Deriving the Half-Life of a Stationary AR(1) Process
Summary
The answer derives the half-life of deviations from the stationary mean in a weakly stationary AR(1) process. It first rewrites the model using its stationary mean, found from the intercept and autoregressive coefficient. Subtracting that mean centers the process, so each observation represents the remaining distance from equilibrium and evolves as the previous deviation multiplied by the AR(1) coefficient, plus an innovation.
The expected deviation h periods ahead, conditional on the current value, is the current deviation multiplied by the coefficient raised to h. Setting this expectation equal to half the current deviation gives the half-life as minus the logarithm of two divided by the logarithm of the coefficient’s absolute value. The derivation assumes a stationary AR(1), with coefficient magnitude below one. It clarifies the discrete-time result but does not fully derive the mapping from a continuous Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process or address how sampling intervals affect that mapping.
Key ideas
- For a stationary AR(1), the stationary mean equals the intercept divided by one minus the autoregressive coefficient.
- Subtracting the stationary mean expresses the process as a recurrence for deviations from equilibrium.
- The expected deviation h periods ahead is scaled by the autoregressive coefficient raised to h.
- The half-life formula uses the absolute value of the coefficient and assumes its magnitude is below one.
Tags
Full text
# How to find the formula for the half-life of an AR(1) process (using the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process)
# How to find the formula for the half-life of an AR(1) process (using the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process)
Using the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process, I want to prove the half life formula for AR(1) is $$\text{HL}=-\log\left(\frac{2}{ \lambda}\right)$$
I have Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process defined as $$dx_t=\theta(\mu-x_t)dt+\sigma dW_t$$
and AR(1) as $$\Delta X_n=\mu+\lambda X_{n-1}+\sigma \varepsilon_n\quad,\quad n\geq 1$$
I am analyzing this derivation. I understand the steps. The calculated half life for the OU is $$T_{1/2}=\frac{\ln(2)}{\theta}$$
I have some difficulties in translating this into the corresponding AR(1) half life. My understanding is that if $dt=1$ then discretized OU model takes form of AR(1). Is this correct? Can anybody clarify the link between those two and the half life adjustment for AR(1)? Do we just replace the $\theta$ for $\lambda$ in the final formula? what would be the explanation? How about the minus sign?
## Answer by Quantuple (score 13, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/30216
### Convenient rewriting
Let $$X_t = c + \phi_1 X_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, \quad \vert \phi_1 \vert < 1 \tag{1} $$ denote a weakly stationary AR(1) process. Weak stationarity notably implies that $$\Bbb{E}[X_t] = \mu = \text{constant}$$ for all $t$. This property may be used (simply take the expectation on both sides of equation $(1)$), to find that the stationary mean $\mu$ computes as $$ \mu = \frac{c}{1-\phi_1} $$ which allows one to write (just replace $c$ in $(1)$ given the above identity) $$ X_t - \mu = \phi_1(X_{t-1}-\mu) + \epsilon_t $$ or $$ Y_t = \phi_1 Y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t \tag{2} $$ where $Y_t = X_t - \Bbb{E}[X_t] $ may be interpreted as the distance to the stationary mean.
### Half-life
The current distance to the stationary mean is $Y_t$. When looking for the half-life, by definition we are looking for the time $t+h$ where the process is expected to halve its distance to the stationary mean, i.e. $h$ such that $$ \Bbb{E}_t [Y_{t+h}] = \frac{1}{2} Y_t $$
A simple examination of equation $(2)$ shows that $\Bbb{E}_t [Y_{t+h}] = \phi_1^h Y_t $ which leads to $$ \phi_1^h Y_t = \frac{1}{2} Y_t $$ hence $$ h = -\frac{\ln(2)}{\ln(\vert{\phi_1\vert})} $$Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.