epl draft

Partial Mutual Information Analysis of Financial Networks

P. Fiedor1

1 Cracow University of Economics - Rakowicka 27, 31-510 Krakow, Poland

PACS 89.65.Gh – Economics; econophysics, financial markets, business and managementPACS 89.75.-k – Complex systemsPACS 05.45.-a – Nonlinear dynamics and chaos

Abstract – The econophysics approach to socio-economic systems is based on the assumption oftheir complexity. Such assumption inevitably lead to another assumption, namely that underly-ing interconnections within socio-economic systems, particularly financial markets, are nonlinear,which is shown to be true even in mainstream economic literature. Thus it is surprising to seethat network analysis of financial markets is based on linear correlation and its derivatives. Ananalysis based on partial correlation is of particular interest as it leading to the vicinity of causal-ity detection in time series analysis. In this paper we generalise the Planar Maximally FilteredGraphs and Partial Correlation Planar Graphs to incorporate nonlinearity using partial mutualinformation.

Introduction. – The field of econophysics is perhapsbest known for its treatment of financial markets as com-plex systems. In this treatment network theory plays animportant role. Most commonly a correlation-based net-work structure is created, which quantifies the interrela-tions between financial instruments on a given market.Such analysis uncovers basic structure of the studied mar-ket but can also be useful for practical applications suchas portfolio optimisation [1]. There have been numerousstudies looking into stock markets in daily [2–7] and in-traday [8–10] scales, as well as market indices [11–18] andforeign exchange markets [19]. The well-corroborated re-sults show that markets are structured according to sec-tors and sub-sectors of economic activities for stock mar-kets and geographical locations for market indices and for-eign exchange markets. Thus one can technically predictwhich sector does a financial instrument belong to, whichis practically useless however. We see that there are limi-tations to this approach. One limitation is related to theabove-mentioned limited usefulness. Much more interest-ing would be an analysis of causal relationships within themarkets. This is done recently using either lead-lag effect(asymmetric correlations) or partial correlations. The sec-ond limitation is connected with the researchers’ insistenceon using strictly linear measure of closeness between stud-ied elements of the market, even though it goes against theassumption of complexity of those systems [20,21] and thesolid evidence of nonlinearity on financial markets with

regards to stock returns [22–26], market index returns[27–31], and currency exchange rate changes [22, 32–35].Recently we have been studying the financial networksusing information-theoretic approach to account for non-linearity [36,37].

In this paper we are trying to address those issuestogether by using network analysis of financial marketsbased on partial mutual information. Partial mutual in-formation is a generalisation of partial correlations, whichis sensitive to nonlinear dependencies, to which Pearson’scorrelation and partial correlation are strictly not sensi-tive. Using partial mutual information allows us to eitherrefine the classical structural analysis of the market byadding nonlinearity and controlling for mediating influ-ence of third instruments. But partial mutual informationmay also be used to bring the analysis closer to market dy-namics and causal relationships, similarly to the analysisperformed with partial correlation in [38,39].

This paper is structured as follows: in Sec. 2 we presentthe proposed methodology. In Sec. 3 we show the resultsobtained for NYSE and briefly discuss them. In Sec. 4 weconclude our study and propose further research.

Methods. – Our analysis is based on time series de-scribing stock log returns, which is the standard way foranalysing price movements. Thus data points are the logratios between consecutive daily closing prices (this can

p-1

arX

iv:1

403.

2050

v1 [

q-fi

n.ST

] 9

Mar

201

4

P. Fiedor

be done at any other scale) [20]:

rt = ln(pt/pt−1). (1)

For the purpose of estimating mutual information weneed to discretize those data points. Thus we transformthe data points into 4 distinct states. The states repre-sent 4 quartiles, for the discussion of the significance androbustness of this step see [40,41].

On this basis we are estimating the partial mutual in-formation (PMI), which is based on Shannon’s entropy.For a discrete random variable X with probabilities p(x)of outcomes {x}, Shannon’s entropy is defined as [42]:

H(X) = −∑x

p(x) ln p(x) (2)

Mutual information (MI) of two random variables Xand Y is given by:

I(X,Y ) = H(X) +H(Y )−H(X,Y ), (3)

where H(X,Y ) is obtained from the joint distribution of(X,Y ). MI is symmetric, and:

0 ≤ I(X,Y ) ≤ min {H(X), H(Y )}. (4)

Mutual information measures information shared betweentwo variables, thus both linear and nonlinear relationshipsbetween studied financial instruments are measured thisway.

Then partial mutual information I(X,Y |Z) denotes thepart of mutual information I(X,Y ) that is not in Z andis defined as:

I(X,Y |Z) = H(X,Z) +H(Y,Z)−H(Z)−H(X,Y, Z).(5)

PMI is symmetric so that I(X,Y |Z) = I(Y,X|Z) and0 ≤ I(X,Y |Z). MI and PMI are only equal to 0 when Xand Y are strictly independent.

To estimate PMI we need an estimator of Shannon’sentropy. There is an abundance of estimators [43–48], inthis study we use the Schurmann-Grassberger estimate ofthe entropy of a Dirichlet probability distribution, whichis thought to be the best choice outside very specific con-ditions (particularly small samples) [49]. The Schurmann-Grassberger estimator is a Bayesian parametric procedurewhich assumes samples distributed following a Dirichletdistribution:

H(X) =1

m+ |χ|N∑x∈χ

(#(x) +N)(ψ(m+ |χ|N + 1)− ψ(#(x) +N + 1)),

(6)

where #(x) is the number of data points having value x,|χ| is the number of bins from the discretization step, m isthe sample size, and ψ(z) = d ln Γ(z)/dz is the digamma

function. The Schurmann-Grassberger estimator assumesN = 1/|χ| as the prior [50].

For comparison we have also used Pearson’s correlationand partial correlation, and networks based on it, as de-fined in [39].

We now turn to the networks we are creating based onpartial mutual information. First we refine the structuralview of the market offered by the networks based on cor-relation. It is refined first by swapping correlation withmutual information, which adds nonlinearity. We mayfurther refine this by removing the mediated parts of theinterrelations between financial instruments by controllingfor a third variable with partial mutual information. Wetake the minimum of the PMI calculated controlling for allother financial instruments, to show only the part of themutual information not contained in other studied timeseries. Thus taking in mind the standard mutual informa-tion based metric [36,37] the distance used for the networktopology is defined as:

d(X,Y ) = H(X,Y )− minZ 6=X,Y

I(X,Y |Z) (7)

On this basis we may create a network with topologicalrestraints of our choosing, we calculate minimal spanningtrees and planar maximally filtered graphs which we callPMIMST and PMIPMFG. These trees and planar graphsare created based on a list of d(X,Y ) sorted in increasingorder. By starting from the first entry of the list, we adda corresponding link if and only if the resulting networkis still a tree or a forest (PMIMST) or is still planar, i.e.it can be drawn on the surface of a sphere without linkcrossing (PMIPMFG).

Second we may refine the Partial Correlation PlanarGraph as defined in [38] by directly swapping partial cor-relation with partial mutual information. For this purposewe need a measure of MI influence or influence of an ele-ment Z on the pair of elements X and Y . This quantity islarge only when a significant fraction of the PM I(X,Y )can be explained in terms of Z. This measure is definedas:

d(X,Y |Z) = I(X,Y )− I(X,Y |Z) (8)

We define the average influence d(X|Z) of element Z onthe MIs between element X and all the other elements inthe system as:

d(X|Z) =< d(X,Y |Z) >Y 6=X,Z (9)

In order to construct a planar graph based on PMI welist theN(N−1) values of the average MI influence d(X|Z)in decreasing order. The construction protocol of the net-work begins by considering an empty network with N ver-tices. By starting from the first entry of the list we puta link between them if and only if the resulting networkis still planar. Similarly we can create a related minimalspanning tree by only adding a link if and only if the re-sulting network is still a tree or a forest.

p-2

Partial Mutual Information Analysis of Financial Networks

Here we note that instead of filtering the informationby network topology as we are doing above we may alsofilter the information by using a threshold to find whichlinks should be entered into the network. Finding an ap-propriate threshold is not trivial however, but one cantest for statistical significance based on the fact thatI(X,Y |Z) when X and Y are independent conditionedon Z follows a Gamma distribution with shape parameterκ = |Z|(|X| − 1)(|Y | − 1)/2 and scale parameter Θ = 1/N[51].

We also note a few areas in which this methodology canbe extended. First we note that one could add market (in-dex) as a second variable which is being controlled in PMI,thus eliminating the effects of general market trends onthe relationships between financial instruments. Furtherwe note that another approach to extending the analysismay be taken using transfer entropy, which is a measureclosely related to partial mutual information [52]. Trans-fer entropy is a measure quantifying causal informationtransfer between systems evolving in time, based on appro-priately conditioned transition probabilities, thus it usestime lags. Time lagged causal analysis can also be per-formed using correlation [53] or mutual information [37]based method for filtering similarity measures into a net-work of statistically-validated directed links.

Results. – To find the networks presented above wehave taken log returns for 91 securities out of 100 whichconstitute the NYSE 100, excluding those with incompletedata. These log returns are based on daily closing prices.The data has been downloaded from Google Financedatabase available at http://www.google.com/finance/and was up to date as of the 11th of November 2013, going10 years back. The data is transformed in the standardway for analysing price movements, that is so that the datapoints are the log ratios between consecutive daily closingprices, as defined above, and those data points are, for thepurpose of estimating mutual information, discretized into4 distinct states.

Since there is no theory of financial markets we don’thave any frame of reference to definitely state whethermoving from correlation to mutual information and par-tial mutual information is bringing the analysis forward.We may only compare these two approaches and note howdifferent the results are, and based on this we can riskan educated guess on the quality and usefulness of thismethod based on the fact that Shannon’s mutual informa-tion is a more general measure than Pearson’s correlation.We need to remember that while changing the particularmethodology for creating networks of financial markets ischanging the results, these changes will not be dramaticif the method is well-defined, thus graphically we won’tsee a completely different network. In other words thestocks should be clustered by economic sectors in all cases.But even small changes in these measurements may be ofimportance, particularly if this method is to be used inpractice, especially automated analysis or trading. Then

there is no reason to use correlation instead of mutualinformation, according to this study. This is particularlyimportant for intraday price changes, where nonlinearity issignificantly more prevalent [41], which is important withthe rising popularity of intraday and automated algorith-mic trading.

Thus to analyse the differences we have created 6 sim-ilarity measures for the networks, and for each of themcreated a tree and a planar graph, creating 12 networkstogether. The distances used are as follows:

1. d(X,Y ) =√

2(1− ρX,Y );

2. d(X,Y ) = H(X,Y )− I(X,Y );

3. d(X,Y ) =√

2(1−minZ 6=X,Y ρX,Y );

4. d(X,Y ) = H(X,Y )−minZ 6=X,Y I(X,Y |Z);

5. d(X|Z) =< d(X,Y |Z) >Y 6=X,Z based on ρ;

6. d(X|Z) =< d(X,Y |Z) >Y 6=X,Z based on I.

We can compare the networks on a node level, clusterlevel and network level. First at node level we calculateMarkov centrality (for detailed description see [54–56]) foreach node in all those networks and compare them betweennetworks obtaining correlations presented in Figs. 1 (fortrees) & 2 (for planar graphs). We note that Markov cen-trality is basically a function of node degree, thus an anal-ysis of node degree would be virtually identical. Similaranalysis may be based also on node betweenness and othermeasures. Analyses for trees and graphs present similardata so we will comment collectively. We can see thatthe refinement of the standard methods by using mini-mal partial correlation/mutual information controlling forthird variables is only changing the networks by about 10%(noise from mediating relationships), while moving fromcorrelation to mutual information changes the networks byabout 30%, hinting that around a third of relationships be-tween financial instruments is nonlinear. Further we notethat the dynamic approach is about 20-30% different fromthe previous approaches, in this case the correlation andmutual information are giving much more varying results,thus indicating nonlinearity is more important in this dy-namic assessment. In general we can conclude that thenetworks are significantly different (formal tests omitteddue to space limitations) and thus the presented approachis valid, if the cluster level confirms this.

On cluster level we confirm that in all created networksthe clusters have been aligned largely according to eco-nomic sectors, which means this important characteristicof the network approach to financial markets has been pre-served. Preserving this information is important becauseit cannot be reproduced by simulating a virtual market[57]. This can be shown numerically as the ratio of arcsbetween stocks of the same sector to all nodes as pre-sented in Table 1. As can be seen without any topologicalrestraints the full market has 11.58% links within sectors,

p-3

P. Fiedor

1

0.005 0.025

0.69 0.94

0.005 0.025

0.75 0.79

0.00 0.04 0.08

0.01

0.040.58

0.00

50.

025

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

● ● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●● ●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●● ●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●●●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

2 0.61 0.92 0.43 0.67

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●●

● ●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

● ●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●● ● ●

●

●

● ●

●●

●●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

● ●●● ●●●●●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

3 0.69 0.76

0.01

0.04

0.46

0.00

50.

025

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●●● ●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

● ●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

● ●

●

●●●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●●● ●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●● ●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

● ●

4 0.49 0.68

●●●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●● ●

● ●●●

●

●●

●●● ●●●●● ●

●●● ●●

●

●

●● ●●●●●●●●●● ●●●● ●●

●●

●

●●●

●●●●●●

●

● ●●

●

● ● ●●●

●

● ●●●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●● ● ●

●

●

●

●●●

●● ●●

●

●●

●●● ● ●●● ●●

●●● ● ●

●

●

●●●● ●●● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●

●

● ●●

●

●● ●●●

●

● ●●●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●● ●

●●●●

●

●●

●●● ●●●● ● ●

● ●● ●●

●

●

●● ●●●●●●●●●● ●●● ● ●●

●●

●

●●●

●●●●●●

●

● ●●

●

● ● ●●●

●

● ●●●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●● ●●

●

●

●

●●●

●● ●●

●

●●

●●● ● ●●● ●●

●●● ● ●

●

●

●● ●●●● ●● ●●●●●●● ● ●●

●●

●

●●●

●●●

●●●

●

● ●●

●

●● ●●●

●

●

5

0.02

0.06

0.10

0.53

0.01 0.04

0.00

0.04

0.08

●●●●

●

● ●● ●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

● ●●●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●●● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●

● ●●

●●

●

● ●●●●

●

● ●● ●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●● ●●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●●●●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●●● ●

●●●

●

●●●●

●● ●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●

●

0.01 0.04

●●●●

●

● ●● ●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●

●●●●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●●● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

●●●●●●

●

●●●●

●● ●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●●

●

●●

● ●●

●●

●

● ●●●●

●

● ●● ●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●● ●●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●●●●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

●●●● ●

●

●

●●●●

●● ●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●

●

0.02 0.06 0.10

●●●●

●

●●● ●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●●

●●●

●●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●

●●●●

●●●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●●● ●●

●

●●

●●●●●

●

●

6

Fig. 1: MC correlations for trees

but for our networks it’s between 42% and 67%, thus wesee that this important feature is preserved. In general wecan also see that mutual information suits this task better,which further corroborates the usefulness of our approach.

On network level there is a limited possibility of inves-tigation as most network-wide measures would be con-strained by the common topological restraints we are us-ing. Nonetheless we have calculated clustering coefficients(ratio of the number of triangles observed to the numberof possible triangles in the network) for the planar graphs(there can’t be any triangles in trees), which are presentedin Table 1 below. As can be seen mutual informationproduces significantly more clustering than correlation.Nonetheless partial correlation/mutual information anal-ysis creates slightly less clustered networks, hinting thatsome clustering happens due to mediating noise, but alsodue to nonlinearity. The reference values in Table 1 arecalculated for a network with no topological restraints.

Table 1: Network comparison

Network Tree ratio Graph ratio Clustering1 62.22% 49.06% 17.60%2 66.67% 55.81% 20.80%3 64.44% 51.69% 14.60%4 65.56% 54.68% 17.70%5 48.89% 42.70% 5.30%6 57.78% 47.19% 14.70%

Reference 11.28% 11.28% 50.00%

Strictly as an example we have provided network num-ber 4 on Fig. 3 and 6 on Fig. 4. The node size is based

1

0.005 0.025

0.67 0.87

0.01 0.03 0.05

0.66 0.86

0.00 0.03

0.01

0.03

0.05

0.69

0.00

50.

025

●●●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

● ●●

●●●●●●●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●●

●

●

2 0.71 0.91 0.55 0.80

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●●●

● ●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

● ●●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●● ●●●

●●

●

●●

●●

●● ●●

●

●●

●

●●●

●

●●●● ●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●●

● ●●●

●

●●●

●●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●● ●●

3 0.74 0.79

0.01

0.03

0.05

0.69

0.01

0.03

0.05

●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●●●

●●

●●●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●●●

●●●●

●●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●● ●

●●

●●●

●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●

4 0.59 0.77

●●●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●

●●

●● ●●●●

●●

●

●●●

●●●●●●●● ● ●●●

●●

●

● ●●● ●●● ●●

●●●●

●● ●

●

●● ●● ●

●●●●●●●●●● ●●

●

● ●●

●●

●

● ●● ●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●●●

●●

●●●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●●●● ●●●●

● ● ●● ●

●●

●

● ● ●● ●●●

● ●

●● ●●

● ● ●

●

● ● ●● ●

●●●●●●●●●● ●●

●

●●●

●●

●

● ●● ●● ●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●

●●

●● ●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●●●● ●●●●●● ●

● ●● ●

●

● ●●●●●● ●●

●● ●●

●● ●

●

● ● ●● ●

● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●

●

●●●

●●

●

● ●● ●● ●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●● ●●

●●

●● ●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●●●● ●●●●● ● ●● ●

●●

●

● ●●●●●●

● ●

●● ●●

●● ●

●

● ●●● ●

●●●●●●●●●●●●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

5

0.02

0.06

0.70

0.01 0.03 0.05

0.00

0.03

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●●●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

● ●

●

●●

●

●●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ● ●●●

●●

●

●

●● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

0.01 0.03 0.05

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●●●

●●

●

●

●● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●● ●●●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●●●

●●

●

●

●● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●

●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

0.02 0.06

●●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●

●●

●

●

●●

●●

●●

●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●●

●

●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●●

●

●

●

●●●●●●●●

●●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

6

Fig. 2: MC correlations for planar graphs

on its centrality in the network.

Conclusions. – We have analysed a method for pro-ducing networks of financial markets based on partial mu-tual information and how are those different from networksbased on correlation, partial correlation and mutual in-formation. The analysis leads us to believe that mutualinformation should be used in network analysis of finan-cial markets as it provides different and likely more accu-rate networks, and that partial mutual information maybe used to refine this analysis even further, particularly incontrolling for mediating inference of third parties, thusmaking the network closer to real structure of the market.Further studies should be used based on other informa-tion theoretic measures such as transfer entropy, and alsowith controlling for more than one variable (particularlycontrolling for the whole market), as well as with othermarkets, and intraday price data.

REFERENCES

[1] Markowitz H., J. Financ., 7 (1952) 77.[2] Mantegna R., Eur. Phys. J. B, 11 (1999) 193.[3] Cizeau P., Potters M. and Bouchaud J., Quant. Fi-

nanc., 1 (2001) 217.[4] Forbes K. and Rigobon R., J. Financ., 57 (2002) 2223.[5] Podobnik B. and Stanley H., Phys. Rev. Lett., 100

(2008) .[6] Aste T., Shaw W. and Matteo T. D., New J. Phys.,

12 (2010) 085009.[7] Kenett D., Preis T., Gur-Gershgoren G. and Ben-

Jacob E., Europhys. Lett., 99 (2012) 38001.

p-4

Partial Mutual Information Analysis of Financial Networks

ABT

ACN

AGN

AIG

APAAPC

AXP

BAA

BAC

BAX

BEN

BHI

BKN

BMY

BRK

CAT

CIT

CLG

COPCVS

CVX

DDD

DEC

DHR

DIS

DOM

DOW

DUK

DVN

EMC

EMR

EOG

EXC

FCX

FDX

FMC

GDC

GEC

GIS

GLW

GSA

HAL

HDE

HON

HPQ

IBM

ITW

JNJ

JPM

KMB

KOL

LLY

LMT

LOW

MCD

MDT

MET

MMM

MOA

MON

MRK

MST

NEM

NKE

NOV OXY

PEP

PFE

PGA

PNC

PRU

PXA

SLB

SOC

SPG

TATTGT

TRV

TWX

UNH

UNP

UPS

USB

UTX

VZC

WAG

WFC

WLP

WMT

XOM

YUM

Fig. 3: Partial Mutual Information PMFG

ABT

ACN

AGN

AIG

APAAPC

AXP

BAA

BAC

BAX

BEN

BHI

BKN

BMY

BRK

CAT

CIT

CLG

COP

CVS

CVX

DDD

DEC

DHR

DIS

DOM

DOW

DUK

DVN

EMC

EMR

EOG

EXC

FCXFDX

FMC

GDC

GEC

GIS

GLW

GSA

HAL

HDE

HON

HPQ

IBM

ITW

JNJ

JPM

KMBKOL

LLY

LMT

LOW

MCD

MDT

MET

MMM

MOA

MON

MRK

MST

NEM

NKE

NOV

OXY

PEP

PFE

PGA

PNC

PRU

PXA

SLB

SOC

SPG

TAT

TGT

TRV

TWX

UNH

UNP

UPS

USB

UTX

VZC

WAG

WFC

WLP

WMT

XOM

YUM

Fig. 4: Partial Mutual Information Planar Graph

p-5

P. Fiedor

[8] Bonanno G., Lillo F. and Mantegna R., Quant. Fi-nanc., 1 (2001) 96.

[9] Tumminello M., Matteo T. D., Aste T. and Man-tegna R., Eur. Phys. J. B, 55 (2007) 209.

[10] Munnix M., Schafer R. and Guhr T., Physica A, 389(2010) 4828.

[11] Bonanno G., Vandewalle N. and Mantegna R. N.,Phys. Rev. E, 62 (2000) 7615.

[12] Maslov S., Physica A, 301 (2001) 397.[13] Drozdz S., Grummer F., Ruf F. and Speth J., Physica

A, 294 (2001) 226.[14] Coelho R., Gilmore C., B.Lucey, Richmond P. and

Hutzler S., Physica A, 376 (2007) 455.[15] Gilmore C. G., Lucey B. M. and Boscia M., Physica

A, 387 (2008) 6319.[16] Eryigit M. and Eryigit R., Physica A, 388 (2009) 3551.[17] Song D.-M., Tumminello M., Zhou W.-X. and Man-

tegna R. N., Phys. Rev. E, 84 (2011) 026108.[18] Sandoval L. and Franca I., Physica A, 391 (2012) 187.[19] McDonald M., Suleman O., Williams S., Howison

S. and Johnson N. F., Phys. Rev. E, 72 (2005) 046110.[20] Mantegna R. N. and Stanley H. E., Introduction to

Econophysics: Correlations and Complexity in Finance(Cambridge University Press) 2000.

[21] Rosser B., Adv. Complex Syst., 11 (2008) 745.[22] Brock W. A., Hsieh D. A. and LeBaron B., Nonlinear

Dynamics, Chaos, and Instability. Statistical Theory andEconomic Evidence. (MIT Press, Cambridge) 1991.

[23] Qi M., J. Bus. Econ. Stat., 17 (1999) 419.[24] McMillan D., Int. Rev. Econ. Financ., 10 (2001) 353.[25] Sornette D. and Andersen J., Int. J. Mod. Phys. C,

13 (2002) 171.[26] Oh K. and Kim K., Expert Syst. Appl., 22 (2002) 249.[27] Franses P. H. and Dijk D. V., J. Forecasting, 15 (1996)

229.[28] Abhyankar A., Copeland L. and Wong W., Econ. J.,

105 (1995) 864.[29] Chen P., Stud. Nonlinear Dyn. E., 1 (1996) .[30] Abhyankar A., Copeland L. and Wong W., J. Bus.

Econ. Stat., 15 (1997) 1.[31] Ammermann P. A. and Patterson D. M., Pac. Bas.

Financ. J., 11 (2003) 175.[32] Hsieh D., J. Bus., 62 (1989) 339.[33] Meese R. and Rose A., Rev. Econ. Stud., 58 (1991) 603.[34] Brooks C., Appl. Financ. Econ., 6 (1996) 307.[35] Qi M. and Wu Y., J. Empir. Financ., 10 (2003) 623.[36] Fiedor P., Mutual Information Rate-Based Networks in

Financial Markets arXiv:1401.2548 (2014).[37] Fiedor P., Information-theoretic approach to lead-lag ef-

fect on financial markets (2014).[38] Kenett D., Tumminello M., Madi A., Gur-

Gershgoren G., Mantegna R. and Ben-Jacob E.,PloS one, 5 (2010) e15032.

[39] Kenett D., Huang X., Vodenska I., Havlin S. andStanley H., Partial correlation analysis: Applicationsfor financial markets arXiv:1402.1405 (2014).

[40] Navet N. and Chen S.-H., On Predictability and Prof-itability: Would GP Induced Trading Rules be Sensitive tothe Observed Entropy of Time Series? in Natural Com-puting in Computational Finance, edited by BrabazonT. and O’Neill M., Vol. 100 of Studies in ComputationalIntelligence (Springer) 2008.

[41] Fiedor P., Frequency Effects on Predictability of StockReturns presented at Proceedings of the IEEE Compu-tational Intelligence for Financial Engineering & Eco-nomics 2014 2014.

[42] Shannon C. E., Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27 (1948) 379.[43] Paninski L., Neural Comput., 15 (2003) 1191.[44] Stevens C. and Zador A., NIPS, (1995) 75.[45] Strong S., Koberle R., de Ruyter van Steveninck

R. and Bialek W., Phys. Rev. Lett., 80 (1998) 197.[46] Reinagel P., Current Biology, 10 (2000) 542.[47] Nemenman W., Bialek W. and de Ruyter van

Steveninck R., Phys. Rev. E, 69 (2004) 056111.[48] Warland D., Reinagel P. and Meister M., J. Neuro-

physiol., 78 (1997) 2336.[49] Bonachela J., H H. and Munoz M., J. Phys. A: Math.

Theor., 41 (2008) 202001.[50] Schurmann T. and Grassberger P., Chaos, 6 (1996)

414.[51] Kugiumtzis D., Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top., 222 (2013)

401.[52] Hlavackova-Schindler K., Palus M., Vejmelka M.

and Bhattacharya J., Phys. Rep., 441 (2007) 1.[53] Curme C., Tumminello M., Mantegna R., Stanley

H. and Kenett D., Emergence of statistically validatedfinancial intraday lead-lag relationships (2014).

[54] Jeong H., Mason S. P., Barabasi A. L. and OltvaiZ. N., Nature, 411 (2001) .

[55] White S. and Smyth P., Algorithms for estimating rela-tive importance in networks in proc. of Proceedings of theninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowl-edge discovery and data mining (ACM) 2003 pp. 266–275.

[56] Brandes U. and Erlebach T., Network Analysis :Methodological Foundations Lecture Notes in ComputerScience (Springer) 2005.

[57] Bonanno G., Caldarelli G., Lillo F. and MantegnaR., Phys. Rev. E, 68 (2003) 046130.

p-6