2

I want to compute the probability $P_{ij}$ to move from decile $i$ in one period to decile $j$ in the next period in the distribution of a stationary AR(1) process

$$Y_t = \rho Y_{t - 1} + \upsilon_t,$$

where $\upsilon_t$ is an i.i.d. shock with distribution $N(0, \sigma^2)$ and $|\rho| < 1$. The stationary distribution of $Y$ is given by $N(0, \tau^2)$, where $\tau \equiv \sigma / \sqrt{1 - \rho^2}$.

Is the following expression what I should be trying to compute? Or is there some more straightforward way to do it?

\begin{align} P_{ij} &= \int_{(i - 1) / 10}^{i / 10} \underbrace{\Pr\biggl(\Phi^{-1}\left(\frac{j - 1}{10}\right) \leq \frac{Y_t}{\tau} < \Phi^{-1}\left(\frac{j}{10}\right)\biggr)}_{\text{probability to move to decile $j$ in time $t$}} \underbrace{\frac{\phi\left(\Phi^{-1}(x)\right)}{0.1}}_{\substack{\text{share of decile $i$} \\[0.5ex] \text{at time $t - 1$}}} d x, \end{align} where $\Phi^{-1}$ is the inverse cumulative distribution function of a standard normal variable and $\phi$ its probability density function.

Fredrik P
  • 482

1 Answers1

2

Letting $Z_t=Y_t/\tau$ where $\tau^2=\sigma^2/(1-\rho^2)$ and $d_i=\Phi^{-1}(\frac i{10})$, $i=1,2,\dots,9$ denote the corresponding deciles, we have, from the definition of conditional probability, $$ \begin{align} P_{ij}&=\Pr(d_{j-1}<Z_t\le d_j|d_{i-1}<Z_{t-1}\le d_i) \\&=\frac{\Pr(d_{j-1}<Z_t\le d_j \cap d_{i-1}<Z_{t-1}\le d_i)} {\Pr(d_{i-1}<Z_{t-1}\le d_i)} \\&=\frac{\Phi_2(d_i,d_j)-\Phi_2(d_i,d_{j-1})-\Phi_2(d_{i-1},d_j)+\Phi_2(d_{i-1},d_{j-1})}{1/10} \end{align} $$ where $\Phi_2$ is the cdf of the bivariate standard normal distribution with correlation $\rho$ (available as the function mvtnorm::pmvnorm in R).

It does not follow that the process is a first order Markov chain with the $P_{ij}$'s as the transition probabilities. This is demonstrated numerically below by computing higher order transisition probabilities based on the joint multivariate normal distribution of $Z_t,Z_{t-1},\dots,Z_{t-n}$ using a straightforward generalisation of the above expression. Indeed, the resulting Markov chain does not appear to be of any finite order, analogous to how an for example an AR(1) process plus white noise becomes a non-Markovian ARMA(1,1) process with partial autocorrelation function only tailing off.

library(mvtnorm)
# Compute the probability of transitioning from state i to j
# If i is a vector, the probabability of transitioning to state j
# given that the previous states are i[1], i[2], ..., i[n] is
# computed.
p <- function(i, j, rho) {
  order <- length(i)
  num <- pmvnorm(lower = qnorm(c(j - 1, i - 1)/10), 
          upper = qnorm(c(j, i)/10), 
          sigma = toeplitz(rho^(0:order)), 
          keepAttr = FALSE)
  den <- pmvnorm(lower = qnorm((i - 1)/10), 
          upper = qnorm(i/10), 
          sigma = toeplitz(rho^(0:(order-1))), 
          keepAttr = FALSE)
  names(den) <- NULL
  num/den
}
# Probability of remaining in state 1
p(1, 1, .5)
#> [1] 0.3240152
# Probability of remaining in state 1 given that the processes
# has been in state 1 for up to five previous time points
p(c(1, 1), 1, .5)
#> [1] 0.3476454
p(c(1, 1, 1), 1, .5)
#> [1] 0.3520791
p(c(1, 1, 1, 1), 1, .5)
#> [1] 0.3533796
p(c(1, 1, 1, 1, 1), 1, .5)
#> [1] 0.353544

Created on 2023-12-30 with reprex v2.0.2

Jarle Tufto
  • 10,939
  • 1
    I've never seen this derivation before so it was neat. But could you explain why the resulting probabilities are not ( atleast approximately ) the transition probabilities from decile to decile of a first order markov chain. – mlofton Dec 29 '23 at 14:58
  • @mlofton I think this will work pretty much like a kind of non-linear Kalman filter. The probability distribution of $Z_t$ (and hence the resulting transition probabilities) will be different if we condition only on $d_{i-1}<Z_{t-1}<d_i$ instead of also on $d_{k-1}<Z_{t-2}<d_k$ and the states further back in time. But, yes, the dependencies on higher time lags may of course be very small. – Jarle Tufto Dec 29 '23 at 15:29
  • The remark that the probabilities won’t be those of a first-order Markov chain seems odd to me. The next state of an AR(1) is fully determined by the current state and the shock. With no need to condition on states further back in time. – Fredrik P Dec 29 '23 at 17:16
  • 1
    Frederik: It seems like a first order markov chain to me also but, given that I would have not have come up with Jarle's derivation, I could be missing something. Jarle: Is it because the probabilities change each time you come back to an old state that you were at earlier ? – mlofton Dec 30 '23 at 05:24
  • @mlofton I have added some numerical computations demonstrating that the process is higher order. – Jarle Tufto Dec 30 '23 at 10:06
  • @JarleTufto I haven't had a chance to check your code, but surely something must be wrong? (My apologies if that something is just me misunderstanding you.) The future value of an AR(1) process is fully determined by the current state and the shock. So, states further back in time do not add any useful information. And as the process is stationary (i.e. the current state is drawn from the process' stationary distribution), the probability to move from one particular state to another cannot change over time. If it did change over time, then the process would not be stationary. – Fredrik P Dec 30 '23 at 12:38
  • @FredrikP No, you're missing the fact that when we consider the modified process obtained by discretisizing the AR(1) process, the information about $Z_{t-1}$ is incomplete, and hence, states further back in time provide additional information about the current probability distribution of $Z_t$ and hence the probability of transitioning into different states at the current time $t$. – Jarle Tufto Dec 30 '23 at 15:29
  • 1
    @JarleTufto Ah! That sounds right. But in that case perhaps I misphrased (or you misunderstood) my original question. I’m after an expression for the share of the probability mass in one decile that moves to another. So, the information about $Z_t$ should not be incomplete. In fact, I know the exact distribution of $Z_t$ in each decile. – Fredrik P Dec 30 '23 at 16:19
  • @FredrikP I don't see how the expression for $P_{ij}$ in my answer is different from the question you seem to be asking. And my caveat still applies, the process you describe is not first order with the resulting matrix as its transition matrix. So I have voted to close the question for lack of clarity. – Jarle Tufto Dec 30 '23 at 16:46
  • Whether it gets closed or not, I'd have to look at this closer in order to possibly have anything useful to say. It looks like Jarle is correct given his code and output but, as far as why, I would need to do further investigation and understanding. – mlofton Dec 30 '23 at 17:38
  • 2
    @JarleTufto You might be correct that question lacks in clarity. I think that I perhaps shouldn’t have called what I’m after a “stochastic matrix”. And after thinking about it a bit more I realize that you are perfectly right saying the probabilities are not those of a first order Markov chain. – Fredrik P Dec 30 '23 at 18:54
  • @JarleTufto I've updated the question and tried to clarify what I'm after. Thanks for bearing with me :-) – Fredrik P Dec 31 '23 at 06:30
  • 1
    I'm not seeing justification for coarsening the data to deciles. And deciles are manipulated by how the data are sampled, so analyses based on deciles are hard to interpret. – Frank Harrell Dec 31 '23 at 07:52