R Matrix Laboratory

R Matrix Lab 2 — AR Recursions and Yule–Walker Equations

Convert AR models to companion form, compare polynomial roots with eigenvalues, propagate shocks, and recover coefficients from autocovariances.

R Matrix Lab 2 — AR Recursions and Yule–Walker Equations

Question

How do one scalar difference equation, one companion matrix, and one Toeplitz linear system describe the same AR process?

Consider

Xt=ϕ1Xt1++ϕpXtp+εt.X_t=\phi_1X_{t-1}+\cdots+\phi_pX_{t-p}+\varepsilon_t.

Define the state

st=(Xt,Xt1,,Xtp+1).\mathbf s_t=(X_t,X_{t-1},\ldots,X_{t-p+1})^\top.

Then

st=Fst1+Gεt,\mathbf s_t=F\mathbf s_{t-1}+G\varepsilon_t,

where

F=[ϕ1ϕ2ϕp100010],G=(1,0,,0).F= \begin{bmatrix} \phi_1&\phi_2&\cdots&\phi_p\\ 1&0&\cdots&0\\ 0&1&\ddots&\vdots\\ \vdots&&\ddots&0 \end{bmatrix}, \qquad G=(1,0,\ldots,0)^\top.

Example 1 — Roots, eigenvalues, and shock propagation

For

Xt=0.75Xt10.125Xt2+εt,X_t=0.75X_{t-1}-0.125X_{t-2}+\varepsilon_t,

the AR polynomial is

ϕ(z)=10.75z+0.125z2.\phi(z)=1-0.75z+0.125z^2.

Its roots must lie outside the unit circle. The companion eigenvalues are their reciprocals and must lie inside.

R

Compare AR roots, companion eigenvalues, and impulse responses

Idle

The first output checks admissibility. The second shows dynamics: FhGF^hG is the state response to one innovation, and its first component is ψh\psi_h in the MA(\infty) representation.

Example 2 — Yule–Walker as a Toeplitz solve

For a stationary AR(pp),

Γpϕ=γp,\Gamma_p\boldsymbol\phi=\boldsymbol\gamma_p,

with

Γp=Toeplitz{γ(0),,γ(p1)},γp=(γ(1),,γ(p)).\Gamma_p=\operatorname{Toeplitz}\{\gamma(0),\ldots,\gamma(p-1)\}, \qquad \boldsymbol\gamma_p=(\gamma(1),\ldots,\gamma(p))^\top.

The innovation variance follows from the lag-zero equation:

σε2=γ(0)ϕγp.\sigma_\varepsilon^2 =\gamma(0)-\boldsymbol\phi^\top\boldsymbol\gamma_p.
R

Recover AR coefficients from theoretical autocovariances

Idle

This cell deliberately starts from population autocovariances. In estimation, replacing them by sample autocovariances introduces sampling error; the linear algebra remains the same.

One model, four equivalent views

ViewObjectStability or identification check
difference equationϕ(B)Xt=εt\phi(B)X_t=\varepsilon_tcoefficients define recursion
polynomialϕ(z)\phi(z)roots outside unit circle
state equationst=Fst1+Gεt\mathbf s_t=F\mathbf s_{t-1}+G\varepsilon_teigenvalues of FF inside unit circle
moment equationsΓpϕ=γp\Gamma_p\boldsymbol\phi=\boldsymbol\gamma_pΓp\Gamma_p invertible

The views are equivalent under the model, but each makes a different task easier.

Exercises

  1. Build the companion matrix for AR(3) coefficients (0.5,0.2,0.1)(0.5,-0.2,0.1).
  2. Verify numerically that each companion eigenvalue is the reciprocal of one AR-polynomial root.
  3. Set ϕ=(1.2,0.32)\phi=(1.2,-0.32)^\top. Check roots and eigenvalues before simulating.
  4. For AR(1), reduce the matrix Yule–Walker equation to ϕ=γ(1)/γ(0)\phi=\gamma(1)/\gamma(0).
  5. Set ϕ=(0.9,0.09)\phi=(0.9,0.09)^\top. Inspect the spectral radius and the decay of ψh\psi_h. Explain why “coefficients sum to less than one” is not the general AR(pp) stability test.
  6. Graduate extension: solve vec(P)=(IFF)1vec(σ2GG)\operatorname{vec}(P)=(I-F\otimes F)^{-1}\operatorname{vec}(\sigma^2GG^\top) and compare P11P_{11} with γ(0)\gamma(0).
Checkpoints
  1. The first row is (0.5,0.2,0.1)(0.5,-0.2,0.1); rows two and three shift the state with ones on the first subdiagonal.
  2. Match the two unordered sets after taking reciprocals; allow floating-point tolerance.
  3. A coefficient larger than one does not decide stability by itself; the polynomial roots or companion eigenvalues do.
  4. Γ1=[γ(0)]\Gamma_1=[\gamma(0)] and γ1=[γ(1)]\boldsymbol\gamma_1=[\gamma(1)].
  5. Stability depends on all roots jointly, not on one coefficient or one sum.

Completion standard

You should be able to move without ambiguity among lag-polynomial, companion-matrix, impulse-response, and Yule–Walker representations.

Continue to Lab 3 — Prediction and Likelihood.

Copyright © 2026