arXiv:1803.09501v1 [] 26 Mar 2018

A general white noise test based on
kernel lag-window estimates of the
spectral density operator
Vaidotas Characiejusa and Gregory Riceb
a

b

Département de mathématique, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Canada

March 28, 2018
We propose a general white noise test for functional time series based on estimating
a distance between the spectral density operator of a weakly stationary time series
and the constant spectral density operator of an uncorrelated time series. The
estimator that we propose is based on a kernel lag-window type estimator of the
spectral density operator. When the observed time series is a strong white noise in
a real separable Hilbert space, we show that the asymptotic distribution of the test
statistic is standard normal, and we further show that the test statistic diverges for
general serially correlated time series. These results recover as a special case those
of Hong (1996) in the setting of scalar time series. In order to implement the test,
we propose and study a number of kernel and bandwidth choices, including a new
data adaptive bandwidth for such estimators. A simulation study demonstrated
that the proposed method has good size and improved power when compared to
other methods available in the literature, while also offering a light computational
burden.
Keywords: time series, functional data, serial correlation, spectral density
operator, kernel estimator.
MSC2010: 62M10, 62G10, 62M15.

1. Introduction
With this paper, we aim to contribute to the growing literature on general white noise tests
for functional time series. The scope of methodology for analyzing time series taking values
in a function space has grown substantially over the last two decades; see Bosq (2000) for
seminal work on linear processes in function space, and Hörmann and Kokoszka (2012),

1

as well as Chapters 13–16 of Horváth and Kokoszka (2012) for more recent reviews. Most
methods are still founded on non-parametric and non-likelihood based approaches that
rely on the estimation of autocovariance operators to quantify serial dependence in the
sequence; see, e.g., Kargin and Onatski (2008); Klepsch and Klüppelberg (2017); Panaretos
and Tavakoli (2013); Zhang and Shao (2015). It is then often of interest to measure whether
or not an observed sequence of curves, or model residuals, exhibits significant autocorrelation.
Quite a large number of methods have been introduced in order to test for serial correlation in
the setting of functional time series. These methods build upon a well developed literature on
portmanteau tests for scalar and multivariate time series, see e.g. Li (2004) and Chapter 5 of
Francq and Zakoı̈an (2010) for a summary, and can be grouped along the classical time series
dichotomy of time domain and spectral domain approaches. In the time domain, Gabrys and
Kokoszka (2007) proposed a method based on applying a multivariate portmanteau tests
to vectors of scores obtained from projecting the functional time series into a few principle
directions. Horváth et al. (2013) and Kokoszka et al. (2017) develop portmanteau tests
based directly on the norms of empirical autocovariance operators. In the spectral domain,
Zhang (2016) and Bagchi et al. (2018) develop test statistics based on measuring the difference
between periodogram operators and the spectral density operator under the assumption
that the sequence is a weak white noise. Among these, the tests of Horváth et al. (2013),
Zhang (2016) and Bagchi et al. (2018) are general white noise tests in the sense that they are
asymptotically consistent against serial correlation at any lag, whereas the other tests cited
utilize only the autocovariances up to a user selected maximum lag, and do not have more
than trivial power for serial correlation occurring beyond that lag.
Each of these statistics are indelibly connected in that they are based on weighted sums of
norms of empirical autocovariance operators, and hence one might consider alternate ways
of choosing the weights in order to increase power; see Escanciano and Lobato (2009) for a
nice discussion of these connections for scalar portmanteau tests. The statistics developed
in Zhang (2016) and Bagchi et al. (2018), which are based on the periodogram operator,
effectively give equal weights to the autocovariance operators at all lags. One might expect
then that reweighting the periodogram so that it is a more efficient estimate of the spectral
density operator might lead to more powerful tests. A sensible and well studied method of
choosing these weights is to employ a kernel and lag-window or bandwidth as is common in
nonparametric spectral density operator estimation. Panaretos and Tavakoli (2013) were the
first to put forward similar estimators of the spectral density operator based on smoothing
the periodogram operator for L2 ([0, 1], R)-valued time series. Hong (1996) developed general
white noise tests for scalar sequences based on this principle by comparing kernel lag-window
estimates of the spectral density to the constant spectral density of a weak white noise, which
were further studied and extended in Shao (2011b) and Shao (2011a).
In this paper, we develop a general white noise test based on kernel lag-window estimators of
the spectral density operator of a time series with values in a separable Hilbert space H. Under
standard conditions on the kernel and bandwidth used, we show that the estimated distance
between the spectral density operator and the constant spectral density operator based on
such estimators can be normalized to have an asymptotic standard normal distribution under
the assumption that the observed series is independent and identically distributed. Moreover,

2

we show that this standardized distance diverges in probability to infinity at a quantifiable
rate under general departures from a weak white noise. Implementing the test requires the
choice of a kernel and bandwidth, and we suggest several methods for this, including a new
data driven and kernel adaptive bandwidth. We investigated these results and various choices
of the kernel and bandwidth by means of a Monte Carlo simulation study, which confirm
that the proposed tests have good size as well as power exceeding currently available tests,
although with the drawback that they are not built for general white noise (e.g. functional
conditionally heteroscedastic) series.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We present in Section 2 our main methodological
contributions and theory, including all asymptotic results for the proposed test statistic. In
Section 3, we discuss some details of implementing the proposed test, and present the results
of a Monte Carlo simulation study. Some concluding remarks are given in Section 4, and all
proofs as well as the definition of the data adaptive bandwidth are given in the Appendix
following the references.

2. Statement of method and main results
We first define some notation that is used throughout the paper. Suppose that H is a real
separable Hilbert space with the inner product h·, ·i : H × H → R. For x, y ∈ H, the tensor of
x and y is a rank one operator x ⊗ y : H → H defined by (x ⊗ y)(z) = hz, yix for each z ∈ H.
Let {ut }t∈Z be a second-order stationary sequence of H-valued random elements. Throughout
we make use of the following moment conditions:
Assumption 1. E ut = 0 and E kut k4 < ∞ for each t ∈ Z.
The autocovariance operators of {ut }t∈Z are defined by
C(j) = E[uj ⊗ u0 ],

j ∈ Z.

(1)

The spectral density operator F(ω) with ω ∈ [−π, π] is the discrete-time Fourier transform
of the sequence of autocovariance operators {C(j)}j∈Z defined by
X
F(ω) = (2π)−1
C(j)e−ijω , ω ∈ [−π, π],
(2)
j∈Z

√

P
where i = −1. F(ω) is well-defined for ω ∈ [−π, π] provided that j∈Z |||C(j)|||2 < ∞,
where ||| · |||2 is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. We say that {ut }t∈Z is a weak white noise if
C(j) = 0 for j =
6 0, and evidently in this case F(ω) = (2π)−1 C(0) is constant as a function of
ω ∈ [−π, π].

2.1. Definition of test statistic and null asymptotics
It is natural then to consider the distance Q, in terms of integrated normed error, between
the spectral density operator F(ω), ω ∈ [−π, π], and (2π)−1 C(0),
Z π
2
Q = 2π
|||F(ω) − (2π)−1 C(0)|||22 dω,
−π

3

which measures how far the second-order structure of {ut }t∈Z deviates from that of a weak
white noise. Given a sample u1 , . . . , un from {ut }t∈Z , we are then interested in testing the
hypothesis
H0 : Q = 0 versus H1 : Q > 0.
Zhang (2016) and Bagchi et al. (2018) develop general tests of H0 versus H1 . In this paper,
we focus on testing H1 versus the stronger but still relevant hypothesis
H0,iid : the sequence {ut }t∈Z is independent and identically distributed in H.
We discuss in Section 4 how one might adapt the proposed test statistic to generally test H0
versus H1 , but we do not pursue this in detail here. One can estimate Q via estimates of
F(ω), ω ∈ [−π, π], and C(0). The sample autocovariance operators are defined by
Cˆn (j) = n−1

n
X

ut ⊗ ut−j ,

0 ≤ j < n,

(3)

t=j+1

and Cˆn (j) = Cˆn∗ (−j) for −n < j < 0. The spectral density operator may be estimated using
a kernel lag-window estimator defined by
X
F̂n (ω) = (2π)−1
k(j/pn )Cˆn (j)e−ijω , ω ∈ [−π, π],
(4)
|j|<n

where k : R → [−1, 1] is a kernel and pn is the lag-window or bandwidth parameter. We
make the following assumptions on the kernel k and pn .
Assumption 2. k : R → [−1, 1] is a symmetric function that is continuous at zero and at all
but finite number of points, with k(0) = 1 and k(x) = O(x−α ), for some α > 1/2 as x → ∞.
Assumption 3. pn satisfies that pn → ∞ and pn /n → 0 as n → ∞.
Assumption 2 covers all typically used kernels
literature on spectral density estimation,
R ∞in the
r
and guarantees that integrals of the form −∞ k (x)dx are finite, for r = 2, 4. The above
estimates yield an estimate of Q defined by
Z π
2
Q̂n = 2π
|||F̂n (ω) − (2π)−1 Cˆn (0)|||22 dω.
−π

Using the fact that ||| · |||22 = h·, ·iHS , where h·, ·iHS is the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product and
the fact that the functions {ek }k∈Z defined by ek (x) = e−ikx for k ∈ Z and x ∈ [−π, π] are
orthonormal in L2 [−π, π], we obtain
X
Q̂2n =
k 2 (j/pn )|||Cˆn (j)|||22 .
0<|j|<n

Further, since the kernel k is symmetric, Cˆn (−j) = Cˆn∗ (j), and |||Cˆn∗ (j)|||2 = |||Cˆn (j)|||2 , we also
have that
n−1
X
2
Q̂n = 2
k 2 (j/pn )|||Cˆn (j)|||22 .
j=1

4

Remarkably, Q̂2n can be normalized under these general conditions in order to satisfy the
central limit theorem under H0,iid , and we now proceed by defining the normalizingPsequences
and constants needed to do so. Let σ 2 = E ku0 k2 , µ4 = E ku0 k4 and σ̂ 2 = n−1 nt=1 kut k2 .
Also, let us denote
Cn (k) =

n−1
X

(1 − j/n)k 2 (j/pn ) and Dn (k) =

j=1

n−2
X

(1 − j/n)(1 − (j + 1)/n)k 4 (j/pn ).

j=1

We propose to use the test statistic Tn defined by
2−1 nQ̂2n − σ̂n4 Cn (k)
p
,
Tn = Tn (k, pn ) =
|||Cˆn (0)|||22 2Dn (k)

n ≥ 1.

(5)

We now state our main result, which establishes the asymptotic normality of Tn .
Theorem 1. Suppose that {ut }t∈Z satisfies H0,iid and that Assumptions 1, 2, and 3 hold.
Then
d
Tn →
− N (0, 1) as n → ∞.
(6)
Remark 1. Let us observe that
Tn =

σ̂n4
|||Cˆn (0)|||22

·

2−1 nσ̂n−4 Q̂2n − Cn (k)
p
,
2Dn (k)

n ≥ 1.

(7)

p

If H = R, then it follows that σ̂n2 /|||Cˆn (0)|||2 → 1 as n → ∞, and we recover precisely the test
statistic proposed by Hong (1996) (see the statistic M1n on page 840 of Hong (1996)). In a
general real separable Hilbert space H, σ̂n2 /|||Cˆn (0)|||2 converges in probability to σ 2 /|||C(0)|||2 ,
which need not equal one. Intuitively, the structure “inside” ut determines the value of
σ 2 /|||C(0)|||2 .
Remark 2. Under
2 and 3, we have that Dn (k) = D(k)pn + o(pn ) as n → ∞,
R ∞ Assumptions
4
where D(k) = 0 k (z)dz.
Remark 3. Taking the kernel k to be the truncated kernel, k(x) = 1{|x|≤1} , one has that
Q̂2n

=2

pn
X

|||Cˆn (j)|||22 .

j=1

√
Additionally if pn / n → 0, then also Cn (k)/pn → 1, and Dn (k)/pn → 1 as n → ∞. It follows
then under these and the conditions of Theorem 1 that the statistic Tn is asymptotically
equivalent with
Pn
n pj=1
|||Cˆn (j)|||22 − σ̂n4 pn
∗
Tn =
√
|||Cˆn (0)|||22 2pn
which is identical to the statistic considered in Horváth et al. (2013). It was shown there that
this statistic has a normal limit under H0,iid and more restrictive conditions on the divergence
rate of the bandwidth parameter, and so Theorem 1 can be viewed as a generalisation of
their result.

5

The form of statistic Q̂2n as well as Remark 3 suggest that the limit result in Theorem 1 is
akin to a normal approximation to a χ2 random variable where the degrees of freedom is
proportional to pn . In fact, for a constant pn one can show under H0,iid that nQ̂2n is converging
in distribution to a weighted sum of χ2 (1) random variables. It is well known that the normal
approximation of a χ2 random variable is somewhat slow, especially when measuring the
deviations in the tail of the distribution, and several transformations have been proposed
over the years to improve the approximation in finite samples; we refer to Canal (2005) for
a more thorough discussion. We propose to use here a simple square-root transformation,
which in this context amounts to considering the transformed test statistic
!1/2 
!1/2
!1/2 
4
−1
2
4
2σ̂n Cn (k)
σ̂n Cn (k)
 2 nQ̂n
.
TnSQ = TnSQ (k, pn ) =
−
Dn (k)|||Cˆn (0)|||22
|||Cˆn (0)|||22
|||Cˆn (0)|||22
d

Corollary 1. Under the conditions of Theorem 1, TnSQ → N (0, 1) as n → ∞.
These results motivate two tests of H0,iid each with asymptotic size α ∈ (0, 1): to Reject
H0,iid if Tn ≥ Φ−1 (1 − α) or TnSQ ≥ Φ−1 (1 − α), where Φ−1 (1 − α) is the 1 − α quantile of
the standard normal distribution. The finite sample properties of each of these tests for
various choices of the bandwidth and kernel, as well as a comparison of these tests to existing
methods, are presented in Section 3.

2.2. Consistency
We now establish the consistency of our test under H1 . In order to describe time series {ut }t∈Z
that are generally weakly dependent, we follow Tavakoli (2014) and introduce cumulant
summability conditions. Suppose that {ut }t∈Z is a sequence of H-valued random elements.
We say that {ut }t∈Z is k-th order stationary with k ≥ 1 if E kut kk < ∞ for all t ∈ Z and, for
all t1 , . . . , tl ∈ Z and l = 1, . . . , k,
E[ut1 ⊗ ut2 ⊗ . . . ⊗ utl ] = E[u0 ⊗ ut2 −t1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ utl −t1 ].
The joint cumulant of real or complex-valued random variables X1 , . . . , Xk such that E |Xj |k <
∞ for all j = 1, . . . , k with k ≥ 1 is given by
X
Y hY i
|π|−1
cum(X1 , . . . , Xk ) =
(|π| − 1)!(−1)
E
Xi ,
π

B∈π

i∈B

where π runs through the list of all partitions of {1, . . . , n}, B runs through the list of all blocks
of the partition π, and |π| is the number of parts in the partition; see Brillinger (2001) for
more details. Suppose that u1 , . . . , uk are H-valued random variables such that E kuj kk < ∞
N
for all j = 1, . . . , k. The k-th order cumulant cum(u1 , . . . , uk ) is a unique element in kj=1 H
that satisfies
hcum(u1 , . . . , uk ), f1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ fk i = cum(hu1 , f1 i, . . . , huk , fk i)

6

for all f1 , . . . , fk ∈ H. Suppose that {ut }t∈Z is 2k-th order stationary and let us denote
Kt1 ,...,t2k−1 = cum(ut1 , . . . , ut2k−1 , ut0 )
for t1 , . . . , t2k−1 ∈ Z. Then Kt1 ,...,t2k−1 is an operator that maps the elements of
Nk
j=1 H such that

Nk

j=1

H to

hKt1 ,...,t2k−1 (fk+1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ f2k ), f1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ fk i
= cum(hut1 , f1 i, . . . , hut2k−1 , f2k−1 i, hu0 , f2k i) (8)
for all f1 , . . . , f2k ∈ H. The following assumption describes the allowable strength of the
serial dependence of the ut ’s.
zero mean random eleAssumption 4. {ut }t∈Z is a fourth order stationary sequence of
P∞
2
ments with
P∞ values in a real separable Hilbert space H such that j=−∞ |||C(j)|||1 < ∞ and
supj∈Z h=−∞ |||Kh+j,h,j |||1 < ∞.
Assumption 4 is essentially a generalisation of the assumption used by (Hong, 1996, Assumption A.4) to a real separable Hilbert space H. A similar assumption is used by (Zhang, 2016,
Assumption 3.1). The next theorem establishes the consistency of our test, which shows
that, under the alternative hypothesis, the rate at which Tn diverges to infinity as n → ∞ is
1/2
n/pn .
Theorem 2. Suppose that {ut }t∈Z satisfies Assumption 4 and Assumption 3 holds. Then
p
(p1/2
−
n /n)Tn →

2−1 Q2
|||C(0)|||22 (2D(k))1/2

as

n → ∞,

where D(k) is defined in Remark 2.

3. Simulation study
We now present the results of a simulation study which aimed to evaluate the performance of
the tests based on Tn and TnSQ in finite samples, and to compare the proposed method to
some other approaches available in the literature. For this we take the Hilbert space H to be
L2 ([0, 1], R), i.e. the space of equivalence classes of almost everywhere equal square-integrable
real valued functions defined on [0, 1]. In particular, we applied the proposed method to
simulated samples from the following data generating processes (DGP’s):
a) IID-BM: ui (t) = Wi (t), where {Wi (t), u ∈ [0, 1]}∞
i=1 is a sequence of independent and
identically distributed standard Brownian motions.
b) fGARCH(1,1): ui (t) satisfies

ui (t) = σi (t)εi (t),

2
σi2 (t) = δ(t) + α(u2i−1 )(t) + β(σi−1
)(t),

7

(9)

where α and β are integral operators defined, for x ∈ L2 ([0, 1], R) and t ∈ [0, 1], by
Z
Z
(αx)(t) = 12t(1 − t)s(1 − s)x(s)ds, (βx)(t) = 12t(1 − t)s(1 − s)x(s)ds,
δ = 0.01 (a constant function), and
p
 400t 
ln(2)
2
,
i (t) = 200t Bi
2
ln 2

t ∈ [0, 1],

where {Bi (t), t ∈ [0, 1]}i∈Z are independent and identically distributed Brownian bridges.
R
c) FAR(1, S)-BM: ui (t) = ψc (t, s)ui−1 (s)ds + εi (t), u ∈ [0, 1], where εi follows IID-BM,
and ψc (t, s) = c exp{(t2 +s2 )/2}. The constant c is then chosen so that kψc k = S ∈ (0, 1).
Evidently the data generated from IID-BM satisfies both H0 and H0,iid . The functional
GARCH process that we study here was introduced in Aue et al. (2017), and the particular
settings of the operators and error process are meant to imitate high-frequency intraday
returns. This process satisfies H0 but not H0,iid . The FAR(1, S)-BM satisfies neither H0 nor
H0,iid , and we study in particular the case when S = 0.3 in order to compare to the results
in Zhang (2016). Each random function was generated on 100 equally spaced points on the
[0, 1] interval, and for the DGP’s fGARCH(1,1) and FAR(1, S)-IID-BM a burn-in sample of
length 100 was generated prior to generating a sample of length n.
The tests based on Tn and TnSQ require the choice of a kernel function and bandwidth,
which we now discuss. The problem of kernel and bandwidth selection for nonparametric
spectral density estimation enjoys an enormous literature, going back to the seminal work of
Bartlett (1950) and Parzen (1957). This problem has recently received attention for general
function space valued time series in, for example, Panaretos and Tavakoli (2013) and Rice
and Shang (2017). Their theoretical and empirical findings each support using standard
kernel functions with corresponding bandwidths tuned to the order or “flatness” of the kernel
near the origin. Rice and Shang (2017) showed that some further gains can be achieved in
terms of estimation error of the spectral density operator at frequency zero by utilizing data
driven bandwidths. With this in mind, we considered the following kernel functions

1 − |x| for |x| ≤ 1;
kB (x) =
(Bartlett)
0
otherwise.

 1 − 6x2 + 6|x|3 for 0 ≤ |x| ≤ 21 ;
2(1 − |x|)3
for 12 ≤ |x| ≤ 1;
kP (x) =
(Parzen)

0
otherwise.
sin(x)
kD (x) =
, x ∈ R/{0}, kD (0) = 1.
(Daniell)
x
The respective orders of these kernels are 1,2, and 2. For each of these kernels, we considered
bandwidths of the form pn = n1/(2q+1) where q is the order of the respective kernel, as well
as bandwidths of the form pn = M̂ n1/(2q+1) where M̂ is a constant estimated from the data
aiming to adapt the size of the bandwidth to the serial dependence of the observed time series.

8

In particular, it aims to minimize the integrated normed error of the spectral density operator
based on a pilot estimates of F and its generalized derivative. The details of this data driven
bandwidth selection are given in Appendix C below. In addition to the proposed statistics,
we also compared to the statistic/test Zn (b) of Zhang (2016) and to the statistic/test BCDn
of Bagchi et al. (2018). Zhang (2016) utilizes the choice of a block size b for a block bootstrap.
We present the the results for b = 10 given the relative similarity in performance for different
values of b.
The number of rejections from 1000 independent simulations with nominal levels of 5% and
1% are reported in Table 1. From this we can draw the following conclusions about the test:
1. The tests based on Tn tend to be oversized. Histograms and summaries of the distribution
of the test statistic for data generated according to IID-BM indicate that the distribution
is right skewed relative to the standard normal distribution, but has approximately
mean zero and variance one. Applying the square root transformation TnSQ corrects for
this fairly well in finite samples.
2. Regarding kernel and bandwidth selection, no one kernel or bandwidth setting displayed
substantially superior performance. There were only negligible differences in the results
when comparing the data driven bandwidth with standard bandwidths for the DGP’s
considered. In terms of size all kernels exhibited similar performance, although the
Daniell kernel exhibited somewhat higher power relative to the others. This is consistent
with the observation of Hong (1996) in the univariate setting.
3. The tests based on Tn and TnSQ are not appropriately sized for the fGARCH(1,1) DGP,
which might be expected since these statistics are not adjusted in any way to handle
general weak white noise sequences. We provide some further discussion on this in
Section 4. By contrast the tests of Zhang (2016) and Bagchi et al. (2018) are built for
such sequences, and are well sized in this case, although the test of Bagchi et al. (2018)
seems to be slightly oversized at the nominal level of 1%.
4. The tests based on Tn and TnSQ exhibited higher power when compared to the test Zn or
BCDn for FAR(1,0.3)-BM data, especially at the level 1%. Adjusting Tn for size leaves
the tests based on Tn and TnSQ performing very similarly in this case. Another advantage
of the proposed approach over the test of Zhang (2016) is its reduced computational
burden. Using a 64-bit implementation of R running on Windows 10 with an Intel
i3-380M (2.53 GHz) processor, one single calculation of the test statistic and/or p-value
based on Tn or TnSQ when n = 100 takes less than 1 second, whereas calculating Zn (10)
with the same data takes several minutes.
5. In practice, we recommend the use of the statistic TnSQ with the Daniell kernel and data
driven bandwidth for general white noise testing as long as conditional heteroscedasiticy
is not thought to be an issue. In the case when conditional heteroscedasiticy is of
concern, the statistic of Zhang (2016) or Bagchi et al. (2018) is expected to give more
reliable results.

9

DGP:
Stat/Nominal Size
Tn (kB , n1/3 )
Tn (kB , M̂ n1/3 )
Tn (kP , n1/5 )
Tn (kP , M̂ n1/5 )
Tn (kD , n1/5 )
Tn (kD , M̂ n1/5 )
TnSQ (kB , n1/3 )
TnSQ (kB , M̂ n1/3 )
TnSQ (kP , n1/5 )
TnSQ (kP , M̂ n1/5 )
TnSQ (kD , n1/5 )
TnSQ (kD , M̂ n1/5 )
Zn (10)
BCDn

IID-BM
n = 100
5% 1%
60 30
61 38
59 32
64 28
61 35
63 33
37 13
44 16
43 15
38 13
43 19
42 16
48
9
28 13

n = 250
5% 1%
73 39
74 33
71 26
74 39
65 28
72 33
54 15
41 13
45 13
54 20
41 14
41 16
49 11
38 12

fGARCH(1,1)
n = 100
5% 1%
145 85
136 87
139 87
138 90
139 87
140 85
110 51
90 42
99 46
100 50
101 45
99 44
50 12
46 22

n = 250
5% 1%
126 78
119 76
132 81
130 77
131 76
117 77
102 48
79 33
93 48
90 44
94 48
87 43
41 5
59 21

FAR(1,0.3)-BM
n = 100
5% 1%
826 733
751 633
841 773
789 681
843 770
836 763
771 618
793 631
789 640
739 592
802 666
798 657
708 386
197 109

n = 250
5% 1%
996 986
990 981
998 992
996 986
999 996
998 995
993 980
998 987
996 981
990 977
996 982
997 987
992 913
433 301

Table 1: Rejections from 1000 independent simulations with nominal levels of 5% and 1% for
each method and DGP considered.

4. Conclusion
We have introduced a new test statistic for white noise testing with functional time series
based on kernel lag-window estimates of the spectral density operator. The asymptotic
properties of the proposed test have been established assuming the observed time series is a
strong white noise, and it was also shown to be consistent for general time series exhibiting
serial correlation. The test seems to improve upon existing tests in terms of power against
functional autoregressive alternatives, although it has the drawback that it is not well sized
for general weak white noise sequences in function space, such as for functional GARCH
processes.
Based on the work of Shao (2011b) and Shao (2011a), we conjecture that Theorem 1
can be established for general weakly dependent white noise sequences in H, despite the
fact the proposed tests have markedly inflated size for sequences exhibiting conditional
heteroscedasticity in our simulation. Roughly speaking, Shao (2011b) shows that in the
scalar case the limit distribution of Tn is determined asymptotically by the normalized
autocovariances of the process at long lags, which behave essentially the same with strong
white noise sequences as with weakly dependent white noises. With this in mind and in light
of our simulation results, one expects to need very long time series and a large bandwidth
in order for this asymptotic result to be predictive of the behavior of the test statistic for
general weak white noise sequence exhibiting serial dependence, which encourages the use of
a block bootstrap in finite samples. We leave these issues as potential directions for future
research.

10

Acknowledgements
The first author would like to acknowledge the support of the Communauté Française de
Belgique, Actions de Recherche Concertées, Projects Consolidation 2016–2021. The second
author is partially supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of
Canada’s Discovery and Accelerator grants.

References
Aue, A., Horváth, L., and Pellatt, D. F. (2017). Functional generalized autoregressive
conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 38:3–21.
Bagchi, P., Characiejus, V., and Dette, H. (2018). A simple test for white noise in functional
time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 39(1):54–74.
Bartlett, M. (1950). Periodogram analysis and continuous spectra. Biometrika, 37:1–16.
Berkes, I., Horváth, L., and Rice, G. (2016). On the asymptotic normality of kernel
estimators of the long run covariance of functional time series. Journal of Multivariate
Analysis, 144:150–175.
Bosq, D. (2000). Linear Processes in Function Spaces. Springer, New York.
Brillinger, D. R. (2001). Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory. Classics in Applied
Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Brown, R. M. (1971). Martingale central limit theorems. The Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 42:59–66.
Bühlmann, P. (1996). Locally adaptive lag–window spectral estimation. Journal of Time
Series Analysis, 17:247–270.
Canal, L. (2005). A normal approximation for the chi-square distribution. Computational
Statitics and Data Analysis, 48:803–808.
Escanciano, J. C. and Lobato, I. (2009). An automatic portmanteau test for serial correlation.
Journal of Econometrics, 151(2):140 – 149.
Francq, C. and Zakoı̈an, J.-M. (2010). GARCH models. Wiley.
Gabrys, R. and Kokoszka, P. (2007). Portmanteau test of independence for functional
observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102:1338–1348.
Hong, Y. (1996). Consistent testing for serial correlation of unknown form. Econometrica,
64:837–864.
Hörmann, S. and Kokoszka, P. (2012). Functional time series. In Rao, C. R. and Rao, T. S.,
editors, Time Series, volume 30 of Handbook of Statistics. Elsevier.

11

Horváth, L., Hušková, M., and Rice, G. (2013). Testing independence for functional data.
Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 117:100–119.
Horváth, L. and Kokoszka, P. (2012). Inference for Functional Data with Applications.
Springer.
Kargin, V. and Onatski, A. (2008). Curve forecasting by functional autoregression. Journal
of Multivariate Analysis, 99:2508–2526.
Klepsch, J. and Klüppelberg, C. (2017). An innovations algorithm for the prediction of
functional linear processes. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 155:252 – 271.
Kokoszka, P., Rice, G., and Shang, H. L. (2017). Inference for the autocovariance of
a functional time series under conditional heteroscedasticity. Journal of Multivariate
Analysis, 162:32 – 50.
Li, W. K. (2004). Diagnostic Checks in Time Series. Chapman and Hall.
Newey, W. K. and West, K. D. (1994). Automatic lag selection in covariance matrix estimation.
The Review of Economic Studies, 61(4):631–653.
Panaretos, V. M. and Tavakoli, S. (2013). Fourier analysis of stationary time series in function
space. The Annals of Statistics, 41(2):568–603.
Parzen, E. (1957). On consistent estimates of the spectrum of stationary time series. The
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28:329–348.
Rice, G. and Shang, H. (2017). A plugin bandwidth selection procedure for longrun covariance
estimation with stationary functional time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 38:591–
609.
Rosenblatt, M. (1985). Stationary Sequences and Random Fields. Birkhäuser Boston.
Shao, X. (2011a). A bootstrap-assisted spectral test of white noise under unknown dependence.
Journal of Econometrics, 162(2):213 – 224.
Shao, X. (2011b). Testing for white noise under unknown dependence and its applications to
diagnostic checking for time series models. Econometric Theory, 27:312343.
Tavakoli, S. (2014). Fourier Analysis of Functional Time Series with Applications to DNA
Dynamics. PhD thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
Zhang, X. (2016). White noise testing and model diagnostic checking for functional time
series. Journal of Econometrics, 194(1):76–95.
Zhang, X. and Shao, X. (2015). Two sample inference for the second-order property of
temporally dependent functional data. Bernoulli, 21:909–929.

12

Appendix
A. Proof of Theorem 1
Before we prove Theorem 1, we state two elementary lemmas that we use in the proof.
Lemma 1. Suppose that X and Y are independent random elements with values in a separable
Hilbert space H such that E kXk < ∞, E kY k < ∞ and E X = 0 or E Y = 0. Then EhX, Y i = 0.
Lemma 2. Suppose that X and Y are independent and identically distributed random elements
with values in a separable Hilbert space H with zero means and finite second moments. Then
E |hX, Y i|2 = ||| E[X ⊗ X]|||22 .
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1. The basic format of the proof follows Hong (1996), but in
some instances must significantly deviate due to the assumption that the underlying variables are in
an arbitrary separable Hilbert space. We denote knj = k(j/pn ) and Zjt = ut ⊗ ut−j .
p

Proof of Theorem 1. By (7) and Slutsky’s theorem, it suffices to show that σ̂n2 /|||Cˆn (0)|||2 →
−
2
σ /|||C(0)|||2 as n → ∞ and
2−1 nσ̂n−4 Q̂2n − Cn (k) d
p
−
→ N (0, |||C(0)|||42 /σ 8 )
2Dn (k)

as

n → ∞.

(10)

p

p

By the law of large numbers, we have that σ̂n2 →
− σ 2 as n → ∞. By Lemma 5 below, |||Cˆn (0)−C(0)|||2 →
−
p
ˆ
0 as n → ∞ and, using the reverse triangle inequality, |||Cn (0)|||2 →
− |||C(0)|||2 as n → ∞. Hence,
p
2
2
ˆ
σ̂n /|||Cn (0)|||2 →
− σ /|||C(0)|||2 as n → ∞.
Now we show (10) holds. By Chebyshev’s inequality, σ̂n2 − σ 2 = Op (n−1/2 ) as n → ∞. Since
E Q̂2n = 2

n−1
X

2
kjn
E |||Cˆn (j)|||22 = 2σ 4 n−1

j=1

n−1
X

2
= 2σ 4 n−1 Cn (k),
(1 − j/n)kjn

j=1

Markov’s inequality implies that Q̂2n = Op (pn /n) as n → ∞. We obtain
σ̂n−4 Q̂2n = σ −4 Q̂2n + (σ̂n−4 − σ −4 )Q̂2n = σ −4 Q̂2n + op (p1/2
n /n)

as

n→∞

because pn /n → 0 as n → ∞. Hence,
2−1 nσ̂n−4 Q̂2n − Cn (k)
2−1 nσ −4 Q̂2n − Cn (k)
p
p
=
+ op (1)
2Dn (k)
2Dn (k)
P
Since Cˆn (j) = n−1 nt=j+1 Zjt ,
|||Cˆn (j)|||22 = n−2

n
X

hZjt , Zjs iHS = n

t,s=j+1

We obtain
2−1 nσ −4 Q̂2n = nσ −4

−2

n
h X
t=j+1

n−1
X

|||Zjt |||22

+

as

n → ∞.

n
t−1
X
X
t=j+2 s=j+1

2
kjn
|||Cˆn (j)|||22 = σ −4 (C̃n + W̃n ),

j=1

13

i
2hZjt , Zjs iHS .

(11)

where
C̃n = n−1

n−1
X

n
X

and W̃n = n−1

2
knj
|||Zjt |||22

j=1 t=j+1

n−2
X

n
t−1
X
X

2
2knj
hZjt , Zjs iHS .

(12)

j=1 t=j+2 s=j+1

Let us observe that
E C̃n = σ

4

n−1
X

2
(1 − j/n)knj
= σ 4 Cn (k),

j=1

E |σ −4 C̃n − Cn (k)|2 = E |σ −4 C̃n − σ −4 E C̃n |2 = σ −8 Var C̃n
and
Var C̃n = E |C̃n − E C̃n |2 = n−2 E

n−1
X

2
knj

j=1

Since E |

Pn

2
t=j+1 (|||Zjt |||2

Var C̃n ≤ n−1

−

σ 4 )|2

n−1
X

n
X

2

(|||Zjt |||22 − σ 4 ) .

t=j+1

= O(n) as n → ∞ for each 0 < j < n, by Minkowski’s inequality,

n
 X
2 1/2
2
knj
E
(|||Zjt |||22 − σ 4 )

j=1

2

= O(p2n /n)

as

n → ∞.

(13)

t=j+1
−1/2

Since pn /n → 0 as n → ∞, we have that pn

(σ −4 C̃n − Cn (k)) = op (1) as n → ∞ and

σ −4 (C̃n + W̃n ) − Cn (k)
W̃n
2−1 nσ −4 Q̂2n − Cn (k)
p
p
=
=p
+ op (1)
2Dn (k)
2Dn (k)
2σ 8 Dn (k)

as

n → ∞.

p
d
So we must show that W̃n / 2σ 8 Dn (k) −
→ N (0, |||C(0)|||42 /σ 8 ) as n → ∞. Let us choose a real
sequence {ln }n≥1 such that pn /ln + ln /n → 0 as n → ∞. With wjts = 2hZjt , Zjs iHS , we have that
h

W̃n = n

−1

ln
X

2
knj

+n

−1

j=1

n−2
X

2
knj

n
t−1
i X
X

wjts = W1n + V1n .

t=j+2 s=j+1

j=ln +1

Next, we partition
W1n = n

−1

ln
X

2
knj

n
h X

j=1

t−l
n −1
X

n
X

+

t=2ln +3 s=ln +2

t−1
X

+

t=2ln +3 s=t−ln

2lX
n +2

t−1
X

t=ln +3 s=ln +2

+

lX
n +1

n i
X

wjts

s=j+1 t=s+1

= Un + V2n + V3n + V4n .
Hence, W̃n = Un +

P4

j=1 Vnj .

−1/2

One may show that pn

provide a complete argument to show
since they are similar. We have that
n−2
X

|V1n |2 = n−2

4
knj

j=ln +1

+ 2n

−2

n−2
X

−1/2
pn V1n

n
t−1
X
X

Vjn = op (1) as n → ∞ for j = 1, . . . , 4. We

= op (1), and omit the details for Vjn , j = 2, 3 and 4

2

wjts

t=j+2 s=j+1
n+2
X


2
knj
1

j1 =ln +2 j2 =ln +1

n
X

tX
1 −1

t1 =j1 +2 s1 =j1 +1

14


2
wj1 t1 s1
knj
2

n
X

tX
2 −1

t2 =j2 +2 s2 =j2 +1


wj2 t2 s2

= A1n + B1n .
Let us consider the expected value E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ]. If j1 = j2 = j, the expected value is equal to 0
by Lemma 4 unless s1 = s2 and t1 = t2 . Hence, using the fact that E |wjts |2 ≤ 4µ24 ,
E

n
t−1
X
X

2

wjts

=

t=j+2 s=j+1

n
t−1
X
X

E |wjts |2 = O(n2 )

t=j+2 s=j+1

and E A1n = o(pn ) since ln → ∞ as n → ∞. Also,
E B1n = 2n
=

−2

n−2
X

2
knj
1

j1 =ln +2
2
O(pn /n)

jX
1 −1

2
knj
2

tX
1 −1

 X
n

t1 =j1 +2 s1 =j1 +1

j2 =ln +1

tX
2 −1

 X
n


E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ]

t2 =j2 +2 s2 =j2 +1

as n → ∞ since E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t1 s2 ] = 0 by Lemma 4 unless t1 = t2 , s1 = t1 − j2 and s2 = t1 − j1 using
the fact that j1 > j2 . Hence, E |V1n |2 = o(pn ) as n → ∞.
Now for Un , we have further that
ln
X

Un = n−1

j=1

t=2ln +3
n
X

= n−1

2hZjt , Zjs iHS

t=2ln +3 s=ln +2

n
X

= n−1

t−l
n −1
X

n
X

2
knj

2

ln
X

t−l
n −1
D
E
X
2
knj
Zjt ,
Zjs

j=1

s=ln +2

HS

Unt ,

t=2ln +3

where
Unt = 2

ln
X

2
knj
hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS

and Hjt−ln −1 =

j=1

t−l
n −1
X

Zjs .

s=ln +2

p
d
To establish the asymptotic distribution of Tn , we show that Un / 2σ 8 Dn (k) −
→ N (0, |||C(0)|||42 /σ 8 )
as n → ∞. We have that
E[Unt | Ft−1 ] = 2

ln
X

2
knj

j=1

=2

ln
X
j=1

t−l
n −1
X

E[hut , us ihut−j , us−j i | Ft−1 ]

s=ln +2
2
knj

t−l
n −1
X

hut−j , us−j i E[hut , us i | Ft−1 ]

s=ln +2

using the fact that hut−j , us−j i is Ft−1 -measurable. Suppose that {en }n≥1 is an orthonormal basis
of H. Then
E[hut , us i | Ft−1 ] =

∞
X

E[hut , ei ihei , us i | Ft−1 ] =

i=1

∞
X
hei , us i Ehut , ei i = 0
i=1

15

(14)

using the fact that hei , us i is Ft−1 -measurable. Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, H0,iid , and
Parseval’s identity,
∞
X

∞
X
E |hut , ei ihei , us i| ≤
(E |hut , ei i|2 )1/2 (E |hei , us i|2 )1/2 = E ku0 k2 < ∞.

i=1

i=1

This shows that the interchange of the expected value and the series in (14) is justified. Hence,
{Unt , Ft−1 } is a martingale difference sequence, where Ft is the σ-field generated by us , s ≤ t.
d

Let us denote σ 2 (n) = E Un2 . Theorem 2 of Brown (1971) states that σ −1 (n)Un −
→ N (0, 1) if both of
the following conditions hold:
P
2 I
(a) σ −2 (n)n−2 nt=2ln +3 E[Unt
{|Unt |>εnσ(n)} ] → 0 as n → ∞ for each ε > 0;
P
p
2 →
2 = E[U 2 | F
(b) σ −2 (n)n−2 nt=2ln +3 Ünt
− 1 as n → ∞, where Ünt
t−1 ].
nt
We show that σ 2 (n)/(2σ 8 pn D(k)) → |||C(0)|||42 /σ 8 as n → ∞. We have that
2

σ (n) = n

−2

E

n
X

2

Unt

=n

−2

n
h X

t=2ln +3

2
E Unt

+2

t=2ln +3

=4

ln
X

s−1
X

i
E[Uns Unt ] .

s=2ln +4 t=2ln +3

Let us observe that Zit = ut ⊗ut−i is independent of Hjt−ln −1 =
and 1 ≤ i, j ≤ ln . We obtain
2
E Unt

n
X

Pt−ln −1

s=ln +2 us ⊗us−j

for 2ln +3 ≤ t ≤ n

4
knj
E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |2

j=1

+8

j−1
ln X
X

2 2
knj
kni E[hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS ].

j=2 i=1

We have that
E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |2 =

t−l
n −1
X

E |hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 + 2

s=ln +2

t−l
n −1
X

s−1
X

E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS ].

s=ln +3 r=ln +2

Let us notice that ut , ut−j , us and us−j are independent random elements for 2ln + 3 ≤ t ≤ n,
ln + 2 ≤ s ≤ t − ln − 1 and 1 ≤ j ≤ ln . Hence, hut , us i and hus−j , ut−j i are independent as well and
E |hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 = E |hut , us ihus−j , ut−j i|2 = E |hut , us i|2 E |hus−j , ut−j i|2 = |||C(0)|||42
by Lemma 2. Since r − j < s − j,
E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS ] = Ehur−j , hus , ut ihut−j , us−j ihur , ut iut−j i = 0
using Lemma 1. Since i < j,
E[hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS ] =
=

t−l
n −1 t−l
n −1
X
X
s=ln +2 r=ln +2

16

Ehhut , us ihus−j , ut−j ihut , ur iur−i , ut−i i = 0.

Finally,
E[Uns Unt ] = 4 E

h X
ln

2
kni
hZis , His−ln −1 iHS

i=1

=4

ln X
ln
X

ln
ihX

2
knj
hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS

i

j=1

2 2
kni
knj E[hZis , His−ln −1 iHS hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS ]

i=1 j=1

and
E[hZis , His−ln −1 iHS hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS ] =

s−l
n −1 t−l
n −1
X
X

E[hZis , Zir iHS hZjt , Zjv iHS ]

r=ln +2 v=ln +2

=

s−l
n −1 t−l
n −1
X
X

Ehus , hur−i , us−i ihut , uv ihuv−j , ut−j iur i

r=ln +2 v=ln +2

=0
since t < s. Hence,
2

σ (n) =

2|||C(0)|||42 n−2 (n

− 2ln − 2)(n − 2ln − 1)

ln
X

4
knj

(15)

j=1

and σ 2 (n)/(2σ 8 pn D(k)) → |||C(0)|||42 /σ 8 as n → ∞.
We show that (a) holds. We have that
4

E |Unt | ≤ 48

ln
X

4
knj
(E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |4 )1/2

2

j=1

since
E

ln
X
j=1

2
knj
hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS

4

=

ln
X

8
knj
E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |4

j=1

+6

j−1
ln X
X

4 4
knj
kni E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS |2

j=2 i=1

and
E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS |2
≤ (E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |4 )1/2 (E |hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS |4 )1/2
by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Again by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and independence of
ut ’s,
E |hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |4 ≤ E ||||Zjt |||2 |||Hjt−ln −1 |||2 |4 = (E ku0 k4 )2 E |||Hjt−ln −1 |||42 .
Also,
E |||Hjt−ln −1 |||42 = E

t−l
n −1 t−l
n −1
X
X

hZjs , Zjr iHS

s=ln +2 r=ln +2

17

2

= O(t2 ).

(16)

Hence, E |Unt |4 = O(p2n t2 ) and σ −4 (n)n−4

Pn

= O(n−1 ).
P
2 . We show that σ −2 (n)[Ü 2 −
Now we move to the proof of (b). Let us denote Ün2 = n−2 nt=2ln +3 Ünt
nt
4
t=2ln +3 E Unt

p

σ 2 (n)] →
− 0 by showing that σ −4 (n) E |Ün2 − σ 2 (n)|2 → 0 as n → ∞. We have that
2
Ünt
=4

ln
X

4
knj
E[|hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]

j=1

+8

j−1
ln X
X

2 2
knj
kni E[hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS | Ft−1 ]

j=2 i=1

= 4Bnt + 4A1nt .
Since
E[|hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ] =

t−l
n −1
X

E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]

s=ln +2

+2

t−l
n −1
X

s−1
X

E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS | Ft−1 ],

s=ln +3 r=ln +2

Bnt =

ln
X

4
knj

 t−l
n −1
X

j=1

+


E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS | | Ft−1 ]
2

s=ln +2

ln
X

4
knj

 t−l

s−1
n −1 X
X
2
E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS | Ft−1 ]

j=1

s=ln +3 r=ln +2

= Cnt + A2nt .
Finally,
Cnt =

ln
X

4
knj

 t−l
n −1
X

j=1

2

(E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS | | Ft−1 ] −

|||C(0)|||42 )


+

|||C(0)|||42 (t

− 2ln − 2)

ln
X

4
knj

j=1

s=ln +2

= A3nt + |||C(0)|||42 (t − 2ln − 2)

ln
X

4
knj
.

j=1

Hence,
Ün2

=

2|||C(0)|||42 n−2 (n

− 2ln − 2)(n − 2ln − 1)

ln
X
j=1

2

= σ (n) + 4n

−2

n
3
X
X

4
knj

+ 4n

−2

n
3
X
X

Ajnt

t=2ln +3 j=1

Ajnt

t=2ln +3 j=1

P
P
using (15) and Ün2 − σ 2 (n) = 4n−2 nt=2ln +3 3j=1 Ajnt .
P
Now we show
that σ −4 (n)n−4 E | nt=2ln +3 Ajnt |2 → 0 as n → ∞ for j = 1, 2, 3. First, we establish
P
that n−4 E | nt=2ln +3 A1nt |2 = o(p2n ) as n → ∞. We have that

18

E[hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS | Ft−1 ]
=

t−l
n −1 t−l
n −1
X
X

hus−j , ut−j ihuv−i , ut−i i E[hut , us ihut , uv i | Ft−1 ]. (17)

s=ln +2 v=ln +2

The largest index of ut ’s in (17) is t − i (t − i > t − j since j > i in the expression of A1nt ; t − i is
greater than s − j, v − i, s and v since t − i ≥ t − ln + 1 while s − j ≤ t − ln − 3, v − i ≤ t − ln − 2;
s ≤ t − ln − 1 and v ≤ t − ln − 1). The second largest index is t − j and it does not coincide with any
other indices (t − j is greater than s − j, v − i, s and v since t − j ≥ t − ln while s − j ≤ t − ln − 3,
v − i ≤ t − ln − 2, s ≤ t − ln − 1 and v ≤ t − ln − 1). Together with Lemma 1, this implies that
E[E[hZj1 t , Hj1 t−ln −1 iHS hZi1 t , Hi1 t−ln −1 iHS | Ft−1 ]
× E[hZj2 t , Hj2 t−ln −1 iHS hZi2 t , Hi2 t−ln −1 iHS | Ft−1 ]] = 0
if i1 6= i2 or j1 6= j2 . Hence,
E A21nt

=4

j−1
ln X
X

4 4
knj
kni E | E[hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS | Ft−1 ]|2 .

j=2 i=1

Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality twice, the fact that ut ’s are independent and that Ft is the
σ-field consisting of us , s ≤ t,
E E[hZjt , Hjt−ln −1 iHS hZit , Hit−ln −1 iHS | Ft−1 ]

2

≤

≤ E E[kut kkut−j k|||Hjt−ln −1 |||2 kut kkut−i k|||Hit−ln −1 |||2 | Ft−1 ]

2

2

= σ 8 E |||Hjt−ln −1 |||2 |||Hit−ln −1 |||2

≤ σ 8 (E |||Hjt−ln −1 |||42 )1/2 (E |||Hit−ln −1 |||42 )1/2 .
Using (16), we conclude that E A21nt = O(p2n t2 ). Since the largest index of ut ’s in A1nt is t − i,
E[A
ln > s − 1. Hence, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that
P 1nt A1ns ] = 0 if t −
3 ),
ts
=
O(l
n
n
|t−s|≤ln
n
X

E

2

A1nt

=

X
|t−s|≤ln

t=2ln +3

X

E[A1nt A1ns ] ≤

(E A21nt )1/2 (E A21ns )1/2 = O(p2n ln n3 )

|t−s|≤ln

P
and, since ln /n → 0, n−4 E | nt=2ln +3 A1nt |2 = o(p2n ) as n → ∞.
P
We establish that n−4 E | nt=2ln +3 A2nt |2 = O(pn ) as n → ∞. Let us observe that
E A22nt

=

ln
X

8
knj

E 2

j=1

+2

ln jX
1 −1
X

t−l
n −1
X

s−1
X

2

E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS | Ft−1 ]

s=ln +3 r=ln +2
4
knj
k4
1 nj2

 t−l
n −1
X
E 2

j1 =2 j2 =1

sX
1 −1

E[hZj1 t , Zj1 s1 iHS hZj1 t , Zj1 r1 iHS


| Ft−1 ]

E[hZj2 t , Zj2 s2 iHS hZj2 t , Zj2 r2 iHS


| Ft−1 ] . (18)

s1 =ln +3 r1 =ln +2


× 2

t−l
n −1
X

sX
2 −1

s2 =ln +3 r2 =ln +2

19

We have that
E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS | Ft−1 ] = hus−j , ut−j ihur−j , ut−j i E[hut , us ihut , ur i | Ft−1 ],
where t − j > s > s − j ≶ r > r − j. Consequently, using Lemma 1,
E hus1 −j , ut−j ihur1 −j , ut−j i E[hut , us1 ihut , ur1 i | Ft−1 ]

× hus2 −j , ut−j ihur2 −j , ut−j i E[hut , us2 ihut , ur2 i | Ft−1 ] = 0
if r1 6= r2 or s1 6= s2 . It follows that
E 2

t−l
n −1
X

s−1
X

2

E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS | Ft−1 ]

s=ln +3 r=ln +2

=4

t−l
n −1
X

s−1
X

E | E[hZjt , Zjs iHS hZjt , Zjr iHS

s=ln +3 r=ln +2



t − 2ln − 2
= O(t2 )
| Ft−1 ]| ≤ 4σ µ
2
2

8 2

as t → ∞. We now investigate

E hus1 −j1 , ut−j1 ihur1 −j1 , ut−j1 i E[hut , us1 ihut , ur1 i | Ft−1 ]

× hus2 −j2 , ut−j2 ihur2 −j2 , ut−j2 i E[hut , us2 ihut , ur2 i | Ft−1 ] , (19)
where t − j1 > s1 > s1 − j1 ≶ r1 > r1 − j1 and t − j2 > s2 > s2 − j2 ≶ r2 > r2 − j2 . If r1 − j1 6= r2 − j2 ,
the expected value in (19) is equal to 0. Thus, we assume that r1 − j1 = r2 − j2 (this implies that
r1 > r2 since j1 > j2 ). Also, r2 = r1 − j1 + j2 > r1 − j1 . Hence, the expected value is equal to 0 if
r2 6= s2 − j2 . We assume that r2 = s2 − j2 (s2 = r2 + j2 = r1 − j1 + 2j2 ). Since t − j2 ≥ t − ln + 1
and r1 ≤ t − ln − 2, r1 = r1 − j1 + 2j2 , which implies that j1 = 2j2 or r1 = s1 − j1 . Otherwise the
expected in (19) value is equal to 0. We conclude that the second term on the right hand side of
(18) is O(p2n t + pn t2 ), E A22nt = O(pn t2 + p2n t) and, by Minkowski’s inequality,
n
X

n−4 E

≤ n−4 E

t=2ln +3

n
X

2

(E A22nt )1/2

= O(pn )

as

n → ∞.

t=2ln +3

Pn

Lastly, we show that n−4 E |
n−4 E

n
X

2

A2nt

2
t=2ln +3 A3nt |
n
X

2

= n−4

A3nt

t=2ln +3

= o(p2n ) as n → ∞. We have that
E A23nt + 2n−4

t=2ln +3

tX
1 −1

n
X

E[A3nt1 A3nt2 ].

(20)

t1 =2ln +4 t2 =2ln +3

Since E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ] = |||C(0)|||42 (see Lemma 3 below), we obtain
E A23nt

=

ln
X
j=1

8
knj

E

t−l
n −1
X

2
2

(E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS | | Ft−1 ] −

×

+2

ln jX
1 −1
X

4
knj
k4
1 nj2

j1 =2 j2 =1

s=ln +2
t−l
n −1 t−l
n −1
X
X

|||C(0)|||42 )

Cov[E[|hZj1 t , Zj1 s1 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ], E[|hZj2 t , Zj2 s2 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]]

s1 =ln +2 s2 =ln +2

and

20

t−l
n −1
X

E

2
2

(E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS | | Ft−1 ] −

|||C(0)|||42 )

=

s=ln +2

t−l
n −1
X

Var[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]]

s=ln +2

+2

t−l
n −1
X

s−1
X

Cov[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ], E[|hZjt , Zjr iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]].

s=ln +3 r=ln +2

Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the fact that ut is independent of Ft−1 , ut−j , us and us−j are
Ft−1 -measurable and the independence of ut ’s (let us observe that t − j ≥ t − ln and s ≤ t − ln − 1),
E | E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]|2 ≤ E | E[kut k2 kut−j k2 kus k2 kus−j k2 | Ft−1 ]|2 = σ 4 µ34 < ∞.
Since
Var[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]] ≤ E | E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]|2 ≤ σ 4 µ34
we obtain

Pt−ln −1

2
s=ln +2 Var[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |

(21)

| Ft−1 ]] = O(t) as t → ∞. Using the fact that

| Cov[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ], E[|hZjt , Zjr iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]]|
≤ (Var[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]])1/2 (Var[E[|hZjt , Zjr iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]])1/2 ≤ σ 4 µ34 ,
we obtain
2

t−l
n −1
X

s−1
X

| Cov[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ], E[|hZjt , Zjr iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]]|

s=ln +3 r=ln +2

≤

2σ 4 µ34

t−l
n −1
X

(s − ln − 2) = σ 4 µ34 (t − 2ln − 2)(t − 2ln − 3) = O(t2 )

s=ln +3

as t → ∞. We have that
2

ln jX
1 −1
X

4
knj
k4
1 nj2

j1 =2 j2 =1
= O(p2n t2 )

t−l
n −1
n −1 t−l
X
X

Cov(E[|hZj1 t , Zj1 s1 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ], E[|hZj2 t , Zj2 s2 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]) =

s1 =ln +2 s2 =ln +2

since
Cov(E[|hZj1 t , Zj1 s1 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ], E[|hZj2 t , Zj2 s2 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ])
≤ (Var[E[|hZj1 t , Zj1 s1 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]])1/2 (Var[E[|hZj2 t , Zj2 s2 iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]])1/2 ≤ σ 4 µ34 .
Now we bound the second term on the right hand side of (20). We have that

E[A3nt1 A3nt2 ] =

ln
X
j1 =1

4
knj
1

ln
X
j2 =1

4
knj
2

t1 −l
n −1 t2 −l
n −1
X
X
s1 =ln +2 s2 =ln +2

× Cov[E[|hZj1 t1 , Zj1 s1 iHS |2 | Ft1 −1 ], E[|hZj2 t2 , Zj2 s2 iHS |2 | Ft2 −1 ]],
where t1 > t2 , and E[|hZj1 t1 , Zj1 s1 iHS |2 | Ft1 −1 ] = |hus1 −j1 , ut1 −j1 i|2 E[|hut1 , us1 i|2 | Ft1 −1 ]. Let us
investigate
Cov[|hus1 −j1 , ut1 −j1 i|2 E[|hut1 , us1 i|2 | Ft1 −1 ], |hus2 −j2 , ut2 −j2 i|2 E[|hut2 , us2 i|2 | Ft2 −1 ]],

21

where t1 > t2 . Let us observe that t1 − j1 6= s2 − j2 since t1 − j1 ≥ t1 − ln and s2 − j2 ≤ t2 − ln − 2 <
t1 − ln − 2 (t1 > t2 ). Also, t1 − j1 6= s2 since t1 − j1 ≥ t1 − ln and s2 ≤ t2 − ln − 1 ≤ t1 − ln − 2. Thus,
the covariance is equal to 0 unless at least one of the following conditions is true: (i) s1 − j1 = s2 − j2 ;
(ii) s1 − j1 = t2 − j2 ; (iii) s1 − j1 = s2 ; (iv) t1 − j1 = t2 − j2P
; (v) s1 =P
s2 − j2 ; (vi) s1 = t2 − j2 ;
(vii) s1 = s2 . If any of these conditions is true, then 2n−4 nt1 =2ln +4 tt12 −1
=2ln +3 E[A3nt1 A3nt2 ] is
Pn
2
−4
either O(pn ) or O(pn /n) as n → ∞ and we conclude that n E | t=2ln +3 A3nt |2 = o(p2n ) as n → ∞.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
Proof of Corollary 1. It follows along the lines of (13) and then using Chebyshev’s inequality that
2−1 nQ̂2n
σ̂n4 Cn (k)
−
= op (1)
|||Cˆn (0)|||22 pn |||Cˆn (0)|||22 pn

as

n → ∞.

The corollary then follows from Theorem 1 and the delta theorem.

A.1. Auxilliary lemmas
We prove two auxiliary lemmas that are used in the proof of Theorem 1. Let us recall that
Zjt = ut ⊗ ut−j and wjts = 2hZjt , Zjs iHS .
Lemma 3. Suppose that the conditions of Theorem 1 hold. Suppose that 1 ≤ j ≤ ln , 2ln + 3 ≤ t ≤ n
and ln + 2 ≤ s ≤ t − ln − 1, where {ln }n≥1 is a real sequence. Then
E[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]] = |||C(0)|||42
Proof. Since hZjt , Zjs iHS = hut , us ihus−j , ut−j i and hus−j , ut−j i is Ft−1 -measurable, we obtain
E[E[|hZjt , Zjs iHS |2 | Ft−1 ]] = |||C(0)|||22 E[E[|hut , us i|2 | Ft−1 ]]
using the independence of ut ’s (we have that t − j ≥ t − ln and s ≤ t − ln − 1) and Lemma 2. Let
{en }n≥1 and be an orthonormal basis of H. Then
∞
∞
ii
h hX
X
E[E[|hut , us i|2 | Ft−1 ]] = E E
hut , en ihen , us i
hus , em ihem , ut i | Ft−1
n=1

m=1

∞ X
∞
hX
i
=E
E[hut , en ihen , us ihus , em ihem , ut i | Ft−1 ]
n=1 m=1
∞ X
∞
hX
i
=E
hen , us ihus , em i E[hut , en ihem , ut i]

=
=

n=1 m=1
∞
∞
XX

E[hen , u0 ihu0 , em i] E[hu0 , en ihem , u0 i]

n=1 m=1
|||C(0)|||22

by Parseval’s identity and the definition of the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. The proof is complete.
Lemma 4. Suppose that the conditions of Theorem 1 hold. If t1 > s1 and t2 > s2 and 1 ≤ j1 , j2 ≤
n − 2, then
E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ] = 0
unless the following two conditions hold: (a) t1 = t2 (b) j1 = j2 and s1 = s2 or s1 = t1 − j2 and
s 2 = t1 − j1 .

22

Proof. We start by noticing that
E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ] = 4 E[hut1 , us1 ihus1 −j1 , ut1 −j1 ihut2 , us2 ihus2 −j2 , ut2 −j2 i],
where t1 > t1 − j1 ≶ s1 > s1 − j1 and t2 > t2 − j2 ≶ s2 > s2 − j2 . It follows that E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ] = 0
if t1 6= t2 or s1 − j1 6= s2 − j2 by Lemma 1. Since (b) implies that s1 − j1 = s2 − j2 , we show that
E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ] = 0 if (b) does not hold.
Let us assume that t1 = t2 and s1 − j1 = s2 − j2 (otherwise E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ] = 0). Any two of the
conditions j1 = j2 , s1 = s2 and s1 − j1 = s2 − j2 imply the third one. Similarly, any two of the
conditions s1 = t1 − j2 , s2 = t1 − j1 and s1 − j1 = s2 − j2 imply the third one. Hence, we only need
to consider the case, when j1 6= j2 , s1 6= s2 , s1 =
6 t1 − j2 and s2 =
6 t1 − j1 . Since s2 = s1 − (j1 − j2 ),
we have that
t1 > t1 − j1 ≶ s1 > s1 − j1 ,
t1 > t1 − j2 ≶ s1 − (j1 − j2 ) > s1 − j1 .
If s1 is not equal to any other index of ut ’s, E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ] = 0 by Lemma 1. The only option is
s1 = t1 − j1 and t1 − j2 = s1 − (j1 − j2 ) since we assume that j1 6= j2 and s1 6= t1 − j2 . But both of
these equalities cannot be true since we assume that j1 6= j2 . This shows that E[wj1 t1 s1 wj2 t2 s2 ] = 0
if j1 6= j2 , s1 6= s2 , s1 6= t1 − j2 and s2 6= t1 − j1 . The proof is complete.

B. Proof of Theorem 2
The bound on the estimators of the autocovariance operators in the following lemma is used in the
proof of Theorem 2.
Lemma 5. Suppose that {ut }t∈Z satisfies Assumption 4. Then
sup E |||Cˆn (j) − C(j)|||22 = O(n−1 )

as

n → ∞.

j∈Z

Proof. Using the triangle inequality and the inequality (a + b)2 ≤ 2a2 + 2b2 for a, b ∈ R,
n−1

|||Cˆn (j) − C(j)|||22 =
≤

h

n

n
X

[ut ⊗ ut−j − C(j)] − n−1 jC(j)

t=j+1
n
X
−1

≤ 2 n−1

[ut ⊗ ut−j − C(j)]

t=j+1
n
X

[ut ⊗ ut−j − C(j)]

t=j+1

2
2
2

+n

−1

2
2

|j||||C(j)|||2

i2

+ 2n−2 |j|2 |||C(j)|||22 .

P
2
−2 2
2
We have that supj∈Z {|j||||C(j)|||22 } < ∞ since ∞
h=−∞ |||C(h)|||2 < ∞. Hence, 2n |j| |||C(j)|||2 =
O(n−1 ) as n → ∞ because |j| < n. Suppose that {ek }k≥1 and {fk }k≥1 are two orthonormal bases
of H. Using the definition of the Hilbert-Schmidt norm and Parseval’s identity,
E

n
X

[ut ⊗ ut−j − C(j)]

t=j+1

2
2

=

∞
X
k=1

E

n
X

[ut ⊗ ut−j − C(j)](ek )

t=j+1

23

2

=

=

=

∞
X

E

k=1
∞
X
k,l=1
∞
X

E

n
X

[hek , ut−j iut − E[hek , u0 iuj ]

t=j+1
n
X

2

[hek , ut−j ihut , fl i − E[hek , u0 ihuj , fl i]

2

t=j+1
n
X

Cov[hek , us−j ihus , fl i, hek , ut−j ihut , fl i].

k,l=1 s,t=j+1

Since ut ’s have zero means, we obtain
Cov[hek , us−j ihus , fl i, hek , ut−j ihut , fl i] = cum[hek , us−j i, hus , fl i, hek , ut−j i, hut , fl i]
+ E[hek , us−j ihek , ut−j i] E[hus , fl ihut , fl i]
+ E[hek , us−j ihut , fl i] E[hus , fl ihek , ut−j i]
(see (Rosenblatt, 1985, p. 34)). Using the fact that ut ’s are fourth order stationary and (8),
n

−1

∞
X

n
X

cum[hek , us−j i, hus , fl i, hek , ut−j i, hut , fl i] =

k,l=1 s,t=j+1
∞
X

=

n+1
X

(1 − |h|/n) cum[hek , u0 i, huj , fl i, hek , uh i, huh+j , fl i]

k,l=1 h=−(n−1)
n−1
X

=

(1 − |h|/n)

n−1
X

hKh+j,h,j (fl ⊗ ek ), fl ⊗ ek i

k,l=1

h=−(n−1)

≤

∞
X

(1 − |h|/n)|||Kh+j,h,j |||1 ,

h=−(n−1)
∞
X

n−1

n
X

E[hek , us−j ihek , ut−j i] E[hus , fl ihut , fl i] =

k,l=1 s,t=j+1

=

∞
X

n−1
X

(1 − |h|/n) E[hek , u0 ihek , uh i] E[hu0 , fl ihuh , fl i]

k,l=1 h=−(n−1)
n−1
X

=

(1 − |h|/n)

h=−(n−1)
n−1
X

≤

∞
X

h(C(h))(ek ), ek i

k=1

∞
X

h(C(h))(fl ), fl i

l=1

(1 − |h|/n)|||C(h)|||21

h=−(n−1)

and, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
n

−1

∞
X

n
X

E[hek , us−j ihut , fl i] E[hus , fl ihek , ut−j i] =

k,l=1 s,t=j+1

=

∞
X

n−1
X

(1 − |h|/n) E[hek , u0 ihuh+j , fl i] E[hu0 , fl ihek , uh−j i]

k,l=1 h=−(n−1)

24

=

≤

n−1
X

∞
X

(1 − |h|/n)

h=−(n−1)

k,l=1

n−1
X

∞
hX

(1 − |h|/n)

n−1
X

2

|h(C(h + j))(ek ), fl i|

∞
i1/2 h X

k,l=1

h=−(n−1)

=

h(C(h + j))(ek ), fl ihek , hfl , (C(h − j))(fl )i

|hek , hfl , (C(h − j))(fl )i|2

i1/2

k,l=1

(1 − |h|/n)|||C(h + j)|||2 |||C(h − j)|||2 .

h=−(n−1)

Let us observe that
n−1
X

|||C(h + j)|||2 |||C(h − j)|||2 ≤

∞
X
h=−∞

h=−(n−1)

∞
X

|||C(h)|||22 ≤

|||C(h)|||21 < ∞

h=−∞

using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that |||A|||2 ≤ |||A|||1 for a nuclear operator A. The
proof is complete.
We also establish consistency in mean integrated square error of the kernel lag-window estimator of
the spectral density operator.
Lemma 6. Suppose that {ut }t∈Z satisfies Assumption 4, the kernel k satisfies Assumption 2 and
pn → ∞, but pn /n → 0 as n → ∞. Then
Z π
E |||F̂n (ω) − F(ω)|||22 dω = o(1) as n → ∞.
−π

Proof. Using definitions (2) and (4) as well as the fact that the functions {ek }k∈Z defined by
ek (x) = e−ikx for k ∈ Z and x ∈ [−π, π] are orthonormal in L2 [−π, π], we obtain
Z π
2π
E |||F̂n (ω) − F(ω)|||22 dω =
−π
Z π
X
X
2
−1
= (2π)
E
knj Cˆn (j)e−ijω −
C(j)e−ijω dω
−π

=

X

E |||knj Cˆn (j) − C(j)|||22 −

|j|<n

≤2

j∈Z

|j|<n

X

X

2

|||C(j)|||22

j≥|n|
2
knj

E |||Cˆn (j) − C(j)|||22 + 2

|j|<n

X

(knj − 1)2 |||C(j)|||22 −

|j|<n

X

|||C(j)|||22 .

(22)

j≥|n|

Since supj∈Z E |||Cˆn (j) − C(j)|||22 = O(n−1 ) (see Lemma 5) and pn /n → 0, the first term in (22)
is o(1) as n → ∞. Given that knj − 1 → 0 as pn → ∞,Pthe second term is o(1) as n → ∞
using Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem. Finally, j≥|n| |||C(j)|||22 = o(1) as n → ∞ since
P∞
2
j=−∞ |||C(j)|||2 < ∞. The proof is complete.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 2.
Proof of Theorem 2. We have that
(p1/2
n /n)Tn =

2−1 Q̂2n − σ̂n4 n−1 Cn (k)
.
1/2
|||Cˆn (0)|||2 (2p−1
n Dn (k))
2

25

Given that pn → ∞ and pn /n → 0, n−1 Cn (k) → 0 and p−1
n Dn (k) → D(k) as n → ∞. Thus we
p
p
2
2
2
2
need to establish that Qn →
− Q and |||Cˆn (0)|||2 →
− |||C(0)|||2 as n → ∞ to complete the proof. Since
Z π
Q̂2n − Q2 = 2π
|||F̂n (ω) − F(ω)|||22 dω + |||C(0) − Cˆn (0)|||22
−π
Z π
Z π
+ 4π
RehF̂n (ω) − F(ω), F(ω)iHS dω − 2
RehF̂n (ω) − F(ω), Cˆn (0)iHS dω,
−π

−π

Rπ

we need to show that 2π −π |||F̂n (ω) − F(ω)|||22 dω = op (1) and |||C(0) − Cˆn (0)|||2 = op (1) as n → ∞,
but this follows from Lemma 6 and Lemma 5. The proof is complete.

C. Data driven bandwidth selection
We now describe a data driven approach to determine the bandwidth parameter pn given a choice
of the kernel k. In particular, we adapt the plug-in approach of Newey and West (1994) and
Bühlmann (1996) to the setting of spectral density operator estimation with general Hilbert space
valued time series. We suppose that for some integer q ≥ 1, the kernel function k satisfies that
0 < ξ = lim |x|−q (1 − k(x)) < ∞.
x→0

With F(ω) defined above, let
F (q) (ω) = (2π)−1

X

|j|q C(j)e−ijω

j∈Z

denote the generalized qth order derivative of F(ω). We assume F (q) is well defined, which holds if,
for example, there exists r ≥ q so that
∞
X

ˆ
(1 + |`|)q+r |||C(j)|||
2 < ∞.

(23)

`=−∞

In this case, under Assumption 4, it follows along similar lines of the proof of Theorem 2.1 of Berkes
et al. (2016) and as in Theorem 3.2 of Panaretos and Tavakoli (2013) that
!Z
Z π
Z π
Z π
∞
p
n
E
|||F(ω) − F̂n (ω)|||22 dω =
|||F(ω)|||2 dω +
tr(F(ω))2 dω
k 2 (x)dx
(24)
n
−π
−π
−π
−∞
!
Z π
p
n
+ pn−2q
|||ξF (q) (ω)|||2 dω + o
+ p−2q
.
n
n
−π
A method to select the bandwidth is to attempt to minimize as a function of the bandwidth the
leading terms in this asymptotic expansion. Doing so gives
pn,opt = cq n1/(2q+1) ,
where
c(2q+1)
q

Rπ
2qξ 2 −π |||F (q) (ω)|||2 dω
hR
i
=R
R
∞
π
2 (x)dx
2 dω + π tr(F(ω))2 dω
k
|||F(ω)|||
−∞
−π
−π

The constant cq can be estimated as follows.
Bandwidth selection method for spectral density operator estimation:

26

1. Compute pilot estimates of F (r) , for r = 0, q:
X
(r)
(r)
(r)
|j|r kini (j/pn,ini )Cˆn (j)e−ijω ,
F̂n,? (ω) = (2π)−1
|j|<n
(r)

(r)

that utilize an initial bandwidth choice pn,ini , and weight function kini .
2. Estimate cq by
ĉ(2q+1)
q

Rπ

(q)

|||F̂n,? (ω)|||2 dω
i.
R
π
2 (x)dx
2 dω + π tr(F̂
2 dω
k
|||
F̂
(ω)|||
(ω))
n,?
n,?
−∞
−π
−π

=R
∞

2qξ 2

−π

hR

3. Use the bandwidth
p̂n,opt = ĉq n1/(1+2q) .

(25)
(r)

In our implementation to produce the results in Section 3, we took kini , r = 0, q, to be the same as
(0)
(q)
k, pn,ini = n1/(2q+1) , and pn,ini = 4n1/(2q+1) . It is advisable to take a somewhat larger bandwidth
to estimate F (q) due to the fact that the summands are enlarged by the terms of the form |j|q .

27

