skip to main content
10.1145/3546118.3546133acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescompsystechConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fractal Time Series Analysis by Using Entropy and Hurst Exponent

Published:14 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The paper discusses the analysis of simulated and real fractal time series by applying approximate entropy (ApEn) and sample entropy (SampEn) to determine the complexity and predictability of the time series. The simulated fractal time series are based on the Fractal Gaussian Noise with different values of the Hurst exponent and different lengths. To study the accuracy of the simulated time series, the method of detrended fluctuation analysis was applied, which determines the value of the Hurst exponent. The results obtained on the basis of relative standard error (RSE) show that the simulated time series have a high degree of accuracy, as the RSE is less than 2% for all input values of the Hurst exponent. Studies show that ApEn and SampEn are methods that are very sensitive to input parameters: subseries length, tolerance value and data length. Due to the fact that there is no consensus on the choice of values for these parameters, in the article they are studied on simulated fractal time series with lengths of 600-3000 points. The values of ApEn, SampEn and the value of the Hurst exponent were found to be negatively correlated, and the predictability was positively related to the Hurst exponent. Both entropy-based methods and the Hurst exponent were used to study the dynamics of the behavior of real-time series related to heart rate intervals (RR interval series) to extract useful information related to the influence of the age of the subjects. The results show that the values of ApEn and SampEn are higher for young subjects than for adults, therefore the RR time series of young subjects is more complex than the time series of adult subjects. The value of the Hurst exponent of young subjects was found to be lower than that of adult subjects, therefore the time series of adult subjects have a higher degree of self-similarity. The results reported in this study may be useful in analysing cardiac data to extract useful information in clinical decision making.

References

  1. Sheila M. Ryan, Ary L. Goldberger, Steven M. Pincus, Joseph Mietus, and Lewis A. Lipsitz. 1994. Gender- and age-related differences in heart rate dynamics: Are women more complex than men? Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 24, 7 (December 1994), 1700-1707. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(94)90177-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Gernot Ernst. 2014. Heart Rate Variability. Springer-Verlag London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4309-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. U. Rajendra Acharya, Jasjit S. Suri, Jos A. E. Spaan, and Shankar M. Krishnan. 2007. Advances in Cardiac Signal Processing. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36675-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Steven M. Pincus. 1991. Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 88, 2297-2301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.88.6.2297Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Steven M. Pincus, and Ary L. Goldberger. 1994. Physiological time-series analysis: what does regularity quantify? Am J Physiol. 266(4 Pt 2): H1643-56. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.1994.266.4.H1643Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Luis Montesinos, Rossana Castaldo, and Leandro Pecchia. 2018. On the use of approximate entropy and sample entropy with centre of pressure time-series. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil ,15, Article number: 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0465-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alfonso Delgado-Bonal, and Alexander Marshak. 2019. Approximate Entropy and Sample Entropy: A Comprehensive Tutorial. Entropy, 21, 6: 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21060541Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jenna M Yentes, Nathaniel Hunt, Kendra K. Schmid, Jeffrey P. Kaipust, Denise McGrath, and Nicholas Stergiou. 2013. The Appropriate Use of Approximate Entropy and Sample Entropy with Short Data Sets. Journal Articles. 44. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/biomechanicsarticles/44Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Vern Paxson. (1997). Fast, Approximate Synthesis of Fractional Gaussian Noise for Generating Self-Similar Network Traffic. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 27(5): 5–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. Mulligan (2004). Fractal analysis of highly volatile markets: an application to technology equities. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 44, 1, 155-179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. Kale, F.B. Butar (2011). Fractal analysis of Time Series and Distribution Properties of Hurst Exponent. Journal of Mathematical Sciences&Mathematics Education, 5, 1, 8-19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Chung-Kang Peng, Shlomo Havlin, H. Eugene Stanley, and Ary Goldberger. 1995. Quantification of scaling exponents and crossover phenomena in nonstationary heartbeat time series, Chaos, 5, 82–87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Richard Hardstone, Simon-Shlomo Poil, Giuseppina Schiavone, Rick Jansen, Vadim V. Nikulin, Huibert D. Mansvelder, and Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen. 2012. Detrended Fluctuation Analysis: A Scale-Free View on Neuronal Oscillations. Frontiers in Physiology, 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00450Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jan W Kantelhardt, Eva Koscielny-Bunde, Henio H.A Rego, Shlomo Havlin, and Armin Bunde. 2001. Detecting long-range correlations with detrended fluctuation analysis. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 295, 3–4, 441-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(01)00144-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Agnieszka Kitlas Golińska. 2012. Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA) in Biomedical Signal Processing: Selected Examples. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 29, 42, 107-115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. V. A. Setty, and A. S. Sharma. 2015. Characterizing Detrended Fluctuation Analysis of Multifractional Brownian Motion. PHYSICA A: STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 419. 698-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.10.016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. P. Bouny, LM Arsac, E. Touré Cuq, and V. Deschodt-Arsac. 2021. Entropy and Multifractal-Multiscale Indices of Heart Rate Time Series to Evaluate Intricate Cognitive-Autonomic Interactions. Entropy. 2021; 23(6):663. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23060663Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Lebamovski, P. and Petkov, E. 2020. USAGE OF 3D TECHNOLOGIES IN STEREOMETRY TRAINING. Proceedings of CBU in Social Sciences. 1, (Nov. 2020), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.12955/pss.v1.61Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Lebamovski, P. and Gospodinov, M. 2019. 3D innovation technologies in education. CBU International Conference Proceedings, 7, 484-489. https://doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v7.1405, (https://cbuic.cz/?page_id=40&lang=en)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lebamovski, P. 2021. THE EFFECT OF 3D TECHNOLOGIES IN STEREOMETRY TRAINING. Proceedings of CBU in Natural Sciences and ICT. 2, (Oct. 2021), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.12955/pns.v2.155Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lebamovski, P. 2021. Analysis of 3D technologies for stereo visualization, International Conference Automatics and Informatics (ICAI), 206-209. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAI52893.2021.9639534Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Georgieva-Tsaneva, G. Wavelet Based Method for Non-Stationary Time Series Processing. In: CompSysTech '20: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies '20, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 122-128, 2020, ISBN:978-1-4503-7768-3, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3407982.3408008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Georgieva-Tsaneva, G. Simulation of long-term Heart Rate Variability records with Gaussian distribution functions. In: CompSysTech '21: International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies '21, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 2022, pp. 156–160, ISBN: 978-1-4503-8982-2, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3472410.3472439Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    CompSysTech '22: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies
    June 2022
    188 pages
    ISBN:9781450396448
    DOI:10.1145/3546118

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 14 August 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate241of492submissions,49%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)74
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format