Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2002 iii Paper 40 6 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
A linear filter of a stationary time series with real coefficients satisfying is . Its filter generating function is the Laurent series , absolutely convergent on , and its filter transfer function is . For a one-sided filter this is a power series; a general two-sided filter need not converge on a larger annulus.
The filter theorem states that if is second-order stationary, then exists in mean square, is second-order stationary, and has mean and covarianceIts spectral measure of a stationary time series is . In particular, if has a time-series spectral density in the convention , thenTo prove existence, the norm of a tail of the filter is at most times the sum of the omitted , which tends to zero. Hence finite partial sums converge in . Expectations and covariances pass to the limit, and the covariance double sum is absolutely convergent because . Its formula depends only on , proving stationarity. Insert the spectral representation of and interchange sums and integration; the bound justifies the interchange. The resulting factor is . This proves the spectral statement, including the spectral density transformation under a linear filter without assuming that the input autocovariances are absolutely summable.
For an autoregressive moving-average model, use real polynomials normalized by and first work with the reduced noise-driven representation. If has no zero on the unit circle, the rational function has a Laurent expansion in an annulus containing that circle, with absolutely summable coefficients. Filtering the white noise with it gives a stationary solution. Its time-series spectral density isConversely, for coprime , a unit-circle zero of would make this ratio nonintegrable, since the numerator does not vanish there; thus there is no finite-variance stationary noise-driven solution. A stationary solution can use a bilateral filter when autoregressive roots lie inside the unit circle. The stronger causal condition, meaning dependence only on present and past noise, requires every zero of strictly outside the unit disk. Common factors must be handled before applying these conditions; a cancelled unit-root factor can also allow additional deterministic stationary components, which are outside the minimal noise-driven convention.
Identifiability means that different admissible parameters cannot produce the same stationary process law. In this zero-mean Gaussian setting, its law is determined by its covariance, equivalently its spectrum. Unrestricted ARMA coefficients are not identifiable from that law: if a moving-average factor has root inside the disk, then on ,Reflecting the root outside and multiplying the innovation variance by preserves the spectrum, and therefore the Gaussian law. Common polynomial factors and arbitrary overall scaling give further redundancy. A regular canonical identifiable parameterization requires constant coefficients one, coprime polynomials of their stated minimal orders, all zeros of both and outside the closed unit disk, and .
Here is a proof of canonical identifiability of Gaussian ARMA models. Suppose two such models have equal spectra and write their innovation standard deviations as . The ratio and its reciprocal are analytic on a neighbourhood of the closed unit disk, with modulus one on its boundary. The maximum modulus principle applied to both makes throughout the disk, so is constant. Its value at zero is the positive number , forcing and . Therefore ; coprimality and the normalization at zero force equality of both polynomials. This proves the claimed parameter uniqueness within that canonical class.
In this class, is analytic on a disk of radius greater than one. Its Taylor series coefficients are absolutely summable, soThis is an invertible time-series representation, proved by composition of the stable filters. Causality makes orthogonal to past observations; invertibility makes past noises recoverable from past observations. Their closed past linear spans agree, so this noise is the linear innovation and the one-sided expansion is the Wold representation. Mere stationarity without the stated canonical restrictions does not imply invertibility of the originally written noise representation.
For this one-sided canonical representation, . Comparing coefficients gives the ARMA coefficient recursionsThus for exactly the range asked for,The characteristic rates are reciprocals of the zeros of . Partial fractions therefore express the tail as sums of , where and the degree of is at most one less than the corresponding root multiplicity. Hence the coefficients decay exponentially, with possible polynomial and damped oscillatory factors. If , they instead vanish after . For a noncausal or noninvertible original specification, the Wold coefficients refer to the canonical spectral factor; using the original driving noise as the Wold innovation without checking these restrictions would be incorrect.
The autocovariance is . Analyticity of on a disk of radius gives for a slightly smaller radius than its first pole, and consequently . Moreover, multiply the ARMA equation at time by and take expectations. For , all noises with are later than and orthogonal to it. For this givesThe covariance tail therefore has the same characteristic exponential rates and multiplicity patterns as the filter coefficients, subject to possible cancellation of amplitudes. Pure moving averages have an exact covariance cutoff.
For the final process, factor the polynomials:The common factor has its zero at , so it can be cancelled as a stable filter. Explicitly, let ; the original equation gives . The second moments of are uniformly bounded because those of and are. Iterating gives , whose norm tends to zero as , so in mean square. ThusSumming the covariance series givesThe process is a causal stationary autoregressive process of order one, with alternating-sign geometric correlations, and is invertible. The displayed ARMA(2,1) description is nonminimal because of its common factor; its minimal identifiable class is ARMA(1,0).
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2007 iii Paper 48 1 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Define the autoregressive polynomial and the moving-average polynomial . The standard causality and invertibility root criteria for an ARMA model areIn the usual minimal autoregressive moving-average model, the two polynomials have no common roots. Under that convention, these are the necessary and sufficient root conditions for a causal and invertible representation with the given noise. Without minimality they remain sufficient; shared factors must be considered before claiming necessity.
To see why the conditions work, both ratios and are analytic on a disc of radius greater than one. Their power series coefficients therefore decay geometrically and are absolutely summable. The backshift operator then gives a well-defined mean-square convergent causal time-series representationFiltering white noise by these fixed coefficients gives a weakly stationary process. The identity verifies the original equation. Multiplication by the absolutely summable inverse of also shows uniqueness among finite-variance stationary solutions. Similarly gives the invertible time-series representation.
Comparing coefficients in derives the first of the ARMA coefficient recursions:Here for negative , , and for , so in particular . For the inverse filter, compare coefficients in . With , for , for , and for negative indices, this givesThe minus sign in the inverse recursion comes from moving the nonconstant moving-average terms to the other side.
For the first-order model, the standard uncancelled conditions are and . The geometric power series expansions giveThus the ARMA(1,1) causal and inverse coefficients areAt these give and , including zero-valued parameters without any negative powers. If , the filtered process reduces to and all later coefficients vanish. This common factor cancellation in an ARMA model is why the root inequalities should not be advertised as necessary for every nonminimal parameterization. The stated inequalities still ensure uniqueness for the original equation as well as the desired causal and invertible filters.