Hubbry Logo
Unit rootUnit rootMain
Open search
Unit root
Community hub
Unit root
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Unit root
Unit root
from Wikipedia

In probability theory and statistics, a unit root is a property of certain stochastic processes (such as a random walk) that can create challenges for statistical inference in time series models. A linear stochastic process contains a unit root if 1 is a solution to its characteristic equation.

Processes with a unit root are non-stationary, because they do not necessarily exhibit a deterministic trend.

If the other roots of the characteristic equation lie inside the unit circle—that is, have a modulus (absolute value) less than one—then the first difference of the process will be stationary; otherwise, the process will need to be differenced multiple times to become stationary.[1] If there are d unit roots, the process will have to be differenced d times in order to make it stationary.[2] Due to this characteristic, unit root processes are also called difference stationary.[3][4]

Unit root processes may sometimes be confused with trend-stationary processes; while they share many properties, they are different in many aspects. It is possible for a time series to be non-stationary, yet have no unit root and be trend-stationary. In both unit root and trend-stationary processes, the mean can be growing or decreasing over time; however, in the presence of a shock, trend-stationary processes are mean-reverting (i.e. transitory, the time series will converge again towards the growing mean, which was not affected by the shock) while unit-root processes have a permanent impact on the mean (i.e. no convergence over time).[5]

If a root of the process's characteristic equation is larger than 1, then it is called an explosive process, even though such processes are sometimes inaccurately called unit roots processes.

The presence of a unit root can be tested using a unit root test.

Definition

[edit]

Consider a discrete-time stochastic process , and suppose that it can be written as an autoregressive process of order p:

Here, is a serially uncorrelated, zero-mean stochastic process with constant variance . For convenience, assume . If is a root of the characteristic equation, of multiplicity 1:

then the stochastic process has a unit root or, alternatively, is integrated of order one, denoted . If m = 1 is a root of multiplicity r, then the stochastic process is integrated of order r, denoted I(r).

Example

[edit]

The first order autoregressive model, , has a unit root when . In this example, the characteristic equation is . The root of the equation is .

If the process has a unit root, then it is a non-stationary time series. That is, the moments of the stochastic process depend on . To illustrate the effect of a unit root, we can consider the first order case, starting from y0 = 0:

By repeated substitution, we can write . Then the variance of is given by:

The variance depends on t since , while . The variance of the series is diverging to infinity with t.

There are various tests to check for the existence of a unit root, some of them are given by:

  1. The Dickey–Fuller test (DF) or augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) tests
  2. Testing the significance of more than one coefficients (f-test)
  3. The Phillips–Perron test (PP)
  4. Dickey Pantula test
[edit]

In addition to autoregressive (AR) and autoregressive–moving-average (ARMA) models, other important models arise in regression analysis where the model errors may themselves have a time series structure and thus may need to be modelled by an AR or ARMA process that may have a unit root, as discussed above. The finite sample properties of regression models with first order ARMA errors, including unit roots, have been analyzed.[6][7]

Estimation when a unit root may be present

[edit]

Often, ordinary least squares (OLS) is used to estimate the slope coefficients of the autoregressive model. Use of OLS relies on the stochastic process being stationary. When the stochastic process is non-stationary, the use of OLS can produce invalid estimates. Granger and Newbold called such estimates 'spurious regression' results:[8] high R2 values and high t-ratios yielding results with no real (in their context, economic) meaning.

To estimate the slope coefficients, one should first conduct a unit root test, whose null hypothesis is that a unit root is present. If that hypothesis is rejected, one can use OLS. However, if the presence of a unit root is not rejected, then one should apply the difference operator to the series. If another unit root test shows the differenced time series to be stationary, OLS can then be applied to this series to estimate the slope coefficients.

For example, in the AR(1) case, is stationary.

In the AR(2) case, can be written as where L is a lag operator that decreases the time index of a variable by one period: . If , the model has a unit root and we can define ; then

is stationary if . OLS can be used to estimate the slope coefficient, .

If the process has multiple unit roots, the difference operator can be applied multiple times.

Properties and characteristics of unit-root processes

[edit]
  • Shocks to a unit root process have permanent effects which do not decay as they would if the process were stationary
  • As noted above, a unit root process has a variance that depends on t, and diverges to infinity
  • If it is known that a series has a unit root, the series can be differenced to render it stationary. For example, if a series is I(1), the series is I(0) (stationary). It is hence called a difference stationary series.[citation needed]

Unit root hypothesis

[edit]
The diagram above depicts an example of a potential unit root. The red line represents an observed drop in output. Green shows the path of recovery if the series has a unit root. Blue shows the recovery if there is no unit root and the series is trend-stationary. The blue line returns to meet and follow the dashed trend line while the green line remains permanently below the trend. The unit root hypothesis also holds that a spike in output will lead to levels of output higher than the past trend.

Economists debate whether various economic statistics, especially output, have a unit root or are trend-stationary.[9] A unit root process with drift is given in the first-order case by

where c is a constant term referred to as the "drift" term, and is white noise. Any non-zero value of the noise term, occurring for only one period, will permanently affect the value of as shown in the graph, so deviations from the line are non-stationary; there is no reversion to any trend line. In contrast, a trend-stationary process is given by

where k is the slope of the trend and is noise (white noise in the simplest case; more generally, noise following its own stationary autoregressive process). Here any transient noise will not alter the long-run tendency for to be on the trend line, as also shown in the graph. This process is said to be trend-stationary because deviations from the trend line are stationary.

The issue is particularly popular in the literature on business cycles.[10][11] Research on the subject began with Nelson and Plosser whose paper on GNP and other output aggregates failed to reject the unit root hypothesis for these series.[12] Since then, a debate—entwined with technical disputes on statistical methods—has ensued. Some economists[13] argue that GDP has a unit root or structural break, implying that economic downturns result in permanently lower GDP levels in the long run. Other economists argue that GDP is trend-stationary: That is, when GDP dips below trend during a downturn it later returns to the level implied by the trend so that there is no permanent decrease in output. While the literature on the unit root hypothesis may consist of arcane debate on statistical methods, the hypothesis carries significant practical implications for economic forecasts and policies.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In time series analysis, particularly in , a unit root is a property of a where the autoregressive polynomial has a , rendering the process non-stationary and integrated of order one, denoted as I(1). This occurs, for example, in the yt=ρyt1+ϵty_t = \rho y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, where ρ=1\rho = 1, resulting in a pure with drift potential, such that innovations or shocks have permanent effects on the series rather than temporary ones. Unit root processes exhibit stochastic trends, leading to time-dependent variance and a lack of mean reversion, which distinguishes them from stationary processes that fluctuate around a fixed . The presence of unit roots has profound implications for in time series , as standard asymptotic theory under stationarity fails, producing non-standard limiting distributions that invalidate conventional t-tests and F-tests. For instance, macroeconomic variables like GDP, rates, and asset prices often display unit root behavior, implying that economic shocks—such as policy changes or technological innovations—persist indefinitely, influencing long-run forecasts and policy design in models like real business cycles. This non-stationarity necessitates differencing the series (e.g., first differences for I(1) processes) to achieve stationarity before applying , or techniques when multiple series share a common trend. Testing for unit roots originated with foundational work in the late 1970s, addressing the need to distinguish trends from deterministic ones in . The seminal Dickey-Fuller test (DF test) examines the of a unit root (ρ=1\rho = 1) against the alternative of stationarity (ρ<1|\rho| < 1) using a modified t-statistic whose distribution converges to a functional of Brownian motion, rather than the standard normal. Extensions include the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test, which accounts for higher-order autoregressive errors to avoid specification bias, and the Phillips-Perron (PP) test, a non-parametric approach that adjusts for serial correlation and heteroskedasticity without lag augmentation. More recent developments, such as the KPSS test, reverse the to favor stationarity, providing complementary evidence, while efficient tests like DF-GLS enhance power against local alternatives near unity. Historically, the "unit root revolution" in the 1980s shifted econometric practice from assuming trend-stationarity to accommodating stochastic trends, spurred by empirical findings in macroeconomics and finance. Influential studies revealed that many aggregate time series, including U.S. GNP and stock prices, fail to reject the unit root null, challenging earlier models and prompting advancements in panel data tests and structural break accommodations. Despite improved testing procedures, debates persist over low power in finite samples and the role of structural breaks, which can mimic unit root behavior, underscoring the need for robust diagnostics in applied research.

Basic Concepts

Definition

In time series analysis, a unit root refers to the property of a stochastic process where the characteristic root of its autoregressive representation equals unity, resulting in non-stationarity. This condition implies that the process does not revert to a fixed mean over time, as its statistical properties, such as the mean and variance, evolve unpredictably. Intuitively, the presence of a unit root endows the time series with a stochastic trend, meaning that random shocks to the process accumulate and persist indefinitely, rather than dissipating as they would in a stationary process where effects decay over time. In contrast to deterministic trends, which follow a predictable path, this stochastic component causes the series to wander randomly without a tendency to return to equilibrium, leading to persistent deviations that can mimic long-term growth or cycles in observed data. The concept gained prominence in the early 1980s through econometric research aimed at understanding the non-stationary behavior of macroeconomic variables, such as GDP and inflation rates, which exhibited high persistence that traditional stationary models could not adequately capture. Economists Charles R. Nelson and Charles I. Plosser highlighted this feature in their analysis of U.S. economic time series from the late 19th and 20th centuries, arguing that unit roots better explained the observed trends as integrated random walks rather than transitory fluctuations around a deterministic path. A key implication of a unit root is that the process is integrated of order one, denoted I(1), such that applying first differences transforms it into a stationary series, removing the non-stationarity while preserving the underlying information. This differencing operation underscores the cumulative nature of the shocks, where the levels of the series reflect the historical sum of innovations.

Mathematical Formulation

The unit root in time series analysis arises in the context of autoregressive (AR) models, where the process exhibits non-stationarity due to a root of unity in the characteristic equation. Consider the simplest case, the AR(1) model, defined as yt=ρyt1+ϵt,y_t = \rho y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, where ϵt\epsilon_t is white noise with mean zero and variance σ2>0\sigma^2 > 0, and ρ1|\rho| \leq 1. A unit root occurs when ρ=1\rho = 1, rendering the process non-stationary as the variance of yty_t increases with time. For the general AR(p) model, yt=ϕ1yt1+ϕ2yt2++ϕpytp+ϵt,y_t = \phi_1 y_{t-1} + \phi_2 y_{t-2} + \dots + \phi_p y_{t-p} + \epsilon_t, the autoregressive operator is given by the polynomial Φ(L)=1ϕ1Lϕ2L2ϕpLp\Phi(L) = 1 - \phi_1 L - \phi_2 L^2 - \dots - \phi_p L^p, where LL is the such that Lkyt=ytkL^k y_t = y_{t-k}. The process has a unit root if Φ(1)=0\Phi(1) = 0, meaning one root of the characteristic equation Φ(z)=0\Phi(z) = 0 equals 1, which implies non-stationarity. When ρ=1\rho = 1 in the AR(1) model, the process reduces to a pure . Iterating the equation yields yt=yt1+ϵt=yt2+ϵt1+ϵt==y0+i=1tϵi,y_t = y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t = y_{t-2} + \epsilon_{t-1} + \epsilon_t = \dots = y_0 + \sum_{i=1}^t \epsilon_i, demonstrating that yty_t is the cumulative sum of the innovations ϵi\epsilon_i, with unconditional variance tσ2t \sigma^2 that grows linearly with time tt. A process with a unit root is said to be integrated of order 1, denoted I(1), if differencing once produces a stationary series. The first difference is Δyt=ytyt1=ϵt\Delta y_t = y_t - y_{t-1} = \epsilon_t in the random walk case, which is white noise and thus stationary. This integration framework formalizes the need for differencing to achieve stationarity in unit root processes.

Examples and Applications

Illustrative Example

A simple illustrative example of a unit root process is the , defined by the y0=0y_0 = 0 and yt=yt1+ϵty_t = y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t for t=1,2,t = 1, 2, \dots, where the innovations ϵt\epsilon_t are independent and identically distributed as N(0,1)N(0, 1). Simulated paths of this process typically exhibit a non-reverting trajectory, wandering indefinitely without returning to the initial value, as each shock accumulates permanently into the level of the series. In contrast, consider a stationary autoregressive of order 1 (AR(1)) given by yt=0.9yt1+ϵty_t = 0.9 y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t with the same innovations ϵtN(0,1)\epsilon_t \sim N(0, 1). While this displays persistence due to the high autoregressive , it tends to revert toward its over time, unlike the unit root case where shocks lead to permanent drifts in the series level. A key distinction arises in the variance: for the unit root , the variance grows linearly with time as Var(yt)=tσ2\operatorname{Var}(y_t) = t \sigma^2 (with σ2=1\sigma^2 = 1 here), whereas stationary processes maintain a constant unconditional variance. In real-world data, many economic time series such as stock prices and measures of real GNP or GDP often display unit root-like behavior, with shocks appearing to have lasting effects on levels rather than temporary deviations. The random walk model represents a foundational stochastic process exhibiting a unit root, where the current value depends solely on the previous value plus a random shock, without drift: yt=yt1+ϵty_t = y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, with ϵt\epsilon_t being white noise. This pure form implies non-stationarity, as shocks accumulate permanently, leading to a stochastic trend. When drift is included, the model becomes yt=μ+yt1+ϵty_t = \mu + y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, introducing a deterministic linear trend alongside the stochastic component. In the ARIMA(p,d,q) framework, a unit root corresponds to integration order d=1d=1, transforming an ARMA(p,q) process into a non-stationary integrated ARMA model by applying first differencing to achieve stationarity. This structure generalizes autoregressive and models to handle unit roots, allowing for the modeling of economic series with persistent shocks through differencing. Trend-stationary models feature deterministic trends without unit roots, where deviations from the trend revert to equilibrium, contrasting with difference-stationary models that incorporate unit roots and exhibit trends requiring differencing for stationarity. The distinction highlights how unit root processes generate permanent effects from shocks, unlike the transitory impacts in trend-stationary alternatives. The Beveridge-Nelson decomposition separates non-stationary time series into permanent (unit root-driven) and transitory components, assuming an underlying structure to estimate the trend as a . This approach quantifies the trend's contribution to long-run movements in variables like output. In multivariate settings, cointegrated systems extend unit root models by allowing individual series to be non-stationary but their linear combinations to be stationary, capturing long-run equilibrium relationships among integrated variables. This framework addresses spurious correlations in vector autoregressions with unit roots. These models emerged prominently in to explain macroeconomic persistence, with seminal work challenging stationary assumptions in .

Properties

Key Characteristics

Unit root processes exhibit non-stationarity in their statistical properties, with the and variance evolving over time rather than remaining constant. For a unit root process with drift, such as yt=μ+yt1+ϵty_t = \mu + y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t where ϵt\epsilon_t is white noise with variance σ2\sigma^2, the is E(yt)=tμE(y_t) = t \mu (assuming y0=0y_0 = 0), which grows linearly with time tt. Similarly, the variance is Var(yt)=tσ2\text{Var}(y_t) = t \sigma^2, increasing proportionally with tt and leading to potentially explosive growth in the process's scale. A defining behavioral feature of unit root processes is the permanence of shocks, in contrast to transitory shocks in stationary processes. Innovations ϵt\epsilon_t accumulate indefinitely, resulting in stochastic drift where each shock permanently alters the level of the series, rather than decaying over time. This persistence manifests in autocorrelations that approach 1 even at long lags, reflecting the high degree of dependence in the series. Asymptotically, the normalized unit root process converges to a . Specifically, t1/2ytσW(1)t^{-1/2} y_t \Rightarrow \sigma W(1), where W()W(\cdot) denotes standard and \Rightarrow indicates weak convergence. This limiting distribution underpins the non-standard inference required for unit root analysis. Unit root processes are ergodic in their first differences but not in levels, which has critical implications for sample moments. While the differenced series Δyt=ytyt1\Delta y_t = y_t - y_{t-1} is stationary and thus ergodic—allowing sample averages to converge to population parameters—the levels yty_t lack this property, causing sample moments to depend on the entire path and converge to random limits involving functionals.

Implications for Stationarity

A unit root process violates the conditions of weak stationarity, which requires a to have a constant , constant variance, and autocovariances that depend only on the time lag rather than on absolute time. In contrast, a series with a unit root exhibits a that drifts over time, variance that increases with the sample size (often linearly or quadratically), and autocovariances that are time-dependent, leading to persistent dependencies that do not decay. This non-stationarity implies that standard statistical assumptions for , such as those in autoregressive models, fail, as the process behaves like a where shocks accumulate indefinitely. To address this, first differencing the series—computing Δyt=ytyt1\Delta y_t = y_t - y_{t-1}—transforms a unit root process into a stationary one, effectively removing the stochastic trend and rendering the differences integrated of order zero, or I(0). For processes that are integrated of higher order d, denoted I(d), repeated differencing d times is required to achieve stationarity, allowing subsequent analysis under standard time series frameworks. This differencing approach, rooted in the integration and cointegration literature, preserves the long-run information while eliminating the non-stationary component. The presence of a unit root poses significant challenges for , particularly over long horizons, as the component dominates, making predictions no more accurate than the unconditional mean and leading to widening bands proportional to the of the horizon. This unpredictability arises because innovations persist indefinitely, unlike in stationary processes where effects decay exponentially. A critical implication is the risk of spurious regressions, where regressing two independent unit root series yields statistically significant but economically meaningless relationships, with inflated R² values and invalid t-statistics due to the shared non-stationarity. This phenomenon was first noted by Yule in the 1920s for deterministic trends and extended by Granger and Newbold in the to unit roots, highlighting the need for pre-testing or analysis to avoid misleading inferences. In finite samples, even series with roots near unity—modeled as local-to-unity parameters like ρ=1c/T\rho = 1 - c/T where c is fixed and T is sample size—exhibit behaviors akin to unit roots, causing persistent biases in autoregressive coefficient estimates and autoregressive roots that converge slowly to their true values. This near-unit root asymptotics, developed by Phillips in the late , underscores the fragility of standard and motivates robust testing procedures to distinguish true stationarity from near-non-stationarity.

Testing and Inference

Unit Root Hypothesis

The unit root hypothesis in time series analysis posits that a exhibits non-stationarity due to the presence of a unit root, implying that shocks have permanent effects. Formally, for an autoregressive process of order 1 (AR(1)), the is H0:ρ=1H_0: \rho = 1 in the model yt=ρyt1+ϵty_t = \rho y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, where ϵt\epsilon_t is , against the alternative H1:ρ<1H_1: |\rho| < 1, which indicates stationarity. For higher-order autoregressive processes AR(p), the null extends to H0:Φ(1)=0H_0: \Phi(1) = 0, where Φ(z)=1i=1pϕizi\Phi(z) = 1 - \sum_{i=1}^p \phi_i z^i is the , versus the stationary alternative. This formulation tests whether the process is integrated of order 1 (I(1)), as the unit root leads to a behavior under the null. The Dickey-Fuller (DF) test provides the foundational framework for testing this hypothesis by estimating the AR(1) model and computing the t-statistic tDF=(ρ^1)/SE(ρ^)t_{DF} = (\hat{\rho} - 1) / \mathrm{SE}(\hat{\rho}), where ρ^\hat{\rho} is the least-squares estimate and SE denotes its standard error. Under the null hypothesis, the asymptotic distribution of tDFt_{DF} is non-standard and does not follow the conventional Student's t-distribution, necessitating specialized critical values derived from simulations. Applying standard normal critical values instead results in significant size distortions, often leading to over-rejection of the null. These critical values are tabulated in the original work for various sample sizes and deterministic components like intercepts or trends. To address potential serial correlation in the errors, which violates the assumptions of the basic DF test, the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test incorporates lagged differences of the series. The test equation is Δyt=α+γyt1+i=1kδiΔyti+ϵt\Delta y_t = \alpha + \gamma y_{t-1} + \sum_{i=1}^{k} \delta_i \Delta y_{t-i} + \epsilon_t, where the null hypothesis is H0:γ=0H_0: \gamma = 0 (equivalent to ρ=1\rho = 1), and the alternative is H1:γ<0H_1: \gamma < 0. The number of lags kk is selected to ensure white-noise residuals, often using information criteria, allowing the test to handle higher-order ARMA processes of unknown order under the null. Other prominent tests complement the DF framework by addressing different assumptions. The Phillips-Perron (PP) test modifies the DF regression through non-parametric corrections for serial correlation and heteroskedasticity in the error terms, preserving the same null hypothesis while adjusting the test statistic and its variance. In contrast, the Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin (KPSS) test reverses the hypotheses, testing the null of stationarity (H0:H_0: no unit root, series is I(0)) against the alternative of a unit root (I(1)), providing a complementary diagnostic to DF-type tests that can confirm findings when power issues arise. This approach uses a Lagrange multiplier statistic based on cumulative residuals from a stationary regression.

Estimation Procedures

In ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation of an with a unit root, the of the autoregressive ρ^\hat{\rho} exhibits a finite-sample towards zero, even though it is consistent and converges at a superconsistent rate of Op(1/T)O_p(1/T) rather than the standard Op(1/T)O_p(1/\sqrt{T})
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.