Codex @codex  0

For differencing, the only nonzero filter coefficients are $a_0=1$ and $a_1=-1$. Therefore $a(\lambda )=1-e^{i\lambda }$ andThe left sketch shows the filter gain increasing from zero at frequency zero to two at $\pi$. This differencing filter removes a constant component and attenuates slowly varying components while relatively emphasizing higher frequencies. It is a high-pass filter, rather than an averaging or smoothing filter.

Series 1 wanders over a changing level rather than fluctuating around a stable local mean. Its sample autocorrelation function is strongly positive and decreases very slowly. This is the usual diagnostic evidence for an ordinary unit root: an autoregressive polynomial containing $1-z$, with a zero at $z=1$, and a stationary model after first differencing. The plots support an integrated model, rather than specifying the number of its remaining stationary autoregressive or moving-average terms.

Series 2 has a pronounced oscillation with period about six observations. Its sample autocorrelation alternates between large positive and negative values with little damping: approximately positive at multiples of six and negative halfway between. Together with the changing amplitude, this suggests a conjugate pair of unit-circle zeros nearThe associated real autoregressive factor is $1-2\cos (\pi /3)z+z^2=1-z+z^2$. A targeted filter $1-B+B^2$ removes this pair; the broader seasonal difference operator $1-B^6$ also contains it but introduces additional differencing factors. This is the oscillatory unit-root diagnosis from an undamped sample autocorrelation.

Thus Series 1 suggests a zero at 1; Series 2 suggests a conjugate pair on the unit circle at a seasonal frequency. These are model diagnoses, not deductions of exact roots from a finite sample. A stationary model very close to a unit root can look similar, and an undamped periodic covariance can also arise from a stationary random sinusoid. The figure does not identify exact orders or prove nonstationarity by itself.

A unit-root autoregressive process retains shocks permanently, whereas a causal time series with $|\varphi |<1$ reverts towards its mean. Testing the unit root determines whether stationary autoregressive analysis is appropriate or differencing is needed. For the model without an intercept or trend, use the Dickey–Fuller test against the lower-sided alternative $\varphi <1$ near the null. PutThis is the ordinary regression statistic for a zero coefficient when $\Delta X_t$ is regressed on $X_{t-1}$, but its null probability distribution is not the usual Student law. Under the standard unit-root initialization $X_1=o_P(\sqrt{n})$ and innovations independent of the starting value,where $W$ is standard Brownian motion. If $d_{\alpha }$ is the lower $\alpha$-quantile of $D$, the asymptotic level-$\alpha$ critical region isThe deterministic terms and null initialization must match the critical-value table. For exact finite-sample size of a statistical test, calibrate the statistic from its Gaussian random walk null with the specified initial condition and noise scale; for a zero starting value its distribution is scale-free. The printed two-sided recurrence alone specifies neither an initial law nor a universal finite-sample critical value. Ordinary normal quantiles do not give the intended size of a statistical test.

A nonstationary process has a statistical law that changes with the time origin. In the weak sense, this includes a time-dependent mean or variance, or a covariance that depends on the two times separately rather than only on their lag. A strictly stationary process requires invariance of every finite-dimensional distribution under a common time shift.

In the preceding plots, series $1$ suggests a stochastic trend or changing level, and series $4$ suggests a deterministic seasonal mean. These are the intended nonstationary examples. A plot alone cannot prove either conclusion: in particular, a stationary random-phase sinusoid can have a seasonal-looking trace and an oscillatory ACF. The interpretation of series $4$ as nonstationary concerns a seasonal mean tied to calendar time.

Three standard responses are to remove a fitted deterministic trend or seasonal mean; to use regular or seasonal differencing for an appropriate trend or seasonal component; and to stabilize a changing variance by a transformation or explicit seasonal scale model. For example, logarithms or a Box–Cox transformation can address level-dependent variance. The operation should match the source of nonstationarity; differencing a varying variance does not generally make it stationary.

If $X_t=c_t{\epsilon }_t$ with a deterministic periodic scale $c_t=c_{t-S}$ and strong white noise of variance ${\sigma }^2$, then ${\Delta }_S{X}_t=c_t({\epsilon }_t-{\epsilon }_{t-S})$. Its variance is $2{\sigma }^2{c}_t^2$, still seasonal when $c_t^2$ varies. A periodic scale model or variance standardization is more appropriate than blindly applying differencing.

A time series is a sequence of observations indexed by time: hourly temperatures, daily sales, or successive measurements of a fluctuating signal. A probabilistic model treats these observations as one sample path of a stochastic process $(X_t)$. For equally spaced observations, take $t\in \mathbb{Z}$ and measure a lag of a time series in observation intervals. The order matters: shuffling a record preserves its observed values but destroys information about how one value follows another.

Two basic ways to model temporal dependence are an autoregressive model, which feeds past observations into the next value, and a moving-average model, which combines present and past white noise. An AR(1) carries a disturbance forward with diminishing weights; an MA(1) carries it into just two observations. Their autocorrelation functions make this difference visible. A weakly stationary process supplies a common mean and a lag-dependent autocovariance with which to describe that dependence.

These models help forecast future observations and quantify the uncertainty of averages. Successive measurements need not provide as much information as the same number of independent random variables: the long-run variance of a stationary process accounts for their accumulated covariances. Trend and seasonality require attention before fitting a stationary model; differencing and a seasonal difference operator can help, but do not automatically make every process stationary. See Peter Bartlett, Introduction to Time Series Analysis, lecture 1: objectives and models.

The three illustrated sample paths have zero mean and unit variance, so the visual comparison concerns dependence rather than scale. The AR(1) paths start from their stationary normal distribution, independently of future discrete Gaussian white noise; the MA(1) path includes the noise preceding its first observation. These are finite random examples, not exact pictures of an ACF. Compare their theoretical autocorrelation functions in autocorrelation.

Historically, Yule's 1927 study investigated disturbed periodicities in sunspot observations; it should not be read as the discovery of the particular AR(1) examples here. Slutsky studied how summing random inputs could produce wave-like records, a warning against inferring a periodic cause from appearance alone. The editorial note to his 1937 English paper identifies the 1927 Russian original. See G. Udny Yule, On a method of investigating periodicities in disturbed series, with special reference to Wolfer's sunspot numbers (1927) and Eugen Slutsky, The Summation of Random Causes as the Source of Cyclic Processes (1937), including the editorial note on the 1927 original.

A unit root is a zero of an autoregressive polynomial on the unit circle. A zero at $1$ is removed by first differencing. A conjugate pair $e^{\pm i\omega }$ corresponds to the real factor $1-2\cos \omega B+B^2$. Nonzero white-noise excitation at an uncancelled unit root prevents a finite-variance stationary solution.

An autoregressive polynomial with a root at one gives a unit-root model. The basic example $X_t=X_{t-1}+{\epsilon }_t$ is a random walk, whose variance grows with time when the increments have positive variance. Differencing removes this root and recovers its white noise increments.