Exercise 103.1 (Simulating from a Constant DLM) Write a computer program to graph 100 simulated observations from the DLM \{1, 1, 1, W \} starting with \mu_0 = 25. Simulate several series for each value of W = 0.05 and 0.5.
From these simulations, become familiar with the forms of behavior such series can display.
Solution. Let’s simulates/plots 100 observations from the constant DLM \{F=1,G=1,V=1,W\} with \mu_0=25, for W\in\{0.05,0.5\} Using R DLM library and the Python pyDLM package
# Simulate & plot constant DLM {1,1,1,W} with mu0=25 using dlmlibrary(dlm)make_model <-function(W, m0 =25, C0 =0) {# Local-level DLM with V=1 and chosen WdlmModPoly(order =1, dV =1, dW = W, m0 = m0, C0 = C0)}sim_constant <-function(mod, n =100, seed =NULL) {# Unconditional simulation from a 1D DLMif (!is.null(seed)) set.seed(seed) V <-as.numeric(mod$V); W <-as.numeric(mod$W) F <-as.numeric(mod$FF); G <-as.numeric(mod$GG) theta <-numeric(n); y <-numeric(n) th <-as.numeric(mod$m0)for (t inseq_len(n)) { th <- G * th +rnorm(1, 0, sqrt(W)) # state y[t] <- F * th +rnorm(1, 0, sqrt(V)) # observation theta[t] <- th }list(y = y, theta = theta)}simulate_replicates <-function(W, n =100, R =6, seed =1) { mod <-make_model(W)lapply(seq_len(R), function(r) sim_constant(mod, n, seed + r))}plot_replicates <-function(sims, W) { Y <-do.call(cbind, lapply(sims, `[[`, "y"))matplot(Y, type ="l", lty =1, lwd =1,xlab ="t", ylab =expression(y[t]),main =paste0("Constant DLM {1,1,1,W} with W = ", W))abline(h =25, lty =3)}# --- run ---par(mfrow =c(1, 2))plot_replicates(simulate_replicates(W =0.05, R =6, seed =42), W =0.05)plot_replicates(simulate_replicates(W =0.5, R =6, seed =4242), W =0.5)
par(mfrow =c(1, 1))
# Simulate and plot constant DLM {F=1, G=1, V=1, W} with mu0=25# Falls back to a pure NumPy simulator so it runs anywhere.# If pyDLM is installed, you can later fit the same series with:# from pydlm import dlm, trend; dlm(y) + trend(1)## Two figures are produced (no subplots): one for W=0.05 and one for W=0.5.import numpy as npimport matplotlib.pyplot as pltdef simulate_constant_dlm(n: int, W: float, mu0: float=25.0, V: float=1.0, seed: int|None=None):""" Simulate y_t from the constant DLM {F=1, G=1, V, W} with initial state theta_0 = mu0. State eq.: theta_t = theta_{t-1} + omega_t, omega_t ~ N(0, W) Obs eq.: y_t = theta_t + epsilon_t, epsilon_t ~ N(0, V) Returns (y, theta). """ rng = np.random.default_rng(seed) theta = np.empty(n, dtype=float) y = np.empty(n, dtype=float) th = mu0for t inrange(n): th = th + rng.normal(0.0, np.sqrt(W)) # evolve y[t] = th + rng.normal(0.0, np.sqrt(V)) # observe theta[t] = threturn y, thetadef simulate_replicates(W: float, n: int=100, R: int=6, seed: int=0):""" Generate R replicate series for given W. Seeds are offset to vary paths. Returns list of dicts with 'y' and 'theta'. """ reps = []for r inrange(R): y, th = simulate_constant_dlm(n=n, W=W, seed=seed + r) reps.append({"y": y, "theta": th})return repsdef plot_replicates(reps, W: float, mu0: float=25.0, fname: str|None=None):""" Plot multiple simulated observation series y_t for a fixed W. Saves figure if fname is provided. """ plt.figure()for rep in reps: plt.plot(rep["y"], linewidth=1) plt.axhline(mu0, linestyle="--") plt.xlabel("t") plt.ylabel("y_t") plt.title(f"Constant DLM {{1,1,1,W}} with W = {W}")if fname: plt.savefig(fname, bbox_inches="tight", dpi=150)# --- Run simulations and plotting ---W_values = [0.05, 0.5]paths = []for W in W_values: reps = simulate_replicates(W=W, n=100, R=6, seed=42if W ==0.05else4242) fname =f"constant_dlm_W{str(W).replace('.', '')}.png" plot_replicates(reps, W=W, fname=fname) paths.append(fname)paths
['constant_dlm_W005.png', 'constant_dlm_W05.png']
NoteComments
W=0.05: series stay close to 25 with mild wandering.
TODO: To vary V or \mu_0, they should be promoted to args in simulate_replicates() and make_model().
TODO: add margins to figures.
Exercise 103.2 (Posterior Updating as a Weighted Average) For the DLM \{1, 1, V_t , W_t \} show that:
the posterior precision of (\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t) is the sum of the prior precision of (\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) and the observation precision of (Y_t \mid \mu_t), namely
C_{t}^{-1} = R_{t}^{-1} + V_{t}^{-1}
the posterior mean of (\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t) is a weighted average of the sum of the prior mean \mathbb{E}[\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}] and the observation Y_t with weights proportional to the precisions R_{t}^{-1} and V_{t}^{-1}, namely
Exercise 103.3 (Recurrence Relations for Priors) Consider the DLM \{1, 1, V_t , W_t\} extended so that \nu_t \sim \mathcal{N}[\bar{v}_t , V_t] and \omega_t \sim \mathcal{N}[\bar{w}_t , W_t] may have non-zero means.
Obtain the recurrence relations for \{m_t , C_t\}
using Bayes’ theorem
deriving the joint distribution (\mu_t , Y_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) and using normal theory to obtain the appropriate conditional distribution.
Now suppose that C_0 is very large relative to V, so that V C_0^{-1} \approx 0.
Show that
m_1 \approx Y_1
and
C_1 \approx V
and
m_t \approx \frac{1}{t} \sum_{j=1}^{t} Y_j
and
C_t \approx \frac{V}{t}.
Comment on these results in relation to classical estimates.
Exercise 103.5 (Constant DLM) For the constant DLM \{1, 1, 100, 4\}, if (\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t) \sim \mathcal{N}[200, 20], what are your forecasts of:
(Y_{t+4} \mid \mathcal{D}_t),
(Y_{t+1} + Y_{t+2} \mid \mathcal{D}_t),
(Y_{t+3} + Y_{t+4} \mid \mathcal{D}_t)?
Exercise 103.6 (Missing Observation) Suppose that Y_t is a missing observation, so that \mathcal{D}_t = \mathcal{D}_{t-1}. Given (\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[m_{t-1}, C_{t-1}], obtain the distributions of (\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t) and (Y_{t+1} \mid \mathcal{D}_t).
Do this for the constant DLM \{1, 1, 100, 4\} when
(\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[200, 40]
Exercise 103.7 (Coping with Outliers) Bearing in mind the previous question, suggest a method for coping with outliers and general maverick observations with respect to subsequent forecasts.
Exercise 103.8 (Constant DLM with known changing observational and system variances.) For the DLM \{1, 1, V_t, W_t\}, with (\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[m_{t-1}, R_t],
obtain the joint distribution of (\nu_t, Y_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}).
Hence prove that the posterior distribution for \nu_t is
(\nu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t) \sim \mathcal{N}[(1 - A_t) e_t, A_t V_t].
Could you have deduced (b) immediately from (\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t)?
Exercise 103.9 (Retrospective Analysis) It is often of interest to perform a retrospective analysis that looks back in time to make inferences about historical levels of a time series based on all the current data. As a simple case, consider inferences about \mu_{t-1} based on \mathcal{D}_t = \{ Y_t , \mathcal{D}_{t-1} \}.
retrospective analysis
Obtain the joint distribution (\mu_{t-1} , Y_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1});
hence with B_{t-1} = C_{t-1} / R_t deduce that (\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_t) \sim \mathcal{N}[a_t(-1), R_t(-1)],
where
Exercise 103.10 (Missing Observation) For the constant DLM \{1, 1, V, W\}, (\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[m_{t-1}, C_{t-1}], suppose that the data recording procedure at times t and t+1 is such that Y_t and Y_{t+1} cannot be separately observed, but X = Y_t + Y_{t+1} is observed at t + 1. Hence \mathcal{D}_t = \mathcal{D}_{t-1} and \mathcal{D}_{t+1} = \{\mathcal{D}_{t-1}, X\}.
Obtain the distributions of (X \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) and (\mu_{t+1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t+1}).
Generalize this result to the case
X = \sum_{v=0}^{k} Y_{t+v} \text{ and } \mathcal{D}_{t+k} = \{X, \mathcal{D}_{t-1}\}
For integers j and k such that 0 \le j < j + k, find the forecast distribution of
\sum_{v=j}^{j+k} Y_{t+v} \text{ given } \mathcal{D}_{t-1}
Exercise 103.11 (Coping with Uncertainty) There is a maxim,
“When in doubt about a parameter value, err on the side of more uncertainty.”
To investigate this, repeat the exercise of Example 2.1 using in turn the following prior settings:
In particular, examine the time graphs of \{A_t\}, \{f_t, f_t \pm Q_t, Y_t\}, and of \{m_t, Y_t\}. What conclusions do you draw? We once designed a more general forecasting system which the customer tried to break by setting priors with silly prior means m_0 and large variances C_0. He drew the conclusion that the system was so robust it could not be broken. How would you show that it could be broken if it were not protected by a monitoring system?
Exercise 103.12 (Discount Factors high and low) Another maxim is,
“In a complete forecast system higher rather than lower values of the discount factor are to be preferred.”
Investigate this by redoing Example 2.1 using the prior (\mu_0 \mid \mathcal{D}_0) \sim \mathcal{N}[130, 400] but employing the discount DLM so that R_t = C_{t-1} / \delta. Use in turn the discount factors \delta = 0.8, 1.0 and 0.01. In particular, examine time graphs of the \{f_t , C_t \} in each case.
What conclusions do you draw?
Do you see any mimicry?
Too many systems fall between two stools in trying to select adaptive/discount factors that will not overly respond to random fluctuations yet will quickly adapt to major changes; the result is an unsatisfactory compromise.
A complete forecasting system generally chooses high discount factors, usually 0.8 \leq \delta < 0.99, to capture the routine system movements but relies on a monitoring system to signal major changes that need to be brought to the notice of decision makers and that require expert intervention.
Exercise 103.13 (Limiting Identities in Constant DLM) In the constant DLM \{1, 1, V, W\}, verify the limiting identities
R = \frac{A V}{1 - A}, \qquad
Q = \frac{V}{1 - A}, \qquad
W = A^2 Q.
Exercise 103.14 (Closed Constant DLM) In the closed, constant DLM with limiting values A, C, R, etc., prove that the sequence C_t decreases/increases as t increases according to whether C_0 is greater/less than the limiting value C. Show that the sequence A_t behaves similarly.
Exercise 103.15 (Discount Weighted Regression (DWR)) Discount weighted regression applied to a locally constant process estimates the current level at time t as that value M_t of \mu that, given Y_1, \ldots, Y_t, minimises the discounted sum of squares
Exercise 103.16 (DWR and the Constant DLM) In the context of question (16) on DWR, note that as t \to \infty,
V[e_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}] \to Q \text{ and } (Y_{t+1} - Y_t - e_{t+1} + \delta e_t) \to 0
This suggests that the process can be modelled as
Y_{t+1} - Y_t = a_{t+1} - \delta a_t,
where a_t \sim \mathcal{N}[0, Q] are independent random variables.
Then an estimate of Q given Y_{t+1}, \ldots, Y_1 is
Exercise 103.17 (Discount DLM with Constant Discount Factor) In the \{1, 1, V, W_t\} discount DLM with constant discount factor \delta, suppose that C_0 is very large relative to V. Show that
Compare these results with those of the relevant DWR approach in question (16) above. What do you conclude? What do you think about applying that variance estimate \hat{Q}_t of Q, from question (16), to this DLM? If you do adopt the method, what is the corresponding point estimate of V?
Exercise 103.18 (Constant DLM Updating Equations) In the constant DLM \{1, 1, V, W\}, show that R_t = C_{t-1}/\delta_t, where \delta_t \in (0,1]. Thus, the constant DLM updating equations are equivalent to those in a discount DLM with discount factors \delta_t changing over time. Find the limiting value of \delta_t as t increases, and verify that \delta_t increases/decreases with t according to whether the initial variance C_0 lies below/above the limiting value C.
Exercise 103.19 (Lead Time Forecast Variance) Consider the lead time forecast variance L_t(k) in Section 2.3.6.
Show that the value of k minimizing the lead time coefficient of variation is independent of C_t. What is this value when V = 97 and W = 6?
Supposing that C_t = C, the limiting value, show that the corresponding value of L_t(k)/V depends only on k and r = W/V. For each value of r = 0.05 and r = 0.2, plot the ratio L_t(k)/V as a function of k over k = 1, \ldots, 20.
Comment on the form of the plots and the differences between the two cases.
Exercise 103.20 (Heavy-tailed Student t Distributions) Become familiar with just how heavy-tailed Student T distributions with small and moderate degrees of freedom are relative to normal distributions. To do this graph the distribution using an appropriate computer package and find the upper 90%, 95%, 97.5% and 99% points of the \mathcal{T}_n[0, 1] distribution for n =2, 5, 10 and 20 degrees of freedom, comparing these with those of the \mathcal{N}[0, 1] distribution. ~Statistical tables can also be used (Lindley and Scott, 1984, p45).~
Exercise 103.21 (Sensitivity Analysis of the DLM for Exchange Rates) Perform analyses of the USA/UK exchange rate index series along the lines of those in Section 2.6, one for each value of the discount factor \delta = 0.6, 0.65, \ldots, 0.95, 1. Relative to the DLM with \delta = 1, plot the MSE, MAD and LLR measures as functions of \delta. Comment on these plots.
Sensitivity analyses explore how inferences change with respect to model assumptions. At t = 115, explore how sensitive this model is to values of \delta in terms of inferences about the final level \mu_{115}, the variance V and the next observation Y_{116}.
Sensitivity analysis
Exercise 103.22 (Autocorrelation in the DLM) In the DLM \{1, 1, 1, W\}, define Z_t = Y_{t+1} - Y_t. Show that for integer k such that |k| > 1,
and C[Z_t, Z_{t+k}] = 0. Based upon n + 1 observations (Y_1, \ldots, Y_{n+1}), giving the n values (Z_1, \ldots, Z_n), the usual sample estimate of the autocorrelation coefficient of lag k, C[Z_t, Z_{t+k}]/V[Z_t], is
Using the computer program of question 1, generate 100 values of z_i and plot the sample autocorrelation graph \{r_k, k : k = 0, \ldots, 12\} for W = 0.05 and also W = 0.5. Assuming the model true, the prior marginal distribution of r_k, for every |k| > 1, is roughly \mathcal{N}[0, 1/\sqrt{n}]. Do the data support or contradict the model? This is an approach used in identifying the constant DLM and an ARIMA(0,1,1) model. Supposing the more general DLM \{1, 1, V_t, W_t\}, show that again C[Z_t, Z_{t+k}] = 0 for all |k| > 1, so the graph \{r_k, k : k > 1\} is expected to look exactly the same. Note also that if V_t/W_t is constant, the whole graph \{r_k, k\} is expected to look exactly the same. What is r_k now measuring and what are the implications for identifying the constant DLM and the ARIMA(0,1,1)?
Exercise 103.23 Suppose an observation series \{Y_t\} is generated by the constant DLM \{1, 1, V^*, W^*\}. We can write Y_t - Y_{t-1} = a_t - \delta^* a_{t-1} where a_t \sim \mathcal{N}[0, Q^*] are independent random variables and Q^* is the associated limiting one-step forecast variance. In order to investigate robustness, suppose a non-optimal DLM \{1, 1, V, W\} is employed, so that in the limit, Y_t - Y_{t-1} = e_t - \delta e_{t-1} where the errors will have a larger variance Q and no longer be independent. Show that for integer k such that \lvert k \rvert \ge 1,
Examine graphs of \{\delta, Q/Q^*\} and of \{\delta, C(1)/Q\} for the typical practical cases \delta^* = 0.9, \delta^* = 0.8 and for the atypical case \delta^* = 0.5.
West, M., and J. Harrison. 2013. Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer New York.
Source Code
---title: "Q&A from Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models Chapter 2"format: pdf: header-includes: \usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}---## Section 2.8 - Introduction to the DLM::: {.callout-tip}Unless stated otherwise, the exercises relate to the first-order polynomial DLM ${1, 1, V_t , W_t }$ with known variances ${V_t , W_t }$ and/or discount factor $\delta$ and with $D_t = {Y_t , D_{t−1} }$:$$\begin{aligned}Y_t &= \mu_t + \nu_t && \nu_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, V_t ), \\\mu_t &= \mu_{t−1} + \omega_t && \epsilon_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, W_t ), && (\mu_{t−1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t−1} ) \sim \mathcal{N}(m_{t−1} , C_{t−1}).\end{aligned}$$:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex1}### Simulating from a Constant DLMWrite a computer program to graph 100 simulated observations from the DLM $\{1, 1, 1, W \}$ starting with $\mu_0 = 25$.Simulate several series for each value of $W = 0.05$ and 0.5. From these simulations, become familiar with the forms of behavior such series can display.:::::: {.solution}Let's simulates/plots 100 observations from the constant DLM $\{F=1,G=1,V=1,W\}$ with $\mu_0=25$, for $W\in\{0.05,0.5\}$ Using R `DLM` library and the Python `pyDLM` package:::: {.panel-tabset}## R```{r}#| label: lst-sim-constant-dlm#| echo: true#| warning: false# Simulate & plot constant DLM {1,1,1,W} with mu0=25 using dlmlibrary(dlm)make_model <-function(W, m0 =25, C0 =0) {# Local-level DLM with V=1 and chosen WdlmModPoly(order =1, dV =1, dW = W, m0 = m0, C0 = C0)}sim_constant <-function(mod, n =100, seed =NULL) {# Unconditional simulation from a 1D DLMif (!is.null(seed)) set.seed(seed) V <-as.numeric(mod$V); W <-as.numeric(mod$W) F <-as.numeric(mod$FF); G <-as.numeric(mod$GG) theta <-numeric(n); y <-numeric(n) th <-as.numeric(mod$m0)for (t inseq_len(n)) { th <- G * th +rnorm(1, 0, sqrt(W)) # state y[t] <- F * th +rnorm(1, 0, sqrt(V)) # observation theta[t] <- th }list(y = y, theta = theta)}simulate_replicates <-function(W, n =100, R =6, seed =1) { mod <-make_model(W)lapply(seq_len(R), function(r) sim_constant(mod, n, seed + r))}plot_replicates <-function(sims, W) { Y <-do.call(cbind, lapply(sims, `[[`, "y"))matplot(Y, type ="l", lty =1, lwd =1,xlab ="t", ylab =expression(y[t]),main =paste0("Constant DLM {1,1,1,W} with W = ", W))abline(h =25, lty =3)}# --- run ---par(mfrow =c(1, 2))plot_replicates(simulate_replicates(W =0.05, R =6, seed =42), W =0.05)plot_replicates(simulate_replicates(W =0.5, R =6, seed =4242), W =0.5)par(mfrow =c(1, 1))```## Python```{python}#| label: lst-sim-constant-dlm-py# Simulate and plot constant DLM {F=1, G=1, V=1, W} with mu0=25# Falls back to a pure NumPy simulator so it runs anywhere.# If pyDLM is installed, you can later fit the same series with:# from pydlm import dlm, trend; dlm(y) + trend(1)## Two figures are produced (no subplots): one for W=0.05 and one for W=0.5.import numpy as npimport matplotlib.pyplot as pltdef simulate_constant_dlm(n: int, W: float, mu0: float=25.0, V: float=1.0, seed: int|None=None):""" Simulate y_t from the constant DLM {F=1, G=1, V, W} with initial state theta_0 = mu0. State eq.: theta_t = theta_{t-1} + omega_t, omega_t ~ N(0, W) Obs eq.: y_t = theta_t + epsilon_t, epsilon_t ~ N(0, V) Returns (y, theta). """ rng = np.random.default_rng(seed) theta = np.empty(n, dtype=float) y = np.empty(n, dtype=float) th = mu0for t inrange(n): th = th + rng.normal(0.0, np.sqrt(W)) # evolve y[t] = th + rng.normal(0.0, np.sqrt(V)) # observe theta[t] = threturn y, thetadef simulate_replicates(W: float, n: int=100, R: int=6, seed: int=0):""" Generate R replicate series for given W. Seeds are offset to vary paths. Returns list of dicts with 'y' and 'theta'. """ reps = []for r inrange(R): y, th = simulate_constant_dlm(n=n, W=W, seed=seed + r) reps.append({"y": y, "theta": th})return repsdef plot_replicates(reps, W: float, mu0: float=25.0, fname: str|None=None):""" Plot multiple simulated observation series y_t for a fixed W. Saves figure if fname is provided. """ plt.figure()for rep in reps: plt.plot(rep["y"], linewidth=1) plt.axhline(mu0, linestyle="--") plt.xlabel("t") plt.ylabel("y_t") plt.title(f"Constant DLM {{1,1,1,W}} with W = {W}")if fname: plt.savefig(fname, bbox_inches="tight", dpi=150)# --- Run simulations and plotting ---W_values = [0.05, 0.5]paths = []for W in W_values: reps = simulate_replicates(W=W, n=100, R=6, seed=42if W ==0.05else4242) fname =f"constant_dlm_W{str(W).replace('.', '')}.png" plot_replicates(reps, W=W, fname=fname) paths.append(fname)paths```:::::::::: {.callout-note}### Comments {.unlisted .unnumbered}* $W=0.05$: series stay close to 25 with mild wandering.* $W=0.5$: visibly rougher random-walk level, larger meanders.- TODO: To vary $V$ or $\mu_0$, they should be promoted to args in `simulate_replicates()` and `make_model()`.- TODO: add margins to figures.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex2}### Posterior Updating as a Weighted AverageFor the DLM $\{1, 1, V_t , W_t \}$ show that:(a) the *posterior precision* of $(\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$ is the sum of the *prior precision* of $(\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1})$ and the *observation precision* of $(Y_t \mid \mu_t)$, namely$$C_{t}^{-1} = R_{t}^{-1} + V_{t}^{-1}$$(b) the posterior mean of $(\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$ is *a weighted average* of the sum of the prior mean $\mathbb{E}[\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}]$ and the observation $Y_t$ with weights proportional to the precisions $R_{t}^{-1}$ and $V_{t}^{-1}$, namely$$m_t = C_t \left( R_{t}^{-1} m_{t-1} + V_{t}^{-1} Y_t \right)$$:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex3}### Recurrence Relations for PriorsConsider the DLM $\{1, 1, V_t , W_t\}$ extended so that $\nu_t \sim \mathcal{N}[\bar{v}_t , V_t]$ and $\omega_t \sim \mathcal{N}[\bar{w}_t , W_t]$ may have non-zero means. Obtain the recurrence relations for $\{m_t , C_t\}$(a) using Bayes' theorem(b) deriving the joint distribution $(\mu_t , Y_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1})$ and using normal theory to obtain the appropriate conditional distribution.:::::: {.solution .column-screen-inset-right }### Introduction and assumption {.unnumbered}As best as I cam tell this question extends [@west2013bayesian sec. 2.2]We start by postulating the following model:$$\begin{aligned}\mu_t&=\mu_{t-1}+\omega_t, & \cancel{\omega_t\sim\mathcal{N}(0,W_t)}\; & \omega_t\sim\mathcal N(\bar w_t,W_t), && \text{(sys.)}\\Y_t&=\mu_t+\nu_t, & \cancel{ \nu_t\sim\mathcal{N}(0,V_t)}\; & \nu_t\sim\mathcal N(\bar v_t,V_t), && \text{(obs.)}\\\mu_{t-1}\mid\mathcal D_{t-1} &\sim \mathcal{N}(m_{t-1},C_{t-1})\end{aligned}$$### Recurrences {.unnumbered}$$\begin{aligned}\textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t} &= m_{t-1} + \textcolor{OliveGreen}{\bar w_t} & \text{state prior mean (sys. drift)}\\\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t} &= C_{t-1} + \textcolor{CornflowerBlue}{W_t} & \text{state prior var (sys. noise)}\\\textcolor{Magenta}{f_t} &= \textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t} + \textcolor{Fuchsia}{\bar v_t} & \text{1-step forecast mean (obs. bias)}\\\textcolor{Turquoise}{Q_t} &= \textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t} + \textcolor{Cyan}{V_t} & \text{1-step forecast var (obs. noise)}\\\textcolor{BrickRed}{A_t} &= \dfrac{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}{\textcolor{Turquoise}{Q_t}} & \text{prior/forecast var (Kalman gain)}\\\textcolor{Orange}{e_t} &= y_t - \textcolor{Magenta}{f_t} & \text{forecast error (innovation)}\\[4pt]\textcolor{Violet}{m_t} &= \textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t} + \textcolor{BrickRed}{A_t}\,\textcolor{Orange}{e_t} & \text{update (post. mean)}\\\textcolor{Gray}{C_t} &= \textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t} - \textcolor{BrickRed}{A_t}\,\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}= \textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t} - \dfrac{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}^2}{\textcolor{Turquoise}{Q_t}} & \text{update (post. var)}\end{aligned}$$### Bayes step {.unnumbered}$$\begin{aligned}\underbrace{p(\mu_t \mid \mathcal D_{t-1})}_{\text{prior}}&= \mathcal N\!\big(\mu_t;\ \textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t},\ \textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}\big)\\\underbrace{p(y_t \mid \mu_t,\mathcal D_{t-1})}_{\text{likelihood}}&= \mathcal N\!\big(y_t;\ \mu_t+\textcolor{Fuchsia}{\bar v_t},\ \textcolor{Cyan}{V_t}\big)\\[6pt]\log p(\mu_t\mid y_t,\mathcal D_{t-1})&= -\tfrac12\!\left[\underbrace{\dfrac{\big(\mu_t-\textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t}\big)^2}{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}}_{\text{prior quadratic}}+\underbrace{\dfrac{\big(y_t-\textcolor{Fuchsia}{\bar v_t}-\mu_t\big)^2}{\textcolor{Cyan}{V_t}}}_{\text{likelihood quadratic}}\right]+c& \text{plug in Normal forms}\\[8pt]&= -\tfrac12\!\left[\Big(\tfrac1{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}+\tfrac1{\textcolor{Cyan}{V_t}}\Big)\mu_t^2-2\mu_t\!\Big(\tfrac{\textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t}}{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}+\tfrac{y_t-\textcolor{Fuchsia}{\bar v_t}}{\textcolor{Cyan}{V_t}}\Big)\right]+c'& \text{collect terms}\\[8pt]&= -\tfrac12\,\dfrac{\big(\mu_t-\textcolor{Violet}{m_t}\big)^2}{\textcolor{Gray}{C_t}}+c''& \text{complete the square}\end{aligned}$$with moments$$\boxed{\begin{aligned}\textcolor{Gray}{C_t}&=\Big(\tfrac1{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}+\tfrac1{\textcolor{Cyan}{V_t}}\Big)^{-1}=\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}-\dfrac{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}^2}{\textcolor{Turquoise}{Q_t}},& \text{posterior variance}\\[6pt]\textcolor{Violet}{m_t}&=\dfrac{\dfrac{\textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t}}{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}+\dfrac{y_t-\textcolor{Fuchsia}{\bar v_t}}{\textcolor{Cyan}{V_t}}}{\dfrac1{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}+\dfrac1{\textcolor{Cyan}{V_t}}}=\textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t}+\underbrace{\dfrac{\textcolor{RoyalBlue}{R_t}}{\textcolor{Turquoise}{Q_t}}}_{\textcolor{BrickRed}{A_t}\ \text{(Kalman gain)}}\big(y_t-\textcolor{Fuchsia}{\bar v_t}-\textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t}\big)=\textcolor{ForestGreen}{a_t}+\textcolor{BrickRed}{A_t}\,\textcolor{Orange}{e_t},& \text{posterior mean}\end{aligned}}$$---### (a) derivation via Bayes theorem $$\begin{aligned}p(\mu_t\mid\mathcal D_{t-1})&=\mathcal N(a_t,R_t) & \text{state evolution mean/var} \\p(y_t\mid \mu_t)&=\mathcal N(\mu_t+\bar v_t,V_t) & \text{likelihood} \\\Rightarrow\ \ \log p(\mu_t\mid y_t,\mathcal D_{t-1})&= -\tfrac12\!\left[\frac{(\mu_t-a_t)^2}{R_t}+\frac{(y_t-\bar v_t-\mu_t)^2}{V_t}\right]+c & \text{Bayes, drop const} \\&= -\tfrac12\!\left[(\tfrac1{R_t}+\tfrac1{V_t})\mu_t^2-2\mu_t\!\left(\tfrac{a_t}{R_t}+\tfrac{y_t-\bar v_t}{V_t}\right)\right]+c' & \text{expand} \\&= -\tfrac12\!\left[\frac{(\mu_t-m_t)^2}{C_t}\right]+c'' & \text{complete the square}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}&\underbrace{p(\mu_t \mid \mathcal D_{t-1})}_{\text{prior}}=\mathcal N(\mu_t;\ a_t,R_t),&& a_t=m_{t-1}+\bar w_t,\;\ R_t=C_{t-1}+W_t \\[4pt]&\underbrace{p(y_t\mid \mu_t,\mathcal D_{t-1})}_{\text{likelihood}}=\mathcal N(y_t;\ \mu_t+\bar v_t,V_t) \\[8pt]p(\mu_t\mid y_t,\mathcal D_{t-1})&\propto\underbrace{p(y_t\mid \mu_t,\mathcal D_{t-1})}_{\text{likelihood}}\;\underbrace{p(\mu_t \mid \mathcal D_{t-1})}_{\text{prior}}& \text{Bayes}\\[4pt]&\propto\underbrace{\exp\!\Big[-\tfrac{(y_t-\bar v_t-\mu_t)^2}{2V_t}\Big]}_{\text{likelihood}}\underbrace{\exp\!\Big[-\tfrac{(\mu_t-a_t)^2}{2R_t}\Big]}_{\text{prior}} \\[6pt]&\propto\exp\!\left\{-\tfrac12\!\left[\underbrace{\tfrac{(\mu_t-a_t)^2}{R_t}}_{\text{prior quad.}}+\underbrace{\tfrac{(y_t-\bar v_t-\mu_t)^2}{V_t}}_{\text{likelihood quad.}}\right]\right\}& \text{collect terms}\\[6pt]&=\exp\!\left[-\tfrac12\,\tfrac{(\mu_t-m_t)^2}{C_t}\right],\quad\begin{cases}\displaystyle C_t=\Big(\tfrac1{R_t}+\tfrac1{V_t}\Big)^{-1},\\[6pt]\displaystyle m_t=\dfrac{\frac{a_t}{R_t}+\frac{y_t-\bar v_t}{V_t}}{\frac1{R_t}+\frac1{V_t}}= a_t+\dfrac{R_t}{R_t+V_t}\big(y_t-\bar v_t-a_t\big).\end{cases}& \text{complete square}\end{aligned}$$with$$\boxed{\begin{aligned}m_t&=\frac{\frac{a_t}{R_t}+\frac{y_t-\bar v_t}{V_t}}{\frac1{R_t}+\frac1{V_t}}= a_t + \frac{R_t}{R_t+V_t}\,\big(y_t-\bar v_t-a_t\big)= a_t + A_t e_t,\\[3pt]C_t&=\left(\frac1{R_t}+\frac1{V_t}\right)^{-1}= \frac{R_t V_t}{R_t+V_t}= R_t - \frac{R_t^2}{R_t+V_t}.\end{aligned}}$$---### (b) Via the joint normal and conditioning {.unnumbered}$$\begin{aligned}\begin{bmatrix}\mu_t\\Y_t\end{bmatrix}\Bigm|\mathcal D_{t-1}&\sim \mathcal N\!\left(\begin{bmatrix}a_t\\ a_t+\bar v_t\end{bmatrix},\begin{bmatrix}R_t & R_t\\R_t & R_t+V_t\end{bmatrix}\right) & \text{sum of independent normals} \\\Rightarrow\ \ \mu_t\mid Y_t=y_t,\mathcal D_{t-1}&\sim \mathcal N\!\left(a_t+\frac{R_t}{R_t+V_t}(y_t-a_t-\bar v_t),\ \ R_t-\frac{R_t^2}{R_t+V_t}\right) & \text{BVN conditioning}\end{aligned}$$which is the same $(m_t,C_t)$ as in (a).---### Summary (recurrences) {.unnumbered}$$\boxed{\begin{aligned}\text{Prior (evolution):}\quad & a_t=m_{t-1}+\bar w_t,\quad R_t=C_{t-1}+W_t.\\\text{Forecast:}\quad & f_t=a_t+\bar v_t,\quad Q_t=R_t+V_t.\\\text{Update:}\quad & A_t=\frac{R_t}{Q_t},\ \ e_t=y_t-f_t,\\& m_t=a_t+A_t e_t,\quad C_t=R_t-A_t R_t=R_t-\frac{R_t^2}{Q_t}.\end{aligned}}$$- The shocks just shift means; - The Kalman‐style recursions are unchanged except the prediction/forecast means include $\bar{w}_t,\bar{v}_t$.Only the means shift: $\bar w_t$ enters the prior mean, $\bar v_t$ enters the forecast mean; gains/variances are unchanged from the zero-mean case.*Refs*: West & Harrison (1997, §4.3); Prado, Ferreira & West (2023, Ch. 1–2).:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex4-static-dlm}### Static DLMShow that the static DLM $\{1, 1, V, 0\}$, is equivalent to the model$$(Y_t \mid \mu) \sim \mathcal{N}[\mu, V], \quad (\mu \mid \mathcal{D}_0) \sim \mathcal{N}[m_0, C_0].$$Now suppose that $C_0$ is very large relative to $V$, so that $V C_0^{-1} \approx 0$. Show that(a)$$m_1 \approx Y_1$$and$$C_1 \approx V $$and(b)$$m_t \approx \frac{1}{t} \sum_{j=1}^{t} Y_j$$and$$C_t \approx \frac{V}{t}.$$Comment on these results in relation to classical estimates.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex5-constant-dlm}### Constant DLMFor the constant DLM $\{1, 1, 100, 4\}$, if $(\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t) \sim \mathcal{N}[200, 20]$, what are your forecasts of:(a) $(Y_{t+4} \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$,(b) $(Y_{t+1} + Y_{t+2} \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$,(c) $(Y_{t+3} + Y_{t+4} \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$?:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex6-missing-observation}### Missing ObservationSuppose that $Y_t$ is a missing observation, so that $\mathcal{D}_t = \mathcal{D}_{t-1}$. Given $(\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[m_{t-1}, C_{t-1}]$, obtain the distributions of $(\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$ and $(Y_{t+1} \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$. Do this for the constant DLM $\{1, 1, 100, 4\}$ when $$(\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[200, 40]$$:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex7}### Coping with OutliersBearing in mind the previous question, suggest a method for coping with outliers and general maverick observations with respect to subsequent forecasts.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex8}### Constant DLM with known changing observational and system variances.For the DLM $\{1, 1, V_t, W_t\}$, with $(\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[m_{t-1}, R_t]$, (a) obtain the joint distribution of $(\nu_t, Y_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1})$. (b) Hence prove that the posterior distribution for $\nu_t$ is $$(\nu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t) \sim \mathcal{N}[(1 - A_t) e_t, A_t V_t].$$ (c) Could you have deduced (b) immediately from $(\mu_t \mid \mathcal{D}_t)$?:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex9}### Retrospective AnalysisIt is often of interest to perform a *retrospective analysis* [**retrospective analysis**]{.column-margin} that looks back in time to make inferences about historical levels of a timeseries based on all the current data. As a simple case, consider inferences about $\mu_{t-1}$ based on $\mathcal{D}_t = \{ Y_t , \mathcal{D}_{t-1} \}$.(a) Obtain the joint distribution $(\mu_{t-1} , Y_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1})$;(b) hence with $B_{t-1} = C_{t-1} / R_t$ deduce that $(\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_t) \sim \mathcal{N}[a_t(-1), R_t(-1)]$, where$$a_t(-1) = m_{t-1} + B_{t-1} (m_t - m_{t-1})$$and$$R_t(-1) = C_{t-1} - B_{t-1}^2 (R_t - C_t).$$(c) Write these equations for the discount DLM of [@west2013bayesian Section 2.4.2.]:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex10}### Missing ObservationFor the constant DLM $\{1, 1, V, W\}$, $(\mu_{t-1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}) \sim \mathcal{N}[m_{t-1}, C_{t-1}]$,suppose that the data recording procedure at times $t$ and $t+1$ is suchthat $Y_t$ and $Y_{t+1}$ cannot be separately observed, but $X = Y_t + Y_{t+1}$is observed at $t + 1$. Hence $\mathcal{D}_t = \mathcal{D}_{t-1}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{t+1} = \{\mathcal{D}_{t-1}, X\}$.(a) Obtain the distributions of $(X \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1})$ and $(\mu_{t+1} \mid \mathcal{D}_{t+1})$.(b) Generalize this result to the case$$X = \sum_{v=0}^{k} Y_{t+v} \text{ and } \mathcal{D}_{t+k} = \{X, \mathcal{D}_{t-1}\}$$(c) For integers $j$ and $k$ such that $0 \le j < j + k$, find the forecastdistribution of $$\sum_{v=j}^{j+k} Y_{t+v} \text{ given } \mathcal{D}_{t-1}$$:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex11}### Coping with UncertaintyThere is a maxim, > “When in doubt about a parameter value, err on the side of more uncertainty.”To investigate this, repeat the exercise of Example 2.1 using in turn the following prior settings:(a) $(\mu_0 \mid \mathcal{D}_0) \sim \mathcal{N}[650, 100000]$(b) $(\mu_0 \mid \mathcal{D}_0) \sim \mathcal{N}[130, 4]$(c) $(\mu_0 \mid \mathcal{D}_0) \sim \mathcal{N}[11, 1]$In particular, examine the time graphs of $\{A_t\}$, $\{f_t, f_t \pm Q_t, Y_t\}$,and of $\{m_t, Y_t\}$. What conclusions do you draw? We once designed a more general forecasting system which the customer tried to break by setting priors with silly prior means $m_0$ and large variances $C_0$.He drew the conclusion that the system was so robust it could not be broken. How would you show that it could be broken if it were not protected by a monitoring system?:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex12}### Discount Factors high and lowAnother maxim is, > "In a complete forecast system higher rather than lower values of the discount factor are to be preferred." Investigate this by redoing Example 2.1 using the prior $(\mu_0 \mid \mathcal{D}_0) \sim \mathcal{N}[130, 400]$ but employing the discount DLM so that $R_t = C_{t-1} / \delta$. Use in turn the discount factors $\delta = 0.8, 1.0$ and $0.01$. In particular, examine time graphs of the $\{f_t , C_t \}$ in each case. - What conclusions do you draw? - Do you see any mimicry? - Too many systems fall between two stools in trying to select adaptive/discount factors that will not overly respond to random fluctuations yet will quickly adapt to major changes; the result is an unsatisfactory compromise.A complete forecasting system generally chooses high discount factors, usually $0.8 \leq \delta < 0.99$, to capture the routine system movements but relies on a monitoring system to signal major changes that need to be brought to the notice of decision makers and that require expert intervention.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex13}### Limiting Identities in Constant DLMIn the constant DLM $\{1, 1, V, W\}$, verify the limiting identities$$R = \frac{A V}{1 - A}, \qquadQ = \frac{V}{1 - A}, \qquadW = A^2 Q.$$:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex14}### Closed Constant DLMIn the closed, constant DLM with limiting values $A$, $C$, $R$, etc., prove that the sequence $C_t$ decreases/increases as $t$ increases according to whether $C_0$ is greater/less than the limiting value $C$. Show that the sequence $A_t$ behaves similarly.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex15}### Discount Weighted Regression (DWR)Discount weighted regression applied to a locally constant process estimates the current level at time $t$ as that value $M_t$ of $\mu$ that, given $Y_1, \ldots, Y_t$, minimises the discounted sum of squares$$S_t(\mu) = \sum_{j=0}^{t-1} \delta^j \left( Y_{t-j} - \mu \right)^2 .$$(a) Prove that $M_t$ is a discount weighted average of the $t$ observations$$M_t = \frac{1 - \delta}{1 - \delta^t} \sum_{v=0}^{t-1} \delta^v Y_{t-v} .$$(b) Show that writing $e_t = Y_t - M_{t-1}$, neat recurrence forms are$$M_t = \frac{1 - \delta}{1 - \delta^{t}} Y_t + \frac{\delta(1 - \delta^{t-1})}{1 - \delta^t} M_{t-1}$$and$$M_t = M_{t-1} + \frac{1 - \delta}{1 - \delta^t} e_t .$$(c) Show that as $t \to \infty$ the limiting form of this recurrence relationship is that of Brown’s method of EWR, Section 2.3.5(c),$$M_t = \delta M_{t-1} + (1 - \delta) Y_t = M_{t-1} + (1 - \delta) e_t .$$:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex16}### DWR and the Constant DLMIn the context of question (16) on DWR, note that as $t \to \infty$,$$V[e_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}] \to Q \text{ and } (Y_{t+1} - Y_t - e_{t+1} + \delta e_t) \to 0$$This suggests that the process can be modelled as$$Y_{t+1} - Y_t = a_{t+1} - \delta a_t,$$where $a_t \sim \mathcal{N}[0, Q]$ are independent random variables. Then an estimate of $Q$ given $Y_{t+1}, \ldots, Y_1$ is$$\hat{Q}(t + 1) = \frac{1}{t} \sum_{v=1}^t \frac{ (Y_{v+1} - Y_v)^2}{1 + \delta^2}.$$(a) Do you consider this a reasonable point estimate of $Q$?(b) Show that$$\hat{Q}(t + 1) = \hat{Q}(t) + \frac{1}{t} \left[ \frac{(y_{t+1} - y_t)^2 }{1 + \delta^2} - \hat{Q}(t) \right]$$and that a reasonable point estimate of $V[Y_t \mid \mathcal{D}_{t-1}]$ is$$\hat{Q}_t = \left\{ \delta + \frac{(1 - \delta)(1 - \delta^t)}{(1 - \delta^{t-1})^2} \right \} \, \hat{Q}(t - 1)$$with $t - 1$ degrees of freedom.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex17}### Discount DLM with Constant Discount FactorIn the $\{1, 1, V, W_t\}$ discount DLM with constant discount factor $\delta$,suppose that $C_0$ is very large relative to $V$. Show that(a) $$C_t \approx \frac{V (1 - \delta)}{1 - \delta^t}, \qquad \forall t \ge 1$$ (b) $$m_t \approx \frac{1 - \delta}{1 - \delta^t} \sum_{j=0}^{t-1} \delta^j Y_{t-j},$$(c) $$m_t \approx \frac{1 - \delta}{1 - \delta^t} Y_t + \frac{1 - \delta^{t-1}}{1 - \delta^t} \, \delta \, m_{t-1},$$(d) $$m_t \approx m_{t-1} + \frac{1 - \delta}{1 - \delta^t} \, e_t.$$(e) Compare these results with those of the relevant DWR approach in question (16) above. What do you conclude? What do you think about applying that variance estimate $\hat{Q}_t$ of $Q$, from question (16), to this DLM? If you do adopt the method, what is the corresponding point estimate of $V$?:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex18}### Constant DLM Updating EquationsIn the constant DLM $\{1, 1, V, W\}$, show that $R_t = C_{t-1}/\delta_t$, where $\delta_t \in (0,1]$. Thus, the constant DLM updating equations are equivalent to those in a discount DLM with discount factors $\delta_t$ changing over time. Find the limiting value of $\delta_t$ as $t$ increases, and verify that $\delta_t$ increases/decreases with $t$ according to whether the initial variance $C_0$ lies below/above the limiting value $C$.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex19}### Lead Time Forecast VarianceConsider the lead time forecast variance $L_t(k)$ in Section 2.3.6.(a) Show that the value of $k$ minimizing the lead time coefficient ofvariation is independent of $C_t$. What is this value when $V = 97$and $W = 6$?(b) Supposing that $C_t = C$, the limiting value, show that the corresponding value of $L_t(k)/V$ depends only on $k$ and $r = W/V$.For each value of $r = 0.05$ and $r = 0.2$, plot the ratio $L_t(k)/V$as a function of $k$ over $k = 1, \ldots, 20$. Comment on the form of the plots and the differences between the two cases.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex20}### Heavy-tailed Student t DistributionsBecome familiar with just how heavy-tailed Student T distributionswith small and moderate degrees of freedom are relative to normaldistributions. To do this graph the distribution using an appropriate computer package and find the upper 90%, 95%, 97.5% and 99%points of the $\mathcal{T}_n[0, 1]$ distribution for n =2, 5, 10 and 20 degreesof freedom, comparing these with those of the $\mathcal{N}[0, 1]$ distribution.~~~Statistical tables can also be used (Lindley and Scott, 1984, p45).~~~:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex21}### Sensitivity Analysis of the DLM for Exchange RatesPerform analyses of the USA/UK exchange rate index series along the lines of those in Section 2.6, one for each value of the discount factor $\delta = 0.6, 0.65, \ldots, 0.95, 1$. Relative to the DLM with $\delta = 1$, plot the *MSE*, *MAD* and *LLR* measures as functions of $\delta$.Comment on these plots. [**Sensitivity analysis**]{.column-margin} Sensitivity analyses explore how inferences change with respect to model assumptions. At $t = 115$, explore how sensitive this model is to values of $\delta$ in terms of inferences about the final level $\mu_{115}$, the variance $V$ and the next observation $Y_{116}$.:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex22}### Autocorrelation in the DLMIn the DLM $\{1, 1, 1, W\}$, define $Z_t = Y_{t+1} - Y_t$. Show that for integer $k$ such that $|k| > 1$,$$E[Z_t] = 0,\quadV[Z_t] = 2 + W,\quadC[Z_t, Z_{t-1}] = -1$$and $C[Z_t, Z_{t+k}] = 0$. Based upon $n + 1$ observations $(Y_1, \ldots, Y_{n+1})$,giving the $n$ values $(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n)$, the usual sample estimate of theautocorrelation coefficient of lag $k$, $C[Z_t, Z_{t+k}]/V[Z_t]$, is$$r_k = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n-k} Z_{i+k} Z_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} Z_i^2}.$$Using the computer program of question 1, generate 100 values of $z_i$and plot the sample autocorrelation graph $\{r_k, k : k = 0, \ldots, 12\}$for $W = 0.05$ and also $W = 0.5$. Assuming the model true, the prior marginal distribution of $r_k$, for every $|k| > 1$, is roughly $\mathcal{N}[0, 1/\sqrt{n}]$. Do the data support or contradict the model? This is an approach used in identifying the constant DLM and an ARIMA(0,1,1) model.Supposing the more general DLM $\{1, 1, V_t, W_t\}$, show that again$C[Z_t, Z_{t+k}] = 0$ for all $|k| > 1$, so the graph $\{r_k, k : k > 1\}$is expected to look exactly the same. Note also that if $V_t/W_t$ is constant, the whole graph $\{r_k, k\}$ is expected to look exactly the same. What is $r_k$ now measuring and what are the implications for identifying the constant DLM and the ARIMA(0,1,1)?:::::: {#exr-ch2-ex23}Suppose an observation series $\{Y_t\}$ is generated by the constant DLM $\{1, 1, V^*, W^*\}$. We can write $Y_t - Y_{t-1} = a_t - \delta^* a_{t-1}$ where $a_t \sim \mathcal{N}[0, Q^*]$ are independent random variables and $Q^*$ is the associated limiting one-step forecast variance. In order to investigate robustness, suppose a non-optimal DLM $\{1, 1, V, W\}$ is employed, so that in the limit, $Y_t - Y_{t-1} = e_t - \delta e_{t-1}$ where the errors will have a larger variance $Q$ and no longer be independent. Show that for integer $k$ such that $\lvert k \rvert \ge 1$,$$Q = \mathbb{V}[e_t] = \left[1 + \frac{(\delta - \delta^*)^2}{1 - \delta^2}\right] Q^*$$and$$C(k) = \mathbb{C}[e_{t+k}, e_t] = \delta^{\lvert k \rvert - 1} \, Q^* \, \frac{(\delta - \delta^*)(1 - \delta \delta^*)}{1 - \delta^2}.$$Examine graphs of $\{\delta, Q/Q^*\}$ and of $\{\delta, C(1)/Q\}$ for the typical practical cases $\delta^* = 0.9, \delta^* = 0.8$ and for the atypical case $\delta^* = 0.5$.:::
