Time Series: Partial Autocorrelation Function (PACF)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the partial autocorrelation function (PACF) for a stationary AR(2) process that includes a constant term. Participants explore whether the presence of this constant affects the PACF compared to a similar process without it.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 presents an AR(2) process with a constant term and questions how to find the PACF in this case, specifically comparing it to a version of the process without the constant.
  • Post 2 asserts that both processes (with and without the constant) have the same autocorrelation functions, explaining that correlation coefficients are based on mean-centered deviations, which are unaffected by changes in means.
  • Post 3 seeks clarification on whether the partial autocorrelation functions of the two processes are the same and requests reasoning for this.
  • Post 4 suggests that the PACF should also be the same, referencing the calculation of PACF from the covariance matrix, which is similarly mean-corrected.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the autocorrelation functions of the two processes are the same, but the discussion on whether the PACFs are the same remains unresolved, with differing views expressed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the specific conditions under which the PACF may differ or remain the same, leaving open questions about the implications of the constant term in the AR(2) process.

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0
Consider a stationary AR(2) process:
Xt - Xt-1 + 0.3Xt-2 = 6 + at
where {at} is white noise with mean 0 and variance 1.
Find the partial autocorrelation function (PACF).

I searched a number of time series textbooks, but all of them only described how to find the PACF for an ARMA process with mean 0 (i.e. without the constant term). So if the constant term "6" above wasn't there, then I know how to find the PACF, but how about the case WITH the constant term "6" as shown above?

I'm guessing that (i) and (ii) below would have the same PACF, but I'm just not so sure. So do they have the same PACF? Can someone explain why?
(i) Xt - Xt-1 + 0.3Xt-2 = 6 + at
(ii) Xt - Xt-1 + 0.3Xt-2 = at

Any help would be much appreciated! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, (i) and (ii) have the same autocorrelation functions. Correlation coefficients are defined based on mean-centered deviations, so changes in the means only of the correlated values have no effect on the correlation.
 
kingwinner said:
I see. How about the PARTIAL autocorrelation functions of (i) and (ii)? Are they the same? Why or why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_autocorrelation_function
http://fedc.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/xplore/tutorials/sfehtmlnode59.html
I wasn't familiar with this, but based on those links, it should be the same. In particular, if you look at the second, the correction from ACF to PACF is calculated from the covariance matrix. Covariances, like correlations, are mean-corrected.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K