Start ARMA
This commit is contained in:
parent
f2900a1fb7
commit
1a87ddc913
1 changed files with 49 additions and 0 deletions
49
main.tex
49
main.tex
|
@ -812,6 +812,55 @@ Hence it is possible to derive the likelihood function and simultaneously estima
|
|||
\subsubsection{Residual analysis}
|
||||
See \ref{residual-analysis}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{ARMA(p,q)-models}
|
||||
An $ARMA(p,q)$ model combines $AR(p)$ and $MA(q)$:
|
||||
$$X_t = \alpha_1 X_{t-1} + \dots + \alpha_p X_{t-p} + E_t + \beta_1 E_{t-1} + \dots + \beta_q E{t-q}$$
|
||||
where $E_t$ are i.i.d. innovations (=a white noise process).\\
|
||||
\vspace{.2cm}
|
||||
It‘s easier to write $ARMA(p,q)$’s with the characteristic polynomials: \\
|
||||
\vspace{.2cm}
|
||||
$\Phi(B)X_t = \Theta(B)E_t$, where \\
|
||||
$\Phi(z) = 1 - \alpha_1 z - \dots - \alpha_p z^p$, is the cP of the $AR$-part, and \\
|
||||
$\Theta(z) = 1 + \beta_1 z + \dots + \beta_1 z^q$ is the cP of the $MA$-part
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Properties of ARMA(p,q)-Models}
|
||||
The stationarity is determined by the $AR(p)$-part of the model:\\
|
||||
If the roots of the characteristic polynomial $\Phi(B)$ exceed one in absolute value, the process is stationary.\\
|
||||
\vspace{.2cm}
|
||||
The invertibility is determined by the $MA(q)$-part of the model:\\
|
||||
If the roots of the characteristic polynomial $\Theta(B)$ exceed one in absolute value, the process is invertible.\\
|
||||
\vspace{.2cm}
|
||||
Any stationary and invertible $ARMA(p,q)$ can either be rewritten in the form of a non-parsimonious $AR(\infty)$ or an $MA(\infty)$.\\
|
||||
In practice, we mostly consider shifted $ARMA(p,q)$: $Y_t = m + X_t$
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}[H]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
|
||||
& ACF & PACF \\
|
||||
\hline
|
||||
$AR(p)$ & exponential decay & cut-off at lag $p$ \\
|
||||
$MA(q)$ & cut-off at lag $q$ & exponential decay \\
|
||||
$ARMA(p,q)$ & mix decay/cut-off & mix decay/cut-off \\
|
||||
\end{tabular}
|
||||
\caption{Comparison of $AR$-,$MA$-, $ARMA$-models}
|
||||
\end{table}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item In an $ARMA(p,q)$, depending on the coefficients of the model, either the $AR(p)$ or the $MA(q)$ part can dominate the ACF/PACF characteristics.
|
||||
\item In an $ARMA(p,q)$, depending on the coefficients of the model, either the $AR(p)$ or the $MA(q)$ part can dominate the ACF/PACF characteristics.
|
||||
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Fitting ARMA-models to data}
|
||||
See $AR$- and $MA$-modelling
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Identification of order (p,q)}
|
||||
May be more difficult in reality than in theory:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item We only have one single realization of the time series with finite length. The ACF/PACF plots are not «facts», but are estimates with uncertainty. The superimposed cut-offs may be difficult to identify from the ACF/PACF plots.
|
||||
\item $ARMA(p,q)$ models are parsimonius, but can usually be replaced by high-order pure $AR(p)$ or $MA(q)$ models. This is not a good idea in practice, however!
|
||||
\item In many cases, an AIC grid search over all $ARMA(p,q)$ with $p+q < 5$ may help to identify promising models.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
\scriptsize
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue