2

So, [Wikipedia says] that the standard definition of independence is:

$f_{X,Y}(x,y) = f_X(x) f_Y(y)$

How is this applied to timeseries? How do we calculate each side of the equation?

If we're assuming that the probability distributions of the two series are the same, then $X=Y$ and we can just use $f(x,y) = f(x) f(y)$, right? So then I geuss I am basically asking what is f(x,y), and how do we calculate it?

naught101
  • 5,453
  • I don't think this question can be answered in its present state. Reading the first part of this answer of mine to a different question might help you understand the issue a little better. – Dilip Sarwate May 02 '12 at 13:13
  • @DilipSarwate: I think a lot of the stuff over there is a bit over my head at the moment (although it may just be that I'm not familiar enough with the terminology). If possible, could you point out where I'm going wrong here? – naught101 May 03 '12 at 01:36

2 Answers2

3

Dependence is what makes time series, which are really sequences, interesting. Otherwise they would be an unordered set of random variables. Returning to your question, the issue is whether the joint distribution of $X_{t_i}$ and $X_{t_j}$ is separable: $f_{X_{t_i}, X_{t_j}}(x, y) \overset{?}{\equiv} f_{X_{t_i}}(x) f_{X_{t_j}}(y)$

Emre
  • 2,638
  • White noise is an example of a time series series with each term independent of all the others. It is usually only of interest in time series if you can reject the hypothesis that a series is white noise. I agree with your comment. What do you mean by separable? Is it a synonym for indepences? if you require the joint density for Xti and Xtj to be the product of the marginal densities for all values x and y then you are just saying that they are independent. – Michael R. Chernick May 07 '12 at 18:36
  • @MichaelChernick: White noise is the textbook example of a time "series" that has no temporal structure. Separable here is shorthand for "expressible as a product". Yes, I am saying they are independent---that's the question. – Emre May 07 '12 at 18:56
  • What gave you the impression that I didn't know what white noise is? Tosay that two random variables are separable does not necessarily mean that their density factors into the product of the mariginals. Also why use the term separable when you mean independent? – Michael R. Chernick May 07 '12 at 20:18
  • Michael, I did not say or imply you did not know what white noise is; I merely stated a fact. I can't very well define independence by invoking independence, so I explained it in plain English, then made precise the notion with a mathematical definition. Perhaps I should have said "factorable" instead but the maths takes care of any ambiguity. Moreover, the OP obviously knows this. His/her confusion is merely about how X and Y in the original definition relate to time series. – Emre May 07 '12 at 20:32
  • Sorry, I don't mean to get into something that looks like an argument. I just didn't see why you were telling me what white noise is. It just didn't seem necessary. I also don't see why you need to mention words like factorable or separable. You could have just said that the equation defines independence as long as you add for every possible x and y which you left out. – Michael R. Chernick May 07 '12 at 20:55
  • 2
    One thing to bear in mind, @Michael, is that comments are read by everyone, not just to whom they may be addressed. However, when it seems necessary to provide a definition or clarification, it's usually better to edit the original reply (or question) than to bury that information in a comment. Had Emre done that (hint, hint), I think this discussion would have been more productive. In general, people interacting on this site try to avoid personal comments, attacks or criticisms: they are focusing on the ideas. This should help guide your default interpretation of any remark. – whuber May 07 '12 at 21:39
  • I agree with everything you say except about editing. I don't like it that other people can edit what I write or remove it from teh site without discussing it with me. But it appears that happens a lot. So far I think I have ben cognizant of the fatc that comments can be read by everyone and I am glad of it. I also think that I have tried to avoid personal attacks. But if someone is being rude or sarcastic with me i think I have a right to point that out. – Michael R. Chernick May 07 '12 at 21:47
2

Independence means that the joint density function for a set of variables is a product of their individual marginal densities. This doesn't change in the context of time series. $f(x,y)$ is the joint density for $X$ at $x$ and $Y$ at $y$. If $X$ and $Y$ are independent then it is the product of $f_X(x)$ and $f_Y(y)$. Note that $X$ and $Y$ do not have to have the same density. That is why Wikipedia used the subscripts and you should have too. Now in general if the variables are dependent than you need to know the form of the density and the value of the parameters. For example the bivariate normal density looks as follows:

$$ f_{X,Y}(x, y) = c e^{-q(x,y)} $$,

where the normalizing constant is

$$c = \frac{1}{2π \sqrt{(1-ρ^2)} σ_x σ_y} $$

and

$$q(x,y) = \frac{ \left( \frac{(x-μ_x)^2}{σ_{x}^2} - \frac{2 ρ (x-μ_x)(y-μ_y)}{σ_x σ_y} + \frac{(y-μ_y)^2}{σ_{y}^2}\right) }{2(1- ρ^2)} $$

We have two variances a correlation and constants in the formula. Given the parameters $ρ$, $σ_x$, $σ_y$ and $μ_x$ and $μ_y$ the joint density can be calculated.

Gavin Simpson
  • 47,626
  • 1
    Hi Michael. I tried editing your answer to make the equations more readable, using tex, but your last equation is wrong somehow - you have one too many [ or one to few ]. I guess you mean something like http://math.tntech.edu/ISR/Introduction_to_Probability/Joint_Distributions/thispage/newnode6.html though, right? You can probably just copy and paste the tex from those pages (highlight and ctrl+v the image, don't copy the image), and put it between $ signs. – naught101 May 03 '12 at 02:43
  • I copied and pasted from an outside source. Thanks for putting it in Tex or LaTex. I don't see anything wrong with it. You might think it is missing the - sign in the equation for q but it is not because that is incorporated in the first rather compact equation for the joint density. what do you think is wrong? – Michael R. Chernick May 04 '12 at 20:12
  • Gavin fixed it, not me :) – naught101 May 05 '12 at 03:10