Wikipedia says

The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process can also be considered as the continuous-time analogue of the discrete-time AR(1) process.

I was wondering how the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process can be considered as the continuous-time analogue of the discrete-time AR(1) process?

An Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process, $x_t$, satisfies the following stochastic differential equation: $$ dx_t = \theta (\mu-x_t)\,dt + \sigma\, dW_t $$ where $\theta > 0, \mu$ and $\sigma > 0$ are parameters and $W_t$ denotes the Wiener process.

The $AR(p)$ model, i.e. an autoregressive model of order $p$, is defined as $$ X_t = c + \sum_{i=1}^p \varphi_i X_{t-i}+ \varepsilon_t \, $$ where $\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_p$ are the parameters of the model, $c$ is a constant, and $\varepsilon_t$ is white noise.

Thanks and regards!


In case $p=1$ you have $$ x_{k+1} = c+a x_k + b\varepsilon_k $$ so that if you put $c = \theta\mu\Delta t$, $a = -\theta\Delta t$ and $b = \sigma\sqrt{\Delta t}$ you get $$ x_{k+1} = \theta(\mu - x_k)\Delta t + \sigma \varepsilon_k\sqrt{\Delta t} $$ which is exactly an Euler-Maryuama discretization of OU at times $(k\Delta t)_{k\in \Bbb N_0}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Very clear ... good answer. $\endgroup$ – Richard Oct 3 '14 at 8:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I remembered your answer and posted it a bit differently answering another question here. Don't you need the approximation $dX_t \approx X_{k+1}-X_k$ on the left hand side and then you put the $X_k$ on the rhs and get another paramter as the AR coefficient? $\endgroup$ – Richard Apr 1 '15 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Richard seems to be the case $\endgroup$ – Ilya Apr 1 '15 at 17:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am a little confused by the interpretation of the result above. If a=-theta*Delta t then theta=-a/(Delta t). In this case if you have a positive AR parameter such as 0.9 it will give rise to a negative theta say -0.9 (if Delta t=1 Delta t will always be positive). In this case if you get an observation above the mean (mu-x_k) will be negative and this value will be multiplied by a negative value meaning that the drift term will add to an observation that is already above the mean? Is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Bazman Sep 2 '15 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ Amazing Answer thanks! :) $\endgroup$ – AIM_BLB Jun 17 '16 at 15:26

Rather than using an approximation (like Euler-Maryuama), one can just sample* the continuous-time solution:

$$x(t)=x(0)\,e^{-\theta t}+\mu \,(1-e^{-\theta t})+\sigma \int _{0}^{t}e^{-\theta (t-s)}\,dW_{s}.\, $$

Writing $X_k=x(k\,\Delta t)$, the sampled process is described by the AR(1) process: $$ X_{k+1} = c + \varphi \,X_k + \varepsilon_k $$ where: \begin{align} X_0&=x(0),\\ \varphi &= e^{-\theta \Delta t},\\ c &= (1-\varphi)\mu, \\ \epsilon_k &\sim \mathcal{N}\Big(0,\frac{1}{2\theta}\sigma^2\big(1-e^{-2 \theta \Delta t}\big)\Big). \end{align}

* I mean sample, not sample

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Could you please suggest an article from where your answer is taken. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Shanks Jan 4 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ This is a great answer as it indicates how to discretise the continuous process properly so that it has the same stationary distribution. $\endgroup$ – James Griffin Mar 31 at 9:18

Should be a comment on Ilya's answer but I don't have enough reputation --

Although the other answer does show how the AR process is equivalent to the OU process, keep in mind that the Euler-Maruyama discretization is just an approximation. In order to derive the exact relationship between the two models, you would have to integrate the OU process from time t to t+1, and then derive the various relationships between the parameters. Luckily there is a closed form solution to the OU SDE, so this is not too difficult.

EDIT: you could also use the Milstein Discretization, which is a more accurate approximation because it includes the convexity term from Ito's lemma. But it is still easier than the exact solution.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Paul, I don't think in this case the Milstein Discretization and the Euler-Maruyama discretization yield a different result. Because the diffusion term does not have a state dependence $\endgroup$ – gota Oct 23 '15 at 14:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.