# We keep breaking records ? so what ?… Get statistical perspective….

This summer, we have been told that some financial series broke some records (here, in French)

For instance, the French CAC40 had negative return for 11 consecutive days (which has never been seen, so far).

```> library(tseries)
> x<-get.hist.quote("^FCHI")
> Y=x\$Close
> Z=diff(log(Y))
> RUN=rle(as.character(Z>=0))\$lengths
> n=length(RUN)
> LOSS=RUN[seq(2,n,by=2)]
> GAIN=RUN[seq(1,n,by=2)]
> TG=sort(table(GIN))
> TG[as.character(1:13)]
GAIN
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9 <NA> <NA> <NA>   13
645  336  170   72   63   21    7    3    4   NA   NA   NA    1

> TL=sort(table(LOSS))
> TL[as.character(1:15)]
LOSS
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9 <NA>   11 <NA> <NA>
664  337  186   68   42   14    5    3    1   NA    1   NA   NA

> TR=sort(table(RUN))
> TR[as.character(1:15)]
RUN
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9 <NA>   11 <NA>   13
1309  673  356  140  105   35   12    6    5   NA    1   NA    1```

Indeed 11 consecutive days of negative returns is a record. But one should keep in mind the fact that the real records for runs is 13 consecutive days with positivereturns…
But what does that mean ? Can we still assume time independence of log-returns (since today, a lot of financial models are still based on that assumption) ?
Actually. if financial series were time-independence, such a probability, indeed, should be rather small. At least on 11 or 10 runs. Something like

(assuming that each day, the probability to observe a negative return is 50%). But maybe not over 25 years (6250 trading days): the probability to observe a sub-sequence of 10 consecutive negative value (with daily probability of one half) over 6250 observations will be much larger. My guess is that is would be

where at the numerator we have the number of favourable cases over the total number of cases. At the numerator, the first number the number of cases where the first 10 (at least) are negative, then for the second one, we count the number of cases where the first is positive, then the next 10 (at least) are negative (and then the second is positive and then the next 10 are negative, the third is positive etc). For those interested by more details (and a more general formula on runs), an answer can be found here.
But note that the probability is quite large… So it is not that unlikely to observe such a sequence over 25 years.
A classical idea when looking at time series is to look at the autocorrelation function of the returns,

which might suggest that there is no correlation with past returns. But it should be possible to do more advanced tests.
On the CAC40 series, we can run an independence run test on the latest 100 consecutive days, and look at the p-value,

```> library(lawstat)
> u=as.vector(Z[(n-100):n])
> runs.test(u,plot=TRUE)

Runs Test - Two sided

data:  u
Standardized Runs Statistic = -0.4991, p-value = 0.6177```

The B’s here are returns lower than the median (almost null, so they might be considered as negative returns). With such a high p-value, we accept the null hypothesis, i.e. time independence.
If we consider a moving-time window

we can see that we accept the assumption of independence most the the time.
Actually, here, the time window is 100 days (+/- 50 days). But it is possible to consider 200 days,

or even 400 days,

So, except if we focus on 2006, it looks like we should reject the idea of time dependence in financial markets.
It is also possible to look more carefully at the distribution of runs, and to compare it with the case of independent samples (here we consider monte carlo generation of sequences having the same size),

```> m=length(Z)
> ns=100000
> HIST=matrix(NA,ns,15)
> for(j in 1:ns){
+ XX=sample(c("A","B"),size=m,replace=TRUE)
+ RUNX=rle(as.character(XX))\$lengths
+ S=sort(table(RUNX))
+ HIST[j,]=S[as.character(1:15)]
+ }
> meana=function(x){sum(x[is.na(x)==FALSE])/length(x)}
> cbind(TR[as.character(1:15)],apply(HIST,2,meana),
+       round(m/(2^(1+1:15))))

[,1]       [,2] [,3]
1    1309 1305.12304 1305
2     673  652.46513  652
3     356  326.21119  326
4     140  163.05101  163
5     105   81.52366   82
6      35   40.74539   41
7      12   20.38198   20
8       6   10.16383   10
9       5    5.09871    5
10     NA    2.56239    3
11      1    1.26939    1
12     NA    0.63731    1
13      1    0.31815    0
14     NA    0.15812    0
15     NA    0.08013    0```

The first column above is the empirical frequency of runs of length 1,2,3, etc. The second one is the average frequencies obtained on random simulation of independent sample. The third one is the theoretical frequency based on a (geometric distribution with mean 1).

Here again, it looks like our time series behave like an independent sample. Here is also a nice paper by Mark Schilling on the longest run of heads.
So it is not that odd to observe such a series of losses on financial markets….

# Time horizon in forecasting, and rules of thumb

I recently received an email about forecasting and rules of thumb. “Dans la profession […] se transmet une règle empirique qui voudrait que l’on prenne un historique du double de l’horizon de prévision : 20 ans de données pour une prévision à 10 ans, etc… Je souhaite savoir si cette règle n’aurait pas, par hasard, un fondement théorique quitte à ce que le rapport ne soit pas de 2 pour 1, mais de 3 pour 1 ou de 1 pour 1 par exemple.” To summarize briefly, the rule is to consider a 2-1 ratio for the period of observation vs. forecast horizon. And the interesting question is if there are justifications for such a rule…

At first, I remembered a rules of thumb, from the book by Box and Jenkins, which states that it is meaningless to look at autocorrelations when lags exceed the sample size over 6. So with 12 years of data, autocorrelations with a lag higher than two years are useless. But it is not what is mentioned here. So I looked at some dataset, and some standard time series models.

• It depends on the series

It might obvious… but if it is the case, it means that it will be difficult to have a general rule of thumb. Consider e.g. the number of airline passengers,

```library(forecast)
X = AirPassengers
ETS = ets(X)
plot(forecast(ETS,h=length(X)/2))```

or some sales in a big store,

or car casualties in France, or the temperature in Nottingham Castle,

or the water level at Lack Hurron, or the flow of the Nile river,

or see also here for forecasting techniques in demography. Actually, in the case of life insurance, actuaries have to forecast future demography, i.e. try to assess death rates of those who currently purchase retirement contracts, who might be 20 years old. So they have to forecast death rate until 2100, say. One the one hand, it sounds difficult to make forecast over a century (it is already difficult for climate, I guess it is even more complex for human life). On the other hand, a 2-1 ratio means that we have to use data from 1800… Here again, it is difficult to justify that mortality in the 1850 could be interesting to say anything about mortality in 2050. So I guess it will be difficult to justify the use of general rules of thumb….

• It depends on the model

Consider the following (simulated) series. Several models can be fitted. And the shape on the forecast (and the forecast error) will depend on the model considered. The benchmark can be the model without any dynamics, i.e. we assume that observations are i.i.d. Or more classically, assume that it is simple a white noise, i.e. an i.i.d centered process. Then the forecast is the following,

With that kind of assumption, we see that the 2-1 ratio is useless since we can get forecasts up to any horizon…. But that does not seem very robust. For instance, if we consider exponential smoothing techniques, we can obtain

Which is rather different. And with the 2-1 ratio, obviously, there is a lot of uncertainty at the end ! It would be even worst if we assume that we look at a random walk. Because actually a dozen models – at least – can be considered, from ARIMA, seasonal ARIMA, Holt Winters, Exponential Smoothing, etc…

So I do not see any theoretical justification of that rule of thumb. Obviously, the maximum horizon can not be extremely far away if the series is non-stationary, with a very irregular pattern, and with a lot of noise… So we’re back at the beginning. If anyone is willing to share his or her experience, comments are open.

# More climate extremes, or simply global warming ?

In the paper on the heat wave in Paris (mentioned here) I discussed changes in the distribution of temperature (and autocorrelation of the time series).

During the workshop on Statistical Methods for Meteorology and Climate Change today (here) I observed that it was still an important question: is climate change affecting only averages, or does it have an impact on extremes ? And since I’ve seen nice slides to illustrate that question, I decided to play again with my dataset to see what could be said about temperature in Paris.
Recall that data can be downloaded here (daily temperature of the XXth century).

```tmaxparis=read.table("/temperature/TX_SOUID100124.txt",
Dmaxparis=as.Date(as.character(tmaxparis\$DATE),"%Y%m%d")
Tmaxparis=as.numeric(tmaxparis\$TX)/10
Dminparis=as.Date(as.character(tminparis\$DATE),"%Y%m%d")
Tminparis=as.numeric(tminparis\$TN)/10
Tminparis[Tminparis==-999.9]=NA
Tmaxparis[Tmaxparis==-999.9]=NA
annee=trunc(tminparis\$DATE/10000)
MIN=tapply(Tminparis,annee,min)
plot(unique(annee),MIN,col="blue",ylim=c(-15,40),xlim=c(1900,2000))
abline(lm(MIN~unique(annee)),col="blue")
abline(lm(Tminparis~unique(Dminparis)),col="blue",lty=2)
annee=trunc(tmaxparis\$DATE/10000)
MAX=tapply(Tmaxparis,annee,max)
points(unique(annee),MAX,col="red")
abline(lm(MAX~unique(annee)),col="red")
abline(lm(Tmaxparis~unique(Dmaxparis)),col="red",lty=2)```

On the plot below, the dots in red are the annual maximum temperatures, while the dots in blue are the annual minimum temperature. The plain line is the regression line (based on the annual max/min), and the dotted lines represent the average maximum/minimum daily temperature (to illustrate the global tendency),

It is also possible to look at annual boxplot, and to focus either on minimas, or on maximas.

```annee=trunc(tminparis\$DATE/10000)
boxplot(Tminparis~as.factor(annee),ylim=c(-15,10),
xlab="Year",ylab="Temperature",col="blue")
x=boxplot(Tminparis~as.factor(annee),plot=FALSE)
xx=1:length(unique(annee))
points(xx,x\$stats[1,],pch=19,col="blue")
abline(lm(x\$stats[1,]~xx),col="blue")
annee=trunc(tmaxparis\$DATE/10000)
boxplot(Tmaxparis~as.factor(annee),ylim=c(15,40),
xlab="Year",ylab="Temperature",col="red")
x=boxplot(Tmaxparis~as.factor(annee),plot=FALSE)
xx=1:length(unique(annee))
points(xx,x\$stats[5,],pch=19,col="red")
abline(lm(x\$stats[5,]~xx),col="red")```

Plain dots are average temperature below the 5% quantile for minima, or over the 95% quantile for maxima (again with the regression line),

We can observe an increasing trend on the minimas, but not on the maximas !
Finally, an alternative is to remember that we focus on annual maximas and minimas. Thus, Fisher and Tippett theory (mentioned here) can be used. Here, we fit a GEV distribution on a blog of 10 consecutive years. Recall that the GEV distribution is

```install.packages("evir")
library(evir)
Pmin=Dmin=Pmax=Dmax=matrix(NA,10,3)
for(s in 1:10){
X=MIN[1:10+(s-1)*10]
FIT=gev(-X)
Pmin[s,]=FIT\$par.ests
Dmin[s,]=FIT\$par.ses
X=MAX[1:10+(s-1)*10]
FIT=gev(X)
Pmax[s,]=FIT\$par.ests
Dmax[s,]=FIT\$par.ses
}```

The location parameter is the following, with on the left the minimas and on the right the maximas,

while the scale parameter is

and finally the shape parameter is

On those graphs, it is very difficult to say anything regarding changes in temperature extremes… And I guess this is a reason why there is still active research on that area…

# I really need to find hot (and sexy) topics

50 days ago (here), I was supposed to be very optimistic about the probability that I could reach a million viewed pages on that blog (over a bit more than two years). Unfortunately, the wind has changed and today, the probability is quite low…

``` base=read.table("millionb.csv",sep=";",header=TRUE)
X1=cumsum(base\$nombre)
X2=cumsum(base\$nombre)
X=X1+X2
D=as.Date(as.character(base\$date),"%m/%d/%Y")
kt=which(D==as.Date("01/06/2010","%d/%m/%Y"))
D0=as.Date("08/11/2008","%d/%m/%Y")
D=D0+1:length(X1)
P=rep(NA,(length(X)-kt)+1)
for(h in 0:(length(X)-kt)){
model  <- arima(X[1:(kt+h)],c(7 1,7),method="CSS")
forecast <- predict(model,200)
u=max(D[1:kt+h])+1:300
k=which(u==as.Date("01/01/2011","%d/%m/%Y"))
(P[h+1]=1-pnorm(1000000,forecast\$pred[k],forecast\$se[k]))
}
plot( D[length(D)-length(P)]+1:220,c(P,rep(NA,220-length(P))),
ylab="Probability to reach 1,000,000",xlab="",
type="l",col="red",ylim=c(0,1))```
So, I guess my posts on multiple internal rates of return, or Young’s inequality will have to wait next year… I really need to find some more sexy post to attract readers.. Challenge accepted !

# Is it that stupid to make extremely long term forecast when studying mortality ?

I received recently a comment by FCA (here) who raised an important question, about forecast in dynamic mortality models. (S)he mentioned that from his(her) point of view, the econometric models I considered were “good to predict for the next, say, 3 or 4 years. Not for the next 50 years…”. Which was the message I tried to stress last year in a conference about retirement in France (here). But from a quantitativepoint of view, how inconsistent were forecasts made 35 years ago, or 60 years ago ?

Consider here the Lee Carter model, obtained on the periods 1816-1950 (in black below), 1816-1975 (in red) and 1816-2000 (in blue), unfortunately, it is difficult to compare ‘s since we have identifiability problems here. Nevertheless, we if consider affine transformation so that  ‘s are equal in 1900 and 1950 (say), we obtain

On that graph, we considered an ETS (AAN) forecast. If we do not consider the entire series for forecasting, but only observations following WWI (1945), we obtain

For sketches of the R code,

```T=1980
base0=data.frame(D,E,A,Y,a=as.factor(A),
y=as.factor(Y))
base=base0[base0\$Y<=T,]
LC2=gnm(D~a+Mult(a,y),offset=log(E),family=
poisson,data=base)
A=LC2\$coefficients[1]+LC2\$coefficients[2:110]
B=LC2\$coefficients[111:220]
K0=LC2\$coefficients[221:length(LC2\$coefficients)]
Y=as.numeric(K0)
K1=c(K0,forecast(ets(Y,model="AAN"),h=240)\$mean)
K2=c(K0,forecast(auto.arima(Y,allowdrift=TRUE),h=240)\$mean)
MU=matrix(NA,length(A),length(K1))
MU1=MU2=MU
for(i in 1:length(A)){
for(j in 1:length(K1)){
MU1[i,j]=exp(A[i]+B[i]*K1[j])
MU2[i,j]=exp(A[i]+B[i]*K2[j])
}}
x=40
s=seq(0,109-x-1)
t=2000
Pxt1=cumprod(exp(-diag(MU1[x+1+s,t+s-base1\$Year[1]-1])))
Pxt2=cumprod(exp(-diag(MU2[x+1+s,t+s-base1\$Year[1]-1])))
r=.035
m=70
h=seq(0,39)
V1=1/(1+r)^(m-x+h)*Pxt1[m-x+h]
V2=1/(1+r)^(m-x+h)*Pxt2[m-x+h]
M=cbind(V1,V2)
apply(M,2,sum)```

Actually, it is not that bad…. even if it is only a qualitative intuition. Again, I am not a demographer, and my interest is more on actuarial science… so if we look at the estimation of annuities (still the same insurance contract, as here) for some insured of age 40 in 2000, we get the following graph (where forecasts ‘s were obtained on the complete series, i.e. from 1816 until the year we consider),

(here it means that in 1900, I had to forecast mortality for someone of age 40 in 2000… so we had to forecast mortality with a 150 year horizon). Obviously, even if we are able to forecast improvement of mortality rates, it is not enough since it looks like, each year, improvement are alway higher than what what expected. Note that if we run it twice (since there might be problem with initial values in the econometric procedure) we obtain something similar,

So, the output is consistent. And if we change the way we predict future values, e.g. on focusing only on the past 50 years, i.e.

```K1=c(K0,forecast(ets(Y[(length(Y)-50):length(Y)],
model="AAN"),h=240)\$mean)
K2=c(K0,forecast(auto.arima(Y[(length(Y)-50):length(Y)],
allowdrift=TRUE),h=240)\$mean)```

we obtain the following graph for the annuity associated to an insurance contract sold in 2000,

so that relative changes compared with 1980 are (in %)

Hence, over a bit more than 25 years, we underestimated annuities of 25%. We if start to take into account possible investments, it is not so bad, I think….  don’t you think ?

# Nikkei’s past experience vs. SP500 (in euros)

Following Michael’s idea (here), I wanted to go further, based on his intuition (and dataset that he kindly sent me, there). If we consider the two series of Nikkei index and SP500 index in euros, we have to following graph,

the code is simply the following (the merging function is simply here to avoid problem with different trading days: since we look at the index and not the return, it is the simplest way to deal with it).

```> library(RODBC)
> base = odbcConnectExcel(
+ "https://perso.univ-rennes1.fr/arthur.charpentier/spx_nky_eurusd.xls",
> series1 = sqlQuery(base,query="select * from [Tabelle1\$A2:B8837]") # SPX
> series2 = sqlQuery(base,query="select * from [Tabelle1\$D2:E8631]") # NKY
> series3 = sqlQuery(base,query="select * from [Tabelle1\$G2:H8945]") # EURUSD
> odbcCloseAll()
> series4=merge(series1,series3)
> series4\$SPEUR=series4\$SPX/series4\$EURUSD
> series5=merge(series4,series2)
> x=(as.Date(series5[,1])-as.Date("01/01/0000","%d/%m/%Y"))/365.25
> yl=range(series5[,4])
> xl=c(1975,2010)
> plot(x,series5[,4],axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="",type="l",
+ lwd=3,col="red",xlim=xl,ylim=yl)
> axis(1)
> axis(2, col="red")
> par(new=TRUE)
> yl=range(series5[,5])
> plot(x,series5[,5],axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="",type="l",
+ lwd=3,col="blue",xlim=xl,ylim=yl)
> axis(4, col="blue")
> mtext("SP500 in Euros", 2, line=2, col="red", cex=1.2)
> mtext("NKY", 4, line=2, col="blue", cex=1.2)```

Those two series series seem to have a similar pattern, so an idea can be translate the SP500 on the left,

Interesting isn’t it ? Suppose that we want to forecast (or forsee ?) the SP500 in euro for the next 10 years…

People who enjoy charts would have here a nice tool…

Those two series are extremely correlated, with a correlation of 0.9572,

```> X1=series5[2501:n,4]
> X2=series5[1:(n-2500),5]
> cor(X1,X2)
[1] 0.9572484```

But are the two series cointegrated (see here, here or therefor material on cointegration) ? Well, using standard procedure, we first have to prove that the two series are integrated. First, let us look at the autocorrelograms,

At first sight, we confirm the economic intuition that those indices should be integrated. Standard tests confirm that intuition,

```> acf(X2,lag=1000,col="light green")
> acf(X1,lag=1000,col="light green")
> library(tseries)
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test
data:  X1
Dickey-Fuller = -1.0768, Lag order = 17, p-value = 0.9264
alternative hypothesis: stationary
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test
data:  X2
Dickey-Fuller = -1.2905, Lag order = 17, p-value = 0.8788
alternative hypothesis: stationary```

But if we want to go further, we have to find the cointegration relationship between the two series. From an heuristic point of view, a linear regression should be a good proxy,

```> reg=lm(X1~X2)
> plot(residuals(reg))```

`> acf(residuals(reg),lag=1000,col="light green")`

```> adf.test(residuals(reg))
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test
data:  residuals(reg)
Dickey-Fuller = -5.176, Lag order = 17, p-value = 0.01
alternative hypothesis: stationary
Message d'avis :
In adf.test(residuals(reg)) : p-value smaller than printed p-value
> pp.test(residuals(reg))
Phillips-Perron Unit Root Test
data:  residuals(reg)
Dickey-Fuller Z(alpha) = -46.9775, Truncation lag parameter = 11,
p-value = 0.01
alternative hypothesis: stationary
Message d'avis :
In pp.test(residuals(reg)) : p-value smaller than printed p-value```

When we look at the autocorrelation function, it looks like we do have a stationary series.
This idea is – more or less – the idea of Engle-Granger two step procedure. But actually, we can not directly use Dickey-Fuller’s test to see if residuals are integrated. This was proved in Phillips and Ouliaris (1990), who also proposed a test (see e.g. here),

```> library(tseries); po.test(cbind(X1,X2))
Phillips-Ouliaris Cointegration Test
data:  cbind(X1, X2)
Phillips-Ouliaris demeaned = -53.1766, Truncation lag parameter = 57,
p-value = 0.01
Message d'avis :
In po.test(cbind(X1, X2)) : p-value smaller than printed p-value
Another similar function can be found in R
> library(urca)
> summary(ca.po(cbind(X1,X2)))
########################################
# Phillips and Ouliaris Unit Root Test #
########################################
Test of type Pu
detrending of series none
Call:
lm(formula = z[, 1] ~ z[, -1] - 1)
Value of test-statistic is: 45.2032
Critical values of Pu are:
10pct    5pct    1pct
critical values 20.3933 25.9711 38.3413```

Thus, we has to admit that those series are cointegrated.

Based on that idea, it is possible to model the stationary component, and forecast it for the next ten years, based on the assumption that we know the behavior of one time series. Hence, if we add the confidence interval due to the stationary component uncertainty, we have the following graph,

Of course, again, only uncertainty related to the stationary process is considered here….

# Différencier (indéfiniment) les séries temporelles ?

Dans un mail, un étudiant qui finissait son projet de séries temporelles m’a posé une question simple et intéressante  (que je me permets de reprendre ici): “quand on cherche à stationnariser une série, on a souvent  besoin de différencier deux fois, et ça marche tout le temps“.
Effectivement, on peut toujours différencier une série, on finira bien par tomber sur une série stationnaire. Je retraduirais cette question sous la forme suivante “pourquoi cherche-t-on toujours à stationnariser les séries ?” ou encore “est-ce gênant de différencier une série ?“.
Pour la première question, la réponse est simple: les seules séries que l’on sache modéliser sont les séries stationnaires. Les autocorrélations se calculent sur des séries stationnaires, par exemple, et la non-stationnarité n’est pas une notion simple à définir (tout comme la non-indépendance entre variables aléatoires)…..etc.
Pour la seconde question, la réponse est simple: si on différencie une série pour mieux la modéliser, si on souhaite par la suite faire de la prévision, il conviendra d’intégrer la série modélisée. Or intégrer une série fait exploser l’intervalle de confiance. Autant faire ça sur un exemple simple, avec la série suivante, que l’on commence par supposer stationnaire, et que l’on prédit sur une trentaine de valeurs, avec un intervalle de confiance.

Mais si l’on suppose la série intégrée à l’ordre 1, on différencie puis on modélise par un processus stationnaire (c’est l’idée qui sous-tend les processus ARIMA, à savoir un processus ARMA intégré: en différenciant la série, on devrait tomber sur un processus ARMA. On peut rattacher ça à la notion de racine unité). La prédiction (avec l’intervalle de confiance) est alors présenté sur la série initiale. Le fait d’intégrer les erreurs fait que la variance de la prédiction augmente avec l’horizon.

Et si l’on continue, et que l’on différencie de fois la série avant de la modéliser, et que l’on intègre deux fois les erreurs, l’intervalle de confiance devient immense !

Bref, il convient de ne pas différencier si ce n’est pas vraiment indispensable ! L’outil pour vérifier que l’on n’a pas trop différencier est la fonction d’autocovariance inverse (c’est à dire la fonction d’autocovariance d’une série dont la densité spectrale serait l’inverse de la densité spectrale initiale*). Cette fonction fait partie des fonctions de base sous SAS, mais pas sous R… J’ai cherché un peu, mais sans succès. L’argument dans les forums est que cette fonction est redondante avec la fonction d’autocorrélation partielle. Et en effet, si la finalité est simplement de détecter les ordres AR ou MA d’une série stationnaire, alors effectivement, les deux fonctions s’utilisent de manière équivalente. Mais la fonction d’autocovariance inverse apporte plus d’information, en particulier afin de détecter si l’on n’a pas surdifférencié la série.
La sortie suivante présente la fonction d’autocorrélation (à gauche) et la fonction d’autocorrélation inverse (à droite) sur une série.

On note que la série semble intégrée (en pratique, des autocorrélations très fortes et persistantes très longtemps se traduit par une suspission d’intégration). Si l’on différencie la série, on obtient les autocorrélogrammes suivants,

Et si l’on différencie une nouvelle fois, on obtient les graphiques suivants,

Bref, l’autocorrélogramme de droite semble caractéristique d’une série intégrée: on dira alors que l’on a surdifférencié le modèle (“en intégrant la série, elle est toujours stationnaires”…). Je parle un peu de tout ça dans mon polycopié de Dauphine, tome 1.

* J’avais parlé dans un ancien billet (ici) de l’importance de la densité spectrale en série temporelles. L’idée est que si f est une densité spectrale, 1/f peut également l’être. Le lien entre la fonction d’autocorrélation et la densité spectrale est donné par des théorèmes de Kolmogorov ou Wiener. Pour plus de détails, il y a des compléments dans le chapitre 1.2 du polycopié que j’avais fait à Dauphine (ici). On peut d’ailleurs noter que la fonction d’autocorrélation partielle d’un processus ARMA(p,q) est la fonction d’autocorrélation d’un processus ARMA(q,p) obtenu en permutant les deux polynômes d’opérateurs retard.