I'm looking into the possibility of using a non-causal time series filter for some data. The goal is filtering (for the purpose of anomaly detection). However, this is not particularly relevant.

I'm wondering how simulation of such a time series would work? Say for example your time series model were:

$$y_t = y_{t-1}+y_{t+1}+\eta_t$$

where $\eta$ corresponds to some standard random noise ($N(0,1)$ or something). My initial thoughts are to just simulate the random noise $\eta_t^*$ and then solve a linear system to get the $y_t$. However, this also sounds slow.. and I can't help but feel someone has probably already thought about this problem.

So, what is the standard practice here?

  • $\begingroup$ you cant simulate $y_{t+1}$ you can only predict it. I just simulated for an earlier post without $y_{t+1}$ see here stats.stackexchange.com/questions/107551/… $\endgroup$ – forecaster Jul 12 '14 at 3:38
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I don't understand what you mean - I mean to create a simulation for all t in [0,...,T]. I see that the end points will be a problem here though.. so that could remain fixed? $\endgroup$ – thebigdog Jul 12 '14 at 3:59
  • $\begingroup$ Ok got it , then yes. $\endgroup$ – forecaster Jul 12 '14 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ So you mean yes do it as a linear system, holding the ends fixed? I guess in my example it would be a fairly simple linear system.. $\endgroup$ – thebigdog Jul 12 '14 at 7:55

Here's an easy way to accomplish this in this particular situation. Rewrite your first equation as: $\Delta y_t = -y_{t-1}+\epsilon_t$ where $\epsilon_t=-\eta_t$. Simulate $\epsilon_t$ as random $N(0,1)$, and start with an initial $y_0$ and $y_1$. Then create $y_2$ as $y_1-y_0+\epsilon_1$. You'll find it obeys the same relationship. Simulate a bunch and then burn some if you're worried about the starting point. I'm not sure if this helps for a more general version of your problem.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Ah.. good point. I guess 'ignoring end points' all no causal time series can be rewritten as a casual version in this way. At least when the relationship is linear. $\endgroup$ – thebigdog Jul 15 '14 at 9:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.