arXiv:1705.10445v1 [] 30 May 2017

Asymptotic Properties of the Maximum Likelihood
Estimator in Regime Switching Econometric Models∗
Hiroyuki Kasahara
Vancouver School of Economics
University of British Columbia
hkasahar@mail.ubc.ca

Katsumi Shimotsu
Faculty of Economics
University of Tokyo
shimotsu@e.u-tokyo.ac.jp

May 31, 2017

Abstract
Markov regime switching models have been widely used in numerous empirical applications in
economics and finance. However, the asymptotic distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) has not been proven for some empirically popular Markov regime switching models.
In particular, the asymptotic distribution of the MLE has been unknown for models in which
the regime-specific density depends on both the current and the lagged regimes, which include
the seminal model of Hamilton (1989) and the switching ARCH model of Hamilton and Susmel
(1994). This paper shows the asymptotic normality of the MLE and the consistency of the
asymptotic covariance matrix estimate of these models.

Key words: asymptotic distribution; autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity; maximum
likelihood estimator; Markov regime switching
JEL classification numbers: C12, C13, C22

1

Introduction

Since the seminal contribution of Hamilton (1989), Markov regime switching models have become a popular framework for applied empirical work because they can capture the important
features of time series, such as structural changes, nonlinearity, high persistence, fat tails, leptokurtosis, and asymmetric dependence (see, e.g., Evans and Wachtel, 1993; Hamilton and Susmel, 1994;
Gray, 1996; Sims and Zha, 2006; Inoue and Okimoto, 2008; Ang and Bekaert, 2002; Okimoto, 2008;
Dai et al., 2007).
Consider the Markov regime switching model defined by a discrete-time stochastic process
{Yk , Xk } written as

Yk = fθ (Yk−1 , . . . , Yk−s , Xk ; εk ),

∗

(1)

This research was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and JSPS
KAKENHI Grant Number JP17K03653.

1

where {εk } is an independent and identically distributed sequence of random variables, {Yk } is an
inhomogeneous s-order Markov chain on a state space Y conditional on Xk such that the conditional

distribution of Yk only depends on Xk and the lagged Y ’s, Xk is a first-order Markov process in a

state space X , and fθ is a family of functions indexed by a finite-dimensional parameter θ ∈ Θ. In
(1), the Markov chain {Xk } is not observable.

Surprisingly, the asymptotic distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the

Markov regime switching model (1) has not been fully established in the existing literature. Bickel et al.
(1998) and Jensen and Petersen (1999) derive the asymptotic normality of the MLE of hidden
Markov models, in which the conditional distribution of Yk depends on Xk but not on the lagged
Y ’s. For hidden Markov models and Markov regime switching models with a finite state space,
the consistency of the MLE has been proven by Leroux (1992), Francq and Roussignol (1998), and
Krishnamurthy and Rydén (1998).
In an influential paper, Douc et al. (2004) [DMR, hereafter] establish the consistency and
asymptotic normality of the MLE in autoregressive Markov regime switching models (1) with
a nonfinite hidden state space X under two assumptions. First, DMR assume that the conditional

distribution of Yk does not depend on the lagged Xk ’s. Specifically, on page 2259, DMR assume
that
n−1
and Xn , Yn is conditionally independent of
for each n ≥ 1 and given {Yk }k=n−s

n−1
{Yk }n−s−1
k=−s+1 and {Xk }k=0 .

Second, DMR assume in their Assumption A1(a) that the transition density of Xk is bounded away
from 0.
These two assumptions together rule out models in which the conditional density Yk depends
on both the current and the lagged regimes. Suppose that we specify Xk in (1) as
ek , X
ek−1 , . . . , X
ek−p+1 ),
Xk = (X

(2)

ek follows a first-order Markov process and is called the regime. Then, the tranwhere p ≥ 2, and X

sition density of Xk inevitably has zeros. For example, when p = 2 and Xk = (X̃k , X̃k−1 ), we have
Pr (Xk+1 = (i′ , j ′ )|Xk = (i, j)) = 0 when j ′ 6= i. Consequently, the asymptotic distribution of the
MLE has not been proven for some popular Markov regime switching models including the seminal

model of Hamilton (1989) and the switching ARCH (SWARCH) model of Hamilton and Susmel
(1994).
Example 1 (Hamilton (1989)). Consider the following model:
Yk = µX̃k + uk

with

uk =

p−1
X

γℓ uk−ℓ + σεk

ℓ=1

for p ≥ 2,

(3)

where εk ∼ i.i.d. N (0, 1) and X̃k follows a Markov chain on X̃ = {1, 2, . . . , M } with Pr(X̃k =
j|X̃k−1 = i) = pij , where M represents the number of regimes. Let
2

θ = (µ′1 , . . . , µ′M , γ ′ , {pij }1≤i≤M,1≤j≤M −1 )′ with γ = (γ1 , . . . , γp−1 , σ)′ . Then, the conditional density
of Yk given (Yk−1 , . . . , Yk−p )′ and Xk = (X̃k , . . . , X̃k−p+1 )′ is

(Yk − µX̃k ) −

1
gθ (Yk |Yk−1 , . . . , Yk−p+1 , Xk ) = φ
σ

Pp−1
ℓ=1

σ

γℓ (Yk−ℓ − µX̃k−ℓ )

!

,

√
where φ(z) = (1/ 2π) exp(−z 2 /2). Hamilton (1989) estimates model (3) with M = 2 and p = 5
using data on U.S. real GNP growth.
Example 2 (SWARCH model of Hamilton and Susmel (1994)). Consider the following model:
Yk = µ + γy Yk−1 + σX̃k hk εk

h2k = γ0 +

with

p−1
X

γℓ (hk−ℓ εk−ℓ )2

for p ≥ 2,

ℓ=1

where εk ∼ i.i.d. N (0, 1) or Student t with v degrees of freedom, and X̃k follows a Markov chain

on X̃ = {1, 2, . . . , M } with Pr(X̃k = j|X̃k−1 = i) = pij . For a Gaussian SWARCH model, let
′ , γ ′ , {p }
′
2
′
θ = (θ1′ , . . . , θM
ij 1≤i≤M,1≤j≤M −1 ) with θj = σj and γ = (µ, γy , γ0 , γ1 , . . . , γp−1 ) . Then, the

conditional density of Yk given (Yk−1 , . . . , Yk−p )′ and Xk = (X̃k , . . . , X̃k−p+1 )′ is
gθ (Yk |Yk−1 , . . . , Yk−p , Xk ) =
where

h2k

= γ0 +

Pp−1
ℓ=1

γℓ



Yk−ℓ −µ−γy Yk−ℓ−1
σX̃
k−ℓ

2

1
σX̃k hk

φ

Yk − µ − γy Yk−1
σX̃k hk

!

,

.

In the models of Hamilton (1989) and Hamilton and Susmel (1994), the transition probability of
Xk = (X̃k , . . . , X̃k−p+1 )′ has zeros when p ≥ 2. Therefore, Assumption A1(a) of DMR is violated.
As discussed on pages 2257–2258 of DMR, Assumption A1(a) is a crucial assumption for their
Corollary 1 (page 2262) that establishes the deterministic geometrically decaying bound on the
mixing rate of the conditional chain, X|Y . As DMR recognize on page 2258, this deterministic
nature of the bound is vital to their proof of the asymptotic normality of the MLE.
This paper shows the consistency and asymptotic normality of the MLE of the Markov regime
switching model (1)–(2) with p ≥ 2, including the models of Hamilton (1989) and Hamilton and Susmel

(1994). To the best of our knowledge, there exists no rigorous proof in the literature of the asymptotic normality of the MLE of these models, even though these models are popular in applied
work and empirical researchers regularly make inferences based on the presumed asymptotic normality (see, e.g., Goodwin, 1993; Garcia and Perron, 1996; Hamilton and Lin, 1996; Fong, 1997;

Ramchand and Susmel, 1998; Maheu and McCurdy, 2000; Edwards and Susmel, 2001). This paper
therefore provides the theoretical basis for statistical inferences associated with these models.
To derive the asymptotic normality of the MLE, we first establish a bound on the mixing rate of
the conditional chain, X|Y , in Corollary 1. Our bound is written as a product of random variables,
where all but finitely many of them are strictly less than 1. Consequently, the mixing rate of the
3

conditional chain is geometrically decaying almost surely. We then use this mixing rate to show that
the sequence of the conditional scores and conditional Hessians given the m past periods converge
to the conditional score and conditional Hessian given the “infinite past” as m → ∞. Given these

results, we show the asymptotic normality of the MLE under standard regularity assumptions by
applying a martingale central limit theorem to the score function (Proposition 2) as well as by
proving a uniform law of large numbers for the observed Fisher information (Proposition 3). These
results extend those in DMR to an empirically important class of models where the density depends
on lagged regimes. Another feature of the present study is that we introduce an additional weakly
exogenous regressor, Wk .
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the notation, model,
and assumptions. Section 3 derives the bound on the mixing rate of the conditional chain, X|Y .
Section 4 derives the consistency of the MLE, and the asymptotic normality of the MLE is shown
in Section 5. Section 6 reports the simulation results. Section 7 collects the proofs and Section 8
collects the auxiliary results.

2

Model and assumptions

Our notation largely follows the notation in DMR. Let := denote “equals by definition.” For a
√
p
k × 1 vector x = (x1 , . . . , xk )′ and a matrix B, define |x| := x′ x and |B| := λmax (B ′ B), where
λmax (B ′ B) denotes the largest eigenvalue of B ′ B. For a k × 1 vector a = (a1 , . . . , ak )′ and a
function f (a), let ∇2a f (a) := ∇aa′ f (a). For two probability measures µ1 and µ2 , the total vari-

ation distance between µ1 and µ2 is defined as kµ1 −µ2 kT V := supA |µ1 (A)−µ2 (A)|. k·kT V satisfies
R
R
R
supf (x):0≤f (x)≤1 | f (x)µ1 (dx)− f (x)µ2 (dx)| = kµ1 −µ2 kT V and supf (x):maxx |f (x)|≤1 | f (x)µ1 (dx)−
R
f (x)µ2 (dx)| = 2kµ1 − µ2 kT V for any two probability measures µ1 and µ2 (see, e.g., Levin et al.
(2009, Proposition 4.5)). Let I{A} denote an indicator function that takes the value of 1 when A
is true and 0 otherwise. C denotes a generic finite positive constant whose value may change from

one expression to another. Let a ∨ b := max{a, b} and a ∧ b := min{a, b}. Let ⌊x⌋ denote the largest
P
integer less than or equal to x, and define (x)+ := max{x, 0}. For any {xi }, we define bi=a xi := 0
Q
and bi=a xi := 1 when b < a. “i.o.” stands for “infinitely often.” All limits below are taken as
n → ∞ unless stated otherwise.
We consider the Markov regime switching process defined by a discrete-time stochastic process

{(Xk , Yk , Wk )}, where (Xk , Yk , Wk ) takes the values in a set X × Y × W with the associated Borel

σ-field B(X × Y × W). We use pθ (·) to denote densities with respect to the probability measure

on B(X × Y × W)⊗Z . For a stochastic process {Uk } and a < b, define Uba := (Ua , Ua+1 , . . . , Ub ).
b

Denote Y k−1 := (Yk−1 , . . . , Yk−s ) for a fixed integer s and Y a := (Y a , Y a+1 , . . . , Y b ). Define

Zk := (Xk , Y k ). Let Qθ (x, A) := Pθ (Xk ∈ A|Xk−1 = x) denote the transition kernel of {Xk }∞
k=0 .
We now introduce our assumptions, which mainly follow the assumptions in DMR.

Assumption 1. (a) The parameter θ belongs to Θ, a compact subset of Rq , and the true parameter

4

dx
value θ ∗ lies in the interior of Θ. (b) {Xk }∞
k=0 is a Markov chain that lies in a compact set X ⊂ R .

(c) Qθ (x, ·) has a density qθ (x, ·) with respect to a finite dominating measure µ on B(X ) such that

′
0 := sup
µ(X ) = 1, and σ+
θ∈Θ supx,x′ ∈X qθ (x, x ) < ∞. (d) There exists a finite p ≥ 1 such that

0 < σ− := inf θ∈Θ inf x,x′ ∈X pθ (xk |xk−p = x′ ) and σ+ := supθ∈Θ supx,x′ ∈X pθ (xk |xk−p = x′ ) < ∞. (e)
dw
dy
{(Yk , Wk )}∞
k=−s+1 takes the values in a set Y × W ⊂ R × R .

k−1

Assumption 2. (a) For each k ≥ 1, Xk is conditionally independent of (X0k−2 , Y 0

, W0∞ ) given

k−s−1
∞ ) given
Xk−1 . (b) For each k ≥ 1, Yk is conditionally independent of (Y−s+1
, X0k−1 , W0k−1 , Wk+1

(Y k−1 , Xk , Wk ), and the conditional distribution of Yk has a density gθ (yk |Yk−1 , Xk , Wk ) with

respect to a σ-finite measure ν on B(Y). (c) W1∞ is conditionally independent of (Y 0 , X0 ) given
W0 . (d) {(Zk , Wk )}∞
k=0 is a strictly stationary ergodic process.

Assumption 3. For all y ′ ∈ Y, y ∈ Y s , and w ∈ W, 0 < inf θ∈Θ inf x∈X gθ (y ′ |y, x, w) and

supθ∈Θ supx∈X gθ (y ′ |y, x, w) < ∞.

Assumption 1(c) is also assumed on page 2258 of DMR. This assumption excludes the case
where X = R and µ is the Lebesgue measure but allows for continuously distributed Xk with finite
support. Assumption 1(d) implies that the state space X of the Markov chain {Xk } is νp -small for

some nontrivial measure νp on B(X ). Therefore, for all θ ∈ Θ, the chain {Xk } has a unique invari-

ant distribution and is uniformly ergodic (Meyn and Tweedie, 2009, Theorem 16.0.2). Assumptions
∞ ) given (Z
2(a)(b) imply that Zk is conditionally independent of (Z0k−2 , W0k−1 , Wk+1
k−1 , Wk ); hence,

s
∞
{Zk }∞
k=0 is a Markov chain on Z := X × Y given {Wk }k=0 . Under Assumptions 2(a)–(c), the conQ
ditional density of Zn0 given W0n is written as pθ (Zn0 |W0n ) = pθ (Z0 |W0 ) nk=1 pθ (Zk |Zk−1 , Wk ). Be∞
∞
cause {(Zk , Wk )}∞
k=0 is stationary, we extend {(Zk , Wk )}k=0 to a stationary process {(Zk , Wk )}k=−∞

with doubly infinite time. We denote the probability and associated expectation of {(Zk , Wk )}∞
k=∞

under stationarity by Pθ and Eθ , respectively.1 Assumption 3 is stronger than Assumption A1(b) in
R
R
DMR, which assumes only 0 < inf θ∈Θ x∈X gθ (y ′ |y, x)µ(dx) and supθ∈Θ x∈X gθ (y ′ |y, x)µ(dx) < ∞.

When X is finite, Assumption 3 becomes identical to Assumption A3 of Francq and Roussignol
(1998), who prove the consistency of the MLE when X is finite. It appears that assuming a lower

bound on gθ similar to Assumption 3 is necessary to derive the asymptotics of the MLE when
inf θ inf x,x′ qθ (x, x′ ) = 0. When p = 1, we could weaken Assumption 3 to Assumption A1(b) in
DMR, but we retain Assumption 3 to simplify the exposition and proof.
Following DMR, we analyze the conditional log-likelihood function given Y 0 , W0n , and X0 = x0
rather than the stationary log-likelihood function given Y0 and W0n because, as explained in
k−1

DMR (pages 2263–2264), the conditional initial density pθ (X0 |Y 0

in practice. The conditional density function of
pθ (Y1n |Y 0 , W0n , x0 )

=

Z Y
n

k=1

Y1n

) cannot be easily computed

is

pθ (Yk , xk |Y k−1 , xk−1 , Wk )µ⊗n (dxn1 ),

(4)

1
DMR use Pθ and Eθ to denote the probability and expectation under stationarity because their Section 7 deals
with the case when Z0 is drawn from an arbitrary distribution. Because we assume {(Zk , Wk )}∞
k=∞ is stationary
throughout this paper, we use notations such as Pθ and Eθ without an overline for simplicity.

5

where pθ (yk , xk |yk−1 , xk−1 , wk ) = qθ (xk−1 , xk )gθ (yk |yk−1 , xk , wk ). Assumptions 2(a)(b)(c) imply

that, for k ≥ 1, Wk is conditionally independent of Z0k−1 given W0k−1 because p(Wk |Z0k−1 , W0k−1 ) =
Qk−1
p(W0k , Z0k−1 )/p(W0k−1 , Z0k−1 ) and, for j = k, k−1, p(W0j , Z0k−1 ) = p(Z0 , W0j ) t=1
p(Zt |Zt−1 , Wt ) =
Qk−1
j
p(W1 |W0 )p(Z0 |W0 ) t=1 p(Zt |Zt−1 , Wt ). Therefore, for 1 ≤ k ≤ n, we have
pθ (Y1k |Y0 , W0n , x0 ) = pθ (Y1k |Y 0 , W0k , x0 ),

(5)

pθ (Y1k |Y 0 , W0n ) = pθ (Y1k |Y 0 , W0k ).

(6)

In view of (5) and (6), we can write the conditional log-likelihood function and stationary loglikelihood function as
ln (θ, x0 ) :=

log pθ (Y1n |Y 0 , W0n , x0 )

ln (θ) := log pθ (Y1n |Y 0 , W0n ) =

=

n
X
k=1

n
X
k=1

k−1

log pθ (Yk |Y 0

, W0k , x0 ),
(7)

k−1
log pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k ).

Many applications use the log-likelihood function in which the conditional density pθ (Y1n |Y 0 , W0n , x0 )

is integrated with respect to x0 over a probability measure ξ on B(X ), where ξ can be fixed or

treated as an additional parameter. We also analyze the resulting objective function:
ln (θ, ξ) := log

3

Z



pθ (Y1n |Y 0 , W0n , x0 )ξ(dx0 )

.

(8)

Uniform forgetting of the conditional hidden Markov chain

In this section, we establish a mixing rate of the conditional hidden Markov chain, which is the
process {Xk } given the sequence of Y ’s and W ’s. The bounds on this mixing rate are instrumental

in deriving the asymptotic properties of the MLE. Corollary 1 of DMR shows that the conditional

hidden Markov chain forgets its past at a deterministic exponential rate. As DMR note on page
2258, their deterministic rate holds only when p = 1. We derive the convergence rate of the
conditional Markov chain when p ≥ 1.

First, we derive the minorization condition (Rosenthal, 1995) on the conditional hidden Markov

chain. Lemma 1 of DMR derives the minorization condition when p = 1 and the covariate Wk is
absent. The following lemma generalizes Lemma 1 of DMR to accommodate p ≥ 2 and covariate
k−1

k−1

k−1
Wk .2 When p ≥ 2, the minorization coefficient ω(·) depends on (Y k−p , Wk−p
) because Y k−p
provide information on Xk in addition to the information provided by Xk−p .

Lemma 1. Assume Assumptions 1–3. Let m, n ∈ Z with −m ≤ n and θ ∈ Θ. Then, (a) under
n

n ), {X }n
Pθ , conditionally on (Y −m , W−m
k k=−m is an inhomogeneous Markov chain, and (b) for all

−m + p ≤ k ≤ n, there exists a function µk (ynk−1 , wkn , A) such that
2

n

n

n

We replace the conditioning variable Y m in DMR with Y −m , because the subsequent analysis uses Y −m .

6

(i) For any A ∈ B(X ), (ynk−1 , wkn ) 7→ µk (ynk−1 , wkn , A) is a Borel function;
(ii) For any (ynk−1 , wkn ), µk (ynk−1 , wkn , ·) is a probability measure on B(X ). Furthermore,
n

n ),
µk (ynk−1 , wkn , ·) ≪ µ for all (ynk−1 , wkn ), and, for all (Y −m , W−m


n
k−1
n
k−1
n
)µk (Y k−1 , Wkn , A),
≥ ω(Y k−p , Wk−p
inf Pθ Xk ∈ A Xk−p = x, Y −m , W−m

x∈X

k−1

k−1
where ω(Y k−p , Wk−p
) := σ− /σ+ when p = 1, and, when p ≥ 2,3

k−1
k−1
)
ω(Yk−p , Wk−p



:= 

σ− inf θ inf xk−1

k−p+1

σ+ supθ supxk−1

Qk−1

k−p+1

i=k−p+1 gθ (Yi |Y i−1 , xi , Wi )

Qk−1

i=k−p+1 gθ (Yi |Y i−1 , xi , Wi )

2

 .

(9)

The following corollary provides the rate at which the conditional chain {Xk }nk=−m given

n

n ) forgets its past. This corollary is an immediate consequence of Lemmas 1 and 8
(Y −m , W−m

when −m + p ≤ k ≤ n. When k < −m + p, this corollary holds because kµ1 − µ2 kT V ≤ 1 for any

probability measures µ1 and µ2 .

Corollary 1. Assume Assumptions 1–3. Let m, n ∈ Z with −m ≤ n and θ ∈ Θ. Then, for all
n

n ),
−m ≤ k ≤ n, all probability measures µ1 and µ2 on B(X ), and all (Y −m , W−m

Z

X

≤


n
n
µ1 (dx) −
Pθ Xk ∈ · X−m = x, Y −m , W−m

⌊(k+m)/p⌋ 


−m+pi−1
−m+pi−1
) .
1 − ω(Y −m+pi−p , W−m+pi−p

Y
i=1

Z

X


n
n
Pθ Xk ∈ · X−m = x, Y −m , W−m
µ2 (dx)

TV

The convergence rate of the conditional hidden Markov chain depends on the minorization coeffik−1

k−1
cient ω(Yk−p , Wk−p
). If this coefficient is bounded away from 0, the chain forgets its past exponenk−1
k−1
tially fast. When p ≥ 2, this coefficient is not bounded away from 0 because inf yk−1 ,wk−1 ω(yk−p
, wk−p
)=
k−p

0. However,

k−1
k−1
)
ω(Y k−p , Wk−p

cause the denominator of

becomes close to zero only when

k−1
k−1
)
ω(Yk−p , Wk−p

k−1
Yk−p+1

k−p

takes an unlikely value bek−1

k−1
is finite and the numerator of ω(Y k−p , Wk−p
) is a product
k−1

k−1
of the conditional density gθ (y|y, x, w). As a result, ω(Y k−p , Wk−p
) is bounded away from 0 with

a probability close to 1. In the following sections, we use this fact to establish the consistency and
asymptotic normality of the MLE.
k−1

k−1

k−1
k−1
Strictly speaking, Wk−p in ω(Y k−p , Wk−p
) is superfluous because ω(Yk−p , Wk−p
) does not depend on Wk−p .
We retain Wk−p for notational simplicity.
3

7

4

Consistency of the MLE

Define the conditional MLE of θ ∗ given Y 0 , W0n , and X0 = x0 as
θ̂x0 := argmax ln (θ, x0 ),
θ∈Θ

with ln (θ, x0 ) defined in (7). In this section, we prove the consistency of the conditional MLE. We
introduce additional assumptions required for proving consistency.
1

Assumption 4. (a) b+ := supθ∈Θ supy1 ,y0 ,x,w gθ (y1 |y0 , x, w) < ∞. (b) Eθ∗ | log b− (Y 0 , W1 )| < ∞,
k

where b− (Y k−1 , Wk ) := inf θ∈Θ inf xk ∈X gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk ).

Assumption 5. There exist constants α > 0, C1 , C2 ∈ (0, ∞), and β > 1 such that, for any r > 0,


1
Pθ∗ b− (Y 0 , W1 ) ≤ C1 e−αr ≤ C2 r −β .

Assumption 4(a) is also assumed in Assumption (A3) of DMR. Assumption 4(b) is stronger
R
than Assumption (A3) of DMR, who assume Eθ∗ | log(inf θ∈Θ gθ (Y1 |Y 0 , x)µ(dx)| < ∞. Assumption 4 implies that Eθ∗ supθ∈Θ supx∈X | log(gθ (Y1 |Y 0 , x, W1 ))| < ∞, which is similar to the moment

condition used in the standard maximum likelihood estimation, but the infimum is taken over x
in addition to θ. Assumption 5 restricts the probability that inf θ∈Θ inf xk ∈X gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )

takes an extremely small value. Assumption 5 is not restrictive because the right hand side
of the inequality inside Pθ∗ (·) is exponential in r and the bound C2 r −β is a polynomial in r.
1

An easily verifiable sufficient condition for Assumption 5 is Eθ∗ | log b− (Y 0 , W1 )|1+δ < ∞ for
1

1

some δ > 0. This is because Pθ∗ (b− (Y 0 , W1 ) ≤ b+ e−αr ) = Pθ∗ (| log(b− (Y 0 , W1 )/b+ )| ≥ αr) ≤
1

1

(Eθ∗ | log(b− (Y 0 , W1 )/b+ )|1+δ )/(αr)1+δ ≤ C2 r −(1+δ) , where the first equality follows from b− (Y 0 , W1 ) ≤
b+ , and the second and third inequalities follow from Markov’s inequality and Minkowski’s inequality. Examples 1 and 2 satisfy Assumptions 4 and 5.
In the following lemma, we show that the difference between the conditional log-likelihood
function ln (θ, x0 ) and the stationary log-likelihood function ln (θ) is o(n) Pθ∗ -a.s.
Lemma 2. Assume Assumptions 1–5. Then,
n−1 sup sup |ln (θ, x0 ) − ln (θ)| → 0
x0 ∈X θ∈Θ

Pθ∗ -a.s.

When p = 1, Lemma 2 of DMR shows that supθ∈Θ |ln (θ, x0 ) − ln (θ)| is bounded by a determin-

istic constant. When p ≥ 2, Lemma 2 of DMR is no longer applicable because |ln (θ, x0 ) − ln (θ)|
pi−1
pi−1
depends on the products of 1 − ω(Y pi−p , Wpi−p
)’s for i = 1, . . . , ⌊n/p⌋. A key observation is
pi−1

pi−1

pi−1
pi−1
)}i≥1 is stationary and ergodic and that ǫ := Pθ∗ (ω(Y pi−p , Wpi−p
) ≤ δ)
that {ω(Y pi−p , Wpi−p

is small when δ > 0 is sufficiently small. Because the strong law of large numbers implies that
P⌊n/p⌋
pi−1
pi−1
(⌊n/p⌋)−1 i=1 I{ω(Y pi−p , Wpi−p
) > δ} converges to 1 − ǫ Pθ∗ -a.s. from the strong law of large
8

pi−1

pi−1

pi−1
pi−1
) > 1 − δ holds for a large fraction of the ω(Y pi−p , Wpi−p
)’s. Consenumbers, 1 − ω(Y pi−p , Wpi−p

quently, we can establish a Pθ∗ -a.s. bound on n−1 |ln (θ, x0 ) − ln (θ)|.
k−1

k−1

k ) converges to p (Y |Y
k
We proceed to show that, for all θ ∈ Θ, pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
θ k
−∞ , W−∞ )
P
k−1
k ),
Pθ∗ -a.s. as m → ∞ and that we can approximate n−1 ln (θ) by n−1 nk=1 log pθ (Yk |Y −∞ , W−∞

which is the sample average of the stationary ergodic random variables. For x ∈ X and m ≥ 0,
define

k−1

k
∆k,m,x(θ) := log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
, X−m = x),
k−1

k
)
∆k,m(θ) := log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
Z
k−1
k−1
k
k
, X−m = x−m )Pθ (dx−m |Y −m , W−m
),
= log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m

so that ln (θ) =

Pn

k=1 ∆k,0 (θ).

The following proposition corresponds to Lemma 3 of DMR. This

proposition shows that, for any k ≥ 0, the sequences {∆k,m (θ)}m≥0 and {∆k,m,x (θ)}m≥0 are uniformly Cauchy sequences and hence converge uniformly in θ ∈ Θ with probability one.

Lemma 3. Assume Assumptions 1–5. Then, there exist a constant ρ ∈ (0, 1) and random sequences
{Ak,m }k≥1,m≥0 and {Bk }k≥1 such that, for all 1 ≤ k ≤ n and m′ ≥ m ≥ 0,
(a)
(b)

sup sup ∆k,m,x(θ) − ∆k,m′ ,x′ (θ) ≤ Ak,m ρ⌊(k+m)/3p⌋ ,

x,x′ ∈X θ∈Θ

sup sup |∆k,m,x (θ) − ∆k,m(θ)| ≤ Ak,mρ⌊(k+m)/3p⌋ ,

x∈X θ∈Θ

(c)

sup sup sup |∆k,m,x(θ)| + sup sup |∆k,m(θ)| ≤ Bk ,
m≥0 θ∈Θ

m≥0 x∈X θ∈Θ

where Pθ∗ (Ak,m ≥ M i.o.) = 0 for a constant M < ∞ and Bk ∈ L1 (Pθ∗ ).
Lemma 3(a) implies that {∆k,m,x (θ)}m≥0 is a uniform Cauchy sequence in θ ∈ Θ with prob-

ability one and that limm→∞ ∆k,m,x (θ) does not depend on x. Let ∆k,∞(θ) denote this limit.

Because {∆k,m,x (θ)}m≥0 is uniformly bounded in L1 (Pθ∗ ) from Lemma 3(c), {∆k,m,x (θ)}m≥0 con-

verges to ∆k,∞ (θ) in L1 (Pθ∗ ) and ∆k,∞ (θ) ∈ L1 (Pθ∗ ) by the dominated convergence theorem.
P
Define l(θ) := Eθ∗ [∆0,∞ (θ)]. Lemma 3 also implies that n−1 ln (θ) converge to n−1 nk=1 ∆k,∞ (θ),
which converges to l(θ) by the ergodic theorem. Therefore, the consistency of θ̂x0 is proven if this

convergence of n−1 ln (θ) − l(θ) is strengthened to uniform convergence in θ ∈ Θ and the additional

regularity conditions are confirmed.

We introduce additional assumptions on the continuity of qθ and gθ and identification of θ ∗ .
Assumption 6. (a) For all (y, y ′ , w) ∈ Y s × Y × W and uniformly in x, x′ ∈ X , qθ (x, x′ ) and
0

0

1 ) 6= p (Y |Y
1
gθ (y ′ |y, x, w) are continuous in θ. (b) Pθ∗ [pθ∗ (Y1 |Y−m , W−m
θ 1
−m , W−m )] > 0 for all

m ≥ 0 and all θ ∈ Θ such that θ 6= θ ∗ .

0

1 ). When
Assumption 6(b) is a high-level assumption because it is imposed on pθ (Y1 |Y −m , W−m

9

the covariate Wk is absent, DMR prove consistency under a lower-level assumption (their (A5′ )),
which is stated in terms of pθ (Y1n |Y 0 ). We use Assumption 6(b) for brevity.

The following proposition shows the strong consistency of the (conditional) MLE.4

Proposition 1. Assume Assumptions 1–6. Then, supx0 ∈X |θ̂x0 − θ ∗ | → 0 Pθ∗ -a.s.
Francq and Roussignol (1998, Theorem 3) prove the consistency of the MLE when the state
space of Xk is finite. Proposition 1 generalizes Theorem 3 of Francq and Roussignol (1998) in the
following three aspects. First, we allow Xk to be continuously distributed. Second, we analyze
the log-likelihood function conditional on X0 = x0 , whereas Francq and Roussignol (1998) set the
initial distribution of X1 to any probability vector with strictly positive elements. In other words,
we allow for zeros in the postulated initial distribution of {Xk }. Third, we allow for an exogenous
covariate {Wk }nk=0 .

Define the MLE with a probability measure ξ on B(X ) for x0 as θ̂ξ := argmaxθ∈Θ ln (θ, ξ) with

ln (θ, ξ) defined in (8). Proposition 1 implies the following corollary.

Corollary 2. Assume Assumptions 1–6. Then, for any ξ, θ̂ξ → θ ∗ Pθ∗ -a.s.

5

Asymptotic distribution of the MLE

In this section, we derive the asymptotic distribution of the MLE and consistency of the asymptotic covariance matrix estimate. Because θ̂x0 is consistent, expanding the first-order condition
∇θ ln (θ̂x0 , x0 ) = 0 around θ ∗ gives
0 = ∇θ ln (θ̂x0 , x0 ) = ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , x0 ) + ∇2θ ln (θ, x0 )(θ̂x0 − θ ∗ ),

(10)

where θ ∈ [θ ∗ , θ̂x0 ] and θ may take different values across different rows of ∇2θ ln (θ, x0 ). In the
P
k−1
following, we approximate ∇jθ ln (θ, x0 ) = nk=1 ∇jθ log pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k , X0 = x0 ) for j = 1, 2 by
Pn
k−1
j
k
k=1 ∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y −∞ , W−∞ ), which is a sum of a stationary process. We then apply the cenP
k−1
k ). A similar
tral limit theorem and law of large numbers to n−j/2 nk=1 ∇jθ log pθ (Yk |Y −∞ , W−∞
expansion gives the asymptotic distribution of n1/2 (θ̂ξ − θ ∗ ).

We introduce additional assumptions. Define Xθ+ := {(x, x′ ) ∈ X 2 : qθ (x, x′ ) > 0}.

Assumption 7. There exists a constant δ > 0 such that the following conditions hold on G := {θ ∈

Θ : |θ − θ ∗ | < δ}: (a) For all (y, y ′ , w, x, x′ ) ∈ Y s × Y × W × X × X , the functions gθ (y ′ |y, w, x) and

qθ (x, x′ ) are twice continuously differentiable in θ ∈ G. (b) supθ∈G supx,x′ ∈X + |∇θ log qθ (x, x′ )| < ∞
θ

and supθ∈G supx,x′ ∈X + |∇2θ log qθ (x, x′ )| < ∞. (c) Eθ∗ [supθ∈G supx∈X |∇θ log gθ (Y1 |Y 0 , x, W1 )|2 ] <
θ

∞ and Eθ∗ [supθ∈G supx∈X |∇2θ log gθ (Y1 |Y 0 , x, W1 )|] < ∞. (d) For almost all (y, y ′ , w) ∈ Y s × Y ×

4
A Gaussian regime switching model with regime-specific mean µj and variance σj2 is subject to the unbounded
likelihood problem (Hartigan, 1985) in that the likelihood diverges to infinity if we set µj = Yk for some k and let
σj → 0. In this paper, the compactness assumption (Assumption 1(a)) in effect imposes a lower bound on σj and
hence rules out the unbounded likelihood problem.

10

W, there exists a function fy,y′ ,w : X → R+ in L1 (µ) such that supθ∈G gθ (y ′ |y, x, w) ≤ fy,y′ ,w (x).

j
: Y → R+ in
(e) For almost all (x, y, w) ∈ X × Y s × W and j = 1, 2, there exist functions fx,y,w

j
(y ′ ) for all θ ∈ G.
L1 (ν) such that |∇jθ gθ (y ′ |y, x, w)| ≤ fx,y,w
0

1 )|2 ] < ∞,
Assumption 8. Eθ∗ [supm≥0 supθ∈G |∇θ log pθ (Y1 |Y−m , W−m
0

1 )|] < ∞,
Eθ∗ [supm≥0 supθ∈G |∇2θ log pθ (Y1 |Y −m , W−m
0

1 ,X
2
Eθ∗ [supm≥0 supθ∈G supx∈X |∇θ log pθ (Y1 |Y −m , W−m
−m = x)| ] < ∞, and
0

1 ,X
Eθ∗ [supm≥0 supθ∈G supx∈X |∇2θ log pθ (Y1 |Y −m , W−m
−m = x)|] < ∞.

Assumption 7 is the same as Assumptions (A6)–(A8) of DMR except for accommodating the
case inf (x,x′ )∈X 2 qθ (x, x′ ) = 0 and the covariate W . Examples 1 and 2 satisfy Assumption 7. Ask−1

k ) and
sumption 8 is a high-level assumption that bounds the moments of ∇jθ log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
k−1

k ,X
∇jθ log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
−m = x) uniformly in m. When p = 1, DMR could derive Assumption 8
k−1

k−1

k ) and ∇j log p (Y |Y
k
by using the L3−j (Pθ∗ ) convergence of ∇jθ log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
θ k
−m , W−m , X−m =
θ
k−1

k ) as m → ∞. When p ≥ 2, we need to assume Assumption 8 because
x) to ∇jθ log pθ (Yk |Y −∞ , W−∞
k−1

k ) in probability.
our Lemma 6 only shows that these sequences converge to ∇jθ log pθ (Yk |Y −∞ , W−∞

5.1

Asymptotic distribution of the score function

This section derives the asymptotic distribution of n−1/2 ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , x0 ) and n−1/2 ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , ξ). We

introduce a result known as the Louis missing information principle (Louis, 1982), which expresses
the derivatives of the log-likelihood function of a latent variable model in terms of the conditional
expectation of the derivatives of the complete data log-likelihood function. Let (X, Y, W ) be random variables with pθ (y, x|w) denoting the joint density of (Y, X) given W , and let pθ (y|w) be
the marginal density of Y given W . Then, a straightforward differentiation that is valid under
Assumption 7 gives
∇θ log pθ (Y |W ) = Eθ [∇θ log pθ (Y, X|W )|Y, W ] ,


∇2θ log pθ (Y |W ) = Eθ ∇2θ log pθ (Y, X|W ) Y, W + varθ [∇θ log pθ (Y, X|W )|Y, W ] .

(11)

k

Define Zk−1 := (Yk , Xk , Y k−1 , Xk−1 ). For j = 1, 2, denote the derivatives of the complete data
log-density of (Yk , Xk ) given (Y k−1 , Xk−1 , Wk ) by
k

φj (θ, Zk−1 , Wk ) := ∇jθ log pθ (Yk , Xk |Yk−1 , Xk−1 , Wk )

= ∇jθ log qθ (Xk−1 , Xk ) + ∇jθ log gθ (Yk , |Y k−1 , Xk , Wk ).
k

We use a short-handed notation φjθk := φj (θ, Zk−1 , Wk ). We also suppress the superscript 1 from

φ1θk , so that φθk = φ1θk . Let |φjk |∞ := supθ∈G supx,x′ ∈X + |∇jθ log qθ (x, x′ )|
θ

+ supθ∈G supx∈X |∇jθ log gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , x, Wk )|.

11

Define, for x ∈ X , k ≥ 1, m ≥ 0, and j = 1, 2,5
Ψjk,m,x (θ)

"

:= Eθ

k
X

φjθt

k
k
Y −m , W−m
, X−m

t=−m+1

#

= x − Eθ

"

k−1
X

φjθt

k−1
k−1
, X−m
Y−m , W−m

t=−m+1

#

=x .
(12)

k−1

k ,X
Because Ψ1k,m,x(θ) = ∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
−m = x) from (11), we can express ∇θ ln (θ, x0 ) as

∇θ ln (θ, x0 ) =

n
X
k=1

k−1
∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k , X0

= x0 ) =

n
X

Ψ1k,0,x0 (θ).

k=1

We show that {Ψjk,m,x (θ)}m≥0 is a Cauchy sequence that converges to a limit at an exponential rate. Note that Ψjk,m,x(θ) is a function of Eθ [φjθt |·] for t = −m + 1, . . . , k. When t is large,
k

k

j
′
k ,X
k
the difference between Eθ [φjθt |Y−m , W−m
−m = x] and Eθ [φθt |Y −m′ , W−m′ , X−m′ = x ] with
k

k ,X
m′ > m is small by virtue of Corollary 1. When t is small, we bound Eθ [φjθt |Y −m , W−m
−m =
k−1

k−1
x] − Eθ [φjθt |Y −m , W−m
, X−m = x] in Ψjk,m,x (θ) by using the following lemma. This lemma corre-

sponds to Lemma 9 of DMR and derives the minorization constant for the time-reversed process
n

n ).
{Xn−k }0≤k≤n+m conditional on (Y −m , W−m

Lemma 4. Assume Assumptions 1 and 2. Let m, n ∈ Z with −m ≤ n and θ ∈ Θ. Then, (a) under
n

n ), the time-reversed process {X
Pθ , conditionally on (Y −m , W−m
n−k }0≤k≤n+m is an inhomogeneous

n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
Markov chain, and (b) for all p ≤ k ≤ n + m, there exists a function µ̃k (y−m
, w−m
, A)
such that
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
, w−m
) 7→ µ̃k (y−m
, w−m
, A) is a Borel function;
(i) For any A ∈ B(X ), (y−m
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
(ii) For any (y−m
, A), µ̃k (y−m
, ·) is a probability measure on
, w−m
, w−m
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
, ·) ≪ µ for all (y−m
), and,
, w−m
, w−m
B(X ). Furthermore, µ̃k (y−m
n−k+p−1

for all (Y −m

n−k+p−1
),
, W−m


n
n
Pθ Xn−k ∈ A Xn−k+p , Y −m , W−m


n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
, W−m
= Pθ Xn−k ∈ A Xn−k+p , Y −m
n−k+p−1

≥ ω(Yn−k

n−k+p−1

where ω(Y n−k
n−k+p−1

n−k+p−1

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
)µ̃k (Y −m

n−k+p−1
, A),
, W−m

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
) := σ− /σ+ when p = 1, and, when p ≥ 2,

n−k+p−1
ω(Yn−k
, Wn−k
) is defined as in (9) but replacing k − 1 and k − p in (9) with n −
k + p − 1 and n − k.

The following lemma shows that the time-reversed process {Xn−k }0≤k≤n+m conditional on
5

DMR (page 2272) use the symbol ∆k,m,x (θ) to denote our Ψ1k,m,x (θ), but we use Ψk,m,x (θ) to avoid confusion
with ∆k,m,x (θ) used in Lemma 3.

12

n

n ) forgets its initial conditioning variable (i.e., Y and W ) exponentially fast. Part (b)
(Y −m , W−m
n
n

corresponds to equation (39) on page 2294 of DMR.
Lemma 5. Assume Assumptions 1 and 2. Let m, n ∈ Z with m, n ≥ 0 and θ ∈ Θ. Then,
n

n ),
(a) for all −m ≤ k ≤ n and all (Y −m , W−m




n
n−1
n−1
n
− Pθ Xk ∈ · Y −m , W−m
Pθ Xk ∈ · Y −m , W−m

≤

TV

⌊(n−1−k)/p⌋ 


n−2−pi+p
n−2−pi+p
) .
1 − ω(Y n−2−pi+1 , Wn−2−pi+1

Y
i=1

n

n , x),
(b) for all −m + 1 ≤ k ≤ n and all (Y −m , W−m




n
n−1
n
n−1
, X−m = x
, X−m = x − Pθ Xk ∈ · Y −m , W−m
Pθ Xk ∈ · Y −m , W−m

≤

TV

⌊(n−1−k)/p⌋ 


n−2−pi+p
n−2−pi+p
1 − ω(Y n−2−pi+1 , Wn−2−pi+1
) .

Y
i=1

Define, for k ≥ 0, m ≥ 0, and j = 1, 2,
Ψjk,m (θ)

:= Eθ

"

k
X

φjθt

k
k
Y −m , W−m

t=−m+1

#

− Eθ

"

k−1
X

φjθt

k−1
k−1
Y −m , W−m

t=−m+1

#

.

k−1

k ). From Corollary 1 and Lemma 5, we obtain the
Note that Ψ1k,m(θ) = ∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m

following bound on Ψjk,m,x(θ) − Ψjk,m (θ) and Ψjk,m,x(θ) − Ψjk,m′ ,x′ (θ).

Lemma 6. Assume Assumptions 1–8. Then, for j = 1, 2, there exist a constant ρ ∈ (0, 1), random
sequences {Ak,m }k≥1,m≥0 and {Bm }m≥0 , and a random variable Kj ∈ L3−j (Pθ∗ ) such that, for all

1 ≤ k ≤ n and m′ ≥ m ≥ 0,
(a)

sup sup Ψjk,m,x (θ) − Ψjk,m (θ) ≤ Kj (k + m)2 ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ Ak,m ,

θ∈G x∈X

(b)

sup sup Ψjk,m,x (θ) − Ψjk,m′ ,x′ (θ) ≤ [Kj (k + m)2 + Bm ]ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ Ak,m ,

θ∈G x,x′ ∈X

where Pθ∗ (Ak,m ≥ 1 i.o.) = 0, Bm < ∞ Pθ∗ -a.s., and the distribution function of Bm does not
depend on m.

Because Bm ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋/2 →p 0 as m → ∞, Lemma 6 implies that {Ψ1k,m,x (θ)}m≥0 converges
k−1

k ) in probability uniformly in θ ∈ G and x ∈ X . Define the
to Ψ1k,∞ (θ) = ∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y −∞ , W−∞
k−1

k ] = 0,
filtration F by Fk := σ((Y i , Wi+1 ) : −∞ < i ≤ k). It follows from Eθ∗ [Ψ1k,m (θ ∗ )|Y −m , W−m

Assumption 8, and combining Exercise 2.3.7 and Theorem 5.5.9 of Durrett (2010) that
k−1

k ] = 0 and I(θ ∗ ) := E ∗ [Ψ1 (θ ∗ )(Ψ1 (θ ∗ ))′ ] < ∞. Therefore,
Eθ∗ [Ψ1k,∞ (θ ∗ )|Y −∞ , W−∞
θ
0,∞
0,∞

13

{Ψ1k,∞ (θ ∗ )}∞
k=−∞ is an (F, Pθ ∗ )-adapted stationary, ergodic, and square integrable martingale differ-

ence sequence, to which a martingale central limit theorem is applicable. The following proposition
establishes the asymptotic distribution of the score function.
Proposition 2. Assume Assumptions 1–8. Then, (a) for any x0 ∈ X , n−1/2 ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , x0 ) →d

N (0, I(θ ∗ )); (b) for any probability measure ξ on B(X ) for x0 , n−1/2 ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , ξ) →d N (0, I(θ ∗ )).

5.2

Convergence of the Hessian

This section derives the probability limit of n−1 ∇2θ ln (θ, x0 ) and n−1 ∇2θ ln (θ, ξ) when θ is in a neigh-

borhood of θ ∗ . Define
" k
X
Γk,m,x (θ) := varθ

k
k
, X−m
φθt Y−m , W−m

t=−m+1

Γk,m(θ) := varθ

"

k
X

t=−m+1

k

#

= x − varθ

#

k
− varθ
φθt Y−m , W−m

"

k−1
X

"

k−1
X

k−1
k−1
φθt Y −m , W−m
, X−m

t=−m+1

k−1

#

k−1
φθt Y −m , W−m
.

t=−m+1

#

=x ,
(13)
(14)

From the Louis missing information principle (11), we can write ∇2θ ln (θ, x0 ) in terms of {Ψ2k,m,x (θ)}
and {Γk,m,x (θ)} as

∇2θ ln (θ, x0 ) =

n
X
k=1

k−1

∇2θ log pθ (Yk |Y 0

, W0k , X0 = x0 ) =

n
X
[Ψ2k,0,x0 (θ) + Γk,0,x0 (θ)].
k=1

The following lemma provides the bounds on Γk,m,x (θ) that are analogous to Lemma 6.
Lemma 7. Assume Assumptions 1–8. Then, there exist a constant ρ ∈ (0, 1), random sequences
{Ck,m }k≥1,m≥0 and {Dm }m≥0 , and a random variable K ∈ L1 (Pθ∗ ) such that, for all 1 ≤ k ≤ n
and m′ ≥ m ≥ 0,
(a)

sup sup |Γk,m,x (θ) − Γk,m(θ)| ≤ K(k + m)3 ρ⌊(k+m)/8(p+1)⌋ Ck,m,

θ∈G x∈X

(b)

sup sup Γk,m,x (θ) − Γk,m′ ,x′ (θ) ≤ K[(k + m)3 + Dm ]ρ⌊(k+m)/16(p+1)⌋ Ck,m ,

θ∈G x,x′ ∈X

where Pθ∗ (Ck,m ≥ 1 i.o.) = 0, Dm < ∞ Pθ∗ -a.s. and the distribution function of Dm does not
depend on m.

Lemma 7 implies that {Γk,m,x (θ)}m≥0 converges to Γk,∞(θ) in probability uniformly in x ∈ X

and θ ∈ G. The following proposition is a local uniform law of large numbers for the observed
Hessian.

14

Proposition 3. Assume Assumptions 1–8. Then,
sup n−1 ∇2θ ln (θ, x) − Eθ∗ [Ψ20,∞ (θ) + Γ0,∞ (θ)] →p 0.

x∈X

The following proposition shows the asymptotic normality of the MLE.
Proposition 4. Assume Assumptions 1–8. Then, (a) for any x0 ∈ X , n−1/2 (θ̂x0 − θ ∗ ) →d

N (0, I(θ ∗ )−1 ); (b) for any probability measure ξ on B(X ) for x0 , n−1/2 (θ̂ξ − θ ∗ ) →d N (0, I(θ ∗ )−1 ).

5.3

Convergence of the covariance matrix estimate

When conducting statistical inferences with the MLE, the researcher needs to estimate the asymptotic covariance matrix of the MLE. Proposition 3 already derived the consistency of the observed
Hessian. We derive the consistency of the outer-product-of-gradients estimates:
Iˆx0 (θ) := n−1

n
X
k=1

Iˆξ (θ) := n−1

n
X
k=1

k−1

where ∇θ log pθξ (Yk |Y 0

k−1

∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y 0

k−1
∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k , x0 )

k−1

∇θ log pθξ (Yk |Y 0

, W0k ) := ∇θ log

k−1

, W0k , x0 )(∇θ log pθ (Yk |Y0

R

k−1

, W0k )(∇θ log pθξ (Yk |Y 0
k−1

pθ (Yk |Y 0

, W0k , x0 ))′ ,

, W0k ))′ ,

(15)
(16)

, W0k , x0 )ξ(dx0 ). In applications,

k−1

can be computed by numerically differentiating log pθ (Yk |Y 0

, W0k , x0 ),

which in turn can be computed by using the recursive algorithm of Hamilton (1996).

The following proposition shows the consistency of the outer-product-of-gradients estimate. Its
proof is similar to that of Proposition 3 and hence omitted.
Proposition 5. Assume Assumptions 1–8. Then, supx0 ∈X |Iˆx0 (θ̂)−I(θ ∗ )| →p 0 and Iˆξ (θ̂) →p I(θ ∗ )

for any θ̂ such that θ̂ →p θ ∗ and any ξ.

6

Simulation

As an illustration, we provide a small simulation study based on the Markov regime switching model (3).

The simulation was conducted with an R package we developed for Markov

regime switching models.6 We generate 1000 data sets of sample sizes n = 200, 400, and 800
from model (3) with p = 5, using the parameter value estimated by Hamilton (1989) for U.S.
real GNP growth from 1952Q2 to 1984Q4. Specifically, the true parameter value of our simulated data is taken from Table I of Hamilton (1989) with θ = (µ1 , µ2 , γ1 , γ2 , γ3 , γ4 , σ, p11 , p22 )′ =
(1.522, −0.3577, 0.014, −0.058, −0.247, −0.213, 0.7690, 0.9049, 0.7550)′ .7 For each of the 1000 data
6

The R package is available at https://github.com/chiyahn/rMSWITCH.
We simulate (800 + n) periods and use the last n observations as our sample, so that the initial value for our
data set is approximately drawn from the stationary distribution.
7

15

sets, we estimate the parameter θ by the MLE, where we also treat the initial distribution of X0 ,
ξ = (Pr(X0 = 1), Pr(X0 = 2))′ , as a parameter to be estimated together with θ. Given the estimate,
we construct the asymptotic 95 percent confidence interval by using the outer-product-of-gradients
estimator (16), while fixing ξ at its estimated value, and then examine the frequency at which the
95 percent confidence interval contains the true parameter value. Table 1 presents the results. At
n = 200, the asymptotic 95 percent confidence intervals slightly undercover the true parameter with
the coverage probability ranging from 0.875 to 0.944. As the sample size increases from n = 200
to 400, and then to 800, the actual coverage probability approaches 95 percent, indicating that the
asymptotic approximation improves as the sample size increases. Table 2 presents the coverage
probabilities of the asymptotic 95 percent confidence intervals when we use the outer-productof-gradients estimator (15) by setting x0 = 2 rather than (16). Consistent with our theoretical
derivation, the results in Table 2 are similar to those in Table 1, suggesting that the choice of the
initial value of x0 in constructing the covariance matrix estimate does not affect the performance
of the asymptotic confidence intervals.
Table 1: Coverage probability of the asymptotic 95 percent confidence intervals with ξ̂
n = 200
n = 400
n = 800

p11
0.916
0.938
0.942

p21
0.911
0.933
0.942

β1
0.938
0.930
0.945

β2
0.926
0.944
0.941

β3
0.944
0.943
0.950

β4
0.925
0.937
0.956

µ1
0.916
0.946
0.939

µ2
0.896
0.929
0.941

σ
0.875
0.922
0.930

Notes: Based on 1000 replications. Each entry reports the frequency at which the asymptotic 95 percent confidence
interval constructed from (16) contains the true parameter value.

Table 2: Coverage probability of the asymptotic 95 percent confidence intervals with x0 = 2
n = 200
n = 400
n = 800

p11
0.915
0.932
0.943

p21
0.920
0.932
0.945

β1
0.938
0.938
0.945

β2
0.927
0.949
0.939

β3
0.941
0.942
0.949

β4
0.934
0.939
0.956

µ1
0.922
0.945
0.936

µ2
0.901
0.929
0.937

σ
0.884
0.923
0.929

Notes: Based on 1000 replications. Each entry reports the frequency at which the asymptotic 95 percent confidence
interval constructed from (15) with x0 = 2 contains the true parameter value.

7

Proofs
a

a

Throughout these proofs, define Vb := (Y b , Wba ).
Proof of Lemma 1. The proof uses a similar argument to the proof of Lemma 1 in DMR. Because

16

{Zk }nk=−m is a Markov chain given {Wk }nk=−m , we have, for −m < k ≤ n,
n

n

n
k−1
) = Pθ (Xk ∈ A|Xk−1 , Y k−1 , Wkn ).
, Y −m , W−m
Pθ (Xk ∈ A|X−m
n

n ) is an inhomogeneous Markov chain, and part
Therefore, {Xk }nk=−m conditional on (Y −m , W−m

(a) follows.

We proceed to prove part (b). Observe that if −m + p ≤ k ≤ n,
n

n

n
n
Pθ (Xk ∈ A|Xk−p , Y −m , W−m
) = Pθ (Xk ∈ A|Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
),

(17)

because the left hand side of (17) can be written as
k−p

n
n )
|Xk−p , Y −m , W−m
Pθ (Xk ∈ A, Yk−p+1
k−p

n
n )
Pθ (Yk−p+1
|Xk−p , Y −m , W−m

=

n )
n
|Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
Pθ (Xk ∈ A, Yk−p+1
n
n )
Pθ (Yk−p+1
|Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p

.

n
on the right hand side is replaced
The equality (17) holds even when the conditioning variable Wk−p
n
n
for notational simplicity. Write the right hand side of (17) as
, but we use Wk−p
with Wk−p+1
n

n
)
Pθ (Xk ∈ A|Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
R
k−1
n
n
A pθ (Xk = x, Yk |Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p )µ(dx)
=
k−1
n )
pθ (Ykn |Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
Z
k−1
k−1
)pθ (Ykn |Xk = x, Y k−1 , Wkn )µ(dx)
pθ (Xk = x|Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
=
A
−1
Z
k−1
k−1
n
n
.
pθ (Xk = x|Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p )pθ (Yk |Xk = x, Y k−1 , Wk )µ(dx)
×
X

k−1

k−1
When p = 1, we have pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
) = pθ (xk |xk−1 ) ∈ [σ− , σ+ ]. Therefore, the stated
n

result follows with µk (Y k−1 , Wkn , A) defined as
n
µk (Y k−1 , Wkn , A)

Note that

R

:=

Z

n
X pθ (Yk |Xk

A

=

pθ (Ykn |Xk

=

.Z

x, Y k−1 , Wkn )µ(dx)

x, Y k−1 , Wkn )µ(dx)

X

pθ (Ykn |Xk = x, Y k−1 , Wkn )µ(dx).

> 0 from Assumption 3.

17

(18)

k−1

k−1
) is obtained as
When p ≥ 2, a lower bound on pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
k−1

k−1
)
pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p

=

k−1
k−1
)
|xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
pθ (xk , Yk−p+1

k−1
k−1
|xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
)
pθ (Yk−p+1
R Qk
Qk−1
⊗(p−1) (dxk−1 )
i=k−p+1 qθ (xi−1 , xi )
i=k−p+1 gθ (Yi |Y i−1 , xi , Wi )µ
k−p+1
= R Qk
Qk−1
⊗p (dxk
,
x
,
W
)µ
q
(x
,
x
)
g
(Y
|Y
i−1 i
i
i=k−p+1 θ i−1 i
i=k−p+1 θ i
k−p+1 )
Qk−1
inf θ inf xk ,xk−p pθ (xk |xk−p ) inf θ inf xk−1
i=k−p+1 gθ (Yi |Y i−1 , xi , Wi )
k−p+1
≥
.
Qk−1
supθ supxk ,xk−p pθ (xk |xk−p ) supθ supxk−1
g
(Y
|Y
,
x
,
W
)
i
i−1
i
i
θ
i=k−p+1

(19)

k−p+1

k−1

k−1
) is given by the reciprocal of (19). Therefore,
Similarly, an upper bound on pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
n
n
the stated result holds with µk (Y k−1 , Wk , A) defined in (18).

Proof of Lemma 2. In view of (7), the stated result holds if there exist constants ρ ∈ (0, 1) and
M < ∞ and a random sequence {bk } with Pθ∗ (bk ≥ M i.o.) = 0 such that, for k = 1, . . . , n,
sup sup
x0 ∈X θ∈Θ

k−1
log pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k , x0 )

−

k−1
log pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k )

≤ min

(

b+
k
b− (Y k−1 , Wk )

, ρ⌊k/3p⌋ bk

)

,

(20)

k
b+ /b− (Y k−1 , Wk )

< ∞ Pθ∗ -a.s. from Assumption 3.
R
k−1
k−1
First, it follows from pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k , x0 ) = gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )Pθ (dxk |x0 , Y 0 , W0k ),
R
k−1
k−1
pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k ) = gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )Pθ (dxk |Y 0 , W0k ), and Assumption 4(a) that
because

k−1

pθ (Yk |Y 0

k−1

, W0k , x0 ), pθ (Yk |Y 0

k

, W0k ) ∈ [b− (Y k−1 , Wk ), b+ ] uniformly in θ ∈ Θ and x0 ∈ X .

Hence, from the inequality | log x − log y| ≤ |x − y|/(x ∧ y), we have, for k = 1, . . . , n,
k−1

sup sup | log pθ (Yk |Y 0

x0 ∈X θ∈Θ

k−1

, W0k , x0 ) − log pθ (Yk |Y 0

k

, W0k )| ≤ b+ /b− (Y k−1 , Wk ).

(21)

This gives the first bound in (20).
We proceed to derive the second bound in (20). Using a derivation similar to (17) and noting
that Xk is independent of Wk given Xk−1 gives, for any −m + p ≤ k ≤ n,
k−1

k−1

k−1
k
Pθ (Xk ∈ ·|Xk−p , Y −m , W−m
) = Pθ (Xk ∈ ·|Xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
).

18

(22)

Consequently, for any −m + p ≤ k ≤ n,
k−1

k
, x−m )
pθ (Yk |Y−m , W−m
Z Z
k−1
k−1
k−1
k−1
)Pθ (dxk−p |x−m , Y −m , W−m
)µ(dxk ),
=
gθ (Yk |Yk−1 , xk , Wk )pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p

(23)

k−1

k
pθ (Yk |Y−m , W−m
)
Z Z
k−1
k−1
k−1
k−1
)Pθ (dxk−p |Y −m , W−m
)µ(dxk ).
=
gθ (Yk |Yk−1 , xk , Wk )pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p

(24)

Furthermore,
Pθ (Xk−p ∈

k−1
k−1
·|Y −m , W−m
)

=

Z

k−1

k−1

k−1
k−1
Pθ (Xk−p ∈ ·|x−m , Y −m , W−m
)Pθ (dx−m |Y −m , W−m
).

(25)

Combining (23), (24), and (25) for m = 0 and applying Corollary 1 and the property of the total
variation distance gives that, for any p ≤ k ≤ n and uniformly in x0 ∈ X ,
k−1

k−1

pθ (Yk |Y0 , W0k , x0 ) − pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k )
Z Z
k−1
k−1
≤
gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
)µ(dxk )


k−1
k−1
× Pθ (dxk−p |x0 , Y 0 , W0k−1 ) − Pθ (dxk−p |Y 0 , W0k−1 )
≤
≤

⌊(k−p)/p⌋ 

Y
i=1

⌊(k−p)/p⌋ 

Y
i=1

1−
1−



pi−1
ω(Vpi−p )



pi−1
ω(Vpi−p )

sup

xk−p

Z

k−1

k−1
gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
)µ(dxk )

sup
x′k ,xk−p ∈X

k−1
k−1
pθ (x′k |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
)

Z

gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )µ(dxk ).
(26)

k−1

k−1

Furthermore, (23) and (24) imply that, for any k ≥ p, (pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k , x0 ) ∧ pθ (Yk |Y 0 , W0k ))
R
k−1
k−1
≥ inf x′k ,xk−p ∈X pθ (x′k |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
) gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )µ(dxk ). Therefore, it follows from
| log x − log y| ≤ |x − y|/(x ∧ y), (26), and (19) and the subsequent argument that, for p ≤ k ≤ n,
k−1

sup sup log pθ (Yk |Y 0

x0 ∈X θ∈Θ

We first bound
t−1

Q⌊(k−p)/p⌋
i=1

t−1

k−1

, W0k , x0 ) − log pθ (Yk |Y 0

, W0k ) ≤


Q⌊(k−p)/p⌋ 
pi−1
1
−
ω(V
)
pi−p
i=1
k−1

ω(Vk−p )

.

(27)

pi−1

(1 − ω(Vpi−p )) on the right hand side of (27). Fix ǫ ∈ (0, 1/8]. Because
t−1

ω(Vt−p ) > 0 for all Vt−p ∈ Y p+s−1 ×W p from Assumption 3 (note that ω(Vt−p ) = σ− /σ+ > 0 when
t−1

pi−1

p = 1), there exists ρ ∈ (0, 1) such that Pθ∗ (1−ω(Vt−p ) ≥ ρ) ≤ ǫ. Define Ii := I{1−ω(Vpi−p ) ≥ ρ};

19

pi−1

then, we have Eθ∗ [Ii ] ≤ ǫ and 1 − ω(Vpi−p ) ≤ ρ1−Ii . Consequently, with ak := ρ−
⌊(k−p)/p⌋ 

Y
i=1

P⌊(k−p)/p⌋
i=1


P⌊(k−p)/p⌋
pi−1
Ii
= ρ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ ak .
1 − ω(Vpi−p ) ≤ ρ⌊(k−p)/p⌋− i=1

Ii ,

(28)

t−1

Because Vt−p is stationary and ergodic, it follows from the strong law of large numbers that
P⌊(k−p)/p⌋
Ii → Eθ∗ [Ii ] ≤ ǫ Pθ∗ -a.s. as k → ∞. Therefore, ak is bounded as
(⌊(k − p)/p⌋)−1 i=1
Pθ∗ (ak ≥ ρ−2ǫ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ i.o.) = 0.

(29)

k−1

We then bound 1/ω(Vk−p ) on the right hand side of (27). Let C3 := (σ− /σ+ )2 (C1 /b+ )2(p−1) > 0;
k−1

k

then, we have Pθ∗ (ω(Vk−p ) ≤ C3 e−2α(p−1)r ) ≤ (p − 1)Pθ∗ (b− (Y k−1 , Wk ) ≤ C1 e−αr ) for any

r > 0. In view of ρ ∈ (0, 1), there exists a finite and positive constant C4 such that ρǫ =

e−2α(p−1)C4 . For k ≥ 2p, set r = C4 ⌊(k − p)/p⌋ > 0 so that ρǫ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ = e−2α(p−1)r . Then,
k−1

k

Pθ∗ (ω(Vk−p ) ≤ C3 ρǫ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ ) ≤ (p−1)Pθ∗ (b− (Y k−1 , Wk ) ≤ C1 e−αC4 ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ ) for k ≥ 2p, and it folP
k−1
ǫ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ ) < ∞. Therefore, P ∗ (ω(V k−1 ) ≤
lows from Assumption 5 that ∞
θ
k−p
k=p Pθ ∗ (ω(V k−p ) ≤ C3 ρ

C3 ρǫ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ i.o.) = 0 from the Borel-Cantelli lemma. Substituting this bound and (28) and (29)
into (27) gives, for p ≤ k ≤ n,
k−1

sup sup log pθ (Yk |Y 0

x0 ∈X θ∈Θ

k−1

, W0k , x0 ) − log pθ (Yk |Y 0

, W0k ) ≤ ρ(1−3ǫ)⌊(k−p)/p⌋ bk ,

(30)

where Pθ∗ (bk ≥ M i.o.) = 0 for a constant M < ∞.

The right hand side of (30) gives the second bound in (20) because (1 − 3ǫ)⌊(k − p)/p⌋ ≥

⌊(k − p)/p⌋/2 ≥ ⌊(k − p)/2p⌋ ≥ ⌊k/3p⌋, where the last inequality holds because, for any numbers

a, b > 0 and k ≥ 0,

⌊(k − a)+ /b⌋ ≥ ⌊k/(a + b)⌋.

(31)

Therefore, (20) holds, and the stated result is proven.

Proof of Lemma 3. The proof uses a similar argument to the proof of Lemma 3 in DMR and the
proof of Lemma 2. We first show part (a) for −m + p ≤ k ≤ n. Using a similar argument to (23)
and (26) in conjunction with Corollary 1 gives
k−1

k−1

′
k
k
, X−m = x) − pθ (Yk |Y −m′ , W−m
pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
′ , X−m′ = x )
Z Z Z
k−1
k−1
=
gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
)µ(dxk )
i
h
k−1
k−1
k
k
(32)
) δx (dx−m ) − Pθ (dx−m |X−m′ = x′ , Y −m′ , W−m
× Pθ (dxk−p |X−m = x−m , Y −m , W−m
′)

≤

⌊(k−p+m)/p⌋ 

Y
i=1

1−



−m+pi−1
ω(V−m+pi−p )

sup
x′k ,xk−p ∈X

k−1
k−1
pθ (x′k |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p
)

20

Z

gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )µ(dxk ),

k−1

k
where the first equality uses the fact Pθ (Xk−p ∈ ·|X−m , Y −m′ , W−m
′)
k−1

k ), which is proven as (22).
= Pθ (Xk−p ∈ ·|X−m , Y −m , W−m

k−1

k ,x
Furthermore, (23) and (24) imply that, for any k ≥ −m + p, (pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
−m ) ∧
R
k−1
k−1
k−1
′
k
pθ (Yk |Y −m′ , W−m′ , x−m′ )) ≥ inf x′k ,xk−p ∈X pθ (xk |xk−p , Y k−p , Wk−p ) gθ (Yk |Y k−1 , xk , Wk )µ(dxk ).

Therefore, it follows from the inequality | log x − log y| ≤ |x − y|/(x ∧ y) that
k−1

k−1

′
k
k
, X−m = x) − log pθ (Yk |Y −m′ , W−m
log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
′ , X−m′ = x )

Q⌊(k−p+m)/p⌋ 
−m+pi−1
1
−
ω(V
)
−m+pi−p
i=1
≤
.
k−1
ω(Vk−p )

(33)

Proceeding as in (28)–(30) in the proof of Lemma 2, we find that there exist ρ ∈ (0, 1) and ǫ ∈

(0, 1/8] such that the right hand side of (33) is bounded by ρ(1−2ǫ)⌊(k−p+m)/p⌋ ρ−ǫ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ Bk,m , where
Pθ∗ (Bk,m ≥ M i.o.) = 0 for a constant M < ∞. Therefore, part (a) is proven for −m+p ≤ k ≤ n by

noting that ρ−ǫ⌊(k−p)/p⌋ ≤ ρ−ǫ⌊(k−p+m)/p⌋ and using the argument following (30). Part (a) holds for
k−1

k−1

k
k ,X
1 ≤ k ≤ −m + p − 1 because | log pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
−m = x) − log pθ (Yk |Y −m′ , W−m′ , X−m′ =
k

x′ )| is bounded by b+ /b− (Y k−1 , Wk ), which is finite Pθ∗ -a.s. Part (b) follows from replacing
k−1

k−1

k
k
Pθ (dx−m |X−m′ = x′ , Y −m′ , W−m
Part (c) follows from
′ ) in (32) with Pθ (dx−m |Y −m , W−m ).
k

k−1

k ,X
b− (Y k−1 , Wk ) ≤ pθ (Yk |Y −m , W−m
−m = x) ≤ b+ and Assumption 4.

Proof of Proposition 1. The proof follows the argument of the proof of Proposition 2 and Theorem 1
in DMR. From Property 24.2 of Gourieroux and Monfort (1995, page 385), the stated result holds if
(i) Θ is compact, (ii) ln (θ, x0 ) is continuous uniformly in x0 ∈ X , (iii) supx0 ∈X supθ∈Θ |n−1 ln (θ, x0 )−
l(θ)| → 0 Pθ∗ -a.s., and (iv) l(θ) is uniquely maximized at θ ∗ .

(i) follows from Assumption 1(a). (ii) follows from Assumption 6(a). In view of Lemma 2 and

the compactness of Θ, (iii) holds if, for all θ ∈ Θ,
lim sup lim sup sup |n−1 ln (θ ′ ) − l(θ)| = 0
δ→0

Noting that ln (θ) =

Pn

n→∞ |θ ′ −θ|≤δ

k=1 ∆k,0 (θ),

(34)

the left hand side of (34) is bounded by A + B + C, where

A := lim sup sup n

−1

n→∞ θ ′ ∈Θ

n
X
(∆k,0 (θ ′ ) − ∆k,∞(θ ′ )) ,
k=1

B := lim sup lim sup sup
δ→0

Pθ∗ -a.s.

n−1

n→∞ |θ ′ −θ|≤δ

n
X
(∆k,∞ (θ ′ ) − ∆k,∞ (θ)) ,
k=1

n
X
−1
(∆k,∞ (θ) − Eθ∗ ∆k,∞ (θ)) .
C := lim sup n
n→∞

k=1

Fix x ∈ X . Setting m = 0 and letting m′ → ∞ in Lemma 3(a)(b) show that supθ∈Θ |∆k,0 (θ) −

∆k,∞ (θ)| ≤ supθ∈Θ |∆k,0 (θ)−∆k,0,x(θ)|+supθ∈Θ |∆k,0,x (θ)−∆k,∞(θ)| ≤ 2Ak,0 ρ⌊k/3p⌋ while supθ∈Θ |∆k,0 (θ)−
21

∆k,0,x (θ)| + supθ∈Θ |∆k,0,x (θ) − ∆k,∞ (θ)| ≤ 4Bk follows from Lemma 3(c). Consequently, A = 0

Pθ∗ -a.s. B is bounded by, from the ergodic theorem and Lemma 9,
lim lim sup n−1

δ→0 n→∞

= lim Eθ∗
δ→0

"

n
X
k=1

sup |∆k,∞(θ ′ ) − ∆k,∞(θ)|

|θ ′ −θ|≤δ

′

#

sup |∆0,∞ (θ ) − ∆0,∞ (θ)| = 0

|θ ′ −θ|≤δ

Pθ∗ -a.s.

C = 0 Pθ∗ -a.s. by the ergodic theorem, and hence (iii) holds. For (iv), observe that
0

0

1 )| < ∞ from Lemma 3(c). Therefore, for any m, E ∗ [log p (Y |Y
1
Eθ∗ | log pθ (Y1 |Y −m , W−m
θ 1
θ
−m , W−m )]

is uniquely maximized at θ ∗ from Lemma 2.2 of Newey and McFadden (1994) and Assumption 6(b).
0

1 )] converges to l(θ) uniformly in θ as m → ∞
Then, (iv) follows because Eθ∗ [log pθ (Y1 |Y−m , W−m

from Lemma 3 and the dominated convergence theorem. Therefore, (iv) holds, and the stated
result is proven.

Proof of Corollary 2. Observe that |n−1 ln (θ, ξ) − l(θ)| ≤ supx0 ∈X |n−1 ln (θ, x0 ) − l(θ)| because

inf x0 ∈X ln (θ, x0 ) ≤ ln (θ, ξ) ≤ supx0 ∈X ln (θ, x0 ). Furthermore, ln (θ, ξ) is continuous in θ from the

continuity of ln (θ, x0 ). Therefore, the stated result follows from the proof of Proposition 1.

Proof of Lemma 4. The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 1. Because the time-reversed process
n , we have, for 1 ≤ k ≤ n + m,
{Zn−k }0≤k≤n+m is Markov conditional on W−m
n

n−k+1

n
) = Pθ (Xn−k ∈ A|Xn−k+1 , Y −m
Pθ (Xn−k ∈ A|Xnn−k+1 , Y −m , W−m

n
, W−m
).

n

n ), and part (a)
Therefore, {Xn−k }0≤k≤n+m is an inhomogeneous Markov chain given (Y −m , W−m

follows.

For part (b), because (i) the time-reversed process {Zn−k }0≤k≤n+m is Markov conditional on

n ,
W−m

n−k+p−1

n−k+p−1
(ii) Yn−k+p is independent of X−m
given (Xn−k+p , Y −m

n ), (iii) X
, W−m
n−k+p is

independent of the other random variables given Xn−k+p−1 , and (iv) Wn−k+p is independent of
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
Z−m
given W−m
, we have, for 1 ≤ k ≤ n + m,




n
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
n
Pθ Xn−k ∈ A Xn−k+p , Y −m , W−m
.
, W−m
= Pθ Xn−k ∈ A Xn−k+p , Y −m

Observe that in view of n − k ≥ −m,



n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
Pθ Xn−k ∈ A, Xn−k+p , Y −m
, W−m


n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
= Pθ Xn−k+p Xn−k ∈ A, Y n−k



n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
× Pθ Xn−k ∈ A, Y−m+1
, W−m+1
Y −m , W−m Pθ Y −m , W−m .

22

(35)

It follows that
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
 R G (x, X

)µ(dx)
, W−m
n−k+p−1
n−k+p , Y −m
n−k+p−1
A θ
=R
, W−m
,
Pθ Xn−k ∈ A Xn−k+p , Y −m
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
Y
,
W
)µ(dx)
G
(x,
X
,
θ
n−k+p
−m
−m
X
n−k+p−1

where Gθ (x, Xn−k+p , Y −m

n−k+p−1

n−k+p−1
) := pθ (Xn−k+p |Xn−k = x, Y n−k
, W−m

n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
pθ (Xn−k = x, Y−m+1
, W−m+1
|Y −m , W−m ).

n−k+p−1

When p = 1, we have pθ (Xn−k+p |Xn−k = x, Y n−k

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
) = pθ (Xn−k+1 |Xn−k = x) ∈

n−k+p−1

[σ− , σ+ ]. Therefore, the stated result follows with µ̃k (Y −m
n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
, A)
, W−m
µ̃k (Y −m

Note that

R

X

R

:= R

A pθ (Xn−k

X

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
)×

n−k+p−1
, A) defined as
, W−m

n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
= x, Y−m+1
, W−m+1
|Y −m , W−m )µ(dx)

n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
pθ (Xn−k = x, Y−m+1
, W−m+1
|Y −m , W−m )µ(dx)

. (36)

n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
pθ (Xn−k = x, Y−m+1
, W−m+1
|Y −m , W−m )µ(dx) > 0 from Assumption 3.
n−k+p−1

When p ≥ 2, it follows from a derivation similar to (19) that pθ (xn−k+p |xn−k , Y n−k

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
)

is bounded from below by

Qn−k+p−1

i=n−k+1 gθ (Yi |Y i−1 , xi , Wi )
,
Qn−k+p−1
supθ supxn−k+p ,xn−k pθ (xn−k+p |xn−k ) supθ supxn−k+p−1 i=n−k+1 gθ (Yi |Y i−1 , xi , Wi )

inf θ inf xn−k+p ,xn−k pθ (xn−k+p |xn−k ) inf θ inf xn−k+p−1
n−k+1

(37)

n−k+1

n−k+p−1

and an upper bound on pθ (xn−k+p |xn−k , Y n−k

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
) is given by the inverse of (19).

Therefore, the stated result holds with µ̃k defined in (36).

Proof of Lemma 5. When k ≥ n − 1, the stated result holds trivially because

Qj

i=1 ai

= 1 when

j < i. We first show part (a) for k ≤ n − 2. Because the time-reversed process {Zn−k }0≤k≤n+m

n
and Wn is independent of Zn−1 given Wn−1 , we have Pθ (Xk ∈
is Markov conditional on W−m
R
n
n−1
n
n−1
n
n ). Similarly, we obtain
·|Y −m , W−m ) = Pθ (Xk ∈ ·|xn−1 , Y −m , W−m
)Pθ (dxn−1 |Y−m , W−m
R
n−1
n−1
n−1
n−1
n−1
n−1
Pθ (Xk ∈ ·|Y −m , W−m
) = Pθ (Xk ∈ ·|xn−1 , Y −m , W−m
)Pθ (dxn−1 |Y −m , W−m
). It follows

that




n
n−1
n
n−1
− Pθ Xk ∈ · Y−m , W−m
Pθ Xk ∈ · Y −m , W−m
Z





n−1
n
n−1
n−1
n
n−1
Pθ dxn−1 Y −m , W−m
.
− Pθ dxn−1 Y−m , W−m
≤ Pθ Xk ∈ · xn−1 , Y −m , W−m

Therefore, the stated result follows from applying Lemmas 4 and 8 to the time-reversed process
n−1
n−k
n−1
conditional on (Y −m , W−m
{Xn−i }i=1
).
For part (b) for k ≤ n − 2, by using a similar argument to the proof of Lemma 4, we can show
n

n ,X
that (i) conditionally on (Y −m , W−m
−m ), the time-reversed process {Xn−k }0≤k≤n+m−1 is an

inhomogeneous Markov chain, and (ii) for all p ≤ k ≤ n + m − 1, there exists a probability measure

23

n−k+p−1

n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
µ̆k (y−m
, w−m
, x, A) such that, for all (Y −m

n−k+p−1
, W−m
, x),


n
n
, X−m = x
Pθ Xn−k ∈ A Xn−k+p , Y −m , W−m


n−k+p−1
n−k+p−1
, X−m = x
, W−m
= Pθ Xn−k ∈ A Xn−k+p , Y −m
n−k+p−1

≥ ω(Y n−k

n−k+p−1

with the same ω(Yn−k

n−k+p−1

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
)µ̆k (Y −m

n−k+p−1
, W−m
, X−m = x, A),

n−k+p−1
, Wn−k
) as in Lemma 4. Therefore, the stated result follows from

a similar argument to the proof of part (a).
Proof of Lemma 6. The proof follows the argument of the proof of Lemma 13 in DMR. When
(k, m) = (1, 0), the stated result follows from Ψj1,0,x (θ) = Eθ∗ [φjθ1 |V0 , X0 = x], Ψj1,0 (θ) = Eθ∗ [φjθ1 |V0 ],
supθ∈G |φjθk | ≤ |φjk |∞ , and Assumption 7. Henceforth, assume (k, m) 6= (1, 0) so that k + m ≥ 2.
For part (a), it follows from Lemma 10(a)–(e) that
Ψjk,m,x(θ) − Ψjk,m (θ) ≤ 4

k
X

t=−m+1



|φjt |∞ Ωt−1,−m ∧ Ω̃t,k−1

≤ 4 max′ |φjt′ |∞
−m≤t ≤k

where Ωt−1,−m :=

Q⌊(t−1+m)/p⌋
i=1

k
X

t=−m+1

−m+pi−1



Ωt−1,−m ∧ Ω̃t,k−1 ,

(1 − ω(V−m+pi−p )) and Ω̃t,k−1 :=

Q⌊(k−1−t)/p⌋
i=1

(38)
k−2−pi+p

(1 − ω(Vk−2−pi+1 ))

as defined in the paragraph preceding Lemma 10. As shown on page 2294 of DMR, we have
P
P
j
2
max−m≤t′ ≤k |φjt′ |∞ ≤ kt=−m (|t| ∨ 1)2 |φjt |∞ /(|t| ∨ 1)2 ≤ 2(k ∨ m)2 [ ∞
t=−∞ |φt |∞ /(|t| ∨ 1) ] ≤ (k +

m)2 Kj with Kj ∈ L3−j (Pθ∗ ).
P
We proceed to bound kt=−m+1 (Ωt−1,−m ∧ Ω̃t,k−1 ) on the right hand side of (38). Similar to the
k−1

proof of Lemma 2, fix ǫ ∈ (0, 1/8p(p + 1)]; then, there exists ρ ∈ (0, 1) such that Pθ∗ (1 − ω(Vk−p ) ≥
P(p−2)
P
t+i+p−1
ρ) ≤ ǫ. Define Ip,i := t=0 + I{1 − ω(Vt+i
) ≥ ρ} and νba := ai=b Ip,i . Observe that (recall
Q
we define di=c xi = 1 when c > d)
⌊(a−s)/p⌋

Y

i=⌊(b−s)/p⌋+1

s+pi−1

(1 − ω(Vs+pi−p )) ≤ ρ

(⌊(a−s)/p⌋−⌊(b−s)/p⌋)+ −

≤ρ

P⌊(a−s)/p⌋

i=⌊(b−s)/p⌋+1

s+pi−1

I{1−ω(V s+pi−p )≥ρ}

(39)
a−p
⌊(a−b)+ /p⌋−νb−p

,

where the second inequality follows from ⌊x⌋ − ⌊y⌋ ≥ ⌊x − y⌋, (⌊x/p⌋)+ = ⌊x+ /p⌋, s + p(⌊(b −
s)/p⌋ + 1) − p ≥ b − p, and s + p⌊(a − s)/p⌋ − 1 ≤ a − 1. Similarly, we obtain
⌊(k−1−b)/p⌋

Y

i=⌊(k−1−a)/p⌋+1

k−2−pi+p

a

(1 − ω(Vk−2−pi+1 )) ≤ ρ⌊(a−b)+ /p⌋−νb ,

(40)

because k − 2 − p⌊(k − 1 − b)/p⌋ + 1 ≥ b and k − 2 − p(⌊(k − 1 − a)/p⌋ + 1) + p ≤ a + p − 1. By
24

applying (39) to Ωt−1,−m with a = t − 1, b = s = −m, applying (40) to Ω̃t,k−1 with a = k − 1 and
b = t, and using (31) and −m + 1 ≤ t ≤ k, we obtain
t−1−p

k

Ωt−1,−m ≤ ρ⌊(t−1+m)+ /p⌋−ν−m−p ≤ ρ⌊(t+m)/(p+1)⌋−ν−m−p ,
k−1

Ω̃t,k−1 ≤ ρ⌊(k−1−t)+ /p⌋−νt

(41)

k

≤ ρ⌊(k−t)/(p+1)⌋−ν−m−p .

Observe that, for any ρ ∈ (0, 1), c > 0 and any integers a < b,
∞ 
 ⌊(b−a)/2⌋
X
X
⌊(t+a)/c⌋
⌊(b−t)/c⌋
≤
ρ⌊(b−t)/c⌋ +
ρ
∧ρ
t=−∞

t=−∞

From (42),
i+p−1

Vi

∞
X

ρ⌊(t+a)/c⌋

t=⌊(b−a)/2⌋+1


c  ⌊(b−⌊(b−a)/2⌋)/c⌋
ρ
+ ρ⌊(⌊(b−a)/2⌋+1+a)/c⌋
≤
1−ρ
2c ⌊(a+b)/2c⌋
≤
ρ
.
1−ρ

Pk

t=−m+1 (Ωt−1,−m ∧Ω̃t,k−1 )

(42)

k

is bounded by 2(p+1)ρ⌊(k+m)/2(p+1)⌋−ν−m−p /(1−ρ). Because

is stationary and ergodic, it follows from the strong law of large numbers that (⌊(k +

k
→ 2(p + 1)Eθ∗ [Ip,i ] ≤ 2p(p + 1)ǫ Pθ∗ -a.s. as k + m → ∞. In view of
m)/2(p + 1)⌋)−1 ν−m−p
k

ǫ < 1/8p(p + 1), we have Pθ∗ (ρ⌊(k+m)/2(p+1)⌋−ν−m−p ≥ ρ⌊(k+m)/2(p+1)⌋/2 i.o.) = 0. Henceforth, let

{bk,m }k≥1,m≤0 denote a generic nonnegative random sequence such that Pθ∗ (bk,m ≥ M i.o.) = 0 for
a finite constant M . With this notation and the fact that ⌊(k +m)/2(p+1)⌋/2 ≥ ⌊(k +m)/4(p+1)⌋,
Pk
t=−m+1 (Ωt−1,−m ∧ Ω̃t,k−1 ) is bounded by
ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ bk,m ,

(43)

and part (a) is proven.
For part (b), it follows from (12) and Lemma 10(a)–(e) that
Ψjk,m,x (θ) −

Ψjk,m′ ,x′ (θ)

≤4

k
X

t=−m+1



Ωt−1,−m ∧ Ω̃t,k−1 |φjt |∞ + 2

−m
X

t=−m′ +1

Ω̃t,k−1 |φjt |∞ .

The first term on the right hand side is bounded by (k + m)2 Kj ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ bk,m with Kj ∈

L3−j (Pθ∗ ) from the same argument as the proof of part (a). For the second term on the right hand
Q⌊(k−1−t)/p⌋
k−2−pi+p
−m
side, write Ω̃t,k−1 as Ω̃t,k−1 = Ω̃−m,k−1 Ω̃−m
t,k−1 , where Ω̃t,k−1 :=
i=⌊(k−1+m)/p⌋+1 (1−ω(Vk−2−pi+1 )).
−m

−m
⌊(−m−t)/p⌋−νt
By applying (40) to Ω̃−m
t,k−1 with a = −m and b = t, we obtain Ω̃t,k−1 ≤ ρ

conjunction with
where

Ω̃−m
t,k−1

. In

≤ 1, the second term on the right hand side is bounded by 2Ω̃−m,k−1 Rm,m′ ,

Rm,m′ :=

−m
X

t=−m′ +1

dt,m |φjt |∞ ,

−m

dt,m := min{1, ρ⌊(−m−t)/p⌋−νt

}.

(44)

From a similar argument to (41)–(43), we can bound Ω̃−m,k−1 as Ω̃−m,k−1 ≤ ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ bk,m .
25

It follows from (−m − t)−1 νt−m → Eθ∗ [Ip,i ] ≤ pǫ Pθ∗ -a.s. as t + m → −∞ that Pθ∗ (dt,m ≥

ρ⌊(−m−t)/p⌋/2 i.o.) = 0. Furthermore, |φjt |∞ satisfies Pθ∗ (|φjt |∞ ≥ ρ−⌊(−m−t)/p⌋/4 i.o.) = 0 from
Markov’s inequality and the Borel-Cantelli lemma. Therefore, Pθ∗ (dt,m |φjt |∞ ≥ ρ⌊(−m−t)/p⌋/4 i.o.) =

0. In conjunction with 0 ≤ dt,m |φjt |∞ < ∞ Pθ∗ -a.s., we obtain Rm := supm′ ≥m Rm,m′ < ∞ Pθ∗ -a.s.,

and the distribution of Rm does not depend on m because Vt is stationary. Therefore, part (b) is
proven by setting Bm = Rm .
Proof of Proposition 2. By setting m = 0 and letting m′ → ∞ in Lemma 6, we obtain

supθ∈G supx∈X |Ψ1k,0,x (θ) − Ψ1k,∞ (θ)| ≤ (K1 + B0 )k2 ρ⌊k/4(p+1)⌋ Ak,0 . Furthermore, the sum over

finitely many supθ∈G supx∈X |Ψ1k,0,x (θ) − Ψ1k,∞ (θ)| is o(n1/2 ) Pθ∗ -a.s. because

Eθ∗ [supθ∈G supx∈X |Ψ1k,0,x (θ)|] < ∞ and Eθ∗ [supθ∈G |Ψ1k,∞ (θ)|] < ∞ from Assumption 8. Therefore,
P
P
we have n−1/2 ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , x0 ) = n−1/2 nk=1 Ψ1k,0,x0 (θ ∗ ) = n−1/2 nk=1 Ψ1k,∞ (θ ∗ ) + op (1).
Because {Ψ1k,∞ (θ ∗ )}∞
k=−∞ is a stationary, ergodic, and square integrable martingale difference

sequence, it follows from a martingale difference central limit theorem (McLeish, 1974, Theorem
P
2.3) that n−1/2 nk=1 Ψ1k,∞ (θ ∗ ) →d N (0, I(θ ∗ )), and part (a) follows. For part (b), let pnθ (x0 )

denote pθ (Y1n |Y 0 , W0n , x0 ), and observe that
∇θ
∇θ ln (θ, ξ) = R

R

pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )
=
pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )

R

∇θ log pnθ (x0 )pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )
R
.
pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )

Therefore, minx0 ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , x0 ) ≤ ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , ξ) ≤ maxx0 ∇θ ln (θ ∗ , x0 ) holds, and part (b) follows.
Proof of Lemma 7. The proof follows the argument of the proof of Lemma 17 in DMR and the
proof of Lemma 6. Fix ǫ ∈ (0, 1/32p(p + 1)] and choose ρ ∈ (0, 1) as in the proof of Lemma 6.

When (k, m) = (1, 0), the stated result follows from supθ∈G |φθk | ≤ |φk |∞ . Henceforth, assume
P
(k, m) 6= (1, 0) so that k + m ≥ 2. For a ≤ b, define Sab := bt=a φθt . Let {bk,m }k≥1,m≤0 denote

a generic nonnegative random sequence such that Pθ∗ (bk,m ≥ M i.o.) = 0 for a finite constant M .

We prove part (a) first. Write Γk,m,x (θ) − Γk,m (θ) = A + 2B + C, where
k

k−1

k−1
k−1
A := varθ [S−m+1
|V−m , X−m = x] − varθ [S−m+1
|V−m , X−m = x]
k

k−1

k−1
k−1
− varθ [S−m+1
|V−m ] + varθ [S−m+1
|V−m ],
k

k

k−1
k−1
|V−m ],
B := covθ [φθk , S−m+1
|V−m , X−m = x] − covθ [φθk , S−m+1
k

k

C := varθ [φθk |V−m , X−m = x] − varθ [φθk |V−m ].
From Lemma 10(f)–(k), A is bounded as
|A| ≤ 24

X

−m+1≤s≤t≤k−1



Ωs−1,−m ∧ Ωt−1,s ∧ Ω̃t,k−1

max

−m+1≤s≤t≤k−1

|φt |∞ |φs |∞ .

From equation (46) of DMR on page 2299, we have max−m+1≤s≤t≤k−1 |φt |∞ |φs |∞ ≤
P
2
3
1
2
(m3 + k3 ) ∞
t=−∞ |φt |∞ /(|t| ∨ 1) ≤ (k + m) K for K ∈ L (Pθ ∗ ).
26

We proceed to bound Ωs−1,−m ∧ Ωt−1,s ∧ Ω̃t,k−1 . By using the argument in (39)-(41), we obtain


k
Ωs−1,−m ∧ Ωt−1,s ∧ Ω̃t,k−1 ≤ ρ⌊(s+m)/(p+1)⌋ ∧ ρ⌊(t−s)/(p+1)⌋ ∧ ρ⌊(k−t)/(p+1)⌋ ρ−ν−m−p .

Furthermore, a derivation similar to DMR (page 2299) gives, for n ≥ 2,
X

0≤s≤t≤n

n/2 n−s 



X
X
⌊s/(p+1)⌋
⌊(t−s)/(p+1)⌋
⌊(n−t)/(p+1)⌋
≤2
ρ
∧ρ
∧ρ
ρ⌊(t−s)/(p+1)⌋ ∧ ρ⌊(n−t)/(p+1)⌋ .
s=0 t=s

From (42), the right hand side is bounded by

C

n/2
X
s=0

ρ⌊(n−s)/2(p+1)⌋ ≤ Cρ⌊n/4(p+1)⌋ ,

(45)

P
⌊t/b⌋ ≤ bρ⌊a/b⌋ /(1 − ρ) for any integers a ≥ 0 and b > 0.
where the inequality holds because ∞
t=a ρ
Hence, A is bounded by K(k + m)3 ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ bk,m by setting n = k + m in (45) and noting

k
→ 4(p + 1)Eθ∗ [Ip,i ] ≤ 4p(p + 1)ǫ < 1/2 Pθ∗ -a.s. as k + m → ∞.
that (⌊(k + m)/4(p + 1)⌋)−1 ν−m−p

For B, from Lemma 10(f)–(i), (39), (41), t ≥ −m, and (42), B is bounded as, with Mk :=
max−m+1≤t≤k−1 |φk |∞ |φt |∞ ,
|B| ≤ 12
≤ 12
≤ Cρ

X

−m+1≤t≤k−1

X

−m+1≤t≤k−1

(Ωt−1,−m ∧ Ωk−1,t) Mk


k
ρ(t+m)/(p+1) ∧ ρ(k−t)/(p+1) ρ−ν−m−p Mk

k
⌊(k+m)/2(p+1)⌋−ν−m−p

Mk ,

which is written as K(k +m)3 ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ bk,m for K ∈ L1 (Pθ∗ ). C is bounded by 6Ωk−1,−m |φk |2∞
from Lemma 10(h), and part (a) is proven.

We proceed to prove part (b). Write Γk,m′ ,x′ (θ) = A + 2B + 2C + D, where
k

k−1

k−1
k
|V−m′ , X−m′ = x′ ],
A := varθ [S−m+1
|V−m′ , X−m′ = x′ ] − varθ [S−m+1
k

−m
′
B := covθ [φθk , S−m
′ +1 |V−m′ , X−m′ = x ],
k

k−1

k−1
−m
′
k−1
−m
′
C := covθ [S−m+1
, S−m
′ +1 |V −m′ , X−m′ = x ] − covθ [S−m+1 , S−m′ +1 |V −m′ , X−m′ = x ],
k

k−1

−m
−m
′
′
D := varθ [S−m
′ +1 |V −m′ , X−m′ = x ] − varθ [S−m′ +1 |V −m′ , X−m′ = x ].

|Γk,m,x (θ) − A| is bounded similarly to |Γk,m,x (θ) − Γk,m(θ)| in part (a) by using Lemma 10. From

27

Lemma 10(g), B is bounded by 2
⌊(k−1−t)/p⌋

B1 := 2|φk |∞

Y

P−m

t=−m′ +1 Ωk−1,t |φk |∞ |φt |∞
t+pi−1

i=⌊(−m−t)/p⌋+1

(1 − ω(Vt+pi−p )),

B2 :=

= B1 × B2 , where

−m
X

t=−m′ +1

⌊(−m−t)/p⌋

Y
i=1

t+pi−1

(1 − ω(Vt+pi−p ))|φt |∞ .

B1 is bounded by |φk |∞ ρ⌊(k+m)/2(p+1)⌋ bk,m from the same argument as part (a). Because Pθ∗ (|φk |∞ ≥
Q⌊(−m−t)/p⌋
ρ−⌊(k+m)/2(p+1)⌋/2 i.o.) = 0, B1 is bounded by ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ bk,m. For B2 , because i=1
(1−
−m

t+pi−1

ω(Vt+pi−p )) is bounded by ρ⌊(−m−t)/p⌋−νt−p from (39), we can use the same argument as the one

for Rm,m′ defined in (44) to show that B 2m := supm′ ≥m B2 < ∞ Pθ∗ -a.s. and B 2m is stationary.
Therefore, B is bounded by ρ⌊(k+m)/4(p+1)⌋ bk,m B 2m .

k

k−1

−m
X

k−1 

X
Ωt−1,s ∧ Ω̃t,k−1 |φt |∞ |φs |∞ .

|C|+|D| is bounded by, with ∆t,s := |covθ [φθt , φθs |V−m′ , X−m′ = x′ ]−covθ [φθt , φθs |V−m′ , X−m′ =

x′ ]|,

k−1
X

−m
X

t=−m′ +1 s=−m′ +1

∆t,s ≤ 2

−m
X

k−1
X

s=−m′ +1 t=s

∆t,s ≤ 2

(46)

s=−m′ +1 t=s

Similar to (41), we obtain
Ωt−1,s ∧ Ω̃t,k−1


 

t−1−p
k−1
⌊(t−s)/(p+1)⌋−νs−p
⌊(t−s)/(p+1)⌋
⌊(k−t)/(p+1)⌋
⌊(k−t)/(p+1)⌋−νtk−1
ρ−νs−p .
≤ ρ
∧ρ
≤ ρ
∧ρ

Therefore, the right hand side of (46) is bounded by
2

−m
X

s=−m′ +1

k−1 

X
−m
k−1
ρ⌊(t−s)/(p+1)⌋ ∧ ρ⌊(k−t)/(p+1)⌋ ρ−ν−m ρ−νs−p |φt |∞ |φs |∞ .

(47)

t=s

DMR (page 2300) show that the following holds for k ≥ 1, m ≥ 0 and t, s ≤ 0:
if t ≤ (k + s − 1)/2, then (|t| − 1)/2 ≤ (3k + s − 3)/4 − t,
if (k + s − 1)/2 ≤ t ≤ k − 1, then (|t| − 1)/4 ≤ t + (−k − 3s + 1)/4.
Consequently, (47) is bounded by
2ρ

−m
X

k−1
⌊(k+m−2)/8(p+1)⌋−ν−m



×

s=−m′ +1
(k+s)/2

X
t=s

−m

ρ⌊(k−2s−m)/8(p+1)⌋ ρ−νs−p |φs |∞

ρ⌊((3k+s−3)/4−t)/(p+1)⌋ |φt |∞ +
k−1

≤ Cρ⌊(k+m−2)/8(p+1)⌋−ν−m

−m
X

s=−m′ +1

k−1
X

t=(k+s)/2



ρ⌊(t+(−k−3s+1)/4)/(p+1)⌋ |φt |∞ 
−m

ρ⌊(−m−s)/8(p+1)⌋−νs−p |φs |∞

≤ ρ⌊(k+m)/16(p+1)⌋ bk,m × E × Fm,m′ ,
28

k−1
X
t=s

ρ⌊(|t|−1)/4(p+1)⌋ |φt |∞

where E :=

P∞

⌊(|t|−1)/4(p+1)⌋ |φ | ,
t ∞
t=−∞ ρ

and Fm,m′ :=

L1 (P

P−m

θ ∗ ), F m := supm′ ≥m Fm,m′ < ∞ Pθ ∗ -a.s.,
⌊(k+m)/16(p+1)⌋
ρ
bk,m EF m , and part (b) is proven.

cause E ∈

−m
⌊(−m−s)/8(p+1)⌋−νs−p
|φs |∞ .
s=−m′ +1 ρ

Be-

and F m is stationary, (47) is bounded by

Proof of Proposition 3. Define Υk,m,x (θ) := Ψ2k,m,x (θ) + Γk,m,x (θ) and Υk,∞ (θ) := Ψ2k,∞(θ) +
P
Γk,∞ (θ), so that ∇2θ ln (θ, x) = nk=1 Υk,0,x(θ). By setting m = 0 and letting m′ → ∞ in Lem-

mas 6 and 7, we obtain supθ∈G supx∈X |Υk,0,x (θ) − Υk,∞ (θ)| ≤ (K2 + B0 )k2 ρ⌊k/4(p+1)⌋ Ak,0 + K(k3 +

D0 )ρ⌊k/16(p+1)⌋ Ck,0 . Furthermore, the sum over finitely many supθ∈G supx∈X |Υk,0,x (θ) − Υk,∞ (θ)|
is o(n) Pθ∗ -a.s. because Eθ∗ supθ∈G supx∈X |Υk,0,x (θ)| < ∞ and Eθ∗ supθ∈G |Υk,∞ (θ)| < ∞ from
P
Assumption 8. Therefore, we have supθ∈G supx∈X |n−1 ∇2θ ln (θ, x) − n−1 nk=1 Υk,∞ (θ)| = op (1).
Consequently, it suffices to show that
sup n

−1

θ∈G

n
X
k=1

Υk,∞(θ) − Eθ∗ [Υ0,∞ (θ)] →p 0.

(48)

Because G is compact, (48) holds if, for all θ ∈ G,
n

−1

n
X
k=1

Υk,∞(θ) − Eθ∗ [Υ0,∞ (θ)] →p 0,

lim lim

sup

δ→0 n→∞ |θ ′ −θ|≤δ

n−1

n
X
k=1

Υk,∞ (θ ′ ) − n−1

(49)
n
X

Υk,∞ (θ) = 0

Pθ∗ -a.s.

(50)

k=1

(49) holds by ergodic theorem. Note that the left hand side of (50) is bounded by
P
limδ→0 limn→∞ n−1 nk=1 sup|θ′ −θ|≤δ |Υk,∞ (θ ′ ) − Υk,∞ (θ)|, which equals
limδ→0 Eθ∗ sup|θ′ −θ|≤δ |Υ0,∞ (θ ′ ) − Υ0,∞ (θ)| Pθ∗ -a.s. from ergodic theorem. Therefore, (50) holds if
lim Eθ∗

δ→0

sup
|θ ′ −θ|≤δ

Υ0,∞ (θ ′ ) − Υ0,∞ (θ) = 0.

(51)

Fix a point x0 ∈ X . The left hand side of (51) is bounded by 2Am + Cm , where
Am := Eθ∗ sup |Υ0,m,x0 (θ) − Υ0,∞ (θ)| ,
θ∈G

Cm := lim Eθ∗
δ→0

sup
|θ ′ −θ|≤δ

Υ0,m,x0 (θ ′ ) − Υ0,m,x0 (θ) .

From Lemmas 6 and 7, supθ∈G |Υ0,m,x0 (θ) − Υ0,∞ (θ)| →p 0 as m → ∞. Furthermore, we have

Eθ∗ supm≥1 supθ∈G |Υ0,m,x0 (θ)| < ∞ and Eθ∗ supθ∈G |Υ0,∞ (θ)| < ∞ from Assumption 8. Therefore,
Am → 0 as m → ∞ by the dominated convergence theorem (Durrett, 2010, Exercise 2.3.7). Cm = 0

from Lemma 11 if m ≥ p. Therefore, (51) holds, and the stated result is proven.

Proof of Proposition 4. In view of (10) and Propositions 1, 2, and 3, part (a) holds if (i) Eθ∗ [Ψ20,∞ (θ)+
Γ0,∞ (θ)] is continuous in θ ∈ G and (ii) Eθ∗ [Ψ20,∞ (θ ∗ ) + Γ0,∞ (θ ∗ )] = −I(θ ∗ ). (i) follows from
(51). For (ii), it follows from the Louis information principle and information matrix equality

that, for all m ≥ 1, Eθ∗ [Ψ10,m (θ ∗ )(Ψ10,m (θ ∗ ))′ ] = −Eθ∗ [Ψ20,m (θ ∗ ) + Γ0,m (θ ∗ )]. From Lemmas 6
29

and 7, Assumption 8, and the dominated convergence theorem, the left hand side converges to
Eθ∗ [Ψ10,∞ (θ ∗ )(Ψ10,∞ (θ ∗ ))′ ] = I(θ ∗ ), and the right hand side converges to −Eθ∗ [Ψ20,∞ (θ ∗ ) + Γ0,∞ (θ ∗ )].
Therefore, (ii) holds, and part (a) is proven.

For part (b), an elementary calculation gives, with pnθ (x) denoting pθ (Y1n |Y 0 , W0n , x),
n

−1

∇2θ ln (θ, ξ)

=
−

R

R −1/2
n−1 ∇2θ log pnθ (x0 )pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )
(n
∇θ log pnθ (x0 ))2 pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )
R
R
+
pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )
pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )
!2
R −1/2
n
∇θ log pnθ (x0 )pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )
R
.
pnθ (x0 )ξ(dx0 )

The sum of the last two terms is op (1) because supθ∈G supx∈X |n−1/2 ∇θ log pnθ (x)−n−1/2

op (1). Therefore,

minx0 n−1 ∇2θ ln (θ, x0 )

holds, and part (b) follows.

8

+ op (1) ≤

n−1 ∇2θ ln (θ, ξ)

≤

Pn

1
k=1 Ψk,∞ (θ)|

maxx0 n−1 ∇2θ ln (θ, x0 )

+ op (1)

Auxiliary results

The following lemma provides the convergence rate of a Markov chain Xt . When Xt is timehomogeneous, this result has been proven by Theorem 1 of Rosenthal (1995). This lemma extends
Rosenthal (1995) to time-inhomogeneous Xt .
Lemma 8. Let {Xt }t≥1 be a Markov process that lies in X , and let Pt (x, A) := P(Xt ∈ A|Xt−1 = x).

Suppose there is a probability measure Qt (·) on X , a positive integer p, and εt ≥ 0 such that
Ptp (x, A) := P(Xt ∈ A|Xt−p = x) ≥ εt Qt (A),

for all x ∈ X and all measurable subsets A ⊂ X . Let X0 and Y0 be chosen from the initial
distributions π1 and π2 , respectively, and update them according to Pt (x, A). Then,
⌊k/p⌋

kP(Xk ∈ ·) − P(Yk ∈ ·)kT V ≤

Y
i=1

(1 − εip ).

Proof. The proof follows the line of argument in the proof of Theorem 1 of Rosenthal (1995). Starting from (X0 , Y0 ), we let Xt and Yt for t ≥ 1 progress as follows. Given the value of Xt and Yt , flip a

coin with the probability of heads equal to εt+p . If the coin comes up heads, then choose a point x ∈

X according to Qt+p (·) and set Xt+p = Yt+p = x, choose (Xt+1 , . . . , Xt+p−1 ) and (Yt+1 , . . . , Yt+p−1 )

independently according to the transition kernel Pt+1 (xt+1 |xt ), . . . , Pt+p−1 (xt+p−1 |xt+p−2 ) conditional on Xt+p = x and Yt+p = x, and update the processes after t + p so that they remain equal

for all future time. If the coin comes up tails, then choose Xt+p and Yt+p independently according
p
p
to the distributions (Pt+p
(Xt , ·) − εt+p Qt+p (·))/(1 − εt+p ) and (Pt+p
(Yt , ·) − εt+p Qt+p (·))/(1 − εt+p ),

respectively, and choose (Xt+1 , . . . , Xt+p−1 ) and (Yt+1 , . . . , Yt+p−1 ) independently according to the

transition kernel Pt+1 (xt+1 |xt ), . . . , Pt+p−1 (xt+p−1 |xt+p−2 ) conditional on the value of Xt+p and
30

=

Yt+p . It is easily checked that Xt and Yt are each marginally updated according to the transition
kernel Pt (x, A).
Furthermore, Xt and Yt are coupled the first time (call it T ) when we choose Xt+p and Yt+p
both from Qt+p (·) as earlier. It now follows from the coupling inequality that
kP(Xk ∈ ·) − P(Yk ∈ ·)kT V ≤ P(Xk 6= Yk ) ≤ P(T > k).
By construction, when t is a multiple of p, Xt and Yt will couple with probability εt . Hence,
P(T > k) ≤ (1 − εp ) · · · (1 − ε⌊k/p⌋·p ),
and the stated result follows.
The following lemma corresponds to Lemma 4 of DMR and implies that Eθ∗ [∆0,∞ (θ)] is continuous in θ. This lemma is used in the proof of the consistency of the MLE.
Lemma 9. Assume Assumptions 1–6. Then, for all θ ∈ Θ,
lim Eθ∗

δ→0

"

#

sup |∆0,∞ (θ ′ ) − ∆0,∞ (θ)| = 0.

|θ−θ ′ |≤δ

Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 4 in DMR but requires a small adjustment when
p ≥ 2. We first show that ∆0,m,x (θ) is continuous in θ for any fixed x ∈ X and any m ≥ p + 1.
−1

0 ,X
Recall that ∆0,m,x (θ) = log pθ (Y0 |Y −m , W−m
−m = x) and
−1

0
, X−m = x) =
pθ (Y0 |Y −m , W−m

0 ,X
0
|Y −m , W−m
pθ (Y−m+1
−m = x)

−1
−1
, X−m = x)
pθ (Y−m+1
|Y −m , W−m

.

For j ∈ {−1, 0}, we have
j
j
, X−m = x)
pθ (Y−m+1
|Y −m , W−m
Z
j
Y
qθ (xi−1 , xi )
= qθ (x, x−m+1 )
i=−m+2

j
Y

i=−m+1

gθ (Yi |Y i−1 , xi , Wi )µ⊗(m+j) (dxj−m+1 ).

(52)

j
0 b )m+j , p (Y j
Because the integrand is bounded by (σ+
+
θ
−m+1 |Y −m , X−m = x, W−m ) is continuous

in θ by the continuity of qθ and gθ and the bounded convergence theorem. Furthermore, when
j ≥ −m + p, the infimum of the right hand side of (52) in θ is strictly positive Pθ∗ -a.s. from

Assumptions 1(d) and 3. Therefore, ∆0,m,x (θ) is continuous in θ Pθ∗ -a.s. Because {∆0,m,x (θ)} is

continuous in θ and converges uniformly in θ ∈ Θ Pθ∗ -a.s., ∆0,∞ (θ) is continuous in θ ∈ Θ Pθ∗ -a.s.

The stated result then follows from Eθ∗ supθ∈Θ |∆0,∞ (θ)| < ∞ by Lemma 3(c) and the dominated

convergence theorem.

The following lemma is used in the proof of Lemmas 6 and 7. This lemma provides the bounds
31

t

on the difference in the conditional expectations of φjθt = φj (θ, Zt−1 , Wt ) when the conditioning sets
Q⌊(k−ℓ)/p⌋
Q⌊(ℓ−k)/p⌋
k+pi−1
k−1−pi+p
(1 − ω(Vk−1−pi+1 ))
are different. Define Ωℓ,k := i=1
(1 − ω(Vk+pi−p)) and Ω̃ℓ,k := i=1
Q
b
b
with defining bi=a xi := 1 if b < a, where ω(·) is defined in Lemma 1 and Va := (Y a , Wab ).

Lemma 10. Assume Assumptions 1–7. Then, for all m′ ≥ m ≥ 0, all −m < s ≤ t ≤ n, all θ ∈ G,

and all x, x′ ∈ X and j = 1, 2,
n

n

|Eθ [φjθt |V−m , X−m = x] − Eθ [φjθt |V−m ]| ≤ 2Ωt−1,−m |φjt |∞ ,

(a)

n

n

|Eθ [φjθt |V−m ] − Eθ [φjθt |V−m′ ]| ≤ 2Ωt−1,−m |φjt |∞ ,

(b)

n

n

n

n−1

|Eθ [φjθt |V−m , X−m = x] − Eθ [φjθt |V−m′ , X−m′ = x′ ]| ≤ 2Ωt−1,−m |φjt |∞ ,

(c)

|Eθ [φjθt |V−m , X−m = x] − Eθ [φjθt |V−m , X−m = x]| ≤ 2Ω̃t,n−1 |φjt |∞ ,

(d)

n

n−1

|Eθ [φjθt |V−m ] − Eθ [φjθt |V−m ]| ≤ 2Ω̃t,n−1 |φjt |∞ ,

(e)
and

n

(f )

|cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m ]| ≤ 2Ωt−1,s |φt |∞ |φs |∞ ,

(g)

|cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m , X−m = x]| ≤ 2Ωt−1,s |φt |∞ |φs |∞

(h)

|cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m , X−m = x] − cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m ]| ≤ 6Ωs−1,−m |φt |∞ |φs |∞ ,

n
n

n

n

n

(i)

|cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m , X−m = x] − cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m′ , X−m′ = x′ ]| ≤ 6Ωs−1,−m |φt |∞ |φs |∞ ,

(j)

|cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m ] − covθ [φθt , φθs |V−m ]| ≤ 6Ω̃t,n−1 |φt |∞ |φs |∞ ,

(k)

|cov θ [φθt , φθs |V−m , X−m = x] − cov θ [ϕθt , φθs |V−m , X−m = x]| ≤ 6Ω̃t,n−1 |φt |∞ |φs |∞ .

n

n−1

n

n−1

Proof of Lemma 10. To prove parts (a)–(c), we first show that, for all −m ≤ k ≤ t − 1, all
n

probability measures µ1 and µ2 on B(X ), and all V−m ,
sup
A

≤

Z

n

Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xk = x, V−m )µ1 (dx) −

⌊(t−1−k)/p⌋ 

Y
i=1

1−



k+pi−1
ω(Vk+pi−p )

Z

n

Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xk = x, V−m )µ2 (dx)
(53)

.

When k = t − 1, (53) holds trivially. When −m ≤ k < t − 1, equation (17) and the Markov property
R
n
n
of Zt imply that Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xk , V−m ) = Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xk , Vk ) = Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xt−1 =
n

n

xt−1 , Vk )pθ (xt−1 |Xk , Vk )µ(dxt−1 ). Consequently, from the property of the total variation distance,
the left hand side of (53) is bounded by
Z

Pθ (Xt−1 ∈ ·|Xk =

This is bounded by

Q⌊(t−1−k)/p⌋
i=1

n
x, Vk )µ1 (dx)

−

Z

k+pi−1

n

Pθ (Xt−1 ∈ ·|Xk = x, Vk )µ2 (dx)

.
TV

(1 − ω(Vk+pi−p)) from Corollary 1, and (53) is proven.
32

We proceed to show parts (a)–(c). For part (a), observe that
n

Eθ [φjθt |V−m , X−m = x−m ] =
n

Eθ [φjθt |V−m ] =
n

and pθ (xtt−1 |V−m ) =

R

Z

∇jθ log pθ (Yt , xt |Y t−1 , xt−1 , Wt )pθ (xtt−1 |V−m , x−m )µ⊗2 (dxtt−1 ),

Z

∇jθ log pθ (Yt , xt |Y t−1 , xt−1 , Wt )pθ (xtt−1 |V−m )µ⊗2 (dxtt−1 ),

n

(54)
n

n

(55)

n

pθ (xtt−1 |V−m , x−m )pθ (x−m |V−m )µ(dx−m ). Note that, for any conditioning

set G, we have Pθ (Xtt−1 |G) = 0 if qθ (Xt−1 , Xt ) = 0. Therefore, the right hand side of (54) and (55)
are written as
Z
Z
j
t
⊗2
t
∇θ log gθ (Yt |Yt−1 , xt , Wt )pθ (xt−1 |F)µ (dxt−1 ) +
∇jθ log qθ (xt−1 , xt )pθ (xtt−1 |F)µ⊗2 (dxtt−1 ),
Xθ+

n

n

with F = {V−m , x−m }, {V−m }. Therefore, part (a) follows from the property of the total variation

distance and setting k = −m in (53). Parts (b) and (c) are proven similarly.
n

Part (d) holds if we show that, for all −m + 1 ≤ t ≤ n and V−m ,
n

n−1

sup Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|X−m = x, V−m ) − Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|X−m = x, V−m )
A

≤

⌊(n−1−t)/p⌋ 

Y
i=1

1−



n−2−pi+p
ω(Vn−2−pi+1 )

(56)
.

When t ≥ n − 1, (56) holds trivially. When t ≤ n − 2, observe that the time-reversed process
k

{Zn−k }0≤k≤n+m is Markov. Hence, for any −m + 1 ≤ t ≤ k, we have Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|X−m , V−m ) =
R
t
k
Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xt = xt , V−m )pθ (xt |X−m , V−m )µ(dxt ). Therefore, (56) is proven similarly to (53)
by using Lemma 5(b). Part (e) is proven similarly by using Lemma 5(a).

We proceed to show parts (f)–(k). In view of (55), part (f) holds if we show that, for all
−m < s ≤ t ≤ n,
n

sup
A,B∈B(X 2 )

≤

n

n

Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A, Xss−1 ∈ B|V−m ) − Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|V−m )Pθ (Xss−1 ∈ B|V−m )

⌊(t−1−s)/p⌋ 

Y
i=1

1−



s+pi−1
ω(Vs+pi−p)

(57)
.

Q
When s ≥ t − 1, (57) holds trivially because ji=1 ai = 1 when j < i. When s ≤ t − 2, observe that
R
n
n
n
Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A, Xss−1 ∈ B|V−m ) = B Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xss−1 = xss−1 , V−m )pθ (xss−1 |V−m )µ⊗2 (dxss−1 )
R
n
n
and Pθ (Xss−1 ∈ B|V−m ) = B pθ (xss−1 |V−m )µ⊗2 (dxss−1 ). Hence, in view of the Markov property
n

of {Xk } given V−m , the left hand side of (57) is bounded by supA supxs ∈X |Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|Xs =
Q⌊(t−1−s)/p⌋
n
n
s+pi−1
xs , V−m ) − Pθ (Xtt−1 ∈ A|V−m )|. From (53), this is bounded by i=1
(1 − ω(Vs+pi−p )),
n

and (57) follows. Part (g) is proven similarly by replacing the conditioning variable V−m with
33

n

(X−m , V−m ). Parts (h)–(k) follow from (53), (56), and the relation |cov(X, Y |F1 )−cov(X, Y |F2 )| ≤

|E(XY |F1 ) − E(XY |F2 )| + |E(X|F1 ) − E(X|F2 )|E(Y |F1 ) + E(X|F2 )|E(Y |F1 ) − E(Y |F2 )|.

The following lemma corresponds to Lemma 14 of DMR and shows that Eθ∗ [Ψ10,m,x (θ)], Eθ∗ [Ψ20,m,x (θ)],
and Eθ∗ [Γ0,m,x (θ)] are continuous in θ.
Lemma 11. Assume Assumptions 1–8. Then, for j = 1, 2, all x ∈ X and m ≥ p, the functions
Ψj0,m,x (θ) and Γ0,m,x (θ) are continuous in θ ∈ G Pθ∗ -a.s. In addition,
(a)

lim Eθ∗

δ→0

(b)

lim Eθ∗

δ→0

"

sup |Ψj0,m,x (θ) − Ψj0,m,x (θ ′ )|3−j = 0,

|θ ′ −θ|≤δ

"

#

#

sup |Γ0,m,x (θ) − Γ0,m,x (θ ′ )| = 0.

|θ ′ −θ|≤δ

Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 14 in DMR. For brevity, we suppress Wt
t

0
from φj (θ, Zt−1 , Wt ) and the conditioning set. We prove part (a) first. Note that
and W−m
P
supθ∈G supx∈X |Ψj0,m,x (θ)|3−j ≤ (2 0t=−m+1 |φjt |∞ )3−j ∈ L1 (Pθ∗ ). Hence, the stated result holds if,

for m ≥ p and −m + 1 ≤ t ≤ 0,
lim

sup

t

δ→0 |θ ′ −θ|≤δ

0

t

0

Eθ′ [φj (θ ′ , Zt−1 )|Y −m , X−m = x] − Eθ [φj (θ, Zt−1 )|Y −m , X−m = x] = 0 Pθ∗ -a.s.

Write
j

Eθ [φ

t
0
(θ, Zt−1 )|Y −m , X−m

= x] =

Z

t

0

φj (θ, Zt−1 )pθ (Xtt−1 = xtt−1 |Y −m , X−m = x)µ⊗2 (dxtt−1 ). (58)

0

t

For all xtt−1 such that pθ (xtt−1 |Y −m , X−m = x) > 0, φj (θ, xtt−1 , Y t−1 ) is continuous in θ and
0

bounded by |φjt |∞ < ∞. Furthermore, pθ (Xtt−1 = xtt−1 |Y −m , X−m = x) is continuous in θ and

0
|Y −m , X−m = x) is
bounded from above uniformly in θ ∈ G because pθ (Xtt−1 = xtt−1 , Y−m+1
0 b )m and p (Y 0
continuous in θ and bounded from above by (σ+
+
θ
−m+1 |Y −m , X−m = x) is continuous
R
Q
⌊m/p⌋
0
in θ and bounded from below by σ−
t=−m+1 inf θ∈G gθ (Yt |Y t−1 , xt )µ(dxt ) > 0. Consequently,

the integrand on the right hand side of (58) is continuous in θ and bounded from above uniformly
in θ ∈ G. From the dominated convergence theorem, the left hand side of (58) is continuous in θ,
and part (a) is proven.

Part (b) holds if, for −m + 1 ≤ s ≤ t ≤ 0,
lim

sup

δ→0 |θ ′ −θ|≤δ

s

t

0

covθ′ [φ(θ ′ , Zs−1 ), φ(θ ′ , Zt−1 )|Y −m , X−m = x]
s

t

0

−covθ [φ(θ ′ , Zs−1 ), φ(θ, Zt−1 )|Y −m , X−m = x] = 0 Pθ∗ -a.s.
This holds by a similar argument to part (a), and part (b) follows.

34

References
Ang, A. and Bekaert, G. (2002), “International Asset Allocation with Regime Shifts,” Review of
Financial Studies, 15, 1137–1187.
Bickel, P. J., Ritov, Y., and Rydén, T. (1998), “Asymptotic normality of the maximum-likelihood
estimator for general hidden Markov models,” Annals of Statistics, 26, 1614–1635.
Dai, Q., Singleton, K., and Yang, W. (2007), “Regime Shifts in a Dynamic Term Structure Model
of U.S. Treasury Bond Yields.” Review of Financial Studies, 20, 1669–1706.
Douc, R., Moulines, É., and Rydén, T. (2004), “Asymptotic Properties of the Maximum Likelihood
Estimator in Autoregressive Models with Markov Regime,” Annals of Statistics, 32, 2254–2304.
Durrett, R. (2010), Probability: Theory and Examples, Cambridge University Press, 4th ed.
Edwards, S. and Susmel, R. (2001), “Volatility dependence and contagion in emerging equity
markets,” Journal of Development Economics, 66, 505–532.
Evans, M. and Wachtel, P. (1993), “Were Price Changes During the Great Depression Anticipated?:
Evidence from Nominal Interest Rates,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 32, 3–34.
Fong, W. M. (1997), “Volatility persistence and switching ARCH in Japanese stock return,” Financial Engeneering and the Japanese Market, 4, 37–57.
Francq, C. and Roussignol, M. (1998), “Ergodicity of Autoregressive Processes with MarkovSwitching and Consistency of the Maximum-Likelihood Estimator,” Statistics, 32, 151–173.
Garcia, R. and Perron, P. (1996), “An Analysis of the Real Interest Rate Under Regime Shifts,”
Review of Economics and Statisitcs, 78.
Goodwin, T. H. (1993), “Business-Cycle Analysis with a Markov-Switching Model,” Journal of
Business and Economic Statistics, 11, 331–339.
Gourieroux, C. and Monfort, A. (1995), Statistics and Econometric Models, Vol. II, Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, S. (1996), “Modeling the Conditional Distribution of Interest Rates as a Regime-Switching
Process,” Journal of Financial Economics, 42, 27–62.
Hamilton, J. (1989), “A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of Nonstationary Time Series
and the Business Cycle,” Econometrica, 57, 357–384.
Hamilton, J. and Susmel, R. (1994), “Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity and Changes
in Regime.” Journal of Econometrics, 64, 307–333.

35

Hamilton, J. D. (1996), “Specification Testing in Markov-Switching Time-Series Models,” Journal
of Econometrics, 70, 127–157.
Hamilton, J. D. and Lin, G. (1996), “Stock Market Volatility and the BUsiness Cycle,” Journal of
Applied Econometrics, 11, 573–593.
Hartigan, J. (1985), “Failure of Log-likelihood Ratio Test,” in Proceedings of the Berkeley Conference in Honor of Jerzy Neyman and Jack Kiefer, eds. Le Cam, L. and Olshen, R., Berkeley:
University of California Press, vol. 2, pp. 807–810.
Inoue, T. and Okimoto, T. (2008), “Were There Structural Breaks in the Effect of Japanese Monetary Policy?: Re-evaluating the Policy Effects of the Lost Decade,” Journal of the Japanese and
International Economies, 22, 320–342.
Jensen, J. L. and Petersen, N. V. (1999), “Asymptotic normality of the Maximum Likelihood
Estimator in State Space Models,” Annals of Statistics, 27, 514–535.
Krishnamurthy, V. and Rydén, T. (1998), “Consistent Estimation of Linear and Non-Linear Autoregressive Models with Markov Regime,” Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19, 291–307.
Leroux, B. G. (1992), “Maximum-Likelihood Estimation for Hidden Markov Models,” Stochastic
Processes and their Applications, 40, 127–143.
Levin, D. A., Peres, Y., and Wilmer, E. L. (2009), Markov Chains and Mixing Times, American
Mathematical Society.
Louis, T. A. (1982), “Finding the Observed Information Matrix When Using the EM Algorithm,”
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 44, 226–233.
Maheu, J. M. and McCurdy, T. H. (2000), “Identifying Bull and Bear Markets in Stock Returns,”
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 18, 100–112.
McLeish, D. L. (1974), “Dependent Central Limit Theorems and Invariance Principles,” Annals of
Probability, 2, 620–628.
Meyn, S. and Tweedie, R. L. (2009), Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability, Cambridge University
Press, 2nd ed.
Newey, W. K. and McFadden, D. L. (1994), “Large Sample Estimation and Hypothesis Testing,”
in Handbook of Econometrics, Amsterdam: North-Holland, vol. 4, pp. 2111–2245.
Okimoto, T. (2008), “New Evidence of Asymmetric Dependence Structures in International Equity
Markets,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43, 787–815.
Ramchand, L. and Susmel, R. (1998), “Volatility and cross correlation across major stock markets,”
Journal of Empirical Finance, 5, 397–4416.
36

Rosenthal, J. S. (1995), “Minorization Conditions and Convergence Rates for Markov Chain Monte
Carlo,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 558–566.
Sims, C. and Zha, T. (2006), “Were There Regime Switches in U.S. Monetary Policy?” American
Economic Review, 96, 54–81.

37

