A perturbation analysis of some Markov chains models with
time-varying parameters

arXiv:1706.03214v1 [] 10 Jun 2017

Lionel Truquet ∗†

Abstract
For some families of V−geometrically ergodic Markov kernels indexed by a parameter, we study
the existence of a Taylor expansion of the invariant distribution in the space of signed measures. Our
approach, which completes some previous results for the perturbation analysis of Markov chains, is
motivated by a problem in statistics: a control of the bias for the nonparametric kernel estimation in
some locally stationary Markov models. We illustrate our results with a nonlinear autoregressive process
and a Galton-Watson process with immigration and time-varying parameters.

1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is to study some regularity properties of the local invariant measure in some locally
stationary Markov models introduced in the literature. The notion of local stationarity has been introduced
in Dahlhaus (1997) and offers a very interesting approach for the modelling of nonstationary time series
for which the parameters are continuously changing with the time. The basic idea of local stationarity
is to work with triangular arrays of random variables that can be locally approximated in some sense by
stationary processes with the use of an infill asymptotic. In the literature, several stationary models have
been extended to a locally stationary version, in particular some Markov models defined by autoregressive
processes. See for instance Subba Rao (2006) Moulines et al. (2005) and Zhang and Wu (2012) for linear
autoregressive processes, Dahlhaus and Rao (2006), Fryzlewicz et al. (2008) and Truquet (2016) for ARCH
processes, Vogt (2012) and a recent contribution of Dahlhaus et al. (2017) for nonlinear autoregressive processes. In Truquet (2017), we introduced a notion of local stationarity for general Markov chains models,
including most of the autoregressive processes introduced in the references given above but also finite-state
Markov chains or integer-valued time series. To define these models, we use time-varying Markov kernels.
Let {Qu : u ∈ [0, 1]} be a family of ergodic Markov kernels on the same topological space (E, E). We denote by πu the invariant probability measure of Qu . For an integer n ≥ 1, we consider n random variables
Xn,1 , Xn,2 , . . . , Xn,n taking values in G and such that

P Xn,k ∈ A|Xn,k−1 = x = Qk/n (x, A),

(x, A) ∈ G × B(G),

1 ≤ k ≤ n,

with the convention Xn,0 ∼ π0 .
In Truquet (2017), we extensively used some contraction properties and some Lipschitz continuity assumptions for the Markov kernels Qu (or some of their iterations) to control the local approximation of π(n)
k
∗
†

UMR 6625 CNRS IRMAR, University of Rennes 1, Campus de Beaulieu, F-35042 Rennes Cedex, France and
ENSAI, Campus de Ker-Lann, rue Blaise Pascal, BP 37203, 35172 Bruz cedex, France. Email: lionel.truquet@ensai.fr.

1

(the distribution of Xn,k ) by πu and in the same spirit the approximation of any finite dimensional distribution of the Markov chain with time-varying parameters. Various metric on the space of probability measures
were discussed for controlling this approximation.
One of the important issues in the statistical inference of locally stationary processes is the curve estimation
R of some parameters of the kernels {Qu : u ∈ [0, 1]} but also some parameters of the joint distribution,
i.e f dπu for some functionals f . For instance, one can be interested in the estimation of the trend of a time
series which is here the mean of the invariant probability. However, the nonparametric estimation of such
functionals require to know their regularity, for instance the number of derivatives. For example,
R the local
linear fit with a kernel density requires the existence of two derivatives for the function u 7→ f dπu . See
Fan and Gijbels (1996) for an introduction to local polynomial modelling and Section 3.2 for the application
to locally stationary Markov chains.
In the recent work of Dahlhaus et al. (2017), the authors study some autoregressive Markov processes
with time-varying parameters. Taking benefit of the properties of some iterated random maps that define
the time-varying process under consideration, they study some regularity properties of the stationary approximations through the notion of a derivative process. The regularity of some smooth functionals of the
invariant measure is then deduced from this derivative process by using an adapted differential calculus.
However, when the state space is discrete, the notion of derivative process is not relevant to evaluate such a
regularity. This is in particular the case for some models we introduced in Truquet (2017).
In this paper, we study directly the regularity of the invariant measure u 7→ πu when some regularity
assumptions are available in some sense for u 7→ Qu . This approach has two benefits. First, it does not
depend on the state space of the Markov process of interest and can be used for lots of locally stationary
Markov processes. Secondly,
with respect to Dahlhaus et al. (2017), one can get some regularity properties
R
of some curves u 7→ f dπu for non-smooth functionals f because our results are stated in total variation
type norms. Of course, for the autoregressive processes studied in Dahlhaus (1997), the price to pay for this
generality is to impose stronger regularity assumptions on the noise distribution.
In the literature of Markov chains, controlling the approximation of the invariant measure when the
Markov kernel is perturbed has been extensively studied in the literature. A recent contribution to this theory is given in Rudolf and Schweizer (2017) with an application to stochastic algorithms. A few works also
consider the problem of finding condition under which the invariant probability has some differentiability
properties. See for instance Schweitzer (1968), Kartashov (1986) or Heidergott and Hordijk (2003). However most of the references devoted to this problem assume a continuity property of the Markov kernels with
respect to the operator norm associated to some V−norms. As pointed out in Ferré et al. (2013), this assumption is too restrictive because it is not satisfied for the simple case of an autoregressive process of order
1. Let us precise this problem after introducing some notations. For a measurable function V : E → [1, ∞),
we denote by MV the set of signed measures µ on (E, E) such that
Z
kµkV := |µ| · V =
Vdµ < ∞.
We recall that (MV , k · kV ) is a Banach space. In this paper, we will mainly consider the Markov kernel Qu
as an operator T u acting on MV , i.e T u µ = µQu is the measure defined by
Z
µQu (A) =
µ(dx)Qu (x, A), A ∈ E.
Another convention in the literature is to consider Qu as an operator acting on some functions
spaces, i.e for
R
<
∞
,
we
set
Q
g(x)
=
Q
(x,
dy)g(y).
Then
a measurable function g : G → R such that |g|V = sup x∈E |g(x)|
u
u
V(x)
2

the operator T u is often considered as the adjoint operator. Since we choose to work with measure spaces,
we keep our convention. The corresponding V−operator norm of T u is defined by
kT u kV,V =

sup
µ∈M(V):kµkV ≤1

kµQu kV = sup |Qu f |V .
| f |V ≤1

However, this norm is often not appropriate. For instance, for a stationary AR(1) process Xk = αXk−1 + ξk
with an integrable noise ξk having an absolutely continuous distribution with density fξ , Ferré et al. (2013)
have shown that the corresponding Markov kernel Pα (x, dy) = fξ (y − αx)dy, is not continuous with respect
to the lag coefficient α for this operator norm when V(x) = 1 + |x|. On the other hand, it is shown that a
continuity property holds for the norm
kPα kV,1 = sup |Pα |V = sup kµPα k1 ,
| f |1 ≤1

kµkV ≤1

where k· k1 is the total variation norm, corresponding to the case V ≡ 1. As pointed out in Ferré et al. (2013),
this problem also occurs for the boundedness of the derivative operators because the successive derivatives
of the conditional density involves a polynomial factor of increasing degree. For getting a Taylor expansion
of the invariant probability, it is possible to use a general result given in Hervé and Pène (2010) (see Annex
A of that paper) which is applied in Ferré et al. (2013) to the AR(1) process.
In this paper, we will prove a general result for getting a Taylor expansion of the invariant probability.
This result has some similarities with that of Hervé and Pène (2010) but it is easier to apply and can give
slightly better results in the examples. Contrarily to Hervé and Pène (2010), we do not make use of the spectral theory of operators (except that this spectral theory is hidden in Proposition 2 which is a straightforward
consequence of Theorem 1 in Ferré et al. (2013) and ensures simultaneous geometric ergodicity properties
that can be useful to apply our results, see Section 2.2 for details). Our approach is more direct and exploits
some weak continuity/differentiability assumptions. Note however that the primary goal of the method given
in Hervé and Pène (2010) is to study the regularity of the resolvent operator α 7→ (zI − Pα )−1 whereas we
focus here on some properties of the invariant measures. To see what advantages can offer some weak continuity assumptions, one can show that for the AR(1) process, the application α 7→ µPα is continuous for any
µ ∈ MV . As a consequence, from the approach we used for proving Theorem 1 of the present paper, one can
show that the invariant probability µα of Pα is continuous for the norm k · kV , even if the transition kernel is
never continuous for the corresponding operator norm. This completes the result given in Ferré et al. (2013),
where the continuity property of the invariant probabilities is obtained in a weaker sense.
Finally, let us mention that our approach is particularly useful for models for which some power functions are Lyapunov and the derivatives of the conditional moments are bounded by some power functions.
Our results can be applied using some easily checked conditions on the conditional density of the Markov
kernels. See Section 3.1 for details. Moreover, though our results are stated for locally stationary Markov
chains, one can get a straightforward generalization to some parametric models of ergodic Markov processes, using partial derivatives in the multidimensional case.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a general result for getting the regularity of
an invariant measure. In Section 3, we study some sufficient conditions that can be easily checked in the
examples. We give an application to the study of the bias in Section 4 and we check our assumptions for
two statistical models in Section 5.

3

2 Regularity of an invariant probability with respect to an indexing parameter
In this section, we consider a family {Pu : u ∈ [0, 1]} of Markov kernels on a topological space G endowed
with its Borel σ−field B(G). For an integer k ≥ 1, let V1 , V2 , . . . , Vk be k + 1 measurable functions defined on
G, taking values in [1, +∞) and such that V0 ≤ V1 ≤ · · · ≤ Vk . For simplicity of notations we set F s = MVs
and k · ks = k · kVs for 0 ≤ s ≤ k. We remind that {(Fℓ , k · kℓ ) : 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k} is a family of Banach spaces.
Moreover, 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k − 1, we have Fℓ+1 ⊂ Fℓ and the injection
iℓ : (Fℓ+1 , k · kℓ+1 ) → (Fℓ , k · kℓ )
is continuous. For j = 0, 1, . . . , k, we also denote
by F0, j the set of measures µ ∈ F j such that µ(G) = 0.

For 0 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ k and a linear operator T : F j , k · k j → (Fi , k · ki ), we set kT k j,i = supkxk j ≤1 kT xki and
kT k0, j,i = sup x∈F0, j ,kxk j ≤1 kT xki . Finally, for each u ∈ [0, 1], we denote by T u the linear operator acting on the
space F0 and defined by T u µ = µPu . Finally, for a positive integer m, T um denotes the iteration of order m of
the operator T u .
[A1] We have T u Fℓ ⊂ Fℓ for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k. Moreover, for each ℓ = 0, 1, . . . , k, there exists an integer mℓ ≥ 1
and a real number κℓ ∈ (0, 1) such that,
sup kT umℓ k0,ℓ,ℓ ≤ κℓ ,

sup kT u kℓ,ℓ < ∞
u∈[0,1]

u∈[0,1]

and for each µ ∈ Fℓ , the application u 7→ T u µ is continuous from [0, 1] to (Fℓ , k · kℓ ).
[A2] for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k, there exists a continuous operator T u(ℓ) : (Fℓ , k · kℓ ) → (F0 , k · k0 ) such that for
< ∞ and for µ ∈ F s+ℓ ,
0 ≤ s ≤ s + ℓ ≤ k, T u(ℓ) F s+ℓ ⊂ F s , supu∈[0,1] T u(ℓ)
s+ℓ,s

(ℓ)
µ
lim T u+h
h→0

−

T u(ℓ) µ

s

= 0 and lim

(ℓ−1)
µ − T u(ℓ−1) µ
T u+h

h→0

h

− T u(ℓ) µ

= 0,
s

with the convention T u(0) = T u .

Theorem 1. Assume the assumptions A1 − A2 hold true. Then the following statements are true.
1.


• For each u ∈ [0, 1], the operator I − T u defines an isomorphism on each space F0,ℓ , k · kℓ for
P
0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k. Moreover the inverse of I − T u is given by (I − T u )−1 = k≥0 T uk .
• We have max0≤ℓ≤k supu∈[0,1] (I − T u )−1

0,ℓ,ℓ

< ∞.

• For 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k and µ ∈ F0,ℓ , the application u 7→ (T − T u )−1 µ is continuous for the norm k · kℓ .
• Moreover, for each u ∈ [0, 1], we have for 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k − 1 and all µ ∈ F0,ℓ+1 ,
lim

h→0

(I − T u+h )−1 µ − (I − T u )−1 µ
+ (I − T u )−1 T u(1) (I − T u )−1 µ
h

= 0.
ℓ

2. For each u ∈ [0, 1], there exists a unique probability measure µu such that T u µu = µu (µu is an
invariant probability for Pu ). Moreover µu ∈ Fk .
4

3. The function f : [0, 1] → (Fk , k · kk ) defined by f (u) = µu , for u ∈ [0, 1], is continuous. Moreover
there exist some functions f (1) , . . . , f (k) such that
• for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k, the function f (ℓ) : [0, 1] → (Fk−ℓ , k · kk−ℓ ) is continuous,
• for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k and u ∈ [0, 1], limh→0

f (ℓ−1) (u+h)− f (ℓ−1) (u)
h

− f (ℓ) (u)

k−ℓ

= 0,

• the derivatives of f are given recursively by
f (ℓ) (u) =

!
ℓ
X
ℓ
(I − T u )−1 T u(s) f (ℓ−s) (u).
s
s=1

Note. When V0 = V1 = · · · = Vk = V, existence of the derivatives for the invariant probabilities is
studied in Heidergott and Hordijk (2003). Our results contain theirs. One can show that the condition C k
used for stating their result entails A2 because they use a continuity assumption of the derivatives operators
with respect to the V−operator norm. On the other hand, their geometric ergodicity result (see Result 2 in
their paper) for each kernel Pu and the continuity assumption of the kernel for V−operator norm entails the
contraction A1 (for the contraction coefficient κℓ , see Section 3.2 below).
Proof of Theorem 1
1.


• First, one can note that F0,ℓ , k · kℓ is a closed vector subspace of (Fℓ , k · kℓ ) and then a Banach
P
space. Moreover, from the assumption A1, the series k≥0 T uk is normally convergent for the
norm k · kℓ,ℓ and is the inverse of I − T u . Then I − T u defines an isomorphism on the space

F0,ℓ , k · kℓ .
• From the assumption A1, the second assertion is straightforward.

• Next, we show that for 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k and µ ∈ F0,ℓ , the application u 7→ (I − T u )−1 µ taking values in

F0,ℓ , k · kℓ is continuous. We use the decomposition
(I − T u+h )−1 − (I − T u )−1 = −(I − T u+h )−1 (T u+h − T u )(I − T u )−1 .

From the previous point, we have supu∈[0,1] k(I − T u )−1 k0,ℓ,ℓ < ∞ and v 7→ T v (I − T u )−1 µ is
continuous. Then the continuity of the application u 7→ (I − T u )−1 µ follows.
• Finally, we show that the application u 7→ (I−T u )−1 µ is differentiable. Setting zu,h = h−1 (T u+h − T u ) (I−

T u )−1 µ, we deduce from assumption A2 that limh→0 zu,h = zu = T u(1) (I − T u )−1 µ in F0,ℓ , k · kℓ .
We use the decomposition
h
i
h−1 (I − T u+h )−1 µ − (I − T u )−1 µ = −(I − T u+h )−1 zu,h
= −(I − T u+h )−1 (zu,h − zu ) − (I − T u+h )−1 zu .

From the previous point, we have limh→0 (I − T u+h )−1 zu = (I − T u )−1 zu in F0,ℓ , k · kℓ . Moreover,
(I − T u+h )−1 (zu,h − zu )

ℓ

≤ sup (I − T u )−1
u∈[0,1]

h→0

0,ℓ,ℓ

kzu,h − zu kℓ → 0.

This shows that the application u 7→ (I − T u )−1 µ is differentiable with derivative u 7→ −(I −
T u )−1 T u(1) (I − T u )−1 µ.

5


2. The space Fk,1 = µ ∈ Fk : µ is a probability measure endowed with the norm k · kk is a complete
metric space. Then the result follows from the fixed point theorem.
3. We first show that f is continuous. We have f (u + h) − f (u) = (I − T u+h )−1 (T u+h − T u ) f (u). From the
assumption A1, we have limh→0 kT u+h f (u) − T u f (u)kk = 0. Then using the second assertion of point
1. of the theorem, we get limh→0 ( f (u + h) − f (u)) = 0.
Next, we prove the existence of the derivative and derive its properties by induction on ℓ with 1 ≤ ℓ ≤
k.
• First, we assume that ℓ = 1. Since for each u ∈ [0, 1], µu is a fixed point of T u , we have
µ − µ 
µu+h − µu T u+h − T u
u+h
u
.
=
· µu + T u+h ·
h
h
h
Then we get
µu+h − µu
h
T u+h − T u
µu
h
T
 h
i
u+h − T u
= (I − T u+h )−1
µu − T u(1) µu + (I − T u+h )−1 − (I − T u )−1 T u(1) µu .
h
From the assumption A2, we have
= (I − T u+h )−1

lim

h→0

T u+h µu − T u µu
− T u(1) µu
h

= 0.
k−1

From the second and the third assertions of the point 1., we get
µu+h − µu
− f (1) (u)
h

lim

h→0

= 0,
k−1

where f (1) (u) = (I − T u )−1 T u(1) µu . It remains to prove the continuity of f (1) . As previously, it is
sufficient to show that
(1)
= 0.
µu+h − T u(1) µu
lim T u+h
k−1

h→0

But this is a consequence of the continuity of f and of the assumption A2, using the decomposition
h (1)
i

(1)
(1) 
− T u(1) µu + T u+h
µu+h − T u(1) µu = T u+h
T u+h
µu+h − µu .
This shows the result for ℓ = 1.

4. Now let us assume that for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k − 1, f has ℓ derivatives such that for 1 ≤ s ≤ ℓ and u ∈ [0, 1], the
function f (s) : [0, 1] → (Fk−s , k · kk−s ) is continuous,
lim

h→0

and

f (s−1) (u + h) − f (s−1) (u)
− f (s) (u)
h

=0
k−s

!
ℓ
X
ℓ
(I − T u )−1 T u(s) f (ℓ−s) (u).
f (u) =
s
(ℓ)

s=1

6

• For 1 ≤ s ≤ ℓ, we set zu = T u(s) f (ℓ−s) (u) and first we are going to show that the application
u 7→ zu has a derivative. We have
(s)
(s)
(ℓ−s) (u + h) − f (ℓ−s) (u)
zu+h − zu T u+h − T u (ℓ−s)
(s) f
=
f
(u) + T u+h
.
h
h
h

Since f (ℓ−s) (u) ∈ Fk−ℓ+s , we have from assumption A2,
lim

(s)
− T u(s)
T u+h

h

h→0

Next we set wu,h =

f (ℓ−s) (u) − T (s+1) f (ℓ−s) (u)

= 0.
k−ℓ−1

f (ℓ−s) (u+h)− f (ℓ−s) (u)
.
h

By the induction hypothesis, we have

lim wu,h − f (ℓ−s+1) (u)

h→0

(s)
Using the assumption A2, we have supu∈[0,1] T u+h

k−ℓ+s−1

k−ℓ+s−1,k−ℓ−1



(s)
lim T u+h
wu,h − f (ℓ−s+1) (u)

h→0

= 0.

k−ℓ−1

< ∞. Then we get

= 0.

Using again the assumption A2, we have
(s) (ℓ−s+1)
lim T u+h
f
(u) − T u(s) f (ℓ−s+1) (u)

h→0

k−ℓ−1

= 0.

This shows that
lim

h→0

zu+h − zu
− T u(s+1) f (ℓ−s) (u) − T u(s) f (ℓ−s+1) (u)
h

= 0.
k−ℓ−1

(s+1) (ℓ−s)
f
(u) + T u(s) f (ℓ−s+1) (u).
In the sequel we set z(1)
u = Tu
• Next we compute the derivative of u 7→ yu = (I − T u )−1 zu . We have

z − z
yu+h − yu (I − T u+h )−1 − (I − T u )−1
u+h
u
+ (I − T u+h )−1 z(1)
=
zu + (I − T u+h )−1
− z(1)
u .
u
h
h
h
Using the assumption A2 and the previous point, we get

lim
h→

yu+h − yu
− (I − T u )−1 T u(1) (I − T u )−1 zu − (I − T u )−1 z(1)
u
h

= 0.
k−ℓ−1

In the sequel, we set
t(ℓ,s) (u) = (I − T u )−1 T u(1) (I − T u )−1 zu + (I − T u )−1 z(1)
u .
• Finally we get in (Fk−ℓ−1 , k · kk−ℓ−1 ),
lim

h→0

f (ℓ) (u + h) − f (ℓ) (u)
= f (ℓ+1) (u),
h

where
f (ℓ+1) (u) =

!
ℓ
X
ℓ (ℓ,s)
t .
s u
s=1

The expression for
computations.

f (ℓ+1) (u)

given in the statement of the theorem follows from straightforward

7

• Finally, using the induction assumption, the function f (ℓ+1−s) is continuous for the norm k ·
kk−ℓ+s−1 for each 1 ≤ s ≤ ℓ + 1. Then the proof of the continuity of f (ℓ+1) is similar to the proof
of the continuity of f (1) .
The the properties of the successive derivatives f (1) , . . . , f (k) follow by induction and the proof of
Theorem 1 is now complete.

3 Sufficient conditions
We now provide some sufficient conditions for A1 − A2. The most important situation in our examples
concerns the case Vℓ = V rℓ where rk = 1 ≥ rk−1 ≥ · · · ≥ r0 ≥ 0 and V is a drift function which is a power of
a norm. We will also assume that the kernel Pu is defined by
Z
Pu (x, A) =
f (u, x, y)γ(x, dy), A ∈ B(G),
A

where f : [0, 1] × G2 → R+ is a measurable function and γ is a kernel.

3.1 A sufficient set of conditions
We will use the following assumptions.
B1 For ℓ = 0, 1, . . . , k, the family of Markov kernels {Pu : u ∈ [0, 1]} is uniformly Vℓ −geometrically ergodic,
i.e there exists κℓ ∈ (0, 1) such that for all x ∈ G,
 
kδ x Pnu − µu kℓ
= O κℓn ,
Vℓ (x)
u∈[0,1]
sup

where the invariant measure µu of Pu satisfies µu V < ∞.
B2 For all (x, y) ∈ G2 , the function u 7→ f (u, x, y) is of class Ck and for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k, we denote by ∂(ℓ)
1 f its
partial derivative of order ℓ.
B3 There exist C > 0 such that for integers 0 ≤ s ≤ s + ℓ ≤ k and x ∈ G,
Z
∂(ℓ)
sup
1 f (u, x, y) V s (y)µ0 (x, dy) ≤ CV s+ℓ (x)

(1)

u∈[0,1]

and for each u ∈ [0, 1],
Z
∂1(k−s) f (u + h, x, y) − ∂1(k−s) f (u, x, y) V s (y)γ(x, dy) = 0.
lim
h→0

(2)

Corollary 1. Assume that k ≥ 1. The assumptions B1-B3 entail the assumptions A1-A2 and Theorem 2
applies for the derivatives operators
Z
(ℓ)
Tu µ =
µ(dx)∂1(ℓ) f (u, x, y)γ(x, dy), 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k, µ ∈ MV .

8

Proof of Corollary 1
1. First, note that from (1) applied with ℓ = 0 we get supu∈[0,1] kT u ks,s < ∞ for s = 0, 1, . . . , k. Then assumption A1 follows from assumption B1. Indeed, we have (see for instance Rudolf and Schweizer (2017)
Lemma 3.2)
 kδx Pnu − πu kℓ
.
kT un k0,ℓ,ℓ = ∆Vℓ Pnu ≤
Vℓ (x)

See (3) for the definition of ∆Vℓ . This entails the existence of an integer mℓ ≥ 1 such that supu∈[0,1] kT umℓ k0,ℓ,ℓ <
1.

2. Next, we check the assumption A2. We first notice that for 0 ≤ s ≤ s + ℓ ≤ k and µ ∈ F s+ℓ we have
Z
|µ|(dx) γ(x, dy) ∂(ℓ)
1 f (u, x, y) V s (y)
Z
≤ C |µ|(dx)V s+ℓ (x) = Ckµks+ℓ .

kT u(ℓ) µks ≤

Z

This shows that T u(ℓ) F s+ℓ ⊂ F s and supu∈[0,1] kT u(ℓ) ks+ℓ,s ≤ C. Next, for µ ∈ F s , we show the continuity
of the application u 7→ T u(ℓ) µ taking values in F s+ℓ . We have
Z
Z
(ℓ)
|µ|(dx) µ0 (x, dy) ∂1(ℓ) f (u + h, x, y) − ∂(ℓ)
µ − T u(ℓ) µks ≤
kT u+h
1 f (u, x, y) V s (y).
From B2 (1) and the Lebesgue theorem, it is enough to prove that for all x ∈ G,
Z
(ℓ)
lim γ(x, dy) ∂(ℓ)
1 f (u + h, x, y) − ∂1 f (u, x, y) V s (y) = 0.
h→0

We consider two cases.
• If s + ℓ = k, this continuity is a direct consequence of the assumption B2 (2).
• We next assume that s + ℓ + 1 ≤ k. We have
Z
Z
(ℓ)
(ℓ)
γ(x, dy) ∂1 f (u + h, x, y) − ∂1 f (u, x, y) V s (y) ≤ h sup
γ(x, dy) ∂1(ℓ+1) f (v, x, y) V s (y).
v∈[0,1]

Then the result follows from the assumption B2 (1).
Finally, we show the differentiability property of the operators. For µ ∈ F s+ℓ , we have
T (ℓ−1) µ − T u(ℓ−1) µ
k u+h
− T u(ℓ) µks
h
Z
Z
(ℓ)
≤
dv|µ|(dx) γ(x, dy) ∂(ℓ)
1 f (v, x, y) − ∂1 f (u, x, y) V s (y).
[u,u+h]

The result follows by using the same arguments than for the proof of the continuity of the application
u 7→ T u(ℓ) µ. This completes the proof of Corollary 1.

9

Note.

When G is a normed space and if for some p ≤ p0 , 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k and r0 , r1 , . . . , rk > 0,
Z
γ(x, dy) ∂1(ℓ) f (u, x, y) (1 + kyk) p ≤ C (1 + kxk) p+rℓ ,

then assumption B3 (1) is checked by setting Vℓ (x) = (1 + |x|) p+rℓ with r = max (r1 , r2 /2, . . . , rk /k) and
assuming that p + rk ≤ p0 .

3.2 Sufficient conditions for B1
Assumption B1 is related to some simultaneous V−uniform ergodicity condition. V−uniform ergodicity
is generally obtained under a drift condition and a small set assumption. See Meyn and Tweedie (2009),
Chapter 16 for details. Let us first recall the definition of a small set. For a Markov kernel P on (G, B(G)),
a set C ∈ B(G) is called a (η, ν)−small set, where η a positive real number and ν a probability measure on
(G, B(G)) if
P(x, A) ≥ ην(A), for all A ∈ B(G) and all x ∈ C.
In Truquet (2017), we extensively used a result of Hairer and Mattingly (2011) which we recall below.
2b
and ν a probability
For simplicity we introduce the following condition. For λ ∈ (0, 1), b, η > 0, R > 1−λ
measure on (G, B(G)), we will say that a Markov kernel P satisfies the condition C (V, λ, b, R, η, ν) if
PV ≤ λV + b

and

{x ∈ G : V(x) ≤ R} is a (η, ν) small set.

If P is a Markov kernel on (G, B(G)), we also define the following Dobrushin coefficient
∆V (P) =

kµPkV
=
µ∈MV ,µ,0,µ(G)=0 kµkV
sup

kδ x P − δy PkV
.
x,y∈G,x,y V(x) + V(y)
sup

(3)

Note also that, with the notations of Section 2, we have if T µ = µP, kT k0,ℓ,ℓ = ∆Vℓ (P).
Under such a condition, Theorem 1.3 in Hairer and Mattingly (2011) guarantees the existence of α ∈

(0, 1) and δ > 0, not depending on u ∈ [0, 1] such that ∆Vδ Pm
u ≤ α with Vδ = 1 + δV. Then, using the
equivalence of the norms k · kV and k · kVδ , one can show as in Proposition 6 in Truquet (2017) that there
exists C > 0 and ρ ∈ (0, 1) such that
sup kδx Qnu − πu kV ≤ CV(x)ρn .

u∈[0,1]

Then the family of Markov kernels {Pu : u ∈ [0, 1]} is simultaneously V−geometrically ergodic.
When the level sets of V are bounded and all bounded sets are small, the following proposition is
interesting for many examples. Its proof is straightforward, since a drift condition on V entails a drift
condition on V r for all r ∈ (0, 1).
Proposition 1. Assume that there exist a positive real number K such that Pu V ≤ KV and an integer m ≥ 1

such that the family of Markov kernels Pm
u : u ∈ [0, 1] satisfies the a condition C (V, λ, b, R, η, νu ) whatever
the value of R > 0 (the other constants possibly depending on R). Then this family is simultaneously
V r −uniform geometrically ergodic for all r ∈ (0, 1].
In Truquet (2017), we used the type of condition given above for our locally stationary models. However,
if the problem is just to derive the regularity of the application u 7→ πu , the assumption B1 can be guaranteed
by another set of conditions. For instance, if each kernel Pu is V− geometrically ergodic, then perturbation
10

methods can be applied to get a local simultaneous V−geometric ergodicity property which can easily be
extended to the interval [0, 1] by compactness. When the Markov kernel is not continuous with respect to
the operator norm, Ferré et al. (2013) (see Theorem 1) obtained a nice result based on the Keller-Liverani
perturbation theorem. The following proposition is an easy consequence of their result.
Proposition 2. Let {Pu : u ∈ [0, 1]} be a family of Markov kernels on a measurable space (G, G) and V :
G → [1, ∞) a measurable function satisfying the three following conditions.
1. For each u ∈ [0, 1], the Markov kernel Pu admits a unique invariant measure µu such that µu · V < ∞

and there exists κu ∈ (0, 1) such that kPnu − µu 1G kV,V = O κun .

2. There exist an integer m ≥ 1, a real number λ ∈ (0, 1) and two positive real numbers K and L such
that for all u ∈ [0, 1],
Pu V ≤ KV, Pm
u V ≤ λV + L.
3. The application u → Pu is continuous for the norm k · kV,1 .
Then, there exists κ ∈ (0, 1) such that

sup kPnu − µu 1G kV,V = O κn .

u∈[0,1]
n

Moreover supu∈[0,1] ∆V Pu = O (κn ).
Note For the AR(1) process Xn (u) = α(u)Xn−1 (u) + ξn , with u 7→ α(u) ∈ (−1, 1) continuous and ξ1 has
absolutely continuous error distribution with a density denoted by fξ having a moment of order a > 0, it
is well known that Pu (x, dy) = fξ (y − α(u)x) dy is Va −geometrically ergodic with Va (x) = (1 + |x|)a . See
Guibourg et al. (2011), Section 4 for a discussion of the geometric ergodicity of some classical autoregressive processes. Moreover, the continuity of u 7→ Pu holds for the norm k·kVa ,1 as shown in Ferré et al. (2013),
Example 1 (the result is shown for the case a = 1 but extension to the case a > 0 is straightforward). Then
Proposition 2 applies to this example. This approach is more interesting here because it is not necessary
to assume another property for the density fξ which is often require to check the small set condition in
C (V, λ, b, R, η, νu ), e.g fξ is lower-bounded by a positive constant on each compact set.
Proof of Proposition 2 Let u ∈ [0, 1]. Using Theorem 1 of Ferré et al. (2013), one can find an open
interval Iu ∋ u of [0, 1], two real numbers Cu > 0 and κu ∈ [0, 1] such that supv∈Iu kPnv − µv 1G kV,V ≤
Cu κun . From a compactness argument, [0, 1] can be covered by a finite number of such intervals Iu1 , . . . , Iu p .
Then the simultaneous geometrical ergodicity condition follows by setting κ = max1≤i≤p κui and defining
the constant C = max1≤i≤p Cui . Moreover, using Lemma 3.2 in Rudolf and Schweizer (2017), we have

∆V Pnu ≤ kPnu − µu 1G kV,V which gives the second conclusion of the proposition.

4 Locally stationary Markov chains
In this section, we consider a topological space E endowed with its Borel σ−field B(E) and a triangular

array of Markov chains Xn,k : 1 ≤ k ≤ n, n ≥ 1 such that for all (x, A) ∈ E × B(E) and 1 ≤ k ≤ n,

P Xn,k ∈ A|Xn,k−1 = x = Qk/n (x, A), Xn,0 ∼ π0 .
We remind that for u ∈ [0, 1], πu denotes the invariant probability of Qu .
11

4.1 Some results about locally stationary Markov chains
We first recall some results obtained in Truquet (2017), Section 4. For simplicity, we introduce the two
following conditions. For ǫ > 0, we denote Im (ǫ) the subsets of [0, 1]m such that (u1 , . . . , um ) ∈ Im (ǫ) if and
only if |ui − u j | < ǫ for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m.
L1 There exist an integer m ≥ 1, some positive real numbers ǫ, K, λ, b, R, η with λ < 1 and a probability
measure ν such that for all (u1 , u2 , . . . , um ) ∈ Im (ǫ), the kernel Qu1 Qu2 · · · Qum satisfies the condition
C (V, λ, b, R, η, ν) and Qu1 V ≤ KV.
e : E → [1, ∞) such that supu∈[0,1] πu V
e < ∞ and for all x ∈ E,
L2 There exists a measurable function V
e
kδ x Qu − δx Qv kV ≤ V(x)|u
− v|.

Under the conditions L1-L2, it is shown in Truquet (2017) (see Theorem 3) that the distribution π(n)
k of Xn,k
satisfies
#
"
1
k
(n)
(4)
kπk − πu kV ≤ C u − + ,
n
n

where C > 0 does not depend on u, n, k. One can also get the same
type of results for other joint distribu
tions, i.e the probability distribution of Xn,k , Xn,k+1 , . . . , Xn,k+ j−1 for j ≥ 2, by adding an additional moment
condition. Note that under the two conditions L1-L2, assumption B1 is automatically satisfied, see Section
3.2 for details. With respect to the assumption used in Proposition 1, i.e. the products Qm
u satisfies a simultaneous small set and drift condition, the condition L1 is more restrictive but is useful to guarantee some
β−mixing properties for the triangular array. Note also that condition L2 is always satisfied if assumption
e = V1 .
B3 (1) holds true, setting V = V0 and V

In the sequel, we will say that the triangular array of Markov chains Xn,k : 1 ≤ k ≤ n, n ≥ 1 satisfying
(4) is V−locally stationary.

4.2 Application to bias control in nonparametric estimation

In this subsection, we assume that Xn,k : 1 ≤ k ≤ n, n ≥ 1 is a triangular array of V−locally stationary
k
Markov chains. Assume that the application φ : [0, 1] → MV defined by φ(u)
R = πu is of class C . Let
f : E → R be a measurable function such that | f |V < ∞. A functional ψ f (u) = f dπu of the local invariant
measure can be estimated by local polynomials. To this end, let K be a continuous probability density,
bounded and supported on [−1, 1] and b ∈ (0, 1) a bandwidth parameter such that b = bn → 0 and nb → ∞.
We set Kb = b1 K (·/b). An estimator ĝ(u) of g(u) is given by the first component of the vector
Ĥ f (u) :=



′
(u)
ψ̂ f (u), bψ̂′f (u), . . . , bk−1 ψ̂(k−1)
f

= arg

min

α0 ,...,αk−1 ∈R

For 1 ≤ t ≤ n, we set

n
X
t=1


2
k−1
 X (t/n − u)i 
t  
 .
Kb u −  f Xn,t −
αi
n
bi i! 
i=0


(t/n − u)k−1
t/n − u
, . . . , k−1
vt (u) = 1,
b
b (k − 1)!
and

1X
Kb (t/n − u) vt (u)vt (u)′ ,
n t=1
n

D(u) =


1X
Kb (t/n − u) vt (u) f Xn,t .
n t=1
n

N̂ f (u) =

12

!′

From (4), we have


max sup E f Xn,t − ψ f (t/n) = O (1/n) .

1≤t≤n | f |V ≤1

′

(u) and using the differentiability properties of φ,
Next, setting H f (u) = ψ f (u), bψ′f (u), . . . , bk−1 ψ(k−1)
f
there exists C > 0 such that for all n ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ t ≤ n,
sup sup ψ f (t/n) − H f (u)′ vt (u) ≤ C(u − t/n)k .
u∈[0,1] | f |V ≤1

We deduce that

!
1
sup sup EN̂ f (u) − D(u)H f (u) = O b + .
n
u∈[0,1] | f |V ≤1
k

Moreover, it is well-known that maxu∈[0,1] kD(u)−1 k = O(1). See for instance Tsybakov (2009), Lemma 1.5.
Then we get
!
1
k
sup sup EĤ f (u) − H f (u) = O b + .
n
u∈[0,1] | f |V ≤1
In conclusion, up to a term of order 1/n which is negligible can be interpreted as a deviation term with
respect to stationarity, the bias is of order bk when ψ f is Ck . We then recover a classical property of local
polynomials. Note that the variance of the estimator Ĥ f (u) is as usual of order 1/nb under some mixing
properties for the triangular array.

4.3 Estimation of other joint distributions
R
One can be also be interested in estimating a functional u 7→ gdπu, j for j ≥ 2, g : E j → R a measurable function and πu, j (dx) = πu (dx1 )Qu (x1 , dx2 ) · · · Qu (x j−1 , dx j ), for instance the local covariance u 7→
Cov (X0 (u), X1 (u)) where (Xk (u))k is a Markov chain with kernel Qu . Here we set for x ∈ E j ,
Z


Qu, j g(x) =
g(y) f u, x j , y j γ j (x, dy),
with γ j (x, dy) = γ(x j , dy j )

Q j−1
i=1

δxi+1 (dyi ). We also V s( j) (x) =

Pj

i=1 V s (xi ).

• Let us check that Qu, j satisfies the assumption B1 when Qu satisfies itself this assumption as well
as assumption B2 (1) with ℓ = 0. Let 1 ≤ s ≤ k. For an integer h ≥ j and a measurable function
( j)
g : E j → R such that |g| ≤ V s , we have
Z
Qu,j j g(x) =
g(y1 , . . . , y j ) Qu (x j , dy1 )Qu (y1 , dy2 ) · · · Qu (y j−1 , dy j )
≤

j
X

Qiu V s (x j )

i=1

≤ C j V s (x j ),
with C j =

Pj

i=1 C

i

and C defined in (1).. Then we get

sup Qhu, j g(x) − πu, j g ≤ sup

( j)
|g|≤V s

h− j

h− j

Qu f (x j ) − πu f ≤ C j sup Qu f (x j ) − πu f .

| f |≤C j V s

| f |≤V s

This bounds entails B1.
13

• Now assume that the family {Qu : u ∈ [0, 1]} satisfies the assumptions B2-B3. Then the family
{Qu, j : u ∈ [0, 1]} automatically satisfies the assumption B2 and B3 (2). Checking assumption B3 (1)
requires an additional assumption. Indeed, we have


Z
j
X


( j)
(ℓ)
V s (y) ∂1 f (u, x j , y j ) γ j (x, dy) ≤ C V s+ℓ (x j ) +
V s (xi )Mℓ (x j ) ,
i=2



R
where Mℓ (x j ) = supu∈[0,1] ∂(ℓ)
1 f (u, x j , y j ) γ(x j , dy j ). Hence condition V s (xi )Mℓ (x j ) ≤ C V s+ℓ (xi ) + V s+ℓ (x j )
for a constant C > 0 is required for applications of our results. However, this condition will be satisfied
for a normed space (G, k · k) if
Z 
p
(1 + kxk) p+rℓ
1 + ky j k ∂(ℓ)
1 f (u, x j , y j ) γ(x j , dy j ) ≤ C

 p+rℓ
for 0 ≤ p ≤ p0 . Indeed in this case, one can take (up to a constant) Vℓ (x j ) = 1 + kx j k
with
r = max (r1 , r2 /2, . . . , rk /k) and k such that p + rk ≤ p0 .

5 Examples
In this section, we consider too examples with unbounded state spaces and for which our results offer a
complement with respect to that of Dahlhaus et al. (2017). In the two examples given below, an extension to
higher order Markov chain is possible with more tedious arguments by using a vectorization. For simplicity,
we only consider the case of a Markov chain of order 1.

5.1 Autoregressive processes
We consider the following autoregressive process

Xn,k = m k/n, Xn,k−1 + σ(k/n)εk ,

1 ≤ k ≤ n,

where E = R, m : [0, 1] × E → E and σ : [0, 1] → R+ are two measurable functions and (εk )k∈Z is a
sequence of i.i.d random variables. We will use the following assumptions.
E1 The function σ is of class Ck . Moreover minu∈[0,1] σ(u) > 0.
E2 For all x ∈ R, the function u 7→ m(u, x) is of class Ck . Moreover there exists α ∈ (0, 1) and four positive
real numbers β, δ, C1 , C2 such that for all x ∈ R,
sup |m(u, x)| ≤ α|x| + β,
u∈[0,1]
δ
max sup ∂(ℓ)
1 m(u, x) ≤ C 1 |x| + C 2 .

1≤ℓ≤k u∈[0,1]

E3 The noise ε1 has a density fε of class C2 , positive everywhere and there exists p > 0 such that
Z
|y| p+kδ+(1−δ)s fǫ(s) (y) < ∞, s = 0, 1, . . . , k.
14


Proposition 3. Under the assumptions E1-E3, the triangular array of Markov chains Xn,k : 1 ≤ k ≤ n, n ≥ 1
is locally stationary. Moreover the unique invariant probability πu associated to the kernel
!
y − m(u, x)
1
fε
dy
Qu (x, dy) =
σ(u)
σ(u)
is of class Ck in the space MV0 where V0 = 1 + |x| p .
Proof of Proposition 3 We use Proposition 1 with m = 1 to check B1. We set Vℓ (x) = (1 + |x|) p+ℓδ
for 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ k. The drift condition follows as for the standard AR(1) process, using E2. The small set
condition easily follows from the fact that fε is lower-bounded on any compact set. Assumption B3 can be
checked
after some
computations. One can use the following representation of the derivatives of f (u, x, y) =
 y−m(u,x)

1
f
:
ε
σ(u)
σ(u)
∂(ℓ)
1 f (u, x, y) =

ℓ
X
s=0





(ℓ−s+1)
fε(s) bx,y (u)/σ(u) Pu,s bx,y (u), b(1)
(u) ,
x,y (u), . . . , b x,y

with bx,y = y − m(u, x) and Pu,s is a polynomial of degree s with coefficients of type h(u) for continuous
functions h. Details are omitted.

5.2 Galton-Watson process with immigration
For u ∈ [0, 1], let pu and qu be two probability distributions supported on the nonnegative integers and
for x ∈ Z+ , Qu (x, ·) will denote the probability distribution given by the convolution product p∗x
u ∗ qu with
∗(x−1)
∗1 = p and the convention p∗0 = δ . Then Q is the transition matrix of a
p∗x
=
p
∗
p
if
x
≥
1,
p
u
u
0
u
u
u
u
u
Galton-Watson process with immigration. Such a process is also used in time series analysis of discrete data.
When pu = p is a Bernoulli distribution of parameter α ∈ (0, 1), the stationary process Xk = α ◦ Xk−1 + εk is
called an INAR process and is studied in Al Osh and Alzaid (1987). Here α ◦ x denotes a random variable
following a binomial distribution of parameters (x, α).
We will use the following assumptions.
G1 We have α := supu∈[0,1]
0.

P

x≥0

xpu (x) < 1 and there exists an integer x0 such that β := inf u∈[0,1] qu (x0 ) >

G2 For each integer x ≥ 0, the application u 7→ pu (x) and u 7→ qu (x) are of class Ck . Moreover, there exists
a positive integer d such that for s = 0, 1, . . . , k,
X
i
h
(s)
lim sup
xd+k−s |p(s)
u (x)| + |qu (x)| = 0.
M→∞ u∈[0,1]

x≥M

Proposition 4. Assume that the assumptions G1-G3 hold true and set V0 (x) = 1 + xd for a nonnegative
integer x. Then u 7→ πu is of class Ck for the norm k · k0 .
Note. Assumption G2 is satisfied for Bernoulli, Poisson or negative binomial distributions provided the
real-valued parameter of these distributions is a Ck function taking values in the usual intervals (0, 1) (for
the Bernoulli or negative binomial distribution) or (0, ∞) (for the Poisson distribution).

15

Proof of Proposition 4

Once again, we use Proposition 1 to check B1.

• The small set condition is satisfied for any finite set C = {0, 1, . . . , c}. Indeed, from assumption G1,
we have pu (0) ≥ 1 − α and for x ∈ C,
Qu (x, x0 ) ≥ (1 − α)c β.
Then the small set condition is satisfied for the probability measure ν = δx0 and η = (1 − α)c β.
• Now, the drift condition for the function Vk (x) = (1 + x)d+k can be checked as in Truquet (2017) (the
proof is done for the Bernoulli distribution but it can be easily extended) by using the assumption G1
and the assumption G2 with s = 0.
• Next we check the assumption B3 (1). In the sequel we set for an integer M ≥ 0,
X
i
h
(s)
D M := sup max
(1 + x)d+k−s |p(s)
u (x)| + |qu (x)| .
u∈[0,1] s=0,1,...,k x≥M

For a nonnegative integer x, the conditional density f (u, x, ·) with respect to the counting measure on
Z+ is given by the convolution product p∗x
u ∗ qu . Then we have for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ k,
∂(ℓ)
1 f (u, x, y) =

X

X

j1 +···+ jx+1 =y ℓ1 +ℓ2 +···+ℓ x+1 =ℓ

ℓ!
Q x+1
i=1

ℓi !

(ℓ x )
(ℓ x+1 )
1)
p(ℓ
( j x+1 ).
u ( j1 ) · · · pu ( j x )qu

If 0 ≤ s ≤ s + ℓ ≤ k, we have, using the convexity of the application y 7→ V s (y) := (1 + y)d+s ,
X
X
ℓ!
d+s ℓ+1
ℓ+1
V s (y) ∂(ℓ)
f
(u,
x,
y)
Q x+1 (x + 1) D0 = V s+ℓ (x)D0 .
1
ℓ
!
i
i=1
y≥0
ℓ1 +ℓ2 +···+ℓ x+1 =ℓ

In the previous inequality, we have used the following property: if ℓ1 + ℓ2 + · · · + ℓ x+1 = ℓ then at most
ℓ of these integers are positive and then for i = 1, 2, . . . , x + 1,
X
(ℓ x+1 )
(ℓ x )
1)
V s ( ji ) p(ℓ
( j x+1 ) ≤ Dℓ+1
u ( j1 ) · · · pu ( j x )qu
0 .
j1 ,..., jx+1 ≥0

• Finally, we check the assumption B3 (2). Let x be a nonnegative integer and s an integer such that
0 ≤ s ≤ k. It is easily seen that for M > 0,
X
∂1(k−s) f (u + h, x, y) − ∂1(k−s) f (u, x, y) V s (y) = 0.
lim
h→0

y≥0

Then (2) will follow if we show that
X
lim sup
∂1(k−s) f (u, x, y) V s (y) = 0.
M→∞ u∈[0,1]

y≥M

But as for the proof of (1), we have
X
V s (y) ∂1(k−s) f (u, x, y) ≤
y≥M

X

(k − s)!
d+s k−s+1
k−s+1
Q x+1 (x + 1) D M = Vk (x)D M .
x+1
x+1
ℓ
!
i
i=1
ℓ1 +ℓ2 +···+ℓ x+1 =k−s

From the assumption G2, we get (5) and then (2).
16

(5)

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank Loïc Hervé and James Ledoux for some clarifications about the perturbation theory of Markov operators.

References
M. Al Osh and A. Alzaid. Firs-order integer-valued autoregressive process. J. Time Series Anal., 8:261–275,
1987.
R. Dahlhaus. Fitting time series models to nonstationary processes. Ann. Statist., 25:1–37, 1997.
R. Dahlhaus and S.S. Rao. Statistical inference for time-varying arch processes. Ann. Statist., 34:1075–1114,
2006.
R. Dahlhaus, S. Richter, and W.B. Wu. Towards a general theory for non-linear locally stationary processes.
arXiv:1704.02860, 2017.
J. Fan and I. Gijbels. Local Polynomial Modelling and Its Applications. Springer-Science, 1996.
D. Ferré, L. Hervé, and J. Ledoux. Regular perturbation of v−geometrically ergodic markov chains. J. Appl.
Prob., 50:184–194, 2013.
P. Fryzlewicz, T. Sapatinas, and S. Subba Rao. Normalized least-squares estimation in time-varying arch
models. Ann. Statist., 36:742–786, 2008.
D. Guibourg, L. Hervé, and J. Ledoux. Quasi-compactness of markov kernels on weighted-supremum
spaces and geometrical ergodicity. hal-00632580v5, 2011.
M. Hairer and J.C. Mattingly. Yet another look at harris’ ergodic theorem for markov chains. In
Seminar on Stochastic Analysis, Random Fields and Applications IV, volume 63, pages 109–117.
Birkhäuser,/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2011.
B. Heidergott and A. Hordijk. Taylor series expansions for stationary markov chains. Adv. in App. Probab.,
35:1046–1070, 2003.
L. Hervé and F. Pène. The nagaev-guivarc’h method via the keller-liverani theorem. Bull. Soc. Math. France,
138:415–489, 2010.
N. V. Kartashov. Inequalities in theorems of ergodicity and stability for markov chains with common phase
space. i. Theory Probab. Appl., 30:247–259, 1986.
S. Meyn and R.L. Tweedie. Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability 2nd. Cambridge University Press New
York, 2009.
E. Moulines, P. Priouret, and F. Roueff. On recursive estimation for time varying autoregressive processes.
The Annals of Statistics, 33:2610–2654, 2005.
D. Rudolf and N. Schweizer. Perturbation theory for markov chains via wassertein distance. Bernoulli,
2017.
P.J. Schweitzer. Perturbation theory and finite markov chains. J. Appl. Prob., 5:401–413, 1968.
17

S. Subba Rao. On some nonstationary, nonlinear random processes and their stationary approximations.
Adv. in App. Probab., 38:1155–1172, 2006.
L. Truquet. Parameter stability and semiparametric inference in time-varying arch models. Forthcoming in
J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 2016.
L. Truquet. Local stationarity and time-inhomogeneous markov chains. ArXiv, 2017.
A.B. Tsybakov. Introduction to nonparametric estimation. Springer Series in Statistics, 2009.
M. Vogt. Nonparametric regression for locally stationary time series. Ann. Statist., 40:2601–2633, 2012.
T. Zhang and W.B. Wu. Inference of time-varying regression models. Ann. Statist., 40:1376–1402, 2012.

18

