3
$\begingroup$

I'm reading the book Time Series Models by Franses et al. It says that if we have an $ARMA(1,1)$ model with $\phi=1$ and $\theta=-1$ we have $y_t=\epsilon_t$. So, this means that in the equation $(1-L)y_t=(1-L)\epsilon_t$ we can cancel out $(1-L)$ in both sides. I'm wondering if this is a licit operation since having $\theta=-1$ means that the $MA$ model is not invertible.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ if L=1, then we have like this $0*x=0*y$ this does not mean that $x=y$ $\endgroup$ – dato datuashvili Feb 6 '15 at 5:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is illuminating to write the process as $y_t = y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t - \epsilon_{t-1}$ and do repetitive substitutions of the lagged $y_t$; e.g. $y_{t-1} = y_{t-2} + \epsilon_{t-1} - \epsilon_{t-2}$ and hence $y_t = y_{t-2} + \epsilon_{t-1} - \epsilon_{t-2} + \epsilon_t - \epsilon_{t-1} = y_{t-2} - \epsilon_{t-2} + \epsilon_t$. Then substitute the model for $y_{t-2}$ and so on. You will see that $y_t = y_0 - \epsilon_0 + \epsilon_t$, for some initial values $y_0$ and $\epsilon_0$. $\endgroup$ – javlacalle Feb 6 '15 at 7:49
1
$\begingroup$

I'm wondering if this is a licit operation

The operation is licit. In fact, you can multiply both sides with $(1-L)^{-1},$ which results in

$$y_t=\epsilon_t$$

and then, you can multiply it with $(1-\phi L), \;\phi \in \mathbb{R}$ and get a more general representation of this process:

$$(1-\phi L)y_t=(1-\phi L)\epsilon_t.$$

This process is not identifiable (i.e., a case of parameter indeterminacy) and $y_t$ is in fact a white noise process. In ARMA literature, it is usually ruled out by the assumption that the AR and MA operators have no common factors or equivalently, $y_t$ is not white noise. (Lutkepohl (2005), page 449-450)

To explain another aspect of this question, please note that for a process such as

$$a(z) = 1-z,$$

there is an invertible process, such

$$a^{-1}(z) = \frac{1}{1-z} = 1+z+z^2+z^3+\ldots,$$

with which we have

$$a(z)a^{-1}(z) = 1.$$

However, in time-series analysis, these process are not very attractive. If an increase in the power of $z$ is interpreted as the passing of time, the effect of further values of $z$ does not change (does not decrease) over time.

Hope it helps.

$\endgroup$

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.