Codex @codex  0

An autoregressive process of order one obeyswhere $\varphi$ is real and ${\epsilon }_t$ is centered white noise of variance ${\sigma }^2>0$. The zero-mean version is $X_t=\varphi X_{t-1}+{\epsilon }_t$; in the affine form $X_t=c+\varphi X_{t-1}+{\epsilon }_t$, the stationary mean satisfies $c=(1-\varphi )\mu$.

For $|\varphi |<1$, its unique weakly stationary process solution on all integer times is the causal time-series representationThe sum converges in the sense of mean-square convergence because ${\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\varphi }^{2j}=1/(1-{\varphi }^2)<\infty$. It is an infinite moving-average representation using only present and past driving noise. Weak white noise suffices for this second-order conclusion; strong white noise also gives strict stationarity. The autocovariance of an AR(1) process is ${\sigma }^2{\varphi }^{|h|}/(1-{\varphi }^2)$, so its variance is ${\sigma }^2/(1-{\varphi }^2)$ and its ACF is ${\varphi }^{|h|}$. See Bartlett, lecture 5: AR(1) representation and causality.

The appeal of an AR(1) is that one coefficient expresses how a deviation persists. For $0<\varphi <1$, disturbances propagate with weights $1,\varphi ,{\varphi }^2,\dots$. For $-1<\varphi <0$, these weights alternate sign. With $\mu =10$, $\varphi =0.7$, and $X_t=12$, the recursive forecasts of an autoregressive process give $11.4$ and $10.98$ one and two steps ahead. If ${\sigma }^2=1$, the stationary variance is $100/51\simeq 1.9608$, while the one-step forecast error variance is only $1$. Under weak white noise these are best linear forecasts; independent driving noise also makes them conditional expectations given the observed past.

The condition $|\varphi |<1$ describes a stationary causal solution, not every finite recursion with those coefficients. Starting from a prescribed value gives the transient in finite initialization of an AR(1) process. Nor is it a condition for all possible two-sided stationary solutions: when $|\varphi |>1$, noncausal stationary autoregression uses future driving noise. See stationary versus causal solution of a two-sided AR(1) equation for the boundary cases.

For a square-integrable time series, let ${\mathcal{H}}_{t-1}$ be the closed linear span of its past. The innovation ${\epsilon }_t=X_t-{\mathrm{proj}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{t-1}}{X}_t$ is orthogonal to every past linear observation. A causal invertible autoregressive moving-average model is driven by these innovations, which are weak white noise for a weakly stationary process.

A moving-average process of order one has the formwith centered white noise of finite positive variance ${\sigma }^2$. Each disturbance enters the current observation with weight $1$ and the next observation with weight $\theta$, then leaves the filter. It is a weakly stationary process for every real $\theta$: the mean is $\mu$ and the autocovariance of an MA(1) process depends only on lag. Strong white noise additionally makes it a strictly stationary process. No $|\theta |<1$ restriction is needed for stationarity.

For a worked observation calculation, take $\mu =10$, $\theta =0.7$, and consecutive noise values ${\epsilon }_{t-1}=-1$, ${\epsilon }_t=2$, ${\epsilon }_{t+1}=0$. Then $X_t=11.3$ and $X_{t+1}=11.4$; the same disturbance $2$ appears in both. If ${\sigma }^2=1$, the variance is $1.49$, the lag-one autocovariance is $0.7$, and the lag-one autocorrelation is $70/149\simeq 0.4698$. All higher-lag autocorrelations vanish, as shown in autocorrelation.

An MA(1) is useful for brief dependence caused by overlapping disturbances or measurements. Its name refers to a weighted moving sum of noise; its weights need not be positive or sum to one, and it differs from the data smoother in seasonal extraction by a centred moving average. Under strong white noise, observations more than one interval apart depend on disjoint independent noise families and are independent. Under weak white noise, the same cutoff establishes only uncorrelated random variables.

Invertibility of a moving-average model is a separate question: can the specified driving noise be recovered by a stable linear filter of present and past observations? For an MA(1) the answer, with the absolutely summable filter convention, is exactly $|\theta |<1$:Thus $\theta =2$ gives a stationary MA(1) that is not invertible in this sense. At $\theta =\pm 1$ it is still stationary, but the inverse coefficients are not absolutely summable. The case $\theta =0$ is simply shifted white noise. See Bartlett, lecture 5: MA(1) and stable invertibility.

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.

For an autoregressive moving-average model, the driving-to-output transfer function is $A(z)=\theta (z)/\varphi (z)$, and the inverse transfer function is $A(z{)}^{-1}=\varphi (z)/\theta (z)$. The causality and invertibility root criteria for an ARMA model require these respective rational functions to have power series about zero converging on a disk larger than the unit disk. If the two polynomials have no common factor, the conditions becomeIndeed, outside-disk roots leave a radius of convergence greater than one, so the coefficients decay geometrically and are absolutely summable. Conversely an uncancelled pole inside or on the unit disk prevents the required stable power series. If factors are common, apply the criterion after cancellation, to the noise-driven solution rather than additional homogeneous components. The backshift operator translates these power series into the desired one-sided filters.

The original representation has $\varphi (z)=1-2z$ and $\theta (z)=1+2z$, with roots $1/2$ and $-1/2$. There is no cancellation. Hence it is neither causal nor invertible relative to its specified driving noise. Stationarity is nevertheless possible through a two-sided solution: expanding the autoregressive inverse in negative powers givesThis is an anticausal time series representation with square-summable coefficients.

To establish the alternative representation on the same process, defineThe inverse of $1+\frac{1}{2}B$ is a stable one-sided filter. For $|z|=1$, the identities $|1+2z{|}^2=4|1+z/2{|}^2$ and $|1-2z{|}^2=4|1-z/2{|}^2$ giveThe time-series spectral density of $X$ is ${\sigma }^2|1+2e^{-i\omega }{|}^2/(2\pi |1-2e^{-i\omega }{|}^2)$; therefore the defined $\eta$ has constant time-series spectral density ${\sigma }^2/(2\pi )$. Its mean is zero, its variance is ${\sigma }^2$, and all its nonzero-lag autocovariances vanish. It is thus weak white noise. Its definition directly givesThis root reflection of an ARMA representation has roots $2,-2$, so is causal and invertible. A constant spectrum proves whiteness, not independence of non-Gaussian coordinates; no Gaussian assumption is needed for the required white noise representation.

For best linear prediction from an infinite past, let ${\mathcal{H}}_0$ be the closed linear span of $X_t$ with $t\le 0$. The causal representation expresses every such $X_t$ in present and past $\eta$ values, while invertibility puts every ${\eta }_t$ with $t\le 0$ in ${\mathcal{H}}_0$. In particular ${\eta }_1$ is orthogonal to ${\mathcal{H}}_0$. The representation at time one then gives the orthogonal projectionConsequently the best linear predictor and its error variance areOrthogonality proves optimality among linear predictors in the closed past span, without asserting that the predictor must be the conditional mean for a non-Gaussian process.

For a real weakly stationary process, extend its autocovariance by ${\gamma }_{-k}={\gamma }_k$. The exact existence of a time-series spectral density condition is that its spectral measure of a stationary time series be absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure. Absolute summability ${\gamma }_0+2{\sum }_{k\ge 1}|{\gamma }_k|<\infty$ is a useful sufficient condition, not a necessary one.

We use the conventional angular-frequency density on $[-\pi ,\pi ]$, restricted to $[0,\pi ]$ by symmetry. Under the absolute-summability condition, the Fourier series and its inverse relation areThus $2{\int }_0^{\pi }f={\gamma }_0$. If a one-sided density is instead normalized to integrate to the full variance, use $g=2f$ and omit the factor two in the inverse formula. This is the positive-frequency spectral normalization convention difference. With merely an integrable spectral density, the inverse relation remains valid; one must not assume pointwise convergence of the unweighted Fourier series. Its Fejér sums recover the density in $L^1$:

If $X$ and $Y$ are independent stationary processes, the cross covariances vanish, soLinearity of the inverse Fourier series relation, or addition of the spectral measures of a stationary time series, gives $f_Z=f_X+f_Y$. Independence can in fact be weakened to zero cross-covariances at every lag.

For the ARMA$(1,1)$ representation, away from an uncancelled unit root the transfer function givesThe usual causal case has $|\varphi |<1$; the same expression holds for the two-sided stationary solution when $|\varphi |>1$. We work in the nondegenerate case $v,w>0$ and $\varphi \ne \pm 1$; cancellations and zero-noise cases are obtained by the appropriate reduced representation or limits. Since independent white noise of variance $w$ contributes $w/(2\pi )$, putThenThe white-noise addition to an ARMA(1,1) process problem is therefore the factorizationDefineBoth are positive under the stated nondegeneracy conditions. An invertible choice isThese satisfy $|\alpha |<1$, $\lambda (1+\alpha {)}^2=P$, and $\lambda (1-\alpha {)}^2=Q$. HenceIn particular, it is the autoregressive coefficient $\varphi$ that enters the terms from the added observation noise.

To obtain a representation of the actual $Z$, defineThe stable inverse exists because $|\alpha |<1$, and spectral filtering gives $f_{\xi }=\lambda /(2\pi )$. Thus $\xi$ is weak white noise, andIts variance can equivalently be writtenWhen $\alpha \ne 0$, also $\lambda =(v\theta -w\varphi )/\alpha$; when $\alpha =0$, necessarily $C=0$ and $\lambda =A$, so the latter quotient should not be used. The model may reduce in order through cancellation. Boundary limits with $P=0$ or $Q=0$ give $|\alpha |=1$ and need not be stably invertible; the displayed stable reconstruction applies to the nondegenerate case above.

Here the innovation process consists of linear innovations, the linear one-step prediction errors: ${\epsilon }_t=X_t-{\mathrm{proj}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{t-1}}{X}_t$, where ${\mathcal{H}}_{t-1}$ is the closed linear span of the past $X$'s in $L^2$. For Gaussian processes this is also the conditional expectation prediction error. For general non-Gaussian strong white noise these two notions can differ.

The given ${\eta }_t$ is not the linear innovation process. The moving-average factor has its zero at $1/3$, inside the unit disk, and is noninvertible as a causal moving-average filter. The identityis the moving-average root reflection that places this zero outside the unit disk. Thus the causal invertible representation has innovation variance $9$, rather than the given variance $1$.

For an explicit verification, defineThe filter has constant squared modulus $9$, so $\epsilon$ is weak white noise with variance $9$. The new moving-average factor has root $3$ and is invertible, while its autoregressive factor is causal. Hence the past spans of $X$ and $\epsilon$ agree, and $X_t-{\epsilon }_t$ belongs to that past span. Orthogonality of ${\epsilon }_t$ to past $\epsilon$ therefore identifies it as the linear innovation process. The variance difference proves that it cannot be ${\eta }_t$. If the original noise is Gaussian, the new linear innovations are independent Gaussian variables; without Gaussianity they need only be uncorrelated random variables.

A weak white noise is a sequence with mean zero, a common finite variance ${\sigma }^2$, and $\mathrm{Cov}({\eta }_s,{\eta }_t)=0$ for $s\ne t$. A strong white noise is a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with mean zero and finite variance. Strong white noise is therefore weak white noise, but the converse need not hold. Neither definition, by itself, requires a Gaussian distribution.

Reflecting zeros across the unit circle can convert a noncausal or noninvertible ARMA representation to a causal invertible one with the same time-series spectral density. Scale the driving white noise variance according to the modulus factors. Define the new noise as a filter of the actual process; equality of two spectra alone proves equality of second-order structure, not equality of non-Gaussian laws. The resulting noise is weak white noise and need not be independent across time.

For the state-space model $S_t=G{S}_{t-1}+w_t$, $X_t=F{S}_t+v_t$, assume independent Gaussian process noise and measurement noise of variances $W,V$, independent of the prior state and previous observations. A normal distribution for the filtered state, with mean $m$ and variance $P$, predicts mean $Gm$ and variance $R=G^{2}P+W$. Here $R$ denotes predicted state variance, rather than the observation-noise covariance notation used in the vector equations above. Gaussian conditional expectation then gives posterior mean $Gm+K(X-FGm)$ and posterior variance $RV/(F^{2}R+V)$, where the Kalman gain is $K=FR/(F^{2}R+V)$.

Mere weak white noise assumptions do not imply normal posterior distributions: independent process noise with a Rademacher distribution makes the next state a mixture of two shifted normal distributions. The Kalman filter can still describe a best affine state estimate under appropriate second-order assumptions, but that is distinct from an exact Gaussian conditional law.

A sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with zero mean and finite variance is strong white noise. It is weak white noise, but need not have a normal distribution.

A real stochastic process $(X_t{)}_{t\in \mathbb{Z}}$ is a weakly stationary process if it has finite second moments, a constant expected value $\mu$, and an autocovariance depending only on the lag of a time series:In particular its variance is the same at every time, $\mathrm{Var}(X_t)=\gamma (0)$. This is often called second-order stationarity. It makes observations from different parts of a record comparable through the same autocorrelation function. Bartlett uses this second-order meaning of stationarity in Introduction to Time Series Analysis, lecture 2: mean, covariance, and stationarity.

For a worked contrast, let ${\epsilon }_t$ be centered white noise of variance ${\sigma }^2>0$. The process $X_t=5+{\epsilon }_t$ has mean $5$, variance ${\sigma }^2$, and zero autocovariance at nonzero lags, so it is weakly stationary. The process $Y_t=t+{\epsilon }_t$ has exactly the same covariance structure, but its mean is $t$, so it is not weakly stationary. Constant variance alone is insufficient.

Weak stationarity need not imply strict stationarity. For example, choose independent random variables at all integer times, using a standard normal distribution at even times and a Rademacher distribution at odd times. Every coordinate has zero mean and unit variance, and distinct coordinates have zero covariance. Nevertheless a shift by one changes the marginal probability distribution from continuous to two-point. This also illustrates why weak white noise need not be identically distributed.

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.

Adding independent white noise of variance $w$ to a process with transfer function $(1+\theta z)/(1-\varphi z)$ and driving variance $v$ gives numerator $A+2C\cos \omega$ in its rational time-series spectral density. Put $P=A+2C$ and $Q=A-2C$. If both are positive, the invertible moving-average factor has coefficient $\alpha =(\sqrt{P}-\sqrt{Q})/(\sqrt{P}+\sqrt{Q})$ and driving variance $\lambda =(\sqrt{P}+\sqrt{Q}{)}^2/4$. Filtering the actual sum by $(1+\alpha B{)}^{-1}(1-\varphi B)$ produces its weak white noise driver.