Moving-average model ($\mathrm{MA}(q)$)

A moving-average model expresses the current value as a finite linear combination of present and past white-noise innovations.

A multivariate moving-average model filters vector white noise through fixed matrix coefficients. If the noise has zero mean and lag-zero covariance matrix $D$, with all nonzero-lag cross-covariances zero, then the filtered process is a weakly stationary process. With the convention $\Gamma (h)=\mathbb{E}[Z_t{Z}_{t+h}^T]$, its covariance matrix is $\Gamma (h)={\sum }_j{\Theta }_{j}D{\Theta }_{j+h}^T$, omitting terms outside the filter range. Positive and negative lags satisfy $\Gamma (-h)=\Gamma (h{)}^T$.

For $Z_t=W_t+\Theta W_{t-1}$ and vector white noise of covariance matrix $D$, the only nonzero covariance lags are $\Gamma (0)=D+\Theta D{\Theta }^T$, $\Gamma (1)=D{\Theta }^T$ and $\Gamma (-1)=\Theta D$. This follows by retaining only matching noise times in $\mathbb{E}[Z_t{Z}_{t+h}^T]$. Its spectral matrix, with this lag convention, is $(I+\Theta e^{i\lambda })D(I+{\Theta }^T{e}^{-i\lambda })/(2\pi )$. In two dimensions, with $D=\mathrm{diag}(a,b)$, its cross-spectrum is $[a{\theta }_{11}{\theta }_{21}+b{\theta }_{12}{\theta }_{22}+a{\theta }_{21}{e}^{-i\lambda }+b{\theta }_{12}{e}^{i\lambda }]/(2\pi )$.

The moving-average polynomial records the coefficients of the finite noise filter. Evaluating it at the backshift operator gives $\Theta (B)w_t=w_t+{\sum }_{j=1}^q{b}_j{w}_{t-j}$. In a reduced ARMA representation, invertibility is equivalent to having no roots in the closed unit disc.

The moving-average operator is the finite filter obtained by substituting the backshift operator into the moving-average polynomial. It maps a white noise sequence to its weighted finite sum of present and past values.

For coefficients ${\theta }_0=1,{\theta }_1,\dots ,{\theta }_q$, the long-run variance of a stationary process sampled every second time is ${\sigma }^2[({\sum }_{j\text{ even}}{\theta }_j{)}^2+({\sum }_{j\text{ odd}}{\theta }_j{)}^2]$. It equals ${\sigma }^2[\Theta (1{)}^2+\Theta (-1{)}^2]/2$.

A causal square-integrable linear time series can be written $X_t=\mu +{\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\psi }_j{\epsilon }_{t-j}$. Square summability of the coefficients ensures mean-square convergence for white noise. An innovation representation additionally identifies its driving noise as the innovation process.

For $X_t={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\psi }_j{\eta }_{t-j}$ driven by centered unit-variance iid noise with a finite fourth moment, put ${\kappa }_4=E{\eta }^4-3$ and $m_3=E{\eta }^3$. Independence givesThe sum of the two linear-quadratic cross covariances is $m_3{\sum }_{j\ge 0}({\psi }_j^2{\psi }_{j+|h|}+{\psi }_j{\psi }_{j+|h|}^2)$. The cumulant term disappears for Gaussian noise. Merely assuming strong white noise does not justify the Gaussian formula; a fourth moment is needed for the variance of the quadratic transform.

Invertibility permits reconstruction of innovations from present and past observations by a stable filter. For $Y_t-\mu ={\epsilon }_t+\theta {\epsilon }_{t-1}$, $|\theta |<1$ gives ${\epsilon }_t={\sum }_{j\ge 0}(-\theta {)}^j(Y_{t-j}-\mu )$. This is a different property from stationarity: a finite moving-average model is stationary for every finite coefficient.

Reflecting an inside-unit-circle zero across the unit circle produces an invertible moving-average model with the same spectral density of a stationary process, after rescaling the driving white noise variance. For real $|\theta |>1$, $|1-\theta e^{-i\lambda }{|}^2={\theta }^2|1-{\theta }^{-1}{e}^{-i\lambda }{|}^2$. The transformed driving sequence is a linear innovation process; without Gaussianity it need not be strong white noise.

A moving-average process of order one has the formwith centered white noise of finite positive variance ${\sigma }^2$. Each disturbance enters the current observation with weight $1$ and the next observation with weight $\theta$, then leaves the filter. It is a weakly stationary process for every real $\theta$: the mean is $\mu$ and the autocovariance of an MA(1) process depends only on lag. Strong white noise additionally makes it a strictly stationary process. No $|\theta |<1$ restriction is needed for stationarity.

For a worked observation calculation, take $\mu =10$, $\theta =0.7$, and consecutive noise values ${\epsilon }_{t-1}=-1$, ${\epsilon }_t=2$, ${\epsilon }_{t+1}=0$. Then $X_t=11.3$ and $X_{t+1}=11.4$; the same disturbance $2$ appears in both. If ${\sigma }^2=1$, the variance is $1.49$, the lag-one autocovariance is $0.7$, and the lag-one autocorrelation is $70/149\simeq 0.4698$. All higher-lag autocorrelations vanish, as shown in autocorrelation.

An MA(1) is useful for brief dependence caused by overlapping disturbances or measurements. Its name refers to a weighted moving sum of noise; its weights need not be positive or sum to one, and it differs from the data smoother in seasonal extraction by a centred moving average. Under strong white noise, observations more than one interval apart depend on disjoint independent noise families and are independent. Under weak white noise, the same cutoff establishes only uncorrelated random variables.

Invertibility of a moving-average model is a separate question: can the specified driving noise be recovered by a stable linear filter of present and past observations? For an MA(1) the answer, with the absolutely summable filter convention, is exactly $|\theta |<1$:Thus $\theta =2$ gives a stationary MA(1) that is not invertible in this sense. At $\theta =\pm 1$ it is still stationary, but the inverse coefficients are not absolutely summable. The case $\theta =0$ is simply shifted white noise. See Bartlett, lecture 5: MA(1) and stable invertibility.

For the MA(1) $X_t=\mu +{\epsilon }_t+\theta {\epsilon }_{t-1}$, centered white noise givesOnly products of noise values with matching time indices have nonzero expectation. At lag zero there are two squared weights, $1$ and ${\theta }^2$; at lag one there is one shared noise term with weight product $\theta$; at higher lags there are none. The calculation needs zero covariance between distinct noise values, not independence. This tridiagonal finite covariance structure makes the finite-sample innovations of an MA(1) process particularly simple.

The lag-one autocorrelation can never exceed $1/2$ in magnitude, since $1+{\theta }^2\ge 2|\theta |$. For $\theta \ne 0$, replacing $\theta$ by $1/\theta$ leaves the entire ACF unchanged. For example $\theta =2$ and $\theta =1/2$ both give $\rho (1)=2/5$; rescaling the latter noise variance by $4$ also matches every autocovariance. Moving-average root reflection explains this ambiguity and why a stable invertibility convention helps identify a representation. Equality of second-order laws need not imply equality of all joint probability distributions unless the processes are Gaussian processes. See Bartlett, lecture 6: equivalent representations and covariance of ARMA processes.