1: % ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******
2: % This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
3: % Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
4: % Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
5: % See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
6: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
7: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
8: % See the REVTeX 4 README file
9: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
10: % 1) latex apssamp.tex
11: % 2) bibtex apssamp
12: % 3) latex apssamp.tex
13: % 4) latex apssamp.tex
14: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
15: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
16: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
17: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
18: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
19: % Include figure files
20: % Align table columns on decimal point
21: % bold math
22: %\nofiles
23:
24:
25: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,a4paper,fleqn,pre]{revtex4}
26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27: \usepackage{amssymb}
28: \usepackage{amsfonts}
29: \usepackage{amsmath}
30: \usepackage{graphicx}
31: \usepackage{dcolumn}
32: \usepackage{bm}
33:
34: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}
35: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
36: %TCIDATA{Version=4.00.0.2312}
37: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thursday, January 06, 2005 15:44:58}
38: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
39: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
40:
41: \input{tcilatex}
42:
43: \begin{document}
44:
45: \preprint{APS/123-QED}
46: \title{Surrogate Test to Distinguish between Chaotic and Pseudoperiodic Time
47: Series}
48: \author{Xiaodong Luo }
49: \email{enxdluo@eie.polyu.edu.hk}
50: \author{Tomomichi Nakamura}
51: \author{Michael Small}
52: \affiliation{Department of Electronic and Information Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic
53: University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.}
54: \date{\today }
55:
56: \begin{abstract}
57: In this communication a new algorithm is proposed to produce surrogates for
58: pseudoperiodic time series. By imposing a few constraints on the noise
59: components of pseudoperiodic data sets, we devise an effective method to
60: generate surrogates. Unlike other algorithms, this method properly copes
61: with pseudoperiodic orbits contaminated with linear colored observational
62: noise. We will demonstrate the ability of this algorithm to distinguish
63: chaotic orbits from pseudoperiodic orbits through simulation data sets from
64: the
65: %TCIMACRO{\TeXButton{Rossler}{R\"{o}ssler} }%
66: %BeginExpansion
67: R\"{o}ssler
68: %EndExpansion
69: system. As an example of application of this algorithm, we will also employ
70: it to investigate a human electrocardiogram (ECG) record.
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73: \pacs{05.45.-a}
74: \maketitle
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78: Surrogate tests \cite{Theiler testing} are examples of Monte Carlo
79: hypothesis tests \cite{Galka topics}. Taking the surrogate test of
80: nonlinearity in a time series \cite{Theiler testing} as an example, we first
81: need to adopt a null hypothesis, which usually supposes the time series is
82: generated by a linear stochastic process and potentially filtered by a
83: nonlinear filter \cite{note nonlinearity}. Based on this null hypothesis, a
84: large number of data sets (surrogates) are to be produced from the original
85: time series, which keeps the linearity of the original time series but
86: destroys all other structures. We then calculate some nonlinear statistics
87: (discriminating statistics), for example, correlation dimension, of both the
88: original time series and the surrogates. If the discriminating statistic of
89: the original time series deviates from those of the surrogates, we can
90: reject the null hypothesis we proposed and claim that the original time
91: series is deterministic with certain confidence level (depending on how many
92: surrogates we have generated, to be shown later). In general, to apply the
93: surrogate technique to test if a time series possesses the property $P$ we
94: are interested, we first select a null hypothesis, which assumes the time
95: series instead has a property $Q$ opposite to $P$. We then devise a
96: corresponding algorithm to produce surrogates from the observed data set. In
97: principle, these surrogates shall preserve the potential property $Q$ while
98: destroying all others. The next step is to choose a suitable discriminating
99: statistic, which shall be an invariant measure for both the surrogates and
100: the original time series if the null hypothesis is true. Hence if the
101: discriminating statistic of the original time series distinctly deviates
102: from the distribution of the discriminating statistic of the surrogates, the
103: null hypothesis is unlikely to be true, or in other words, the time series
104: is much more likely to possess the property $P$ than $Q$. In this way, we
105: can assess the statistical significance of our calculations through
106: surrogate test technique even when we have only a very limited amount of
107: observations. Such assessments are important because in many practical
108: situations statistical fluctuations are inevitable due to the presence of
109: noise, hence the surrogate test is a proper tool to evaluate the reliability
110: of our results in a statistical sense.
111:
112: In this communication, we are focused on discussing the algorithm to
113: generate surrogates for pseudoperiodic time series. By pseudoperiodic time
114: series we mean a representative of a periodic orbit perturbed by dynamical
115: noise, or contaminated by observational noise, or with the combination of
116: the both noises, whose states within one cycle are largely independent of
117: those within previous cycles given a cycle length. Note that, in our
118: discussions we will always assume we have detected that the time series are
119: produced from nonlinear deterministic systems, but they are also possibly
120: contaminated by some noises. As we know, if an irregular time series comes
121: from a nonlinear deterministic system, it shall be either chaotic or
122: pseudoperiodic in most cases. In some situations, it might be important for
123: us to discriminate between pseudoperiodicity and chaos. However, chaotic and
124: pseudoperiodic time series often look similar, we might not be able to
125: distinguish them from each other only through visual inspections,
126: quantitative techniques are needed instead at this time. One choice is to
127: apply the direct test techniques. For instance, we can calculate some
128: characteristic statistics of the time series, such as the Lyapunov exponent
129: and the correlation dimension. However, a direct test usually will not give
130: out the confidence level. If we find the Lyapunov exponent of a time series
131: is, for example, $0.01$, it may be difficult for us to tell whether the time
132: series is chaotic or the time series is pseudoperiodic, but the presence of
133: noise causes the Lyapunov exponent to be slightly larger than zero. As an
134: alternative choice, we suggest one utilizes the surrogate test rather than
135: the direct test, which can provide us the confidence level by calculating a
136: large number of surrogates. Through the surrogate tests, if we could exclude
137: the possibility that the time series is pseudoperiodic, then the time series
138: is more likely to be chaotic. This is the essential idea to apply our
139: algorithm to distinguish chaos from pseudoperiodicity, as to be shown in
140: section III.
141:
142: First let us briefly review some of the algorithms to generate surrogates
143: for pseudoperiodic time series. Initially, to generate surrogates for
144: pseudoperiodic time series, Theiler \cite{Theiler on} proposed the cycle
145: shuffling algorithm. The idea is to divide the whole data set into some
146: segments and let each segment contain exactly an integer number of cycles.
147: The surrogates are obtained by randomly shuffling these segments, which will
148: preserve the intracycle dynamics but destroy the intercycle ones by
149: randomizing the temporal sequence of the individual cycles. The difficulty
150: in applying this algorithm is that it requires preknowledge of the precise
151: periodicity, otherwise shuffling the individual cycles might lead to
152: spurious results \cite{Small surrogate}.
153:
154: Recently, with the development of the cyclic theory of chaos \cite{Ayerbach
155: exploring}, many authors have shown interest in searching unstable periodic
156: orbits (UPOs) in noisy data sets from chaotic dynamical systems. The
157: algorithms proposed in \cite{Pierson detecting} essentially deal with the
158: unstable fixed points of the UPOs. But as observed, the presence of noise
159: will reduce the statistical significance of these algorithms. One remedy is
160: to introduce the surrogate test for reliability assessments, e.g., Dolan
161: \textit{et.al} \cite{Pierson detecting} claimed that the randomly shuffling
162: surrogate algorithm \cite{Theiler testing} together with the simple
163: recurrence method \cite{Pierson detecting} correctly tests the appropriate
164: null hypothesis. Essentially, this approach is very similar to the cycle
165: shuffling algorithm described previously. The simple recurrence algorithm is
166: equivalent to applying a Poincar\'{e} map on the continuous dynamical
167: systems and then studying only the data points falling on the cross-section
168: plane, hence one does not need to consider the intracycle dynamics and no
169: knowledge of the periodicity is required, while randomly shuffling these
170: data points exactly aims to randomize the temporal sequence of the cycles.
171: However, one potential problem of this algorithm is that it might generate
172: spuriously high statistical significance due to the correlation between the
173: cycles \cite{Petracchi the}.
174:
175: Later, Small \textit{et.al }\cite{Small surrogate}\textit{\ }proposed the
176: pseudoperiodic surrogate (PPS) algorithm from another viewpoint. They first
177: apply the time delay embedding reconstruction \cite{Takens detecting} to the
178: original data set, then utilize a method based on local linear modelling
179: techniques to produce surrogate data which approximate the behavior of the
180: underlying dynamical system. As the authors pointed out, this algorithm
181: works well even with very large dynamical noise, but it may incorrectly
182: reject the null hypothesis if the intercycles of the pseudoperiodic orbit
183: have a linear stochastic dependence induced by colored additive
184: observational noise \cite{note noise}.
185:
186: In this communication we propose a new surrogate algorithm for continuous
187: dynamical systems, which properly copes with linear stochastic dependence
188: between the cycles of the pseudoperiodic orbits. The null hypothesis to be
189: tested is that the stationary data set is pseudoperiodic with noise
190: components which are (approximately) identically distributed and
191: uncorrelated for sufficiently large temporal translations. Note the
192: constraints of the noise components in our null hypothesis are stronger than
193: that of Theiler's algorithm, which requires the noise distribution only
194: periodically depends on the phase of the signal. However, under our
195: hypothesis, we can produce the surrogates in a simple way through the
196: algorithm to be described below. In addition, a large scope of noise
197: processes often encountered in practical situations, including (but not
198: limited to) linear colored additive observational noise described by the $%
199: ARMA(p,q)$ model \cite{Box time}, match the above constraints.
200:
201: The remainder of this communication is organized as follows. In Sec. II we
202: will introduce the new algorithm to generate pseudoperiodic surrogates,
203: while in Sec. III we will apply this algorithm to simulation data sets from
204: the R\"{o}ssler system, which demonstrates the ability of the surrogate test
205: based on this algorithm to distinguish chaotic orbits from pseudoperiodic
206: ones. As one of the applications, we will use this surrogate technique to
207: investigate whether a human electrocardiogram (ECG) record is possibly
208: presentative of a chaotic dynamical system. Finally, in Sec. IV, we will
209: have a summary of the whole communication.
210:
211: \section{A New Algorithm to Generate Pseudoperiodic Surrogates}
212:
213: %TCIMACRO{%
214: %\TeXButton{rosslerP5perObvDim4}{\begin{figure}
215: %\centering
216: %\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rosslerP5perObv.eps}
217: %
218: %\parbox{3.5in}{
219: %\caption{\label{rosslerP5perObvDim4} (a) Pseudoperiodic time series contaminated
220: %by observational noise;
221: %(b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the pseudoperiodic time series from the
222: %R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
223: %(c) Surrogate test for the pseudoperiodic time series based on our algorithm.
224: %The abscissa is the indices
225: %of 100 surrogates and the ordinate is the corresponding correlation dimensions.
226: %The middle line is the mean correlation dimension of the original time series
227: %calculated $100$ times using the GKA, the upper and lower lines denote the
228: %correlation dimensions twice the standard deviation away from the mean value
229: %and the asterisks indicate the correlation dimensions of $100$ surrogates. }
230: %}
231: %
232: %\end{figure}}}%
233: %BeginExpansion
234: \begin{figure}
235: \centering
236: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rosslerP5perObv.eps}
237:
238: \parbox{3.5in}{
239: \caption{\label{rosslerP5perObvDim4} (a) Pseudoperiodic time series contaminated
240: by observational noise;
241: (b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the pseudoperiodic time series from the
242: R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
243: (c) Surrogate test for the pseudoperiodic time series based on our algorithm.
244: The abscissa is the indices
245: of 100 surrogates and the ordinate is the corresponding correlation dimensions.
246: The middle line is the mean correlation dimension of the original time series
247: calculated $100$ times using the GKA, the upper and lower lines denote the
248: correlation dimensions twice the standard deviation away from the mean value
249: and the asterisks indicate the correlation dimensions of $100$ surrogates. }
250: }
251:
252: \end{figure}%
253: %EndExpansion
254:
255: Let $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$ be a data set with $N$ observations
256: (the form $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} $ is adopted instead for convenience when
257: causing no confusion), where $x_{i}$ means the observation measured at time $%
258: t_{i}=i\cdot \Delta t_{s}$ with $\Delta t_{s}$ denoting the sampling time.
259: We assume $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$ is stationary and can be
260: decomposed into the deterministic components and the noise components, which
261: are approximately independent of each other. Similar to the surrogate test
262: idea of time shifting to desynchronize two data sets \cite{quiroga
263: performance}, we assume the noise components (approximately) follow an
264: identical distribution and are uncorrelated for sufficiently large temporal
265: translations (or time shifts). According to the null hypothesis we proposed
266: in the previous section, if the deterministic components are periodic, then
267: we can write a data point $x_{i}$ as $x_{i}=p_{i}+n_{i}$, where $p_{i}$ and $%
268: n_{i}$ denote the periodic component and the noise component respectively.
269: In many cases, we can set $E(p_{i})=E(n_{i})=0$ where $E$ is the expectation
270: operator. Since $\left\{ p_{i}\right\} $ are roughly independent of $\left\{
271: n_{i}\right\} $, we have the autocovariance $%
272: var(x_{i})=var(p_{i})+var(n_{i}) $. Let
273: \begin{equation}
274: y_{i}^{\tau }=\alpha x_{i}+\beta x_{i+\tau }=(\alpha p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau
275: })+(\alpha n_{i}+\beta n_{i+\tau }) \label{linear combination}
276: \end{equation}%
277: with $i=1,2,~...,N-\tau $, where coefficients $\alpha $ and $\beta $ satisfy
278: $\alpha ^{2}+\beta ^{2}=1$ and parameter $\tau $ is the temporal translation
279: between subsets $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ and $\left\{
280: x_{i+\tau }\right\} _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$, then the autocovariance function $%
281: var(y_{i}^{\tau })=var(\alpha p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau })+var(\alpha
282: n_{i}+\beta n_{i+\tau })$. Now let us consider the noise components. If $%
283: \tau $ is sufficiently large, under our hypothesis, $n_{i}$ and $n_{i+\tau }$
284: are uncorrelated. We also note that $\left\{ n_{i}\right\} $ and $\left\{
285: n_{i+\tau }\right\} $ are drawn from (approximately) the same distribution,
286: we have $var(\alpha n_{i}+\beta n_{i+\tau })=var(n_{i})$. For the
287: deterministic component, if we require the translation $\tau $ to satisfy $%
288: cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })=0$, then $var(\alpha p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau
289: })=var(p_{i})$. Hence by choosing a suitable temporal translation, the noise
290: levels of $\left\{ y_{i}^{\tau }\right\} $, defined by $\left( var(\alpha
291: n_{i}+\beta n_{i+\tau })/var(y_{i}^{\tau })\right) ^{1/2}$, will be the same
292: as that of $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$, i.e., $\left(
293: var(n_{i})/var(x_{i})\right) ^{1/2}$. The reason to preserve the noise level
294: is that, the presence of noise will affect the calculation of the
295: correlation dimension, hence we would like to let the surrogates and the
296: original time series (roughly) have the same noise level in order to make
297: the results more conceivable.
298:
299: %TCIMACRO{%
300: %\TeXButton{rosslerP5perObv015DDim4}{\begin{figure}
301: %\centering
302: %\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rosslerP5perObv015D.eps}
303: %
304: %\parbox{3.5in}{
305: %\caption{\label{rosslerP5perObv015DDim4} (a) Pseudoperiodic time series
306: %with both observational noise and dynamical noise;
307: %(b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the pseudoperiodic time series from
308: %the R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
309: %(c) Surrogate test for the pseudoperiodic time series based on our algorithm.
310: %The meaning of the lines
311: %and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}. }
312: %}
313: %
314: %\end{figure}}}%
315: %BeginExpansion
316: \begin{figure}
317: \centering
318: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rosslerP5perObv015D.eps}
319:
320: \parbox{3.5in}{
321: \caption{\label{rosslerP5perObv015DDim4} (a) Pseudoperiodic time series
322: with both observational noise and dynamical noise;
323: (b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the pseudoperiodic time series from
324: the R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
325: (c) Surrogate test for the pseudoperiodic time series based on our algorithm.
326: The meaning of the lines
327: and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}. }
328: }
329:
330: \end{figure}%
331: %EndExpansion
332:
333: The above deduction leads to the central idea of our surrogate algorithm.
334: From Eq. (\ref{linear combination}), we note that if $\left\{ p_{i}\right\} $
335: is periodic, the nonconstant deterministic components $\left\{ \alpha
336: p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau }\right\} $ shall also be periodic. In addition, $%
337: \left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$ and $\left\{ y_{i}^{\tau }\right\} $ shall
338: have the same noise level if a suitable translation $\tau $ is selected.
339: Therefore by randomizing the coefficient $\alpha $ or $\beta $, we can
340: generate many data sets $\left\{ y_{i}^{\tau }\right\} $ as the surrogates
341: of $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$. Note that $\left\{ p_{i}\right\} $
342: and $\left\{ \alpha p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau }\right\} $ have the same
343: degree-of-freedom, if both of them are periodic, their correlation
344: dimensions \cite{Grassberger characterization} will theoretically be the
345: same. Now let us consider the noise components. Although the noise
346: components $\left\{ \alpha n_{i}+\beta n_{i+\tau }\right\} $ may have a
347: different distribution from that of $\left\{ n_{i}\right\} $, the noise
348: level is preserved after the transform in Eq. (\ref{linear combination}). As
349: Diks \cite{Diks estimating} has reported, the Gaussian kernel algorithm
350: (GKA) can reasonably estimate the correlation dimensions of noisy data sets
351: with different noise distributions. This implies that, under the same noise
352: level, the correlation dimensions of $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$ and $%
353: \left\{ y_{i}^{\tau }\right\} $, calculated by the GKA, shall statistically
354: be the same if $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$ and $\left\{ y_{i}^{\tau
355: }\right\} $ are both pseudoperiodic (and satisfy the constraints we
356: imposed). In contrast, if $\left\{ p_{i}\right\} $ is chaotic, its linear
357: combination, $\left\{ \alpha p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau }\right\} $, may have a
358: new dynamical structure with a different correlation dimension from that of $%
359: \left\{ p_{i}\right\} $, hence by adopting the correlation dimension as the
360: discriminating statistic we might detect this difference.
361:
362: We shall also note that, for an unstable periodic orbit, even a small
363: dynamical noise might drive the resultant orbit far away from the original
364: position after a sufficiently long time, and the pseudoperiodicity might be
365: broken. In such situations, our algorithm might fail to work. Nevertheless,
366: we suggest to apply our algorithm as the first step in pseudoperiodicity
367: test, which is computationally fast and in principle deals well with a large
368: scope of observational noise (comparatively, the PPS algorithm will
369: sometimes fail for colored observational noise). If we can reject the null
370: hypothesis proposed previously, the time series in test is possibly chaotic
371: or pseudoperiodic perturbed by dynamical noise. Then we can adopt the PPS
372: algorithm for further tests, which works well even under a large amount of
373: dynamical noise. If \ the corresponding null hypothesis, i.e., the time
374: series is pseudoperiodic perturbed by dynamical noise, can be rejected
375: again, then we may claim the time series is very likely to be chaotic.
376:
377: We now consider several computational issues in our algorithms. As described
378: in Eq. (\ref{linear combination}), to generate the surrogates $\left\{
379: y_{i}^{\tau }\right\} $, we select two subsets of $\left\{ x_{i}\right\}
380: _{i=1}^{N}$, $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ and $\left\{ x_{i+\tau
381: }\right\} _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$, multiply them by the coefficients $\alpha $ and
382: $\beta $ respectively and then add them together. We shall emphasize that
383: choosing the temporal translation $\tau $ is a crucial issue for our
384: algorithm. From one aspect, we require the translation $\tau $ to satisfy
385: the condition $cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })=0$. The reason is that we want to keep
386: the noise level for the original time series and the surrogates. In
387: addition, we want the deterministic components $\left\{ \alpha p_{i}\right\}
388: $ to be orthogonal to $\left\{ \beta p_{i+\tau }\right\} $ for arbitrary
389: coefficients $\alpha $ and $\beta $, otherwise the projection of $\left\{
390: \alpha p_{i}\right\} $ onto $\left\{ \beta p_{i+\tau }\right\} $ might
391: counteract $\left\{ \beta p_{i+\tau }\right\} $ under some situations, for
392: example, if $p_{i}\approx -p_{i+\tau }$ and $\alpha =\beta $, the
393: deterministic components $\left\{ \alpha p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau }\right\} $
394: will almost vanish while the noise components $\left\{ \alpha n_{i}+\beta
395: n_{i+\tau }\right\} $ remain. Hence the correlation dimensions calculated
396: are actually those of the noise components instead of the deterministic
397: components, which will certainly cause the false rejection of the null
398: hypothesis. From another aspect, we require $\tau $ to be sufficiently large
399: to guarantee the decorrelation between the noise components. However, we
400: expect $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ and $\left\{ x_{i+\tau
401: }\right\} _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ shall have at least some overlaps to make use of
402: the information of the whole data set $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$,
403: which means $\tau $ shall not exceed $N/2$. In addition, it is recommended
404: the length of a data set shall not be too short in order to appropriately
405: calculate its correlation dimension \cite{Jedynak failure}, which also
406: implies $\tau $ shall not be too large.
407:
408: %TCIMACRO{%
409: %\TeXButton{rossleCh5perObvDim5_pps}{\begin{figure}
410: %\centering
411: %\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rossleCh5perObvDim5_pps.eps}
412: %
413: %\parbox{3.5in}{
414: %\caption{\label{rossleCh5perObvDim5_pps} (a) Chaotic time series
415: %contaminated by observational noise ;
416: %(b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the chaotic time series from
417: %the R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
418: %(c) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on our new algorithm.
419: %The meaning of the lines
420: %and the curve is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4};
421: %(d) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on the PPS algorithm. The meaning
422: %of the lines and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig.
423: %\ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}.
424: %}
425: %}
426: %
427: %\end{figure}}}%
428: %BeginExpansion
429: \begin{figure}
430: \centering
431: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rossleCh5perObvDim5_pps.eps}
432:
433: \parbox{3.5in}{
434: \caption{\label{rossleCh5perObvDim5_pps} (a) Chaotic time series
435: contaminated by observational noise ;
436: (b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the chaotic time series from
437: the R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
438: (c) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on our new algorithm.
439: The meaning of the lines
440: and the curve is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4};
441: (d) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on the PPS algorithm. The meaning
442: of the lines and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig.
443: \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}.
444: }
445: }
446:
447: \end{figure}%
448: %EndExpansion
449:
450: From Eq. (\ref{linear combination}) we see that the surrogates are generated
451: from two segments $\{x_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ and $\{x_{i+\tau
452: }\}_{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ of the original time series $\{x_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}$. We
453: want segments $\{x_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ and $\{x_{i+\tau }\}_{i=1}^{N-\tau
454: }$ to equivalently affect the generation of the surrogates, therefore we
455: would like to let $\max (\left\vert \alpha /\beta \right\vert )=\max
456: (\left\vert \beta /\alpha \right\vert )$, $\min (\left\vert \alpha /\beta
457: \right\vert )=\min (\left\vert \beta /\alpha \right\vert )$ and $\Pr
458: (\left\vert \alpha /\beta \right\vert \geqslant 1)\simeq \Pr (\left\vert
459: \beta /\alpha \right\vert \geqslant 1)$, where $\max (\cdot )$, $\min (\cdot
460: )$ and $\Pr (\cdot )$ denote the maximal function, the minimal function and
461: the probability function respectively. But note that the coefficient ratio $%
462: \alpha /\beta $ (or $\beta /\alpha $) shall not be too large or too small,
463: otherwise $\left\{ y_{i}^{\tau }\right\} $ will be very close to $\left\{
464: x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$ or $\left\{ x_{i+\tau }\right\}
465: _{i=1}^{N-\tau }$, which will lead to approximately the same correlation
466: dimensions of $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{N}$ and $\left\{ y_{i}^{\tau
467: }\right\} $ regardless of the dynamical behavior of $\left\{ x_{i}\right\}
468: _{i=1}^{N}$, and thus decrease the discriminating power of the correlation
469: dimension. In our calculations we let $\alpha $ be uniformly drawn from the
470: interval $\left[ -0.8,-0.6\right] \cup \left[ 0.6,0.8\right] $ and $\beta =%
471: \sqrt{1-\alpha ^{2}}$, which satisfies our requirements and provides
472: moderate values for the ratio $\alpha /\beta $.
473:
474: \section{Surrogate Test to Distinguish between Chaotic and Pseudoperiodic
475: Time Series}
476:
477: In this section, through four examples from the R\"{o}ssler system, we
478: demonstrate the ability of surrogate test based on our algorithm to
479: discriminate chaotic orbits from pseudoperiodic ones. As an application, we
480: will also employ the surrogate technique to investigate whether a recorded
481: human electrocardiogram (ECG) data set is possibly chaotic.
482:
483: \subsection{EXAMPLES}
484:
485: The equations of the R\"{o}ssler system are given by
486: \begin{equation}
487: \left\{
488: \begin{array}{l}
489: \dot{x}=-y-z, \\
490: \dot{y}=x+ay, \\
491: \dot{z}=b+z(x-c).%
492: \end{array}%
493: \right. \label{rossler}
494: \end{equation}%
495: with the initial conditions $x(0)=y(0)=z(0)=0.1$. We choose parameters $b=2$%
496: , $c=4$ and the sampling time $\Delta t_{s}$ $=0.1$ time units. For each
497: example, the system is to be integrated $10,000$ times and the first $1,000$
498: data points are discarded to avoid including transient states.
499:
500: In the first example, we set parameter $a=0.39095$. The R\"{o}ssler system
501: exhibits limit cycle behavior of period 6. To obtain pseudoperiodic time
502: series, we introduce $5\%$ observational noise into the periodic time
503: series. Although Gaussian white observational noise is the most common
504: choice in this situation, in order to demonstrate the ability of our
505: surrogate algorithm to deal with colored noise, we will instead adopt the
506: noise generated from the $AR(1)$ process \cite{Box time} $\xi _{i+1}=0.8\xi
507: _{i}+\epsilon _{i}$ with the variable $\epsilon $ following the normal
508: Gaussian distribution $N(0,1)$, which is the more difficult case due to the
509: correlation between noise components. However, one shall note that, Gaussian
510: white noise and other colored noises satisfying the constraints in our null
511: hypothesis, for example, those modelled by the $ARMA(p,q)$ processes, in
512: principle can be dealt with in the same way. For convenience of observation
513: and comparison, we plot the time series and the corresponding attractor in
514: two dimensional state space (or embedding space) in panels $\left( a\right) $
515: and $\left( b\right) $ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4} respectively.
516:
517: To produce surrogate data, first we shall choose a suitable temporal
518: translation. Since it is impractical to separate noise from signal
519: completely, in general it is difficult to estimate the correlation decay
520: time between noise components. Fortunately, to decorrelate noise components,
521: all temporal translations are equivalent as long as they are large enough.
522: In addition, in many real situations, it is often possible to observe the
523: background noise and thus estimate the decay time. In our example, we think
524: the $AR(1)$ noise to be uncorrelated when the temporal translation is larger
525: than $50$ (in units of the sampling time $\Delta t_{s}$). As another
526: requirement, temporal translation satisfying $cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })=0$ is
527: desired. In practice, of course, this requirement is generally impractical
528: due to the digitization and quantization in sampling process. Recall the
529: discussion in the previous section, by letting $E(p_{i})=0$ and $\alpha
530: ^{2}+\beta ^{2}=1$, we have $var(\alpha p_{i}+\beta p_{i+\tau
531: })=var(p_{i})+2\alpha \beta \cdot cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })$. Function $%
532: cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })\neq 0$ means we do not preserve the noise level.
533: However, under the null hypothesis of pseudoperiodicity, there shall always
534: be some temporal translations to make $cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })\sim 0$, hence
535: the noise level will not deviate from the original one too much. Besides,
536: according to Eq. (\ref{linear combination}), we generate the surrogates by
537: uniformly drawing coefficient $\alpha $ from interval $\left[ -0.8,-0.6%
538: \right] \cup \left[ 0.6,0.8\right] $ ($\beta =\sqrt{1-\alpha ^{2}}$ is
539: always kept positive), the noise level of the surrogates will fluctuate
540: around that of the original one due to the alternative signs of product $%
541: \alpha \beta $. Therefore, $cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })\neq 0$ will only cause
542: some fluctuations when to calculate the correlation dimension because of the
543: fluctuations of noise level, however, generally such fluctuations will not
544: affect our conclusion if we can select a temporal translation $\tau $ to let
545: $cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })\sim 0$. Since we have assumed the noise components
546: are roughly independent of the deterministic components, then $%
547: cov(x_{i},x_{i+\tau })=cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })$ for a large enough temporal
548: translation (to decorrelate noise components), therefore in all of the
549: examples, in order to let $cov(p_{i},p_{i+\tau })\sim 0$, we can
550: equivalently require $cov(x_{i},x_{i+\tau })\sim 0$. In the first example,
551: there are many temporal translations satisfying the two constraints
552: discussed above, i.e., $\tau >50$ and $cov(x_{i},x_{i+\tau })\sim 0$. To
553: pick a value from all these candidates, we first select an interval $\left[
554: 100,150\right] $, then search the temporal translation which makes the
555: absolute value $\left\vert cov(x_{i},x_{i+\tau })\right\vert $ be the
556: minimum (most close to zero) among all translations $100\leqslant \tau
557: \leqslant 150$. One shall note that the choice of the interval $\left[
558: 100,150\right] $ is arbitrary, except that we have to make sure that the
559: lower bound of the interval is larger than $50$, and there exists temporal
560: translations to let $cov(x_{i},x_{i+\tau })\sim 0$ within the interval.
561: After selecting the temporal translation, by randomizing the coefficient $%
562: \alpha $ we will generate $100$ surrogates according to Eq. (\ref{linear
563: combination}).
564:
565: In order to calculate the correlation dimension, we adopt the time delay
566: embedding reconstruction \cite{Takens detecting} to recover the underlying
567: system from the scalar time series. Two parameters, i.e., embedding
568: dimension and time delay, shall be properly chosen to apply this technique.
569: Throughout this communication, we will use the false nearest neighbour
570: criterion \cite{kernel determining} to determine the global optimal
571: embedding dimension. Using the program in TISEAN package \cite{hegger
572: practical}, the embedding dimension $m$ of the original time series is
573: selected at $4$, which is the minimal value to make the fraction of false
574: nearest neighbours be zero. To choose a suitable time delay, we will use the
575: algorithm of redundancy and irrelevance tradeoff exponent (RITE) proposed in
576: \cite{Luo geometric}. This algorithm selects the time delay by searching the
577: optimal tradeoff between redundancy (due to too small time delay) and
578: irrelevance (due to too large time delay). As demonstrated, the RITE
579: algorithm can select equivalently suitable time delays compared to the
580: average mutual information (AMI) criterion \cite{fraser and swinney
581: independent}, however, its implementation is much simpler and the
582: computational cost is fairly low. Therefore in case of large data sets,
583: adopting the RITE algorithm can facilitate our calculations. In the first
584: example we generate $100$ surrogates, and for each surrogate we keep the
585: embedding dimension $m=4$ and use the RITE algorithm to choose the suitable
586: time delay for time delay reconstruction.
587:
588: %TCIMACRO{%
589: %\TeXButton{rossleCh5perObv015dDim4_pps}{\begin{figure}
590: %\centering
591: %\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rossleCh5perObv015dDim4_pps.eps}
592: %
593: %\parbox{3.5in}{
594: %\caption{\label{rossleCh5perObv015dDim4_pps} (a) Chaotic time series
595: %with both dynamical and observational noises;
596: %(b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the chaotic time series from
597: %the R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
598: %(c) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on our new algorithm.
599: %The meaning of the lines
600: %and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4};
601: %(d) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on the PPS algorithm. The meaning
602: %of the lines and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig.
603: %\ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}.
604: %}
605: %}
606: %
607: %\end{figure}}}%
608: %BeginExpansion
609: \begin{figure}
610: \centering
611: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{rossleCh5perObv015dDim4_pps.eps}
612:
613: \parbox{3.5in}{
614: \caption{\label{rossleCh5perObv015dDim4_pps} (a) Chaotic time series
615: with both dynamical and observational noises;
616: (b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the chaotic time series from
617: the R\"{o}ssler system with $n=16$;
618: (c) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on our new algorithm.
619: The meaning of the lines
620: and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4};
621: (d) Surrogate test for the chaotic time series based on the PPS algorithm. The meaning
622: of the lines and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig.
623: \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}.
624: }
625: }
626:
627: \end{figure}%
628: %EndExpansion
629:
630: We will follow Diks's method \cite{Diks estimating} to calculate the
631: correlation dimension, which is more robust against noise by extending the
632: hard kernel function (or the Heaviside function) \cite{Grassberger
633: characterization} in calculation of correlation integral to the general
634: kernel functions. In his discussions, Diks adopted the Gaussian kernel
635: function, hence this method is called Gaussian kernel algorithm (GKA). Here
636: we will use the GKA implemented in \cite{Yu efficient} to calculate the
637: correlation dimensions, which further enhances the computational speed. Note
638: that to speed up the calculation, only 2000 data points are used as the
639: reference points for the GKA. There are some statistical fluctuations even
640: for the same data set when calculating its correlation dimension, therefore
641: for the original time series, we will calculate $100$ times to estimate the
642: mean correlation dimension and the standard deviation. As shown in panel $%
643: \left( c\right) $ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}, there are three lines
644: parallel to the abscissa. The middle line denote the estimation of the mean
645: correlation dimension of the original time series, while the upper and lower
646: lines indicate the positions twice the standard deviation away from the mean
647: value. For the surrogates, however, we will calculate their correlation
648: dimensions only once to save time. The results are illustrated as the
649: asterisks in panel $\left( c\right) $ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}.
650:
651: After the calculation of the correlation dimensions, we need to inspect
652: whether the result is consistent with our null hypothesis. Here we use the
653: ranking criterion \cite{Theiler using} to determine whether the null
654: hypothesis shall be rejected or not. The idea of this criterion is that,
655: suppose the discriminating statistic of the original data set is $Q_{0}$,
656: and those of $N_{S}$ surrogates are $\left\{
657: Q_{1},Q_{2},~...,Q_{N_{S}}\right\} $. Rank the statistics $\left\{
658: Q_{0},Q_{1},~...,Q_{N_{S}}\right\} $ in the increasing order and denote the
659: rank of $Q_{0}$ by $r_{0}$, if the data set is consistent with the
660: hypothesis (i.e., no evidence to reject), $r_{0}$ can have an equal
661: possibility be any integer value between $1$ and $N_{S}+1$. However, if the
662: hypothesis is false, $Q_{0}$ might deviate from the surrogate distribution $%
663: \left\{ Q_{1},Q_{2},~...,Q_{N_{S}}\right\} $, i.e, $Q_{0}$ will be the
664: smallest or largest amongst $\left\{ Q_{0},Q_{1},~...,Q_{N_{S}}\right\} $,
665: hence we can reject the null hypothesis if $r_{0}=1$ or $N_{S}+1$, the
666: probability of a false rejection is $1/\left( N_{S}+1\right) $ for one-sided
667: tests and $2/\left( N_{S}+1\right) $ for two-sided tests.
668:
669: For the first example, from panel $\left( c\right) $ of Fig. \ref%
670: {rosslerP5perObvDim4} we can see that, the mean correlation dimension of the
671: original time series falls within the dimension distribution of the
672: surrogates, therefore we cannot reject the null hypothesis as we expect,
673: which means the original time series is possibly pseudoperiodic \cite{note
674: interpretation}.
675:
676: Now let us examine the other examples. In the second example, we still set
677: parameter $a=0.39095$ in Eq. (\ref{rossler}). However, to obtain the
678: pseudoperiodic time series, we first generate a data set by adding Gaussian
679: white noise with the standard deviation of $0.15\%$ to the $x$ component at
680: each integration step, which simulates the system perturbed by additive
681: dynamical noise, and then introduce $5\%$ observational $AR(1)$ noise into
682: the previously obtained data set. The global optimal embedding dimension is
683: chosen at $m=4$. Note in all of the four examples, we will generate $100$
684: surrogates, and parameter choices for surrogate generation will be the same,
685: i.e., we let the temporal translation be selected from $\left[ 100,150\right]
686: $ and coefficient $\alpha $ be uniformly drawn from $\left[ -0.8,-0.6\right]
687: \cup \left[ 0.6,0.8\right] $ ($\beta =\sqrt{1-\alpha ^{2}}$). For the second
688: example, the correlation dimensions of the original time series and the
689: surrogates are shown in panel $\left( c\right) $ of Fig. \ref%
690: {rosslerP5perObv015DDim4}. Under the ranking criterion, once again we cannot
691: reject our null hypothesis. Therefore the time series is possibly
692: pseudoperiodic, which is consistent with our knowledge.
693:
694: In the third example, we change parameter $a$ of Eq. (\ref{rossler}) to be $%
695: 0.395$. The R\"{o}ssler system exhibits chaotic behavior. We integrate Eq. (%
696: \ref{rossler}) to obtain a time series and then introduce $5\%$
697: observational $AR(1)$ noise. The optimal embedding dimension $m$ is selected
698: at $m=5$. From panel $\left( c\right) $ of Fig. \ref{rossleCh5perObvDim5_pps}%
699: , we find that the mean correlation dimension of the original time series
700: deviates from the distribution of the surrogate dimensions. Using the
701: ranking criterion, we can reject our null hypothesis. In order to exclude
702: the possibility that the time series is generated from an unstable period
703: orbit perturbed by dynamical noise, we also apply the PPS\ algorithm for
704: further test. From the PPS algorithm we generate $100$ surrogates, and then
705: use the GKA to calculate their correlation dimensions. The results are shown
706: in panel $\left( d\right) $ of Fig. \ref{rossleCh5perObvDim5_pps}, as we can
707: see, the mean correlation dimension of the original time series also falls
708: outside the distribution of the surrogate dimensions, therefore we can
709: reject the null hypothesis again. After the two surrogate tests for
710: pseudoperiodicity, we can claim the time series is chaotic with a confidence
711: level up to $96\%$ ($98\%\times 98\%$) for two-sided test.
712:
713: %TCIMACRO{%
714: %\TeXButton{ecgtestEm5}{\begin{figure}
715: %\centering
716: %\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{ecgtestEm5.eps}
717: %
718: %\parbox{3.5in}{
719: %\caption{\label{ecgtestEm5} (a) Time series of a human electrocardiogram
720: %(ECG) record;
721: %(b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the ECG record with $n=23$;
722: %(c) A surrogate data generated from our algorithm with coefficient $\alpha=\beta=1/\sqrt{2}$ (cf. Eq. (\ref{linear combination}));
723: %(d) Surrogate test for the ECG record based on our algorithm.
724: %The meaning of the lines
725: %and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}. }
726: %}
727: %
728: %\end{figure}}}%
729: %BeginExpansion
730: \begin{figure}
731: \centering
732: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{ecgtestEm5.eps}
733:
734: \parbox{3.5in}{
735: \caption{\label{ecgtestEm5} (a) Time series of a human electrocardiogram
736: (ECG) record;
737: (b) State space $x_{i+n}$ vs. $x_{i}$ of the ECG record with $n=23$;
738: (c) A surrogate data generated from our algorithm with coefficient $\alpha=\beta=1/\sqrt{2}$ (cf. Eq. (\ref{linear combination}));
739: (d) Surrogate test for the ECG record based on our algorithm.
740: The meaning of the lines
741: and the asterisks is the same as that in panel $(c)$ of Fig. \ref{rosslerP5perObvDim4}. }
742: }
743:
744: \end{figure}%
745: %EndExpansion
746:
747: The final example to be demonstrated is a chaotic time series also from the R%
748: \"{o}ssler system. To generate the time series, we keep parameter $a=0.395$.
749: Similar to the way in the second example, we add Gaussian white noise with
750: the standard deviation of $0.15\%$ to the $x$ component at each integration
751: step as the dynamical noise, and then introduce $5\%$ observational $AR(1)$
752: noise into the previously obtained data set. The global optimal embedding
753: dimension is found to be $m=4$. The results of surrogate tests based on the
754: new algorithm and the PPS algorithm are shown in panel $(c)$ and $(d)$ of
755: Fig. \ref{rossleCh5perObv015dDim4_pps} respectively, from which we can see
756: that, surrogate tests based on both algorithms can detect the chaos in the
757: time series. Again we can claim the time series is chaotic with a confidence
758: level up to $96\%$ for two-sided test.
759:
760: We have also investigated examples under different observational noise
761: levels (but keep the same dynamical noise if they have). For example, if we
762: reduce the $AR(1)$ observational noise levels to $3\%$ in the above four
763: examples, we can obtain the same results as we have reported. If we increase
764: the observational noise levels to $10\%$, for the pseudoperiodic time series
765: we can still obtain the expected results, i.e., we cannot reject our null
766: hypothesis. However, for the chaotic time series, we will falsely accept our
767: null hypothesis due to the correlation dimension of the original time series
768: marginally falling within the dimension distribution of the surrogates. The
769: reason of false acceptance might be that, under large noise levels, the
770: correlation dimension is not sensitive enough to detect the structure
771: changes of the chaotic time series. For such cases, we will have to look for
772: more powerful discriminating statistics \cite{schreiber dircrimination}.
773:
774: \subsection{AN APPLICATION}
775:
776: As an example of application, we employ the surrogate test based on our
777: algorithm to investigate whether a human electrocardiogram (ECG) record
778: (with $8975$ data points) is likely to be chaotic. The ECG record was
779: obtained by measuring from a resting healthy subject ($22$ years old) in a
780: shielded room at the sampling rate of $1$ KHz. The ECG record indicated in
781: panel $(a)$ of Fig. \ref{ecgtestEm5} looks very regular and even possibly
782: periodic, but we need a quantitative approach to verify the periodicity.
783: Here we choose the surrogate test technique. Using the false nearest
784: neighbour criterion, the global optimal embedding dimension is chosen at $%
785: m=5 $. The background noise is mainly from the measurement instruments,
786: usually it is a blend of white and correlated noise. By observing the linear
787: second order correlation function of the ECG data, we let the temporal
788: translation be within the interval $\left[ 100,150\right] $ (large enough to
789: decorrelate the noise components), where there exists an integer temporal
790: translation to make the correlation function almost be zero. Then by
791: uniformly drawing values from $\left[ -0.8,-0.6\right] \cup \left[ 0.6,0.8%
792: \right] $ for coefficient $\alpha $ in Eq. (\ref{linear combination}) ($%
793: \beta =\sqrt{1-\alpha ^{2}}$ ), we generate $100$ surrogates. For
794: demonstration, we plot in panel $\left( c\right) $ one surrogate generated
795: from Eq. (\ref{linear combination}) with coefficient $\alpha =\beta =1/\sqrt{%
796: 2}$. We can see that the surrogate is different from the original ECG data
797: in that there appear more spikes in the surrogate. However, as we can also
798: find, the surrogate indicates the similar regularity to that in the original
799: data, which implies that the surrogate preserves the potential periodicity
800: in the original data as we expect (although in a different pattern). With
801: regards to the surrogate test, our calculation of the correlation dimensions
802: is also based on the GKA. The results are indicated in panel $\left(
803: d\right) $ of Fig. \ref{ecgtestEm5}, from which we can see that the mean
804: correlation dimension of the ECG data falls within the distribution of the
805: correlation dimensions of the surrogates, therefore we cannot reject our
806: null hypothesis. Hence the ECG record is possibly periodic. Moreover, there
807: is no evidence of chaos.
808:
809: \section{Conclusion}
810:
811: To summarize, by imposing a few constraints on the noise process, we devise
812: a simple but effective way to produce surrogates for pseudoperiodic orbits.
813: The main idea of this algorithm is that a linear combination of any two
814: segments of the same periodic orbit will generate another periodic orbit. By
815: properly choosing the temporal translation between the two segments, under
816: the same noise level we can obtain statistically the same correlation
817: dimensions of the pseudoperiodic orbit and its surrogates. Choosing the
818: temporal translation is a crucial issue for our algorithm, which in
819: principle shall guarantee the decorrelation between the noise components and
820: preserve the noise level. Another important issue is to select a proper
821: discriminating statistic which helps determine whether to reject the null
822: hypothesis. The correlation dimension is a suitable discriminating statistic
823: in this case.\ It is possible there are other suitable discriminating
824: statistics, we will leave the problem of finding such statistics for future
825: study.
826:
827: The surrogate test technique based on our algorithm can be utilized to
828: distinguish between chaotic and pseudoperiodic time series. Initially, the
829: PPS algorithm was proposed to generate surrogates for a pseudoperiodic orbit
830: driven by dynamical noise, but sometimes surrogate tests based on this
831: algorithm will falsely reject the null hypothesis if the time series is also
832: contaminated by colored observational noise. As a complement to the PPS
833: algorithm, our algorithm deals well with observational noise, but it might
834: fail for large dynamical noise. However, due to the convenience in
835: computation, we suggest to adopt surrogate test based on our algorithm as
836: the first step for pseudoperiodicity detection. If we can reject the null
837: hypothesis of our algorithm, then we shall use the PPS algorithm for further
838: tests. If we can reject the null hypotheses of both the algorithms, then the
839: time series under investigation is very likely to be chaotic. In this
840: communication, the concrete procedures of surrogate test for
841: pseudoperiodicity are demonstrated through four simulation examples. As an
842: application in practice, we also employ the surrogate technique based on our
843: algorithm to investigate whether a human ECG record is possible to be
844: chaotic.
845:
846: This research is supported by a Hong Kong University Grants Council
847: Competitive Earmarked Research Grant (CERG) number PolyU 5235/03E.
848:
849: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
850: \bibitem[1]{Theiler testing} J. Theiler, S. Eubank, A. Longtin, B.
851: Galdrikian, and J.D. Farmer, Physica D 58, 77 (1992).
852:
853: \bibitem[2]{Theiler on} J. Theiler, Phys. Lett. A 196, 335 (1995).
854:
855: \bibitem[3]{Theiler using} J. Theiler and D. Prichard, Fields Inst. Commun.
856: 11, 99 (1997).
857:
858: \bibitem[4]{Galka topics} A. Galka, \textit{Topics in Nonlinear Time Series
859: Analysis with Implications for EEG Analysis} (World Scientific, 2000).
860:
861: \bibitem[5]{note nonlinearity} Here we would like to elucidate that, the
862: irregularity of a time series is usually brought by stochasticity or
863: nonlinearity (often chaos), therefore in the example of nonlinearity
864: detection, if we can exclude (most of) the probability that the time series
865: is generated by a stochastic process, then it is very likely that the time
866: series is generated from a nonlinear deterministic system.
867:
868: \bibitem[6]{Ayerbach exploring} D. Auerbach, P. Cvitanovi\'{c}, J.P.
869: Eckmann, and G. Gunaratne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2387 (1987); P. Cvitanovi%
870: \'{c}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2729 (1988).
871:
872: \bibitem[7]{Pierson detecting} D. Pierson and F. Moss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
873: 2124 (1995); X. Pei and F. Moss, Nature (Lodon) 379, 618 (1996); P. So, E.
874: Ott, S.J. Schiff, D.T. Kaplan, T. Sauer, and C. Grebogi, Phys. Rev. Lett.
875: 76, 4705 (1996); P. Schmelcher and F.K. Diakonos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4733
876: (1997); K. Dolan, A. Witt, M.L. Spano, A. Neiman, and F. Moss, Phys. Rev. E
877: 59, 5235 (1999).
878:
879: \bibitem[8]{Petracchi the} D. Petracchi, Chaos, Solitons \& Fractals 8, 327
880: (1997);
881:
882: \bibitem[9]{Small surrogate} M. Small, D. Yu, and R.G. Harrison, Phys. Rev.
883: Lett. 87, 188101 (2001).
884:
885: \bibitem[10]{note noise} For the definitions of the terminologies such as
886: additive observational noise, please refer to \cite{Argyris the} for more
887: details.
888:
889: \bibitem[11]{Argyris the} J. Argyris, I. Andreadis, G. Pavlos, and M.
890: Athanasiou, Chaos, Solitons \& Fractals 9, 343 (1998).
891:
892: \bibitem[12]{quiroga performance} R. Quian Quiroga, A. Kraskov, T. Kreuz,
893: and P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E 65, 041903 (2002).
894:
895: \bibitem[13]{Grassberger characterization} P. Grassberger and I. Procaccia,
896: Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 346 (1983).
897:
898: \bibitem[14]{Jedynak failure} A. Jedynak, M. Bach, and J. Timmer, Phys. Rev.
899: E 50, 1770 (1994).
900:
901: \bibitem[15]{Box time} G.E.P. Box, G.M. Jenkins, and G.C. Reinsel, \textit{%
902: Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control, 3rd Ed. }(Prentice-Hall, 1994)%
903: \textit{.}
904:
905: \bibitem[16]{Takens detecting} F. Takens, in D. Rand and L.S. Young,
906: editors, \textit{Dynamical Systems and Turbulence} (Springer, 1981).
907:
908: \bibitem[17]{kernel determining} M. B. Kennel, R. Brown, and H. D. I.
909: Abarbanel, Phys. Rev. A 45, 3403 (1992).
910:
911: \bibitem[18]{hegger practical} R. Hegger, H. Kantz, and T. Schreiber, CHAOS
912: 9, 413 (1999).
913:
914: \bibitem[19]{fraser and swinney independent} A. M. Fraser and H. L. Wwinney,
915: Phys. Rev. A 33, 1134 (1986).
916:
917: \bibitem[20]{Diks estimating} C. Diks, Phys. Rev. E 53, 4263 (1996).
918:
919: \bibitem[21]{Yu efficient} D.J. Yu, M. Small, R.G. Harrison, and C. Diks,
920: Phys. Rev. E 61, 3750 (2000).
921:
922: \bibitem[22]{Luo geometric} X. Luo and M. Small (submitted, available from
923: the URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.CD/0312023/).
924:
925: \bibitem[23]{note interpretation} We cannot claim the time series is
926: pseudoperiodic definitely, because if we cannot reject a null hypothesis,
927: there could be many interpretations other than that the data in test is
928: consistent with our null hypothsis. For more details, see, for example, Ref.
929: \cite{Galka topics}.
930:
931: \bibitem[24]{schreiber dircrimination} T. Schreiber and A. Schmitz, Phys.
932: Rev. E 55, 5443 (1997).
933: \end{thebibliography}
934:
935: \end{document}
936: