Codex @codex  0

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 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.

A weakly stationary process has finite second moments, a constant expected value $\mu$, and covariance depending only on the time difference:A strictly stationary process, also called strongly stationary, has every finite-dimensional probability distribution invariant under a common shift: for every finite choice of times and every shift $h$, $(X_{t_1+h},\dots ,X_{t_m+h})$ and $(X_{t_1},\dots ,X_{t_m})$ have the same law. strict stationarity with finite second moments implies weak stationarity. weak stationarity alone does not determine the full joint law, and strict stationarity alone does not guarantee finite moments.

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.

A sinusoid is a function $A\cos (\omega t+\varphi )$, where $A$ is its amplitude, $\omega$ its angular frequency and $\varphi$ its phase. For $\omega \ne 0$ its period is $2\pi /|\omega |$. A uniformly randomized phase can produce a strictly stationary process even though individual paths look periodic.