# Appendix C — Synchrony of parametric trends

The problem of detecting joint trend dynamics in time series is essential in a variety of applications, ranging from the analysis of macroeconomic indicators (Vogelsang and Franses 2005; Eun and Lee 2010) to assessing patterns in ice phenology measurements from multiple locations (Latifovic and Pouliot 2007; Duguay et al. 2013) to evaluating yields of financial instruments at various maturity levels (Park et al. 2009) and cell phone download activity at different area codes (Degras et al. 2012).

The extensive research on comparing trend patterns follows two main directions:

- Testing for joint mean functions.
- Analysis of joint stochastic trends, which is closely linked to the cointegration notion by Engle and Granger (1987) (Section 8.3).

Here we explore the first direction, that is, assess whether several observed time series follow the same hypothesized parametric trend.

There exist many tests for comparing mean functions, but most of the developed methods assume independent errors. Substantially less is known about testing for joint deterministic trends in a time series framework.

One of the methods developed for time series is by Degras et al. (2012) and Zhang (2013) who extended the integrated square error (ISE) based approach of Vilar-Fernández and González-Manteiga (2004) to a case of multiple time series with weakly dependent (non)stationary errors. For a comprehensive literature review of available methodology for comparing mean functions embedded into independent errors in a time series framework, see Degras et al. (2012) and Park et al. (2014). Most of these methods, however, either focus on aligning only two curves or require us to select multiple hyperparameters, such as the bandwidth, level of smoothness, and window size for a long-run variance function. As mentioned by Park et al. (2014), the choice of such *multiple nuisance parameters* is challenging for a comparison of curves (even under the independent and identically distributed setup) and often leads to inadequate performance, especially in samples of moderate size.

As an alternative, consider an extension of the WAVK test (Section 7.4) to a case of multiple time series (Lyubchich and Gel 2016). Let us observe \(N\) time series \[ Y_{it} = \mu_i(t/T) + \epsilon_{it}, \] where \(i = 1, \dots, N\) (\(N\) is the number of time series), \(t=1, \dots, T\) (\(T\) is the length of the time series), \(\mu_i(u)\) (\(0<u\leqslant 1\)) are unknown smooth trend functions, and the noise \(\epsilon_{it}\) can be represented as a finite-order AR(\(p\)) process or infinite-order AR(\(\infty\)) process with i.i.d. innovations \({e}_{it}\).

We are interested in testing whether these \(N\) observed time series have the same trend of some pre-specified smooth parametric form \(f(\theta, u)\):

\(H_0\): \(\mu_i(u)= c_i + f(\theta, u)\)

\(H_1\): there exists \(i\), such that \(\mu_i(u)\neq c_i + f(\theta, u)\),

where the reference curve \(f(\theta, u)\) with a vector of parameters \(\theta\) belongs to a known family of smooth parametric functions, and \(1\leqslant i \leqslant N\). For identifiability, assume that \(\sum_{i=1}^N c_i=0\). Notice that the hypotheses include (but are not limited to) the special cases of

\(f(\theta,u)\equiv 0\) (testing for no trend);

\(f(\theta,u)=\theta_0+\theta_1 u\) (testing for a common linear trend);

\(f(\theta,u)=\theta_0+\theta_1 u+\theta_2u^2\) (testing for a common quadratic trend).

This hypothesis testing approach allows us to answer the following questions:

- Do trends in temperature (or wind speeds, or precipitation) reproduced by a climate model correspond to the historical observations? I.e., is the model generally correct?
- Do different instruments (sensors) capture changes similarly, or deviate, for example, due to aging of some of the instruments?
- Do trends estimated at different locations (Canada and USA, lower and mid-troposphere, etc.) follow some hypothesized global trend?

Test the null hypothesis by following these steps (Lyubchich and Gel 2016):

- Estimate the joint hypothetical trend \(f({\theta}, u)\) using the aggregated sample \(\left\{\overline{Y}_{\cdot t}\right\}_{t=1}^T\) (i.e., a time series obtained by averaging across all \(N\) time series).
- For each time series, subtract the estimated trend, then apply the autoregressive filter to obtain residuals \(\hat{e}_{it}\), which under the \(H_0\) behave asymptotically like the independent and identically distributed \({e}_{it}\): \[ \begin{split} \hat{e}_{it}&= \hat{\epsilon}_{it}-\sum_{j=1}^{p_i(T)}{\hat{\phi}_{ij}\hat{\epsilon}_{i,t-j}} \\ &= \left\{ Y_{it} - f(\hat{\theta},u_{t}) \right\} - \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{p_i(T)}{\hat{\phi}_{ij}{Y}_{i,t-j}} - \sum_{j=1}^{p_i(T)}{\hat{\phi}_{ij}f(\hat{\theta},u_{t-j})} \right\}. \end{split} \]
- Construct a sequence of \(N\) statistics \({\rm WAVK}_{1}(k_{1}), \dots, {\rm WAVK}_{N}(k_{N})\). Then, the synchrony test statistic is \[ S_T = \sum_{i=1}^N k_{i}^{-1/2}{\rm WAVK}_{i}(k_{i}), \] where \(k_{i}\) is the local window size for the WAVK statistic.
- Estimate the variance of \(\hat{e}_{it}\), e.g., using the robust difference-based estimator by Rice (1984): \[ s_i^2= \frac{\sum_{t=2}^T(\hat{e}_{it}-\hat{e}_{i,t-1})^2}{2(T-1)}. \]
- Simulate \(BN\) times \(T\)-dimensional vectors \(e^*_{iT}\) from the multivariate normal distribution \(MVN\left(0, s_i^2\boldsymbol{I}\right)\), where \(B\) is the number of bootstrap replications, \(\boldsymbol{I}\) is a \(T\times T\) identity matrix.
- Compute \(B\) bootstrapped statistics on \(e^*_{iT}\): \[S^*_T=\sum_{i=1}^N k^{-1/2}_{i} {\rm WAVK}^*_{i}(k_{i}).\]
- The bootstrap \(p\)-value for testing the \(H_0\) is the proportion of \(|S^*_T|\) that exceed \(|S_T|\).

See the application of both the WAVK and synchrony tests in Lyubchich (2016).

If the null hypothesis is rejected, the method does not tell, however, what was the reason, and which particular time series caused the rejection of the \(H_0\). One can remove the time series (or several time series at once) with the largest WAVK statistic(s) and apply the test again, although repeated testing increases the probability of Type I error. For an application of this method in trend clustering, see this vignette.