arXiv:1605.09457v1 [] 31 May 2016

Asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimator for
nonlinear AR processes with markov-switching
Luis-Angel Rodrı́guez
Dpto. de Matemáticas, FACYT, Universidad de Carabobo, Venezuela
CIMFAV, Facultad de Ingenierı́a, Universidad de Valparaı́so, Chile.
Corresponding: larodri@uc.edu.ve

January 29, 2018

Abstract
In this note, we propose a new approach for the proof of the consistency and normality
of the maximum likelihood estimator for nonlinear AR processes with markov-switching under the assumptions of uniform exponential forgetting of the prediction filter and α-mixing
property. We show that in the linear and Gaussian case our assumptions are fully satisfied.
Keywords: Nonlinear autoregressive process, Markov switching asymptotic normality,consistency,
hidden Markov chain.
MSC: Primary: 60G17, Secondary:62G07

Switching autoregressive processes with Markov regime can be considered as a combination
of hidden Markov models (HMM) and threshold regression models. They have been introduced
in an econometric context by Goldfeld and Quandt (1973) [5] and they have become quite popular in the literature since Hamilton (1989) [6] employed them in the analysis of the the rate
of growth of USA GNP series for two regimes: one of contraction and another of expansion.
This family of models describes the evolution of a time series subject to discrete shifts and the
transition is controlled by a HMM.
We consider a nonlinear AR process with markov-switching (abbreviated MS-NAR) {Yn }n≥0
defined for integers n ≥ 1 by
Yn = r(Yn−1 , θXn ) + en , Yn ∈ R.

(1)

Here the process {en }n≥1 are i.i.d. random variables and the sequence {Xn }n≥1 is an homogeneous Markov chain with state space {1, . . . , m}.
Let F = {r(·, θ) : θ ∈ Θ} a family of real valued functions defined on Rm+1 , indexed by a
parameter θ = (θ1 , . . . , θm ) ∈ Θ and Θ is a compact set of Rm . We denote by A the probability
transition matrix of the Markov chain {Xn }n≥1 , i.e. A = [aij ], with aij = P(Xn = j|Xn−1 = i).
The parameter space is the set


m


X
Ψ = ψ = (θ, A) : θ ∈ Θ, aij ∈ [0, 1] and
aij = 1 .


j=1

1

We assume that the variable Y0 , the Markov chain {Xn }n≥1 and the sequence {en }n≥1 are
mutually independent. The process {Xn }, called regime, is not observable and inference has to
be carried out in terms of the observable process {Yn }.
The consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator for the parameter ψ in the MS-NAR
model is given in Krishnarmurthy and Ryden (1998) [8], while the consistency and asymptotic
normality are proved in a more general context in the work of Douc et al. (2004) [3]. In the
section 2 we prove the consistency and asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator for functional AR processes with markov-switching under the assumptions of exponential
uniform forgetting property for prediction filter and an α-mixing property.

1

General properties for MS-NAR model

In this section we review the key properties of the MS-NAR model that we need for proving our
results.

1.1

Stability and existence of moments

The study of the stability of the model MS-NAR is relatively complex. In this section we recall
known results about the stability of this model given by Yao and Attali [15]. Our aim is to
resume the sufficient conditions which ensure the existence and the uniqueness of a stationary
ergodic solution for the model, as well as the existence of moments of order s ≥ 1 of the respective
stationary distribution.
E1 The Markov chain {Xn }n≥1 is positive recurrent. Hence, it has an invariant distribution
that we denote by µ = (µ1 , . . . , µm ).
E2 The functions y → r(y, θi ), for i = 1, ..., m, are continuous.
E3 There exist positive constants ρi , bi , i = 1, ..., m, such that for y ∈ R, the following
inequality holds
|r(y, θi )| ≤ ρi |y| + bi .
P
E4 γ = m
i=1 log ρi µi < 0.

E5 E(|e1 |s ) < ∞, for some s ≥ 1.

E6 The sequence {en }n≥1 of random variables admits a common density probability function
Φ with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
E7 There exist b > 0 and C a compact set of R such that inf e∈C Φ(e) > b.
Condition E1 implies that {(Yn , Xn )}n≥1 with states space R × {1, . . . , m} is a Markov process. Under condition E2 this Markov process is a Feller chain and it is a strong Feller chain if
in addition the condition E6 holds.
The model is called sublinear if conditions E2 and E3 hold. For the sublinear MS-NAR
model, Yao and Attali [15] proved the following result.
2

Proposition 1.1 Consider a sublinear MS-NAR {Yn }n≥0 . Under assumptions E1-E7, we have
that
i) There exists a unique stationary geometric ergodic solution.


ii) If the spectral radius of the matrix Qs = ρsj aij
is strictly less than 1, with s given
i,j=1...m

in E5, then E(|Yn |s ) < ∞.

Remark 1.1 The Markov chain is stable under the moment condition s ≥ 1, but for the asymptotic properties of the MLE it will be necessary to assume s > 2.
Now we introduce some notations:
• V1:n stands for the random vector (V1 , . . . , Vn ), and by v1:n = (v1 , . . . , vn ) we mean a
realization of the respective random vector.
• The symbol 1IB (x) denotes the indicator function of set B, which assigns the value 1 if
x ∈ B and 0 otherwise.
• p(V1:n = v1:n ) denotes the density distribution of random vector V1:n evaluated at v1:n .
We consider the following assumption :
D1 The random variable Y0 admits a density function p(Y0 = y0 ) with respect to Lebesgue
measure.
Under conditions D1 and E6, the random vector (Y0:n , X1:n ) admits the probability density
p(Y0:n = y0:n , X1:n = x1:n ) equal to
Φ(yn − r(yn−1 , θxn )) · · · Φ(y1 − r(y0 , θxn ))axn−1 xn · · · ax1 x2 µx1 p(Y0 = y0 ),
with respect to the product measure λ ⊗ µc , where λ and µc denote Lebesgue and counting
measures respectively. For a proof of this result see Fermı́n et al [9].

1.2

Strong mixing

A strictly stationary stochastic process Y = {Yn }n∈Z is called strongly mixing, if
αn := sup{|P(A ∩ B) − P(A)P(B)| : A ∈ M0−∞ , B ∈ M∞
n } → 0,

as n → ∞,

(2)

where Mba , with a, b ∈ Z, is the σ-algebra generated by {Yk }k=a:b , and is absolutely regular
mixing if

βn := E ess sup{P(B|M0−∞ ) − P(B) : B ∈ M∞
as n → ∞.
(3)
n } → 0,

The values αn and βn are called α-mixing and β-mixing coefficients respectively. For properties and examples of processes under mixing assumptions, see Doukhan [4]. In general, we have
the inequality 2αn ≤ βn ≤ 1.

3

Note that the α-mixing coefficients can be rewritten as:
αn := sup{|cov(φ, ξ)| : 0 ≤ φ, ξ ≤ 1, φ ∈ M0−∞ , ξ ∈ M∞
n }.

(4)

In the case of a strictly stationary Markov process X, with state space (E, B), kernel probability
transition A and invariant probability measure µ, the β-mixing coefficients take the following
form (see Doukhan [4], section 2.4):


βn := E sup{|A(n) (X, B) − µ(B)| : B ∈ B} .
(5)

Lemma 1.1 Under conditions E1-E7 the process MS-NAR is α-mixing with α-mixing coefficients decreasing geometrically.
Proof: For the proof of this lemma see Fermı́n et al [9].

Example 1.1 (Linear autoregressive with Markov switching (MS-AR) nonmixing)
In the case where r(y, (bi , ρi )t ) = ρi y + bi , the model is a MS-AR and it is defined by:
Yn = ρXn Yn−1 + bXn + en .
For each 1 ≤ i ≤ m, we denote θi = (bi , ρi )t and

b1 b2 · · ·
θ=
ρ1 ρ2 · · ·

bm
ρm



(6)

.

More specifically consider the process MS-AR with θi = (0, ρi )t for all i = 1, . . . , m and such
that the random variable e1 follows a Bernoulli distribution with parameter q and Y0 = 0. In
this case, we have
n−1
X
Yn =
ρXk · · · ρX1 ek+1 ,
k=0

and we adopt the convention that ρXk · · · ρX1 = 1 for k = 0. This process is non α-mixing. In
fact, according to D. Andrews [1] if 0 < ρi ≤ 1/2, for t ∈ N there exist some sets A ∈ M0−∞ ,
Bt ∈ M∞
n , with P(A) > 0, P(Bs ) ≤ c for some constant c < 1 such that P(Bt |A) = 1, therefore
αt (Y ) ≥ P(A ∩ Bt ) − P(A)P(Bt ) = P(A)(P(Bt |A) − P(Bt )) ≥ P(A)(1 − c).
This implies that αt (Y ) does not tend to 0 as t → ∞ and so Y is a non α-mixing process.
Lemma 1.2 Under conditions E1-E7, the MS-NAR process {Yn }n≥0 satisfies,
i) For all function ϕ such that E(ϕ(Yk )) < ∞, we have the strong law of large numbers,
n

1X
ϕ(Yk ) → E(ϕ(Y1 )), a.s.
n
k=1

4

s
2
ii) Suppose
P∞ that E(ϕ(Y1 )) = 0, E|ϕ(Y1 )| < ∞, for some s > 2. Then Γ = E(ϕ(Y1 ) ) +
2 k=1 k + E(ϕ(Y1 )ϕ(Yk )) < ∞ and if Γ 6= 0,
n

1 X
√
ϕ(Yk ) → N (0, Γ),
n
k=1

for n → ∞, in distribution.
Proof: i) This result is a direct consequence of the Collolary 3.1 in Rio [10].
ii) Let Uk = ϕ(Yk ), then {Uk }k≥0 is a strictly stationary sequence and is strongly α-mixing, with
E(|Uk |r ) < ∞, for r > 2. For α−1 (u) = inf{k ∈ N : αk ≤ u}, we have to prove
Z 1
α−1 (u)Q2 (u)du < ∞
(7)
0

where Q is the associate quantile function of the process {Uk }. The condition (7) is implied by
X
2
(8)
(i + 1) r−2 αi < ∞,
i≥0

and in our case this is valid, since from geometric α-mixing property exist 0 < ζ < 1 such that
αi ≤ Cζ i , we have
X
X
2
2
(i + 1) r−2 ζ i < ∞.
(i + 1) r−2 αi ≤ C
i≥0

i≥0

Thus, we can apply Theorem 4.2. in E. Rı́o [10], obtaining that
to N (0, Γ).

2

√
nUn converges in distribution

Maximum likelihood estimation

Using pψ as a generic simbol for densities and distributions parameterized for ψ. We defined
the conditional log-likelihood as ln (ψ) = log pψ (Y1:n |Y0 ) and we can expressed as
ln (ψ) =

n
X
k=1

log pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 ).

We denote by ψ ∗ the true parameter wich is consider as fixed. A maximum likelihood
estimator (MLE) is defined by
ψ̂n = arg max ln (ψ).
ψ

The MLE is consistent if ψ̂n → ψ ∗ as n → ∞ a.s.
The techniques standard used to prove consistency follows the steps:
1. To show that there exists a continuous deterministic function l(ψ) such that
lim

n→∞

1
ln (ψ) = l(ψ) a.s.
n
5

2. To show that l(ψ) a.s. has a unique maximum at ψ = ψ ∗ .
3. To conclude that ψ̂n = arg maxψ n−1 ln (ψ) → arg maxψ l(ψ) = ψ ∗ .
For MS-NAR processes a strong law of large numbers of the log-likelihood is obtained in
Rynkiewicz [12], Krishnamurthy [7] using an additive function of the extended Markov chain
(Yn , Xn , Pψ (Xk |Y0:n )). In Douc et. al. [3] the law of large numbers of the log-likelihood follow
from uniform exponential forgetting of the initial distribution for prediction filter.
In this work, following the approach of consistency proof of Handel, chapter 7 in [13], for
HMM, and joined to the α-mixing property we obtain a new proof of the consistency for the MLE.
The following lemma shows that we can express pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 ) as a functional of the prediction
filter Pψ (Xk |Y0:n ).
Lemma 2.1 Let δ = inf i,j=1:m aij . Define,
Z Z
ψ
Dk,l
= log
pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 , xk )axk−1 ,xk P(xk−1 |Yl:k−1 )µc (dxk )µc (dxk−1 ),
ψ
ψ
for 0 < l < k. Under assumptions E1 and E7 then |Dk,l
− Dk,0
| ≤ 2δ−1 (1 − δ)k−1−l .
ψ
ψ
Proof: First, we bound from below the quantities exp(Dk,0
) y exp(Dk,l
), by the Fubini Theorem
we have
Z
ψ
exp(Dk,0 ) ≥ δ pψ (Yk |y0:k−1 , xk )µc (dxk )

ψ
and the same for exp(Dk,l
), thus

ψ
ψ
min(exp(Dk,0
), exp(Dk,l
)) ≥ δ

Z

pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 , xk )µc (dxk ).

Using inequality | log x − log y| ≤ |x − y|/ min(x, y), we estimate
ψ
ψ
|Dk,l
− Dk,0
|
RR
pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 , xk )axk−1 ,xk (Pψ (xk−1 |Yl:k−1 ) − Pψ (xk−1 |Y0:k−1 ))µc (dxk )µc (dxk−1 )
R
≤
δ pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 , xk )µc (dxk )
1
kPψ (Xk−1 ∈ ·|Yl:k−1 ) − Pψ (Xk−1 ∈ ·|y0:k−1 )kV T
≤
δ

Applying the Proposition 4.3.26 (iii) in Cappe et. al. [2], pág 109,
kPψ (Xk ∈ ·|Yl:k ) − Pψ (Xk ∈ ·|Y0:k )kV T ≤ 2(1 − δ)k−l
ψ
ψ
We conclude that |Dk,l
− Dk,0
| ≤ 2δ−1 (1 − δ)k−1−l .
ψ
This lemma shows that the quantity Dk,0
, which depends on the observations Y0:k , can be
ψ
approximated by Dk,l
which is a function of only a fixed number of observations Yl:k .

6

Proposition 2.1 Under assumptions E1-E7, suppose Ψ is a compact set and the condition
Eψ∗ (pψ (Yk |Yk−1 , i)) < ∞, for i = 1, . . . , m. Then ln (ψ) is a continuous function and l(ψ) =
limn→∞ n−1 ln (ψ) exist a.s for each ψ ∈ Ψ.
Proof: The proof is done in two steps. First, we have
l(ψ) = lim Eψ∗ (Dkψ ), exists for every ψ ∈ Ψ.
k→∞

Second, we show

n

1X ψ
(Dk − Eψ∗ (Dkψ )) → 0 a.s.
n
k=1

then conclude
n

n

k=1

k=1

1X ψ
1X
1
ln (ψ) =
(Dk − Eψ∗ (Dkψ )) +
Eψ∗ (Dkψ ) → l(ψ) a.s.
n
n
n
ψ
) by Lemma 2.1,
Step 1. Let ∆k = Eψ∗ (Dk,l
ψ
ψ
))| ≤ 2δ−1 (1 − δ)m−1
− Eψ∗ (Dm+n,m
|∆m+n − ∆m | = |Eψ∗ (Dm+n,0

hence supn |∆m+n − ∆m | → 0 as m → ∞, i.e.,P
{∆k } is a Cauchy sequence and therefore convern−1
−1
∆k ) also converges.
gent. By Cesàros theorem Eψ∗ (ln (ψ)) = n ( k=0

Step 2. According to Proposition 1.1 the sequence {Dkψ }k≥1 is α-mixing with geometric coefficients αk . We demostrate that E(|Dkψ |) < ∞, in fact
Z Z
Z
pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 , xk )axk−1 ,xk Pψ (xk−1 |Yl:k−1 )µc (dxk )µc (dxk−1 ) ≤ pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 , xk )µc (dxk )
and
Z

pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 , xk )µc (dxk ) =

m
X
i=1

pψ (Yk |Yk−1 , i)µi ≤ m max {pψ (Yk |Yk−1 , i)µi }
i=1:m

under assumption E(pψ∗ (Yk |Yk−1 , i)) < ∞, then E(|Dkψ |) < ∞ and by Lemma 1.2, i) we obtain
n

1X ψ
(Dk − Eψ∗ (Dkψ )) → 0 a.s.
n
k=1

We prove the validity of step three under uniform convergence, supψ∈Ψ |ln (ψ) − l(ψ)| → 0.
Lemma 2.2 Suppose Ψ is a compact set. Let ln : Ψ → R be a sequence of continuous functions
that converges uniformly to a function l : Ψ → R. Then
ψ̂n = arg max ln (ψ) → arg max l(ψ)
ψ

ψ

7

Proof: As a continuous function on a compact space attains its maximum, we can find a
ψn ∈ arg maxψ ln (ψ) for all n. Which show using an argument that goes to Wald (1949) that
lim l(ψn ) = sup l(ψ).

n→∞

(9)

ψ∈Ψ

Suppose that the sequence {ψn } does not converge to the set {ψ̃ : l(ψ̃) = maxψ∈Ψ l(ψ)}.
By compactness there exists a subsequence {ψn′ } ⊂ {ψn } which converges to ψ ′ 6∈ {ψ̃ : l(ψ̃) =
maxψ∈Ψ l(ψ)}. But l(ψ) is continuous, so l(ψn′ ) → l(ψ ′ ) < supψ∈Ψ l(ψ) and according to (9),
this is a contradiction.
Theorem 2.1 Suppose Ψ is a compact set. Assume that
1. ψ = ψ ∗ iff Pψ = Pψ∗ .
2. For all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , m} and all y, y ′ ∈ R × R the functions ψ → aij and ψ → pψ (Y1 =
y|Y0 = y ′ , X1 = i) are continous.
′

3. There is a c < ∞ such that |Dkψ − Dkψ | ≤ ckψ − ψ ′ k for all k > 1
Then the maximum likelihood estimate ψˆn is consistent.
Proof: By Theorem 7.5 in Handel [13], the Lipschitz condition 3. and compactness implies that
the sequence ln → l a.s uniformly. According to Lemma 2.1
ψ̂n → ψ∗ = arg max l(ψ),
ψ

and this value is unique under identifiability.
In the Gaussian and linear case we can prove directly identifiability and equicontinuity. This
allows us obtain the consistency of the MLE without assuming a condition of Lipschitz for the
parameters.
Example 2.1 (MS-AR gaussian linear)
Let the model defined by (6). Let {en } are gaussian i.i.d. random variables. Our goal in this
example is check that the conditions for consistency apply in this case. In fact, if we assume that
for the true model Ψ∗ the vector components {(αi , bi , σi )}m
i=1 are different; thus, for every n,
m
there exists a point Yn−1 ∈ R such that {(αi Yn−1 + bi , σi )}i=1 are different. Therefore, in agreement with Remark 2.10 of Krishnamurthy and Yin [7] the model is identifiable in the following
sense: If K stands for the Kullback-Leibler divergence K(ψ, ψ∗ ) = 0 then, ψ = ψ∗ , which proves
the identifiability. On the another hand, the Lemma 4.1 in [11] follows that n1 log pψ (Y1n |Y0 = y0 )
is an equicontinuos sequence a.s-Pψ∗ . We conclude that in this case the MLE is consistent.
There is a standard technique for prove asymptotic normality of maximum likelihood estimates. The idea is that the first derivatives of a smooth function must vanish at its maximum.
If we expand in Taylor series the likelihood gradient around ψ ∗ , we can write
0 = ∇ψ ln (ψ̂n ) = ∇ψ ln (ψ ∗ ) + ∇2ψ ln (ψ̃)(ψ̂n − ψ ∗ )
8

√
where ψ̃ = tψ̂n + (1 − t)ψ ∗ . Normalizing this expansion with n we obtain
√
√
n(ψ̂n − ψ ∗ ) = −(∇2ψ ln (ψ̃))−1 (∇ψ ln (ψ ∗ )) n.
In order to obtain the asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator we assume
that exist an open neighborhood Br (ψ ∗ ) of ψ ∗ such that the following statements hold.
H1 The functions ψ → A and ψ → pψ (Y1 |Y0 , i) are twice continuously differentiable on Br (ψ ∗ ).
H2 There exist functions f0 , f1 , f2 such that
sup
ψ∈Br

(ψ∗ )

k∇ψ pψ (y1 |y0 , i)k ≤ f0 (y1 , y0 ),

sup
ψ∈Br

(ψ∗ )

k∇2ψ pψ (y1 |y0 , i)k ≤ f1 (y1 , y0 ),

and
sup
ψ∈Br (ψ∗ )

k∇ψ pψ (y1 |y0 , i)k ≤ f2 (y1 , y0 ),

with E(fs (Y1 , Y0 )) < ∞, s = 0, 1 and E(f2 (Y1 , Y0 )r ) < ∞, r > 2.
Theorem 2.2 Under assumptions of Theorem 2.1 and H1-H2, assume that J(ψ ∗ ) = var(∇ψ l(ψ ∗ ))
is non-singular and ψ ∗ ∈ Ψ̊. Then, as n → ∞,
i) −(∇2ψ n−1 ln (ψ̃)) → J(ψ ∗ ), in probability.
√
ii) n∇ψ n−1 ln (ψ ∗ ) → N (0, J(ψ ∗ )), in distribution.
√
Moreover, we conclude that n(ψ̂n − ψ ∗ ) → N (0, J(ψ ∗ )−1 ), in distribution.
Proof: Under H1-H2 if we take ϕ() =
√
and if ϕ() =

∂n−1 log ln
,
∂ψ

∂ 2 log n−1 ln
∂ψ2

the Lemma 1.2 implies that

n∇ψ n−1 ln (ψ ∗ ) → N (0, J(ψ ∗ ))

then
−(∇2ψ n−1 ln (ψ ∗ )) → J(ψ ∗ ), a.s.

For a sequence ψn → ψ ∗ we can prove
1 2
1
∇ψ ln (ψn ) − ∇2ψ ln (ψ∗ ) = 0,
n→∞ n
n
lim

in probability.
Let us first observe that

1 2
n ∇ψ ln (ψn )

=

1
n

Pn

2
k=1 ∇ψ

log pψ (Yk |Y0:k−1 ). Another hand,

∂ 2 log pψ
∂ log pψ ∂ log pψ 1
1 ∂ 2 pψ
=
−
∂ψj ∂ψi
pψ ∂ψj ∂ψi
∂ψj
∂ψj p2ψ

9

hence,
∂ 2 log pψ∗
∂ 2 log pψn
−
∂ψj ∂ψi
∂ψj ∂ψi


1 ∂ 2 pψn
1 ∂ 2 pψ ∗
=
−
+
pψn ∂ψj ∂ψi pψ∗ ∂ψj ∂ψi

∂pψ∗ ∂pψ∗ 1
∂pψn ∂pψn 1
−
2
∂ψj ∂ψj pψ∗
∂ψj ∂ψj p2ψn

!

= T1 + T2 .

For term T2 , by definition of ψ ∗ ,

∂pψ ∗
∂ψj

= 0 and by the Ergodic theorem we have
n

1 X ∂pψn
= 0.
n→∞ n
∂ψj
lim

k=1

For the term T1 ,
1
pψn

∂ 2 pψn
1 ∂ 2 pψ ∗
1
−
=
∂ψj ∂ψi pψ∗ ∂ψj ∂ψi
pψn



∂ 2 pψn
∂ 2 pψ ∗
−
∂ψj ∂ψi ∂ψj ∂ψi



+



1
pψn

1
−
pψ ∗



∂ 2 pψ ∗
∂ψj ∂ψi

Under equicontinuity of the sequence {pψn }n≥1 we have, pψn → pψ∗ and by conditions E1 and
E7 pψ1 → p 1 ∗ , a.s. Using H2 we obtain
n

ψ

E



Let
w(r, Y0:k ) =

sup
ψn ∈Br (ψ∗ )

∂ 2 pψ ∗
∂ψj ∂ψi



< ∞.

∂ 2 pψn (Yk |Y0:k ) ∂ 2 pψ∗ (Yk |Y0:k )
,
−
∂ψj ∂ψi
∂ψj ∂ψi

proceeding as in Lemma 3 of Vandekerkhove [14], by Markov inequality
!
n
n
1 X ∂ 2 pψn (Yk |Y0:k ) 1 X ∂ 2 pψ∗ (Yk |Y0:k )
P
−
>ǫ
k
∂ψj ∂ψi
k
∂ψj ∂ψi
k=1
k=1
!
n
1X
w(r, Y0:k ) > ǫ − E(w(r, Y0:k )) + P (ψn 6∈ Br (ψ ∗ ))
≤ P
k
k=1

≤

E(w(r, Y0:k ))
+ P (ψn 6∈ Br (ψ ∗ )) .
ǫ − E(w(r, Y0:k ))

(10)

The condicion H2 implies that E(w(r, Y0:k )) ≤ 2f1 . Using the Lebesgue continuity theorem,
we obtain that E(w(r, Y0:k )) → 0, as n → ∞. The second term goes to 0 as n to infinity by
strong convergence of {ψn } to ψ ∗ . Hence (10) goes to 0.
√

√
n, using i) the first factor in the
Finally, as n(ψ̂n − ψ ∗ ) = − ∇2ψ ln (ψ̃))−1 (∇ψ ln (ψ ∗ )
∗
above expression tends to J(ψ ). The second factor converges weakly to N (0, J(ψ ∗ )) by ii).
√
Slutsky’s theorem implies that n(ψ̂n − ψ ∗ ) → N (0, J(ψ ∗ )−1 ).
Example 2.2 (MS-AR gaussian again)
10

We employ the asymptotic results obtained to verify the validity of a likelihood test for identifing when the parameter ρ, of a MS-AR is the zero vector. In this case the MS-AR process is a
hidden Markov model.
Expanding ln (ρ) in Taylor series around ρ̂, we have

 2
∂ ln (ρ̃)
2
−2(ln (ρ̂) − ln (0)) = ρ̂ −
∂ρ2
p
and by Theorem 2.1 ρ̂ J(0) → N (0, 1) and as J(ρ̃)/J(0) → 1 then ρ̂2 J(0) → χ21 .

Acknowledgments. The author is grateful for the partial support on the projects Anillo
ACT1112 and GEMINI-CONICYT 2012 NO. 32120025 CR 211291055 REXE 04464-14. Research facilities and hospitality in CIMFAV of the Universidad de Valparaı́so and by the sabbatical support from the Universidad de Carabobo. The author also thanks Dr K. Bertin for
carefully reading a preliminary version.

References
[1] D. Andrews. Non-strong mixing autoregressive procesess. J. Appl Prob., 21:930–934, 1984.
[2] O. Cappe, E. Moulines, and T. Rydén. Inference in Hidden Markov Models. SpringerVerlag, 2005.
[3] R. Douc, E. Moulines, and T. Rydén. Asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood
estimator in autoregressive models with Markov regime. Ann. Statist., 32:2254–2304, 2004.
[4] P. Doukhan. Mixing: Propierties and Examples., volume 85. Lecture Notes in Statist.,
1994.
[5] S. M. Goldfeld and R. Quandt. A Markov Model for Switching Regressions. Journal of
Econometrics, 1:3–16, 1973.
[6] J.D. Hamilton. A new approach to the economic analysis of non stationary time series and
the business cycle. Econometrica, pages 357–384, 1989.
[7] V. Krishnamurthy. Recursive Algorithms for estimation of hidden Markov Models with
markov regime. IEEE Trans. Information theory, 48(2):458–476, 2002.
[8] V. Krishnamurthy and T. Rydén. Consistent estimation of linear and non-linear autoregressive models with Markov regime. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19:291–307, 1998.
[9] Fermı́n L., Rı́os, and L. A. Rodrı́guez. A Robbins Monro algorithm for nonparametric
estimation of NAR process with Markov-Switching: consistency. arXiv:1407.3747v6, 2014.
[10] E. Rio. Théorie asymptotique des processus faiblement dépendents, volume 31. SpringerSMAI: Paris., 2000.
[11] R. Rı́os and L. A. Rodrı́guez. Penalized estimate of the number of states in gaussian linear
ar with markov regime. Electronic Journal of Statistics, pages 1111–1128, 2008.
11

[12] J. Rynkiewicz. Modéles hybrides intégrant des réseaux de neurones artificiels à des modeles
de chaı̂nes de Markov cachee: application à la prediction de series temporelles . PhD thesis,
Universite Parı́s I, 2000.
[13] R. v. Handel. Hidden Markov Models. Lecture notes: https://www.princeton.edu/ rvan/,
2008.
[14] P. Vandekerkhove. Consistent and asymptotically normal parameter estimates for hidden
Markov mixtures of Markov models. Bernoulli, 11:103–129, 2005.
[15] J. Yao and J. G. Attali. On stability of nonlinear AR process with Markov switching. Adv.
Applied Probab, 1999.

12

