1: \documentclass{aa}

2: \usepackage{graphics}

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \thesaurus{06 (06.18.1; 02.03.1; 03.13.2; 03.13.6 )}

8: 

9: \title{Determination of fractal dimensions of solar radio bursts}

10: 

11: \author{A. Veronig \inst{1}

12:  \and M. Messerotti \inst{2}

13:  \and A. Hanslmeier \inst{1} }

14: 

15: \offprints{A. Veronig}

16: 

17: \institute{Institute of Astronomy, University of Graz,

18:  Universit\"atsplatz 5, A--8010 Graz, Austria

19:  \and Trieste Astronomical Observatory, Via G.B. Tiepolo 11,

20:  I--34131 Trieste, Italy }

21: 

22: \date{Received 19 July 1999 / Accepted 7 March 2000}

23: 

24: \maketitle

25: 

26: 

27: \begin{abstract}

28: We present a dimension analysis of a set of solar type~I storms

29: and type~IV events with different kind of fine structures, recorded

30: at the Trieste Astronomical Observatory. The signature of such types

31: of solar radio events is highly structured in time. However,

32: periodicities are rather seldom, and linear mode theory can provide

33: only limited interpretation of the data. Therefore, we performed an

34: analysis based on methods of the nonlinear dynamics theory.

35: 

36: Additionally to the commonly used correlation dimension, we also

37: calculated local pointwise dimensions. This alternative approach is

38: motivated by the fact that astrophysical time series represent

39: real-world systems, which cannot be kept in a controlled state and

40: which are highly interconnected with their surroundings. In such systems

41: pure determinism is rather unlikely to be realized, and therefore a

42: characterization by invariants of the dynamics might probably be inadequate.

43: 

44: In fact, the outcome of the dimension analysis does not give hints for

45: low-dimensional determinism in the data, but we show that, contrary to the

46: correlation dimension method, local dimension estimations can give physical

47: insight into the events even in cases in which pure determinism cannot be

48: established. In particular, in most of the analyzed radio events nonlinearity

49: in the data is detected, and the local dimension analysis provides a basis for

50: a quantitative description of the time series, which can be used to

51: characterize the complexity of the related physical system in a comparative and

52: non-invariant manner.

53: 

54: In this frame, the degree of complexity we inferred for type~I storms is on

55: the average lower than that relevant to type~IV events. For the type~IV events

56: significant differences occur with regard to the various subtypes, whereas

57: pulsations and sudden reductions can be described by distinctly lower values

58: than spikes and fast pulsations.

59: 

60: \keywords{Sun: radio radiation -- chaos -- methods: data analysis --

61:  methods: statistical}

62: \end{abstract}

63: 

64: 

65: \section{Introduction}

66: 

67: Nonlinear time series analysis based on the theory of

68: deterministic chaos has turned out to be a powerful tool in

69: understanding complex dynamics from measurements and observational

70: time series. In particular it can provide

71: descriptions and interpretations for irregular times series, which

72: nevertheless might not be governed by a stochastic physical

73: process and which are only poorly understood by linear methods.

74: A number of recent reviews and conference proceedings shows the

75: great interest in the field of nonlinear time series analysis

76: (see, for instance, Grassberger et al. \cite{GrassbergerEtal91};

77: Casdagli \& Eubank \cite{CasdagliEubank92}; Weigend \& Gershenfeld

78: \cite{WeigendGershenfeld93}; Kugiumtzis \cite{KugiumtzisEtal94a},

79: \cite{KugiumtzisEtal94b}; Abarbanel \cite{Abarbanel96}; Kantz \&

80: Schreiber \cite{KantzSchreiber97}; Schreiber \cite{Schreiber99}).

81: 

82: Since the development of chaos theory, it is well known that even

83: simple dynamical systems, described by few nonlinear differential

84: equations, can reveal a complex and quasi-irregular behavior.

85: A central concept to characterize such systems is the

86: so-called {\em attractor}. Under the dynamics of a deterministic

87: system the trajectories do not cover the whole phase space, but,

88: after all transient phenomena have faded out, converge to a subset

89: of the phase space, the attractor. The attractor itself is invariant

90: to the dynamical evolution. Simple examples of attractors are

91: fixed points and limit cycles. However, when the related dynamical

92: system is {\em chaotic}, the attractor can have a complex

93: geometry with a {\em fractal}, i.e., non-integer, dimension.

94: Different invariant parameters exist to describe the geometry

95: and the dynamics of an attractor, such as dimensions, Lyapunov

96: exponents and entropies. Besides the fractal geometry, chaotic

97: systems have the striking property that initially neighboring

98: trajectories diverge exponentially under the dynamics, and the

99: growth rate is given by the {\em Lyapunov exponent}. This

100: phenomenon results from the folding and stretching of the

101: trajectories under the dynamics, the folding leading to the

102: convergence of the trajectories to the attractor and the

103: stretching to the divergence in certain directions. While the

104: average stretching rate is given by the Lyapunov exponent, the

105: loss of information due to the folding is quantified by the {\em

106: entropy}. Lyapunov exponents and entropies characterize the

107: dynamics on the attractor, and the {\em dimension}

108: characterizes its geometry. The physical meaning of the dimension

109: of an attractor is that it corresponds to the degree of freedom of

110: the related dynamical system, i.e., in a deterministic case, the

111: minimum number of ordinary differential equations needed to fully

112: describe the system. Deterministic systems are characterized by a

113: finite dimension. Deterministic chaotic systems have the additional

114: characteristic that their dimension is fractal.

115: Contrary to that, a stochastic system is characterized by an

116: infinite dimension, indicating its infinite degree of freedom.

117: Therefore, the determination of the dimension of an attractor

118: enables to discriminate whether a dynamical system is

119: deterministic or stochastic.

120: 

121: Previous papers exist concerning the investigation of fractal dimensions

122: of solar radio bursts. It has to be noted, that the time series used

123: by the different authors are not directly comparable as they represent

124: different types of radio events. Kurths \& Herzel (\cite{KurthsHerzel86},

125: \cite{KurthsHerzel87}),  Kurths \& Karlick$\acute{\rm y}$ (\cite{KurthsKarlicky89}),

126: and Kurths et al. (\cite{KurthsEtal91}) analyzed decimetric pulsations

127: and ascertained finite dimension values. Contrary to that,

128: Isliker (\cite{Isliker92b}) and Isliker \& Benz (\cite{IslikerBenz94a},

129: \cite{IslikerBenz94b}) investigated different types of solar radio bursts

130: in the metric~(m) and decimetric~(dm) wavelength range (type~I storms,

131: type~II bursts, type~III bursts, type~IV events, and narrowband

132: spikes), which did not reveal any hints for low-dimensional

133: determinism.\footnote{The reported finite dimension for one of

134: the analyzed narrowband spike events in Isliker (\cite{Isliker92b}) was

135: revised in a later paper (Isliker \& Benz \cite{IslikerBenz94a}).}

136: 

137: However, these investigations rely all on the correlation dimension method. The

138: present paper additionally introduces a complementary dimension analysis, motivated

139: by the fact that solar radio bursts represent real-world systems, which implies

140: some major restrictions. First, the time series cannot be expected to be stationary,

141: and second, pure determinism is rather unlikely to be realized. Therefore we do not

142: only concentrate on the usual way of looking at the problem: ``Does the analyzed

143: time series represent a deterministic or a stochastic system?" but in particular

144: focus the question: ``What statistical description can be extracted from a dimension

145: analysis of the time series?" With such refined formulation of the problem, we try

146: to make use of the concepts and tools of nonlinear time series analysis even in

147: cases in which the determination of invariants of the dynamics, as, e.g., attractor

148: dimensions, possibly fails.

149: 

150: The paper is structured as follows. Sect.~\ref{Methods} explains the used

151: methods and discusses critical points in the determination of fractal dimensions

152: from time series. In Sect.~\ref{DataSets} the investigated data sets are

153: characterized and the analysis procedure is described. Sect.~\ref{Results}

154: presents the results of the dimension analysis, which are discussed in

155: Sect.~\ref{Discussion}. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Sect.~\ref{Conclusion}.

156: 

157: 

158: 

159: \section{Methods  \label{Methods}}

160: 

161: 

162: \subsection{Phase space reconstruction}

163: 

164: Generally, not all relevant parameters of the dynamics of a system are

165: measured during an observation but only a one-dimensional time series

166: is given. To reconstruct the phase space of the related dynamical system,

167: techniques have to be applied to unfold the multi-dimensional attractor

168: from a scalar time series. By the technique of time delayed coordinates

169: (Takens \cite{Takens81}), from a given one-dimensional time

170: series~$\{x(t_i)\}$ an $m$-dimensional phase space~$\{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}_i\}$

171: is built up by the prescription

172: %

173: \begin{equation}

174:  \mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}_i = \{ x(t_{i}), \; x( t_{i}+\tau), \; \ldots \; ,x(t_{i}+(m-1)\tau) \}\; ,

175: \end{equation}

176: %

177: where $\tau$ is the time delay.

178: 

179: According to the embedding theorem of Takens (\cite{Takens81}), the embedding

180: of the attractor in the $m$-dimensional reconstructed phase space can be

181: ensured if \mbox{$m \ge (2D+1)$}, with~$D$ the dimension of the original phase

182: space. For time series of infinite length and accuracy, $\tau$ can be chosen

183: in a more or less arbitrary way without affecting the results. However, in

184: practice not every value for the time delay~$\tau$ will be suitable. Too

185: small~$\tau$ will build up coordinates which are too strongly correlated, while

186: for large~$\tau$ the vector components show no causal connection. The choice

187: of the time delay~$\tau$ in the reconstruction of the phase space usually

188: strongly affects the quality of the analysis, and different procedures have

189: been worked out to ensure a proper choice of~$\tau$. The most prominent methods

190: use the auto-correlation time ($1/e$~decay time, first zero crossing,

191: first minimum) or the first minimum of the mutual information (Fraser \&

192: Swinney \cite{FraserSwinney86}).

193: 

194: One advantage of the {\em mutual information} over the auto-correlation

195: function is that it takes into account nonlinear properties of the data.

196: The mutual information is based on the Shannon entropy (Shannon \& Weaver

197: \cite{ShannonWeaver62}), and gives the information about the state of a

198: system at time $t+\tau$ that we already possess if we know the state at

199: time~$t$. The choice of the first minimum of the mutual information for

200: the time delay~$\tau$ is motivated by the fact that two successive delay

201: coordinates should be as independent as possible without making~$\tau$

202: too large.

203: 

204: 

205: \subsection{Correlation dimension}

206: 

207: The correlation dimension is one out of many definitions of fractal dimensions,

208: and was introduced by Grassberger \& Procaccia (\cite{GrassbergerProcaccia83a},

209: \cite{GrassbergerProcaccia83b}) to determine fractal dimensions from time series.

210: The correlation dimension is based on distance measurements of points in phase

211: space. Therefore, as first step, from the time series~$\{x(t_i)\}$ the phase

212: space vectors~$\{\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}_i\}$ have to be constructed. With the

213: reconstructed vectors, the correlation integral~$C(r)$ can be calculated, which

214: is given by the normalized number of pairs of points within a distance~$r$. As

215: the correlation dimension is based on spatial correlations in phase space, it is

216: an important precaution to exclude serially correlated points in counting the

217: pairs (for details see Sect.~\ref{TemporalCorrelations}), and the length of

218: the window,~$W$, should at least cover all points within the auto-correlation

219: time (Theiler \cite{Theiler86}). With this correction, the correlation integral

220: is given by

221: %

222: \begin{equation}

223:  C(r) =  \frac{2}{\rm N_{pairs}} \sum_{i=1}^{{\rm N}-W} \sum_{j=i+W}^{{\rm N}}

224:         \Theta(r-\|\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i-\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_j\|) \, , \\

225: \end{equation}

226: %

227: \begin{equation}

228:  {\rm N_{pairs}}  =  ({\rm N}-W)({\rm N}-W+1) \, ,

229: \end{equation}

230: %

231: where N denotes the overall number of data points, and $\Theta$ is the

232: Heaviside step function. For small distances~$r$, the correlation integral~$C(r)$

233: is expected to scale with a power of~$r$, and the scaling exponent defines

234: the correlation dimension~$D_c\,$:

235: %

236: \begin{equation}

237:  C(r) \propto r^{D_c}\, , \quad {\rm for}\:\, r \to 0 \, ,

238:  \label{corrdim1}

239: \end{equation}

240: \begin{equation}

241:  D_c=\lim_{r \to 0} \frac{\ln C(r)}{\ln r} \: .

242: \end{equation}

243: %

244: Practically one computes the correlation integral for increasing embedding

245: dimension~$m$ and calculates the related $D_c(m)$ in the scaling region.

246: If the~$D_c(m)$ reach a saturation value~$D_c$ for relatively small~$m$,

247: this gives an indication that an attractor with dimension~$D_c$ exists underlying

248: the analyzed time series.

249: 

250: 

251: \subsection{Local pointwise dimensions}

252: 

253: The local pointwise dimension is a locally defined variant of the

254: correlation dimension. Its definition is based on the probability~$p_i(r)$

255: to find points in a neighborhood of a point~$\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}_i$

256: with size~$r\,$:

257: %

258: \begin{equation}

259:  p_i(r)= \frac{1}{{\rm N}_{\rm pairs}} \sum_{j=1 \atop |j-i| \ge W}^{\rm N}

260:          \Theta(r-\|\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i-\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_j \|) \:,

261:  \label{pointdim0}

262: \end{equation}

263: %

264: where ${\rm N}_{\rm pairs}$ gives the actual number of pairs of points in the sum.

265: For small distances~$r$, $p_i(r)$ is expected to scale with a power of~$r$, and

266: the scaling exponent~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)$ gives the local

267: pointwise dimension at point~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$:

268: %

269: \begin{equation}

270:  p_i(r) \propto r^{D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)}\, , \quad {\rm for}\:\, r \to 0 \, ,

271:  \label{pointdim1}

272: \end{equation}

273: \begin{equation}%

274:  D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)=\lim_{r \to 0} \frac{\ln p_i(r)}{\ln r} \, .

275: \end{equation}

276: %

277: Averaging~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)$ over all points of the time series

278: or a number of reference points yields the averaged pointwise dimension,

279: $\bar{D}_p$, which is equivalent to the correlation dimension and gives a

280: global description of the geometry of an attractor:

281: %

282: \begin{equation}

283: \bar{D}_p = \frac{1}{{\rm N}_{\rm ok}} \sum_{i=1}^{{\rm N}_{\rm ok}} D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i) \, ,

284: \end{equation}

285: %

286: with ${\rm N}_{\rm ok}$ the number of accepted reference points.

287: 

288: \begin{figure*}

289:  \resizebox{12cm}{11.2cm}{\includegraphics{9066_f1.eps}}

290:  \hfill

291:  \parbox[b]{55mm}{

292: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f1.eps}}

293:  \caption{Top Panel: Simulated time series, made up of three sections

294:  related to different attractors, the Lorenz, a limit cycle (Sine), and

295:  the R\"ossler attractor. The middle panels depict an enlargement of the

296:  respective sections. The bottom panel shows the related local pointwise

297:  dimensions~$D_p(t_i)$. Its evolution reflects the different attractors

298:  successively operating in time.}

299:  \label{9066_f1}

300:  }

301: \end{figure*}

302: 

303: Since the $D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)$ are local functions and defined

304: for each point, they are, on the one hand, a function of the

305: position~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$ on the attractor, characterizing its

306: local geometry. On the other hand, the local dimensions can be interpreted as a

307: function of time, $D_p(t_i)$, since they reflect the temporal evolution, in which

308: the points~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$ on the attractor are covered by the

309: dynamics (Mayer-Kress \cite{Mayer-Kress94}). Based on this fact, local dimension

310: estimations have the interesting property that they enable to

311: cope with non-stationary data.

312: 

313: An example is shown in Fig.~\ref{9066_f1}, which illustrates the local

314: pointwise dimensions calculated for a simulated time series, made up of

315: three sections related to different attractors, the Lorenz, a limit cycle

316: and the R\"ossler attractor. The evolution of the local pointwise

317: dimensions~$D_p(t_i)$ detects the different attractors successively

318: operating in time. The averaged pointwise dimensions~$\bar{D}_p$ in the

319: respective sections deviate less than 10\% from the true values. As for

320: the calculation of the local dimension at point~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$

321: the distances to {\em all} points of the time series, even those related to

322: a different attractor, are taken into account, it is a quite striking feature

323: that the different attractors can be disentangled by the method. Moreover, for

324: this exemplary analysis the length of the time series was taken rather short

325: in order to mimic the conditions of observed time series. Such a behavior reveals

326: that the reference point~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$, which is equivalent to a

327: time~$t_i$ of the dynamical evolution of the system, dominates the local

328: dimension calculation. However, we want to stress that small changes of the

329: attractor dimension, as, e.g., in the case of the Lorenz and the R\"ossler

330: attractor (see Fig.~\ref{9066_f1}), cannot be detected .

331: 

332: 

333: \subsection{Pitfalls in dimension estimations}

334: 

335: The determination of fractal dimensions from time series, characterized by

336: finite length and accuracy, includes many pitfalls, which can lead to quite

337: spurious results. In this chapter the most prominent problems will be

338: discussed and the strategies used by the authors to avoid such pitfalls.

339: A brief but quite dense review with respect to critical points in the

340: determination of the correlation dimension can be found in Grassberger

341: et al. (\cite{GrassbergerEtal91}). As the local pointwise dimensions

342: are a variant of the correlation dimension, most of the problems occur

343: in a similar way.

344: 

345: 

346: \subsubsection{Noise and quality of the scaling region \label{pl_noise}}

347: 

348: As expressed in Eq.~\ref{corrdim1} for the correlation integral~$C(r)$ and

349: Eq.~\ref{pointdim1} for the probability~$p_i(r)$, respectively, a scaling behavior

350: is expected for $r \to 0$. However, for real time series, which are contaminated

351: by noise and which are of finite length, the scaling behavior is expected to

352: occur at intermediate length scales. Noise is acting at small scales and

353: therefore dominating the scaling behavior for small~$r$. Deviations from

354: ideal scaling at large length scales are due to edge effects caused by the

355: finite length of the time series.

356: 

357: Fig.~\ref{9066_f2} shows such typical scaling behavior for a time series

358: of finite length and accuracy. For better illustration we have plotted

359: the local slopes of the correlation integral, given by the expression

360: %

361: \begin{equation}

362: \nu(r) = \frac{{\rm d} \ln C(r)} {{\rm d} \ln r} \, .

363: \end{equation}

364: %

365: In the case of ideal scaling, the $\nu(r)$, calculated for different

366: embedding dimensions~$m$, form straight lines parallel to the $x$-axes,

367: the so-called plateau region, with the constant $y$-value corresponding

368: to~$D_c(m)$. However, it is typical for observational time series that at

369: least three different parts in the $\nu(r)$ curves are distinguishable,

370: described in the caption of Fig.~\ref{9066_f2}. To avoid spurious finite

371: dimensions which might arise from a misinterpretation of the existence

372: or non-existence of a physically relevant scaling region, we implemented an

373: algorithm to automatically check for scaling behavior

374: (see Sect.~\ref{testalgo}).

375: 

376: \begin{figure}

377:  \centering

378:  \resizebox{0.94\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f2.eps}}

379:  \caption{Scaling behavior for a time series of finite

380:  length and accuracy, calculated from a stationary subsection of a

381:  type~IV event with sudden reductions (January 13, 1989).

382:  On small scales~$r$ [I], the scaling is dominated by noise.

383:  Since noise tends to fill the whole phase space: $\nu(r,m) \approx m$.

384:  At intermediate length scales [II], the physically relevant scaling

385:  is located: $\nu(r,m) \approx D_c(m)$. For large~$r$ [III], deviations

386:  from the ideal scaling occur due to the finite number of data points. }

387:  \label{9066_f2}

388: \end{figure}

389: 

390: 

391: 

392: \subsubsection{Temporal correlations  \label{TemporalCorrelations} }

393: 

394: The correlation integral~$C(r)$ and the probability~$p_i(r)$ are a measure of

395: spatial correlations on the attractor. They are basically calculated by counting

396: pairs of points which are closer to each other than a given distance~$r$. However,

397: at small scales successive points of the time series give an additional contribution,

398: since they are close in time. Nevertheless, such points do not reflect spatial

399: correlations, i.e., a clustering of points in phase space, but are \mbox{serially}

400: correlated by the temporal order of the time series. To avoid the spurious

401: contribution of serially correlated points, which can cause strong artificial

402: effects, especially for data recorded with a high sampling rate, at least all

403: pairs of points closer than the auto-correlation time have to be excluded

404: (Theiler \cite{Theiler86}):

405: %

406: \begin{equation}

407: W > t_{corr} \, .

408: \end{equation}

409: 

410: A similar phenomenon can occur when the analyzed time series is

411: rather short. If the time series is too short to ensure that the

412: attractor is well covered with points, then most of the points of

413: the series are serially correlated, which again might result in

414: spurious dimensions. Different relations have been derived for the

415: minimum length of a time series needed for dimension estimations,

416: as the one by Eckmann \& Ruelle

417: (\cite{EckmannRuelle92}):

418: %

419: \begin{equation}

420:  D_c < 2 \log_{10} {\rm N} \, ,

421: \end{equation}

422: %

423: with N the length of the time series. However, not only the length of the

424: data series is of relevance but also the length with regard to the sampling

425: rate. Applications to different kind of time series, from known chaotic

426: attractors as well as measured time series (Brandstater \& Swinney

427: \cite{BrandstaterSwinney87};  Kurths et al. \cite{KurthsEtal91};

428: Isliker \cite{Isliker92a}; Isliker \& Benz \cite{IslikerBenz94a}), have

429: revealed that the analyzed time series should at least cover~50

430: structures -- ``structure" meaning a full orbit in phase space or generally a

431: typical time scale of the analyzed time series. According to Isliker

432: (\cite{Isliker92a}), we define the structures by the first minimum of

433: the auto-correlation function,

434: %

435: \begin{equation}

436:  {\rm N}_{str}\gtrsim 50  \quad {\rm with} \quad {\rm N}_{str}:= \frac{{\rm N} \cdot \Delta}{t_{corr}} \, ,

437:  \label{Nstr}

438: \end{equation}

439: %

440: where ${\rm N}_{str}$ gives the number of structures, N the length of the

441: time series, $\Delta$ the temporal resolution, and $t_{corr}$ the

442: auto-correlation time.

443: 

444: 

445: \subsubsection{Stationarity}

446: 

447: As shown by Osborne et al. (\cite{OsborneEtal86}) and Osborne \& Provenzale

448: (\cite{OsborneProvenzale89}), the determination of the correlation dimension

449: from non-stationary stochastic processes, can erroneously lead to finite

450: dimension values. To take into account that problem, we applied a stationarity

451: test proposed by Isliker \& Kurths (\cite{IslikerKurths93}), which is based on

452: the binned probability distribution of the data. To check for stationarity

453: one divides the time series into subsections, and compares the probability

454: distribution of the section under investigation with the probability

455: distribution of the first half of it by a $\chi^2$-test. By the use of

456: this test we searched for stationary subsections in the radio burst

457: time series, and only to such stationary subsections the correlation

458: dimension analysis was applied.

459: 

460: However, with the concept of local dimensions it is possible to cope

461: with non-stationary data. One important advantage of the local

462: dimension method is that it can enable to detect dynamical changes in a time

463: series. To make use of this potentiality, we calculated the local pointwise

464: dimensions from the whole time series instead of using stationary subsections.

465: Moreover, since the statistics in the calculation of the local pointwise

466: dimensions grows linearly with the length of the time series, whereas

467: the correlation dimension grows with the square of the number of points,

468: for the local pointwise dimension analysis the time series should be

469: kept as long as possible. However, to avoid spurious results due

470: to non-stationarities, we applied a surrogate data test (Sect.~\ref{surrogate}).

471: 

472: 

473: \subsubsection{Intermittency}

474: 

475: Intermittency describes the phenomenon that a time series is

476: interrupted by quiet phases or phases of very low amplitudes.

477: Such a phenomenon is quite typical for chaotic systems, but can

478: cause problematic situations when calculating fractal dimensions

479: from limited time series. In phase space the intermittent sections

480: represent regions, which, in the context of the global attractor

481: scale, degenerate to a point. This would trivially result in an

482: erroneously low dimension value. One way to cope with this problem

483: is just to discard intermittent phases from the analyzed time series.

484: Since the dimension of an attractor is a geometric descriptor, which

485: means a static quantity, it is not influenced by the serial order of

486: points, and therefore discarding subsections is a valid strategy.

487: 

488: \begin{figure*}

489:  \resizebox{12cm}{8.8cm}{\includegraphics{9066_f3.eps}}

490:  \hfill

491:  \parbox[b]{55mm}{

492: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f3.eps}}

493:  \caption{Top panel: Stationary subsection of a type~I storm

494:  (January 30, 1991) with an intermittent phase present (marked

495:  by a line). The abscissa values are given in points (the same

496:  applies to following figures).

497:  Middle panel: Correlation integral~$C(r)$ for $m=1$

498:  to $m=9$, and local slopes $\nu(r)$ for $m=5$ and $m=7$, calculated

499:  from the whole time series depicted. Bottom panels: Same curves,

500:  but calculated from the time series after the putative intermittent section

501:  was eliminated. The hatched ranges in the graphs of the local slopes

502:  mark the automatically determined scaling region.}

503:  \label{9066_f3}

504:   }

505: \end{figure*}

506: 

507: As an example, the top panel of Fig.~\ref{9066_f3} shows the subsection

508: of a type~I burst series. The middle and bottom panels show the results of

509: the correlation dimension analysis, calculated from the whole time series

510: (middle panels) and the time series after the intermittent section

511: was eliminated (bottom panels). A comparison of the middle and bottom panels

512: reveals that the intermittent phase causes a deformation in the curves of the

513: correlation integral and the related local slopes. Eliminating the

514: intermittent section, these deformations disappear. However, we want to

515: stress that the used algorithm for the automatic detection of the scaling

516: region does not identify the sink-region as a scaling region, which

517: could result in spurious finite dimensions. Therefore, by the set up

518: of the scaling algorithm we avoid erroneous low dimensions caused by

519: intermittency effects.

520: 

521: 

522: \subsection{Scaling and convergence test \label{testalgo}}

523: 

524: The practical computation of the local pointwise dimensions turns out to

525: be more difficult than the correlation dimension, particularly

526: as for {\em each} reference point the scaling region has to be determined and

527: the related~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i,m)$, which are calculated in the

528: scaling region, have to be checked for convergence with increasing embedding

529: dimension~$m$. For this purpose, an automatic and fast procedure is needed.

530: Moreover, such an automatic procedure can also be used in the correlation

531: dimension analysis to avoid subjective influences on the scaling and convergence

532: judgement. We implemented such an algorithm, based on the one used by Skinner

533: et al. (\cite{SkinnerEtal91}), but modified in order to reach higher stability

534: and significance. This automatic procedure searches for the scaling region,

535: defined as the longest linear range in the $\ln p_i(r)$ curves, tests if the

536: scaling region is of significant length, and finally checks if

537: the~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i,m)$ are converging with increasing~$m$.

538: Only for points~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$, which pass the scaling and the

539: convergence test, a local pointwise  dimension~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)$

540: is accepted. In the following we give a description of the algorithm.

541: 

542: According to Eq.~\ref{pointdim0}, for each reference point~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$

543: and each considered embedding dimension~$m$, we calculate the cumulative histogram

544: of the~$p_i(r)$, dividing the $r$-range into 100~equidistant points in the

545: logarithmic representation, which cover the whole range from the smallest to the

546: largest actual distance. The local slopes of the $\ln p_i(r)$ versus $\ln(r)$ curves,

547: given by

548: %

549: \begin{equation}

550: \nu_i(r) = \frac{{\rm d} \ln p_i(r)} {{\rm d} \ln r} \, ,

551: \end{equation}

552: %

553: calculated in the scaling region, represent

554: the~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i,m)$. For the determination of

555: the location of the scaling range, we shift a window with length

556: 10~points through the overall $r$-range, and for each of these windows

557: a least squares linear fit is applied to the $\ln p_i(r)$ versus

558: $\ln r$ curves. The slope of the linear fit corresponds to the average

559: value of the local slopes in the corresponding $r$-range, denoted as

560: $\bar{\nu}_i(r)$. Starting with the first window, successive~$\bar{\nu}_i(r)$

561: are compared with the corresponding quantity in the first window,

562: until the difference is larger than a certain threshold value,

563: chosen as 20\% of the initial~$\bar{\nu}_i(r)$. In this case, the

564: position of the first point of the start window and the last point

565: of the actual window are stored, and the procedure continues with the

566: second window as start window. If the new positions determined cover

567: a larger range than the old ones, the old values are overwritten by

568: the new ones, and so on. The two stored values remaining at the end

569: give the location of the scaling region, in which we

570: calculate~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i,m)$.  If the determined

571: scaling region is smaller than 20\% of the overall length, it is

572: interpreted as not significant and rejected. To avoid spurious results

573: at large~$r$, which usually correspond to small

574: $\bar{\nu}_i(r)$~values, in the whole procedure we suppress

575: values $\bar{\nu}_i(r) < 2$. Fig.~\ref{9066_f4} shows a sample

576: application of the algorithm detecting the scaling range.

577: 

578: \begin{figure}

579:  \centering

580:  \resizebox{0.99\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f4.eps}}

581: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f4.eps}}

582:  \caption{The curves of local slopes $\nu_i(r)$, with $i=1300$, are shown

583:  for different embedding dimensions~$m$, calculated from a sample type~I

584:  storm (August~21, 1991). For  better illustration we plot $\nu_i(r)$

585:  versus $\ln p_i(r)$ instead of $\nu_i(r)$ versus $\ln r$. The marked regions

586:  indicate the  location of the scaling range, as detected by the automatic

587:  procedure. For $m=4$ the determined scaling region is too short (less than

588:  20\% of the overall $r$-range), and therefore rejected.}

589:  \label{9066_f4}

590: \end{figure}

591: 

592: After the scaling region is determined for each point~$\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i$

593: and each embedding dimension~$m$, for those points

594: which reveal a scaling region of significant length for all

595: considered $m$-values, we test the convergence of

596: the~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i,m)$ with increasing~$m$. This

597: is simply done by averaging the~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i,m)$

598: over four successive~$m$-values. If the standard deviation turns out

599: to be less than 15\% of the average value, the convergence is accepted,

600: and the average of the~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i,m)$ over the

601: considered $m$-range is taken as local pointwise

602: dimension~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)$. The different kind of

603: threshold values used have been adjusted by application of the

604: algorithm to different time series, and slight changes do not

605: qualitatively change the outcome.

606: 

607: 

608: \subsection{Surrogate data test \label{surrogate}}

609: 

610: As already mentioned, local dimensions enable to deal with non-stationary

611: data. However, to avoid spurious dimensions which can result from non-stationary

612: stochastic processes, we applied a surrogate data test (Osborne et al.

613: \cite{OsborneEtal86}; Theiler et al. \cite{TheilerEtal92}). For this purpose,

614: a Fourier transform of the time series is performed, the Fourier phases are

615: randomized, and finally to this phase-altered series the inverse Fourier tranform

616: is applied. The phase randomization keeps the power spectrum unchanged while linear

617: correlations in the time series are eliminated. If the results of the dimension

618: analysis of such an ensemble of surrogate data are significantly different from

619: those computed from the original data, the hypothesis can be rejected that the

620: obtained results are caused by a linear stochastic process, and nonlinearity

621: in the data is detected.

622: 

623: To quantify the statistical significance we make use of a hypothesis testing

624: given in Theiler et al. (\cite{TheilerEtal92}). The null hypothesis assumes that

625: the original data represent linearly correlated noise. To compute a

626: discrimination statistics we need a set of surrogate data, from which the same

627: statistical quantities are derived as from the original time series. In particular,

628: we use the  averaged pointwise dimensions~as function of the embedding dimension,

629: $\bar{D}_p(m)$. Let~$Q_o$ denote the

630: statistical quantity computed for the original time series, and~$Q_{s_i}$ for

631: the $i$\/th~surrogate generated under the null hypothesis. Let~$\mu_s$ and~$\sigma_s$

632: represent the (sample) mean and standard deviation of the distribution of~$Q_s$.

633: With this notation the measure of ``significance",~$S$, is given by the expression

634: %

635: \begin{equation}

636: S = \frac{|Q_o - \mu_s|}{\sigma_s} \, .

637: \end{equation}

638: 

639: 

640: \begin{table*}[ptbh]

641: \caption{\label{TableI} Summary of the analyzed type~I storms.

642:  The first set of columns gives a description of the events, including

643:  the date and start time in UT, the available number of data points,

644:  the recording frequency in MHz, and the predominant polarization

645:  sense (L for Left, R for Right handed circular polarization).

646:  Each event was recorded with a temporal resolution of 20~ms. In the

647:  second set of columns, for each event the longest stationary subsection

648:  (given in number of points) is listed. The third set contains the results

649:  of the pointwise dimension analysis. We list the mutual information~$t_{mut}$

650:  in points, the averaged pointwise dimension~$\bar{D}_p$ with standard

651:  deviation~$\sigma$, the percentage of points passing the scaling and

652:  convergence test (``ok"), the increase of the averaged pointwise dimension

653:  with increasing embedding dimension in percent, $\Delta \bar{D}_p$, and

654:  the outcome of the surrogate data test (pos(itive) means that

655:  the null hypothesis can be rejected and nonlinearity is detected).}

656: %

657: \begin{tabular}{ccrcc|rr|rccccc} \hline

658: %

659: Date  & Start & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Dur.}  & Frequ. & Pol. & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Stat. sect. [pts]}             & $t_{mut}$                 & $\bar{D}_p$ & $\sigma$ & ok  & $\Delta \bar{D}_p$ & surr. \rule[0cm]{0cm}{0.35cm} \\

660:       & [UT]  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{[pts]} & [MHz]  &      & \multicolumn{1}{c}{from} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{to} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{[pts]} &  [dim]      & [dim]    &[\%] & [\%]               &       \\ \hline

661: %

662: 29/04/84 & 11:06:00 & 6000  & 237 & L & 0    & 3600 & 13 & 5.3 & 1.3 & 55 & 7.2  & pos. \\

663:          & 14:50:30 & 4000  & 237 & L & 200  & 2800 & 14 & 5.6 & 2.0 & 43 & 5.1  & neg. \\

664:          & 14:54:40 & 10000 & 237 & L & 200  & 7800 & 21 & 6.2 & 1.5 & 50 & 4.1  & pos. \\

665: 25/11/84 & 13:58:55 & 1750  & 237 & R & 550  & 1750 & 5  & 5.1 & 1.3 & 55 & 8.8  & neg. \\

666: 14/05/85 & 11:34:00 & 12000 & 237 & R & 0    & 4000 & 17 & 6.4 & 1.6 & 42 & 6.8  & pos. \\

667: 16/05/85 & 12:51:20 & 8000  & 237 & R & 400  & 5400 & 13 & 6.3 & 1.3 & 52 & 7.7  & pos. \\

668: 06/04/89 & 06:42:00 & 6000  & 237 & L & 0    & 3000 & 9  & 5.1 & 1.3 & 45 & 5.6  & neg. \\

669: 07/04/89 & 11:26:05 & 3000  & 327 & L & 0    & 2800 & 10 & 4.9 & 1.4 & 51 & 5.9  & pos. \\

670: 03/05/89 & 13:33:00 & 5500  & 237 & L & 2400 & 5500 & 12 & 5.3 & 1.6 & 47 & 4.9  & neg. \\

671: 23/06/89 & 10:13:30 & 4500  & 237 & R & 400  & 4000 & 13 & 5.3 & 1.4 & 48 & 6.5  & pos. \\

672: 14/07/89 & 08:48:00 & 3500  & 237 & L & 0    & 3200 & 14 & 5.2 & 1.3 & 55 & 4.8  & pos. \\

673: 19/10/89 & 08:30:20 & 3500  & 237 & L & 0    & 2000 & 6  & 5.4 & 1.5 & 55 & 7.0  & pos. \\

674: 23/11/89 & 12:17:00 & 9000  & 237 & R & 400  & 8400 & 22 & 6.1 & 1.4 & 42 & 5.5  & pos. \\

675:          & 12:12:20 & 7000  & 327 & R & 400  & 4000 & 14 & 6.2 & 1.3 & 54 & 5.9  & pos. \\

676: 04/01/90 & 11:23:20 & 11000 & 237 & R & 0    & 7800 & 16 & 6.0 & 1.3 & 50 & 5.3  & pos. \\

677: 06/01/90 & 09:04:40 & 3500  & 327 & R & 200  & 3400 & 8  & 5.0 & 1.1 & 52 & 4.6  & pos. \\

678: 01/03/90 & 15:03:40 & 5000  & 237 & L & 1000 & 4000 & 18 & 5.6 & 1.3 & 51 & 5.0  & pos. \\

679: 24/07/90 & 12:42:00 & 12000 & 237 & R & 2000 & 9000 & 21 & 5.7 & 1.1 & 50 & 5.0  & pos. \\

680:          & 13:13:00 & 5500  & 237 & R & 0    & 2200 & 10 & 5.5 & 1.3 & 52 & 7.0  & pos. \\

681: 22/11/90 & 11:37:10 & 5000  & 237 & L & 0    & 2000 & 12 & 5.9 & 1.4 & 49 & 5.3  & pos. \\

682: 29/01/91 & 12:36:00 & 6000  & 237 & L & 1200 & 6000 & 19 & 5.9 & 1.6 & 46 & 7.7  & neg. \\

683: 30/01/91 & 12:04:20 & 7000  & 237 & L & 600  & 5600 & 23 & 5.9 & 1.4 & 47 & 5.3  & pos. \\

684: 08/05/91 & 10:11:30 & 3000  & 327 & R & 1200 & 2200 & 8  & 5.3 & 1.4 & 48 & 4.7  & pos. \\

685: 10/05/91 & 09:57:30 & 3500  & 327 & R & 60   & 2340 & 9  & 4.9 & 1.1 & 51 & 4.6  & neg. \\

686:          & 14:16:00 & 8000  & 327 & R & 1000 & 7000 & 14 & 5.8 & 1.6 & 43 & 4.3  & neg. \\

687: 11/05/91 & 10:34:00 & 5000  & 237 & R & 600  & 2500 & 9  & 5.1 & 1.4 & 38 & 4.9  & pos. \\

688:          & 11:00:20 & 11000 & 237 & R & 1000 &10600 & 18 & 5.6 & 1.4 & 49 & 5.3  & pos. \\

689: 21/08/91 & 07:54:00 & 12000 & 237 & R & 3000 &12000 & 17 & 5.7 & 1.5 & 50 & 4.9  & pos. \\

690: 23/08/91 & 10:47:20 & 7000  & 408 & R & 200  & 7000 & 14 & 5.7 & 1.6 & 50 & 4.9  & pos. \\

691: 28/01/92 & 09:27:20 & 3000  & 408 & R & 200  & 3000 & 10 & 5.7 & 1.3 & 47 & 3.6  & pos. \\ \hline

692: \end{tabular}

693: \end{table*}

694: 

695: 

696: \begin{table*}[ptbh]

697: %

698: \caption{\label{TableIV} Summary of the analyzed type IV events. The same quantities

699:  as in Table~\ref{TableI} are listed. Additionally, if particular fine

700:  structures are present in an event, the predominant type of fine structure is listed

701:  (pulsations, fast pulsations, sudden reductions, and spikes).}

702: %

703: \begin{tabular}{ccrccl|rr|rccccc} \hline

704: %

705: Date  & Start & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Dur.}  & Frequ. & Pol. & fine str. & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Stat. sect. [pts]}             & $t_{mut}$                 & $\bar{D}_p$ & $\sigma$ & ok  & $\Delta \bar{D}_p$ & surr. \rule[0cm]{0cm}{0.35cm} \\

706:       & [UT]  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{[pts]} & [MHz]  &      &           & \multicolumn{1}{c}{from} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{to} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{[pts]} &  [dim]      & [dim]    &[\%] & [\%]               &       \\ \hline

707: %

708: 10/02/84 & 14:44:00 & 4500  & 237 & L &            & 1820 & 4300 & 14 & 6.1 & 1.2 & 40 &   7.1 & pos. \\

709: 14/07/84 & 09:25:00 & 6000  & 237 & R &            & 3000 & 5400 & 12 & 5.8 & 1.4 & 48 &   5.1 & pos. \\

710: 24/04/85 & 10:32:00 & 12000 & 237 & R & fast puls. & 3000 & 10000& 9  & 7.9 & 1.4 & 53 &   7.4 & neg. \\

711: 07/02/86 & 10:50:40 & 10000 & 408 & L & spikes,    & 1000 & 9000 & 8  & 7.0 & 1.3 & 46 &   6.4 & pos. \\

712: 02/01/89 & 10:19:00 & 3000  & 408 & R & sudd. red. & 1050 & 2750 & 7  & 5.1 & 2.1 & 45 &   4.9 & pos. \\

713: 13/01/89 & 12:33:00 & 8000  & 408 & L & sudd. red. & 200  & 2400 & 10 & 5.9 & 2.2 & 54 &   1.1 & pos. \\

714: 12/03/89 & 07:35:50 & 6000  & 327 & L & puls.      & 200  & 6000 & 9  & 6.2 & 1.4 & 45 &   6.3 & pos. \\

715: 30/11/89 & 12:09:20 & 2000  & 610 & L & spikes     & 200  & 1400 & 4  & 6.3 & 2.6 & 27 &   5.4 & pos. \\

716: 19/10/89 & 12:54:30 & 4500  & 610 & R &            & 1000 & 4400 & 10 & 6.4 & 1.9 & 45 &   6.8 & pos. \\

717:          & 12:58:20 & 4500  & 408 & R &            & 2320 & 3200 & 13 & 5.3 & 1.4 & 50 &   5.2 & pos. \\

718: 19/12/89 & 10:34:10 & 1500  & 610 & L & spikes     & 200  & 1400 & 4  & 5.6 & 2.4 & 40 &   4.7 & pos. \\

719: 27/12/89 & 13:44:05 & 2000  & 408 & R & puls.      & 200  & 2000 & 5  & 7.0 & 1.4 & 46 &   5.6 & neg. \\

720:          & 13:47:40 & 3500  & 610 & R & sudd. red. & 2450 & 3200 & 3  & 5.6 & 1.8 & 48 &   4.8 & pos. \\

721: 17/04/90 & 14:30:10 & 1250  & 610 & R &            & 100  & 1050 & 4  & 6.0 & 1.3 & 41 &   6.8 & pos. \\

722: 15/05/90 & 13:16:50 & 4000  & 408 & L & spikes     & 0    & 750  & 6  & 6.1 & 1.7 & 56 &   7.2 & pos. \\

723: 02/07/90 & 09:42:00 & 10000 & 237 & L &            & 1000 & 10000& 21 & 7.0 & 1.6 & 38 &   5.7 & neg. \\

724: 27/11/90 & 11:05:30 & 6000  & 327 & R & puls.      & 2000 & 6000 & 9  & 4.6 & 1.3 & 45 &   3.0 & pos. \\

725: 07/03/91 & 08:31:20 & 3500  & 327 & L & puls.      & 0    & 3200 & 12 & 4.8 & 1.3 & 60 &   9.1 & pos. \\

726: 10/07/91 & 12:05:20 & 3000  & 237 & R & puls.      & 0    & 2400 & 12 & 5.7 & 1.8 & 40 &   6.6 & pos. \\

727:          & 12:04:40 & 10000 & 327 & R & fast puls. & 4000 & 8000 & 7  & 7.0 & 1.5 & 35 &   3.2 & pos. \\

728:          & 12:04:00 & 12000 & 408 & R & fast puls. & 1000 & 5000 & 8  & 8.2 & 1.3 & 54 &   8.4 & pos. \\

729:          & 12:04:00 & 12000 & 610 & L & fast puls. & 5000 & 10000& 6  & 7.8 & 1.5 & 48 &   7.9 & neg. \\

730:          & 12:08:00 & 6000  & 610 & L & fast puls. & 1200 & 4800 & 5  & 7.1 & 1.6 & 47 &   4.7 & pos. \\

731: 22/07/91 & 09:48:00 & 6000  & 610 & R & puls.      & 1200 & 3800 & 10 & 6.1 & 1.4 & 37 &   4.1 & pos. \\

732: 11/11/91 & 12:42:30 & 4500  & 610 & L &            & 200  & 4400 & 8  & 6.0 & 1.5 & 52 &   7.4 & pos. \\

733: 27/02/92 & 11:45:40 & 6000  & 237 & L & fast puls. & 1500 & 3050 & 7  & 7.1 & 1.7 & 49 &   6.4 & pos. \\

734:          & 11:56:40 & 10000 & 237 & L & fast puls. & 0    & 6000 & 4  & 7.6 & 1.2 & 59 &   8.4 & pos. \\ \hline

735: \end{tabular}

736: \end{table*}

737: 

738: 

739: \section{Data sets and analysis procedure  \label{DataSets}}

740: 

741: The data sets are single frequency recordings from the multichannel

742: radio-polarimeter of the Trieste Astronomical Observatory, which is operating in

743: the dm-m~wavelength range. The investigated data sets are recorded at

744: the frequencies 237, 327, 408 and 610~MHz, with

745: a sampling rate of 50~Hz, i.e. a temporal resolution \mbox{$\Delta = 20$~ms}.

746: We analyzed 30~data sets of type~I storms and 27~sets of type~IV events,

747: which cover samples with different kind of fine structures, such as pulsations,

748: fast pulsations, sudden reductions and spikes. Some of the events were

749: analyzed at different times and/or frequencies. Therefore, the 30~data

750: sets of type~I storms represent 24~different events, the 27~data sets of

751: type~IV events 20~different ones. In Table~\ref{TableI} and Table~\ref{TableIV}

752: we give a description of the type~I and type~IV events, respectively.

753: The main criteria for the data selection from the solar radio burst

754: data archive of the Trieste Observatory were:

755: %

756: \begin{enumerate}

757: \item The selected data sets were representative for the

758:       particular types of events.

759: \item To ensure a high signal-to-noise ratio only intense events

760:       were selected.

761: \item The related time series were substantially long and

762:       fulfilled Eq.~\ref{Nstr}.

763: \end{enumerate}

764: %

765: For the analysis, the predominant polarization sense, LCP (Left-handed

766: Circular Polarization) or RCP (Right-handed Circular Polarization) of the

767: burst series was used.

768: 

769: The first step in the correlation dimension analysis was to search

770: for stationary subsections by shifting windows with decreasing length

771: through the time series and applying the stationarity test proposed

772: by Isliker \& Kurths (\cite{IslikerKurths93}). Only those stationary

773: subsections which still fulfilled the minimum length criterion of Eq.~\ref{Nstr}

774: were accepted for further analysis, and the correlation dimension was

775: calculated only from such subsections. The analysis was repeated with

776: different values for the delay parameter$~\tau$, located around the

777: first minimum of the mutual information. The relevant quantities were

778: calculated up to embedding dimension~$m=20$. Finally, the algorithm for

779: automatically searching the scaling region, checking its validity and

780: testing the convergence behavior was applied. The convergence was checked

781: for $m$-intervals containing four successive embedding dimensions,

782: starting with $m=10$.

783: 

784: The pointwise dimension analysis was basically carried out in the same

785: manner, except that the overall time series was used instead of stationary

786: subsections. Moreover, only for points which passed both scaling and

787: convergence test a local pointwise dimension was accepted. Finally, the

788: pointwise dimension analysis was repeated for 10 different sets of

789: surrogate data to test against the null hypothesis that the results are

790: caused by linearly correlated noise, and to get evidence on nonlinearity

791: in the data.

792: 

793: 

794: 

795: \section{Results  \label{Results}}

796: 

797: \subsection{Correlation dimension analysis}

798: 

799: The application of the stationarity test led to the result, that

800: only two of the preselected events did not reveal stationary subsections

801: fulfilling Eq.~\ref{Nstr}. These events were excluded from further analysis.

802: For each of the other events, the longest stationary subsections analyzed

803: are listed in Table~\ref{TableI} and Table~\ref{TableIV}. If more stationary

804: subsections were found, for the analysis the longest three were selected,

805: and non overlapping or only partially overlapping subsections were preferred.

806: The correlation dimension analysis of the stationary subsections did not

807: reveal a finite dimension for any of the events. We identify mainly three

808: cases, in which negative results occurred: {\it no convergence},

809: {\it no scaling region}, and {\it deformed scaling region}. These three

810: cases are of course ideal ones, and the practice quite often revealed a

811: mixture of it. Therefore, for the single event sections analyzed, we do

812: not specify the different reasons causing the negative result, but describe

813: and discuss the principal cases in the following subsections in a general frame.

814: 

815: 

816: \begin{figure*}

817:  \resizebox{12cm}{8.0cm}{\includegraphics{9066_f5.eps}}

818:  \hfill

819:  \parbox[b]{55mm}{

820: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f5.eps}}

821:  \caption{Top panel: Stationary subsection of a type~IV event

822:   with sudden reductions (January~13, 1989). The left panel of the

823:   middle column shows the correlation integral~$C(r)$ for $m=1$

824:   to $m=15$. The graphs of the local slopes~$\nu(r)$, plotted for

825:   $m=3$,~6,~9,~12 and~15, reveal distinct plateau regions (hatched),

826:   which for increasing~$m$ are moving to higher values, indicating

827:   that the~$D_c(m)$ are divergent.}

828:  \label{9066_f5}

829:  }

830: \end{figure*}

831: 

832: 

833: \subsubsection{No convergence}

834: 

835: If the $D_c(m)$ converge with increasing embedding dimension~$m$,

836: this gives indications for the existence of a low-di\-men\-sional

837: attractor underlying a time series. In the analyzed data sets,

838: for which the $C(r)$ curves revealed a clear scaling region, no

839: convergence with increasing~$m$ occurred. As an example,

840: Fig.~\ref{9066_f5} shows the divergent behavior for a type~IV event.

841: Even for rather high embedding dimensions a distinct scaling region

842: exists. However, as the curves of the local slopes $\nu(r)$ clearly

843: reveal, the plateau of the scaling region moves to higher values

844: for increasing~$m$, indicating that the $D_c(m)$ are divergent.

845: The meaning of such a divergent behavior can be manifold, being

846: related to the physical state of the system as well as to

847: restrictions regarding the analysis methodology:

848: %

849: \begin{enumerate}

850:  \item The underlying physical system is stochastic.

851:  \item The signal is the output of a deterministic but

852:   high-dimensional system, with a dimension too high to be

853:   extracted from the given time series of finite length.

854:  \item The signal represents a system to which noise is

855:   coupled intrinsically to the dynamics.

856:  \item The analyzed time series is the result of different

857:   physical systems which are independently operating at the

858:   same time, e.g., different uncoupled radio burst sources

859:   simultaneously present on the sun, whose emissions sum up

860:   to the measured signal.

861:  \item Despite the careful data selection, the measurement noise

862:   is still too high for the kind of analysis carried out and

863:   dominates the results.

864:  \item The choice of the time delay~$\tau$, which is a quite

865:   critical and sensitive parameter in the correlation dimension

866:   analysis, is not optimal.

867: \end{enumerate}

868: 

869: 

870: \begin{figure*}

871:  \resizebox{12cm}{8.0cm}{\includegraphics{9066_f6.eps}}

872:  \hfill

873:  \parbox[b]{55mm}{

874: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f6.eps}}

875:  \caption{Top panel: Stationary subsection of a type~IV event

876:   (July~14, 1984). The curves of the correlation integral~$C(r)$,

877:   plotted for $m=1$ to $m=10$, reveal only for small~$m$ a linear

878:   range. In the graphs of the local slopes~$\nu(r)$, the plateau

879:   region (hatched) shrinks with increasing~$m$, and for $m \gtrsim 6$

880:   no distinct scaling region exists.}

881:  \label{9066_f6}

882:  }

883: \end{figure*}

884: 

885: 

886: \subsubsection{No scaling region}

887: 

888: There exist cases, in which for increasing embedding dimension~$m$

889: the scaling region disappears. In the curves of the correlation

890: integral $C(r)$ no linear range can be detected and,

891: correspondingly, in the graphs of the local slopes~$\nu(r)$ no

892: plateau region exists. In such cases the quantity~$D_c(m)$ is not

893: defined. An example is shown in Fig.~\ref{9066_f6}.

894: The main reason for such a behavior might be that the analyzed

895: data set is too short and/or too strongly contaminated by noise.

896: In such a case the deviations from ideal scaling at small and

897: large length scales~$r$ merge at intermediate~$r$, and cause the

898: scaling region to disappear. This effect is stronger for higher

899: embedding dimensions, since for increasing~$m$ the attractor is

900: sparsely covered with points, which can be verified in Fig.~\ref{9066_f6}.

901: As shown by Schreiber \& Kantz (\cite{SchreiberKantz95}), even small

902: amounts of measurement noise can conceal possible scaling behavior.

903: 

904: 

905: \subsubsection{Deformed scaling region}

906: 

907: The third case, in which the correlation dimension analysis led to

908: negative results, is, that the curves of the correlation integral

909: are highly deformed. Such deviations from ideal scaling are mainly

910: caused by the presence of intermittent sections, or generally, by

911: the presence of very different amplitude scales in the data.

912: Fig.~\ref{9066_f3} shows such deformed scaling regions for a stationary

913: subsection of a sample type~I storm, caused by an intermittent section.

914: This can be clarified as the elimination of the intermittent section

915: causes the deformation to disappear. Explained by the typical presence

916: of intermittent phases in type~I storms, the correlation dimension

917: analysis rather often results in deformed plateau regions for type~I

918: burst series.

919: 

920: 

921: \subsection{Local pointwise dimension analysis}

922: 

923: The third set of columns in Table~\ref{TableI} and Table~\ref{TableIV}

924: contains the results of the pointwise dimension analysis for the type~I

925: and the type~IV events, respectively. $\bar{D}_p$ gives the averaged pointwise

926: dimension with standard deviation~$\sigma$, calculated over an embedding

927: range $m=10-13$, and ``ok" denotes the percentage of points which passed the

928: scaling and convergence test. $\Delta \bar{D}_p$ gives the increase of the

929: averaged pointwise dimension, when the embedding range is increased by

930: two dimensions, from $m=10-13$ to $m=12-15$. ``surr." denotes the outcome of

931: the surrogate data test, and positive means that the null hypothesis, which

932: states that the results are caused by linearly correlated noise, can be

933: rejected, and that significant evidence for nonlinearity in the data is

934: given.

935: 

936: \begin{figure*}

937:  \resizebox{12cm}{12cm}{\includegraphics{9066_f7.eps}}

938:  \hfill

939:  \parbox[b]{55mm}{

940: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f7.eps}}

941:  \caption{The top panel depicts the time series of a type~IV event with

942:   pulsations (March~7, 1991). The middle panel shows the

943:   evolution of the local pointwise dimensions. The left bottom panel shows

944:   the histogram of the dimension values. In the right botton panel

945:   we show the same histogram, overplotted by the histograms of dimensions

946:   calculated at higher embedding ranges.}

947:  \label{9066_f7}

948:  }

949: \end{figure*}

950: 

951: As an example, Fig.~\ref{9066_f7} illustrates the results of the local

952: pointwise dimension analysis obtained for a type~IV event with quasi-periodic

953: pulsations. The top panel shows the time series, the middle panel the time

954: evolution of the local pointwise dimensions, $D_p(t_i)$. In the bottom

955: panels the histograms of the local dimensions are plotted, calculated over

956: different embedding ranges. About half of the points of the time series

957: passed the scaling and convergence test and were used to compute the averaged

958: pointwise dimension. However, as the histograms of the local dimensions

959: calculated over increasing embedding dimensions ($m=7-10$, $m=9-12$, $m=11-14$)

960: reveal, no absolute convergence exists, but a slight increase with increasing

961: $m$-ranges occurs. This can be clearly seen in the right bottom panel of

962: Fig.~\ref{9066_f7}, as for higher embedding ranges the center of the histogram

963: moves to higher dimension values. The same phenomenon occurs for all analyzed

964: samples, as the positive $\Delta\bar{D}_p$ values indicate, on the

965: average $\Delta\bar{D}_p \approx 5\%$.

966: 

967: \begin{figure}

968:  \centering

969:  \resizebox{0.999\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f8.eps}}

970: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f8.eps}}

971:  \caption{Illustration of the application of a nonlinear noise reduction.

972:   The top panel shows the original time series (subsection of a type~IV with

973:   pulsations, March~7, 1991). The bottom panel shows the same series after

974:   the application of the noise reduction.}

975:  \label{9066_f8}

976: \end{figure}

977: 

978: This phenomenon, on the one hand, could result from the fact that

979: the~$D_p(\mbox{\boldmath{$\xi$}}_i)$ do not really converge with

980: increasing~$m$ and no convergence to a low-dimensional attractor

981: exists. On the other hand, a comparison with simulated time

982: series from well known chaotic attractors contaminated with Gaussian

983: noise reveals a similar behavior. For selected samples we repeated the

984: analysis after application of a simple nonlinear noise reduction

985: to the data (Schreiber \cite{Schreiber93}), to find out if the increase

986: is caused by measurement noise. As it is common in nonlinear time \mbox{series}

987: analysis, the used noise reduction method does not rely on frequency

988: information but makes use of the structure in the reconstructed phase

989: space. Fig.~\ref{9066_f8} shows an example of the application of the

990: noise reduction method. Repeating the analysis with the times series after

991: the application of the noise reduction led to the effect, that the

992: dimension increase is softened but not fully eliminated though. Such

993: result suggests that the dimension increase is not caused by measurement

994: noise contaminating the signal of a deterministic system.

995: 

996: \begin{figure}

997:  \centering

998:  \resizebox{0.95\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f9.eps}}

999: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f9.eps}}

1000:  \caption{Illustration of the outcome of the surrogate data test

1001:   for a type~I storm (January~30, 1991). The top panel shows the averaged

1002:   pointwise dimensions, calculated for the original data (diamonds) and for

1003:   an ensemble of 10 surrogates (crosses), for $m=3$ to $m=20$. In the bottom

1004:   panel the significance~$S$ is plotted, which reaches values significantly

1005:   larger than the $3\sigma$~level, giving evidence on nonlinearity in the data.}

1006:  \label{9066_f9}

1007: \end{figure}

1008: 

1009: The surrogate data analysis yields a positive outcome for most of the

1010: analyzed samples, indicating that the obtained results are not an artifact,

1011: which could arise when the analysis is applied to non-stationary stochastic

1012: data. For $\approx$\,75\% of the type~I and $\approx$\,85\% of the type~IV

1013: burst time series with a significance of~$3\sigma$, we can reject the

1014: null hypothesis that the results are caused by a linear stochastic process,

1015: and have evidence for nonlinearity in the data. Fig.~\ref{9066_f9}

1016: illustrates the outcome of the surrogate data analysis for a sample type~I

1017: storm. The top panel shows the averaged pointwise dimension as a function

1018: of the embedding dimension~$m$, calculated from all points passing the scaling

1019: test. Diamonds represent the original data, crosses the surrogates. The

1020: bottom panel shows the related significance~$S$, which reaches at the

1021: maximum a level of $\approx 20\sigma$, giving strong evidence for nonlinearity in

1022: the data. However, corresponding to the positive $\Delta\bar{D}_p$ values,

1023: the $\bar{D}_p(m)$ of the original data slightly increase with increasing~$m$

1024: and do not show a definitive convergence to a finite dimension value.

1025: 

1026: 

1027: 

1028: \section{Discussion \label{Discussion}}

1029: 

1030: The outcome of the dimension analysis does not allow to claim low-dimensional

1031: determinism for the analyzed data sets. First, the correlation dimension analysis

1032: failed in all cases. Second, the obtained averaged pointwise dimension

1033: values~$\bar{D}_p$ are too high to characterize a low-dimensional physical

1034: system. Third, the $\bar{D}_p$ do not reveal an absolute convergence with

1035: increasing embedding dimension~$m$. On the other hand though, the local pointwise

1036: dimensions obtained over a specific embedding range yield a quite distinct

1037: behavior, and the surrogate data analysis evidences nonlinearity in the data.

1038: 

1039: \begin{figure}

1040:  \resizebox{0.99\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f10.eps}}

1041: % \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{9066_f10.eps}}

1042:  \caption{Comparison of the correlation dimension and the local pointwise

1043:  dimension analysis, calculated for a type~IV burst series with pulsations

1044:  (March 7, 1991). The top and middle panels illustrate the correlation dimension

1045:  analysis. The left top panel shows the curves of the correlation integral~$C(r)$

1046:  for embedding dimensions \mbox{$m=1$} to \mbox{$m=12$}. The top panel at the right

1047:  hand side and the middle panels depict the curves of the local slopes~$\nu(r)$

1048:  for three different embedding dimensions. The bottom panels illustrate the

1049:  outcome of the local pointwise dimension analysis for point $i=3224$. The

1050:  left bottom panel shows the curves of the probability~$p_i(r)$. In the

1051:  right bottom panel we show the curves of the related local slopes $\nu_i(r)$. }

1052:  \label{9066_f10}

1053: \end{figure}

1054: 

1055: In Fig.~\ref{9066_f10} we show a comparison of the correlation dimension

1056: and the local pointwise dimension analysis of a sample type~IV event. The

1057: correlation integral and the related local slopes do not give any evidence

1058: for low-dimensional determinism, since no significant scaling region and no

1059: convergent behavior occurs. However, the corresponding curves of the local

1060: pointwise dimension analysis reveal a distinct scaling region and a clear convergence

1061: to a finite and low dimension value for certain points~$\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}_i$.

1062: The figure clearly illustrates that the calculated local dimensions do not

1063: represent an artifact, which might arise, for instance, if the automatic scaling

1064: and convergence procedure is not well adapted to the analysis. Moreover, such

1065: comparison suggests that the local dimension analysis of a times series is more

1066: robust than the classical correlation dimension method. The main reason might be

1067: that in the correlation dimension analysis the scaling behavior itself is a global

1068: property, since {\em all} pairs of points contribute to the correlation integral,

1069: and the scaling region can possibly be smeared out by such an averaging process.

1070: Contrary to that, the local pointwise dimensions are based on the scaling behavior

1071: at {\em each} single point, and can reveal a well defined scaling at certain points.

1072: 

1073: \begin{table}

1074: \caption{ Statistics of the pointwise dimensions. We list the number of events

1075:  belonging to a particular type or subtype (including type~IV events with fine

1076:  structures of no particular kind, pulsations, fast pulsations, sudden reductions,

1077:  and spikes), the number of events giving a positive outcome of the surrogate data

1078:  test, and the pointwise dimension averaged over the respective (sub)type.

1079: \label{statistic} }

1080: \begin{tabular}{lcccc} \hline

1081: type \rule[-0.2cm]{0cm}{0.6cm}           & number & surr. pos. & $\bar{D}_p^{type}$ & \\ \hline

1082: type I storms      & 30   & 23           & $5.4 \pm 0.4$      & \\

1083: type IV events     & 27   & 23           & $6.4 \pm 1.0$      & \\ \hline

1084: type IV fine str.  & 7    & 6            & $5.9 \pm 0.4$      & \\

1085: type IV puls.      & 6    & 5            & $5.5 \pm 0.7$      & \\

1086: type IV fast puls. & 7    & 5            & $7.4 \pm 0.5$      & \\

1087: type IV sudd. red. & 3    & 3            & $5.6 \pm 0.4$      & \\

1088: type IV spikes     & 4    & 4            & $6.3 \pm 0.6$      & \\ \hline

1089: \end{tabular}

1090: \end{table}

1091: 

1092: In Table~\ref{statistic} we give a summary of the averaged pointwise

1093: dimensions for the different event types. For the type~IV events we

1094: additionally calculated the quantities separately for the different subtypes.

1095: We list the event type, the number of events belonging to each type (or

1096: subtype), the number of events passing the surrogate test, and the average

1097: of the pointwise dimensions over the respective event types, calculated only

1098: from the samples for which the surrogate data test gave a positive result.

1099: On the average, the type~I storms reveal lower~$\bar{D}_p$ values than the

1100: type~IV events and a significant smaller standard deviation, indicating that

1101: type~I storms represent a comparatively homogeneous class. The large standard

1102: deviation for the type~IV burst series basically reflects the different subtypes.

1103: The average of the particular type~IV subtypes yields $\bar{D}_p$ values

1104: which are significantly different: pulsations and sudden reductions reveal

1105: the lowest values, followed by the type~IVs with fine structures of no

1106: particular kind and spikes, whereas the fast pulsations are characterized

1107: by the highest values.

1108: 

1109: Such statistics suggests that the~$\bar{D}_p$ are quite well representing the

1110: different types of radio bursts under investigation. This means that even if

1111: low-dimensional determinism cannot be proved, the local dimension analysis

1112: can provide a quantitative description of the events, which is not possible with

1113: the commonly used correlation dimension. As argued by Schreiber (\cite{Schreiber99}),

1114: such description has the drawback that it does not provide an invariant

1115: characterization of a system. On the other hand, it offers an alternative

1116: statistical approach for systems, for which pure determinism cannot be established.

1117: This is of particular interest in astrophysics, since astrophysical systems

1118: represent real-world systems, which cannot be influenced by the observer and

1119: are highly interconnected with their surroundings, making pure determinism rather

1120: improbable.

1121: 

1122: Moreover, we claim that on a comparative basis the retrieved dimension values

1123: are related to the degree of freedom of the system.

1124: From numerical experiments with known chaotic attractors contaminated with

1125: Gaussian noise we retrieved pointwise dimensions, which are slowly increasing with

1126: increasing embedding dimension~$m$, i.e. the absolute convergence to the definite

1127: attractor dimension disappeared due to the contamination of the deterministic signal

1128: with a stochastic component. This behavior is similar to the one of the analyzed

1129: radio events. However, from this similarity we cannot conclude that the pointwise

1130: dimension analysis is indicative for hidden deterministic chaos in the radio burst

1131: time series, since the retrieved dimension values are too high to characterize

1132: low-dimensional determinism, and for a reliable dimension analysis of high-dimensional

1133: systems much longer time series are needed than we have at disposal (-- a limitation

1134: which is intrinsic to time series representing real-world systems). Nevertheless, what we

1135: can infer from this similarity is that the retrieved dimension values, even if not

1136: representing attractor dimensions, are still indicative for the degree of freedom

1137: of the physical system underlying the time series, characterizing its complexity. Based

1138: on this fact, we make use of the retrieved dimension values to describe the complexity of the

1139: related systems in a comparative way, without claiming or \mbox{supposing the presence of

1140: low-dimensional determinism}.

1141: 

1142: 

1143: 

1144: \section{Conclusions \label{Conclusion}}

1145: 

1146: In the following items we give a summary of the main results obtained by the presented dimension

1147: analysis of several types of solar radio events, based on the correlation dimension and

1148: the local pointwise dimension method. The results are relevant concerning the physics of the

1149: analyzed events as well as the different methods applied.

1150: %

1151: \begin{enumerate}

1152: \item The analysis does not enable to claim low-dimensional determinism in the time series.

1153:       This outcome is in agreement with the results obtained by Isliker (\cite{Isliker92b})

1154:       and Isliker \& Benz (\cite{IslikerBenz94a}, \cite{IslikerBenz94b}), who also, among

1155:       others, investigated type~I storms, type~IV events, and spikes. We cannot confirm the

1156:       results of Kurths \& Herzel (\cite{KurthsHerzel86}, \cite{KurthsHerzel87}), Kurths \&

1157:       Karlick$\acute{\rm y}$ (\cite{KurthsKarlicky89}), and Kurths et al. (\cite{KurthsEtal91}),

1158:       who obtained finite dimension values for decimetric pulsations. However, the outcome of

1159:       the present paper does not exclude deterministic chaos in the analyzed time series but

1160:       makes pure low-dimensional determinism, characterized by few free parameters, rather improbable.

1161: \item The analyzed time series are not fully stochastic, i.e. white noise. This fact we infer from

1162:       the distinctly slower increase of the dimension values with increasing embedding dimension

1163:       than expected for fully stochastic processes, which always fill the whole phase space,

1164:       i.e. $D(m) \approx m$. Moreover, the surrogate data analysis suggests that the time series do

1165:       not represent linear stochastic processes.

1166: \item For most of the analyzed data sets we have evidence that nonlinearity in the time

1167:       series is present (given on a $3\sigma$~level by means of a surrogate data test).

1168: \item A comparison of the two different methods used for the determination of fractal dimensions

1169:       reveals that the local dimension method is more stable and enables more physical insight

1170:       than the classical correlation dimension method. The local dimension analysis

1171:       can provide a statistically significant quantity for systems, which cannot be characterized

1172:       by invariants of the dynamics, probably since they are in fact not purely deterministic.

1173:       Such quantities can be of special interest for comparative studies, investigating interrelations

1174:       between different time series (which, e.g., can be useful for classificational purposes) or

1175:       investigating intrarelations in between one time series (in order to detect dynamical changes).

1176: \item The retrieved pointwise dimension values can be interpreted in terms of complexity of the underlying

1177:       physical system. In this frame our analysis indicates that spikes and fast pulsations are the

1178:       signature of systems of higher complexity than pulsations, sudden reductions and type~I storms.

1179: \end{enumerate}

1180: 

1181: In relation with other kind of analysis of solar radio bursts the presented results might

1182: give further ideas on the physics of the events. In the following we present a short discussion

1183: in this respect, applied to pulsation and spike events, which are quite striking features

1184: associated with solar flares.

1185: 

1186: Spikes have been intensively studied during recent times. Their short duration and small bandwidth

1187: gives rise to the evidence that they are associated with the energy fragmentation process

1188: in solar flares (Benz \cite{Benz85}, \cite{Benz86}). Based on this connection, Schwarz et al.

1189: (\cite{SchwarzEtAl93}) performed a nonlinear analysis by means of symbolic dynamics methods,

1190: interpreting the spikes appearance in the frequency-time domain as spatio-temporal patterns. This

1191: analysis gives indications that the simultaneous appearance of spikes at different frequencies

1192: is not a purely stochastic phenomenon but may be caused by a non\-linear deterministic (not necessarily

1193: low-dimensional) system or by a Markov process, compatible with a scenario in which spikes at

1194: nearby locations are simultaneously triggered by a common exciter, i.e. the localized sources are

1195: causally connected. In the present paper we find evidence for the spike events analyzed, that they do

1196: not represent a purely stochastic phenomenon in their temporal order either, even if the degree of freedom

1197: of the related physical system is expected to be quite high. Interpreting this result in the frame of the

1198: scenario suggested by Schwarz et al. (1993), it might give indications that the triggering of successive

1199: spikes by a localized source is not caused by a fully stochastic process, but reveals some (possibly

1200: weak) kind of nonlinear causal connection. However, this inference is restricted to the assumption

1201: that the spikes time series rather reflect the physical conditions of the triggering mechanism

1202: than those of the emission.

1203: 

1204: Pulsations, although a rather marginal phenomenon in the course of solar flares, have reached a wealth

1205: of attention, especially due to the very regular features they sometimes reveal (for a review

1206: see Aschwanden \cite{Aschwanden87}). In previous investigations of the dimensionality of solar pulsations

1207: (Kurths \& Herzel \cite{KurthsHerzel86}, \cite{KurthsHerzel87}; Kurths \& Karlick$\acute{\rm y}$

1208: \cite{KurthsKarlicky89}; Kurths et al. \cite{KurthsEtal91}) the presence of low-dimensional determinism

1209: is reported, with dimensions \mbox{$2.5 \lesssim D \lesssim 3.5$}. Moreover, for one single event a

1210: dynamical evolution from a limit cycle to a low-dimensional chaotic behavior was found (Kurths

1211: \& Karlick$\acute{\rm y}$ \cite{KurthsKarlicky89}). Although we cannot confirm these results,

1212: we want to stress that our analysis suggests that pulsation events, especially quasi-periodic

1213: pulsations, represent the least complex phenomena among the analyzed types of radio events,

1214: i.e. their degree of freedom is expected to be lower than that of other burst types, even if not

1215: low-dimensional. The inferred high-dimensionality and the nonlinear structures detected do not

1216: match with linear MHD oscillation models for pulsations (e.g., Rosenberg \cite{Rosenberg70}; Roberts et al.

1217: \cite{RobertsEtAl84}), in which only a few eigenmodes are excited, but rather favor models of

1218: self-organizing systems of plasma instabilities, which comprise periodic as well as low- and high-dimensional

1219: chaotic behavior. Such a self-organizing model for the electron-cyclotron maser instability, based on

1220: a Lotka-Volterra type equation system, is discussed in Aschwanden \& Benz (\cite{AschwandenBenz88}),

1221: however restricted to limit cycle solutions.

1222: 

1223: 

1224: 

1225: \begin{acknowledgements}

1226: We thank P. Zlobec for helpful discussions and his support in the data

1227: classification. A.V. and A.H. acknowledge the Austrian Ministry of

1228: Sciences. M.M. acknowledges the financial support by ASI and MURST.

1229: \end{acknowledgements}

1230: 

1231: 

1232: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1233: \bibitem[1996]{Abarbanel96}Abarbanel, H.D.I., 1996, Analysis of

1234:  Observed Chaotic Data, Springer, New York

1235: \bibitem[1987]{Aschwanden87} Aschwanden, M.J., 1987, Solar Phys. 111, 113

1236: \bibitem[1988]{AschwandenBenz88} Aschwanden, M.J.., Benz, A.O., 1988,

1237:  Astrophys. J. 332, 466

1238: \bibitem[1985]{Benz85}Benz, A.O., 1985, Solar Phys. 96, 357

1239: \bibitem[1986]{Benz86}Benz, A.O., 1986, Solar Phys. 104, 99

1240: \bibitem[1987]{BrandstaterSwinney87}Brandstater, A., Swinney, H.L.,

1241:  1987, Phys. Rev.~A 35, 2207

1242: \bibitem[1992]{CasdagliEubank92}Casdagli, M., Eubank, S., (eds.),

1243:  1992, Nonlinear Modeling and Forecasting, Sante Fe Institutes in

1244:  the Science of Complexity, Proc. vol XII, Addison-Wesley, Reading,

1245:  MA

1246: \bibitem[1992]{EckmannRuelle92}Eckmann, J.-P., Ruelle, D., 1992,

1247:  Physica~D 56, 185

1248: \bibitem[1986]{FraserSwinney86}Fraser, A.M., Swinney, H.L., 1986,

1249:  Phys. Rev.~A  33, 1134

1250: \bibitem[1983a]{GrassbergerProcaccia83a}Grassberger, P.,

1251:  Procaccia, I., 1983a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 346

1252: \bibitem[1983b]{GrassbergerProcaccia83b}Grassberger, P.,

1253:  Procaccia, I., 1983b, Physica~D~9, 189

1254: \bibitem[1991]{GrassbergerEtal91}Grassberger, P., Schreiber, T.,

1255:  Schaffrath, C., 1991, Int. J. of Bifurcation and Chaos 1, 521

1256: \bibitem[1992a]{Isliker92a}Isliker, H., 1992a, Phys. Lett.~A 169, 313

1257: \bibitem[1992b]{Isliker92b}Isliker, H., 1992b, Solar Phys.\ 141, 325

1258: \bibitem[1994a]{IslikerBenz94a}Isliker, H., Benz, A.O., 1994a,

1259:  A\&A 285, 663

1260: \bibitem[1994b]{IslikerBenz94b}Isliker, H., Benz, A.O., 1994b,

1261:  Space Sci. Rev. 68, 185

1262: \bibitem[1993]{IslikerKurths93}Isliker, H., Kurths, J., 1993,

1263:  Int. J. of Bifurcation and Chaos~3, 1573

1264: \bibitem[1997]{KantzSchreiber97}Kantz, H., Schreiber, T., 1997,

1265:  Nonlinear Time Series Analysis, Cambridge University Press,

1266:  Cambridge Nonlinear Science Series, vol.~7

1267: \bibitem[1994a]{KugiumtzisEtal94a}Kugiumtzis, D., Lillekjendlie,

1268:  B., Christophersen, N., 1994a, Identification and Control 15, 205

1269: \bibitem[1994b]{KugiumtzisEtal94b}Kugiumtzis, D., Lillekjendlie,

1270:  B., Christophersen, N., 1994b, Identification and Control 15, 225

1271: \bibitem[1986]{KurthsHerzel86}Kurths, J., Herzel, H., 1986,

1272:  Solar Phys.\ 107, 39

1273: \bibitem[1987]{KurthsHerzel87}Kurths, J., Herzel, H., 1987,

1274:  Physica D 25, 165

1275: \bibitem[1989]{KurthsKarlicky89}Kurths, J., Karlick$\acute{\rm y}$, M.,

1276:  1989,  Solar Phys. 119, 399

1277: \bibitem[1991]{KurthsEtal91}Kurths, J., Benz, A.O., Aschwanden, M.J.,

1278:  1991, A\&A 248, 270

1279: \bibitem[1994]{Mayer-Kress94}Mayer-Kress, G., 1994, Integrative

1280:  Physiological and Behavioral Science 29, 203

1281: \bibitem[1989]{OsborneProvenzale89}Osborne, A.R., Provenzale, A.,

1282:  1989, Physica~D 35, 357

1283: \bibitem[1986]{OsborneEtal86} Osborne, A.R., Kirwan, A.D.,

1284:  Provenzale, A., Bergamasco, L., 1986, Physica~D 23, 75

1285: \bibitem[1984]{RobertsEtAl84} Roberts, B., Edwin, P.M., Benz, A.O.,

1286:  1984, Astrophys.~J. 279, 857

1287: \bibitem[1970]{Rosenberg70} Rosenberg, H., 1970, A\&A 9, 159

1288: \bibitem[1993]{Schreiber93}Schreiber, T., 1993, Phys. Rev. E 47, 2401

1289: \bibitem[1999]{Schreiber99}Schreiber, T., 1999, Phys. Rep. 308, 1

1290: \bibitem[1995]{SchreiberKantz95} Schreiber, T., Kantz, H., 1995,

1291:  Chaos 5, 143

1292: \bibitem[1993]{SchwarzEtAl93}Schwarz, U., Benz, A.O., Kurths, J., Witt, A.,

1293:  1993, A\&A 277, 215

1294: \bibitem[1962]{ShannonWeaver62}Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W., 1962, The Mathematical

1295: Theory of Information, University of Illonois Press

1296: \bibitem[1991]{SkinnerEtal91}Skinner, E., Carpeggiani, C., Landisman, C.E.,

1297:  Fulton, K., 1991, Circulation Research 68, 966

1298: \bibitem[1981]{Takens81}Takens, F.: 1981, Detecting Strange Attractors in

1299:  Turbulence. In: Dynamical Sytems and Turbulence, Rand D.A., Young L.S. (eds.),

1300:  Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 898, Springer, New York, 366

1301: \bibitem[1986]{Theiler86}Theiler, J., 1986, Phys. Rev.~A 34, 2427

1302: \bibitem[1992]{TheilerEtal92}Theiler, J., Eubank, S., Longtin, A.,

1303:  Galdrikian B., Farmer, J.D., 1992, Physica~D 58, 77

1304: \bibitem[1993]{WeigendGershenfeld93}Weigend, A.S., Gershenfeld, N.A.,

1305:  (eds.), 1993, Time Series Prediction: Forecasting the Future and

1306:  Understanding the Past, Sante Fe Institutes in the Science of

1307:  Complexity, Proc. vol. XV, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

1308: \end{thebibliography}

1309: 

1310: 

1311: \end{document}

1312: