Skip to main content
Track Finite Impulse Response Filter
4 / 10
Library

2002issue C071-6

Rebuild a smoother by writing the lag into the coefficients

A historical construction starts from a triangular Finite Impulse Response Filter, then changes the weights so a chosen amount of lag is removed. The same idea appears in a recursive Exponential smoothing form that combines a lead-adjusted close with the previous output.

  • A six-element symmetrically weighted Finite Impulse Response Filter can be built as a triangular Moving average and implemented as a double-smoothed simple Moving average, or as weights 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, and 1 divided by 12.
  • That six-element construction has a lag of 2.5 bars before any further adjustment. Taking the lag all the way to zero is described as producing too much overshoot, so a one-bar residual lag is presented as a compromise.
  • An adjustable-lag Finite Impulse Response Filter uses seven coefficients and a lag-reduction input from 0 to 2.5. A minimum-lag set weights seven closes with 1, 3.5, 4.5, 3, 0.5, -0.5, and -1.5, then divides by 10.5.
  • A zero-lag recursive form can be written from a period input by making a smoothing constant of 2 divided by periods plus one, then combining a lead-adjusted close with the previous output. One documented Exponential smoothing implementation uses a smoothing parameter of 0.2.
Entries in this reading3 entries

The triangular Finite Impulse Response Filter

These notes reconstruct Finite Impulse Response Filter and Exponential smoothing smoothers from stated weights and a chosen lag, including a triangular Moving average that can be written two ways.

A six-element symmetrically weighted Finite Impulse Response Filter can be constructed as a triangular Moving average. It can also be implemented as a double-smoothed simple Moving average.

The same six-bar triangular Finite Impulse Response Filter can be written as a weighted sum of the current close and five prior closes, with weights 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, and 1, divided by 12.

How far to reduce the lag

A six-element version of that Finite Impulse Response Filter construction has a lag of 2.5 bars before any further lag adjustment.

Reducing that lag all the way to zero is described as producing too much overshoot, so a one-bar residual lag is presented as a compromise.

Seven-coefficient Finite Impulse Response Filter forms

An adjustable-lag Finite Impulse Response Filter construction uses seven coefficients that incorporate a lag-reduction input in the 0-to-2.5 range. A value of 0 leaves the raw triangular average unchanged, and a value of 2.5 targets zero lag.

A minimum-lag Finite Impulse Response Filter construction weights seven successive closes with coefficients 1, 3.5, 4.5, 3, 0.5, -0.5, and -1.5 and then divides by 10.5.

A recursive Exponential smoothing form

A zero-lag infinite impulse response construction can be written from a period input by forming a smoothing constant of 2 divided by periods plus one, then combining a lead-adjusted close with a recursive previous-output term.

A recursive zero-lag Exponential smoothing construction combines a lead-adjusted close with a previous output, using a smoothing parameter of 0.2 in one documented implementation.

Minimum-lag FIR and recursive IIR on daily Microsoft

Both reconstructions stay glued to Microsoft’s daily price through the winter slide, the March bounce and the spring selloff. The seven-weight finite-impulse line turns with the bars; the recursive exponential smoother holds a little higher on the April drop. Readings were taken from the eSignal daily screenshot, using the printed 27 February quote-box values and the last-bar FIR/IIR labels exactly and the rest off the plotted curves.
Both reconstructions stay glued to Microsoft’s daily price through the winter slide, the March bounce and the spring selloff. The seven-weight finite-impulse line turns with the bars; the recursive exponential smoother holds a little higher on the April drop. Readings were taken from the eSignal daily screenshot, using the printed 27 February quote-box values and the last-bar FIR/IIR labels exactly and the rest off the plotted curves.MSFT · daily · 2002-01-10T00:00:00.000Z to 2002-05-08T00:00:00.000Z

FIR is Ehlers’ seven-coefficient minimum-lag form (weights 1, 3.5, 4.5, 3, 0.5, −0.5, −1.5, divided by 10.5). IIR is 0.2×(2×Close−Close four bars back)+0.8×previous output. Digitized from the raster except the printed 2002-02-27 and final readings; y is good to about 0.3 dollars on the 2.50 grid.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
4 of 10 in the Finite Impulse Response Filter track
20021-1 pp.Next on Finite Impulse Response FilterTiming market cycles with finite impulse response filters and FFTBoom-and-bust sequences, including the early-2000 technology-heavy peak and unfinished decline, are treated as cycle-timing material rather than a search for a settled cause.
All readings on this track · 10 readings
  1. 1982An odd-length smoother from a cycle cutoff
  2. 1989Smoothing filters, cutoff, poles, and sample delay
  3. 1992Constructing a cycle-aware finite impulse response detrender
  4. 2002Rebuild a smoother by writing the lag into the coefficients
  5. 2002Timing market cycles with finite impulse response filters and FFT
  6. 2002Constructing the relative strength index with an even-order finite-impulse-response prefilter
  7. 2003Recursive and cascaded moving-average construction
  8. 2006One second-order transfer function, a family of trend filters
  9. 2019Constructing the Voss line from a bandpass and a short FIR sum
  10. 2020Truncated bandpass construction as a finite-length trend filter
All 14 readings tagged Finite Impulse Response Filter
Also on Finite Impulse Response Filter5 readings