Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average - Definition

Definition

Given a time series of data where is an integer index and the are real numbers, then an ARMA(p,q) model is given by:

\left( 1 - \sum_{i=1}^{p} \alpha_i L^i \right) X_t = \left( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^q \theta_i L^i \right) \varepsilon_t \,

where is the lag operator, the are the parameters of the autoregressive part of the model, the are the parameters of the moving average part and the are error terms. The error terms are generally assumed to be independent, identically distributed variables sampled from a normal distribution with zero mean.

Assume now that the polynomial has a unitary root of multiplicity d. Then it can be rewritten as:

\left( 1 - \sum_{i=1}^p \alpha_i L^i \right) = \left( 1 - \sum_{i=1}^{p-d} \phi_i L^i \right) \left( 1 - L \right)^{d} .


An ARIMA(p,d,q) process expresses this polynomial factorisation property, and is given by:

\left( 1 - \sum_{i=1}^p \phi_i L^i \right) \left( 1-L \right)^d X_t = \left( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^q \theta_i L^i \right) \varepsilon_t \,

and thus can be thought as a particular case of an ARMA(p+d,q) process having the auto-regressive polynomial with some roots in the unity. For this reason every ARIMA model with d>0 is not wide sense stationary.

Read more about this topic:  Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “Perhaps the best definition of progress would be the continuing efforts of men and women to narrow the gap between the convenience of the powers that be and the unwritten charter.”
    —Nadine Gordimer (b. 1923)

    “The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
    —William James (1842–1910)