Four dependences a single parameter cannot tell apart
Every law here is standardised to a lag-one autocorrelation of 0.8, so a rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression finds the same number in all four and has no way of seeing what separates them. The geometric decay is the world in which estimating a covariance rather than naming it was priced, and found to cost. The five-period moving average has 0.200 at the fourth lag and exactly nothing past it, where the geometric law says 0.328 at the fifth. Long memory at d = 4/9 is still at 0.576 by the twentieth lag, where the geometric law has reached 0.012. The break has no autocorrelation function at all: what is drawn for it is the average over the pairs at each gap, which is what a stationary estimate converges to.
The shape a dependence haswide4 views
What else it draws
The same object, drawn to answer the other questions the essays put to it.
Regret under AR(1) at 0.8 as the tapered estimate is given more lags, over 120 draws at n = 120. The best window is L = 12; the automatic bandwidth is 4 and the error model's own likelihood chooses 5.2 on average. Both land in the same place and both are short, and the reason is the taper: a Bartlett weight at lag k is 1 − k/(L + 1), so a window of 8 keeps 0.556 of whatever the fourth lag carries and a window of 30 keeps 0.871. A window has to be several times the memory before it stops removing the memory. The dashed line is the rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression, which needs no window at all.
Under long memory at d = 4/9, four things that are all called the dependence. The law itself is the top line. What a sample of 120 rows reports on average is the second, computed exactly: subtracting a sample mean takes the first lag from 0.800 to 0.538. What a candidate's residuals report is the third, lower again at 0.472, because a fit removes dependence along with signal. The autoregressions are fitted to that third sequence and reproduce it exactly out to their own order — the Yule–Walker equations are solved to make it so — so everything they say past that is extrapolation. At the twentieth lag the law has 0.576, the residuals report 0.006, and an AR(8) extrapolates 0.028.
Regret on a sample whose persistence changes from 0.95 to 0.65 at row 60, over 200 draws. The three stationary rules — told one number, told a window, told an order — are within 0.4 standard errors of each other, and all three stop in the same place: they are general in the lag direction, and the departure is in the other one. Letting the model change once, at a point estimated from the same residuals, is worth 0.05021 more at 4.5 paired standard errors — about as much again as the whole of the first repair. Being told where the break is adds 0.01926, and being told the entire covariance adds 0.02465.
Where it is used
10 essays draw this figure, each at the numbers its own argument is about, so the same picture answers 10 different questions.
- A break that was looked for Paying for a search
- A dependence with a shape The shape a dependence has
- Two searches, one sample Two searches over one sample
- A lag the sample has less of A charge that is not a straight line
- The plug-in and the maximum A covariance with no parameter
- Where the generality runs out The shape a dependence has
- A list is not a rule How long the list is
- The window a whitening wants The shape a dependence has
- The order the tail is drawn at The shape a dependence has
- What fitting them together buys A covariance with no parameter