arXiv:1611.08721v2 [] 12 Apr 2017

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS AND DEPTH-TRIMMED
REGIONS
By Rainer Dyckerhoff
University of Cologne∗
Depth is a concept that measures the ‘centrality’ of a point in a
given data cloud or in a given probability distribution. Every depth
defines a family of so-called trimmed regions. For statistical applications it is desirable that with increasing sample size the empirical
depth as well as the empirical trimmed regions converge almost surely
to their population counterparts.
In this article the connections between different types of convergence are discussed. In particular, conditions are given under which
the pointwise (resp. uniform) convergence of the data depth implies
the pointwise (resp. compact) convergence of the trimmed regions in
the Hausdorff metric as well as conditions under which the reverse
implications hold. Further, it is shown that under relative weak conditions the pointwise convergence of the data depth (resp. trimmed
regions) is equivalent to the uniform convergence of the data depth
(resp. compact convergence of the trimmed regions).

1. Introduction. In recent years data depth has been increasingly studied and is more and more used in multivariate statistics. Applications of data
depth in multivariate statistics include the construction of multivariate rank
tests (Liu, 1992; Liu and Singh, 1993; Dyckerhoff, 2002), development of
multivariate control charts (Liu, 1995), construction of confidence regions
(Yeh and Singh, 1997), multivariate data analysis (Liu, Parelius and Singh,
1999), cluster analysis (Hoberg, 2000, 2003), outlier detection (Cramer,
2003), multivariate risk measurement (Cascos and Molchanov, 2007), classification (Mosler and Hoberg, 2006; Lange, Mosler and Mozharovskyi, 2014),
and robust linear programming (Mosler and Bazovkin, 2014).
Data depth is a function which quantifies the ‘centrality’ of a point in a
given probability distribution. Closely related to the notion of depth is the
notion of central regions or depth-trimmed regions. Every depth defines a
family of central regions in the following way. The α-trimmed region consists
of all points that have a depth of at least α w.r.t. a given distribution. This
is the set of points that have a certain degree of centrality and thus, this
set is also called the α-trimmed region. Since every depth defines a family
MSC 2010 subject classifications: Primary 62H12; secondary 62G20, 60F15
Keywords and phrases: data depth, trimmed region, convergence, consistency

1

2

R. DYCKERHOFF

of central regions and vice versa, the concepts of depth and central regions
are in a sense equivalent.
Many depths have been proposed in the literature, e.g., the Mahalanobis
depth (Mahalanobis, 1936), halfspace depth (Tukey, 1975), simplicial depth
(Liu, 1988, 1990), majority depth (Singh, 1991), projection depth (Liu, 1992;
Zuo and Serfling, 2000a; Zuo, 2003; based on a notion of outlyingness proposed by Stahel, 1981; Donoho, 1982), zonoid depth (Koshevoy and Mosler,
1997), weighted-mean depth (Dyckerhoff and Mosler, 2011, 2012) and others. These depths differ in many aspects, particularly in the shape of trimmed
regions or the deepest point. However, they share certain properties which
can be seen as desirable properties every depth should satisfy. We define
a depth as a function that satisfies certain postulates which are stated in
Dyckerhoff (2004). Slightly differing sets of postulates have been given in
Liu (1990) and Zuo and Serfling (2000a).
In statistical applications the empirical depth, i.e., the depth w.r.t. the
empirical measure defined by a sample X1 , . . . , Xn , is used as an estimator
for the depth w.r.t. the underlying distribution PX . The same holds for the
empirical depth-trimmed regions. So the question of almost sure convergence
of the empirical quantities to their population counterparts is of crucial
interest since it is equivalent to strong consistency of these estimators.
The convergence of depths and depth-trimmed regions has been extensively studied in the literature, e.g., for the the halfspace depth (Eddy,
1985; Donoho and Gasko, 1992; Nolan, 1992; Massé and Theodorescu, 1994;
Massé, 2002, 2004), for the simplicial depth (Liu, 1990; Dümbgen, 1992),
for the zonoid depth (Koshevoy and Mosler, 1997; Cascos and López-Dı́az,
2016), for the α-trimming (Cascos and López-Dı́az, 2008), for the projection
depth (Zuo and Serfling, 2000b; Zuo, 2006), for general type D depth functions (Zuo and Serfling, 2000b), for generalized quantile functions defined
by depth-trimmed regions (Serfling, 2002a), for weighted-mean trimmed regions (Dyckerhoff and Mosler, 2012).
Results for general depths (but mainly for elliptically contoured distributions) can be found in He and Wang (1997). A generalization of these results
for unimodal distributions with uniformly bounded and positive everywhere
density is given by (Kim, 2000). For general depths and without assumptions on the distributions first results on the connection between convergence of depths and convergence of trimmed regions have been established
in Zuo and Serfling (2000b).
In the current paper we extend the results of Zuo and Serfling (2000b). In
particular, we consider neither special depths nor special distributions. Instead, the results hold for all depths that satisfy the postulates of Dyckerhoff

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

3

(2004). Further we pose no restrictions on the considered distributions such
as ellipticity or unimodality. In particular we answer the following questions: Under what conditions does pointwise (resp. uniform) convergence
of the depth functions imply pointwise (resp. compact) convergence of the
depth-trimmed regions and vice versa? Under what conditions does pointwise convergence of the depth functions (resp. trimmed regions) imply uniform convergence of the depth functions (resp. compact convergence of the
trimmed regions)?
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we define data depth in an
abstract way as a function that satisfies a certain set of axioms. Section 3
contains two results on the continuity of the depth function and the trimmed
regions. The main results on convergence of depths and depth-trimmed regions as well as some applications are then given in Section 4. The proofs
of the main results are collected in Appendix A. Some important results on
Hausdorff convergence of sets are stated in Appendix B.
In this paper we use the following notation. The complement of a set A
is denoted by Ac . Interior, closure, and boundary of a set A are denoted by
int A, cl A and ∂A, respectively. The Hausdorff distance of two non-empty
compact sets A and B is denoted by δH (A, B). The Hausdorff-limit of a
sequence (An )n∈N of non-empty compact sets is denoted by H-limn→∞ An .
2. A general concept of data depth. We consider the depth of a
point w.r.t. a probability distribution. Let M0 be the set of all probability
measures on (Rd , B d ), where B d denotes the Borel σ-algebra on Rd , and M
a subset of M0 . A depth assigns to each probability measure P ∈ M a real
function D(· | P ) : Rd → R+ , the so-called depth function w.r.t. P . The set
of all points that have a depth of at least α is called the α-trimmed region or
α-central region. The α-trimmed region w.r.t. P is denoted by Dα (P ), i.e.,
Dα (P ) = {z ∈ Rd | D(z | P ) ≥ α}.
Often, the probability measure is the distribution PX of a d-variate random vector X. Since every probability measure P on (Rd , B d ) can be represented as the distribution of a d-variate random vector X, every statement
about depths can either be expressed in terms of probability measures or in
terms of random vectors.
We now state some axioms that every reasonable notion of depth should
satisfy.
D1: Affine invariance. For every regular d×d-Matrix A and b ∈ Rd holds
D(z | P ) = D(Az + b | PAx+b ), where PAx+b denotes the image measure
of P under the transformation x 7→ Ax + b.
D2: Vanishing at infinity. limkzk→∞ D(z | P ) = 0.

4

R. DYCKERHOFF

D3: Upper semicontinuity. For each α > 0 the set Dα (P ) is closed.
D4: Monotone on rays. For each x0 of maximal depth and each r ∈ Rd ,
r 6= 0, the function λ 7→ D(x0 + λr | P ), λ ≥ 0, is monotone decreasing.
′
D4 : Quasiconcavity. For every α ≥ 0 the set Dα (P ) is convex.
The properties D1, D2, and D4 have been introduced by Liu (1990). A further set of axioms for a depth has been given by Zuo and Serfling (2000a).
The main difference between their axioms and ours is that they do not require a depth to be upper semicontinuous. In addition, they require that for
distributions having a properly defined unique center, the depth attains it
maximum value at this center. However, for centrally symmetric distributions, this follows already from our axioms. For a discussion of these axioms,
see e.g., Dyckerhoff (2004).
Definition 2.1. A mapping D, that assigns to each probability measure
P in a certain set M a function D(· | P ) : Rd → R and that satisfies the
properties D1, D2, D3 and D4 is called depth. A depth that satisfies D4′ is
called convex depth.
A depth always attains its maximum on Rd . We denote this maximum
depth by αmax (P ) = max{D(z | P ) | z ∈ Rd }. A depth that has the same
maximum depth for all probability measures P is called a normed depth.
Properties D1 to D4 are formulated in terms of the depth itself. However,
these properties can also be formulated in terms of the trimmed regions. We
now state these equivalent properties.
R1: Affine equivariance. For every regular d × d-matrix A and b ∈ Rd
holds Dα (PAx+b ) = A Dα (P ) + b.
R2: Boundedness. For every α > 0 the region Dα (P ) is bounded.
R3: Closedness. For every α > 0 the region Dα (P ) is closed.
R4: Starshapedness. If x0 is contained in all non-empty regions Dα (P ),
then the non-empty regions Dα (P ) are starshaped w.r.t. x0 .
′
R4 : Convexity. For every α > 0 the region Dα (P ) is convex.
In Dyckerhoff (2004) it has been shown that each of the statements D1,
D2, D3, D4, D4′ is equivalent to the corresponding statement R1, R2,
R3, R4, R4′ . A further important property that is satisfied by the trimmed
regions of a depth is left-continuity of the trimmed regions.
T
R5: Left-continuity.
For
every
α
>
0
holds
D
(P
)
=
α
β:β<α Dβ (P ). FurT
ther, α:α≥0 Dα (P ) = ∅ for every P ∈ M.
R5 has been called intersection property in Dyckerhoff (2004).

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

5

In particular, it follows from R5 that the α-trimmed regions are monotone
decreasing in α, i.e., for 0 ≤ α1 ≤ α2 holds Dα2 (P ) ⊂ Dα1 (P ).
At the beginning of this section we have started from a depth and defined
the trimmed regions through the relation Dα (P ) := {z | D(z | P ) ≥ α}.
However, one can also start from a family of trimmed regions and define the
associated depth by its trimmed regions. In Dyckerhoff (2004) it has been
shown that a family (Zα (P ))α>0 of subsets of Rd that satisfies the properties
R1 to R5 defines a depth in the sense of Definition 2.1 via
D(z | P ) := sup{α | z ∈ Zα (P )} .
If the sets Zα (P ) satisfy also R4′ , then D is a convex depth.
The idea of generating a depth by a suitable family of nested regions
goes back to Barnett (1976) and Eddy (1985). It has already been used by
Koshevoy and Mosler (1997) to define the zonoid depth (see Example 2.3 below) and by Serfling (2002b) to define quantile functions. By the above construction the weighted-mean depth can be constructed from the weightedmean trimmed regions defined in Dyckerhoff and Mosler (2011, 2012).
In the following we give some examples of depths which have already been
proposed in the literature.
Example 2.1. The Mahalanobis depth (Mahalanobis, 1936) of a point
−1

, where µP dez is defined by MD(z | P ) = 1 + (z − µP )′ Σ−1
P (z − µP )
notes the expectation of P and ΣP the covariance matrix of P . It is well
known that the Mahalanobis depth is a normed convex depth in the sense of
Definition 2.1.
Example 2.2.

The halfspace depth (Tukey, 1975) is defined by

HD(z | P ) = inf {P (H) | H is a closed halfspace containing z} .
The halfspace depth is a convex depth in the sense of Definition 2.1. A
thorough discussion of the properties of the halfspace depth can be found in
Rousseeuw and Ruts (1999).
Example 2.3. For a probability measure P with finite first moments and
0 < α ≤ 1 the α-zonoid trimmed region ZDα (P ) is defined by



Z
Z
1
d
measurable with g(x) dP = 1 .
xg(x) dP | g : R → 0,
ZDα (P ) =
α
The zonoid depth is then defined by ZD(z | P ) = sup{α | z ∈ ZDα (P )}. The
zonoid depth has been introduced by Koshevoy and Mosler (1997). It is a

6

R. DYCKERHOFF

normed convex depth in the sense of Definition 2.1. The properties of the
zonoid depth and the associated zonoid trimmed regions are discussed in
Koshevoy and Mosler (1997); Mosler (2002).
Example 2.4. For a d-variate random vector X, the weighted-mean regions WMDα (PX ) (Dyckerhoff and Mosler, 2011, 2012) are defined as the
unique convex bodies whose support functions are given by
Z 1
Qp′ X (t) drα (t) , p ∈ Rd ,
h(p) =
0

where Qp′ X denotes the quantile function of p′ X and rα is a suitable weighting function. The weighted-mean depth, defined by WMD(z | PX ) =
sup{α | z ∈ WMDα (PX )}, is a normed convex depth in the sense of Definition 2.1.
Example 2.5. The simplicial depth (Liu, 1988, 1990) and the majority depth (Singh, 1991) are no depths in the sense of Definition 2.1. The
simplicial depth fails to satisfy D4 for discrete distributions (see the counterexample in Zuo and Serfling, 2000a). However, restricted to the class of
angular symmetric distributions the simplicial depth is a depth in the sense
of Definition 2.1. The majority depth does not satisfy D2.
3. Continuity of depths and trimmed regions. In this section we
consider the continuity properties of depths and trimmed regions. By D3,
any depth in the sense of Definition 2.1 is upper semicontinuous. The following theorem characterizes the depths that are even continuous.
Theorem 3.1. Let D be a depth. Then, the mapping z 7→ D(z | P ),
z ∈ Rd , is continuous if and only if for all β > α holds
Dβ (P ) ⊂ int Dα (P ) .
The proofs of all theorems in Sections 3 and 4 can be found in Appendix A.
Next, we consider the question, under which conditions the trimmed regions are continuous. Since because of R2 and R3 the trimmed regions
Dα (P ) are compact sets, we use the usual notion of convergence for such sets,
i.e., convergence in the Hausdorff-metric or short Hausdorff-convergence.
The definition as well as some important facts on Hausdorff convergence are
given in Appendix B.
Since the α-trimmed region is the intersection of all β-trimmed regions
with β < α (R5), it is not surprising that for every depth in the sense of

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

7

Definition 2.1 the mapping α 7→ Dα (P ) is left-continuous. Now, under which
conditions is this mapping right-continuous, too? Intuitively, one has to demand, that the β-trimmed region is not much smaller than the α-trimmed
region, whenever β is not much larger than α. The following theorem shows
that the trimmed regions are continuous in α if and only if for every α the
α-trimmed region is the closure of all points z with D(z) > α. This condition
can be seen as some kind of strict monotonicity of the depth. If z is a point
of depth α ∈ 0, αmax (P ) then each neighborhood of z contains points of
depth larger than α. In other words, there is no neighborhood of z on which
the depth is constant. Therefore, if for a probability measure P a depth
satisfies this property, we will say that the depth is strictly monotone for P .
Definition 3.1. Let D be a depth and P a probability measure. If for
each α ∈ 0, αmax (P ) we have
Dα (P ) = cl {z ∈ Rd | D(z | P ) > α} ,

then D is said to be strictly monotone for P .
Theorem 3.2.

Let D be a depth. Then, the following assertions hold:

(i) The mapping α 7→ Dα (P ), 0 < α ≤ αmax (P ), is left-continuous w.r.t.
the Hausdorff metric, i.e., for every sequence (αn )n∈N such that αn <
α0 and limn→∞ αn = α0 we have H-limn→∞ Dαn (P ) = Dα0 (P ).
(ii) The mapping α 7→ Dα (P ), 0 < α ≤ αmax (P ), is continuous w.r.t. the
Hausdorff metric if and only if D is strictly monotone for P .
4. Convergence of depths and trimmed regions. In this section
we consider the following problem. Let P1 , P2 , . . . be a sequence of probability measures on (Rd , B d ) and P a further probability measure on (Rd , B d ). If
the corresponding depth functions D( · | Pn ) converge to the depth function
D( · | P ), what can be said about convergence of the corresponding trimmed
regions? Of course the question can be posed also the other way: If the
trimmed regions Dα (Pn ) converge to Dα (P ), what can be said about convergence of the depths? In this paper we make no assumptions on the sequence P1 , P2 , . . . of probability measures. However, the main application
of our results is the following situation: Let X be d-variate random vector
with distribution PX and X1 , X2 , . . . a sequence of random vectors that are
independent and identically distributed with distribution PX . Denote by Pn
the empirical distribution on X1 , . . . , Xn , i.e., the distribution that assigns
probability 1/n to each of these n points. The empirical depth D( · | Pn )
then constitutes an estimator for the population depth D( · | PX ). In the

8

R. DYCKERHOFF

same way the empirical trimmed regions Dα (Pn ) are estimators for the population trimmed region Dα (PX ). These estimators are strongly consistent
if they converge with probability one to their population counterparts. We
will comment on this situation later.
Intuitively, one would assume that if the empirical depths converge, the
empirical trimmed regions will converge, too, and vice versa. We will show
that in most circumstances this is true. However, there are also situations
where the depths converge pointwise or even uniform but the corresponding
trimmed regions do not converge for certain values of α. Conversely, it may
also happen that the trimmed regions do converge whereas the depths themselves do not. If one thinks deeper about this question, this is not surprising.
Consider for example the sequence of empirical distribution functions. This
sequence converges with probability one uniformly to the theoretical distribution function, whereas the sequence of empirical quantile functions need
in general not converge for all p. The exact relationships between convergence of depths and convergence of corresponding trimmed regions are in
fact far more complicated than this is the case for the relationship between
convergence of empirical distribution and quantile functions.
We investigate the connections between the following notions of convergence for depths and depth-trimmed regions.
(PtwD) Pointwise convergence of depths
For all z ∈ Rd holds lim D(z | Pn ) = D(z | P ).
n→∞

(ComD) Compact convergence of depths
For every compact set M ⊂ Rd holds
lim sup | D(z | Pn ) − D(z | P )| = 0 .

n→∞ z∈M

(UniD) Uniform convergence of depths
It holds
lim sup | D(z | Pn ) − D(z | P )| = 0 .
n→∞ z∈Rd

(PtwR) Pointwise Hausdorff-convergence
of trimmed regions

For every α ∈ 0, αmax (P ) holds H-lim Dα (Pn ) = Dα (P ).
n→∞

(ComR) Compact Hausdorff-convergence of trimmed regions
For every compact interval A ⊂ 0, αmax (P ) holds
lim sup δH (Dα (Pn ), Dα (P )) = 0 .

n→∞ α∈A

A further complication results from the following observation. The Hausdorff distance between two sets is undefined whenever one of the sets is

9

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS


empty. For this reason we have considered only values of α in 0, αmax (P )
in (PtwR) and (ComR). For these values of α at least Dα (P ) is non-empty.
Of course it cannot be guaranteed that for these α’s the trimmed regions
Dα (Pn ) are non-empty for each n, too. However, if we assume (PtwR) and
(ComR), it is implicitly assumed that for sufficiently large n the distances
δH (Dα (Pn ), Dα (P )) and supα∈A δH (Dα (Pn ), Dα (P )) are defined. For finitely
many n these distances may be undefined.
Conversely it may occur that for every n the maximum depth αmax (Pn )
w.r.t. Pn is greater than the maximum depth αmax (P ) w.r.t. P . In this
case (PtwR) and (ComR) make assertions
on the convergence of trimmed

regions Dα (Pn ) for α ∈ 0, αmax (P ) , but not on the ‘convergence’ of the
trimmed regions Dα (Pn ) for α > αmax (P ). Therefore, we occasionally need a
further condition that guarantees that the trimmed regions Dα (Pn ) converge
for α > αmax (P ) to the empty set:
(RC) Range condition It holds lim sup αmax (Pn ) ≤ αmax (P ).
n→∞

We will use this condition mostly in the following equivalent form:
(RC) Range condition For each α > αmax (P ) there exists Nα ∈ N, such
that Dα (Pn ) = ∅ for all n ≥ Nα .
The condition (RC) is trivially satisfied if the maximum depth is the same
for all distributions, i.e., for normed depths. Examples of normed depths are
the Mahalanobis depth and the zonoid depth. For both of these depths the
point of maximum depth has always depth one.
General assumption: To avoid technical difficulties we assume in this
section that the α-trimmed regions have full dimension for 0 < α < αmax (P ).
This condition is satisfied by the commonly used depths, unless the probability measure P is concentrated on a hyperplane.
We first prove a theorem that relates the pointwise convergence of depths
to the set-theoretic limit of the trimmed regions. The limit inferior and the
limit superior of a sequence of sets are defined by
lim inf An =
n→∞

∞ \
∞
[

Am

resp.

n=1 m=n

lim sup An =
n→∞

∞ [
∞
\

Am .

n=1 m=n

Clearly, the limit inferior is the set of all points that are eventually contained
in all sets An , the limit superior is the set of all points that are contained
in infinitely many of the sets An . Hence, lim inf n→∞ An ⊂ lim supn→∞ An .
If lim inf n→∞ An = lim supn→∞ An , then the sequence (An )n∈N is said to
converge (in the set-theoretic sense) and one defines
lim An := lim inf An = lim sup An .

n→∞

n→∞

n→∞

10

R. DYCKERHOFF

Theorem 4.1.

The following two statements are equivalent:

(i) (PtwD)
(ii) For every α ≥ 0 holds
{z ∈ Rd | D(z | P ) > α} ⊂ lim inf Dα (Pn ) ⊂ lim sup Dα (Pn ) ⊂ Dα (P ) .
n→∞

n→∞

Remark: Since the set {z ∈ Rd | D(z | P ) > α} is non-empty for α ∈
0, αmax (P ) the set lim inf n→∞ Dα (Pn ) is non-empty as well. In particular,
it follows from the preceding theorem that the trimmed
regions Dα (Pn ) are

eventually non-empty for every α ∈ 0, αmax (P ) .
The preceding theorem shows that in general the set-theoretic convergence
of trimmed regions does not follow from the pointwise convergence of depths.
This conclusion is justified only when {z ∈ Rd | D(z | P ) > α} = Dα (P ).
However, if the depth is continuous for P , this condition is never satisfied.
If one considers not the set-theoretic convergence but the Hausdorff convergence of trimmed regions the following theorem can be deduced. It says
that for convex and strictly monotone depths the pointwise convergence of
depths implies the Hausdorff convergence of the trimmed regions.
Theorem 4.2. Let D be a convex depth and let D be strictly monotone
for P . Then, (PtwD) =⇒ (PtwR).
If Dαmax (P ) (P ) is a singleton and if the trimmed regions Dαmax (P ) (Pn ) are
eventually non-empty, then (PtwR) holds also for α = αmax (P ).
As is shown in Example 2.1 in the supplement (Dyckerhoff, 2017), without the assumption of strict monotonicity the Hausdorff convergence of the
trimmed regions can in general not be concluded.
The following theorem shows that for continuous convex depths the pointwise convergence of depths follows from the Hausdorff convergence of the
trimmed regions.
Theorem 4.3. Let D be a convex depth and let D be continuous for P .
Then, [(PtwR) and (RC) ] =⇒ (PtwD).
An example that shows that without the assumption of continuity the
above theorem is in general false is given in Example 2.3 in the supplement
(Dyckerhoff, 2017).
We will now study what are the implications of compact or uniform convergence of depths. On the one hand the following theorem shows that compact and uniform convergence of depths are in fact equivalent. On the other

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

11

hand it gives two conditions on the trimmed regions that are equivalent to
the uniform convergence of depths. Essentially, these two conditions state
that for sufficiently large n the empirical trimmed regions Dα (Pn ) lie between the trimmed regions Dα+ǫ (P ) and Dα−ǫ (P ). Further, it will be shown
that – in contrast to the pointwise convergence – the uniform convergence
implies the condition (RC).
Theorem 4.4.

The following statements are equivalent:

(i) (UniD)
(ii) (ComD)
(iii) For every α > 0 and every ǫ > 0 there exists an Nα,ǫ ∈ N, such that
Dβ+ǫ (P ) ⊂ Dβ (Pn ) ⊂ Dβ−ǫ (P )

for all n ≥ Nα,ǫ and β ≥ α.

(iv) It holds (RC) and for every compact interval A ⊂ 0, αmax (P ) and
ǫ > 0 there exists an NA,ǫ ∈ N, such that
Dβ+ǫ (P ) ⊂ Dβ (Pn ) ⊂ Dβ−ǫ (P )

for all n ≥ NA,ǫ and β ∈ A.

The implication (ii) =⇒ (iii) in Theorem 4.4 was already proved in
Theorem 4.1 in Zuo and Serfling (2000b).
The following theorem shows that for strictly monotone depths the compact convergence of the depth implies compact Hausdorff convergence of
trimmed regions. As in Theorem 4.2, without the assumption of strict monotonicity this statement is in general not valid. This can be seen from Example 2.1 in the supplement (Dyckerhoff, 2017).
Theorem 4.5. Let D be strictly monotone for P . Then, (ComD) =⇒
(ComR).
If Dαmax (P ) (P ) is a singleton and if the trimmed regions Dαmax (P ) (Pn ) are
eventually non-empty,
then (ComR) holds also for every compact interval

A ⊂ 0, αmax (P ) .

If the depth is convex and continuous for P and if the condition (RC)
holds, the converse of the preceding theorem holds, i.e., compact Hausdorff convergence of the trimmed regions implies uniform convergence of
the depths. Again, as in Theorem 4.3, without the assumption of continuity
this does in general not hold, see Example 2.3 in the supplement Dyckerhoff
(2017).
Theorem 4.6. Let D be a convex depth that is continuous for P . Then,
[(ComR) and (RC) ] =⇒ (UniD).

12

R. DYCKERHOFF

We have seen in Theorem 4.4 that for depths compact and uniform convergence are equivalent. We will see in the next two theorems that under mild
conditions even pointwise and compact convergence are equivalent. This
holds for the convergence of depths as well as for the Hausdorff convergence
of trimmed regions.
Theorem 4.7. Let D be strictly monotone for P . Then, (PtwR) ⇐⇒
(ComR).

If Dαmax (P ) (P ) is a singleton, then the open interval 0, αmax (P ) can be
replaced by the half-open interval 0, αmax (P ) in (PtwR) and (ComR).

The condition of strict monotonicity is crucial in the above theorem. Without strict monotonicity, Theorem 4.7 is not valid as can be seen from Example 2.2 in the supplement (Dyckerhoff, 2017).
We now state the result for convergence of depths. Here the depth has
to be convex and continuous for P . Again, as in Theorems 4.3 and 4.6 the
additional condition (RC) is needed to ensure that pointwise and uniform
convergence are equivalent.
Theorem 4.8. Let D be a convex depth that is continuous for P . Then,
[(PtwD) and (RC) ] ⇐⇒ (UniD).
Example 2.4 in the supplement (Dyckerhoff, 2017) shows that without
the assumption of continuity the above theorem is in general false.
The connections between the different notions of convergence can be illustrated nicely by a diagram. The following figure shows the implications
which result from the preceding theorems as well as the corresponding assumptions. For better clarity we have replaced the implication arrows by
simple arrows.
(PtwD) o
O

convex, strictly monotone

/

(PtwR)
O

convex, continuous, (RC)

convex,
continuous,
(RC)



strictly
monotone

(UniD) o

strictly monotone
convex, continuous, (RC)

/



(ComR)

Remark: The condition that the depth be strictly monotone for P can also
be seen as a continuity condition. In fact it follows from Theorem 3.2 that
the mapping α 7→ Dα (P ) is continuous in this case. Thus, one could as

13

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

well replace the condition ‘D is strictly monotone for P ’ by ‘the mapping
α 7→ Dα (P ) is continuous’.
For the important class of normed and convex depths one gets the following connections:
strictly monotone

(PtwD) o
O

/

(PtwR)
O

continuous

strictly
monotone

continuous



strictly monotone

(UniD) o

continuous

/



(ComR)

A typical application of the above theorems arises when X1 , X2 , . . . is a
sequence of d-variate random vectors, defined on a joint probability space
(Ω, A, P ), that are independent and identically distributed with distribution
iid

PX , in symbols X1 , X2 , · · · ∼ P
X . Then, let Pn be the empirical measure
P
on X1 , . . . , Xn , i.e., Pn = 1/n ni=1 εXi , where εXi denotes the one-point
measure on Xi . Note that Pn is in fact a random measure since it depends
on the concrete realizations X1 (ω), . . . , Xn (ω). It is well known that with
probability one the empirical measures converges weakly to the distribution
PX . In this situation all of the above theorems have corollaries like the
following.
iid

Corollary 4.1 (to Theorem 4.8). Let X1 , X2 , · · · ∼ PX and Pn be the
empirical measure on X1 , . . . , Xn . Let further D be a convex depth that is
continuous for PX . Then,
[(PtwD) and (RC) ] P -almost surely ⇐⇒ (UniD) P -almost surely.
Analogous corollaries hold for all of the above theorems. We do not state
them here to avoid unnecessary repetitions.
Here, one has to be careful to distinguish between the probability measure
P on the underlying probability space (Ω, A, P ) and the probability measure
PX that is the distribution of each of the random variables Xi . The depth
is computed w.r.t. the distribution PX , whereas ‘P -almost surely’ refers to
the measure P of the underlying probability space.
We illustrate the application of the above results with some examples.
Example 4.1 (Mahalanobis depth, see Example 2.1). The Mahalanobis
depth is a normed convex depth. It is continuous and strictly monotone for
each P . From the strong law of large numbers follows (with probability one)

14

R. DYCKERHOFF

the pointwise convergence of the empirical Mahalanobis depth. Thus, with
probability one, the empirical Mahalanobis depth converges uniformly to its
population version and the empirical α-trimmed regions converge compactly
on (0, 1).
Example 4.2 (Halfspace depth, see Example 2.2). The halfspace depth
is a convex depth. It is continuous for distributions with density. Under some
additional assumptions on P (e.g., convex support) it is also strictly monotone. It is easy to show that with probability one the halfspace depth converges
pointwise and the range condition is satisfied. Thus, under the above conditions, with probability one, the empirical halfspace depth converges uniformly
to its population version
 and the empirical α-trimmed regions converge compactly on 0, αmax (P ) .

Example 4.3 (Zonoid depth, see Example 2.3). The zonoid depth is a
normed convex depth that is strictly monotone and continuous for distributions with density. It was shown in Mosler (2002) that, with probability one,
the empirical zonoid regions converge pointwise to their population version.
Thus, for distributions with density, the empirical zonoid depth converges
uniformly to its population version and the empirical α-trimmed regions converge compactly on (0, 1).
Example 4.4 (Asymmetric Mahalanobis depth). The asymmetric Mahalanobis depth (see Dyckerhoff, 2004) is defined by
!#−1
"
p′ z − µp ′ P
,
AMD(z | P ) = inf
1+
σp+′ P
p∈S d−1
2

where σP+ denotes the upper semi-variance of P and S d−1 is the unit sphere
in Rd . The asymmetric Mahalanobis depth is a normed convex depth. It is
continuous and strictly monotone for each P . From the strong law of large
numbers follows (with probability one) the pointwise convergence of the empirical asymmetric Mahalanobis depth. Thus, with probability one, the empirical asymmetric Mahalanobis depth converges uniformly to its population
version and the empirical α-trimmed regions converge compactly on (0, 1).
Example 4.5 (Weighted-mean depth, see Example 2.1). The weightedmean depth is a normed convex depth that is strictly monotone and continuous for distributions with density. Let (Xn ) be a sequence of random vectors
with finite first moments that converges in distribution to a random vector
X. It was shown in Dyckerhoff and Mosler (2012) that the weighted-mean

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

15

regions WMDα (Xn ) are pointwise Hausdorff convergent to WMDα (X) provided the sequence (Xn ) is uniformly integrable. Thus, it follows from the
above theorems that the weighted-mean regions are even compact convergent
on (0, 1]. For distributions with density the associated depth functions converge uniformly on Rd .
APPENDIX A: PROOFS OF THE MAIN THEOREMS
In this section we use the following notation: For a given depth D and
n ∈ N we denote the α-trimmed region Dα (Pn ) w.r.t. Pn shortly by Dnα and
the depth D(z | Pn ) of a point z ∈ Rd w.r.t. Pn shortly with Dn (z). We use
the notation Dα for Dα (P ) and D(z) for D(z | P ) in the same way. In the
same spirit we often write simply αmax instead of αmax (P ).
Proof (of Theorem 3.1): Assume that Dβ 6⊂ int Dα for some β > α.
Then, there exists z ∈ Dβ that is contained in ∂ Dα . Obviously, Dα 6= Rd
in this case. Since Dα is closed, its complement is open and there exists a
sequence (zn )n∈N in Dcα converging to z. But lim supn→∞ D(zn ) ≤ α < β ≤
D(z). Thus, the mapping z 7→ D(z) is not continuous.
Now assume that Dβ ⊂ int Dα for all β > α. We show that D( · | P )
is lower semicontinuous, i.e., every set {z | D(z) > α} is open. For each
z0 ∈ {z | D(z) > α} there is γ such that D(z0 ) =: β > γ > α. Since
Dβ ⊂ int Dγ , it follows z0 ∈ int Dγ . Thus, there is a neighborhood U of z0
such that U ⊂ Dγ ⊂ {z | D(z) > α} which shows that {z | D(z) > α} is
open. Hence, D( · | P ) is lower semicontinuous. Since D( · | P ) is also upper
semicontinuous, D( · | P ) is continuous.
Proof (of Theorem 3.2): We start with Part (i). We assume w.l.o.g.
that the sequence (αn )n∈N is increasing. The sequence of sets Dαn is decreasing and it follows from Proposition B.1 in Appendix B that
H-lim Dαn =
n→∞

∞
\

Dαn = Dα0 .

n=1

To prove Part (ii) it suffices to show that the strict monotonicity for P is
equivalent to the right-continuity of the mapping α 7→ Dα . This mapping
is right continuous if and only if H-limn→∞ Dαn = Dα0 for every sequence
(αn )n∈N that is decreasing to α0 ∈ 0, αmax (P ) . Since the sequence of sets
Dαn is increasing it follows from Proposition B.1 in Appendix B that
!
∞


[
Dαn = cl {z ∈ Rd | D(z) > α0 } .
H-lim Dαn = cl
n→∞

n=1

16

R. DYCKERHOFF

Thus, the mapping is right-continuous if and only if


cl {z ∈ Rd | D(z) > α0 } = Dα0


for each α0 ∈ 0, αmax (P ) , i.e., if the depth is strictly monotone for P .
Proof (of Theorem 4.1): We start with (i) =⇒ (ii). Let z ∈ Dα+ǫ ,
then D(z) ≥ α + ǫ. Since limn→∞ Dn (z) = D(z) for every ǫ > 0, there exists
an Nǫ ∈ N such that
| Dn (z) − D(z)| < ǫ for all n ≥ Nǫ .
This implies
Dn (z) > D(z) − ǫ ≥ α + ǫ − ǫ = α .
Thus, z ∈ Dnα for all n ≥ Nǫ and therefore z ∈ lim inf n→∞ Dnα . This shows
that
(1)

Dα+ǫ ⊂ lim inf Dnα
n→∞

for all ǫ > 0.

Now we assume that z ∈
/ Dα−ǫ , i.e., D(z) < α − ǫ. From (i) follows that
there exists Nǫ ∈ N, such that
| Dn (z) − D(z)| < ǫ for all n ≥ Nǫ .
Therefore,
Dn (z) < D(z) + ǫ < α − ǫ + ǫ = α .
Thus, z ∈ (Dnα )c for all n ≥ Nǫ , and therefore z ∈ lim inf n→∞ (Dnα )c =
(lim supn→∞ Dnα )c . From this follows
(2)

lim sup Dnα ⊂ Dα−ǫ
n→∞

for all ǫ > 0.

From the equations (1) and (2) follows
[
\
{z | D(z) > α} =
Dα+ǫ ⊂ lim inf Dnα ⊂ lim sup Dnα ⊂
Dα−ǫ = Dα ,
ǫ>0

n→∞

n→∞

ǫ>0

as was to be shown.
We now prove the direction (ii) =⇒ (i). Let z ∈ Rd such that D(z) = α.
We assume that the sequence (Dn (z))n∈N does not converge to α. Then
there is an ǫ > 0, such that | Dn (z) − D(z)| ≥ ǫ infinitely often. Thus we
have Dn (z) ≥ α + ǫ or Dn (z) ≤ α − ǫ for infinitely many n. In the first
case z ∈ lim supn→∞ Dα+ǫ . From (ii) follows z ∈ Dα+ǫ , i.e., D(z) ≥ α + ǫ in
contradiction to D(z) = α. In the second case z ∈ lim supn→∞ (Dα−ǫ/2 )c =

17

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

(lim inf n→∞ Dα−ǫ/2 )c . From (ii) follows z ∈
/ {x ∈ Rd | D(x) > α − ǫ/2}, i.e.,
D(z) ≤ α − ǫ/2, in contradiction to D(z) = α.
Proof (of Theorem 4.2): We show that (PtwD) implies that for every
α ∈ (0, αmax ) and for every M > 0 the equation
(3)

lim max{δ(x, Dnα ) | x ∈ Dα ∩B(0, M )} = 0

n→∞

as well as the equation
(4)

lim max{δ(x, Dα ) | x ∈ Dnα ∩B(0, M )} = 0

n→∞

hold. Since the trimmed regions Dnα are connected, it then follows from
Theorem B.2 that H-limn→∞ Dnα = Dα .
To show (3) we first show the slightly stronger assertion
(5)

lim max{δ(x, Dnα ) | x ∈ Dα } = 0 .

n→∞

Obviously, (5) implies (3). If (5) does not hold, then there exists ǫ > 0 and a
subsequence (xnk )k∈N with xnk ∈ Dα such that δ(xnk , Dnαk ) > ǫ for all k ∈ N.
Since Dα is compact, the sequence (xnk )k∈N has a convergent subsequence.
We therefore assume w.l.o.g. that the sequence (xnk ) itself is convergent with
limk→∞ xnk = x0 ∈ Dα . For sufficiently large k we have kx0 − xnk k < 2ǫ and
δ(x0 , Dnαk ) ≥ δ(xnk , Dnαk ) − kx0 − xnk k > ǫ −
i.e.,

ǫ
ǫ
= ,
2
2


ǫ
B x0 ,
∩ Dnαk = ∅ .
2
Since Dα is the closure of all points with depth greater than α, there exists
a point z ∈ B(x0 , 2ǫ ) with D(z) > α. It follows from Theorem 4.1 that
z ∈ lim inf n→∞ Dnα , i.e., the sets Dnα eventually contain z. On the other hand
z ∈
/ Dnαk for infinitely many k, contradiction. Thus, (5) and therefore also
(3) holds.
We now show that (4) holds for every M > 0. Assume that this is not the
case. Then there is an M > 0 and an ǫ > 0 as well as a sequence (xnk )k∈N
with kxnk k ≤ M such that xnk ∈ Dnαk and δ(xnk , Dα ) > ǫ for all k ∈ N. Since
the sequence (xnk )k∈N is bounded there is a convergent subsequence. Again,
we assume w.l.o.g. that the sequence itself is convergent to a point x0 . From
the continuity of the mapping x 7→ δ(x, Dα ) it follows that δ(x0 , Dα ) ≥ ǫ.
Since the interior of Dα is non-empty, we can choose d points z1 , . . . , zd in

18

R. DYCKERHOFF

int Dα in such a way that x0 and z1 , . . . , zd are in general position. It is easy
to show that limk→∞ xnk = x0 implies that
H-lim S[xnk , z1 , . . . , zd ] = S[x0 , z1 , . . . , zd ]
k→∞

where S[x0 , z1 , . . . , zd ] denotes the simplex generated by the points x0 , z1 , . . . ,
zd . Since D(zi ) > α for i = 1, . . . , d, (PtwD) implies that there exists N
such that Dn (zi ) ≥ α for i = 1, . . . , d and n ≥ N . Because of the convexity
of the trimmed regions we also have S[xnk , z1 , . . . , zd ] ⊂ Dnαk for all k with
nk ≥ N . Now, let z0 ∈ int S[x0 , z1 , . . . , zd ] \ Dα . Because of the Hausdorff
convergence of the simplices, it follows from Corollary B.1 that there is a
K ∈ N such that z0 ∈ Dnαk for k ≥ K. But then, z0 ∈ lim supn→∞ Dnα
in contradiction to z0 ∈
/ Dα . Thus, (4) has to be valid and the Hausdorff
convergence of the trimmed regions for α ∈ (0, αmax ) is shown.
To show the second part of the theorem we assume w.l.o.g. that Dnαmax 6= ∅
for all n ∈ N. According to Theorem 3.2 the mapping α 7→ Dα is left
continuous on (0, αmax ]. Thus, there is an ǫ > 0 and β < αmax , such that
δH (Dβ , Dαmax ) < 6ǫ . From what has already been proven there exists N ∈ N,
such that δH (Dnβ , Dβ ) < 6ǫ for all n ≥ N . Because of Dnαmax ⊂ Dnβ we have
δH (Dnαmax , Dnβ ) ≤ diam(Dnβ ). It is easy to show that δH (A, B) < ǫ implies
that diam(A) < diam(B) + 2ǫ. For n ≥ N we thus get
2
2
1
δH (Dnαmax , Dnβ ) ≤ diam(Dnβ ) < diam(Dβ ) + ǫ < diam(Dαmax ) + ǫ = ǫ ,
3
3
3
since the diameter of a singleton is equal to zero. Therefore,
δH (Dαmax , Dnαmax ) ≤ δH (Dαmax , Dβ ) + δH (Dβ , Dβn ) + δH (Dβn , Dnαmax ) < ǫ
{z
} |
|
{z
} |
{z
}
< 6ǫ

< 6ǫ

< 4ǫ
6

for all n ≥ N and H-limn→∞ Dnαmax = Dαmax is shown.
Proof (of Theorem 4.3): Because of Theorem 4.1 we just have to show
that for every α > 0 holds:
{z ∈ Rd | D(z) > α} ⊂ lim inf Dnα ⊂ lim sup Dnα ⊂ Dα .
n→∞

n→∞

We start to show {z ∈ Rd | D(z) > α} ⊂ lim inf n→∞ Dnα . If α ≥ αmax ,
then {z ∈ Rd | D(z) > α} is empty and the assertion is trivially satisfied.
If α < αmax and D(z) > α then because of the continuity of D( · | P ) the
point z lies in the interior of Dα . By assumption H-limn→∞ Dnα = Dα . From
Corollary B.1 then follows that there is an N such that z ∈ Dnα for all n ≥ N .
But then, z ∈ lim inf Dnα as well and {z ∈ Rd | D(z) > α} ⊂ lim inf n→∞ Dnα .

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

19

We next show lim supn→∞ Dnα ⊂ Dα . If α > αmax , then Dnα = ∅ for
n ≥ Nα . Thus, lim sup Dnα = ∅ and the assertion is satisfied. Now, let α ≤
αmax and D(z) < α. Then there is β with D(z) < β < α. Thus, z lies
in the complement of Dβ . Again, it follows from Corollary B.1 that there
is an N , such that z ∈
/ Dnβ for all n ≥ N . Thus, z ∈
/ lim sup Dnβ . Since
lim sup Dnα ⊂ lim sup Dnβ it follows that z ∈
/ lim sup Dnα and the assertion is
proved.
Proof (of Theorem 4.4): (i) =⇒ (ii) is trivial.
We show (ii) =⇒ (iii). Since every non-trivial depth assumes at least
two values, there is x0 ∈ Rd with α0 := D(x0 ) > 0. We show the assertion
w.l.o.g. for 0 < α < α0 and ǫ such that α−ǫ > 0 and α+ǫ < α0 . In that case
Dα−ǫ is bounded and there is a compact set M such that Dα−ǫ is contained
in the interior of M . Thus, there is Nǫ , such that
sup | Dn (x) − D(x)| ≤ ǫ
x∈M

for all n ≥ Nǫ .

Now let n ≥ Nǫ and x ∈ Dβ+ǫ with β ≥ α. Then, x ∈ M and it holds
| Dn (x) − D(x)| ≤ ǫ .
In particular,
Dn (x) ≥ D(x) − ǫ ≥ (β + ǫ) − ǫ = β ,
i.e., x ∈ Dnβ . Therefore, it is shown that Dβ+ǫ ⊂ Dβn for all n ≥ Nǫ and
β ≥ α.
In the following let n ≥ Nǫ . To show that Dnβ ⊂ Dβ−ǫ for all β ≥ α, first
note that
Dn (x) ≤ D(x) + ǫ for all x ∈ M .
For x ∈ M \ Dα−ǫ then holds
Dn (x) ≤ D(x) + ǫ < (α − ǫ) + ǫ = α
and therefore M \ Dα−ǫ ⊂ (Dnα )c . The trimmed regions are star-shaped and
therefore connected. Thus, Dnα is either a subset of Dα−ǫ or a subset of M c .
Assume that Dnα ⊂ M c . From the choice of α it is clear that x0 ∈ Dα+ǫ and
because of Dα+ǫ ⊂ Dnα we have
x0 ∈ Dα+ǫ ⊂ Dnα ⊂ M c ⊂ (Dα−ǫ )c ,
i.e., D(x0 ) < α − ǫ < α0 , contradiction. Thus, Dαn ⊂ Dα−ǫ for all n ≥ Nǫ .
Now let β ≥ α. Then, Dnβ ⊂ Dnα ⊂ Dα−ǫ ⊂ M . If x ∈ Dnβ , then
D(x) ≥ Dn (x) − ǫ ≥ β − ǫ ,

20

R. DYCKERHOFF

i.e., x ∈ Dβ−ǫ . Thus, it is shown that Dnβ ⊂ Dβ−ǫ for all n ≥ Nǫ and β ≥ α.
All in all we get
Dβ+ǫ ⊂ Dnβ ⊂ Dβ−ǫ

for all n ≥ Nǫ and β ≥ α,

as stated.
(iii) =⇒ (iv) is again trivial.
We now show (iv) =⇒ (i). We have to show that for every ǫ > 0 there
exists Nǫ , such that
sup | Dn (x) − D(x) | ≤ ǫ

for all n ≥ Nǫ .

x∈Rd

Let ǫ > 0 be given. We choose A = [ǫ/4, αmax − ǫ/4]. According to (iv) there
exists N ∈ N, such that
(6)

Dβ+ 4ǫ ⊂ Dnβ ⊂ Dβ− 4ǫ

for all n ≥ N and β ∈ A,

and Dnαmax + ǫ = ∅ for all n ≥ N . In the following let n ≥ N .
4
Case 1: If x ∈ D 2ǫ , then D(x) =: γ ≥ 2ǫ . Thus, x ∈ Dγ and because of
the assumption also x ∈ Dnγ− ǫ . Therefore,
4

Dn (x) ≥ γ −

ǫ
ǫ
= D(x) − .
4
4

To bound Dn (x) from above we distinguish two cases:
/ Dγ+ 4ǫ , that x ∈
/ Dnγ+ ǫ .
Case 1a: If γ < αmax − 34 ǫ, it follows from x ∈
2
From this follows
ǫ
ǫ
Dn (x) < γ + = D(x) + .
2
2
Case 1b: If γ ≥ αmax − 34 ǫ, then γ + ǫ ≥ αmax +
= ∅. It follows that

Dnαmax + ǫ
4

ǫ
4

and thus Dnγ+ǫ ⊂

Dn (x) < γ + ǫ = D(x) + ǫ .
From Case 1 together with Cases 1a and 1b it follows
D(x) −

ǫ
≤ Dn (x) < D(x) + ǫ
4

for all x ∈ D 2ǫ

and therefore also
sup | Dn (x) − D(x) | ≤ ǫ .
x∈D ǫ

2

21

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

Case 2: If x ∈
/ D 2ǫ , then D(x) < 2ǫ . Further, with β = ǫ/4 it follows from
/ Dn3ǫ , i.e., Dn (x) < 3ǫ
equation (6) that x ∈
4 . From this we conclude
4

| Dn (x) − D(x) | <

3ǫ
4

for all x ∈
/ D 2ǫ .

and
sup | Dn (x) − D(x) | ≤
x∈D
/ ǫ

3ǫ
.
4

2

From the two cases we finally get
sup | Dn (x) − D(x) | ≤ ǫ

for all n ≥ N ,

x∈Rd

as was to be shown.
Proof (of Theorem 4.5): Let [α1 , α2 ] ⊂ (0, αmax ) and ǫ > 0. Because
of the strict monotonicity the mapping α 7→ Dα is continuous. Since every
continuous function on a compact set is uniformly continuous, this mapping
is uniformly continuous on [α1 /2, αmax ]. Thus, there exists γ > 0, such that
δH (Dβ1 , Dβ2 ) <

ǫ
2

for all β1 , β2 ∈ [α1 /2, αmax ] with |β1 − β2 | ≤ 2γ.

Assume w.l.o.g. that γ is so small, that γ < α1 /2 and α2 ≤ αmax − γ. Then
it follows that
δH (Dβ−γ , Dβ+γ ) <

ǫ
2

for all β ∈ [α1 , αmax − γ].

If (ComD) is satisfied then it follows from Theorem 4.4, Part (iii), that
there exists N ∈ N, such that
Dβ+γ ⊂ Dnβ ⊂ Dβ−γ

for all n ≥ N and β ≥ α1 .

Trivially, Dβ+γ ⊂ Dβ ⊂ Dβ−γ holds as well. Thus, for every n ≥ N and
β ∈ [α1 , αmax − γ]:
δH (Dnβ , Dβ ) ≤ δH (Dβ+γ , Dβ−γ ) <
Therefore,
sup
α1 ≤β≤α2

which implies (ComR).

δH (Dnβ , Dβ ) ≤

ǫ
2

ǫ
.
2

for all n ≥ N ,

22

R. DYCKERHOFF

For proving the second part of the Theorem, note that Dβ+γ will be empty,
when β > αmax − γ. Thus, for β ∈ (αmax −γ , αmax ] we only have
Dnβ ⊂ Dβ−γ

for all n ≥ N .

Trivially, Dβ ⊂ Dβ−γ holds as well. Now, if Dαmax is a singleton, i.e., Dαmax =
{x0 }, then
ǫ
δH (Dnβ , Dβ ) ≤ δH (Dnβ , Dαmax ) + δH (Dαmax , Dβ ) < δH (Dnβ , {x0 }) +
2
ǫ
ǫ
= maxn kx − x0 k + ≤ max kx − x0 k +
x∈Dβ
2 x∈Dβ−γ
2
ǫ
ǫ
ǫ
= δH (Dβ−γ , {x0 }) + < + = ǫ ,
2
2 2
and the proof is finished.
Proof (of Theorem 4.6): We show that (ComR) together with (RC)
implies Condition (iv) in Theorem 4.4. Thus, we have to show that for each
ǫ > 0 and every compact interval A ⊂ (0, αmax ) there exists NA,ǫ ∈ N, such
that
Dα+ǫ ⊂ Dnα ⊂ Dα−ǫ for all n ≥ NA,ǫ and α ∈ A.
Let A = [α1 , α2 ] and ǫ be given. We assume w.l.o.g. that ǫ < α1 and
ǫ < αmax − α2 . Since a continuous function, defined on a compact set, is
uniformly continuous and since Dα1 −ǫ is compact, the mapping z 7→ D(z | P )
is uniformly continuous on Dα1 −ǫ . Thus, there is γ > 0, such that
| D(x) − D(y)| < ǫ

for all x, y ∈ Dα1 −ǫ with kx − yk < δ.

Further,
min

x∈∂ Dα−ǫ ,y∈∂ Dα

kx − yk ≥ γ

for all α ∈ [α1 , αmax ].

This holds because if the above equation was not satisfied then there was
x ∈ ∂ Dα−ǫ and y ∈ ∂ Dα such that kx − yk < γ. Since D( · | P ) is continuous
this would imply D(x) = α − ǫ and D(y) = α. Therefore we would get
| D(x) − D(y)| = D(y) − D(x) = α − (α − ǫ) = ǫ
in contradiction to the uniform continuity.
Now, choose NA,ǫ so large that δH (Dnα , Dα ) < γ for all n ≥ NA,ǫ and
α ∈ A. Since the trimmed regions are convex it follows from Proposition B.3
in the Appendix that
Dα+ǫ ⊂ Dnα ⊂ Dα−ǫ

for all n ≥ NA,ǫ and α ∈ A,

23

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

as was to be shown.
In the proofs of Theorems 4.7 and 4.8 we make use of another notion of
convergence, the so-called continuous convergence.
Definition A.1. Let (X, ρX ) and (Y, ρY ) be metric spaces. A sequence
(fn )n∈N of mappings from X to Y is said to converge continuously to f if
for each x ∈ X and for each sequence (xn )n∈N such that limn→∞ xn = x we
have limn→∞ fn (xn ) = f (x).
The following well-known result that connects continuous convergence
and compact convergence will be useful in the proofs of Theorems 4.7 and
4.8.
Proposition A.1. Let (X, ρX ) and (Y, ρY ) be metric spaces and (fn )n∈N
be a sequence of functions from X to Y .
(i) If fn converges continuously to f , then f is continuous.
(ii) If the sequence (fn ) converges continuously to f , then (fn ) is compact
convergent to f .
(iii) Let X be locally compact. If the sequence (fn ) is compact convergent
to f and f is continuous, then (fn ) converges continuously to f .
Proof (of Theorem 4.7): We show that under the given assumptions
the sequence of mappings α 7→ Dnα ,n ∈ N, is continuous convergent to the
mapping α 7→ Dα , i.e., for every sequence (αn ) that is convergent to α0 it
holds that H-limn→∞ Dnαn = Dα . From Proposition A.1 above it then follows
that the trimmed regions are compact convergent.
First assume that 0 < α0 < αmax . Because of the strict monotonicity it
follows from Theorem 3.2 that the mapping α 7→ Dα is continuous. Thus,
there is γ > 0 such that δH (Dα0 −γ , Dα0 +γ ) < ǫ/5. Further, from the pointwise convergence of the trimmed regions it follows that there is an N1 ∈ N
such that δH (Dα0 −γ , Dnα0 −γ ) < ǫ/5 and δH (Dα0 +γ , Dnα0 +γ ) < ǫ/5 for all
n ≥ N1 . We conclude that for n ≥ N1
δH (Dnα0 −γ , Dnα0 +γ ) ≤ δH (Dnα0 −γ , Dα0 −γ )
+ δH (Dα0 −γ , Dα0 +γ ) + δH (Dα0 +γ , Dnα0 +γ ) <

3ǫ
.
5

Since (αn ) converges to α0 there is an N2 ∈ N such that |αn − α0 | < γ. For
n ≥ N2 the trimmed region Dnαn lies between Dnα0 −γ and Dnα0 +γ . Therefore
δH (Dnαn , Dnα0 −γ ) ≤ δH (Dnα0 +γ , Dnα0 −γ ) ≤

3ǫ
5

24

R. DYCKERHOFF

for n ≥ N2 . From this follows that for n ≥ max{N1 , N2 }
δH (Dnαn , Dα0 ) ≤ δH (Dnαn , Dnα0 −γ )+δH (Dnα0 −γ , Dα0 −γ )+δH (Dα0 −γ , Dα0 ) < ǫ .
Now assume that α0 = αmax and Dα0 = {x0 } is a singleton. As above there is
γ > 0 and N1 ∈ N such that δH (Dα0 , Dα0 −γ ) < ǫ/2 and δH (Dα0 −γ , Dnα0 −γ ) <
ǫ/2 for n ≥ N1 . Choose N2 ∈ N such that αn > α0 − γ. Then, for n ≥ N2
the trimmed region Dnαn is contained in Dnα0 −γ . For n ≥ max{N1 , N2 } we
thus get
δH (Dnαn , Dα0 ) ≤ δH (Dnα0 −γ , Dα0 ) ≤ δH (Dnα0 −γ , Dα0 −γ ) + δH (Dα0 −γ , Dα0 ) < ǫ
and the second part of the theorem is proved.
Proof (of Theorem 4.8): We show that under the assumptions the
sequence (Dn )n∈N is continuous convergent to D, i.e., for every sequence
(zn ) that is convergent to z0 it holds that limn→∞ Dn (zn ) = D(z0 ). From
Proposition A.1 above it then follows that (Dn ) is compact and thus uniform
convergent to D.
We start with showing that for every ǫ > 0 there is an N ∈ N such that
D n (zn ) ≥ D(z0 ) − ǫ for all n ≥ N . Let D(z0 ) = α. Since D is continuous,
z0 ∈ int Dα−ǫ/4 . Then, there is γ > 0 such that B(z0 , γ) ⊂ int Dα−ǫ/2 . Choose
d + 1 points x1 , . . . , xd+1 ∈ B(z0 , γ) such that z0 ∈ int S[x1 , . . . , xd+1 ], where
S[x1 , . . . , xd+1 ] denotes the simplex generated by x1 , . . . , xd+1 .
From D(xi ) ≥ α − 2ǫ , i = 1, . . . , d + 1, and the pointwise convergence of
the depths it follows that there exists N1 ∈ N such that Dn (xi ) ≥ α − ǫ
for all n ≥ N1 and i = 1, . . . , d + 1. For n ≥ N1 we thus have xi ∈ Dnα− ǫ ,
2
i = 1, . . . , d + 1. Since the trimmed regions of D are convex it follows that
S[x1 , . . . , xd+1 ] ⊂ Dnα−ǫ for n ≥ N1 . Now, because of z0 ∈ int S[x1 , . . . , xd+1 ]
there is N2 ∈ N, such that zn ∈ S[x1 , . . . , xd+1 ] for all n ≥ N2 . For n ≥
max{N1 , N2 } we therefore have zn ∈ Dnα−ǫ , i.e., Dn (zn ) ≥ D(z0 ) − ǫ.
It remains to show that there exists N ∈ N such that D n (zn ) ≤ D(z0 ) + ǫ
for all n ≥ N . Assume the contrary. Then there is a subsequence (nk )k∈N ,
such that
Dnk (znk ) > D(z0 ) + ǫ = α + ǫ for all k ∈ N.
For α = αmax this is a contradiction to (RC). If α < αmax we assume w.l.o.g.
that α + ǫ < αmax . Since the trimmed regions are closed, their complements
are open. Thus, there is γ > 0 such that B(z0 , γ) ∩ Dα+ǫ = ∅. For β with
α+ǫ < β < αmax the trimmed region Dβ is larger than Dαmax and the interior
of Dβ is non-empty. Choose d points x1 , . . . , xd ∈ Dβ such that z0 , x1 , . . . , xd
are in general position. Because of pointwise convergence there exists K1 ∈ N
such that Dnk (xi ) > α + ǫ for k ≥ K1 and i = 1, . . . , d. From the convexity

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

25

k
for k ≥ K1 .
of the trimmed regions it follows that S[znk , x1 , . . . , xd ] ⊂ Dnα+ǫ
It is easy to show that

H-lim S[znk , x1 , . . . , xd ] = S[z0 , x1 , . . . , xd ] .
k→∞

Since int S[z0 , x1 , . . . , xd ] ∩ B(z0 , γ) is non-empty there exists z ∗ ∈
int S[z0 , x1 , . . . , xd ] ∩ B(z0 , γ). Because of the Hausdorff convergence of the
simplices it follows from Corollary B.1 that there is K2 ∈ N such that
z ∗ ∈ S[znk , x1 , . . . , xd ] for all k ≥ K2 . Thus, Dnk (z ∗ ) ≥ α + ǫ for k ≥
K = max{K1 , K2 }. From pointwise convergence of the depth it follows
D(z ∗ ) ≥ α + ǫ in contradiction to B(z0 , γ) ∩ Dα+ 2ǫ = ∅. Thus, the proof
is finished.
APPENDIX B: HAUSDORFF-CONVERGENCE
In this section we state the definition of Hausdorff convergence as well as
some important facts on this notion of convergence. Detailed studies of the
notion of Hausdorff convergence can be found, e.g., in Klein and Thompson
(1984) and Beer (1993).
The Euclidean distance between two points x, y ∈ Rd is given by δ(x, y) =
kx − yk. The distance between a point x ∈ Rd and a set A ⊂ Rd can then be
defined by δ(x, A) = inf y∈A δ(x, y). If A is closed one can write min instead
of inf. The set of all non-empty compact subsets of Rd is denoted by K0d .
Definition B.1 (Hausdorff distance).
distance δH (A, B) is defined by

For A, B ∈ K0d the Hausdorff

δH (A, B) = max{max δ(x, B), max δ(x, A)} .
x∈A

x∈B

For A ⊂ Rd and ǫS> 0 the ǫ-neighborhood Uǫ (A) is given by Uǫ (A) = {x ∈
< ǫ} = x∈A B(x, ǫ). With this notation an equivalent definition
of the Hausdorff distance is δH (A, B) = inf{ ǫ > 0 | A ⊂ Uǫ (B), B ⊂ Uǫ (A)}.
If one of the sets is a singleton, then δH ({x0 }, A) = maxx∈A δ(x, x0 ).
If A1 ⊂ B ⊂ A2 then δH (A1 , B) ≤ δH (A1 , A2 ) as well as δH (B, A2 ) ≤
δH (A1 , A2 ). If A1 ⊂ Bi ⊂ A2 , i = 1, 2, then δH (B1 , B2 ) ≤ δH (A1 , A2 ).
The Hausdorff distance is a metric on K0d . Thus, the pair (K0d , δH ) is a
metric space. Therefore it is possible to define convergence of compact sets
in the Hausdorff metric or short Hausdorff convergence.
Rd | δ(x, A)

Definition B.2 (Hausdorff convergence). Let (Kn )n∈N be a sequence
of non-empty compact subsets of Rd . The sequence (Kn )n∈N is said to be
Hausdorff convergent to a set K ∈ K0d , if limn→∞ δH (Kn , K) = 0. In this
case we write H-limn→∞ Kn = K.

26

R. DYCKERHOFF

Proposition B.1. If a sequence (Kn )n∈N is decreasing, i.e., K1T⊃ K2 ⊃
. . . , then the Hausdorff limit exists and is given by H-limn→∞ Kn = ∞
n=1 Kn .
If a sequence (Kn )n∈N is increasing, i.e., K1 ⊂ K2 ⊂ . . . , and the
union of the sets is bounded,
then the Hausdorff limit exists and is given
S
by H-limn→∞ Kn = cl( ∞
K
n=1 n ).
If the sets Kn , n ∈ N, are connected then the following criteria is useful.

Proposition B.2. Let (Kn )n∈N be sequence of connected sets in K0d and
let K ∈ K0d . If for each M > 0 it holds that
lim max{δ(x, Kn ) | x ∈ K ∩ B(0, M )} = 0

n→∞

and
lim max{δ(x, K) | x ∈ Kn ∩ B(0, M )} = 0 ,

n→∞

then H-limn→∞ Kn = K.
The following proposition and its corollary show that for convex sets Hausdorff convergence behaves nicely.
Proposition B.3.
and

If A1 , A2 are convex sets in K0d such that A1 ⊂ A2
min

x∈∂A1 ,y∈∂A2

δ(x, y) = γ > 0 ,

then for every convex set B ∈ K0d holds
δH (B, A1 ) ≤ γ =⇒ B ⊂ A2 ,
δH (B, A2 ) ≤ γ =⇒ A1 ⊂ B .
Corollary B.1. Let (Kn )n∈N be a sequence of convex sets in K0d with
H-limn→∞ Kn = K, where K is a convex set in K0d . Then the following
assertions hold:
(i) For every x ∈ int K there is an N ∈ N, such that x ∈ Kn for all
n ≥ N.
(ii) For every x ∈ K c there is an N ∈ N, such that x ∈
/ Kn for all n ≥ N.
(iii) int K ⊂ lim inf n→∞ Kn ⊂ lim supn→∞ Kn ⊂ K.

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

27

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplement to “Convergence of depths and depth-trimmed regions” The supplement contains some examples that show that without
the assumption ‘strictly monotone for P ’ Theorems 4.2, 4.5, and 4.7 are in
general false, and without the assumption ‘continuous for P ’ Theorems 4.3,
4.6, and 4.8 are in general false.
References.
Barnett, V. (1976). The ordering of multivariate data. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Series A 139 318–352. With Discussion.
Beer, G. (1993). Topologies on Closed and Closed Convex Sets. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Cascos, I. and López-Dı́az, M. (2008). Consistency of the α-trimming of a probability.
Applications to central regions. Bernoulli 14 580–592.
Cascos, I. and López-Dı́az, M. (2016). On the uniform consistency of the zonoid depth.
Journal of Multivariate Analysis 143 394–397.
Cascos, I. and Molchanov, I. (2007). Multivariate risks and depth-trimmed regions.
Finance and Stochastics 11 373–397.
Cramer, K. (2003). Multivariate Ausreißer und Datentiefe. Shaker, Aachen.
Donoho, D. (1982). Breakdown properties of multivariate location estimators Ph.D. Qualifying Paper, Harvard University.
Donoho, D. L. and Gasko, M. (1992). Breakdown properties of location estimators based
on halfspace depth and projected outlyingness. Annals of Statistics 20 1803–1827.
Dümbgen, L. (1992). Limit theorems for the simplicial depth. Statistics & Probability
Letters 14 119–128.
Dyckerhoff, R. (2002). Inference based on data depth. In Multivariate Dispersion, Central Regions and Depth: The Lift Zonoid Approach (K. Mosler, ed.) 5, 133–163. Springer,
New York.
Dyckerhoff, R. (2004). Data depths satisfying the projection property. Allgemeines
Statistisches Archiv 88 163–190.
Dyckerhoff, R. (2017). Supplement to “Convergence of depths and depth-trimmed regions”. Unpublished manuscript.
Dyckerhoff, R. and Mosler, K. (2011). Weighted-mean trimming of multivariate data.
Journal of Multivariate Analysis 102 405–421.
Dyckerhoff, R. and Mosler, K. (2012). Weighted-mean regions of a probability distribution. Statistics & Probability Letters 82 318–325.
Eddy, W. F. (1985). Ordering of multivariate data. In Compute Science and Statistics:
Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on the Interface (L. Billard, ed.) 25–30. NorthHolland, Amsterdam.
He, X. and Wang, G. (1997). Convergence of depth contours for multivariate datasets.
Annals of Statistics 25 495–504.
Hoberg, R. (2000). Cluster analysis based on data depth. In Data Analysis, Classification
and Related Methods (H. Kiers, J. P. Rasson, P. Groenen and M. Schader, eds.)
17–22. Springer, Berlin.
Hoberg, R. (2003). Clusteranalyse, Klassifikation und Datentiefe. Eul, Lohmar.
Kim, J. (2000). Rate of convergence of depth contours: with application to a multivariate
metrically trimmed mean. Statistics & Probability Letters 49 393–400.
Klein, E. and Thompson, A. C. (1984). Theory of Correspondences. Wiley, New York.

28

R. DYCKERHOFF

Koshevoy, G. and Mosler, K. (1997). Zonoid trimming for multivariate distributions.
Annals of Statistics 25 1998–2017.
Lange, T., Mosler, K. and Mozharovskyi, P. (2014). Fast nonparametric classification
based on data depth. Statistical Papers 55 49–69.
Liu, R. Y. (1988). On a notion of simplicial depth. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the USA 85 1732–1734.
Liu, R. Y. (1990). On a notion of data depth based on random simplices. Annals of
Statistics 18 405–414.
Liu, R. Y. (1992). Data depth and multivariate rank tests. In L1 -Statistical Analysis and
Related Methods (Y. Dodge, ed.) North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Liu, R. Y. (1995). Control charts for multivariate processes. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 90 1380–1387.
Liu, R. Y., Parelius, J. M. and Singh, K. (1999). Multivariate analysis by data depth:
Descriptive statistics, graphics and inference. Annals of Statistics 27 783–858.
Liu, R. Y. and Singh, K. (1993). A quality index based on data depth and multivariate
rank tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88 252–260.
Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Procedings of the
National Academy of India 12 49–55.
Massé, J.-C. (2002). Asymptotics for the Tukey median. Journal of Multivariate Analysis
81 286–300.
Massé, J.-C. (2004). Asymptotics for the Tukey depth process, with an application to a
multivariate trimmed mean. Bernoulli 10 397–419.
Massé, J. C. and Theodorescu, R. (1994). Halfplane trimming for bivariate distributions. The American Statistician 48 188–202.
Mosler, K. (2002). Multivariate Dispersion, Central Regions and Depth. Springer, New
York.
Mosler, K. and Bazovkin, P. (2014). Stochastic linear programming with a distortion
risk constraint. OR Spectrum 36 949–969.
Mosler, K. and Hoberg, R. (2006). Data analysis and classification with the zonoid
depth. In Data Depth: Robust Multivariate Analysis, Computational Geometry and Applications (R. Liu, R. Serfling and D. Souvaine, eds.) 49–59. American Mathematical
Society, Providence RI.
Nolan, D. (1992). Asymptotics for multivariate trimming. Stochastic Processes and Their
Applications 42 157–169.
Rousseeuw, P. J. and Ruts, I. (1999). The depth function of a population distribution.
Metrika 49 213–244.
Serfling, R. (2002a). Generalized quantile processes based on multivariate depth functions, with applications in nonparametric multivariate analysis. Journal of Multivariate
Analysis 83 232–247.
Serfling, R. (2002b). Quantile functions for multivariate analysis: approaches and applications. Statistica Neerlandica 56 214–232.
Singh, K. (1991). A notion of majority depth Technical Report, Rutgers University, Department of Statistics.
Stahel, W. A. (1981). Robuste Schätzungen: Infinitesimale Optimalität und Schätzungen
von Kovarianzmatrizen PhD thesis, ETH Zürich.
Tukey, J. W. (1975). Mathematics and picturing data. In Proceedings of the 1974 International Congress of Mathematicians, Vancouver (R. James, ed.) 2 523–531.
Yeh, A. B. and Singh, K. (1997). Balanced confidence regions based on Tukey‘s depth
and the bootstrap. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 59 639–652.
Zuo, Y. (2003). Projection based depth functions and associated medians. Annals of

CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS

29

Statistics 31 1460–1490.
Zuo, Y. (2006). Multidimensional trimming based on projection depth. Annals of Statistics 34 2211-2251.
Zuo, Y. and Serfling, R. (2000a). General notions of statistical depth function. Annals
of Statistics 28 461–482.
Zuo, Y. and Serfling, R. (2000b). Structural properties and convergence results for
contours of sample statistical depth functions. Annals of Statistics 28 483–499.
Institute of Econometrics and Statistics
University of Cologne
Albertus-Magnus-Platz
50923 Cologne
Germany
E-mail: rainer.dyckerhoff@statistik.uni-koeln.de
URL: http://www.wisostat.uni-koeln.de/institut/professoren/dyckerhoff/

arXiv:1611.08721v2 [] 12 Apr 2017

SUPPLEMENT TO “CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS AND
DEPTH-TRIMMED REGIONS”
By Rainer Dyckerhoff
University of Cologne∗

1. Introduction. In this supplement we present some examples to show
that
(i) without the assumption ‘strictly monotone for P ’ Theorems 4.2, 4.5,
and 4.7 are in general false,
(ii) without the assumption ‘continuous for P ’ Theorems 4.3, 4.6, and 4.8
are in general false.
2. Examples.
Example 2.1 (’Strict monotonicity’
is needed in Theorems 4.2 and 4.5).

Let Q1 = U [−3, −2] ∪ [2, 3] be the uniform distribution on the
 union of
the two intervals [−3, −2] and [3, 2]. Let further Q2 = U [−1, 1] . Now, for
n ∈ N let




(−1)n
1
(−1)n
1
1+
Q1 +
1−
Q2
Pn =
2
n
2
n
and finally

1
1
P0 = Q1 + Q2 .
2
2


The following figure shows the functions x 7→ P0 (−∞, x] , x 7→ P0 [x, ∞)
as well as the halfspace depth (in blue),

x 7→ HD(x | P0 ) = min{P0 (−∞, x]), P0 ([x, ∞) } .
P0 [x, ∞)

 1.00


P0 (−∞, x]

0.75
0.50
HD(x | P0 )
0.25
x
−3

−2

−1

1

1

2

3

2

R. DYCKERHOFF

Note, that the halfspace depth is not strictly monotone for P0 , since


1
.
HD 1 (P0 ) = [−2, 2] 6= [−1, 1] = cl z ∈ R | HD(z | P0 ) >
4
4
In the following figure the halfspace depth w.r.t. P0 (blue line) as well as the
halfspace depths w.r.t. P9 (red line below blue line) and P10 (red line above
blue line) are drawn.
0.50
HD(x | P10 )
0.25
HD(x | P9 )

x
−3

−2

−1

1

2

3

It is easy to see that
HD(z | Pn ) ≤ HD(z | P0 ) for all z, if n is odd,
HD(z | Pn ) ≥ HD(z | P0 ) for all z, if n is even.
Further,
sup HD(z | Pn ) − HD(z | P0 ) =
z∈R

1
.
4n

Therefore,
lim sup HD(z | Pn ) − HD(z | P0 ) = 0 ,

n→∞ z∈R

i.e., (UniD) and a-fortiori (ComD) and (PtwD) hold.
On the other hand we have
1
HD(1 | Pn ) = HD(2 | Pn ) < = HD(2 | P0 ) if n is odd,
4
1
HD(1 | Pn ) = HD(2 | Pn ) > = HD(2 | P0 ) if n is even.
4
Therefore and because of symmetry of the depth functions, for m odd and n
even holds
HD0.25 (Pm ) ⊂ (−1, 1) ⊂ HD0.25 (P0 ) = [−2, 2] ⊂ HD0.25 (Pn ) .
This shows that although the depth functions converge uniformly, the trimmed
regions HD0.25 (Pn ) do not converge, neither in the Hausdorff sense nor in
the set-theoretic sense. Thus, neither (ComR) nor (PtwR) hold. In other
words, without the assumption of ’strict monotonicity for P ’, Theorems 4.2
and 4.5 do in general not hold.

3

SUPPLEMENT TO ”CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS”

Example 2.2 (’Strict monotonicity’ is needed in Theorem 4.7). This
example is similar to the previous one with the main difference that
 the
n is missing. So, let Q = U [−3, −2] ∪ [2, 3] and
alternating term
(−1)
1

Q2 = U [−1, 1] as in Example 2.1. Now, for n ∈ N let




1
1
1
1
Pn =
1+
Q1 +
1−
Q2
2
n
2
n
and finally P0 = 21 Q1 + 12 Q2 as in Example 2.1. In the following figure the
halfspace depth w.r.t. P0 (blue line) as well as the halfspace depth w.r.t. P10
(red line above blue line) are shown.
0.50
HD(x | P10 )
0.25

HD(x | P0 )

x
−3

−2

−1

1

2

3

As was shown in Example 2.1, the halfspace depth is not strictly monotone
for P0 .
Since in this example the depth function w.r.t. Pn lies always above the
depth function w.r.t. P0 , the oscillating behavior of the trimmed regions
HD0.25 (Pn ) in the previous example does not occur. Instead, for each α
(even for α = 0.25) the trimmed regions HDα (Pn ) converge to HDα (P0 )
in the Hausdorff metric. Therefore (PtwR) holds.
However, (ComR) does not hold. This can be seen as follows. For n
arbitrarily, choose αn such that


1
1
1
< αn <
1+
.
4
4
n
Then,


1
1
1
HD(1 | P0 ) = < αn <
1+
= HD(2 | Pn ) .
4
4
n
Therefore and because of symmetry of the depth function,
HDαn (P0 ) ⊂ (−1, 1) ⊂ [−2, 2] ⊂ HDαn (Pn ) .

This shows that δH HDαn (Pn ), HDαn (P0 ) ≥ 1. Since this holds for every
n, it follows

sup δH Dα (Pn ), Dα (P0 ) ≥ 1 for all n,
α∈[0.1,0.5]

4

R. DYCKERHOFF


i.e., there is a compact interval A ⊂ 0, αmax (P0 ) on which the trimmed
regions do not converge uniformly. In other words, without the assumption
of ’strict monotonicity for P ’, (PtwR) does not imply (ComR) and thus,
Theorem 4.7 does in general not hold.
Example 2.3 (’Continuity’ is needed in Theorems 4.3 and 4.6). For
n ∈ N0 define
(
n
1 + (−1)
, if n ∈ N,
n+1
an =
1
if n = 0.

Now, let Q1,n = U [−2, −an ] ∪ [an , 2] be the uniform distribution
on the

union of the intervals [−2, −an ] and [an , 2], Q2,n = U [−an , an ] and Q3,n =
0.5ǫ−an + 0.5ǫan , where ǫx denotes the one-point measure on x. For n ∈ N0
consider the probability measures
Pn = 0.3 Q1,n + 0.3 Q2,n + 0.4 Q3,n .


The following figure shows the functions x 7→ P0 (−∞, x] , x 7→ P0 [x, ∞)
as well as the halfspace depth (in blue),

x 7→ HD(x | P0 ) = min{P0 (−∞, x]), P0 ([x, ∞) } .
P0 [x, ∞)

1
0.85




P0 (−∞, x]

0.65
0.35
HD(x | P0 )

0.15

x
−2

−1

1

2

Obviously, the halfspace depth is not continuous for P0 .
In the following figure the halfspace depth w.r.t. P0 (blue line) as well as
the halfspace depths w.r.t. P8 (red line above blue line) and P9 (red line below
blue line) are drawn.
0.5
0.35

0.15

HD(x | P8 )
HD(x | P9 )
x

−2

−1

1

2

5

SUPPLEMENT TO ”CONVERGENCE OF DEPTHS”

It is easy to see that
HD(z | Pn ) ≤ HD(x | P0 ) for all z, if n is odd,
HD(z | Pn ) ≥ HD(x | P0 ) for all z, if n is even.
Further,
sup
α∈[0,1/2]

Therefore,
lim


δH Dα (Pn ), Dα (P0 ) =

sup

n→∞ α∈[0,1/2]

1
.
n+1


δH Dα (Pn ), Dα (P0 ) = 0 ,

i.e., (ComR) and a-fortiori (PtwR) hold.
On the other hand we have

HD(1 | Pm ) < 0.15 = lim HD(x | P0 ) < HD(1 | P0 ) = 0.35 < HD(1 | Pn )
xց1

for m odd and n even. This shows that although the trimmed regions converge
uniformly, the depth functions HD(x | Pn ) do not converge for x = 1. Thus,
neither (UniD) nor (PtwD) hold. In other words, without the assumption
of ’continuity for P ’, Theorems 4.3 and 4.6 do in general not hold.
Example 2.4 (’Continuity’ is needed in Theorem 4.8). This example
is similar to the previous one with the main difference that the alternating
term (−1)n is missing. So, for n ∈ N0 let
(
1
, if n ∈ N,
1 + n+1
an =
1
if n = 0.


Define Q1,n = U [−2, −an ] ∪ [an , 2] , Q2,n = U [−an , an ] and Q3,n =
0.5ǫ−an + 0.5ǫan as in Example 2.3. Finally, for n ∈ N0 consider the probability measures
Pn = 0.3 Q1,n + 0.3 Q2,n + 0.4 Q3,n .
As in Example 2.3, the halfspace depth is not continuous for P0 .
In the following figure the halfspace depth w.r.t. P0 (blue line) as well as
the halfspace depth w.r.t. P8 (red line above blue line) are shown.

0.35

0.15

HD(x | P8 )
HD(x | P0 )
x

−2

−1

1

2

6

R. DYCKERHOFF

Since in this example the depth function w.r.t. Pn lies always above the
depth function w.r.t. P , the oscillating behavior of the depth HD(1 | Pn ) in
the previous example does not occur. Instead, for each x (even for x = ±1)
the depth HD(x | Pn ) converges to HD(x | P0 ). Therefore, (PtwD) holds.
However, (UniD) does not hold. This can be seen as follows. For n arbitrarily, choose xn such that 1 < xn < an . Since xn lies between the jumps
of HD(x | P0 ) and HD(x | Pn ) it follows
HD(xn | P0 ) < 0.15 < 0.35 < HD(xn | Pn ) .
This shows that |HD(xn | P0 ) − HD(xn | Pn )| > 0.2. Since this holds for every
n, it holds
sup |HD(z | P0 ) − HD(z | Pn )| > 0.2

for all n,

z∈R

i.e., the depth functions do not converge uniformly. In other words, without
the assumption of ’continuity for P ’, (PtwD) does not imply (UniD) and
thus, Theorem 4.8 does in general not hold.
Institute of Econometrics and Statistics
University of Cologne
Albertus-Magnus-Platz
50923 Cologne
Germany
E-mail: rainer.dyckerhoff@statistik.uni-koeln.de
URL: http://www.wisostat.uni-koeln.de/institut/professoren/dyckerhoff/

