author: William P. Thurston
date: October 26, 1993
title: On proof and progress in mathematics

This essay on the nature of proof and progress in mathematics was stimulated by the article of Jaffe and Quinn, "Theoretical Mathematics: Toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics". Their article raises interesting issues that mathematicians should pay more attention to, but it also perpetuates some widely held beliefs and attitudes that need to be questioned and examined.

The article had one paragraph portraying some of my work in a way that diverges from my experience, and it also diverges from the observations of people in the field whom I've discussed it with as a reality check.

After some reflection, it seemed to me that what Jaffe and Quinn wrote was an example of the phenomenon that people see what they are tuned to see. Their portrayal of my work resulted from projecting the sociology of mathematics onto a one-dimensional scale (speculation versus rigor) that ignores many basic phenomena.

Responses to the Jaffe-Quinn article have been invited from a number of mathematicians, and I expect it to receive plenty of specific analysis and criticism from others. Therefore, I will concentrate in this essay on the positive rather than on the contranegative. I will describe my view of the process of mathematics, referring only occasionally to Jaffe and Quinn by way of comparison.

In attempting to peel back layers of assumptions, it is important to try to begin with the right questions:

# What is it that mathematicians accomplish?

There are many issues buried in this question, which I have tried to phrase in a way that does not presuppose the nature of the answer.

It would not be good to start, for example, with the question

> How do mathematicians prove theorems?

This question introduces an interesting topic, but to start with it would be to project two hidden assumptions:

1.  that there is uniform, objective and firmly established theory and practice of mathematical proof, and

2.  that progress made by mathematicians consists of proving theorems.

It is worthwhile to examine these hypotheses, rather than to accept them as obvious and proceed from there.

The question is not even

> How do mathematicians make progress in mathematics?

Rather, as a more explicit (and leading) form of the question, I prefer

> How do mathematicians advance human understanding of mathematics?

This question brings to the fore something that is fundamental and pervasive: that what we are doing is finding ways for *people* to understand and think about mathematics.

The rapid advance of computers has helped dramatize this point, because computers and people are very different. For instance, when Appel and Haken completed a proof of the 4-color map theorem using a massive automatic computation, it evoked much controversy. I interpret the controversy as having little to do with doubt people had as to the veracity of the theorem or the correctness of the proof. Rather, it reflected a continuing desire for *human understanding* of a proof, in addition to knowledge that the theorem is true.

On a more everyday level, it is common for people first starting to grapple with computers to make large-scale computations of things they might have done on a smaller scale by hand. They might print out a table of the first 10,000 primes, only to find that their printout isn't something they really wanted after all. They discover by this kind of experience that what they really want is usually not some collection of "answers"—what they want is *understanding*.

It may sound almost circular to say that what mathematicians are accomplishing is to advance human understanding of mathematics. I will not try to resolve this by discussing what mathematics is, because it would take us far afield. Mathematicians generally feel that they know what mathematics is, but find it difficult to give a good direct definition. It is interesting to try. For me, "the theory of formal patterns" has come the closest, but to discuss this would be a whole essay in itself.

Could the difficulty in giving a good direct definition of mathematics be an essential one, indicating that mathematics has an essential recursive quality? Along these lines we might say that mathematics is the smallest subject satisfying the following:

-   Mathematics includes the natural numbers and plane and solid geometry.

-   Mathematics is that which mathematicians study.

-   Mathematicians are those humans who advance human understanding of mathematics.

In other words, as mathematics advances, we incorporate it into our thinking. As our thinking becomes more sophisticated, we generate new mathematical concepts and new mathematical structures: the subject matter of mathematics changes to reflect how we think.

If what we are doing is constructing better ways of thinking, then psychological and social dimensions are essential to a good model for mathematical progress. These dimensions are absent from the popular model. In caricature, the popular model holds that

-   mathematicians start from a few basic mathematical structures and a collection of axioms "given" about these structures, that

-   there are various important questions to be answered about these structures that can be stated as formal mathematical propositions, and

-   the task of the mathematician is to seek a deductive pathway from the axioms to the propositions or to their denials.

We might call this the definition-theorem-proof (DTP) model of mathematics.

A clear difficulty with the DTP model is that it doesn't explain the source of the questions. Jaffe and Quinn discuss speculation (which they inappropriately label "theoretical mathematics") as an important additional ingredient. Speculation consists of making conjectures, raising questions, and making intelligent guesses and heuristic arguments about what is probably true.

Jaffe and Quinn's DSTP model still fails to address some basic issues. We are not trying to meet some abstract production quota of definitions, theorems and proofs. The measure of our success is whether what we do enables *people* to understand and think more clearly and effectively about mathematics.

Therefore, we need to ask ourselves:

# How do people understand mathematics?

This is a very hard question. Understanding is an individual and internal matter that is hard to be fully aware of, hard to understand and often hard to communicate. We can only touch on it lightly here.

People have very different ways of understanding particular pieces of mathematics. To illustrate this, it is best to take an example that practicing mathematicians understand in multiple ways, but that we see our students struggling with. The derivative of a function fits well. The derivative can be thought of as:

1.  Infinitesimal: the ratio of the infinitesimal change in the value of a function to the infinitesimal change in a function.

2.  Symbolic: the derivative of $x^n$ is $n x^{n-1}$, the derivative of $\sin(x)$ is $\cos(x)$, the derivative of $f \circ g$ is $f'\circ g *
    g'$, *etc.*

3.  Logical: $f'(x) = d$ if and only if for every $\epsilon$ there is a $\delta$ such that when $0 < \left | \Delta x \right | <
    \delta$, $$\left | {{f(x + \Delta x) - f(x) } \over {\Delta x}} -
    d \right | < \delta.$$

4.  Geometric: the derivative is the slope of a line tangent to the graph of the function, if the graph has a tangent.

5.  Rate: the instantaneous speed of $f(t)$, when $t$ is time.

6.  Approximation: The derivative of a function is the best linear approximation to the function near a point.

7.  Microscopic: The derivative of a function is the limit of what you get by looking at it under a microscope of higher and higher power.

This is a list of different ways of *thinking about* or *conceiving of* the derivative, rather than a list of different *logical definitions*. Unless great efforts are made to maintain the tone and flavor of the original human insights, the differences start to evaporate as soon as the mental concepts are translated into precise, formal and explicit definitions.

I can remember absorbing each of these concepts as something new and interesting, and spending a good deal of mental time and effort digesting and practicing with each, reconciling it with the others. I also remember coming back to revisit these different concepts later with added meaning and understanding.

The list continues; there is no reason for it ever to stop. A sample entry further down the list may help illustrate this. We may think we know all there is to say about a certain subject, but new insights are around the corner. Furthermore, one person's clear mental image is another person's intimidation:

1.  The derivative of a real-valued function $f$ in a domain $D$ is the Lagrangian section of the cotangent bundle $T^*(D)$ that gives the connection form for the unique flat connection on the trivial $\bold R$-bundle $D \times \bold R$ for which the graph of $f$ is parallel.

These differences are not just a curiosity. Human thinking and understanding do not work on a single track, like a computer with a single central processing unit. Our brains and minds seem to be organized into a variety of separate, powerful facilities. These facilities work together loosely, "talking" to each other at high levels rather than at low levels of organization.

Here are some major divisions that are important for mathematical thinking:

1.  Human language. We have powerful special-purpose facilities for speaking and understanding human language, which also tie in to reading and writing. Our linguistic facility is an important tool for thinking, not just for communication. A crude example is the quadratic formula which people may remember as a little chant, "ex equals minus bee plus or minus the square root of bee squared minus four ay see all over two ay." The mathematical language of symbols is closely tied to our human language facility. The fragment of mathematical symbolese available to most calculus students has only one verb, "$=$". That's why students use it when they're in need of a verb. Almost anyone who has taught calculus in the U.S. has seen students instinctively write "$x^3
    = 3 x^2$" and the like.

2.  Vision, spatial sense, kinesthetic (motion) sense. People have very powerful facilities for taking in information visually or kinesthetically, and thinking with their spatial sense. On the other hand, they do not have a very good built-in facility for inverse vision, that is, turning an internal spatial understanding back into a two-dimensional image. Consequently, mathematicians usually have fewer and poorer figures in their papers and books than in their heads.

    An interesting phenomenon in spatial thinking is that scale makes a big difference. We can think about little objects in our hands, or we can think of bigger human-sized structures that we scan, or we can think of spatial structures that encompass us and that we move around in. We tend to think more effectively with spatial imagery on a larger scale: it's as if our brains take larger things more seriously and can devote more resources to them.

3.  Logic and deduction. We have some built-in ways of reasoning and putting things together associated with how we make logical deductions: cause and effect (related to implication), contradiction or negation, *etc.*

    Mathematicians apparently don't generally rely on the formal rules of deduction as they are thinking. Rather, they hold a fair bit of logical structure of a proof in their heads, breaking proofs into intermediate results so that they don't have to hold too much logic at once. In fact, it is common for excellent mathematicians not even to know the standard formal usage of quantifiers (for all and there exists), yet all mathematicians certainly perform the reasoning that they encode.

    It's interesting that although "or", "and" and "implies" have identical formal usage, we think of "or" and "and" as conjunctions and "implies" as a verb.

4.  Intuition, association, metaphor. People have amazing facilities for sensing something without knowing where it comes from (intuition); for sensing that some phenomenon or situation or object is like something else (association); and for building and testing connections and comparisons, holding two things in mind at the same time (metaphor). These facilities are quite important for mathematics. Personally, I put a lot of effort into "listening" to my intuitions and associations, and building them into metaphors and connections. This involves a kind of simultaneous quieting and focusing of my mind. Words, logic, and detailed pictures rattling around can inhibit intuitions and associations.

5.  Stimulus-response. This is often emphasized in schools; for instance, if you see $3927 \times 253$, you write one number above the other and draw a line underneath, *etc.* This is also important for research mathematics: seeing a diagram of a knot, I might write down a presentation for the fundamental group of its complement by a procedure that is similar in feel to the multiplication algorithm.

6.  Process and time. We have a facility for thinking about processes or sequences of actions that can often be used to good effect in mathematical reasoning. One way to think of a function is as an action, a process, that takes the domain to the range. This is particularly valuable when composing functions. Another use of this facility is in remembering proofs: people often remember a proof as a process consisting of several steps. In topology, the notion of a homotopy is most often thought of as a process taking time. Mathematically, time is no different from one more spatial dimension, but since humans interact with it in a quite different way, it is psychologically very different.

# How is mathematical understanding communicated?

The transfer of understanding from one person to another is not automatic. It is hard and tricky. Therefore, to analyze human understanding of mathematics, it is important to consider **who** understands **what**, and **when**.

Mathematicians have developed habits of communication that are often dysfunctional. Organizers of colloquium talks everywhere exhort speakers to explain things in elementary terms. Nonetheless, most of the audience at an average colloquium talk gets little of value from it. Perhaps they are lost within the first 5 minutes, yet sit silently through the remaining 55 minutes. Or perhaps they quickly lose interest because the speaker plunges into technical details without presenting any reason to investigate them. At the end of the talk, the few mathematicians who are close to the field of the speaker ask a question or two to avoid embarrassment.

This pattern is similar to what often holds in classrooms, where we go through the motions of saying for the record what we think the students "ought" to learn, while the students are trying to grapple with the more fundamental issues of learning our language and guessing at our mental models. Books compensate by giving samples of how to solve every type of homework problem. Professors compensate by giving homework and tests that are much easier than the material "covered" in the course, and then grading the homework and tests on a scale that requires little understanding. We assume that the problem is with the students rather than with communication: that the students either just don't have what it takes, or else just don't care.

Outsiders are amazed at this phenomenon, but within the mathematical community, we dismiss it with shrugs.

Much of the difficulty has to do with the language and culture of mathematics, which is divided into subfields. Basic concepts used every day within one subfield are often foreign to another subfield. Mathematicians give up on trying to understand the basic concepts even from neighboring subfields, unless they were clued in as graduate students.

In contrast, communication works very well within the subfields of mathematics. Within a subfield, people develop a body of common knowledge and known techniques. By informal contact, people learn to understand and copy each other's ways of thinking, so that ideas can be explained clearly and easily.

Mathematical knowledge can be transmitted amazingly fast within a subfield. When a significant theorem is proved, it often (but not always) happens that the solution can be communicated in a matter of minutes from one person to another within the subfield. The same proof would be communicated and generally understood in an hour talk to members of the subfield. It would be the subject of a 15- or 20-page paper, which could be read and understood in a few hours or perhaps days by members of the subfield.

Why is there such a big expansion from the informal discussion to the talk to the paper? One-on-one, people use wide channels of communication that go far beyond formal mathematical language. They use gestures, they draw pictures and diagrams, they make sound effects and use body language. Communication is more likely to be two-way, so that people can concentrate on what needs the most attention. With these channels of communication, they are in a much better position to convey what's going on, not just in their logical and linguistic facilities, but in their other mental facilities as well.

In talks, people are more inhibited and more formal. Mathematical audiences are often not very good at asking the questions that are on most people's minds, and speakers often have an unrealistic preset outline that inhibits them from addressing questions even when they are asked.

In papers, people are still more formal. Writers translate their ideas into symbols and logic, and readers try to translate back.

Why is there such a discrepancy between communication within a subfield and communication outside of subfields, not to mention communication outside mathematics?

Mathematics in some sense has a common language: a language of symbols, technical definitions, computations, and logic. This language efficiently conveys some, but not all, modes of mathematical thinking. Mathematicians learn to translate certain things almost unconsciously from one mental mode to the other, so that some statements quickly become clear. Different mathematicians study papers in different ways, but when I read a mathematical paper in a field in which I'm conversant, I concentrate on the thoughts that are between the lines. I might look over several paragraphs or strings of equations and think to myself "Oh yeah, they're putting in enough rigamarole to carry such-and-such idea." When the idea is clear, the formal setup is usually unnecessary and redundant—I often feel that I could write it out myself more easily than figuring out what the authors actually wrote. It's like a new toaster that comes with a 16-page manual. If you already understand toasters and if the toaster looks like previous toasters you've encountered, you might just plug it in and see if it works, rather than first reading all the details in the manual.

People familiar with ways of doing things in a subfield recognize various patterns of statements or formulas as idioms or circumlocution for certain concepts or mental images. But to people not already familiar with what's going on the same patterns are not very illuminating; they are often even misleading. The language is not alive except to those who use it.

I'd like to make an important remark here: there are some mathematicians who are conversant with the ways of thinking in more than one subfield, sometimes in quite a number of subfields. Some mathematicians learn the jargon of several subfields as graduate students, some people are just quick at picking up foreign mathematical language and culture, and some people are in mathematical centers where they are exposed to many subfields. People who are comfortable in more than one subfield can often have a very positive influence, serving as bridges, and helping different groups of mathematicians learn from each other. But people knowledgeable in multiple fields can also have a negative effect, by intimidating others, and by helping to validate and maintain the whole system of generally poor communication. For example, one effect often takes place during colloquium talks, where one or two widely knowledgeable people sitting in the front row may serve as the speaker's mental guide to the audience.

There is another effect caused by the big differences between how we think about mathematics and how we write it. A group of mathematicians interacting with each other can keep a collection of mathematical ideas alive for a period of years, even though the recorded version of their mathematical work differs from their actual thinking, having much greater emphasis on language, symbols, logic and formalism. But as new batches of mathematicians learn about the subject they tend to interpret what they read and hear more literally, so that the more easily recorded and communicated formalism and machinery tend to gradually take over from other modes of thinking.

There are two counters to this trend, so that mathematics does not become entirely mired down in formalism. First, younger generations of mathematicians are continually discovering and rediscovering insights on their own, thus reinjecting diverse modes of human thought into mathematics.

Second, mathematicians sometimes invent names and hit on unifying definitions that replace technical circumlocutions and give good handles for insights. Names like "group" to replace "a system of substitutions satisfying …", and "manifold" to replace

> We can't give coordinates to parametrize all the solutions to our equations simultaneously, but in the neighborhood of any particular solution we can introduce coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
> &(f_1(u_1,u_2,u_3), f_2(u_1,u_2,u_3), f_3(u_1,u_2,u_3),
> f_4(u_1,u_2,u_3),\\
> &f_5(u_1,u_2,u_3))\end{aligned}$$ where at least one of the ten determinants $$\dots\! \text{[ten \!$3\!\times\!3$ \!determinants
> of matrices of partial derivatives]} \!\dots$$ is not zero

may or may not have represented advances in insight among experts, but they greatly facilitate the *communication* of insights.

We mathematicians need to put far greater effort into communicating mathematical *ideas*. To accomplish this, we need to pay much more attention to communicating not just our definitions, theorems, and proofs, but also our ways of thinking. We need to appreciate the value of different ways of thinking about the same mathematical structure.

We need to focus far more energy on understanding and explaining the basic mental infrastructure of mathematics—with consequently less energy on the most recent results. This entails developing mathematical language that is effective for the radical purpose of conveying ideas to people who don't already know them.

Part of this communication is through proofs.

# What is a proof?

When I started as a graduate student at Berkeley, I had trouble imagining how I could "prove" a new and interesting mathematical theorem. I didn't really understand what a "proof" was.

By going to seminars, reading papers, and talking to other graduate students, I gradually began to catch on. Within any field, there are certain theorems and certain techniques that are generally known and generally accepted. When you write a paper, you refer to these without proof. You look at other papers in the field, and you see what facts they quote without proof, and what they cite in their bibliography. You learn from other people some idea of the proofs. Then you're free to quote the same theorem and cite the same citations. You don't necessarily have to read the full papers or books that are in your bibliography. Many of the things that are generally known are things for which there may be no known written source. As long as people in the field are comfortable that the idea works, it doesn't need to have a formal written source.

At first I was highly suspicious of this process. I would doubt whether a certain idea was really established. But I found that I could ask people, and they could produce explanations and proofs, or else refer me to other people or to written sources that would give explanations and proofs. There were published theorems that were generally known to be false, or where the proofs were generally known to be incomplete. Mathematical knowledge and understanding were embedded in the minds and in the social fabric of the community of people thinking about a particular topic. This knowledge was supported by written documents, but the written documents were not really primary.

I think this pattern varies quite a bit from field to field. I was interested in geometric areas of mathematics, where it is often pretty hard to have a document that reflects well the way people actually think. In more algebraic or symbolic fields, this is not necessarily so, and I have the impression that in some areas documents are much closer to carrying the life of the field. But in any field, there is a strong social standard of validity and truth. Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is a good illustration of this, in a field which is very algebraic. The experts quickly came to believe that his proof was basically correct on the basis of high-level ideas, long before details could be checked. This proof will receive a great deal of scrutiny and checking compared to most mathematical proofs; but no matter how the process of verification plays out, it helps illustrate how mathematics evolves by rather organic psychological and social processes.

When people are doing mathematics, the flow of ideas and the social standard of validity is much more reliable than formal documents. People are usually not very good in checking *formal correctness* of proofs, but they are quite good at detecting potential weaknesses or flaws in proofs.

To avoid misinterpretation, I'd like to emphasize two things I am *not* saying. First, I am *not* advocating any weakening of our community standard of proof; I am trying to describe how the process really works. Careful proofs that will stand up to scrutiny are very important. I think the process of proof on the whole works pretty well in the mathematical community. The kind of change I would advocate is that mathematicians take more care with their proofs, making them really clear and as simple as possible so that if any weakness is present it will be easy to detect. Second, I am *not* criticizing the mathematical study of formal proofs, nor am I criticizing people who put energy into making mathematical arguments more explicit and more formal. These are both useful activities that shed new insights on mathematics.

I have spent a fair amount of effort during periods of my career exploring mathematical questions by computer. In view of that experience, I was astonished to see the statement of Jaffe and Quinn that mathematics is extremely slow and arduous, and that it is arguably the most disciplined of all human activities. The standard of correctness and completeness necessary to get a computer program to work at all is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than the mathematical community's standard of valid proofs. Nonetheless, large computer programs, even when they have been very carefully written and very carefully tested, always seem to have bugs.

I think that mathematics is one of the most intellectually gratifying of human activities. Because we have a high standard for clear and convincing thinking and because we place a high value on listening to and trying to understand each other, we don't engage in interminable arguments and endless redoing of our mathematics. We are prepared to be convinced by others. Intellectually, mathematics moves very quickly. Entire mathematical landscapes change and change again in amazing ways during a single career.

When one considers how hard it is to write a computer program even approaching the intellectual scope of a good mathematical paper, and how much greater time and effort have to be put into it to make it "almost" formally correct, it is preposterous to claim that mathematics as we practice it is anywhere near formally correct.

Mathematics as we practice it is much more formally complete and precise than other sciences, but it is much less formally complete and precise for its content than computer programs. The difference has to do not just with the amount of effort: the kind of effort is qualitatively different. In large computer programs, a tremendous proportion of effort must be spent on myriad compatibility issues: making sure that all definitions are consistent, developing "good" data structures that have useful but not cumbersome generality, deciding on the "right" generality for functions, *etc.* The proportion of energy spent on the working part of a large program, as distinguished from the bookkeeping part, is surprisingly small. Because of compatibility issues that almost inevitably escalate out of hand because the "right" definitions change as generality and functionality are added, computer programs usually need to be rewritten frequently, often from scratch.

A very similar kind of effort would have to go into mathematics to make it formally correct and complete. It is not that formal correctness is prohibitively difficult on a small scale—it's that there are many possible choices of formalization on small scales that translate to huge numbers of interdependent choices in the large. It is quite hard to make these choices compatible; to do so would certainly entail going back and rewriting from scratch all old mathematical papers whose results we depend on. It is also quite hard to come up with good technical choices for formal definitions that will be valid in the variety of ways that mathematicians want to use them and that will anticipate future extensions of mathematics. If we were to continue to cooperate, much of our time would be spent with international standards commissions to establish uniform definitions and resolve huge controversies.

Mathematicians can and do fill in gaps, correct errors, and supply more detail and more careful scholarship when they are called on or motivated to do so. Our system is quite good at producing reliable theorems that can be solidly backed up. It's just that the reliability does not primarily come from mathematicians formally checking formal arguments; it comes from mathematicians thinking carefully and critically about mathematical ideas.

On the most fundamental level, the foundations of mathematics are much shakier than the mathematics that we do. Most mathematicians adhere to foundational principles that are known to be polite fictions. For example, it is a theorem that there does not exist any way to ever actually construct or even define a well-ordering of the real numbers. There is considerable evidence (but no proof) that we can get away with these polite fictions without being caught out, but that doesn't make them right. Set theorists construct many alternate and mutually contradictory "mathematical universes" such that if one is consistent, the others are too. This leaves very little confidence that one or the other is the right choice or the natural choice. Gödel's incompleteness theorem implies that there can be no formal system that is consistent, yet powerful enough to serve as a basis for all of the mathematics that we do.

In contrast to humans, computers are good at performing formal processes. There are people working hard on the project of actually formalizing parts of mathematics by computer, with actual formally correct formal deductions. I think this is a very big but very worthwhile project, and I am confident that we will learn a lot from it. The process will help simplify and clarify mathematics. In not too many years, I expect that we will have interactive computer programs that can help people compile significant chunks of formally complete and correct mathematics (based on a few perhaps shaky but at least explicit assumptions), and that they will become part of the standard mathematician's working environment.

However, we should recognize that the humanly understandable and humanly checkable proofs that we actually do are what is most important to us, and that they are quite different from formal proofs. For the present, formal proofs are out of reach and mostly irrelevant: we have good human processes for checking mathematical validity.

# What motivates people to do mathematics?

There is a real joy in doing mathematics, in learning ways of thinking that explain and organize and simplify. One can feel this joy discovering new mathematics, rediscovering old mathematics, learning a way of thinking from a person or text, or finding a new way to explain or to view an old mathematical structure.

This inner motivation might lead us to think that we do mathematics solely for its own sake. That's not true: the social setting is extremely important. We are inspired by other people, we seek appreciation by other people, and we like to help other people solve their mathematical problems. What we enjoy changes in response to other people. Social interaction occurs through face-to-face meetings. It also occurs through written and electronic correspondence, preprints, and journal articles. One effect of this highly social system of mathematics is the tendency of mathematicians to follow fads. For the purpose of producing new mathematical theorems this is probably not very efficient: we'd seem to be better off having mathematicians cover the intellectual field much more evenly. But most mathematicians don't like to be lonely, and they have trouble staying excited about a subject, even if they are personally making progress, unless they have colleagues who share their excitement.

In addition to our inner motivation and our informal social motivation for doing mathematics, we are driven by considerations of economics and status. Mathematicians, like other academics, do a lot of judging and being judged. Starting with grades, and continuing through letters of recommendation, hiring decisions, promotion decisions, referees reports, invitations to speak, prizes, …we are involved in many ratings, in a fiercely competitive system.

Jaffe and Quinn analyze the motivation to do mathematics in terms of a common currency that many mathematicians believe in: credit for theorems.

I think that our strong communal emphasis on theorem-credits has a negative effect on mathematical progress. If what we are accomplishing is advancing human understanding of mathematics, then we would be much better off recognizing and valuing a far broader range of activity. The people who see the way to proving theorems are doing it in the context of a mathematical community; they are not doing it on their own. They depend on understanding of mathematics that they glean from other mathematicians. Once a theorem has been proven, the mathematical community depends on the social network to distribute the ideas to people who might use them further—the print medium is far too obscure and cumbersome.

Even if one takes the narrow view that what we are producing is theorems, the team is important. Soccer can serve as a metaphor. There might only be one or two goals during a soccer game, made by one or two persons. That does not mean that the efforts of all the others are wasted. We do not judge players on a soccer team only by whether they personally make a goal; we judge the team by its function as a team.

In mathematics, it often happens that a group of mathematicians advances with a certain collection of ideas. There are theorems in the path of these advances that will almost inevitably be proven by one person or another. Sometimes the group of mathematicians can even anticipate what these theorems are likely to be. It is much harder to predict who will actually prove the theorem, although there are usually a few "point people" who are more likely to score. However, they are in a position to prove those theorems because of the collective efforts of the team. The team has a further function, in absorbing and making use of the theorems once they are proven. Even if one person could prove all the theorems in the path single-handedly, they are wasted if nobody else learns them.

There is an interesting phenomenon concerning the "point" people. It regularly happens that someone who was in the middle of a pack proves a theorem that receives wide recognition as being significant. Their status in the community—their pecking order—rises immediately and dramatically. When this happens, they usually become much more productive as a center of ideas and a source of theorems. Why? First, there is a large increase in self-esteem, and an accompanying increase in productivity. Second, when their status increases, people are more in the center of the network of ideas—others take them more seriously. Finally and perhaps most importantly, a mathematical breakthrough usually represents a new way of thinking, and effective ways of thinking can usually be applied in more than one situation.

This phenomenon convinces me that the entire mathematical community would become much more productive if we open our eyes to the real values in what we are doing. Jaffe and Quinn propose a system of recognized roles divided into "speculation" and "proving". Such a division only perpetuates the myth that our progress is measured in units of standard theorems deduced. This is a bit like the fallacy of the person who makes a printout of the first 10,000 primes. What we are producing is human understanding. We have many different ways to understand and many different processes that contribute to our understanding. We will be more satisfied, more productive and happier if we recognize and focus on this.

# Some personal experiences

Since this essay grew out of reflection on the misfit between my experiences and the description of Jaffe and Quinn's, I will discuss two personal experiences, including the one they alluded to.

I feel some awkwardness in this, because I do have regrets about aspects of my career: if I were to do things over again with the benefit of my present insights about myself and about the process of mathematics, there is a lot that I would hope to do differently. I hope that by describing these experiences rather openly as I remember and understand them, I can help others understand the process better and learn in advance.

First I will discuss briefly the theory of foliations, which was my first subject, starting when I was a graduate student. (It doesn't matter here whether you know what foliations are.)

At that time, foliations had become a big center of attention among geometric topologists, dynamical systems people, and differential geometers. I fairly rapidly proved some dramatic theorems. I proved a classification theorem for foliations, giving a necessary and sufficient condition for a manifold to admit a foliation. I proved a number of other significant theorems. I wrote respectable papers and published at least the most important theorems. It was hard to find the time to write to keep up with what I could prove, and I built up a backlog.

An interesting phenomenon occurred. Within a couple of years, a dramatic evacuation of the field started to take place. I heard from a number of mathematicians that they were giving or receiving advice not to go into foliations—they were saying that Thurston was cleaning it out. People told me (not as a complaint, but as a compliment) that I was killing the field. Graduate students stopped studying foliations, and fairly soon, I turned to other interests as well.

I do not think that the evacuation occurred because the territory was intellectually exhausted—there were (and still are) many interesting questions that remain and that are probably approachable. Since those years, there have been interesting developments carried out by the few people who stayed in the field or who entered the field, and there have also been important developments in neighboring areas that I think would have been much accelerated had mathematicians continued to pursue foliation theory vigorously.

Today, I think there are few mathematicians who understand anything approaching the state of the art of foliations as it lived at that time, although there are some parts of the theory of foliations, including developments since that time, that are still thriving.

I believe that two ecological effects were much more important in putting a damper on the subject than any exhaustion of intellectual resources that occurred.

First, the results I proved (as well as some important results of other people) were documented in a conventional, formidable mathematician's style. They depended heavily on readers who shared certain background and certain insights. The theory of foliations was a young, opportunistic subfield, and the background was not standardized. I did not hesitate to draw on any of the mathematics I had learned from others. The papers I wrote did not (and could not) spend much time explaining the background culture. They documented top-level reasoning and conclusions that I often had achieved after much reflection and effort. I also threw out prize cryptic tidbits of insight, such as "the Godbillon-Vey invariant measures the helical wobble of a foliation", that remained mysterious to most mathematicans who read them. This created a high entry barrier: I think many graduate students and mathematicians were discouraged that it was hard to learn and understand the proofs of key theorems.

Second is the issue of what is in it for other people in the subfield. When I started working on foliations, I had the conception that what people wanted was to know the answers. I thought that what they sought was a collection of powerful proven theorems that might be applied to answer further mathematical questions. But that's only one part of the story. More than the knowledge, people want *personal understanding*. And in our credit-driven system, they also want and need *theorem-credits*.

I'll skip ahead a few years, to the subject that Jaffe and Quinn alluded to, when I began studying $3$-dimensional manifolds and their relationship to hyperbolic geometry. (Again, it matters little if you know what this is about.) I gradually built up over a number of years a certain intuition for hyperbolic three-manifolds, with a repertoire of constructions, examples and proofs. (This process actually started when I was an undergraduate, and was strongly bolstered by applications to foliations.) After a while, I conjectured or speculated that all three-manifolds have a certain geometric structure; this conjecture eventually became known as the geometrization conjecture. About two or three years later, I proved the geometrization theorem for Haken manifolds. It was a hard theorem, and I spent a tremendous amount of effort thinking about it. When I completed the proof, I spent a lot more effort checking the proof, searching for difficulties and testing it against independent information.

I'd like to spell out more what I mean when I say I proved this theorem. It meant that I had a clear and complete flow of ideas, including details, that withstood a great deal of scrutiny by myself and by others. Mathematicians have many different styles of thought. My style is not one of making broad sweeping but careless generalities, which are merely hints or inspirations: I make clear mental models, and I think things through. My proofs have turned out to be quite reliable. I have not had trouble backing up claims or producing details for things I have proven. I am good in detecting flaws in my own reasoning as well as in the reasoning of others.

However, there is sometimes a huge expansion factor in translating from the encoding in my own thinking to something that can be conveyed to someone else. My mathematical education was rather independent and idiosyncratic, where for a number of years I learned things on my own, developing personal mental models for how to think about mathematics. This has often been a big advantage for me in thinking about mathematics, because it's easy to pick up later the standard mental models shared by groups of mathematicians. This means that some concepts that I use freely and naturally in my personal thinking are foreign to most mathematicians I talk to. My personal mental models and structures are similar in character to the kinds of models groups of mathematicians share—but they are often different models. At the time of the formulation of the geometrization conjecture, my understanding of hyperbolic geometry was a good example. A random continuing example is an understanding of finite topological spaces, an oddball topic that can lend good insight to a variety of questions but that is generally not worth developing in any one case because there are standard circumlocutions that avoid it.

Neither the geometrization conjecture nor its proof for Haken manifolds was in the path of any group of mathematicians at the time—it went against the trends in topology for the preceding 30 years, and it took people by surprise. To most topologists at the time, hyperbolic geometry was an arcane side branch of mathematics, although there were other groups of mathematicians such as differential geometers who did understand it from certain points of view. It took topologists a while just to understand what the geometrization conjecture meant, what it was good for, and why it was relevant.

At the same time, I started writing notes on the geometry and topology of $3$-manifolds, in conjunction with the graduate course I was teaching. I distributed them to a few people, and before long many others from around the world were writing for copies. The mailing list grew to about 1200 people to whom I was sending notes every couple of months. I tried to communicate my real thoughts in these notes. People ran many seminars based on my notes, and I got lots of feedback. Overwhelmingly, the feedback ran something like "Your notes are really inspiring and beautiful, but I have to tell you that we spent 3 weeks in our seminar working out the details of §$n.n$. More explanation would sure help."

I also gave many presentations to groups of mathematicians about the ideas of studying $3$-manifolds from the point of view of geometry, and about the proof of the geometrization conjecture for Haken manifolds. At the beginning, this subject was foreign to almost everyone. It was hard to communicate—the infrastructure was in my head, not in the mathematical community. There were several mathematical theories that fed into the cluster of ideas: three-manifold topology, Kleinian groups, dynamical systems, geometric topology, discrete subgroups of Lie groups, foliations, Teichmüller spaces, pseudo-Anosov diffeomorphisms, geometric group theory, as well as hyperbolic geometry.

We held an AMS summer workshop at Bowdoin in 1980, where many mathematicans in the subfields of low-dimensional topology, dynamical systems and Kleinian groups came.

It was an interesting experience exchanging cultures. It became dramatically clear how much proofs depend on the audience. We prove things in a social context and address them to a certain audience. Parts of this proof I could communicate in two minutes to the topologists, but the analysts would need an hour lecture before they would begin to understand it. Similarly, there were some things that could be said in two minutes to the analysts that would take an hour before the topologists would begin to get it. And there were many other parts of the proof which should take two minutes in the abstract, but that none of the audience at the time had the mental infrastructure to get in less than an hour.

At that time, there was practically no infrastructure and practically no context for this theorem, so the expansion from how an idea was keyed in my head to what I had to say to get it across, not to mention how much energy the audience had to devote to understand it, was very dramatic.

In reaction to my experience with foliations and in response to social pressures, I concentrated most of my attention on developing and presenting the infrastructure in what I wrote and in what I talked to people about. I explained the details to the few people who were "up" for it. I wrote some papers giving the substantive parts of the proof of the geometrization theorem for Haken manifolds—for these papers, I got almost no feedback. Similarly, few people actually worked through the harder and deeper sections of my notes until much later.

The result has been that now quite a number of mathematicians have what was dramatically lacking in the beginning: a working understanding of the concepts and the infrastructure that are natural for this subject. There has been and there continues to be a great deal of thriving mathematical activity. By concentrating on building the infrastructure and explaining and publishing definitions and ways of thinking but being slow in stating or in publishing proofs of all the "theorems" I knew how to prove, I left room for many other people to pick up credit. There has been room for people to discover and publish other proofs of the geometrization theorem. These proofs helped develop mathematical concepts which are quite interesting in themselves, and lead to further mathematics.

What mathematicians most wanted and needed from me was to learn my ways of thinking, and not in fact to learn my proof of the geometrization conjecture for Haken manifolds. It is unlikely that the proof of the general geometrization conjecture will consist of pushing the same proof further.

A further issue is that people sometimes need or want an accepted and validated result not in order to learn it, but so that they can quote it and rely on it.

Mathematicians were actually very quick to accept my proof, and to start quoting it and using it based on what documentation there was, based on their experience and belief in me, and based on acceptance by opinions of experts with whom I spent a lot of time communicating the proof. The theorem now is documented, through published sources authored by me and by others, so most people feel secure in quoting it; people in the field certainly have not challenged me about its validity, or expressed to me a need for details that are not available.

Not all proofs have an identical role in the logical scaffolding we are building for mathematics. This particular proof probably has only temporary logical value, although it has a high motivational value in helping support a certain vision for the structure of $3$-manifolds. The full geometrization conjecture is still a conjecture. It has been proven for many cases, and is supported by a great deal of computer evidence as well, but it has not been proven in generality. I am convinced that the general proof will be discovered; I hope before too many more years. At that point, proofs of special cases are likely to become obsolete.

Meanwhile, people who want to use the geometric technology are better off to start off with the assumption "Let $M^3$ be a manifold that admits a geometric decomposition," since this is more general than "Let $M^3$ be a Haken manifold." People who don't want to use the technology or who are suspicious of it can avoid it. Even when a theorem about Haken manifolds can be proven using geometric techniques, there is a high value in finding purely topological techniques to prove it.

In this episode (which still continues) I think I have managed to avoid the two worst possible outcomes: either for me not to let on that I discovered what I discovered and proved what I proved, keeping it to myself (perhaps with the hope of proving the Poincaré conjecture), or for me to present an unassailable and hard-to-learn theory with no practitioners to keep it alive and to make it grow.

I can easily name regrets about my career. I have not published as much as I should. There are a number of mathematical projects in addition to the geometrization theorem for Haken manifolds that I have not delivered well or at all to the mathematical public. When I concentrated more on developing the infrastructure rather than the top-level theorems in the geometric theory of 3-manifolds, I became somewhat disengaged as the subject continued to evolve; and I have not actively or effectively promoted the field or the careers of the excellent people in it. (But some degree of disengagement seems to me an almost inevitable by-product of the mentoring of graduate students and others: in order to really turn genuine research directions over to others, it's necessary to really let go and stop oneself from thinking about them very hard.)

On the other hand, I have been busy and productive, in many different activities. Our system does not create extra time for people like me to spend on writing and research; instead, it inundates us with many requests and opportunities for extra work, and my gut reaction has been to say 'yes' to many of these requests and opportunities. I have put a lot of effort into non-credit-producing activities that I value just as I value proving theorems: mathematical politics, revision of my notes into a book with a high standard of communication, exploration of computing in mathematics, mathematical education, development of new forms for communication of mathematics through the Geometry Center (such as our first experiment, the "Not Knot" video), directing MSRI, *etc.*

I think that what I have done has not maximized my "credits". I have been in a position not to feel a strong need to compete for more credits. Indeed, I began to feel strong challenges from other things besides proving new theorems.

I do think that my actions have done well in stimulating mathematics.


author: Paweł Lachowicz; Chris Done
date: Accepted: Mar 05, 2010
title: Quasi-periodic oscillations under wavelet microscope: the application of Matching Pursuit algorithm

# Introduction

One of the most outstanding features of the stellar mass black-hole binaries (BHB) is their rapid X-ray time variability (e.g. van der Klis 1989). This variability consists of aperiodic continuum noise spanning a broad range in frequencies, with quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) superimposed. The 'low frequency QPO' (hereafter LFQPO) is the one most often seen, and this is at a characteristic frequency which *moves* from 0.1–10 Hz in a way which is correlated with the energy spectrum of the BHB (see e.g. the reviews by van der Klis 2006; McClintock & Remillard 2006; Done et al. 2007).

The true nature of this LFQPO (or any of the other QPO's) is still not well understood, and there are multiple suggestions in the literature. The most fundamental frequency is Keplarian, but this is very high, at $\sim 200$ Hz at the last stable orbit for a $10 M_\odot$ Schwarzchild black hole (Sunayev 1973). Instead, the QPO could be linked to the buildup and decay of 'shots' on the longer timescales for magnetic reconnection events (Miyamoto & Kitamoto 1989; Negoro et al. 1994), though to form a QPO probably requires correlation between the shots via an energy reservoir (Vikhlinin et al. 1994). Alternatively, the frequency could be set by modes excited in the accretion disc (Nowak & Wagoner 1995; Nowak et al. 1997), or by one-armed spiral waves in the disc (Kato 1989) or Lense-Thirring precession (Ipser 1996; Stella & Viertri 1998: Psaltis & Norman 2000; Ingram et al. 2009).

Clearly, observational constraints are required in order to distinguish between some of these very different physical models. Firstly, the energy dependence of the QPO clearly shows that the oscillation does not involve the optically thick accretion disc emission but is instead a feature of the higher energy Comptonised tail (e.g. Życki et al. 2007). Therefore all models using a modulation of the *thin disc* are ruled out. Instead, the QPO must be connected to the hard X-ray emitting coronal material, though the 'shot noise' models are ruled out by the observed *r.m.s.*–flux correlation as this cannot be formed by independent events (Uttley et al. 2005).

More constraints come from the detailed shape of the QPO signal. The most popular method for studying X-ray variability is the Fourier power spectrum density (PSD; see Vaughan et al. 2003 and references therein). This is the square of the amplitude of variability at a given frequency, as a function of frequency, namely $P(f)$. Power spectra from BHB can be very roughly described as band limited noise, with a 'flat top' in $\nu P(\nu )$ (equal variability power per decade in frequency) i.e. $P(\nu)\propto\nu^{-1}$. This extends between a low and high frequency break, $\nu_{b}$, below which the PDS is $P(\nu)\propto \nu^0$, and $\nu_{h}$, above which the spectrum steepens to $P(\nu)\propto \nu^{-2}$. However, this broadband noise is better described by a sum of 4–5 Lorentzian components (Belloni & Hasinger 1990; Psaltis et al. 1999; Nowak 2000; Belloni, Psaltis & van der Klis 2002). This has the advantage that LF QPO is also well modelled by a Lorentzian, so both QPO and underlying noise can be fitted with the same functions. More importantly, Lorentzians also suggest a *physical* interpretation of the power spectral components as these are the natural outcome of a damped, driven harmonic oscillator. Each Lorentzian-like structure in a PSD may then be related to a process in the accretion flow, hence X-ray emission $x(t) \propto \sin(2\pi f_0 t)\exp(-t/\tau)$ where $\tau$ denotes a damping time-scale (Misra & Zdziarski 2008; Ingram et al. 2009).

A Lorentzian has $P(f)= A \Delta f/[(f-f_0)^2 +(\Delta f/2)^2]$, defined by a centroid frequency, $f_0$, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of $\Delta f$ and amplitude. A ratio of the QPO frequency to Lorentzian FWHM is known as a quality factor, $Q=f_0/\Delta f$. The distinguishing feature of the QPO as opposed to the noise components is that its quality factor can be large. All these paramters are correlated in the LF QPO, with the amplitude and quality factor increasing along with the increase in centroid frequency (e.g. Nowak et al. 1999; Nowak 2000; Pottschmidt et al. 2003).

It is obviously important to know what sets the (lack of) coherence of the QPO. Are QPOs composed of a set of longer-lasting continuous modulations or are they rather fragmented in time with frequencies concentrated around the peak QPO frequency? Is there any correlation between observed oscillations or they are preferably excited in a random manner? To answer these questions we need to resolve and understand the internal structure of detected QPOs i.e. to study the behaviour of the QPO on timescales which are *short* compared to its observed broadening. A continuous modulation would then show up as a continuous drift in QPO frequency with time, while a series of short timescale oscillations will show up as disjoint sections where the QPO is on and off.

One way to do this is using dynamical power spectra (spectrograms; hereafter also referred to as STFT for simplicity). While the actual techniques for this can be quite sophisticated, (e.g. Cohen 1995; Flandrin 1999), in essence, an observation of length $T$ sampled every $\Delta t$ (giving a single power spectrum spanning frequencies $1/T$ to $1/(2\Delta t)$ in steps of $1/T$) is spilt into $N$ segments of length $T/N$. This gives $N$ independent power spectra spanning frequencies $N/T$ to $1/(2\Delta
t)$ but crucially, the resolution is now lower, at $N/T$. While this is useful in tracing the evolution of the QPO (e.g. Wilms et al. 2001; Barret et al. 2005), it introduces 'instrumental' frequency broadening from the windowing of the data which prevents us following the detailed behaviour of the QPO on the required timescales.

The real problem with such Fourier analysis techniques is that they decompose the lightcurve onto a basis set of sinusoid functions. These have frequency $f$, with resolution $\Delta f=N/T$, but exist everywhere in time across the duration of the observation $t_{dur}=T/N$. In the same way that the Heisenburg uncertainty principle sets a limit to the measurement of momentum and location of a particle, namely $\Delta p_x \Delta x \geq h/2\pi$ where $h$ is a Planck constant, there is a Heisenberg-Gabor uncertainty principle setting the limiting frequency resolution for time-series analysis. This states that we cannot determine both the frequency and time location of a power spectral feature with infinite accuracy (e.g. Flandrin 1999).

Instead, if the QPO is really a short-lived signal, we will gain in resolution and get closer to the theoretical limit by using a set of basis functions which match the underlying physical shape of the QPO. This is the idea behind *wavelet analysis*. For example, one particular basis function shape is the Morlet wavelet, which is a sinusoid of frequency $f$, modulated in amplitude by a gaussian envelope such that it lasts only for a duration $t_{dur}$. The product $f \times t_{dur}$ is set at a *constant*, fixing the number of cycles seen in the basis function. The lightcurve is then decomposed on these basis functions, calculated over a set of frequencies so that the basis function shape is maintained (i.e. that the oscillation consists of 4 cycles, so low frequencies have longer $t_{dur}$ than high frequencies). The resolution adjusts with the frequency, making this a more sensitive technique to follow short duration signals (e.g. Farge 1992; Addison 2005).

Quite quickly, wavelet transforms gained huge popularity within the astronomical community (e.g. Szatmary, Vinko & Gal 1994; Frick et al. 1997; Aschwanden et al. 1998; Barreiro & Hobson 2001; Freeman et al. 2002; Irastorza et al. 2003) whereas its application in X-ray astronomy was not so rapid. Scargle et al. (1993) used wavelets to examine QPO and very low-frequency noise in Sco X-1. Steiman-Cameron et al. (1997) supplemented Fourier detection of quasi-periodic oscillations in optical light curves of GX 339–4 by wavelets while Liszka et al. (2000) analysed the ROSAT light curve of NGC 5548 in short time-scales. Recent studies of QPOs in X-ray black-holes systems can be found e.g. in Lachowicz & Czerny (2005), Espaillat et al. (2008) and Gupta et al. (2009).

However, the problem is that the basis functions chosen in wavelet analysis may not be appropriate. For example, we assumed above that these functions have a fixed shape, lasting for a fixed number of oscillations at all frequencies. In practice, this may not be the best description of the QPO. Perhaps the QPO is made from a set of signals which have a distribution of durations, where $f\times t_{dur}$ is not constant. We will maximise the resolution with which we can look at the QPO if and only if we use basis functions which best match its shape.

To do this we propose the application of the *Matching Pursuit* algorithm (MP). This is an iterative method for signal decomposition which aims at retrieving the maximum possible theoretical resolution by deriving the basis functions from the signal itself. We specifically use this as an extension of the wavelet technique by setting the MP basis functions as Gaussian amplitude modulated sinusoids as before, but allowing the product $f\times t_{dur}$ to be a free parameter (Gabor atoms).

We apply both wavelet and Matching Pursuit analysis to zoom in on the detailed structure of the LF QPO. A technical description of these time-frequency techniques we provide in the Appendix. We describe the data used in Section . This is a *RXTE*/PCA observation of the BHB XTE J1550–564 which which displays a strong and narrow QPO at $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}4 Hz. Section shows how wavelets and MP give more information than the standard dynamical power spectra. We study wavelet and Matching Pursuit feedback to different QPO models in Section  whereas in Section  we discuss the new physical insights this gives about the QPO mechanism.

# Source selection and data reduction

XTE J1550–564 is X-ray nova and black-hole binary discovered on September 6, 1998 (Smith et al. 1998) by All Sky Monitor on-board the *Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer* facility. A possible optical counterpart was identified to be a low-mass star (Orosz et al. 1998) and the distance to the source was estimated to be about 5.3 kpc (Orosz et al. 2002). A variable radio source was subsequently found at the optical position (Campbell-Wilson et al. 1998) and confirmed by Marshall et al. (1998) based on *ASCA* observations. Radio jets with apparent superluminal velocities were observed after the strong X-ray flare in September 1998 (Hannikainen et al. 2001), placing XTE J1550–564 among already known microquasars.

The source 2.5–20 keV spectrum was similar to the spectra of sources that are dynamically established to be black-holes. XTE J1550–564 has been observed in the very high, high/soft and intermediate canonical outburst states of black-hole X-ray novae (Sobczak et al. 1999a, 1999b; Cui et al. 1999). The source gained additional support for its black-hole nature due to the detection of a variety of low-$f$ QPOs (0.08–18 Hz) as well as high-$f$ QPOs (100–285 Hz) during some of the PCA/*RXTE* pointings (Bradt et al. 1993; Cui et al. 1999; Remillard et al. 1999; Wijnands et al. 1999; Homan et al. 2001).

To probe the object quasi-periodic variability in time-scales of seconds we use a pointed observation of the Proportional Counter Array detector of *RXTE* taken from the public archive of HEASARC (http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov). After Zdziarski & Gierlinski (2004), we selected the PCA data set of ObsID of 30191-01-15-00 containing source observation on 29.09.1998 (MJD 51085) when the binary system was in its very high state (Gierlinski & Done 2003) and displayed narrow QPO feature of quality factor $Q\simeq 11$ (Sobczak et al. 2000).

We reduced the data with the LHEASOFT package ver. 6.6.1 applying the standard data selection: the Earth elevation angle $>10^{\circ}$, pointing offset $<0^{\circ}.01$, the time since the peak of the last South Atlantic Anomaly SAA $>30$ min and the electron contamination $<0.1$. The number of Proportional Counting Units (PCUs) opened during the observation was equal five.

We extracted a light curve in 2.03–13.06 keV energy band (channels 0–30) with a bin size of $\Delta t\!=\!2^{-5}$ s for the first part of PCA observation (2502 s). For the purposes of this paper, we limited our data sample only to the first 1000 s dividing it into ten 100 s ($N=3200$ points) segments for which the wavelet and Matching Pursuit analysis was conducted in detail. An exemplary data segment is presented in Fig. a. Our sample returned the mean countrate and r.m.s. variability equal $1.65\times 10^4$ cts s$^{-1}$ and 18.9%, respectively. The data histogram (Fig. b) can be fitted with a lognormal distribution, $$f(x;\mu,\sigma) = \frac{1}{x\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left[
    \frac{(-\ln x - \mu)^2}{2\sigma^2} \right] ,$$ and the best fit returns the distribution's parameters, the mean and standard deviation, equal $\mu=9.698\pm 0.003$ and $\sigma=0.184\pm 0.002$, respectively, where the errors are given at 99% confidence level (see also Uttley et al. 2005 for a detailed discussion on X-ray light curve distribution).

We computed Fourier power spectra using the powspec subroutine in HEASoft package with Poisson noise level subtraction applied. STFT spectrogram plots are derived based on the Matlab$^{\mbox{\small \textregistered}}$ Signal Processing Toolbox ver. 6.9. For the wavelet analysis the Time-Frequency Toolbox (http://tftb.nongnu.org) was used whereas all results corresponding to the Matching Pursuit signal decomposition were computed using MP ver. 4 code provided by Piotr Durka of the Department of Biomedical Physics at Warsaw University, Poland (http://www.eeg.pl/software).

# Time-frequency analysis of 4 Hz QPO structure

Fig.  displays the Fourier power spectral density (PSD) calculated from 78 averaged spectra based on 1024 point data segments. A QPO peaking at a frequency of 4 Hz is clearly evident together with its harmonic structure, and r.m.s. variability calculated in a 3.5$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}5 Hz frequency band equals 12.1%.

We use the first 100 s of data (Fig. a) to compare the three different time-frequency techniques. The upper plot in Fig.  shows a standard STFT spectrogram, computed on a 1.44 s long rectangular (sliding) window[^1]. Thus all oscillations of lifetime shorter than $\sim\!1.44$ s are smeared, and the frequency resolution is 0.7 Hz, comparable to the FWHM of the QPO. The QPO appears to be fairly continuous thoughout the dataset, with small excursions around 4 Hz.

By comparison, the middle panel of Fig.  shows the wavelet power spectrum using the Morlet wavelet basis functions, i.e. modulated sinusoid confined by a Gaussian envelope, $\psi(t)=\pi^{-1/4}
e^{i(2\pi f_0 t)}e^{-t^2/2}$, with $2\pi f_0=6$ to make each wavelet last for about 4 cycles irrespective of the timescale $t$ for the oscillation. At the QPO frequency of 4 Hz (wavelet scale $a\!=\!0.2427$) the wavelets can resolve signals which last for 1.44 s. Across the QPO width, the wavelet window changes its duration from 1.63 s at 3.5 Hz to 1.14 s at 5 Hz causing a continuous change of frequency resolution from 0.61 Hz to 0.88 Hz, respectively. This gives a better view of the detailed structure of the QPO than the STFT spectrogram, but still limits our view of the detailed composition of the QPO signal to half that of the QPO's FWHM. Nontheless, this is already able to show that the apparently continuous QPO in the STFT result is actually composed of distinct events.

Results from the MP algorithm (Section ) are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. . This is deconvolved using 500 iterations and displayed as energy density (Eq. ). This is equivalent to saying that the signal is approximated by 500 separate Gabor atoms (hereafter the term *atom* will be used interchangeably). Together these account for over 95% of total signal power[^2], or speaking conversely, we can reproduce the entire light curve in 95% based on 500 fitted Gabor atoms (figure not shown). The energy density has been displayed with a linear scale in order to show the time-frequency distribution of the strongest events.

Fig.  shows the detailed structure of the QPO (the 3.5–5 Hz band) derived from each of these techniques. This immediately shows the progressive increase in time–frequency resolution from STFT to wavelet to MP analysis. Since MP algorithm scans the whole stochastic dictionary for the best matching Gabor functions to the signal, we gain a new opportunity to represent the QPO structure by a number of localised periodic functions as defined by Eq. (). The MP map shows that much of the power of the QPO signal in these data is made from 6 to 10 periodic oscillations around 4 Hz, with life-times between 20–60 s. We will return to this result later.

The underlying broadband continuum noise (dominated by the intrinsic variability rather than purely Poisson statistics, see Fig. 1) is also present in all these plots. This appears in the STFT as the gradation of background colour from pale to dark from the bottom (1 Hz) to the top (10 Hz) of Fig. a. In the wavelets, this is seen as pale, random smudges around 1$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}3 Hz (Fig. b), whereas in MP they are very short-lived signals (less than 0.5 s) forming vertical features across the plot.

# Detailed QPO structure from Matching Pursuit

We can quantify the composition of the QPO by showing the distribution of the life-times of 500 Gabor atoms found in the MP decomposition accumulated for ten segments of XTE J1550–564 data in 3.5$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}5 Hz band (Fig. a). These show a continuous distribution of lifetimes, peaked at zero but extending out to the longest timescales sampled by the data. Fig. b shows the distribution of power carried by QPO atoms of each lifetime (sum of atom energy times number of atoms over all the events in the time bin of that duration). By QPO atoms we define these events distributed between 3.7$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}4.7 Hz[^3] and exclude these with a duration below 0.5 s, or with energy which is less than the events in the 2.5$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}3 Hz bandpass (reference red-noise level; see Fig. ) as both of these will predominantly trace the broadband noise.

We found that the largest number of atoms (more than half of the total 500 per data segment) are characterised by a time duration of 0.5$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}3.5 s, but that these together carry only half the energy of the strongest 10 atoms, which have lifetimes of 20$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}60 s (see Fig. c). On the other hand, Fig. b reveals that the majority of QPO power is carried by QPO events with a duration of between 5–10 s.

We now explore to what level the results can distinguish between different models for the broadening of the QPO signal.

## Coherent, single frequency signal with amplitude modulation

Continuous amplitude modulation of a single frequency sinusoid will result in a broad peak in a power spectrum. We simulate this by generating a single sinusoid modulation $y(t)=A\sin(2\pi f_0 t)+C$ over 100 s with sampling time of $\Delta t = 2^{-5}$ s, $f_0=4$ Hz, and a constant value of $C=1.65\times 10^4$ cts s$^{-1}$. The amplitude $A$ is taken as a random variable from the lognormal distribution as fitted to the XTE J1550$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}564's histogram (see Fig. b and Sect.  for details). For $y(t)$ we perform its exponential transformation, namely $\exp[y(t)]$, which accounts for a non-linear type of variability present in X-ray light curves of accreting black-hole systems (Uttley & McHardy 2001; Uttley, McHardy & Vaughan 2005). In this point we ensured the signal would have a zero mean and its variance to be such to obtain (after the above transformation and Poisson noise inclusion) a similar degree of r.m.s. as observed for the entire XTE J1550–564 data sample as well as to match r.m.s. variability in the QPO band (3.5$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}5 Hz).

Fig. a displays a simulated signal, whereas Fig. b reveals the wavelet power spectrum. The spectrum is similar to the XTE J1550–564 wavelet map, but the MP decomposition is clearly different to that in Fig. c. The first iteration returned a $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}85 s long Gabor atom exactly at a frequency equal to the assumed $f_0$, carrying about 85% of the signal energy and dominating over the rest of the fitted atoms.

Therefore the MP decomposition clearly rules out a QPO signal formed solely from amplitude modulation as the real data cleanly show multiple strong Gabor atoms with frequencies between 3.7–4.7 Hz.

## Coherent chirp signal with amplitude modulation

Physical models for the QPO involving blobs spiralling inwards should produce a monotonically increasing frequency signal, otherwise known as a chirp (e.g. Turner et al. 2006; Mhlahlo et al. 2007).

We repeate the experiment above, but with a chirp signal where $y(t)=A\sin[2\pi f(t) t]+C$ and $f$ changes continuously between 3.9 and 4.2 Hz. Fig.  shows that again the amplitude modulation can be easily captured in the wavelet map, but it leaves no impact on frequency. In MP map, the continuously changing frequency is fitted with separate atoms (see Sect.  for more details on Fig. c construction) which trace the drift. The lifetimes of the individual atoms are around 10–20 s and show that the data can distinguish between frequencies separated by $\sim 0.03-0.06$ Hz, i.e. approximately an order of magnitude better than the wavelet technique at these frequencies.

Again, this MP map is quite unlike that of the real data shown in Fig. c.

## Short lifetime, random amplitude signals

The tests described above clearly show that the QPO signal in the data is not given by a single frequency. There are multiple frequencies present in the dataset, but these frequencies do not show any systematic, long timescale trend such as a chirp.

This seems to fit most easily into a picture where the QPO is composed of separate events with shape rather similar to that of the Gabor atom i.e. a single frequency lasting for some timescale $t_{\rm qpo}$ which varies. This would fit quite well into models where the QPO can be randomly excited by turbulence, and last for some timescale before getting damped out. The specific LF QPO model of Ingram et al. (2009) has a vertical, Lense-Thirring precession of the hot inner flow. This will be damped on a viscous timescale, which is of an order $\sim 3$ s for typical parameters.

Here, we approximate this physical picture by assuming that $t_{\rm qpo}$ varies uniformly between $(0,3]$ s and that after each QPO event there is a waiting time of $t_{\rm break}$ randomly distributed in the $(0,2]$ s interval. Therefore the QPO is $\mbox{qpo}(t)=A\sin(2\pi f_0 t + \phi) + C$ where $f_0=4$ Hz and a phase is randomised for every new QPO. As previously, we assume the amplitude to be a random variable, however this time drawn from the exponential distribution, $$f(x; \mu) = \frac{1}{\mu} \exp\left(-\frac{x}{\mu}\right) ,$$ fitted to the histogram of amplitudes derived for QPO atoms (3.7$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}4.7 Hz) from the XTE J1550$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}564 data, where we obtain $\mu=2692^{+245}_{-217}$ at the 99% confidence level (Fig. ). During the breaks we approximate signal value by a random variable drawn from lognormal distribution and we follow the signal transformation as described in Sect. .

The above construction of simulated signal allows us to account for a general countrate distribution to resemble that in XTE 1550$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}564 light curve as well as to approximate more adequately the amplitudes of simulated quasi-periodic events. Fig. a displays an examplary 100 s signal obtained in the above manner. During the simulation we assumed the r.m.s. variability in 3.5$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}5 Hz band to match closely 12% as derived from the XTE J1550$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}564 data. In Fig.  we compare both Fourier power spectra, i.e. for the X-ray source and simulated signal (here taken to be 1000 s long). The plots indicate on very good qualitative agreement between the original and simulated QPO feature in the frequency domain, though it is straighforward to note that our simulation does not correctly reproduce broad-band red-noise variability as observed in XTE J1550$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}564.

Encouraged by the above agreement, we zoom in on the internal structure of our simulation by performing wavelet and Matching Pursuit analysis as previously (Fig. ), and we find that both maps provide the results which look very similar to that from the real data (cf. Fig. b and c).

More quantitatively, Fig.  shows that the distributions of atom lifetimes and energies are also remarkably well matched by the simulation. Even though the signal is made from separate oscillations with life-time of less than 3 s, an MP decomposition displays a number of longer lasting atoms, e.g. of lifetimes between 40$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}80 s. Since this issue requires a better understanding, we examined the MP response to the set of various test signals containing different noise levels, amplitude distribution, variable frequency and/or constant phase for separate qpo$(t)$ events. In conclusion, we have noticed that the longer lasting atoms can be fitted to the data by an MP algorithm making use of an *atom concatenation* process. In this case, a number of shorter lasting oscillations characterized by very similar phase and frequency (not amplitude!) can be linked together into one longer atom. Therefore, e.g. a 60 s long atom can describe, say, three to five $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}3 s oscillations, and our inability to distinguish among them refers to the limited time-frequency resolution of the Matching Pursuit algorithm.

Similarly, while the simulation has only one constant frequency signal, there is a spread in frequency in the MP decomposition which matches that seen in the data.

The low-frequency QPO seen in the real data can be well described by a signal which consists of random, discrete events at a single frequency, with a spread in lifetime and amplitude.

# Discussion and Conclusion

Quasi-periodic oscillations observed in the power spectra of many accreting compact objects still remain the most intriguing puzzle. Since high-frequency QPOs are generally thought as the most attractive landmark feature used in testing the behaviour of matter in the very strong gravitational field (e.g. Kluzniak & Abramowicz 2001; Rebusco & Abramowicz 2006), on the contrary, the low-frequency QPOs have been found to be more enigmatic in their nature (Casella et al. 2006). For the latter, a quantitative analysis has been a dominant tool towards our comprehension of the global QPO properties (e.g. Cui et al. 1999; Sobczak et al. 2000).

The presence of broad peaks in the Fourier power spectra fitted with Lorentzian profiles suggests a possible mechanism of X-ray engine at work: damping of locally emitted radiation at the very short time-scales (e.g. Misra & Zdziarski 2008). The position of QPO peak frequency varies in time, generally being drifting between 0.1$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}10 Hz (van der Klis 2005, 2006). It has been suggested it may be correlated with both underlying geometry of the inner flow, and accretion rate, thus with the spectral state of the source (e.g. Di Matteo & Psaltis 1999; Dutta et al. 2008; Qu et al. 2010). The r.m.s. variability of LF QPOs is also significant and in some cases exceeds 10%.

The successful modelling of this QPO phenomena requires a sophisticated approach which would include acceptable model's results not only in the reproductions of the light curve and Fourier PSD, but also in providing an agreement in a function of energy (e.g. Sobolewska Życki 2006). Such attempts have been so far conducted on many occassions (e.g. Giannios & Spruit 2004; Machida et al. 2006; Machida & Matsumoto 2008). Fundamental and dynamical Fourier analysis of X-ray light curves gained a leading position in spoting the existence and evolution of QPOs (e.g. Galleani et al. 2001; Pottschmidt et al. 2003; Barret et al. 2005) but failed in delivering the satisfactory answer on the physical structure due to insufficient resolution. On the hand, the application of new time-frequency methods for X-ray time-series analysis (e.g. by wavelet approach) initiates a novel look at the data and brings an opportunity for testing QPO models in a new space of parameters (e.g. Steiman-Cameron et al. 1997; Parker 1998; Lachowicz & Czerny 2005).

In this paper we have applied the Matching Pursuit method for signal decomposition and shown how MP technique can give much better resolution in the time-frequency plane to study the evolution of the low-frequency QPO seen from black hole binary systems. We have used data from the bright transient systems XTE J1550$-$`<!-- -->`{=html}564 to illustrate this with an observation taken in the very high state (aka the steep power law state) where the QPO is strong and relatively coherent.

The Mathching Pursuit decomposition clearly rules out several potential origins for the broadening of the QPO signal. The 'quasi' nature cannot be due to a single frequency, coherent oscillation with amplitude modulation, nor can it be a long timescale ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}100 s) systematic change in frequency (chirp signal). Instead, it is well matched by a series of discrete oscillations, with life-times between 0–3 s, each with random phase and amplitude but fixed frequency.

Physically, this is consistent with models of the QPO where it is excited by random turbulence. In particular, the Lense-Thirring precession model of Ingram et al. (2009) can fit nicely into this picture, where the vertical precession is excited by the large scale stochastic turbulence generated in the accretion flow. The timescale for decay of the vertical precession should be related to the viscous timescale of the flow. In the Ingram et al. (2009) model, a 4 Hz QPO would be associated with an outer radius of the hot flow of $\sim10R_g$, so should have a viscous timescale of $\sim 2-3$ s for the typical parameters used by Ingram et al. (2009).

The application of Matching Pursuit opens a brand new opportunity for studies of LF QPOs in the time-frequency domain. It encourages for revision of archival data of other BHB which display narrow QPOs in their Fourier power spectra. By increased time-frequency resolution provided by MP it is possible to diferentiate amongst various QPO models, as demonstrated in this paper. Therefore, the Matching Pursuit analysis may bring us much closer towards understanding of the underlying physical properties of the QPO phenomenon.

# Time-Frequency Analysis

## Spectrogram and wavelet analysis

In X-ray time analysis the wavelet transformation constitutes an alternative tool for signal decomposition when confronted with the classical approach based on the Fourier transform (PSD). In the latter, a signal is analysed with the basis functions $\psi \propto e^{{\rm i}ft}$. It detects strictly periodic modulations (with period of $1/f$) buried in the signal. Therefore, no information about time-frequency properties is available.

A simple solution to this problem has been found via the application of Short-Term Fourier Transform (STFT). Basic concept standing for this method is to divide signal into small segments and calculate for each of them Fourier transform. The signal analysis performed using *spectrogram*, i.e. $|$STFT$|^2$ often blurs all signal oscillations of life-times less than the duration of a segment causing a loss of significant information.

The wavelet analysis treats this problem more accurately as a basic concept standing for its usefulness relay on probing time-frequency plane at different frequencies with different resolutions. The wavelet power spectrum for a discrete signal can be defined as the normalised square of the modulus of the wavelet transform $\xi |w_n(a_m)|^2$ where $\xi$ stands for normalisation factor and $w_n(a_m)$ a discrete form of the continuous wavelet transform (Farge 1992; Torrence & Compo 1998; Lachowicz & Czerny 2005). It is attractive to adopt a Morlet wavelet to probe quasi-periodic modulations. Since Morlet wavelet oscillates due to a term $\propto e^{{\rm i}t}$, it is perfectly suited for this task.

## Matching Pursuit algorithm

### Parlez-vous français?

Signal time-frequency analysis can be compared to speaking in a foreign language. In each language we use words. Words are needed to express our thoughts, problems, ideas, etc. By a smart selection of proper words we can say and explain whatever we wish. A whole collection of words can be gathered in the form of a dictionary. One can express simple thoughts using a very limited set of words from a huge dictionary (a subset). The same can be applied to a time-series analysis. In order to describe the signal one needs to use a minimum available set of functions – orthonormal basis functions.

Description of the signal $x_n$ which uses only basis functions $g_n$ $(n=1,...,N')$ is therefore limited. This is often the case with wavelet transform. In order to improve signal description, one can increase the size of a basic dictionary by adding extra functions. Such a dictionary's enlargement introduces a *redundancy* what is a natural property of all, for instance, foreign languages. The most reliable signal description can be achieved by a signal approximation: $$x \approx \sum_{n=1}^{M<N'} a_{\gamma,n} g_{\gamma,n}$$ where coefficients $a_{\gamma,n}$ are defined simply as the inner products of basis functions $g_{\gamma,n}$ with a signal: $$\langle x, g_{\gamma,n} \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^\infty x(t) g_{\gamma}(t) dt
 \approx \sum_{n=1}^{M<N'} x_n g_{\gamma,n}$$ and $\gamma$ refers to a set of parameters of function $g$.

In each approximation, a relatively small number of functions is generally required. For each case the signal is projected onto a set of basis functions, therefore, in other words, its representation is always fixed. However, what if one may approach the signal decomposition problem from the other side, i.e. to fit the singal representation to the signal itself? One can achieve it by choosing from a huge dictionary of pre-defined functions a subset of functions which would best represent the signal. Such solution had been proposed by Mallat & Zhang (1993) and is known under the name of *Matching Pursuit* algorithm.

### Algorithm

Matching Pursuit (MP) is an iterative procedure which allows to choose from a given, redundant dictionary $D$, where $D=\lbrace g_1, g_2,...,g_n\rbrace$ such that $||g_i||\!=\!1$, a set of $m$ functions $\lbrace g_i\rbrace_{m<n}$ which match the signal as well as possible. $D$ is defined as a family (not a basis) of time-frequency waveforms that can be obtained by time-shifting, scaling and, what is new comparing to wavelet transform, modulating of a single even function $g\in L^2(\Re)$; $\Vert g \Vert=1$; $$g_\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{a}} g\left(\frac{t-b}{a}\right) e^{i f t}$$ where an index $\gamma$ refers to a set of parameters: $$\gamma=\lbrace a,b,f \rbrace .
\label{mupar}$$ Each element of the dictionary is called an *atom* and usually is defined by a Gabor function, i.e. a Gaussian function modulated by a cosine of frequency $f$: $$g_\gamma(t)\!=\!K_\gamma(t) G_\gamma(t)\! =\!
 K_\gamma(t)
         \exp\left[-\pi\left(\frac{t-b}{a}\right)^2\right]
         \cos\left( 2\pi ft + \phi \right)
\label{gabor}$$ where $$K_\gamma(t) = \left( {\sum_{t=-\infty}^\infty G_\gamma(t)^2} \right)^{-1/2}$$ and $a$ denotes the atom's scale (duration; in this paper also referred to as *atom's life-time*) and $b$ – time position. A selection of Gabor functions for purposes of MP method is fairly done as they provide optimal joint time-frequency localisation (e.g. Mallat & Zhang 1993; Cohen 1995; Flandrin 1999).

In the first step of MP algorithm, a function $g_{\gamma,1}$ is chosen from $D$ which matches the signal $x$ best. In practice it simply means that a whole dictionary $D$ is scanned for such $g_{\gamma,1}$ for which a scalar product $|\langle x,g_{\gamma,1}\rangle|\in\Re$ is as large as possible. Therefore, a signal can be decomposed into: $$x = \langle x,g_{\gamma,1}\rangle g_{\gamma,1} + R^1x$$ where a $R^1x$, a residual signal, has been denoted. In the next step, instead of $x$, the remaining signal $R^1x$ is decomposed by finding a new function, $g_{\gamma,2}$, which matches $R^1x$ best. Such consecutive steps can be repeated $p$ times where $p$ is a given, maximum number of iterations for signal decomposition. In short, MP procedure can be denoted as: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
        R^0x = x\\
        R^ix = \langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle g_{\gamma,i} +
                R^{i+1}x \\
        g_{\gamma,i} = \arg\max_{g_{\gamma,i'}\in D}
                |\langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i'}\rangle| .
          \end{array}
      \right.
\label{induc}$$ Davis et al. (1994) showed that for $x\in H$ the residual term $R^ix$ defined by the induction equation () satisfies: $$\lim_{i\rightarrow +\infty} \Vert R^ix\Vert = 0$$ i.e., when $H$ is of finite dimension, $\Vert R^ix\Vert$ decays to zero. Hence, for a complete dictionary $D$, the Matching Pursuit procedure converges to $x$: $$x = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle g_{\gamma,i}
\label{mpxt}$$ where orthogonality of $R^{i+1}x$ and $g_{\gamma,i}$ in each step implies energy conservation: $$\begin{array}{ll}
  \Vert x \Vert^2\! & =
                           \sum_{i=0}^{p-1}
                           |\langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle|^2
                           + \Vert R^px\Vert^2 \\
                       & = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}
                           |\langle
                           R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle|^2 \ .
    \end{array}
\label{engcon}$$

### Time-frequency representation

From () one can derive a time-frequency distribution of signal's energy by adding a Wigner-Ville distribution of selected atoms $g_\gamma$: $$\begin{array}{ll}
  (Wx)(t,f) & = \sum_{i=0}^\infty |\langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle|^2
                  (Wg_{\gamma,i})(t,f) + \\
              &   \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0,j\ne i}^\infty
                  \langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle
                  \langle R^jx,g_{\gamma,j}\rangle^\ast \ \ \times \\ \nonumber
          &   \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \ \
              (W[g_{\gamma,i},g_{\gamma,j}])(t,f)
\end{array}$$ The double sum present in the above equation corresponds to cross-terms present in the Wigner-Ville distribution. In MP approach, one allows to remove these terms directly in order to obtain a clear picture of signal energy distribution in the time-frequency plane $(t,f)$. Thanks to that, *energy density* of $x$ can be defined as follows: $$(Ex)(t,f) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty
                 |\langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle|^2
         (Wg_{\gamma,i})(t,f) .
\label{mpeng}$$ Since Wigner-Ville distribution of a single time-frequency atom $g_\gamma$ satisfies: $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
   (Wg_{\gamma,i})(t,f) dt df = \Vert g_\gamma \Vert^2 = 1
\label{wvone}$$ thus combining () with energy conservation of the MP expansion () yields: $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
   (Ex)(t,f) dt df = \Vert x \Vert^2$$ what justifies interpretation of $(Ex)(t,f)$ as the energy density of signal $x$ in the time-frequency plane.

In practical computation of MP algorithm, sampling of a discrete signal of length $N=2^L$ is governed by an additional parameter $j$: an octave (Mallat & Zhang 1993). The scale $a$ corresponding to an atom's scale is derived from a dyadic sequence of $a=2^j, 0\le j\le L$. Thus, parameters $b$ and $f$, corresponding to atom's position in time and frequency, respectively. By *resolution* in the MP one may understand the distance between centres of atoms neighboring in time or in frequency. A dyadic sampling pattern proposed by Mallat & Zhang has been found to suffer from a statistical bias introduced in the atom parametrisation (). Durka et al. (2001) proposed a solution to this problem by application of *stochastic dictionaries*. In this approach the parameters of dictionary's waveforms are randomised before each decomposition by drawing their values from continuous ranges.

In this paper in all time-series analyses with MP method, we decompose signal in 500 iterations using, if not otherwise stated, stochastic dictionaries composed of $3\times 10^6$ atoms. By the term *strongest atoms* we will refer to these Gabor atoms for which the calculated inner product with a signal has been largest (in practice it refers to the atoms fitted within first 1–10 iterations).

### Number of MP decompositions for a single signal

Durka et al. (2001) pointed at a significant aspect of Matching Pursuit method: an ability to represent signals with continuously changing frequency. In the standard approach one aims at calculation of a *single* MP decomposition for a given signal using a large redundant dictionary of pre-defined functions (e.g. $3\times 10^6$ atoms). When the signal contains continuously changing frequency in time a single MP decomposition will provide energy density plot to be composed of a number of single Gabor atoms. Therefore, such a view remains far different from expectations (see exemplary illustration in Durka et al. 2001, 2007).

On the way of experiments Durka et al. (2001) discovered that by introduction of stochastic dictionaries and averaging a larger number, say 100, of the MP energy density plots together one can uncover continuously changing signal frequency. The trick is to use for every MP decomposition performed for the same signal a new stochastic dictionary and of much smaller size, e.g. composed of $5\times 10^4$ atoms only. It has been applied by us in order to create Fig. c.

In this paper we have checked that for all our data segments the MP results are insensitive to the way of MP computation, i.e. irrespective of the dictionary size used and the application of aforementioned MP map averaging process. In this way, we are able to exclude a scenario in which QPOs are being generated due to long timescale oscillations of continuously changing frequency (see Section  for details).

[^1]: We select a 1.44 s window size to allow for a better comparison of the time-frequency QPO structure resolution between the spectrogram and the wavelet analysis at a frequency of 4 Hz.

[^2]: Before each MP decomposition we normalise the signal to have unit energy. Signal energy carried by a single Gabor atom (also referred to as an *atom energy*) is $|\langle R^ix,g_{\gamma,i}\rangle|^2$ and the sum over all atoms (Eq. ) tends to unity.

[^3]: The frequency interval of a width corresponding to the QPO's full width at half maximum.