Upload
dangnga
View
230
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Time Series Analysis via Barcodes
A.B.C. Balbuenaa, R.T. Meltonb, J.A. Nablec, and M.V.V. Visayad,∗
aInstitute of Mathematics, University of the Philippines-DilimanEmail : [email protected]
bEmail : [email protected]
cDepartment of Mathematics, Ateneo De Manila University, PhilippinesEmail : [email protected]
d Department of Pure and Applied MathematicsUniversity of Johannesburg, South Africa
Email : [email protected]
Abstract
Topological data analysis is used to study one-dimensional time series from observed data. The time series
is a set of unorganized sample points (point cloud data) and is reconstructed in 2-dimensional space. The
underlying structure is approximated by constructing simplicial complexes from the reconstruction. We impose
topological structures on the constructed time series and compute the Betti numbers of the persistent homology.
These calculations give us qualitative information which we use to impose structure on a time series. We use
deterministic and random time series and present difference of their topological structures.
Keywords: Persistent homology, Barcode, Time series, Topological data analysis, Dynamical systems, Metric
entropy
Shapes analysis, Statistical modeling
2000 MSC: 37M10, 55N99,
1. Introduction
Empirical data is usually nonlinear, characterized by high-dimensionality, redundancy, and is produced in vast
quantity. Time series data produced by most experimental systems are often corrupted by noise. Different
approaches have been employed to analyze time series data - via statistical, dynamical systems, and complex
networks, among others ([19], [21]). The analysis of such data requires weeding out the equivocal and redundant
components of high-dimensional vectors. The projection of this high-dimensional character to a lower dimensional
space is often not handled by the usual statistical tools. Similarly, the dynamical approach, which considers
the geometry of the reconstructed time series, has difficulties when the dynamics occurs in more than three
dimensions. Further, reconstruction is applicable only when the time series is long and relatively free of noise
∗Corresponding author
Preprint submitted to Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics November 12, 2015
[12]. It is in this context that an invariant manifold is approximated by identifying each point of the reconstructed
time series with a cell complex [11].
The methods of algebraic topology provides powerful mathematical tools that allow us to deal with nonlinearity.
Homology calculations on a complex allow us to associate high-dimensional shapes to the time series. The n-th
Betti number of a topological space X, denoted by βn(X), detects the number of n-dimensional holes of X. For
the first three Betti numbers, β0(X) is the number of pieces X is composed of, β1(X) is the number of holes,
and β2(X) is the number of voids. If X ⊂ Rd, then βn(X) = 0 for all n ≥ d. For example, the spherical surface
has Betti numbers β0 = 1, β1 = 0, β2 = 1, and βn = 0 for n ≥ 3.
One aim of computational homology is to use algebraic-topological tools to come up with algorithms for com-
puting topological invariants of a set, given only finitely many points from the set. This new perspective is far
from the standard statistical methods and could complement dynamical systems methods. The past decade has
witnessed the increased applications of algebraic topology to data analysis, e.g. in the areas of image compres-
sion and segmentation, speech pattern analysis, neuroscience, effective coverage in sensor networks, and gene
expression analysis ([4],[5],[7],[9],[22]). For example, at an initial stage in a series of medical diagnosis, in looking
at CT scan image, we would like to distinguish a lump from threads. The information sought is more qualitative
as the size (metric) of the lump is not as important as the presence of the lump at this stage of processing.
The main objective of this paper is to be able to arrive at a plausible topological definition of ‘degree of order’
among a set of time series data, particularly using the idea of persistence [7]. Computing (persistent) Betti
numbers allows us to deduce the ‘shape’, or give shape, to the data. Moreover, comparing the Betti numbers
of a set of reconstructed time series can give us an intuition of such nature of orderliness among time series.
To show the validity of our proposed definition, we compare our calculations with that of metric entropy (or
Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy), equivalent to Shannon’s information theoretic entropy [8], a well-known measure of
order/randomness in a system.
The ideas are fairly intuitive, as shown by the following example. If one wants to find an individual in a room full
of 200 people say, then one’s task will be much easier if the 200 persons are clustered in ten groups than when
they are uniformly scattered across the room. In particular, uncertainty decreases as the occupants organize
themselves according to some social criteria (e.g. age, occupation, familial relations), information usually known
to the person looking for the particular individual. As illustrated in Figure 1, the number of clusters for the set
in (a), (b), and (c) are 1, 6, and 10, respectively. Thus, we say that order is biased towards the set with Betti
number β0 = 10 than towards β0 = 6 and β0 = 1. In the case where β0 is the same value for two sets of data,
degree of order is determined by β1. Similarly, for two sets of data with the same β0 and β1 values, the degree
of order relative to each other will be determined by comparing their β2 values.
Let N0 be the set of nonnegative integers. Consider sequences (xn)n∈N0 and (yn)n∈N0 . We recall the lexicographic
order of sequences. Let ` = min{j : xj 6= yj}. We say that (xn) ≺ (yn) if x` < y`.
2
Figure 1: Data clustering reducing uncertainty in the location of a particular person in a roomful of people.
Let X ⊂ Rd. Define the concatenation of the first d Betti numbers of X by
[βd(X)] = β0(X)β1(X) . . . βd−1(X).
We propose the following definition of degree of order between topological spaces X and Y .
Definition 1. let X,Y ⊂ Rd. We say that Y has a higher degree of order, or is more orderly than X, if
[βd(X)] ≺ [βd(Y )].
Denote by X,Y, and Z the sets(⊂ R2) in Figure 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c), respectively. From Definition 1, we have
the following
[β2(X)] = (1)(1) ≺ [β2(Y )] = (6)(1) ≺ [β2(Z)] = (10)(2)
because 1 < 6 < 10.
2. Time Series Reconstruction
Although the underlying state space is unknown in experimental one dimensional time series, as a substitute, an
embedded phase space can be reconstructed by delay reconstruction technique. Consider a compact manifold M ,
an unknown dynamical system f : M →M , and observation function g : M → R, where f and g are continuous.
For integer d ≥ 2, denote by Γdg the reconstruction map of the form
Γdg : M → Rd
x 7→ (g(x), g(f(x)), . . . , g(fd−1(x)))
where fd−1 is the composition of f with itself d − 1 times. Let xt = f t(x0) and consider the orbit of x0 ∈ M
defined by O(x0) = {xt}t∈N0 . From the only quantity that is available, i.e., a sequence of real numbers {ut : ut =
g(f(xt)), ut ∈ R}t∈N0 , we construct d-dimensional vectors and obtain the reconstructed set
Ad = {(ut, ut+1, ut+2, . . . , ut+(d−1))}. (1)
We call Ad the point cloud data (PCD) in Rd from {ut}. In general, any finite subset of points from a metric
space is a PCD. For m > 0, denote the m-th lag of Ad by
Adm = {(ut, ut+m, ut+2m, . . . , ut+(d−1)m)},
3
where m is the lag (or time-delay). The time-delay embedding procedure [20] reconstructs {ut} to obtain an
attractor, particularly a point cloud of lagged coordinate vectors, as in Adm. Given correct d, Takens’ theorem
[20] states that Adm has the same topological properties as the attractor in M .
The selection of m and d in time-delay reconstruction is akin to adjusting the light source and zoom lens in
a simple microscope, allowing a clearer picture of the object we are interested in. A brute force search for
the correct combination of m and d for an attractor is computationally unappealing and crude. The approach
suggested in [18] is to fix m = 1 and estimate d. If the embedding dimension does not fall neatly into the range
3-5, another value for m is chosen. We take this lead in our analysis on time series data. We embed our time
series data into manifolds of successive dimensions, obtaining point cloud data from which filtered complexes are
constructed. Persistent homology calculations are then performed via Smith Normal Forms of the matrices of
the boundary operators (see below). Takens’ theorem is thus replaced by the methods of persistent homology.
The true topological properties of the point cloud are those that persist along the filter.
Definition 2. Let X and Y be one-dimensional time series with respective reconstructed sets AdX and AdY in
Rd, as in (1). We say that Y has a higher degree of order, or is more orderly than X, if
[β2(A2X)][β3(A3
X)] · · · ≺ [β2(A2Y )][β3(A3
Y )] · · · .
3. Simplicial Complexes and Homology Groups
We begin by defining abstract simplicial complexes. Any ordered set [x0, x1, . . . , xn] determines an oriented
n-simplex, which we denote by σn. The elements xi of σn are called vertices of σn and n is its dimension. Any
q-element (q < n) subset of σn is called a q-face of σn. An (abstract) simplicial complex K is a finite collection
of simplices that is closed under formation of subsets and intersection, satisfying the following two conditions:
(i) Any face of a simplex in K is also in K.
(ii) The intersection of any two simplices in K is either empty or is a face of both simplices.
The dimension of a simplicial complex is the highest dimension of the simplices comprising it. If a subset K0 ⊆ K
is a simplicial complex, then it is a subcomplex of K. Simplicial complexes possess algebraic, topological, and
combinatorial properties that make them particularly convenient for modeling complex structures. For a good
introduction to homology theory, we refer the reader to [13].
In this paper, we use simplicial homology with coefficients in Z2 = {0, 1}. Given a simplicial complex K, an
n-chain is a linear combination of n-simplices in K, i.e.
c =∑σ
aσσ,
where aσ ∈ Z2, and σ is an n-simplex in K. By definition, the set of n-chains is in one-to-one correspondence
with the set of subsets of n-simplices since the field of coefficients is Z2. If we define the addition of chains as
the addition of these vectors (mod 2), then all the n-chains form an abelian group, denoted by Cn(K).
4
The collection of (n− 1)-dimensional faces of an n-simplex σ is called the boundary of σ, denoted by ∂n(σ). For
σ = [x0, . . . , xn], the boundary map ∂n : Cn(K)→ Cn−1(K) is given by
∂n(σ) =
n∑i=0
(−1)i[x0, . . . , x̂i, . . . , xn], (2)
where x̂i indicates that xi does not appear. The boundary of an n-chain is the sum of the boundaries of the
n-simplices in the chain. For n ∈ N0, the map ∂n connects the chain of groups into a chain complex:
∅ → Cn(K)∂n−→Cn−1(K)
∂n−1−−−→Cn−2(K)→ . . .→ C0(K)→ ∅
where ∅ is the trivial group, and where ∂n−1∂n = 0 (the zero map) for all n. An n-cycle φ ∈ Cn(K) is an n-chain
satisfying ∂n(φ) = 0, meaning it has an empty topological boundary. An n-boundary is an n-chain ϕ ∈ Cn(K)
such that ϕ = ∂n+1(φ) for some φ ∈ Cn+1(K). Denote the collection of all n-cycles by Zn(K), and the collection
of all n-boundaries by Bn(K). By the linearity of the boundary operator, Zn(K) is a subgroup of Cn(K). Also,
since ∂n−1∂n = 0, Bn(K) is a subgroup of Zn(K). As Cn(K) is abelian, Bn(K) is normal in Zn(K). The n-th
homology group of K is defined by the quotient group
Hn(K) = Zn(K)/Bn(K).
The contrapositive of the following theorem [13] allows us to tell whether two topological spaces are not homeo-
morphic.
Theorem 1. If X and Y are homeomorphic topological spaces, then there is an isomorphism of homology groups
Hn(X) ∼= Hn(Y ).
As the homology groups are finitely generated abelian groups, then the following are isomorphic
Hn(X) ∼= Z× · · · × Z× Zm1 × · · · × Zmn .
The number of times that Z appears in Hn(X) is called the n-th Betti number of X. Computing the Betti
number is by means of the Smith normal form of matrices.
4. The Smith Normal Form
We consider the Smith normal form for a matrix representation of the boundary operator ∂n : Cn(K)→ Cn−1(K).
Because ∂n is a linear mapping, and that the set of ordered n-simplices form a basis of Cn(K), it is possible
to write ∂n as a matrix [∂n] with entries from the set {0, 1}. Consider the oriented triangle [a, b, c] and the
ordered bases {[a, b], [b, c], [a, c]} and {a, b, c}. Using (2) we have ∂2([a, b, c]) = [b, c] − [a, c] + [a, b], ∂1([a, b]) =
b− a, ∂1([b, c]) = c− b, and ∂1([a, c]) = c− a. Thus, the matrix representations of ∂2 and ∂1 are
[∂2] =
1
1
1
and [∂1] =
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
5
respectively. The algorithm to reduce an integer matrix [∂n] to its Smith normal form [∂̃n] is by modified Gaussian
elimination, where at each stage, the entries remain integers. The reduced matrix has the form
[∂̃n] =
Rk 0
0 0
where Rk is a diagonal matrix diag(r1, . . . , rk) with property that each ri divides ri+1.
The Smith normal form of the matrices of ∂n+1 and ∂n determine Hn completely. The torsion coefficients of Hn
are the diagonal entries of [∂̃n+1] that are greater than 1, while the rank of Zn is the number of zero columns of
[∂̃n]. The rank of the boundary group Bn is the number of nonzero rows of [∂̃n+1]. Via the rank-nullity theorem
[REFERENCE!], the n-th Betti number is given by
βn = rank(Zn)− rank(Bn).
5. Persistent Homology
Turn PCD into a space with structure (complex, i.e witness complex).
Witness complexes produces nested family of complexes, which allows us to compute persistent Betti numbers.
Consider an annulus with outer radius equal to the radius of a given circle. The first homology group distinguishes
these objects by their number of holes. Suppose we only have a PCD sampled from each object, possibly with
noise. Depending on the density and accuracy of the sample, and on the relative sizes of the inner and outer
radii of the annulus, these PCDs might look very similar, or quite distinct. Identifying which PCD came from
the circle, and which PCD came from the annulus is called manifold learning [2].
In general, PCDs are finite, usually a large, set of points that do not have any interesting topology. One method
of addressing this problem is to replace each point with a small ball of radius ε. The result depends strongly on
the choice of the parameter. If ε were small, say one percent of the radius of the circle, then the union of the
ε balls would look like a disconnected set of discrete points. On the other hand, the union of the ε balls would
look like a large connected blob if ε were large, say ninety-nine percent of the circle’s radius. In both cases, we
could not distinguish which of the data came from the annulus or the circle. Ideally, we want ε such that the
unions of ε-balls in the annulus contains a hole, and none in the circle. Instead of finding the correct value of ε,
persistent homology considers a range of ε-values. Topological features that persist for a wide range of ε-values
are considered to be actual features of the data set, while those that have short lives are considered topological
noise [3].
Definition 3. A finite simplicial complex K is filtered if K is the union of an increasing sequence of subcomplexes,
i.e.
K0 ⊆ K1 ⊆ . . . , K =⋃l
Kl.
6
Algebraically, persistence is how long a homology class persists along a filtration of a topological space. In the
annulus and circle example above, the topological space is approximated by the simplicial complexes in the
filtration, where the complexes are built up from the PCD sampled from the topological spaces. The filtration
is built up by gradually increasing the values of ε. The inclusions along the filtration induce corresponding
inclusions at the level of chains, cycles, and boundaries. That is, the inclusions Kl ⊆ Kl+1 induce the inclusions
of n-chains Cn(Kl) ⊆ Cn(Kl+1), of n-cycles Zn(Kl) ⊆ Zn(Kl+1), and of n-boundaries Bn(Kl) ⊆ Bn(Kl+1). In
particular, the following diagram commutes:
// Cn(Kl−1) // Cn(Kl) // Cn(Kl+1) //
C C C
// Zn(Kl−1) // Zn(Kl) // Zn(Kl+1) //
C C C
// Bn(Kl−1) // Bn(Kl) // Bn(Kl+1) //
The normality of the boundary groups in their respective cycle groups induces homomorphisms at the level of
homology, that is,
// Hn(Kl−1) // Hn(Kl) // Hn(Kl+1) // (3)
Cycles in Zn(Kl) which are not in the subgroup Bn(Kl+p) ∩ Zn(Kl), i.e. the nonbounding cycles in Zn(Kl)
which are also nonbounding in Zn(Kl+p), correspond to the nontrivial cosets of the following quotient group:
Hpn(Kl) =
Zn(Kl)
Bn(Kl+p) ∩ Zn(Kl).
This quotient group is the p-persistent n-th homology group of Kl.
The p-th persistent n-th homology group of a filtered simplicial complex essentially counts the number of non-
bounding cycles in a subcomplex that will remain nonbounding for a given interval in the filtration. Recall that
it is the dimension of the homology groups that gives the Betti numbers of the complex..
6. Landmark Sets and JPlex
Consider a PCD Ad ⊂ Rd from a time series, as in (1). We give a topology to Ad by considering a simplicial
complex approximation to it, called the witness complex. A smaller subset of Ad is used in constructing a witness
complex. This set is called a landmark set and will be denoted by L.
Let |V | be the cardinality of a set V . Given a PCD, we choose the number of landmark points to be |L| ≥
.05|PCD|, as suggested in [6]. In choosing L, we use the maxmin algorithm [16]. The first point `0 ∈ Ad is
randomly selected and the next points are selected inductively. Suppose the set of the first i − 1 landmarks
points Li−1 = {`0, `1, . . . , `i−2} have been selected. Choose `i−1 ∈ Ad\Li−1 which maximizes the function
x 7→ ρ(x,Li−1)
where ρ(x,Li−1) is the distance between x and Li−1.
7
(a) (b)
Figure 2: (a) The PCD(⊂ R3) reconstructed from a human-generated time series. (b) The much more sparse set of 40 landmark
points of the PCD in (a).
For example, in the PCD illustrated in Figure 2(a), not all points will be considered in the construction of a
witness complex. Rather, only a set of landmark points as in Figure 2(b) is chosen. Once L is chosen, a witness
complex is constructed. We give a definition following [1].
Definition 4. Let X ⊂ Rd be a PCD, and let L ⊂ X be a landmark set. For ε > 0, the witness complex
W (X,L, ε) is such that
(i) the vertex set is L,
(ii) for n > 0 and `i ∈ L, the n-simplex [`0, `1, . . . , `n] is in W (X,L, ε) if all of its faces are in W (X,L, ε), and
(iii) there exists a point x ∈ X such that
max{ρ(x, `0), ρ(x, `1), . . . , ρ(x, `n)} ≤ ε+mn(x),
where mn(x) is the distance of x ∈ X to its (n + 1)-th nearest landmark point. A point x in (iii) is called a
witness to the existence of the simplex.
Given point cloud Z and landmark subset L, we define R = maxz in Zd(z, L). Number R reflects how finely the
landmarks cover the dataset. We often use it as a guide for selecting the maximum filtration value tmax for a
witness or lazy witness stream
To compute the Betti numbers of the witness complex associated to L, we use the barcodes generated by the
software package JPlex [16]. A barcode is a graph comprised of a collection of horizontal intervals, as illustrated
in several of the figures to follow. Each interval in the barcode corresponds to a non-trivial homology class in
one of the persistent homology groups. The length of an interval in the barcode is directly proportional to the
number of consecutive complexes in the filtration for which the corresponding homology class remains nontrivial.
For 0 < ε′ ≤ ε, the software JPlex computes the witness complexes W (X,L, ε′) all at once, tracks the persistence
of the n-dimensional holes, and encodes this persistence in the form of a barcode. The short intervals in a
barcode are interpreted as artifacts of noise, while the long intervals correspond to real topological features of
8
the underlying structure. The persistent Betti numbers are then read off of the barcode as the number of long
intervals [7].
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3: Barcodes from 50 landmark points taken from a noisy torus. Corresponding to (a), (b), and (c), are the persistent Betti
numbers β0 = 1, β1 = 2, and β2 = 1, respectively.
As an illustration, consider 1,000 points from a noisy torus. Taking 50 landmarks points, the Betti numbers
associated to the barcodes illustrated in (a), (b), and (c) of Figure 3 are β0 = 1, β1 = 2, and β2 = 1, respectively.
For n > 2, βn = 0. These values agree with the Betti numbers of a torus. Observe how the persistent Betti
numbers can change if holes are either filled in or created as simplices are added to the approximating simplicial
complex.
7. Metric Entropy
The metric (Kolmogorov-Sinai) entropy of a measure-preserving dynamical system (X,B, µ, T ) measures the
randomness of its orbit structure. Consider a finite partition α of the phase space X into k pairwise-disjoint
bins A1, . . . , Ak. For two partitions α = {A1, . . . , An} and β = {B1, . . . , Bm}, their least common refinement,
denoted by α ∨ β, is given by {Ai ∩ Bj |1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ m}. For n ∈ N0, applying T−n to α produces a
partition {T−nA1, . . . , T−nAn}. One can interpret the finite partition of X as outcomes of an experiment. Now
if applying T−n is thought as passage of time, ∨n−1i=0 T−iα is interpreted as performing the experiment α on n
consecutive time periods. The entropy of a finite partition α of the system (X,B, µ, T ) is given by
I(α) = −n∑i
µ(Ai) logb(µ(Ai)).
Given an arbitrary point x ∈ X, the entropy of a partition measures the uncertainty in which bin x will belong
to. We then get the entropy of the transformation T with respect to a given partition α. It is given by
I(T, α) = limn→∞
1
nI(∨n−1i=0 T
−iα).
9
This value gives the average information per time period when performing the experiment forever. Finally, the
metric entropy of the system is given by
I(T ) = supαI(T, α),
where the supremum is taken over all finite partitions α in B. The metric entropy is a measure of the maximum
information gained per time period by performing a finite experiment.
Theorem 2. Let (X,B, µ, T ) be a measure-preserving dynamical system. Given a sequence {αi} of increasingly
finer partitions such that ∨∞n=1αi = B,
I(T ) = limn→∞
I(T, αn)
When interpreted as performing an experiment, entropy is uncertainty in an experiment or, equivalently, the
information learned from an outcome of the experiment. Systems with higher entropy are systems with more
’disorder’ or more random [8]. Properties of KS-entropy arise from the information-theoretic roots of entropy
as defined by Shannon. Kolmogorov defined entropy for measure-preserving systems, which was later formalized
by Sinai[17]. The following gives the definitions and result that guarantee the existence of metric entropy.
We use the algorithm of K. Short [17] to compute the metric entropy of time series data.
1. Normalize the time series into values between 0 and 1.
2. Choose a partition α = {A0, . . . , Ak−1} of [0, 1], and call element Aj ∈ α a bin.
3. LetN the length of the time series. If xi ∈ Aji (ji ∈ {0, 1, . . . , k−1}), express the time series x0, x1, . . . , xn, . . . , xN
as a the string (of bins) Aj0 , Aj1 , . . . , Ajn , . . . , AjN−1 (main sequence).
4. Consider a0, a1, . . . , an−1 (n ≤ N), a sequence of bins of α (not necessarily distinct).
Set n = 1, the length of the substring.
5. Compute
p(a0, a1, . . . , an−1) =number of times the string a0, a1, . . . , an−1 appears in the main sequence
number of strings of length n in the main sequence,
the observed probability that the string a0, a1, . . . , an−1 appears in the time series.
6. Compute
In(α) = I(∨n−1i=0 T−iα)
= −∑
a0,a1,...,an−1
p(a0, a1, . . . , an−1)logb(p(a0, a1, . . . , an−1))
7. Compute separation level defined by
sep =number of distinct substrings of length n in the main sequence
number of strings of length n in the main sequence
10
8. If sep≥ 0.2, stop. Else, increase n by 1, and do Steps (5)-(8).
9. Plot In vs n. Slope of best-fit line estimates I(T, α) = limn→∞In(α)n
10. Choose a finer partition, i.e. more bins. Do Steps (3) - (9).
11. Entropy I(T ) is maximum of computed values I(T, α)
Clearly, the algorithm can be used even when the system is not known explicitly, and only know a finite trajectory
of the system (Kahrizsangi). The metric entropy is determined from the embedded time series data by finding
points on the trajectory that are close together in phase space but which occurred at different times (i.e. are not
time correlated). Metric entropy is a reflection of how well the behavior of each respective part of the trajectory
from the other are predicted. Higher entropy means it is less predictable and is a step closer to stochasticity [H.
Kantz et al., 1997].
8. Results
We analyze three sets of normalized data reconstructed in the unit square in Rd. The reconstructed sets will be
the point clouds of interest. From the n-th Betti numbers that correspond to barcodes calculated from the PCD
of a time series, we may be able to describe the shape of the time series via the number of n-dimensional holes.
This will allow us to give a comparison among the sets of time series. Persistence is applied to the PCD of each
data for d = 2 and d = 3. We also compute the metric entropy of the time series of each data set.
8.1. Calendar Data
From a calendar year, we consider a sequence of numbers constructed by taking all numbers that fall on a
Monday, followed by all numbers that fall on a Tuesday, and so on. Figure 4(a) illustrates the PCD from the
calendar data for d = 2, with a landmark set in Figure 4(b). Figure 4(c) is the PCD for d = 3. Figure 7(a)
shows the corresponding barcode for β0.
8.2. Magnetoelastic Ribbon Data
The magnetoelastic ribbon is a thin strip of magnetic material whose shape can be changed by applying a
magnetic field to it. The parameters are the strength of the applied uniform field Hdc and the strength and
frequency f of the applied oscillating field Hac in the vertical direction. With parameters Hdc=2212.45mV,
Hac=3200mV, and f=0.95 Hz, the data is the position of the ribbon once per driving period and consists of 1,000
points from voltage readings on a photonic sensor [15]. The PCDs for d = 2 and d = 3 of the (magnetoelastic)
ribbon data are shown in Figure 5. For d = 2, we have β0 = 2, as shown in the associated barcode in Figure
7(b).
11
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 4: (a) Consecutive pairs of numbers taken from the calendar data and normalized to fit within the unit square. (b) A
landmark set of the PCD in (a). (c) The PCD from the calendar data for d = 3.
(a) (b)
Figure 5: The PCD from the ribbon data for (a) d = 2 and (b) d = 3.
8.3. Generated Data
In [10], it has been shown that individually, humans cannot generate random numbers. But by alternately
stitching the numbers generated by at least seven individuals (i.e., collect all first numbers generated, followed
by all second numbers generated, etc.), a random sequence is produced. Our data is composed of 1,000 points
from 100 random numbers taken from each of ten individuals. For d = 2, any landmark set from the PCD of
the generated data gives β0 = 1, as shown in Figure 7(c). However, β1 value is either 1 or 2, with associated
barcodes illustrated in Figure 6.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 6: Several barcodes associated to β1 of the PCD(⊂ R2) from the human-generated data set.
12
8.4. Summary of the βn and entropy values
A summary of the Betti numbers of the PCDs for the three data sets for d = 2 and d = 3 is given in Table 1.
A comparison shows that the results for d = 3 are not simply trivial extensions of the results for d = 2. As the
parameter ε increases, the topological feature of three connected components for both d = 2 and d = 3 of the
calendar persists until the specified threshold. By Definition 1, we say that the calendar data is more orderly
among the three data sets, followed by the ribbon data.
d = 2 d = 3
PCD β0 β1 β0 β1 β2 metric entropy
Calendar 3 2 3 2 0 0.57
Ribbon 2 0 1 0 0 1.21
Generated 1 1 or 2 1 0 1 or 2 3.23
Table 1: Persistent Betti numbers of the PCD from each of the three examples.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 7: The barcode associated to β0 of the PCD from the (a) calendar data, (b) ribbon data, and (c) generated data for d = 2.
Figure 8 shows length of string size n versus metric entropy In, computed for a fixed partition α (denoted by a
distinct color). The slope of best-fit line estimates I(T, α) = limn→∞
In(α)
n.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 8: Length of string size n versus metric entropy In for (a) calendar data (b) ribbon data (c) generated data.
13
9. Conclusions
This paper has presented an approach to time series analysis by using an algebraic topological classification to
compare the orderliness of time series. The classification is readily computable. In particular, Betti numbers are
used to give an ordering among data sets. The higher β0 value detected in the calendar data seems to imply
that it is more orderly than the other two data sets. This result is expected, as the numbers in the calendar data
indeed possess an orderly character (i.e., 1 is always followed by 8, 2 is always followed by 9, etc.). Also from
the summary, we say that the ribbon data is more orderly than the human-generated data. The metric entropy
of the data sets corroborate the topological calculations. Thus, as a complement to the usual measure of order
and randomness, we are able to propose another that is readily computed. As such measures are seldom used for
time series, our definition should justify associating measures of order and randomness to time series. In fact,
persistent homology does more. As we have demonstrated, persistent, hence correct, topological structures can
be associated to time series.
A strength of the methods presented here is that they are relevant to the task of studying qualitative aspects of
time series data, in that, not only do they say something about the topology of the spaces from which the data
are sample points. They also, in the absence of any apparent structure, impose the topology on the data set.
References
[1] H. Adams, JPlex with Matlab Tutorial,
URL http://comptop.stanford.edu/u/programs/jplex/files/PlexMatlabTutorial.pdf.
[2] R. Adler, O. Bobrowski, et al., Persistent Homology for Random Fields and Complexes, Borrowing Strength:
Theory Powering Applications, A Festschrift for Lawrence D. Brown, IMS Collections 6, 2010.
[3] L. Balzano and J. Ellenberg, Understanding Persistent Homology and Plex Using a Networking Dataset,
Technical Report, October 2010.
[4] P. Bendich, Analyzing Stratified Spaces Using Persistent Versions of Intersection and Local Homology, PhD
Dissertation, Department of Mathematics, Duke University, 2009.
[5] G. Carlsson, Topology and Data, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 46 (2009) 255-308.
[6] G. Carlsson and V. de Silva, Topological Estimation Using Witness Complexes, Eurographics Symposium on
Point-based Graphics, Zurich (2004) 157-166.
[7] H. Edelsbrunner, D. Letscher, and A. Zomorodian, Topological Persistence and Simplification, Discrete &
Computational Geometry 28 (2002) 511-533.
[8] R. Frigg, In What Sense is the Kolmogorov-Sinai Entropy a Measure for Chaotic Behaviour? - Bridging the
Gap Between Dynamical Systems Theory and Communication Theory, British J. for the Phil. of Science 55
(2004) 411-434.
14
[9] R. Ghrist, Barcodes: The Persistent Topology of Data. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 45 (2008) 61-75.
[10] A. Longjas, I. Crisologo, C. Monterola, and E. F. Legara, A Procedure for Generating a Random Number
Sequence Using at Least Seven Individuals, Proceedings Samahang Pisika ng Pilipinas (Proceedings of the
26th National Physics Congress of the Philippines), 2008.
[11] M. R. Muldoon, R. S. MacKay, J. P. Huke and D. S. Broomhead, Topology from Time Series, Physica D
65 (1993) 1-16.
[12] D. Sciamarella and G. B. Mindlin, Topological Structure of Chaotic Flows from Human Speech Chaotic
Data, Phys. Rev. Letters 82 (1999) 1450-1453.
[13] Munkres, James R, Elements Of Algebraic Topology, Prentice Hall, 1984.
[14] D. Mumford, A. Lee, and K. Pedersen, The Nonlinear Statistics of High-contrast Patches in Natural Images,
Intl. J. Computer Vision 54 (2003) 83-103.
[15] J. Reiss, The Analysis of Chaotic Time Series, Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Inst. Tech., Atlanta, 2001.
[16] H. Sexton, M. Johansson, JPlex software package, URL http://comptop.stanford.edu/programs/jplex.
[17] , K. Short, Direct Calculation of Entropy from Time Series, J. of Computational Physics 104 Issue 1, (1993)
162-172.
[18] M. Small, Applied Nonlinear Time Series Analysis: Applications in Physics, Physiology and Finance, Non-
linear Science Series A 52 World Scientific, 2005.
[19] M. Small, J. Zhang and X. Xu, Transforming Time Series into Complex Networks, Complex Sciences 2
(2009) 2078-2089.
[20] F. Takens, Detecting Strange Attractors in Fluid Turbulence, Symposium on Dynamical Systems and Tur-
bulence, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 898 (1981) 366-381.
[21] H. Tong, Non-Linear Time Series: A Dynamical System Approach, Oxford Statistical Science Series, Ox-
ford:Clarendon Press, 1990.
[22] A. Zomorodian, G. Carlsson, Computing Persistent Homology, Discrete & Computational Geometry 33
(2005) 249-274.
[23] B. D. Fulcher, M. A. Little, N. S. Jones., ”Highly comparative time-series analysis: the empirical structure
of time series and their methods”, J. Roy. Soc. Interface 10(83) 20130048 (2010). DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0048
15