Moving Block and Tapered Block Bootstrap for
Functional Time Series with an Application to the

arXiv:1711.01070v1 [] 3 Nov 2017

K-Sample Mean Problem
Dimitrios PILAVAKIS, Efstathios PAPARODITIS∗ and Theofanis SAPATINAS
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Cyprus,
P.O. Box 20537, CY 1678 Nicosia, CYPRUS.

Abstract
We consider infinite-dimensional Hilbert space-valued random variables that are assumed to
be temporal dependent in a broad sense. We prove a central limit theorem for the moving block
and the tapered block bootstrap and show that these block bootstrap procedures also provide
consistent estimators of the spectral density operator of the underlying functional process at
frequency zero. Furthermore, we consider block bootstrap-based procedures for fully functional
testing of the equality of mean functions between several independent functional time series. We
establish the validity of the block bootstrap methods in approximating the distribution of the
statistic of interest under the null. The finite sample behaviour of the procedures is investigated
by means of simulations. An application to a real-life dataset is also discussed.
Some key words: Functional Time Series; Mean Function; Moving Block Bootstrap;
Tapered Block Bootstrap; Spectral Density Operator; K-sample mean problem

1

Introduction

In statistical analysis, conclusions are commonly derived based on information obtained from a random
sample of observations. In an increasing number of fields, these observations are curves or images
which are viewed as functions in appropriate spaces, since an observed intensity is available at each
point on a line segment, a portion of a plane or a volume. Such observed curves or images are called
‘functional data’; see, e.g., Ramsay and Dalzell (1991) who also introduced the term ‘functional data
analysis’ (FDA) which refers to statistical methods used for analysing this kind of data.
In this paper we focus on functional time series, that is we consider observations steaming for a
stochastic process X = (Xt , t ∈ Z) of Hilbert space-valued random variables which satisfies certain
stationarity and dependence properties. We want to infer properties of the stochastic process based
on an observed stretch X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn , i.e., on a functional time series. In this context, we commonly
∗

Corresponding author (email: stathisp@ucy.ac.cy)

1

need to calculate the distribution or parameters related to the distribution of some statistics of
interest based on X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn . Since in a functional set-up such quantities typically depend in a
complicated way on infinite-dimensional characteristics of the underlying stochastic process X, their
calculation is difficult in practice. As a result, resampling methods and, in particular, bootstrap
methodologies are very useful.
For the case of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Banach space-valued random
variables, Giné and Zinn (1990) proved the consistency of the standard i.i.d. bootstrap for the sample
mean. For functional time series, Politis and Romano (1994) established validity of the stationary
bootstrap for the same statistic for (bounded) Hilbert space-valued random variables satisfying certain
mixing conditions. Consistency of the non-overlapping block bootstrap for the sample mean and for
near epoch dependent Hilbert space-valued random variables, has been established by Dehling et al.
(2015). However, up to date, consistency results are not available for the moving block bootstrap
(MBB) or its improved versions, like the tapered block bootstrap (TBB).
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we prove consistency of the MBB and of the TBB for
the sample mean function in the case of weakly dependent Hilbert space-valued random variables.
Furthermore, we show that these bootstrap methods provide consistent estimators of the covariance
operator of the sample mean function estimator, that is of the spectral density operator of the
underlying stochastic process at frequency zero. We derive our theoretical results under quite general
dependence assumptions on X, i.e., under L2 -m-approximability assumptions, which are satisfied by a
large class of commonly used functional time series models; see, e.g., Hörmann and Kokoszka (2010).
Second, we apply the above mentioned bootstrap methodologies, to the problem of fully functional
testing of the equality of the mean functions between a number of independent functional time series.
Testing the equality of mean functions for i.i.d. functional data has been extensively discussed in the
literature; see, e.g., Benko et al. (2009) and Hórvath and Kokoszka (2012, Chapter 5). Bootstrap
improvements over asymptotic approximations have been proposed in the same context by Benko et
al. (2009), Zhang et al. (2010) and, more recently, by Paparoditis and Sapatinas (2016). Testing
equality of mean functions for dependent functional data has also attracted some interest in the
literature. Horváth et al. (2013) developed an asymptotic procedure for testing equality of two mean
functions for functional time series. Since the limiting null distribution of the fully functional, L2 -type
test statistic proposed depends on difficult to estimate process characteristics, tests are considered
which are based on a finite number of projections. Although such tests lead to manageable limiting
distributions, they have non-trivial power only for deviations from the null which are not orthogonal
to the subspace generated by the particular projections considered.
In this paper, we show that the block bootstrap procedures can be successfully applied to
approximate the distribution under the null of such fully functional test statistics. This is achieved
by designing the suggested block bootstrap procedures in such a way that the generated pseudoobservations satisfy the null hypothesis of interest. Notice that such block bootstrap-based testing
methodologies are applicable to a broad range of possible test statistics. As an example, we prove
validity for the L2 -type test statistic recently proposed by Horváth et al. (2013).

2

The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the basic assumptions on the underlying stochastic
process X are stated and the MBB and TBB procedures for weakly dependent Hilbert space-valued
random variables are described. Asymptotic validity of the block bootstrap procedures for estimating
the distribution of the sample mean function is established and their consistency in estimating the
covariance operator of the same statistic, i.e., of the spectral density operator of the underlying
stochastic process at frequency zero, is proven. Section 3 is devoted to the problem of testing equality
of mean functions for several independent functional time series. Theoretical justifications of an
appropriately modified version of the MBB and of the TBB procedure for approximating the null
distribution of a fully functional test statistic is given. Numerical simulations and a real-life data
example are presented and discussed in Section Section 4. Auxiliary results and proofs of the main
results are deferred to Section 5 and to the supplementary material.

2

Block Bootstrap Procedures for Functional Time Series

2.1

Preliminaries and Assumptions

We consider a strictly stationary stochastic process X = {Xt , t ∈ Z}, where the random variables Xt
are random functions Xt (ω, τ ), τ ∈ I, ω ∈ Ω, t ∈ Z, defined on a probability space (Ω, A, P ) and take
values in the separable Hilbert-space of squared-integrable R-valued functions on I, denoted by L2 (I).
The expectation function of Xt , EXt ∈ L2 (I), is independent of t, and it is denoted by µ. Throughout
R
this paper, we assume for simplicity that µ = 0. We define hf, gi = I f (τ )g(τ )dτ, kf k2 = hf, f i
and the tensor product between f and g by f ⊗ g(·) = hf, ·ig. For two Hilbert-Schmidt operators
P
Ψ1 and Ψ2 we denote by hΨ1 , Ψ2 iHS = ∞
i=1 hΨ1 (ei ), Ψ2 (ei )i the inner product which generates the
P∞
Hilbert-Schmidt norm kΨ1 kHS = i=1 kΨ1 (ei )k2 , where {ei , i = 1, 2, . . .} is an orthonormal basis of
L2 (I). Without loss of generality, we assume that I = [0, 1] (the unit interval) and for simplicity,
integral signs without the limits of integration imply integration over the interval I. We finally write
L2 instead of L2 (I).
To describe the dependent structure of the stochastic process X, we use the notion of Lp -mapproximability; see Hörmann and Kokoszka (2010). A stochastic process X = {Xt , t ∈ Z} with Xt
taking values in L2 , is called L2 -m-approximable if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) Xt admits the representation
Xt = f (δt , δt−1 , δt−2 , . . .)

(1)

for some measurable function f : S ∞ → L2 , where {δt , t ∈ Z} is a sequence of i.i.d. elements in
L2 .
(ii) EkX0 k2 < ∞ and
Xq
EkXt − Xt,m k2 < ∞,

(2)

m≥1
(m)

(m)

(m)

where Xt,m = f (δt , δt−1 , . . . , δt−m+1 , δt,t−m , δt,t−m−1 , . . .) and for each t and k, δt,k
independent copy of δt .
3

is an

The intuition behind the above definition is that the function f in (1) should be such that the
effect of the innovations δi far back in the past becomes negligible, that is, these innovations can be
replaced by other, independent, innovations. For the stochastic process X considered in this paper,
we somehow strengthen (2) to the following assumption.
Assumption 1. X is L2 -m-approximable and satisfies
q
lim m EkXt − Xt,m k2 = 0.
m→∞

Notice that the above assumption is satisfied by many linear and non-linear functional time series
models commonly used in the literature; see, e.g., Hörmann and Kokoszka (2010).

2.2

The Moving Block Bootstrap

The main idea of the MBB, proposed for real-valued time series by Künsch (1989) and Liu and Singh
(1992), and which will be adapted below to the functional time series context, is to split the data
into overlapping blocks of length b and to obtain the bootstrapped pseudo-time series by joining
together the k independently and randomly selected blocks of observations in the order selected.
Here k is a positive integer satisfying b(k − 1) < n and bk ≥ n. For simplicity of notation, we assume
throughout the paper that n = kb. Since the dependence of the original time series is maintained
within each block, it is expected that for weakly dependent time series, this bootstrap procedure will,
asymptotically, correctly imitate the entire dependence structure of the underlying stochastic process
if the block length b increases to infinity, at some appropriate rate, as the sample size n increases to
infinity. Adapting this resampling idea to a functional time series Xn = {Xt , t = 1, 2, . . . , n}, leads
to the following MBB algorithm.
Step 1 : Let b = b(n), 1 ≤ b < n, be an integer. Denote by Bt = {Xt , Xt+1 , . . . , Xt+b−1 } the block of
length b starting from observation Xt , t = 1, 2, . . . , N, where N = n − b + 1 is the number of
such blocks available.
Step 2 : Define i.i.d. integer-valued random variables I1 , I2 , . . . , Ik having a discrete uniform
distribution assigning the probability 1/N to each element of the set {1, 2, . . . , N }.
∗
∗
∗ } the elements of
Step 3 : Let Bi∗ = BIi , i = 1, 2, . . . , k and denote by {X(i−1)b+1
, X(i−1)b+2
, . . . , Xib
Bi∗ . Join the k blocks in the order B1∗ , B2∗ , . . . , Bk∗ together to obtain a new set of functional
pseudo observations of length n denoted by X1∗ , X2∗ , . . . , Xn∗ .

The above bootstrap algorithm can be applied to approximate the distribution of some statistic
Tn = T (X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ) of interest. For instance, let Tn = X n be the sample mean function
P
of the observed stretch X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn , i.e., X n = n−1 nt=1 Xt . We are interested in estimating
√
√
the distribution of n(X n − µ) = nX n by means of the previously described MBB procedure.
√
∗
∗
∗
For this, the bootstrap random variable n(X n − E∗ (X n )) is used, where X n is the mean
P
∗
function of the functional pseudo observations X1∗ , X2∗ , . . . , Xn∗ , i.e., X n = n−1 nt=1 Xt∗ and
4

∗

∗

∗

∗
E∗ (Xhn ) is the (conditional on the observations
i Xn ) expected value of X n , given by E (X n ) =
P
P
b−1
n
N −1
t=1 (1 − t/b)(Xt + Xn−t+1 ) .
t=1 Xt −

It is known that, under a variety of dependence assumptions on the underlying stochastic process
√
d
X, it holds true that nX n → Γ as n → ∞, where Γ denotes a Gaussian process with mean
zero and covariance operator 2πF0 . Furthermore, knE(X n ⊗ X n ) − 2πF0 kHS → 0 as n → ∞; see,
P
e.g., Cerovecki and Hörmanm (2017). Here, Fω = (2π)−1 h∈Z Ch e−ihω , ω ∈ R, is the so called
spectral density operator of X and Ch denotes the lag h autocovariance operator of X, defined by
Ch (·) = EhXt , ·iXt+h for any h ∈ Z. The operator Fω , introduced by Panaretos and Tavakoli (2013),
has been shown to be trace class under some weak dependence assumptions on X which refer to the
summability of functional cumulants. Alternatively, the assumption of L2 -m-approximablity used in
P
this paper, implies that h∈Z kCh kHS < ∞ and that the spectral density operator Fω , ω ∈ [−π, π]
exist and is trace class; see Hörmanm et al. (2015).
The following theorem establishes validity of the MBB procedure for approximating the
√
distribution of nX n .
Theorem 2.1. Suppose that the stochastic process X = (Xt , t ∈ Z) satisfies Assumption 1 and let
X1∗ , X2∗ , . . . , Xn∗ be a stretch of pseudo observations generated by the MBB procedure. Assume that the
block size b = b(n) satisfies b−1 + bn−1/2 = o(1) as n → ∞. Then, as n → ∞, the following are true :
√
√
∗
∗
d(L( n(X n − E∗ (X n ))), L( nX n )) → 0,

(i)

in probability,

where d is any metric metrizing weak convergence on L2 and L(X) denotes the law of the random
element X.
(ii)

2.3

∗

∗

∗

∗

knE∗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) ⊗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) − nE(X n ⊗ X n )kHS → 0,

in probability.

The Tapered Block Bootstrap

The TBB procedure has been introduced for real-valued time series, by Paparoditis and Politis (2001)
in order to improve the bias properties of the MBB. It is a modification of the block bootstrap
procedure considered in Section 2.2 which is obtained by introducing a tapering function. This
tapering function down-weights the endpoints of each block Bi , towards zero, i.e., towards the expected
value of Xt . The pseudo observations are then obtained by choosing, with replacement, k appropriately
scaled and tapered blocks of length b of centered observations and joining them together.
More precisely, the TBB procedure applied to the functional time series Yn = {Yt , t = 1, 2, . . . , n}
stemming from a strictly stationary stochastic process Y = (Yt , t ∈ Z) with EYt = 0, can be described
as follows. Let X1 , X2 , . . . , X2 be the centered observations, i.e., Xt = Yt − Y n , t = 1, 2, . . . , n, where
P
Y n = n−1 nt=1 Yt . Furthermore, let b = b(n) ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n−1} be a block size and wn (·), n = 1, 2, . . .,
a sequence of so-called data-tapering windows which satisfies the following assumption:

5

Assumption 2. wn (τ ) ∈ [0, 1] and wn (τ ) = 0 for τ ∈
/ {1, 2, . . . , n}. Furthermore,


τ − 0.5
,
wn (τ ) = w
n

(3)

where the function w : R → [0, 1] satisfies the following conditions: (i) w(τ ) ∈ [0, 1] for all τ ∈ R
with w(τ ) = 0 if τ ∈
/ [0, 1]; (ii) w(τ ) > 0 for all τ in a neighbourhood of 1/2; (iii) w(τ ) is symmetric
around τ = 0.5; and (iv) w(τ ) is nondecreasing for all τ ∈ [0, 1/2].
Let

(
ei =
B

b1/2
b1/2
b1/2
Xi , wb (2)
Xi+1 , . . . , wb (b)
Xi+b−1
wb (1)
kwb k2
kwb k2
kwb k2

)
,

be a block of length b starting from Xt , t = 1, 2, . . . , N, where each centered observation is
P
multiplied by wb (·) and scaled by b1/2 /kwb k2 , kwb k22 = bi=1 wb (i). Let I1 , I2 , . . . , Ik be i.i.d. integers
selected from a discrete uniform distribution which assigns probability 1/N to each element of
eI , i = 1, 2, . . . , k, and denote the i-th block selected by
the set {1, 2, . . . , N }. Let Bi∗ = B
i
∗
∗
∗
{X(i−1)b+1 , X(i−1)b+2 , . . . , Xib }. Join these blocks together in the order B1∗ , B2∗ , . . . , Bk∗ to form the set
of TBB pseudo observations X1∗ , X2∗ , . . . , Xn∗ .
Notice that the “inflation” factor b1/2 /kwb k2 is necessary to compensate for the decrease of the
variance of the Xi∗ ’s effected by the shrinking caused by the window wb ; see, also, Paparoditis and
Politis (2001). Furthermore, the TBB procedure uses the centered time series X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn instead
of the original time series Y1 , Y2 , . . . , Yn , in order to shrink the end points of the blocks towards zero.
√
To estimate the distribution of nY n by means of the TBB procedure, the bootstrap random
P
√
∗
∗
∗
∗
variable n(X n − E∗ (X n )) is used, where X n = n−1 nt=1 Xt∗ and E∗ (X n ) is, conditional on the
∗
observations Yn , the expected value of X n . Straightforward calculations yield


!
!
Pb
Pt
b−1
n
b−1
X
X
X
wb (s)
1 kwb k1 
∗
t=b−j+1 wb (t)
Xt −
1 − s=1
E∗ (X n ) =
Xt −
1−
Xn−j+1  .
N kwb k2
kwb k1
kwb k1
t=1

t=1

j=1

The following theorem establishes validity of the TBB procedure.
Theorem 2.2. Suppose that the stochastic process Y satisfies Assumption 1 and let wn (·), n =
1, 2, . . . , be a sequence of data-tapering windows satisfying Assumption 2. Furthermore, let Xt∗ , t =
1, 2, . . . , n, be a stretch of pseudo observations generated by the TBB procedure with block size b = b(n).
If b−1 + bn−1/2 = o(1) as n → ∞, then the following are true:
√
√
∗
∗
(i)
d(L( n(X n − E∗ (X n ))), L( nY n )) → 0, in probability,
(ii)

3

∗

∗

∗

∗

knE∗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) ⊗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) − nE(Y n ⊗ Y n )kHS → 0,

in probability,

Bootstrap-Based Testing of the Equality of Mean Functions

Among different applications, the MBB and TBB procedures can be also used to perform a test of
the equality of mean functions between several independent samples of a functional time series. In
6

this case, both block bootstrap procedures have to be implemented in such a way that the pseudo
observations X1∗ , X2∗ , . . . , Xn∗ generated, satisfy the null hypothesis of interest.

3.1

The set-up

Consider K independent functional time series XM = {Xi,t , i = 1, 2 . . . , K, t = 1, 2, . . . , ni }, each one
of which satisfies
Xi,t = µi + εi,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni ,
(4)
where, for each i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , K}, {εi,t , t ∈ Z} is a L2 -m-approximable functional process and ni
P
denotes the length of the i-th time series. Let M = K
i=1 ni be the total number of observations and
note that µi (τ ), τ ∈ I, is the mean function of the i-th functional time series, i = 1, 2, . . . , K. The
null hypothesis of interest is then,
H0 : µ1 = µ2 = . . . = µK
and the alternative hypothesis
H1 : ∃ k, m ∈ {1, 2, . . . , K} with k 6= m such that µk 6= µm .
Notice that the above equality is in L2 , i.e., µk = µm means that kµm − µk k = 0 whereas µk 6= µm
that kµm − µk k > 0.

3.2

Block Bootstrap-based testing

∗ , i = 1, 2 . . . , K,
The aim is to generate a set of functional pseudo observations X∗M = Xi,t
t = 1, 2, . . . , ni , using the MBB or the TBB procedure such that the null hypothesis H0 is satisfied.
These bootstrap pseudo-time series can then be used to estimate the distribution of some test statistic
∗ is used as an estimator
TM of interest which is applied to test H0 . Toward this, the distribution of TM
∗ is the same statistical functional as T
of the distribution of TM , where TM
M but calculated using the
∗
bootstrap functional pseudo-time series XM .
To implement the MBB procedure for testing the null hypothesis of interest, assume, without loss
of generality, that the test statistic TM used, rejects the null hypothesis when TM > dM,α , where,
for α ∈ (0, 1), dM,α denotes the upper α-percentage point of the distribution of TM under H0 . The
MBB-based testing procedure goes then as follows:

Step 1 : Calculate the sample mean functions in each population and the pooled mean function,
P i
P Pni
Xi,t , for i = 1, 2 . . . , K, and X M = (1/M ) K
i.e., calculate X i,ni = (1/ni ) nt=1
i=1
t=1 Xi,t ,
and obtain the residual functions in each population, i.e., calculate ε̂i,t = Xi,t − X i,ni , for
t = 1, 2, . . . , ni ; i = 1, 2 . . . , K.
Step 2 : For i = 1, 2, . . . , K, let bi = bi (n) ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n − 1} be the block size for the i-th functional
time series and divide {ε̂i,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni } into Ni = ni − bi + 1 overlapping blocks of length
bi , say, Bi,1 , Bi,2 , . . . , Bi,Ni . Calculate the sample mean of the ξ-th observations of the blocks
P i
Bi,1 , Bi,2 , . . . , Bi,Ni , i.e., εi,ξ = (1/Ni ) N
t=1 ε̂i,ξ+t−1 , for ξ = 1, 2, . . . , bi .
7

Step 3 : For simplicity assume that ni = ki bi and for i = 1, 2, . . . , K, let q1i , q2i , . . . , qki i be i.i.d.
integers selected from a discrete probability distribution which assigns the probability 1/Ni
to each element of the set {1, 2, . . . , Ni }. Generate bootstrap functional pseudo observations
∗
∗ , t = 1, 2, . . . , n , i = 1, 2, . . . , K, as X ∗ = X
Xi,t
i
M + εi,t , where
i,t
ε∗i,ξ+(s−1)bi = ε̂i,qsi +ξ−1 − εi,ξ , s = 1, 2, . . . , ki , ξ = 1, 2, . . . , bi .

(5)

∗ be the same statistic as T
Step 4 : Let TM
M but calculated using the bootstrap functional pseudo∗
∗
∗ given
time series Xi,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni , i = 1, 2, . . . , K. Denote by DM,T
the distribution of TM
XM . For α ∈ (0, 1), reject the null hypothesis H0 if TM > d∗M,α , where d∗M,α denotes the upper
∗ , i.e., P(T ∗ > d∗
α-percentage point of the distribution of TM
M
M,α ) = α.
∗
Note that the distribution DM,T
can be evaluated by Monte-Carlo.

To motivate the centering used in Step 3, denote for i = 1, 2, . . . , K by e∗i,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni , the
pseudo observations generated by applying the MBB procedure, described in Section 2.2, directly
to the residuals time series ε̂i,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni . Note that the e∗i,t ’s differ from the ε∗i,t ’s used in (5)
by the fact that the later are obtained after centering. The sample mean εi,ξ , i = 1, 2, . . . , K,
ξ = 1, 2, . . . , bi , calculated in Step 2, is the (conditional on XM ) expected value of the pseudo
observations e∗i,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni , where t = ξ (mod bi ). Furthermore, for i = 1, 2, . . . , K, we generate
the ε∗i,t ’s, t = 1, 2, . . . , ni by subtracting εi,ξ from e∗i,sb+ξ , ξ = 1, 2, . . . , b, s = 1, 2, . . . ki . This is done in
order for the (conditional on XM ) expected value of ε∗i,t to be zero. In this way, the generated set of
∗ , t = 1, 2, . . . , n , i = 1, 2, . . . , K, satisfy the null hypothesis H . In particular,
pseudo time series Xi,t
i
0
given XM = {Xi,t , i = 1, 2 . . . , K, t = 1, 2, . . . , ni }, we have
∗

E

∗
(Xi,ξ+(s−1)b
)
i

= XM

Ni
1 X
[ε̂i,t+ξ−1 − εi,ξ ] = X M ,
+
Ni
t=1

for i = 1, 2 . . . , K, ξ = 1, 2, . . . , b and s = 1, 2, . . . , ki . That is, conditional on XM , the mean function
∗ , X ∗ , . . . , X ∗ , i = 1, 2 . . . , K, is identical in each population
of each functional pseudo-time series Xi,1
i,2
i,n
and equal to the pooled sample mean function X M .
An algorithm based on the TBB procedure for testing the same pair of hypothesis can also be
implemented by modifying appropriate the MBB-based testing algorithm. In particular, we replace
Step 2 and Step 3 of the previous algorithm by the following steps.
Step 2 : For i = 1, 2, . . . , K, let bi = bi (n) ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n − 1} be the block size for the i-th
functional time series and Ni = ni − bi + 1. Let also {ˆ
i,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni } be the centered
P i
values of {ε̂i,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni }, i.e., ˆi,t = ε̂i,t − εi , where εi = (1/ni ) nt=1
ε̂i,t . Also, let
wni (·), ni = 1, 2, . . . , be a sequence of data-tapering windows satisfying Assumption 2. Now,
for t = 1, 2, . . . , Ni , let
(
)
1/2
1/2
1/2
b
b
b
i
i
i
ei,t = wb (1)
B
ˆi,t , wbi (2)
ˆi,t+1 , . . . , wbi (bi )
ˆi,t+bi −1 , i = 1, 2, . . . , K,
i
kwbi k2
kwbi k2
kwbi k2
8

Pi
ei,t denotes the tapered block of ˆi,t ’s of length bi starting
where kwbi k22 = bi=1
wbi (i). Here, B
from ˆi,t . Furthermore, for i = 1, 2, . . . , K, calculate the sample mean of the ξth observations of
ei,1 , B
ei,2 , . . . , B
ei,N , i.e.,
the blocks B
i
¯i,ξ

Ni
1/2
bi
1 X
wbi (ξ)
ˆi,ξ+t−1 , ξ = 1, 2, . . . , bi .
=
Ni
kwbi k2
t=1

Step 3 : For i = 1, 2, . . . , K, let q1i , q2i , . . . , qki i be i.i.d. integers selected from a discrete probability
distribution which assigns the probability 1/Ni to each t ∈ {1, 2, . . . , Ni }. Generate bootstrap
+
+
functional pseudo-observations Xi,t
, i = 1, 2, . . . , K, t = 1, 2, . . . , ni according to Xi,t
=
+
X M + i,t , where
1/2

+
i,ξ+(s−1)bi

b
ˆ i
− ¯i,ξ , s = 1, 2, . . . , ki , ξ = 1, 2, . . . , bi .
= wb (ξ) i
kwbi k2 i,ks +ξ−1

As in the case of the MBB-based testing algorithm, the generation of +
i,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni , i =
+
1, 2, . . . , K, ensures that the functional pseudo-time series Xi,t , t = 1, 2, . . . , ni , i = 1, 2, . . . , K, satisfy
the null hypothesis H0 , that is, given XM = {Xi,t , i = 1, 2 . . . , K, t = 1, 2, . . . , ni }, it is easily seen
+
that E+ (Xi,t
) = XM .

3.3

Bootstrap Validity

Notice that, since the proposed block bootstrap-based methodologies are not designed having any
particular test statistic in mind, they can be potentially applied to a wide range of test statistics.
To prove validity of the proposed block bootstrap-based testing procedures, however, a particular
test statistic has to be considered. We focus in the following on the test statistic proposed by
Horváth et al. (2013) for the case of K = 2 populations. Let Xi,t , i = 1, 2, t = 1, 2, . . . , ni , be two
independent samples of curves, satisfying model (4). For i ∈ {1, 2} and for (u, v) ∈ [0, 1]2 , denote
(i)
by ci (u, v) the kernel functions of the integral operator 2πF0 given by ci (u, v) = E[εi,0 (u)εi,0 (v)] +
P
P
j≥1 E[εi,0 (v)εi,j (u)]. The test statistic considered in Horváth et al. (2013),
j≥1 E[εi,0 (u)εi,j (v)] +
Pni
2
evaluates the L -distance of the two sample mean functions X i,ni = n−1
t=1 Xi,t , i = 1, 2, and it is
i
given by
Z
n1 n2
UM =
(X 1,n1 (τ ) − X 2,n2 (τ ))2 dτ,
M
where M = n1 + n2 . Horváth et al. (2013) proved that if min{n1 , n2 } → ∞ and n1 /M → θ ∈ (0, 1)
R
then, under H0 , UM converges weakly to Γ2 (τ ) dτ , where {Γ(τ ) : τ ∈ I} is a Gaussian process
satisfying E(Γ(τ )) = 0 and E(Γ(u)Γ(v)) = (1 − θ)c1 (u, v) + θc2 (u, v). Notice that calculation of critical
R
values of the above test requires estimation of the distribution of Γ2 (τ ) dτ which is a difficult task.
As the following theorem shows, both block bootstrap-based testing procedures discussed in this
paper, can be successfully applied to consistently estimate the distribution of UM under H0 . To
elaborate, let
Z
n1 n2
∗
∗
∗
UM
=
(X 1,n1 (τ ) − X 2,n2 (τ ))2 dτ
M
9

and
+
UM
∗

where X i,ni = (1/ni )

Pni

∗
t=1 Xi,t

n1 n2
=
M

Z

+

and X i,ni =

+

+

(X 1,n1 (τ ) − X 2,n2 (τ ))2 dτ,
1 Pni
X + , i = 1, 2. We then have the following result.
ni t=1 i,t

Theorem 3.1. Let Assumption 1 be satisfied and assume that min{n1 , n2 } → ∞, n1 /M → θ ∈ (0, 1)
−1/2
and that for i ∈ {1, 2}, the block size bi = bi (n) fulfills b−1
= o(1), as ni → ∞. Then,
i + bi ni
∗ ≤ x | X ) − P (U
(i) supx∈R P (UM
M
M ≤ x) → 0, in probability.
H0

If additionally Assumption 2 is satisfied, then
+
(ii) supx∈R P (UM
≤ x | XM ) − PH0 (UM ≤ x) → 0, in probability.

In both expressions above PH0 (Z ≤ ·) denotes the distribution function of the random variable Z when
the null hypothesis H0 is true.
Remark 3.1. If the alternative hypothesis H1 is true, then under the same assumptions as in
P
Theorem 4 of Horváth et al. (2013), we get that UM → ∞. Theorem 3.1 implies then consistency of
the test UM using the critical values obtained by means of the block bootstrap procedures.
Remark 3.2. In the case of the one-sided test, for instance, in the case of testing the null hypothesis
H0 : µ1 ≤ µ2 versus H1 : µ1 > µ2 , the test statistic
r
Z
n1 n2
e
(X 1,n1 (τ ) − X 2,n2 (τ )) dτ
UM =
M
eM > deM,α with deM,α the upper α-percentage point of the
can be used, where H0 is rejected if U
eM under H0 . Consistent estimators of this distribution can be also obtained using
distribution of U
the block bootstrap procedures discussed. In particular, the following results can be established:
∗ ≤ x | X ) − P (Ũ
(i) supx∈R P (ŨM
M
H0
M ≤ x) → 0, in probability,
+
(ii) supx∈R P (ŨM
≤ x | XM ) − PH0 (ŨM ≤ x) → 0, in probability,

where
e∗
U
M

r
=

and
e+ =
U
M

r

n1 n2
M

Z

n1 n2
M

Z

∗

∗

+

+

(X 1,n1 (τ ) − X 2,n2 (τ )) dτ

(X 1,n1 (τ ) − X 2,n2 (τ )) dτ.

To elaborate, notice that using Theorem 1 of Horváth et al. (2013), we get as n1 , n2 → ∞, that


n1
n2
X
X
1
d
 √1
(X1,j − µ1 ), √
(X2,j − µ2 ) → (Γ1 , Γ2 ),
n1
n2
j=1

j=1

10

where Γ1 and Γ2 are two independent Gaussian random elements in L2 with mean zero and covariance
operators C1 and C2 with kernels c1 (·, ·) and c2 (·, ·), respectively. Under H0 , and for µ̃ = µ1 = µ2 the
common mean of the two populations, we have
r
r
r
n1
n2
n1 n2
n2 1 X
n1 1 X
(X1,t − µ̃) −
(X2,t − µ̃),
(X 1,n1 (τ ) − X 2,n2 (τ )) =
√
√
M
M n1
M n2
t=1

t=1

√
d R
eM →
Γ(τ ) dτ, where Γ(τ ) = 1 − θΓ1 (τ ) −
which implies, for n1 , n2 → ∞ and n1 /M → θ, that U
√
e ∗ and
θΓ2 (τ ). Now, along the same lines as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, it can be shown that U
M
R
e + converges weakly to the same limit Γ(τ ) dτ.
U
M

4

Numerical Examples

We generated functional time series stemming from a first order functional autoregressive model
(FAR(1))
Z
(6)
εt (u) = ψ(u, v)εt−1 (v) dv + Bt (u), u ∈ [0, 1],
(see also Horváth et al. (2013)), and from a first order functional moving average model (FMA(1)),
Z
εt (u) = ψ(u, v)Bt−1 (v) dv + Bt (u), u ∈ [0, 1],
(7)
where for both models the kernel function ψ(·, ·) is defined by
2

2

e−(u +v )/2
ψ(u, v) = R −t2 , (u, v) ∈ [0, 1]2 ,
4 e dt
and the Bt ’s are i.i.d. Brownian bridges. All curves were approximated using T = 21 equidistant
points τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τ21 in the unit interval I and transformed into functional objects using the Fourier
basis with 21 basis functions.
Implementation of the MBB and of the TBB procedure requires the selection of the block size b.
∗
∗
∗
∗
As it has been shown in Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2, nE∗ [(X n − E∗ (X n )) ⊗ (X n − E∗ (X n ))] is a
consistent estimator of 2πF0 , where the above estimator has kernel
 n−h
n
b−1 
i
X
1 X
h 1 Xh
cN (u, v) =
Xi (u)Xi (v) +
1−
Xi (u)Xi+h (v) + Xi+h (u)Xi (v) + op (1),
N
b N
i=1

i=1

h=1

in the case of the MBB, and
c̃N (u, v) =

n
b−1
n−h
X
1 X
Wh 1 X
Yi (u)Yi (v) +
[Yi (u)Yi+h (v) + Yi+h (u)Yi (v)] + op (1),
N
kwb k22 N
i=1

i=1

h=1

Pb−h
with Wh =
i=1 wb (i)wb (i + h), h = 0, 1, . . . , b − 1, in the TBB case. Now, cN and c̃N can be
P
recognized as lag-window estimators of the kernel c(u, v) = ∞
i=−∞ E[X0 (u)Xi (v)], using the Bartlett
window with “truncation lag” b in the MBB case and using the same “truncation lag” with the window
11

function W = Wh /kwb k, in the TBB case. The previous observations suggest that the problem of
choosing the block size b can be considered as a problem of choosing the truncation lag of a lag
window estimator of the function c(u, v). Choice of the truncation lag in the functional context has
been recently discussed in Horváth et al. (2016) and Rice and Shang (2016). Although different
procedures to select the “truncation
l lag”
m have been proposed in the aforementioned papers, we found
1/3
the simple rule of setting bi = ni , where dxe is the least integer greater than or equal to x,
quite effective in our numerical examples. In the following, we denote by b∗ this choice of b, which
is used together with some other values of bi . First, a simulation study has been conducted in order
to investigate the finite sample performance of the MBB and TBB procedures. For this, we consider
√
the problem of estimating the standard deviation function of the normalized sample mean nX n (τ ),
p
discussed in Section 2 of the supplementary material, i.e., of c(τ, τ ) for different values of τ in the
interval [0, 1]. We also compare the results obtained using both block bootstrap procedures with those
obtained using the stationary bootstrap (SB). Realizations of length n = 100 and n = 500 from the
functional time series models (6) and (7) have been considered. The results obtained are presented
and discussed in Section A2 of the supplementary material.

4.1

Testing equality of mean functions

In this Section, we investigate the size and power performance of the tests considered in Section 3.3.
As we have seen in the previous section, the TBB estimators perform best in our simulations. For this
reason, we concentrate in this section, on tests based on TBB critical values only. Two sample sizes
n1 = n2 = 100 and n1 = n2 = 200 as well as a range of block sizes b = b1 = b2 , are considered. The
tests have been applied using three nominal levels, i.e., α = 0.01, α = 0.05 and α = 0.1. All bootstrap
calculations are based on B = 1000 bootstrap replicates and R = 1000 model repetitions. To examine
the empirical size and power behaviour of the TBB-based test, the curves in the two samples were
generated according to model (4) and with the errors εi,t following model (6), for i ∈ {1, 2}, with
mean functions given by µ1 (t) = 0 and µ2 (t) = γt(1 − t) for the first and for the second population,
respectively; see also Horváth et al. (2013). The results obtained are shown in Table 1 for a range of
values of γ. Notice that γ = 0 corresponds to the null hypothesis.
+
, has a good size behaviour even
As it is evident from this table, the TBB-based test statistic UM
in the case of n1 = n2 = 100 observations while for n1 = n2 = 200 observations the sizes of the
TBB-based test are quite close to the nominal sizes for a range of block lengths. Furthermore, the
choice of block length seems to have a moderate effect on the power of the test. The power of the
TBB-based test increases as the deviations from the null become larger (i.e., larger values of γ) and/or
as the sample size increases. Finally, using the suggested simple method to choose the block size b,
the corresponding test has very good size and power behavior in all cases.

4.2

A real-life data example

We apply the TBB-based testing procedure to a data set consisting of the summer temperature
measurements recorded in Nicosia, Cyprus for the years 2005 and 2009. Our aim is to test whether
12

n1 = n2 = 100
α = 0.01 α = 0.05

γ

b

0

4
6
8
b∗

0.026
0.015
0.015
0.027

0.2

4
6
8
b∗

0.5

n1 = n2 = 200
α = 0.01 α = 0.05

α = 0.1

b

α = 0.1

0.077
0.061
0.071
0.074

0.142
0.112
0.128
0.143

6
8
10
b∗

0.013
0.010
0.013
0.013

0.057
0.052
0.066
0.057

0.113
0.115
0.106
0.113

0.048
0.045
0.034
0.042

0.135
0.126
0.118
0.116

0.206
0.206
0.185
0.178

6
8
10
b∗

0.058
0.065
0.070
0.058

0.160
0.158
0.162
0.160

0.237
0.253
0.247
0.237

4
6
8
b∗

0.225
0.200
0.184
0.218

0.418
0.374
0.356
0.424

0.544
0.499
0.490
0.532

6
8
10
b∗

0.408
0.411
0.425
0.408

0.615
0.632
0.645
0.615

0.715
0.759
0.749
0.715

0.8

4
6
8
b∗

0.584
0.543
0.529
0.557

0.772
0.763
0.739
0.752

0.853
0.841
0.831
0.825

6
8
10
b∗

0.864
0.865
0.843
0.864

0.966
0.948
0.948
0.966

0.980
0.975
0.976
0.980

1

4
6
8
b∗

0.779
0.746
0.755
0.769

0.898
0.891
0.898
0.901

0.945
0.941
0.943
0.945

6
8
10
b∗

0.972
0.975
0.969
0.972

0.995
0.994
0.994
0.995

0.998
0.999
0.998
0.998

Table 1: Empirical size and power of the test based on TBB critical values and FAR(1) errors.
there is a significant increase in the mean summer temperatures in 2009. The data consists of two
samples of curves {Xi,t (τ ), i = 1, 2, t = 1, 2, . . . , 92}, where, Xi,t represents the temperature of day t
of the summer 2005 for i = 1 and of the summer 2009 for i = 2. More precisely, Xi,1 represents the
temperature of the 1st of June and Xi,92 the temperature of the 31st of August. The temperature
recordings have been taken in 15 minutes intervals, i.e., there are 96 temperature measurements for
each day. These measurements have been transformed into functional objects using the Fourier basis
with 21 basis functions. All curves are rescaled in order to be defined in the interval I. Figure 1 shows
the temperatures curves of the summer of 2005 and of 2009.
Since we are interested in checking whether there is an increase in the summer temperature in
the year 2009 compared to 2005, the null hypothesis of interest is H0 : µ1 ≥ µ2 and the alternative

13

45

45

40

40

35

35

30

30
10

10

15

15

20

20

25

25

value

value

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.0

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

time

time

Figure 1: Temperature curves of summer 2005 (left panel) and of summer 2009 (right panel).
hypothesis H1 : µ1 < µ2 . The p-values of the test for a selection of the block sizes b = b1 = b2 , using
eM , are : 0.001 (b = 4), 0.003 (b = 6),
e + to calculate the critical values of the test U
the test statistic U
M
∗
0.004 (b = 8) and 0.002 (b = b ). The TBB based p-values have been obtained using B = 1000
bootstrap replicates. As it is evident from these results, the p-values of the UM -test are quitre small
leading to a rejection of the null hypothesis for all commonly used α-levels.

5

Appendix : Proofs

To prove Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2, we first establish Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2. The proofs
of Lemma 5.2 and Theorem 2.2 are given in Section A1 of the supplementary material. Note also
that, throughout the proofs, we use the fact that, by stationarity, EkXi,m − Xi k = EkX0,m − X0 k and
EkXi,m k = EkXi k = EkX0 k for all i ∈ Z.
Lemma 5.1. Let gb (·) be a non-negative, continuous and bounded function defined on R, satisfying
gb (0) = 1, gb (u) = gb (−u), gb (u) ≤ 1 for all u, gb (u) = 0, if |u| > c, for some c > 0. Suppose that
(Xt , t ∈ Z) satisfies Assumption 1 and b = b(n) is a sequence of integers such that b−1 + bn−1/2 = o(1)
as n → ∞. Assume further that, for any fixed u, gb (u) → 1 as n → ∞. Then, as n → ∞,
b−1
X
h=−b+1

where γ̂h =

1
n

Pn−|h|
i=1

P

gb (h)γ̂h →

∞
X

E(hX0 , Xi i),

i=−∞

hXi , Xi+|h| i for −b + 1 ≤ h ≤ b − 1.

P
P∞
Proof. First, note by the independence of X0 and Xi,i , that ∞
i=1 |EhX0 , Xi i| =
i=1 |EhX0 , Xi −
P∞
P∞
2
1/2
2
1/2
Xi,i i| ≤ i=1 (EkX0 k ) (EkX0 − X0,i k ) , which implies by (2) that i=−∞ |EhX0 , Xi i| < ∞.

14

Since n−1

Pn

i=1 hXi , Xi i

P

− EhX0 , X0 i → 0 as n → ∞, it suffices to show that
b−1
X

gb (h)

i=1

h=1

Let c+
∞ =

P

b−1
X

i≥1 E[hX0 , Xi i],

gb (h)γ̂h −

h=1

c+
∞

≤

c+
m =
|c+
m

n−h
X
1X
P
EhX0 , Xi i → 0.
hXi , Xi+h i −
n

P

−

i≥1

i≥1 E[hX0,m , Xi,m i]

c+
∞|

+

(8)

b−1
X

(m)
gb (h)γ̂h

(m)

and γ̂h
−

c+
m

+

h=1

=

1 Pn−h
hXi,m , Xi+h,m i. Because
n i=1

b−1
X

gb (h)γ̂h −

h=1

b−1
X

(m)

gb (h)γ̂h

,

(9)

h=1

assertion (8) is proved by showing that there exists m0 ∈ N such that all three terms on the right
hand side of (9) can be made arbitrarily small in probability as n → ∞ for all m ≥ m0 .
For the first term, we use the bound
X

m
X

E [hX0,m , Xi,m i − hX0 , Xi i] ≤

E [hX0,m , Xi,m i − hX0 , Xi i]

i=1

i≥1

+

∞
X

E [hX0,m , Xi,m i − hX0 , Xi i] ,

(10)

i=m+1

and handle the first term on the right hand side of (10) using hX0,m , Xi,m i − hX0 , Xi i = hX0,m −
X0 , Xi,m i + hX0 , Xi,m − Xi i. Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and Assumption 1 yields that for every
1 > 0, ∃ m1 ∈ N such that
m
X

E [hX0,m , Xi,m i − hX0 , Xi i] ≤ 2

i=1

m
X

EkX0,m − X0 k2 EkX0 k2

1/2

i=1

 
1/2 
< 1
≤ 2(EkX0 k2 )1/2 m EkX0,m − X0 k2
for all m ≥ m1 . For the second term of the right hand side of (10), we get, using hX0 , Xi i =
hXi,i , X0 i + hX0 , Xi − Xi,i i, the fact that X0 and Xi,i as well as X0,m and Xi,m are independent for
i ≥ m + 1 and Lemma 2.1 of Horváth & Kokoszka (2012), that, for any 2 > 0, there exists m2 ∈ N
such that
∞
X

E [hX0,m , Xi,m i − hX0 , Xi i] ≤

i=m+1

≤

∞
X
i=m+1
∞
X

E [hXi,i , X0 i] +

∞
X

E [hX0 , Xi − Xi,i i]

i=m+1

EkX0 k2 EkXi − Xi,i k2

1/2

i=m+1

= EkX0 k2

∞
1/2 X

EkX0 − X0,i k2

1/2

< 2

i=m+1

for all m ≥ m2 because of (2). For the second term of (9), first note that, for every fixed m ≥ 1 and
(m)
for any fixed h, we have that γ̂h − E[hX0,m , Xh,m i] = op (1). Furthermore, since {Xn,m , n ∈ Z} is
15

an m-dependent sequence, c+
m =

Pm

of the right hand side
i=1 E[hX0,m , Xi,m i]. Hence, the second term
hP
i
Pb−1
(m)
(m) 2
b−1
of (9) is op (1), if we show that | h=m+1 gb (h)γ̂h | = op (1). We have E
g
(h)γ̂
=
b
h=m+1
h
Pn−h1 Pn−h2
Pb−1
Pb−1
−2
n
i2 =1 gb (h1 )gb (h2 )E(hXi1 ,m , Xi1 +h1 ,m ihXi2 ,m , Xi2 +h2 ,m i). Since the
i1 =1
h2 =m+1
h1 =m+1
sequence {Xi,m , i ∈ Z} is m-dependent, Xi,m and Xi+h,m are independent for h ≥ m + 1, that
is, using Lemma 2.1 of Horváth & Kokoszka (2012) we have that EhXi,m , Xi+h,m i = 0 for the same h.
Hence, the number of non-vanishing terms E[hXi1 ,m , Xi1 +h1 ,m ihXi2 ,m , Xi2 +h2 ,m i] in the last equation
hP
i
(m) 2
b−1
above is of order O(nb) and, consequently, E
g
(h)γ̂
= O(b/n) = o(1) from which the
h=m+1 b
h
desired convergence follows by Markov’s inequality. For the third term in (9), we show that, for
m ≥ m0 ,
!
b−1


X
(m)
lim sup P
gb (h) γ̂h − γ̂h
> δ = 0,
(11)
n→∞

h=1

for all δ > 0. From this, it suffices to show that, for m ≥ m0 ,
E

b−1
X

(m)

gb (h)(γ̂h − γ̂h ) = o(1).

(12)

h=1
(m)

Now, by the definitions of γ̂h and γ̂h , we have
E

b−1
X
h=1

m
n−h


X
1X
(m)
gb (h)
(hXi , Xi+h i − hXi,m , Xi+h,m i)
gb (h) γ̂h − γ̂h
≤E
n
i=1

h=1

b−1
n−h
X
1 X
+E
gb (h)
(hXi , Xi+h i − hXi,m , Xi+h,m i) .
n
h=m+1

(13)

i=1

For the first term of the right hand side of the above inequality, we use hXi , Xi+h i − hXi,m , Xi+h,m i =
hXi − Xi,m , Xi+h i + hXi+h − Xi+h,m , Xi,m i, and we get, by to get, by Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality
and simple algebra, that,
E

m

n−h

h=1

i=1

X
1X
gb (h)
(hXi , Xi+h i − hXi,m , Xi+h,m i)
n
≤ m[(EkX0 − X0,m k2 EkX0 k2 )1/2 + (EkX0 − X0,m k2 EkX0,m k2 )1/2 ].

Assumption 1 implies then that, for every 3 > 0, there exists m3 ∈ N such that, for every m ≥ m3 ,
the last quantity above is bounded by 3 . For the second term on the right hand side of (13), we use
the bound
E

b−1
n−h
b−1
n−h
X
X
1 X
1 X
gb (h)
hXi , Xi+h i + E
gb (h)
hXi,m , Xi+h,m i .
n
n
i=1

h=m+1

h=m+1

(14)

i=1

Note that the second summand of (14) is o(1), while for the first term we use hXi , Xi+h i =
hXi , Xi+h,h i + hXi , Xi+h − Xi+h,h i to get the bound
b−1
n−h
b−1
n−h
X
X
1 X
1 X
E
gb (h)
hXi , Xi+h,h i + E
gb (h)
hXi , Xi+h − Xi+h,h i .
n
n
h=m+1

i=1

h=m+1

16

i=1

(15)

For the last term of expression (15), we get, using (2), that for every 4 > 0, there exists m4 ∈ N such
that
b−1 n−h
b−1
X
1 X X
E |hXi , Xi+h − Xi+h,h i| ≤
E |hX0 , Xh − Xh,h i|
n
h=m+1 i=1

h=m+1

2 1/2

≤ (EkX0 k )

∞
X

(EkX0 − X0,h k2 )1/2 < 4

h=m+1

for all m ≥ m4 . Consider next the first term of (15). Because hXi , Xi+h,h i = hXi − Xi,h , Xi+h,h i +
hXi,h , Xi+h,h i, we get for this term the bound
E

b−1
b−1
n−h
n−h
X
X
1 X
1 X
gb (h)
gb (h)
hXi − Xi,h , Xi+h,h i + E
hXi,h , Xi+h,h i .
n
n
h=m+1

i=1

(16)

i=1

h=m+1

The first term above is bounded by
b−1
n−h
∞
X
X
1 X
2 1/2
(EkX0 − X0,h k2 )1/2 .
gb (h)
hXi − Xi,h , Xi+h,h i ≤ (EkX0 k )
E
n
i=1

h=m+1

h=m+1

Thus, and by (2), for every 5 > 0, there exists m5 ∈ N such that, for every m ≥ m5 , this term
is bounded by 5 . For the last term of (16), note that {hXi,h , Xi+h,h i, i ∈ Z} is an 2h-dependent
stationary process, and since Xi and Xi+h,h are independent, i.e., EhXi , Xi+h,h i = 0 for all i ∈ Z,
{hXi,h , Xi+h,h i, i ∈ Z} is then a mean zero 2h-dependent stationary process which implies that
P
n−1/2 ni=1 hXi,h , Xi+h,h i = OP (1). Using Portmanteau’s theorem, and since the function f (x) = |x|
P
is Lipschitz, we get that E n−1/2 ni=1 hXi,h , Xi+h,h i = O(1). Therefore,
b−1
n−h
b−1
n
X
√
1 X
1 X
1 X
E
gb (h)
hXi,h , Xi+h,h i ≤ √
E √
hXi,h , Xi+h,h i = O(b/ n) = o(1),
n
n
n
i=1

h=m+1

h=m+1

i=1

which concludes the proof of the lemma by choosing m0 = max{m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 }.
Lemma 5.2. Suppose that (Yt , t ∈ Z) satisfies Assumption 1 and b = b(n) is a sequence of integers
satisfying b−1 + bn−1/2 = o(1) as n → ∞. Let wn (·), i = 1, 2, . . . , be a sequence of data-tappering
windows satisfying Assumption 2. Then, as n → ∞,
(i)
∞
X  W|h| 
X
E[hY
,
yihY
,
yi]
→
E[hY0 , yihYi , yi]
0
h
kwb k22
i=−∞

|h|<b

(ii)
ZZ

P

{c̃n (u, v) − c(u, v)}2 dudv → 0,

17

for every y ∈ L2 ,

where c(u, v) =

P∞

i=−∞ E[Y0 (u)Yi (v)],

c̃n (u, v) =

Wh =

Pb−h
i=1

wb (i)wb (i + h), h = 0, 1, . . . , b − 1 and

n
n−h
b−1
X
1X
Wh 1 X
Yi (u)Yi (v) +
[Yi (u)Yi+h (v) + Yi+h (u)Yi (v)].
n
kwb k22 n
i=1

i=1

h=1

Proof of Theorem 2.1. By the triangle inequality and Theorem 1 of Horváth et al. (2013), the
assertion of the theorem is established if we show that, as n → ∞,
√

∗

∗

d

n(X n − E∗ (X n )) → Γ,

(17)

in probability, where Γ is a Gaussian process in L2 with mean 0 and covariance operator C with
kernel c(u, v) = E(Γ(u)Γ(v)) given for any u, v ∈ [0, 1]2 by
c(u, v) = E[X0 (u)X0 (v)] +

X

E[X0 (u)Xi (v)] +

X

E[X0 (v)Xi (u)].

i≥1

i≥1

√
∗
∗
Using the notation Sn∗ = n(X n − E∗ (X n )), it follows from Proposition 7.4.2 of Laha and Rohatgi
(1979) that, to prove (17), it suffices to prove that,
d

(L1) hSn∗ , yi → N (0, σ 2 (y)) for every y ∈ L2 where σ 2 (y) = hC(y), yi, and that
(L2) the sequence {Sn∗ , n ∈ N} is tight.
Consider (L1). To establish the desired weak convergence, we prove that, as n → ∞,
P

Var∗ (hSn∗ , yi) → σ 2 (y)

(18)

and that

hSn∗ , yi
d
p
→ N (0, 1).
(19)
∗
∗
Var (hSn , yi)
P
∗
∗
+X(i−1)b+2
+
Consider (18) and notice that Sn∗ = √1k ki=1 [Ui∗ − E∗ (Ui∗ )] , where Ui∗ = b−1/2 (X(i−1)b+1
∗
. . . + Xib ), i = 1, 2, . . . , k. Due to the block bootstrap resampling scheme, the random variables
P
Ui∗ , i = 1, 2, . . . , k are i.i.d. Thus, using hSn∗ , yi = k −1/2 ki=1 [Wi∗ −E∗ (Wi∗ )], where Wi∗ = hUi∗ , yi, i =
1, 2, . . . , k, we have
Var∗ (hSn∗ , yi) = E∗ (W1∗ )2 − (E∗ (W1∗ ))2 .
(20)
Let µ∗ = E∗ (W1∗ ) and Ui = b−1/2 (Xi + Xi+1 , . . . + Xi+b−1 ), i = 1, 2, . . . , N. We then have that

√  n

b−1 
X
X
b
j
 hXi , yi −
µ∗ =
1−
[hXj , yi + hXn−j+1 , yi] .
N
b
i=1

j=1

Therefore, E∗ (µ∗ ) = 0. Using

2

n
b−1 
X
X
j
 hXi , yi −
1−
(hXj , yi + hXn−j+1 , yi)
b
i=1

j=1

18

(21)

=

n X
n
X

hXi , yihXj , yi − 2

i=1 j=1

+


n X
b−1 
X
j
hXi , yi[hXj , yi + hXn−j+1 , yi]
1−
b
i=1 j=1

b−1 X
b−1 
X



j
i
1−
[hXi , yi + hXn−i+1 , yi][hXj , yi + hXn−j+1 , yi]
1−
b
b

i=1 j=1

we get,
E(µ∗ )2 =

n
n
b XX
E[hXi , yihXj , yi] + O(b2 /n) = O(b2 /n),
N2

(22)

i=1 j=1

where the last equality follows since, by Kronecker’s lemma,

n
n
X 
1 XX
|h|
E[hX0 , yihXh , yi]
1−
E[hXi , yihXj , yi] =
n
n
i=1 j=1
|h|<n
ZZ
→
c(u, v)y(u)y(v)dudv

(23)

√
as n → ∞. Since E∗ (µ∗ ) = 0, (22) implies that µ∗ = OP (b/ n).
Consider next the first term of the right hand side of expression (20). For this term, we have
∗

E

(W1∗ )2

N
1 X
=
hUi , yi2
N

=

+

−

−

1
N

i=1
n
X

hXi , yihXi , yi

i=1
b−1
X

h
1−
b

h=1
b−1 
X

1
N
1
N

(24)



n−h
1 X
[hXi , yihXi+h , yi + hXi+h , yihXi , yi]
N
i=1

s

1−

s=1
b−t 
b−1 X
X

b

[hXs , yihXs , yi + hXn−s+1 , yihXn−s+1 , yi]

1−

t=1 j=1

j+t
b


[hXj , yihXj+t , yi + hXn−j+1−t , yihXn−j+1 , yi
+ hXj+t , yihXj , yi + hXn−j+1 , yihXn−j+1−t , yi].

Thus,
E∗ (W1∗ )2 =

n
1 X
hXi , yihXi , yi
N
i=1
 n−h
b−1 
X
h 1 X
+
1−
[hXi , yihXi+h , yi + hXi+h , yihXi , yi]
b N
i=1

h=1

+ OP (b/n) + OP (b2 /n),
from which we get
Var∗ (W1∗ ) =

ZZ

cN (u, v)y(u)y(v)dudv + Op (b2 /n),
19

(25)

where
 n−h
n
b−1 
i
X
1 X
h 1 Xh
cN (u, v) =
Xi (u)Xi (v) +
1−
Xi (u)Xi+h (v) + Xi+h (u)Xi (v) .
N
b N
i=1

(26)

i=1

h=1

By the ergodic theorem and equation (A.2) of Horváth et al. (2013), choosing the kernel K in their
notation to be the kernel K(x) = (1 − |x|)1[−1,1] (x), where 1A (x) denotes the indicator function of
A, it follows that
ZZ
P

[cn (u, v) − c(u, v)]2 dudv → 0

(27)

P∞
as n → ∞, where c(u, v) =
i=−∞ E[X0 (u)Xi (v)] and cn (u, v) = (N/n)cN (u, v). Using CauchySchwarz’s inequality, we get that, as n → ∞,
Z Z

ZZ
(cn (u, v) − c(u, v))y(u)y(v)dudv ≤

1/2

2

{cn (u, v) − c(u, v)} dudv

P

kyk2 → 0.

That is,
ZZ

P

cn (u, v)y(u)y(v)dudv →

ZZ
c(u, v)y(u)y(v)dudv.

Since N/n → 1 as n → ∞, we finally get from (25) that,
ZZ
∗
∗
∗
∗ P
Var hSn , yi = Var (W1 ) →
c(u, v)y(u)y(v)dudv = σ 2 (y).

(28)

Consider next (19). Observe that Wi∗ = hUi∗ , yi, i = 1, 2, . . . , k are i.i.d. random variables and,
therefore, it suffices to show that Lindeberg’s condition
k

1 X ∗ ∗
E (Wt − µ∗ )2 1(|Wt∗ − µ∗ | > ετk∗ ) = 0,
lim ∗2
n→∞ τ
k t=1

for every ε > 0,

(29)

Pk
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
is fulfilled, where τk∗2 =
t=1 Var (Wt ) = kVar (W1 ) and µ = E (Wi ). To establish (29), and
because of (28), it suffices to show that, for any δ > 0 and as n → ∞,
!
k

1 X ∗ ∗
∗ 2
∗
∗
∗
P
E (Wt − µ ) 1(|Wt − µ | > ετk ) > δ → 0.
(30)
k
t=1

Towards this, notice first that, for any two random variables X and Y and any η > 0, it yields that
E[|X + Y |2 1(|X + Y | > η)]


≤ 4 E|X|2 1(|X| > η/2) + E|Y |2 1(|Y | > η/2) ;
see Lahiri (2003), p. 56. We then get by Markov’s inequality that
P

k

1 X ∗ ∗
E (Wt − µ∗ )2 1(|Wt∗ − µ∗ | > ετk∗ ) > δ
k
t=1
 

≤ δ −1 E E∗ (W1∗ − µ∗ )2 1(|W1∗ − µ∗ | > ετk∗ )

20

!

(31)

N
1 X
=δ E
(Wi − µ∗ )2 1(|Wi − µ∗ | > ετk∗ )
N
i=1


−1
= δ E (W1 − µ∗ )2 1(|W1 − µ∗ | > ετk∗ )


≤ 4δ −1 EW12 1(|W1 | > ετk∗ /2) + E(µ∗ )2 ,

"

#

−1

(32)

where Wi = hUi , yi, i = 1, 2, . . . , N. Furthermore, we have

ZZ
X
|h|
2
2
1−
E(W1 ) = E|hU1 , yi| =
E[hX0 , yihXh , yi] →
c(u, v)y(u)y(v)dudv,
b
|h|<b

as n → ∞. Therefore, by the dominated convergence theorem, limn→∞ EW12 1(|W1 | > ετk∗ /2) = 0,
Hence, using expression (22), we conclude that (32) converges to 0 as n → ∞.
To establish (L2), it suffices, by Theorem 1.13 of Prokhrov (1956) and Theorems 5.1 and 5.2
P
∗
2
of Billingsley (1999)), to prove that limk→∞ supn≥1 ∞
j=k E|hSn , ej i| = 0, where {ej , j ≥ 1} is a
complete orthonormal basis of L2 . Using E∗ |hSn∗ , ej i|2 = Var∗ (hU1∗ , ej i) and Lemma 5 of Cerovecki
and Hörmanm (2015), (L2) is satisfied if the following five conditions are fulfilled.
(a) Var∗ (hU1∗ , ej i) ≥ 0 ∀j, n;
(b) limn→∞ Var∗ (hU1∗ , ej i) = Σj ,
(c)

P

j≥1 Σj

(d) limn→∞
(e)

in probability;

< ∞;
∗
∗
j≥1 Var (hU1 , ej i)

P

∗
∗
j≥1 Var (hU1 , ej i)

P

=

P

j≥1 Σj ,

in probability;

is bounded for all n ≥ 1.

Note that, by letting y = ej in expression (28), property (b) follows with Σj =
RR
c(u, v)ej (u)ej (v)dudv. To prove (c), notice that, by Proposition 6 of Hörmanm et al. (2015),
and since the stochastic process {Xt , t ∈ Z} is L2 -m-approximable, the covariance operator C with
kernel c(·, ·) is trace class. Therefore,
X ZZ
X
X
Σj =
c(u, v)ej (u)ej (v)dudv =
λj < ∞,
(33)
j≥1

j≥1

j≥1

where λj , j ≥ 1 are the eigenvalues of C.
To establish (d), we get, using (21), that
∗

Var

(hU1∗ , ej i)

N
1 X
=
hUi , ej i2 −
N
i=1

#!2
√ " n

b−1 
X
b X
l
hXi , ej i −
1−
[hXl , ej i + hXn−l+1 , ej i]
.
N
b
i=1
l=1
(34)

By Parseval’s identity, we have,
N
N
∞
X
1 X
1 X
2
|hUi , ej i| =
kUi k2
N
N
j=1

i=1

i=1

21

=

 n−h
n
b−1 
X
1 X
h 1 X
hXi , Xi i +
1−
[hXi , Xi+h i + hXi+h , Xi i]
N
b N
i=1

1
N

−

1
−
N

i=1

h=1

b−1 
X

s

1−

s=1
b−1 X
b−t 
X
t=1 j=1

b

[hXs , Xs i + hXn−s+1 , Xn−s+1 i]

t+j
1−
b


[hXj , Xj+t i + hXn−j+1−t , Xn−j+1 i
+ hXj+t , Xj i + hXn−j+1 , Xn−j+1−t i].

Hence,
 n−h
∞
N
n
b−1 
X
X
1 X
1 X
h 1 X
2
|hUi , ej i| =
hXi , Xi i +
1−
[hXi , Xi+h i + hXi+h , Xi i] + OP (b2 /n).
N
N
b N
j=1

i=1

i=1

i=1

h=1

(35)


Then, by letting gb (h) = 1 −

|h|
b



in Lemma 5.1, we get that, as n → ∞,

N
∞
∞
X
X
1 X
P
hUi , ej i2 →
E(hX0 , Xi i).
N
j=1

i=1

For the second term of equation (34), we show that,
#!2
√ " n

b−1 
X
X
b X
l
P
[hXl , ej i + hXn−l+1 , yi]
hXi , ej i −
1−
→ 0,
N
b
i=1

j≥1

as n → ∞. Using hx, yi =

P

(36)

i=−∞

(37)

l=1

j≥1 hx, ej ihy, ej i,

we have

" n
#2

b−1 
X X
X
l
(hXl , ej i + hXn−l+1 , ej i)
hXi , ej i −
1−
b
j≥1

i=1

l=1

n X
n
X


n X
b−1 
X
l
[hXi , Xl i + hXi , Xn−l+1 i]
=
hXi , Xl i − 2
1−
b
i=1 l=1
i=1 l=1


b−1 X
b−1 
X
l
i
+
1−
1−
[hXi , Xl i + hXn−i+1 , Xl i + hXi , Xn−l+1 i + hXn−i+1 , Xn−l+1 i]
b
b
i=1 l=1

=

n X
n
X

hXi , Xl i + OP (nb) + OP (b2 ).

i=1 l=1

Now note that, by the continuous mapping theorem and using Theorem 1 of Horváth et al. (2013),
we get
n
n
√
√
1 XX
hXi , Xl i = h nXn , nXn , i = Op (1).
(38)
n
i=1 l=1

Therefore,
" n n
#
b XX
hXi , Xl i + OP (nb) + OP (b2 ) = OP (b2 /n) = op (1),
N2
i=1 l=1

22

which establishes (37). Hence, from (34), (36) and (37), we conclude that
X

∞
X

Var∗ (hU1∗ , ej i) →

E(hX0 , Xi i),

in probability.

(39)

i=−∞

j≥1

Therefore, and by (33), property (d) is proved if we show that,
X

λj =

∞
X

E(hX0 , Xi i).

(40)

i=−∞

j≥1

Using Mercer’s theorem, we have
Z
Z X
Z
∞
∞
∞
X
X
X
λj = c(u, u)du =
E[X0 (u)Xi (u)]du =
E [X0 (u)Xi (u)]du =
EhX0 , Xi i.
i=−∞

j≥1

i=−∞

i=−∞

(41)
Notice that the above interchange of summation and integration is justified since, using Assumption 1,
and the fact that X0 and Xi,i are independent for i ≥ 1, we get
∞ Z
X

|E[X0 (u)Xi (u)]| du

i=−∞

Z
|E[X0 (u)X0 (u)]| du + 2

=

∞ Z
X

|E{X0 (u)[Xi (u) − Xi,i (u)]}| du

i=1

Z
≤

2

E(X0 (u)) du + 2

∞ Z
X

1/2 Z
1/2
2
E[X0 (u)] du
E[Xi (u) − Xi,i (u)] du
2

i=1

≤ EkX0 k2 + 2 EkX0 k2

∞
1/2 X

EkX0 − X0,i k2

1/2

< ∞.

i=1

PN
P∞
P
∗
2
∗
To prove (e), notice first that, by (34), ∞
i=1 |hUi , ej i| and,
j=1 (1/N )
j=1 Var (hU1 , ej i) ≤
P∞
therefore, using (35), for any given n, j=1 Var∗ (hU1∗ , ej i) is bounded in probability. Furthermore,
P
∗
∗
by (39), the sequence { ∞
j=1 Var (hU1 , ej i), n ≥ 1} converges in probability as n → ∞.
Consider next assertion (ii) of the theorem. By the triangle inequality, it suffices to prove that as
∗
∗
∗
∗
n → ∞, knE∗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) ⊗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) − 2πF0 kHS → 0. Now, recall that Ui∗ , i = 1, 2, . . . , n,
are i.i.d., and note that
Z
h
i
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
nE (X n − E (X n )) ⊗ (X n − E (X n ))(y)(v) = E∗ [U1∗ (u) − E∗ (U1∗ (u))][U1∗ (v) − E∗ (U1∗ (v))] y(u)du,
∗

∗

∗

∗

i.e., nE∗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) ⊗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) is an integral operator with kernel
d(u, v) = E∗ [U1∗ (u)U1∗ (v)] − E∗ (U1∗ (u))E∗ (U1∗ (v)).
Now,
∗

E

[U1∗ (u)U1∗ (v)]

 n−h
n
b−1 
X
h 1 X
1 X
Xi (u)Xi (v) +
1−
[Xi (u)Xi+h (v) + Xi+h (u)Xi (v)]
=
N
b N
i=1

i=1

h=1

23

(42)

b−1
1 X
s
1−
[Xs (u)Xs (v) + Xn−s+1 (u)Xn−s+1 (v)]
N
b
s=1

b−1 X
b−t 
X
j+t
1
1−
[Xj (u)Xj+t (v) + Xn−j+1−t (u)Xn−j+1−t (v)
−
N
b

−

t=1 j=1

+ Xj+t (u)Xj (v) + Xn−j+1 (u)Xn−j+1−t (v)]
and


√  n

b−1 
X
X
b
j

E∗ (U1∗ (u)) =
(Xj (u) + Xn−j+1 (u)) .
Xi (u) −
1−
N
b
i=1

(43)

(44)

j=1

Therefore, d(u, v) = cN (u, v) + R(u, v), where R(u, v) is defined as the difference of d(u, v) given in
R P∞
(42) and cN (u, v) given in (26). Now, notice that 2πF0 (y)(v) =
h=−∞ E[X0 (u)Xh (v)]y(u)du, i.e.,
P∞
2πF0 is an integral operator with kernel c(u, v) = h=−∞ E[X0 (u)Xh (v)]. Hence,
∗

∗

∗

∗

knE∗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) ⊗ (X n − E∗ (X n )) − 2πF0 kHS
ZZ
ZZ
ZZ
2
2
=
[d(u, v) − c(u, v)] dudv ≤ 2
[cN (u, v) − c(u, v)] dudv + 2
[R(u, v)]2 dudv.
RR
Using (27) it suffices to prove that
[R(u, v)]2 dudv = op (1). To prove this, recall the inequality
P
PL
2
( i=1 ai )2 ≤ L L
i=1 ai , where L is a positive integer, and notice that, using (38),
b2

ZZ

N4


2
n X
n
X

Xi (u)Xj (v) dudv
i=1 j=1
n
n Z
n
n Z
b2 1 X X
1 X X
X
Xj1 (v)Xj2 (v)dv
(u)X
(u)du
i1
i2
N2 N
N
i1 =1 i2 =1
j1 =1 j2 =1
!2
n
n
1 XX
b2
= 2
hXi1 , Xi2 i
= OP (b2 /N 2 ) = op (1).
N
N

=

(45)

i1 =1 i2 =1

Furthermore,
2


ZZ X
ZZ
b−1 X
b−t 
b−1 X
b−t
X
j
+
t
1
1
2

Xj (u)Xj+t (v) dudv ≤ 2 b2
1−
Xj2 (u)Xj+t
(v)dudv
N
b
N
t=1 j=1

t=1 j=1

4

2

= OP (b /N ) = op (1),

(46)

where all other terms appearing in R(u, v) are handled similarly. This completes the proof of the
theorem.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. Consider assertion (i). For i = 1, 2, let {e∗i,j , j = 1, 2, . . . , ni } be the
pseudo-observations generated by implementing the MBB procedure at {εi,j , j = 1, 2, . . . , ni }. Using
√ P i
Theorem 2.1, it follows that, conditionally on XM , for i = 1, 2, and as n → ∞, (1/ ni ) nj=1
(e∗i,j −
E∗ (e∗i,j )) converges weakly to a Gaussian random element Γi with mean zero and covariance operator
Ci with kernel ci (·, ·). Now, recall from Step 3 of the MBB-based testing algorithm that, for
24

i = 1, 2, the pseudo-observations ε∗i,ξ+sb (τ ), ξ = 1, 2, . . . , b, s = 0, 1, . . . , qi , τ ∈ I, are generated
by first applying the MBB procedure to ε̂i,ξ+sb (τ ), ξ = 1, 2, . . . , b, s = 0, 1, . . . , qi , τ ∈ I and
then εi,ξ (τ ) is subtracted. Note further that εi,j (τ ) = ε̂i,j (τ ) + X i,ni − µi (τ ). Thus, e∗i,ξ+sb (τ ) =
ε∗i,ξ+sb (τ ) + εi,ξ (τ ) + X i,ni (τ ) − µi (τ ) and, using expression (3.2), we get
ni
ni
ni
1 X
1 X
1 X
∗
∗
∗
(e∗i,j − E∗ (e∗i,j )) = √
(Xi,j
− E∗ (Xi,j
)) = √
(Xi,j
− X M ).
√
ni
ni
ni
j=1

j=1

j=1

Therefore, and conditionally on XM ,


n1
n2
X
X
1
1
∗
∗
√
(X1,j
− X M ), √
(X2,j
− X M )
n1
n2
j=1

j=1

converges weakly to (Γ1 , Γ2 ) as n1 , n2 → ∞, where Γ1 and Γ2 are two independent Gaussian
random elements with mean zero and covariance operator C1 and C2 with kernel c1 (·, ·) and c2 (·, ·),
respectively. Since
r

r
n1
n2
o rn 1 X
n1 n2 n ∗
n1 1 X
∗
2
∗
∗
X 1,n1 − X 2,n2 =
(X1,j − X M ) −
(X2,j
− X M ),
√
√
M
M n1
M n2
j=1

j=1

R 2
∗ converges weakly to
and because n1 /M → θ, we get that, as n1 , n2 → ∞, UM
Γ (τ ) dτ with
√
√
Γ(τ ) = 1 − θΓ1 (τ )− θΓ2 (τ ). This, with an appreciation of the triangle inequality, leads to assertion
(i). The proof of assertion (ii) follows along the same lines using Theorem 2.2. This completes the
proof of the theorem.

Supplementary Material
The online supplement contains the proofs of Lemma 5.1 and Theorem 2.2 as well as some additional
numerical results.

References
[1] Benko, M., Härdle, W. and Kneip, A. (2009). Common functional principal components. The
Annals of Statistics, Vol. 37, 1–34.
[2] Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of Probability Measures. 2nd Edition, New York: Wiley.
[3] Cerovecki, C. and Hörmanm, S. (2017). On the CLT for the discrete Fourier transforms of
functional time series. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Vol. 154, 282–291.
[4] Dehling, H., Sharipov Sh.O. and Wendler, M. (2015). Bootstrap for dependent Hilbert space–
valued random variables with application to von Mises statistics. Journal of Multivariate
Analysis, Vol. 133, 200–215.
25

[5] Giné, E. and Zinn, J. (1990). Bootstrapping general empirical measures. The Annals of
Probability, Vol. 18, 851–869.
[6] Hörmann, S., Kidziński, L. and Hallin, M. (2015). Dynamic functional principal components.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 77, 319–348.
[7] Hörmann, S. and Kokoszka, P. (2010). Weakly dependent functional data. The Annals of
Statistics. Vol. 38, 1845–1884.
[8] Horváth, L. and Kokoszka, P. (2012). Inference for Functional Data with Applications. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
[9] Horváth, L., Kokoszka, P. and Reeder, R. (2013). Estimation of the mean of functional time series
and a two-sample problem. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 75, 103–122.
[10] Horváth, L., Rice, G. and Whipple, S. (2016). Adaptive Bandwidth Selection in the Long Run
Covariance Estimator of Functional Time Series. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis,
Vol. 100, 676–693.
[11] Kokoszka, P. and Reimherr, M. (2013). Asymptotic normality of the principal components of
functional time series. Stochastic Processes and Their Applications, Vol. 123, 1546–1562.
[12] Künsch, H.R. (1989). The jackknife and the bootstrap for general stationary observations. The
Annals of Statistics, Vol. 17, 1217–1261.
[13] Laha, R.G. and Rohatgi, V.K. (1979). Probability Theory. New York: Wiley.
[14] Lahiri, S. (2003). Resampling Methods for Dependent Data. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[15] Liu, R.Y. and Singh, K. (1992). Moving blocks jackknife and bootstrap capture weak dependence.
In “Exploring the Limits of the Bootstrap” (R. Lepage and L. Billard, Eds.), pp. 225–248, New
York: Wiley.
[16] Mercer, J. (1909). Functions of positive and negative type and their connection with the theory of
integral equations Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series A, Vol. 209, 415–449.
[17] Panaretos, V.M. and Tavakoli, S. (2013). Cramér-Karhunen-Loève representation and harmonic
principal component analysis of functional time series. Stochastic Processes and Their
Applications, Vol. 123, 2779–2807.
[18] Paparoditis, E. and Politis, D. (2001). Tapered block bootstrap. Biometrika, Vol. 88, 1105–1119.
[19] Paparoditis, E. and Sapatinas, T. (2016). Bootstrap-based testing of equality of mean functions
or equality of covariance operators for functional data. Biometrika, Vol. 103, 727–733.
[20] Politis, D.N. and Romano, J. (1994). The stationary bootstrap. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Vol. 88, 1303–1313.
26

[21] Politis, D.N. and Romano, J. (1994). Limit theorems for weakly dependent Hilbert space valued
random variables with applications to the stationary bootstrap. Statistica Sinica, Vol. 4, 461–476.
[22] Prokhorv, V. Y. (1956) Convergence of random processes and limit theorems in probability
theory. Theory of Probability and Its Applications, Vol. 1, 157–214.
[23] Rice, G. and Shang, H. L. (2016) A plug-in bandwidth selection procedure for long run covariance
estimation with stationary functional time series. arXiv:1604.02724 [stat.CO].
[24] Zhang, C., Peng, H. and Zhang, J.-T. (2010). Two samples tests for functional data.
Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods, Vol. 39, 559–578.

27

