Codex @codex  0

For $t\ge 1$, iterating an AR(1) from a fixed value $X_0=x_0$ gives the displayed finite sum. With centered white noise of variance ${\sigma }^2$ and $|\varphi |<1$,For $h\ge 0$, its covariance is $\mathrm{Cov}(X_{t+h},X_t)={\varphi }^h\mathrm{Var}(X_t)$, which depends on $t$. Even setting $x_0=\mu$ leaves a changing variance. At $\varphi =0.7$, ${\sigma }^2=1$, and $x_0=\mu$, the variances at times zero through three are $0,1,1.49,1.7301$, approaching $100/51$; this finite initialized record is not weakly stationary.

To initialize in weak stationarity, give $X_0$ mean $\mu$, variance ${\sigma }^2/(1-{\varphi }^2)$, and zero covariance with every future driving noise value. The full stationary construction sets $X_0-\mu ={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\varphi }^j{\epsilon }_{-j}$. For discrete Gaussian white noise, equivalently draw $X_0$ from $N(\mu ,{\sigma }^2/(1-{\varphi }^2))$ independently of future noise. This gives exact strict stationarity from the first plotted point; it is the initialization used in the figure in time series. Matching these first two moments alone does not guarantee strict stationarity for non-Gaussian inputs. See also stationary initialization of a scalar linear state-space model.

Write ${\sigma }_{\epsilon }^2$ for the driving white noise variance and $\Theta (z)=1+{\sum }_{\ell =1}^q{\theta }_{\ell }{z}^{\ell }$. The autoregressive polynomial factors asThe discrete Gaussian white noise values are independent. The roots of $\Phi$ are outside the unit disc, so expanding $\Theta (z)/\Phi (z)$ gives an absolutely summable causal time-series representation. Hence $x_t$ is a centered Gaussian process formed from driving white noise values at times at most $t$. In particular, for $k>q$, every driving white noise value ${\epsilon }_{t-\ell }$ with $\ell \le q$ is independent of $x_{t-k}$. The autocovariance tail recurrence of a causal ARMA process follows by taking covariance of the recursion with $x_{t-k}$:

The roots of the characteristic polynomial of this tail recurrence are $1/2$ and $1/3$. Let $k_0=\max (q-1,0)$. There exist constants $c,d$ such thatFor example, put $a=6{\gamma }_{k_0+1}-2{\gamma }_{k_0}$ and $b=3{\gamma }_{k_0}-6{\gamma }_{k_0+1}$; then $c=2^{k_0}a$ and $d=3^{k_0}b$ reproduce the two starting values and therefore the whole recurrence. Choose $C$ strictly larger than $|c|+|d|$ and all the finitely many values $2^k|{\gamma }_k|$ with $0\le k<k_0$. Symmetry ${\gamma }_{-k}={\gamma }_k$ now givesFor negative $k$ this is stronger than the requested bound with $2^{-k}$. It also proves ${\sum }_{k\ge 1}k|{\gamma }_k|<\infty$.

For the Fourier calculation, take $D=2m+1$ positive and $T=DN$ positive. The supplied equal-norm trigonometric identities require $j\not\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}D)$; the usual intended range is $1\le j\le m$. Because $D$ is odd, $2j\not\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}D)$ at every such nonzero frequency. The geometric series of $e^{i\omega t}$ and $e^{2i\omega t}$ over $T$ terms vanish. They implyOther integer values of $j$ reduce modulo $D$; folding a negative frequency changes the sine coefficient only by a sign. The permitted zero frequency is handled below.

Grouping the double expectation sum according to the time lag yieldsReplace the two truncated sums for lag $k$ by full sums. Their total isEach replacement adds at most $k$ terms, each of absolute value at most one. This gives the finite-record Fourier covariance bound:Both coefficients have expected value zero, so this expectation is their covariance.

For each finite $T$, $(A,B)$ has a multivariate normal distribution because it is a linear transformation of the Gaussian observation vector. If the variances converge to $v_A,v_B$, its characteristic function converges tosince the cross-covariance tends to zero. This is the characteristic function of two independent centered normal variables; zero limiting variances are allowed.

We can calculate the variance limits rather than merely assume their existence. Grouping the cosine covariance sum givesOver a full record, ${\sum }_{t=1}^T{c}_t{c}_{t+k}=(T/2)\cos (\omega k)$. Truncation changes this by at most $k$. The same statements hold for the sine products. Consequentlyand the identical main term and bound apply to $\mathbb{E}{B}^2$. Absolute summability now gives

Specify the spectral convention to identify this limit. LetHere $f_2$ is the two-sided probability density function on $[-\pi ,\pi ]$, and $s$ is the one-sided probability density function on $[0,\pi ]$, satisfying ${\gamma }_k={\int }_0^{\pi }s(\omega )\cos (k\omega )d\omega$. Thus each variance limit is $f_2(\omega )=s(\omega )/2$. For this particular model, the filter representation also gives

For the specified squared-sum estimator, an exact expectation calculation uses $c_t{c}_u+s_t{s}_u=\cos (\omega (t-u))$:The missing tail and the $k/T$ terms vanish; indeed the bias is $O(T^{-1})$ by the exponential covariance bound. Therefore $I(\omega )$ is asymptotically unbiased for the one-sided probability density function $s(\omega )$. Under the common two-sided convention its limit in expectation is $2f_2(\omega )$, so $I(\omega )/2$ is the appropriately normalized estimator.

At an interior frequency with $s(\omega )>0$, the joint Gaussian limit gives the exponential limit of a one-sided periodogram:Moreover, for a centered Gaussian pair,The nondegenerate exponential limiting law rules out convergence in probability to $s(\omega )$. Thus the unsmoothed periodogram is not consistent at frequencies with positive spectrum, despite its asymptotic unbiasedness. If $s(\omega )=0$, the nonnegative estimator has expectation tending to zero and is consistent there by Markov's inequality. Smoothing an increasing number of nearby ordinates while shrinking the frequency bandwidth can remove the positive-spectrum variance obstruction.

For $j\equiv 0(\mathrm{mod}D)$, the sine coefficient is identically zero and the cosine coefficient is the normalized sum of the observations. The corrected limits areThe joint limit is $(N(0,s(0)),0)$, independent in the degenerate sense. The exact expectation formula for $I$ still applies and tends to $s(0)$, but now $I(0)/s(0)\stackrel{d}{\to }{\chi }_1^2$ when $s(0)>0$, with limiting variance $2s(0{)}^2$. The estimator is again inconsistent. This covers the zero frequency allowed by the printed inequality on $j$.

The figure uses the allowed cancellation $\Theta =\Phi$, so the observations reduce to white noise. Orthogonal Fourier projections give the exponential law exactly at each plotted record length; increasing the record does not narrow the individual periodogram ordinate.

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.

For the AR(1) and MA(1) formulas here, white noise means a real sequence indexed by all integer times withThese are the weak white noise assumptions: zero mean, a common finite positive variance, and uncorrelated random variables at distinct times. Independence and a normal distribution are additional assumptions. Strong white noise requires independent and identically distributed random variables; discrete Gaussian white noise is the jointly Gaussian special case. Some definitions allow a constant nonzero mean; subtract it before using the centered formulas here.

For a concrete dependent example, let $A$ equal $1$ or $2$ with equal probabilities, independently of a sequence of independent Rademacher random variables $Z_t$, and put ${\epsilon }_t=A{Z}_t$. Its mean is zero, its variance is $\mathbb{E}[A^2]=5/2$, and its nonzero-lag autocovariances vanish. Nevertheless every $|{\epsilon }_t|$ equals the same $A$: seeing one magnitude determines all the others. This is white noise with dependence invisible to its ACF, and is also an example of the issue discussed in ergodic stationary process.