Codex @codex  0

For $|\varphi |<1$ and $|\theta |<1$, the autoregressive moving-average model $(1-\varphi B)X_t=(1+\theta B){ϵ}_t$ has $c_0=d_0=1$ and the displayed coefficients for $j\ge 1$. These follow by multiplying the two geometric power series. If $\varphi +\theta =0$, all later coefficients vanish and the filtered process is white noise. Thus root restrictions on an uncancelled nonminimal representation are sufficient but need not be necessary for the process after common factor cancellation in an ARMA model.

Define the autoregressive polynomial $\Phi (z)=1-{\sum }_{k=1}^p{\varphi }_k{z}^k$ and the moving-average polynomial $\Theta (z)=1+{\sum }_{k=1}^q{\theta }_k{z}^k$. 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 $C(z)=\Theta (z)/\Phi (z)$ and $D(z)=\Phi (z)/\Theta (z)$ are analytic on a disc of radius greater than one. Their power series coefficients therefore decay geometrically and are absolutely summable. The backshift operator $B{X}_t=X_{t-1}$ 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 $\Phi (B)C(B)=\Theta (B)$ verifies the original equation. Multiplication by the absolutely summable inverse of $\Phi (B)$ also shows uniqueness among finite-variance stationary solutions. Similarly $D(B)X_t={ϵ}_t$ gives the invertible time-series representation.

Comparing coefficients in $\Phi (z)C(z)=\Theta (z)$ derives the first of the ARMA coefficient recursions:Here $c_j=0$ for negative $j$, ${\theta }_0=1$, and ${\theta }_j=0$ for $j>q$, so in particular $c_0=1$. For the inverse filter, compare coefficients in $\Theta (z)D(z)=\Phi (z)$. With $a_0=1$, $a_j=-{\varphi }_j$ for $1\le j\le p$, $a_j=0$ for $j>p$, and $d_j=0$ 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 $|\varphi |<1$ and $|\theta |<1$. The geometric power series expansions giveThus the ARMA(1,1) causal and inverse coefficients areAt $j=1$ these give $c_1=\varphi +\theta$ and $d_1=-(\varphi +\theta )$, including zero-valued parameters without any negative powers. If $\theta =-\varphi$, the filtered process reduces to $X_t={ϵ}_t$ 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.

Put ${\theta }_0=1$ and define the autoregressive polynomial and moving-average polynomial byFor a minimal, coprime ARMA representation, the usual simultaneous causality and invertibility root criteria for an ARMA model areThe autoregressive condition makes $\Theta /\Phi$ a stable one-sided filter and gives the causal second-order stationary process. The moving-average condition makes its inverse a stable one-sided filter, so the white noise can be reconstructed from present and past observations. If the two polynomials have a common factor, first use common factor cancellation in an ARMA model; necessary-and-sufficient root statements apply to the reduced noise-driven representation. Stationarity here is second-order stationarity; weak white noise alone does not assert strict stationarity of all finite-dimensional laws.

For $p=1$, write $\varphi ={\varphi }_1$, so $|\varphi |<1$. Expanding $(1-\varphi z{)}^{-1}={\sum }_{r\ge 0}{\varphi }^r{z}^r$ gives the Wold representationIn particular $c_0=1$, $c_j=\varphi c_{j-1}+{\theta }_j$ for $1\le j\le q$, and $c_j={\varphi }^{j-q}{c}_q$ for $j\ge q$. The coefficients are square-summable, so this series converges in mean square. Causality and invertibility identify the driver with the linear innovation process, justifying the Wold terminology. For $\varphi =0$, powers with exponent zero equal one and the formula reduces to the finite moving average.

To obtain the covariance equations, subtract $\varphi X_{t-1}$ and take covariance with $X_{t-k}$. Orthogonality of the white noise and the causal expansion implyThus the innovation coefficients of an ARMA(1,q) process give the entire triangular system in one formula:At $k=0$, use ${\gamma }_{-1}={\gamma }_1$, since the autocovariance of a real stationary process is symmetric. The terms are consequently ${\sigma }^2(c_0+{\theta }_1{c}_1+\cdots +{\theta }_q{c}_q)$ at zero, ${\sigma }^2{\theta }_q{c}_0$ at $q$, and the intervening partial sums as required.

For $q=1$, put $\theta ={\theta }_1$ and $c_1=\varphi +\theta$. The equations becomeSubstitution of the second into the first, followed by the geometric recursion, yields the autocovariance of a causal ARMA(1,1) process:This includes $\varphi =0$: only lags $\pm 1$ survive, as for an MA(1) process.

The displayed equation has nominal orders $p=1,q=2$, withThe AR root is $2$, and the MA roots are $2$ and $10/9$, all strictly outside the unit disc. Thus its stationary solution is causal and invertible. There is also common factor cancellation in an ARMA model: the convergent inverse of $1-0.5B$ cancels the shared factor, givingConsequently the displayed representation is ARMA(1,2), but its minimal order is ARMA(0,1). This also follows without formal operator cancellation: the difference between any solution and the right-hand side satisfies $d_t=0.5d_{t-1}$. A stationary finite-variance difference must have zero variance, since stationarity would give $\mathrm{Var}(d_t)=0.25\mathrm{Var}(d_t)$; its constant mean must also vanish. A transient chosen by an arbitrary initial condition is not the stationary process whose ACF is requested.

For this moving-average model, independence of the noise giveswhile $\gamma (h)=0$ for $|h|\ge 2$, since the two noise sets are disjoint. Therefore its autocorrelation function isThe reduced moving-average inverse is $w_t={\sum }_{j\ge 0}0.9^j{x}_{t-j}$, whose coefficients are absolutely summable, confirming invertibility directly.