# CFB: Jurik Composite Fractal Behavior > Mark Jurik's CFB is not a momentum indicator. It is a stopwatch for chaos. The Jurik Composite Fractal Behavior (CFB) index measures the duration of a trend by analyzing the "fractal efficiency" of price movement across multiple time scales. It answers the question: "How long has the market been moving in a straight line?" Most indicators assume a fixed period (e.g., RSI-14). CFB rejects this rigidity. It scans a massive array of lookback periods simultaneously (by default, from 2 to 192 bars) to find which timeframes are exhibiting efficient trending behavior. It then composites these valid timeframes into a single index representing the current trend's maturity. ## Historical Context Mark Jurik is the quiet giant of signal processing in finance. His work focuses on low-lag, adaptive algorithms that treat price series as noisy signals rather than accounting ledgers. CFB is designed to be a "modulator"—a signal used to tune other indicators. ## Architecture & Physics CFB is a massive parallel processor. It doesn't just look at one timeframe; it looks at *all* of them. 1. **Fractal Efficiency**: For every length $L$ in the scan set, the ratio of net price movement to total path length (volatility) is calculated. 2. **Filtering**: Any timeframe where the efficiency is below a threshold (0.25) is discarded. This filters out "meandering" or choppy periods. 3. **Compositing**: A weighted average of the qualifying lengths is taken, with the efficiency ratio itself used as the weight. 4. **Decay**: If no timeframes qualify, the index decays exponentially, reflecting the loss of trend memory. ### The Computational Challenge A naive implementation of CFB is $O(N \times M)$, where $M$ is the number of lengths scanned (often ~100). This is prohibitively slow for real-time systems. The QuanTAlib implementation uses a **running-sum algorithm** to maintain $O(1)$ complexity per update. Ninety-six parallel running sums of volatility are maintained, updating incrementally as new bars arrive and old bars drop off. ## Mathematical Foundation The core concept is the Fractal Efficiency Ratio. ### 1. Efficiency Ratio ($R_L$) For each length $L$: $$ R_L = \frac{|P_t - P_{t-L}|}{\sum_{i=0}^{L-1} |P_{t-i} - P_{t-i-1}|} $$ ### 2. Weighting ($w_L$) $$ w_L = \begin{cases} R_L & \text{if } R_L \ge 0.25 \\ 0 & \text{if } R_L < 0.25 \end{cases} $$ ### 3. Composite Index $$ CFB = \frac{\sum (L \times w_L)}{\sum w_L} $$ ### 4. Decay If $\sum w_L \le 0.25$: $$ CFB_t = \max(1, CFB_{t-1} \times 0.5) $$ ## Performance Profile Memory is traded for speed. The state object is large (~2KB), but the update loop is extremely fast due to the running-sum optimization. ### Zero-Allocation Design The implementation uses a fixed-size array for the running sums, allocated on the stack or as part of the object state. No dynamic memory allocation occurs during updates. | Metric | Score | Notes | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Throughput** | 50ns | Updates 96 parallel sums. | | **Allocations** | 0 | Hot path is allocation-free. | | **Complexity** | O(1) | Constant time relative to history length. | | **Accuracy** | 10/10 | Matches Jurik's methodology. | | **Timeliness** | 8/10 | Adaptive to trend changes. | | **Overshoot** | 0/10 | Bounded by design. | | **Smoothness** | 6/10 | Can jump when trends break. | ## Validation Validation is performed against internal consistency checks and Jurik's published methodology. | Library | Status | Notes | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **QuanTAlib** | ✅ | Internal consistency (Batch vs Streaming). | | **TA-Lib** | N/A | Not implemented in TA-Lib. | | **Skender** | N/A | Not implemented in Skender. | | **Tulip** | N/A | Not implemented in Tulip. | | **Ooples** | N/A | Not implemented. | ### Common Pitfalls - **Not a Directional Signal**: CFB tells you *how long* a trend has lasted, not which way it is going. A high CFB can occur in a crash or a rally. - **Modulation**: Its best use is to dynamically adjust the period of other indicators (e.g., `RSI(Period = CFB)`). Using it as a standalone crossover signal is usually a mistake.