arxiv: v2 [astro-ph.sr] 13 Mar 2018

Transcription

1 Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. paper c ESO 018 June 1, 018 Estimating activity cycles with probabilistic methods I. Bayesian Generalised Lomb-Scargle Periodogram with Trend N. Olspert 1, J. Pelt, M. J. Käpylä 3, 1, and J. Lehtinen 3, 1 arxiv:17835v [astro-ph.sr] 13 Mar ReSoLVE Centre o Excellence, Aalto University, Department o Computer Science, PO Box 15400, FI Aalto, Finland Tartu Observatory, 6160 Tõravere, Estonia 3 Max-Planck-Institut ür Sonnensystemorschung, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 3, D Göttingen, Germany Received / Accepted ABSTRACT Context. Period estimation is one o the central topics in astronomical time series analysis, where data is oten unevenly sampled. Especially challenging are studies o stellar magnetic cycles, as there the periods looked or are o the order o the same length than the datasets themselves. The datasets oten contain trends, the origin o which is either a real long-term cycle or an instrumental eect, but these eects cannot be reliably separated, while they can lead to erroneous period determinations i not properly handled. Aims. In this study we aim at developing a method that can handle the trends properly, and by perorming extensive set o testing, we show that this is the optimal procedure when contrasted with methods that do not include the trend directly to the model. The eect o the orm o the noise whether constant or heteroscedastic on the results is also investigated. Methods. We introduce a Bayesian Generalised Lomb-Scargle Periodogram with Trend BGLST, which is a probabilistic linear regression model using Gaussian priors or the coeicients o the it and uniorm prior or the requency parameter. Results. We show, using synthetic data, that when there is no prior inormation on whether and to what extent the true model o the data contains a linear trend, the introduced BGLST method is preerable to the methods which either detrend the data or leave the data undetrended beore itting the periodic model. Whether to use noise with dierent than constant variance in the model depends on the density o the data sampling as well as on the true noise type o the process. Key words. methods: statistical, methods: numerical, stars: activity 1. Introduction In the domain o astronomical data analysis the task o period estimation rom unevenly spaced time series has been relevant topic or many decades. Depending on the context, the term period can reer to e.g. rotational period o the star, orbiting period o the star or exoplanet, or the period o the activity cycle o the star. Knowing the precise value o the period is oten very important as many other physical quantities are dependent on it. For instance, in the case o active late-type stars with outer convection zones, the ratio between rotational period and cycle period can be interpreted as a measure o the dynamo eiciency. Thereore, measuring this ratio gives us crucial inormation o the generation o magnetic ields in stars with varying activity levels. In practice, both periods are usually estimated through photometry and/or spectrometry o the star. For the purpose o analysing unevenly spaced time series, many dierent methods have been developed over the years. Historically one o the most used ones is the Lomb- Scargle LS periodogram Lomb 1976; Scargle 198. Statistical properties o the LS and other alternative periodograms have been extensively studied and it has become Send oprint requests to: N. Olspert nigul.olspert@aalto.i a well-known act that the interpretation o the results o any spectral analysis method takes a lot o eort. The sampling patterns in the data together with the initeness o the time span o observations lead to a multitude o diiculties in the period estimation. One o the most pronounced diiculties is the emergence o aliased peaks spectral leakage Tanner 1948; Deeming 1975; Lomb 1976; Scargle 198; Horne & Baliunas In other words one can only see a distorted spectrum as the observations are made at discrete uneven time moments and during a inite time. However, algorithms or eliminating spurious peaks rom spectrum have been developed Roberts et al Clearly, dierent period estimation methods tend to perorm dierently depending on the dataset. For comparison o some o the popular methods see Carbonell et al One o the other issues in spectral estimation arises when the true mean o the measured signal is not known. The LS method assumes a zero-mean harmonic model with constant noise variance, so that the data needs to be centered in the observed values beore doing the analysis. While every dataset can be turned into a dataset with a zero mean, in some cases, due to pathological sampling i Article number, page 1 o 1

2 A&A proos: manuscript no. paper the empirical mean 1 and the true mean dier signiicantly this procedure can lead to incorrect period estimates. In the literature this problem has been addressed extensively and several generalizations o the periodogram, which are invariant to the shits in the observed value, have been proposed. Such include the method o Ferraz-Mello 1981, who used Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization o the constant, cosine and sine unctions in the sample domain. The power spectrum is then deined as the square norm o the data projections to these unctions. In Zechmeister & Kürster 009 the harmonic model o the LS periodogram is directly extended with the addition o a constant term, which has become known as the Generalised Lomb-Scargle GLS periodogram. Moreover, both o these studies give the ormulations allowing nonconstant noise variance. Later, using a Bayesian approach or a model with harmonic plus constant, it has been shown that the posterior probability o the requency, when using uniorm priors, is very similar to the GLS spectrum Mortier et al The beneit o the latter method is that the relative probabilities o any two requencies can be easily calculated. Usually in the models, likewise in the current study, the noise is assumed to be Gaussian and uncorrelated. Other than white noise models are discussed in Vio et al. 010 and Feng et al For more thorough overview o important aspects in the spectral analysis please reer to VanderPlas 017. The ocus o the current paper is on another yet unaddressed issue, namely the eect o a linear trend in the data to period estimation. The motivation to tackle this question arose in the context o analysing the Mount Wilson time series o chromospheric activity hereater MW in a quest to look or long-term activity cycles Olspert et al. 017, the length o which is o the same order o magnitude than the data set length itsel. In a previous study by Baliunas et al detrending was occassionally, but not systematically, used beore the LS periodogram was calculated. The cycle estimates rom this study have been later used extensively by many other studies, or example, to show the presence o dierent stellar activity branches e.g. Saar & Brandenburg We now raise the ollowing question whether it is more optimal to remove the linear trend beore the period search or leave the data undetrended? Likewise with centering, detrending the data beore itting the harmonic model may or may not lead to biased period estimates depending on the structure o the data. The problems arise either due to sampling eects or due to presence o very long periods in the data. Based on the empirical arguments given in Sect. 3, we show that it is more preerable to include the trend component directly into the regression model instead o detrending the data a priori or leaving the data undetrended altogether. In the same section we also discuss the eects o noise model o the data to the period estimate. We note that the question that we address in the current study is primarily relevant to the cases where the number o cycles in the dataset is small. Otherwise, the long coherence time i the underlying process is truly periodic allows to nail down periods, even i there are uneven errors or a small trend. High number o cycles allows to get exact periods even e.g. by cycle counting. 1 We use the terms empirical mean and empirical trend when reerring to the values obtained by correspondingly itting a constant or a line to the data using linear regression. The generalised least squares spectrum allowing arbitrary components including linear trend was irst discussed in Vaníček 1971 and more recently Bayesian approaches including trend component have been introduced in Ford et al. 011 and Feng et al Method Now we turn to the description o the present method, which is a generalization o the method proposed in Mortier et al. 015 and a special case o the method developed in Feng et al The model in the latter paper allows noise to be correlated, which we do not consider in the current study. One o the main dierences between the models discussed here and the one in Feng et al. 017 is that we do not use uniorm, but Gaussian priors or the nuisance parameters see below. This has important consequences in certain situations as discussed in Sect... We introduce a simple Bayesian linear regression model where besides the harmonic component we have a linear trend with slope plus oset. This is summarised in the ollowing equation: yt i = A cosπt i φ+b sinπt i φ+αt i +β +ɛt i, 1 where yt i and ɛt i are the observation and noise at time t i, = 1/P is the requency o the cycle, A, B, α, β and φ are ree parameters. Speciically, α is the slope and β the oset y-intercept. Usually A, B, α, β are called the nuisance parameters. As noted, we assume that the noise is Gaussian and independent between any two time moments, but we allow its variance to be time dependent. For parameter inerence we use a Bayesian model, where the posterior probability is given by p, θ D pd, θp, θ, where pd, θ is the likelihood o the data, p, θ is the prior probability o the parameters, where or convenience, we have grouped the nuisance parameters under the vector θ = [A, B, α, β] T. Parameter φ is not optimized, but set to a requency dependent value simpliying the inerence such that cross terms with cosine and sine components will vanish see Sect..1. The likelihood is given by N 1 pd, θ = exp 1 ɛ i, 3 πσi σ i where ɛ i = ɛt i and σi is the noise variance at time moment t i. To make the derivation o the spectrum analytically tractable we take independent Gaussian priors or A, B, α, β and a lat prior or the requency. This leads to the prior probability given by p, θ = N θ µ θ, Σ θ, 4 where µ θ = [µ A, µ B, µ α, µ β ] T is the vector o prior means and Σ θ = diagσa, σ B, σ α, σβ is the diagonal matrix o prior variances. The larger the prior variances the less inormation is assumed to be known about the parameters. Based on what The implementation o the method introduced in this paper can be ound at Article number, page o 1

3 N. Olspert et al.: Estimating activity cycles with probabilistic methods is intuitively meaningul, in all the calculations we have used the ollowing values or the prior means and variances: µ A = 0, µ B = 0, µ α = α slope, µ β = β intercept, σ A = 0.5σ y, σ B = 0.5σ y, σ α = σ y T, σ β = σ y + β intercept, where α slope and β intercept are the slope and intercept estimated rom linear regression, σ y is the sample variance o the data and T is duration o the data. I one does not have any prior inormation about the parameters one could set the variances to ininity and drop the corresponding terms rom the equations, but in practice to avoid meaningless results with unreasonably large parameter values some regularization would be required see Sect Derivation o the spectrum Our derivation o the spectrum closely ollows the key points presented in Mortier et al Consequently, we use as identical notion o the variables as possible. Using the likelihood and prior deined by Eqs. 3 and 4, the posterior probability o the Bayesian model given by Eq. can be explicitly written as p, θ D pd, θpθ = pd, θn θ µ θ, Σ θ N 1 k 1 = e 1 E, πσi πσθi where E = ɛ i σ i + k θ i µ θi 5 6 σ θ i. 7 Here θ i, i = 1,.., k, k = 4, denotes the ith element o θ, i.e. either A, B, α, or β. From Eqs. 1 and 3 we see that the likelihood and thereore posterior probability or every ixed requency is multivariate Gaussian w.r.t. the parameters A, B, α and β. In principle we are interested in inding the optimum or the ull joint posterior probability density p, θ D, but as or every ixed requency the latter distribution is a multivariate Gaussian we can irst marginalise over all nuisance parameters, ind the optimum or the requency e.g. by doing grid search and later analytically ind the posterior means and covariances o the other parameters. The marginal posterior distribution or the requency parameter is expressed as p D pd, θn θ µ θ, Σ θ dθ. 8 Here the integrals are assumed to be taken over the whole range o parameter values, i.e. rom to. We introduce the ollowing notations: w i = 1 σi, w A = 1 σa, w B = 1 σb, w α = 1 σα, w β = 1 σβ, 9 W = w i + w β, Y = w i y i + w β µ β, 10 C = S = T = Ŷ C = Ŷ S = = = T T = Ŷ T = T C = T S = Ŷ Y = w i cosπt i φ, 11 w i sinπt i φ, 1 w i t i, 13 w i y i cosπt i φ + w A µ A, 14 w i y i sinπt i φ + w B µ B, 15 w i cos πt i φ + w A, 16 w i sin πt i φ + w B, 17 w i t i + w α, 18 w i y i t i + w α µ α, 19 w i t i cosπt i φ, 0 w i t i sinπt i φ, 1 w i yi + w A µ A + w B µ B + w α µ α + w β µ β. I the value o φ is deined such that the cosine and sine unctions are orthogonal or the proo see Mortier et al. 015, namely φ = 1 arctan [ N w i sin4πt i N w i cos4πt i then we have E = A Ŷ CA + α T CA + βca ], 3 + B Ŷ SB + α T SB + βsb 4 + T T α Ŷ T α + T βα + W β Y β + Ŷ Y, where we have grouped the terms with A on the irst line, terms with B on the second line and the rest o the terms on the third line. Article number, page 3 o 1

4 In the ollowing we will repeatedly use the ormula o the ollowing deinite integral: π e ax bx dx = a e b a, a > 0. 5 To calculate the integral in Eq. 8, we start by integrating irst over A and B. Assuming that and are greater than zero and applying Eq. 5, we will get the solution or the integral containing terms with A: Ŷ exp CA + α T CA + βca A da π = exp Ŷ C α T C βc αŷ = exp C T C + α T C + αβ T CC βŷ exp CC + β C π Ŷ C exp. A&A proos: manuscript no. paper 6 In the last expression we have grouped onto separate lines the terms with α, terms with β not simultaneously containing α, and constant terms. Similarly or the integral containing terms with B: Ŷ exp SB + α T SB + βsb B db = exp = exp Ŷ S α T S βs + α T S + αβ T SS βŷ exp SS + β S π Ŷ S exp. π αŷ S T S 7 Now we gather the coeicients or all the terms with α rom the last line o Eq. 4 keeping in mind the actor -1/ as well as rom Eqs. 6, 7 into new variable K: K = T 1 T + T C + T S. 8 We similarly introduce new variable L or the coeicients involving all terms with α rom the same equations: L = Ŷ T βt + Ŷ C T C + β T CC Article number, page 4 o 1 + Ŷ S T S + β T SS 9 Ater these substitutions, integrating over α can again be accomplished with the help o Eq. 5 and assuming K < 0: π L expkα + Lα = K exp 4K π M + Nβ = K exp 30 4K π N = K exp β MNβ M exp exp, 4K 4K 4K where M = Ŷ T Ŷ C T C and N = T CC + T SS Ŷ S T S 31 T. 3 At this point what is let to do is the integration over β. To simpliy things once more, we gather the coeicients or all the terms with β rom Eqs. 4, 6, 7, 30 into new variable P : P = C S + W N 4K. 33 We similarly introduce new variable Q or the coeicients involving all terms with β rom the same equations: Q = Ŷ CC Ŷ SS SS + Y MN 4K. 34 With these substitutions we are ready to integrate over β using again Eq. 5 while assuming P < 0: expp β + Qβ = π Q P exp. 35 4P Ater gathering all remaining constant terms rom Eqs. 4, 6, 7, 30, we inally obtain: π p D KP Ŷ C exp + Ŷ S M 4K Q 4P Ŷ Y. 36 For the purpose o itting the regression curve into the data one would be interested in obtaining the expected values or the nuisance parameters A, B, α, β. This can be easily done ater ixing the requency to its optimal value using Eq. 36 with grid search, and noticing that pθ D, opt is a multivariate Gaussian distribution. In the ollowing we list the corresponding posterior means o the parameters 3 :. 3 This is similar to Empirical Bayes approach as we use the point estimate or.

5 N. Olspert et al.: Estimating activity cycles with probabilistic methods µ β = Q P, 37 µ α = Nµ β + M K, 38 µ A = Ŷ C T Cµ α Cµ β, 39 µ B = Ŷ S T Sµ α Sµ β. 40 Formulas or the ull covariance matrix o the parameters as well as or the posterior predictive distribution, assuming a model with constant noise variance, can be ound in Murphy 01, Chapter 7.6. The posterior predictive distribution, however, in our case does not include the uncertainty contribution rom the requency parameter. I we now consider the case when = 0 or more details see Mortier et al. 015, we see that also S = 0, Ŷ S = 0 and T S = 0. Consequently the integral or B is proportional to a constant. We can deine the analogues o the constants K through Q or this special case as T T + T C K C = 1 L C = Ŷ T βt + Ŷ C T C + β T CC, 41, 4 M C = Ŷ T Ŷ C T C, 43 N C = T CC T, 44 P C = C W N C 4K C, 45 Q C = Ŷ CC + Y M CN C. 46 4K C Finally, we arrive at the expression or the data likelihood π p D K CP C Ŷ C exp M C Q C Ŷ Y 4K C 4P C. 47 Similarly we can handle the situation when = 0. In the derivation we also assumed that K < 0 and P < 0. Our experiments with test data showed that the condition or K < 0 was always satisied, but occasionally P obtained values zero and probably due to numerical rounding errors also very low positive values. These special cases we handled by dropping the corresponding terms rom Eqs. 36 and 47. Theoretically conirming or disproving that the conditions K < 0 and P 0 always hold is however out o the scope o current study... The importance o priors In Eq. 4 we deined the priors o the nuisance parameters θ to be Gaussian with reasonable means and variances given in Eq. 5. In this subsection we discuss the y t a b Fig. 1. Illustration o importance o priors. a Models itted to the data with Gaussian priors red continuous line and uniorm priors blue dashed curve or the nuisance parameters. b The spectra o the corresponding models. The black dotted line shows the position o true requency. signiicance o this choice to the results. The presence o the linear trend component introduces additional degree o reedom into the model, which, in the context o low requencies and short datasets can lead to large and physically meaningless parameter values, when no regularization is used. This situation is illustrated in Fig. 1, where we show the dierence between the models with Gaussian and uniorm priors used or the vector o nuisance parameters θ. The true parameter vector in this example was θ = [1, , 0358, 0] and the estimated parameter vector or the model with Gaussian priors θ = [0.7431, 64, 011, ]. However, or the model with uniorm priors the estimate θ = [3.016, 98.73, , 61.97] is strongly deviating rom the true vector. As seen rom the Fig. 1a, rom the point o view o the goodness o it both o these solutions dier only marginally. From the perspective o parameter estimation including the period, however, the model with uniorm priors leads to substantially biased results. From Fig. 1b it is evident that p D can become multimodal when uniorm priors are used and in the worst case scenario the global maximum occurs in the low end o the requency range, instead o the neighbourhood o the true requency..3. Dealing with multiple harmonics The ormula or the spectrum is given by Eq. 36, which represents the posterior probability o the requency, given data D and our harmonic model M H i.e. p D, M H. Although being a probability density, it is still convenient Article number, page 5 o 1

6 A&A proos: manuscript no. paper to call this requency-dependent quantity a spectrum. We point out, that i the true model matches the given model, M H, then the interpretation o the spectrum is straightorward, namely being the probability distribution o the requency. This will give us a direct way or error estimation, e.g. by itting a Gaussian to the spectral line Bretthorst 1988, Chapter. When the true model has more than one harmonic, the interpretation o the spectrum is not anymore direct due to mixing o the probabilities rom dierent harmonics. The correct way to address this issue would be to use more complex model with at least as many harmonics that there are expected to be in the underlying process or even better, to iner the number o components rom data. However, as a simpler workaround, the ideas o cleaning the spectrum introduced in Roberts et al can be used to iteratively extract signiicant requencies rom the spectrum calculated using a model with single harmonic..4. Signiicance estimation To estimate the signiicance o the peaks in the spectrum we perorm a model comparison between the given model and a model without harmonics, i.e. only with linear trend. One practical way to do this is to calculate BIC = BIC Mnull BIC MH, 48 where M null is the linear model without harmonic, BIC = lnnk lnˆl is the Bayesian Inormation Criterion BIC, n is the number o data points, k the number o model parameters and ˆL = pd ˆθ, M is the likelihood o data or model M using the parameter values that maximize the likelihood. This ormula is an approximation to the logarithmic Bayes actor 4, more precisely BIC ln K, where K is the Bayes actor. Strength o evidence or models with ln K > 10 are considered very strong, with 6 ln K < 10 strong, and with ln K < 6 positive. For a harmonic model M H, θ include optimal requency, and coeicients o the harmonic component, slope and oset, or M null only the last two coeicients. In the derivation o the spectrum we assumed that the noise variance o the data points is known, which is usually not the case. In probabilistic models, this parameter should also be optimized, however in practice oten sample variance is taken as the estimate or it. This is also the case with LS periodogram. However, it has been shown that when normalizing the periodogram with the sample variance the statistical distribution slightly diers rom the theoretically expected one Schwarzenberg-Czerny 1998, thus it has an eect on the signiicance estimation. More realistic approach, especially in the case when the noise cannot be assumed stationary is to use e.g. subsample variances in a small sliding window around the data points. As a inal remark in this section, we want to emphasize that the probabilistic approach does not remove the burden o dealing with spectral aliases due to data sampling. There is always a chance o alse detection, thus the interpretation 4 Bayes actor is the ratio o the marginal likelihoods o the data under two hypothesis usually null and an alternative. In requentists statistics there is no direct analogy to that, but it is common to calculate the p-value o the test statistic e.g. the χ statistic in period analysis. The p-value is deined as the probability o observing the test statistic under the null hypothesis to be larger than that actually observed Murphy 01, Ch o the spectrum must be done with care or a good example see Pelt Experiments In this section we undertake some experiments to compare the perormance o the introduced method with LS and/or GLS periodograms Perormance o the method in the absence o a trend We start with the situation where no linear trend is present in the actual data, as this kind o a test will allow us to compare the perormance o the BGLST model, with an additional degree o reedom, to the GLS method. For that purpose we draw n data points randomly rom a harmonic process with zero mean and total variance o unity. The time span o the data T is selected to be 30 units. We did two experiments, one with uniorm sampling and the other with alternating segments o data and gaps see below. In the both experiments we varied n in the range rom 5 to 100 and noise variance σn rom 0 to 0.5. The period o the harmonic was uniormly chosen rom the range between 0 and 0 in the irst experiment and rom the range between 0 to 6 in the second experiment. As a perormance indicator we use the ollowing statistic, which measures the average relative error o the period estimates: S 1 = 1 N δ i, 49 where N is the number o experiments with identical setup, δ i = i / true and i = i i true is the absolute error o the period estimate in the i-th experiment using the given method either BGLST or GLS. First we noticed that both methods perormed practically identically when the sampling was uniorm. This result was only weakly depending on the number o data points n and the value o the noise variance σn see Fig. a. However, when we intentionally created such segmented sampling patterns which introduced the presence o the empirical trend, GLS started to outperorm BGLST more noticeably or low n and/or high σn. In the latter experiment we created the datasets with sampling consisting o ive data segments separated by longer gaps. In Fig. b we show the corresponding results. It is clear that in this special setup the perormance o BGLST gradually gets closer and closer to the perormance o GLS when either n increases or σn decreases. However, compared to the uniorm case, the dierence between the methods is bigger or low n and high σn. The existence o the dierence in perormance is purely due to the extra parameter in BGLST model, and it is a well known act that models with higher number o parameters become more prone to overitting. The eect o an oset in the randomly sampled data to the period estimate has been well described in Mortier et al Using GLS or BGLS periodograms instead o LS, one can eliminate the potential bias rom the period estimates due to the mismatch between the sample mean and true mean. We conducted another experiment to show the perormance comparison o the dierent methods in this situation. We used otherwise identical setup as described in the second experiment above, but we ixed n = 5 to Article number, page 6 o 1

7 N. Olspert et al.: Estimating activity cycles with probabilistic methods a 0 b n 40 n σ N σ N S 1 S 1 Fig.. The perormance measure S 1 o BGLST red and GLS blue methods as unction o number o data points n and noise variance σ N. a Uniorm sampling, b sampling with segments and gaps. For the deinition o S 1 see text. more easily control the sample mean and we also set the noise variance to zero. We measured how the perormance statistic S 1 o the methods changes as unction o the sample mean µ true mean was zero. The results are shown in Fig. 3. We see that the relative mean error o the LS method steeply increases with increasing discrepancy between the true and sample mean, however both the perormance o BGLST and GLS stays constant and relatively close to each other. Using non-zero noise variance in the experiment increased S 1 o BGLST slightly higher than GLS due to the eects described in the previous experiments, but the results were still independent o µ as expected. 3.. Eect o a linear trend Let us continue with the question o how much the presence o a linear trend in the data aects the period estimate. To measure the perormance o the BGLST method introduced in Sect., we do the comparison to plain GLS and GLS with preceding linear detrending GLS-T. Throughout this section we assume a constant noise variance. We draw the data with time span T 30 time units randomly rom the harmonic process with a linear trend yt = A cosπt + B cosπt + αt + β + ɛt, 50 where A, B, α and β are zero mean independent Gaussian random variables with variances σ A = σ B = σ S, σ α and σ β respectively, and ɛt is a zero mean Gaussian white noise S BGLST GLS LS µ Fig. 3. The perormance o BGLST, GLS and LS as unction o sample mean µ. Both the true mean and slope are zero. The shaded areas around the curves on this and all subsequent plots show the 95% conidence intervals o the standard error o the statistic. S1 S a BGLST GLS-T GLS b k Fig. 4. Results o the experiments with varying linear trend using uniorm sampling a and sampling similar to MW datasets b. process with variance σn. We varied the trend variance σα = kσs +σ N / T, such that k [0, 0.1, 0.,,, 1.6]. For each k we generated N = 000 time series, where each time the signal to noise ratio SNR=σS /σ N was drawn rom [0., ] and period P = 1/ rom [, /3 T ]. In all experiments σβ was set equal to σ S + σ N. We repeated the experiments with two orms o sampling: uniorm and the Article number, page 7 o 1

8 A&A proos: manuscript no. paper one based on the samplings o MW datasets. The prior means and variances or our model were chosen according to Eq. 5. In these experiments we compare three dierent methods the BGLST, GLS-T and GLS. We measure the perormance o each method using the statistic S 1 deined in Eq. 49. The results or the experiments with the uniorm sampling are shown in Fig. 4a and with the sampling taken rom the MW dataset in Fig. 4b. On both o the igures we plot the perormance measure S 1 as unction o k. We see that when there is no trend present in the dataset k = 0, all three methods have approximately the same average relative errors and while or the BGLST method it stays the same or slightly decreases with increasing k, or the other methods the errors start to increase rapidly. We also see that when the true trend increases then GLS- T starts to outperorm GLS, however, the perormance o both o these methods stays ar behind rom the BGLST method Special cases Next we illustrate the beneit o using BGLST model with two examples, where the dierences to the other models are well emphasized. For that purpose we irst generated such a dataset where the empirical slope signiicantly diers rom the true slope. The test contained only one harmonic with a requency o and a slope 1. We again it three models BGLST, GLS and GLS-T. The comparison o the results are shown in Fig. 5. As is evident rom Fig. 5a, the empirical trend 053 recovered by the GSL-T method blue dashed line diers signiicantly rom the true trend black dotted line. Both the GSL and GSL-T methods perorm very poorly in itting the data, while only the BGLST model produces a it that represents the data points adequately. Moreover, BGLST recovers very close to the true trend value From Fig. 5b it is evident that the BGLST model retrieves a requency closest to the true one, while the other two methods return too low values or it. The perormance o the GLS model is the worst, as expected. The requency estimates or BGLST, GLS-T and GLS are correspondingly: 13969, and 188. This simple example shows that when there is a real trend in the data, due to the sampling patterns, detrending can be erroneous, but it still leads to better results than not doing the detrending at all. Finally we would like to show a counterexample where detrending is not the preerred option. This happens when there is a harmonic signal in the data with a very long period, in this test case The exact situation is shown in Fig. 6a, whererom it is evident that the GLS- T method can determine the harmonic variation itsel as a trend component, and lead to a completely erroneous it. In Fig. 6b we show the corresponding spectra. As expected, the GLS model, coinciding with the true model, gives the best estimate, while the BGLST model is not ar o. The detrending, however, leads to signiicantly worse estimate. The estimates in the same order are the ollowing: 03574, and The value o the trend learned by BGLST method was -0041, which is very close to zero. The last example clearly shows that even in the simplest case o pure harmonic, i the dataset does not contain exact number o periods the spurious trend component arises. I y t Fig. 5. Comparison o the results using dierent models. The true model o the data contains one harmonic, trend and additive white Gaussian noise. a Data black crosses, BGLST model red continuous curve, GLS-T model blue dashed curve, GLS model green dash-dotted curve, true trend black dotted line, trend rom BGLST model red continuous line, empirical trend blue dashed line. b Spectra o the corresponding models with vertical lines marking the locations o maxima. The black dotted line shows the position o the true requency. pre-detrended, then bias is introduced into the period estimation, however, in the case o BGLST method the sinusoid can be itted into the ragment o the harmonic and zero trend can be recovered Eect o a nonconstant noise variance We continue with investigating the eect o a nonconstant noise variance to the period estimate. In these experiments the data is generated rom a purely harmonic model with no linear trend both α and β are zero. We compare the results rom the BGLST to the LS method. As there is no slope and oset in the model, we set the prior means or these two parameters to zero and variances to very low values. This essentially means that we are approaching the GLS method with a zero mean. In all the experiments the time range o the observations is t i [0, T ], where T = 30 units, the period is drawn rom P Uniorm5, 15 and the signal variance is σs = 1. For each experiment we draw two values or the noise variance σ1 UniormσS, 10σ S and σ = σ1/k, where k [1,, 4, 8, 16, 3] which are used in dierent setups as indicated in the second column o Table 1. For each k we repeat the experiments N = 000 times. Let i = i i true denote the absolute error o the BGLST period estimate in the i-th experiment and LS i = i LS i true the same or the LS method. Now denoting by δ i = i / true and δi LS = LS i / true the relative a b Article number, page 8 o 1

9 N. Olspert et al.: Estimating activity cycles with probabilistic methods y 1.5 a t b Table 1. Description o experimental setups with nonconstant noise variance. The irst column indicates the number o the setup, the second column shows how the variance σi or i-th data point was selected and third column the criteria o drawing the time moment t i or i-th data point. No. Form o noise Type o sampling 1 σi = σ 1 + ti T σ σ1 t i Uniorm0, T { σ σi =, i t i < T/ σ1, t i Uniorm0, T i t i T/ σi = σ + 3 σ emp i σ emp min σmax emp σ emp min σ 1 σ Based on MW dataset Notes. In the 3 rd row the σ emp i denotes the empirical variance o the i-th datapoint and σ emp min and σmax emp the minimum and maximum intra-seasonal variances. In other words we have renormalized the intra-seasonal variances to the interval rom σ1 and σ a Exp. no. 1 Exp. no. Exp. no. 3 Fig. 6. Comparison o the results using dierent models. The true model contains one long harmonic with additive white Gaussian noise. a Data black crosses, BGLST model red continuous curve and its trend component red line, GLS-T model with trend added back blue dashed curve, empirical trend blue dashed line, GLS model green dash-dotted curve. b Spectra o the corresponding models with vertical lines marking the locations o maxima. The black dotted line shows the position o the true requency. errors o the corresponding period estimates, we measure the ollowing perormance statistic, which represents the relative dierence in the average relative errors between the methods i.e. N S = 1 δ i N. 51 δls i The list o experimental setups with the descriptions o the models are shown in Table. 1. In the irst experiment the noise variance is linearly increasing rom σ 1 to σ. In practice this could correspond to decaying measurement accuracy over time. In the second experiment the noise variance abruptly jumps rom σ to σ 1 in the middle o the time series. This kind o situation could be interpreted as a change o one instrument to another, more accurate, one. In both o these experiments the sampling is uniorm. In the third experiment we use sampling patterns o randomly chosen stars rom MW dataset and the true noise variance in the generated data is set based on the empirical intra-seasonal variances in the real data. In the irst two experiments the number o data points was n = 00 and in the third between 00 and 400 depending on the randomly chosen dataset, which we downsampled. In Fig. 7a the results o dierent experimental setups are shown, where the perormance statistic S is plotted as unction o k = σ 1 /σ. We see that when the true noise is constant in the data k = 1, the BGLST method perorms S S b σ 1 /σ Fig. 7. Results o the experiments with known nonconstant noise variance. For the deinition o S see text. a True noise variance is known. b Noise variance is empirically estimated rom the data. The black dotted horizontal lines show the break even point between LS and BGLST. identically to the LS method while or greater values o k the dierence grows bigger between the methods. For the nd experiment, where the noise level abruptly changes, the advantage o using a model with nonconstant noise seems to be the best, while or the other experiments the advantage is slightly smaller, but still substantial or larger k-s. Article number, page 9 o 1

10 A&A proos: manuscript no. paper 8 6 a 8 6 b 4 4 y 0 y t c t d Fig. 8. Comparison o the methods or experiment with setup. a and b Data points with black crosses, red continuous curve BGLST model, blue dashed line LS model it. c and d Spectra o the models with same colours and line styles. The vertical lines correspond to the optimal requencies ound and the black dotted line shows the true requency. The plots on two columns correspond to the biggest dierence in the period estimates rom both methods w.r.t. each other. On the let BGLST method outperorms LS method, on the right vice versa. In Fig. 8 we have shown the models with maximally diering period estimates rom the nd experiment or k = On the let column o the igures there is shown the situation where BGLST method outperorms the LS method the most and on the right column vice versa. For colour and symbol coding, please see the caption o Fig. 8. This plot is a clear illustration o the act that even though on average the method with nonconstant noise variance is better than LS method, or each particular dataset this might not be the case. Nevertheless it is also apparent rom the igure that when the LS method is winning over BGLST method, the gap tends to be slightly smaller than in the opposite situation. In the previous experiments the true noise variance was known, but this rarely happens in practice. However, when the data sampling is suiciently dense, we can estimate the noise variance empirically e.g. by binning the data using a window with suitable width. We now repeat the experiments using such an approach. In experiment setups 1 and we used windows with the length 1 unit and in the setup 3 the intra-seasonal variances. In the irst two cases we increased the number o data points to 1000 and in the latter case we used only those real datasets which contained more than 500 points. The perormance statistics or these experiments are shown in Fig. 7b. We see that when the true noise variance is constant k = 1 then using empirically estimated noise in the model leads to slightly worse results than with constant noise model, however, roughly starting rom the value o k = 1.5 in all the experiments the ormer approach starts to outperorm the latter. The location o the break-even point obviously depends on how precisely the true variance can be estimated rom the data. This, however depends on how dense is the data sampling and how short is the expected period in the data, because we want to avoid counting signal variance as a part o the noise variance estimate Real datasets As the last examples we consider time series o two stars rom the MW dataset. In Figs. 9 and 10 we show the dierences between period estimates or the stars HD37394 and HD3651 correspondingly. For both stars we see that the linear trends itted directly to the data blue dashed lines signiicantly dier rom the trend component in the harmonic model red lines with both types o noise models compare the let and right columns o the plots, and consequently, also the period estimates in between the methods always tend to vary somewhat. Especially in the case o HD37394, the retrieved period estimates dier signiicantly. Assuming a constant noise variance or this star results in the BGLST and GLS/GLS- T to deviate strongly, the BGLST model producing a signiicantly larger period estimate. With intra-seasonal noise variance, all three estimates agree more to each other, however, BGLST still gives the longest period estimate. In the previous study by Baliunas et al the cycle period or this star has been reported to be 3.6 yrs which closely matches the period estimate o GLS-T estimate with constant noise variance 5. For the GLS method the period es- 5 To be more precise, in their study they used LS with centering plus detrending, but this does not lead to measurable dier- Article number, page 10 o 1

11 N. Olspert et al.: Estimating activity cycles with probabilistic methods BGLST GLS-T GLS a b S-index t [yr] c t [yr] d Fig. 9. Comparison o the results or star HD37394 using BGLST, GLS-T and GLS models with constant noise variance in the plots on the let column and with intra-seasonal noise variance on the right column. a and b Data black crosses, BGLST model red curve, GLST-T model with trend added back blue dashed curve, GLS model green dash-dotted curve, the trend component o BGLST model red line and the empirical trend blue dashed line. c and d Spectra o the models with same colours. The dashed lines mark the locations o the corresponding maxima. BGLST GLS-T GLS 0. a 0. b S-index t [yr] c t [yr] d Fig. 10. Comparison o the results or star HD3651 using BGLST, GLS-T and GLS models. The meaning o the panels and colour coding is identical to the Fig. 9. Article number, page 11 o 1

12 A&A proos: manuscript no. paper timates using constant and intra-seasonal noise variances were correspondingly 3.71 ± and 5.36 ± 5 yrs, or the GLS-T the values were 3.63 ± and 5.61 ± 5 yrs and or the BGLST model 5.84 ± 7 and 5.79 ± 5 yrs. All the given error estimates here correspond to 1σ ranges o the requency estimates. In the case o HD3651 the period estimates o the models are not that sensitive to the chosen noise model, but the dependence on how the trend component is handled, is signiicant. Interestingly, none o these period estimates match the estimate rom Baliunas et al yrs. For the GLS method the period estimates using constant and intra-seasonal noise variances were correspondingly 4.44 ± 0.9 and 3.30 ± 0.3 yrs, or the GLS-T the values were 7 ± 0.9 and ± 0.34 yrs and or the BGLST model ± 0.3 and ± 0.14 yrs. As can be seen rom the model its in Fig. 10a and b, they signiicantly deviate rom the data, so we must conclude that the true model is not likely to be harmonic. Conceptually the generalization o the model proposed in the current paper to the nonharmonic case is straightorward, but becomes analytically and numerically less tractable. Fitting periodic and quasi-periodic models to the MW data, which are based on Gaussian Processes, are discussed in Olspert et al Conclusions In this paper we introduced a Bayesian regression model which involves, besides harmonic component also a linear trend component with slope and oset. The main ocus o this paper was on addressing the eect o linear trends in data to the period estimate. We showed that when there is no prior inormation on whether and to what extent the true model o the data contains linear trend, it is more preerable to include the trend component directly to the regression model rather than either detrend the data or leave the data undetrended beore itting the periodic model. Note that one can introduce the linear trend part also directly to GLS model and use the least squares method to solve or the regression coeicients. However, based on the discussion in Sect.. one should consider adding L regularisation to the cost unction, i.e. use the ridge regression. This corresponds to the Gaussian priors in the Bayesian approach. While using the least squares approach can be computationally less demanding, the main beneits o the Bayesian approach are the direct interpretability o the spectrum as being proportional to a probability distribution and more straightorward error and signiicance estimations. In the current work we used Gaussian independent priors or the nuisance parameters θ and uniorm prior or the requency parameter. As mentioned, the usage o priors in our context is solely or the purpose o regularisation. However, i one has actual prior inormation about the parameters the shapes o the distributions, possible dependencies between the parameters, the expected locations o ence in the period estimate compared to GLST-T or the given datasets. We also note that the datasets used in Baliunas et al do not span until 1995, but until 199 and or the star HD37394 they have dropped the data prior However, here we do not want to stress on the exact comparison between the results, but rather show that when applied to the same dataset, the method used in their study can lead to dierent results rom the method introduced in our study. higher probability mass, etc, this could be incorporated into the model by using suitable joint distribution. In principle one could consider also dierent orms o priors than independent Gaussian or θ, but then the problem becomes analytically intractable. In these situations one should use algorithms like Markov Chain Monte Carlo MCMC to sample the points rom the posterior distribution. The selection o uniorm prior or was also made solely or the reason to not lose the tractability. I one has prior knowledge about, one could signiicantly narrow down the grid search interval. This idea was actually used in the current study as we were ocusing only on the signals with low requency periods. However, in the most general intractable case one should still rely on the MCMC methods. We also showed that i the true noise variance o the data is ar rom being constant, then by neglecting this knowledge, period estimates start to deteriorate. Unortunately in practice the true noise variance is almost never known and in many cases impossible to estimate empirically e.g. sparse sampling rate compared to the true requency. In this study we, however, ocused only on the long period search task, which made estimating the noise variance on narrow local subsamples possible. Based on the experiments we saw that i the true noise is not constant and the extremes o the SNR dier at least two times, then using a model with empirically estimated noise variance is well justiied. Acknowledgements. This work has been supported by the Academy o Finland Centre o Excellence ReSoLVE NO, MJK, JP, Finnish Cultural Foundation grant no NO and Estonian Research Council Grant IUT40-1; JP. MJK and JL acknowledge the SOLSTAR Independent Max Planck Research Group unding. The HK_Project_v1995_NSO data derive rom the Mount Wilson Observatory HK Project, which was supported by both public and private unds through the Carnegie Observatories, the Mount Wilson Institute, and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center or Astrophysics starting in 1966 and continuing or over 36 years. These data are the result o the dedicated work o O. Wilson, A. Vaughan, G. Preston, D. Duncan, S. Baliunas, and many others. Reerences Baliunas, S. L., Donahue, R. A., Soon, W. H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 438, 69 Bretthorst, L. G. 1988, Bayesian Spectrum Analysis and Parameter Estimation, Vol. 48 Springer Carbonell, M., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 199, A&A, 64, 350 Deeming, T. J. 1975, Ap&SS, 36, 137 Feng, F., Tuomi, M., & Jones, H. R. A. 017, MNRAS, 470, 4794 Ferraz-Mello, S. 1981, AJ, 86, 619 Ford, E. B., Moorhead, A. V., & Veras, D. 011, ArXiv e-prints [arxiv: ] Horne, J. H. & Baliunas, S. L. 1986, ApJ, 30, 757 Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447 Mortier, A., Faria, J. P., Correia, C. M., Santerne, A., & Santos, N. C. 015, A&A, 573, A101 Murphy, K. P. 01, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective Cambridge, MA Olspert, N., Lehtinen, J., Grigorievskiy, A., Käpylä, M. J., & Pelt, J. 017, ArXiv e-prints [arxiv:171.xxxx] Pelt, J. 1997, Non-parametric methods or shit and periodicity delection in irregularly measured data, ed. T. Subba Rao, M. B. Priestley, & O. Lessi, 49 Roberts, D. H., Lehar, J., & Dreher, J. W. 1987, AJ, 93, 968 Saar, S. H. & Brandenburg, A. 1999, ApJ, 54, 95 Scargle, J. D. 198, 63, 835 Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 831 Tanner, R. W. 1948, JRASC, 4, 177 VanderPlas, J. T. 017, ArXiv e-prints [arxiv: ] Vaníček, P. 1971, Ap&SS, 1, 10 Vio, R., Andreani, P., & Biggs, A. 010, A&A, 519, A85 Zechmeister, M. & Kürster, M. 009, A&A, 496, 577 Article number, page 1 o 1