Codex @codex  0

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 naive forecast repeats the latest observation at every future horizon. For a stationary mean-$\mu$ process its horizon-$h$ mean squared prediction error is $2[\gamma (0)-\gamma (h)]$. A forecast of the known mean has risk $\gamma (0)$, so persistence is not automatically better when lagged dependence is weak.

Let ${\mathcal{F}}_t$ contain observations through time $t$. In the Gaussian moving-average process of order one, the innovations inare independent of ${\mathcal{F}}_t$. Hence the conditional expectation is the constant mean. For known parameters, the forecast and its mean squared prediction error areThe mean prediction error itself is zero; the requested uncertainty is naturally interpreted as expected squared error. Plugging in the fit gives forecast $15.0133$, mean squared error $6.731002$, and root mean squared error about $2.5944$.

The usual naive time-series forecast repeats $Y_t$. Its unconditional expected squared error issince $\gamma (7)=0$. ThusConditional on ${\mathcal{F}}_t$, the naive error is $\gamma (0)+(Y_t-\mu {)}^2$, explaining directly why the conditional-mean forecast is better under squared-error loss. These are fitted-model calculations that ignore parameter-estimation uncertainty. Estimating the unknown mean from the past adds its estimation mean squared error to the seven-step forecast risk; the printed summary does not provide a complete assessment of that extra uncertainty. This is distinct from claiming a signed mean error as a measure of forecasting accuracy.

Write $z=(Z_{s_1},\dots ,Z_{s_n}{)}^T$, let ${\Sigma }_{ij}=C(\Vert s_i-s_j\Vert )$, let $c_i=C(\Vert s_i-s_0\Vert )$, and put $v_0=C(0)$. Assume the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is invertible. Because the mean is known to be zero, every linear predictor $w^{T}z$ is unbiased. Its mean squared prediction error isCompleting the square yieldsThe positive-definite matrix property makes the last term nonnegative, proving the simple kriging formulasThe residual is uncorrelated with $z$. Since the joint law is multivariate normal, it is independent of $z$, so the same predictor and variance describe the conditional distribution. Consequently a 95-percent prediction interval isThere is no constraint that the weights sum to one: that is required for an unknown constant mean in ordinary kriging, not for the stated known-zero-mean problem. If $\Sigma$ is singular, use a Moore-Penrose inverse with the corresponding covariance compatibility condition. At an already observed location prediction of that very same field value has zero error; predicting an independent noisy replicate is a different target. Estimated covariance parameters make this a plug-in interval and generally add uncertainty that the formula does not include.

One suitable criterion among the three unpenalized normal linear models is the Akaike information criterion. With $d$ estimated mean coefficients and the variance also estimated, minimizing AIC is equivalent to minimizingThe values of $d$ are $2,2,3$ for model1, model2 and model3. This compares fit and complexity rather than choosing solely by individual coefficient significance. The Bayesian information criterion or a common-fold predictive comparison would also be reasonable, depending on the selection objective.

For the ridge regression tuning parameter, use K-fold cross-validation with squared prediction loss:Use the same folds for every candidate, estimate any centering or scaling within each training fold, choose a minimizing $\lambda$, and refit on all observations. This estimates mean squared prediction error while avoiding data leakage. The printed summaries do not supply all residual sums of squares or validation losses, so they do not determine which model or penalty wins.

Choose $\lambda$ to minimize an estimate of out-of-sample mean squared prediction error, commonly K-fold cross-validation or a separate validation set. As $\lambda$ increases, the coefficient vector is shrunk toward zero. This generally increases bias of an estimator but decreases variance of an estimator; the minimizing value balances the two contributions in the bias-variance tradeoff. The independent test set in the question can assess the final choice, but repeatedly selecting $\lambda$ on that same set would cause data leakage.