Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Unit root

In time series analysis, particularly in econometrics, a unit root is a property of a stochastic process where the autoregressive polynomial has a root of unity, rendering the process non-stationary and integrated of order one, denoted as I(1).^[1] This occurs, for example, in the autoregressive model y_t = \rho y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, where \rho = 1, resulting in a pure random walk with drift potential, such that innovations or shocks have permanent effects on the series rather than temporary ones.^[1] 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 mean.^[2] The presence of unit roots has profound implications for statistical inference in time series econometrics, as standard asymptotic theory under stationarity fails, producing non-standard limiting distributions that invalidate conventional t-tests and F-tests.^[3] For instance, macroeconomic variables like GDP, inflation 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.^[2] This non-stationarity necessitates differencing the series (e.g., first differences for I(1) processes) to achieve stationarity before applying regression analysis, or cointegration techniques when multiple series share a common stochastic trend.^[4] Testing for unit roots originated with foundational work in the late 1970s, addressing the need to distinguish stochastic trends from deterministic ones in economic data.^[5] The seminal Dickey-Fuller test (DF test) examines the null hypothesis of a unit root (\rho = 1) against the alternative of stationarity (|\rho| < 1) using a modified t-statistic whose distribution converges to a functional of Brownian motion, rather than the standard normal.^[1] 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.^[6] More recent developments, such as the KPSS test, reverse the null hypothesis to favor stationarity, providing complementary evidence, while efficient tests like DF-GLS enhance power against local alternatives near unity.^[4] 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.^[2] 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.^[7] 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.^[3]

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.^[4] 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.^[4] 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.^[4] 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.^[4] 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.^[8] 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.^[4] This differencing operation underscores the cumulative nature of the shocks, where the levels of the series reflect the historical sum of innovations.^[4]

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

y_t = \rho y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t,

where \epsilon_t is white noise with mean zero and variance \sigma^2 > 0, and |\rho| \leq 1. A unit root occurs when \rho = 1, rendering the process non-stationary as the variance of y_t increases with time.^[5] For the general AR(p) model,

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 \Phi(L) = 1 - \phi_1 L - \phi_2 L^2 - \dots - \phi_p L^p, where L is the lag operator such that L^k y_t = y_{t-k}. The process has a unit root if \Phi(1) = 0, meaning one root of the characteristic equation \Phi(z) = 0 equals 1, which implies non-stationarity. When \rho = 1 in the AR(1) model, the process reduces to a pure random walk. Iterating the equation yields

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 y_t is the cumulative sum of the innovations \epsilon_i, with unconditional variance t \sigma^2 that grows linearly with time t.^[5] 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 \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 random walk, defined by the recursion y_0 = 0 and y_t = y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t for t = 1, 2, \dots, where the innovations \epsilon_t are independent and identically distributed as 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 process of order 1 (AR(1)) given by y_t = 0.9 y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t with the same innovations \epsilon_t \sim N(0, 1). While this process displays persistence due to the high autoregressive coefficient, it tends to revert toward its mean 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 random walk, the variance grows linearly with time as \operatorname{Var}(y_t) = t \sigma^2 (with \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.^[9] 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: y_t = y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, with \epsilon_t being white noise.^[10] This pure form implies non-stationarity, as shocks accumulate permanently, leading to a stochastic trend. When drift is included, the model becomes y_t = \mu + y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, introducing a deterministic linear trend alongside the stochastic component.^[9] In the ARIMA(p,d,q) framework, a unit root corresponds to integration order d=1, transforming an ARMA(p,q) process into a non-stationary integrated ARMA model by applying first differencing to achieve stationarity.^[11] This structure generalizes autoregressive and moving average models to handle unit roots, allowing for the modeling of economic series with persistent shocks through differencing.^[12] 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 stochastic trends requiring differencing for stationarity.^[13] The distinction highlights how unit root processes generate permanent effects from shocks, unlike the transitory impacts in trend-stationary alternatives.^[10] The Beveridge-Nelson decomposition separates non-stationary time series into permanent (unit root-driven) and transitory components, assuming an underlying ARIMA structure to estimate the trend as a random walk.^[14] This approach quantifies the stochastic 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.^[15] This framework addresses spurious correlations in vector autoregressions with unit roots.^[16] These models emerged prominently in 1980s econometrics to explain macroeconomic persistence, with seminal work challenging stationary assumptions in aggregate data.^[17]

Properties

Key Characteristics

Unit root processes exhibit non-stationarity in their statistical properties, with the expected value and variance evolving over time rather than remaining constant. For a unit root process with drift, such as y_t = \mu + y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t where \epsilon_t is white noise with variance \sigma^2, the mean is E(y_t) = t \mu (assuming y_0 = 0), which grows linearly with time t.^[4] Similarly, the variance is \text{Var}(y_t) = t \sigma^2, increasing proportionally with t and leading to potentially explosive growth in the process's scale.^[4] A defining behavioral feature of unit root processes is the permanence of shocks, in contrast to transitory shocks in stationary processes. Innovations \epsilon_t accumulate indefinitely, resulting in stochastic drift where each shock permanently alters the level of the series, rather than decaying over time.^[4] This persistence manifests in autocorrelations that approach 1 even at long lags, reflecting the high degree of dependence in the series.^[18] Asymptotically, the normalized unit root process converges to a Brownian motion. Specifically, t^{-1/2} y_t \Rightarrow \sigma W(1), where W(\cdot) denotes standard Brownian motion and \Rightarrow indicates weak convergence.^[19] 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 \Delta y_t = y_t - y_{t-1} is stationary and thus ergodic—allowing sample averages to converge to population parameters—the levels y_t lack this property, causing sample moments to depend on the entire path and converge to random limits involving Brownian motion functionals.^[4]

Implications for Stationarity

A unit root process violates the conditions of weak stationarity, which requires a time series to have a constant mean, 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 mean 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 inference, such as those in autoregressive models, fail, as the process behaves like a random walk where shocks accumulate indefinitely. To address this, first differencing the series—computing \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 forecasting, particularly over long horizons, as the random walk component dominates, making predictions no more accurate than the unconditional mean and leading to widening forecast error bands proportional to the square root 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 1970s to stochastic unit roots, highlighting the need for pre-testing or cointegration analysis to avoid misleading inferences. In finite samples, even series with roots near unity—modeled as local-to-unity parameters like \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 1980s, underscores the fragility of standard inference 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 stochastic process 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 null hypothesis is H_0: \rho = 1 in the model y_t = \rho y_{t-1} + \epsilon_t, where \epsilon_t is white noise, against the alternative H_1: |\rho| < 1, which indicates stationarity.^[1] For higher-order autoregressive processes AR(p), the null extends to H_0: \Phi(1) = 0, where \Phi(z) = 1 - \sum_{i=1}^p \phi_i z^i is the characteristic polynomial, versus the stationary alternative.^[1] This formulation tests whether the process is integrated of order 1 (I(1)), as the unit root leads to a random walk behavior under the null.^[1] The Dickey-Fuller (DF) test provides the foundational framework for testing this hypothesis by estimating the AR(1) model and computing the t-statistic t_{DF} = (\hat{\rho} - 1) / \mathrm{SE}(\hat{\rho}), where \hat{\rho} is the least-squares estimate and SE denotes its standard error.^[1] Under the null hypothesis, the asymptotic distribution of t_{DF} is non-standard and does not follow the conventional Student's t-distribution, necessitating specialized critical values derived from simulations.^[1] Applying standard normal critical values instead results in significant size distortions, often leading to over-rejection of the null.^[1] These critical values are tabulated in the original work for various sample sizes and deterministic components like intercepts or trends.^[1] 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.^[20] The test equation is \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 H_0: \gamma = 0 (equivalent to \rho = 1), and the alternative is H_1: \gamma < 0.^[20] The number of lags k 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.^[20] 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.^[6] In contrast, the Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin (KPSS) test reverses the hypotheses, testing the null of stationarity (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.^[21] This approach uses a Lagrange multiplier statistic based on cumulative residuals from a stationary regression.^[21]

Estimation Procedures

In ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation of an autoregressive model with a unit root, the estimator of the autoregressive parameter \hat{\rho} exhibits a finite-sample bias towards zero, even though it is consistent and converges at a superconsistent rate of O_p(1/T) rather than the standard O_p(1/\sqrt{T}).^[19]^[22] This faster convergence arises because the regressor y_{t-1} is non-stationary and highly persistent under the unit root null, leading to an integrated regressor that strengthens the identification of \rho = 1.^[19] When drift or trend terms are included in the model, such as y_t = \mu + \rho y_{t-1} + \beta t + \epsilon_t, the OLS estimator remains superconsistent for \rho, but the inclusion of deterministic components adjusts the asymptotic distribution, requiring specialized inference procedures to account for the non-standard limiting behavior.^[19] Detrending methods address potential deterministic trends that could confound unit root estimation by first removing these components from the series. A common approach involves regressing the time series y_t on a linear trend, such as y_t = \beta t + u_t, and then applying unit root procedures to the residuals u_t, which isolates the stochastic component for analysis. This pre-testing step helps distinguish between trend-stationary and difference-stationary processes, though it can introduce pre-test bias if the trend form is misspecified.^[23] For multivariate settings with unit roots, cointegration estimation identifies long-run equilibrium relationships among integrated series. The Johansen method estimates cointegrating vectors by fitting a vector autoregression (VAR) in levels and applying maximum likelihood to a vector error correction model (VECM), where the rank of the cointegration matrix determines the number of such relations. This approach is preferred over single-equation methods as it handles multiple cointegrating relations and provides likelihood ratio tests for the cointegration rank. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test provides a practical procedure for unit root estimation and inference. First, specify the test regression, such as \Delta y_t = \alpha + \gamma y_{t-1} + \sum_{j=1}^p \delta_j \Delta y_{t-j} + \epsilon_t, where the null \gamma = 0 implies a unit root. Select the lag length p using information criteria like the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) or Schwarz Information Criterion (SIC) to balance fit and parsimony while ensuring residuals are white noise. Compute the t-statistic on \gamma, and obtain p-values from MacKinnon distribution functions, which approximate the non-standard asymptotic distribution via response surface regressions on simulations. Structural breaks can mimic unit root behavior, leading to biased estimation if unaccounted for. Perron's method incorporates an exogenous break date in the trend or level, estimating the unit root model with a dummy variable for the post-break regime to test the null of a unit root against broken trend stationarity. To address endogeneity in break timing, the Zivot-Andrews test sequentially estimates break points by minimizing the t-statistic on the autoregressive parameter across possible dates, allowing the break under both null and alternative hypotheses. Bayesian approaches handle model uncertainty in unit root estimation by incorporating priors that weigh the unit root null against stationary alternatives, avoiding the discrete hypothesis testing issues of classical methods. These methods use posterior odds or Bayes factors to quantify uncertainty, often centering priors around the unit root while allowing shrinkage towards stationarity, as in analyses of real exchange rates.^[24]

References

[1]
Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series With
The paper studies the distribution of estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root, where the model is Yt = ρYt-1 + et, and derives limit ...
[2]
[PDF] A Primer on Unit Root Testing - EliScholar
Aug 1, 1998 · Unit root theory plays a major role in modern time series econometrics and weak convergence methods and function space asymptotics have ...
[3]
[PDF] what macroeconomists should know about unit roots
Unit roots in macroeconomics cause econometric issues, standard theory doesn't apply, and can create both problems and opportunities. Unit root tests are ...
[4]
[PDF] Unit Root Tests
Unit root tests determine if data should be first differenced or regressed to remove trends, testing if the autoregressive polynomial has a root equal to unity.
[5]
Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a ...
Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. David A. Dickey North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27650, USA. &.
[6]
[PDF] Testing for a unit root in time series regression
This is because a unit root is often a theoretical implication of models which postulate the rational use of information that is available to economic agents.
[7]
[PDF] UNIT ROOTS, STRUCTURAL BREAKS AND TRENDS
This chapter reviews inference about unit roots (autoregressive and moving average) and structural change in time series, focusing on I(0) and I(1) series.
[8]
[PDF] nelson-plosser-1982.pdf
The presence of the unit root implies that tire process is not invertible; that is, it does not have a convergent autoregressive representation. Recall that the ...
[9]
[PDF] 1 Unit Roots.
Unit root processes behave differently from stable processes, and their limiting distributions are very different from the stationary case.
[10]
[PDF] Lecture 6a: Unit Root and ARIMA Models - Miami University
A unit root makes a time series non-stationary. ARIMA models require differencing (d times) before applying ARMA to the differenced series.
[11]
[PDF] DIFFERENCING AND UNIT ROOT TESTS - NYU Stern
We can think of the random walk as an AR (1) process, x =αx +ε with α=1. But since it has t t −1 t l r α=1, the random walk is not stationary.
[12]
Trends and Random Walks in Macroeconomic Time Series - jstor
In their 1982 article, Nelson and Plosser provided evidence supporting the existence of an autoregressive unit root in a variety of macroeconomic time.
[13]
A new approach to decomposition of economic time series into ...
This paper introduces a general procedure for decomposition of non-stationary time series into a permanent and transitory component allowing both components ...
[14]
Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation ...
The paper presents a representation theorem based on Granger (1983), which connects the moving average, autoregressive, and error correction representations ...
[15]
[PDF] CO-INTEGRATION AND ERROR CORRECTION ...
ENGLE AND C. W. J. GRANGER. 4. ESTIMATING CO-INTEGRATED SYSTEMS. In defining different forms for co-integrated systems, several estimation pro- cedures have ...
[16]
[PDF] Redalyc.Unit roots in macroeconomic time series
It has been two decades since the influential work by Nelson and Plosser. (1982) on the existence of unit roots in macroeconomic time series was published.
[17]
[PDF] Unit Roots
Example: Random Walk. Page 10. General Case. • If y has a unit root, transform by differencing. • This eliminates the unit root, so z is stationary. • Make ...Missing: seminal paper
[18]
Time Series Regression with a Unit Root - jstor
XT(r) can be shown to converge weakly to a limit process which is popularly known either as standard Brownian motion or the Wiener process. This result is.<|separator|>
[19]
Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of ...
Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. SAID E. ... Biometrika, Volume 71, Issue 3, December 1984, Pages 599–607, https ...
[20]
How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?
We propose a test of the null hypothesis that an observable series is stationary around a deterministic trend.
[21]
OLS Bias in a Nonstationary Autoregression - jstor
An analytical formula is derived to approximate the finite sample bias of the ordinary least-squares (OLS) estimator of the autoregressive parameter when.Missing: superconsistent | Show results with:superconsistent
[22]
Alternative methods of detrending and the power of unit root tests
This paper suggests unit root tests based on detrending the series by a GLS regression, using an empirically plausible value of the autoregressive root.
[23]
On Bayesian routes to unit roots - Schotman - Wiley Online Library
Schotman, P. C., and H. K. Van Dijk (1991a), 'A Bayesian analysis of the unit root in real exchange rates', Journal of Econometrics, 49, 195–238. ... Schotman, ...