arXiv:1603.09145v1 [] 30 Mar 2016

The Annals of Statistics
2016, Vol. 44, No. 2, 598–628
DOI: 10.1214/15-AOS1378
c Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2016

LARGE SAMPLE BEHAVIOUR OF HIGH DIMENSIONAL
AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES
By Monika Bhattacharjee and Arup Bose1
Indian Statistical Institute
The existence of limiting spectral distribution (LSD) of Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ,
the symmetric sum of the sample autocovariance matrix Γ̂u of order
u, is known when the observations are from an infinite dimensional
vector linear process with appropriate (strong) assumptions on the
coefficient matrices. Under significantly weaker conditions, we prove,
in a unified way, that the LSD of any symmetric polynomial in these
matrices such as Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u , Γ̂u Γ̂∗u , Γ̂u Γ̂∗u + Γ̂k Γ̂∗k exist. Our approach
is through the more intuitive algebraic method of free probability
in conjunction with the method of moments. Thus, we are able to
provide a general description for the limits in terms of some freely
independent variables. All the previous results follow as special cases.
We suggest statistical uses of these LSD and related results in order
determination and white noise testing.

1. Introduction. Multivariate linear time series models such as the Autoregressive Moving Average (ARMA) processes are fundamental in the theory of econometrics and finance. Moreover, time series data where the dimension grows along with the sample size are becoming increasingly frequent.
A key model in these situations is the infinite dimensional moving average
(n)
process of order infinity, MA(∞), where the sample {Xt.p : t = 1, 2, . . . , n}
Received June 2015; revised August 2015.
Supported by J. C. Bose National Fellowship, Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India.
AMS 2000 subject classifications. Primary 62M10; secondary 37M10, 58C40, 46L54,
62J20.
Key words and phrases. Infinite dimensional vector linear process, symmetrized autocovariance matrices, limiting spectral distribution, Wigner matrix, ID matrix, moment
method, semi-circle law, asymptotically free, non-crossing partitions, non-commutative
probability space, ∗-algebra, free cumulants, compound free Poisson, Stieltjes transformation.
1

This is an electronic reprint of the original article published by the
Institute of Mathematical Statistics in The Annals of Statistics,
2016, Vol. 44, No. 2, 598–628. This reprint differs from the original in pagination
and typographic detail.
1

2

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

of size n satisfies
(1.1)

(n)
Xt.p

=

∞
X

(n)

ψj.p εt−j.p

j=0

∀t, n ≥ 1 (almost surely).
(n)

(n)

For all t, Xt.p and εt.p are p-dimensional vectors and ψj.p are p × p
(n)

coefficient matrices and ψ0.p = Ip . Precise assumptions of independence,
finiteness of moments and conditions on the matrices are discussed later.
We work in the framework of the particular high dimensional model where
the dimension p increases proportionately with the sample size n, so that p =
p(n) → ∞ and np → y ∈ (0, ∞). The infinite sum in (1.1) exists in the almost
(n)

(n)

sure sense under suitable decay conditions on {ψj.p }. If ψj.p = 0, ∀j > q, then
it will be called an MA(q) process. For convenience, we will write p for p(n)
(n)
(n)
and ψj , εt and Xt , respectively, for ψj.p , εt.p and Xt.p . Many researchers have
worked on this model recently. See, for example, Forni et al. (2000, 2004),
Forni and Lippi (2001), Bhattacharjee and Bose (2014), Jin et al. (2014) and
Liu, Aue and Paul (2015).
One of the key quantities in time series analysis is the autocovariance
matrix. The population autocovariance matrices are defined as
∗
Γu.p := E(Xt.p X(t+u).p
)=

∞
X

∗
ψj ψj+u
,

u = 0, 1, . . . .

j=1

The moment estimator of Γu.p is the sample autocovariance matrix,
n−u

(1.2)

1X
∗
Xt.p X(t+u).p
,
Γ̂u.p =
n
t=1

0 ≤ u ≤ n − 1.

We often write Γu and Γ̂u , respectively, for Γu.p and Γ̂u.p . Our goal is to study
the large sample behaviour of the random matrices Γ̂u and use the asymptotic results for statistical inference purposes such as order determination
of infinite dimensional moving average or autoregressive processes. Since we
are dealing with several matrices of increasing dimension together, we need
to give precise meaning to the large sample behaviour in our context.
The most common way to capture the large sample behaviour of a sequence of random matrices is through its spectral distribution. The empirical spectral distribution (ESD) of an n × n (random) matrix Rn is the (random) probability distribution with mass 1/n at each of its eigenvalues. If it
converges weakly (almost surely) to a (non-degenerate) probability distribution, then the latter is called the limiting spectral distribution (LSD) of Rn .
Incidentally, the study of the limit spectrum of non-Hermitian matrices is
extremely difficult and very few results are known for general non-Hermitian

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

3

sequences. Researchers have concentrated on the additive symmetrized version Γˆu + Γ̂∗u , one at a time.
One widely used approach to establish the LSD is that of Stieltjes transformation, which for any finite measure µ on the real line equals
Z
1
(1.3) mµ (z) =
µ(dx),
z ∈ C+ := {x + iy : x ∈ R, y > 0}.
x−z
Pointwise convergence of Stieltjes transforms to a Stieltjes transform implies
the convergence of the corresponding distributions. In random matrix theory,
this convergence is proved by linking the Stieltjes transform of the ESD to
the resolvent and showing convergence by martingale convergence methods.
See, for example, Silverstein and Bai (1995), Silverstein (1995), Bai and
Zhou (2008) and Bai and Silverstein (2010). All existing works regarding
LSD of autocovariance matrices are based on this method.
Let us first discuss briefly these results. Consider the simplest case of (1.1)
where Xt = εt = (εt,1 , εt,2 , . . . , εt,p )T and {εt,j } are i.i.d. with mean zero and
variance one and with enough high moments. Then Γ̂0 is nothing but the
unadjusted sample variance–covariance matrix, and it is well known that its
LSD is the Marčenko–Pastur law. See, for example, Marčenko and Pastur
(1967) and Bai and Silverstein (2010). For the same model, Jin et al. (2014)
showed that the LSD of Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u exist and are equal for every u ≥ 1 and
derived its Stieltjes transform.
Pfaffel and Schlemm (2011) and Yao (2012) derived the limiting Stieltjes
transformation of {Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u }, u ≥ 0, when the components of Xt are independent samples from an identical univariate MA(q) process. Liu, Aue and Paul
(2015) appears to be the only work in model (1.1) for arbitrary q. For each
u, they established the existence of the LSD of {Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u } and derived its
Stieltjes transform as a solution of a pair of functional equations. To derive
this result, they assumed that {εt,j } are i.i.d. with finite 4th moment.
Their assumptions on {ψj } are, however, quite restrictive. They assumed
that {ψj } are Hermitian and simultaneously diagonalizable (the latter assumption can be replaced by the assumption that {ψj } are Toeplitz matrices
with suitable decay conditions on their entries). Even so, this excludes many
interesting linear processes (such as model 4 in Section 4.1). To indicate another limitation of this assumption, suppose further that εt ∼ N (0, I). Let
U be a unitary matrix such that U ψj U ∗ =: Λj (say) are diagonal matrices.
Since U εt and εt are identically distributed and U U ∗ = I, as far as the LSD
of Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u is concerned, (1.1) is equivalent to the model
(1.4)

Xt,i (ith component of Xt ) =

∞
X
j=0

ψj,(i,i) εt−j,i

∀i ≥ 1,

where Λj = diag(ψj,(1,1) , ψj,(2,2) , . . . , ψj,(p,p)) for every j. Hence, this model
does not exhibit spatial dependence or dependence among the components.

4

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

Our approach differs from the existing approaches in many ways. First,
we do away with the Hermitian and simultaneously diagonalizable condition and replace it with a more natural and much weaker joint convergence
assumption [assumption (A3) in Section 3]. Second, all the existing works
concentrate on Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u . If we wish to study the singular values of Γ̂u , we
need to consider the symmetric product Γ̂u Γ̂∗u . This gives rise to a completely
different LSD problem. Indeed, one may consider more general symmetrizations that involve several Γ̂u . As we may recall, in the one-dimensional case,
all tests for white noise are based on quadratic functions of autocovariances.
See, for example, Hong and Lee (2003), Shao (2011) and Xiao and Wu
(2014). The analogous objects in our model are quadratic polynomials in
autocovariances. Thus, we are naturally led to the consideration of matrix
polynomials of autocovariances. While it is conceivable that the Stieltjes
transform method can be potentially used to tackle these cases, it seems to
be rather cumbersome and needlessly lengthy to do so and shall at best be a
case by case study. We provide a unified method to study the LSD of symmetric polynomials of the autocovariance matrices. We do not use Stieltjes
transforms at all except to cross-check our results with the existing results,
all of which follow as special cases.
To obtain the LSD, we use the method of moments. The hth order moment
of the ESD of an n × n real symmetric matrix Rn equals βh (Rn ) := n1 Tr(Rnh ).
Consider the following conditions:
(M1) For
P∞every h ≥ 1, E(βh (Rn )) → 4βh ,
(M4)
n=1 E(βh (Rn ) − E(βh (Rn ))) < ∞, ∀h ≥ 1, and
P
−1/(2h)
=
(C) The sequence {βh } satisfies Carleman’s condition, ∞
h=1 β2h
∞.
If (M1), (M4) and (C) hold, then ESD of Rn converges almost surely to
the distribution F determined uniquely by the moments {βh }. (M1) is the
most crucial condition in this method as it identifies the moments of the
LSD.
In Theorem 3.1, we claim the existence of the LSD of any symmetric
polynomial in {Γ̂u } in model (1.1) and describe the limit in terms of a
polynomial of some free variables. To establish (M1), we use tools from noncommutative free probability theory (the next section and Sections 3, 5.1,
5.2 and 5.3 contain the necessary background). Free variables in the noncommutative world are the analogue of independent random variables in
the commutative world. As matrices are non-commutative objects, appearance of non-commutative probability spaces is not surprising. The reason
for the appearance of free variables is more subtle (see the discussion at the
beginning of Section 3). In Section 4.1, we provide simulation results for
specific choices of the model. These simulations support the conclusion of

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

5

Theorem 3.1. Based on simulations, we also conjecture that the LSD exists
for the non-Hermitian matrices Γ̂u .
It is natural to anticipate that the sample autocovariance matrices will
play an increasingly crucial role in the statistical analysis of these models. This seems to be at a rudimentary stage currently, but we anticipate
further thrust as the limiting structure of these matrices is uncovered. Liu
(2013) estimated the spectrum of the coefficient matrices by minimizing
some distance between Stieltjes transformations of the ESD and the LSD
of {Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u } in some appropriately chosen space of distribution functions.
In Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, we use the LSD results to provide a graphical
method to determine the order of a moving average and an autoregressive
process. Following a suggestion by one of the referees, in Section 4.2.3, we
discuss the asymptotic distribution of the trace of sample autocovariance
matrices. As a by-product of the calculations used in the derivation of the
LSD results, we conclude that these traces have asymptotic normal distributions. This can be used to test simple null and alternative hypotheses for
model (1.1).
Section 5 contains the outline of the proofs. Further details of the proofs
are available in the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015).
2. Some notions from free probability. To aid the reader, we first highlight the essential notions from free probability that are needed to understand our main theorem. Further concepts and facts, as needed later, are
discussed at the beginning of Section 3 and in Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. An
excellent reference for all the details is Nica and Speicher (2006).
Commutative random variables are attached to a probability space (S, E),
which consists of a σ-field S and an expectation operator E. Similarly, noncommutative variables are attached to some non-commutative ∗-probability
space (NCP) (A, ϕ) consisting of a unital ∗-algebra A and a unital linear
functional (called a state) ϕ : A → C, ϕ(1A ) = 1. Thus, ϕ is the analogue of
the expectation operator. The elements of A are called (non-commutative
random) variables. The canonical example of NCP that we will need is Md ,
the space of all d × d matrices with the state ϕ as the average trace. If the
matrix has random entries, we modify ϕ by taking its usual expectation.
In the commutative case, random variables (say with bounded support)
are independent if and only if all joint moments obey the product rule. It
is well known that the cumulants and moments are related via the Möbius
transformation on the partially ordered set (POSET) of all partitions. Using
this, it can be shown that independence is also equivalent to the vanishing
of all mixed cumulants.
For a set of non-commutative variables {ai }i≥1 , the set of all joint moments is defined as {ϕ(Π(ai , a∗i : i ≥ 1)) : Π polynomials} and is known as
the distribution of {ai }. Here, we have the notion of joint cumulants, called

6

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

free cumulants. These can be uniquely obtained from the above moments
and vice versa via a different Möbius transformation and its inverse on the
POSET of all non-crossing partitions. Non-commutative variables are said
to be free (freely independent) if and only if all their mixed free cumulants
vanish.
A consequence of freeness is that all joint moments of free variables are
computable in terms of the moments of the individual variables. Of course,
the algorithm for computing moments under freeness is different from (and
more complicated than) the product rule under usual independence. The notion of freness of variables extends to freeness of sub-algebras in the natural
way. Now consider NCPs {(Au , ϕu )}1≤u≤r . Then, analogous to the product space in the commutative case, we can have (A, ϕ), the free product of
{(Au , ϕu )} so that the restriction of ϕ on Au is ϕu and Au are free subalgebras of A.
While matrices are seldom free, there is a large class of matrices that
are free in an asymptotic sense (which is made precise in Section 5.1) as
the dimension increases. For example, if W1 and W2 are n × n independent
symmetric matrices with all entries i.i.d. whose all moments are finite, then
they are asymptotically free. Using such asymptotic freeness, we shall be able
to compute the limits of required traces by using tools from free probability.
This will help us to establish the (M1) condition and in the bargain also
provide us with expressions for the limits in terms of free variables.
3. Main result. Consider the following assumptions on the driving process {εt } and the coefficient matrices {ψj }:

(A1) {εt,j } are independent with E(εt,j ) = 0 and E|εt,j |2 = 1, ∀i, j.
(A2) supt,j E(|εt,j |k ) < Ck < ∞, ∀k ≥ 1 or, for some sequence ηn ↓ 0, |εt,j | <
√
ηn n, ∀i, j.
(A3) {ψj } are compactly supported and for any polynomial Π in {ψj , ψj∗ },
lim p−1 Tr(Π) exists and is finite.
Later we shall relax assumption (A2).
To see how freeness comes into the picture, and hence how it motivates
the statement of our main theorem, let us focus on Γ̂0 when
Xt = εt + ψ1 εt−1.
Let Z = (ε1 , ε2 , . . . , εn )p×n be the independent (ID) matrix. For i ≥ 0, let Pi
be the n × n matrix whose ith upper diagonal is 1 and 0 otherwise. Note
T be the transpose of P . Note that
that P0 = In . For i < 0, let Pi = P−i
−i
Γ̂0 = n−1

n
X
(εt + ψ1 εt−1 )(εt + ψ1 εt−1 )∗
t=1

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

7

= n−1 (ZP0 Z ∗ + ψ1 ZP0 Z ∗ ψ1∗ + ψ1 ZP1 Z ∗ + ZP−1 Z ∗ ψ1∗ ) + Rn
= ∆ 0 + Rn

(say).

By Lemma 7.1 of the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015), Γ̂0
and ∆0 have identical LSD. Thus, our primary goal is to show that for all r ≥
1, lim p−1 E Tr(∆r0 ) exists. To achieve this, we first define an NCP generated
by these matrices. However, the matrices Z, {Ip , ψ1 } and {P0 , P1 , P−1 } are
all of different orders. Therefore, we embed these matrices into larger square
matrices of order (n + p). We embed Z into a Wigner2 matrix W of order
(n + p). Thus,
 (1)

W
Z
W=
(3.1)
,
Z∗
W (2)

where W (1) and W (2) are two independent Wigner matrices of order p and n
respectively and also independent of Z and whose entries satisfy assumption
(A2). For any matrices B and D of order p and n, respectively, let B̄ and
D of order (n + p) be the matrices




B 0
0 0
B̄ =
,
D=
(3.2)
.
0 0
0 D
Note that for any integer r, if the right-hand side limits below exist, then

(3.3)

lim(n + p)−1 Tr(B̄ r ) = y(1 + y)−1 lim p−1 Tr(B r ),

(3.4)

lim(n + p)−1 Tr(Dr ) = (1 + y)−1 lim n−1 Tr(D r )

(3.5)

lim p

−1

and

¯ r ).
Tr(∆r0 ) = y −1 (1 + y) lim(n + p)−1 Tr(∆
0

On the other hand,
¯ 0 = I¯p W P0 W I¯p + ψ̄1 W P0 W ψ̄1∗ + ψ̄1 W P1 W I¯p + I¯p W P−1 W ψ̄1∗ .
n∆
¯ r involves polynomials in these matrices. So it is a question of comThus, ∆
0
puting the limiting trace of such polynomials. Now observe that for any
monomial m:
(1) lim p−1 Tr(m(P0 , P1 , P−1 )) exists and can be computed easily.
(2) under assumption (A3), lim n−1 Tr(m(I¯p , ψ̄1 , ψ̄1∗ )) exists.
Moreover, from random matrix theory it is well known that
(3) if (A1) and (A2) hold then lim E Tr((n + p)−1/2 W )r = E(sr ), where
s is a standard semi-circle variable with moments

k!

,
if k is even,
k
(3.6)
ϕ(s ) = (k/2)!(k/2 + 1)!

0,
if k is odd.
2

A Wigner matrix is a square symmetric random matrix with independent mean 0
variance 1 entries on and above the diagonal.

8

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

(4) Finally, results from free probability guarantee that in the limit, the
matrices (n + p)−1/2 W , {I¯p , ψ̄1 } and {P0 , P1 , P−1 } are free variables say
s, {a0 , a1 } and {c0 , c1 , c−1 } where c∗1 = c−1 in some NCP (A, ϕ).
Thus, using the above conclusions (1), (2) and (3) in conjunction with
equations (3.3), (3.4), (3.5) and (3.6), we can conclude that lim p−1 Tr(∆r0 )
exists and

r
X
−1
r
−1
∗
lim p Tr(∆0 ) = y (1 + y)ϕ (1 + y)
(3.7)
aj scj−j ′ saj .
j,j ′ =0,1

The
+ y) within ϕ is the adjustment needed for the replacement of
√factor (1 √
Z/ n by W/ n + p. The right-hand side of the above equation, involving
free variables, are then the moments of the LSD of Γ̂0 .
This is the idea we implement in the general MA(q) process and for general
symmetric polynomials of the autocovariances. Now we have q coefficient
matrices {ψj } and {Pi : i = 0, ±1, ±2, . . .}. To describe the limit, consider
the NCP (A, ϕ), the free product of the semi-circle variable s, {aj } and {ci }
such that ϕ(sk ) is given by (3.6) and for any finite monomial m, we have
(3.8)

ϕ(m(ci , c−i : i ≥ 0)) = (1 + y)−1 I(J = 0),

where J is sum of the subscripts of {ci } which appear in m [the right-hand
side of (3.8) equals lim n−1 Tr(m(Pi , P−i : i ≥ 0)) and can be checked by
direct calculation], and
(3.9)

ϕ(m(aj , a∗j : i ≥ 0)) =

1
y
lim Tr(m(ψj , ψj∗ : j ≥ 0))
1+y
p

[the right-hand side of (3.9) exists by assumption (A3)].
Let us define for all u = 0, 1, 2, . . . ,
γuq = (1 + y)

q
X

aj scj ′ −j+u sa∗j ′ ,

q
X

aj ′ sc−j ′ +j−u sa∗j .

j,j ′ =0

(3.10)
∗
γuq
= (1 + y)

j,j ′ =0

Then we have the following theorem, the proof of which is given in Section 5.2.
Theorem 3.1. Suppose Xt ∼ MA(q), q < ∞ and (A1), (A2), (A3) and
pn−1 → y ∈ (0, ∞) hold. Then the LSD of any symmetric polynomial Π(Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u :
u ≥ 0) exists and the limit moments are given by
(3.11)

∗
lim p−1 E Tr(Π(Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u : i ≥ 0)) = y −1 (1 + y)ϕ(Π(γuq , γuq
: i ≥ 0)).

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

9

For particular symmetric polynomials, the LSD exist under relaxed moment assumptions. In the next remark, we consider the LSD of {Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u }
and {Γ̂u Γ̂∗u }. Its proof, given in Section 5 of the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015), is based on the same truncation arguments as in
Jin et al. (2014) after some necessary modifications.
Remark 3.1. Suppose Xt ∼ MA(q), q < ∞, and (A1), (A3) and pn−1 →
y ∈ (0, ∞) hold. Then the following hold true:
(a) For each 0 ≤ u < ∞, LSD of Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u exists if for some δ ∈ (0, 2],
(A4) supt,j E(|εt,j |2+δ ) < M < ∞, and
Pp Pn
1
2+δ I(|ε | > ηn1/(2+δ) )) →
(A5) for any η > 0, η2+δ
t,j
j=1
t=1 E(|εt,j |
np
0.
(b) For each 0 ≤ u < ∞, LSD of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u exists if (A5) holds and
(A6) supt,j E|εt,j |4 < M < ∞.
(c) Suppose Xt ∼ MA(0) process and assumptions (A1), (A3) hold. Then
the existence of the LSD of Γ̂0 ,P
underPassumption
√
p
n
−2
−1
2
(A7) For any η > 0, η (np)
t=1 E(|εt,j | I(|εt,j | > η n)) → 0,
j=1
is well known [see Bai and Silverstein (2010)]. Jin et al. (2014) established the existence of the LSD of any Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u , u ≥ 1, under assumptions
(A4) and (A5).
The next remark in particular says that the main result of Liu, Aue and
Paul (2015) follows from Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.1.
Remark 3.2. (a) Under (A1), (A3), (A4) and (A5), Theorem 3.1 along
with Remark 3.1 provides moments of the LSD of 12 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ). These moments can be used to get the Stieltjes transform m(z) of this LSD as
(3.12)

m(z) = y −1 (1 + y)ϕ((B(λ, z) − z)−1 )

where

(3.13) K(z, θ) = y −1 (1 + y)ϕ(h(λ, θ)(B(λ, z) − z)−1 ),
! ∞
!
∞
X
X
e−ijθ a∗j ,
eijθ aj
(3.14) h(λ, θ) =
λ = {aj , a∗j : j ≥ 0},
j=0

j=0

(3.15) B(λ, z) = Eθ (cos(uθ)h(λ, θ)(1 + y cos(uθ)K(z, θ))−1 ),
and θ is a U (0, 2π) random variable which is commutative with {aj , a∗j }.
Details of the arguments is based on a recursion formula for moments and
is given in Section 5.5.
(b) As discussed in Section 1, Liu, Aue and Paul (2015) proved the existence of the LSD of 12 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ) for the model (1.1). Their most crucial
assumption was the following.

10

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

(B) {ψj } are Hermitian and simultaneously diagonalizable, norm bounded
matrices. There are continuous functions fj : R → R and a unitary matrix
U of order p such that U ψj U ∗ = diag(fj (α1 ), fj (α2 ), . . . , fj (αp )). ESD of
{α1 , α2 , . . . , αp } converges weakly to a compactly supported probability distribution Fa .
Note that assumption (B) implies assumption (A3). The main theorem of
Liu, Aue and Paul (2015), under (B), provides the LSD of 21 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ) with
its Stieltjes transform satisfying

−1
Z  
cos(uθ ′ )h1 (α, θ ′ )
(3.16)
dFa (α)
where
m(z) =
−
z
Eθ′
1 + y cos(uθ ′ )K(z, θ ′ )

−1
Z  
cos(uθ ′ )h1 (α, θ ′ )
Eθ′
(3.17) K(z, θ) =
h1 (α, θ) dFa (α),
−z
1 + y cos(uθ ′ )K(z, θ ′ )
(3.18) h1 (α, θ) =

q
X

2

ijθ

e

fj (α) .

j=0

It can be shown that under assumption (B), the Stieltjes transform equations (3.12)–(3.15) reduce to equations (3.16)–(3.18). Thus, Theorem 3.1 in
conjunction with Remark 3.1 implies the main theorem of Liu, Aue and Paul
(2015).
So far, we have assumed q < ∞. With some additional assumptions, the
results continue to hold for q = ∞. The proof of Corollary 3.1 is based on
truncation arguments and is given in Section 6 of the supplementary file
Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015).
Corollary 3.1. Theorem 3.1, Remark 3.1(a), (b) and Corollary 5.2
hold for P
MA(∞) process also, after replacing q by ∞ provided
∞
(A8)
j=0 supp kψj k < ∞, where for all j ≥ 0, kψj k denotes maximum
absolute eigenvalue of ψj .
3.1. Examples.
Example 1. Consider the MA(0) process, that is, Xt = εt ∀t and suppose assumptions (A1), (A2), (A3) and pn−1 → y ∈ (0, ∞) hold. Then the
following results (a)–(c) follow from Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.2.
(a) Marčenko–Pastur law : The LSD of Γ̂0 is the Marčenko–Pastur law,
whose moment sequence is given by [see, e.g., Marčenko and Pastur (1967)
or Bai and Silverstein (2010)]

 
h
X
1 h−1
h
βh =
(3.19)
y k−1 ,
h ≥ 1.
k
k k−1
k=1

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

11

(b) Free Bessel law : The LSD of ( np )2 Γ̂u Γ̂∗u , u ≥ 1 is the free Bessel(2, y −1 )
law, characterized by the moment sequence,



h
X
1 h−1
2h
βh =
(3.20)
y −k ,
h ≥ 1.
k−1
k k−1
k=1

(c) The LSD of 12 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ) are identical for all u ≥ 1 and their common
Stieltjes transformation m(z) satisfies the bi-quadratic equation (with one
valid solution)
(3.21)

(1 − y 2 m2 (z))(yzm(z) + y − 1)2 = 1.

This is Theorem 2.1 of Liu, Aue and Paul (2015) for the MA(0) case and
Theorem 1.1 of Jin et al. (2014).
By Remark 3.1, Example 1(a) continues to hold if we assume (A7) instead
of (A2). If we assume (A5) and (A6) instead of (A2), then Example 1(b)
continues to hold. Moreover, Example 1(c) holds if we assume (A4) and (A5)
instead of (A2). Justification for Example 1 is given in Section 5.6.
Example 2. Let Xt = εt where {εt,j }’s are all i.i.d. random variables
with mean 0, variance 1 and E|ε1.1 |2+δ < ∞ for some δ > 0. Moreover, suppose pn−1 → y ∈ (0, ∞) holds. Then, using the same idea as in the proof of
Example 1(c), it can be shown that the Stieltjes transform of the LSD of
Σ1/2 Γ̂0 Σ1/2 is given by
Z
dFΣ (t)
m(z) =
(3.22)
,
z − t(1 − y − yzm(z))

where Σ is a symmetric positive definite matrix with compactly supported
LSD FΣ . This is Theorem 1.1 of Silverstein (1995). If FΣ = δ1 , this reduces
to the Stieltjes transform of the Marčenko–Pastur law.

Apart from the expression (3.11) in terms of free variables, in general,
there is no further simplified form of the LSD of (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ). In the special
case ψj = λj Ip , λj ∈ R, for all j ≥ 0, we can describe the LSD in terms of
a compound free Poisson distribution. We need some preparation for this
description.
Definition 3.1.

A probability measure µ on R with free cumulants
kn (µ) = λmn (ν)

∀n ≥ 1,

for some λ > 0 and some compactly supported probability measure ν on R
with moments {mn (ν)}, is called a compound free Poisson distribution with
rate λ and jump distribution ν.

12

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

As an example, suppose s is a semi-circular variable, defined by the moment sequence (3.6), and a is another variable free of s. Then the free cumulants of sas are given by [see Proposition 12.18 in Nica and Speicher
(2006)]
kn (sas, sas, . . . , sas) = ϕ(an )

(3.23)

∀n ≥ 1.

In particular, if a is self-adjoint with distribution ν, then sas has the compound free Poisson distribution with rate λ = 1 and jump measure ν.
Let Ap×p be self-adjoint with compactly supported LSD a. Then it can
be shown that, under (A1) and (A2), the limiting free cumulants of ZAZ ∗
are given by
(3.24)

lim kr (ZAZ ∗ , ZAZ ∗ , . . . , ZAZ ∗ ) = y r−1 ϕ(ar )
n

∀r ≥ 1.

Therefore, asymptotically ZAZ ∗ is a compound free Poisson variable with
rate y −1 and jump distribution ya.
Now we are ready to state the next example. Justification for Example 3
and Remark 3.3 are given respectively in Sections 5.7 and 5.8.
Example 3. Let Xt ∼ MA(q) process and suppose assumptions (A1),
(A2) and pn−1 → y ∈ (0, ∞) hold. Let ψj = λj Ip , 1 ≤ j ≤ q. Then the LSD
of 12 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ) is a compound free Poisson whose rth order free cumulant
equals
kur = y r−1 Eθ (cos(uθ)h̃(λ, θ))r

(3.25)

∀i ≥ 0,

where
h̃(λ, θ) =
(3.26)

q
X

2
ijθ

e

λj ,

λ0 = 1,

λ = (λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λq ) and

j=0

θ ∼ U (0, 2π).

Remark 3.3. By Remark 3.1(b), (3.25) continues to hold if we assume
(A4) and (A5) instead of (A2). Example 3 together with Remark 3.1(b)
justifies Theorem 2.1 in Liu, Aue and Paul (2015) when ψj = λj , Theorem
1.2 in Pfaffel and Schlemm (2011) and Theorem 1 in Yao (2012), though
none of them had identified the limit as a compound free Poisson.
4. Numerical examples and applications.
4.1. Numerical examples. Let Ip and Jp be respectively the identity matrix of order p and the p×p matrix with all entries 1 and let εt ∼ Np (0, Ip ), ∀t.
Let Ap = 0.5Ip , Bp = 0.5(Ip + Jp ). Let Cp = ((ci,j )) and Dp = ((di,j )) be two

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

13

p × p matrices with ci,i = I(1 ≤ i ≤ [p/2]) − I([p/2] < i ≤ p), di,p+1−i = 1 for
all i ≥ 1 and 0 otherwise. We consider the following models.
Model 1: Xt = εt .
Model 2: Xt = εt + Ap εt−1 .
Model 3: Xt = εt + Bp εt−1 .
Model 4: Xt = εt + Cp εt−1 + Dp εt−2 .
Note that in model 4, Cp Dp 6= Dp Cp , and hence they are not simultaneously diagonalizable and the result of Liu, Aue and Paul (2015) is not
applicable. For each of these models, we draw one random sample of size n
(n = 300, 500 and 1000). For each 1 ≤ u ≤ 4, we plot the cumulative distribution function of ESD (ECDF) of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u and Γ̂u Γ̂∗u + Γ̂u+1 Γ̂∗u+1 . The graphs
for n = 300 are given in Figures 1 and 2. Figures 1 and 2 in the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015) contain graphs for n = 500 and
1000. These graphs support the following points:

Fig. 1.

ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u , 1 ≤ u ≤ 4 for n = p = 300.

14

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

Fig. 2.

ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u + Γ̂u+1 Γ̂∗u+1 , 1 ≤ u ≤ 4 for n = p = 300.

(a) For each of the above models, the ECDF are nearly identical for
n = 300, 500 and 1000, that is, convergence has already occurred at n = 300.
For smaller values of n, convergence did not occur in our simulation. Some
modification may improve the situation for smaller sample sizes. Here, we
did not investigate any possible modifications.
(b) ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u (or Γ̂u Γ̂∗u + Γ̂u+1 Γ̂∗u+1 ) are almost identical—for all
u > 0 in model 1, for all u > 1 in models 2 and 3 and for all u > 2 in model
4. Moreover, ECDFs are different—for u = 1, 2 in both models 2 and 3, and
for u = 1, 2, 3 in model 4.
(c) For the MA(1) process, LSD of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u (or Γ̂u Γ̂∗u + Γ̂u+1 Γ̂∗u+1 ) depends
on ψ1 only through its LSD. Since LSD of Ap and Bp are identical (both
have mass 1 at 0.5), the ECDF for models 2 and 3 are almost identical.
(d) As noted above, the result of Liu, Aue and Paul (2015) is not applicable for model 4. However, by Theorem 3.1, the LSD of any symmetric

15

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES
Table 1
Means and variances for model 4, n = p = 300
Matrix
Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1
Γ̂2 Γ̂∗2
Γ̂3 Γ̂∗3
Γ̂4 Γ̂∗4
Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1 + Γ̂2 Γ̂∗2
Γ̂2 Γ̂∗2 + Γ̂3 Γ̂∗3
Γ̂3 Γ̂∗3 + Γ̂4 Γ̂∗4
Γ̂4 Γ̂∗4 + Γ̂5 Γ̂∗5

Sample mean

Mean of LSD

Sample variance

Variance of LSD

10.92
9.93
8.91
8.89
20.85
18.85
17.81
17.76

11
10
9
9
21
19
18
18

277.8869
214.437
143.2908
143.2524
802.6798
547.4531
433.1116
433.507

278
215
143
143
805
546
434
434

polynomial in {Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u } for model 4 exists and this is supported by row 2
right panel of Figures 1 and 2.
In Table 1, we have recorded the mean and variance of the ESD of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u
and Γ̂u Γ̂∗u + Γ̂u+1 Γ̂∗u+1 , 1 ≤ u ≤ 4, for model 4 and n = p = 300 along with the
mean and the variance of their LSD using the description of the limits, given
in Theorem 3.1, in terms of free variables and limits of coefficient matrices
Cp and Dp . The empirical results agree with the theoretical results.
Incidentally, the autocovariance matrices {Γ̂u } themselves are not symmetric for u ≥ 1 and Theorem 3.1 does not apply. Nevertheless, their ESD
should also converge. Figure 3 supports this for Γ̂1 of the MA(0) process.
These non-symmetric matrices are under investigation.
4.2. Applications.
4.2.1. Order determination of a moving average process. A method to
determine the order q of a moving average process in the univariate case
is to plot the correlogram (lag vs. sample autocorrelation graph) and q̂ is
taken to be an estimate of q, if the sample autocorrelations of order greater
than q̂ are small. In the high-dimensional case, as far as we know, there is
no method in the literature for estimating q.
We use Theorem 3.1 to propose an analogous graphical method of determining q. First, a look at Theorem 3.1 reveals that the LSD of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u ,
for different u, can differ only due to the distribution of Cu = {cj−j ′ +u : 0 ≤
j, j ′ ≤ q}. However, by applying (3.8), it is not hard to see that the joint distribution of Cu are identical for all u > q and are different for all 0 ≤ u ≤ q.
Therefore, when Xt is a MA(q) process, the LSD of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u are identical
for all u > q and are different for all 0 ≤ u ≤ q. These observations also hold
true for any symmetric polynomial Πu in {Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u }, for u ≥ 0.

16

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

Fig. 3. ESD of Γ̂1 for MA(0) standard Gaussian process for n = 500 (Multiple eigenvalues are plotted only once).

Let, for all u ≥ 0, Πu be a symmetric polynomial in {Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u }. Note that
the lower the order of the polynomials, the lesser would be the moment conditions required for the LSD to be valid. As an analogue of the correlogram,
we propose to plot the ECDF of some chosen Πu for first few sample autocovariance matrices in the same graph. We say that q̂ is an estimate of q, if
the ECDF of Πu with order u > q̂ empirically coincide with each other. For
example, consider the discussions in part (b) of Section 4.1 and Figures 1
and 2. There q is determined quite accurately in the simulated data.
4.2.2. Order determination of an autoregressive processes. Another important problem is to determine the order of an infinite dimensional vector

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

17

Autoregressive (IVAR) process
(4.1)

Xt = εt + A1 Xt−1 + A2 Xt−1 + · · · + Ak Xt−k ,

where k is unknown. Under suitable assumptions on the p × p parameter
matrices {Ai }, one can show that Xt satisfies (1.1) [see Bhattacharjee and
Bose (2014)]. Suppose {εt } satisfies assumptions (A1) and (A2). Suppose the
unknown parameter matrices {Ai } are such that (4.1) is stationary, and consistent estimators {Âi } for {Ai } are available. By consistency, here we mean
that the limit of the spectral norm of (Âi − Ai ) is zero (in probability). Such
estimates are often available [see the end of Section 3 and discussions after
Theorem 4.2 in Section 4 of Bhattacharjee and Bose (2014)]. Also suppose
that {Ai } are compactly supported and for any finite symmetric polynomial
Π of {Ai } lim p−1 E Tr(Π) < ∞ so that assumption (A3) is satisfied.
Then it is easy to see that, for each u ≥ 0, the LSD of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u for the process
{εt } [i.e., for the MA(0) process], coincides with the LSD (in probability) for
P
(k)
{ε̂t = Xt − ki=1 Âi Xt−i }. See Section 8 of the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015) for the proof. Instead of k, if we use any other
(s)
positive integer s < k, then the residual process {ε̂t } does not behave like
the MA(0) process. As ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u for u = 1, 2 coincide (almost surely)
under MA(0) process, to determine the order of the IVAR process, it is
(k)
enough to check whether the ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u of {ε̂t } for u = 1, 2 coincides
or not. Therefore, if we plot the ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u , u = 1, 2 for the residual
(s)
process {ε̂t } in the same graph, the two distribution functions coincide
only when s = k. Hence, we may successively fit an IVAR(s) process for
s = 0, 1, 2, . . . and for each s, plot the ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u , u = 1, 2 for residuals
(s)
{ε̂t } in the same graph. We say that m is an estimate of order k of the
IVAR process, if the ECDF of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u , u = 1, 2 do not coincide for all s < m
and coincide for s = m.
For illustration, consider the following IVAR processes. Let εt ∼ Np (0, Ip ), ∀t.
Model 5: Xt = εt + 0.5Xt−1 .
Model 6: Xt = εt + 0.5Xt−1 + 0.2Xt−2 .
We let p = n and draw a sample of size n = 500. Assuming that we do
not know the parameter matrices, we use their banded estimator from Bhattacharjee and Bose (2014).
For model 5, we plot the two ECDFs of Γ̂u Γ̂∗u , u = 1, 2 for the residual
(1)
process {ε̂t } in the same graph and observe that they coincide. See row 1,
left panel in Figure 4. Therefore, 1 is an estimate of the order of model 5.
For model 6, we do the same but the two ECDFs do not coincide (see row
1, right panel in Figure 4). In row 2 of Figure 4, the same two ECDFs are

18

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

Fig. 4. n = p = 500. Row 1 left: ECDF of Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1 and Γ̂2 Γ̂∗2 for residuals after fitting AR(1)
in model 5. Row 1 right: same after fitting AR(1) in model 6. Row 2: same after fitting
AR(2) in model 6.
(2)

plotted for {ε̂t } and they coincide and hence 2 is an estimate of the order
for model 6.
4.2.3. Asymptotic distribution of traces and an application in testing.
One of the referees raised the issue of convergence in distribution of the trace
of any autocovariance matrix and if such a result could be possibly used for
testing problems. Let Π := Π(Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u : u ≥ 0) be a symmetric polynomial in
2 = lim E(Tr(Π) − E Tr(Π))2 . Then, for d ≥ 1, using
{Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u : u ≥ 0} and σΠ
some combinatorial calculations [see Lemma 2.1 in the supplementary file
Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015)], we have
lim E(Tr(Π) − E Tr(Π))T

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

=


0,





Therefore,

d
Y

if T = 2d − 1,

!

2d
(2d − 2k + 1) σΠ
,

k=1

19

if T = 2d.

D

2
(Tr(Π) − E Tr(Π)) → N (0, σΠ
).

(4.2)

The following are some examples and simulations to support (4.2). We consider n = p and εt ∼ Np (0, Ip ), where εt ’s are independent.
Example 4. Let Xt = εt , ∀t. Then E(Tr Γ̂0 ) = n, E(Tr(Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1 )) = n − 1,
E(Tr(Γ̂1 + Γ̂∗1 )) = 0 and lim E(Tr(Γ̂0 ) − E Tr(Γ̂0 ))2 = 2, lim E(Tr(Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1 ) −
E Tr(Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1 ))2 = 10, lim E(Tr(Γ̂1 + Γ̂∗1 ) − E Tr(Γ̂1 + Γ̂∗1 ))2 = 4. We omit the
detailed calculations which are simpler than the calculations in the next
D
D
example. Hence, (Tr(Γ̂0 ) − n) → N (0, 2), (Tr(Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1 ) − n + 1) → N (0, 10),
D

and Tr(Γ̂1 + Γ̂∗1 ) → N (0, 4). Simulation results given in rows 1 and 2, left
panel, Figure 5 support the above convergences.

Example 5. Let Xt = εt +εt−1 . Then E(Tr(Γ̂0 )) = 2(n−1), lim E(Tr(Γ̂0 )−
E Tr(Γ̂0 ))2 = 8. In Section 5.9, we show details of this calculation. Hence,
D

(Tr(Γ̂0 ) − 2(n − 1)) → N (0, 8). The simulation result given in row 2, right
panel, Figure 5 supports this convergence.
These results can be used for testing. For example, suppose we wish to
test
H0 : Xt = εt

∀t against

H1 : Xt = εt + εt−1

∀t.

Then (Tr(Γ̂0 ) − n) can be used as a test statistic and large value of the test
statistic will imply rejection of H0 . Clearly, this idea can be extended to test
other pairs of simple null and alternative hypotheses for model (1.1).
5. Proofs. We first prove Theorem 3.1. For this purpose, we need the
following notions and results.
5.1. Convergence of NCPs and assymptotic freeness. A sequence of NCPs
(n)
(Span{bi }, ϕn ) is said to converge to an NCP (Span{bi }, ϕ), if for any polynomial π,
(5.1)

(n)

lim ϕn (π(bi
n

: i ≥ 0)) = ϕ(π(bi : i ≥ 0)).

20

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

Fig. 5. n = p = 500 and 500 replications. Row (1) left, rows (1) right and (2) left represent respectively the histogram of (Tr(Γ̂0 ) − n), (Tr(Γ̂1 Γ̂∗1 ) − n + 1) and Tr(Γ̂1 + Γ̂∗1 ), when
Xt = εt . Row (2) right represents the histogram of (Tr(Γ̂0 ) − 2n), when Xt = εt + εt−1 .
(n)

Suppose (Span{bij : i ≥ 0, 1 ≤ j ≤ k}, ϕn ) converges to (Span{bij : i ≥ 0, 1 ≤
(n)

j ≤ k}, ϕ). Then Span{bij : i ≥ 0}, 1 ≤ j ≤ k, are said to be asymptotically
free if Span{bij : i ≥ 0} are free across 1 ≤ j ≤ k.
Let Wn×n be a Wigner matrix. Let ϕn = n−1 E Tr. Let {Bi,n } and {Di,n },
1 ≤ i ≤ J be sequences of non-random, compactly supported, square matrices of order n each of which converges in the above sense. Then, under
assumption (A2), the following facts are true. For (a) and (b), see Zeitouni,
Anderson and Guionnet (2010). (c) follows from (a), (b) and Theorem 11.12,
page 180 of Nica and Speicher (2006). (d) is immediate from (a), (b) and
(c). We drop the suffix n for clarity.
√
(a) W/ √n converges to the semi-circle law with moment sequence (3.6).
(b) W/ n and {Bi , Di , 1 ≤ i ≤ J} are asymptotically free.

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

21

(c) {n−1 W Bi W, 1 ≤ i ≤ J} and {Di , 1 ≤ i ≤ J} are asymptotically free.
−k
(d) To compute lim n−1
√E Tr(n D1 W B1 W D2 W B2 W D3 · · · W Bk W Dk+1 ),
one can assume that W/ n, {Bi } and {Di } are asymptotically free.
5.2. Proof of Theorem 3.1. To prove Theorem 3.1, as discussed in Section 1, we have to show (M1), (M4) and (C) are satisfied. Here, we shall only
establish (M1). Proof of (M4) and (C) are given respectively in Sections 3
and 4 of the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015).
To establish (M1), we have to essentially show (3.11). Let Γ̂u (ε) be the
uth order sample autocovariance matrix of the process {εt }. Let
(5.2)

∆u =

q
q X
X

ψj Γ̂j ′ −j+u (ε)ψj∗′

j=0 j ′ =0

∀u ≥ 0.

Then by Lemma 1.1 of the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose
(2015), it is enough to show (3.11) after we replace {Γ̂u , Γ̂∗u } by {∆u , ∆∗u }.
Now
q X
q
X
¯ i = (n + p)−1
(5.3) n(n + p)−1 ∆
∀i ≥ 0.
ψ̄j W Pj ′ −j+i W ψ̄j∗′
j=0 j ′ =0

√
Note that by (a) of Section 5.1, W/ n + p converges to the semi-circle law
with moment sequence (3.6). Moreover, by (3.8) and (3.9), {ψ̄j } and {Pj }
converge respectively to {aj } and {cj }. Also, by (b), (c) and (d) of Section 5.1, s, {aj } and {cj } are freely independent. Therefore, by (5.1), (3.11)
holds and (M1) is verified. Hence, proof of Theorem 3.1 is complete.
Next, we need an algorithm for computing moments of a particular type
of polynomials of free variables.
5.3. Algorithm to compute moments of free variables. As we have discussed in Section 2, all joint moments of free variables are computable in
terms of the moments of the individual variables. The algorithm for computing moments under freeness is different from the product rule under usual
independence. Note that, for our purpose, a typical term in the moment
calculations [see, e.g., (3.7)] is
(5.4) ϕ(d0 sb1 sd1 sb2 sd2 · · · sbn sdn )

where {bi }, {di } and s are free.

Note that in our case, since Tr(AB) = Tr(BA), our ϕ satisfies ϕ(ab) =
ϕ(ba), ∀a, b. In this section, we shall discuss the algorithm for computing
(5.4) in terms of the moments of {bi }, {di } and s.
Let NC (n) be the set of all non-crossing partitions of {1, 2, . . . , n}. Define
recursively a family of multiplicative, multi-linear functionals ϕπ (n ≥ 1, π ∈
NC (n)) by the following formula. If π = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vr } ∈ NC (n), then
(5.5)

ϕπ [a1 , a2 , . . . , an ] := ϕ(V1 )[a1 , a2 , . . . , an ] · · · ϕ(Vr )[a1 , a2 , . . . , an ],

22

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

where
ϕ(V )[a1 , a2 , . . . , an ] := ϕs (ai1 ai2 · · · ais )
for V = (i1 < i2 < · · · < is ).
(5.6)
Let NC 2 (2n) be the set of all non-crossing pair partitions of {1, 2, . . . , 2n}
and K(π) ∈ NC (n) be the Kreweras complement of the partition π [see Definition 9.21 in Nica and Speicher (2006)]. Then we have the following lemma.
Relation (5.9) will be useful to justify Example 1(a) and (b). Relations (5.7)
and (5.10) will be useful to prove Lemma 5.2.
Lemma 5.1.

(5.7)

(a)

ϕ(d0 sb1 sd1 sb2 · · · sdn )
X
=
ϕK(π) [b1 , d1 , b2 , d2 , . . . , bn , dn d0 ]
π∈NC 2 (2n)

(5.8)

=

X

ϕπ [b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ]ϕK(π) [d1 , d2 , . . . , dn d0 ]

X

ϕπ [d1 , d2 , . . . , dn d0 ]ϕK(π) [b1 , b2 , . . . , bn ].

π∈NC (n)

(5.9)

=

π∈NC (n)

(b) Fix 1 = k0 < k1 < · · · < kt ≤ n and the following subset of NC 2 (2n) as
S = {π ∈ NC 2 (2n) : {2ki , 2ki+1 − 1} ∈ π, 0 ≤ i ≤ t, kt+1 = k0 }.
Then

(5.10)

X

ϕK(π) [b1 , d1 , b2 , d2 , . . . , bn , dn d0 ]

π∈S

=ϕ

t
Y

s=0

bk s

! t+1
Y

s=1

ϕ(dks−1 sbks−1 +1 sdks−1 +1 · · · sdks −1 ),

where k0 = 1, dkt+1 −1 = dn d0 .
Relation (5.7) follows by (22.10) of Nica and Speicher (2006). By freeness
of {bi } and {di }, and by properties of the Kreweras complement [Exercises
9.41(1), 9.42(1) and (2) in Nica and Speicher (2006)], (5.8) and (5.9) follow
from (5.7). Relation (5.10) follows from the multiplicative property (5.5)
and (5.6) of partitions and from certain properties of Kreweras complement.
A detailed proof of (5.10) is given in Section 9 of the supplementary file
Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015).

23

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

5.4. A recursion formula for moments and its proof. In this section, we
shall prove a lemma that provides a recursion formula for the moments of
the LSD of 2−1 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ), which will be used in the proof of Remark 3.2 in
the next section.
Let
D = 2−1 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u )

∗
and duq = 2−1 (γuq + γuq
),

where γuq is as in (3.10). Suppose θ is a U (0, 2π) variable, which is (classical)
independent and commutative with {aj } and duq . Recall h(λ, θ) in (3.14).
For any polynomial Π = Π(ψj , ψj∗ : j ≥ 0), let Π̄ = Π(aj , a∗j : j ≥ 0). For all
j ≥ 0, let
(5.11)

j−1
Ruj (θ) = y −1 (1 + y)ϕ(h(λ, θ)duq
),

(5.12)

j−1
Suj (θ, Π) = y −1 (1 + y)ϕ(Π̄h(λ, θ)duq
).

Lemma 5.2. Let Xt ∼ MA(q) process and suppose assumptions (A1),
(A2), (A3) and pn−1 → y ∈ (0, ∞) hold. Then for any polynomial Π =
Π(ψj , ψj∗ : j ≥ 0), we have
lim p−1 E Tr(ΠD r )
(5.13)
"
r
1X
=
Eθ (y cos(uθ))t
y
t=1

X

t
Y

Sui1 (θ, Π)

1≤i1 ,i2 ,...,it ≤r
Pt
j=1 ij =r

k=2

!#

Ruik (θ)

.

Proof. From the proof of (3.11), it is immediate that
y
lim p−1 E Tr(ΠD r )
1+y
(5.14)

= ϕ(Π̄druq )
=

q
X

X

jk ,jk′ =1 vk =u,−u
1≤k≤r 1≤k≤r

=

X

τσ

ϕ Π̄

r
Y

ajk scjk −jk′ +vk sa∗j ′

k

k=1

!

by (3.10)

by (5.7),

σ∈NC 2 (2r)

where
τσ =

q
X

X

jk ,jk′ =1 vk =u,−u
1≤k≤r 1≤k≤r

ϕK(σ) [cj1 −j1′ +v1 , a∗j ′ aj2 , cj2 −j2′ +v2 , a∗j ′ aj3 , . . . , a∗jr′ aj1 Π̄],
1

2

24

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

and K(σ) is the Kreweras complementSof σ. Now to compute (5.14), we consider the decomposition of NC 2 (2r) = rt=1 Pt2r , where P12r = {σ ∈ NC 2 (2r) :
{1, 2} ∈ σ} and for all 2 ≤ t ≤ r,
Pt2r = {σ ∈ NC 2 (2r) : {2k0 − 1, 2kt }, {2k0 , 2k1 − 1}, {2k1 , 2k2 − 1}, . . . ,
{2kt−2 , 2kt−1 − 1} ∈ σ, 1 = k0 < k1 < k2 < · · · < kt−1 ≤ r}.

Hence, (5.14) is equivalent to
−1

(5.15)

y(1 + y)

lim p

−1

r

E Tr(ΠD ) =

r
X
t=1

where for all 1 ≤ t ≤ r,
X
Tt =
τσ =
(5.16)
σ∈Pt2r

X

Tt ,

g(t, k1 , k2 , . . . , kt−1 ),

1=k0 <k1 <k2 <···<kt−1 ≤r

and
2t+1 (1 + y)−t−1 g(t + 1, k1 , k2 , . . . , kt )
! t
t
Y
Y
X
(5.17)
ϕ(a∗j ′ dkuqs+1 −ks −1 ajk
cjks −jk′ +vks
ϕ
=
1≤jks ,jk′ s ≤q

s

s=0

ks

s=0

(s+1)

)

vks =u,−u

[by (5.10) and where kt+1 = r + 1 and ajkt+1 = ajk0 Π̄].
Now, by (3.8),
ϕ

t
Y

cjks −jk′

s=0

s

+vks

!

=







t
X
(jks − jk′ s + vks ) = 0,

1,

if

0,

otherwise

s=0

= Eθ (eiθ

Pt

′
s=0 (jks −jks +vks )

)
where θ ∼ U (0, 2π).

Therefore, (5.17) is equivalent to
=

1
1+y

X

Pt

Eθ (e

′
s=0 iθ(jks −jks +vks )

1≤jks ,jk′ s ≤q

t
Y

s=0

vks =u,−u
t
Y
1
=
Eθ
1+y
s=0

)

X

jk′ s ,jks+1 ,vks

iθ(−jk′ s +jk(s+1) +vks )

e

ϕ(a∗j ′ dkuqs+1 −ks −1 ajk
ks

(s+1)

)

)
ϕ(a∗j ′ dkuqs+1 −ks −1 ajk
(s+1)
ks

!

where jkt+1 = jk0 .

25

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

Note that for a fix 0 ≤ s ≤ t, since vks = u, −u,
X
iθ(−jk′ s +jk(s+1) +vks )
ϕ(a∗j ′ dkuqs+1 −ks −1 ajk
e
ks

jk′ s ,jks+1 ,vks

)

(s+1)



X
X
iθjk(s+1)
−iθjk′ s
ks+1 −ks −1
∗
duq
aj ′ e
e
ajk(s+1)
= 2 cos(uθ)ϕ
j ks

ks


y

R
(θ),
1 ≤ s ≤ t − 1,
 2 cos(uθ)
1 + y u(ks+1 −ks )
=
y

 2 cos(uθ)
S
(θ, Π),
s = t.
1 + y u(r+1−kt )
Hence, for all 1 = k0 < k1 < k2 < · · · < kt ≤ r, we have
g(t + 1, k1 , k2 , . . . , kt )

= y t+1 (1 + y)−1 Eθ cos(uθ)Su(r+1−kt ) (θ, Π)

t−1
Y

!

cos(uθ)Ru(ks+1 −ks ) (θ) .

s=0

Therefore, by (5.16), for all 1 ≤ t ≤ r,
#
"
t−1
Y
X
yt
Ru(ks+1 −ks ) (θ)
Eθ (cos(uθ))t Su(r+1−kt ) (θ, Π)
Tt =
(1 + y)
s=0

1=k0 <k1 <···<kt ≤r
kt+1 =r+1

X

= y t (1 + y)−1

Eθ (cos(uθ))t Sui1 (θ, Π)

t
Y

Ruis (θ) .

s=2

1≤i1 ,i2 ,...,it ≤r
i1 +i2 +···+it =r

!

Hence, by using (5.15) and (5.16), relation (5.13) follows. 
5.5. Proof of Remark 3.2. (a) We prove (3.12)–(3.15) stated in Remark 3.2
under assumptions (A1)–(A3). By Remark 3.1, assumption (A2) can be replaced by assumptions (A4) and (A5).
Let us define
∞
∞
X
X
z −i diuq ,
z −i Rui (θ),
D=
K(z, θ) =
i=1

i=1

B(λ, z) = Eθ (cos(uθ)h(λ, θ)(1 + y cos(uθ)K(z, θ))−1 ),

where {Rui } is defined in (5.11). Now note that
−1

y(1 + y)
(5.18)

K(z, θ) =

∞
X

z −i ϕ(h(λ, θ)di−1
uq )

by (5.11)

i=1

= −z −1 ϕ(h(λ, θ)) − z −1 ϕ(h(λ, θ)D),

26

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

where
ϕ(h(λ, θ)D)
=

∞
X

z −r y −1

"

Eθ′ (y cos(uθ ′ ))t

t=1

r=1

X

×

′

Sui1 (θ , h(λ, θ))

∞
X

z

r=t

= y −1

t=1

X

−r

′

Sui1 (θ , h(λ, θ))

t
Y

′

"

Eθ′ (y cos(uθ ′ ))t (K(z, θ ′ ))t−1

∞
X

!#

Ruis (θ )

s=2

!#

z −r Sur (θ ′ , h(λ, θ))

r=1

= Eθ′ cos(uθ ′ )(1 + y cos(uθ ′ )K(z, θ ′ ))−1

=ϕ

(by Lemma 5.2)

Eθ′ (y cos(uθ ′ ))t

"

∞
X

!#

Ruis (θ )

1≤i1 ,i2 ,...,it ≤r
i1 +i2 +···+it =r

∞
X

′

"

t=1

∞
X

t
Y

s=2

1≤i1 ,i2 ,...,it ≤r
i1 +i2 +···+it =r

= y −1

×

r
X

∞
X

!#

z −r Sur (θ ′ , h(λ, θ))

r=1

!

r−1
h(λ, θ)Eθ′ [h(λ, θ ′ ) cos(uθ ′ )(1 + y cos(uθ ′ )K(z, θ ′ ))−1 ]
z −r duq

r=1

= z −1 ϕ(h(λ, θ)B(λ, z)) + z −1 ϕ(Dh(λ, θ)B(λ, z)).
In a similar fashion, using h(λ, θ)B(λ, z) instead of h(λ, θ) in the above steps,
ϕ(Dh(λ, θ)B(λ, z)) = z −1 ϕ(h(λ, θ)B 2 (λ, z)) + z −1 ϕ(Dh(λ, θ)B 2 (λ, z)).
Finally iterating we have
(5.19)

ϕ(h(λ, θ)D) =

∞
X

z −r ϕ(h(λ, θ)B r (λ, z)).

r=1

We now need to show only (3.12) and (3.13). Using (5.19) and (5.18),
y(1 + y)−1 K(z, θ)
(5.20)
!
∞
X
−r r
−1
h(λ, θ)z B (λ, z) = ϕ(h(λ, θ)(B(λ, z) − z)−1 ),
= −z ϕ
r=0

which is (3.13) in Remark 3.2.

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

27

Note that the above steps from (5.18) leading to (5.20) remain valid if we
replace h(λ, θ) by 1 in (5.18). This yields [instead of (5.20)],
(5.21)

y(1 + y)−1 m(z) = ϕ((B(λ, z) − z)−1 ),

which is (3.12) in Remark 3.2. Hence, the proof of Remark 3.2(a) is complete.
(b) We now prove that under assumption (B), the Stieltjes transform
equations (3.12)–(3.15) reduce to equations (3.16)–(3.18).
Note that under assumption (B),
!
! ∞
∞
X
X
λ = {aj , a∗j : j ≥ 0}
e−ijθ a∗j ,
eijθ aj
h(λ, θ) =
j=0

j=0

∞
X

−1

= y(1 + y)

ijθ

e

j=0

(5.22)

−1

+ (1 + y)

−1

= y(1 + y)

fj (α)

∞
X

!

e−ijθ fj∗ (α)

j=0

α ∼ Fa

δ0 ,

∞
X

!

2

ijθ

e

fj (α) + (1 + y)−1 δ0

j=0

= y(1 + y)−1 h1 (α, θ) + (1 + y)−1 δ0 ,

α ∼ Fa ,

where δ0 is the degenerate random variable at 0. Therefore, after substituting
(3.15) in (3.13), we have
K(z, θ) = y −1 (1 + y)ϕ(h(λ, θ)(B(λ, z) − z)−1 )
 


−1
cos(uθ ′ )h(λ, θ ′ )
= y −1 (1 + y)ϕ Eθ′
h(λ,
θ)
−
z
(1 + y cos(uθ ′ )K(z, θ ′ ))

−1
Z  
cos(uθ ′ )h1 (α, θ ′ )
h1 (α, θ) dFa
by (5.22).
−z
=
Eθ′
(1 + y cos(uθ ′ )K(z, θ ′ ))

Hence, (3.13) reduces to (3.17). Similarly, one can show (3.12) reduces to
(3.16). Therefore, proof of Remark 3.2(b) is complete.
5.6. Justification for Example 1. (a) Observe that, by (3.11),
h
lim p−1 E Tr(Γ̂0 )h = y −1 (1 + y)ϕ(γ00
)

∀h ≥ 1,

∗ = (1 + y)a sc sa . By (3.8) and (3.9), a and c
where by (3.10), γ00 = γ00
0 0 0
0
0
are both Bernoulli random variables with success probabilities y(1 + y)−1
and (1 + y)−1 , respectively. Hence, by (5.9), the hth moment of the LSD of
Γ̂0 is given by
(1 + y)h+1 X
(5.23)
ϕπ [a20 , a20 , . . . , a20 ]ϕK(π) [c0 , c0 , . . . , c0 ].
y
π∈NC (h)

28

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

Note that if π ∈ NC (h) has k blocks, then

ϕπ [a20 , a20 , . . . , a20 ] = ϕπ [a0 , a0 , . . . , a0 ] = y k (1 + y)−k ,
ϕπ [c0 , c0 , . . . , c0 ] = (1 + y)−k .

By (9.18) on page 148 in Nica and Speicher (2006), if π ∈ NC (h) has k
blocks then K(π) has (h − k + 1) many blocks. Therefore, (5.23) equals



h
h
X
X
1 h−1
h
k−1
#{π ∈ NC (h) : π has k blocks}y
=
y k−1 ,
k−1
k k−1
k=1

k=1

which is the hth moment of the Marčenko–Pastur law [see (3.19)]. For the
last equality, see page 144 of Nica and Speicher (2006). This proves (a).
(b) Observe that, by (3.11),
∗ h
lim p−1 E Tr((np−1 )2 Γ̂u (ε)Γ̂∗u (ε))h = y −(2h+1) (1 + y)ϕ(γu0 γu0
)
∗
γu0

∀h ≥ 1,

y)a0 sc∗u sa0 .

Since
= (1 +
where, by (3.10), γu0 = (1 + y)a0 scu sa0 and
the marginal distribution of all the ci ’s are same for i ≥ 1, using free independence of Span{s}, {ai , a∗i } and {ci , c∗i }, the LSD of ( np )2 Γ̂u (ε)Γ̂∗u (ε) are
identical for all u ≥ 1.
Now we show that the LSD is the free Bessel law. Let
NCE (2n) = {π ∈ NC (2n) : every block of π has even cardinality}.

By (5.9), the hth order moment of the LSD of ( np )2 Γ̂u (ε)Γ̂∗u (ε) is given by
(5.24)

(1 + y)2h+1
y 2h+1

X

ϕK(π) [a0 , a0 , . . . , a0 ]ϕπ [ci , c∗i , ci , c∗i , . . . , ci , c∗i ].

π∈NC (2h)

Note that ϕπ [ci , c∗i , ci , c∗i , . . . , ci , c∗i ] = 0 if π ∈ NC (2h) − NCE (2h). If π ∈
NCE (2h) has k many blocks, then ϕπ [ci , c∗i , ci , c∗i , . . . , ci , c∗i ] = (1 + y)k . Note
that by (9.18) on page 148 in Nica and Speicher (2006), K(π) has 2h + 1 − k
blocks, and hence ϕK(π) [a0 , a0 , . . . , a0 ] = y 2h+1−k (1 + y)2h+1−k . Therefore,
(5.24) equals
y −2h

h
X
k=1

#{π ∈ NCE (2h) : π has k blocks}y 2h+1−k−1




h
X
2h
1 h−1
y −k ,
=
k k−1 k−1

[by (3.8) and (3.9)]

k=1

where the last equality follows from Lemma 4.1 of Edelman (1980). The
final expression is indeed the hth moment of the free Bessel(2, y −1 ) law.
This proves (b) under (A2).

29

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

(c) By (5.20) and (5.21), the Stieltjes transform of LSD of
satisfies,

−1
Z 2π
cos θ dθ
1
(5.25)
.
m(z) = − z −
2π 0 1 + ym(z) cos θ

1
2 (Γ̂u

+ Γ̂∗u )

Now by contour integration, it can be shown that
Z 2π
1
1
cos θ dθ
1
2
=
− 2 2
,
2π 0 1 + ym(z) cos θ ym(z) y m (z) ω1 − ω2
where ω1 and ω2 are two roots of ω 2 + 2(ym(z))−1 ω + 1 = 0 with |ω1 | > 1,
y 2 m2 (z)
|ω2 | < 1 and (ω1 − ω2 )−2 = 4(1−y
2 m2 (z)) . Therefore, by (5.25), we have
1
2(ω1 − ω2 )−1
−1
= z−
+
m(z)
ym(z)
y 2 m2 (z)
→ ((1 − y) − zym(z))2 (1 − y 2 m2 (z)) = 1.
Hence, Example 1(c) follows.
5.7. Justification for Example 3. By Remark 3.1(a) it is enough to work
under assumption (A2). Note that the LSD of ψj is δλj . We can write
!
!
q
q
q X
q X
X
X
∗
Z ∗.
n∆u = Z
n∆∗u = Z
λj λj ′ Pj−j ′ +u Z ∗ ,
λj λj ′ Pj−j
′ +u
j=0 j ′ =0

j=0 j ′ =0

By Lemma 7.1 of the supplementary file Bhattacharjee and Bose (2015),
LSD of 12 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ) and 21 (∆u + ∆∗u ) are identical. Moreover,
!
q
q X
X
1
1
∗
∗
(∆u + ∆∗u ) = n−1 Z
λj λj ′ (Pj−j ′ +u + Pj−j
′ +u ) Z ,
2
2
′
j=0 j =0

whose LSD is a compound free Poisson [see discussions around (3.24)] and
by (3.24), its rth order free cumulant is given by
!r
q
1
1 X
r−1
∗
y
lim Tr
λj λj ′ (Pj−j ′ +u + Pj−j ′ +u )
n
2 ′
j,j =0

=y

r−1

Eθ (cos(uθ)h̃(λ, θ))r ,

where h̃ is as given in (3.26) and θ ∼ U (0, 2π). Hence, Example 3 is justified.

30

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

5.8. Proof of Remark 3.3. It is enough to show that (3.25) justifies Theorem 2.1 in Liu, Aue and Paul (2015) when ψj = λj .
For a variable a, define the free cumulant generating function
(5.26)

C(z) = 1 +

∞
X

kr z r ,

r=1

where kr is the rth order free cumulant of a. One can show that
− C(−m(z)) = zm(z),

(5.27)

[see (12.5) on page 198 of Nica and Speicher (2006)] where m(z) is the
Stieltjes transformation of a.
Here, we consider a to be distributed as LSD of 21 (Γ̂u + Γ̂∗u ). Our goal is to
find the power series expansion of C(−m(z)) from m(z) in (3.16) and show
that the coefficient of (−m(z))r in that expansion is same as kur in (3.25).
As ψj = λj Ip , (3.18) reduces to (3.26), and hence (3.16) and (3.17) reduce
to


cos(uθ)h̃(λ, θ)
1
+ z = Eθ
(5.28)
where
m(z)
1 + y cos(uθ)K(z, θ)
(5.29)

K(z, θ) = m(z)h̃(λ, θ).

Hence, by (5.27),


1
C(−m(z)) = −zm(z) = −m(z)
+z +1
m(z)


cos(uθ)m(z)h̃(λ, θ)
= −Eθ
+1
by (5.28)
1 + y cos(uθ)K(z, θ)
(5.30)


cos(uθ)m(z)h̃(λ, θ)
= −Eθ
+1
by (5.29)
1 + y cos(uθ)m(z)h̃(λ, θ)
=1+

∞
X

y r−1 Eθ (cos(uθ)h̃(λ, θ))r (−m(z))r .

r=1

Therefore, for all r ≥ 1, the coefficient of (−m(z))r in (5.30) agrees with
kur in (3.25). This completes the proof.
5.9. Detailed calculation for Example 5 in Section 4.2.3. Note that Xt =
εt + εt−1 , where εt ∼ N (0, Ip ) and Ip is the identity matrix of order p. Suppose n = p. Therefore, for every i ≥ 1, (εt,i + εt−1,+i ) ∼ N (0, 2), and hence
(5.31) E(εt,i + εt−1,+i )2 = 2,

E(εt,i + εt−1,+i )4 = 12,

HIGH DIMENSIONAL AUTOCOVARIANCE MATRICES

E(Tr(Γ̂0 )) = n−1

X

E(Xt21 ,i1 ) = n−1

E(εt1 ,i1 + εt1 −1,i1 )2

t1 ,i1

t1 ,i1

(5.32)

X

31

= 2(n − 1)

and
E(Tr(Γ̂0 ) − E Tr(Γ̂0 ))2

= E(Tr(Γ̂0 ))2 − (E Tr(Γ̂0 ))2
X
E(Xt21 ,i1 Xt22 ,i2 ) − 4(n − 1)2
= n−2

[by (5.32)]

t1 ,t2 ,i1 ,i2

X

= n−2

E(Xt21 ,i1 )E(Xt22 ,i2 ) + n−2

+ n−2

t1 =t2 ,i1 6=i2

E(Xt21 ,i1 )E(Xt22 ,i2 ) − 4(n − 1)2

= 4(n − 1)(n − 2) + 12 + 4
= 12 + 4

E(Xt41 ,i1 )

t1 =t2 ,i1 =i2

t1 6=t2 ,i1 ,i2

X

X

(n − 1)2
− 4(n − 1)2
n

[by (5.31)]

n−1
n−1 2
(n − 2n + n − 1 − n2 + n) = 12 − 4
n
n

→ 8.
Acknowledgements. We thank Octavio Arizmendi and Carlos Vargas
Obieta for interesting and helpful discussions on free probability. We thank
Debashis Paul for interesting discussions on their article. We thank all the
three referees for their extremely constructive comments which have led to
a very significant improvement in the article in terms of both substance and
presentation.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplement to “Large sample behaviour of high dimensional autocovariance matrices” (DOI: 10.1214/15-AOS1378SUPP; .pdf). In this supplement,
we provide additional technical details and simulations.
REFERENCES
Bai, Z. and Silverstein, J. W. (2010). Spectral Analysis of Large Dimensional Random
Matrices, 2nd ed. Springer, New York. MR2567175
Bai, Z. and Zhou, W. (2008). Large sample covariance matrices without independence
structures in columns. Statist. Sinica 18 425–442. MR2411613
Bhattacharjee, M. and Bose, A. (2014). Estimation of autocovariance matrices for
infinite dimensional vector linear process. J. Time Series Anal. 35 262–281. MR3194965

32

M. BHATTACHARJEE AND A. BOSE

Bhattacharjee, M. and Bose, A. (2015). Supplement to “Large sample behaviour of
high dimensional autocovariance matrices.” DOI:10.1214/15-AOS1378SUPP.
Edelman, P. H. (1980). Chain enumeration and noncrossing partitions. Discrete Math.
31 171–180. MR0583216
Forni, M. and Lippi, M. (2001). The generalized dynamic factor model: Representation
theory. Econometric Theory 17 1113–1141. MR1867540
Forni, M., Hallin, M., Lippi, M. and Reichlin, L. (2000). The generalized dynamic
factor model: Identification and estimation. Rev. Econom. Statist. 82 540–554.
Forni, M., Hallin, M., Lippi, M. and Reichlin, L. (2004). The generalized dynamic
factor model: Consistency and rates. J. Econometrics 119 231–235.
Hong, Y. and Lee, Y. J. (2003). Consistent testing for serial uncorrelation of unknown form under general conditional heteroscedasticity. Dept. Economics, Cornell
Univ. Preprint.
Jin, B., Wang, C., Bai, Z. D., Nair, K. K. and Harding, M. (2014). Limiting spectral
distribution of a symmetrized auto-cross covariance matrix. Ann. Appl. Probab. 24
1199–1225. MR3199984
Liu, H. (2013). Spectral analysis of high dimensional time series. Ph.D. thesis. Univ.
California, Davis.
Liu, H., Aue, A. and Paul, D. (2015). On the Marčenko–Pastur law for linear time series.
Ann. Statist. 43 675–712. MR3319140
Marčenko, V. and Pastur, L. (1967). Distribution of eigenvalues for some sets of random matrices. Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik 1 457–483.
Nica, A. and Speicher, R. (2006). Lectures on the Combinatorics of Free Probability.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Pfaffel, O. and Schlemm, E. (2011). Eigenvalue distribution of large sample covariance
matrices of linear processes. Probab. Math. Statist. 31 313–329.
Shao, X. (2011). Testing for white noise under unknown dependence and its application
to diagnostic checking for time series models. Econometric Theory 27 312–343.
Silverstein, J. W. (1995). Strong convergence of the empirical distribution of eigenvalues
of large-dimensional random matrices. J. Multivariate Anal. 55 331–339.
Silverstein, J. W. and Bai, Z. D. (1995). On the empirical distribution of eigenvalues
of a class of large-dimensional random matrices. J. Multivariate Anal. 54 175–192.
Xiao, H. and Wu, W. B. (2014). Portmanteau test and simultaneous inference for serial
covariances. Statist. Sinica 24 577–599.
Yao, J. (2012). A note on a Marčenko–Pastur type theorem for time series. Statist. Probab.
Lett. 82 22–28.
Zeitouni, O., Anderson, G. W. and Guionnet, A. (2010). An Introduction to Random
Matrices. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
Statistics and Mathematics Unit
Indian Statistical Institute
203 B.T. Road, Kolkata 700108
India
E-mail: monaiidexp.gamma@gmail.com
bosearu@gmail.com

