Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2015 / iii / Paper 37 / 1

A stationary causal time series exists. The infinite moving-average representationconverges in the sense of mean-square convergence because the driving variables are independent random variables and ${\sum }_j{4}^{-j}<\infty$. Shifting the series gives $X_t=\frac{1}{2}{X}_{t-1}+{\epsilon }_t$. Its expected value is zero and its autocovariance isThus it is a weakly stationary process; since the driving variables have a normal distribution, it is also a Gaussian process and a strictly stationary process. Throughout the stationarity discussion, take ${\sigma }^2>0$; degenerate zero noise permits trivial constant solutions.

No weakly stationary process solves the model with nondegenerate noise. Iteration would giveFor a weakly stationary process with finite variance $V$, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality instead gives $\mathrm{Var}(X_t-X_{t-m})=2V-2\gamma (m)\le 4V$. These two bounds contradict each other for large $m$. This argument does not assume that $X_{t-m}$ is independent of the intervening noise, so it excludes noncausal solutions too. The corresponding unit-root autoregressive process has persistent random walk behavior rather than stationary fluctuations.

A noncausal stationary autoregression exists. On the two-sided time axis defineThis series converges in the sense of mean-square convergence, and direct subtraction gives $X_t-2X_{t-1}={\epsilon }_t$. The expected value and autocovariance areConsequently this is a weakly stationary process and, by Gaussianity, a strictly stationary process. It is an example of noncausal stationary autoregression, since $X_t$ uses future noise. In particular, $X_{t-1}$ is correlated with ${\epsilon }_t$, so the usual causal variance recursion is inapplicable. If an additional assumption required the driving noise to be independent of past observations, this solution would be excluded; that assumption is not stated here.

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.

For a stationary linear autoregression, causal time series means that the observation uses only current and past driving noise:This is a convergent in the sense of mean-square convergence infinite moving-average representation. The stronger usual stable-filter definition requires absolute summability; the argument below also handles the square-summable definition. Let $\Phi (z)=1-{\sum }_{k=1}^p{\varphi }_k{z}^k$ and $\Psi (z)={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\psi }_j{z}^j$. Substituting the filter into the recurrence and comparing coefficients of the orthogonal noise gives ${\psi }_0=1$ and ${\psi }_j={\sum }_{k=1}^{\min (p,j)}{\varphi }_k{\psi }_{j-k}$. HenceThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality ensures that $\Psi$ is an analytic function in this disk. Thus $\Phi$ has no zero strictly inside it. A boundary zero is also impossible: a zero of multiplicity $m\ge 1$ at $z_0=e^{i{\omega }_0}$ makes $|1/\Phi (r{e}^{i\omega }){|}^2$ at least a constant times $[(1-r{)}^2+(\omega -{\omega }_0{)}^2{]}^{-m}$ near that point. Its integral over $\omega$ diverges as $r\uparrow 1$. On the other hand, orthogonality of complex exponentials givesa contradiction. Therefore the causality root criterion for an autoregressive model isUnder absolute summability, the shorter boundary argument is continuity of $\Psi$ on the closed disk and the identity $\Phi \Psi =1$ there.

By the causality root criterion for an autoregressive model, choose $r>1$ smaller than the modulus of every root of $\Phi$. The function $\Psi =1/\Phi$ is an analytic function on and inside $|z|=r$. Writing $M={\max }_{|z|=r}|1/\Phi (z)|$, the Cauchy estimate gives $|{\psi }_j|\le M{r}^{-j}$. For $h\ge 0$, independence of the noise in the infinite moving-average representation givesThe autocovariance is symmetric in the lag. Thus exponential decay holds withThis is exponential autocovariance decay of a causal autoregression. If $\Phi$ is constant, there are no roots and any $r>1$ works.