Autoregressive model

Last updated

In statistics, econometrics, and signal processing, an autoregressive (AR) model is a representation of a type of random process; as such, it is used to describe certain time-varying processes in nature, economics, behavior, etc. The autoregressive model specifies that the output variable depends linearly on its own previous values and on a stochastic term (an imperfectly predictable term); thus the model is in the form of a stochastic difference equation (or recurrence relation) which should not be confused with a differential equation. Together with the moving-average (MA) model, it is a special case and key component of the more general autoregressive–moving-average (ARMA) and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models of time series, which have a more complicated stochastic structure; it is also a special case of the vector autoregressive model (VAR), which consists of a system of more than one interlocking stochastic difference equation in more than one evolving random variable.

Contents

Contrary to the moving-average (MA) model, the autoregressive model is not always stationary as it may contain a unit root.

Definition

The notation indicates an autoregressive model of order p. The AR(p) model is defined as

where are the parameters of the model, and is white noise. [1] [2] This can be equivalently written using the backshift operator B as

so that, moving the summation term to the left side and using polynomial notation, we have

An autoregressive model can thus be viewed as the output of an all-pole infinite impulse response filter whose input is white noise.

Some parameter constraints are necessary for the model to remain weak-sense stationary. For example, processes in the AR(1) model with are not stationary. More generally, for an AR(p) model to be weak-sense stationary, the roots of the polynomial must lie outside the unit circle, i.e., each (complex) root must satisfy (see pages 89,92 [3] ).

Intertemporal effect of shocks

In an AR process, a one-time shock affects values of the evolving variable infinitely far into the future. For example, consider the AR(1) model . A non-zero value for at say time t=1 affects by the amount . Then by the AR equation for in terms of , this affects by the amount . Then by the AR equation for in terms of , this affects by the amount . Continuing this process shows that the effect of never ends, although if the process is stationary then the effect diminishes toward zero in the limit.

Because each shock affects X values infinitely far into the future from when they occur, any given value Xt is affected by shocks occurring infinitely far into the past. This can also be seen by rewriting the autoregression

(where the constant term has been suppressed by assuming that the variable has been measured as deviations from its mean) as

When the polynomial division on the right side is carried out, the polynomial in the backshift operator applied to has an infinite order—that is, an infinite number of lagged values of appear on the right side of the equation.

Characteristic polynomial

The autocorrelation function of an AR(p) process can be expressed as [ citation needed ]

where are the roots of the polynomial

where B is the backshift operator, where is the function defining the autoregression, and where are the coefficients in the autoregression. The formula is valid only if all the roots have multiplicity 1.[ citation needed ]

The autocorrelation function of an AR(p) process is a sum of decaying exponentials.

Graphs of AR(p) processes

AR(0); AR(1) with AR parameter 0.3; AR(1) with AR parameter 0.9; AR(2) with AR parameters 0.3 and 0.3; and AR(2) with AR parameters 0.9 and -0.8 ArTimeSeries.svg
AR(0); AR(1) with AR parameter 0.3; AR(1) with AR parameter 0.9; AR(2) with AR parameters 0.3 and 0.3; and AR(2) with AR parameters 0.9 and −0.8

The simplest AR process is AR(0), which has no dependence between the terms. Only the error/innovation/noise term contributes to the output of the process, so in the figure, AR(0) corresponds to white noise.

For an AR(1) process with a positive , only the previous term in the process and the noise term contribute to the output. If is close to 0, then the process still looks like white noise, but as approaches 1, the output gets a larger contribution from the previous term relative to the noise. This results in a "smoothing" or integration of the output, similar to a low pass filter.

For an AR(2) process, the previous two terms and the noise term contribute to the output. If both and are positive, the output will resemble a low pass filter, with the high frequency part of the noise decreased. If is positive while is negative, then the process favors changes in sign between terms of the process. The output oscillates. This can be likened to edge detection or detection of change in direction.

Example: An AR(1) process

An AR(1) process is given by:

where is a white noise process with zero mean and constant variance . (Note: The subscript on has been dropped.) The process is weak-sense stationary if since it is obtained as the output of a stable filter whose input is white noise. (If then the variance of depends on time lag t, so that the variance of the series diverges to infinity as t goes to infinity, and is therefore not weak sense stationary.) Assuming , the mean is identical for all values of t by the very definition of weak sense stationarity. If the mean is denoted by , it follows from

that

and hence

The variance is

where is the standard deviation of . This can be shown by noting that

and then by noticing that the quantity above is a stable fixed point of this relation.

The autocovariance is given by

It can be seen that the autocovariance function decays with a decay time (also called time constant) of . [4]

The spectral density function is the Fourier transform of the autocovariance function. In discrete terms this will be the discrete-time Fourier transform:

This expression is periodic due to the discrete nature of the , which is manifested as the cosine term in the denominator. If we assume that the sampling time () is much smaller than the decay time (), then we can use a continuum approximation to :

which yields a Lorentzian profile for the spectral density:

where is the angular frequency associated with the decay time .

An alternative expression for can be derived by first substituting for in the defining equation. Continuing this process N times yields

For N approaching infinity, will approach zero and:

It is seen that is white noise convolved with the kernel plus the constant mean. If the white noise is a Gaussian process then is also a Gaussian process. In other cases, the central limit theorem indicates that will be approximately normally distributed when is close to one.

For , the process will be a geometric progression (exponential growth or decay). In this case, the solution can be found analytically: whereby is an unknown constant (initial condition).

Explicit mean/difference form of AR(1) process

The AR(1) model is the discrete-time analogy of the continuous Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. It is therefore sometimes useful to understand the properties of the AR(1) model cast in an equivalent form. In this form, the AR(1) model, with process parameter , is given by

, where , is the model mean, and is a white-noise process with zero mean and constant variance .

By rewriting this as and then deriving (by induction) , one can show that

and
.

Choosing the maximum lag

The partial autocorrelation of an AR(p) process equals zero at lags larger than p, so the appropriate maximum lag p is the one after which the partial autocorrelations are all zero.

Calculation of the AR parameters

There are many ways to estimate the coefficients, such as the ordinary least squares procedure or method of moments (through Yule–Walker equations).

The AR(p) model is given by the equation

It is based on parameters where i = 1, ..., p. There is a direct correspondence between these parameters and the covariance function of the process, and this correspondence can be inverted to determine the parameters from the autocorrelation function (which is itself obtained from the covariances). This is done using the Yule–Walker equations.

Yule–Walker equations

The Yule–Walker equations, named for Udny Yule and Gilbert Walker, [5] [6] are the following set of equations. [7]

where m = 0, …, p, yielding p + 1 equations. Here is the autocovariance function of Xt, is the standard deviation of the input noise process, and is the Kronecker delta function.

Because the last part of an individual equation is non-zero only if m = 0, the set of equations can be solved by representing the equations for m > 0 in matrix form, thus getting the equation

which can be solved for all The remaining equation for m = 0 is

which, once are known, can be solved for

An alternative formulation is in terms of the autocorrelation function. The AR parameters are determined by the first p+1 elements of the autocorrelation function. The full autocorrelation function can then be derived by recursively calculating [8]

Examples for some Low-order AR(p) processes

Estimation of AR parameters

The above equations (the Yule–Walker equations) provide several routes to estimating the parameters of an AR(p) model, by replacing the theoretical covariances with estimated values. [9] Some of these variants can be described as follows:

Here predicted values of Xt would be based on the p future values of the same series.[ clarification needed ] This way of estimating the AR parameters is due to John Parker Burg, [10] and is called the Burg method: [11] Burg and later authors called these particular estimates "maximum entropy estimates", [12] but the reasoning behind this applies to the use of any set of estimated AR parameters. Compared to the estimation scheme using only the forward prediction equations, different estimates of the autocovariances are produced, and the estimates have different stability properties. Burg estimates are particularly associated with maximum entropy spectral estimation. [13]

Other possible approaches to estimation include maximum likelihood estimation. Two distinct variants of maximum likelihood are available: in one (broadly equivalent to the forward prediction least squares scheme) the likelihood function considered is that corresponding to the conditional distribution of later values in the series given the initial p values in the series; in the second, the likelihood function considered is that corresponding to the unconditional joint distribution of all the values in the observed series. Substantial differences in the results of these approaches can occur if the observed series is short, or if the process is close to non-stationarity.

Spectrum

AutocorrTimeAr.svg
AutoCorrAR.svg

The power spectral density (PSD) of an AR(p) process with noise variance is [8]

AR(0)

For white noise (AR(0))

AR(1)

For AR(1)

AR(2)

The behavior of an AR(2) process is determined entirely by the roots of it characteristic equation, which is expressed in terms of the lag operator as:


or equivalently by the poles of its transfer function, which is defined in the Z domain by:

It follows that the poles are values of z satisfying:

,

which yields:

.

and are the reciprocals of the characteristic roots, as well as the eigenvalues of the temporal update matrix:


AR(2) processes can be split into three groups depending on the characteristics of their roots/poles:

with bandwidth about the peak inversely proportional to the moduli of the poles:

The terms involving square roots are all real in the case of complex poles since they exist only when .

Otherwise the process has real roots, and:

The process is non-stationary when the poles are on or outside the unit circle, or equivalently when the characteristic roots are on or inside the unit circle. The process is stable when the poles are strictly within the unit circle (roots strictly outside the unit circle), or equivalently when the coefficients are in the triangle .

The full PSD function can be expressed in real form as:

Implementations in statistics packages

Impulse response

The impulse response of a system is the change in an evolving variable in response to a change in the value of a shock term k periods earlier, as a function of k. Since the AR model is a special case of the vector autoregressive model, the computation of the impulse response in vector autoregression#impulse response applies here.

n-step-ahead forecasting

Once the parameters of the autoregression

have been estimated, the autoregression can be used to forecast an arbitrary number of periods into the future. First use t to refer to the first period for which data is not yet available; substitute the known preceding values Xt-i for i=1, ..., p into the autoregressive equation while setting the error term equal to zero (because we forecast Xt to equal its expected value, and the expected value of the unobserved error term is zero). The output of the autoregressive equation is the forecast for the first unobserved period. Next, use t to refer to the next period for which data is not yet available; again the autoregressive equation is used to make the forecast, with one difference: the value of X one period prior to the one now being forecast is not known, so its expected value—the predicted value arising from the previous forecasting step—is used instead. Then for future periods the same procedure is used, each time using one more forecast value on the right side of the predictive equation until, after p predictions, all p right-side values are predicted values from preceding steps.

There are four sources of uncertainty regarding predictions obtained in this manner: (1) uncertainty as to whether the autoregressive model is the correct model; (2) uncertainty about the accuracy of the forecasted values that are used as lagged values in the right side of the autoregressive equation; (3) uncertainty about the true values of the autoregressive coefficients; and (4) uncertainty about the value of the error term for the period being predicted. Each of the last three can be quantified and combined to give a confidence interval for the n-step-ahead predictions; the confidence interval will become wider as n increases because of the use of an increasing number of estimated values for the right-side variables.

See also

Notes

  1. Box, George E. P. (1994). Time series analysis : forecasting and control. Gwilym M. Jenkins, Gregory C. Reinsel (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. p. 54. ISBN   0-13-060774-6. OCLC   28888762.
  2. Shumway, Robert H. (2000). Time series analysis and its applications. David S. Stoffer. New York: Springer. pp. 90–91. ISBN   0-387-98950-1. OCLC   42392178. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2022-09-03.
  3. Shumway, Robert H.; Stoffer, David (2010). Time series analysis and its applications : with R examples (3rd ed.). Springer. ISBN   978-1441978646.
  4. Lai, Dihui; and Lu, Bingfeng; "Understanding Autoregressive Model for Time Series as a Deterministic Dynamic System" Archived 2023-03-24 at the Wayback Machine , in Predictive Analytics and Futurism, June 2017, number 15, June 2017, pages 7-9
  5. Yule, G. Udny (1927) "On a Method of Investigating Periodicities in Disturbed Series, with Special Reference to Wolfer's Sunspot Numbers" Archived 2011-05-14 at the Wayback Machine , Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Ser. A, Vol. 226, 267–298.]
  6. Walker, Gilbert (1931) "On Periodicity in Series of Related Terms" Archived 2011-06-07 at the Wayback Machine , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Ser. A, Vol. 131, 518–532.
  7. Theodoridis, Sergios (2015-04-10). "Chapter 1. Probability and Stochastic Processes". Machine Learning: A Bayesian and Optimization Perspective. Academic Press, 2015. pp. 9–51. ISBN   978-0-12-801522-3.
  8. 1 2 Von Storch, Hans; Zwiers, Francis W. (2001). Statistical analysis in climate research. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511612336. ISBN   0-521-01230-9.[ page needed ]
  9. Eshel, Gidon. "The Yule Walker Equations for the AR Coefficients" (PDF). stat.wharton.upenn.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2019-01-27.
  10. Burg, John Parker (1968); "A new analysis technique for time series data", in Modern Spectrum Analysis (Edited by D. G. Childers), NATO Advanced Study Institute of Signal Processing with emphasis on Underwater Acoustics. IEEE Press, New York.
  11. Brockwell, Peter J.; Dahlhaus, Rainer; Trindade, A. Alexandre (2005). "Modified Burg Algorithms for Multivariate Subset Autoregression" (PDF). Statistica Sinica. 15: 197–213. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-21.
  12. Burg, John Parker (1967) "Maximum Entropy Spectral Analysis", Proceedings of the 37th Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  13. Bos, Robert; De Waele, Stijn; Broersen, Piet M. T. (2002). "Autoregressive spectral estimation by application of the Burg algorithm to irregularly sampled data". IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement. 51 (6): 1289. Bibcode:2002ITIM...51.1289B. doi:10.1109/TIM.2002.808031. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2019-12-11.
  14. "Fit Autoregressive Models to Time Series" Archived 2016-01-28 at the Wayback Machine (in R)
  15. Stoffer, David; Poison, Nicky (2023-01-09), astsa: Applied Statistical Time Series Analysis , retrieved 2023-08-20
  16. "Econometrics Toolbox". www.mathworks.com. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2022-02-16.
  17. "System Identification Toolbox". www.mathworks.com. Archived from the original on 2022-02-16. Retrieved 2022-02-16.
  18. "Autoregressive Model - MATLAB & Simulink". www.mathworks.com. Archived from the original on 2022-02-16. Retrieved 2022-02-16.
  19. "The Time Series Analysis (TSA) toolbox for Octave and Matlab®". pub.ist.ac.at. Archived from the original on 2012-05-11. Retrieved 2012-04-03.
  20. "christophmark/bayesloop". December 7, 2021. Archived from the original on September 28, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2018 via GitHub.
  21. "statsmodels.tsa.ar_model.AutoReg — statsmodels 0.12.2 documentation". www.statsmodels.org. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-04-29.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fermat's spiral</span> Spiral that surrounds equal area per turn

A Fermat's spiral or parabolic spiral is a plane curve with the property that the area between any two consecutive full turns around the spiral is invariant. As a result, the distance between turns grows in inverse proportion to their distance from the spiral center, contrasting with the Archimedean spiral and the logarithmic spiral. Fermat spirals are named after Pierre de Fermat.

The sine-Gordon equation is a nonlinear hyperbolic partial differential equation for a function dependent on two variables typically denoted and , involving the wave operator and the sine of .

In econometrics, the autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH) model is a statistical model for time series data that describes the variance of the current error term or innovation as a function of the actual sizes of the previous time periods' error terms; often the variance is related to the squares of the previous innovations. The ARCH model is appropriate when the error variance in a time series follows an autoregressive (AR) model; if an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model is assumed for the error variance, the model is a generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model.

Geometrical optics, or ray optics, is a model of optics that describes light propagation in terms of rays. The ray in geometrical optics is an abstraction useful for approximating the paths along which light propagates under certain circumstances.

In the statistical analysis of time series, autoregressive–moving-average (ARMA) models provide a parsimonious description of a (weakly) stationary stochastic process in terms of two polynomials, one for the autoregression (AR) and the second for the moving average (MA). The general ARMA model was described in the 1951 thesis of Peter Whittle, Hypothesis testing in time series analysis, and it was popularized in the 1970 book by George E. P. Box and Gwilym Jenkins.

In quantum field theory, a quartic interaction is a type of self-interaction in a scalar field. Other types of quartic interactions may be found under the topic of four-fermion interactions. A classical free scalar field satisfies the Klein–Gordon equation. If a scalar field is denoted , a quartic interaction is represented by adding a potential energy term to the Lagrangian density. The coupling constant is dimensionless in 4-dimensional spacetime.

In time series analysis, the lag operator (L) or backshift operator (B) operates on an element of a time series to produce the previous element. For example, given some time series

In statistics and econometrics, and in particular in time series analysis, an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model is a generalization of an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model. To better comprehend the data or to forecast upcoming series points, both of these models are fitted to time series data. ARIMA models are applied in some cases where data show evidence of non-stationarity in the sense of mean, where an initial differencing step can be applied one or more times to eliminate the non-stationarity of the mean function. When the seasonality shows in a time series, the seasonal-differencing could be applied to eliminate the seasonal component. Since the ARMA model, according to the Wold's decomposition theorem, is theoretically sufficient to describe a regular wide-sense stationary time series, we are motivated to make stationary a non-stationary time series, e.g., by using differencing, before we can use the ARMA model. Note that if the time series contains a predictable sub-process, the predictable component is treated as a non-zero-mean but periodic component in the ARIMA framework so that it is eliminated by the seasonal differencing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debye–Hückel equation</span> Electrochemical equation

The chemists Peter Debye and Erich Hückel noticed that solutions that contain ionic solutes do not behave ideally even at very low concentrations. So, while the concentration of the solutes is fundamental to the calculation of the dynamics of a solution, they theorized that an extra factor that they termed gamma is necessary to the calculation of the activities of the solution. Hence they developed the Debye–Hückel equation and Debye–Hückel limiting law. The activity is only proportional to the concentration and is altered by a factor known as the activity coefficient . This factor takes into account the interaction energy of ions in solution.

In probability theory and statistics, a unit root is a feature of some stochastic processes that can cause problems in statistical inference involving time series models. A linear stochastic process has a unit root if 1 is a root of the process's characteristic equation. Such a process is non-stationary but does not always have a trend.

In statistics, Self-Exciting Threshold AutoRegressive (SETAR) models are typically applied to time series data as an extension of autoregressive models, in order to allow for higher degree of flexibility in model parameters through a regime switching behaviour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">STAR model</span>

In statistics, Smooth Transition Autoregressive (STAR) models are typically applied to time series data as an extension of autoregressive models, in order to allow for higher degree of flexibility in model parameters through a smooth transition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field</span> Formulations of electromagnetism

There are various mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field that are used in the study of electromagnetism, one of the four fundamental interactions of nature. In this article, several approaches are discussed, although the equations are in terms of electric and magnetic fields, potentials, and charges with currents, generally speaking.

In time series analysis, the moving-average model, also known as moving-average process, is a common approach for modeling univariate time series. The moving-average model specifies that the output variable is cross-correlated with a non-identical to itself random-variable.

In mathematics, the Butcher group, named after the New Zealand mathematician John C. Butcher by Hairer & Wanner (1974), is an infinite-dimensional Lie group first introduced in numerical analysis to study solutions of non-linear ordinary differential equations by the Runge–Kutta method. It arose from an algebraic formalism involving rooted trees that provides formal power series solutions of the differential equation modeling the flow of a vector field. It was Cayley (1857), prompted by the work of Sylvester on change of variables in differential calculus, who first noted that the derivatives of a composition of functions can be conveniently expressed in terms of rooted trees and their combinatorics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Errors-in-variables models</span> Regression models accounting for possible errors in independent variables

In statistics, errors-in-variables models or measurement error models are regression models that account for measurement errors in the independent variables. In contrast, standard regression models assume that those regressors have been measured exactly, or observed without error; as such, those models account only for errors in the dependent variables, or responses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uflyand-Mindlin plate theory</span>

The Uflyand-Mindlin theory of vibrating plates is an extension of Kirchhoff–Love plate theory that takes into account shear deformations through-the-thickness of a plate. The theory was proposed in 1948 by Yakov Solomonovich Uflyand (1916-1991) and in 1951 by Raymond Mindlin with Mindlin making reference to Uflyand's work. Hence, this theory has to be referred to as Uflyand-Mindlin plate theory, as is done in the handbook by Elishakoff, and in papers by Andronov, Elishakoff, Hache and Challamel, Loktev, Rossikhin and Shitikova and Wojnar. In 1994, Elishakoff suggested to neglect the fourth-order time derivative in Uflyand-Mindlin equations. A similar, but not identical, theory in static setting, had been proposed earlier by Eric Reissner in 1945. Both theories are intended for thick plates in which the normal to the mid-surface remains straight but not necessarily perpendicular to the mid-surface. The Uflyand-Mindlin theory is used to calculate the deformations and stresses in a plate whose thickness is of the order of one tenth the planar dimensions while the Kirchhoff–Love theory is applicable to thinner plates.

The Onsager–Machlup function is a function that summarizes the dynamics of a continuous stochastic process. It is used to define a probability density for a stochastic process, and it is similar to the Lagrangian of a dynamical system. It is named after Lars Onsager and Stefan Machlup who were the first to consider such probability densities.

Computational anatomy (CA) is the study of shape and form in medical imaging. The study of deformable shapes in computational anatomy rely on high-dimensional diffeomorphism groups which generate orbits of the form . In CA, this orbit is in general considered a smooth Riemannian manifold since at every point of the manifold there is an inner product inducing the norm on the tangent space that varies smoothly from point to point in the manifold of shapes . This is generated by viewing the group of diffeomorphisms as a Riemannian manifold with , associated to the tangent space at . This induces the norm and metric on the orbit under the action from the group of diffeomorphisms.

In representation theory of mathematics, the Waldspurger formula relates the special values of two L-functions of two related admissible irreducible representations. Let k be the base field, f be an automorphic form over k, π be the representation associated via the Jacquet–Langlands correspondence with f. Goro Shimura (1976) proved this formula, when and f is a cusp form; Günter Harder made the same discovery at the same time in an unpublished paper. Marie-France Vignéras (1980) proved this formula, when and f is a newform. Jean-Loup Waldspurger, for whom the formula is named, reproved and generalized the result of Vignéras in 1985 via a totally different method which was widely used thereafter by mathematicians to prove similar formulas.

References