Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Suppose that \(Y_{1}, \ldots, Y_{n}\) are taken from an AR(1) process with innovation variance \(\sigma^{2}\) and correlation parameter \(\rho\) such that \(|\rho|<1\). Show that $$ \operatorname{var}(\bar{Y})=\frac{\sigma^{2}}{n^{2}\left(1-\rho^{2}\right)}\left\\{n+2 \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(n-j) \rho^{j}\right\\} $$ and deduce that as \(n \rightarrow \infty\) for any fixed \(\rho, n \operatorname{var}(\bar{Y}) \rightarrow \sigma^{2} /(1-\rho)^{2}\). What happens when \(|\rho|=1 ?\) Discuss estimation of \(\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y})\) based on \((n-1)^{-1} \sum\left(Y_{j}-\bar{Y}\right)^{2}\) and an estimate \(\widehat{\rho}\).

Short Answer

Expert verified
As \(n \to \infty\), \(n \operatorname{var}(\bar{Y}) \to \sigma^2/(1-\rho)^2\). If \(|\rho|=1\), variance is infinite due to non-stationarity.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the AR(1) process

An AR(1) process is defined as \(Y_t = \rho Y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t\), where \(\epsilon_t\) are i.i.d. errors with variance \(\sigma^2\) and \(|\rho|<1\). Each \(Y_t\) is correlated with \(Y_{t-1}\) and has a variance that needs to be calculated over the mean of the process.
02

Calculating variance of the mean

The variance of the mean is given by \(\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y}) = \operatorname{var}\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} Y_i\right)\). Since the \(Y_i\) form an AR(1) process, we need to consider autocovariances: \(\gamma_j = \operatorname{cov}(Y_t, Y_{t-j}) = \sigma^2 \rho^j / (1-\rho^2)\). Using these, \(\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y})\) is derived by considering all pairs \((i,j)\).
03

Deriving the full expression

Substitute the autocovariances into the formula for variance of the sample mean: \[\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y}) = \frac{1}{n^2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n} \operatorname{cov}(Y_i, Y_j)\right) = \frac{1}{n^2(1-\rho^2)}\left(n\sigma^2 + 2\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(n-j)\sigma^2 \rho^j\right)\]. Simplifying this expression gives the required result.
04

Simplification for large n

As \(n \rightarrow \infty\), the term involving the summation of \(\rho^j\) behaves like a geometric series, which converges to \(\sigma^2 /(1-\rho)\) when \(n\) is large enough. Therefore, the variance of the mean tends to \(\sigma^2 /(1-\rho)^2\).
05

Case of \( |\rho| = 1 \)

When \(|\rho| = 1\), the AR(1) process becomes non-stationary, and the variance of the process does not exist in the usual way. The variance of the sample mean becomes infinite since the autocovariance does not decay, indicating instability.
06

Estimation of \(\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y})\)

The empirical variance is calculated as \((n-1)^{-1}\sum (Y_j - \bar{Y})^2\). This is adjusted for autocorrelation by incorporating an estimate of \(\widehat{\rho}\) into variance calculations. This helps to provide a more accurate measure of variability by acknowledging the correlated nature of the data.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

AR(1) Process
The AR(1) process, short for the "Autoregressive process of order 1", is a foundational concept in time series analysis. It describes a series where each term is influenced by its immediate predecessor, along with a random error term. Formally, the process can be represented as: \[ Y_t = \rho Y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t \] where \(\rho\) is a parameter indicating the degree of influence from the previous term, \(|\rho| < 1\) ensures stability, and \(\epsilon_t\) represents the innovation or error term. This error is often assumed to be normally distributed with mean zero and a constant variance \(\sigma^2\).
  • \(\rho > 0\) suggests a positive correlation between terms.
  • \(\rho < 0\) suggests a negative correlation.
  • \(|\rho| < 1\) ensures that the influence from the initial terms diminishes over time, preventing the accumulation of errors.
Understanding how \(\rho\) impacts the series is key to analyzing and forecasting time series data accurately. When studying AR(1) processes, we primarily focus on how the correlations between consecutive terms affect the overall behavior of the series.
Autocovariance
Autocovariance is crucial in evaluating how elements of a time series relate to each other over different time lags. For an AR(1) process, the autocovariance function helps understand the degree of linear dependence between the terms. Mathematically, the autocovariance \(\gamma_j\) for lag \(j\) can be expressed as:\[ \gamma_j = \frac{\sigma^2 \rho^j}{1-\rho^2} \] This equation tells us several important things:
  • The term \(\rho^j\) reveals how the influence fades with increased lag (\(j\)).
  • The presence of \(\sigma^2\) means that higher innovation variance leads to greater overall variability in the series.
  • The denominator \((1-\rho^2)\) stabilizes the autocovariance, ensuring stationarity when \(|\rho| < 1\).
Autocovariance is not only fundamental in calculating the variance of the sample mean but also in assessing the stationarity of the series. When autocovariances decay to zero, the series is often stationary, ensuring consistent statistical properties over time.
Sample Mean Variance
In a time series, assessing the sample mean's variance can provide insights into the stability and predictability of the process. For AR(1) processes, this is slightly complicated by the autocorrelations between terms.The variance of the sample mean, \(\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y})\), reflects this interconnectedness as:\[ \operatorname{var}(\bar{Y}) = \frac{\sigma^2}{n^2(1-\rho^2)} \left\{ n + 2 \sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(n-j) \rho^j \right\} \] This expression illustrates how individual variances (\(\sigma^2\)) and their correlations (\(\rho^j\)) affect the overall variance of \(\bar{Y}\).
  • As \(n\) becomes large, the variance term simplifies, indicating that with a sufficiently large sample size, \(\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y})\) approximates \(\sigma^2/(1-\rho)^2\).
  • It underscores the diminishing impact of each additional term on the mean as \(n\) grows.
This relationship highlights how AR(1) processes can provide both stable and unstable forecasts, depending heavily on the estimated \(\rho\).
Stationarity
For any time series model, particularly AR(1) processes, stationarity is a critical characteristic that determines its reliability for forecasting and analysis. A time series is stationary if its statistical properties such as mean, variance, and autocovariance are constant over time.In the context of an AR(1) process, stationarity is assured when the absolute value of the correlation parameter alone, \(|\rho| < 1\). When this condition is satisfied:
  • The series has consistent mean and variance over time, making it predictable.
  • Autocovariances decrease to zero as the lag increases, implying a bounded relationship between past and future values.
If \(|\rho| = 1\), the process becomes non-stationary, leading to unbounded variance and making the series unpredictable at any future point. Thus, ensuring stationarity is integral to effective time series modeling, enabling the inference of meaningful insights and accurate forecasting from the model.
Parameter Estimation
Accurate parameter estimation in AR(1) processes is vital for reliable modeling. It involves estimating the correlation parameter \(\rho\) and the innovation variance \(\sigma^2\) using the available data.Techniques commonly employed include:
  • Method of Moments: Utilizing empirical moments to infer parameter values, which can be straightforward but sometimes lacks precision.
  • Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE): A more robust method assuming the data follows a specific distribution, typically normal, giving consistent estimates at the expense of computational complexity.
For practical estimation of \(\operatorname{var}(\bar{Y})\), the empirical variance \((n-1)^{-1}\sum (Y_j - \bar{Y})^2\) needs to be adjusted for autocorrelation by incorporating \(\widehat{\rho}\):\[ \operatorname{adj\_var}(\bar{Y}) = (n-1)^{-1}\sum (Y_j - \bar{Y})^2 + \frac{2\sigma^2}{1-\rho}\]Estimates in AR(1) modeling are crucial for accurate state predictions, signifying how past values influence the current state and providing an empirical basis for future decision-making.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A forensic laboratory assesses if the DNA profile from a specimen found at a crime scene matches the DNA profile of a suspect. The technology is not perfect, as there is a (small) probability \(\rho\) that a match oocurs by chance even if the suspect was not present at the scene, and a (larger) probability \(\gamma\) that a match is reported even if the profiles are different; this can arise due to laboratory error such as cross-contamination or accidental switching of profiles. (a) Let \(R, S\), and \(M\) denotes the events that a match is reported, that the specimen does indeed come from the suspect, and that there is a match between the profiles, and suppose that $$ \operatorname{Pr}(R \mid M \cap S)=\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid M \cap \bar{S})=\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid M)=1, \operatorname{Pr}(\bar{M} \mid S)=0, \operatorname{Pr}(R \mid S)=1 $$ Show that the posterior odds of the profiles matching, given that a match has been reported, depend on $$ \frac{\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid S)}{\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid \bar{S})}=\frac{\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid M \cap S) \operatorname{Pr}(M \mid S)+\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid \bar{M} \cap S) \operatorname{Pr}(\bar{M} \mid S)}{\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid M \cap \bar{S}) \operatorname{Pr}(M \mid \bar{S})+\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid \bar{M} \cap \bar{S}) \operatorname{Pr}(\bar{M} \mid \bar{S})} $$ and establish that this equals \(\\{\rho+\gamma(1-\rho)\\}^{-1}\) (b) Tabulate \(\operatorname{Pr}(R \mid S) / \operatorname{Pr}(R \mid \bar{S})\) when \(\rho=0,10^{-9}, 10^{-6}, 10^{-3}\) and \(\gamma=0,10^{-4}\), \(10^{-3}, 10^{-2}\) (c) At what level of posterior odds would you be willing to convict the suspect, if the only evidence against them was the DNA analysis, and you should only convict if convinced of their guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Would your chosen odds level depend on the likely sentence, if they are found guilty? How does your answer depend on the prior odds of the profiles matching, \(\operatorname{Pr}(S) / \operatorname{Pr}(\bar{S}) ?\)

Two independent samples \(Y_{1}, \ldots, Y_{n} \stackrel{\text { iid }}{\sim} N\left(\mu, \sigma^{2}\right)\) and \(X_{1}, \ldots, X_{m} \stackrel{\text { iid }}{\sim} N\left(\mu, c \sigma^{2}\right)\) are available, where \(c>0\) is known. Find posterior densities for \(\mu\) and \(\sigma\) based on prior \(\pi(\mu, \sigma) \propto 1 / \sigma\).

According to the principle of insufficient reason probabilities should be ascribed uniformly to finite sets unless there is some definite reason to do otherwise. Thus the most natural way to express prior ignorance for a parameter \(\theta\) that inhabits a finite parameter space \(\theta_{1}, \ldots, \theta_{k}\) is to set \(\pi\left(\theta_{1}\right)=\cdots=\pi\left(\theta_{k}\right)=1 / k\). Let \(\pi_{i}=\pi\left(\theta_{i}\right)\). Consider a parameter space \(\left\\{\theta_{1}, \theta_{2}\right\\}\), where \(\theta_{1}\) denotes that there is life in orbit around the star Sirius and \(\theta_{2}\) that there is not. Can you see any reason not to take \(\pi_{1}=\pi_{2}=1 / 2 ?\) Now consider the parameter space \(\left[\omega_{1}, \omega_{2}, \omega_{3} \mid\right.\), where \(\omega_{1}, \omega_{2}\), and \(\omega_{3}\) denote the events that there is life around Sirius, that there are planets but no life, and that there are no planets. With this parameter space the principle of insufficient reason gives Pr(life around Sirius) \(=1 / 3\) Discuss this partitioning paradox. What solutions do you see? (Schafer. 1976. pp. 23-24)

Let \(Y_{1}, \ldots, Y_{n}\) be independent normal variables with means \(\mu_{1}, \ldots, \mu_{n}\) and common variance \(\sigma^{2}\). Show that if the prior density for \(\mu_{j}\) is $$ \pi\left(\mu_{j}\right)=\gamma \tau^{-1} \phi\left(\mu_{j} / \tau\right)+(1-\gamma) \delta\left(\mu_{j}\right), \quad \tau>0,0<\gamma<1 $$ with all the \(\mu_{j}\) independent a priori, then \(\pi\left(\mu_{j} \mid y_{j}\right)\) is also a mixture of a point mass and a normal density, and give an interpretation of its parameters. (a) Find the posterior mean and median of \(\mu_{j}\) when \(\sigma\) is known, and sketch how they vary as functions of \(y_{j}\). Which would you prefer if the signal is sparse, that is, many of the \(\mu_{j}\). are known \(a\) priori to equal zero but it is not known which? (b) How would you find empirical Bayes estimates of \(\tau, \gamma\), and \(\sigma ?\) (c) In applications of the tails of the normal density might be too light to represent the distribution of non-zero \(\mu_{j}\) well. How could you modify \(\pi\) to allow for this?

Let \(\theta\) be a randomly chosen physical constant. Such constants are measured on an arbitrary scale, so transformations from \(\theta\) to \(\psi=c \theta\) for some constant \(c\) should leave the density \(\pi(\theta)\) of \(\theta\) unchanged. Show that this entails \(\pi(c \theta)=c^{-1} \pi(\theta)\) for all \(c, \theta>0\), and deduce that \(\pi(\theta) \propto \theta^{-1}\). Let \(\tilde{\theta}\) be the first significant digit of \(\theta\) in some arbitrary units. Show that $$ \operatorname{Pr}(\tilde{\theta}=d) \propto \int_{d 10^{a}}^{(d+1) 10^{a}} u^{-1} d u, \quad d=1, \ldots, 9 $$ and hence verify that \(\operatorname{Pr}(\tilde{\theta}=d)=\log _{10}\left(1+d^{-1}\right) .\) Check whether some set of physical 'constants' (e.g. sizes of countries or of lakes) fits this distribution.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free