Spectral domain likelihoods for Bayesian inference in time-varying parameter models

Mattias Villani; Oskar Gustafsson; Robert Kohn

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Spectral domain likelihoods for Bayesian inference in time-varying parameter models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fast frequency-domain Whittle-type likelihoods can closely reproduce exact Bayesian posteriors for time-varying autoregressive models, with the dynamic Whittle variant performing best.

desk verdict Useful and well-designed simulation study, but a likely bug in the Gibbs update for Q and a missing code release keep me from trusting the gold-standard comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14010 v1 pith:HMOEQ72K submitted 2024-11-21 stat.ME

Oskar Gustafsson , Mattias Villani , Robert Kohn This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62M1562F1562M10

keywords Whittlelikelihoodfrequencydomainlocallystationaryprocessestime-varyingautoregressivemodelsBayesianinferenceparticleMCMCperiodogramspectraldensity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether fast spectral-domain likelihood approximations can stand in for the exact time-domain likelihood in Bayesian inference for time-varying parameter models. Exact Gaussian likelihoods cost $O(T^3)$ and become prohibitive for long series, while Whittle-type approximations cost $O(T\log T)$ and are natural when models are specified by their spectral density. The paper compares the block Whittle and dynamic Whittle likelihoods against the time-domain posterior in three simulation experiments on time-varying AR processes, measuring both estimation efficiency and the quantile-wise perturbation of the approximate posterior. It finds both approximations perform relatively well, with a consistent edge for the dynamic Whittle, and that tapering, prewhitening, and boundary correction each substantially improve accuracy. It also documents a defect: tapering can distort variance on short segments and, with overlapping windows, produce spurious volatility clusters.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two approximate likelihoods built from local periodogram ordinates treated as independent exponential observations. The block Whittle likelihood (Dahlhaus, 1997) computes periodograms over sliding, partially overlapping windows of length $N$ and treats all frequencies in each window as conditionally independent. The dynamic Whittle likelihood (Tang et al., 2023) uses the moving local periodogram of Häfner and Kirch (2017): each time point contributes exactly one frequency, cycling through the positive Fourier frequencies across time, which keeps neighboring observations nearly independent while preserving full time resolution. The three modifications act on the segment periodogram: tapering multiplies each segment by a data taper to reduce leakage; prewhitening filters with a fitted AR model and rescales the residual periodogram; boundary correction augments the DFT with a predictive DFT from the best linear predictor, removing boundary mismatch. The posterior under either likelihood is sampled by a Gibbs sampler with a particle Gibbs with ancestor sampling (PGAS) step, and accuracy is scored by relative efficiency of posterior medians and by the quantile perturbation measure in (11).

What would settle it

Recompute the perturbation measure for Experiment 1 with a time-domain posterior obtained from a dense-particle PGAS run (or from a Kalman-filter-based sampler where the tvAR is linear in the states) using several times more particles, and check whether the ranking of the spectral likelihoods and the size of the reported improvements are stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the posterior distribution from local Whittle likelihoods is a serviceable approximation of the time-domain posterior for time-varying AR processes, and that the approximation is dramatically improved by three established modifications: tapering, prewhitening, and boundary correction. In three simulation experiments with 100 replications of length $T=1500$, the dynamic Whittle likelihood with any of the modifications attains near-time-domain efficiency and small quantile perturbation, and the modified versions are much less sensitive to segment length than the raw versions. The dynamic Whittle posterior also tends to have better calibrated interval widths, while the block Whittle posterior is often too tight. In the near-unit-root experiment the modifications help less, likely because the process spends little time near the instability boundary. On egg prices with stochastic volatility, raw and prewhitened Whittle posteriors track the time-domain posterior for the AR parameters, while tapered versions need per-segment variance rescaling to avoid spurious volatility clusters; boundary correction without tapering performs well on the variance path.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison's gold standard, the time-domain posterior sampled with particle Gibbs with ancestor sampling, is itself a Monte Carlo approximation, and the paper does not report the number of particles or convergence diagnostics, so a biased or unconverged particle run would contaminate the perturbation measure and could change the ranking of the spectral likelihoods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For long time-varying AR series, the modified dynamic Whittle likelihood gives posteriors close to the exact time-domain posterior at $O(T\log T)$ cost.
Any of the three modifications makes both likelihood approximations substantially less sensitive to the segment length and step size.
Because periodogram ordinates are asymptotically independent, the modified likelihoods still support subsampling MCMC, so the accuracy gains do not forfeit the main speed-up that motivates spectral likelihoods.
Tapering should be used with care, or combined with per-segment variance rescaling, whenever the model includes a time-varying variance, since tapering can induce spurious volatility clusters.
The dynamic Whittle posterior is better calibrated than the block Whittle posterior, which tends to be overconfident in its interval widths.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the modified dynamic Whittle posterior tracks the time-domain posterior in tvAR models, a natural extension is to trust the same approximation for locally stationary models whose time-domain likelihood is intractable, where no gold-standard comparison is possible.
The quantile-perturbation measure could serve as a general diagnostic for any approximate likelihood, not just spectral ones, by benchmarking against a small-scale exact posterior before scaling up.
The tapering-induced volatility-cluster artifact suggests a testable extension: comparing tapered and untapered posteriors for the log-variance path could flag when segment overlap is creating spurious dynamics.
Boundary correction without tapering performed best on the egg-price variance path, hinting that tapering is not always the right default when the process has heteroscedasticity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a well-designed finite-sample comparison of spectral likelihoods for Bayesian tvAR inference, with a genuinely useful ranking, but the version I read has a likely error in the Gibbs update for Q that, if real, poisons the gold-standard comparison, and there is no code to check.

The genuinely new bits are the direct comparison of block vs dynamic Whittle posterior accuracy (earlier work focused on MLE asymptotics), the finding that all three modifications—tapering, prewhitening, boundary correction—meaningfully improve both likelihoods, and the caution that tapering can distort stochastic volatility inference on short segments. The simulation design is sensible: three DGPs covering a smooth tvAR, a stationary AR, and a near-unit-root path, with a quantile-based perturbation measure against the exact time-domain posterior. That part deserves credit.

The soft spots are fixable but real. Equation (36) states the full conditional for Q as Inv-Wishart(M+ν0, S0 + φ_{1:M}^T φ_{1:M}), yet the model in (31) puts the random walk on θ, not on φ=g(θ). The sufficient statistic should be a sum of squared increments of θ. If that equation reflects the implementation, the Gibbs sampler targets the wrong stationary distribution and every perturbation comparison against the 'gold standard' is contaminated. If it's a typo, it's a confusing one, and the absence of code makes it impossible to tell. The complete periodogram in (28) also looks wrong—it should involve the modulus of the complete DFT, not the product of the predictive and ordinary DFTs. The paper reports no Monte Carlo error bars on the efficiency and perturbation measures, no PGAS diagnostics (particle count, ESS), and no code or data. The decision to exclude the debiased and generalized Whittle likelihoods is defensible, but it limits the scope; the reader cannot verify the rankings for the excluded methods.

On balance, the paper deserves serious peer review: the question is important, the experimental design is careful, and most conclusions are plausible. But I would not take the numerical results at face value until the authors correct or clarify the Q update, fix (28), and share the code. The central empirical claims could stand, but the referee should ask for those before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares two spectral-domain approximate likelihoods, the block Whittle and the dynamic Whittle, for Bayesian inference in time-varying autoregressive (tvAR) models. The accuracy of the approximate posteriors is measured relative to the exact time-domain posterior using a relative RMSE efficiency criterion and a quantile-based perturbation measure. Three modifications (tapering, prewhitening, boundary correction) are tested in three simulation experiments and in an application to weekly egg prices with stochastic volatility. The reported findings are that both approximate likelihoods perform reasonably, the dynamic Whittle has a slight edge, and all three modifications improve accuracy, with caveats about tapering-induced variance distortions.

Significance. The question addressed is relevant: frequency-domain likelihood approximations are widely used for long nonstationary time series, and most existing theory concerns the MLE rather than the posterior. The simulation design is sensible, with several DGP regimes, deliberately untuned priors, and comparisons against a time-domain gold-standard posterior. The paper is also explicit about limitations, such as the rescaling step for tapered segments and the inflated variance from boundary correction in Section 6. If the numerical results are correct, the paper offers useful practical guidance on when local Whittle posteriors can be trusted and which corrections help. The main caveats are that the reference posterior is itself a particle-MCMC approximation, that two key equations appear to contain errors, and that no code or Monte Carlo uncertainty measures are provided, so the quantitative rankings cannot currently be verified.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.3, Eq. (36)] The stated full conditional for Q is inconsistent with the state equation in (31). Under theta_j = theta_{j-1} + eta_j with eta_j ~ N(0,Q), conditional on theta_{0:M}, Q appears only through the increments, so the sufficient statistic is sum_{j=1}^M (theta_j - theta_{j-1})(theta_j - theta_{j-1})^T, not phi_{1:M}^T phi_{1:M}. If Algorithm 1 uses Eq. (36) as written, the PGAS sampler targets the wrong posterior, and because this posterior is the gold standard in the perturbation measure (11), all main comparisons are invalid. Since no code is provided, it is impossible to tell whether this is a typo or the implemented update; this must be resolved and the affected experiments rerun or explicitly justified.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (28)] The complete periodogram is defined as tilde I_T(omega) = (1/(2 pi T)) hat J(omega; f) J(omega). This is not the periodogram of the complete DFT tilde J(omega) = J(omega) + hat J(omega; f) defined in (25); the squared modulus with the appropriate conjugation and cross-terms is missing. The boundary-correction results in Sections 5 and 6 rely on this quantity, so if Eq. (28) is implemented literally, the BC results are not valid. Please correct the formula and clarify the exact estimator used in the simulations.
[Sections 4.2-4.3, Algorithm 1 and Eq. (11)] The gold-standard time-domain posterior is produced by PGAS, but no details of the particle filter are given: number of particles, resampling scheme, effective sample size, or convergence diagnostics for the 100 replications. The perturbation measure treats this posterior as exact; a biased or unconverged particle approximation would contaminate every reported comparison. Please report these diagnostics or otherwise validate the reference sampler, for example by comparing runs with different particle counts.
[Section 5, Figures 5, 8, 10] The efficiency and perturbation values are reported as point estimates over 100 datasets with no measure of Monte Carlo uncertainty. Several conclusions in the text are rankings between close values, for example dynamic versus block Whittle and TA versus PW versus BC; without standard errors, confidence intervals, or per-replicate distributions, it is unclear whether these differences are meaningful. Please add uncertainty quantification to the reported comparisons.

minor comments (4)

[Notation throughout] The symbol phi is used both for the stable AR parameters (phi_j = g(theta_j)) and for the lag polynomial phi_p(L); in Eq. (36) the notation phi_{1:M} is also undefined as a matrix. Please disambiguate these uses.
[Reproducibility] The manuscript does not state whether code and data are available. Given the simulation-based nature of the paper and the apparent errors in Eqs. (28) and (36), providing the code would be essential for reproducibility and for verifying that the reported results are not artifacts of the implementation.
[Abstract and Section 1] The text repeatedly refers to 'this chapter'; if the manuscript is intended as a journal submission, please use consistent wording such as 'this paper' or 'this article'.
[Section 6] The time-domain likelihood used as the gold standard for the stochastic volatility extension is not fully specified; please state the complete observation and state model, including how the time-varying variance enters the likelihood, so that the comparison is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports an empirical comparison against an external time-domain posterior, with no prediction reducing to a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

This is an empirical evaluation study rather than a derivation chain. The central claims are rankings of approximate spectral-domain posterior distributions against the exact time-domain posterior, which is sampled by particle Gibbs with ancestor sampling (PGAS) from the same tvAR model. The approximate likelihoods (block Whittle, dynamic Whittle, and their tapered, prewhitened, and boundary-corrected variants) are defined by external references such as Dahlhaus (1997), Tang et al. (2023), and Subba Rao and Yang (2021), and are evaluated on simulated data with deliberately untuned priors: the paper states 'we do not put any particular effort into finding good prior settings, and use the same prior for all data generating processes.' Thus no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction, and no output is equivalent to an input by construction. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Salomone et al. 2020, Villani et al. 2024, Fagerberg et al. 2024, Carter and Kohn 1994) are background motivation or standard algorithm references and are not load-bearing for the simulation-based conclusions. The reviewer-visible concern about Eq. (36), where the inverse-Wishart full conditional for Q is stated with phi_{1:M}^T phi_{1:M} rather than the increment sum Sigma (theta_j - theta_{j-1})(theta_j - theta_{j-1})^T implied by the state equation in (31), is a potential internal inconsistency or typographical error that could affect the gold-standard posterior; however, it is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a circularity step. Likewise, reliance on PGAS as ground truth is a convergence-risk concern, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claims are empirical and depend on standard asymptotic results for Whittle likelihoods and on the accuracy of the particle MCMC gold standard. The free parameters listed are design choices in the simulation study, not fitted model parameters.

free parameters (3)

Prior hyperparameters for Q and sigma^2 = Q ~ IW(10, 0.005*(10-p-1) I_p); sigma^2 ~ IG(0.01, 0.01)
Chosen by hand and deliberately not tuned; the paper states 'we do not put any particular effort into finding good prior settings'. The relative performance of the likelihoods could depend on the prior, although the same prior is used for all methods.
Segment length N and step size S = DW: m=15,30 (N=31,61); BW: N=30,60; S=15,30
Hand-selected simulation design parameters. The paper shows results for two settings and concludes the modifications make results robust to segment length, but no formal sensitivity analysis is given.
MCMC and simulation size = 100 replications, 12000 draws, 2000 burn-in, thin 2
These sizes determine the Monte Carlo error in the efficiency and perturbation measures, which are not reported with standard errors.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Discrete Fourier transform ordinates of a stationary Gaussian time series are asymptotically independent exponential random variables (Whittle, 1951; Hannan, 1973)
This is the foundation of the Whittle likelihood in Section 2, equation (7), and is assumed to hold approximately on local segments.
domain assumption The time-varying process is locally stationary so that a time-varying spectral density is well defined (Dahlhaus, 2012)
Used in Section 3 to define block and dynamic Whittle likelihoods.
standard math The stability parameterization of Barndorff-Nielsen and Schou (1973) and Monahan (1984) is a 1-1 and onto map between unrestricted parameters and stable AR coefficients
Used in Definition 1, Section 4.1, to enforce pointwise stability of the tvAR process.
domain assumption PGAS (Lindsten et al., 2014) returns samples from the exact target posterior in the limit of many particles
The 'gold standard' time-domain posterior in Section 5 is computed with this particle MCMC algorithm; finite-particle bias is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral domain likelihoods for Bayesian inference in time-varying parameter models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMOEQ72K

@misc{pith2026241114010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral domain likelihoods for Bayesian inference in time-varying parameter models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMOEQ72K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14010}
}

read the original abstract

Inference for locally stationary processes is often based on some local Whittle-type approximation of the likelihood function defined in the frequency domain. The main reasons for using such a likelihood approximation is that i) it has substantially lower computational cost and better scalability to long time series compared to the time domain likelihood, particularly when used for Bayesian inference via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), ii) convenience when the model itself is specified in the frequency domain, and iii) it provides access to bootstrap and subsampling MCMC which exploits the asymptotic independence of Fourier transformed data. Most of the existing literature compares the asymptotic performance of the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) from such frequency domain likelihood approximation with the exact time domain MLE. Our article uses three simulation studies to assess the finite-sample accuracy of several frequency domain likelihood functions when used to approximate the posterior distribution in time-varying parameter models. The methods are illustrated on an application to egg price data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14010 by the authors.

**Figure 5.** Experiment 1 - Dahlhaus AR(2) process. Efficiency and posterior perturbation in the posterior for the AR parameters for the dynamic Whittle (top) and block Whittle (bottom) likelihoods, and with tapering (TA), prewhitening (PW) and boundary correction (BC) applied. 𝑁 = 2𝑚 + 1 = 31 (second row) with each of the three modifications (bottom three rows). The bias in the dynamic Whittle posterior median estimate is clea… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

and Schou, G

Barndorff-Nielsen, O. and Schou, G. (1973). On the parametrization of autoregressive models by partial autocorrelations. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 3(4)

work page 1973
[2]

Brillinger, D. (2001). Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory . Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

work page 2001
[3]

Brockwell, P. J. and Davis, R. A. (1991). Time series: theory and methods . Springer science & business media

work page 1991
[4]

Cadonna, A., Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S., and Knaus, P. (2020). Triple the gamma—a unifying shrinkage prior for variance and variable selection in sparse state space and tvp models. Econometrics , 8(2):20

2020
[5]

Carter, C. K. and Kohn, R. (1994). On Gibbs sampling for state space models. Biometrika , 81(3):541--553

work page 1994
[6]

M., Polson, N

Carvalho, C. M., Polson, N. G., and Scott, J. G. (2010). The horseshoe estimator for sparse signals. Biometrika , 97(2):465--480

2010
[7]

Chib, S. (1998). Estimation and comparison of multiple change-point models. Journal of econometrics , 86(2):221--241

work page 1998
[8]

Contreras-Crist \'a n, A., Guti \'e rrez-Pe \ n a, E., and Walker, S. G. (2006). A note on whittle's likelihood. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation , 35(4):857--875

work page 2006

Show all 51 references

[9]

Dahlhaus, R. (1988). Small sample effects in time series analysis: a new asymptotic theory and a new estimate. The Annals of Statistics , pages 808--841

1988
[10]

Dahlhaus, R. (1997). Fitting time series models to nonstationary processes. The annals of Statistics , 25(1):1--37

1997
[11]

Dahlhaus, R. (2000). A likelihood approximation for locally stationary processes. The Annals of Statistics , 28(6):1762--1794

2000
[12]

Dahlhaus, R. (2009). Local inference for locally stationary time series based on the empirical spectral measure. Journal of Econometrics , 151(2):101--112

2009
[13]

Dahlhaus, R. (2012). Locally stationary processes. In Handbook of statistics , volume 30, pages 351--413. Elsevier

2012
[14]

and Polonik, W

Dahlhaus, R. and Polonik, W. (2009). Empirical spectral processes for locally stationary time series. Bernoulli , 15(1):1--39

2009
[15]

Das, S., Subba Rao, S., and Yang, J. (2021). Spectral methods for small sample time series: A complete periodogram approach. Journal of Time Series Analysis , 42(5-6):597--621

2021
[16]

G., Andrieu, C., and Davy, M

Everitt, R. G., Andrieu, C., and Davy, M. (2013). Online bayesian inference in some time-frequency representations of non-stationary processes. IEEE transactions on signal processing , 61(22):5755--5766

2013
[17]

Fagerberg, G., Villani, M., and Kohn, R. (2024). Time-varying multi-seasonal ar models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18640

2024
[18]

and Yao, Q

Fan, J. and Yao, Q. (2008). Nonlinear time series: nonparametric and parametric methods . Springer Science & Business Media

2008
[19]

and Taqqu, M

Fox, R. and Taqqu, M. S. (1986). Large-sample properties of parameter estimates for strongly dependent stationary gaussian time series. The Annals of Statistics , 14(2):517--532

1986
[20]

and Hardle, W

Franke, J. and Hardle, W. (1992). On bootstrapping kernel spectral estimates. The Annals of Statistics , pages 121--145

1992
[21]

Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S. (1994). Data augmentation and dynamic linear models. Journal of time series analysis , 15(2):183--202

1994
[22]

Gerlach, R., Carter, C., and Kohn, R. (2000). Efficient Bayesian inference for dynamic mixture models. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 95(451):819--828

2000
[23]

and Kirch, C

H \"a fner, F. and Kirch, C. (2017). Moving fourier analysis for locally stationary processes with the bootstrap in view. Journal of Time Series Analysis , 38(6):895--922

2017
[24]

Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica , pages 357--384

1989
[25]

Hannan, E. J. (1973). The asymptotic theory of linear time-series models. Journal of Applied Probability , 10(1):130--145

1973
[26]

Hannan, E. J. and Quinn, B. G. (1979). The determination of the order of an autoregression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , 41(2):190--195

1979
[27]

and Griffin, J

Kalli, M. and Griffin, J. E. (2014). Time-varying sparsity in dynamic regression models. Journal of Econometrics , 178(2):779--793

2014
[28]

and Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S

Knaus, P. and Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S. (2023). The dynamic triple gamma prior as a shrinkage process prior for time-varying parameter models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10487

2023 arXiv
[29]

R., Matteson, D

Kowal, D. R., Matteson, D. S., and Ruppert, D. (2019). Dynamic shrinkage processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 81(4):781--804

2019
[30]

Lindgren, G. (2013). Stationary stochastic processes . CRC Press

2013
[31]

I., and Schon, T

Lindsten, F., Jordan, M. I., and Schon, T. B. (2014). Particle Gibbs with ancestor sampling. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15:2145--2184

2014
[32]

Monahan, J. F. (1984). A note on enforcing stationarity in autoregressive-moving average models. Biometrika , 71(2):403--404

1984
[33]

Neumann, M. H. and Von Sachs, R. (1997). Wavelet thresholding in anisotropic function classes and application to adaptive estimation of evolutionary spectra. The Annals of Statistics , 25(1):38--76

1997
[34]

Paparoditis, E. (2010). Validating stationarity assumptions in time series analysis by rolling local periodograms. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 105(490):839--851

2010
[35]

and Wu, W

Peligrad, M. and Wu, W. B. (2010). Central limit theorem for fourier transforms of stationary processes. The Annals of Probability

2010
[36]

and Zhang, N

Peligrad, M. and Zhang, N. (2019). Central limit theorem for fourier transform and periodogram of random fields. Bernoulli , 25(2):499--520

2019
[37]

and West, M

Prado, R. and West, M. (2010). Time series: modeling, computation, and inference . Chapman and Hall/CRC

2010
[38]

Priestly, M. B. (1981). Spectral Analysis and Time Series , volume 1. Academic press

1981
[39]

Quiroz, M., Kohn, R., Villani, M., and Tran, M.-N. (2019). Speeding up MCMC by efficient data subsampling . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 114(526):831--843

2019
[40]

Rosen, O., Wood, S., and Stoffer, D. S. (2012). Adaptspec: Adaptive spectral estimation for nonstationary time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 107(500):1575--1589

2012
[41]

Salomone, R., Quiroz, M., Kohn, R., Villani, M., and Tran, M.-N. (2020). Spectral subsampling MCMC for stationary time series . In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 8449--8458. PMLR

2020
[42]

Sandsten, M. (2020). Time-frequency analysis of time-varying signals and non-stationary processes. Lund University

2020
[43]

B., et al

Shao, X., Wu, W. B., et al. (2007). Asymptotic spectral theory for nonlinear time series. The Annals of Statistics , 35(4):1773--1801

2007
[44]

and Yang, J

Subba Rao, S. and Yang, J. (2021). Reconciling the gaussian and whittle likelihood with an application to estimation in the frequency domain. The Annals of Statistics , 49(5):2774--2802

2021
[45]

M., Olhede, S

Sykulski, A. M., Olhede, S. C., Guillaumin, A. P., Lilly, J. M., and Early, J. J. (2019). The debiased whittle likelihood. Biometrika , 106(2):251--266

2019
[46]

E., and Meyer, R

Tang, Y., Kirch, C., Lee, J. E., and Meyer, R. (2023). Bayesian nonparametric spectral analysis of locally stationary processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11561

2023 arXiv
[47]

and Eichler, M

van Delft, A. and Eichler, M. (2019). Data-adaptive estimation of time-varying spectral densities. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 28(2):244--255

2019
[48]

Villani, M., Quiroz, M., Kohn, R., and Salomone, R. (2024). Spectral subsampling MCMC for stationary multivariate time series with applications to vector ARTFIMA processes. Econometrics and Statistics , 32:98--121

2024
[49]

Wahba, G. (1980). Automatic smoothing of the log periodogram. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 75(369):122--132

1980
[50]

Whittle, P. (1951). Hypothesis testing in time series analysis . Almqvist & Wiksell

1951
[51]

Whittle, P. (1953). Estimation and information in stationary time series. Arkiv f \"o r matematik , 2(5):423--434

1953

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

and Schou, G

Barndorff-Nielsen, O. and Schou, G. (1973). On the parametrization of autoregressive models by partial autocorrelations. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 3(4)

work page 1973

[2] [2]

Brillinger, D. (2001). Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory . Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

work page 2001

[3] [3]

Brockwell, P. J. and Davis, R. A. (1991). Time series: theory and methods . Springer science & business media

work page 1991

[4] [4]

Cadonna, A., Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S., and Knaus, P. (2020). Triple the gamma—a unifying shrinkage prior for variance and variable selection in sparse state space and tvp models. Econometrics , 8(2):20

2020

[5] [5]

Carter, C. K. and Kohn, R. (1994). On Gibbs sampling for state space models. Biometrika , 81(3):541--553

work page 1994

[6] [6]

M., Polson, N

Carvalho, C. M., Polson, N. G., and Scott, J. G. (2010). The horseshoe estimator for sparse signals. Biometrika , 97(2):465--480

2010

[7] [7]

Chib, S. (1998). Estimation and comparison of multiple change-point models. Journal of econometrics , 86(2):221--241

work page 1998

[8] [8]

Contreras-Crist \'a n, A., Guti \'e rrez-Pe \ n a, E., and Walker, S. G. (2006). A note on whittle's likelihood. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation , 35(4):857--875

work page 2006