibitem{CAR90}
685: P.\ Carruthers, H.C.\ Eggers, and I.\ Sarcevic,
686: Phys.\ Lett.\ B{\bf 254}, 258 (1991).
687: \bibitem{GRE97}
688: M.\ Greiner, J.\ Giesemann, and P.\ Lipa,
689: Phys.\ Rev.\ E{\bf 56}, 4263 (1997).
690: \bibitem{NAE97}
691: A.\ Naert, R.\ Friedrich, and J.\ Peinke,
692: Phys. \ Rev.\ E{\bf 56}, 6719 (1997);
693: P.\ Marcq and A.\ Naert,
694: Physica D{\bf 134}, 368 (1998).
695: \bibitem{CLE00}
696: J.\ Cleve and M.\ Greiner,
697: Phys.\ Lett.\ A{\bf 273}, 104 (2000).
698: \bibitem{MEN90}
699: C.\ Meneveau and A.\ Chhabra,
700: Physica A{\bf 164}, 564 (1990);
701: J.\ O'Neil and C.\ Meneveau,
702: Phys.\ Fluids A{\bf 5}, 158 (1993).
703: \bibitem{BEN97}
704: R.\ Benzi, L.\ Biferale, R.\ Tripiccione, and E.\ Trovatore,
705: Phys.\ Fluids {\bf 9}, 2355 (1997);
706: R.\ Benzi, L.\ Biferale, and E.\ Trovatore,
707: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 1670 (1997).
708: \bibitem{ARN98}
709: A.\ Arneodo, E.\ Bacry, S.\ Manneville, and J.F.\ Muzy,
710: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 708 (1998).
711:
712: \end{thebibliography}
713:
714:
715:
716:
717: \newpage
718: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
720: % FIGURE 1 %
721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
722: %\begin{center}
723: \mbox{ }\hspace*{-15mm}
724: \parbox[t]{65mm}{ \psfig{file=paper31fig1a.eps,height=110mm} }
725: \parbox[t]{65mm}{ \psfig{file=paper31fig1b.eps,height=110mm} }
726: \par\ \\
727: Figure 1: (a) Multifractal scaling exponents and (b) same-lineage
728: cumulants for the binomial (circles), lognormal (squares), and beta
729: (diamonds) cascade generators (\ref{rev21})--(\ref{rev23}).
730: %\end{center}
731: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
732:
733:
734: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
736: % FIGURE 2 %
737: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
738: %\begin{center}
739: \mbox{ }\hspace*{-15mm}
740: %%\parbox[t]{100mm}{ \psfig{file=c21.s541.eps,height=180mm} }
741: \parbox[t]{100mm}{ \psfig{file=paper31fig2.eps,height=180mm} }
742: \par\ \\
743: Figure 2:
744: Analytical (solid lines) and simulated (shaded bands) two-point
745: cumulant $\overline{C}_{2,1}(d)$ as a function of bin-bin distance
746: $d$, for the binomial (top), lognormal (middle) and beta (bottom)
747: cascade generators (\ref{rev21})--(\ref{rev23}).
748: %\end{center}
749: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
750:
751:
752:
753: \end{document}
754: