Autocovariance ($\gamma (h)$)

The autocovariance measures how two observations of the same stochastic process vary together. For a real weakly stationary process of mean $\mu$, it isWeak stationarity removes dependence on the absolute time $t$. Without it, the covariance function generally needs two time arguments. Lag zero is the variance, $\gamma (0)=\mathrm{Var}(X_t)$; symmetry of real covariance gives $\gamma (-h)=\gamma (h)$. Positive values favor deviations from the mean in the same direction; negative values favor opposite directions. The units are the square of the observation units. See Bartlett, lecture 2: autocovariance examples.

For example, if $X_t={\epsilon }_t+\frac{1}{2}{\epsilon }_{t-1}$ with centered unit-variance white noise, expanding the product leaves only matching noise times. Thus $\gamma (0)=1+1/4=5/4$, $\gamma (1)=1/2$, and $\gamma (h)=0$ for $|h|\ge 2$. This MA(1) has a positive lag-one autocovariance because adjacent observations share one disturbance. Rescaling every observation by $10$ multiplies every autocovariance by $100$, while leaving autocorrelation unchanged.

The autocovariance is useful beyond comparing pairs: it determines the variance of any finite linear combination of observations. For the sample mean ${\overline{X}}_n$,Each separation $h$ occurs in $n-h$ pairs. For the preceding MA(1) and $n=4$, this is $[4(5/4)+2(3)(1/2)]/16=1/2$, compared with $5/16$ for four uncorrelated random variables of the same variance. This is the finite-record counterpart of the long-run variance of a stationary process.

For a known zero mean, ${\hat{\gamma }}_n(h)=n^{-1}{\sum }_{t=1}^{n-h}{Y}_t{Y}_{t+h}$ for $0\le h<n$. Weakly stationary process assumptions give expectation $(1-h/n)\gamma (h)$. Dividing by $n-h$ instead gives an unbiased estimate at each individual lag, although the resulting collection need not form a positive semidefinite covariance sequence.

The autocorrelation function of a real weakly stationary process with positive variance is its normalized autocovariance:It is dimensionless, with $\rho (0)=1$, $\rho (-h)=\rho (h)$, and $|\rho (h)|\le 1$ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. It is unchanged by replacing $X_t$ with $a{X}_t+b$ for fixed $a\ne 0$. This makes autocorrelation useful when comparing records measured on different scales. The ACF is a property of the model; the sample autocorrelation function estimates it and will generally not reproduce theoretical zeros exactly.

An AR(1) with coefficient $\varphi =0.7$ has autocorrelations $0.7,0.49,0.343$ at lags one through three. With $\varphi =-0.7$ these become $-0.7,0.49,-0.343$: the same diminishing magnitude, alternating in sign. An MA(1) with $\theta =0.7$ instead has lag-one autocorrelation $0.7/1.49=70/149\simeq 0.4698$ and zero at every higher lag. Equal numerical coefficients in an autoregressive model and a moving-average model do not mean equal dependence. See Bartlett, lecture 3: theoretical ACFs and prediction.

The bars show exact model autocorrelations, not estimates from the illustrated sample paths in time series. The AR(1) retains a diminishing trace of a disturbance at arbitrarily large lags; the MA(1) stops sharing driving noise after lag one. A zero autocorrelation means uncorrelated random variables, and does not generally imply independent random variables. For a Gaussian process it does imply independence of the two coordinates.

There is a direct prediction interpretation. Among affine predictions based on just $X_t$, the best linear predictor of $X_{t+h}$ is $\mu +\rho (h)(X_t-\mu )$, with mean squared prediction error $\gamma (0)[1-\rho (h{)}^2]$. Thus negative autocorrelation is also useful predictive information. A prediction using the whole observed past can do better; best linear prediction from a finite past describes that problem. Interpreting the affine prediction as a conditional expectation requires additional assumptions, such as a joint normal distribution.

A correlation time measures how rapidly a stationary stochastic process loses temporal dependence. Specify whether it means an exponential decay time, an integral of the normalized autocorrelation, or another width. For $R(t)=R(0)e^{-|t|/\tau }$, the exponential time and the one-sided integral ${\int }_0^{\infty }R(t)dt/R(0)$ both equal $\tau$.

The partial autocorrelation at lag $k$ is the correlation of $X_t$ and $X_{t-k}$ after their linear projections onto the intervening observations are removed. A causal autoregressive model of order $p$ has zero partial correlations after lag $p$. This complements the finite cutoff of the autocorrelation function for a moving-average model.

Replace the autocovariance in the finite-lag linear prediction equations by the sample autocovariance function. The last regression coefficient at order $k$ estimates the lag-$k$ partial autocorrelation function.

The sample autocorrelation function replaces the mean and lagged covariance in $\rho (h)$ by their empirical counterparts.

A correlogram plots the estimated autocorrelation function against lag. The plot helps distinguish the finite autocorrelation cutoff of a moving-average model from the decaying dependence of a causal autoregressive model. Estimated cutoffs are diagnostics, not exact finite-sample identities.