6
$\begingroup$

Let's assume we have four time series a, b, c and d with 10 measurments.

a(1), ..., a(10)
b(1), ..., b(10)
c(1), ..., c(10)

d(1), ..., d(10)

a, b and c are assumed to show the same trend and periodicity.

The question is how can I compare d to a combination of a, b and c in order to test whether d is differing from the assumed trend and periodicity.

The problem is that a, b and c have different ranges, so an average

X(i) := ( a(i) + b(i) + c(i) ) / 3

is not useful.

My question is what would be a good way to reach a meaningful combination?

Would it make sense to normalize the mean of all series a, b, c, d to 1 and then compare d to the average of a, b and c? Or would I also have to normalize the standard deviation of all four series to 1 first?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ give an example $\endgroup$
    – user603
    Jul 12, 2012 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ I'm assuming that "trend" covers phase/delay differences. Your factors are essentially complicated ways of saying "normalize each series by its sum before comparing." For instance, let a'(i) = a(i)/sum(a), etc. You're essentially comparing the average of a', b', and c' to d. I'd compare it to d'. $\endgroup$
    – Josephine Moeller
    Jul 12, 2012 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ I edited the question. Basically I want to combine the information of a, b and c in a way that causes as little distortian to the original information as possible and then compare it. Basically I should normalize the mean of all series, I guess. What I have been wondering is if I would have to normalize the std dev as well ... I am pretty unsure. $\endgroup$
    – Raffael
    Jul 12, 2012 at 20:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

I am not particularly familiar with them, but it seems to me that this would be a reasonable case to use a VAR (vector autoregression) model for.

In particular, a VAR with a linear time trend or period-specific deterministic component would give you a nice summary statistic for the overall trend in a given period. See for example equation (11.4) here:

http://faculty.washington.edu/ezivot/econ584/notes/varModels.pdf

You could then consider your series d as analagous to the exogenous variable in impulse response modeling (or the X in the equation listed above) and see its joint effect on the vector of Y's (your series a-c). The F-test seems to be the standard way to do this.

Example

Here's an example that (I think) shows what you are looking to test:

set.seed(1)
n <- 10
dat <- data.frame( a = runif(n), b = runif(n), c = runif(n) )
dat$d <- apply( dat[ c(1,1:9), ], 1, function(x) x[1] + x[2]*3 + x[3]*4 + runif(1) )
mdl <- VAR( dat, p=1, type="const" )
causality(mdl,cause="d")

$Granger

    Granger causality H0: d do not Granger-cause a b c

data:  VAR object mdl
F-Test = 3.8527, df1 = 3, df2 = 16, p-value = 0.02994


$Instant

    H0: No instantaneous causality between: d and a b c

data:  VAR object mdl
Chi-squared = 2.6609, df = 3, p-value = 0.4469

The null Granger hypothesis is rejected at p<.05. So a shock in d is useful in predicting future values of (a,b,c).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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