Denton T A, Diamond G A
Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 90048.
Comput Biol Med. 1991;21(4):243-63. doi: 10.1016/0010-4825(91)90006-u.
Recent advances in the mathematical discipline of nonlinear dynamics have led to its use in the analysis of many biologic processes. But the ability of the tools of nonlinear dynamic analysis to identify chaotic behavior has not been determined. We analyzed a series of signals--periodic, chaotic and random--with five tools of nonlinear dynamics. Periodic signals were sine, square, triangular, sawtooth, modulated sine waves and quasiperiodic, generated at multiple amplitudes and frequencies. Chaotic signals were generated by solving sets of nonlinear equations including the logistic map, Duffing's equation, Lorenz equations and the Silnikov attractor. Random signals were both discontinuous and continuous. Gaussian noise was added to some signals at magnitudes of 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20% of the signal's amplitude. Each signal was then subjected to tools of nonlinear dynamics (phase plane plot, return map, Poincaré section, correlation dimension and spectral analysis) to determine the relative ability of each to characterize the underlying system as periodic, chaotic or random. In the absence of noise, phase plane plots and return maps were the most sensitive detectors of chaotic and periodic processes. Spectral analysis could determine if a process was periodic or quasiperiodic, but could not distinguish between chaotic and random signals. Correlation dimension was useful to determine the overall complexity of a signal, but could not be used in isolation to identify a chaotic process. Noise at any level effaced the structure of the phase plane plot. Return maps were relatively immune to noise at levels of up to 5%. Spectral analysis and correlation dimension were insensitive to noise. Accordingly, we recommend that unknown signals be subjected to all of the techniques to increase the accuracy of identification of the underlying process. Based on these data, we conclude that no single test is sufficiently sensitive or specific to categorize an unknown signal as chaotic.
非线性动力学这一数学学科的最新进展已使其被用于分析许多生物过程。但非线性动力学分析工具识别混沌行为的能力尚未确定。我们用五种非线性动力学工具分析了一系列信号——周期性信号、混沌信号和随机信号。周期性信号包括正弦波、方波、三角波、锯齿波、调制正弦波和准周期信号,它们在多个振幅和频率下生成。混沌信号通过求解包括逻辑斯谛映射、杜芬方程、洛伦兹方程和希利尼科夫吸引子在内的非线性方程组生成。随机信号既有不连续的也有连续的。高斯噪声以信号振幅的1%、2%、5%、10%和20%的幅度添加到一些信号中。然后对每个信号应用非线性动力学工具(相平面图、返回映射、庞加莱截面、关联维数和频谱分析),以确定每种工具将潜在系统表征为周期性、混沌或随机的相对能力。在无噪声情况下,相平面图和返回映射是混沌和周期性过程最敏感的探测器。频谱分析可以确定一个过程是周期性的还是准周期性的,但无法区分混沌信号和随机信号。关联维数有助于确定信号的整体复杂性,但不能单独用于识别混沌过程。任何水平的噪声都会抹去相平面图的结构。返回映射在高达5%的噪声水平下相对不受影响。频谱分析和关联维数对噪声不敏感。因此,我们建议对未知信号应用所有这些技术,以提高识别潜在过程的准确性。基于这些数据,我们得出结论,没有单一测试足够敏感或特异到能将未知信号归类为混沌信号。