1: %\documentstyle[aps,epsf,cite,rotate,preprint,multicol,draftcopy]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[aps,pre,epsf,cite,epsfig,rotate,multicol]{revtex}
3: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.3in}
4: %\draftcopyFirstPage{1} \draftcopyLastPage{2}
5: %\draftcopySetGrey{0.95}
6:
7: %\bibliographystyle{alpha} %sorted alphabetically and Labels are
8: %formed from name of author
9: %and year of publication.
10: %\bibliographystyle{plain} %sorted alphabetically. Labels are numeric.
11: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt} %like plain, but sorted by citation.
12: %\bibliographystyle{abbv} %like plain, but more compact labels.
13: %\bibliographystyle{nature}
14:
15: \bibliographystyle{phaip}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \title{Effect of Trends on Detrended Fluctuation Analysis}
19: \author{Kun Hu$^1$, Plamen~Ch.~Ivanov$^1$$^2$, Zhi Chen$^1$, Pedro Carpena$^3$, H.~Eugene~Stanley$^1$}
20:
21: \address{ $^1$ Center for Polymer Studies and Department of Physics,
22: Boston University, Boston, MA 02215\\
23: $^2$ Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215\\
24: $^3$ Departamento de F\'{\i}sica Aplicada II, Universidad de
25: M\'alaga E-29071, Spain\\}
26:
27:
28: \maketitle
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: Detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) is a scaling analysis method used to
32: estimate long-range power-law correlation exponents in noisy signals. Many
33: noisy signals in real systems display trends, so that the scaling results
34: obtained from the DFA method become difficult to analyze. We systematically
35: study the effects of three types of trends --- linear, periodic, and
36: power-law trends, and offer examples where these trends are likely to occur
37: in real data. We compare the difference between the scaling results for
38: artificially generated correlated noise and correlated noise with a trend,
39: and study how trends lead to the appearance of crossovers in the scaling
40: behavior. We find that crossovers result from the competition between the
41: scaling of the noise and the ``apparent'' scaling of the trend. We study how
42: the characteristics of these crossovers depend on (i) the slope of the linear
43: trend; (ii) the amplitude and period of the periodic trend; (iii) the
44: amplitude and power of the power-law trend and (iv) the length as well as the
45: correlation properties of the noise. Surprisingly, we find that the
46: crossovers in the scaling of noisy signals with trends also follow scaling
47: laws --- i.e. long-range power-law dependence of the position of the
48: crossover on the parameters of the trends. We show that the DFA result of
49: noise with a trend can be exactly determined by the superposition of the
50: separate results of the DFA on the noise and on the trend, assuming that the
51: noise and the trend are not correlated. If this superposition rule is not
52: followed, this is an indication that the noise and the superimposed trend are
53: not independent, so that removing the trend could lead to changes in the
54: correlation properties of the noise. In addition, we show how to use DFA
55: appropriately to minimize the effects of trends, and how to recognize if a
56: crossover indicates indeed a transition from one type to a different type of
57: underlying correlation, or the crossover is due to a trend without any
58: transition in the dynamical properties of the noise.
59: \end{abstract}
60: %\narrowtext
61: \begin{multicols}{2}
62: \section{Introduction}
63: Many physical and biological systems exhibit complex behavior
64: characterized by long-range power-law correlations. Traditional
65: approaches such as the power-spectrum and correlation analysis are
66: not suited to accurately quantify long-range correlations in
67: non-stationary signals --- e.g. signals exhibiting fluctuations
68: along polynomial trends. Detrended fluctuation analysis
69: (DFA)\cite{CKDFA1,SVDFA1,SMDFA1,taqqu95} is a scaling analysis method
70: providing a simple quantitative parameter --- the scaling exponent
71: $\alpha$ --- to represent the correlation properties of a signal.
72: The advantages of DFA over many methods are that it permits the detection of long-range correlations embedded in seemingly non-stationary time series, and also avoids the spurious detection of apparent long-range correlations that are artifact of non-stationarity. In the past few years, more than 100 publications have
73: utilized the DFA as method of correlation analysis, and have
74: uncovered long-range power-law correlations in many research
75: fields such as cardiac
76: dynamics\cite{iyengaramjphsiolreg,plamennature1996,HOcirc1997,plamenphsa1998,barbiheartchaos1998,plamenuropl1999,Pikkujamsaheartcir1999,solomrev1999,Genephsa1999,ashkenazyheartfrac1999,makikallioheartamjcardiol1999,crossoverCK,CKfractal,Absil1999,solomphsa1999,toweillheartmed2000,bundesleep2000,Laitio2000,Yosef2001},
77: bioinformatics\cite{SVDFA1,CKDFA1,rmsCK,genenuovodna1994,mantegnaprl1994,ckdnapha1995,solomdnafractal1995,mantegnaprl1996,SVdnapha1998,blesicdnapha1999,Yoshinagaphya2000,Perazzofractal2000,Siwy},
78: economics\cite{Liu97,vandewallephsa1997,vandewallepre1998,Liu99,janosiecopha1999,ausloosphsa1999_12,robertoecopha1999,Vandewalle1999,grau-carles2000,ausloosphsa2000_9,ausloosphsa2000_10,ausloospre2001,ausloosIntJModPhys2001},
79: meteorology\cite{Ivanovameteo1999_12,Montanari2000,Matsoukas2000},
80: geology\cite{malamudjstatlaninfer1999}, ethology\cite{Alados2000} etc.
81: Furthermore, the DFA method may help identify different states of
82: the same system according to its different scaling behaviors ---
83: e.g. the scaling exponent $\alpha$ for heart inter-beat intervals
84: is different for healthy and sick
85: individuals\cite{ashkenazyheartfrac1999,mfCK_lett,CKfractal,crossoverCK}.
86:
87: The correct interpretation of the scaling results obtained by the
88: DFA method is crucial for understanding the intrinsic dynamics of
89: the systems under study. In fact, for all systems where the DFA
90: method was applied, there are many issues that remain unexplained.
91: One of the common challenges is that the correlation exponent is
92: not always a constant (independent of scale) and crossovers often exist --- i.e. change
93: of the scaling exponent $\alpha$ for different range of
94: scales\cite{crossoverCK, Liu97, iyengaramjphsiolreg}. A crossover
95: usually can arise from a change in the correlation
96: properties of the signal at different time or space scales, or can often arise from trends in the data. In
97: this paper, we systematically study how different types of trends
98: affect the apparent scaling behavior of long-range correlated signals.
99: The
100: existence of trends in times series generated by physical or
101: biological systems is so common that it is almost unavoidable. For
102: example, the number of particles emitted by a radiation source in
103: an unit time has a trend of decreasing because the source becomes
104: weaker\cite{Nradiation,gandiradiation}; the density of air due to gravity has a
105: trend at different altitude \cite{Bundeatm}; the
106: air temperature in different geographic locations and the water
107: flow of rivers have a periodic trend due to seasonal
108: changes\cite{bundetem,Ivanovacloud2000,talknertem2000,Montanari2000,Matsoukas2000}; the
109: occurrence rate of earthquakes in certain area has trend in
110: different time period\cite{ogataearth}. An immediate problem
111: facing researchers applying scaling analysis to time series is
112: whether trends in data arise from external conditions, having
113: little to do with the intrinsic dynamics of the system generating
114: noisy fluctuating data. In this case, a possible approach is to
115: first recognize and filter out the trends before we attempt to
116: quantify correlations in the noise. Alternatively, trends may
117: arise from the intrinsic dynamics of the system, rather than being an
118: epiphenomenon of external conditions, and thus may be correlated
119: with the noisy fluctuations generated by the system. In this case,
120: careful considerations should be given if trends should be
121: filtered out when estimating correlations in the noise, since such
122: "intrinsic" trends may be related to the local properties of the
123: noisy fluctuations.
124:
125: Here we study the origin and the properties of crossovers in the
126: scaling behavior of noisy signals, by applying the DFA method
127: first on correlated noise and then on noise with trends, and
128: comparing the difference in the scaling results. To this end, we
129: generate artificial time series --- anticorrelated, white and
130: correlated noise with standard deviation equal to one --- using
131: the modified Fourier filtering method introduced by Makse et
132: al.\cite{MFFM}. We consider the case when the trend is independent
133: of the local properties of the noise (external trend). We find
134: that the scaling behavior of noise with a trend is a superposition
135: of the scaling of the noise and the apparent scaling of the trend,
136: and we derive analytical relations based on the DFA, which we call
137: ``superposition rule''. We show how this ``superposition rule'' can
138: be used to determine if the trends are independent of the noisy
139: fluctuation in real data, and if filtering these trends out will
140: no affect the scaling properties of the data.
141:
142:
143: %As a systematic study, we start from the simplest case --- linear trend.
144: %Then, we discuss the effect of a sinusoidal trend on DFA. As we know, many systems such as atmospheric, biological, financial systems have periodic property which may lead to periodic trends within signals of these systems. Thus, the effect of a sinusoidal trend on DFA can typically represent the effect of the periodic property on the scaling behavior of the correlation functions for those systems. Finally, we study the effect of power-law trend as an extended study of linear or polynomial trends.
145:
146: The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec.\ref{secdfa}, we
147: review the algorithm of the DFA method, and in Appendix
148: \ref{secpuren} we compare the performance of the DFA with the
149: classical scaling analysis ---Hurst's analysis (R/S analysis)---
150: and show that the DFA is a superior method to quantify the scaling
151: behavior of noisy signals. In Sec.~\ref{seclin}, we consider the
152: effect of a linear trend and we present an analytic derivation of
153: the apparent scaling behavior of a linear trend in Appendix
154: \ref{secdfa1l}. In Sec.~\ref{secsin}, we study a periodic trend,
155: and in Sec.~\ref{seclc} the effect of power-law trend. We
156: systematically study all resulting crossovers, their conditions of
157: existence and their typical characteristics associated with the
158: different types of trends. In addition, we also show how to use
159: DFA appropriately to minimize or even eliminate the effects of
160: those trends in cases that trends are not choices of the study,
161: that is, trends do not reflect the dynamics of the system but are
162: caused by some ``irrelevant'' background. Finally,
163: Sec.~\ref{seccon} contains a summary.
164:
165: \section{DFA}\label{secdfa}
166: To illustrate the DFA method, we consider a noisy time series,
167: $u(i)$ ($i=1,..,N_{max}$~). We integrate the time series $u(i)$,
168: \begin{equation}
169: y(j) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{j} (u(i) - <u>),
170: \end{equation}
171: where
172: \begin{equation}
173: <u>=\frac{1}{N_{max}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_{max}} u(i),
174: \end{equation}
175: and is divided into boxes of equal size, $n$. In each box, we
176: fit the integrated time series by using a polynomial function,
177: $y_{fit}(i)$, which is called the local trend. For order-$\ell$ DFA
178: (DFA-1 if $\ell=1$, DFA-2 if $\ell=2$ etc.), $\ell$ order polynomial function
179: should be applied for the fitting. We detrend The integrated time series,
180: $y(i)$ by subtracting the local trend $y_{fit}(i)$
181: in each box, and we calculate the detrended fluctuation function
182: \begin{equation}
183: Y(i) = y(i)-y_{fit}(i).
184: \label{psi}
185: \end{equation}
186: For a given box size $n$, we calculate the root mean square (rms) fluctuation
187: \begin{equation}
188: F(n) =\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{max}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{max}}\left [Y(i)\right ]^2}
189: \label{F}
190: \end{equation}
191: The above computation is repeated for box
192: sizes $n$ (different scales) to provide a relationship between $F(n)$ and $n$. A
193: power-law relation between $F(n)$ and the box size $n$ indicates
194: the presence of scaling: $F(n) \sim n^{\alpha}$. The parameter
195: $\alpha$, called the scaling exponent or correlation exponent, represents the correlation
196: properties of the signal: if $\alpha=0.5$, there is no correlation
197: and the signal is an uncorrelated signal (white noise); if
198: $\alpha < 0.5$, the signal is anticorrelated; if
199: $\alpha >0.5$, there are positive correlations in the signal.
200:
201: \section{Noise with linear trends}\label{seclin}
202: First we consider the simplest case: correlated noise with a
203: linear trend. A linear trend
204: \begin{equation}
205: u(i)=A_{\rm L} i
206: \end{equation}
207: is characterized by
208: only one variable --- the slope of the trend, $A_{\rm L}$. For
209: convenience, we denote the rms fluctuation function
210: for noise without trends by $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$, linear trends by
211: $F_{\rm L}(n)$, and noise with a linear trend by $F_{\rm
212: \eta L}(n)$.
213: %\newpage
214:
215:
216: \subsection{DFA-1 on noise with a linear trend}\label{secdfa1lb}
217: Using the algorithm of Makse\cite{MFFM}, we generate correlated noise with standard deviation one, with a
218: given correlation property characterized by a given scaling
219: exponent $\alpha$. We apply DFA-1 to quantify the correlation
220: properties of the noise and find that only in certain good fit
221: region the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$
222: can be approximated by a power-law function
223: %[see Fig.\ref{technique}]
224: [see Appendix \ref{secpuren}]
225: \begin{equation}
226: F_{\rm \eta}(n) = b_0 n^{\alpha} \label{dfa1_n}
227: \end{equation}
228: where $b_0$ is a parameter independent of the scale $n$. We find
229: that the good fit region depends on the correlation exponent
230: $\alpha$ %[see Fig.\ref{slope_n}
231: [see Appendix \ref{secpuren}]. We also
232: derive analytically the rms fluctuation function for
233: linear trend only for DFA-1 and find that [see Appendix
234: \ref{secdfa1l}]
235: \begin{equation}
236: F_{\rm L}(n) = k_0 A_{\rm L} n^{\alpha_{L}}
237: \label{dfa1_purelb}
238: \end{equation}
239: where $k_0$ is a constant independent of the length of trend $N_{max}$, of
240: the box size $n$ and of the slope of the trend $A_{\rm L}$. We obtain
241: $\alpha_{L} = 2$.
242: \begin{figure}[H!]
243: %\narrowtext
244: \centerline{
245: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17.eps}}}}
246: \vspace*{0.47cm} \caption{ Crossover behavior of the root mean
247: square fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ for noise (of
248: length $N_{max}=2^{17}$ and correlation exponent $\alpha =0.1$)
249: with superposed linear trends of slope $A_{\rm L}=2^{-16}, 2^{-12},
250: 2^{-8}$. For comparison, we show $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ for the noise
251: (thick solid line) and $F_{\rm L}(n)$ for the linear trends
252: (dot-dashed line) (Eq.(\ref{dfa1_purelb})). The results show that
253: a crossover at a scale $n_{\times}$ for $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$. For
254: $n < n_{\times}$, the noise dominates and $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)
255: \approx F_{\rm \eta}(n)$. For $n > n_{\times}$, the linear trend
256: dominates and $F_{\rm \eta L}(n) \approx F_{\rm L}(n)$. Note that
257: the crossover scale $n_{\times}$ increases when the slope $A_{\rm L}$
258: of the trend decreases. } \label{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17}
259: \end{figure}
260: Next we apply the DFA-1 method to the superposition of a linear trend
261: with correlated noise and we compare the rms fluctuation
262: function $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ with $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ [see
263: Fig.\ref{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17}]. We observe a crossover in $F_{\rm
264: \eta L}(n)$ at scale $n = n_{\times}$. For
265: $n<n_{\times}$, the behavior of $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ is very close
266: to the behavior of $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$, while for $n
267: >n_{\times}$, the behavior of $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ is very close to the behavior of $F_{\rm L}(n)$.
268: A similar crossover behavior is also observed in the scaling of the
269: well-studied biased random walk \cite{Weissrdwalk,newtontoman}. It
270: is known that the crossover in the biased random walk is due to the
271: competition of the unbiased random walk and the bias [see Fig.5.3 of \cite{newtontoman}]. We
272: illustrate this observation in Fig.~\ref{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17},
273: where the detrended fluctuation functions (Eq.~(\ref{psi})) of the
274: correlated noise, $Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$, and of the noise with a
275: linear trend, $Y_{\rm \eta L}(i)$ are shown. For the box size $
276: n < n_{\times}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17}(a)
277: and (b), $Y_{\rm \eta L}(i) \approx Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$. For
278: $n>n_{\times}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17}(c)
279: and (d), $Y_{\rm \eta L}(i)$ has distinguishable quadratic
280: background significantly different from $Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$. This
281: quadratic background is due to the integration of the linear trend
282: within the DFA procedure and represents the detrended fluctuation
283: function $Y_{L}$ of the linear trend. These relations between
284: the detrended fluctuation functions $Y(i)$ at different time
285: scales $n$ explain the crossover in the scaling behavior of
286: $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$: from very close to $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ to very close
287: to $F_{\rm L}(n)$ (observed in Fig.\ref{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17}).
288:
289:
290: \begin{figure}[H!]
291: \centerline{
292: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{x_addlb_32_a01n17.eps}}}}
293: \vspace*{0.25cm} \caption{ Comparison of the detrended fluctuation
294: function for noise $Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$ and for noise with linear
295: trend $Y_{\rm \eta L}(i)$ at different scales. (a) and (c) are
296: $Y_{\rm \eta}$ for noise with $\alpha = 0.1$; (b) and (d) are
297: $Y_{\rm \eta L}$ for the same noise with a linear trend with
298: slope $A_{\rm L}=2^{-12}$ (the crossover scale $n_{\times} = 320$ see
299: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17}). (a) (b) for scales $n <
300: n_{\times}$ the effect of the trend is not pronounced and
301: $Y_{\rm \eta} \approx Y_{\rm \eta L}$ (i.e. $Y_{\rm
302: \eta} \gg Y_{\rm L}$); (c)(d) for scales $n > n_{\times}$, the
303: linear trend is dominant and $Y_{\rm \eta} \ll Y_{\rm \eta L}$. } \label{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17}
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: The experimental results presented in Figs.\ref{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17} and \ref{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17} suggest that the rms fluctuation function for a signal which is a superposition of a correlated noise and a linear trend can be expressed as:
307: \begin{equation}
308: \left [F_{\rm \eta L}(n)\right ]^2 = \left [F_{\rm L}(n)\right ]^2 + \left [F_{\rm \eta}(n)\right ]^2
309: \label{addnl}
310: \end{equation}
311: We provide an analytic derivation of this relation in Appendix \ref{secadd}, where we show that Eq.(\ref{addnl}) holds for the superposition of any two independent signals --- in this particular case noise and a linear trend. We call this relation the ``superposition rule''. This rule helps us understand how the competition between the contribution of the noise and the trend to the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ at different scales $n$ leads to appearance of crossovers \cite{Weissrdwalk}.
312:
313:
314: Next, we ask how the crossover scale $n_{\times}$ depends on: (i)
315: the slope of the linear trend $A_{\rm L}$, (ii) the scaling exponent
316: $\alpha$ of the noise, and (iii) the length of the signal
317: $N_{max}$. Surprisingly, we find that for noise with any given
318: correlation exponent $\alpha$ the crossover scale $n_{\times}$
319: itself follows a power-law scaling relation over several decades:
320: $ n_{\times} \sim \left(A_{\rm L}\right)^{\theta}$ (see
321: Fig.~\ref{S_r_dfa1_nbl_n17}). We find that in this scaling
322: relation, the crossover exponent $\theta$ is negative and its value
323: depends on the correlation exponent $\alpha$ of the noise --- the
324: magnitude of $\theta$ decreases when $\alpha$ increases. We present the
325: values of the ``crossover exponent'' $\theta$ for different correlation
326: exponents $\alpha$ in Table~\ref{slopefit}.
327:
328: \begin{figure}[H!]
329: %\narrowtext
330: \centerline{
331: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{S_r_dfa1_nbl_n17.eps}}}}
332: \vspace*{0.5cm} \caption{The crossover $n_{\times}$ of $F_{\rm
333: \eta L}(n)$ for noise with a linear trend. We determine the
334: crossover scale $n_{\times}$ based on the difference $\Delta$
335: between $\log F_{\rm \eta}$ (noise) and $\log F_{\rm \eta L}$
336: (noise with a linear trend). The scale for which $\Delta =0.05$ is
337: the estimated crossover scale $n_{\times}$. For any given
338: correlation exponent $\alpha$ of the noise, the crossover scale
339: $n_{\times}$ exhibits a long-range power-law behavior $n_{\times}
340: \sim \left(A_{\rm L}\right)^{\theta}$, where the crossover exponent $\theta$ is
341: a function of $\alpha$ [see Eq.(\ref{si_bl}) and Table
342: \ref{slopefit}].} \label{S_r_dfa1_nbl_n17}
343: \end{figure}
344:
345: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\columnwidth}
346: \begin{table}[H!]
347: \caption{ The crossover exponent $\theta$ from the power-law relation between the crossover scale $n_{\times}$ and the slope of the linear trend $A_{\rm L}$ --- $n_{\times} \sim \left(A_{\rm L}\right)^{\theta}$ ---for different values of the correlation exponents $\alpha$ of the noise [Fig.~\ref{S_r_dfa1_nbl_n17}]. The values of $\theta$ obtained from our simulations are in good agreement with the analytical prediction $-1/(2-\alpha)$ [Eq.~(\ref{si_bl})]. Note that $-1/(2-\alpha)$ are not always exactly equal to $\theta$ because $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ in simulations is not a perfect simple power-law function and the way we determine numerically $n_{\times}$ is just approximated.}\label{slopefit}
348: \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{~~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~}c@{}}
349: \centering
350: $\alpha $ & $\theta$ & $-1/(2-\alpha)$ \\ \tableline
351: 0.1 & -0.54 & -0.53 \\
352: % 0.2 & -0.56 & -0.55 \\
353: 0.3 & -0.58 & -0.59 \\
354: % 0.4 & -0.62 & -0.63 \\
355: 0.5 & -0.65 & -0.67 \\
356: % 0.6 & -0.69 & -0.71 \\
357: 0.7 & -0.74 & -0.77 \\
358: % 0.8 & -0.79 & -0.83 \\
359: 0.9 & -0.89 & -0.91 \\
360: \end{tabular}
361: \end{table}
362: \end{minipage}
363:
364: To understand how the crossover scale depends on the correlation exponent $\alpha$ of the noise we employ the superposition rule [Eq.(\ref{addnl})] and estimate $n_{\times}$ as the intercept between $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ and $F_{\rm L}(n)$. From the Eqs.~(\ref{dfa1_n}) and (\ref{dfa1_purelb}), we obtain the following dependence of $n_{\times}$ on $\alpha$:
365: \begin{equation}
366: n_{\times} = \left(A_{\rm L}\frac{k_0}{b_0}\right)^{1/(\alpha-\alpha_{L})} = \left(A_{\rm L}\frac{k_0}{b_0}\right)^{1/(\alpha-2)}
367: \label{si_bl}
368: \end{equation}
369: This analytical calculation for the crossover exponent $-1/(\alpha_{L}-\alpha)$ is in a good agreement with the observed values of $\theta$ obtained from our simulations [see Fig.\ref{S_r_dfa1_nbl_n17} and Table \ref{slopefit}].
370:
371: Finally, since the $F_{\rm L}(n)$ does not depend on $N_{max}$ as
372: we show in Eq.(\ref{dfa1_purelb}) and in Appendix \ref{secdfa1l},
373: we find that $n_{\times}$ does not depend on $N_{max}$. This is a
374: special case for linear trends and does not always hold for higher
375: order polynomial trends [see Appendix \ref{secq}].
376:
377: \subsection{DFA-2 on noise with a linear trend}\label{secdfa2bl}
378: \begin{figure}[H!]
379: \centerline{
380: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfa2_nbl_32_n17.eps}}}}
381: \vspace*{0.5cm} \caption{Comparison of the rms fluctuation
382: function $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ for noise with different types of
383: correlations (lines) and $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ for the same noise
384: with a linear trend of slope $A_{\rm L} =2^{-12}$ (symbols) for DFA-2.
385: $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)=F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ because the integrated linear
386: trend can be perfectly filtered out in DFA-2, thus $Y_{\rm L}(i)
387: = 0$ from Eq.(\ref{psi}). We note, that to estimate accurately the
388: correlation exponents one has to choose an optimal range of scales
389: $n$, where $F(n)$ is fitted. For details see
390: Appendix~\ref{secpuren}}. \label{dfa2_nbl_32_n17FT}
391: \end{figure}
392: Application of the DFA-2 method to noisy signals without any
393: polynomial trends leads to scaling results identical to the
394: scaling obtained from the DFA-1 method, with the exception of some
395: vertical shift to lower values for the rms fluctuation function
396: $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ [see Appendix~\ref{secpuren}]. However, for
397: signals which are a superposition of correlated noise and a linear
398: trend, in contrast to the DFA-1 results presented in
399: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17}, $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ obtained from
400: DFA exhibits no crossovers, and is exactly equal to the rms
401: fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ obtained from DFA-2 for
402: correlated noise without trend (see Fig.~\ref{dfa2_nbl_32_n17FT}).
403: These results indicate that a linear trend has no effect on the
404: scaling obtained from DFA-2. The reason for this is that by design
405: the DFA-2 method filters out linear trends, i.e. $Y_{\rm L}(i) =
406: 0$ (Eq.(~\ref{psi})) and thus $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)=F_{\rm \eta}(n)$
407: due to the superposition rule (Eq.~(\ref{addnl})). For the same
408: reason, polynomial trends of order lower than $\ell$ superimposed on
409: correlated noise will have no effect on the scaling properties of
410: the noise when DFA-$\ell$ is applied. Therefore, our results
411: confirm that the DFA method is a reliable tool to accurately
412: quantify correlations in noisy signals embedded in polynomial
413: trends. Moreover, the reported scaling and crossover features of
414: $F(n)$ can be used to determine the order of polynomial trends
415: present in the data.
416:
417:
418:
419: \section{Noise with sinusoidal trend } \label{secsin}
420:
421: In this section, we study the effect of sinusoidal trends on the
422: scaling properties of noisy signals. For a signal which is a
423: superposition of correlated noise and sinusoidal trend, we find
424: that based on the superposition rule (Appendix~\ref{secadd}) the
425: DFA rms fluctuation function can be expressed as
426: \begin{equation}
427: \left[F_{\rm \eta S}(n)\right]^2 = \left[F_{\rm \eta}(n)\right]^2 + \left[F_{\rm S}(n)\right]^2,
428: \label{addnp}
429: \end{equation}
430: where $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ is the rms fluctuation
431: function of noise with a sinusoidal trend, and $F_{\rm S}(n)$ is
432: for the sinusoidal trend. First we consider the application of DFA-1 to a sinusoidal trend. Next we study the scaling behavior and the features of crossovers in $F_{\rm
433: \eta \rm S}(n)$ for the superposition of correlated noise and sinusoidal trend
434: employing the superposition rule [Eq.(\ref{addnp})]. At the end
435: of this section, we discuss the results obtained from higher order DFA.
436:
437: \subsection{DFA-1 on sinusoidal trend}\label{secsin_puresin}
438:
439: Given a sinusoidal trend $u(i)= A_{\rm S} \sin \left(2\pi i/T\right)$
440: ($i=1,...,N_{max}$), where $A_{\rm S}$ is the amplitude of the
441: signal and $T$ is the period, we find that the rms fluctuation
442: function $F_{\rm S}(n)$ does not depend on the length of the
443: signal $N_{max}$, and has the same shape for different amplitudes
444: and different periods [Fig.~\ref{dfa1_puresin}]. We find a
445: crossover at scale corresponding to the period of the sinusoidal
446: trend
447: \begin{equation}
448: n_{2\times} \approx T, \label{eqnx2}
449: \end{equation}
450: and does not depend on the amplitude $A_{\rm S}$. We
451: call this crossover $n_{2 \times}$ for convenience, as we will see later. For $n~<~
452: n_{2\times}$, the rms fluctuation $F_{\rm S}(n)$ exhibits an
453: apparent scaling with the same exponent as $F_{\rm L}(n)$ for the
454: linear trend [see Eq.~(\ref{dfa1_purelb})]:
455: \begin{equation}
456: F_{\rm S}(n) = k_1 \frac{A_{\rm S}}{T} n^{\alpha_{\rm S}}
457: \label{eqpl}
458: \end{equation}
459: where $k_1$ is a constant independent of the length $N_{max}$, of
460: the period $T$ and the amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ of the sinusoidal
461: signal, and of the box size $n$. As for the linear trend
462: [Eq.(\ref{dfa1_purelb})], we obtain $\alpha_{\rm S}~=~2$ because
463: at small scales (box size $n$) the sinusoidal function is
464: dominated by a linear term. For $n > n_{2\times}$, due to the
465: periodic property of the sinusoidal trend, $F_{\rm S}(n)$ is a
466: constant independent of the scale $n$:
467: \begin{equation}
468: F_{\rm S}(n) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2} \pi} A_{\rm S} \cdot T.
469: \label{eqpp}
470: \end{equation}
471: The period $T$ and the amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ also affects the
472: vertical shift of $F_{\rm S}(n)$ in both regions. We note that in
473: Eqs.(\ref{eqpl}) and (\ref{eqpp}), $F_{\rm S}(n)$ is proportional to the
474: amplitude $A_{\rm S}$, a behavior which is also observed for the
475: linear trend [Eq.~(\ref{dfa1_purelb})].
476:
477: \begin{figure}[H!]
478: %\narrowtext
479: \centerline{
480: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfa1_puresin.eps}}}}
481: %\vspace*{0.25cm}
482: \caption{Root mean square fluctuation function $F_{\rm S}(n)$ for
483: sinusoidal functions of length $N_{max}=2^{17}$ with different
484: amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ and period $T$. All curves exhibit a
485: crossover at $n_{2\times} \approx T/2$, with a slope $\alpha_{\rm
486: S}=2$ for $n < n_{2\times}$, and a flat region for $n
487: > n_{2\times}$. There are some spurious singularities at $n = j
488: \frac{T}{2}$ ($j$ is a positive integer) shown by the spikes.}
489: \label{dfa1_puresin}
490: \end{figure}
491:
492:
493: \subsection{DFA-1 on noise with sinusoidal trend}\label{secdfa1st}
494:
495: In this section, we study how the sinusoidal trend affects the
496: scaling behavior of noise with different type of correlations. We
497: apply the DFA-1 method to a signal which is a superposition of
498: correlated noise with a sinusoidal trend. We observe that there
499: are typically three crossovers in the rms fluctuation $F_{\rm
500: \eta S}(n)$ at characteristic scales denoted by $n_{1\times}$,
501: $n_{2\times}$ and $n_{3\times}$ [Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}]. These
502: three crossovers divide $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ into four regions, as
503: shown in Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}(a) (the third crossover cannot be
504: seen in Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}(b) because its scale $n_{3\times}$
505: is greater than the length of the signal). We find that the first
506: and third crossovers at scales $n_{1\times}$ and $n_{3\times}$
507: respectively [see Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}] result from the
508: competition between the effects on $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ of the
509: sinusoidal signal and the correlated noise. For $n<n_{1\times}$
510: (region I) and $n>n_{3\times}$ (region IV), we find
511: that the noise has the dominating effect ($F_{\rm \eta}(n)>F_{\rm
512: S}(n)$), so the behavior of $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ is very close to
513: the behavior of $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ [Eq.~(\ref{addnp})]. For
514: $n_{1\times} < n < n_{2\times}$ (region II) and $n_{2\times} <
515: n < n_{3\times}$ (region III) the sinusoidal trend dominates
516: ($F_{\rm S}(n)>F_{\rm \eta}(n)$), thus the behavior of $F_{\rm
517: \eta S}(n)$ is close to $F_{\rm S}(n)$ [see
518: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17} and Fig.~\ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17}].
519: \begin{figure}[H!]
520: %\narrowtext
521: \centerline{
522: \epsfysize=0.43\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfa1_nbw_a09n17.eps}}}
523: } \centerline{
524: \epsfysize=0.43\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfa1_nbw_a01n17.eps}}}}
525: \vspace*{0.25cm} \caption{Crossover behavior of the root mean
526: square fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta \rm S}(n)$ (circles) for
527: correlated noise (of length $N_{max}=2^{17}$) with a superposed
528: sinusoidal function characterized by period $T=128$ and amplitude
529: $A_{\rm S} = 2$. The rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm
530: \eta}(n)$ for noise (thick line) and $F_{\rm S}(n)$ for the
531: sinusoidal trend (thin line) are shown for comparison. (a) $F_{\rm
532: \eta \rm S}(n)$ for correlated noise with $\alpha=0.9$. (b)
533: $F_{\rm \eta \rm S}(n)$ for anticorrelated noise with
534: $\alpha=0.9$. There are three crossovers in $F_{\rm \eta \rm
535: S}(n)$, at scales $n_{1\times}$, $n_{2\times}$ and $n_{3\times}$
536: (the third crossover can not be seen in (b) because it occurs at
537: scale larger than the length of the signal). For $n < n_{1\times}$
538: and $n > n_{3\times}$, the noise dominates and $F_{\rm \eta \rm
539: S}(n) \approx F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ while for $ n_{1\times} < n <
540: n_{3\times}$, the sinusoidal trend dominates and $F_{\rm \eta \rm
541: S}(n) \approx F_{\rm S}(n)$. The crossovers at $n_{1\times}$ and
542: $n_{3\times}$ are due to the competition between the correlated
543: noise and the sinusoidal trend [see Fig.~\ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17}],
544: while the crossover at $n_{2\times}$ relates only to the period
545: $T$ of the sinusoidal [Eq.~(\ref{eqnx2})].} \label{dfa1_nbw_n17}
546: \end{figure}
547:
548: \begin{figure}[ht]
549: %\narrowtext
550: \centerline{
551: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{x_addbw_2_128_a01n17.eps}}}}
552: %\vspace*{0.25cm}
553: \centerline{
554: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{x_addbw_2_128_a09n17.eps}}}}
555: \vspace*{0.25cm} \caption{Comparison of the detrended fluctuation
556: function for noise, $Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$ and noise with sinusoidal
557: trend, $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i)$ in four regions as shown in
558: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}. The same signals as in
559: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17} are used. Panels (a)-(f) correspond to
560: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}(b) for anticorrelated noise with exponent
561: $\alpha=0.1$, and panels (g)-(h) correspond to the
562: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}(a) for correlated noise with exponent
563: $\alpha=0.9$. (a)-(b) For all scales $ n < n_{1\times}$, the effect of
564: the trend is not pronounced and $Y_{\rm \eta \rm S}(i) \approx
565: Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$ leading to $F_{\rm \eta S}(n) \approx F_{\rm
566: \eta}(n)$ (Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}(a)). (c)(d) For $ n_{2\times}>
567: n
568: > n_{1\times}$, the trend is dominant, $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i)
569: \gg Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$ and $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)\approx F_{\rm
570: S}(n)$. Since $n_{2\times} \approx T/2$ (Eq.~(\ref{eqnx2})), the
571: scale $n < T/2$ and the sinusoidal behavior can be approximated as
572: a linear trend. This explains the quadratic background in
573: $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i)$ (d) [see
574: Fig.~\ref{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17}(c)(d)]. (e)(f) For $n_{2\times}
575: < n < n_{3\times}$ (i.e. $n\gg T/2$), the sinusoidal trend again
576: dominates --- $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i)$ is periodic function with
577: period $T$. (g)(h) for $n~>~n_{3\times}$, the effect of the noise
578: is dominant and the scaling of $F_{\rm \eta S}$ follows the
579: scaling of $F_{\rm \eta}$ (Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}(a)). }
580: \label{x_nbw_2_128_n17}
581: \end{figure}
582:
583: To better understand why there are different regions in the
584: behavior of $F_{\rm \eta \rm S}(n)$, we consider the detrended
585: fluctuation function [Eq.~(\ref{psi}) and Appendix \ref{secadd}]
586: of the correlated noise $Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$, and of the noise
587: with sinusoidal trend $Y_{\rm \eta S}$. In
588: Fig.~\ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17} we compare $Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$ and
589: $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i)$ for anticorrelated and correlated noise in
590: the four different regions. For very small scales $n<n_{1\times}$,
591: the effect of the sinusoidal trend is not pronounced, $Y_{\rm
592: \eta S}(i) \approx Y_{\rm \eta}(i)$, indicating that in this
593: scale region the signal can be considered as noise fluctuating
594: around a constant trend which is filtered out by the DFA-1
595: procedure [Fig.~\ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17}(a)(b)]. Note, that the
596: behavior of $Y_{\rm \eta S}$ [Fig.~\ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17}(b)] is
597: identical to the behavior of $Y_{\rm \eta L}$
598: [Fig.~\ref{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17}(b)], since both a sinusoidal
599: with a large period $T$ and a linear trend with small slope
600: $A_{\rm L}$ can be well approximated by a constant trend for
601: $n<n_{1\times}$. For small scales $n_{1\times} < n < n_{2\times}$
602: (region II), we find that there is a dominant quadratic
603: background for $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i)$
604: [Fig.~\ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17}(d)]. This quadratic background is due
605: to the integration procedure in DFA-1, and is represented by the
606: detrended fluctuation function of the sinusoidal trend $Y_{\rm
607: S}(i)$. It is similar to the quadratic background observed for
608: linear trend $Y_{\rm \eta L}(i)$
609: [Fig.~\ref{x_dfa1_addlb_32_a01n17}(d)] --- i.e. for $n_{1\times} <
610: n < n_{2\times}$ the sinusoidal trend behaves as a linear trend
611: and $Y_{\rm S}(i) \approx Y_{\rm L}(i)$. Thus in region II the ``linear trend'' effect of the sinusoidal is dominant,
612: $Y_{\rm S}> Y_{\rm \eta}$, which leads to $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)
613: \approx F_{\rm S}(n)$. This explains also why $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$
614: for $n<n_{2\times}$ (Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}) exhibits crossover
615: behavior similar to the one of $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ observed for
616: noise with a linear trend. For $n_{2\times}<n<n_{3\times}$ (region III) the sinusoidal behavior is strongly pronounced
617: [Fig.~\ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17}(f)], $Y_{\rm S}(i) \gg Y_{\rm
618: \eta}(i)$, and $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i) \approx Y_{\rm S}(i)$
619: changes periodically with period equal to the period of the
620: sinusoidal trend $T$. Since $Y_{\rm \eta S}(i)$ is bounded
621: between a minimum and a maximum value, $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ cannot
622: increase %(in fact, $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ is the amplitude of)
623: and exhibits a flat region (Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}). At very
624: large scales, $n>n_{3\times}$, the noise effect is again dominant
625: ($Y_{\rm S}(i)$ remains bounded, while $Y_{\rm \eta}$ grows
626: when increasing the scale) which leads to $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)
627: \approx F_{\rm \eta}(n)$, and a scaling behavior corresponding to
628: the scaling of the correlated noise.
629:
630: %\end{multicols}
631: \begin{figure}[H]
632: %\narrowtext
633: \centerline{
634: \epsfysize=0.42\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Sd_p_dfa1_nbw_n17.eps}}}
635: }
636: \centerline{
637: \epsfysize=0.42\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Sd_r_dfa1_nbw_n17.eps}}}}
638:
639: \centerline{
640: \epsfysize=0.42\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Sf_nbw_5_p_n17.eps}}}}
641:
642: \centerline{
643: \epsfysize=0.42\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Sm_dfa1_nbw_2_p_n17.eps}}}
644: }
645:
646: \centerline{
647: \epsfysize=0.42\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Sm_dfa1_nbw_r_p16_n17.eps}}}}
648: %\vspace*{0.5cm}
649: \caption{Dependence of the three crossovers in $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$
650: for noise with a sinusoidal trend (Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}) on the
651: period $T$, and amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ of the sinusoidal trend. (a)
652: Power-law relation between the first crossover scale $n_{1\times}$
653: and the period $T$ for fixed amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ and varying
654: correlation exponent $\alpha$: $n_{1\times} \sim T^{\theta_{\rm T1}}$,
655: where $\theta_{\rm T1}$ is a positive crossover exponent [see Table
656: \ref{slope1} and Eq.~\ref{nx1}]. (b) Power-law relation between
657: the first crossover $n_{1\times}$ and the amplitude of the
658: sinusoidal trend $A_{\rm S}$ for fixed period $T$ and varying
659: correlation exponent $\alpha$: $n_{1\times} \sim A_{\rm S}^{\theta_{\rm
660: A1}}$ where $\theta_{\rm A1}$ is a negative crossover exponent [Table
661: \ref{slope1} and Eq.~(\ref{nx1})]. (c) The second crossover scale
662: $n_{2\times}$ depends only on the period $T$: $n_{2\times} \sim
663: T^{\theta_{\rm T2}}$, where $\theta_{\rm T2}\approx 1$. (d) Power-law
664: relation between the third crossover $n_{3\times}$ and $T$ for
665: fixed amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ and varying $\alpha$ trend:
666: $n_{3\times} \sim T^{\theta_{\rm T3} }$. (e) Power-law relation between
667: the third crossover $n_{3\times}$ and $A_{\rm S}$ for fixed $T$
668: and varying $\alpha$: $n_{3\times} \sim \left(A_{\rm
669: S}\right)^{\theta_{A3} }$. We find that $\theta_{\rm A3}=\theta_{\rm T3}$ [Table
670: \ref{slope3} and Eq.~(\ref{nx3})].} \label{S_dfa1_nbw_n17}
671: \end{figure}
672: %\begin{multicols}{2}
673:
674: First, we consider $n_{1\times}$. Surprisingly, we find that for
675: noise with any given correlation exponent $\alpha$ the crossover
676: scale $n_{1\times}$ exhibits long-range
677: power-law dependence of the period $T$ --- $n_{1\times} \sim
678: T^{\theta_{\rm T1}}$, and the amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ --- $n_{1\times}
679: \sim \left(A_{\rm S}\right)^{\theta_{\rm A1}}$ of the sinusoidal trend
680: [see Fig.~\ref{S_dfa1_nbw_n17}(a) and (b)]. We find that the
681: "crossover exponents" $\theta_{\rm T1}$ and $\theta_{\rm A1}$ have the same
682: magnitude but different sign --- $\theta_{\rm T1}$ is positive while
683: $\theta_{\rm A1}$ is negative. We also find that the magnitude of
684: $\theta_{\rm T1}$ and $\theta_{\rm A1}$ increases for the larger values of
685: the correlation exponents $\alpha$ of the noise. We present the
686: values of $\theta_{\rm T1}$ and $\theta_{\rm A1}$ for different correlation
687: exponent $\alpha$ in Table~\ref{slope1}. To understand these
688: power-law relations between $n_{1\times}$ and $T$, and between
689: $n_{1\times}$ and $A_{\rm S}$, and also how the crossover scale
690: $n_{1\times}$ depends on the correlation exponent $\alpha$ we
691: employ the superposition rule [Eq.~\ref{addnp}] and estimate
692: $n_{1\times}$ analytically as the first intercept
693: $n_{1\times}^{th}$ of $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ and $F_{\rm S}(n)$. From Eqs.~(\ref{eqpl}) and (\ref{dfa1_n}), we obtain the following
694: dependence of $n_{1\times}$ on $T$, $A_{\rm S}$ and $\alpha$:
695: \begin{equation}
696: n_{1\times} = \left(\frac{b_0}{k_1} \frac{T}{A_{\rm S}}\right)^{1/(2 - \alpha)}
697: \label{nx1}
698: \end{equation}
699: From this analytical calculation we obtain the following relation
700: between the two crossover exponents $\theta_{\rm T1}$ and $\theta_{\rm A1}$
701: and the correlation exponent $\alpha$: $\theta_{\rm T1}~=~-~\theta_{\rm A1}~=~1/{(2-\alpha)}$, which is in a good agreement with the
702: observed values of $\theta_{\rm T1}$, $\theta_{\rm A1}$ obtained from simulations
703: [see Fig.~\ref{S_dfa1_nbw_n17}(a) (b) and Table~\ref{slope1}].
704:
705: Next, we consider $n_{2\times}$. Our analysis of the rms
706: fluctuation function $F_{\rm S}(n)$ for the sinusoidal signal in
707: Fig.~\ref{dfa1_puresin} suggests that the crossover scale $F_{\rm
708: S}(n)$ does not depend on the amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ of the
709: sinusoidal. The behavior of the rms fluctuation function
710: $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ for noise with superimposed sinusoidal trend
711: in Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}(a) and (b) indicates that $n_{2\times}$
712: does not depend on the correlation exponent $\alpha$ of the noise,
713: since for both correlated ($\alpha=0.9$) and anticorrelated
714: ($\alpha=0$) noise ($T$ and $A_{\rm S}$ are fixed), the crossover
715: scale $n_{2\times}$ remains unchanged. We find that $n_{2\times}$
716: depends \textbf{only} on the period $T$ of the sinusoidal trend
717: and exhibits a long-range power-law behavior $n_{2\times} \sim
718: T^{\theta_{\rm T2}}$ with a crossover exponent $\theta_{\rm T2}\approx 1$
719: (Fig.~\ref{S_dfa1_nbw_n17}(c)) which is in agreement with the
720: prediction of Eq.(\ref{eqnx2}).
721:
722: For the third crossover scale $n_{3\times}$, as for $n_{1\times}$
723: we find a power-law dependence on the period $T$, $n_{3\times}
724: \sim T^{\theta_{T3}}$, and amplitude $A_{\rm S}$, $n_{3\times} \sim
725: \left(A_{\rm S}\right)^{\theta_{A3}}$,of the sinusoidal trend [see
726: Fig.~\ref{S_dfa1_nbw_n17}(d) and (e)]. However, in contrast to the
727: $n_{1\times}$ case, we find that the crossover exponents $\theta_{\rm
728: Tp3}$ and $\theta_{\rm A3}$ are equal and positive with decreasing
729: values for increasing correlation exponents $\alpha$. In Table~\ref{slope3}, we present
730: the values of these two exponents for different correlation
731: exponent $\alpha$. To understand how the scale $n_{3\times}$
732: depends on $T$, $A_{\rm S}$ and the correlation exponent $\alpha$
733: simultaneously, we again employ the superposition rule
734: [Eq.~(\ref{addnp})] and estimate $n_{3\times}$ as the second
735: intercept $n_{3\times}^{th}$ of $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ and $F_{\rm
736: S}(n)$. From Eqs.~(\ref{eqpp}) and (\ref{dfa1_n}), we obtain the
737: following dependence:
738: \begin{equation}
739: n_{3\times} = \left (\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2} \pi b_0} A_{\rm S} T \right)^{1/\alpha}.
740: \label{nx3}
741: \end{equation}
742: From this analytical calculation we obtain $\theta_{\rm T3}=\theta_{\rm A3}
743: = 1/\alpha$ which is in good agreement with the values of $\theta_{\rm
744: T3}$ and $\theta_{\rm A3}$ observed from simulations
745: [Table~\ref{slope3}].
746:
747: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\columnwidth}
748: \begin{table}[H!]
749: \caption{ The crossover exponents $\theta_{\rm T1}$ and $\theta_{\rm A1}$
750: characterizing the power-law dependence of $n_{1\times}$ on the
751: period $T$ and amplitude $A_{\rm S}$ obtained from simulations:
752: $n_{1\times} \sim T^{\theta_{\rm T1}}$ and $n_{1\times} \sim
753: \left(A_{\rm S}\right)^{\theta_{\rm A1}}$ for different value of the
754: correlation exponent $\alpha$ of noise
755: [Fig.~\ref{S_dfa1_nbw_n17}(a)(b)]. The values of $\theta_{\rm T1}$ and
756: $\theta_{\rm A1}$ are in good agreement with the analytical predictions
757: $\theta_{\rm T1}=-\theta_{\rm A1}=1/(2-\alpha)$
758: [Eq.~(\ref{nx1})].}\label{slope1}
759:
760: \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{~~~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~}c@{}}
761: \centering $\alpha$ & $\theta_{\rm T1}$ & -$\theta_{\rm A1}$ & $1/(2-\alpha)$ \\
762: \tableline
763: 0.1 & 0.55 & 0.54 & 0.53\\
764: % 0.2 & 0.56 &0.57 & 0.55\\
765: 0.3 & 0.58 & 0.59 & 0.59\\
766: % 0.4 & 0.61 & 0.62 & 0.63\\
767: 0.5 & 0.66 & 0.66 & 0.67\\
768: % 0.6 & 0.70 & 0.72 & 0.71\\
769: 0.7 & 0.74 & 0.75 & 0.77\\
770: % 0.8 & 0.82 & 0.83 & 0.83\\
771: 0.9 & 0.87 & 0.90 & 0.91\\
772: \end{tabular}
773: \end{table}
774: \end{minipage}
775: \hfill
776: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\columnwidth}
777: \begin{table}[H!]
778: \caption{The crossover exponents $\theta_{\rm T3}$ and $\theta_{\rm A3}$ for
779: the power-law relations: $n_{3\times} \sim T^{\theta_{\rm T3}}$ and
780: $n_{3\times} \sim \left(A_{\rm S}\right)^{\theta_{\rm A3}}$ for
781: different value of the correlation exponent $\alpha$ of noise
782: [Fig.~\ref{S_dfa1_nbw_n17}(c)(d)]. The values of $\theta_{p3}$ and
783: $\theta_{a3}$ obtained from simulations are in good agreement with the
784: analytical predictions $\theta_{\rm T3}=\theta_{\rm A3}=1/\alpha$
785: [Eq.~(\ref{nx3})].}
786:
787: \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{~~~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~~~~~}c@{}}
788: \centering
789: $\alpha$ & $\theta_{\rm T3}$ & $\theta_{\rm A3}$ & $1/\alpha$\\ \tableline
790: 0.4 & 2.29 & 2.38 & 2.50\\
791: 0.5 & 1.92 & 1.95 & 2.00 \\
792: 0.6 & 1.69 & 1.71 & 1.67 \\
793: 0.7 & 1.39 & 1.43 & 1.43 \\
794: 0.8 & 1.26 & 1.27 & 1.25 \\
795: 0.9 & 1.06 & 1.10 & 1.11 \\
796: \end{tabular}
797: \label{slope3}
798: \hfill
799: \end{table}
800: \end{minipage}
801:
802: Finally, our simulations show that all three crossover scales
803: $n_{1\times}$, $n_{2\times}$ and $n_{3\times}$ do not depend on
804: the length of the signal $N_{max}$, since $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ and
805: $F_{\rm S}(n)$ do not depend on $N_{max}$ as shown in
806: Eqs.~(\ref{dfa1_n}), (\ref{addnp}), (\ref{eqpl}), and
807: (\ref{eqpp}).
808: \subsection{Higher order DFA on pure sinusoidal trend}\label{dfar_sin}
809:
810: In the previous Sec.~\ref{secdfa1st}, we discussed how sinusoidal
811: trends affect the scaling behavior of correlated noise when the
812: DFA-1 method is applied. Since DFA-1 removes only constant trends in
813: data, it is natural to ask how the observed scaling results will
814: change when we apply DFA of order $\ell$ designed to remove
815: polynomial trends of order lower than $\ell$. In this section, we
816: first consider the rms fluctuation $F_{\rm S}$ for a sinusoidal
817: signal and then we study the scaling and crossover properties of
818: $F_{\rm \eta S}$ for correlated noise with superimposed sinusoidal
819: signal when higher order DFA is used.
820:
821: We find that the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm S}$ does not
822: depend on the length of the signal $N_{max}$, and preserves a
823: similar shape when different order-$\ell$ DFA method is used
824: [Fig.~\ref{dfar}]. In particular, $F_{\rm S}$ exhibits a crossover
825: at a scale $n_{2\times}$ proportional to the period $T$ of the
826: sinusoidal: $n_{2\times} \sim T^{\theta_{\rm T2}}$ with $\theta_{\rm
827: T2}\approx 1 $. The crossover scale shifts to larger values for
828: higher order $\ell$ [Fig.~\ref{dfa1_puresin} and
829: Fig.~\ref{dfar}]. For the scale $n<n_{2\times}$, $F_{\rm S}$
830: exhibits an apparent scaling: $F_{\rm S}\sim n^{\alpha_{\rm S}}$
831: with an effective exponent $\alpha_{\rm S}~=~\ell +~1~$. For DFA-1, we
832: have $\ell=1$ and recover $\alpha_{\rm S}~=~2~$ as shown in
833: Eq.~(\ref{eqpl}). For $n>n_{2\times}$, $F_{\rm S}(n)$ is a
834: constant independent of the scale $n$, and of the order
835: $\ell$ of the DFA method in agreement with Eq.~(\ref{eqpp}).
836:
837: Next, we consider $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ when DFA-$\ell$ with a higher order $\ell$ is used. We find that for all orders $\ell$, $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ does not depend on the length of the
838: signal $N_{max}$ and exhibits three crossovers --- at small,
839: intermediate and large scales --- similar behavior is reported for
840: DFA-1 in Fig.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17}. Since the crossover at small
841: scales, $n_{1\times}$, and the crossover at large scale,
842: $n_{3\times}$, result from the ``competition'' between the
843: scaling of the correlated noise and the effect of the sinusoidal
844: trend (Figs.~\ref{dfa1_nbw_n17} and \ref{x_nbw_2_128_n17}), using
845: the superposition rule [Eq.~(\ref{addnp})] we can estimate
846: $n_{1\times}$ and $n_{3\times}$ as the intercepts of $F_{\rm
847: \eta}(n)$ and $F_{\rm S}(n)$ for the general case of DFA-$\ell$.
848:
849: For $n_{1\times}$ we find the following dependence on the period
850: $T$, amplitude $A_{\rm S}$, the correlation exponent $\alpha$ of
851: the noise, and the order $\ell$ of the DFA-$\ell$ method:
852: \begin{equation}
853: n_{1\times} \sim \left(T/A_{\rm S}\right )^{1/(\ell+1-\alpha)}
854: \label{nx1l}
855: \end{equation}
856: For DFA-1, we have $\ell=1$ and we recover Eq.~(\ref{nx1}). In
857: addition, $n_{1\times}$ is shifted to larger scales when higher
858: order DFA-$\ell$ is applied, due to the fact that the value of
859: $F_{\rm S}(n)$ decreases when $\ell$ increases ($\alpha_{\rm
860: S}=\ell+1$, see Fig.~\ref{dfar}).
861:
862: For the third crossover observed in $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ at large
863: scale $n_{3\times}$ we find for all orders $\ell$ of the
864: DFA-$\ell$ the following scaling relation:
865: \begin{equation}
866: n_{3\times} \sim (T A_{\rm S})^{1/\alpha}\label{n3xl}.
867: \end{equation}
868: Since the scaling function $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ for correlated noise
869: shifts vertically to lower values when higher order DFA-$\ell$
870: is used [see the discussion in Appendix~\ref{secpuren} and
871: Sec.~\ref{secdfa12c}], $n_{3\times}$ exhibits a slight shift to
872: larger scales.
873:
874: For the crossover $n_{2\times}$ in $F_{\rm \eta S}(n)$ at $F_{\rm
875: \eta S}(n)$ at intermediate scales, we find: $n_{2\times}~\sim~T$.
876: This relation is independent of the order $\ell$ of the DFA and is
877: identical to the relation found for $F_{\rm S}(n)$
878: [Eq.~(\ref{eqnx2})]. $n_{2\times}$ also exhibits a shift to larger
879: scales when higher order DFA is used [see Fig.~\ref{dfar}].
880:
881: The reported here features of the crossovers in $F_{\rm \eta
882: S}(n)$ can be used to identify low-frequency sinusoidal trends in
883: noisy data, and to recognize their effects on the scaling
884: properties of the data. This information may be useful when
885: quantifying correlation properties in data by means of scaling
886: analysis.
887:
888:
889:
890: \begin{figure}[H!]
891: %\narrowtext
892: \centerline{
893: \epsfysize=0.9\columnwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfar_64sin_p2048_n17.eps}}}}
894: \vspace*{0.5cm} \caption{ Comparison of the results of different
895: order DFA on a sinusoidal trend. The sinusoidal trend is
896: given by the function $64\sin({2\pi i}/2^{11})$ and the
897: length of the signal is $N_{max} = 2^{17}$. The spurious singularities (spikes) arise from the discrete data we use for the sinusoidal function.} \label{dfar}
898: \end{figure}
899:
900: \section{Noise with Power-law trends} \label{seclc}
901:
902:
903: \begin{figure}[H!]
904: %\narrowtext
905: \centerline{
906: \epsfysize=0.9\columnwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{pn49.eps}}}
907: }
908: \centerline{
909: \epsfysize=0.9\columnwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{strange.eps}}}}
910: \vspace*{0.5cm}
911: \caption{Crossover behavior of the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ (circles) for correlated noise (of length $N_{max}=2^{17}$) with a superimposed power-law trend $u(i)=A_{\rm P} i^{\lambda}$. The rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ for noise (solid line) and the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ (dash line) are also shown for comparison. DFA-1 method is used. (a) $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ for noise with correlation exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}=0.9$, and power-law trend with amplitude $A_{\rm P} = 1000/ {\left( N_{max}\right)^{0.4}}$ and positive power $\lambda=0.4$; (b) $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ for Brownian noise (integrated white noise, $\alpha_{\lambda}=1.5$), and power-law trend with amplitude $A_{\rm P} = 0.01/\left(N_{max}\right)^{-0.7}$ and negative power $\lambda=-0.7$. Note, that although in both cases there is a ``similar'' crossover behavior for $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$, the results in (a) and (b) represent completely opposite situations: while in (a) the power-law trend with positive power $\lambda$ dominates the scaling of $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ at large scales, in (b) the power-law trend with negative power $\lambda$ dominates the scaling at small scales, with arrow we indicate in (b) a weak crossover in $F_{\rm P}(n)$ (dashed lines) at small scales for negative power $\lambda$.}
912: \label{pn49.eps}
913: \end{figure}
914:
915: In this section we study the effect of power-law trends on the
916: scaling properties of noisy signals. We consider the case of
917: correlated noise with superposed power-law trend $u(i)=A_{\rm P}
918: i^{\lambda}$, when $A_{\rm P}$ is a positive constant,
919: $i=1,...,N_{max}$, and $N_{max}$ is the length of the signal. We
920: find that when the DFA-1 method is used, the rms fluctuation
921: function $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ exhibits a crossover between two scaling regions
922: [Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}]. This behavior results from the fact that at
923: different scales $n$, either the correlated noise or the power-law
924: trend is dominant, and can be predicted by employing the
925: superposition rule:
926: \begin{equation}
927: \left[F_{\rm \eta P}(n)\right]^2 = \left[F_{\rm \eta}(n)\right]^2 + \left[F_{\rm P}(n)\right]^2,
928: \label{eqaddp}
929: \end{equation}
930: where $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ and $F_{\rm P}(n)$ are the rms fluctuation
931: function of noise and the power-law trend respectively, and $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ is the rms fluctuation function for the superposition of the noise and the power-law trend. Since the behavior of $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ is known (Eq.~(\ref{dfa1_n}) and Appendix~\ref{secpuren}), we can understand the features of $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$, if we know how $F_{\rm P}(n)$ depends on the characteristics of the power-law trend. We note that the scaling behavior of $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ displayed in Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(a) is to some extent similar to the behavior of the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta L}(n)$ for correlated noise with a linear trend [Fig.~\ref{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17}] --- e.g. the noise is dominant at small scales $n$, while the trend is dominant at large scales. However, the behavior $F_{\rm P}(n)$ is more complex than that of $F_{\rm L}(n)$ for the linear trend, since the effective exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}$ for $F_{\rm P}(n)$ can depend on the power $\lambda$ of the power-law trend. In particular, for negative values of $\lambda$, $F_{\rm P}(n)$ can become dominated at small scales (Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(b)) while $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ dominates at large scales --- a situation completely opposite of noise with linear trend (Fig.~\ref{dfa1_npbl_r_a01n17}) or with power-law trend with positive values for the power $\lambda$. Moreover, $F_{\rm P}(n)$ can exhibit crossover behavior at small scales [Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(b)] for negative $\lambda$ which is not observed for positive $\lambda$. In addition $F_{\rm P}(n)$ depends on the order $\ell$ of the DFA method and the length $N_{max}$ of the signal. We discuss the scaling features of the power-law trends in the following three subsections.
932:
933: \subsection{Dependence of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ on the power $\lambda$}\label{secdfa1lc}
934: First we study how the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for a
935: power-law trend $u(i)=A_{\rm P} i^{\lambda}$ depends on the power $\lambda$. We find that
936: \begin{equation}
937: F_{\rm P}(n) \sim A_{\rm P}n^{\alpha_{\lambda}},
938: \label{fplambda}
939: \end{equation}
940: where $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is the effective exponent for the power-law trend. For positive $\lambda$ we observe no crossovers in $F_{\rm P}(n)$ (Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(a)). However, for negative $\lambda$ there is a crossover in $F_{\rm P}(n)$ at small scales $n$ (Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(b)), and we find that this crossover becomes even more pronounced with decreasing $\lambda$ or increasing the order $\ell$ of the DFA method, and is also shifted to larger scales [Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(a)].
941:
942: \begin{figure}[H!]
943: %\narrowtext
944: \centerline{
945: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{mdev.eps}}}}
946: \centerline{
947: \epsfysize=0.45\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{pslt.eps}}}
948: }
949: \centerline{
950: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{near1.eps}}}}
951: \vspace*{0.5cm}
952: \caption{Scaling behavior of rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for power-law trends, $u(i)\sim i^{\lambda}$, where $i=1,...,N_{max}$ and $N_{max}=2^{17}$ is the length of the signal. (a) For $\lambda<0$, $F_{\rm P}(n)$ exhibits crossover at small scales which is more pronounced with increasing the order $\ell$ of DFA-$\ell$ and decreasing the value of $\lambda$. Such crossover is not observed for $\lambda>0$ when $F_{\rm P}(n) \sim n^{\alpha_{\lambda}}$ for all scales $n$ [see Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(a)]. (b) Dependence of the effective exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}$ on the power $\lambda$ for different order $\ell=1,2,3$ of the DFA method. Three regions are observed depending on the order $\ell$ of the DFA: region I ($\lambda>\ell-0.5)$, where $\alpha_{\lambda} \approx \ell+1$; region II ($-1.5<\lambda<\ell-0.5$), where $\alpha_{\lambda}=\lambda+1.5$; region III ($\lambda<-1.5$), where $\alpha_{\lambda}\approx 0$. We note that for integer values of the power $\lambda=0,1,...,\ell-1$, where $\ell$ is the order of DFA we used, there is no scaling for $F_{\rm P}(n)$ and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is not defined, as indicated by the arrows. (c) Asymptotic behavior near integer values of $\lambda$. $F_{\rm P}(n)$ is plotted for $\lambda \rightarrow 1$ when DFA-2 is used. Even for $\lambda-1 =10^{-6}$, we observe at large scales $n$ a region with an effective exponent $\alpha_{\lambda} \approx 2.5$, This region is shifted to infinitely large scales when $\lambda =1$.} \label{pslt.eps}
953: \end{figure}
954:
955: Next, we study how the effective exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}$ for $F_{\rm P}(n)$ depends on the value of the power $\lambda$ for the power-law trend. We examine the scaling of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ and estimate $\alpha_{\lambda}$ for $-4<\lambda<4$. In the cases when $F_{\rm P}(n)$ exhibits a crossover, in order to obtain $\alpha_{\lambda}$ we fit the range of larger scales to the right of the crossover. We find that for any order $\ell$ of the DFA-$\ell$ method there are three regions with different relations between $\alpha_{\lambda}$ and $\lambda$ [Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(b)]:
956: \begin{description}
957: \item (i) $\alpha_{\lambda}\approx \ell+1$ for $\lambda>\ell-0.5$ (region I);
958: \item (ii) $\alpha_{\lambda} \approx \lambda +1.5$ for $-1.5\le \lambda \le \ell-0.5$ (region II);
959: \item (iii) $\alpha_{\lambda} \approx 0$ for $\lambda<-1.5$ (region III).
960: \end{description}
961: Note, that for integer values of the power $\lambda$ ($\lambda =0,1,...,m-1$), i.e. polynomial trends of order $m-1$, the DFA-$\ell$ method of order $\ell>m-1$ ($\ell$ is also an integer) leads to $F_{\rm P}(n) \approx 0$, since DFA-$\ell$ is designed to remove polynomial trends. Thus for a integer values of the power $\lambda$ there is no scaling and the effective exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is not defined if a DFA-$\ell$ method of order $\ell > \lambda$ is used [Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}]. However, it is of interest to examine the asymptotic behavior of the scaling of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ when the value of the power $\lambda$ is close to an integer. In particular , we consider how the scaling of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ obtained from DFA-2 method changes when $\lambda \rightarrow 1$ [Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(c)]. Surprisingly, we find that even though the values of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ are very small at large scales, there is a scaling for $F_{\rm P}(n)$ with a smooth convergence of the effective exponent $\alpha_{\lambda} \rightarrow 2.5$ when $\lambda \rightarrow 1$, according to the dependence $\alpha_{\lambda} \approx \lambda+1.5$ established for region II [Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(b)]. At smaller scales there is a flat region which is due to the fact that the fluctuation function $Y(i)$ (Eq.~(\ref{psi})) is smaller than the precision of the numerical simulation.
962:
963:
964:
965:
966:
967: \subsection{Dependence of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ on the order $\ell$ of DFA}\label{secdfa12c}
968: Another factor that affects the rms fluctuation function of the power-law trend $F_{\rm P}(n)$, is the order $\ell$ of the DFA method used. We first take into account that:
969: \begin{description}
970: \item (1) for integer values of the power $\lambda$, the power-law trend $u(i)=A_{\rm P} i^{\lambda}$ is a polynomial trend which can be perfectly filtered out by the DFA method of order $\ell >\lambda$, and as discussed in Sec.~\ref{secdfa2bl} and Sec.~\ref{secdfa1lc} [see Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(b) and (c)], there is no scaling for $F_{\rm P}(n)$. Therefore, in this section we consider only non-integer values of $\lambda$.
971: \item (2) for a given value of the power $\lambda$, the effective exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}$ can take different values depending on the order $\ell$ of the DFA method we use [see Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}] --- e.g. for fixed $\lambda > \ell -0.5$, $\alpha_{\lambda} \approx \ell +1$. Therefore, in this section, we consider only the case when $\lambda<\ell -0.5$ (Region II and III).
972: \end{description}
973: \begin{figure}[H!]
974: \leftline{
975: \epsfysize=0.45\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dev_vs_order.eps}}}
976: }
977:
978: \centerline{
979: \epsfysize=0.53\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{vshift_order.eps}}}}
980: %\vspace*{0.35cm}
981:
982: \centerline{
983: \epsfysize=0.45\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{powervshift_order.eps}}}
984: }
985:
986: \centerline{
987: \epsfysize=0.45\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{tau.eps}}}}
988:
989: \caption{Effect of higher order DFA-$\ell$ on the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ for correlated noise with superimposed power-law trend. (a) $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ for anticorrelated noise with correlation exponent $\alpha=0.1$ and a power-law $u(i)=A_{\rm P} i^{\lambda}$, where $A_{\rm P}=25/\left(N_{max}\right)^{0.4}$, $N_{max}=2^{17}$ and $\lambda=0.4$. Results for different order $\ell =1,2,3$ of the DFA method show (i) a clear crossover from a region at small scales where the noise dominates $F_{\rm \eta P}(n) \approx F_{\rm \eta}(n)$, to a region at larger scales where the power-law trend dominates $F_{\rm \eta P}(n) \approx F_{\rm P}(n)$, and (ii) a vertical shift $\Delta$ in $F_{\rm \eta P}$ with increasing $\ell$. (b) Dependence of the vertical shift $\Delta$ in the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for power-law trend on the order $\ell$ of DFA-$\ell$ for different values of $\lambda$: $\Delta \sim \ell^{\tau(\lambda)}$. We define the vertical shift $\Delta$ as the y-intercept of $F_{\rm P}(n)$: $\Delta \equiv F_{\rm P}(n=1)$. Note, that we consider only non-integer values for $\lambda$ and that we consider the region $\lambda<\ell-0.5$. Thus, for all values of $\lambda$ the minimal order $\ell$ that can be used in the DFA method is $\ell >\lambda+0.5$. e.g. for $\lambda=1.6$ the minimal order of the DFA that can be used is $\ell=3$ (for details see Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(b)).
990: (c) Dependence of $\tau$ on the power $\lambda$ (error bars indicate the regression error for the fits of $\Delta(l)$ in (b)).
991: (d) Comparison of $\tau(\alpha_{\lambda})$ for $F_{\rm P}(n)$ and $\tau(\alpha)$ for $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$. Faster decay of $\tau(\alpha_{\lambda})$ indicates larger vertical shifts for $F_{\rm P}(n)$ compared to $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ with increasing order $\ell$ of the DFA-$\ell$.} \label{dev_vs_order.eps}
992: \end{figure}
993:
994: Since higher order DFA-$\ell$ provides a better fit for the data, the fluctuation function $Y(i)$ (Eq.~(\ref{psi})) decreases with increasing order $\ell$. This leads to a vertical shift to smaller values of the rms fluctuation function $F(n)$ (Eq.~(\ref{F})). Such a vertical shift is observed for the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ for correlated noise (see Appendix~\ref{secpuren}), as well as for the rms fluctuation function of power-law trend $F_{\rm P}(n)$. Here we ask how this vertical shift in $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ and $F_{\rm P}(n)$ depends on the order $\ell$ of the DFA method, and if this shift has different properties for $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ compared to $F_{\rm P}(n)$. This information can help identify power-law trends in noisy data, and can be used to differentiate crossovers separating scaling regions with different types of correlations, and crossovers which are due to effects of power-law trends.
995:
996: We consider correlated noise with a superposed power-law trend,
997: where the crossover in $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ at large scales $n$
998: results from the dominant effect of the power-law trend ---
999: $F_{\rm \eta P}(n) \approx F_{\rm P}(n)$ (Eq.~(\ref{eqaddp}) and
1000: Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(a)). We choose the power $\lambda<0.5$, a
1001: range where for all orders $\ell$ of the DFA method the effective
1002: exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}$ of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ remains the same ---
1003: i.e. $\alpha_{\lambda}=\lambda+1.5$ (region II in
1004: Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(b)). For a superposition of an anticorrelated
1005: noise and power-law trend with $\lambda=0.4$, we observe
1006: a crossover in the scaling behavior of $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$, from a
1007: scaling region characterized by the correlation exponent
1008: $\alpha=0.1$ of the noise, where $F_{\rm \eta P}(n) \approx F_{\rm
1009: \eta}(n)$, to a region characterized by an effective exponent
1010: $\alpha_{\lambda}=1.9$, where $F_{\rm \eta P}(n) \approx F_{\rm
1011: P}(n)$, for all orders $\ell=1,2,3$ of the DFA-$\ell$ method
1012: [Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(a)]. We also find that the crossover
1013: of $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ shifts to larger scales when the order
1014: $\ell$ of DFA-$\ell$ increases, and that there is a vertical shift
1015: of $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ to lower values. This vertical shift in
1016: $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ at large scales, where $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)=F_{\rm P}(n)$, appears to be different in
1017: magnitude when different order $\ell$ of the DFA-$\ell$ method is
1018: used [Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(a)]. We also
1019: observe a less pronounced vertical shift at small scales where
1020: $F_{\rm \eta P}(n) \approx F_{\rm \eta}(n)$.
1021:
1022:
1023: Next, we ask how these vertical shifts depend on
1024: the order $\ell$ of DFA-$\ell$. We define the vertical shift $\Delta$ as the y-intercept of $F_{\rm P}(n)$: $\Delta \equiv F_{\rm P}(n=1)$. We find that the vertical shift $\Delta$ in $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for power-law trend follows a power law: $\Delta \sim \ell^{\tau(\lambda)}$. We tested this relation
1025: for orders up to $\ell=10$, and we find that it holds for
1026: different values of the power $\lambda$ of the power-law trend
1027: [Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(b)]. Using Eq.~(\ref{fplambda}) we can write: $F_{\rm P}(n)/F_{\rm P}(n=1) = n^{\alpha_{\lambda}}$, i.e. $F_{\rm P}(n) \sim F_{\rm P}(n=1)$. Since $F_{\rm P}(n=1) \equiv \Delta \sim \ell^{\tau(\lambda)}$ [Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(b)], we find that:
1028: \begin{equation}
1029: F_{\rm P}(n) \sim \ell^{\tau(\lambda)}.
1030: \label{fpl}
1031: \end{equation}
1032: We also find that the exponent
1033: $\tau$ is negative and is a decreasing function of the power
1034: $\lambda$ [Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(c)]. Because the effective
1035: exponent $\alpha_{\lambda}$ which characterizes $F_{\rm P}(n)$
1036: depends on the power $\lambda$ [see Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(b)], we
1037: can express the exponent $\tau$ as a function of
1038: $\alpha_{\lambda}$ as we show in Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(d).
1039: This representation can help us compare the behavior of the
1040: vertical shift $\Delta$ in $F_{\rm P}(n)$ with the shift in
1041: $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$. For correlated noise with different correlation
1042: exponent $\alpha$, we observe a similar power-law relation
1043: between the vertical shift in $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ and the order
1044: $\ell$ of DFA-$\ell$: $\Delta \sim \ell^{\tau(\alpha)}$, where
1045: $\tau$ is also a negative exponent which decreases with $\alpha$.
1046: In Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(d) we compare
1047: $\tau(\alpha_{\lambda})$ for $F_{\rm P}(n)$ with $\tau(\alpha)$
1048: for $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$, and find that for any
1049: $\alpha_{\lambda}=\alpha$, $\tau(\alpha_{\lambda}) <
1050: \tau(\alpha)$. This difference between the vertical shift for
1051: correlated noise and for a power-law trend can be utilized to
1052: recognize effects of power-law trends on the scaling properties of
1053: data.
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057: \subsection{Dependence of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ on the signal length $N_{max}$}\label{secdfa13c}
1058:
1059: Here, we study how the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ depends on the length $N_{max}$ of the power-law signal $u(i)=A_{\rm P} i^{\lambda}$ ($i=1,...,N_{max}$). We find that there is a vertical shift in $F_{\rm P}(n)$ with increasing $N_{max}$ [Fig.~\ref{length.eps}(a)]. We observe that when doubling the length $N_{max}$ of the signal the vertical shift in $F_{\rm P}(n)$, which we define as $F^{2N_{max}}_{\rm P}/F^{N_{max}}_{\rm P}$, remains the same, independent of the value of $N_{max}$. This suggests a power-law dependence of $F_{\rm P}(n)$ on the length of the signal:
1060: \begin{equation}
1061: F_{\rm P}(n) \sim \left(N_{max}\right )^{\gamma},
1062: \label{fpnmax}
1063: \end{equation}
1064: where $\gamma$ is an effective scaling exponent.
1065:
1066: Next, we ask if the vertical shift depends on the power $\lambda$ of the power-law trend. When doubling the length $N_{max}$ of the signal, we find that for $\lambda < \ell -0.5$, where $\ell$ is the order of the DFA method, the vertical shift is a constant independent of $\lambda$ [Fig.~\ref{length.eps}(b)]. Since the value of the vertical shift when doubling the length $N_{max}$ is $2^{\gamma}$ (from Eq.~(\ref{fpnmax})), the results in Fig.~\ref{length.eps}(b) show that $\gamma$ is independent of $\lambda$ when $\lambda < \ell-0.5$, and that $-\log 2^{\gamma} \approx -0.15$, i.e. the effective exponent $\gamma \approx -0.5$.
1067:
1068: For $\lambda > \ell -0.5$, when doubling the length $N_{max}$ of the signal, we find that the vertical shift $2^{\gamma}$ exhibits the following dependence on $\lambda$:
1069: $-\log _{10} 2^{\gamma} =\log _{10} 2^{\lambda-\ell}$, and thus the effective exponent $\gamma$ depends on $\lambda$ --- $\gamma = \lambda -\ell$. For positive integer values of $\lambda$ ($\lambda=\ell$), we find that $\gamma=0$, and there is no shift in $F_{\rm P}(n)$, suggesting that $F_{\rm P}(n)$ does not depend on the length $N_{max}$ of the signal, when DFA of order $\ell$ is used [Fig.~\ref{length.eps}]. Finally, we note that depending on the effective exponent $\gamma$, i.e. on the order $\ell$ of the DFA method and the value of the power $\lambda$, the vertical shift in the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for power-law trend can be positive ($\lambda > \ell$), negative ($\lambda <\ell$), or zero ($\lambda=\ell$).
1070:
1071: \begin{figure}[H!]
1072: %\narrowtext
1073: \leftline{
1074: \epsfysize=0.44\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{length.eps}}}
1075: }
1076: \rightline{
1077: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{vertical_shift.eps}}}}
1078: %\centerline{
1079: %\epsfysize=0.5\columnwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{root.eps}}}}
1080: %\vspace*{0.5cm}
1081: \caption{Dependence of the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for power-law trend $u(i) = A_{\rm P} i^{\lambda}$, where $i=1,...,N_{max}$, on the length of the trend $N_{max}$. (a) A vertical shift is observed in $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for different values of $N_{max}$ --- $N_{1max}$ and $N_{2max}$. The figure shows that the vertical shift , defined as $F^{N_{1max}}_{\rm P}(n)/F^{N_{2max}}_{\rm P}(n)$, does not depend on $N_{max}$ but only on the ratio $N_{1max}/N_{2max}$, suggesting that $F_{\rm P}(n) \sim \left(N_{max}\right )^{\gamma}$. (b) Dependence of the vertical shift on the power $\lambda$. For $\lambda < \ell -0.5$ ($\ell$ is the order of DFA), we find a flat (constant) region characterized with effective exponent $\gamma =-0.5$ and negative vertical shift. For $\lambda > \ell -0.5$, we find an exponential dependence of the vertical shift on $\lambda$. In this region, $\gamma=\lambda-\ell$, and the vertical shift can be negative (if $\lambda<\ell$) or positive (if $\lambda>\ell$). the slope of $-\log_{10}\left(F^{2N_{max}}_{\rm P}(n)/F^{N_{max}}_{\rm P}(n)\right )$ vs. $\lambda$ is $-\log_{10}2$ due to doubling the length of the signal $N_{max}$. This slope changes to $-\log_{10}m$ when $N_{max}$ is increased $m$ times while $\gamma$ remains independent of $N_{max}$. For $\lambda=\ell$ there is no vertical shift, as marked with $\times$. Arrows indicate integer values of $\lambda<\ell$, for which values the DFA-$\ell$ method filters out completely the power-law trend and $F_{\rm P}=0$.}
1082: \label{length.eps}
1083: \end{figure}
1084:
1085: \subsection{Combined effect on $F_{\rm P}(n)$ of $\lambda$, $\ell$ and $N_{max}$}
1086:
1087: We have seen that, taking into account the effects of the power $\lambda$ (Eq.~(\ref{fplambda})), the order $\ell$ of DFA-$\ell$ (Eq.~(\ref{fpl})) and the effect of the length of the signal $N_{max}$ (Eq.~(\ref{fpnmax})), we reach the following expression for the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm P}(n)$ for a power-law trend $u(i)=A_{\rm P} i^{\lambda}$:
1088:
1089: \begin{eqnarray}
1090: F_{\rm P}(n) \sim A_{\rm P} \cdot n^{\alpha_{\lambda}}\cdot \ell^{\tau(\lambda)}
1091: \cdot \left(N_{max}\right )^{\gamma(\lambda)}, \label{eqntotal}
1092: \end{eqnarray}
1093: For correlated noise, the rms fluctuation function $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$ depends on the box size $n$ (Eq.~(\ref{dfa1_n})) and on the order $\ell$ of DFA-$\ell$ (Sec.~\ref{secdfa12c} and Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(a), (d)), and does not depend on the length of the signal $N_{max}$. Thus we have the following expression for $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$
1094: \begin{equation}
1095: F_{\rm \eta}(n) \sim n^{\alpha}\ell^{\tau(\alpha)},
1096: \label{dfal_n}
1097: \end{equation}
1098:
1099: To estimate the crossover scale $n_{\times}$ observed in the apparent scaling of $F_{\rm \eta P}(n)$ for a correlated noise superposed with a power-law trend [Fig.~\ref{pn49.eps}(a), (b) and Fig.~\ref{dev_vs_order.eps}(a)], we employ the superposition rule (Eq.~(\ref{eqaddp})). From Eq.~(\ref{eqntotal}) and Eq.~(\ref{dfal_n}), we obtain $n_{\times}$ as the intercept between $F_{\rm P}(n)$ and $F_{\rm \eta}(n)$:
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: n_{\times} \sim \left[A l^{\tau(\lambda)-\tau(\alpha)} \left(N_{max}\right )^{\gamma}\right]^{1/(\alpha-\alpha_{\lambda})}.
1102: \label{cspower}
1103: \end{equation}
1104: To test the validity of this result, we consider the case of correlated noise with a linear trend. For the case of a linear trend ($\lambda=1$) when DFA-1 ($\ell=1$) is applied, we have $\alpha_{\lambda}=2$ (see Appendix~\ref{secdfa1l} and Sec.~\ref{secdfa1lc}, Fig.~\ref{pslt.eps}(b)). Since in this case $\lambda = \ell =1 > \ell -0.5$ we have $\gamma =\lambda-\ell =0$ (see Sec.\ref{secdfa13c} Fig.~\ref{length.eps}(b)), and from Eq.~(\ref{cspower}) we recover Eq.~(\ref{si_bl}).
1105:
1106: \section{Conclusion and Summary}\label{seccon}
1107: In this paper we show that the DFA method performs better than the standard R/S analysis to quantify the scaling behavior of noisy signals for a wide range of correlations, and we estimate the range of scales where the performance of the DFA method is optimal. We consider different types of trends superposed on correlated noise, and study how these trends affect the scaling behavior of the noise. We demonstrate that there is a competition between a trend and
1108: a noise, and that this competition can lead to crossovers in the scaling. We investigate the features of these crossovers, their dependence on the properties of the noise and the superposed trend. Surprisingly, we find that crossovers which are a result of trends can exhibit power-law dependences on the parameters of the trends. We show that these crossover phenomena can be explained by the superposition of the separate results of the DFA method on the noise and on the trend, assuming that the noise and the trend are not correlated, and that the scaling properties of the noise and the apparent scaling behavior of the trend are known. Our work may provide some help to differentiate between different types of crossovers --- e.g. crossovers which separate scaling regions with different correlation properties may differ from crossovers which are an artifact of trends. The results we present here could be useful for identifying the presence of trends and to accurately interpret correlation properties of noisy data.
1109:
1110: \acknowledgments We thank NIH/National Center for Research
1111: Resources (P41RR13622), NSF and the Spanish Government
1112: (BIO99-0651-CO2-01) for support, and C.-K. Peng, A.L. Goldberger and Y. Ashkenazy for helpful
1113: discussions. When concluding our work, we became aware of an independent study by J.W. Kantelhardt et. al\cite{Kantelhardtpha2001}, where similar issues are discussed. We thank J.W. Kantelhardt and A. Bunde for sending us their preprint before publication.
1114:
1115: \appendix
1116:
1117: \section{Noise}\label{secpuren}
1118:
1119: The standard signals we generate in our study are uncorrelated,
1120: correlated, and anticorrelated noise. First we must have a clear idea
1121: of the scaling behaviors of these standard signals before we use them to
1122: study the effects from other aspects. We generate noises by using a
1123: modified Fourier filtering method\cite{MFFM}. This method can
1124: efficiently generate noise, $u(i)$ ($i=1,2,3,...,N_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1125: max}}$), with the desired power-law correlation function which
1126: asymptotically behaves as: $<|\sum\limits_{j=i}^{i+t}u(j)|^2> \sim
1127: t^{2\alpha}$. By default, a generated noise has standard deviation
1128: $\sigma=1$. Then we can test DFA and R/S by applying it on generated
1129: noises since we know the expected scaling exponent $\alpha$.
1130:
1131: \begin{figure}[H!]
1132: \centerline{
1133: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{h_n17FT.eps}}}
1134: }
1135: \centerline{
1136: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfa1_n17FT.eps}}}
1137: }
1138: %\hfill
1139: \centerline{
1140: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{dfa2_n17.eps}}}
1141: }
1142: \caption{Scaling behavior of noise with the scaling exponent
1143: $\alpha$. The length of noise $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}=2^{17}$. (a)
1144: Rescaled range analysis (R/S) (b) Order 1 detrended fluctuation analysis
1145: (DFA-1) (c) Order 2 detrended fluctuation analysis. We do the linear
1146: fitting for R/S analysis and DFA-1 in three regions as shown and get
1147: $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3$ for estimated $\alpha$, which are
1148: listed in the Table.\ref{tahaFT} and Table.\ref{tadfa1FT}. We find that
1149: the estimation of $\alpha$ is different in the different region.}
1150: \label{technique}
1151: \end{figure}
1152:
1153: Before doing that, we want to briefly review the algorithm of R/S
1154: analysis. For a signal $u(i)$($i=1,...,N_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1155: max}}$), it is divided into boxes of equal size $n$. In each box,
1156: the \textit{cumulative departure}, $X_i$ (for $k$-th box,
1157: $i=kn+1,..., kn+n$), is calculated
1158: \begin{equation}
1159: X_i =\sum\limits_{j=kn+1}^{i} (u(j)-<u>)
1160: \end{equation}
1161: where $<u>=n^{-1}\sum\limits_{i=kn+1}^{(k+1)n}u(i) $
1162: , and the \textit{rescaled range} $R/S$ is defined by
1163: \begin{equation}
1164: R/S = S^{-1} \left[\max \limits_{kn+1\leq i \leq (k+1)n}X_i - \min\limits_{kn+1\leq i \leq
1165: (k+1)n}X_i\right],
1166: \end{equation}
1167: where $S=
1168: \sqrt{{n^{-1}}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}(u(j)-<u>)^2}$ is the standard deviation in each box.
1169: The average of rescaled range in all the boxes of equal size $n$, is obtained and denoted by $<R/S>$.
1170: Repeat the above computation over different box size $n$ to provide a relationship between $<R/S>$ and $n$. According to Hurst's experimental
1171: study\cite{hurstanalysis}, a power-law relation between $<R/S>$ and the box size $n$ indicates the presence of scaling: $<R/S> \sim n^{\alpha}$.
1172:
1173: Figure~\ref{technique} shows the results of R/S, DFA-1 and DFA-2 on the
1174: same generated noises. Loosely speaking, we can see that $F(n)$ (for
1175: DFA) and $R/S$ (for R/S analysis) show power-law relation with $n$ as
1176: expected: $F(n) \sim n^{\alpha}$ and $R/S \sim n^{\alpha}$. In addition,
1177: there is no significant difference between the results of different
1178: order DFA except for some vertical shift of the curves and the little
1179: bend-down for small box size $n$. The bent-down for very small box of
1180: $F(n)$ from higher order DFA is because there are more variables to fit
1181: those few points.
1182:
1183: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\columnwidth}
1184: \begin{table}[H!]
1185: \caption{ Estimated $\alpha$ of correlation noise from R/S analysis in
1186: three regions as shown in Fig.\ref{technique}(a). $\alpha$ is the input
1187: value of the scaling exponent, $\alpha_1$ is the estimated in the region
1188: 1 for $4<n\leq32$, $\alpha_2$ in the region 2 for $32<n\leq 3162$ and
1189: $\alpha_3$ in the region 3 for $3126<n \leq 2^{17}$. Noise are the same
1190: as used in Table.\ref{tadfa1FT}.} \label{tahaFT}
1191:
1192: \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~~~}c@{}}
1193: \centering
1194: $\alpha$ & $\alpha_1$ & $\alpha_2$ & $\alpha_3$ \\ \tableline
1195: 0.1 & 0.44 & 0.23 & 0.12 \\
1196: % 0.2 & 0.48 & 0.29 & 0.18 \\
1197: 0.3 & 0.52 & 0.37 & 0.23 \\
1198: % 0.4 & 0.57 & 0.45 & 0.32 \\
1199: 0.5 & 0.62 & 0.52 & 0.47 \\
1200: % 0.6 & 0.67 & 0.61 & 0.51 \\
1201: 0.7 & 0.72 & 0.70 & 0.45 \\
1202: % 0.8 & 0.76 & 0.78 & 0.61 \\
1203: 0.9 & 0.81 & 0.87 & 0.63 \\
1204: \end{tabular}
1205: \end{table}
1206: \end{minipage}
1207: %\hfill
1208: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\columnwidth}
1209: \begin{table}
1210: \caption{ Estimated $\alpha$ of correlation noise from DFA-1 in
1211: three regions as shown in Fig.\ref{technique}(b). $\alpha$ is the
1212: input value of the scaling exponent, $\alpha1$ is the estimated in
1213: the region 1 for $4<n\leq32$, $\alpha2$ in the region 2 for
1214: $32<n\leq 3162$ and $\alpha3$ in the region 3 for $3126<n \leq
1215: 2^{17}$.}\label{tadfa1FT}
1216:
1217: \begin{tabular}{@{}c@{~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~~~}c@{~~~~~~~~}c@{}}
1218: \centering
1219: $\alpha$ & $\alpha_1$ & $\alpha_2$ & $\alpha_3$ \\ \tableline
1220: 0.1 & 0.28 & 0.15 & 0.08 \\
1221: % 0.2 & 0.33 & 0.22 & 0.15 \\
1222: 0.3 & 0.40 & 0.31 & 0.22 \\
1223: % 0.4 & 0.47 & 0.42 & 0.25 \\
1224: 0.5 & 0.55 & 0.50 & 0.35 \\
1225: % 0.6 & 0.63 & 0.58 & 0.56 \\
1226: 0.7 & 0.72 & 0.69 & 0.55 \\
1227: % 0.8 & 0.81 & 0.79 & 0.54 \\
1228: 0.9 & 0.91 & 0.91 & 0.69 \\
1229: \end{tabular}
1230: \end{table}
1231: \end{minipage}
1232:
1233: Ideally, when analyzing a standard noise, $F(n)$ (DFA) and $R/S$ ($R/S$
1234: analysis) will be a power-law function with a given power: $\alpha$, no
1235: matter which region of $F(n)$ and $R/S$ is chosen for calculation.
1236: However, a careful study shows that the scaling exponent $\alpha$ depends
1237: on scale $n$. The estimated $\alpha$ is different for the different
1238: regions of $F(n)$ and $R/S$ as illustrated by Figs.~\ref{technique}(a)
1239: and \ref{technique}(b) and by Tables~\ref{tahaFT} and \ref{tadfa1FT}.
1240: It is very important to know the best fitting region of DFA and R/S
1241: analysis in the study of real signals. Otherwise, the wrong $\alpha$
1242: will be obtained if an inappropriate region is selected.
1243:
1244: In order to find the best region, we first determine the dependence of
1245: the locally estimated $\alpha$, $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}$, on
1246: the scale $n$. First, generate a standard noise
1247: with given scaling exponent $\alpha$; then calculate $F(n)$ (or $R/S$),
1248: and obtain $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(n)$ by local fitting of
1249: $F(n)$ (or $R/S$). Same random simulation is repeated 50 times for both
1250: DFA and R/S analysis. The resultant average $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1251: loc}}(n)$, respectively, are illustrated in Fig.\ref{slope_n} for DFA-1
1252: and R/S analysis.
1253:
1254:
1255: If a scaling analysis method is working properly, then the result
1256: $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(n)$ from simulation with $\alpha$ would
1257: be a horizontal line with slight fluctuation centered about
1258: $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(n) = \alpha$. Note from
1259: Fig.\ref{slope_n} that such a \textit{horizontal behavior} does not hold
1260: for all the scales $n$ but for a certain range from
1261: $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ to $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$. In
1262: addition, at small scale, R/S analysis gives $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1263: loc}} > \alpha$ if $\alpha < 0.7$ and $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}} <
1264: \alpha$ if $\alpha > 0.7$, which has been pointed out by
1265: Mandelbrot\cite{estimateH} while DFA gives $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1266: loc}} > \alpha$ if $\alpha <1.0$ and $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}} <
1267: \alpha$ if $\alpha >1.0$.
1268:
1269:
1270: It is clear that the smaller the $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ and the
1271: larger the $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, the better the method. We also
1272: perceive that the expected \textit{horizontal behavior} stops because
1273: the fluctuations become larger due to the under-sampling of $F(n)$ or
1274: $R/S$ when $n$ gets closer to the length of the signal
1275: $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$. Furthermore, it can be seen from
1276: Fig.\ref{slope_n} that $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}} \approx
1277: \frac{1}{10}N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ independent of $\alpha$ (if the
1278: best fit region exists), which is why one tenth of the signal length is
1279: the maximum box size when using DFA or R/S analysis.
1280:
1281: \begin{figure}[H!]
1282: \centerline{
1283: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Slopeh_n14.eps}}}
1284: }
1285: \centerline{
1286: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Slopeh_n20.eps}}}
1287: }
1288: \centerline{
1289: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Slope_n14.eps}}}
1290: }
1291: \centerline{
1292: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Slope_n20.eps}}}}
1293: \caption{The estimated $\alpha$ from local fit (a) R/S analysis, the
1294: length of signal $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}=2^{14}$. (b)R/S analysis,
1295: $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}=2^{20}$. (c) DFA-1, $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1296: max}}=2^{14}$ (d) DFA-1, $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}=2^{20}$.
1297: $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}$ come from the average of $50$
1298: simulations. If a technique is working, then the data for scaling
1299: exponent $\alpha$ should be a weakly fluctuating horizontal line
1300: centered about $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}} = \alpha$. Note that
1301: such a horizontal behavior does not hold for all the scales. Generally,
1302: such a expected behavior begins from some scale $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1303: min}}$, holds for a range and ends at a larger scale
1304: $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$. For DFA-1, $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ is
1305: quite small $\alpha > 0.5$. For R/S analysis, $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1306: min}}$ is small only when $\alpha \approx 0.7$. } \label{slope_n}
1307: \end{figure}
1308: %%%\end{multicols}
1309: %%begin{multicols}{2}
1310: \begin{figure}[H!]
1311: \centerline{
1312: \epsfysize=0.47\textwidth{\rotate[r]{\epsfbox{Smin.eps}}}}
1313: \vspace*{0.5cm}
1314: \caption{The starting point of good fit region, $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$, for
1315: DFA-1 and R/S analysis. The results are obtained from 50 simulations, in
1316: which the length of noise is $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}=2^{20}$. The
1317: condition for a good fit is $\Delta \alpha = |\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize
1318: loc}} - \alpha|< 0.01$. The data for $\alpha > 1.0$ shown in the shading
1319: area are obtained by applying analysis on the integrations of noises
1320: with $\alpha <1.0$. It is clear that DFA-1 works better than R/S analysis
1321: because its $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ is always smaller than that of
1322: R/S analysis. } \label{Smin}
1323: \end{figure}
1324: On the contrary, $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ does not depend on the
1325: $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ since $\alpha_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(n)$
1326: at small $n$ hardly changes as $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ varies but
1327: it does depend on $\alpha$. Thus, we obtain $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$
1328: quantitatively as shown in Fig.\ref{Smin}. For R/S analysis, only for
1329: $\alpha \approx 0.7$, $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ is small; for
1330: $\alpha$ a little away from $0.7$ (for example, 0.5),
1331: $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ becomes very large and close to
1332: $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, indicating that the best fit region will
1333: vanish and R/S analysis does not work at all. Comparing to R/S, DFA
1334: works better since $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ is quite small for
1335: $\alpha > 0.5$ correlated signals.
1336:
1337: One problem remains for DFA, $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ for small
1338: $\alpha$ ($\leq 0.5$) is still too large comparing to those for large
1339: $\alpha$($>0.5$). We can improve it by applying DFA on the integration
1340: of the noise with $\alpha<0.5$. The resultant new expected $\alpha^{'}$
1341: for the integrated signal would be $\alpha^{'}_0 = \alpha+1$, while the
1342: $n_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ for the integrated signal becomes much
1343: smaller as shown also in Fig.\ref{Smin}(shading area $\alpha >
1344: 1$). Therefore, for a noise with $\alpha < 0.5$, it is best to
1345: estimate the scaling exponent $\alpha^{'}$ of the integrated signal
1346: first and then obtain $\alpha$ by $\alpha = \alpha^{'}-1$. This is what
1347: we did in the following sections to those anticorrelated signals.
1348:
1349:
1350: \section{Superposition law for DFA}\label{secadd}
1351: For two uncorrelated signals $f(i)$ and $g(i)$, their root mean
1352: square fluctuation functions are $F_f(n)$ and $F_g(n)$
1353: respectively. We want to prove that for the signal
1354: $f(i)+g(i)$, its rms fluctuation
1355: \begin{equation}
1356: F_{f+g}(n) = \sqrt{F_f(n)^2+F_g(n)^2}
1357: \label{addlaw}
1358: \end{equation}
1359:
1360: Consider three signals in the same box first. The integrated signals for $f$, $g$ and $f+g$ are $y_f(i)$, $y_g(i)$ and $y_{f+g}(i)$ and their corresponding trends are $y^{fit}_{f}$, $y^{fit}_{g}$,$y^{fit}_{f+g}$ ($i=1,2,...,n$, $n$ is the box size).
1361: %\begin{eqnarray}
1362: %y^{fit}_{f} = a_0 + a_1 i + a_2 i^2 + ... + a_j i^j\\
1363: %y^{fit}_{g} = b_0 + b_1 i + b_2 i^2 + ... + b_j i^j\\
1364: %y^{fit}_{f+g} = c_0 + c_1 i + c_2 i^2 + ... + c_j i^j\\
1365: %\end{eqnarray}.
1366: Since $y_{f+g}(i)=y_{f}(i)+y_g(i)$ and combine the definition of detrended fluctuation function Eq.\ref{psi}, we have that for all boxes
1367: \begin{equation}
1368: Y_{f+g}(i)=Y_f(i)+Y_g(i),
1369: \label{appaddpsi}
1370: \end{equation}
1371: where $Y_{f+g}$ is the detrended fluctuation function for the
1372: signal $f+g$, $Y_f(i)$ is for the signal $f$ and $Y_g(i)$
1373: for $g$. Furthermore, according to the definition of rms
1374: fluctuation, we can obtain
1375:
1376: \begin{eqnarray}
1377: F_{f+g}(n) & & = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{max}} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{max}}\left[Y_{f+g}(i)\right ]^2} \\\nonumber
1378: & &=\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{max}} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{max}}\left[Y_{f}(i)+Y_{g}(i)\right ]^2},
1379: \label{plugpsi}
1380: \end{eqnarray}
1381: where $\ell$ is the number of boxes and $k$ means the $k$\textit{th} box.
1382: If $f$ and $g$ are not correlated, neither are $Y_{f}(i)$ and $Y_{g}(i)$ and, thus,
1383: \begin{equation}
1384: \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{max}}Y_{f}(i)Y_{g}(i)=0.
1385: \label{uncorrelated}
1386: \end{equation}
1387: From Eq.\ref{uncorrelated} and Eq.\ref{plugpsi}, we have
1388: \begin{eqnarray}
1389: F_{f+g}(n) & & =\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{max}} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{max}}\left[Y_{f}(i)^2+Y_{g}(i)^2\right ]}\nonumber\\
1390: & & =\sqrt{\left[F_{f}(n)\right ]^2+\left[F_{g}(n)\right ]^2}.
1391: \end{eqnarray}
1392:
1393: \section{DFA-1 on linear trend}\label{secdfa1l}
1394: $\smallskip $Let us suppose a linear time series $u(i)=A_{\rm L}i$. The integrated signal $y_{L}(i)$ is
1395: \begin{equation}
1396: y_{L}(i)=\sum_{j=1}^{i}A_{\rm L}j=A_{\rm L}\allowbreak \frac{i^{2}+i}{2}
1397: \end{equation}
1398: Let as call $N_{max}$ the size of the series and $n$ the size of the box. The rms fluctuation $F_{\rm L}(n)$ as a function of $n$ and $N_{max}$ is
1399:
1400: \end{multicols}
1401: %\renewcommand{\thefigure}{\arabic{figure}}
1402: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection\arabic{equation}}
1403: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}}
1404: \begin{equation}
1405: F_{\rm L}(n)=A_{\rm L}\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{max}}\sum_{k=1}^{N_{max}/n} \sum_{i=(k-1)n+1}^{kn}\left(\frac{i^{2}+i}{2}-(a_{k}+b_{k}i)\right)^{2}}
1406: \end{equation}
1407:
1408: \begin{multicols}{2}
1409:
1410: where $a_{k}$ and $b_{k}$ are the parameters of a least-squares fit of the $k
1411: $-th box of size $n$. $a_{k}$ and $b_{k}$ can be determined analytically,
1412: thus giving:
1413: \begin{equation}
1414: a_{k}=1-\frac{1}{12}n^{2}+\frac{1}{2}n^{2}k+\frac{1}{12}n-\frac{1}{2}%
1415: k^{2}n^{2}
1416: \end{equation}
1417:
1418: \begin{equation}
1419: b_{k}=1-\frac{1}{2}n+kn+\frac{1}{2}
1420: \end{equation}
1421: With these values, $F_{\rm L}(n)$ can be evaluated analytically:
1422:
1423: \begin{equation}
1424: F_{\rm L}(n)=A_{\rm L}\frac{1}{60}\sqrt{\left( 5n^{4}+25n^{3}+25n^{2}-25n-30\right) }
1425: \label{lin}
1426: \end{equation}
1427: %The plot of the function $F(n)$ must give you the exact result, i.e., is EXACTLY the DFA function.
1428: The dominating term inside the square root is $5n^{4}$ and then one obtains
1429: \begin{equation}
1430: F_{\rm L}(n)\approx \frac{\sqrt{5}}{60}A_{\rm L}n^{2}
1431: \end{equation}
1432: leading directly to an exponent of 2 in the DFA. An important consequence is that, as $F(n)$ does not depend on $N_{max}$, for linear trends
1433: with the same slope, the DFA must give exactly the same results
1434: for series of different sizes. This is not
1435: true for other trends, where the exponent is 2, but the factor
1436: multiplying $n^{2}$ can depend on $N_{max}$.
1437:
1438:
1439: \section{DFA-1 on Quadratic trend}\label{secq}
1440:
1441: Let us suppose now a series of the type $u(i)=A_{\rm Q} i^{2}$. The integrated time series $y(i)$ is
1442:
1443: \begin{equation}
1444: y(i)=A_{\rm Q}\sum_{j=1}^{i}j^{2}=A_{\rm Q}\frac{2i^{3}+3i^{2}+i}{6}
1445: \end{equation}
1446: As before, let us call $N_{max}$ and $n$ the sizes of the series
1447: and box, respectively. The rms fluctuation function
1448: $F_{\rm Q}(n)$ measuring the rms fluctuation is now defined as
1449:
1450: \end{multicols}
1451: \begin{equation}
1452: F_{\rm Q}(n)=A_{\rm Q}\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{max}}\sum_{k=1}^{N_{max}/n}%
1453: \sum_{i=(k-1)n+1}^{kn}\left(\frac{2i^{3}+3i^{2}+i}{6}-(a_{k}+b_{k}i)\right)
1454: ^{2} }
1455: \end{equation}
1456: where $a_{k}$ and $b_{k}$ are the parameters of a least-squares fit of
1457: the $k
1458: $-th box of size $n$. As before, $a_{k}$ and $b_{k}$ can be determined
1459: analytically, thus giving:
1460: \begin{equation}
1461: a_{k}=\frac{1}{15}n^{3}+n^{3}k^{2}-\frac{7}{15}n^{3}k+\frac{17}{30}n^{2
1462: }k-%
1463: \frac{7}{60}n^{2}+\frac{1}{20}n-\frac{2}{3}k^{3}n^{3}-\frac{1}{2}n^{2}k^{
1464: 2}+%
1465: \frac{1}{15}kn
1466: \end{equation}
1467:
1468: \begin{equation}
1469: b_{k}=\frac{3}{10}n^{2}+n^{2}k^{2}-n^{2}k+kn-\frac{2}{5}n+\frac{1}{10}
1470: \end{equation}
1471: Once $a_{k}$ and $b_{k}$ are known, $F(n)$ can be evaluated, giving:
1472: \begin{equation}
1473: F_{\rm Q}(n)=A_{\rm Q}\allowbreak \frac{1}{1260}\sqrt{-21\left(
1474: n^{4}+5n^{3}+5n^{2}-5n-6\right) \left(
1475: 32n^{2}-6n-81-210N_{max}-140N_{max}^{2}\right) }
1476: \end{equation}
1477: \begin{multicols}{2}
1478:
1479: As $N_{max}>n$, the dominant term
1480: inside the square root is given by $140N_{max}^{2}\times 21n^{4}=A_{\rm Q}\allowbreak
1481: 2940n^{4}N_{max}^{2}$, and then one has approximately
1482: \begin{equation}
1483: F_{\rm Q}(n)\approx A_{\rm Q}
1484: \frac{1}{1260}\sqrt{2940n^{4}N_{max}^{2}}=A_{\rm Q}\frac{1}{90}\sqrt{15}N_{max}n^{2}
1485: \label{quad}
1486: \end{equation}
1487: leading directly to an exponent 2 in the DFA analysis. An interesting
1488: consequence derived from Eq. (\ref{quad}) is that, $F_{\rm Q}(n)$ depends on the length of signal $N_{max}$, and the DFA line ($\log F_{\rm Q}(n)$ versus $\log n$) for
1489: quadratic series $u(i)=A_{\rm Q} i^{2}$ of different $N_{max}$ DO NOT overlap (as it
1490: happened for linear trends).
1491:
1492:
1493: %\bibliography{mybib}
1494: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1495: \bibitem{CKDFA1} C.-K. Peng, S.V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, M. Simons,
1496: H.E. Stanley, A.L. Goldberger, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 49}, 1685 (1994).
1497:
1498: \bibitem{SVDFA1} S.~V. Buldyrev, A.~L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, H.E. Stanley, and M. Simons, Biophys. J. {\bf 65}, 2673 (1993).
1499:
1500: \bibitem{SMDFA1} S.M. Ossadnik, S.B. Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, R.N. Mantegna, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and H.E. Stanley, Biophys. J. {\bf 67}, 64 (1994).
1501:
1502: \bibitem{taqqu95} M.S. Taqqu, V. Teverovsky, and W. Willinger,
1503: Fractals {\bf 3} 785 (1995).
1504:
1505: \bibitem{iyengaramjphsiolreg} N. Iyengar, C.-K. Peng, R. Morin, A.~L. Goldberger, and L.A. Lipsitz, A.M. J. Physiol-Reg. I {\bf 40}, R1078 (1996).
1506:
1507: \bibitem{plamennature1996} P.~Ch. Ivanov, M.G. Rosenblum, C.-K. Peng, J.E. Mietus, S. Havlin, H.E. Stanley, and A.L. Goldberger, Nature {\bf 383}, 323 (1996).
1508:
1509: \bibitem{HOcirc1997} K.K.L. Ho, G.B. Moody, C.-K. Peng, J.E. Mietus, M.G. Larson,
1510: D. Levy, A.L. Goldberger, Circulation {\bf 96} 842 (1997).
1511:
1512: \bibitem{plamenphsa1998} P.~Ch. Ivanov, M.G. Rosenblum, C.-K. Peng, J.E. Mietus, S. Havlin, H.E. Stanley, and A.L. Goldberger, Physica A {\bf 249}, 587 (1998).
1513:
1514: \bibitem{barbiheartchaos1998} M. Barbi, S. Chillemi, A. Di Garbo, R. Balocchi, C. Carpeggiani, M. Emdin, C. Michelassi, E. Santarcangelo, Chaos Solitions \& Fractals {\bf 9}, 507 (1998).
1515:
1516: \bibitem{plamenuropl1999} P.~Ch. Ivanov, A. Bunde, L.A. Nunes Amaral, S. Havlin, J. Fritsch-Yelle, R.M. Baevsky, H.E. Stanley, and A.L. Goldberger, Europhysics Lett. {\bf 48}, 594 (1999).
1517:
1518: \bibitem{Pikkujamsaheartcir1999} S.M. Pikkujamsa, T.H. Makikallio, L.B. Sourander, I.J. Raiha, P. Puukka, J. Skytta, C.-K. Peng, A.L. Goldberger, H.V. Huikuri, Circulation {\bf 100}, 393 (1999).
1519:
1520: \bibitem{solomrev1999} S. Havlin, S.V. Buldyrev, A. Bunde, A.L. Goldberger, P.~Ch. Ivanov,C.-K. Peng, and H.E. Stanley, Physica A {\bf 273}, 46 (1999).
1521:
1522: \bibitem{Genephsa1999} H.E. Stanley, L. Amaral, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, P.C. Ivanov, and C.-K. Peng, Physica A {\bf 270}, 309 (1999).
1523:
1524:
1525: \bibitem{ashkenazyheartfrac1999} Y. Ashkenazy, M. Lewkowicz, J. Levitan, S. Havlin, K. Saermark, H. Moelgaard, P.E.B. Thomsen, Fractals {\bf 7}, 85 (1999).
1526:
1527: \bibitem{makikallioheartamjcardiol1999} T.~H. Makikallio, J. Koistinen, L. Jordaens, M.P. Tulppo, N. Wood, B. Golosarsky, C.-K. Peng, A.L. Goldberger, H.V. Huikuri, Am. J. Cardiol. {\bf 83}, 880 (1999).
1528:
1529: \bibitem{crossoverCK} C.-K. Peng, S. Havlin, H.E. Stanley, and A.L. Goldberger, Chaos {\bf 5}, 82 (1995).
1530:
1531: \bibitem{CKfractal} S. Havlin, S.V. Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, S.M. Ossadniksm, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and H.E. Stanley, Chaos Soliton Fract. {\bf 6}, 171 (1995).
1532:
1533: \bibitem{Absil1999} P.A. Absil, R. Sepulchre, A. Bilge, and P. Gerard, Physica A {\bf 272}, 235 (1999).
1534:
1535: \bibitem{solomphsa1999} S. Havlin, L.A. Nunes Amaral, A.L. Goldberger, P.Ch. Ivanov, C.-K. Peng, and H.E. Stanley, Physica A {\bf 274}, 99 (1999).
1536:
1537: \bibitem{toweillheartmed2000} D. Toweill, K. Sonnenthal, B. Kimberly, S. Lai, and B. Goldstein, Crit. Care Med. {\bf 28}, 2051 (2000).
1538:
1539: \bibitem{bundesleep2000} A. Bunde, S. Havlin, J.W. Kantelhardt, T. Penzel, J.H. Peter, and K. Voigt, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 3736 (2000).
1540:
1541: \bibitem{Laitio2000} T.T. Laitio, H.V. Huikuri, E.S.H. Kentala, T.H. Makikallio, J.R. Jalonen, H. Helenius, K. Sariola-Heinonen, S. Yli-Mayry, and H. Scheinin, Anesthesiology {\bf 93}, 69 (2000).
1542:
1543: \bibitem{Yosef2001} Y. Ashkenazy, P.Ch. Ivanov, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, A.L. Goldberger, and H.E. Stanley, Physical Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 1900 (2001).
1544:
1545: \bibitem{rmsCK} C.-K. Peng, S.V. Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, M. Simons, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 47}, 3730 (1993).
1546:
1547: \bibitem{genenuovodna1994} H.E. Stanley, S.V. Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, R.N. Mantegna, C.-K. Peng, and M. Simons, Nuovo Cimento D {\bf 16}, 1339 (1994).
1548:
1549:
1550: \bibitem{mantegnaprl1994} R.N. Mantegna, S.~V.~Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3169 (1994).
1551:
1552: \bibitem{ckdnapha1995} C.-K. Peng, S.V. Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, R.N. Mantegna, M. Simons, and H.E. Stanley, Physica A {\bf 221}, 180 (1995).
1553:
1554: \bibitem{solomdnafractal1995} S. Havlin, S.V. Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, R.N. Mantegna, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and H.E. Stanley, Fractals {\bf 3}, 269 (1995).
1555:
1556: \bibitem{mantegnaprl1996} R.N. ~Mantegna, S.~V. Buldyrev, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and H.E. ~Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 1979 (1996).
1557:
1558: \bibitem{SVdnapha1998} S.V. Buldyrev, N.V. ~Dokholyan, A.L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, H.E. Stanley, and G.M. ~Viswanathan, Physica A {\bf 249}, 430 (1998).
1559:
1560: \bibitem{blesicdnapha1999} S. Blesic, S. Milosevic, D. Stratimirovic, and M. ~Ljubisavljevic, Physica A {\bf 268}, 275 (1999).
1561:
1562: \bibitem{Yoshinagaphya2000} H. Yoshinaga, S. Miyazima, and S. Mitake, Physica A {\bf 280}, 582 (2000).
1563:
1564: \bibitem{Perazzofractal2000} C.A. Perazzo, E.A. Fernandez, D.R. Chialvo, and P.l. Willshaw, Fractal {\bf 8}, 279 (2000).
1565:
1566: \bibitem{Siwy} Z. Siwy, S. Mercik, K. Ivanova and M. Ausloos (private communication).
1567:
1568: %\bibitem{mantegnaprl1993} S.~V.~Buldyrev, A. L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and F.~Sciortino, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1776 (1993).
1569: \bibitem{Liu97} Y. Liu, P. Cizeau, M. Meyer, C.-K. Peng, and H.E. Stanley, Physica A {\bf 245}, 437 (1997).
1570:
1571: \bibitem{vandewallephsa1997} N. ~Vandewalle and M. ~Ausloos, Physica A {\bf 246}, 454 (1997).
1572:
1573: \bibitem{vandewallepre1998} N. ~Vandewalle and M. ~Ausloos, Phy. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 6832 (1998).
1574:
1575: \bibitem{Liu99} Y. Liu, P. Gopikrishnan, P. Cizeau, M. Meyer, C.-K. Peng, and H.E.
1576: Stanley, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60}, 1390 (1999).
1577:
1578: %\bibitem{Ivanovaeco1999_8} K.~Ivanova, Physica A {\bf 270}, 567 (1999).
1579:
1580: \bibitem{janosiecopha1999} I.M. Janosi, B. Janecsko, and I. Kondor, Physica A {\bf 269}, 111 (1999).
1581:
1582: %\bibitem{ausloosphsa1999} M. Ausloos and K. Ivanova, Physica A {\bf 270}, 526-543 (1999).
1583:
1584: \bibitem{ausloosphsa1999_12} M. Ausloos, N. ~Vandewalle, P. ~Boveroux, A. ~Minguet, and K. ~Ivanova, Physica A {\bf 274}, 229 (1999).
1585:
1586: \bibitem{robertoecopha1999} M. Roberto, E. Scalas, G. Cuniberti, M. Riani, Physica A {\bf 269}, 148 (1999).
1587:
1588: \bibitem{Vandewalle1999} N. Vandewalle, M. Ausloos, and P. Boveroux, Physica A {\bf 269}, 170 (1999).
1589:
1590: \bibitem{grau-carles2000} P. ~Grau-Carles, Physica A {\bf 287}, 396 (2000).
1591:
1592: \bibitem{ausloosphsa2000_9} M. ~Ausloos, Physica A {\bf 285}, 48 (2000).
1593:
1594: \bibitem{ausloosphsa2000_10} M. ~Ausloos and K. ~Ivanova, Physica A {\bf 286}, 353 (2000).
1595:
1596: \bibitem{ausloospre2001} M. Ausloos and K. Ivanova, Phys. Rev. E (to be published) (2001).
1597:
1598: \bibitem{ausloosIntJModPhys2001} M. Ausloos and K. Ivanova, Int J Mod Phys C (to be published) (2001).
1599:
1600: \bibitem{Ivanovameteo1999_12} K. ~Ivanova and M. ~Ausloos, Physica A {\bf 274}, 349 (1999).
1601:
1602: \bibitem{Montanari2000} A. Montanari, R. Rosso, and M. S. Taqqu, Water Resour. Res. {\bf 36}, (5) 1249 (2000).
1603:
1604: \bibitem{Matsoukas2000} C. ~Matsoukas, S.~ Islam, and I. Rodriguez-Iturbe, J. Geophys. Res-Atmos. {\bf 105}, 29165 (2000).
1605:
1606: \bibitem{malamudjstatlaninfer1999} B.D. Malamud and D.L. Turcotte, J. Stat. Plan. Infer. {\bf 80}, 173 (1999).
1607:
1608: \bibitem{Alados2000} C.L. Alados, M.A. Huffman, Ethology {\bf 106}, 105 (2000).
1609:
1610: \bibitem{mfCK_lett} C.-K. Peng, J.E. Mietus, J.M. Hausdorff, S. Havlin, H.E. Stanley, and A.L. Goldberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 1343 (1993).
1611: %\bibitem{ogataearth} Y.~Ogata, K.~Abe, Int. Stat. Rev. {\bf 59}, 139 (1991).
1612:
1613:
1614: \bibitem{Nradiation} N. Makarenko, L.M. Karimova, B.I. Demchenko and M.M. Novak, Fractals {\bf 6}, 359 (1998).
1615:
1616: \bibitem{gandiradiation} G.~M. Viswanathan, S.~V. ~Buldyrev, E.~K. ~Garger, V.~A. ~Kashpur, L.~S. ~Lucena, A. ~Shlyakhter, H.E. ~Stanley, and J. Tschiersch, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62}, 4389 (2000).
1617:
1618: \bibitem{Bundeatm} E. ~Koscielny-Bunde, A. ~Bunde, S. ~Havlin, H.~E. ~Roman, Y. ~Goldreich, H.~J. ~Schellnhuber, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 81}, 729 (1998).
1619:
1620: \bibitem{bundetem} E. ~Koscielny-Bunde, H.~E. ~Roman, A. ~Bunde, S. ~Havlin, and H.~J. ~Schellnhuber, Philo. Mag. B {\bf 77}, 1331 (1998).
1621:
1622: \bibitem{Ivanovacloud2000} K. ~Ivanova, M. ~Ausloos, E.~E. ~Clothiaux, and T.~P. ~Ackerman, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 52}, 40 (2000).
1623:
1624: \bibitem{talknertem2000} P. ~Talkner and R.~O. ~Weber, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62}, 150 (2000).
1625:
1626: \bibitem{ogataearth} Y. ~Ogata, K. ~Abe, Int. Stat. Rev. {\bf 59}, 139 (1991).
1627:
1628: \bibitem{Weissrdwalk} M.F. Shlesinger and G.H. Weiss, {\it The Wonderful world of stochastics : a tribute to Elliott W. Montroll}, (North-Holland, New York, 1985).
1629:
1630: \bibitem{newtontoman} D.~ Stauffer and H.~E. ~Stanley, {\it From Newton to Mandelbrot}, Second edition, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996).
1631:
1632: \bibitem{MFFM} H.A. Makse, S. Havlin, M. Schwartz, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 53}, 5445-5449 Part B (1996).
1633:
1634: \bibitem{hurstanalysis} H.E. Hurst, Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. {\bf 116}, 770 (1951).
1635:
1636: \bibitem{estimateH} B.B. Mandelbrot and James R. Wallis, Water Resources Research {\bf 5 No.2}, (1969).
1637:
1638: \bibitem{Kantelhardtpha2001} J.W. Kantelhardt, E. Koscielny-Bunde, H.H.A. Rego, S. Havlin, and A. Bunde, Physica A {\bf 294}, 441 (2001).
1639:
1640: %\bibitem{} K. Ivanova and M. Ausloos, Empirical sciences in financial fluctuations, Tokyo, Japan, Nov. 15-17, 2000 Proceedings, (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2001) in press.
1641:
1642: \end{thebibliography}
1643:
1644:
1645: \end{multicols}
1646:
1647: \end{document}
1648: