Comparison of Resampling Techniques for the Non-causality Hypothesis

  • Angeliki Papana
  • Catherine Kyrtsou
  • Dimitris Kugiumtzis
  • Cees G. H. Diks
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 114)


Different resampling schemes for the null hypothesis of non-causality are assessed. As test statistic the partial transfer entropy (PTE), an information and model-free measure, is used. Two resampling methods, (1) the time shifted surrogates and (2) the stationary bootstrap, are combined with the following three independence settings (giving in total six resampling schemes), all consistent with the null hypothesis of non-causality: (a) only the driving variable is resampled, (b) both the driving and response variable are resampled, and (c) both the driving and response variable are resampled while also the dependence of the future of the response variable and the vector of its past values is destroyed. The empirical null distribution of the PTE as the surrogate and bootstrapped time series become more independent is examined along with the size and power of the respective tests.


Granger Causality Multivariate System Transfer Entropy Resampling Method Stationary Bootstrap 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The research project is implemented within the framework of the Action “Supporting Postdoctoral Researchers” of the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” (Action’s Beneficiary: General Secretariat for Research and Technology), and is co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Greek State.


  1. 1.
    Efron, B.: Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 7(1), 1–26 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faes, L., Porta, A., Nollo, G.: Mutual nonlinear prediction as a tool to evaluate coupling strength and directionality in bivariate time series: comparison among different strategies based on k nearest neighbors. Phys. Rev. E 78, 026,201 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faes, L., Porta, A., Nollo, G.: Testing frequency-domain causality in multivariate time series. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 57(8), 1897–1906 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hénon, M.: A two-dimensional mapping with a strange attractor. Commun. Math. Phys. 50(1), 69–77 (1976)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kraskov, A., Stögbauer, H., Grassberger, P.: Estimating mutual information. Phys. Rev. E 69(6), 066,138 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Künsch, H.: The jackknife and the bootstrap for general stationary observations. Ann. Stat. 17, 1217–1241 (1989)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lahiri, S.: Resampling Methods for Dependent Data. Springer, New York (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papana, A., Kugiumtzis, D., Larsson, P.: Reducing the bias of causality measures. Phys. Rev. E 83, 036207 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papana, A., Kugiumtzis, D., Larsson, P.: Detection of direct causal effects and application to electroencephalogram analysis. Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 22(9), 1250222 (2012)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Papana, A., Kyrtsou, C., Kugiumtzis, D., Diks, C.: Simulation study of direct causality measures in multivariate time series. Entropy 15(7), 2635–2661 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Politis, D., Romano, J.: The stationary bootstrap. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 89(428), 1303–1313 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Politis, D., Romano, J., Lai, T.: Bootstrap confidence bands for spectra and cross-spectra. IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc. 40, 1206–1215 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quian Quiroga, R., Kraskov, A., Kreuz, T., Grassberger, P.: Performance of different synchronization measures in real data: a case study on electroencephalographic signals. Phys. Rev. E 65, 041903 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schreiber, T.: Measuring information transfer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85(2), 461–464 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Theiler, J., Eubank, S., Longtin, A., Galdrikian, B., Farmer, J.: Testing for nonlinearity in time series: the method of surrogate data. Phys. D 58, 77–94 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vakorin, V., Krakovska, O., McIntosh, A.: Confounding effects of indirect connections on causality estimation. J. Neurosci. Methods 184, 152–160 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vlachos, I., Kugiumtzis, D.: Non-uniform state space reconstruction and coupling detection. Phys. Rev. E 82, 016207 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winterhalder, M., Schelter, B., Hesse, W., Schwab, K., Leistritz, L., Klan, D., Bauer, R., Timmer, J., Witte, H.: Comparison of linear signal processing techniques to infer directed interactions in multivariate neural systems. Signal Proc. 85(11), 2137–2160 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yu, G., Huang, C.: A distribution free plotting position. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk Assess. 15(6), 462–476 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angeliki Papana
    • 1
  • Catherine Kyrtsou
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Dimitris Kugiumtzis
    • 5
  • Cees G. H. Diks
    • 6
  1. 1.University of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.University of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.University of Strasbourg, BETAStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.University of Paris 10, EconomixISC-ParisIle-de-France
  5. 5.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  6. 6.Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance (CeNDEF)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations