On detecting changes in the jumps of arbitrary size of a
time-continuous stochastic process
Michael Hoffmann∗

arXiv:1802.08658v1 [] 23 Feb 2018

Ruhr-Universität Bochum
February 26, 2018

Abstract
This paper introduces test and estimation procedures for abrupt and gradual changes in
the entire jump behaviour of a discretely observed Itō semimartingale. In contrast to existing
work we analyse jumps of arbitrary size which are not restricted to a minimum height. Our
methods are based on weak convergence of a truncated sequential empirical distribution
function of the jump characteristic of the underlying Itō semimartingale. Critical values
for the new tests are obtained by a multiplier bootstrap approach and we investigate the
performance of the tests also under local alternatives. An extensive simulation study shows
the finite-sample properties of the new procedures.

Keywords and Phrases: Lévy measure; jump compensator; transition kernel; empirical processes;
weak convergence; multiplier bootstrap; change points; gradual changes
AMS Subject Classification: 60F17, 60G51, 62G10, 62M99.

1

Introduction

Stochastic processes are widely used in science nowadays, as they allow for a flexible modelling of
time-dependent phenomena. For example, in physics stochastic processes are used to explain the
behaviour of quantum systems (see van Kampen, 2007), but stochastic processes are also suitable
for financial modelling. The seminal paper by Delbaen and Schachermayer (1994) suggests to
use the special class of Itō semimartingales in continuous time. Financial models based on Itō
semimartingales satisfy a certain condition on the absence of arbitrage and moreover they are
still rich enough to accommodate stylized facts such as volatility clustering, leverage effects and
jumps. As a consequence, in recent years a lot of research was focused on the development of
statistical procedures for characteristics of Itō semimartingales based on discrete observations.
In particular, the importance of the jump component has been enforced by recent research (see
Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod, 2009a and Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod, 2009b) and common methods in this
1

Ruhr-Universität Bochum,
michael.hoffmann@rub.de

Fakultät

für

Mathematik,

1

44780

Bochum,

Germany.

E-mail:

field are gathered in the recent monographs by Jacod and Protter (2012) and Aı̈t-Sahalia and
Jacod (2014).
A fundamental topic in statistics for stochastic processes is the analysis of structural breaks.
Corresponding test procedures, commonly referred to as change point tests, have their origin in
quality control (see Page, 1954; Page, 1955) and nowadays, these techniques are widely used in
many fields of science such as economics (Perron, 2006), finance (Andreou and Ghysels, 2009),
climatology (Reeves et al., 2007) and engineering (Stoumbos et al., 2000). The contributions
of the present paper to this field of research are new statistical procedures for the detection
of changes in the jump behaviour of an Itō semimartingale. In contrast to the existing works
Bücher et al. (2017) and Hoffmann et al. (2017) this paper introduces methods of inference
on the jump behaviour of the underlying process in general, while in the previously mentioned
references the authors restrict the analysis to jumps which exceed a minimum size ε > 0.
Throughout this work we assume that we have high-frequency data Xi∆n (i = 0, 1, . . . , n) with
∆n → 0, where the process (Xt )t∈R+ is an Itō semimartingale with the following decomposition
Z
Xt = X0 +

t

Z
bs ds +

0

t

Z tZ

0

Z tZ
u1{|u|≤1} (µ − µ̄)(ds, du) +

σs dWs +
0

u1{|u|>1} µ(du, dz).
0

R

R

Here W is a standard Brownian motion and µ is a Poisson random measure on R+ × R with
predictable compensator µ̄ satisfying µ̄(ds, du) = ds νs (du). Our approach is completely nonparametric, that is we only impose structural assumptions on the characteristic triplet (bs , σs , νs )
of (Xt )t∈R+ . The crucial quantity here is the transition kernel νs which controls the number and
the size of the jumps around time s ∈ R+ . Our aim is to test the null hypothesis
H0 : νs (dz) = ν0 (dz)

(1.1)

against various alternatives involving the non-constancy of νs . In particular, the detection of
abrupt changes in a stochastic feature has been discussed extensively in the literature (see Aue
and Horváth, 2013 and Jandhyala et al., 2013 for an overview in a time series context). The first
part of this paper belongs to this area of research and introduces tests for H0 versus alternatives
of an abrupt change of the form
(ab)

H1

: νs(n) (dz) = 1{s<bnθ0 c∆n } ν1 (dz) + 1{s≥bnθ0 c∆n } ν2 (dz),

for some unknown θ0 ∈ (0, 1) and two distinct Lévy measures ν1 6= ν2 . Similar to the classical
setup of detecting changes in the mean of a time series it is only possible to define the change
point relative to the length of the data set which in our case is the time horizon n∆n . However,
for inference on the jump behaviour the time horizon has to tend to infinity (n∆n → ∞) since
there are only finitely many jumps of a certain size on every compact interval. Furthermore, we
also discuss how to estimate the unknown change point θ0 , if the alternative H(ab)
is true.
1
A more difficult problem is the detection of gradual (smooth, continuous) changes in a stochastic feature. As a consequence, the setup in most papers on this topic is restricted to nonparametric location or parametric models with independently distributed observations (see e.g.
2

Bissell, 1984, Gan, 1991, Siegmund and Zhang, 1994, Hus̆ková, 1999, Hus̆ková and Steinebach,
2002 and Mallik et al., 2013). Gradual changes in a time series context are for instance discussed
in Aue and Steinebach (2002) and Vogt and Dette (2015). In the second part of this paper we
contribute to this development by introducing new procedures for gradual changes in the kernel
νs , where we basically test H0 against the general alternative
(gra)

H1

: νs (dz) is not Lebesgue-almost everywhere constant in s ∈ [0, n∆n ].

Moreover, we introduce an estimator for the first time point where the jump behaviour deviates
from the null hypothesis.
The remaining paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we give the basic assumptions on
the characteristics of the underlying process and the observation scheme. Section 3 introduces
test and estimation procedures for abrupt changes in the jump behaviour in general by using
CUSUM processes. In Section 4 we discuss how to detect and estimate gradual changes in
the entire jump behaviour. Section 5 contains an extensive simulation study investigating the
finite-sample performance of the new procedures. Finally, all proofs are relegated to Section 6
and the technical appendices A, B and C.

2

The basic assumptions

In order to accommodate both abrupt and gradual changes in our approach we follow Hoffmann
et al. (2017) and assume that there is a driving law behind the evolution of the jump behaviour
in time which is common for all n ∈ N. That is we assume that at step n ∈ N we observe an
(n)
(n)
Itō semimartingale X (n) with characteristics (b(n)
s , σs , νs ) at the equidistant time points i∆n
with i = 0, 1, . . . , n which satisfies the following rescaling assumption

 s
, dz
(2.1)
νs(n) (dz) = g
n∆n
for a transition kernel g(y, dz) from ([0, 1], B([0, 1])) into (R, B), where here and below B(A)
denotes the trace σ-algebra on A ⊂ R of the Borel σ-algebra B of R. In order to detect changes
in the jump behaviour of the underlying Itō semimartingale in general, we have to draw inference
on the kernel g(y, B) for sets B ∈ B containing the origin. However, g has locally the properties
of a Lévy measure. Thus, if we deviate from the (simple) case of finite activity jumps the total
mass of g on every neighbourhood of the origin is infinite and we cannot estimate g(y, ·) on
sets containing 0 directly. We address this problem by weighting the kernel g according to an
auxiliary function, precisely for change point detection we consider
Zθ Zt
Nρ (g; θ, t) :=

ρ(z)g(y, dz)dy,

(2.2)

0 −∞

for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, where ρ is chosen appropriately such that the integral is always defined.
Under weak conditions on ρ, this so-called Lévy distribution function Nρ determines the entire
kernel g and therefore the evolution of the jump behaviour in time. The natural approach to
3

draw inference on Nρ is the following sequential generalization of an estimator in Nickl et al.
(2016)
bnθc
1 X
(n)
ρ(∆ni X (n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni X (n) ),
Ñρ (θ, t) =
n∆n
i=1

(n)
(n)
for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, where ∆ni X (n) = Xi∆
− X(i−1)∆
. Using a spectral approach similar to
n
n

√
Nickl and Reiß (2012) these authors prove weak convergence of n∆n Ñρ(n) (1, t) − Nρ (g; 1, t) in
`∞ (R) to a tight Gaussian process, but only for Lévy processes without a diffusion component,
i.e. in particular for constant g(y, ·) ≡ ν(·). The main difficulty in generalizing this result is the
superposition of small jumps with the roughly fluctuating Brownian component of the process.
We solve this problem by using a truncation approach which has originally been used by Mancini
(2009) to cut off jumps in order to draw inference on integrated volatility. More precisely, we
follow Hoffmann and Vetter (2017) and identify jumps by inverting the truncation technique of
Mancini (2009), i.e. all test statistics and estimators investigated below are functionals of the
sequential truncated empirical Lévy distribution function

Nρ(n) (θ, t) =

bnθc
1 X
ρ(∆ni X (n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } ,
i
n∆n

(θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R,

(2.3)

i=1

for some suitable null sequence vn → 0.
As a further improvement to previous studies we analyse the asymptotic behaviour of our
tests under local alternatives. That is, in the rescaling assumption (2.1) we let g = g (n) depend
on n ∈ N, where there exist transition kernels g0 , g1 , g2 satisfying some additional regularity
assumptions such that for each y ∈ [0, 1]
g (n) (y, dz) = g0 (y, dz) + √

1
g1 (y, dz) + Rn (y, dz)
n∆n

(2.4)

and for each y ∈ [0, 1], B ∈ B and n ∈ N the remainder kernel Rn satisfies
Rn (y, B) ≤ an g2 (y, B)
for a sequence an = o((n∆n )−1/2 ) of non-negative real numbers. For constant g0 (y, ·) ≡ ν0 (·)
assumption (2.4) is exactly the local alternative where the jump behaviour converges to the null
hypothesis g0 (y, ·) ≡ ν0 (·) from the direction defined by g1 at rate (n∆n )−1/2 . In this sense,
Theorem 6.1, in which we prove weak convergence of the stochastic process
G(n)
ρ (θ, t) =

p

n∆n Nρ(n) (θ, t) − Nρ (g (n) ; θ, t) ,

(θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R

to a tight Gaussian process in `∞ ([0, 1] × R), is a generalization of the results in Hoffmann and
Vetter (2017) to sequential processes for time dependent variable jump behaviour as in (2.4).
Critical values for the test procedures introduced below and the optimal choice of a regularization parameter of the new estimator for gradual change points are obtained by a multiplier
bootstrap approach. Precisely, Theorem 6.8, in which we prove conditional weak convergence

4

in a suitable sense of the bootstrapped version
Ĝ(n)
ρ (θ, t) = √

bnθc


1 X
ξi ρ ∆ni X (n) 1(−∞,t] ∆ni X (n) 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } ,
i
n∆n i=1

(θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R

of G(n)
ρ to a Gaussian process, where (ξi )i∈N is a sequence of i.i.d. multipliers with mean 0 and
variance 1, complements the paper Hoffmann and Vetter (2017).
For the rescaling assumptions (2.1) and (2.4) we consider transition kernels gi (y, dz) of the
set G(β, p) depending on parameters β ∈ (0, 2), p > 0. In order to define this set we denote
by λ the one-dimensional Lebesgue measure defined on the Lebesgue σ-algebra L1 of R and we
denote by λ1 the restriction of λ to the trace σ-algebra [0, 1] ∩ L1 .
Definition 2.1. For β ∈ (0, 2) and p > 0 the set G(β, p) consists of all transition kernels
g(y, dz) from ([0, 1], B([0, 1])) into (R, B), such that for each y ∈ [0, 1] the measure g(y, dz) has
a Lebesgue density hy (z) and there exist η, M > 0 as well as a Lebesgue null set L ∈ [0, 1] ∩ L1
such that the following items are satisfied:
(1) hy (z) ≤ K|z|−(1+β) holds for all z ∈ (−η, η), y ∈ [0, 1] \ L and for some K > 0.
(2) For n ∈ N let Cn := {z ∈ R | n1 ≤ |z| ≤ n}. Then for each n ∈ N there exists a Kn > 0 with
hy (z) ≤ Kn for each z ∈ Cn and all y ∈ [0, 1] \ L.
(3) hy (z) ≤ K|z|−(2p∨2)− whenever |z| ≥ M and y ∈ [0, 1] \ L, for some K > 0 and some  > 0.

The items above basically say that the densities hy are bounded by a continuous Lévy density
of a Lévy measure which behaves near zero like the one of a β-stable process, whereas this density
has to decay sufficiently fast at infinity. Such conditions are well-known in the literature and
often used in similar works on high-frequency statistics; see e.g. Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2009a)
or Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2010). From Assumption 6.12 and Proposition 6.13 in Section 6 it can
be seen that it is even possible to work with a wider class of transition kernels g(y, dz) which
does not require Lebesgue densities. Nevertheless, we stick to the set G(β, p) defined above
which is much simpler to interpret. The following example shows that alternatives of abrupt
changes in the jump behaviour can be described by transition kernels in the set G(β, p).
Example 2.2. (abrupt changes) In Section 3 we introduce statistical procedures for inference
of abrupt changes in the jump behaviour. In this case the kernel g0 is typically of the form as
discussed below. For β ∈ (0, 2) and p > 0 let M(β, p) be the set of all Lévy measures ν such
that the constant transition kernel g(y, dz) = ν(dz) belongs to G(β, p).
Let θ0 ∈ (0, 1] and let ν1 , ν2 ∈ M(β, p) be two Lévy measures. Then the transition kernel g0
given by

ν (dz), for y ∈ [0, θ ]
1
0
g0 (y, dz) =
(2.5)
ν (dz), for y ∈ (θ , 1].
2

0

5

is an element of G(β, p). In the context of change-point tests θ0 = 1 corresponds to the null
hypothesis of no change in the jump behaviour, whereas (2.5) describes an abrupt change for
θ0 ∈ (0, 1) and ν1 6= ν2 .
The variance gamma process is a common model for the log stock price in finance (see for
instance Madan et al. (1998)). Moreover, the Lévy measure of a variance gamma process has
the form ν(dz) = (a1 z −1 e−b1 z − a2 z −1 e−b2 z ) dz for a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 > 0. Thus, the transition kernel
g0 (y, dz) belongs to G(β, p) for all β ∈ (0, 2) and p > 0, if similar as in (2.5) g0 is piecewise
constant in y ∈ [0, 1] and on the domains of constancy it is equal to the Lévy measure of
a variance gamma process. Below we give the main assumptions which are sufficient for the
convergence results in this paper.
2−β
). Furthermore, let p > β + (( 12 +
Assumption 2.3. Let 0 < β < 2 and 0 < τ < (1/5 ∧ 2+5β
2
3
(n)
adapted to the filtration
2 β) ∨ 1+5τ ). At step n ∈ N we observe an Itō semimartingale X
(n)
(n)
of some filtered probability space (Ω, F, (Ft )t∈R+ , P) with characteristics (b(n)
s , σs , νs ) at the
equidistant time points {i∆n | i = 0, 1, . . . , n} such that the following items are satisfied:
(a) Assumptions on the jump characteristic and the function ρ:

(1) For each n ∈ N and s ∈ [0, n∆n ] we have
νs(n) (dz) = g (n)


 s
, dz ,
n∆n

(2.6)

where there exist transition kernels g0 , g1 , g2 ∈ G(β, p) such that for each y ∈ [0, 1]
g (n) (y, dz) = g0 (y, dz) + √

1
g1 (y, dz) + Rn (y, dz)
n∆n

(2.7)

and for each y ∈ [0, 1], B ∈ B and n ∈ N the kernel Rn satisfies
Rn (y, B) ≤ an g2 (y, B)
for a sequence an = o((n∆n )−1/2 ) of non-negative real numbers.
(2) ρ : R → R is a bounded C 1 -function with ρ(0) = 0 and its derivative satisfies |ρ0 (z)| ≤
K|z|p−1 for all z ∈ R and some constant K > 0.
(3) ρ(z) 6= 0 for each z 6= 0.
(4) For every t ∈ R there exists a finite set M(t) ⊂ [0, 1], such that the function
Z

t

y 7→

ρ(z)g0 (y, dz)
−∞

is continuous on [0, 1] \ M(t) .
(b) Assumptions on the truncation sequence vn and the observation scheme:
The truncation sequence vn satisfies
vn := γ∆w
n,
6

with w = (1 + 5τ )/4 and some γ > 0. Define further:
t1 := (1 + τ )−1

t2 := ((7τ + 1)/2)−1 ∧ 1.

and

Then we have 0 < t1 < t2 ≤ 1 and we suppose that the observation scheme satisfies for some
δ>0
∆n = o(n−t1 ) and n−t2 +δ = o(∆n ).
(c) Assumptions on the drift and the diffusion coefficient:
For
6 + 10τ
6 + 10τ
mb =
≤ 4 and mσ =
3 − 5τ
1 − 5τ
we have
n
o
mb
(n) mσ
∨
E
σ
sup sup E b(n)
< ∞.
s
s
n∈N s∈R+

Remark 2.4. Suppose we have complete knowledge of the distribution function Nρ (g0 ; θ, t).
Obviously, the measure with density M (dy, dz) := ρ(z)g0 (y, dz)dy is completely determined
from knowledge of the entire function Nρ (g0 ; ·, ·) and does not charge [0, 1] × {0}. Therefore,
due to Assumption 2.3(a3) 1/ρ(z)M (dy, dz) = g0 (y, dz)dy and consequently the jump behaviour
corresponding to g0 is known as well. Furthermore, Assumption 2.3(a4) ensures that a characteristic quantity for a gradual change, which we introduce in Section 4 is zero if and only if the
jump behaviour corresponding to g0 is constant in time. All convergence results in this paper
also hold without Assumption 2.3(a3) and (a4). Moreover, the function

0,
if x = 0,
ρ̃(x) =
e−1/|x| , if |x| > 0,
is suitable for any choice of the constants β and τ . In practice, however, one would like to work
with a polynomial decay at zero, in which case the condition on p comes into play. Here, the
smaller the parameter β, the smaller p can be chosen. For example, for β < 3/5 and τ > 3/35
even a choice p < 2 is possible.
Furthermore, it is also important to choose the observation scheme suitably. Obviously, we
have ∆n → 0 and n∆n → ∞ because of 0 < t1 < t2 ≤ 1, and a typical choice is ∆n = O(n−y )
and n−y = O(∆n ) for some 0 < t1 < y < t2 ≤ 1. Finally, Assumption 2.3(c) requires only a
bound on the moments of the remaining characteristics and is therefore extremely mild.
In the remaining part of this section we illustrate an example of a kernel g0 ∈ G(β, p) for some
suitable β, p and a function ρ satisfying Assumption 2.3(a2) and (a3).
Example 2.5. (gradual changes) In Section 4, which is dedicated to inference of gradual
changes, we basically test against the general alternative that the jump behaviour is nonconstant. In the following we introduce an example of a kernel g0 which can be used to describe
a gradual change in the jump behaviour and a corresponding function ρ satisfying Assumption

7

2.3(a2) and (a3). To this end, for L > 0, p > 1 let



2|z|p ,


ρL,p (z) := L × 4p|z| − pz 2 + 2 − 3p,



2 + p,

for |z| ≤ 1
for 1 ≤ |z| ≤ 2

(2.8)

for |z| ≥ 2

and for 0 < β < 2, p > 1 consider the Lévy density
hβ,p (z) := |z|−(1+β) 1{0<|z|<1} + 1{1≤|z|≤2} + |z|−p 1{|z|>2} .
Furthermore, for 0 < β̂ < 2 and p̂ > 1 ∨ β̂ let A : [0, 1] → (0, ∞), β : [0, 1] → (0, β̂] and
p : [0, 1] → [2p̂ + ε, ∞) for some ε > 0 be Borel measurable functions such that A is bounded.
Then, the kernel
g0 (y, dz) = A(y)hβ(y),p(y) (z)dz, y ∈ [0, 1]
(2.9)
belongs to G(β̂, p̂) and for arbitrary L > 0 the function ρL,p̂ satisfies Assumption 2.3(a2) and
(a3).

3

Statistical inference for abrupt changes

In this section we deduce test and estimation procedures for abrupt changes in the jump behaviour of the underlying process, that is we investigate the situation of Example 2.2. To this
end, we test the null hypothesis of no change in the jump behaviour
H0 : Assumption 2.3 is satisfied for g1 = g2 = 0 and there exists a Lévy measure ν0 such that
g0 (y, dz) = ν0 (dz) for Lebesgue almost every y ∈ [0, 1].
against the alternative that the jump behaviour is constant on two intervals
H1 : Assumption 2.3 is satisfied for g1 = g2 = 0 and there exists some θ0 ∈ (0, 1) and two Lévy
measures ν1 6= ν2 such that g0 has the form (2.5).
The corresponding alternative for fixed t0 ∈ R is given by:
(ρ,t0 )

H1

: We have the situation from H1 , but with Nρ (ν1 ; t0 ) 6= Nρ (ν2 ; t0 ), where
Z

t

Nρ (ν; t) =

ρ(z)ν(dz)

(3.1)

−∞

for a Lévy measure ν.
Moreover, we investigate the behaviour of the tests introduced in this section under local
alternatives which tend to the null hypothesis as n → ∞:
(loc)

H1

: Assumption 2.3 is satisfied with g0 (y, dz) = ν0 (dz) for Lebesgue-a.e. y ∈ [0, 1] for some
Lévy measure ν0 and with some transition kernels g1 , g2 ∈ G(β, p).
8

3.1

Weak convergence of test statistics

Following Inoue (2001) a suitable approach to introduce tests for the hypotheses above is to
investigate the convergence behaviour of the CUSUM process

T(n)
ρ (θ, t) =



p
bnθc (n)
n∆n Nρ(n) (θ, t) −
Nρ (1, t) ,
n

(3.2)

(n)

with Nρ (θ, t) defined in (2.3). The corresponding test rejects the null hypothesis H0 for large
values of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-type statistic
Tρ(n) =

sup

Tρ(n) (θ, t) .

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

The theorem below establishes functional weak convergence of T(n)
ρ in the general case of local
alternatives.
(loc)

(n)

Theorem 3.1. Under H1
the process Tρ converges weakly in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) to the process
Tρ + Tρ,g1 , where the tight mean zero Gaussian process Tρ has the covariance structure
tZ
1 ∧t2

ρ2 (z)ν0 (dz)

E{Tρ (θ1 , t1 )Tρ (θ2 , t2 )} = {(θ1 ∧ θ2 ) − θ1 θ2 }

(3.3)

−∞

and the deterministic function Tρ,g1 ∈ `∞ ([0, 1] × R) is given by
Tρ,g1 (θ, t) = Nρ (g1 ; θ, t) − θNρ (g1 ; 1, t),

(3.4)

where Nρ (g1 ; ·, ·) is defined in (2.2).
As an immediate consequence of the previous result and the continuous mapping theorem we
obtain weak convergence of the statistic Tρ(n) .
(loc)

Corollary 3.2. Suppose H1
Tρ(n)

is true, then we have

Tρ,g1 :=

Tρ (θ, t) + Tρ,g1 (θ, t) ,

sup

(3.5)

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

in (R, B) with Tρ + Tρ,g1 the limit process in Theorem 3.1.
In applications the Lévy measure ν0 which describes the limiting jump behaviour of the
underlying process is usually unknown. If one is only interested in the detection of changes in
the distribution function Nρ (ν0 ; t0 ) for a fixed t0 ∈ R, the processes
(n)

Tρ (θ, t0 )
(n)
1{N (n) (1,t )>0} ,
Vρ,t0 (θ) := q
0
ρ2
Nρ(n)
(1,
t
)
0
2
converge weakly to a shifted version of a pivotal limit process.
9

θ ∈ [0, 1]

(loc)

Proposition 3.3. Under H1
for each fixed t0 ∈ R with Nρ2 (ν0 ; t0 ) > 0 we have V(n)
ρ,t0
(g1 )
K + V̄ρ,t0 in `∞ ([0, 1]), where K denotes a standard Brownian bridge and with the deterministic
function
Tρ,g (θ, t0 )
(g )
∈ `∞ ([0, 1]),
V̄ρ,t10 (θ) := p 1
Nρ2 (ν0 ; t0 )
where Nρ2 (ν0 ; ·) is defined in (3.1). In particular,
(n)

(n)

Vρ,t0 := sup Vρ,t0 (θ)
θ∈[0,1]

(g )

(g )

V̄ρ,t01 := sup K(θ) + V̄ρ,t10 (θ) .

(3.6)

θ∈[0,1]

Quantiles of functionals of the limit process Tρ + Tρ,g1 in Theorem 3.1 are not easily accessible
since the distribution of such functionals usually depends in a complicated way on the unknown
quantities ν0 and g1 in the jump characteristic of the underlying process. In order to obtain
reasonable approximations for these quantiles we use a multiplier bootstrap approach. That
is, in the following we consider bootstrapped processes, Ŷn = Ŷn (X1 , . . . , Xn , ξ1 , . . . , ξn ), which
depend on random variables X1 , . . . , Xn defined on a probability space (ΩX , FX , PX ) and on
random weights ξ1 , . . . , ξn which are defined on a distinct probability space (Ωξ , Fξ , Pξ ). Thus,
the processes Ŷn live on the product space (Ω, A, P) := (ΩX , AX , PX ) ⊗ (Ωξ , Aξ , Pξ ). Below we
use the notion of weak convergence conditional on the sequence (Xi )i∈N in probability. It can
be found in Kosorok (2008) on pp. 19–20.
Definition 3.4. Let Ŷn = Ŷn (X1 , . . . , Xn ; ξ1 , . . . , ξn ) : (Ω, A, P) → D be a random element
taking values in some metric space D depending on some random variables X1 , . . . , Xn and
some random weights ξ1 , . . . , ξn . Moreover, let Y be a tight, Borel measurable random variable
into D. Then Ŷn converges weakly to Y conditional on the data X1 , X2 , . . . in probability, if and
only if
(a)

sup

P∗

|Eξ f (Ŷn ) − Ef (Y )| → 0,

f ∈BL1 (D)

(b) Eξ f (Ŷn )∗ − Eξ f (Ŷn )∗ → 0 for all f ∈ BL1 (D).
P

Here, Eξ denotes the conditional expectation over the weights ξ given the data X1 , . . . , Xn ,
whereas BL1 (D) is the space of all real-valued Lipschitz continuous functions f on D with supnorm kf kD ≤ 1 and Lipschitz constant 1. Here and below we denote the sup-norm of a real
valued function f on a set M by kf kM . Furthermore, in item (b) f (Ŷn )∗ and f (Ŷn )∗ denote
a minimal measurable majorant and a maximal measurable minorant with respect to the joint
probability space (Ω, A, P). The type of convergence defined above is denoted by Ŷn ξ Y .
Remark 3.5.
(i) Throughout this work all expressions f (Ŷn ), with a bootstrapped statistic Ŷn and a Lipschitz continuous function f , are measurable functions of the random weights. To this end
we do not use a measurable majorant or minorant in item (a) in the definition above.

10

(ii) The implication “(ii) ⇒ (i)” in the proof of Theorem 2.9.6 in Van der Vaart and Wellner
(1996) shows that conditional weak convergence
ξ implies unconditional weak convergence
with respect to the product measure P.
For the results on conditional weak convergence of the bootstrapped processes below we
require a rather mild additional assumption on the sequence of multipliers, which is satisfied
for many common distributions such as for instance the Gaussian, the Poisson or the Binomial
distribution.
Assumption 3.6. The sequence (ξi )i∈N is defined on a distinct probability space than the one
(n)
generating the data {Xi∆
| i = 0, 1, . . . , n} as described above, is i.i.d. with mean zero, variance
n
one and there exists an M > 0 such that for each integer m ≥ 2 we have
E|ξ1 |m ≤ m!M m .
(n)
Reasonable bootstrap counterparts T̂(n)
ρ of the processes Tρ are given by

(n)

(n)

(n)
T̂(n)
ρ (θ, t) := T̂ρ (X∆n , . . . , Xn∆n ; ξ1 , . . . , ξn ; θ, t) :=
bnθc
X
p
bnθc n − bnθc h
1
ξj ρ(∆nj X (n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn }
= n∆n
j
n
n
bnθc∆n

−

1
(n − bnθc)∆n

j=1
n
X

i
ξj ρ(∆nj X (n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } .
j

j=bnθc+1

In the following theorem we establish conditional weak convergence of T̂(n)
ρ under the general
assumptions of Section 2.
Theorem 3.7. Let Assumption 2.3 be valid and let the multipliers (ξj )j∈N satisfy Assumption
3.6. Then we have
T̂(n)
ρ

ξ

Tρ

in `∞ ([0, 1]×R), where Tρ is a tight mean zero Gaussian process in `∞ ([0, 1]×R) with covariance
function
θZ
1 ∧θ2 tZ
1 ∧t2

Zθ2 tZ1 ∧t2
ρ (z)g0 (y, dz)dy − θ1
ρ2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy

E{Tρ (θ1 , t1 )Tρ (θ2 , t2 )} =
0

2

−∞

0 −∞

Zθ1 tZ1 ∧t2
Z1 tZ1 ∧t2
2
− θ2
ρ (z)g0 (y, dz)dy + θ1 θ2
ρ2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy.
0 −∞

0 −∞

(3.7)
Remark 3.8. The aim of our bootstrap procedure is to mimic the convergence behaviour
of T(n)
ρ . The covariance function of the limiting process in Theorem 3.7 differs from (3.3),
11

because Theorem 3.7 holds under the general conditions introduced in Assumption 2.3, i.e. for
an arbitrary kernel g0 ∈ G(β, p). Under the null hypothesis H0 , where we have g0 (·, dz) = ν0 (dz),
the covariance function (3.7) coincides with (3.3).
The limit distribution of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-type test statistic Tρ(n) in Corollary 3.2 can
be approximated under H0 by the bootstrap statistics in the following corollary, which is an
immediate consequence of Proposition 10.7 in Kosorok (2008).
Corollary 3.9. If Assumption 2.3 and Assumption 3.6 are satisfied, we have
T̂ρ(n) :=

|T̂(n)
ρ (θ, t)|

sup

ξ

Tρ :=

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

sup

Tρ (θ, t) ,

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

with Tρ the limit process in Theorem 3.7.

3.2

Test procedures for abrupt changes

The weak convergence results of the previous section make it possible to define test procedures
for abrupt changes in the jump behaviour of the underlying process based on Lévy distribution
functions of type (2.2). In the following let B ∈ N be some large number and let (ξ (b) )b=1,...,B be
independent vectors of i.i.d. random variables ξ (b) = (ξj(b) )j=1,...,n with mean zero and variance
(n)
one, which satisfy Assumption 3.6. With T̂(n)
and T̂ρ,ξ
(b) we denote the corresponding bootρ,ξ(b)
strapped quantity calculated with respect to the data and the b-th multiplier sequence ξ (b) . For
a given level α ∈ (0, 1), we propose to reject H0 in favor of H1 , if


(B)
Tρ(n) ≥ q̂1−α Tρ(n) ,
(3.8)
(n)
(n)
(B)
(Tρ(n) ) denotes the (1 − α)-sample quantile of T̂ρ,ξ
where q̂1−α
(1) , . . . , T̂ρ,ξ(B) . Similarly, for t0 ∈ R,
(ρ,t )
H0 is rejected in favor of H1 0 , if


(B)
Wρ(n,t0 ) := sup |Tρ(n) (θ, t0 )| ≥ q̂1−α Wρ(n,t0 ) ,
(3.9)

θ∈[0,1]

(n,t0 )

(B)
where q̂1−α
(Wρ

(n,t )

(n,t )

(n,t )

0
) denotes the (1−α)-sample quantile of Ŵρ,ξ(1)0 , . . . , Ŵρ,ξ(B)
, and where Ŵρ,ξ(b)0

(n)
:= supθ∈[0,1] |T̂ρ,ξ
(b) (θ, t0 )| for b = 1, . . . , B. Furthermore, according to Proposition 3.3 we define
(ρ,t )
an exact test procedure, that is H0 is rejected in favor of the point-wise alternative H1 0 , if

(n)

K
Vρ,t0 ≥ q1−α
,

(3.10)

K
where q1−α
is the (1 − α)-quantile of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-distribution, that is the distribution of the supremum of a standard Brownian bridge K = supθ∈[0,1] |K(θ)|.
The following results show the behaviour of the previously introduced tests under the null hypothesis, local alternatives and the alternatives of an abrupt change. In particular, these tests
are consistent asymptotic level α tests. First, recall the tight centered Gaussian process Tρ in
`∞ ([0, 1]×R) with covariance function (3.3), let Lρ : (R, B) → (R, B) be the distribution function

12

(t )

of the supremum variable sup(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R |Tρ (θ, t)| and let Lρ 0 be the distribution function of
supθ∈[0,1] |Tρ (θ, t0 )|. Furthermore, recall the random variable
Tρ,g1 =

sup

Tρ (θ, t) + Tρ,g1 (θ, t) ,

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

defined in (3.5) with the deterministic function
Tρ,g1 (θ, t) = Nρ (g1 ; θ, t) − θNρ (g1 ; 1, t),
defined in (3.4) and let
(t0 )
Tρ,g
:= sup Tρ (θ, t0 ) + Tρ,g1 (θ, t0 ) .
1
θ∈[0,1]

Then the results on consistency of the tests are as follows.
(loc)

Proposition 3.10. Under H1

with ν0 6= 0



(B)
P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) > 1 − α ≤ lim inf lim P Tρ(n) ≥ q̂1−α Tρ(n)
B→∞ n→∞

(B)

≤ lim sup lim P Tρ(n) ≥ q̂1−α Tρ(n)
B→∞ n→∞



≤ P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α



(3.11)

holds for each α ∈ (0, 1) and additionally if Nρ2 (ν0 , t0 ) > 0 then for all α ∈ (0, 1) we have




(g )
(n)
(n)
(g )
K
K
K
K
P V̄ρ,t10 > q1−α
≤ lim inf P Vρ,t0 ≥ q1−α
≤ lim sup P Vρ,t0 ≥ q1−α
≤ P V̄ρ,t10 ≥ q1−α
,
n→∞

n→∞

(3.12)
with

(n)
Vρ,t0

and

(g )
V̄ρ,t10

defined in (3.6), as well as




(B)
(t0 )
0)
P L(t
Tρ,g
> 1 − α ≤ lim inf lim P Wρ(n,t0 ) ≥ q̂1−α Wρ(n,t0 )
ρ
1
n→∞
B→∞



(B)
(t0 )
0)
≤ lim sup lim P Wρ(n,t0 ) ≥ q̂1−α Wρ(n,t0 ) ≤ P L(t
Tρ,g
≥ 1 − α . (3.13)
ρ
1
B→∞ n→∞

Remark 3.11. According to Corollary 1.3 and Remark 4.1 in Gaenssler et al. (2007) the
distribution function Lρ is continuous on R and strictly increasing on R+ . Thus, (3.11) basically
states that under the local alternative for large B, n ∈ N the probability that the test (3.8)
rejects the null hypothesis is approximately equal to the probability that the supremum of the
shifted version Tρ,g1 exceeds the (1 − α)-quantile of the non-shifted version Tρ,0 . An analysis of
the latter probability, which is beyond the scope of this paper, then shows in which direction, i.e.
for which g1 , it is harder to distinguish the null hypothesis from the alternative. The assertions
(3.12) and (3.13) can be interpreted in the same way.
Corollary 3.12. Under H0 the tests (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10) have asymptotic level α, that is if
ν0 6= 0 we have for each α ∈ (0, 1)

(B)
lim lim P Tρ(n) ≥ q̂1−α (Tρ(n) ) = α
(3.14)
B→∞ n→∞

and furthermore

(n)
K
lim P Vρ,t0 ≥ q1−α
= α,

n→∞


(B)
lim lim P Wρ(n,t0 ) ≥ q̂1−α (Wρ(n,t0 ) ) = α,

B→∞ n→∞

holds for all α ∈ (0, 1), if Nρ2 (ν0 ; t0 ) > 0.
13

(3.15)

Proposition 3.13. The tests (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10) are consistent in the following sense:
Under H1 , for all α ∈ (0, 1) and all B ∈ N, we have

(B)
lim P Tρ(n) ≥ q̂1−α (Tρ(n) ) = 1.

n→∞
(ρ,t0 )

Under H1

, for all α ∈ (0, 1) and all B ∈ N,


(n)
K
lim P Vρ,t0 ≥ q1−α
=1

n→∞

3.3


(B)
lim P Wρ(n,t0 ) ≥ q̂1−α (Wρ(n,t0 ) ) = 1.

and

n→∞

The argmax-estimators

If one of the aforementioned tests rejects the null hypothesis in favor of an abrupt alternative
the natural question arises of how to estimate the unknown break point θ0 . A typical approach
in change-point analysis to this estimation problem is the so-called argmax-estimator, that
is we basically take the argmax of the function θ 7→ supt∈R |T(n)
ρ (θ, t)| as an estimate for θ0 .
Consistency of our estimators follows with the argmax continuous mapping theorem of Kim and
Pollard (1990) using the following auxiliary result.
Proposition 3.14. Under H1 , the random function (θ, t) 7→ (n∆n )−1/2 T(n)
ρ (θ, t) converges in
∞
` ([0, 1] × R) to the function

θ(1 − θ ){N (ν ; t) − N (ν ; t)},
if θ ≤ θ0
0
ρ 1
ρ 2
ρ
T(1) (θ, t) :=
θ (1 − θ){N (ν ; t) − N (ν ; t)},
if θ ≥ θ
0

ρ

1

ρ

2

0

in outer probability, where Nρ (ν; ·) is defined in (3.1).
For the test problem H0 versus H1 we consider the estimator
θ̃ρ(n) := arg maxθ∈[0,1] sup T(n)
ρ (θ, t)

(3.16)

t∈R

(ρ,t0 )

and in the setup H0 versus H1

a suitable estimator for the change point is given by

(n)

θ̃ρ,t0 := arg maxθ∈[0,1] T(n)
ρ (θ, t0 ) .
The following proposition establishes consistency of these estimators.
Proposition 3.15. Under H1 we have θ̃ρ(n) = θ0 + oP (1) for n → ∞ and if the special case
(ρ,t )
(n)
H1 0 is true we obtain θ̃ρ,t
= θ0 + oP (1).
0
Remark 3.16. For the sake of convenience we have focused on the case of one single break. The
results on the tests in Section 3.2 also hold for alternatives with finitely many abrupt changes.
Moreover, the estimation methods depicted above can easily be extended to detect multiple
change points by a standard binary segmentation algorithm dating back to Vostrikova (1981).

14

4

Statistical inference for gradual changes

∞
As a generalization of Proposition 3.14 one can show that kn−1/2 T(n)
ρ (θ, t) converges in ` ([0, 1] ×
R) in outer probability to the function Tρ,g0 defined in (3.4) whenever Assumption 2.3 is satisfied.
Thus, under some minor regularity conditions, argmaxθ∈[0,1] |T(n)
ρ (θ, t)| is a consistent estimator
of argmaxθ∈[0,1] |Tρ,g0 (θ, t)|. However, if the jump behaviour changes gradually at θ0 , the function
θ 7→ |Tρ,g0 (θ, t)| is usually maximal at a point θ1 > θ0 . As a consequence the argmax-estimators
investigated in Section 3.3 usually overestimate a change point, if the change is not abrupt.
Therefore, in this section we introduce test and estimation procedures which are tailored for
gradual changes in the entire jump behaviour.

4.1

A measure of time variation for the entire jump behaviour

If the jump behaviour is given by (2.1) for some suitable transition kernel g = g0 from ([0, 1],
B([0, 1])) into (R, B), we follow Vogt and Dette (2015) and base our analysis of gradual changes
on the quantity
ζ
Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ, t) := Nρ (g0 ; ζ, t) − Nρ (g0 ; θ, t),
θ

(ζ, θ, t) ∈ C × R

(4.1)

with
C := {(ζ, θ) ∈ [0, 1]2 | ζ ≤ θ}

(4.2)

and where Nρ (g0 ; ·, ·) is defined in (2.2). Here and throughout this paper we use the convention
(g0 )
0
as the measure of time variation (with respect to ρ) of the
0 := 1. We will address Dρ
(g )
entire jump behaviour of the underlying process, because the following lemma shows that Dρ 0
indicates whether there is a change in the jump behaviour.
(g )

Lemma 4.1. Let θ ∈ [0, 1]. Then Dρ 0 (ζ, θ, t) = 0 for all 0 ≤ ζ ≤ θ and t ∈ R if and only if
the kernel g0 (·, dz) is Lebesgue almost everywhere constant on [0, θ].
According to the preceding lemma there exists a (gradual) change in the jump behaviour
given by g0 if and only if
sup D̃ρ(g0 ) (θ) > 0,
θ∈[0,1]

where
D̃ρ(g0 ) (θ) := sup sup Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ, t) .
t∈R 0≤ζ≤θ

As a consequence, the first point of a change in the jump behaviour is given by
n
o
θ0 := inf θ ∈ [0, 1] | D̃ρ(g0 ) (θ) > 0 ,

(4.3)

where we set inf ∅ := 1. We call θ0 the change point of the jump behaviour of the underlying
process. Notice that by the discussion after (4.2) the definition in (4.3) is independent of ρ. In
15

Section 4.3 we construct an estimator for θ0 , where we only consider the quantity
Dρ(g0 ) (θ) := sup

sup

t∈R 0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t) ,

(g )

(4.4)

(g )

instead of D̃ρ 0 . On the one hand the monotonicity of Dρ 0 simplifies our entire presentation
(g )
and on the other hand the first time point where Dρ 0 deviates from 0 is also given by θ0 , so it
(g )
is equivalent to consider Dρ 0 instead. Our analysis of gradual changes is based on a consistent
(g0 )
estimator D(n)
which we construct in Section 4.2. Before that we illustrate the quantities
ρ of Dρ
introduced in (4.3) and (4.4) in the situations of Example 2.2 and Example 2.5.
Example 4.2. Recall the situation of an abrupt change as in Example 2.2. Precisely, let
β ∈ (0, 2), p > 0 and ν1 , ν2 ∈ M(β, p) with ν1 6= ν2 such that for some θ0 ∈ (0, 1) the transition
kernel g0 has the form

ν (dz), for y ∈ [0, θ ],
1
0
g0 (y, dz) =
(4.5)
ν (dz), for y ∈ (θ , 1].
2

0

Obviously, for some function ρ : R → R such that Assumption 2.3(a2) and (a3) are satisfied we
(g )
(g )
have Dρ 0 (ζ, θ0 , t) = 0 for each (ζ, θ0 , t) ∈ C × R with θ0 ≤ θ0 and consequently Dρ 0 (θ) = 0 for
each θ ≤ θ0 . On the other hand, if θ0 < θ0 ≤ 1 and ζ ≤ θ0 we have
Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t) = ζNρ (ν1 ; t) −


θ0
ζ
(θ0 Nρ (ν1 ; t) + (θ0 − θ0 )Nρ (ν2 ; t)) = ζ(Nρ (ν2 ; t) − Nρ (ν1 ; t)) 0 − 1
0
θ
θ

with Nρ (ν; t) defined in (3.1) and we obtain
sup sup |Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t)| = V0ρ θ0 1 −
t∈R ζ≤θ0

θ0 
,
θ0

where V0ρ = supt∈R |Nρ (ν1 ; t) − Nρ (ν2 ; t)| > 0, because of ν1 6= ν2 and the assumptions on ρ. For
θ0 < ζ ≤ θ0 a similar calculation yields
Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t) = θ0 (Nρ (ν2 ; t) − Nρ (ν1 ; t))


ζ
−1
0
θ

which gives
sup sup
t∈R θ0 <ζ≤θ0

Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t) = V0ρ θ0 1 −

θ0 
.
θ0

Therefore, it follows that the quantity defined in (4.3) is given by θ0 , because for θ > θ0 we have
n
o
θ0 
Dρ(g0 ) (θ) = sup max sup sup Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t) , sup sup Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t) = V0ρ θ0 1 −
.
θ
t∈R θ0 <ζ≤θ0
t∈R ζ≤θ0
θ0 <θ0 ≤θ
(4.6)
Example 4.3. Recall the situation of Example 2.5. Let the transition kernel g0 be of the form
(2.9) such that there exist θ0 ∈ (0, 1), A0 ∈ (0, ∞), β0 ∈ (0, β̂] and p0 ∈ [2p̂ + ε, ∞) for some
ε > 0 with
A(y) = A0 ,

β(y) = β0
16

and

p(y) = p0

(4.7)

for each y ∈ [0, θ0 ]. Additionally, let θ0 be contained in an open interval U with a real analytic
function Ā : U → (0, ∞) and affine linear functions β̄ : U → (0, β̂], p̄ : U → [2p̂ + ε, ∞) such
that at least one of the functions Ā, β̄ and p̄ is non-constant and
A(y) = Ā(y),

β(y) = β̄(y),

as well as

p(y) = p̄(y)

(4.8)

for all y ∈ [θ0 , 1) ∩ U . Then the quantity defined in (4.3) is given by θ0 .

4.2

The empirical measure of time variation and its convergence behaviour

Suppose we have established that Nρ(n) (·, ·) is a consistent estimator for Nρ (g0 ; ·, ·). Then with
the set C defined in (4.2) it is reasonable to consider
ζ (n)
(n)
D(n)
ρ (ζ, θ, t) := Nρ (ζ, t) − Nρ (θ, t), (ζ, θ, t) ∈ C × R,
θ

(4.9)
(g )

as an estimate for the measure of time variation of the entire jump behaviour Dρ 0 defined
in (4.1). In the following we want to establish consistency of the empirical measure of time
variation D(n)
ρ . To be precise, the following two theorems show that the process
H(n)
ρ (ζ, θ, t) :=

p

(g0 )
n∆n D(n)
ρ (ζ, θ, t) − Dρ (ζ, θ, t) .

(4.10)

and its bootstrapped counterpart converge weakly or weakly conditional on the data in probability, respectively, to a suitable tight mean zero Gaussian process.
Theorem 4.4. If Assumption 2.3 is satisfied, then the process H(n)
ρ defined in (4.10) converges
(g1 )
(n)
∞
weakly, that is Hρ
Hρ + Dρ in ` (C × R), where Hρ is a tight mean zero Gaussian process
with covariance function

Cov Hρ (ζ1 , θ1 , t1 ), Hρ (ζ2 , θ2 , t2 ) =
ζZ
1 ∧ζ2 tZ
1 ∧t2

=
0

−∞

ζ2
−
θ2

ζ1
ρ (z)g0 (y, dz)dy −
θ1
2

ζZ
2 ∧θ1 tZ
1 ∧t2

ρ2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy

0
ζZ
1 ∧θ2 tZ
1 ∧t2
0

−∞

−∞

ζ1 ζ2
ρ (z)g0 (y, dz)dy +
θ1 θ2
2

θZ
1 ∧θ2 tZ
1 ∧t2

ρ2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy.

0

(4.11)

−∞

For the statistical change-point inference proposed in the following sections we require quantiles of functionals of the limiting distribution in Theorem 4.4. (4.11) shows that this distribution
depends in a complicated way on the unknown underlying kernel g0 and therefore corresponding
quantiles are difficult to estimate. In order to solve this problem we want to use a multiplier
bootstrap approach similar to Section 3. To this end, we define the following bootstrap coun-

17

terpart of the process Hρ(n)
(n)

(n)

(n)
Ĥ(n)
ρ (ζ, θ, t) := Ĥρ (X∆n , . . . , Xn∆n ; ξ1 , . . . , ξn ; ζ, θ, t)
 bnζc
X
1
ξj ρ(∆nj X (n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } −
:= √
j
n∆n j=1

−


bnθc
ζ X
ξj ρ(∆nj X (n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } .
j
θ

(4.12)

j=1

The result below establishes consistency of Ĥ(n)
ρ .
Theorem 4.5. Let Assumption 2.3 be valid and let the multiplier sequence (ξi )i∈N satisfy
Assumption 3.6. Then we have Ĥρ(n) ξ Hρ in `∞ (C × R), where the tight mean zero Gaussian
process Hρ has the covariance structure (4.11).

4.3

Estimating the gradual change point

For the sake of a unique definition of the (gradual) change point θ0 in (4.3) we suppose throughout
this section that Assumption 2.3 holds with g1 = g2 = 0. Recall the definition
Dρ(g0 ) (θ) = sup
t∈R

Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t)

sup
0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

in (4.4), then by Theorem 4.4 the process D(n)
ρ (ζ, θ, t) from (4.9) is a consistent estimator of
(g0 )
Dρ (ζ, θ, t). Therefore, we set
(n)

Dρ,∗ (θ) := sup
t∈R

0
D(n)
ρ (ζ, θ , t) ,

sup
0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

and an application of the continuous mapping theorem and Theorem 4.4 yields the following
result.
(n)

Corollary 4.6. If Assumption 2.3 is satisfied with g1 = g2 = 0, then (n∆n )1/2 Dρ,∗

`∞ [0, θ0 ] , where Hρ,∗ is the tight process in `∞ ([0, 1]) defined by
Hρ,∗ (θ) := sup

sup

t∈R 0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

Hρ,∗ in

|Hρ (ζ, θ0 , t)|,

with the centered Gaussian process Hρ defined in Theorem 4.4.
Below we obtain that the rate of convergence of an estimator for θ0 depends on the smoothness
(g )
(g )
of the curve θ 7→ Dρ 0 (θ) at θ0 . Thus, we impose a kind of Taylor expansion of the function Dρ 0 .
More precisely, we assume throughout this section that θ0 < 1 and that there exist constants
(g )
ι, η, $, c > 0 such that Dρ 0 admits an expansion of the form
Dρ(g0 ) (θ) = c θ − θ0

18

$

+ ℵ(θ)

(4.13)

$+η
for all θ ∈ [θ0 , θ0 + ι], where the remainder term satisfies |ℵ(θ)| ≤ K θ − θ0
for some K > 0.
1/2 (n)
According to Theorem 4.4 we have (n∆n ) Dρ,∗ (θ) → ∞ in probability for any θ ∈ (θ0 , 1].
Consequently, if the deterministic sequence κn → ∞ is chosen appropriately, the statistic
rρ(n) (θ) := 1{(n∆

n)

1/2 D(n) (θ)≤κ }
n
ρ,∗

,

should satisfy

1,
P
rρ(n) (θ) →
0,

if θ ≤ θ0 ,
if θ > θ0 .

Thus, we define the estimator for the change point by
θ̂ρ(n)

=

θ̂ρ(n) (κn )

Z1
:=

rρ(n) (θ)dθ.

(4.14)

0

The theorem below establishes consistency of the estimator θ̂ρ(n) under mild additional assumptions on the sequence (κn )n∈N .
Theorem 4.7. If Assumption 2.3 is satisfied with g1 = g2 = 0, θ0 < 1, and (4.13) holds for
some $ > 0, then
 κ 1/$ 
n
,
θ̂ρ(n) − θ0 = OP √
n∆n
√
for any sequence κn → ∞ with κn / n∆n → 0.
(g )

Theorem 4.7 describes how the curvature of Dρ 0 at θ0 determines the convergence behaviour
(g )
of the estimator: A lower degree of smoothness of Dρ 0 in θ0 yields a better rate of convergence.
However, the estimator depends on the choice of the threshold level κn and we explain below
how to choose this sequence with bootstrap methods in order to control the probability of overand underestimation. But before that the following theorem investigates the mean squared error
h
2 i
MSE(κn ) = E θ̂ρ(n) (κn ) − θ0
of the estimator θ̂ρ(n) . Recall the definition of H(n)
ρ in (4.10) and define
(n)

Hρ,∗ (θ) := sup

sup

t∈R 0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

0
|H(n)
ρ (ζ, θ , t)|,

θ ∈ [0, 1],

which is an upper bound for the distance between the estimator D(n)
ρ,∗ (θ) and the true value
(g0 )
Dρ (θ). For a sequence αn → ∞ with αn = o(κn ) we decompose the MSE into
i
h
2
(ρ)
MSE1 (κn , αn ) := E θ̂ρ(n) (κn ) − θ0 1nH(n) (1)≤α o ,
n
ρ,∗
i
h


2
(ρ)
(n)
MSE2 (κn , αn ) := E θ̂ρ(n) (κn ) − θ0 1nH(n) (1)>α o ≤ P Hρ,∗ (1) > αn ,
ρ,∗

n

which can be considered as the MSE due to small and large estimation error.

19

Theorem 4.8. Suppose that θ0 < 1, (4.13) and Assumption 2.3 with g1 = g2 = 0 are satisfied.
Then for any sequence αn → ∞ with αn = o(κn ) we have
 κ 2/$
 κ 2/$
(ρ)
n
n
≤ MSE1 (κn , αn ) ≤ K2 √
K1 √
n∆n
n∆n

(ρ)
(n)
MSE2 (κn , αn ) ≤ P Hρ,∗ (1) > αn ,
for n ∈ N sufficiently large, where the constants K1 and K2 can be chosen as




1 − ϕ 2/$
1 + ϕ 2/$
K1 =
and K2 =
c
c
for arbitrary ϕ ∈ (0, 1).
In the following we discuss the choice of the regularizing sequence κn for the estimator θ̂ρ(n) in
order to control the probability of over- and underestimation of the change point θ0 ∈ (0, 1). Let
θ̂n∗ be a preliminary consistent estimate of θ0 . For example, if (4.13) holds for some $ > 0, one
can take θ̂n∗ = θ̂ρ(n) (κn ) for a sequence κn → ∞ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 4.7. In the
sequel, let B ∈ N be some large number and let (ξ (b) )b=1,...,B denote independent sequences of
random variables, ξ (b) := (ξj(b) )j∈N , satisfying Assumption 3.6. We denote by Ĥ(n,b)
ρ,∗ the particular
bootstrap statistics calculated with respect to the data and the bootstrap multipliers ξ1(b) , . . . , ξn(b)
from the b-th iteration, where
(n)

Ĥρ,∗ (θ) := sup
t∈R

Ĥρ(n) (ζ, θ0 , t)

sup
0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

(4.15)

for θ ∈ [0, 1]. With these notations for B, n ∈ N and 0 < r ≤ 1 we define the following empirical
distribution function
(ρ,r)

Fn,B (x) =

B
1 X 
1
B
i=1

(n,i)

r

∗)
Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n

≤x

,

and we denote by
(ρ,r)−

Fn,B

n
(y) := inf x ∈ R

(ρ,r)

Fn,B (x) ≥ y

o

its pseudo-inverse. Then in the sense of the theorems below the optimal choice of the threshold
is given by
(α,ρ)

(ρ,r)−

κ̂n,B (r) := Fn,B

(1 − α).

(4.16)

for a confidence level α ∈ (0, 1).
Theorem 4.9. Let 0 < α < 1 and assume that Assumption 2.3 is satisfied with g1 = g2 = 0
and with 0 < θ0 < 1 for θ0 defined in (4.3). Suppose further that there exists some t0 ∈ R with
Nρ2 (g0 ; θ0 , t0 ) > 0. Then the limiting probability for underestimation of the change point θ0 is
bounded by α. Precisely,



(α,ρ)
lim sup lim sup P θ̂ρ(n) κ̂n,B (1) < θ0 ≤ α.
B→∞

n→∞

20

Theorem 4.10. Let Assumption 2.3 be satisfied with g1 = g2 = 0, let 0 < r < 1 and for θ0
defined in (4.3) let 0 < θ0 < 1. Furthermore, suppose that (4.13) holds for some $, c > 0 and
that there exists a t0 ∈ R satisfying Nρ2 (g0 ; θ0 , t0 ) > 0. Additionally, let the bootstrap multipliers
1/$
be either bounded in absolute value or standard normal distributed. Then for each K > 1/c
and all sequences (αn )n∈N ⊂ (0, 1) with αn → 0 and (Bn )n∈N ⊂ N with Bn → ∞ such that
1. αn2 Bn → ∞,
2. (n∆n )

1−r
2r

αn → ∞,

3. αn−1 n∆1+τ
→ 0, with τ > 0 from Assumption 2.3,
n
we have



(α ,ρ)
lim P θ̂ρ(n) κ̂n,Bnn (r) > θ0 + Kϕ∗n = 0,

n→∞

(4.17)

1/$ P
√
P
(α ,ρ)
(α ,ρ)
→ 0, while κ̂n,Bnn (r) → ∞.
where ϕ∗n = κ̂n,Bnn (r)/ n∆n
Theorem 4.10 is meaningless without the statement ϕ∗n → 0. With the additional param1−r
eter r ∈ (0, 1) this assertion can be proved by using the assumptions (n∆n ) 2r αn → ∞ and
P
αn−1 n∆1+τ
→ 0 only. However, it seems that for r = 1 the statement ϕ∗n → 0 can only be verified
n
under very restrictive conditions on the underlying process.
We conclude this section with an example which shows that the expansion (4.13) and the
additional assumption Nρ2 (g0 ; θ0 , t0 ) > 0 of the preceding theorems are satisfied in the situations
of Example 2.2 and Example 2.5. A proof for this example can be found in Section 6.7.
P

Example 4.11.
(1) Recall the situation of an abrupt change considered in Example 4.2. In this case it follows
from (4.6) that
Dρ(g0 ) (θ) = V0ρ θ0 1 −

Vρ
θ0 
= V0ρ (θ − θ0 ) − 0 (θ − θ0 )2 > 0,
θ
θ
Vρ

whenever θ0 < θ ≤ 1. Consequently, (4.13) is satisfied with $ = 1 and ℵ(θ) = − θ0 (θ −
θ0 )2 = O((θ − θ0 )2 ) for θ → θ0 . Moreover, if ν1 6= 0 and the function ρ meets Assumption 2.3(a3), the transition kernel given by (4.5) satisfies the additional assumption
Nρ2 (g0 ; θ0 , t0 ) > 0 in Theorem 4.9 and Theorem 4.10 for some t0 ∈ R.
(2) In the situation discussed in Example 4.3 let
Zt
N̄ (y, t) = Ā(y)

ρL,p̂ (z)hβ̄(y),p̄(y) (z)dz

−∞

for y ∈ U and t ∈ R. Then we have
n
k0 := min k ∈ N

o
∃t ∈ R : Nk (t) 6= 0 < ∞,
21

where for k ∈ N0 and t ∈ R
Nk (t) :=

 ∂ k N̄ 
∂y k

(θ0 ,t)

denotes the k-th partial derivative of N̄ with respect to y at (θ0 , t), which is a bounded
function on R. Furthermore, there exists a ι > 0 such that
Dρ(gL,0 p̂) (θ) =




1
sup |Nk0 (t)| (θ − θ0 )k0 +1 + ℵ(θ)
(k0 + 1)! t∈R

(4.18)

on [θ0 , θ0 + ι] with |ℵ(θ)| ≤ K(θ − θ0 )k0 +2 for some K > 0. Obviously, Nρ2 (g0 ; θ0 , t0 ) > 0
L,p̂
holds for some t0 ∈ R.

4.4

Testing for a gradual change

In Section 3 we introduced change point tests for the situation of an abrupt change as in Example
2.2, where the jump behaviour is assumed to be constant before and after the change point. In
this section we illustrate a reasonable way to derive test procedures for the existence of a gradual
change in the data. In order to formulate suitable hypotheses for a gradual change point recall
(g )
the definition of the measure of time variation for the entire jump behaviour Dρ 0 in (4.1) and
define for t0 ∈ R and θ ∈ [0, 1] the quantities
Dρ(g0 ) (θ) := sup
t∈R

(g )
Dρ,t00 (θ)

:=

sup
0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

sup
0≤ζ≤θ0 ≤θ

Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t)

Dρ(g0 ) (ζ, θ0 , t0 ) .

We test the null hypothesis
H0 : Assumption 2.3 is satisfied with g1 = g2 = 0 and there exists a Lévy measure ν0 such that
g0 (y, dz) = ν0 (dz) holds for Lebesgue almost every y ∈ [0, 1].
versus the general alternative of non-constant jump behaviour
(g0 )

H∗1 : Assumption 2.3 holds with g1 = g2 = 0 and we have Dρ

(1) > 0.

If one is interested in gradual changes in Nρ (νs(n) ; t0 ) for a fixed t0 ∈ R, one can consider the
corresponding alternative
(g )

H∗1 (t0 ): Assumption 2.3 is satisfied with g1 = g2 = 0 and we have Dρ,t00 (1) > 0.
Furthermore, we investigate the behaviour of the tests introduced below under local alternatives of the form
(loc)

H1

: Assumption 2.3 holds with g0 (y, dz) = ν0 (dz) for Lebesgue-a.e. y ∈ [0, 1] for some Lévy
measure ν0 and some transition kernels g1 , g2 ∈ G(β, p).

22

(g )

Remark 4.12. Note that the function Dρ 0 in (4.1) is uniformly continuous in (ζ, θ) ∈ C
uniformly in t ∈ R, that is for any η > 0 there exists a δ > 0 such that
Dρ(g0 ) (ζ1 , θ1 , t) − Dρ(g0 ) (ζ2 , θ2 , t) < η
holds for each t ∈ R and all pairs (ζ1 , θ1 ), (ζ2 , θ2 ) ∈ C = {(ζ, θ) ∈ [0, 1]2 | ζ ≤ θ} with maximum
(g )
distance k(ζ1 , θ1 ) − (ζ2 , θ2 )k∞ < δ. Therefore, the function Dρ∗ (g0 ; ζ, θ) = supt∈R |Dρ 0 (ζ, θ, t)| is
(g )
(g )
uniformly continuous on C and as a consequence Dρ 0 is continuous on [0, 1]. Thus, Dρ 0 (1) > 0
holds if and only if the point θ0 defined in (4.3) satisfies θ0 < 1.
The idea of the following tests is to reject the null hypothesis H0 for large values of the
(g0 )
(g0 )
(n)
corresponding estimators Dρ,∗
(1) and sup(ζ,θ)∈C |D(n)
ρ (ζ, θ, t0 )| for Dρ (1) and Dρ,t0 (1), respectively. In order to obtain critical values we use the multiplier bootstrap approach introduced
in Section 4.2. For this purpose we denote by (ξ (b) )b=1,...,B for some large B ∈ N independent
sequences ξ (b) = (ξj(b) )j∈N of multipliers satisfying Assumption 3.6. We denote by Ĥ(n,b)
the proρ
(n)
cesses defined in (4.12) calculated from {Xi∆n | i = 0, . . . , n} and the b-th bootstrap multipliers
ξ1(b) , . . . , ξn(b) . For a given level α ∈ (0, 1), we propose to reject H0 in favor of H∗1 , if


(n)
(B)
(n)
(n∆n )1/2 Dρ,∗ (1) ≥ q̂1−α Hρ,∗ (1) ,
(4.19)

(B)
(n)
(n,b)
(n,B)
where q̂1−α Hρ,∗ (1) denotes the (1−α)-quantile of the sample Ĥ(n,1)
ρ,∗ (1), . . . , Ĥρ,∗ (1) with Ĥρ,∗
defined in (4.15). Similarly, for t0 ∈ R, the null hypothesis H0 is rejected in favor of H∗1 (t0 ) if
(n)

Rρ,t0 := (n∆n )1/2 sup

(ζ,θ)∈C

(B)
(n) 
D(n)
ρ (ζ, θ, t0 ) ≥ q̂1−α Rρ,t0 ,

(4.20)

(B)
(n) 
(n,1)
(n,B)
where q̂1−α Rρ,t0 denotes the (1 − α)-quantile of the sample R̂ρ,t
, . . . , R̂ρ,t
, and
0
0
(n,b)

R̂ρ,t0 := sup

Ĥ(n,b)
(ζ, θ, t0 ) .
ρ

(ζ,θ)∈C
(loc)

In the following we show the behaviour of the aforementioned tests under H0 , H1
and the
(g1 )
∗
∗
alternatves H1 , H1 (t0 ). To this end, recall the limit process Hρ,g1 := Hρ + Dρ in Theorem
(g )
4.4, where Dρ 1 is defined in (4.1) and where the tight mean zero Gaussian process Hρ in
`∞ (C × R) has the covariance function (4.11). Under the general Assumption 2.3 let Kρ :
(t )
(R, B) → (R, B) be the c.d.f. of sup(ζ,θ,t)∈C×R |Hρ (ζ, θ, t)| and let Kρ 0 : (R, B) → (R, B) be the
c.d.f. of sup(ζ,θ)∈C |Hρ (ζ, θ, t0 )|. Furthermore, let
Hρ,g1 :=

sup

|Hρ (ζ, θ, t) + Dρ(g1 ) (ζ, θ, t)|,

(ζ,θ,t)∈C×R
(t0 )
Hρ,g
1

:= sup |Hρ (ζ, θ, t0 ) + Dρ(g1 ) (ζ, θ, t0 )|.
(ζ,θ)∈C

The proposition below shows the performance of the new tests under the local alternative
(loc)
H1 .

23

(loc)

Proposition 4.13. Under H1

we have for each α ∈ (0, 1)




(n)
(B)
(n)
P Kρ (Hρ,g1 ) > 1 − α ≤ lim inf lim P (n∆n )1/2 Dρ,∗ (1) ≥ q̂1−α Hρ,∗ (1)
B→∞ n→∞



(n)
(B)
(n)
≤ lim sup lim P (n∆n )1/2 Dρ,∗ (1) ≥ q̂1−α Hρ,∗ (1) ≤ P Kρ (Hρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α ,
B→∞ n→∞

if there exist t̄ ∈ R, ζ̄ ∈ (0, 1) with Nρ2 (g0 ; ζ̄, t̄) > 0, and furthermore



(n)
(B)
(n) 
(t0 )
)
>
1
−
α
≤
lim
inf
lim
P
R
≥
q̂
R
P Kρ(t0 ) (Hρ,g
ρ,t0
ρ,t0
1−α
1
B→∞ n→∞



(n)
(B)
(n) 
(t0 )
≤ lim sup lim P Rρ,t0 ≥ q̂1−α Rρ,t0 ≤ P Kρ(t0 ) (Hρ,g
)≥1−α
1
B→∞ n→∞

holds for each α ∈ (0, 1), if there exists a ζ̄ ∈ (0, 1) with Nρ2 (g0 ; ζ̄, t0 ) > 0.

With the result above and an inspection of the limiting probability P Kρ (Hρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α ,
which is beyond the scope of this paper, one can show for which direction g1 it is more difficult to
distinguish the null hypothesis from the alternative. An immediate consequence of Proposition
4.13 is that the tests (4.19) and (4.20) hold the level α asymptotically.
Corollary 4.14. The tests (4.19) and (4.20) are asymptotic level α tests in the following sense:
Under H0 with ν0 6= 0 we have for each α ∈ (0, 1)


(n)
(B)
(n)
lim lim P (n∆n )1/2 Dρ,∗ (1) ≥ q̂1−α Hρ,∗ (1) = α
B→∞ n→∞

and moreover


(n)
(B)
(n) 
lim lim P Rρ,t0 ≥ q̂1−α Rρ,t0 = α,

B→∞ n→∞

holds for all α ∈ (0, 1), if Nρ2 (ν0 ; t0 ) > 0.
The tests (4.19) and (4.20) are also consistent under the fixed alternatives H∗1 , H∗1 (t0 ) in the
sense of the following proposition.
Proposition 4.15. Under H∗1 , we have for all B ∈ N


(n)
(B)
(n)
lim P (n∆n )1/2 Dρ,∗ (1) ≥ q̂1−α Hρ,∗ (1) = 1.
n→∞

Under H∗1 (t0 ), we have for all B ∈ N


(n)
(B)
(n) 
lim P Rρ,t0 ≥ q̂1−α Rρ,t0 = 1.

n→∞

5

Finite-sample properties

In this section we present the results of an extensive simulation study assessing the finite-sample
properties of the new statistical procedures. The design of this study is as follows:

24

• We apply our estimators and test statistics to n data points {X∆n , . . . , Xn∆n } as realizations of an Itō semimartingale (Xt )t∈R+ with characteristics (b, σ, νs ). For the sample
size we choose either n = 10000 or n = 22500, where for the effective sample size we consider the choices kn := n∆n = 50, 100, 200 in the case n = 10000 resulting in frequencies
∆−1
n = 200, 100, 50 and in the case n = 22500 we consider kn = n∆n = 50, 75, 100, 150, 250
resulting in ∆−1
n = 450, 300, 225, 150, 90.
• Corresponding to our basic rescaling assumption (2.1) the jump characteristic satisfies
 s

νs (dz) = g
, dz ,
n∆n
where the transition kernel g(y, dz) is given by

1/2


1
 η(y) 1/2 −
,
πz
π106
g(y, [z, ∞)) =
0,

if 0 < z ≤ η(y)106 ,

(5.1)

otherwise,

and g(y, (−∞, z]) = 0 for all z < 0.
• In order to simulate data points {X∆n , . . . , Xn∆n } including an abrupt change we choose

1,
if y ≤ θ0 ,
η(y) =
(y ∈ [0, 1])
(5.2)
ψ, if y > θ ,
0

for θ0 ∈ (0, 1), ψ ≥ 1 and we use a modification of Algorithm 6.13 in Cont and Tankov
(2004) to simulate pure jump Itō semimartingales under H0 , i.e. for ψ = 1. Under the
alternative of an abrupt change, i.e. for ψ > 1, we merge two paths of independent
semimartingales together.
• A gradual change in the jump characteristic is realized by choosing

1,
if y ≤ θ0 ,
η(y) =
(y ∈ [0, 1])
(A(y − θ )w + 1)2 , if y ≥ θ ,
0
0

(5.3)

in (5.1) for some θ0 ∈ [0, 1], A > 0 and w > 0. In order to obtain pure jump Itō
semimartingale data according to this model we sample 15 times more frequently, i.e. for
j ∈ {1, . . . , 15n} we use a modification of Algorithm 6.13 in Cont and Tankov (2004)
(j)
(j)
to simulate an increment Zj = X̃j∆n /15 − X̃(j−1)∆n /15 of a 1/2-stable pure jump Lévy
subordinator with characteristic exponent
Z
Φ(j) (u) = (eiuz − 1)ν (j) (dz),
where ν (j) (dz) = g(j/(15n), dz). For the resulting data vector {X∆n , . . . , Xn∆n } we use
Xk∆n =

15k
X

Zj ,

j=1

25

(k = 1, . . . , n).

kn

Test (3.8)

Pointwise Tests

t0 = 0.5

t0 = 1

t0 = 1.5

t0 = 2

t0 = 2.5

t0 = 3

50

0.026

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.062
0.060

0.036
0.042

0.024
0.030

0.036
0.030

0.026
0.016

0.036
0.020

75

0.052

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.058
0.040

0.048
0.046

0.046
0.032

0.040
0.036

0.046
0.028

0.050
0.030

100

0.050

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.046
0.038

0.054
0.038

0.042
0.036

0.046
0.040

0.038
0.028

0.042
0.032

150

0.068

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.038
0.036

0.054
0.036

0.054
0.050

0.054
0.042

0.058
0.052

0.066
0.044

250

0.060

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.068
0.046

0.056
0.034

0.056
0.034

0.058
0.032

0.064
0.044

0.060
0.052

Table 1: Test procedures (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10) under H0 . Simulated rejection probabilities
in the application of the test (3.8), the test (3.9) and the test (3.10) using 500 pure jump
subordinator data vectors under the null hypothesis.

• In order to investigate the performance of our truncation method we either use the plain
pure jump data vector {X∆n , . . . , Xn∆n } as described above, resulting in the characteristics
b = σ = 0 for the continuous part, or we use {X∆n + S∆n , . . . , Xn∆n + Sn∆n }, where
St = Wt + t with a Brownian motion (Wt )t∈R+ resulting in b = σ = 1. In the graphics
depicted below the results for pure jump data are presented on the left-hand side, while
the results including a continuous component are always placed on the right-hand side.
• For the truncation sequence vn = γ∆w
n we choose γ = 1 and w = 3/4 in each run resulting
in the parameter τ = 2/15 in Assumption 2.3.
• Due to computational reasons we approximate the supremum in t ∈ R by taking the
maximum either over the finite grid T1 := {0.1 · j | j = 1, . . . , 30} or the finite grid
T2 := {0.1 + j · 0.3 | j = 0, 1, . . . , 9}.
• For the function ρ we use ρL,p from (2.8) in Example 2.5 with parameters L = 1 and p = 2.
• Each combination of parameters we present below is run 500 times and if the statistical
procedure includes a bootstrap method we always use B = 200 bootstrap replications. In
order to illustrate the power of our test procedures we display simulated rejection probabilities, i.e. the mean of the 500 test results. Furthermore, we measure the performance of
our estimators by mean absolute deviation, i.e. if Θ = {θ̂1 , . . . , θ̂500 } is the set of obtained
estimation results we depict
500

1 X
|θ̂j − θ0 |,
` (Θ, θ0 ) =
500
1

j=1

where θ0 is the location of the change point.

26

kn

Test (3.8)

Pointwise Tests

t0 = 0.5

t0 = 1

t0 = 1.5

t0 = 2

t0 = 2.5

t0 = 3

50

0.040

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.038
0.036

0.042
0.030

0.036
0.028

0.054
0.042

0.034
0.026

0.036
0.028

75

0.058

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.024
0.030

0.050
0.032

0.030
0.020

0.048
0.042

0.058
0.046

0.050
0.036

100

0.050

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.044
0.034

0.050
0.040

0.040
0.026

0.046
0.046

0.048
0.040

0.052
0.048

150

0.054

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.040
0.040

0.050
0.032

0.048
0.038

0.056
0.038

0.048
0.030

0.060
0.038

250

0.060

(3.9)
(3.10)

0.046
0.036

0.058
0.050

0.036
0.030

0.056
0.044

0.062
0.054

0.058
0.046

Table 2: Test procedures (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10) under H0 . Simulated rejection probabilities
in the application of the test (3.8), the test (3.9) and the test (3.10) using 500 pure jump
subordinator data vectors plus a drift and plus a Brownian motion under the null hypothesis.

5.1

Finite-sample performance of the procedures in Section 3

In order to demonstrate the performance of the procedures introduced in Section 3 we choose the
sample size n = 22500 and the grid T1 = {0.1 · j | j = 1, . . . , 30} to approximate the supremum
in t ∈ R. The confidence level of the test procedures is α = 5% in each run.
Simulated rejection probabilities for the tests (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10)
Table 1 and Table 2 show a reasonable approximation of the nominal level α = 0.05 of the
tests (3.8), (3.9) and (3.10) under H0 . Test (3.10) appears to be slightly more conservative than
the test (3.9). Moreover, in Table 2 the underlying process includes a continuous component
with b = σ = 1 and the results are similar to Table 1.
In Figure 1 we depict rejection probabilities for the test (3.8) for different effective sample
sizes kn = n∆n . The factor of jump size corresponds to ψ in (5.2) and the dashed red line
indicates the nominal level α = 5%. The change point is located at θ0 = 0.5. The results
are as expected: Large differences of the factor of jump size before and after the change yield
higher rejection probabilities. Moreover, due to better approximations the relative frequencies
of rejections increase with the effective sample size kn = n∆n . Notice also that the results for
pure jump Itō semimartingales and for data including a continuous component are almost the
same. This fact indicates a reasonable performance of the proposed truncation technique for an
ordinary sample size n = 22500.
Figure 2 shows rejection probabilities for varying locations of the change point θ0 , where
ψ = 4 in (5.2). Our results illustrate that an abrupt change can be detected best, if it is located
close to the middle of the data set, i.e. for θ0 ≈ 0.5. Furthermore, in this case the power of the
test is increasing in the effective sample size kn = n∆n as well and the performance for data
including a continuous component is nearly the same.
In Figure 3 we display relative frequencies of rejection for different values of the parameter
p ∈ [2, 20] of the function ρ1,p defined in (2.8). This function is used to calculate the process

27

1.0
Rejection Rate

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0
0.8
0.6

Rejection Rate

0.4
0.0

0.2

kn = 250
kn = 150
kn = 100
kn = 75
kn = 50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

Factor of Jump Size

3

4

5

6

7

Factor of Jump Size

1.0
0.8
0.6

Rejection Rate

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.4

kn = 250
kn = 150
kn = 100
kn = 75
kn = 50

0.2

Rejection Rate

0.8

1.0

Figure 1: Simulated rejection probabilities of the test (3.8) for different factors of jump size ψ
in (5.2). Pure jump data on the left-hand side and data including a Brownian motion with drift
on the right-hand side. The dashed red line indicates α = 5%.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

Location of the Change Point

0.4

0.6

0.8

Location of the Change Point

Figure 2: Simulated relative frequencies of rejection of the test (3.8) for different locations of
the change point θ0 in (5.2) for pure jump data (left-hand side) and with an additional Brownian
motion with drift (right-hand side). The dashed red line indicates the nominal level α = 5%.
T(n)
ρ1,p (θ, t) for certain values of θ ∈ [0, 1] and t ∈ T1 . In each run the change point is located
at θ0 = 0.5 and we have ψ = 3 in (5.2). The results suggest to use the lowest possible value
of the parameter p in order to obtain the maximum power of the test. Again, the rejection
probabilities of the test are nearly unaffected by the presence of a Brownian component.
In Figure 4 we depict rejection probabilities of the tests (3.9) and (3.10) for different values
of t0 ∈ [0.1, 50]. In the underlying model (5.1) we use η(y) defined in (5.2) with θ0 = 0.5 and

28

1.0

1.0

0.8
0.6

Rejection Rate

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.4
0.0

0.2

Rejection Rate

0.8

kn = 250
kn = 150
kn = 100
kn = 75
kn = 50

5

10

15

20

5

10

p

15

20

p

1.0
0.8
0.6

Rejection Rate

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.4

kn = 250
kn = 150
kn = 100
kn = 75
kn = 50

0.2

Rejection Rate

0.8

1.0

Figure 3: Simulated rejection probabilities of the test (3.8) for different values of the parameter
p ≥ 2 in the function ρ1,p for pure jump data (left panel) and plus an additional Brownian
motion with drift (right panel). The dashed red line indicates the confidence level α = 5%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

t0

10

20

30

40

50

t0

Figure 4: Simulated rejection probabilities of the test (3.9) (black lines) and the test (3.10)
(grey lines) for different values t0 for pure jump data (left-hand side) and with an additional
Brownian motion with drift (right-hand side). The dashed red line indicates the nominal level
α = 5%.
ψ = 3. We observe that test (3.9) has slightly more power than test (3.10) and the power of
both tests is increasing for small values of t0 . The latter can be explained by the fact that
less increments of the underlying Itō semimartingale which take values in the interval (vn , t0 ]
are used to calculate the test statistics. The effect is even more significant when a Brownian
component is present (right panel). In this case it is more difficult to detect a change, because

29

0.15
0.10

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.00

0.05

0.10
0.05
0.00

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.15

kn = 50
kn = 100
kn = 250

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

Factor of Jump Size

3

4

5

Factor of Jump Size

Figure 5: Mean absolute deviation of estimator (3.16) for different values ψ ≥ 1 in (5.2) for
pure jump data (left panel) and plus an additional Brownian motion with drift (right panel).
of the superposition of small increments with an i.i.d. sequence of random variables following a
normal distribution with variance ∆n (see also Figure 3 in Bücher et al. (2017)). Furthermore,
one can show (see, for instance, Lemma 6.3 in Hoffmann et al. (2017)) that in the case of a pure
jump Itō semimartingales the probability of the event that m increments exceed the value t0 is
. As a consequence, for large t0 the power of both tests reaches a saturation,
bounded by Kt−m/2
0
because only a negligible proportion of increments exceed t0 .
Finite-sample performance of the argmax-estimator (3.16)
In Figure 5 we display mean absolute deviations of estimator (3.16) for different values ψ ∈
[1, 5] in (5.2), where the true change point is located at θ0 = 0.5. The results correspond to
Figure 1 in the sense that large values of ψ yield a better performance of the statistical procedure.
Because of better approximations the mean absolute deviation is also decreasing in the effective
sample size kn = n∆n . Additionally, we also observe in the estimation results that due to
the truncation approach the mean absolute deviation is nearly unaffected by the presence of a
Brownian component.
Figure 6 shows mean absolute deviations of estimator (3.16) for different locations of the
change point θ0 ∈ (0, 1), where we choose ψ = 3 in (5.2). Similar to Figure 2 the results suggest
that a change point can be detected best if it is located around the middle of the data set, i.e. if
θ0 ≈ 0.5. Furthermore, as in Figure 5 the estimation error is decreasing in the effective sample
size kn .

5.2

Finite-sample performance of the procedures in Section 4

In this section we investigate the finite-sample performance of the statistical procedures introduced in Section 4.
30

0.4
0.3
0.0

0.1

0.2

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.3
0.2
0.0

0.1

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.4

kn = 50
kn = 100
kn = 250

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

Location of the Change Point

0.4

0.6

0.8

Location of the Change Point

Figure 6: Mean absolute deviation of estimator (3.16) for different values θ0 ∈ (0, 1) in (5.2)
for pure jump Itō semimartingales (left-hand side) and plus an additional Brownian component
(right-hand side).
Test (4.19)

Test (4.20)

kn

T1

t0 = 0.5

t0 = 1

t0 = 1.5

t0 = 2

t0 = 2.5

t0 = 3

50

0.050

0.028

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.056

0.046

75

0.048

0.058

0.058

0.048

0.048

0.048

0.044

100

0.056

0.062

0.038

0.046

0.038

0.046

0.060

150

0.076

0.056

0.062

0.066

0.054

0.062

0.078

250

0.062

0.070

0.070

0.058

0.056

0.054

0.066

Table 3: Test procedures (4.19) and (4.20) under H0 . Simulated rejection probabilities of the
test (4.19) and the test (4.20) using 500 pure jump Itō semimartingale data vectors under the
null hypothesis.

Finite-sample performance of the tests (4.19) and (4.20)
Table 3 and Table 4 show simulated rejection probabilities of test (4.19) and test (4.20) under
the null hypothesis, i.e. for ψ = 1 in (5.2). The sample size is n = 22500 and for the test
(4.19) we approximate the supremum in t ∈ R by taking the maximum over the finite grid
T1 = {0.1 · j | j = 1, . . . , 30}. In both cases for pure jump Itō semimartingales (b = σ = 0;
Table 3) and for Itō semimartingales including a Brownian component (b = σ = 1; Table 4) we
observe a reasonable approximation of the nominal level α = 5%.
For computational reasons the results on the tests (4.19) and (4.20) depicted below are obtained for a sample size n = 10000 and effective sample size kn ∈ {50, 100, 200}. In each run
we choose the confidence level α = 5% and the supremum in t ∈ R is approximated by the
maximum over the finite grid T1 = {0.1 · j | j = 1, . . . , 30}.
31

Test (4.19)

Test (4.20)

kn

T1

t0 = 0.5

t0 = 1

t0 = 1.5

t0 = 2

t0 = 2.5

t0 = 3

50

0.044

0.036

0.026

0.028

0.044

0.040

0.040

75

0.042

0.050

0.054

0.042

0.044

0.038

0.044

100

0.074

0.040

0.038

0.036

0.046

0.062

0.068

150

0.044

0.036

0.056

0.058

0.052

0.042

0.044

250

0.050

0.034

0.042

0.056

0.062

0.062

0.058

1.0

1.0

Table 4: Test procedures (4.19) and (4.20) under H0 . Simulated rejection probabilities of the
test (4.19) and the test (4.20) using 500 pure jump Itō semimartingale data vectors plus a drift
and plus a Brownian motion under the null hypothesis.

0.8
0.6

Rejection Rate

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.4
0.0

0.2

Rejection Rate

0.8

kn = 200
kn = 100
kn = 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

w

5

10

15

20

25

30

w

Figure 7: Simulated rejection probabilities of the test (4.19) for different values w ∈ [0.6, 30]
in (5.3) for pure jump Itō semimartingales (left panel) and plus a Brownian motion and a drift
(right panel). The dashed red line indicates the nominal level α = 5%.
Figure 7 shows simulated rejection probabilities of the test (4.19) for different degrees of
smoothness of the change w in (5.3). The change is located at θ0 = 0.4 and A is chosen such
that the characteristic quantity for a gradual change satisfies Dρ(g) (1) = 3 in each scenario. As
expected, it is more difficult to distinguish a very smooth change from the null hypothesis and
therefore the rejection probability is decreasing in w. Similar to the CUSUM test investigated in
Section 5.1 the power of the test is increasing in kn = n∆n as well. Furthermore, all simulation
results on the tests (4.19) and (4.20) are similar for pure jump processes and processes including
a Brownian component. This indicates that our truncation approach also works in this setup.
In Figure 8 we depict rejection rates of the test (4.19) for different locations of the change
point θ0 ∈ (0, 1). We simulate a linear change, i.e. we have w = 1 in (5.3), and A is chosen such
that Dρ(g) (1) = 0.3 holds in each run. As before, the power of the test is increasing in the effec-

32

1.0

1.0

0.8
0.6

Rejection Rate

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.4
0.0

0.2

Rejection Rate

0.8

kn = 200
kn = 100
kn = 50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

Location of the Change Point

0.4

0.6

0.8

Location of the Change Point

Figure 8: Simulated relative frequencies of rejections of the test (4.19) for different locations
of the change point θ0 ∈ (0, 1) in (5.3) for pure jump processes (left-hand side) and plus an
additional Brownian motion with drift (right-hand side). The dashed red line indicates the
confidence level α = 5%.
tive sample size kn = n∆n and moreover it is decreasing in θ0 . The latter can be explained by
the shape of the model (5.3): For large θ0 the jump characteristic is “close” to the null hypothesis.
Finite-sample performance of the estimator θ̂ρ(n) defined in (4.14)
Following Hoffmann et al. (2017) we implement the estimator θ̂ρ(n) in five steps as follows:
Step 1. Choose a preliminary estimate θ̂(pr) ∈ (0, 1), a probability level α ∈ (0, 1) and a parameter r ∈ (0, 1].
Step 2. Initial choice of the tuning parameter κn :
Evaluate (4.16) for θ̂(pr) , α and r (with B = 200 as described above and where the supremum in t ∈ R is approximated by the maximum over t ∈ T2 = {0.1+j·0.3 | j = 0, 1, . . . , 9})
and obtain κ̂ (in) .
Step 3. Intermediate estimate of the change point.
Evaluate (4.14) for κ̂ (in) and obtain θ̂(in) .
Step 4. Final choice of the tuning parameter κn :
Evaluate (4.16) for θ̂(in) , α, r and obtain κ̂ (f i) .
Step 5. Estimate θ0 .
Evaluate (4.14) for κ̂ (f i) and obtain the final estimate θ̂ of the change point.
From the theoretical standpoint of Section 4.3 we have to ensure that the preliminary estimate
θ̂
in Step 1 is consistent in order to guarantee consistency of the final estimate θ̂. If not
(pr)

33

0.14
0.11

0.12

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.13

0.14
0.13
0.12

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.11

0.10

0.10

kn = 250
kn = 100
kn = 50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

r

0.4

0.6

0.8

r

Figure 9: Mean absolute deviations of estimator (4.14) for different choices of r ∈ (0, 1] in Step
1 for pure jump Itō semimartingales (left panel) and with an additional Brownian component
(right panel).
declared otherwise, we always make the “arbitrary” choice θ̂(pr) = 0.1 for two reasons: First, a
simulation study which is not included in this paper, where the estimation procedure is started
√
in Step 2 with the choice κ̂ (in) = 3 n∆n (which yields consistency according to Theorem 4.7) has
shown similar results as the ones depicted below. Secondly, with the small choice of θ̂(pr) = 0.1
in Step 1 we obtain smaller values of the thresholds κ̂ (in) , κ̂ (f i) and this reduces the calculation
time. Furthermore, in the following simulation study we choose the sample size n = 22500 and
we vary the effective sample size in kn = n∆n ∈ {50, 100, 250}. For the evaluation of (4.16)
we always use α = 10% and for computational reasons suprema in t ∈ R are approximated by
maxima over t ∈ T2 = {0.1 + j · 0.3 | j = 0, 1, . . . , 9}. If not declared otherwise, we simulate a
linear change, i.e. w = 1 in (5.3), which is located at θ0 = 0.4. A is always chosen such that the
characteristic quantity for a gradual change satisfies Dρ(g) (1) = 3 in all scenarios.
Figure 9 shows mean absolute deviations for different choices of r ∈ (0, 1] in Step 1. The
graphics suggest that in all cases the mean absolute deviation for r = 0.3 is close to its overall
minimum. Thus, we choose r = 0.3 in Step 1 in all following investigations.
In Figure 10 we depict mean absolute deviations of the estimator (4.14) for different choices
of the preliminary estimate θ̂(pr) ∈ (0, 1) in Step 1. The estimation error is smallest, if the
preliminary estimate is chosen close to 1. This finding corresponds to another simulation study
which is not included below and which has shown that the estimation procedure (4.14) tends to
underestimate the change point. As a consequence, θ̂(pr) close to 1 induces larger values of the
quantities κ̂ (in) , θ̂(in) , κ̂ (f i) in Steps 2-4 and prevents the underestimation error.
Figure 11 shows simulated mean absolute deviations of estimator (4.14) for different degrees
of smoothness of the change w in (5.3). The results correspond to Figure 7 and confirm the
intuitive idea that a smooth change is more difficult to detect. Moreover, better approximations

34

0.13

0.13

0.12
0.11
0.08

0.09

0.10

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.11
0.10
0.08

0.09

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.12

kn = 50
kn = 100
kn = 250

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

Preliminary Estimation

0.6

0.8

Preliminary Estimation

0.20
0.18
0.16
0.12

0.14

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.20

Figure 10: Mean absolute deviations of estimator (4.14) for different choices of the preliminary
estimate θ̂(pr) ∈ (0, 1) in Step 1 for pure jump Itō semimartingales (left-hand side) and plus an
additional Brownian motion with drift (right-hand side).

0.10

0.10

kn = 50
kn = 100
kn = 250

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2

w

4

6

8

10

12

14

w

Figure 11: Mean absolute deviations of estimator (4.14) for different degrees of smoothness of
the change w in (5.3) for pure jump processes (left panel) and with an additional continuous
component (right panel).
for large effective sample sizes kn = n∆n reduce the estimation error.
In Figure 12 we display simulated mean absolute deviations of estimator θ̂ρ(n) for different
locations of the change point θ0 ∈ (0, 1) in (5.3). The results correspond to Figure 8 and show
that for small values of θ0 the change point can be detected best. This is a consequence of model
(5.3): For large θ0 ∈ (0, 1) the jump behaviour is nearly constant.

35

0.6

0.6

0.3
0.0

0.1

0.2

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.4

0.5

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Mean Absolute Deviation

0.0

0.1

kn = 50
kn = 100
kn = 250

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

Location of the Change Point

0.4

0.6

0.8

Location of the Change Point

Figure 12: Simulated mean absolute deviation of estimator (4.14) for different locations of the
change point for pure jump processes (left-hand side) and plus an additional Brownian motion
with drift (right-hand side).
Acknowledgements This work has been supported by the Collaborative Research Center
“Statistical modeling of nonlinear dynamic processes” (SFB 823, Project A1) and the Research
Training Group “High-dimensional phenomena in probability – fluctuations and discontinuity”
(RTG 2131) of the German Research Foundation (DFG).

References
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and Jacod, J. (2009a). Estimating the degree of activity of jumps in high
frequency data. The Annals of Statistics, 37(5):2202–2244.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and Jacod, J. (2009b). Testing for jumps in a discretely observed process. The
Annals of Statistics, 37(1):184–222.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and Jacod, J. (2010). Is Brownian motion necessary to model high-frequency
data? The Annals of Statistics, 38:3093–3128.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and Jacod, J. (2014). High-Frequency Financial Econometrics. Princeton University Press.
Andreou, E. and Ghysels, E. (2009). Structural breaks in financial time series. In Mikosch, T.,
Kreiß, J.-P., Davis, R. A., and Andersen, T. G., editors, Handbook of Financial Time Series,
pages 839–870. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Aue, A. and Horváth, L. (2013). Structural breaks in time series. Journal of Time Series
Analysis, 34(1):1–16.

36

Aue, A. and Steinebach, J. (2002). A note on estimating the change-point of a gradually changing
stochastic process. Statistics & Probability Letters, 56:177–191.
Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of Probability Measures. J. Wiley and Sons. ISBN: 0-47119745-9.
Bissell, A. F. (1984). The performance of control charts and cusums under linear trend. Applied
Statistics, 33:145–151.
Bücher, A. (2011). Statistical Inference for Copulas and Extremes. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universität
Bochum.
Bücher, A., Hoffmann, M., Vetter, M., and Dette, H. (2017). Nonparametric tests for detecting
breaks in the jump behaviour of a time-continuous process. Bernoulli, 23(2):1335–1364. DOI:
10.3150/15-BEJ780.
Bücher, A. and Kojadinovic, I. (2016). A dependent multiplier bootstrap for the sequential
empirical copula process under strong mixing. Bernoulli, 22(2):927–968.
Chen, L. and Shao, Q.-M. (2001). A non-uniform Berry-Esseen bound via Stein’s method.
Probability Theory and Related Fields, 120:236–254.
Cont, R. and Tankov, P. (2004). Financial Modelling with Jump Processes. Chapman and
Hall/CRC. ISBN: 1-58488-413-4.
Delbaen, F. and Schachermayer, W. (1994). A general version of the fundamental theorem of
asset pricing. Mathematische Annalen, 300:463–520.
Gaenssler, P., Molnár, P., and Rost, D. (2007). On continuity and strict increase of the CDF
for the sup-functional of a Gaussian process with applications to statistics. Results in Mathematics, 51:51–60.
Gan, F. F. (1991). Ewma control chart under linear drift. Journal of Statistical Computation
and Simulation, 38:181–200.
Hartogs, F. (1906).
Zur Theorie der analytischen Funktionen mehrerer unabhängiger
Veränderlichen, insbesondere über die Darstellung derselben durch Reihen, welche nach Potenzen einer Veränderlichen fortschreiten. Mathematische Annalen, 62:1 – 88.
Hoffmann, M. and Vetter, M. (2017). Weak convergence of the empirical truncated distribution function of the Lévy measure of an Itō semimartingale. Stochastic Processes and their
Applications, 127(5):1517–1543.
Hoffmann, M., Vetter, M., and Dette, H. (2017). Nonparametric inference of gradual changes in
the jump behaviour of time-continuous processes. to appear: Stochastic Processes and their
Applications. arXiv: 1704.04040.

37

Hus̆ková, M. (1999). Gradual changes versus abrupt changes. Journal of Statistical Planning
and Inference, 76:109–125.
Hus̆ková, M. and Steinebach, J. (2002). Asymptotic tests for gradual changes. Statistics &
Decisions, 20:137–151.
Inoue, A. (2001).
17(1):156–187.

Testing for distributional change in time series.

Econometric Theory,

Jacod, J. (1979). Calcul Stochastique et Problèmes de Martingales. Springer. ISBN: 3-54009253-6.
Jacod, J. and Protter, P. (2012). Discretization of Processes. Springer. ISBN: 978-3-642-24126-0.
Jacod, J. and Shiryaev, A. (2002). Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes. Springer. ISBN:
3-540-17882-1.
Jandhyala, V., Fotopoulos, S., MacNeill, I., and Liu, P. (2013). Inference for single and multiple change-points in time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 34(4):423–446. doi:
10.1111/jtsa.12035.
Kim, J. and Pollard, D. (1990). Cube root asymptotics. The Annals of Statistics, 18(1):191–219.
Kosorok, M. (2008). Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference. Springer
Series in Statistics. Springer. ISBN: 978-0-387-74977-8.
Madan, D. B., Carr, P. P., and Chang, E. C. (1998). The variance gamma process and option
pricing. European Finance Review, 2:79–105.
Mallik, A., Banerjee, M., and Sen, B. (2013). Asymptotics for p-value based threshold estimation
in regression settings. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 7:2477–2515.
Mancini, C. (2009). Non-parametric threshold estimation for models with stochastic diffusion
coefficient and jumps. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 36:270–296.
Nickl, R. and Reiß, M. (2012). A Donsker theorem for Lévy measures. Journal of Functional
Analysis, 263:3306–3332.
Nickl, R., Reiß, M., Söhl, J., and Trabs, M. (2016). High-frequency Donsker theorems for Lévy
measures. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 164:61–108.
Page, E. (1954). Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika, 41(1-2):100–115.
Page, E. (1955). A test for a change in a parameter occurring at an unknown point. Biometrika,
42:523 – 527.
Perron, P. (2006). Dealing with structural breaks. In Patterson, K. and Mills, T., editors,
Palgrave Handbook of Econometrics, volume 1, pages 278 – 352. Palgrave Macmillan.
38

Pollard, D. (1990). Empirical Processes: Theory and Applications, volume 2. Institute of
Mathematical Statistics and the American Statistical Association.
Reeves, J., Chen, J., Wang, X., Lund, R., and Lu, Q. (2007). A review and comparison
of changepoint detection techniques for climate data. Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology, 46:900 – 915.
Sato, K.-I. (1999). Lévy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions. Cambridge University
Press.
Scheidemann, V. (2005). Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables. Birkhäuser.
ISBN: 3-7643-7490-X.
Siegmund, D. O. and Zhang, H. (1994). Confidence regions in broken line regression. In Carlstein,
E., Müller, H.-G., and Siegmund, D., editors, Change-point problems, volume 23, pages 292–
316. Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
Stoumbos, Z., Reynolds, J. M., Ryan, T., and Woodall, W. (2000). The state of statistical
process control as we proceed into the 21st century. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 95:992 – 998.
Van der Vaart, A. and Wellner, J. (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. Springer.
ISBN: 0-387-94640-3.
van Kampen, N. G. (2007). Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry. Elsevier, 3 edition.
ISBN-10: 0-444-52965-9.
Vogt, M. and Dette, H. (2015). Detecting gradual changes in locally stationary processes. The
Annals of Statistics, 43(2):713–740.
Vostrikova, L. (1981). Detecting disorder in multidimensional random processes. Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 24:55–59.

6

Proofs and technical details

Before we prove the results of Section 3 and Section 4 we begin with a generalization of the
results in Hoffmann and Vetter (2017).

6.1

Weak convergence of the empirical truncated Lévy distribution function

Theorem 6.1 below is a central limit theorem for Nρ(n) centered at Nρ (g (n) ; ·, ·). Precisely, we
consider the process
p

n∆n Nρ(n) (θ, t) − Nρ (g (n) ; θ, t) ,
G(n)
ρ (θ, t) =
where Nρ (·, ·) and Nρ (g; ·, ·) are defined in (2.2) and (2.3), respectively.
39

Theorem 6.1. Let Assumption 2.3 be satisfied. Then we have weak convergence
Gρ(n)

Gρ

in `∞ ([0, 1]×R), where Gρ is a tight mean zero Gaussian process in `∞ ([0, 1]×R) with covariance
function
θZ
1 ∧t2
1 ∧θ2 tZ

ρ2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy.

Hρ ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) :=
0

(6.1)

−∞

Additionally, the sample paths of Gρ are almost surely uniformly continuous with respect to the
semimetric
Zθ2 Zt2
o1/2
n Zθ1 tZ1 ∨t2
2
ρ2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy
(6.2)
ρ (z)g0 (y, dz)dy +
dρ ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) =
θ1 −∞

0 t1 ∧t2

for θ1 ≤ θ2 .
Theorem 6.1 is a generalization of Hoffmann and Vetter (2017) in the sense that their Theorem
3.1 can be obtained if we set g0 (y, dz) = ν(dz) for a Lévy measure ν and g1 = g2 = 0. In order to
prove Theorem 6.1 we divide the process G(n)
ρ into two parts which correspond to large and small
jumps of the underlying process X (n) , respectively. To this end we choose an auxiliary function
Ψ : R+ → R which is C ∞ and satisfies 1[1,∞) (z) ≤ Ψ(z) ≤ 1[1/2,∞) (z) for all z ∈ R+ . For α > 0
define Ψα : R → R via Ψα (z) = Ψ(|z|/α) and let Ψ◦α : R → R be the function Ψ◦α (z) = 1 − Ψα (z).
For the function ρ we define ρα (z) = ρ(z)Ψα (z) and ρ◦α (z) = ρ(z)Ψ◦α (z). Furthermore, let
(α)

χt (z) = ρ(z)Ψα (z)1(−∞,t] (z)

and

◦(α)

χt

(z) = ρ(z)Ψ◦α (z)1(−∞,t] (z),

(6.3)

for t, z ∈ R and define the following empirical processes:
(α)
Gρ,n
(θ, t)

n 1 bnθc
o
X (α)
p
= n∆n
χt (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − Nρα (g (n) ; θ, t) ,
i
n∆n
i=1

bnθc

◦(α)
Gρ,n
(θ, t) =

n 1 X
o
p
◦(α)
n∆n
χt (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − Nρ◦α (g (n) ; θ, t) .
i
n∆n
i=1

(n)

◦(α)

(α)

Then, of course, we have Gρ (θ, t) = Gρ,n (θ, t) + Gρ,n (θ, t). In Section 6.4 we show that it
suffices to prove three auxiliary lemmas in order to establish Theorem 6.1. The first one is
(α)
concerned with the behaviour of the large jumps, i.e. it holds for Gρ,n and a fixed α > 0.
Lemma 6.2. If Assumption 2.3 is satisfied, we have weak convergence
G(α)
ρ,n

Gρα

in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) for each fixed α > 0, where Gρα denotes a tight centered Gaussian process with
covariance function
θZ
1 ∧θ2 tZ
1 ∧t2

ρ2α (z)g0 (y, dz)dy.

Hρα ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) =
0

40

−∞

The sample paths of Gρα are almost surely uniformly continuous with respect to the semimetric
Zθ2 Zt2
o1/2
n Zθ1 tZ1 ∨t2
2
ρα (z)g0 (y, dz)dy +
dρα ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) =
ρ2α (z)g0 (y, dz)dy
θ1 −∞

0 t1 ∧t2

for θ1 ≤ θ2 .
The general idea behind the proof of Lemma 6.2 is to replace the increments of the underlying
process X (n) by increments of pure jump Itō semimartingales. Precisely, let µ(n) be the Poisson
random measure associated with the jumps of X (n) . Then we consider

L(n) = z1{|z|>vn } ? µ(n)

(6.4)

(n)
with the truncation vn = γ∆w
is that they
n as above. The main advantage of the processes L
have deterministic characteristics. Therefore, their increments are independent (see Theorem
II.4.15 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002)) and we can use a central limit theorem tailored for triangular arrays of independent stochastic processes from Kosorok (2008) to prove weak convergence
of

(n)
Yf (θ, t)



bnθc
p
1 X
n (n)
n (n)
n (n)
n (n)
= n∆n
[f (∆i L )1(−∞,t] (∆i L ) − E(f (∆i L )1(−∞,t] (∆i L ))]
n∆n
i=1

(6.5)
to Gρα , where (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R and where f : R → R is a bounded continuous function, for
which we plug in ρα and ρ◦α later. In order to prove Lemma 6.2 we need to ensure that the
(α)
distance between Yρ(n)
α and Gρ,n is small. To this end, our next claim shows that the bias due
P
bnθc
to estimating (n∆n )−1 i=1 E(ρα (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] ( ∆ni L(n) )) instead of Nρα (g (n) ; θ, t) is small
compared to the rate of convergence. In order to state the result recall that for a real-valued
non-negative function f : Ξ → R+ on a measure space (Ξ, B, ϑ) the essential supremum with
respect to ϑ is given by
ϑ − ess supx∈Ξ (f ) =

inf

sup f (x).

B∈B,ϑ(B)=0 x∈Ξ\B

Moreover, recall that λ1 denotes the restriction of the one-dimensional Lebesgue measure to
[0, 1].
Proposition 6.3. Let (µ(n) )n∈N be a sequence of Poisson random measures with predictable
compensators µ̄(n) (ds, dz) = νs(n) (dz)ds such that (2.6) is satisfied for each n ∈ N with a null
sequence ∆n > 0 and a sequence of transition kernels g (n) from ([0, 1], B([0, 1])) into (R, B) with
Z

λ1 − ess supy∈[0,1]
(1 ∧ |z|β )g (n) (y, dz) ≤ K
for each n ∈ N and some β ∈ [0, 2], K > 0. Furthermore, let f : R → R be a bounded Borel
measurable function satisfying |f (z)| ≤ K|z|p on a neighbourhood of 0 for some K > 0, p ≥ β.
41

Then if vn > 0 is a null sequence and L(n) is defined as in (6.4) we have
n

o

sup sup E f ∆ni L(n) 1(−∞,t] ∆ni L(n) − n∆n Nf (g (n) ; i/n, t) − Nf (g (n) ; (i − 1)/n, t)

i=1,...,n t∈R

= O(∆2n vn−2β + ∆n vnp−β ), (6.6)
with R = R ∪ {−∞, +∞}.
(n)

The following proposition establishes the desired weak convergence of Yf .
Proposition 6.4. Suppose Assumption 2.3 is satisfied and let f : R → R be a continuous
function with |f (z)| ≤ K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R and some K > 0. Then the processes Yf(n) from
(6.5) converge weakly in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) to the tight mean zero Gaussian process Gf from Lemma
6.2, that is
(n)
Yf
Gf .
In order to obtain the result from Theorem 6.1 the following lemma ensures that the limiting
process Gρα converges in a suitable sense as α → 0.
Lemma 6.5. Under Assumption 2.3 the weak convergence
Gρα

Gρ

holds in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) as α → 0.
Its proof is a direct consequence of the following result.
Proposition 6.6. Suppose Assumption 2.3 is satisfied and let fn : R → R (n ∈ N0 ) be Borel
measurable functions with |fn (z)| ≤ K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for a constant K > 0 and all n ∈ N0 , z ∈ R.
Assume further that fn (z) → f0 (z) converges for all z outside a set B ∈ B such that [0, 1] × B
is a g0 (y, dz)dy-null set. Then we have weak convergence
Gfn

Gf0

in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) for n → ∞.
Our final lemma shows that the contribution due to small jumps are uniformly small as α
tends to zero.
Lemma 6.7. Suppose Assumption 2.3 is satisfied. Then for each η > 0 we have:


lim lim sup P
sup
G◦(α)
ρ,n (θ, t) > η = 0.
α→0 n→∞

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

42

6.2

The multiplier bootstrap approach

In this section we investigate a bootstrapped version of G(n)
ρ given by
Ĝ(n)
ρ (θ, t)

bnθc


1 X
=√
ξi ρ ∆ni X (n) 1(−∞,t] ∆ni X (n) 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } ,
i
n∆n i=1

(6.7)

for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R and where the sequence of multipliers (ξi )i∈N satisfies Assumption 3.6. The
bootstrap results in Section 3 and Section 4 are a simple consequence of Proposition 10.7 in
Kosorok (2008) and the following theorem, which establishes weak convergence conditional on
the data in probability of Ĝρ(n) .
Theorem 6.8. Let Assumption 2.3 be valid and let the multipliers (ξi )i∈N satisfy Assumption
3.6. Then we have
Ĝ(n)
ρ

ξ

Gρ

in `∞ ([0, 1] × R), where Gρ is the tight mean zero Gaussian process of Theorem 6.1.
Similar to the proof of Theorem 6.1 we show Theorem 6.8 by treating small and large increments of X (n) separately. Therefore, with the quantities defined prior to (6.3) we consider the
processes
Ĝ(α)
ρ,n (θ, t)

bnθc
1 X
ξi ρα (∆ni X (n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn }
=√
i
n∆n i=1

Ĝ◦(α)
ρ,n (θ, t)

bnθc
1 X ◦ n (n)
=√
ξi ρα (∆i X )1(−∞,t] (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } .
i
n∆n i=1

Section 6.5 reveals that the claim of Theorem 6.8 can be obtained using the following two
lemmas which state weak convergence conditional on the data in probability of the previously
established processes for fixed α > 0.
Lemma 6.9. If Assumption 2.3 and Assumption 3.6 are satisfied, we have
Ĝ(α)
ρ,n

ξ

Gρα

in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) for each fixed α > 0.
Lemma 6.10. Suppose Assumption 2.3 and Assumption 3.6 are valid. Then for each α > 0 in
a neighbourhood of 0
Ĝ◦(α)
ρ,n

ξ

holds in `∞ ([0, 1] × R).

43

Gρ◦α

The lemmas above will be verified by approximating the truncated increments of the underlying processes by the increments of the pure jump Itō semimartingales from (6.4)
L(n) = (z1{|z|>vn } ) ? µ(n) ,
(n) is the fact, that
with the usual truncation vn = γ∆w
n . The main advantage of the processes L
they have deterministic characteristics and therefore independent increments. As a consequence,
we can use a result from Kosorok (2008) for triangular arrays of processes which are independent
within rows to prove weak convergence conditional on the data in probability of the bootstrapped
analogs of Yf(n) from (6.5) which are given by
(n)
Ŷf (θ, t)

=√

bnθc
1 X
ξi f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) ),
n∆n i=1

for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R and where f : R → R is a bounded continuous function. Precisely, the
following proposition is the main tool in order to obtain Lemma 6.9 and Lemma 6.10.
Proposition 6.11. Suppose Assumption 2.3 and Assumption 3.6 are satisfied. Then for a
continuous function f : R → R satisfying |f (z)| ≤ K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R and some K > 0 we
have
(n)

Ŷf

ξ

Gf

in `∞ ([0, 1] × R), where Gf is the tight mean zero Gaussian process defined in Theorem 6.1.

6.3

Alternative Assumptions

All results in this paper also hold under the weaker assumptions given below. Here and throughout the following proofs, K or K(δ) denote generic constants which sometimes depend on an
auxiliary quantity δ and may change from place to place.
Assumption 6.12. At step n ∈ N we observe an Itō semimartingale X (n) adapted to the
(n)
(n)
filtration of some filtered probability space (Ω, F, (Ft )t∈R+ , P) with characteristics (b(n)
s , σs , νs )
at the equidistant time points {i∆n | i = 0, 1, . . . , n}. Furthermore, the following assumptions
are satisfied:
(a) Assumptions on the jump characteristic and the function ρ:
For each n ∈ N and s ∈ [0, n∆n ] we have

 s
, dz ,
(6.8)
νs(n) (dz) = g (n)
n∆n
where there exist transition kernels g0 , g1 , g2 from ([0, 1], B([0, 1])) into (R, B) such that for
each y ∈ [0, 1]
1
g1 (y, dz) + Rn (y, dz)
(6.9)
g (n) (y, dz) = g0 (y, dz) + √
n∆n
and for each y ∈ [0, 1], B ∈ B and n ∈ N the kernel Rn satisfies
Rn (y, B) ≤ an g2 (y, B)
for a sequence an = o((n∆n )−1/2 ) of non-negative real numbers. Furthermore, we have
44

(1) There exists β ∈ [0, 2] with
max

i=0,1,2



λ1 − ess supy∈[0,1]

Z



1 ∧ |z|(β+δ)∧2 gi (y, dz) ≤ K(δ) < ∞

for each δ > 0.
(2) ρ : R → R is a bounded C 1 -function with ρ(0) = 0. Furthermore, there exists some
p > β + (β ∨ 1) such that the derivative satisfies |ρ0 (z)| ≤ K|z|p−1 for all z ∈ R and
some K > 0.
(3) For p = (p − 1) ∨ 1 with p from (a2) we have

Z

max λ1 − ess supy∈[0,1]
|z|p 1{|z|≥1} gi (y, dz) < ∞.
i=0,1,2

(4)

(I) There exist r > v > 0, α0 > 0, q > 0 and K > 0 such that for every choice
m1 , m2 ∈ {g0 , g1 , g2 }
λ2 − ess supy1 ,y2 ∈[0,1]

Z Z

1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{∆vn /2<|x|≤α0 } ×

× 1{∆vn /2<|z|≤α0 } m1 (y1 , dx)m2 (y2 , dz) ≤ K∆qn ,

holds for n ∈ N sufficiently large, where λ2 denotes the restriction of the twodimensional Lebesgue measure to the measure space ([0, 1]2 , [0, 1]2 ∩ L2 ) with the
two-dimensional Lebesgue σ-algebra L2 on R2 .
(II) For each α > 0 there is a K(α) > 0 such that for every choice m1 , m2 ∈ {g0 , g1 , g2 }
we have
Z Z
λ2 − ess supy1 ,y2 ∈[0,1]
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{|x|>α} ×

× 1{|z|>α} m1 (y1 , dx)m2 (y2 , dz) ≤ K(α)∆qn ,
for n ∈ N large enough with the constants from (a(4)I).
(b) Assumptions on the truncation sequence vn and the observation scheme:
We have vn = γ∆w
n for some γ > 0 and w satisfying
1
1
1
<w< ∧
.
2(p − β)
2 2β
Furthermore, the observation scheme satisfies with the constants from the previous assumptions:
(1) ∆n → 0,
(2) n∆n → ∞,
1+q/2

(3) n∆n

→ 0,

→ 0,
(4) n∆1+2w
n
45

1+2v(p−β−δ)

→ 0 for some δ > 0,

2(1−βw(1+))
n∆n

→ 0 for some  > 0,

(5) n∆n
(6)

((1+2(r−w))∨1)+δ

(7) n∆n

→ ∞ for some δ > 0.

(c) Assumptions on the drift and the diffusion coefficient:
For
1 + 2w
1 + 2w
mb =
≤ 4 and mσ =
,
1−w
1/2 − w
we have
sup sup
n∈N s∈R+

n
E b(n)
s

mb

∨ E σs(n)

mσ

o

< ∞.

In the sequel, we will work with Assumption 6.12 without further mention. This is due to the
following result which proves that Assumption 2.3 implies the set of conditions above.
Proposition 6.13. Assumption 2.3 is sufficient for Assumption 6.12.
2−β
2
) and p > β + (( 12 + 32 β) ∨ 1+5τ
) and suppose that
Proof. Let 0 < β < 2, 0 < τ < (1/5 ∧ 2+5β
Assumption 2.3 is satisfied for these constants. In order to verify Assumption 6.12 define the
following quantities:

r := 3τ,

v :=

τ
,
1 + 3β

q := r − (1 + 3β)v = 2τ,

(6.10)

and recall that w = (1 + 5τ )/4.
ρ is suitable for Assumption 6.12(a2), as in particular p > β + (β ∨ 1) is satisfied due to
(1 + 3β)/2 > β and 2/(1 + 5τ ) > 1. Assumption 6.12(b) is established, since 1/(2(p − β)) < w =
(1 + 5τ )/4 is equivalent to p > β + (2/(1 + 5τ )) and w = (1 + 5τ )/4 < 1/2 ∧ 1/(2β) holds due
2−β
to τ < (1/5 ∧ 2+5β
). Furthermore, simple calculations show
q
−1
(1 + 2r − 2w) ∨ 1 = t−1
2 < 1 + τ = t1 = (1 + )
2
= 2(1 − βw(1 + )) < (1 + 2v(p − β)) ∧ (1 + 2w) (6.11)
−β(1+5τ )
2−β
> 0, since τ < 2+5β
and (p − β) > (1 + 3β)/2. Therefore, all conditions
with  = 2−2τ
β(1+5τ )
on the observation scheme are satisfied.
Additionally, if η, M > 0 and a Lebesgue null set L ∈ [0, 1] ∩ L1 are chosen such that the
requirements of Definition 2.1 hold, we have
(β+δ)∧2
h(i)
≤ K|z|(−1+δ)∧(1−β)
y (z)|z|

for each δ > 0 and all y ∈ [0, 1] \ L, z ∈ (−η, η), i ∈ {0, 1, 2}, where h(i)
y denotes a density for
R
the kernel gi . Therefore, and due to Definition 2.1(2) and (3), we obtain λ1 − ess sup
1∧


(β+δ)∧2
|z|
gi (y, dz) ≤ K(δ) < ∞ for every δ > 0 and all i ∈ {0, 1, 2}. Moreover, due to
Definition 2.1(3) we have
p
−1−
,
(6.12)
h(i)
y (z)|z| ≤ K|z|
46

for all |z| ≥ M , y ∈ [0, 1] \ L, i ∈ {0, 1, 2} and some K > 0. So together with Definition 2.1(2) we

R p
obtain λ1 − ess supy∈[0,1]
|z| 1{|z|≥1} gi (y, dz) < ∞ for each i ∈ {0, 1, 2} which is Assumption
6.12(a3).
Furthermore we have
1 + 2w
6 + 10τ
=
1−w
3 − 5τ

and

1 + 2w
6 + 10τ
=
,
1/2 − w
1 − 5τ

so Assumption 2.3(c) yields Assumption 6.12(c).
We are thus left with proving Assumption 6.12(a(4)I) and (a(4)II). Obviously, 0 < v < r
holds with the choice in (6.10). First, we verify Assumption 6.12(a(4)I). To this end, we choose
η > 0 and a Lebesgue null set L ∈ [0, 1] ∩ L1 such that
−(1+β)
h(i)
y (z) ≤ K|z|

holds for all z ∈ (−η, η) \ {0}, y ∈ [0, 1] \ L, i ∈ {0, 1, 2} according to Definition 2.1(1) and we
set α0 := η/2. Then for any choice m1 , m2 ∈ {g0 , g1 , g2 } we get
Z Z
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{∆vn /2<|x|≤α0 } 1{∆vn /2<|z|≤α0 } m1 (y1 , dx)m2 (y2 , dz)
Z Z
≤K
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{∆vn /2<|x|≤α0 } 1{∆vn /2<|z|≤α0 } |x|−(1+β) |z|−(1+β) dxdz
Z∞ Z∞
≤ 2K
0

1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{∆vn /2<x≤α0 } 1{∆vn /2<z≤α0 } x−(1+β) z −(1+β) dxdz.

0

for all (y1 , y2 ) ∈ ([0, 1] \ L) × ([0, 1] \ L) and n ∈ N large enough. For the second inequality we
have used symmetry of the integrand as well as ∆rn < ∆vn /2. In the following, we ignore the
extra condition on x. Evaluation of the integral with respect to x plus a Taylor expansion give
the further upper bounds
Z∞
K
0

≤

|(z − ∆rn )β − (z + ∆rn )β | −(1+β)
z
1{∆vn /2<z≤α0 } dz
|z 2 − ∆n2r |β

K∆rn

Z∞
0

ξ(z)β−1 −(1+β)
z
1{∆vn /2<z≤α0 } dz
β
|z 2 − ∆2r
n |

for some ξ(z) ∈ [z − ∆rn , z + ∆rn ]. Finally, we distinguish the cases β < 1 and β ≥ 1 for which
the numerator has to be treated differently, depending on whether it is bounded or not. The
denominator is always smallest if we plug in ∆vn /2 for z. Overall,
Z Z
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{∆vn /2<|x|≤α0 } 1{∆vn /2<|z|≤α0 } m1 (y1 , dx)m2 (y2 , dz)

α
R0 −(1+β)

K∆rn ∆n−(1+β)v
z
dz, if β < 1


≤


r −2βv


K∆n ∆n

∆vn /2
α
R0 −(1+β)
z
dz,

∆vn /2

≤ K∆r−(1+3β)v
= K∆qn
n
47

if β ≥ 1

for all m1 , m2 ∈ {0, 1, 2} and (y1 , y2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 \ L2 . Finally, we consider Assumption 6.12(a(4)II),
for which we proceed similarly with n ∈ N large enough, α > 0 and (y1 , y2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 \ L2 , as well
as m1 , m2 ∈ {g0 , g1 , g2 } arbitrary:
Z Z
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{|x|>α} 1{|z|>α} m1 (y1 , dx)m2 (y2 , dz)
≤

O(∆rn )

Z∞ Z∞
+ 2K

1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{x>α} 1{z>α} x−2 z −2 dxdz.

M0 M0

This inequality holds with a suitable M 0 > 0 due to Definition 2.1 (2) and (3), as we have
−2 for y ∈ [0, 1] \ L, i ∈ {0, 1, 2} and large |z|. Therefore,
h(i)
y (z) ≤ K|z|
Z Z
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{|x|>α} 1{|z|>α} m1 (y1 , dx)m2 (y2 , dz)
≤ O(∆rn ) + K∆rn

Z∞

M0

|z 2

1
z −2 1{z>α} dz = o(∆qn )
− ∆2r
n |

(6.13)

for (y1 , y2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 \ L2 and any choice m1 , m2 ∈ {g0 , g1 , g2 }. The final bound in (6.13) holds
since the last integral is finite.

6.4

Proof of Theorem 6.1

Proof of Proposition 6.6. In order to show weak convergence we want to use Theorem 1.5.4
and Theorem 1.5.7 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996). To this end, we prove asymptotical
uniform d-equicontinuity in probability of Gfn for some suitable semimetric d on [0, 1] × R with
Theorem 2.2.4 in this reference.
First, recall that Gfn are tight centered Gaussian processes in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) with covariance
function
θZ
1 ∧θ2 tZ
1 ∧t2
fn2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy,
Hfn ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) =
0

−∞

and their sample paths are almost surely uniformly continuous with respect to the semimetric
Zθ2 Zt2
n Zθ1 tZ1 ∨t2
o1/2
2
fn2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy
,
dfn ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) =
fn (z)g0 (y, dz)dy +
θ1 −∞

0 t1 ∧t2

for θ1 ≤ θ2 . Due to Lemma B.1 in Appendix B we obtain for the L8 -norm
1

kGfn (θ1 , t1 ) − Gfn (θ2 , t2 )k8 = 105 8 dfn ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )),

(6.14)

for each n ∈ N and (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R. Additionally, the convex, non-decreasing, nonzero function ϕ(x) = x8 clearly satisfies ϕ(0) = 0 and lim supx,y→∞ ϕ(x)ϕ(y)/ϕ(cxy) < ∞ for
some constant c > 0. Furthermore, by Lemma B.2 in Appendix B the process Gfn is separable
for each n ∈ N0 in the sense of Theorem 2.2.4 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996). Thus, this
48

theorem can be applied and due to (6.14) it yields a constant K > 0, which does not depend on
n ∈ N0 , such that for all ζ, δ > 0
ζ

Gfn (θ1 , t1 ) − Gfn (θ2 , t2 )

sup
dfn ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))≤δ

8

≤K

nZ

1
1 o
D(ε, dfn ) 8 dε + δ D(ζ, dfn ) 4 ,

0

(6.15)
where D(ε, dfn ) denotes the packing number of [0, 1] × R with respect to the semimetric dfn at
distance ε. According to Lemma B.3 we have D(ε, dfn ) ≤ K/ε4 for every n ∈ N0 , where K > 0
does not depend on n ∈ N0 . Therefore, with (6.15) we conclude that there exists a K > 0 which
is independent of n such that
ζ

Gfn (θ1 , t1 ) − Gfn (θ2 , t2 )

sup
dfn ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))≤δ

8

≤K

nZ

ε−1/2 dε + δ/ζ

o


≤ K ζ 1/2 + δ/ζ ,

0

(6.16)
for each ζ, δ > 0 and n ∈ N0 . Now, for arbitrary ε, η > 0 and K > 0 from (6.16) choose a ζ > 0
with 28 K 8 ζ 4 /ε8 < η/2 and for this ζ choose a δ > 0 with (28 K 8 δ 8 )/(ζ 8 ε8 ) < η/2. Then due to
(6.16) we obtain for each n ∈ N with the Markov inequality

P

sup
dfn ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))<δ

 K 8 (ζ 1/2 + δ/ζ)8
Gfn (θ1 , t1 ) − Gfn (θ2 , t2 ) > ε ≤
ε8
K 8 (2 max{ζ 1/2 , δ/ζ})8
28 K 8 max{ζ 4 , δ 8 /ζ 8 }
=
ε8
ε8
8
8
4
8
8
8
2 K ζ
2 K δ
≤
+
< η.
8
ε
ζ 8 ε8
≤

(6.17)

Furthermore, dfn converges uniformly to df0 by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem.
Thus, Gfn is asymptotically uniformly df0 -equicontinuous in probability, because for each ε, η >
0 we have


lim sup P
sup
Gfn (θ1 , t1 ) − Gfn (θ2 , t2 ) > ε < η,
n→∞

df0 ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))<δ/2

with δ > 0 from (6.17). Moreover, Lemma B.3 also shows that ([0, 1]×R, df0 ) is totally bounded.
Trivially, the marginals of Gfn converge to the corresponding marginals of Gf0 , because these
are centered multivariate normal distributions and their covariance functions converge again by
Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem. Therefore, the desired result holds due to Theorem
1.5.4 and Theorem 1.5.7 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996).
Proof of Proposition 6.3. Let F n = {z : |z| > vn }, Ñ (n) = 1F n (z) ? µ(n) and let i ∈
{1, . . . , n} be fixed in the entire proof. According to Proposition II.1.14 in Jacod and Shiryaev
(2002) for each n ∈ N there exist a thin random set Dn with an exhausting sequence of stopping
(n)
times (Tm
)m∈N and an R-valued optional process ξ (n) such that
X
 (ds, dz),
µ(n) (ω; ds, dz) =
 (n)
(6.18)
(n)
m∈N

Tm (ω),ξ

(n)
Tm (ω)

49

(ω)

where (s,x) denotes the Dirac measure with mass in (s, x) ∈ R+ × R. Furthermore, due to
(n)
(n)
(i)
Lemma A.13 Ñt2 − Ñt1 follows a Poisson distribution for 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2 and the sets Ãn :=
 (n)
(n)
Ñi∆n − Ñ(i−1)∆n ≤ 1 satisfy

C
P (Ã(i)
= O(∆2n vn−2β ),
n )

(6.19)

where M C denotes the complement of a set M . Thus, we calculate for n ∈ N large enough
n
o

γn(i,t) := E f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) ) − n∆n Nf (g (n) ; i/n, t) − Nf (g (n) ; (i − 1)/n, t)
Z
Z
n (n)
n (n)
f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) )dP−
=
f (∆i L )1(−∞,t] (∆i L )dP +
(i)

(i)

(Ãn )C

Ãn

Zi/n Zt
− n∆n

f (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy

(i−1)/n −∞

Z

≤K∆2n vn−2β +
(n)

f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) )dP−

(n)

{Ñi∆n −Ñ(i−1)∆ =1}
n

Zi/n Zt
− n∆n

f (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy ,

(i−1)/n −∞

where the inequality above follows because of two reasons, first (6.19) as well as the fact that
 (n)
(n)
− Ñ(i−1)∆
= 0 and
f is bounded lead to the term K∆2n vn−2β and secondly for each ω ∈ Ñi∆
n
n

(n)
(n)
n
(n)
m ∈ N we have Tm (ω), ξ (n) (ω) ∈
/ ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] × F n such that ∆i L (ω) = 0 and thus
Tm (ω)

(n)
n
(n)
f (∆i L (ω)) = 0 by the assumptions on f . However, Tm
(ω), ξ (n)
(ω) ∈ ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] ×
(n)
Tm (ω)
 (n)
(n)
−
Ñ
=
1
. This observation yields the
F n holds for exactly one m ∈ N if ω ∈ Ñi∆
(i−1)∆n
n
following bound
γn(i,t)

i∆n Z t
Z

Z

f (z)1{|z|>vn } µ(n) (ω; ds, dz)P(dω)−

≤
{Ñi∆n −Ñ(i−1)∆ =1} (i−1)∆n −∞
(n)

(n)

n

Zi/n Zt
− n∆n

f (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy + K∆2n vn−2β

(i−1)/n −∞

Z

i∆n Z t
Z

≤

f (z)1{|z|>vn } µ(n) (ω; ds, dz)P(dω)−

Ω (i−1)∆n −∞

Zi/n Zt
− n∆n

f (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy + K∆2n vn−2β + δn(i,t) ,

(i−1)/n −∞

50

(6.20)

with
δn(i,t)

i∆n Z t
Z

Z
=

f (z)1{|z|>vn } µ(n) (ω; ds, dz)P(dω) .

(6.21)

{Ñi∆n −Ñ(i−1)∆ ≥2} (i−1)∆n −∞
(n)

(n)

n

We apply the defining relation of the predictable compensator of an optional P 0 -σ-finite random
measure. But notice that it cannot be guaranteed that the integrand in the stochastic integral
with respect to µ(n) in the first line of (6.20) is P 0 -measurable. Therefore, we treat the leading term after the last inequality sign in (6.20) and δn(i,t) separately. However, the integrand
f (z)1(−∞,t] (z)1{|z|>vn } 1((i−1)∆n ,i∆n ] (s) on the right-hand side of (6.20) is P 0 -measurable. Thus,
Theorem II.1.8 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002) yields
γn(i,t) ≤ K∆2n vn−2β + δn(i,t) +

i∆n Z t
Z

f (z)1{|z|>vn } νs(n) (dz)ds−

(i−1)∆n −∞

Zi/n Zt
− n∆n

f (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy

(i−1)/n −∞

=

K∆2n vn−2β

+

δn(i,t)

Zi/n Zt
+ n∆n

f (z)1{|z|≤vn } g (n) (y, dz)dy .

(i−1)/n −∞

Now, because of |f (z)| ≤ K|z|p on a neighbourhood of 0, the above display yields for n ∈ N
large enough
γn(i,t) ≤ K∆2n vn−2β + δn(i,t) + K∆n vnp−β n

Zi/n Z

(1 ∧ |z|β )g (n) (y, dz)dy

(i−1)/n

≤ K∆2n vn−2β + δn(i,t) + K∆n vnp−β .

(6.22)

Finally, (6.18) and the assumption that f is bounded by some constant K > 0 gives an estimate
(i,t)
for δn from (6.21)
Z
∞
X
X

(n) 
(n) 
(n) 
(n)
δn(i,t) ≤
1F n ξ (n) dP
f ξ (n) 1(−∞,t] ξ (n) 1((i−1)∆n ,i∆n ] Tm
Tm
Tm
Tm
m∈N
`=2 (n)
(n)
Ñi∆n −Ñ(i−1)∆ =`
n

≤

∞
X



(n)
(n)
K` × P Ñi∆n − Ñ(i−1)∆n = ` ,

`=2

because for ω ∈

 (n)
(n)
Ñi∆n − Ñ(i−1)∆n = `


(n)
we have # m ∈ N | Tm
(ω), ξ (n)
(n)

Tm (ω)


(ω) ∈ ((i −

1)∆n , i∆n ] × F n = `, where #M denotes the cardinality of a set M . With Lemma A.13 and
the previous inequality we obtain
(n) `
∞
X

ζ
(n)
(n) 2
δn(i,t) ≤ exp − ζi
K` × i
≤ K ζi
,
`!
`=2

51

with
(n)
ζi

Zi/n Z

Zi/n Z

g (n) (y, dz)dy ≤ n∆n vn−β

= n∆n
(i−1)/n F n

(1 ∧ |z|β )g (n) (y, dz)dy ≤ K∆n vn−β ,

(i−1)/n

for n ∈ N large enough. Thus, δn ≤ K∆2n vn−2β holds and (6.22) yields (6.6), because neither
(i,t)
(i,t)
of the bounds for γn or δn depends on i or t.
(i,t)

(n)

Proof of Proposition 6.4. The processes Yf
(n)

Yf (ω; (θ, t)) =

mn
X

have the form

{gni (ω; (θ, t)) − E(gni (·; (θ, t)))} ,

i=1

with mn = n and the triangular array {gni (ω; (θ, t)) | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n; (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R} of
processes
1
gni (ω; (θ, t)) = √
f (∆ni L(n) (ω))1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) (ω))1{i≤bnθc} ,
n∆n
which is independent within rows, because L(n) has independent increments as it has deterministic characteristics (see Theorem II.4.15 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002)). Thus, by Theorem
11.16 in Kosorok (2008), the proof is complete once we can show the following six conditions of
the triangular array {gni } (see for instance Kosorok (2008) for the notions of AMS and manageability):
(A) {gni } is almost measurable Suslin (AMS);
(B) {gni } is manageable with envelopes {Gni | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n} which are also independent
p
K
(1 ∧ ∆ni L(n) ) with K > 0 such that |f (x)| ≤
within rows. Here, we set Gni = √n∆
n
K(1 ∧ |z|p );
(C)
n
o
(n)
(n)
Hf ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) = lim E Yf (θ1 , t1 )Yf (θ2 , t2 )
n→∞

for all (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R, with Hf defined in (6.1);
(D) lim sup

n
P

n→∞ i=1

EG2ni < ∞;

(E)
lim

n→∞

n
X

EG2ni 1{Gni >} = 0

i=1

for each  > 0;
(F) For (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R and df defined in (6.2) the limit
(n)

df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) = lim df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 ))
n→∞

52

with
(n)
df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 ))

=

( n
X

)1/2
2

E |gni (·; (θ1 , t1 )) − gni (·; (θ2 , t2 ))|

i=1
(2)
(2)
exists, and for all deterministic sequences ((θn(1) , t(1)
n ))n∈N , ((θn , tn ))n∈N ⊂ [0, 1] × R with
(2)
(2)
(n)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
df ((θn(1) , t(1)
n ); (θn , tn )) → 0 we also have df ((θn , tn ); (θn , tn )) → 0.

Proof of (A). Using Lemma 11.15 in Kosorok (2008) the triangular array {gni } is AMS if it
is separable, that is for each n ∈ N there exists a countable subset Sn ⊂ [0, 1] × R such that
∗

n
X



P

sup

inf

(θ1 ,t1 )∈[0,1]×R (θ2 ,t2 )∈Sn i=1


(gni (ω; (θ1 , t1 )) − gni (ω; (θ2 , t2 ))) > 0 = 0.
2

But if we choose Sn = ([0, 1] × R) ∩ Q2 for all n ∈ N, we obtain
sup

inf

n
X

(θ1 ,t1 )∈R (θ2 ,t2 )∈Sn i=1

(gni (ω; (θ1 , t1 )) − gni (ω; (θ2 , t2 )))2 = 0

for each ω ∈ Ω and n ∈ N.
Proof of (B). Gni are independent within rows since the L(n) have deterministic characteristics. Thus, according to Theorem 11.17 in Kosorok (2008), it suffices to show that the triangular
arrays
{g̃ni (ω; t) := √

1
f (∆ni L(n) (ω))1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) (ω)) | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n; t ∈ R},
n∆n

and
{h̃ni (ω; θ) := 1{i≤bnθc} | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n; θ ∈ [0, 1]}
are manageable with envelopes {Gni | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n} and {H̃ni (ω) :≡ 1 | n ∈ N; i =
1, . . . , n}, respectively. Concerning the first triangular array {g̃ni } define for n ∈ N and ω ∈ Ω
the set

1
√
Gnω =
f (∆n1 L(n) (ω))1(−∞,t] (∆n1 L(n) (ω)), . . .
n∆n


1
n (n)
n (n)
f (∆n L (ω))1(−∞,t] (∆n L (ω)) t ∈ R ⊂ Rn .
..., √
n∆n
These sets are bounded with envelope vector
Gn (ω) = (Gn1 (ω), . . . , Gnn (ω)) ∈ Rn .
For i1 , i2 ∈ {1, . . . , n} the projection

pi1 ,i2 (Gnω ) =

√

1
f (∆ni1 L(n) (ω))1(−∞,t] (∆ni1 L(n) (ω)),
n∆n


1
n (n)
n (n)
√
f (∆i2 L (ω))1(−∞,t] (∆i2 L (ω)) | t ∈ R ⊂ R2
n∆n
53

onto the i1 -th and the i2 -th coordinate is an element of the set

{(0, 0)},{(0, 0), (si1 ,n (ω), 0)}, {(0, 0), (0, si2 ,n (ω))}, {(0, 0), (si1 ,n (ω), si2 ,n (ω))},

{(0, 0),(si1 ,n (ω), 0), (si1 ,n (ω), si2 ,n (ω))}, {(0, 0), (0, si2 ,n (ω)), (si1 ,n (ω), si2 ,n (ω))} .
1
1
with si1 ,n (ω) = √n∆
f (∆ni1 L(n) (ω)) and si2 ,n (ω) = √n∆
f (∆ni2 L(n) (ω)). Consequently, in the
n
n
sense of Definition 4.2 in Pollard (1990), for every s ∈ R2 no proper coordinate projection of
Gnω can surround s and therefore Gnω has a pseudo dimension of at most 1 (Definition 4.3 in
Pollard (1990)). Thus, by Corollary 4.10 in the same reference, there exist constants A and W
which depend only on the pseudodimension such that

D2 xkα


Gnω ≤ Ax−W =: ζ(x),

Gn (ω)k2 , α

for all 0 < x ≤ 1, n ∈ N, ω ∈ Ω and each rescaling vector α ∈ Rn with non-negative entries,
where k · k2 denotes the Euclidean distance on Rn , D2 denotes the packing number with respect
to the Euclidean distance and denotes coordinate-wise multiplication. Obviously, we have
Z1 p
log ζ(x)dx < ∞,
0

and therefore the triangular array {g̃ni } is indeed manageable with envelopes {Gni }.
Concerning the triangular array {h̃ni }, we proceed similarly and consider the set
Hnω := {(h̃n1 (ω; θ), . . . , h̃nn (ω; θ)) | θ ∈ [0, 1]}
= {(0, . . . , 0), (1, 0, . . . , 0), (1, 1, 0, . . . , 0), . . . , (1, . . . , 1)}.
Then, for any i1 , i2 ∈ {1, . . . , n}, the projection pi1 ,i2 (Hnω ) of Hnω onto the i1 -th and the i2 -th
coordinate is either {(0, 0), (1, 0), (1, 1)} or {(0, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1)}. Therefore, the same reasoning
as above shows that Hnω is a set of pseudodimension at most one, whence the triangular array
{h̃ni } is manageable with envelopes {H̃ni }.
Proof of (C). Using independence within rows of the triangular array {gni } we calculate for
(θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R as follows:
n
o
(n)
(n)
E Yf (θ1 , t1 )Yf (θ2 , t2 ) =

1
n∆n

bn(θ1 ∧θ2 )c 

X



E f 2 (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t1 ∧t2 ] (∆ni L(n) ) −

i=1




 

n (n)
n (n)
n (n)
n (n)
E f (∆i L )1(−∞,t1 ] (∆i L ) E f (∆i L )1(−∞,t2 ] (∆i L )
.


Due to Lemma A.20 we have E f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) ) = O(∆n ) for all t ∈ R and i =
1, . . . , n. Thus, an application of Proposition 6.3 yields for some small δ > 0 and n ∈ N large

54

enough
bn(θ1 ∧θ2 )c
n

 (n)
(n)
E Yf (θ1 , t1 )Yf (θ2 , t2 ) =

Z

tZ
1 ∧t2

0

−∞

f 2 (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy+


+ O ∆n vn−2((β+δ)∧2) + vn2p−((β+δ)∧2) + O(∆n )
bn(θ1 ∧θ2 )c
n

Z

tZ
1 ∧t2

0

−∞

=

1
f (z)g0 (y, dz)dy + √
n∆n

bn(θ1 ∧θ2 )c
n

2

Z

tZ
1 ∧t2

0

−∞

f 2 (z)g1 (y, dz)dy

bn(θ1 ∧θ2 )c
n

Z

tZ
1 ∧t2

0

−∞

f 2 (z)Rn (y, dz)dy + o(1),

+

where the final equality above follows using (6.9), as well as p > β and w < 1/(2β). Furthermore,

R t1 ∧t2 2
f (z)gi (y, dz) is Lebesguedue to Assumption 6.12(a1) and p > β the mapping y 7→ −∞
almost surely bounded on [0, 1] for each i ∈ {0, 1, 2}. Thus, we have
bn(θ1 ∧θ2 )c
n

 (n)
(n)
E Yf (θ1 , t1 )Yf (θ2 , t2 ) =

Z

tZ
1 ∧t2

0

−∞


f 2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy + O (n∆n )−1/2 + o(1)

= Hf ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) + o(1).
Proof of (D). Using Proposition 6.3 we obtain for some small δ > 0
lim sup
n→∞

n
X

EG2ni

i=1

n
K X n
= lim sup
E 1 ∧ ∆ni L(n)
n→∞ n∆n

2p

o

i=1

n
≤ lim sup K

Z1 Z

n→∞


o
1 ∧ |z|2p g (n) (y, dz)dy + K ∆n vn−2((β+δ)∧2) + vn2p−((β+δ)∧2)

0

Z1 Z
=K


1 ∧ |z|2p g0 (y, dz)dy < ∞,

0

where the final equality above is a consequence of Assumption 6.12(a1), p > β and w < 1/(2β).
Proof of (E). We have n∆n → ∞. Thus, for  > 0, we can choose
n
o
K
N = min m ∈ N √
≤  for all n ≥ m < ∞.
n∆n
So for n ≥ N the integrand satisfies G2ni 1{Gni >} = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n and this yields the
assertion.
Proof of (F). Due to symmetry of the semimetrics let θ1 ≤ θ2 without loss of generality.

55

Then an application of Proposition 6.3 gives, for (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R,
2
(n)
df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 ))

=

n
X

E |gni ((θ1 , t1 )) − gni ((θ2 , t2 ))|2

i=1
bnθ1 c

=

1 X
Ef 2 (∆ni L(n) )1(t1 ∧t2 ,t1 ∨t2 ] (∆ni L(n) )+
n∆n
i=1

1
+
n∆n
bnθ1 c
n

Z

tZ
1 ∨t2

=

X

Ef 2 (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t2 ] (∆ni L(n) )

i=bnθ1 c+1
bnθ2 c
n

2

f (z)g
0

bnθ2 c

(n)

Z

Zt2

(y, dz)dy +

t1 ∧t2

bnθ1 c
n

f 2 (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy + O(∆αn )

−∞

2
= df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) + O(∆αn )
for an appropriately small α > 0 such that 1/n = o(∆αn ) and (n∆n )−1/2 = O(∆αn ) according
to Assumption 6.12(b7). Moreover, the O-term is uniform in (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R. As a
consequence,
(n)
df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) − df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) = O(∆α/2
n )
uniformly as well, because

√

a−

√

b ≤

p
|a − b|

holds for arbitrary a, b ≥ 0. This uniform convergence implies immediately that for deterministic
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
sequences ((θn , tn ))n∈N , ((θn , tn ))n∈N ⊂ [0, 1] × R with df ((θn , tn ); (θn , tn )) → 0 we also
(n)
(1) (1)
(2) (2)
have df ((θn , tn ); (θn , tn )) → 0.
Finally, df is in fact a semimetric: Define for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R the random vectors gn (θ, t) =
(gn1 (θ, t), . . . , gnn (θ, t)) ∈ Rn and apply first the triangle inequality in Rn and afterwards the
Minkowski inequality to obtain

1/2
(n)
df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) = Ekgn (θ1 , t1 ) − gn (θ2 , t2 )k22
n
2 o1/2
≤ E kgn (θ1 , t1 ) − gn (θ3 , t3 )k2 + kgn (θ3 , t3 ) − gn (θ2 , t2 )k2


1/2
≤ Ekgn (θ1 , t1 ) − gn (θ3 , t3 )k22
+ Ekgn (θ3 , t3 ) − gn (θ2 , t2 )k22
(n)

1/2

(n)

= df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ3 , t3 )) + df ((θ3 , t3 ); (θ2 , t2 )),
for (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ), (θ3 , t3 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R and n ∈ N, where k · k2 denotes the Euclidean norm in
Rn . The triangle inequality for df follows immediately.
The decomposition below is similar to Step 5 in the proof of Theorem 13.1.1 in Jacod and
Protter (2012) and it will occur frequently in the sequel. With the constants from Assumption
6.12 let ` ∈ R satisfy
1<`<

1
∧ (1 + )
2βw

and also
56

`<

2(p − 1)w − 1
if β > 1,
2(β − 1)w

with an  > 0 for which Assumption 6.12(b6) holds. Then we set
un = (vn )`

Fn = {z : |z| > un }

and

as well as
X̃ 00n = (z1Fn (z)) ? µ(n) ,
X̃ 00 (α)n = (z1Fn ∩{|z|≤α/4} (z)) ? µ(n) ,
X̂ 00 (α)n = (z1{|z|>α/4} ) ? µ(n) ,

for α > 0

for α > 0

Ntn = (1Fn ? µ(n) )t ,
(n)

X̃t0n = Xt
=

(n)
X0

− X̃t00n
Zt
+

b(n)
s ds

Zt
+

0

σs(n) dWs(n) +

0
(n)

+ (z1FnC (z)) ? (µ(n) − µ̄(n) )t − (z1{|z|≤1}∩Fn (z)) ? µ̄t ,
Ani = {|∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2} ∩ {∆ni N n ≤ 1}.

(6.23)

In the following proofs it is necessary to ensure that with high probability at most one large
jump occurs and the increments of the remaining part, that is the quantities ∆ni X̃ 0n , are small.
To this end, we show in Lemma A.4 that P(Qn ) → 1 as n → ∞ for the sets
Qn =

n
\

Ani .

(6.24)

i=1

Proof of Lemma 6.2. Let α > 0 be fixed and recall the definition of the processes L(n) =
(z1{|z|>vn } ) ? µ(n) in (6.4). Due to Proposition 6.3 and Proposition 6.4 the processes
(θ, t) =
Ỹρ(n)
α

n 1 bnθc
o
X (α)
p
n∆n
χt (∆ni L(n) ) − Nρα (g (n) ; θ, t)
n∆n
i=1

`∞ ([0, 1]

converge weakly to Gρα in
× R), because by Assumption 6.12(a1) we have λ1 −
Rt
(n)
ess supy∈[0,1] −∞ ρα (z)g (y, dz) ≤ K for all n ∈ N and thus
sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

Ỹρ(n)
(θ, t) − Yρ(n)
(θ, t)
α
α

 Zθ
p
≤ K n∆n

Zt

ρα (z)g (n) (y, dz)dy +

bnθc/n −∞


bnθc 2 −2((β+δ)∧2)
∆n vn
+ ∆n vnp−((β+δ)∧2)
n∆n

q
q
p

1+2w(p−β)−δ
3−4βw−δ
∆n /n + n∆n
+ n∆n
=O
= o(1)

(6.25)

holds for some small δ > 0. The final equality in the display above follows using 1 − 2βw > 0,
p − β > 1, as well as Assumption 6.12(b4) and (b6). As a consequence, it suffices to show
Vα(n)

1
:= √
n∆n

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

bnθc n

X

o
P
(α)
(α)
χt (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt (∆ni L(n) ) −→ 0. (6.26)
i

i=1

57

According to Lemma A.9 we have for n ∈ N large enough such that vn ≤ α/4
Vα(n) ≤ Cn (α) + Dn (α),
on Qn with
n

Cn (α) = √

X
K
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) − 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) ×
sup
n∆n t∈R i=1
× 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

i

Dn (α) = √

n
1 X
ρα (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } −
i
i
n∆n i=1

− ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} , (6.27)
i

i

where the processes in the display above are defined in (6.23) and where K > 0 denotes a bound
for ρ. Therefore, due to P(Qn ) → 1 it is enough to show Cn (α) = oP (1) and Dn (α) = oP (1) in
order to verify (6.26) and to complete the proof of Lemma 6.2.
First, we consider Dn (α). For later reasons, we let f be either ρα or ρ◦α . Then there exists a
constant K > 0 which depends only on α, such that we have for x, z ∈ R and v > 0:

f (x + z)1{|x+z|>v} − f (x)1{|x|>v} 1{|z|≤v/2} ≤ K |x|p 1{|x|≤2v} + |x|p−1 |z|1{|z|≤v/2} .

(6.28)

Note that for |x + z| > v and |x| > v we use the mean value theorem and |z| ≤ |x| as well as
df
(x)| ≤ K|x|p−1 for all x ∈ R by the assumptions on ρ and because the derivatives of Ψα and
| dx
Ψ◦α have a compact support, which is bounded away from 0. In all other cases in which the left
hand side does not vanish we have |z| ≤ |x| ≤ 2v as well as |f (x)| ≤ K|x|p for all x ∈ R by
another application of the mean value theorem and the assumptions on ρ. Consequently,
EDn (α) ≤ an (α) + bn (α)

(6.29)

holds for
an (α) = √

n
o
1 X n n 00 n p
E ∆i X̂ (α) 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |≤2vn } ,
i
n∆n i=1

n
vn X
bn (α) = √
E ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n
2 n∆n i=1

p−1

,

and we conclude Dn (α) = oP (1) because of Lemma A.17.
Finally, we show Cn (α) = oP (1). To this end, we define for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n with i 6= j and the
constant r in Assumption 6.12
o n
n
o
(n)
Ri,j (α) = ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n − ∆nj X̂ 00 (α)n ≤ ∆rn ∩ ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n > α/4 ∩ Qn ,
(6.30)

58

as well as the sets Jn(1) (α) by:
Jn(1) (α)C

=

n
[

(n)

Ri,j (α).

(6.31)

i,j=1

i6=j


Then according to Lemma A.6 we have P Jn(1) (α) → 1. Moreover, Lemma A.8 shows that for
all n ∈ N, ω ∈ Jn(1) (α) ∩ Qn and t ∈ R the random set

Ã1 (ω; α, n, t) = i ∈ {1, . . . , n} | |∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n (ω)| > α/4 and
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n (ω) + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n (ω)) 6= 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n (ω))
has at most cn := d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e elements. Consequently, on Jn(1) (α) ∩ Qn for each t ∈ R at most
cn summands in the sum of the definition of Cn (α) can be equal to 1 and we conclude
q
(1+2(r−w))∨1
Cn (α) ≤ K/ n∆n
,

on Jn(1) (α)∩Qn . Thus, Cn = oP (1) follows using Assumption 6.12(b7) as well as P Jn(1) (α)∩Qn →
1.
Proof of Lemma 6.7. For α > 0 define the following processes:
(n)
Ỹρ◦α (θ, t)

n 1 bnθc
o
X ◦(α)
p
= n∆n
χt (∆ni L(n) ) − Nρ◦α (g (n) ; θ, t) .
n∆n
i=1

Similar to (6.25) we obtain with Proposition 6.3 and Proposition 6.4 that for n → ∞ the
processes in the display above converge weakly in `∞ ([0, 1] × R), that is
(n)

Ỹρ◦α

Gρ◦α .

On the other hand, we have weak convergence
Gρ◦α

0

in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) as α → 0, by Proposition 6.6. Therefore, by using the Portmanteau theorem
(Theorem 1.3.4 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996)) twice, we obtain for arbitrary η > 0:
lim sup lim sup P
α→0

n→∞

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R
◦(n)

Thus, it suffices to show Vα
Vα◦(n)

=√

1
n∆n

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R


(n)
Ỹρ◦α (θ, t) ≥ η ≤ lim sup P
α→0

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R


Gρ◦α (θ, t) ≥ η = 0.

= oP (1) as n → ∞ for each α > 0 in a neighbourhood of 0, where
bnθc n

X

◦(α)

χt

◦(α)

(∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt
i

(∆ni L(n) )

o

.

(6.32)

i=1

Due to Lemma A.10 we have for α > 0, ω ∈ Qn and n ∈ N large enough such that vn ≤ α with
the processes defined in (6.23)
Vα◦(n) ≤ Cn◦ (α) + Dn◦ (α) + En◦ (α),
59

where
n

Cn◦ (α)

=√

X
K
sup
1(−∞,t] (ςin (α)) − 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) ×
n∆n t∈R i=1
× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
n

i

i

with K > 0 a bound for ρ and
Dn◦ (α)

n
1 X ◦ n
=√
ρ (ς (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } − ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } ×
i
n∆n i=1 α i

× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} , (6.33)
n

i

i

n

En◦ (α) = √

X
1
sup
ρ◦ (ς n (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1(−∞,t] (ςin (α)) − ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )×
n∆n t∈R i=1 α i
× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1Qn ,
i

i

i

n

where ςin (α) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n and v > 0 is the constant from Assumption 6.12(a(4)I).
Thus, as a consequence of P(Qn ) → 1 it suffices to show for each η > 0 and each α > 0 in a
neighbourhood of zero:

lim P Cn◦ (α) > η = 0,

lim P Dn◦ (α) > η = 0,
n→∞

lim P En◦ (α) > η = 0.
n→∞

n→∞

(6.34)
(6.35)
(6.36)

Concerning (6.34), similar to (6.30) we define for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n with i 6= j and the constants v < r
in Assumption 6.12:
n
o n
o
(n)
Si,j (α) = ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n − ∆nj X̃ 00 (8α)n ≤ ∆rn ∩ ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n > ∆vn ∩ Qn .
as well as Jn(2) (α) by

n
[
C
(n)
Jn(2) (α) =
Si,j (α).

(6.37)

i,j=1

i6=j
(2)


Then Lemma A.7 shows P Jn (α) → 1 for all α ∈ (0, α0 /2) with α0 from Assumption 6.12 and
according to Lemma A.8 the random set

Ã2 (ω; α, n, t) = i ∈ {1, . . . , n} | |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n (ω)| > ∆vn and
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n (ω) + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n (ω)) 6= 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n (ω))
has at most cn = d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e elements for all ω ∈ Jn(2) (α) ∩ Qn , n ∈ N, t ∈ R and α > 0. So
for each t ∈ R at most cn summands in Cn◦ (α) can be equal to 1, and we have
q
(1+2(r−w))∨1
◦
Cn (α) ≤ K/ n∆n
60

on Jn(2) (α) ∩ Qn . Consequently, (6.34) follows by Assumption 6.12(b7) for all α ∈ (0, α0 /2).
Furthermore, because of (6.28) we have
EDn◦ (α) ≤ cn (α) + dn (α),

(6.38)

for
cn (α) = √

n
o
1 X n n 00
p
E ∆i X̃ (8α)n 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn } ,
i
n∆n i=1

n
vn X
dn (α) = √
E ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n
2 n∆n i=1

p−1

.

Thus, Lemma A.18 yields (6.35).
Concerning (6.36), let α > 0 be fixed. Because of the triangle inequality and |ρ◦α (z)| ≤ K|z|p
for all z ∈ R, an upper bound for En◦ (α) is clearly given by
√

n

K X n
|ςi (α)|p 1{|ςin (α)|>vn } + |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n |p 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } ×
i
n∆n i=1

× 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1Qn ,
i

n

i

(α)

(α) 

with ςin (α) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n . As a consequence, we have EEn◦ (α) ≤ K yn + 2zn
yn(α) = √

n
1 X n n
p
E ςi (α) − ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n
n∆n i=1

p

for

×

o
× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1Qn ,
n

i

zn(α) = √

1
n∆n

n
X

i

n
o
p
E ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1Qn .
n

i

i=1

Therefore, we obtain (6.36) by Lemma A.19.
Proof of Theorem 6.1. In order to establish weak convergence we use Theorem 1.12.2 in
Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996). It is sufficient to prove
E∗ h(G(n)
ρ ) → Eh(Gρ )
for each bounded Lipschitz function h ∈ BL1 (`∞ ([0, 1] × R)), where BL1 (D) for a metric space
(D, d) was introduced in Definition 3.4. Here, we use that the tight process Gρ is also separable
(see Lemma 1.3.2 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996)).
Thus, let h ∈ BL1 (`∞ ([0, 1] × R)) and δ > 0. Then we choose α > 0 with
lim sup P(
n→∞

sup

|G◦(α)
ρ,n (θ, t)| > δ/6) < δ/12

(6.39)

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

and
|Eh(Gρα ) − Eh(Gρ )| ≤ δ/3.
61

(6.40)

(6.39) is possible using Lemma 6.7, and Lemma 6.5 allows (6.40). For this α > 0 choose an
N ∈ N with
E∗ h(G(α)
ρ,n ) − Eh(Gρα ) ≤ δ/3,
for n ≥ N . This is possible due to Lemma 6.2. Now, because of the previous inequalities and
the Lipschitz property of h, we have for n ∈ N large enough:
E∗ h(G(n)
ρ ) − Eh(Gρ ) ≤
(α)
∗
(α)
≤ E∗ h(G(n)
ρ ) − h(Gρ,n ) + E h(Gρ,n ) − Eh(Gρα ) + Eh(Gρα ) − Eh(Gρ ) < δ.

6.5

Proof of Theorem 6.8

Proof of Proposition 6.11. Recall the triangular array {gni (θ, t) | n ∈ N, i = 1, . . . , n; (θ, t) ∈
[0, 1] × R} in the proof of Proposition 6.4 given by
1
f (∆ni L(n) (ω))1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) (ω))1{i≤bnθc} ,
n∆n

for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R and let µni (θ, t) = E gni (θ, t) . Moreover, for n ∈ N, i = 1, . . . , n and
(θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R let
gni (ω; (θ, t)) = √

µ̂ni (θ, t) = √
with

1
(n)
1{i≤bnθc} η̃f (t),
n∆n

n

(n)

η̃f (t) =

1X
f (∆nj L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj L(n) ),
n
j=1

be an estimator for µni (θ, t). Then we proceed in two steps:
(a)
(n)

Ŷf,0 (θ, t) :=

n
X

ξi gni (θ, t) − µ̂ni (θ, t)



ξ

Gf ,

(6.41)

i=1

(b)
sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

(n)
Ŷf (θ, t)

−

(n)
Ŷf,0 (θ, t)

=

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

n
X

ξi µ̂ni (θ, t) = oP (1),

i=1

then the claim follows using Lemma C.1.
Proof of Step (a). {gni } satisfies conditions (A)-(F) in the proof of Proposition 6.4. Thus,
the conditional weak convergence (6.41) holds by Theorem 11.18 in Kosorok (2008), if we can
show the following four conditions of the triangular array {µ̂ni (θ, t) | n ∈ N, i = 1, . . . , n; (θ, t) ∈
[0, 1] × R}:
62

(G) {µ̂ni } is AMS;
(H)
n
X


sup

µ̂ni (ω; (θ, t)) − µni (θ, t)

2

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i=1

= oP (1);

(I) The processes {µ̂ni } are manageable with envelopes {F̂ni } given by
n
X
K
p
F̂ni = √
1 ∧ ∆nj L(n) ,
n n∆n j=1

for n ∈ N and i = 1, . . . , n, with a K > 0 such that |f (z)| ≤ K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R;
(J) There exists an M ∈ R+ such that
n
X
P
M∨
[F̂ni ]2 → M.
i=1

Proof of (G). For each n ∈ N define the countable set Sn = ([0, 1] × R) ∩ Q2 to obtain


n
X
∗
2
P
sup
inf
(µ̂ni (ω; (θ1 , t1 )) − µ̂ni (ω; (θ2 , t2 ))) > 0 = 0.
(θ1 ,t1 )∈[0,1]×R (θ2 ,t2 )∈Sn i=1

As a consequence, the triangular array {µ̂ni } is separable and therefore AMS by Lemma 11.15
in Kosorok (2008).
Proof of (H). Simple calculations show
An : =
=

n
X


sup

µ̂ni (ω; (θ, t)) − µni (θ, t)

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i=1
n X
n X
n 
X

1
sup
n3 ∆n t∈R

2

f (∆nj L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj L(n) )

i=1 j=1 k=1


− E f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) ) ×


× f (∆nk L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nk L(n) ) − E f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) )

= sup
t∈R

−
−

n
n
1 XX
f (∆nj L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj L(n) )f (∆nk L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nk L(n) )
n2 ∆n
j=1 k=1
n
n
XX

1
n2 ∆
1
n2 ∆

n i=1
k=1
n X
n
X
n i=1 j=1
n
X

1
+
n∆n

E


f (∆nk L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nk L(n) )E f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) )

f (∆nj L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj L(n) )E f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) )

f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) )

i=1

63

2


.

(6.42)

Furthermore, by Lemma A.20 and the assumptions on f we obtain

sup E sup f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) ) = O(∆n ),
E sup
t∈R

1
n2 ∆

i∈{1,...,n}
n X
n
X
n i=1
k=1

(6.43)

t∈R

f (∆nk L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nk L(n) )E f (∆ni L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆ni L(n) )
≤



n

KX
E 1 ∧ |∆nk L(n) |p = O(∆n ).
n

(6.44)

k=1

Thus (6.42), (6.43) and (6.44) give
n
n X
n 1 X
|f (∆nj L(n) )|1(−∞,t] (∆nj L(n) )×
0 ≤ An ≤ sup
2
t∈R n ∆n
j=1 k=1

o
× |f (∆nk L(n) )|1(−∞,t] (∆nk L(n) ) + oP (1)
=

2
1
(n)
sup Y|f | (1, t) + oP (1) = oP (1),
n t∈R

(n)

because Y|f | converges weakly to the tight process G|f | in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) by Proposition 6.4.
Proof of (I). According to Theorem 11.17 in Kosorok (2008), it suffices to verify that the
triangular arrays
1
(n)
η̃f (t) | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n; t ∈ R},
{µ̃ni (ω; t) := √
n∆n
and
{h̃ni (ω; θ) := 1{i≤bnθc} | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n; θ ∈ [0, 1]}
are manageable with envelopes {F̂ni | n ∈ N; i = 1, . . . , n} and {H̃ni (ω) :≡ 1 | n ∈ N; i =
1, . . . , n}, respectively. The manageability of the triangular array {h̃ni } has already been shown
in the proof of Proposition 6.4. Concerning the triangular array {µ̃ni } we consider for n ∈ N
and ω ∈ Ω the sets


Fnω = µ̃n1 (ω; t), . . . , µ̃nn (ω; t) | t ∈ R ⊂ Rn ,
which are bounded with envelope vector (F̂n1 (ω), . . . , F̂nn (ω)). But µ̃ni does not depend on
i, such that every coordinate projection of Fnω onto two coordinates i1 , i2 ∈ {1, . . . , n} is a
subset of the straight line {(x, y) ∈ R2 | x = y}. Consequently, in the sense of Definition 4.2
in Pollard (1990), for every s ∈ R2 no proper coordinate projection of Fnω can surround s and
therefore Fnω has a pseudo dimension of at most 1 (Definition 4.3 in Pollard (1990)). Now the
managebility of the triangular array {µ̃ni } follows with the same reasoning as in the verification
of (B) in the proof of Proposition 6.4.
Proof of (J). The envelopes {F̂ni } are independent of i as well. Therefore, with Lemma A.20
we obtain
n X
n
n
nX
nX
o
o
1
p
p
E
1 ∧ ∆ni L(n)
1 ∧ ∆nj L(n)
E
[F̂ni ]2 = nE[F̂n1 ]2 = 2
n ∆n
i=1 j=1
i=1

= O ∆n + 1/n ,
64

because the processes L(n) have independent increments. As a consequence, we have in fact
Pn
2
i=1 [F̂ni ] = oP (1), which proves the claim.
Proof of Step (b). We have
n
X
i=1

where

bnθc
1 X
ξi µ̂ni (θ, t) = Un (t) √
ξi ,
n
i=1

n
1 X
f (∆nj L(n) )1(−∞,t] (∆nj L(n) ).
Un (t) = √
n ∆n j=1

As an immediate consequence of Lemma A.20 we obtain supt∈R |Un (t)| = oP (1). Furthermore,
the (ξi )i∈N are i.i.d. with mean zero and variance one, so it is well known from empirical process
theory (see for instance Theorem 2.5.2 and Theorem 2.12.1 in Van der Vaart and Wellner
P
√
∞
(1996)) that 1/ n × bnθc
i=1 ξi converges weakly to a Brownian motion in ` ([0, 1]). The law of a
Brownian motion is tight in `∞ ([0, 1]) (see for example Section 8 in Billingsley (1999)) and thus
P
√
∞
Un (t)/ n × bnθc
i=1 ξi converges to 0 in ` ([0, 1] × R) in outer probability.
(n)

Proof of Lemma 6.9. By Proposition 6.11 we have Ŷρα
ξ Gρα for each fixed α > 0 and
therefore due to Lemma C.1 it only remains to show that the term
Ĝ(α)
ρ,n (θ, t)

−

Ŷρ(n)
(θ, t)
α

bnθc

1 X
(α)
(α)
=√
ξi χt (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt (∆ni L(n) )
i
n∆n i=1

for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, converges to 0 in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) in outer probability. Consequently, it
suffices to show
V̂α(n) → 0,
P

for each fixed α > 0, where
V̂α(n)

1
=√
n∆n

bnθc

sup

X

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

i=1


(α)
(α)
ξi χt (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt (∆ni L(n) ) .
i

(6.45)

To this end, Lemma A.11 yields the estimate
V̂α(n) ≤ D̂n (α) + Ên (α) + F̂n (α),
on Jn(1) (α)∩Qn for n ∈ N large enough such that vn ≤ α/4, where Qn is defined in (6.24), Jn(1) (α)
is defined in (6.31) and with
n
1 X
D̂n (α) = √
|ξi | ρα (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } −
i
i
n∆n i=1

− ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

Ên (α) = sup
A∈Sn

65

X
i∈A

ξi ani (α) ,

i

X

F̂n (α) = sup
A∈Sn

for
ani (α) = √
bni (α) = √

ξi bni (α) ,

i∈A

1
ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} ,
i
n∆n

1
ρα (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} ,
i
i
i
n∆n

where the quantities in the display above are introduced in (6.23) and where Sn = {M ⊂
{1, . . . , n} | #M ≤ cn } with cn = d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e. Lemma A.4 and Lemma A.6 show P(Jn(1) (α) ∩
Qn ) → 1 and thus it is further enough to verify
D̂n (α) = oP (1),

(6.46)

Ên (α) = oP (1),

(6.47)

F̂n (α) = oP (1),

(6.48)

for each α > 0 as n → ∞.
Recall the quantity Dn (α) introduced in (6.27). (6.29) and Lemma A.17 yield EDn (α) → 0.
Moreover, the bootstrap multipliers have variance 1 and satisfy therefore E|ξi | ≤ 1 for all i ∈ N.
Thus because of the independence of the multipliers and the other involved processes we obtain
0 ≤ ED̂n (α) ≤ EDn (α) → 0, which proves (6.46).
Concerning (6.47) we have for n ∈ N large enough
 K(α) m
∆n ,
E|ani (α)|m ≤ √
n∆n
for some K(α) > 0, all m ∈ N and all i = 1, . . . , n by virtue of Lemma A.14. Thus, using
Assumption 3.6 as well as independence of ξi and ani (α) we obtain for every integer m ≥ 2 and
n ∈ N large enough
 C m−2 C
1
2
E|Zin (α)|m ≤ m! √
,
n
n∆n
for some constants C1 , C2 > 0 and where
Zin (α) = ξi ani (α)
for n ∈ N, α > 0, i = 1, . . . , n. Furthermore, due to the definition of X̂ 00 (α)n in (6.23) the
variables (Zin (α))i=1,...,n are independent with mean zero. Consequently, Lemma A.16 shows
n
o
X
EÊn (α) = E sup
Zin (α) = o(1),
A∈Sn

i∈A

which proves (6.47).
In order to show (6.48) observe first that for n ∈ N large enough
1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} = 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4}
i

i

i

i

66

holds for each i = 1, . . . , n on the set Qn , because by (6.24) we have |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 on Qn .
Therefore, we obtain from the mean value theorem for large n on the set Qn
bni (α) = ani (α) + √

 dρ 
1
α
1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ∆ni X̃ 0n
(ζin (α))
i
i
dx
n∆n

for some ζin (α) between ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n and ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n . Thus, the indicators and Assumption 6.12(a2) show for large n ∈ N
Ên (α) − F̂n (α) 1Qn ≤ sup √
A∈Sn

K X
|ξi ||∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n |p−1 |∆ni X̃ 0n |×
n∆n i∈A
× 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2}
i

i

Kvn
≤√
n∆n

n
X

|ξi ||∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n |p−1 .

(6.49)

i=1

The bootstrap multipliers are defined on a distinct probability space and satisfy E|ξi | ≤ 1 for
all i ∈ N. As a consequence, (6.49) gives
E Ên (α) − F̂n (α) 1Qn ≤ Kbn (α),
with

n
vn X
bn (α) = √
E ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n
2 n∆n i=1

p−1

.

Therefore, (6.48) follows from (6.47), Lemma A.4 and Lemma A.17.
(n)

Proof of Lemma 6.10. Due to Proposition 6.11 we have Ŷρ◦α
every α > 0. Thus, according to Lemma C.1 it suffices to show
(n)

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

Ĝ◦(α)
ρ,n − Ŷρ◦α

ξ

Gρ◦α in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) for

= oP (1)

for each α > 0 in a neighbourhood of zero. Simple manipulations give
(n)
Ĝ◦(α)
ρ,n (θ, t) − Ŷρ◦α (θ, t) = √

bnθc

1 X
◦(α)
◦(α)
ξi χt (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt (∆ni L(n) )
i
n∆n i=1

for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R. As a consequence, it only remains to show that
V̂α◦(n) → 0,
P

(6.50)

for each α > 0 in a neighbourhood of 0 with
V̂α◦(n) = √

1
n∆n

bnθc

sup

X

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

i=1

◦(α)

ξ i χt

◦(α)

(∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt
i


(∆ni L(n) ) .

Due to Lemma A.12 for each α > 0 and n ∈ N large enough such that vn ≤ α we have the bound
V̂α◦(n) ≤ Ĉn◦ (α) + D̂n◦ (α) + Ên◦ (α) + F̂n◦ (α)
67

on Jn(2) (α) ∩ Qn , where Qn is defined in (6.24), Jn(2) (α) is defined in (6.37) and with
n

Ĉn◦ (α) = √

X
1
sup
|ξi | ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1(−∞,t] (ςin (α))−
n∆n t∈R i=1

− ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

D̂n◦ (α) = √

n

i

i

n
1 X
|ξi | ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } − ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } ×
i
n∆n i=1

× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

X

Ên◦ (α) = sup

A∈Sn

F̂n◦ (α) = sup

A∈Sn

n

i

ξi āni (α) ,

i∈A

X

ξi b̄ni (α) ,

i∈A

where the processes involved in the display above are introduced in (6.23), v > 0 is the constant
from Assumption 6.12(a(4)I), ςin (α) = ∆ni X̃ 0n +∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n , Sn = {M ⊂ {1, . . . , n} | #M ≤ cn }
for cn = d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e and with
1
ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn ∨∆v } ,
n
i
n∆n
1
b̄ni (α) = √
ρ◦ (ς n (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } .
n
i
n∆n α i

āni (α) = √

Lemma A.4 and Lemma A.7 show P(Jn(2) (α) ∩ Qn ) → 1 for each α > 0 small enough and
consequently it suffices to verify
Ĉn◦ (α) = oP (1),

(6.51)

D̂n◦ (α) = oP (1),

(6.52)

Ên◦ (α) = oP (1),

(6.53)

F̂n◦ (α)

(6.54)

= oP (1),

for all α > 0 as n → ∞.
Concerning (6.51), we have due to the triangle inequality and |ρ◦α (z)| ≤ K|z|p for all z ∈ R
Ĉn◦ (α) ≤ √

n

K X  n
|ξi | |ςi (α)|p 1{|ςin (α)|>vn } + |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n |p 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } ×
i
n∆n i=1

× 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1Qn
i

i

n

for fixed α > 0 on the set Qn and where ςin (α) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n . Consequently, because
of E|ξi | ≤ 1 for each i ∈ N and the fact that the multipliers are defined on a distinct probability
space we obtain


E Ĉn◦ (α)1Qn ≤ K yn(α) + 2zn(α) ,
68

with
yn(α) = √

n
1 X n n 0n
E ∆i X̃ + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n
n∆n i=1

p

− ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n

p

×

o
× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1Qn ,
i

n

i

i

i

and
zn(α) = √

n
o
1 X n n 00
p
E ∆i X̃ (8α)n 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1Qn .
n
i
n∆n i=1

Thus, (6.51) follows using P(Qn ) → 1 and Lemma A.19.
Recall the quantity Dn◦ (α) introduced in (6.33). Because of (6.38), Lemma A.18 and the fact
that the multipliers (ξi )i∈N are independent of the other involved quantities and satisfy E|ξi | ≤ 1
we obtain 0 ≤ ED̂n◦ (α) ≤ EDn◦ (α) → 0, which proves (6.52).
In order to show (6.53) we have for α > 0 and n ∈ N large enough
 K m
E|āni (α)|m ≤ √
∆n ,
n∆n
for some K > 0, all m ∈ N and all i = 1, . . . , n using Lemma A.15. Thus, with Assumption
3.6 as well as independence of ξi and āni (α) we obtain for every integer m ≥ 2 and n ∈ N large
enough
 C m−2 C
2
1
,
E|Z̄in (α)|m ≤ m! √
n
n∆n
for some constants C1 , C2 > 0, where
Z̄in (α) = ξi āni (α)
for n ∈ N, α > 0 and i = 1, . . . , n. Furthermore, due to the definition of X̃ 00 (8α)n in (6.23) the
variables (Z̄in (α))i=1,...,n are independent with mean zero. Consequently, Lemma A.16 shows
o
n
X
Z̄in (α) = o(1),
EÊn◦ (α) = E sup
A∈Sn

i∈A

which proves (6.53).
Concerning (6.54) notice first of all that we have āni (α) = b̄ni (α) = 0 on the set {|∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | ≤
vn /2}∩Qn , because of the indicators in the definition of these terms and the fact that |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤
vn /2 holds for each i = 1, . . . , n on Qn according to (6.24). Therefore, we have for arbitrary
i ∈ {1, . . . , n}
|āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|1Qn = |āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|1Qn 1{vn /2<|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn } +
i

+

|āni (α)

− b̄ni (α)|1Qn 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>2vn } . (6.55)
i

For the first summand on the right-hand side of (6.55) the triangle inequality gives
|āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|1Qn 1{vn /2<|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn } ≤
i

1
√
(|ρ◦ (∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n )| + |ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )|)1Qn 1{vn /2<|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn } .
i
n∆n α i
69

Due to Assumption 6.12(a2) we have |ρ(z)| ≤ K|z|p for all z ∈ R and some K > 0. Thus,
because |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | holds on {vn /2 < |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n |} ∩ Qn we further obtain
|āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|1Qn 1{vn /2<|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn }
i


1
K|∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n |p + K2p |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n |p 1Qn 1{vn /2<|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn }
≤√
i
n∆n
K
≤√
|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |p 1Qn 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn }
i
n∆n i
Kvn
p−1
≤√
∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n
.
(6.56)
n∆n i
The fact that |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 for all i = 1, . . . , n on Qn yields for the second summand in (6.55)
|āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|1Qn 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>2vn }
i

1
ρ◦ (∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n ) − ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) 1Qn 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>2vn ∨∆v } .
=√
n
i
n∆n α i
The derivative of the function Ψ◦α from (6.3) is supported by a compact set which is bounded
away from the origin. Therefore, by Assumption 6.12(a2) there exists a constant K > 0, which
d ◦
may depend on α, such that the derivative satisfies | dz
ρα (z)| ≤ K|z|p−1 . As a consequence, we
have due to the mean value theorem and |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | on {|∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | > 2vn }∩Qn
|āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|1Qn 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>2vn }
i

K
≤√
|∆n X̃ 0n ||∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n |p−1 1Qn 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>2vn ∨∆v }
n
i
n∆n i
Kvn
p−1
.
≤√
∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n
n∆n i

(6.57)

Finally we conclude with (6.55), (6.56) and (6.57)
X


|ξi ||āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|
E |Ên◦ (α) − F̂n◦ (α)|1Qn ≤ E 1Qn sup
≤
≤

A∈Sn i∈A
n
X

E 1Qn
|ξi ||āni (α) − b̄ni (α)|
i=1
n
Kv X
p−1
√ n
E ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n
→
n∆n i=1

0,

(6.58)

because the multipliers are defined on a distinct probability space and satisfy E|ξi | ≤ 1 for all
i ∈ N. The final convergence in the display above holds due to Lemma A.18. (6.58) together
P
with P(Qn ) → 1 (see Lemma A.4) shows F̂n◦ (α) → 0, because in the previous part of the proof
P
we have already verified Ên◦ (α) → 0.
Proof of Theorem 6.8. According to Definition 3.4 we have to show
sup
h∈BL1 (`∞ ([0,1]×R))

P∗

Eξ h(Ĝ(n)
ρ ) − Eh(Gρ ) → 0,

70

(6.59)

and
∞
∗
(n)
Eξ h(Ĝ(n)
ρ ) − Eξ h(Ĝρ )∗ → 0 for all h ∈ BL1 (` ([0, 1] × R)),
P

(6.60)

(n)
∗
where h(Ĝ(n)
ρ ) and h(Ĝρ )∗ denote a minimal measurable majorant and a maximal measurable
minorant with respect to the joint data, respectively.
In order to show (6.59) observe that by the properties of bounded Lipschitz functions we have
for each h ∈ BL1 (`∞ ([0, 1] × R))

(α)
Eξ h(Ĝ(n)
ρ ) − Eh(Gρ ) ≤ Eξ h(Ĝρ,n ) − Eh(Gρα ) +

+ Eh(Gρα ) − Eh(Gρ ) + |Eξ Yn(α) − EY(α) | + EY(α) ,
for every α > 0, where
Yn(α) =

sup

|Ĝ◦(α)
ρ,n (θ, t)| ∧ 2

and

Y(α) =

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

|Gρ◦α (θ, t)| ∧ 2.

Thus, due to Lemma 1.2.2(i) in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) we obtain
∗

Eξ h(Ĝ(n)
)
−
Eh(G
)
≤ qn(α) + p(α) + |Eξ Yn(α) − EY(α) | + EY(α) , (6.61)
sup
ρ
ρ
h∈BL1 (`∞ ([0,1]×R))

for each α > 0, where
qn(α) =
p(α) =



sup
h∈BL1 (`∞ ([0,1]×R))

sup
h∈BL1 (`∞ ([0,1]×R))

Eξ h(Ĝ(α)
ρ,n ) − Eh(Gρα )

∗

Eh(Gρα ) − Eh(Gρ ) .

Notice that the supremum in the definition of Yn(α) is measurable, because the process Ĝ◦(α)
ρ,n
depends only via bnθc on θ ∈ [0, 1] and is right-continuous in t ∈ R. Let ε > 0 be arbitrary.
Then due to Proposition B.4 and monotonicity of the integral we obtain
EY(α) ≤ ε/4,

(6.62)

for all α > 0 in a neighbourhood of 0. Moreover, because of Lemma 6.5 and Theorem 1.12.1 in
Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) we have
p(α) ≤ ε/4,

(6.63)

for α > 0 small enough. Thus, choose an α > 0 such that (6.62), (6.63) and Lemma 6.10 hold.
P
P
Then Lemma 6.9 yields qn(α) → 0 as n → ∞ and due to Lemma 6.10 we have |Eξ Yn(α) −EY(α) | → 0
◦(α)
as n → ∞, because Yn(α) = h0 (Ĝρ,n
) and Y(α) = h0 (Gρ◦α ) for the bounded Lipschitz function
h0 : `∞ ([0, 1] × R) → R given by h0 (f ) = sup(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R |f (θ, t)| ∧ 2. As a consequence, we obtain
(6.59) with (6.61):

∗

P
sup
Eξ h(Ĝ(n)
)
−
Eh(G
)
>
ε
ρ
ρ
h∈BL1 (`∞ ([0,1]×R))

≤ P(qn(α) > ε/4) + P(|Eξ Yn(α) − EY(α) | > ε/4) → 0.
71

In order to show (6.60) we have for each h ∈ BL1 (`∞ ([0, 1] × R)) and each α > 0
(α)
(α)
(α)
h(Ĝ(α)
≤ h(Ĝ(n)
ρ,n ) − Yn
ρ ) ≤ h(Ĝρ,n ) + Yn .

Therefore, applying Lemma 1.2.2(i) in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) and the relation
−Z∗ = (−Z)∗ between the minimal measurable majorant and the maximal measurable minorant
of a random element Z several times yields
∗
(n)
(n) ∗
(n)
|Eξ h(Ĝ(n)
ρ ) − Eξ h(Ĝρ )∗ | = Eξ h(Ĝρ ) − Eξ h(Ĝρ )∗
∗
(α)
(α)
≤ |Eξ h(Ĝ(α)
ρ,n ) − Eξ h(Ĝρ,n )∗ | + 2Eξ Yn
∗
(α)
(α)
≤ |Eξ h(Ĝ(α)
− EY(α) | + 2EY(α) ,
ρ,n ) − Eξ h(Ĝρ,n )∗ | + 2|Eξ Yn

(6.64)

for every h ∈ BL1 (`∞ ([0, 1] × R)) and each α > 0. For arbitrary ε > 0 we choose α > 0 such
P
that Lemma 6.10 holds and EY(α) ≤ ε/8. Then as above we see |Eξ Yn(α) − EY(α) | → 0 for n → ∞
P
(α) ∗
and furthermore we have |Eξ h(Ĝρ,n
) − Eξ h(Ĝ(α)
ρ,n )∗ | → 0 by Lemma 6.9 as n → ∞. These facts
together with (6.64) give (6.60):
∗
(n)
P(|Eξ h(Ĝ(n)
ρ ) − Eξ h(Ĝρ )∗ | > ε) ≤
∗
(α)
(α)
P(|Eξ h(Ĝ(α)
− EY(α) | > ε/8) → 0.
ρ,n ) − Eξ h(Ĝρ,n )∗ | > ε/2) + P(|Eξ Yn

6.6

Proofs of the results in Section 3
(loc)

Proof of Theorem 3.1. For each (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, n ∈ N we have under H1

p


bnθc
(n)
T(n)
(θ, t) + n∆n Nρ (g (n) ; θ, t) −
Nρ (g (n) ; 1, t)
ρ (θ, t) = hn Gρ
n

Z t
p

bnθc
= hn G(n)
(θ, t) + n∆n θ −
ρ(z)ν0 (dz)+
ρ
n
−∞
 p

bnθc
bnθc
+ Nρ (g1 ; θ, t) −
Nρ (g1 ; 1, t) + n∆n Nρ (Rn ; θ, t) −
Nρ (Rn ; 1, t) ,
n
n
with the mappings hn : `∞ ([0, 1] × R) → `∞ ([0, 1] × R) defined by
hn (f )(θ, t) = f (θ, t) −

bnθc
f (1, t),
n

(n ∈ N),

h0 (f )(θ, t) = f (θ, t) − θf (1, t).

(6.65)

Thus, by Assumption 2.3(a) we obtain

(n)
T(n)
(θ, t) + Tρ,g1 (θ, t) + o(1),
ρ (θ, t) = hn Gρ
where the o-term is deterministic. By the same reasoning as in the proof of Theorem 2.6 in


Bücher et al. (2017) it can be seen that hn G(n)
h0 Gρ = Tρ in `∞ ([0, 1] × R). As a
ρ
consequence, Slutsky’s lemma (Example 1.4.7 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996)) yields the
assertion, since the tight process Tρ is separable (see Lemma 1.3.2 in the previously mentioned
reference).
72

Proof of Proposition 3.3. (6.12) in the proof of Proposition 6.13 shows that Assumption
6.12(a3) is also valid for 2p instead of p. Thus, Theorem 6.1 also holds with the function ρ
(n)
replaced by ρ2 . As a consequence, we have Nρ(n)
; 1, t0 ) = oP (1). By (2.7) we
2 (1, t0 ) − Nρ2 (g
obtain
Nρ2 g

(n)

; 1, t0



Z

t0

1
ρ (z)ν0 (dz) + √
=
n∆n
−∞
Z 1Z
+
2

ρ2

0 )>0}

1 Z t0

0
t0

ρ2 (z)g1 (y, dz)dy+

−∞
2

Z

t0

ρ (z)Rn (y, dz)dy =

−∞

0
−1/2 1
Finally, (Nρ(n)
(n)
2 (1, t0 ))
{N (1,t

Z

ρ2 (z)ν0 (dz) + o(1).

−∞

R t0 2
R t0 2
ρ (z)
ρ (z)ν0 (dz))−1/2 + oP (1) follows due to −∞
= ( −∞

ν0 (dz) > 0. Thus, Theorem 3.1, the continuous mapping theorem and Slutsky’s lemma (Example
1.4.7 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996)) yield
−1/2
 Z t0

(g )
(n)
Tρ (θ, t0 ) + Tρ,g1 (θ, t0 = K(θ) + V̄ρ,t10 (θ),
ρ2 (z)ν0 (dz)
Vρ,t0 (θ)
−∞

R t0 2
in `∞ ([0, 1]), because the process ( −∞
ρ (z)ν0 (dz))−1/2 Tρ (·, t0 ) is a tight mean zero Gaussian
process with covariance function K(θ1 , θ2 ) = (θ1 ∧ θ2 ) − θ1 θ2 .
Proof of Theorem 3.7. Recall the Lipschitz continuous functions hn : `∞ ([0, 1] × R) →
(n)
`∞ ([0, 1] × R), (n ∈ N0 ) defined in (6.65). Then we have T̂(n)
ρ = hn (Ĝρ ) and Proposition 10.7 in
∞
Kosorok (2008) together with Theorem 6.8 give h0 (Ĝ(n)
ρ )
ξ h0 (Gρ ) in ` ([0, 1] × R). Moreover,
we have
sup

(n)
hn (Ĝ(n)
ρ )(θ, t) − h0 (Ĝρ )(θ, t) =

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

=

θ−

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

(n)

and thus Lemma C.1 yields T̂ρ
be obtained using (6.1).

ξ

bnθc  (n)
Ĝρ (1, t) = o(1) × OP (1) = oP (1)
n

h0 (Gρ ). The covariance structure (3.7) of h0 (Gρ ) = Tρ can

Proof of Proposition 3.10. First, we show (3.11) with a reasoning which is similar to the
proof of Proposition F.1 in the supplement to Bücher and Kojadinovic (2016).
Fix α ∈ (0, 1) \ Q. According to Proposition C.2 and the continuous mapping theorem we
(n)
(n)
have (Tρ(n) , T̂ρ,ξ
(Tρ,g1 , Tρ,(1) , . . . , Tρ,(B) ) in (RB+1 , BB+1 ) for fixed B ∈ N, where
(1) , . . . , T̂ρ,ξ(B) )
Tρ,(1) , . . . , Tρ,(B) are independent copies of the limit Tρ in Corollary 3.9. Furthermore, let Ln,B
(n)
(n)
be the empirical c.d.f. based on the observations T̂ρ,ξ
(1) , . . . , T̂ρ,ξ(B) and let LB be the empirical
c.d.f. calculated from Tρ,(1) , . . . , Tρ,(B) . Due to the right continuity of Ln,B we have
(B)

P Tρ(n) ≥ q̂1−α Tρ(n)




= P Ln,B (Tρ(n) ) ≥ 1 − α .

Moreover, using Corollary 1.3 and Remark 4.1 in Gaenssler et al. (2007) as well as Assumption 2.3(a3) and the covariance structure (3.3) of the Gaussian process Tρ in Theorem 3.1
it follows that Tρ has a continuous c.d.f. Thus, the function Ψ(B) : RB+1 → R given by
73

P
Ψ(B) (x0 , x1 , . . . , xB ) = B −1 B
i=1 1(xi ≤ x0 ) is almost surely continuous with respect to the
image measure (Tρ,g1 , Tρ,(1) , . . . , Tρ,(B) )(P). As a consequence, we have Ln,B (Tρ(n) )
LB (Tρ,g1 )
as n → ∞ and with the Portmanteau theorem we obtain
(B)

lim P Tρ(n) ≥ q̂1−α Tρ(n)



n→∞


= P LB (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α ,

because 1 − α ∈
/ {0, B1 , . . . , B−1
B , 1}. By the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem for every ε ∈ (0, 1 − α)
we can choose B0 (ε) ∈ N such that

P sup |LB (x) − Lρ (x)| ≥ ε ≤ ε,

(6.66)

x∈R

for all B ≥ B0 (ε), since Tρ,(1) , . . . , Tρ,(B) are i.i.d. with distribution function Lρ . Thus, for every
such B ∈ N we have


P LB (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α = P LB (Tρ,g1 ) − Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) + Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α


≤ P LB (Tρ,g1 ) − Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ ε + P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α − ε
 ε↓0

≤ ε + P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α − ε → P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α
and we obtain


lim sup P LB (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α ≤ P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α .

(6.67)

B→∞

The terms on both sides of inequality (6.67) are increasing in α and the right-hand side is right
continuous in α. As a consequence, (6.67) is also valid for each α ∈ (0, 1) ∩ Q. Furthermore, we
have


lim inf P LB (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α ≥ P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) > 1 − α ,
(6.68)
B→∞

because according to (6.66)


P LB (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α = P LB (Tρ,g1 ) − Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) + Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α


ε↓0
≥ P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) ≥ 1 − α + ε − ε → P Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) > 1 − α
holds. Both sides of (6.68) are increasing in α and the right-hand side is left continuous in α.
Thus, (6.68) is also true for α ∈ (0, 1) ∩ Q. Finally, (3.13) can be shown by exactly the same
steps as above and (3.12) is an immediate consequence of the Portmanteau theorem.
Proof of Corollary 3.12. Under H0 we have Tρ,g1 = 0 and Tρ,g1 = Tρ is distributed
acccording to Lρ . Due to ν0 6= 0, Assumption 2.3(a3) and the covariance structure (3.3) of
Tρ the c.d.f. Lρ is continuous in virtue of Corollary 1.3 and Remark 4.1 in Gaenssler et al.
(2007). As a consequence, Lρ (Tρ,g1 ) = Lρ (Tρ ) is uniformly distributed on (0, 1) and we have


P Lρ (Tρ ) > 1 − α = P Lρ (Tρ ) ≥ 1 − α = α for all α ∈ (0, 1). Hence, (3.14) follows from (3.11)
and the claim (3.15) can be obtained by a similar reasoning using (3.12) as well as (3.13).
Proof of Proposition 3.14. As in the proof of Proposition 3.3 we obtain
sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

Nρ(n) (θ, t) − Nρ (g0 ; θ, t) = oP (1).
74

bnθc (n)
n Nρ (1, t)

(n∆n )−1/2 Tρ(n) (θ, t) is given by Nρ(n) (θ, t) −
simple calculation shows

according to (3.2). Consequently, a

ρ
(n∆n )−1/2 T(n)
ρ (θ, t) = Nρ (g0 ; θ, t) − θNρ (g0 ; 1, t) + oP (1) = T(1) (θ, t) + oP (1)

under H1 , where the o-term is uniform in (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R.
Proof of Proposition 3.13. By the continuous mapping theorem, Theorem 3.7 and Re(n,t0 )
(n)
mark 3.5(ii) we have T̂ρ,ξ
(b) = OP (1) and Ŵρ,ξ(b) = OP (1) for all b ∈ {1, . . . , B}. Therefore, it
(ρ,t )
(n)
suffices to show P(Vρ,t
≥ K) → 1 and P(Wρ(n,t0 ) ≥ K) → 1 for every K > 0 under H1 0 and
0
P(Tρ(n) ≥ K) → 1 for each K > 0 under H1 .
(n)
According to the proof of Proposition 3.3 and Proposition 3.14 the quantities (n∆n )−1/2 Vρ,t
and
0
(ρ,t0 )
−1/2
(n,t0 )
(n∆n )
Wρ
converge to a constant in (0, ∞) in outer probability under H1 , because
ρ
|T(1) (θ0 , t0 )| > 0 in this case. Furthermore, due to Assumption 2.3(a3) we have sup(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R
ρ
ρ
|T(1)
(θ, t)| > 0 under H1 and (n∆n )−1/2 Tρ(n) = sup(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R |T(1)
(θ, t)|+oP (1), because of Proposition 3.14. Thus, the assertion follows from n∆n → ∞.
Proof of Proposition 3.15. According to Proposition 3.14 the random functions θ 7→
supt∈R |(n∆n )−1/2 Tρ(n) (θ, t)| converges weakly in `∞ ([0, 1]) to the continuous function θ 7→ supt∈R
ρ
|T(1)
(θ, t)|, which due to Assumption 2.3(a3) attains a unique maximum at θ0 under H1 . Therefore, the claim for H1 follows from the argmax-continuous mapping theorem (Theorem 2.7 in
(ρ,t )
Kim and Pollard (1990)). The assertion regarding H1 0 follows with a similar reasoning.

6.7

Proofs of the results in Section 4

Proof of Lemma 4.1. If the kernel g0 (·, dz) is Lebesgue almost everywhere constant on [0, θ],
Rζ Rt
(g )
we have Dρ 0 (ζ, θ, t) = 0 for all 0 ≤ ζ ≤ θ and t ∈ R, since ζ −1 0 −∞ ρ(z)g0 (y, dz)dy is constant
on (0, θ].
(g )
If on the other hand Dρ 0 (ζ, θ, t) = 0 for all ζ ∈ [0, θ] and t ∈ R we have
Zζ Zt
ρ(z)g0 (y, dz)dy = ζ

 1 Zθ Zt
θ

0 −∞


ρ(z)g0 (y, dz)dy =: ζAθ (t)

0 −∞

Rt

for each ζ ∈ [0, θ] and t ∈ R. Therefore, −∞ ρ(z)g0 (y, dz) = Aθ (t) holds for each fixed t ∈ R
and every y ∈ [0, θ] \ M(t) by Assumption 2.3(a4) and the fundamental theorem of calculus.
Consequently,
Zt
ρ(z)g0 (y, dz) = Aθ (t)

(6.69)

−∞

S
holds for every t ∈ Q and each y ∈ [0, θ] outside the Lebesgue null set t∈Q M(t) . According to
R
Assumption 2.3 the function y 7→ (1 ∧ |z|p )g0 (y, dz) is bounded on [0, 1]. Hence, by Lebesgue’s
dominated convergence theorem and the assumptions on ρ the quantities on both sides of (6.69)
are right-continuous in t ∈ R. As a consequence, (6.69) holds for every t ∈ R and each y ∈ [0, θ]
75

S
outside the Lebesgue null set t∈Q M(t) . Thus, by the uniqueness theorem for measures the
kernel ρ(z)g0 (y, dz) is Lebesgue almost everywhere on [0, θ] equal to the finite signed measure
ηθ with measure generating function t 7→ Aθ (t) of bounded variation. Now, recall that g0 (y, dz)
does not charge {0}, so by Assumption 2.3(a3) the kernel g0 (y, dz) is Lebesgue almost everywhere
on [0, θ] equal to the measure with density (1/ρ(z))1{ρ(z)6=0} ηθ (dz).
Proof of Theorem 4.4. We consider the functional Λ : `∞ ([0, 1] × R) → `∞ (C × R) defined
by
ζ
Λ(f )(ζ, θ, t) := f (ζ, t) − f (θ, t).
(6.70)
θ
As kΛ(f1 ) − Λ(f2 )kC×R ≤ 2kf1 − f2 k[0,1]×R the mapping Λ is Lipschitz continuous. Thus, due
∞
to Theorem 6.1 and the continuous mapping theorem Λ(G(n)
ρ ) converges weakly in ` (C × R) to
the tight mean zero Gaussian process Hρ := Λ(Gρ ), where a simple calculation shows that Hρ
has the covariance structure (4.11). Furthermore, we have
p
(g1 )
(n)
(g1 )
+ o(1),
H(n)
+ n∆n Dρ(Rn ) = Λ(G(n)
ρ ) + Dρ
ρ = Λ(Gρ ) + Dρ
where the o-term is deterministic and uniform in (ζ, θ, t) ∈ C × R by Assumption 2.3. Finally,
the desired weak convergence follows using Slutsky’s lemma (Example 1.4.7 in Van der Vaart
and Wellner (1996)) and the fact that Hρ is separable as it is tight (see Lemma 1.3.2 in the
previously mentioned reference).
Proof of Theorem 4.5. We have Ĥ(n)
= Λ(Ĝ(n)
ρ
ρ ) and Hρ = Λ(Gρ ) with the Lipschitz
continuous mapping Λ defined in (6.70). Thus, the assertion follows from Proposition 10.7 in
Kosorok (2008).
Proof of Theorem 4.7. The assertion follows with the same reasoning as in the proof of
Theorem 4.2 in Hoffmann et al. (2017).
Proof of Theorem 4.8. Basically the same steps as in the proof of Theorem 4.3 in Hoffmann
et al. (2017) yield the claim.
Proof of Theorem 4.9. The claim of Theorem 4.9 follows by the same reasoning as in the
proof of Theorem 4.4 in Hoffmann et al. (2017).
(α ,ρ)

Proof of Theorem 4.10. We start with a proof of ϕ∗n → 0 which is equivalent to κ̂n,Bnn (r)/
P
n∆n → 0. Therefore, we have to show
P

√

(αn ,ρ)

P κ̂n,Bn

Bn
 1 X

p

(r)/ n∆n ≤ x = P
1{Ĥ(n,i) (θ̂∗ )≤(√n∆ x)1/r } ≥ 1 − αn → 1,
n
ρ,∗
n
Bn

(6.71)

i=1

(α ,ρ)

for arbitrary x > 0, by the definition of κ̂n,Bnn (r) in (4.16). Since the


p
(n)
1{Ĥ(n,i) (θ̂∗ )≤(√n∆ x)1/r } − Pξ Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n∗ ) ≤ ( n∆n x)1/r , i = 1, . . . , Bn ,
ρ,∗

n

n

are pairwise uncorrelated with mean zero and bounded by 1, we have
P

Bn



 1 X
p
(n)
1{Ĥ(n,i) (θ̂∗ )≤(√n∆ x)1/r } − Pξ Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n∗ ) ≤ ( n∆n x)1/r > αn /2 ≤ 4αn−2 Bn−1 → 0.
n
ρ,∗
n
Bn
i=1

(6.72)
76

Therefore, in order to prove (6.71), it suffices to verify
 



p
p
2  (n) ∗
(n)
P Pξ Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n∗ ) ≤ ( n∆n x)1/r < 1 − αn /2 ≤
P Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n ) > ( n∆n x)1/r
αn
o

n
p
1/r
−1
∩ Qn → 0, (6.73)
≤ 2αn−1 P(QC
2 sup sup |Ĝ(n)
n ) + 2αn P
ρ (θ, t)| > ( n∆n x)
t∈R θ∈[0,1]

with Qn the set defined in (6.24). The first inequality in the above display follows with the
∗
Markov inequality and the last inequality in (6.73) is a consequence of the fact that Ĥ(n)
ρ,∗ (θ̂n ) ≤

(n)
C
1+τ and
Ĥ(n)
ρ,∗ (1) ≤ 2 supt∈R supθ∈[0,1] |Ĝρ (θ, t)|. Due to Lemma A.5 we obtain P Qn ≤ Kn∆n
consequently αn−1 P(QC
n ) → 0. For the second summand on the right-hand side of (6.73) the
(n)
definition of Ĝρ in (6.7) gives
n
n
o
p

1 X
√
E sup sup |Ĝ(n)
(θ,
t)|1
≤
E |ξi ||ρ(∆ni X (n) )|1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1Qn ≤ K n∆n .
Q
n
ρ
i
n∆n i=1
t∈R θ∈[0,1]

The final estimate above follows using Lemma A.21, E|ξi | ≤ 1 for every i = 1, . . . , n and
independence of the multipliers and the other involved quantities. Therefore, with the Markov
inequality we obtain
√
o

n
p
n∆
−1
(n)
1/r
√ n 1/r
αn P 2 sup sup |Ĝρ (θ, t)| > ( n∆n x)
∩ Qn ≤ K
αn ( n∆n )
t∈R θ∈[0,1]
−1

1−r
= K (n∆n ) 2r αn
→ 0,
by the assumptions on the involved sequences. Thus, we conclude βn∗ → 0.
P
(α ,ρ)
Next we show κ̂n,Bnn (r) → ∞, which is equivalent to
P

(αn ,ρ)

P κ̂n,Bn

Bn
 1 X

(r) ≤ x = P
1{Ĥ(n,i) (θ̂∗ )≤x1/r } ≥ 1 − αn → 0,
ρ,∗
n
Bn



i=1

for each x > 0. With the same considerations as for (6.72) it is sufficient to show
 


(n)
P Pξ Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n∗ ) > x1/r ≤ 2αn → 0.
Let t0 ∈ R with Nρ2 (θ0 , t0 ) > 0. By continuity of the function ζ 7→ Nρ2 (ζ, t0 ) we can find
0 < ζ̄ < θ̄ < θ0 with
Nρ2 (ζ̄, t0 ) > 0

(6.74)

and because of




(n) ∗
(n)
(n)
1/r
Ĥ(n)
≤ Pξ Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n∗ ) > x1/r
ρ (ζ̄, θ̄, t0 ) ≤ Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n ) =⇒ Pξ Ĥρ (ζ̄, θ̄, t0 ) > x
on the set {θ̄ < θ̂n∗ } and consistency of the preliminary estimate it further suffices to prove
 


 


(n)
1/r
≤
2α
P Pξ Ĥρ,∗ (θ̂n∗ ) > x1/r ≤ 2αn and θ̄ < θ̂n∗ ≤ P Pξ Ĥ(n)
(
ζ̄,
θ̄,
t
)
>
x
0
n → 0.
ρ
(6.75)
77

In order to show (6.75) we want to use a Berry-Esseen type result. Recall
Ĥ(n)
ρ (ζ̄, θ̄, t0 )

n
1 X n
B̂ ξj
=√
n∆n j=1 j



from (4.12) with B̂jn = 1{j≤bnζ̄c} − ζ̄θ̄ 1{j≤bnθ̄c} Ânj , where
Ânj = ρ(∆nj X (n) )1(−∞,t0 ] (∆nj X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } ,
j

j = 1, . . . , n.

By the assumptions on the multiplier sequence it is immediate to see that
Ŵn2

:=

Eξ (Ĥρ(n) (ζ̄, θ̄, t0 ))2

n
1 X n 2
=
(B̂j ) .
n∆n
j=1

Thus, Theorem 2.1 in Chen and Shao (2001) yields


− (1 − Φ(x/Ŵn ))
(
ζ̄,
θ̄,
t
)
>
x
sup Pξ Ĥ(n)
0
ρ
x∈R

≤K

n
nX

2
1{|Ûi,n |>1} +
Eξ Ûi,n

n
X

o
Eξ |Ûi,n |3 1{|Ûi,n |≤1} , (6.76)

i=1

i=1
B̂ n ξ

if Ŵn > 0 with Ûi,n = √ i i and where Φ denotes the standard normal distribution function.
n∆n Ŵn
Before we proceed further in the proof of (6.75), we first show
1
Ŵn2

=

n∆n
= OP (1),
n
P
(B̂jn )2

(6.77)

j=1

that is
n


X
lim lim sup P n∆n > M
(B̂jn )2 = 0.

M →∞ n→∞

j=1

Let M > 0. Then a straightforward calculation gives
bnζ̄c
n




X
X
n 2
0
(Ânj )2
P n∆n > M
(B̂j ) ≤ P n∆n > M
j=1

j=1



(n)
= P 1/M 0 > Nρ2 (ζ̄, t0 ) ,
with M 0 = M (1 − ζ̄/θ̄)2 . Consequently, with (6.74) we obtain (6.77) due to
(n)

Nρ2 (ζ̄, t0 ) = Nρ2 (g (n) ; ζ̄, t0 ) + oP (1) = Nρ2 (g0 ; ζ̄, t0 ) + oP (1),
because Theorem 6.1 also holds for ρ2 since Assumption 6.12 is also valid for 2p instead of p
(cf. (6.12) in the proof of Proposition 6.13). Recall that our main objective is to show (6.75)
and thus we consider the Berry-Esseen bound on the right-hand side of (6.76). For the first
summand we distinguish two cases according to the assumptions on the multiplier sequence.
78

Let us discuss the case of bounded multipliers first. For M > 0 we have
√
MK
|Ûi,n | ≤ √
n∆n
for all i = 1, . . . , n on the set {1/Ŵn2 ≤ M }, since |B̂in | is bounded. As a consequence,
n
X

2
Eξ Ûi,n
1{|Ûi,n |>1} = 0

(6.78)

i=1

for large n ∈ N on the set {1/Ŵn2 ≤ M }.
In the situation of normal multipliers, recall that there exist constants K1 , K2 > 0 such that
for ξ ∼ N (0, 1) and y > 0 large enough we have
2

Eξ ξ 1{|ξ|>y}

2
=√
2π

Z∞

2 /2

z 2 e−z

dz ≤ KP(N (0, 2) > y) ≤ K1 exp(−K2 y 2 ).

(6.79)

y

Thus, we can calculate for n ∈ N large enough on the set {1/Ŵn2 ≤ M }
n
X

2
1{|Ûi,n |>1}
Eξ Ûi,n

n X
n
−1
X
=
(B̂jn )2
(B̂in )2 Eξ ξi2 1

i=1

i=1

≤K

j=1

n X
n
X
i=1

≤

{|ξi |>(

n
P

(B̂jn )2 )1/2 /|B̂in |}

j=1

(B̂jn )2

−1

j=1

Eξ ξi2 1

{|ξi |>(

n
P

(B̂jn )2 )1/2 /K}

j=1

n
K1
KM X
Eξ ξi2 1{|ξi |>(n∆n /M )1/2 /K} ≤
exp(−K2 n∆n ),
n∆n
∆n
i=1

where K1 and K2 depend on M . The first inequality in the display above uses boundedness
of |B̂in | again and the last one follows with (6.79). Now, according to Assumption 2.3(b) let
0 < t2 ≤ 1 and δ > 0 with n−t2 +δ = o(∆n ). Furthermore, define δ̄ > 0 via 1 + δ̄ = 1/(t2 − δ) and
δ̄ → ∞ and for n ≥ N (M ) ∈ N on the set {1/Ŵ 2 ≤ M }, using
q̄ := 1/δ̄. Then we have n∆1+
n
n
−q̄
exp(−K2 n∆n ) ≤ (n∆n ) , we conclude
n
X

2
−q̄
δ̄
Eξ Ûi,n
1{|Ûi,n |>1} ≤ K1 ∆−1
= K1 n∆1+
n (n∆n )
n

−q̄

.

i=1

We now consider the second term on the right-hand side of (6.76), for which
n
X

3

Eξ |Ûi,n | 1{|Ûi,n |≤1}

i=1

n X
n
−3/2
X
≤
(B̂jn )2
|B̂in |3 Eξ |ξi |3 ≤
i=1

j=1

n
X
K
|B̂ n |
(n∆n )3/2 i=1 i

holds on {1/Ŵn2 ≤ M }, using boundedness of |B̂in | again. With Lemma A.21 we see that
n
n
X

X

n
|Âni |1Qn ≤ Kn∆n .
E
|B̂i |1Qn ≤ 2E
i=1

i=1

79

(6.80)

Consequently,
n
n
o

X
2
P 1/Ŵn ≤ M and K
Eξ |Ûi,n |3 1{|Ûi,n |≤1} > (n∆n )−1/4 ∩ Qn
i=1

n
≤P

n
o

X
K
n
−1/4
|
B̂
|
>
(n∆
)
∩
Q
≤ K(n∆n )−1/4
n
n
(n∆n )3/2 i=1 i

(6.81)

follows. Thus, from (6.78), (6.80) and (6.81) we see that with K > 0 from (6.76) for each M > 0
there exists a K3 > 0 such that

P

1/Ŵn2

≤ M and K

n
nX

2
Eξ Ûi,n
1{|Ûi,n |>1}

i=1

+

n
X

Eξ |Ûi,n |3 1{|Ûi,n |≤1}

o

i=1


δ̄ −q̄
> K3 ((n∆n )−1/4 + (n∆1+
)
)
→ 0. (6.82)
n
Now we can show (6.75). Let η > 0 and according to (6.77) choose an M > 0 with P(1/Ŵn2 >
M ) < η/2 for all n ∈ N. For this M > 0 choose a K3 > 0 such that the probability in (6.82) is
smaller than η/2 for large n. Then for n ∈ N large enough we have


 
1/r
≤ 2αn <
P Pξ Ĥ(n)
ρ (ζ̄, θ̄, t0 )) > x


δ̄ −q̄
2
P (1 − Φ(x1/r /Ŵn )) ≤ 2αn + K3 ((n∆n )−1/4 + (n∆1+
)
)
and
1/
Ŵ
≤
M
+ η = η,
n
n
using (6.76) and the fact, that if 1/Ŵn2 ≤ M there exists a c0 > 0 with (1 − Φ(x1/r /Ŵn )) > c0 .
P
(α ,ρ)
Thus, we have shown κ̂n,Bnn (r) → ∞ and we are only left with proving (4.17). Let

1/$  1/$
K = (1 + ε)/c
> 1/c
for some ε > 0. Then


p

(n)
(α ,ρ)
(α ,ρ)
n∆n Dρ,∗ (θ) ≤ κ̂n,Bnn (r) for some θ > θ0 + Kϕ∗n
P θ̂ρ(n) (κ̂n,Bnn (r)) > θ0 + Kϕ∗n ≤ P
p

(n)
(α ,ρ)
≤P
n∆n Dρ (θ) − Hρ,∗ (1) ≤ κ̂n,Bnn (r) for some θ > θ0 + Kϕ∗n .
By (4.13) there exists a y0 > 0 with
inf
θ∈[θ0 +Ky1 ,1]

Dρ (θ) = Dρ (θ0 + Ky1 ) ≥ (c/(1 + ε/2))(Ky1 )$

for all 0 ≤ y1 ≤ y0 . Distinguishing the cases {ϕ∗n > y0 } and {ϕ∗n ≤ y0 } we get due to ϕ∗n → 0


(α ,ρ)
P θ̂ρ(n) (κ̂n,Bnn (r)) > θ0 + Kϕ∗n
p

(n)
(α ,ρ)
n∆n (c/(1 + ε/2))(Kε∗n )$ − Hρ,∗ (1) ≤ κ̂n,Bnn (r) + o(1)
≤P
P

≤ Pn(1) + Pn(2) + o(1)
with
p

(n)
(α ,ρ)
(n)
n∆n (c/(1 + ε/2))(Kϕ∗n )$ − Hρ,∗ (1) ≤ κ̂n,Bnn (r) and Hρ,∗ (1) ≤ bn ,


(n)
= P Hρ,∗ (1) > bn ,

Pn(1) = P
Pn(2)

80

q

1/$
(α ,ρ)
and the definition of ϕ∗n it is
where bn := κ̂n,Bnn (r). Due to the choice K = (1 + ε)/c
(α ,ρ)

clear that Pn(1) = o(1), because κ̂n,Bnn (r) → ∞.
Concerning Pn(2) let Fn be the distribution function of H(n)
ρ,∗ (1) and let F be the distribution
function of Hρ,∗ (1). Then according to Corollary 1.3 and Remark 4.1 in Gaenssler et al. (2007)
the function F is continuous, because Nρ2 (θ0 , t0 ) > 0 for some t0 ∈ R. As a consequence, by
Theorem 4.4 and the continuous mapping theorem Fn converges pointwise to F . Thus, for η > 0
choose an x > 0 with 1 − F (x) < η/2 and conclude
P

Pn(2) ≤ P(bn ≤ x) + 1 − Fn (x) ≤ P(bn ≤ x) + 1 − F (x) + |Fn (x) − F (x)| < η,
(α ,ρ)

P

for n ∈ N large enough, because of κ̂n,Bnn (r) → ∞.
Proof of Proposition 4.13, Corollary 4.14 and Proposition 4.15. The assertions can
be obtained by a similar reasoning as in the proofs of Proposition 3.10, Corollary 3.12 and
Proposition 3.13 and we omit the details.
Proof of the results in Example 2.5, Example 4.3 and Example 4.11(2).
(1) First we show that a transition kernel of the form (2.9) belongs to G(β̂, p̂) and the function
ρL,p̂ satisfies Assumption 2.3(a2) and (a3) for p = p̂. Let Â denote a bound for A : [0, 1] →
(0, ∞), then for z ∈ (−1, 1) \ {0} we obtain
sup A(y)hβ(y),p(y) (z) ≤ Â sup |z|−(1+β(y)) ≤ Â|z|−(1+β̂) ,
y∈[0,1]

y∈[0,1]

so Definition 2.1(1) is satisfied. Furthermore, for n ∈ N we have
sup sup A(y)hβ(y),p(y) (z) ≤ Â sup n1+β(y) ≤ Ân1+β̂ ,
z∈Cn y∈[0,1]

y∈[0,1]

which yields Definition 2.1(2). Definition 2.1(3) also holds, because for |z| > 2 we obtain
sup A(y)hβ(y),p(y) (z) ≤ Â sup |z|−p(y) ≤ Â|z|−(2p̂∨2)−ε ,
y∈[0,1]

y∈[0,1]

since p̂ > 1. Obviously, ρL,p̂ : R → R is a bounded function with ρL,p̂ (0) = 0 and with the
continuous derivative


2p̂|z|p̂−1 ,
for 0 ≤ |z| ≤ 1,


0
ρL,p̂ (z) = L sign(z) × 2p̂(2 − |z|), for 1 ≤ |z| ≤ 2,



0,
for |z| > 2.
Consequently, there exists a K > 0 such that |ρ0L,p̂ (z)| ≤ K|z|p̂−1 holds for each z ∈ R
and Assumption 2.3(a2) is satisfied. Moreover, Assumption 2.3(a3) is valid as well, since
ρL,p̂ (1) > 0 and ρ0L,p̂ (z) ≥ 0 on [1, 2].

81

(2) Now we show that if additionally (4.7) and (4.8) are satisfied, k0 < ∞ holds and Nk (t) is a
bounded function on R for each k ∈ N0 as stated in Example 4.11(2). To this end, elementary
calculations show that the function N̄ is given by N̄ (y, t) = ΥL,p̂ (Ā(y), β̄(y), p̄(y), t) with

2+p̂ 1−p


for t ≤ −2
 p−1 |t| ,



2+p̂ 1−p
p̂ 3

2

2
+ 4 − 2p̂
for − 2 ≤ t ≤ −1

3 − 2p̂t − 3 t + (2 − 3p̂)t,
 p−1
2+p̂ 1−p
2
p̂−β ),
ΥL,p̂ (a, β, p, t) = La × p−1
2
+ 2 + 2p̂
for − 1 ≤ t ≤ 1
3 + p̂−β (1 + sign(t)|t|



2+p̂
p̂
4

 p−1 21−p + 2p̂ + p̂−β
+ 2p̂t2 − 3 t3 + 2t − 3p̂t, for 1 ≤ t ≤ 2




 4+2p̂ 21−p + 4 + 4p̂ + 4 + 2+p̂ t1−p ,
for t ≥ 2.
p−1
p̂−β
3
1−p
(6.83)
Furthermore, it is well known from complex analysis that there is a domain U ⊂ U ∗ ⊂ C
with holomorphic functions A∗ : U ∗ → C, β ∗ : U ∗ → Cp̂− := {u ∈ C | Re(u) < p̂} and
p∗ : U ∗ → C1+ := {u ∈ C | Re(u) > 1} such that Ā, β̄ and p̄ are the restrictions of
A∗ , β ∗ and p∗ to U . Moreover, it can be seen from (6.83) that for fixed t ∈ R the mapping
(a, β, p) 7→ ΥL,p̂ (a, β, p, t) is partially holomorphic on C×Cp̂− ×C1+ , that is it is holomorphic
in each of the variables a, β and p when the remaining variables are fixed. By a deep result
of complex analysis in several variables which dates back to Hartogs (1906) this implies that
(a, β, p) 7→ ΥL,p̂ (a, β, p, t) is holomorphic on C × Cp̂− × C1+ for fixed t ∈ R (see also Remark
1.2.28 in Scheidemann (2005)). Additionally, by Proposition 1.2.2(5) in Scheidemann (2005)
the function Ξ : U ∗ → C × Cp̂− × C1+ with Ξ(y) := (A∗ (y), β ∗ (y), p∗ (y)) is holomorphic
and thus for each fixed t ∈ R the mapping y 7→ N̄ (y, t) is real analytic, because it is the
restriction of the holomorphic function y 7→ ΥL,p̂ (Ξ(y), t) to U . Consequently, by shrinking
the set U if necessary, we have the power series expansion
N̄ (y, t) =

∞
X
Nk (t)
k=0

k!

(y − θ0 )k ,

(6.84)

for every y ∈ U and t ∈ R. If k0 = ∞, then for any k ∈ N and t ∈ R we have Nk (t) = 0.
Thus, we obtain for some constant K > 0
ΨL,p̂ (y) + K

Ā(y) 1−p̄(y)
t
= N0 (t)
1 − p̄(y)

(6.85)

for each t ≥ 2 and y ∈ U , where
ΨL,p̂ (y) = LĀ(y)

 4 + 2p̂

4
4p̂
21−p̄(y) +
+
+4 .
p̄(y) − 1
3
p̂ − β̄(y)

(6.86)

Taking the derivative with respect to y ∈ U on both sides of (6.85) yields
Ψ0L,p̂ (y) + K

Ā0 (y)(1 − p̄(y)) + Ā(y)p̄0 (y) 1−p̄(y)
K Ā(y)
t
− p̄0 (y)
log(t)t1−p̄(y) = 0,
2
(1 − p̄(y))
1 − p̄(y)

(6.87)

for each y ∈ U and t ≥ 2. Hence, p̄0 (y) is equal to zero for each y ∈ U , because otherwise
the display above is not valid for each t ≥ 2. This fact together with (6.87) gives
Ψ0L,p̂ (y) + K

Ā0 (y) 1−p̄(y)
t
= 0,
1 − p̄(y)
82

for all y ∈ U and t ≥ 2. Consequently, Ā0 (y) = 0 holds for every y ∈ U and with (6.86) we
obtain
Ψ0L,p̂ (y) = 4LĀ(θ0 )β̄ 0 (y)(p̂ − β̄(y))−2 = 0, (y ∈ U )
which implies β̄ 0 (y) = 0 for all y ∈ U . Thus, k0 = ∞ contradicts the assumption that at
least one of the functions Ā, β̄ and p̄ is non-constant.
The following consideration will be helpful in order to show that Nk (t) is bounded in t ∈ R
for each k ∈ N0 . Let f1 , f2 : U ×R → R be functions, which are arbitrarily often differentiable
with respect to y ∈ U for fixed t ∈ R such that for each ` ∈ N0 the `-th derivatives with
respect to y satisfy
(`)
(`)
sup{|f1 (θ0 , t)| ∨ |f2 (θ0 , t)|} ≤ K(K`)`
t∈R

for some constant K > 0 which does not depend on `. (Here we set 00 := 1.) Then by the
product formula for higher derivatives we obtain for the `-th derivative with respect to y of
the product of f1 and f2
`  
X
` (j)
(`−j)
f (θ0 , t)f2
(θ0 , t)
j 1

sup |(f1 f2 )(`) (θ0 , t)| = sup
t∈R

t∈R

≤ K2

j=0

` 
X


`
(Kj)j (K(` − j))`−j
j

j=0

≤ K 2 (K`)`

`  
X
`
j=0

j

≤ K(K`)` ,

(6.88)

for some K > 0 which does not depend on `. (6.83) and (6.88) yield a constant K > 0 such
that
sup |N` (t)| ≤ K(K`)`

(6.89)

t∈R

for each ` ∈ N0 as soon as we can show that there exists a K > 0 such that for every ` ∈ N0
the following bounds for the derivatives hold
|Ā(`) (θ0 )| ≤ K(K`)` ,
(`)

1
(θ0 ) ≤ K(K`)` ,
p̄(y) − 1

(`)
1
(θ0 ) ≤ K(K`)` ,
p̂ − β̄(y)

(`)
sup t1−p̄(y)
(θ0 ) ≤ K(K`)` ,

(6.90)
(6.91)
(6.92)
(6.93)

t≥2

sup



tp̂−β̄(y)

(`)

(θ0 ) ≤ K(K`)` .

(6.94)

t∈[0,1]

P
`
Let Ā(y) = ∞
`=0 A` (y − θ0 ) be the power series expansion of the real analytic function
Ā around θ0 . By the definition of real analytic functions this power series has a positive
83

radius of convergence and due to the Cauchy-Hadamard formula this is equivalent to the
existence of a constant K > 0 with |A` | ≤ K `+1 for each ` ∈ N0 . Thus, because of
Ā(`) (θ0 ) = `!A` for each ` ∈ N0 , (6.90) follows. By assumption in Example 4.3 we have
β̄(y) ≤ β̂ ≤ 1 ∨ β̂ < p̂ < p̄(y) for each y ∈ U . As a consequence, the functions
y 7→

1
p̄(y) − 1

and

y 7→

1
p̂ − β̄(y)

are real analytic on U as concatenations of real analytic functions. So the same reasoning
as above yields (6.91) and (6.92). Let the affine linear functions β̄ and p̄ be given by
β̄(y) = β0 + β1 (y − θ0 ) and p̄(y) = p0 + p1 (y − θ0 ). Then for ` ∈ N0 , t > 0 we have

(`)
(θ0 ) = t1−p0 (−p1 log(t))` .
t1−p̄(y)
(1)
1−p0 (log(t))` . h(1) is clearly
and for ` ∈ N0 let h(1)
0
` : (0, ∞) → R be defined by h` (t) = t
bounded in t ≥ 2 due to p0 > 1 and for ` ∈ N the only possible roots of the derivative of
h(1)
` in t ∈ (0, ∞) are t = 1 and t = exp{`/(p0 − 1)}. Thus, we obtain for the supremum in
(6.93)

(`)
n
 ` ` o
e−` ≤ K(K`)`
sup t1−p(y)
(θ0 ) ≤ |p1 |` max 21−p0 log(2)` ,
p0 − 1
t≥2

for each ` ∈ N0 , because limt→∞ h(1)
` (t) = 0. Similarly, we have for ` ∈ N0 , t > 0
(`)

(θ0 ) = tp̂−β0 (−β1 log(t))`
tp̂−β̄(y)
(2)
p̂−β0 (log(t))` . For ` ∈ N the only
and for ` ∈ N0 let h(2)
` : (0, 1] → R be defined by h` (t) = t
possible roots in (0, 1] of the derivative of h(2)
` are t = 1 and t = exp{−`/(p̂ − β0 )}. As a
consequence, we obtain for each ` ∈ N0 for the supremum in (6.94)
(`)
 ` `

sup tp̂−β̄(y)
(θ0 ) ≤ |β1 |`
e−` ≤ K(K`)` ,
p̂
−
β
0
t∈[0,1]

p̂−β̄(y) is zero constant
because limt→0 h(2)
` (t) = 0. Notice that for t = 0 the function y 7→ t
and for ` = 0 the function t 7→ tp̂−β0 is bounded by 1 on [0, 1] due to p̂ > β0 .

(3) The expansion (4.18) can be deduced along the same lines as in step (3) of the proof of the
results in Example 2.3 and Example 4.6(2) in Hoffmann et al. (2017) by using (6.84) and
(6.89) instead of their equations (6.58) and (6.61). Furthermore, due to expansion (4.18)
the quantity defined in (4.3) is clearly given by θ0 .

A

Technical details in the proofs of Theorem 6.1 and Theorem
6.8

In this appendix we give the details of the proofs of Theorem 6.1 and Theorem 6.8. Here and
also in the appendices B and C K or K(α) denote generic constants which sometimes depend
on a further quantity α and may change from place to place.
84

A.1

Moments of functionals of integer-valued random measures

Hoffmann and Vetter (2017) used Lemma 2.1.5 and Lemma 2.1.7 of Jacod and Protter (2012)
frequently in order to achieve their weak convergence results. However, in Jacod and Protter
(2012) these results are only proved for Poisson random measures with a predictable compensator
of the form ds⊗F (dz) with a Lévy measure F . Therefore, using tools from Jacod (1979) we prove
the generalized versions stated below. First, we introduce some notations. Let p be an integervalued random measure on R+ × R with predictable compensator q(ω; ds, dz) = νs (ω; dz)ds for
a transition kernel νs (ω; dz) from (Ω × R+ , P) into (R, B), where P is the predictable σ-algebra
on Ω × R+ (with respect to some prespecified filtration (Ft )t∈R+ ) and where an integer-valued
random measure is a random measure which satisfies the requirements of Definition II.1.3 and
Definition II.1.13 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002). Furthermore, we set Ω0 = Ω × R+ × R and
P 0 = P ⊗ B is the predictable σ-algebra on Ω0 . Then, for a real-valued P 0 -measurable function
δ on Ω0 and p, t ∈ R+ , u > 0 let
1
δ̂(p)t,u (ω) =
u

t+uZ
Z

|δ(ω, s, z)|p νs (ω; dz)ds.

t

Lemma A.1. Suppose that δ̂(2)0,u < ∞ almost surely for all u > 0. Then the process Y =
δ ? (p − q) is a locally square integrable martingale, and for all finite stopping times T and u > 0
we have for p ∈ [1, 2]



E sup |YT +v − YT |p | FT ≤ Kp uE δ̂(p)T,u | FT ,
0≤v≤u

and also for p ≥ 2




p/2
E sup |YT +v − YT |p | FT ≤ Kp uE δ̂(p)T,u | FT + up/2 E δ̂(2)T,u | FT .
0≤v≤u

Lemma A.2. Suppose that δ̂(1)0,u < ∞ almost surely for all u > 0. Then the process Y = δ ? p
is of locally integrable variation. Furthermore, for all finite stopping times T and u > 0 we have
for p ∈ (0, 1]



E sup |YT +v − YT |p | FT ≤ Kp uE δ̂(p)T,u | FT
0≤v≤u

and for p ≥ 1




E sup |YT +v − YT |p | FT ≤ Kp uE δ̂(p)T,u | FT + up E δ̂(1)pT,u | FT .
0≤v≤u

Proof of Lemma A.1. δ 2 ? q is a continuous increasing process and we have δ 2 ? qt = tδ̂(2)0,t
for all t > 0. Thus, for n ∈ N let Mn be a null set such that δ 2 ? qn is finite on MnC . Such a
set exists by the assumption on δ. Then the increasing process δ 2 ? qt is finite for all t ∈ R+
S
on M C with M = n∈N Mn . Therefore, (Tn )n∈N defined via Tn = inf{t > 0 | δ 2 ? qt ≥ n} is a
localizing sequence of stopping times and the stopped continuous processes satisfy (δ 2 ? q)Tt n ≤ n
85

for all t ∈ R+ . Consequently, δ 2 ? q is locally bounded and in particular locally integrable. Thus,
by Theorem II.1.33(a) in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002) the process Y is well-defined and a locally
square integrable martingale.
In order to show the claimed inequalities we want to reduce our setup to the situation of Lemma
2.1.5 in Jacod and Protter (2012). To this end, let F be a Lévy measure on (R, B) without atoms
and F (R) = ∞. Furthermore, let x0 ∈
/ R be an exterior point of R and let (Rx0 , Bx0 ) denote
the measurable one point extension of (R, B), that is Rx0 = R ∪ {x0 } and Bx0 = {B, B ∪ {x0 } |
B ∈ B}. Then according to Theorem 14.53 in Jacod (1979) there exist a measurable function
h : (Ω0 , P 0 ) → (Rx0 , Bx0 ) and a P-null set N such that
Z Z
q(ω; A) =
1A (s, h(ω, s, z))F (dz)ds
(A.1)
for each A ∈ B(R+ )⊗B and ω ∈
/ N . Additionally, by Theorem 14.56 in Jacod (1979) there exists
◦
a filtered measurable space (Ω , F ◦ , (Ft◦ )t∈R+ ) and a transition probability Q(ω, dω ◦ ) from (Ω, F)
into (Ω◦ , F ◦ ) such that on the extended filtered probability space (Ω̃, F̃, (F̃t )t∈R+ , P̃), which is
T
given by Ω̃ = Ω × Ω◦ , F̃ = F ⊗ F ◦ , F̃t = s>t Fs ⊗ Fs◦ and P̃(d(ω, ω ◦ )) = Q(ω, dω ◦ )P(dω), there
exists a Poisson random measure p̃ with predictable compensator q̃(ds, dz) = F (dz)ds such that
for P̃-almost every ω̃ = (ω, ω ◦ ) we have
Z Z
p(ω; A) =
1A (s, h(ω, s, z))p̃((ω, ω ◦ ), ds, dz)
(A.2)
for all A ∈ B(R+ ) ⊗ B. Furthermore, we identify the filtration (Ft )t∈R+ on (Ω, F) with the
induced filtration Ft ⊗ {∅, Ω◦ } on (Ω̃, F̃), which we denote by (Ft )t∈R+ as well. Any random
variable X on (Ω, F) will be identified with the induced mapping X(ω, ω ◦ ) = X(ω). Then we
have for every A ∈ F̃ and every stopping time T on (Ω, F)
A ∈ FT (Ω) ⊗ {∅, Ω◦ } ⇐⇒ A = A1 × Ω◦ for some A1 ∈ FT (Ω)
⇐⇒ A ∩ {T ≤ t} ∈ Ft ⊗ {∅, Ω◦ } for every t ∈ R+
⇐⇒ A ∈ FT (Ω̃),
where for the sake of a clear notation we denote by FT (Ω) and FT (Ω̃), respectively, the σalgebra of events up to time T with respect to (Ω, F, (Ft )t∈R+ ) and (Ω̃, F̃, (Ft )t∈R+ ), respectively.
Consequently, for A = A1 × Ω◦ ∈ FT (Ω̃) with A1 ∈ FT (Ω) and a random variable X on (Ω, F)
we have by the definition of the conditional expectation
Z
Z Z
XdP̃ =
X(ω)Q(ω, dω ◦ )P(dω)
A1 ×Ω◦

A1 Ω◦

Z
=

Z
EP (X | FT )dP =

XdP =
A1

Z
EP (X | FT )dP̃
A1 ×Ω◦

A1

and thus
EP̃ (X | FT ) = EP (X | FT ) P̃ − almost surely.
86

(A.3)

Let O be the optional σ-algebra on Ω × R+ and let Õ denote the optional σ-algebra on Ω̃ ×
R+ . Then by Proposition II.1.14 there exist a thin random set D ∈ O, an optional process
(βs )s∈R+ on (Ω, F, (Ft )t∈R+ , P), a thin random set D̃ ∈ Õ and an optional process (β̃s )s∈R+ on
(Ω̃, F̃, (F̃t )t∈R+ , P̃) such that
p(ω; ds, dz) =

X

1D (ω, t)(t,βt (ω)) (ds, dz)

t≥0

p̃((ω, ω ◦ ); ds, dz) =

X

1D̃ ((ω, ω ◦ ), t)(t,β̃t (ω,ω◦ )) (ds, dz),

t≥0

for every (ω, ω ◦ ) ∈ Ω̃, where (x,y) is the Dirac measure on R+ × R with mass in (x, y). As a
consequence, we obtain from (A.2)
Z Z
δ(ω, t, βt (ω))1D (ω, t) =
δ(ω, s, z)1{s=t} p(ω; ds, dz)
Z Z
=
δ(ω, s, h(ω, s, z))1{s=t} p̃((ω, ω ◦ ); ds, dz)
= δ(ω, t, h(ω, t, β̃t (ω, ω ◦ )))1D̃ ((ω, ω ◦ ), t),
for every t ≥ 0 and P̃-almost every (ω, ω ◦ ), where we set f (ω, s, h(ω, s, z)) = 0 if h(ω, s, z) =
x0 for a real-valued predictable function f on Ω0 . Thus, the processes δ(ω, t, βt (ω))1D (ω, t)
and δ(ω, t, h(ω, t, β̃t (ω, ω ◦ )))1D̃ ((ω, ω ◦ ), t) are P̃-indistinguishable on (Ω̃, F̃, (F̃t )t∈R+ , P̃) and the
stochastic integrals δ ? (p − q) and (δ ◦ h) ? (p̃ − q̃) are P̃-indistinguishable as well (cf. Definition
II.1.27 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002)), where for the sake of brevity (δ◦h) denotes the predictable
map (ω, s, z) 7→ δ(ω, s, h(ω, s, z)) on Ω0 . Notice that δ 2 ? q = (δ 2 ◦ h) ? q̃ outside a null set due to
(A.1). Thus, the same reasoning as at the beginning of the proof shows that Ỹt := (δ ◦h)?(p̃−q̃)t
is well-defined and a locally square integrable martingale. Finally, for every finite stopping time
T and all u > 0, p ≥ 1 the variables sup0≤v≤u |YT +v − YT |p and sup0≤v≤u |ỸT +v − ỸT |p coincide
P̃-almost surely. Consequently, using (A.3) we obtain




EP sup |YT +v − YT |p | FT = EP̃ sup |YT +v − YT |p | FT
0≤v≤u
0≤v≤u


= EP̃ sup |ỸT +v − ỸT |p | FT .
(A.4)
0≤v≤u

Now, Lemma 2.1.5 in Jacod and Protter (2012), (A.1) and (A.3) give for p ∈ [1, 2]

EP

p

sup |YT +v − YT | | FT
0≤v≤u



≤ Kp uEP̃

= Kp uEP

 1 TZ+uZ
u
1

T
T
Z+uZ

u

|δ(ω, s, h(ω, s, z))|p F (dz)ds | FT



|δ(ω, s, h(ω, s, z))|p F (dz)ds | FT



T


= Kp uE δ̂(p)T,u | FT .
The second asserted inequality follows with exactly the same reasoning.
87

(A.5)

Proof of Lemma A.2. In the same way as at the beginning of the proof of Lemma A.1 we
see that the increasing, continuous and finite-valued process |δ| ? q is locally bounded. Hence,
by the definition of the predictable compensator (Theorem II.1.8 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002))
the process |δ| ? p is locally integrable and thus Y is of locally integrable variation.
With the same quantities as in the proof of Lemma A.1 we obtain from (A.2)
Z Z
Yt =
1[0,t] (s)δ(ω, s, z)p(ω; ds, dz)
Z Z
=
1[0,t] (s)δ(ω, s, h(ω, s, z))p̃((ω, ω ◦ ); ds, dz)
= (δ ◦ h) ? p̃t =: Ỹt ,
for all t ∈ R+ P̃(d(ω, ω ◦ ))-almost surely. Thus, we have
sup |YT +v − YT |p = sup |ỸT +v − ỸT |p
0≤v≤u

0≤v≤u

P̃-almost surely for all finite stopping times T and p, u > 0. Now, the same reasoning as in
(A.4) and (A.5), but using Lemma 2.1.7 of Jacod and Protter (2012) instead, yields the desired
inequalities.
Remark A.3. In the proofs below integral processes of the form Y(1) = δ ? µ(n) and Y(2) =
δ ? (µ(n) − µ̄(n) ) occur frequently, where µ(n) is the random measure associated with the jumps
of the underlying process, µ̄(n) denotes its predictable compensator and δ is some suitable P 0 measurable function on Ω0 . When we want to apply Lemma A.1 and Lemma A.2 to these
processes the question is whether the condition δ̂(2)0,u < ∞ almost surely or δ̂(1)0,u < ∞
almost surely is satisfied for all u > 0, respectively. However, due to the observation scheme
(n)
| i = 0, 1, . . . , n} only values of the processes Y(1),t , Y(2),t for t ≤ n∆n are relevant and we
{Xi∆
n
Tn
Tn
can consider the stopped processes Y(1)
, Y(2)
instead, where Tn ≡ n∆n is the constant stopping
time. According to Definition II.1.27 and Proposition II.1.30 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002) we
Tn
Tn
have Y(1)
= δ ? η (n) and Y(2)
= δ ? (η (n) − η̄ (n) ), where η (n) denotes the restriction of µ(n) to the
set [0, n∆n ] × R. Obviously, the predictable compensator η̄ (n) of η (n) is the restriction of µ̄(n)
to [0, n∆n ] × R. As a consequence, we have n∆n δ̂(2)0,n∆n = n∆n δ̂(2, η̄)0,n∆n = uδ̂(2, η̄)0,u and
n∆n δ̂(1)0,n∆n = n∆n δ̂(1, η̄)0,n∆n = uδ̂(1, η̄)0,u for all u ≥ n∆n , where δ̂(2, η̄) and δ̂(1, η̄) denote
the function δ̂(2) and δ̂(1), respectively, calculated with respect to η̄. Thus, Lemma A.1 and
Lemma A.2 can be applied, if T + u ≤ n∆n and δ̂(2)0,n∆n < ∞ almost surely or δ̂(1)0,n∆n < ∞
almost surely, respectively. This is always satisfied when we apply these lemmas.

A.2

Results on the crucial decomposition

Recall the quantities defined in (6.23) which are used frequently in the proof of Theorem 6.1
and Theorem 6.8. With the constants from Assumption 6.12 let ` ∈ R have the properties
1<`<

1
∧ (1 + )
2βw

and also

88

`<

2(p − 1)w − 1
if β > 1,
2(β − 1)w

(A.6)

with an  > 0 for which Assumption 6.12(b6) holds. Then we have
un = (vn )`

Fn = {z : |z| > un }

and

(A.7)

as well as
X̃ 00n = (z1Fn (z)) ? µ(n) ,
X̃ 00 (α)n = (z1Fn ∩{|z|≤α/4} (z)) ? µ(n) ,
X̂ 00 (α)n = (z1{|z|>α/4} ) ? µ(n) ,
Ntn

= (1Fn ? µ
(n)

X̃t0n = Xt
=

(n)
X0

(n)

for α > 0

for α > 0

)t ,

− X̃t00n
Zt
+

b(n)
s ds

0

Zt
+

σs(n) dWs(n) +

0
(n)

+ (z1FnC (z)) ? (µ(n) − µ̄(n) )t − (z1{|z|≤1}∩Fn (z)) ? µ̄t ,
Ani = {|∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2} ∩ {∆ni N n ≤ 1}.

(A.8)

The following lemma ensures that with high probability at most one large jump occurs and
the remaining part is appropriately small.
Lemma A.4. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied. Then for the sets
Qn =

n
\

Ani

(A.9)

i=1

we have P(Qn ) → 1 as n → ∞.
Proof. Choose some m0 ∈ R with
m0 >

1 + 2w
2 + β`
∨
.
`−1
1/2 − w

Then by Lemma A.1 and Assumption 6.12(a1) we obtain for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and any sufficiently
small 0 < δ < 1


E ∆ni z1FnC (z) ? µ(n) − µ̄(n)


i∆n
Z

Z

m0

0
|z|m νs(n) (dz)ds

≤K
(i−1)∆n {|z|≤un }

Zi/n





i∆n
Z

m0 (n)

|z| g

= K n∆n

+

+

Zi/n



Z

(y, dz)dy + n∆n

(i−1)/n {|z|≤un }

≤ K(δ)

|z|2 νs(n) (dz)ds

m0 /2 

(i−1)∆n {|z|≤un }

Z

0
∆n1+(m −β−δ)`w

Z

(i−1)/n {|z|≤un }
0 /2
∆m
n



.

89

|z|2 g (n) (y, dz)dy

m0 /2 

Note that m0 > 2 always so the lemma quoted above can be applied. Furthermore, µ̄(n) (ds, dz) =
(n)
νs (dz)ds yields for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and arbitrary δ > 0 small enough
∆ni

z1{|z|≤1}∩Fn (z) ? µ̄

(n)



i∆n
Z

Z

zνs(n) (dz)ds

=
(i−1)∆n {un <|z|≤1}

Zi/n

≤

+
n∆n
u−(β+δ−1)
n

≤

+
K(δ)∆1−`w(β+δ−1)
.
n

Z

|z|β+δ g (n) (y, dz)dy

(i−1)/n {un <|z|≤1}

Let mb , mσ ∈ R be the constants in Assumption 6.12(c). Because of mb > 1 and mσ > 2 we can
apply Hölder’s inequality and the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequalities (see page 39 in Jacod
and Protter (2012)) to obtain due to Assumption 6.12(c) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n:
i∆n
Z

E

mb

b(n)
s ds



≤

b
∆m
n E

i∆n
Z

1
∆n

(i−1)∆n

mb
|b(n)
s | ds



(i−1)∆n

=

b
∆m
n



i∆n
Z

1
∆n

mb
E|b(n)
s | ds



b
≤ K∆m
n

(i−1)∆n

and
i∆n
Z

E

mσ

σs(n) dWs(n)


≤ KE

(i−1)∆n

i∆n
Z

|σs(n) |2 ds

mσ /2

(i−1)∆n



≤

σ /2
K∆m
E
n

1
∆n

i∆n
Z


|σs(n) |mσ ds

(i−1)∆n

=

σ /2
K∆m
n



i∆n
Z

1
∆n


E|σs(n) |mσ ds ≤ K∆nmσ /2 ,

(i−1)∆n

where the equalities in the above displays hold according to Fubini’s theorem. Additionally,
according to Lemma A.13 we have for any 1 ≤ i ≤ n and some K(δ) > 0
P(∆ni N n ≥ 2) ≤ K(δ)∆2−2(β+δ)`w
,
n
for n ∈ N large enough. Let us now choose δ > 0 in such a way that 1 − `w(β + δ − 1)+ > w.
1−`w(β+δ−1)+
Then, for n large enough we have ∆n
≤ Kvn , and the Markov inequality gives
n
X



0 −β−δ)`w−m0 w
P (Ani )C ≤ K(δ)n ∆2−2(β+δ)`w
+ ∆1+(m
+
n
n

i=1
0

0

σ /2−mσ w
b −mb w
+ ∆nm /2−m w + ∆m
+ ∆m
. (A.10)
n
n

90

From the choice of the constants we further have
2 − 2(β + δ)`w ≥ 2 − 2β(1 + )w

(A.11)

and




1 + (m0 − β − δ)`w − m0 w ∧ m0 /2 − m0 w ∧ mσ /2 − mσ w ∧ mb − mb w ≥ 1 + 2w, (A.12)
again for δ > 0 small enough. Thus, the right hand side of (A.10) converges to zero for this
choice of δ, using Assumption 6.12(b4) and (b6).
If moreover Assumption 2.3 is valid, we can even give a rate for the convergence P(Qn ) → 1.
Lemma A.5. If Assumption 2.3 is satisfied for some 0 < β < 2, 0 < τ < (1/5 ∧
2
p > β + (( 12 + 32 β) ∨ 1+5τ
), we have

2−β
2+5β )

and


1+τ
P QC
n ≤ Kn∆n ,
for some K > 0.
Proof. If Assumption 2.3 holds, then according to (6.11) in the proof of Proposition 6.13 Assumption 6.12 is valid for constants satisfying
1 + τ = 2(1 − βw(1 + )) < (1 + 2w).
Comparing this fact with (A.10), (A.11) and (A.12) yields the assertion.
In the next auxiliary lemma we consider for α > 0, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n with i 6= j and the constant
r in Assumption 6.12 the sets
n
o n
o
(n)
Ri,j (α) = ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n − ∆nj X̂ 00 (α)n ≤ ∆rn ∩ ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n > α/4 ∩ Qn ,
(A.13)
with the pure jump Itō semimartingale X̂ 00 (α)n from (A.8). Furthermore, for α > 0 let the sets
Jn(1) (α) be defined by their complements:
Jn(1) (α)C =

n
[

(n)

Ri,j (α).

(A.14)

i,j=1

i6=j
(1)

Lemma A.6. Grant Assumption 6.12. Then for each α > 0 the sets Jn (α) defined in (A.14)
satisfy

lim P Jn(1) (α) = 1.
n→∞

Proof. Let x be arbitrary and either z = 0 or |z| > α/4. Then, for n large enough we have
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{|x|>α/4} ≤ 1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{|x|>α/4} 1{|z|>α/4} .

91

Furthermore, using the fact that for large n ∈ N on Qn there is at most one jump of X̂ 00 (α)n on
an interval ((k − 1)∆n , k∆n ] with 1 ≤ k ≤ n, we thus obtain
P


(n)
Ri,j (α)

Z Z Z Z Z
≤

1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1((j−1)∆n ,j∆n ] (t)1{|z|>α/4} ×
× 1Qn (ω)µ(n) (ω; dt, dz)1{|x|>α/4} 1((i−1)∆n ,i∆n ] (s)µ(n) (ω; ds, dx)P(dω). (A.15)

Now, forget about the indicator involving Qn and assume j < i. If (Ft )t∈R+ denotes the
underlying filtration, the inner integral in (A.15) with respect to µ(n) (ω; dt, dz) is an (Fj∆n ⊗
B)-measurable function in (ω, x). Accordingly, the integrand in the integral with respect to
µ(n) (ω; ds, dx) is in fact P 0 -measurable. Therefore, Fubini’s theorem and the definition of the
predictable compensator of an optional P 0 -σ-finite random measure (see Theorem II.1.8 in Jacod
and Shiryaev (2002)) yield for n large enough:

P


(n)
Ri,j (α)

i∆n
Z

j∆
Z n

Z Z

≤

1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{|x|>α/4} ×
(i−1)∆n (j−1)∆n

× 1{|z|>α/4} νs(n)
(dz)νs(n)
(dx)ds1 ds2
1
2
≤n

2

∆2n

Zi/n

Zj/n Z Z
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{|x|>α/4} ×

(i−1)/n (j−1)/n

× 1{|z|>α/4} g (n) (y1 , dz)g (n) (y2 , dx)dy1 dy2 .
(A.16)

(1)
Thus, we have P Jn (α) → 1, because (A.16), Assumption 6.12(a(4)II) and Assumption
6.12(b3) show that there is a constant K > 0 such that

P Jn(1) (α)C ≤ Kn2 ∆2+q
→ 0.
n

Similar to (A.13) for α > 0, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n with i 6= j and the constants v < r in Assumption
6.12 let
o n
o
n
(n)
Si,j (α) = ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n − ∆nj X̃ 00 (8α)n ≤ ∆rn ∩ ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n > ∆vn ∩ Qn .
(2)

and define the sets Jn (α) by
Jn(2) (α)C =

n
[

(n)

Si,j (α).

(A.17)

i,j=1

i6=j

Lemma A.7. Grant Assumption 6.12. Then for each α ∈ (0, α0 /2), with α0 the constant in
Assumption 6.12(a(4)I), the sets Jn(2) (α) defined in (A.17) satisfy

lim P Jn(2) (α) = 1.

n→∞

92

Proof. The same considerations as for (A.15) and (A.16) yield
(n)
P(Si,j (α))

j∆
Z n

i∆n
Z

Z Z
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{∆vn /2<|x|≤α0 } ×

≤
(i−1)∆n (j−1)∆n

(dz)νs(n)
(dx)ds1 ds2
× 1{∆vn /2<|z|≤α0 } νs(n)
1
2
≤ n2 ∆2n

Zi/n

Zj/n Z Z
1{|x−z|≤∆rn } 1{∆vn /2<|x|≤α0 } ×

(i−1)/n (j−1)/n

× 1{∆vn /2<|z|≤α0 } g (n) (y1 , dz)g (n) (y2 , dx)dy1 dy2
≤ K∆2+q
n ,
for n large enough, because of Assumption 6.12(a(4)I) and v < r. Thus, we obtain

P Jn(2) (α)C ≤ Kn2 ∆2+q
→ 0,
n
by Assumption 6.12(b3)
The next lemma yields bounds for the cardinality of the following random sets. For α > 0,
n ∈ N, t ∈ R and ω ∈ Ω let

Ã1 (ω; α, n, t) = i ∈ {1, . . . , n} | |∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n (ω)| > α/4 and
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n (ω) + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n (ω)) 6= 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n (ω))

Ã2 (ω; α, n, t) = i ∈ {1, . . . , n} | |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n (ω)| > ∆vn and
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n (ω) + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n (ω)) 6= 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n (ω))
Lemma A.8. Grant Assumption 6.12 and let cn := d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e. Then for all α > 0, n ∈ N
and t ∈ R we have
#Ã1 (ω; α, n, t) ≤ cn
(A.18)
(1)

for every ω ∈ Jn (α) ∩ Qn as well as
#Ã2 (ω; α, n, t) ≤ cn

(A.19)

(2)

for all ω ∈ Jn (α) ∩ Qn , where #M denotes the cardinality of a set M .
(1)

Proof. For ω ∈ Jn (α) ∩ Qn we have
∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n − ∆nj X̂ 00 (α)n > ∆rn

for all i, j ∈ k ∈ {1, . . . , n} | |∆nk X̂ 00 (α)n | > α/4 =: M0 (ω; α, n) with i 6= j by the definition of
(1)
the set Jn (α) in (A.14). Consequently, for fixed t ∈ R
∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ∈ [t − vn /2, t + vn /2]
can only hold for at most cn indices i ∈ M0 (ω; α, n). Thus, we conclude (A.18), because according
to (A.9) we have |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , n} and ω ∈ Qn .
The assertion (A.19) follows with exactly the same reasoning.
93

In the following we gather auxiliary lemmas which have a similar proof and give bounds for
crucial quantities in the proof of Theorem 6.1 and Theorem 6.8. The first one is concerned with
Vα(n) := √

1
n∆n

bnθc n

X

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

(α)

χt


o
(α)
,
∆ni X (n) 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt ∆ni L(n)
i

(A.20)

i=1

(α)


from (6.26), where α > 0, χt is defined in (6.3) and L(n) = z1{|z|>vn } ? µ(n) is the pure jump
Itō semimartingale defined in (6.4).
Lemma A.9. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied. Then for α > 0, ω ∈ Qn and n ∈ N large
enough such that vn ≤ α/4 we have
Vα(n) ≤ Cn (α) + Dn (α),
where
n

Cn (α) = √

X
K
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) − 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) ×
sup
n∆n t∈R i=1
× 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

i

for K > 0 a bound for ρ and
n
1 X
Dn (α) = √
ρα (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } −
i
i
n∆n i=1

− ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

i

with ρα defined prior to (6.3) and where the particular processes are defined in (A.8).
Proof. On Qn , and with n large enough such that vn ≤ α/4, one of the following mutually
exclusive possibilities holds for 1 ≤ i ≤ n:
(i) ∆ni N n = 0.
Then we have |∆ni X (n) | = |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 and there is no jump larger than un (and vn )
(α)
n (n) )1
n (n) )
on the interval ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ]. Thus, χ(α)
(n) |>v } = 0 = χt (∆i L
t (∆i X
{|∆n
n
i X
holds for all t ∈ R and the corresponding summand in (A.20) vanishes.
(ii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n = ∆ni X̃ 00 (α)n 6= 0.
So the only jump in ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] (of absolute size) larger than un is in fact not larger
than α/4, and because of vn ≤ α/4 we have |∆ni X (n) | ≤ α/2. Thus, as in the first case,
(α)
n (n)
n (n) ) is true for all t ∈ R and the corresponding
χ(α)
(n) |>v } = 0 = χt (∆i L
t (∆i X )1{|∆n
n
i X
summand in (A.20) is equal to zero.
(iii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n 6= 0, but ∆ni X̃ 00 (α)n = 0.
So the only jump in ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] larger than un is also larger than α/4. If X̂ 00 (α)n is
the quantity defined in (A.8), we get
∆ni X (n) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n
(α)

and

χt (∆ni L(n) ) = ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ).
i

94

Thus, we obtain an upper bound for Vα(n) on Qn , as soon as vn ≤ α/4:
Vα(n)

1
≤√
n∆n

bnθc n

X

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

ρα (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X (n) ) − ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )×
i

i=1

o
× 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2}
i

i

i

≤ Cn (α) + Dn (α),
where we can substitute ∆ni X (n) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n in the first line.
With a similar reasoning as above we deduce a bound for
Vα◦(n)

1
=√
n∆n

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

bnθc n

X

◦(α)

χt

◦(α)

(∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt
i

o
(∆ni L(n) ) ,

(A.21)

i=1

from (6.32) in the next lemma, where α > 0 and χ◦t (α) is defined in (6.3).
Lemma A.10. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied. Then for α > 0, ω ∈ Qn and n ∈ N large
enough such that vn ≤ α we have
Vα◦(n) ≤ Cn◦ (α) + Dn◦ (α) + En◦ (α),
where
n

Cn◦ (α) = √

X
K
sup
1(−∞,t] (ςin (α)) − 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) ×
n∆n t∈R i=1
× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
n

i

i

with K > 0 a bound for ρ and
Dn◦ (α) = √

n
1 X ◦ n
ρ (ς (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } − ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } ×
i
n∆n i=1 α i

× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
n

i

i

n

En◦ (α) = √

X
1
sup
ρ◦ (ς n (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1(−∞,t] (ςin (α)) − ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )×
n∆n t∈R i=1 α i
× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1Qn ,
i

i

i

n

where ςin (α) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n , ρ◦α is defined prior to (6.3), v > 0 is the constant from
Assumption 6.12(a(4)I) and the involved processes are defined in (A.8).
Proof. On the set Qn , and if vn ≤ α, we have three mutually exclusive possibilities for 1 ≤ i ≤ n:
(i) ∆ni N n = 0.
Then we have |∆ni X (n) | = |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 and there is no jump larger than un (and vn )
on the interval ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ]. Thus, χ◦t (α) (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } = 0 = χ◦t (α) (∆ni L(n) )
i
holds for all t ∈ R and the i-th summand in (A.21) vanishes.
95

(ii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n 6= 0, but ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n = 0.
So the only jump in ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] larger than un is also larger than 2α. Because
|∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 ≤ α/2 holds, we have |∆ni X (n) | ≥ α, and consequently χ◦t (α) (∆ni X (n) )
1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } = 0 = χ◦t (α) (∆ni L(n) ) using the definition of χ◦t (α) .
i

(iii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n = ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n 6= 0.
Here we can write
∆ni X (n) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n =: ςin (α)
and
◦(α)

χt

(∆ni L(n) ) = ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ).
i

Therefore, on Qn and as soon as vn ≤ α, we have
Vα◦(n)

1
≤√
n∆n

≤

Cn◦ (α)

bnθc n

X

sup
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1(−∞,t] (ςin (α))−

i=1

o
1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2}

−

ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )
i

+

Dn◦ (α)

+

i

En◦ (α).

In the following lemma we obtain a bound for
V̂α(n)

1
=√
n∆n

bnθc

sup

X

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

i=1


(α)
(α)
ξi χt (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt (∆ni L(n) ) ,
i

(A.22)


from (6.45), where α > 0, χt(α) is defined in (6.3), L(n) = z1{|z|>vn } ? µ(n) is the pure jump
Itō semimartingale defined in (6.4) and (ξi )i∈N is a sequence of multipliers with mean zero and
variance one defined on a distinct probability space than the remaining processes. Furthermore,
for the claim of the lemma below recall the definition of the sets Qn and Jn(1) (α) in (A.9) and
(A.14), respectively, as well as the definition of ρα prior to (6.3) and the quantities defined in
(A.8).
(1)

Lemma A.11. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied. Then for α > 0, ω ∈ Jn (α) ∩ Qn and n ∈ N
large enough such that vn ≤ α/4 we have
V̂α(n) ≤ D̂n (α) + Ên (α) + F̂n (α),
with
n
1 X
|ξi | ρα (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } −
D̂n (α) = √
i
i
n∆n i=1

− ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

96

i

Ên (α) = sup
A∈Sn

X

ξi ani (α) ,

i∈A

and
F̂n (α) = sup
A∈Sn

X

ξi bni (α) ,

i∈A

for
ani (α) = √
bni (α) = √

1
ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} ,
i
n∆n

1
ρα (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} ,
i
i
i
n∆n

and Sn = {M ⊂ {1, . . . , n} | #M ≤ cn } with cn = d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e.
Proof. Recall the cases which have been distinguished in the proof of Lemma A.9:
On Qn , and with n large enough such that vn ≤ α/4, one of the following mutually exclusive
possibilities holds for 1 ≤ i ≤ n:
(i) ∆ni N n = 0.
Then we have |∆ni X (n) | = |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 and there is no jump larger than un (and vn )
(α)
n (n) )
n (n) )1
on the interval ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ]. Thus, χ(α)
(n) |>v } = 0 = χt (∆i L
t (∆i X
{|∆n
n
i X
holds for all t ∈ R and the corresponding summand in (A.22) vanishes.
(ii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n = ∆ni X̃ 00 (α)n 6= 0.
So the only jump in ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] (of absolute size) larger than un is in fact not larger
than α/4, and because of vn ≤ α/4 we have |∆ni X (n) | ≤ α/2. Thus, as in the first case,
(α)
n (n)
n (n) ) is true for all t ∈ R and the corresponding
χ(α)
(n) |>v } = 0 = χt (∆i L
t (∆i X )1{|∆n
n
i X
summand in (A.22) is equal to zero.
(iii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n 6= 0, but ∆ni X̃ 00 (α)n = 0.
So the only jump in ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] larger than un is also larger than α/4. If X̂ 00 (α)n is
the quantity defined in (A.8), we get
∆ni X (n) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n

and

(α)

χt (∆ni L(n) ) = ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ).
i

Thus, we obtain an upper bound for V̂α(n) on Qn , as soon as vn ≤ α/4:
V̂α(n) ≤ √

1
n∆n

sup

X

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A (ω;α,n,(θ,t))
0

ξi ρα (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X (n) )−
i


− ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} , (A.23)
i

i

where we can substitute ∆ni X (n) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n in the first line and with the random
set

A0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = i ∈ {1, . . . , n} | i ≤ bnθc and ∆ni N n = 1, ∆ni X̃ 00n 6= 0, ∆ni X̃ 00 (α)n = 0 ,
97

for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, α > 0, n ∈ N and ω ∈ Ω. Defining the further random sets

A1 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = i ∈ A0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) | |∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n | > α/4,
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) = 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) = 1 ,

A2 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = i ∈ A0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) | |∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n | > α/4,
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) = 0 and 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) = 1 ,

A3 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = i ∈ A0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) | |∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n | > α/4,
1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) = 1 and 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n ) = 0 ,
for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, α > 0, n ∈ N and ω ∈ Ω, together with (A.23) gives for n large enough
and ω ∈ Qn
X
1
sup
V̂α(n) ≤ √
|ξi | ρα (∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } −
i
i
n∆n (θ,t)∈[0,1]×R
i∈A1 (ω;α,n,(θ,t))

+

− ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2}
i
i
X
n
n
ξi ai (α) +
sup
ξi bi (α) ,
(A.24)

X

sup

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A (ω;α,n,(θ,t))
2

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A (ω;α,n,(θ,t))
3

because |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 holds for each i = 1, . . . , n on Qn by (A.9). Finally, according to
Lemma A.8 we have #A2 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) ≤ cn and #A3 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) ≤ cn on Jn(1) (α) ∩ Qn for
all (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R. By definition A1 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) ⊂ {1, . . . , n} and thus (A.24) yields the
assertion.
In the next lemma we use a similar reasoning as above to obtain a bound for
V̂α◦(n)

=√

1
n∆n

bnθc

sup

X

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

i=1

◦(α)

ξ i χt

◦(α)

(∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } − χt
i


(∆ni L(n) ) .

(A.25)


from (6.50), where α > 0, χ◦t (α) is defined in (6.3), L(n) = z1{|z|>vn } ? µ(n) is the pure jump
Itō semimartingale defined in (6.4) and (ξi )i∈N is a sequence of multipliers with mean zero and
variance one defined on a distinct probability space than the remaining processes. Furthermore
for the claim of the lemma below recall the definition of the sets Qn and Jn(2) (α) in (A.9) and
(A.17), respectively, as well as the definition of ρ◦α prior to (6.3) and the quantities defined in
(A.8).
(2)

Lemma A.12. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied. Then for α > 0, ω ∈ Jn (α) ∩ Qn and n ∈ N
large enough such that vn ≤ α we have
V̂α◦(n) ≤ Ĉn◦ (α) + D̂n◦ (α) + Ên◦ (α) + F̂n◦ (α)
with
n

Ĉn◦ (α) = √

X
1
sup
|ξi | ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1(−∞,t] (ςin (α))−
n∆n t∈R i=1

− ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

i

98

n

i

D̂n◦ (α) = √

n
1 X
|ξi | ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } − ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } ×
i
n∆n i=1

× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} ,
i

Ên◦ (α) = sup

A∈Sn

F̂n◦ (α) = sup

A∈Sn

X

n

i

ξi āni (α) ,

i∈A

X

ξi b̄ni (α) ,

i∈A

where v > 0 is the constant from Assumption 6.12(a(4)I), ςin (α) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n , Sn =
{M ⊂ {1, . . . , n} | #M ≤ cn } for cn = d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e and with
1
ρ◦ (∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn ∨∆v } ,
n
i
n∆n α i
1
ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } .
b̄ni (α) = √
n
i
n∆n

āni (α) = √

Proof. Recall the cases which we have distinguished in the proof of Lemma A.10:
On the set Qn , and if vn ≤ α, we have three mutually exclusive possibilities for 1 ≤ i ≤ n:
(i) ∆ni N n = 0.
Then we have |∆ni X (n) | = |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 and there is no jump larger than un (and vn )
on the interval ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ]. Thus, χ◦t (α) (∆ni X (n) )1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } = 0 = χ◦t (α) (∆ni L(n) )
i
holds for all t ∈ R and the i-th summand in (A.25) vanishes.
(ii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n 6= 0, but ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n = 0.
So the only jump in ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] larger than un is also larger than 2α. Because
|∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 ≤ α/2 holds, we have |∆ni X (n) | ≥ α, and consequently χt◦(α) (∆ni X (n) )
1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } = 0 = χ◦t (α) (∆ni L(n) ) using the definition of χ◦t (α) .
i

(iii) ∆ni N n = 1 and ∆ni X̃ 00n = ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n 6= 0.
Here we can write
∆ni X (n) = ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n =: ςin (α)
and
◦(α)

χt

(∆ni L(n) ) = ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ).
i

Thus, we have for all α > 0, (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, ω ∈ Qn and n ∈ N large enough such that vn ≤ α
1
V̂α◦(n) ≤ √
n∆n

sup

X

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A◦ (ω;α,n,(θ,t))
0

n
ξi ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1(−∞,t] (ςin (α))−

o
− ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) ,
i

99

with the random set
A◦0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , n} | i ≤ bnθc and ∆ni N n = 1, ∆ni X̃ 00n = ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n 6= 0},
for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, α > 0, n ∈ N and ω ∈ Ω. Furthermore, we define the random sets
A◦1 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = {i ∈ A◦0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) | |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | > ∆vn ,
1(−∞,t] (ςin (α)) = 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) = 1},
A◦2 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = {i ∈ A◦0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) | |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | > ∆vn ,
1(−∞,t] (ςin (α)) = 0 and 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) = 1},
A◦3 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) = {i ∈ A◦0 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) | |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | > ∆vn ,
1(−∞,t] (ςin (α)) = 1 and 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n ) = 0},
for (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, α > 0, n ∈ N and ω ∈ Ω, with v > 0 the constant in Assumption 6.12. As
a consequence, we obtain for ω ∈ Qn , α > 0 and n large enough
V̂α◦(n) ≤
1
≤√
n∆n

X

sup

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A◦ (ω;α,n,(θ,t))

|ξi | ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } 1(−∞,t] (ςin (α))

0

−

ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1(−∞,t] (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )
i

1
+√
n∆n

X

sup

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A◦ (ω;α,n,(θ,t))

1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2}
i

n

i

|ξi | ρ◦α (ςin (α))1{|ςin (α)|>vn } −

1

ρ◦α (∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn }
i

+

sup

−
X

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A◦ (ω;α,n,(θ,t))
2

ξi āni (α) +

sup

1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2}
n
i
i
X
n
ξi b̄i (α) ,
(A.26)

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R i∈A◦ (ω;α,n,(θ,t))
3

because |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 holds for each i = 1, . . . , n on Qn according to (A.9). As a consequence,
of Lemma A.8 we have #A◦2 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) ≤ cn as well as #A◦3 (ω; α, n, (θ, t)) ≤ cn with cn =
d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e for each (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R, α > 0 and ω ∈ Jn(2) (α) ∩ Qn . Thus, (A.26) yields the
assertion.

A.3

Moments: Bounds and convergence results

In the remaining part of Appendix A we gather results on moments of functionals of processes
which occur several times in Section 6.
Lemma A.13. For n ∈ N let µ(n) be a Poisson random measure with predictable compensator
µ̄(n) (ds, dz) = νs(n) (dz)ds such that (6.8) is satisfied for all n ∈ N for ∆n > 0 and transition
kernels g (n) from ([0, 1], B([0, 1])) into (R, B) with
Z


λ1 − ess supy∈[0,1] (1 ∧ |z|β )g (n) (y, dz) ≤ K

100

for each n ∈ N and some β ∈ [0, 2], K > 0. Furthermore, let c > 0, F ⊂ {z ∈ R | |z| > c} and
N (n) = 1F ? µ(n) . Then for 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ≤ n∆n the following equality in distribution holds
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n) 
Nt2 − Nt1 =d Poiss ζt2 − ζt1 ,
(A.27)
with
(n)
ζt

Zt Z

νs(n) (dz)ds

=

t/(n∆
Z n )Z

= n∆n

0 F

0

g (n) (y, dz)dy,

(A.28)

F

 (n)
(i)
(n)
for t ∈ [0, n∆n ]. Moreover, for i ∈ {1, . . . , n} the sets An := Ni∆
− N(i−1)∆
≤ 1 satisfy
n
n

C
P (A(i)
≤ K∆2n (c ∧ 1)−2β .
n )
Proof. (A.27) is a consequence of Theorem II.4.8 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002). Furthermore,
according to (A.27) we calculate as follows
k
∞ ζ (n) − ζ (n)
n 
o X

i∆
(i−1)∆
n
(n)
(n)
n
C
P (A(i)
= exp − ζi∆n − ζ(i−1)∆n
n )
k!
k=2

≤



(n)
ζi∆n

−

2
(n)
ζ(i−1)∆n



Zi/n Z

= n∆n

g (n) (y, dz)dy

2

,

(i−1)/n F

where the final equality in the above display is a consequence of (A.28). Now, using the asR
sumption that the mapping (y 7→ (1 ∧ |z|β )g (n) (y, dz)) is Lebesgue almost surely bounded on
[0, 1] we obtain
C
P((A(i)
n ) )



−β

Zi/n Z

≤ n∆n (c ∧ 1)

(1 ∧ |z|β )g (n) (y, dz)dy

2

≤ K∆2n (c ∧ 1)−2β ,

(i−1)/n

because (c ∧ 1)−β (1 ∧ |z|β ) ≥ 1 holds if |z| > c.
Lemma A.14. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied and let α > 0. Then for n ∈ N large enough
we have
 K(α) m
E|ani (α)|m ≤ √
∆n ,
n∆n
for all m ∈ N and all i = 1, . . . , n, where for α > 0, n ∈ N and i = 1, . . . , n
ani (α) = √

1
ρα (∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n )1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |>α/4} ,
i
n∆n

with X̂ 00 (α)n defined in (A.8) and where ρα is defined prior to (6.3).
Proof. For n ∈ N, i = 1, . . . , n and α > 0 define N (α,n) = 1{|z|>α/4} ? µ(n) and Hin (α) =
(α,n)
(α,n)
{Ni∆
− N(i−1)∆
≤ 1}. Then Lemma A.13 shows that
n
n

P Hin (α)C ≤ K(α)∆2n .
101

Notice that on Hin (α) the quantity ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n is either zero or equal to the only jump larger
than α/4 on the interval ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ]. Thus, we obtain
 K m

P Hin (α)C +
E|ani (α)|m ≤ √
n∆n
i∆n Z
o
 1 m n Z
m
(n)
n
√
|ρα (z)| 1{|z|>α/4} 1Hi (α) µ (ω; du, dz)
+
E
n∆n
(i−1)∆n
i∆n Z
Z

n
K m 
≤ √
K(α)∆2n + E
n∆n


o
(1 ∧ |z|p )m 1{|z|>α/4} µ(n) (ω; du, dz) ,

(i−1)∆n

where K > 0 is chosen such that |ρ(z)| ≤ K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R. Furthermore, due to m ≥ 1
we have (1 ∧ |z|p )m ≤ (1 ∧ |z|p ) and consequently the definition of the predictable compensator
of an optional P 0 -σ-finite random measure (see Theorem II.1.8 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002))
yields
E|ani (α)|m

 K(α) m n
∆2n + n∆n
≤ √
n∆n

Zi/n Z

(1 ∧ |z|p )1{|z|>α/4} g (n) (y, dz)dy

o

(i−1)/n

 K(α) m
≤ √
∆n ,
n∆n
for n ∈ N large enough due to Assumption 6.12(a1) and p > β.
Lemma A.15. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied and let α > 0. Then for n ∈ N large enough
we have
 K m
E|āni (α)|m ≤ √
∆n ,
n∆n
for all m ∈ N and all i = 1, . . . , n, where for α > 0, n ∈ N and i = 1, . . . , n
āni (α) = √

1
ρ◦ (∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n )1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn ∨∆v } ,
n
i
n∆n α i

with X̃ 00 (8α)n defined in (A.8), v > 0 is the constant from Assumption 6.12(a(4)I) and where
ρ◦α is defined prior to (6.3).
Proof. For n ∈ N, i = 1, . . . , n and α > 0 we define the processes N̄ (α,n) = 1{un <|z|≤2α} ? µ(n) ,
(α,n)
(α,n)
where un = vn` with ` the constant in (A.6). If we define the sets H̄in (α) = {N̄i∆
− N̄(i−1)∆
≤
n
n
1}, Lemma A.13 yields

P H̄in (α)C ≤ K(δ)∆2−2`w(β+δ)
,
n

(A.29)

for all δ > 0 and n ∈ N large enough. Consequently, using the fact that on H̄in (α) the increment
∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n is either zero or equal to the only jump of absolute size in (un , 2α] on the interval

102

((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] we obtain
 K(δ) m

P H̄in (α)C +
E|āni (α)|m ≤ √
n∆n
i∆n Z
Z
 1 m
+ √
|ρ◦α (z)|m 1{|z|>vn ∨∆vn } 1H̄ n (α) µ(n) (ω; du, dz)
E
i
n∆n
(i−1)∆n

 K(δ) m n
≤ √
∆n2−2`w(β+δ) + E
n∆n

i∆n Z
Z

o
(1 ∧ |z|p )m µ(n) (ω; du, dz) ,

(i−1)∆n

for every δ > 0, where K(δ) > 0 is chosen such that (A.29) holds and |ρ(z)| ≤ K(δ)(1 ∧ |z|p )
(see Assumption 6.12(a2)). Thus, due to (1 ∧ |z|p )m ≤ (1 ∧ |z|p ) and the definition of the
predictable compensator of an optional P 0 -σ-finite random measure (see Theorem II.1.8 in Jacod
and Shiryaev (2002)) we obtain for some small δ > 0 and n ∈ N large enough
E|āni (α)|m

 K(δ) m n
∆n2−2`w(β+δ) + n∆n
≤ √
n∆n

Zi/n Z

(1 ∧ |z|p )g (n) (y, dz)dy

o

(i−1)/n

 K(δ) m
≤ √
∆n ,
n∆n
because of p > β and Assumption 6.12(a1), as well as ` < 1/(2βw).
The proof of the following lemma requires the notion of Orlicz norms. Recall from Section
2.2 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) that for Λ : R+ → R a non-decreasing, convex function
with Λ(0) = 0 and a random variable Z the Orlicz norm is defined as


kZkΛ = inf C > 0 | EΛ |Z|/C ≤ 1 ,
where we set inf ∅ = ∞. It is easy to check that if Λ equals the function x 7→ xp for some p ≥ 1,
the corresponding Orlicz norm is the well-known Lp -norm
1/p
kZkp = E|Z|p
.
Furthermore for Λ1 (x) := ex − 1 a straight forward calculation gives
kZkp ≤ p!kZkΛ1 ,

for all p ∈ N,

(A.30)

because xp ≤ p!(ex − 1) for all x ∈ R+ by the series expansion of the exponential function.
Lemma A.16. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied and for n ∈ N let (Zin )i=1,...,n be independent
random variables with mean zero such that there exist constants C1 , C2 > 0 with
 C m−2 C
2
1
,
(A.31)
E|Zin |m ≤ m! √
n
n∆n
for every integer m ≥ 2. Then we have
n
o
X
E sup
Zin = o(1),
A∈Sn

i∈A

as n → ∞ for Sn = {M ⊂ {1, . . . , n} | #M ≤ cn } with cn = d(vn /∆rn ) + 1e.
103

Proof. The modified Bernstein inequality (Lemma 2.2.11 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996))
and (A.31) yield

 X
1
x2
P
Zin > x ≤ 2e− 2 bn +dn x
i∈A

√
for every x ∈ R+ , A ∈ Sn with bn = 2C2 cn /n and dn = C1 / n∆n , because each A ∈ Sn consists
of at most cn elements. Therefore, by Lemma 2.2.10 in the previously mentioned reference, the
fact that #Sn ≤ (n + 1)cn and (A.30) we obtain for a universal constant C and n ≥ 2
n
o
X
X
p

E sup
Zin ≤ sup
≤ C dn log(1 + (n + 1)cn ) + bn log(1 + (n + 1)cn )
Zin
A∈Sn

i∈A

A∈Sn

≤ K√

i∈A

Λ1


p
1
vn /∆rn + 2 log(2n) + K vn /∆rn + 2 log(2n)/n
n∆n
δ/2

∆n log(2n)

log(2n)

= Kq
→ 0,
≤ Kq
(1+2r−2w)∨1
((1+2r−2w)∨1)+δ
n∆n
n∆n

(A.32)

with some δ > 0 such that Assumption 6.12(b7) is satisfied. The final convergence in (A.32)
holds, because by Assumption 6.12(b4) we have ∆n = o(n−u ) for some 0 < u < 1.
Lemma A.17. Grant Assumption 6.12. Then we have an (α) = o(1) and bn (α) = o(1) for all
α > 0 as n → ∞, where
an (α) = √

n
o
1 X n n 00 n p
E ∆i X̂ (α) 1{|∆n X̂ 00 (α)n |≤2vn }
i
n∆n i=1

and
n
vn X
bn (α) = √
E ∆ni X̂ 00 (α)n
2 n∆n i=1

p−1

,

with X̂ 00 (α)n defined in (A.8).
Proof. Obviously, |z|p 1{|z|≤2vn } ≤ 2vn |z|p−1 holds for all z ∈ R. Consequently, an (α) ≤ 4bn (α)
and it suffices to verify limn→∞ bn (α) = 0. For γ ∈ R+ set
Z

(n)
b
δα (γ) = λ1 − ess supy∈[0,1]
|z|γ 1{|z|>α/4} g (n) (y, dz) .
(n)

(n)

Then Assumption 6.12(a1) and (a3) yield {δbα (1) ∨ δbα (p − 1)} ≤ K < ∞ for all α > 0, n ∈ N

104

and we obtain the desired result with Lemma A.2 and Assumption 6.12(b4) as follows:
n
Kvn X n
bn (α) ≤ √
n∆n i=1

i∆n Z
Z

|z|p−1 1{|z|>α/4} νs(n) (dz)ds+

(i−1)∆n

+ 1{p−1≥1}

i∆n Z
Z



p−1 o
|z|1{|z|>α/4} νs(n) (dz)ds

(i−1)∆n
n
Kvn X n
√
=
n∆n
n∆n i=1

Zi/n Z

|z|p−1 1{|z|>α/4} g (n) (y, dz)dy+

(i−1)/n

Zi/n Z



+ 1{p−1≥1} n∆n

|z|1{|z|>α/4} g (n) (y, dz)dy

p−1 o

(i−1)/n

Knvn 
≤√
∆n + ∆n(p−1)∨1 = O
n∆n

q

n∆1+2w
n


= o(1).

Lemma A.18. Grant Assumption 6.12. Then we have cn (α) = o(1) and dn (α) = o(1) for all
α > 0 as n → ∞, where
n
o
1 X n n 00
p
cn (α) = √
E ∆i X̃ (8α)n 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤2vn } ,
i
n∆n i=1

and
n
vn X
E ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n
dn (α) = √
2 n∆n i=1

p−1

,

with X̃ 00 (8α)n defined in (A.8).
Proof. Obviously, |z|p 1{|z|≤2vn } ≤ 2vn |z|p−1 holds for each z ∈ R. Thus, cn (α) ≤ 4dn (α) and it
is enough to verify limn→∞ dn (α) = 0. Let α > 0 be fixed and define further for γ ∈ R+
Z

b
δn,α (γ) = λ1 − ess supy∈[0,1]
|z|γ 1{un <|z|≤2α} g (n) (y, dz) .
Note that due to Assumption 6.12(a1) and p − 1 > β we have for each small δ > 0:
+
δbn,α (1) ≤ K(δ)u−(β+δ−1)
n

and

105

δbn,α (p − 1) ≤ K(δ).

Furthermore, Lemma A.2 gives
p−1

≤
E ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n

i/n
R R p−1



|z| 1{un <|z|≤2α} g (n) (y, dz)dy,
n∆

n


(i−1)/n




i/n
R R p−1
|z| 1{un <|z|≤2α} g (n) (y, dz)dy+
≤ K × n∆n


(i−1)/n




p−1
i/n

R R

(n) (y, dz)dy

+
n∆
|z|1
g
,

n
{u
<|z|≤2α}
n

(i−1)/n

∆ δb (p − 1),
if p ≤ 2,
n n,α
≤K×
p−1
∆ δb (p − 1) + ∆n (δb (1))p−1 , if p > 2,
n n,α
n,α

∆ ,
if p ≤ 2,
n
= K(δ) ×
−(p−1)(β+δ−1)
p−1
+
∆ + ∆n un
, if p > 2,

if p ≤ 2,

if p > 2,

n

for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n and δ > 0 small enough. Thus, when p ≤ 2, Assumption 6.12(b4) yields

q
1
= o(1).
dn (α) ≤ K(δ) √
n∆1+2w
n∆n vn = O
n
n∆n
In the case p > 2 we obtain also from Assumption 6.12(b4) for δ small enough:


1
1
+ (p−1)
dn (α) ≤ K(δ) √
n∆n vn + √
n∆np−1 vn u−(β+δ−1)
n
n∆n
n∆n
q

q
2(p−1)−2(p−1)(β+δ−1)+ `w−1+2w
1+2w
+ n∆n
≤ K(δ)
n∆n
q
≤ K(δ) n∆1+2w
= o(1),
n
where the last inequality above is clear for β < 1, for β = 1 we have 2(p − 1) − 2(p − 1)(β + δ −
1
1)`w − 1 > 1 from p > 2, and in the case β > 1 we calculate using ` < 2βw
and p > 1 + β:
2(p − 1) − 2(p − 1)(β + δ − 1)`w − 1 = 2(p − 1)(1 − (β + δ − 1)`w) − 1

β + δ − 1
−1
> 2(p − 1) 1 −
2β

1
δ
= (p − 1) 1 + −
−1
β β

1
δ
>β 1+ −
− 1 = β − δ > 1.
β β

(α)

Lemma A.19. Grant Assumption 6.12. Then we have yn
α > 0 as n → ∞, where
yn(α)

n
1 X n n 0n
=√
E ∆i X̃ + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n
n∆n i=1

p

− ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n

(α)

= o(1) and zn

p

= o(1) for all

×

o
× 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1Qn ,
i

n

106

i

i

i

and
zn(α) = √

n
o
1 X n n 00
p
E ∆i X̃ (8α)n 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1Qn ,
n
i
n∆n i=1

with v > 0 the constant from Assumption 6.12(a(4)I) and where the involved processes and the
set Qn are defined in (A.8) and (A.9), respectively.
Proof. First we consider yn(α) . The mean value theorem yields
yn(α) ≤ √

n
1 X n n 0n p−1
E ∆i X̃ pξi 1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } ×
n
i
n∆n i=1

o
× 1{|∆n X̃ 0n +∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |>vn } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1Qn ,
i

i

i

for some ξi between |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | and |∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n |. Next using the fact that due to
the indicators |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ |∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n | holds, we obtain
yn(α) ≤ √

n
K X n n 0n
E ∆i X̃ ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n
n∆n i=1

p−1

o
1{|∆n X̃ 00 (8α)n |≤∆v } 1{|∆n X̃ 0n |≤vn /2} 1Qn .
i

n

i

Note that on Qn the sum ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n consists of at most one jump. Therefore, we can calculate
with the definition of the predictable compensator of the random measure associated with the
jumps of X (n) :
n
o

Kvn X n
yn(α) ≤ √
E |z|p−1 1{un <|z|≤∆vn } 1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n)
n∆n i=1
n
Kvn X
√
=
n∆n i=1

i∆n Z
Z

|z|p−1 1{un <|z|≤∆vn } νs(n) (dz)ds

(i−1)∆n

Kn∆n vn
= √
n∆n

Z1 Z

|z|p−1 1{un <|z|≤∆vn } g (n) (y, dz)dy = o


q
n∆n1+2w = o(1),

0

by Assumption 6.12(a1) and (b4), because p − 1 > β.
Now we show the claim zn(α) = o(1). This can be seen again by the definition of the predictable
compensator of the random measure associated with the jumps of X (n) . By the fact that on
Qn ∆ni X̃ 00 (8α)n is either 0 or equal to the only jump of absolute size in (un , 2α] on the interval
((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ], we have:
zn(α)

n
o

1 X n
E |z|p 1{un <|z|≤∆vn } 1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n)
≤√
n∆n i=1

=

p

Z1 Z

p

|z| 1{un <|z|≤∆vn } g

n∆n

(n)

q

1+2v(p−β−δ)
(y, dz)dy = O
n∆n
= o(1),

0

according to Assumption 6.12(b5), for some appropriate δ > 0.
107

Lemma A.20. Let Assumption 6.12 be satisfied and let f : R → R be a Borel measurable
function with |f (z)| ≤ K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R and some K > 0. Then we have
E f (∆ni L(n) )

sup



= O(∆n )

(A.33)

i∈{1,...,n}

Proof. By the assumptions on f we obtain for i = 1, . . . , n from Proposition 6.3
E f (∆ni L(n) )



≤ KE 1 ∧ |∆ni L(n) |p

Zi/n Z





1 ∧ |z|p g (n) (y, dz)dy + O ∆2n vn−2((β+δ)∧2) + ∆n vnp−((β+δ)∧2)

≤ Kn∆n
(i−1)/n



Zi/n Z

(β+δ)∧2

1 ∧ |z|

≤ K n∆n



Zi/n Z

p
g0 (y, dz)dy + n∆n

(i−1)/n


1 ∧ |z|(β+δ)∧2 g1 (y, dz)dy

(i−1)/n

Zi/n
+ n∆n an

Z




1 ∧ |z|(β+δ)∧2 g2 (y, dz)dy + O ∆2n vn−2((β+δ)∧2) + ∆n vnp−((β+δ)∧2)

(i−1)/n




= O(∆n ) + O (∆n /n)1/2 + o (∆n /n)1/2 + O ∆2n vn−2((β+δ)∧2) + ∆n vnp−((β+δ)∧2) ,

(A.34)

R
for each δ > 0, because by Assumption 6.12(a1) we have (1 ∧ |z|(β+δ)∧2 )gi (y, dz) ≤ K(δ) for
Lebesgue almost every y ∈ [0, 1] for all i ∈ {0, 1, 2} and some K(δ) > 0. Furthermore, in the
display above an denotes a sequence of non-negative real numbers with an = o((n∆n )−1/2 ) and
Rn (y, B) ≤ an g2 (y, B) for all y ∈ [0, 1], B ∈ B, n ∈ N according to Assumption 6.12. Now,
(A.34) yields (A.33) because of three reasons: first (∆n /n)1/2 ≤ ∆n for large n ∈ N, moreover,
p−((β+δ)∧2)
p > β so vn
≤ 1 for large n ∈ N and if β = 2 we have 2((β + δ) ∧ 2)w = 4w < 1 due to
w < (1/2β), while in the case β < 2 we obtain 2((β + δ) ∧ 2)w = 2(β + δ)w < 1 for δ > 0 small
enough using w < (1/2β) again.
Lemma A.21. Grant Assumption 6.12 and let Qn be the set defined in (A.9). Then we have
for sufficiently large n ∈ N

E ρ(∆ni X (n) ) 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1Qn ≤ K∆n
i

E ρ(∆ni X (n) ) ρ(∆nj X (n) ) 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1Qn ≤ K∆2n
i

j

for i, j = 1, . . . , n with i 6= j, where the constant K > 0 is independent of n, i and j.
Proof. Recall the decomposition X (n) = X̃ 0n + X̃ 00n and the sets
Ani = {|∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2} ∩ {∆ni N n ≤ 1}
in (A.8). According to (A.9) we then have
Qn =

n
\
i=1

108

Ani

(A.35)
(A.36)

and in order to show (A.35) we obtain


E ρ(∆ni X (n) ) 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1Qn ≤ E ρ(∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00n ) 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>vn /2} 1Qn
i
i


≤ E ρ(∆ni X̃ 00n ) + ρ0 (ξin )∆ni X̃ 0n 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>vn /2} 1Qn
i


p−1
n 00n p
1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn + vn ∆ni X̃ 00n
≤ KE 1 ∧ ∆i X̃
1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn ,
i

i

(A.37)
for some ξin between ∆ni X̃ 00n and ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00n using the mean value theorem and the fact
that |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 on Qn . Notice furthermore that due to |∆ni X̃ 0n | ≤ vn /2 on Qn the
condition |∆ni X (n) | > vn implies |∆ni X̃ 00n | > vn /2 and consequently |∆ni X̃ 00n | > |∆ni X̃ 0n |. The
final inequality in (A.37) follows with the assumptions on ρ and the definition of un = (vn )`
with ` > 1 in (A.7), such that un < vn /2 holds for large n ∈ N. On Qn ∆ni X̃ 00n is either zero or
equal to the only jump in ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] of absolute size larger than un . Thus, the definition
of the predictable compensator of an optional P 0 -σ-finite random measure (Theorem II.1.8 in
Jacod and Shiryaev (2002)) gives



p
E 1 ∧ ∆ni X̃ 00n 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn = E (1 ∧ |z|p )1{|z|>un } 1Qn 1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n)
i

≤ E (1 ∧ |z|p )1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n)
Zi/n Z
= n∆n

(1 ∧ |z|p )g (n) (y, dz)dy ≤ K∆n , (A.38)

(i−1)/n

where the last inequality above is a consequence of Assumption 6.12(a1) and p > β. With the
same reasoning we obtain for the second summand in (A.37)



p−1
1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn = E |z|p−1 1{|z|>un } 1Qn 1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n)
E ∆ni X̃ 00n
i

≤ E |z|p−1 1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n)
Zi/n Z
= n∆n

|z|p−1 g (n) (y, dz)dy ≤ K∆n ,

(A.39)

(i−1)/n

using Assumption 6.12(a3) for the last estimate above. (A.37), (A.38) and (A.39) yield (A.35).
In order to prove (A.36) we use the mean value theorem, the definition of Qn and the assumptions
on ρ to obtain for i 6= j similar to (A.37)

E ρ(∆ni X (n) ) ρ(∆nj X (n) ) 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1{|∆n X (n) |>vn } 1Qn
i
j


n 00n
0 n
n 0n
n 00n
ρ(∆j X̃ ) + ρ0 (ξjn )∆nj X̃ 0n ×
≤ E ρ(∆i X̃ ) + ρ (ξi )∆i X̃

× 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>vn /2} 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>vn /2} 1Qn
i
j



n 00n p
n 00n p
≤ KE 1 ∧ ∆i X̃
1 ∧ ∆j X̃
1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn
i
j
 n 00n p−1

n 00n p
+ Kvn E 1 ∧ ∆i X̃
∆j X̃
1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn
i
j
 n 00n p−1

n 00n p
+ Kvn E 1 ∧ ∆j X̃
∆i X̃
1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn
j
i

p−1
p−1
+ Kvn2 E ∆ni X̃ 00n
∆nj X̃ 00n
1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn ,
(A.40)
i

109

j

for some ξin between ∆ni X̃ 00n and ∆ni X̃ 0n + ∆ni X̃ 00n and some ξjn between ∆nj X̃ 00n and ∆nj X̃ 0n +
∆nj X̃ 00n . ∆ni X̃ 00n is on Qn either zero or equal to the only jump of absolute size larger than un
on the interval ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ]. The same is true for ∆nj X̃ 00n on ((j − 1)∆n , j∆n ]. Therefore,
the definition of the predictable compensator of an optional P 0 -σ-finite random measure yields
for the first resulting summand in (A.40)

p
p
1 ∧ ∆nj X̃ 00n 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1{|∆n X̃ 00n |>un } 1Qn
E 1 ∧ ∆ni X̃ 00n
i
j


= E (1 ∧ |z|p )1{|z|>un } 1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n) ×


× (1 ∧ |z|p )1{|z|>un } 1{(j−1)∆n <s≤j∆n } ? µ(n) 1Qn



≤ E (1 ∧ |z|p )1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n) (1 ∧ |z|p )1{(j−1)∆n <s≤j∆n } ? µ(n)


= E (1 ∧ |z|p )1{(i−1)∆n <s≤i∆n } ? µ(n) E (1 ∧ |z|p )1{(j−1)∆n <s≤j∆n } ? µ(n) ≤ K∆2n .
(A.41)
The final equality above follows using the fact that µ(n) is a Poisson random measure and thus
both involved factors are independent (see Theorem II.4.8 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2002)). The
last estimate in (A.41) is a consequence of (A.38). The remaining summands in (A.40) can be
treated similarly by exploiting the properties of a Poisson random measure as well as (A.38) and
(A.39).

B
B.1

Results on the limiting process from Theorem 6.1
Useful properties of the Gaussian limit and its covariance semimetric

In the following we collect several lemmas which are useful to obtain bounds for the expectation
of sup-functionals of the process Gf . In particular, we apply them in the proof of Proposition 6.6
in order to show asymptotical uniform d-equicontinuity in probability of a sequence of processes
Gfn for some suitable semimetric d.
Lemma B.1. Grant Assumption 6.12, let f : R → R be Borel measurable with |f (z)| ≤
K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R and some K > 0. Furthermore, let Gf be the tight centered Gaussian
process in `∞ ([0, 1]×R) defined in Theorem 6.1. Then for (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1]×R the L8 -norm
satisfies
1

kGf (θ1 , t1 ) − Gf (θ2 , t2 )k8 = 105 8 df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )),
with df the semimetric defined in (6.2).

110

Proof. For (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R with θ1 ≤ θ2 we have
2
E Gf (θ1 , t1 ) − Gf (θ2 , t2 )
= Hf ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ1 , t1 )) − 2Hf ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) + Hf ((θ2 , t2 ); (θ2 , t2 ))
Zθ1 Zt1
=

Zθ2 Zt2
Zθ1 tZ1 ∧t2
2
f 2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy
f (z)g0 (y, dz)dy +
f (z)g0 (y, dz)dy − 2
2

0 −∞

0 −∞

0 −∞

= d2f ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )),
where the last equation follows by distinguishing the cases t1 ≤ t2 and t2 ≤ t1 . Therefore, using
the properties of the normal distribution we obtain for the L8 -norm
1

kGf (θ1 , t1 ) − Gf (θ2 , t2 )k8 = 105 8 df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )),
for arbitrary (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R.
Lemma B.2. Grant Assumption 6.12 and let f : R → R be Borel measurable with |f (z)| ≤
K(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R and some K > 0. Then the tight centered Gaussian process Gf defined
in Theorem 6.1 is separable with respect to the semimetric df in the sense of Theorem 2.2.4 in
Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996). More precisely, for every δ > 0
sup

Gf (θ1 , t1 ) − Gf (θ2 , t2 ) =

sup

df ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))<δ

Gf (θ1 , t1 ) − Gf (θ2 , t2 )

df ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))<δ

(θ1 ,t1 ),(θ2 ,t2 )∈([0,1]×R)∩Q2

holds almost surely.
Proof. By the assumptions on the involved quantities for each t ∈ R the function [0, 1] 3
RθRt
θ 7→ 0 −∞ f 2 (z)g0 (y, dz)dy is continuous and for each θ ∈ [0, 1] the function R 3 t 7→
RθRt
2
0 −∞ f (z)g0 (y, dz)dy is right-continuous. As a consequence, we can find for every ε > 0
and (θ1 , t1 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R a (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ ([0, 1] × R) ∩ Q2 with df ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) < ε. Thus, for every
δ>0
sup

Gf (θ1 , t1 ) − Gf (θ2 , t2 ) =

sup

df ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))<δ

Gf (θ1 , t1 ) − Gf (θ2 , t2 )

df ((θ1 ,t1 );(θ2 ,t2 ))<δ

(θ1 ,t1 ),(θ2 ,t2 )∈([0,1]×R)∩Q2

holds almost surely, because the sample paths of Gf are almost surely uniformly df -continuous.

Lemma B.3. Grant Assumption 6.12 and let f : R → R be Borel measurable with |f (z)| ≤
C(1 ∧ |z|p ) for all z ∈ R and some C > 0. Then for df the semimetric defined in (6.2) the
semimetric space ([0, 1] × R, df ) is totally bounded and there exists a K > 0 which depends only
on C such that for every ε > 0
D(ε, df ) ≤ K/ε4 ,
where D(ε, df ) denotes the packing number of [0, 1] × R with respect to df at distance ε > 0.
111

Proof. By the well-known relation D(ε, df ) ≤ N (ε/2, df ) of the packing number and the covering
number N (ε/2, df ) of ([0, 1] × R, df ) at radius ε/2 it suffices to show that there exists a K > 0
with N (ε/2, df ) ≤ K/ε4 for every ε > 0.
R1R
The measure B 3 A 7→ C 2 0 A (1 ∧ |z|2p )g0 (y, dz)dy is finite. Therefore, for each ε > 0 we
can find a finite partition {t0 = −∞ < t1 < . . . < tm < tm+1 = ∞} of R with m ≤ K/ε2 for
R1Rt
some K > 0 which depends only on C such that C 2 0 tjj+1 (1 ∧ |z|2p )g0 (y, dz)dy < ε2 /64 for
each j = 0, . . . , m. For the same reason there is also a finite partition {θ0 = 0 < θ1 < . . . < θ` <
Rθ R
θ`+1 = 1} of [0, 1] with ` ≤ K/ε2 and C 2 θii+1 (1 ∧ |z|2p )g0 (y, dz)dy < ε2 /64 for all i = 0, . . . , `.
Furthermore, consider the collection M := {(θi , tj ) | i = 1, . . . , `; j = 1, . . . , m} which consists
of at most K/ε4 points. Then for an arbitrary (θ, t) ∈ [0, 1] × R let i0 ∈ argmin{|θi − θ| | i =
1, . . . , `}, j0 ∈ argmin{|tj − t| | j = 1, . . . , m} and choose i1 ∈ {0, . . . , ` + 1}, j1 ∈ {0, . . . , m + 1}
such that θ ∈ [θi0 ∧ θi1 , θi0 ∨ θi1 ] as well as t ∈ [tj0 ∧ tj1 , tj0 ∨ tj1 ] to obtain
tj0 ∨tj1
n Z1 Z
1
2
(1 ∧ |z|2p )g0 (y, dz)dy ,
df ((θ, t); (θi0 , tj0 )) ≤ 2 max C 2
0 tj0 ∧tj1
θi0 ∨θi1



C

2

Z

Z

(1 ∧ |z|2p )g0 (y, dz)dy

1 o
2

θi0 ∧θi1

≤ ε/4 < ε/2.
Thus, we have N (ε/2, df ) ≤ K/ε4 , because by the inequality above the df -balls with radius ε/2
around the points of M cover [0, 1] × R.

B.2

An auxiliary result on the supremum of the Gaussian limit

A further application of the lemmas in Section B.1 is the proposition below which is necessary
to prove Theorem 6.8.
Proposition B.4. Grant Assumption 6.12 and for α > 0 let ρ◦α be the function defined prior
to (6.3). Then we have


lim E
sup
|Gρ◦α (θ, t)| = 0.
α→0

(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

Proof. We want to use Corollary 2.2.5 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) for the convex,
non-decreasing, non-zero function ϕ(x) = x8 which clearly satisfies ϕ(0) = 0 and lim supx,y→∞
ϕ(x)ϕ(y)/ ϕ(cxy) < ∞ for some constant c > 0. Due to Lemma B.2 the process Gρ◦α is separable
in the sense of this corollary. Furthermore, Lemma B.1 shows
1

kGρ◦α (θ1 , t1 ) − Gρ◦α (θ2 , t2 )k8 = 105 8 dρ◦α ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )),
for all (θ1 , t1 ), (θ2 , t2 ) ∈ [0, 1] × R, where
Zθ2 Zt2
n Zθ1 tZ1 ∨t2
o1/2
◦
2
dρ◦α ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 )) =
(ρα (z)) g0 (y, dz)dy +
(ρ◦α (z))2 g0 (y, dz)dy
,
θ1 −∞

0 t1 ∧t2

112

(θ1 ≤ θ2 )

is the semimetric for which the sample paths of Gρ◦α are almost surely uniformly continuous.
Thus, according to Corollary 2.2.5 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) there exists a constant
K > 0 which does not depend on ρ or α such that
d(α)
Z¯

sup
(θ1 ,t1 ),(θ2 ,t2 )∈[0,1]×R

|Gρ◦α (θ1 , t1 ) − Gρ◦α (θ2 , t2 )

8

≤K

1

D(ε, dρ◦α ) 8 dε,

(B.1)

0

where D(ε, dρ◦α ) denotes the packing number of [0, 1] × R at distance ε with respect to the
semimetric dρ◦α and where
¯
d(α)
= diam([0, 1] × R; dρ◦α ) =

sup
(θ1 ,t1 ),(θ2 ,t2 )∈[0,1]×R

dρ◦α ((θ1 , t1 ); (θ2 , t2 ))

n Z1 Z
o1
2 α→0
◦
2
≤ 2
(ρα (z)) g0 (y, dz)dy
−→ 0

(B.2)

0

is the diameter of [0, 1] × R with respect to dρ◦α . The convergence in the display above holds due
to Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem by the assumptions on ρ◦α and on g0 . Moreover,
Lemma B.3 gives a constant K > 0 which is independent of α such that D(ε, dρ◦α ) ≤ K/ε4 .
Thus, with (B.1) and (B.2) we obtain the desired result:


E
sup
|Gρ◦α (θ, t)| ≤ kGρ◦α (0, 0)k2 +
sup
|Gρ◦α (θ1 , t1 ) − Gρ◦α (θ2 , t2 )|
(θ,t)∈[0,1]×R

(θ1 ,t1 ),(θ2 ,t2 )∈[0,1]×R

8

d(α)
Z¯

1
¯ 21 α→0
ε− 2 dε = K d(α)
−→ 0.

≤K
0

C

Auxiliary Results

The following lemma shows that two bootstrapped random elements with values in some metric
space (D, d) which differ only by a term of order oP (1) converge simultaneously weakly conditional
on the data in probability.
Lemma C.1. Let Ĝn = Ĝn (X1 , . . . , Xn , ξ1 , . . . , ξn ) and Ĥn = Ĥn (X1 , . . . , Xn , ξ1 , . . . , ξn )
be two sequences of bootstrapped elements with values in some metric space (D, d) such that
P∗
d(Ĝn , Ĥn ) → 0. Then for a tight Borel measurable process G in D, we have Ĝn ξ G if and
only if Ĥn ξ G.
Proof. See Bücher (2011), Lemma A.1.
The next auxiliary result is useful in order to show consistency of the test procedures in this
paper. In the assertion of this proposition (ξ (b) )b=1,...,B for some B ∈ N denote independent
sequences ξ (b) = (ξi(b) )i∈N of random variables satisfying Assumption 3.6. Furthermore, Ĝ(n)
ρ,ξ (b)
denotes the process defined in (6.7) calculated with respect to the b-th multiplier sequence ξ (b) .
113

(loc)

Proposition C.2. Let B ∈ N. If H1 is true and each of the independent multiplier sequences
(ξ (b) )b=1,...,B satisfies Assumption 3.6, then we have
(n)

(n)



Tρ + Tρ,g1 , Tρ,(1) , . . . , Tρ,(B)

(n)



Hρ + Dρ(g1 ) , Hρ,(1) , . . . , Hρ,(B)

T(n)
ρ , T̂ρ,ξ (1) , . . . , T̂ρ,ξ (B)



in (`∞ ([0, 1] × R))B+1 and
(n)

H(n)
ρ , Ĥρ,ξ (1) , . . . , Ĥρ,ξ (B)



in (`∞ (C × R))B+1 , where
denotes (unconditional) weak convergence (with respect to the
(joint) probability measure P), furthermore Tρ,(1) , . . . , Tρ,(B) are independent copies of the Gaussian process Tρ in Theorem 3.1 and Hρ,(1) , . . . , Hρ,(B) are independent copies of the stochastic
process Hρ defined in Theorem 4.4.
Proof. The claim follows by exactly the same reasoning as in the proof of Proposition A.2 in
Bücher et al. (2017).

114

