Extreme value statistics for censored data with heavy tails
under competing risks
Julien Worms (1) & Rym Worms1 (2)

arXiv:1701.05458v1 [] 19 Jan 2017

(1) Université Paris-Saclay / Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines
Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Versailles (CNRS UMR 8100),
F-78035 Versailles Cedex, France,
e-mail : julien.worms@uvsq.fr

(2) Université Paris-Est
Laboratoire d’Analyse et de Mathématiques Appliquées
(CNRS UMR 8050),
UPEMLV, UPEC, F-94010, Créteil, France,
e-mail : rym.worms@u-pec.fr

1 Corresponding

author

1

Extreme value statistics for censored data with heavy tails
under competing risks

Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of estimating, in the presence
of random censoring as well as competing risks, the extreme value
index of the (sub)-distribution function associated to one particular cause, in the heavy-tail case. Asymptotic normality of the
proposed estimator (which has the form of an Aalen-Johansen
integral, and is the first estimator proposed in this context) is established. A small simulation study exhibits its performances for
finite samples. Estimation of extreme quantiles of the cumulative
incidence function is also addressed.

AMS Classification. Primary 62G32 ; Secondary 62N02
Keywords and phrases. Extreme value index. Tail inference. Random censoring. Competing Risks. AalenJohansen estimator.
2

1. Introduction
The study of duration data (lifetime, failure time, re-employment time...) subject to random censoring
is a major topic of the domain of statistics, which finds applications in many areas (in the sequel we will, for
convenience, talk about lifetimes to refer to these observed durations, but without restricting our scope to
lifetime data analysis). In general, the interest lies in obtaining informations about the central characteristics
of the underlying lifetime distribution (mean lifetime or survival probabilities for instance), often with the
objective of comparing results between different conditions under which the lifetime data are acquired. In
this work, we will address the problem of inferring about the (upper) tail of the lifetime distribution, for
data subject both to random (right) censoring and competing risks.
Suppose indeed that we are interested in the lifetimes of n individuals or items, which are subject to K
different causes of death or failure, and to random censorship (from the right) as well. We are particularly
interested in one of these causes (this main cause will be considered as cause number k thereafter, where
k P t1, . . . , Ku), and we suppose that all causes are exclusive and are likely to be dependent on the others.
The censoring time is assumed to be independent of the different causes of death or failure and of the observed
lifetime itself. However, since the other causes (different from the k-th cause of interest) generally cannot be
considered as independent of the main cause, in no way they can be included in the censoring mechanism.
This prevents us from relying on the basic independent censoring statistical framework, and we are thus in
the presence of what is called a competing risks framework (see Moeschberger and Klein (1995)).
For instance, if a patient is suffering from a very serious disease and starts some treatment, then the final
outcome of the treatment can be death due to the main disease, or death due to other causes (nosocomial
infection for instance). And censoring can occur due to loss of follow up or end of the clinical study. Another
example, in a reliability experiment, is that the failure of some mechanical system can be due to the failure
of a particular subpart, or component, of the system : since separating the different components for studying
the reliability of only one of them is generally not possible, accounting for these different competing causes
of failure is necessary. Another field where competing risks often arise are labor economics, for instance in
re-employment studies (see Fermanian (2003) for practical examples).
One way of formalising this is to say that we observe a sample of n independent couples pZi , ξi q1ďiďn
where
"
0 if δi “ 0,
Zi “ minpXi , Ci q, δi “ IXi ďCi , ξi “
Ci if δi “ 1.
The i.i.d. samples pXi qiďn and pCi qiďn , of respective continuous distribution functions F and G, represent
the lifetimes and censoring times of the individuals, and are supposed to be independent. For convenience,
we will suppose in this work that they are non-negative. The variables pCi qiďn form a discrete sample with
values in t1, . . . , Ku, and represent the causes of failure or death of the n individuals or items. It is important
to note that these causes are observed only when the data is uncensored (i.e. when δi “ 1), therefore we
only observe the ξi ’s, not the complete Ci ’s.
One way of considering the failure times Xi is to write
Xi “ minpXi,1 , . . . , Xi,K q,
where the variable Xi,k is a (rather artificial) variable representing the imaginary latent lifetime of the i-th
individual when the latter is only affected by the k-th cause (the other causes being absent). This viewpoint
may be interesting in its own right, but we will not keep on considering it in the sequel, one reason being
that such variables Xi,1 , . . . , Xi,K cannot be realistically considered as independent, and their respective
distributions are of no practical use or interpretability (as explained and demonstrated in the competing
risks literature, these distributions are in fact not statistically identifiable, see Tsiatis (1975) for example).
The object of interest is the probability that a subject dies or fails after some given time t, due to the
k-th cause, for high values of t. This quantity, denoted by
Fspkq ptq “ P r X ą t , C “ k s,
is related to the so-called cumulative incidence function F pkq defined by
F pkq ptq “ P r X ď t , C “ k s.
Note that Fspkq ptq is not equal to 1´F pkqşptq, but to PpC “ kq´F pkq ptq, because F pkq is only a sub-distribution
8
function. However we have Fspkq ptq “ t dF pkq puq. In the sequel, the notation S̄p.q “ Sp8q ´ Sp.q will be
3

used, for any non-decreasing function S.
In this paper, we are interested in investigating the behaviour of Fspkq ptq for large values of t. This amounts
to statistically study extreme values in a context of censored data under competing risks, and will lead us
to consider some extreme value index γk related to Fspkq , which will be defined in a few lines. Equivalently,
pkq
the object of interest is the high quantile xp “ pFspkq q´ ppq “ inft x P R ; Fspkq pxq ě p u when p is close to 0,
which can be interpreted as follows (in the context of lifetimes of individuals or failure times of systems) :
in the presence of the other competing causes, a given individual (or item) will die (or fail), due to cause k
pkq
after such a time xp , only with small probability p. A nonparametric inference for quantiles of fixed (and
therefore not extreme) order, in the competing risk setting, has been already proposed in Peng and Fine
(2007).
One way of addressing this problem could be through a parametric point of view (see Crowder (2001) for
further methods in the competing risk setting), however, the non-parametric approach is the most common
choice of people faced with data presenting censorship or competing risks. Of course, the standard KaplanMeier method for survival analysis does not yield valid results for a particular risk if failures from other
causes are treated as censoring times, because the other causes cannot always be considered independent of
the particular cause of interest.
The commonly used nonparametric estimator of the cumulative incidence function F pkq is the so-called
Aalen-Johansen estimator (see Aalen and Johansen (1978), or Geffray (2009) equation p7q) defined by
ÿ δi IC “k
i
Fnpkq ptq “
s n pZ ´ q ,
nG
Zi ďt

i

s n denotes the standard Kaplan-Meier estimator of G (and G
s n pt´ q denotes limsÒt G
s n psq), so that we
where G
pkq
can introduce the following estimator for Fs :
ÿ δi IC “k
i
Fsnpkq ptq “
s n pZ ´ q .
n
G
i
Z ąt
i

But if the value t considered is so high that only very few (if any) observations Zi (such that Ci “ k) exceed
pkq
t, then this purely nonparametric approach will lead to very unstable estimations Fsn ptq of Fspkq ptq. This is
why a semiparametric approach is desirable, and the one we will consider here is the one inspired by classical
extreme value theory.
First note that in this paper, we will only consider situations where the underlying distributions F and
G of the variables X and C are supposed to present power-like tails (also commonly named heavy tails),
and we will focus on the evaluation of the order of this tail. Our working hypothesis will be thus that the
s “ 1 ´ G belong to the Fréchet maximum domain of
different functions Fspkq (for k “ 1, . . . , K) as well as G
attraction. In other words, we assume that they are (see Definition 1 in the Appendix) regularly varying at
infinity, with respective negative indices ´1{γ1 , . . . , ´1{γK and ´1{γC
@1 ď k ď K, @x ą 0,

lim Fspkq ptxq{Fspkq ptq “ x´1{γk

tÑ`8

and

s
s “ x´1{γC .
lim Gptxq{
Gptq

tÑ`8

(1)

řK
s “ FsG
s (the survival function of Z) are regularly varying (at `8)
Consequently, Fs “ 1´F “ k“1 Fspkq and H
with respective indices ´1{γF and ´1{γ, where γF “ maxpγ1 , . . . , γK q and γ satisfies γ ´1 “ γF ´1 ` γC ´1
(these relations are constantly used in this paper).
The estimation of γF has been already studied in the literature, as it corresponds to the random (right)
censoring framework, without competing risks. We can cite Beirlant et al. (2007) and Einmahl et al.
(2008), where the authors propose to use consistent estimators of γ divided by the proportion of non-censored
observations in the tail, or Worms and Worms (2014), where two Hill-type estimators are proposed for γF ,
based on survival analysis techniques. However, our target here is γk (for a fixed k “ 1, . . . , K) and the
point is that there seems to be no way to deduce an estimator of γk from an estimator of γF . Note that the
useful trick used in Beirlant et al. (2007) and Einmahl et al. (2008) to construct an estimator of γF does
not seem to be extendable to this competing risks setting. To the best of our knowledge, our present paper
is the first one addressing the problem of estimating the cause-specific extreme value index γk .

4

Considering assumption (1), it is simple to check that, for a given k, we have
ż `8
1
lim spkq
logpu{tq dF pkq ptq “ γk .
tÑ`8 F
ptq t
It is therefore most natural to propose the following (Hill-type) estimator of γk , for some given threshold
value tn (assumptions on this threshold are detailed in the next section) :
ˆ ˙
ż
1
u
pn,k “ φpn puqdFnpkq puq where φpn puq “ pkq
γ
log
Iuątn ,
t
s
n
Fn ptn q
which can be also written as
γ
pn,k “

n
ÿ
ÿ logpZpiq {tn q
logpZi {tn q
1
I
I
“
ξ
“k
Z
ąt
i
i
n
´
pkq
pkq
s n pZpi´1q q δpiq ICpiq “k ,
s n pZ q
nFsn ptn q i“1 G
nFsn ptn q Zpiq ątn G
i

1

where Zp1q ď . . . ď Zpnq are the ordered random variables associated to Z1 , . . . , Zn , and δpiq and Cpiq are
the censoring indicator and cause number which correspond to the order statistic Zpiq . It is clear that this
estimator is a generalisation of one of the estimators proposed in Worms and Worms (2014), in which the
situation K “ 1 (with only one cause of failure/death) was considered. The asymptotic result we prove in
the present work is then valid in the situation studied in the latter, where only consistency was proved and
a random threshold was used.
Our paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we state the asymptotic normality result of the proposed
estimator, and of a corresponding estimator of an extreme quantile of the cumulative incidence function.
Section 5 is devoted to the proofs. In Section 3, we present some simulations in order to illustrate finite
sample behaviour of our estimator. Some technical aspects of the proofs are postponed to the Appendix.
2. Assumptions and Statement of the results
The central limit theorem which is going to be proved has the rate
tn is a threshold tending to 8 with the following constraint
nÑ8

vn ÝÑ `8

nÑ8

n´η0 vn ÝÑ `8

such that

?

pkq
s n q and
vn where vn “ nFsn ptn qGpt

for some η0 ą 0.

(2)

If we note lk the slowly varying function associated to Fspkq (i.e. such that Fspkq pxq “ x´1{γk lk pxq in condition
(1)), the second order condition we consider is the classical SR2 condition for lk (see Bingham, Goldie and
Teugels (1987)),
lk ptxq
tÑ8
@x ą 0,
´ 1 „ hρk pxq gptq p@x ą 1q,
(3)
lk ptq
where g is a positive measurable function, slowly varying with index ρk ď 0, and hρk pxq “
ρk ă 0, or hρk pxq “ log x when ρk “ 0.
Theorem 1. Under assumptions p1q, p2q and p3q, if there exists λ ě 0 such that
γk ă γC then we have
?
d
vn pp
γn,k ´ γk q ÝÑ N pλm, σ 2 q as n Ñ 8
where

$
&
m“

γk2
1´γk ρk

% γ2
k

if ρk ă 0,

and σ 2 “

if ρk “ 0,

?

xρk ´1
ρk

when

nÑ8

vn gptn q ÝÑ λ, and if

`
˘
γk2
p1 ` r2 q ´ 2cr ,
3
p1 ´ rq

with c “ limxÑ8 Fspkq pxq{Fspxq P r0, 1s and r “ γk {γC Ps0, 1r.
Remark 1. Note that when γk ă γF , then c “ 0, and, when γk “ γF and c “ 1 (for instance when there is
only one cause of failure/death), then σ 2 reduces to γF2 {p1 ´ rq.
Proposition 1. Under assumptions p1q and p2q, we have
P

γ
pn,k ÝÑ γk

as n Ñ 8.

pn,k .
Remark 2. The condition γk ă γC (weak censoring) is not necessary for the consistency of γ
5

pkq
Now, concerning the estimation of an extreme quantile xpn (of order pn tending to 0) associated to Fspkq ,
we propose the usual Weissman-type estimator (in this heavy tailed context), associated to the threshold tn
used in the estimation of γk ,
¸γpn,k
˜
pkq
Fsn ptn q
pkq
,
x̂pn ,tn “ tn
pn
`
˘
pkq
where pn is assumed to satisfy the constraint pn “ o Fspkq ptn q . Remind that by definition Fspkq pxpn q “ pn ,
and thus the definition of this estimator is based on the fact that, by the assumed regular variation of Fspkq ,
pkq
pkq
the ratio Fspkq pxpn q{Fspkq ptn q is close to pxpn {tn q´1{γk .

Corollary 1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1, if in addition ρk ă 0 (in (3)) and dn “ Fspkq ptn q{pn Ñ 8
satisfies the condition
?
nÑ8
vn { logpdn q ÝÑ 8,
(4)
then (with λ, m and σ 2 being defined in the statement of Theorem 1)
˜ pkq
¸
?
x̂pn ,tn
vn
d
´ 1 ÝÑ N pλm, σ 2 q as n Ñ 8.
pkq
logpdn q
x pn
3. Simulations
In this section, a small simulation study is conducted in order to illustrate the finite-sample behaviour
of our new estimator in some simple cases, and discuss the main issues associated with the competing risks
setting.
For simplicity, we focus on the situation with two competing risks (K “ 2), also called causes below,
and our aim is the extreme value index γ1 associated to the first cause. Data are generated from one of the
following two models : for c1 , c2 non-negative constants satisfying c1 ` c2 “ 1, we consider the following
(sub-)distribution for each cause-specific function Fspkq (k P t1, 2u) :
´ Fréchet : Fspkq ptq “ ck expp´t´1{γk q, for t ě 0 ;
´ Burr : Fspkq ptq “ ck p1 ` tτk {βq´1{pγk τk q , for t ě 1, where τk ą 0, β ą 0.
The lifetime X, of survival function F̄ “ F̄ p1q ` F̄ p2q , is generated by the inversion method (with numerical
computation of Fs´1 ). Censoring times are then generated from a Fréchet or a Burr distribution :
s “ expp´t´1{γC q pt ě 0q
Gptq

s “ p1 ` tτC {βq´1{pγC τC q pt ě 1q.
Gptq

or

In this section, we consider (as it is often done in simulation studies) that the threshold tn used in the
definition of our new estimator γ̂n,1 is taken equal to Zpn´kn q (i.e. we consider it as random). One aim of
this section is to show how our estimator (with random threshold)
γ̂1 “

kn
ÿ
logpZpn´i`1q {Zpn´kn q q
δpn´i`1q ICpn´i`1q “1
p1q
s n pZpn´i,nq q
s
G
nFn pZpn´kn q q i“1

1

of γ1 behaves when the proportion c1 of cause 1 events varies : we consider c1 P t1, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5u, the case
c1 “ 1 corresponding to the simple censoring framework, without competing risk.
Another aim is to illustrate the impact of dependency between the causes, when estimating the tail. The
starting point is that, if cause 2 could be considered independent of cause 1, then we could (and would)
include it in the censoring mechanism and we would be in the simple random censoring setting, without
competing risk. In this case, it would be possible to estimate γ1 by one of the following two estimators, the
first one being proposed in Beirlant et al. (2007) (a Hill estimator weighted with a constant weight), and
the second one in Worms and Worms (2014) (a Hill estimator weighted with varying Kaplan-Meier weights):
pBDF Gq

γ̂1

pKM q

γ̂1

“

kn
1
1 ÿ
logpZpn´i`1q {Zpn´kn q q
kn i“1 p̂1

(5)

“

kn
ÿ
δpn´i`1q ICpn´i`1q “1
1
logpZpn´i`1q {Zpn´kn q q,
s n,b pZpn´i,nq q
nFsn,b pZpn´kn q q i“1 G

(6)

6

kn

kn

300

MSE
MSE

kn

0.03

Bias

MSE

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

100

100

(d) Same case as (c) but for Burr distribution

−0.01

300

0.000 0.003

0.03

Bias

−0.01

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

300

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

kn

(c) Fréchet case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.2

100

100

0.000 0.003

300

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

300
kn

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

100

300
kn

(e) Fréchet case, γ1 “ 0.25, γ2 “ 0.1, γC “ 0.45

MSE

kn

300
kn

0.03

Bias

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

100

100

(b) Same case as (a) but for Burr distribution

−0.01

MSE

300

0.000 0.003

0.03

Bias

−0.01

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

300

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

kn

(a) Fréchet case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.3

100

100

kn

0.000 0.003

300

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

0.000 0.003

100

kn

0.03

Bias

MSE

300

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

−0.01

100

0.000 0.003

0.03

Bias

−0.01

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

c1=1
c1=0.9
c1=0.7
c1=0.5

100

300
kn

(f) Same case as (e) but for Burr distribution

Figure 1: Comparison of bias and MSE (respectively left and right in each subfigure) of γ
pn,k for different values of c1 ; in figures
paq, pcq and peq, X and C are Fréchet distributed, but in figures pbq, pdq and pf q they are Burr distributed.

7

100

0.0025
100

300
kn

300
kn

MSE

(d) Case (c) but with c1 “ 0.9

Bias
100

300
kn

−0.01 0.03

MSE

0.000 0.003

Bias

−0.01 0.03

300
kn

0.0000

300
kn

(c) Fréchet case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.2, and c1 “ 1

100

300
kn

MSE

0.03

Bias

−0.01

100

100

(b) Case (a) but with c1 “ 0.9

0.0025
0.0000

MSE

0.03

Bias

−0.01

300
kn

300
kn

(a) Fréchet case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.3, and c1 “ 1

100

0.0025

MSE

0.03
100

0.0000

300
kn

100

300

0.000 0.003

100

kn

−0.01

300

Bias

0.0025
0.0000

MSE

0.03

Bias

−0.01

100

100

kn

(e) Fréchet case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.45, and c1 “ 1

300
kn

(f) Case (e) but with c1 “ 0.9
pBDF Gq

pn,k (plain thick), γ̂1
Figure 2: Comparison of bias and MSE (respectively left and right in each subfigure) for γ
thin) and

pKM q
γ̂1

(plain

(dashed), for Fréchet distributed X and C.

řkn
δpn´i`1q ICpn´i`1q “1 , and in Equation p6q, the Kaplan Meier estimators
where, in Equation p5q, p̂1 “ k1n i“1
s
s
Fn,b and Gn,b are based on the δ̃i “ δi ICi “1 . These two estimators consider the uncensored lifetimes
associated to cause 2 as independent censoring times. Comparing our new estimator with these latter two
estimators, when c1 ă 1, will empirically prove that considering cause 2 as a competing risk independent of
cause 1 has a great (negative) impact on the estimation of γ1 . Note that when c1 “ 1, the new estimator
pKM q
γ̂1 and γ̂1
are exactly the same (therefore the thick and dashed lines in sub-figures (a), (c) and (e) of
Figures 2 and 3 are overlapping, identical).
We address these two aims for each set-up (Fréchet, or Burr), by generating 2000 datasets of size 500,
with three configurations of the triplet pγ1 , γ2 , γC q : p0.1, 0.25, 0.3q (γ1 ă γ2 , moderate censoring γC ą γF ),
p0.1, 0.25, 0.2q (γ1 ă γ2 , heavy censoring γC ă γF ), or p0.25, 0.1, 0.45q (γ1 ą γ2 , moderate censoring γC ă
γF ). Median bias and mean squared error (MSE) of the different estimators are plotted against different
values of kn , the number of excesses used. When Burr distributions are simulated, the parameter β is taken
equal to 1, and the parameters pτ1 , τ2 , τC q are taken equal to p12, 6, 5q in configurations 1 and 2, and to
p6, 12, 5q in configuration 3.
Figure 1 illustrates the behaviour of our estimator when c1 varies. In terms of bias and MSE, we can
see that the first configuration is a little better than the second one, which is itself much better than the
third one. We observed this phenomenon in many other cases, not reported here : our estimator behaves
best when it is the smallest parameter γk which is estimated, and when the censoring is not too strong. Our
simulations also show that the quality of our estimator (especially in terms of the MSE) diminishes with c1 .
Figures 2 and 3 present the comparison between our new estimator and the ones described in (5) and
8

100

300
kn

300

100

kn

300

0.005

MSE

0.04

Bias
100

100

(d) Case (c) but with c1 “ 0.9

−0.04

MSE

300
kn

0.005
0.000

0.04

Bias

−0.04

300
kn

0.000

100

0.005

MSE

0.06

Bias
300
kn

(c) Burr case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.2, and c1 “ 1

100

300
kn

0.00

0.000

100

kn

100

(b) Case (a) but with c1 “ 0.9

0.005

MSE

0.06

Bias

0.00

300

300
kn

(a) Burr case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.3, and c1 “ 1

100

0.000

300
kn

0.005

MSE

0.06

Bias
100

kn

0.000

300

0.00

0.000

0.005

MSE

0.06

Bias

0.00
100

100

kn

(e) Burr case, γ1 “ 0.1, γ2 “ 0.25, γC “ 0.45, and c1 “ 1

300
kn

(f) Case (e) but with c1 “ 0.9
pBDF Gq

Figure 3: Comparison of bias and MSE (respectively left and right in each subfigure) for γ
pn,k (plain thick), γ̂1
thin) and

pKM q
γ̂1

(dashed), for Burr distributed X and C.

9

(plain

pBDF Gq

pKM q

(6). A general conclusion (confirmed by other simulations not reported here) is that γ̂1
and γ̂1
behave worse in most cases, even for a value of c1 of 0.9, which is only a slight modification of the situation
without competing risk (c1 “ 1). Therefore, a contamination of the cause 1 distribution by another cause
rapidly yield inadequate estimations of γ1 if dependency between causes is ignored ; this conclusion is true
pBDF Gq
pKM q
pBDF Gq
for both γ̂1
and γ̂1
, but to a greater extent for γ̂1
. In the third configuration pγ1 , γ2 , γC q “
pKM q
p0.25, 0.1, 0.45q, the improvement provided by γ̂1 (with respect to γ̂1
) becomes notable when c1 drops
below 0.7.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, we consider heavy tailed lifetime data subject to random censoring and competing risks,
and use the Aalen-Johansen estimator of the cumulative incidence function to construct an estimator for
the extreme value index associated to the main cause of interest. To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first estimator proposed in this context. Its asymptotic normality is proved and a small simulation study
exhibiting its finite-sample performance shows that accounting for the dependency of the different causes is
important, but that the bias can be particularly high. Estimating second order tail parameters would then
be interesting in order to reduce this bias. A first step towards this aim could be to study the following
moments
n
ÿ
logα pZi {tn q
1
Mnpαq “
pkq
s n pZ ´ q Iξi “k IZi ątn ,
nFsn ptn q i“1 G
i
which asymptotic behaviour can be derived following the same lines as in the proof of Theorem 1.
5. Proofs
This section is essentially devoted to the proof of the main Theorem 1. Some hints about the proof of
the consistency result contained in Proposition 1 are given in Subsection 5.3, and Corollary 1 is proved in
Subsection 5.4.
We adopt a strategy developed by Stute in Stute (1995) in order
to prove his Theorem 1.1, a wellş
known result which states that a Kaplan-Meier integral of the form φ dFn can be approximated by a sum
of independent terms. This idea is used in Suzukawa (2002) in the context of competing risks. We thus
ş
pkq
pn,k by the integral γ
rn,k “ φn dFn of some deterministic function φn , with respect
intend to approximate γ
qn,k of independent variables
to the Aalen-Johansen estimator, and approximate this integral by the mean γ
pkq
pn,k to γ
rn,k (which amounts to replacing Fsn ptn q by
Ui,n (defined a few lines below). The passage from γ
pkq
s
pn,k ) will imply an additional sum of independent variables Vi,n , which will
F ptn q in the denominator of γ
participate to the asymptotic variance of our estimator.
However, a major difference with Stute (1995) or Suzukawa (2002) is that the function we integrate
here, φn puq “ Fs pkq1pt q logpu{tn qIuątn , is not only an unbounded function, depending on n, but it also has
n
a ”sliding” support rtn , `8r, which is therefore always close to the endpoint `8 of the distribution H. In
Stute (1995), a crucial point of the proof consists in temporarily considering that the integrated function φ
has a support which is bounded away from the endpoint of H (condition (2.3) there). Considering the kind
of function φn we have to deal with here, we cannot follow the same strategy : dealing with the remainder
terms will thus be a particularly challenging part of our work. Finally note that, in order to deal with the
pkq
ratio Fsn ptn q{Fspkq ptn q (and somehow approximate γ
pn,k by γ
rn,k ) we will have to consider simultaneously
pkq
integrals (with respect to Fn ) of φn and of another function gn , defined below, which basically shares the
same flaws as φn .

10

Let us first recall or define the following objects :
φpn puq

“

φn puq

“

γn,k

“

rn,k
γ

“

pn,k
γ

“

ˆ

1

log

u
tn

˙

Iuątn
pkq
Fsn ptn q
ˆ ˙
1
u
log
Iuątn
pkq
s
t
F ptn q
n
ż
nÑ8
φn puqdF pkq puq ÝÑ γk
ż
φn puqdFnpkq puq
ż
φpn puqdFnpkq puq.

rn,k , where
We thus have γ
pn,k “ ∆´1
n γ
ż
∆n “ Fsnpkq ptn q{Fspkq ptn q “

gn puqdFnpkq puq

1
Iuątn ,
gn puq “ spkq
F ptn q

and

and we now introduce the following new quantities, related to the Stute-like decomposition of γ
rn,k and ∆n :

Ui,n

φn pZi q
gn pZi q
p1q
δi ICi “k and Vi,n “ s
δi ICi “k
s
GpZi q
GpZi q
1 ´ δi
1 ´ δi
p2q
ψpφn , Zi q and Vi,n “ s
ψpgn , Zi q
“ s
HpZi q
HpZi q
ż Zi
ż Zi
p3q
“
ψpφn , uq dCpuq and Vi,n “
ψpgn , uq dCpuq

Ui,n

“ Ui,n ` Ui,n ´ Ui,n

p1q

Ui,n

p2q

Ui,n

p3q

“

0
p1q

p2q

p3q

0
p1q

and

p2q

p3q

Vi,n “ Vi,n ` Vi,n ´ Vi,n

where, for any function f : R` Ñ R, we note (for any given z ě 0)
ż `8
żz
dGptq
pkq
ψpf, zq “
f ptqdF ptq and Cpzq “
s
s .
z
0 HptqGptq
This enables us to finally define the important objects
qn,k “
γ

n
1 ÿ
Ui,n
n i“1

n
ÿ
pn “ 1
∆
Vi,n
n i“1

and

(7)

rn,k and ∆n . At
which are the triangular sums of independent terms which will respectively approximate γ
p1q
p1q
p2q
p3q
the beginning of section 5.1, it will be proved that EpUi,n q “ γn,k and EpVi,n q “ 1, while EpUi,n q “ EpUi,n q
p2q
p3q
p2q
p3q
p2q
p3q
p n q “ 1 ; the terms U , U , V
γn,k q “ γn,k and Ep∆
and EpVi,n q “ EpVi,n q, yielding Epq
i,n
i,n
i,n and Vi,n only
participate to the variance component of the estimator. The relation between all these quantities is made
clearer in the following Lemma :
Lemma 1. We have
?

vn pp
γn,k ´ γk q “ ∆´1
n p Zn `

?

vn Rn `

?

vn pγn,k ´ γk q q

(8)

where
Zn “

?

´
¯
p n ´ 1q
γn,k ´ γn,k q ´ γk p∆
vn pq

and

p nq
γn,k ´ γ
qn,k q ´ γk p∆n ´ ∆
Rn “ pr

The proof of Lemma 1 is simple :
?
?
vn pp
γn,k ´ γk q “ ∆´1
vn pr
γn,k ´ ∆n γk q
n
´1 ?
“ ∆n vn tpq
γn,k ´ γn,k q ` γk p1 ´ ∆n q ` pr
γn,k ´ γ
qn,k q ` pγn,k ´ γk qu
which leads to the desired relation (8).
The main theorem thus becomes an immediate consequence of the following four results, the second one
being the most difficult to establish.
11

Proposition 2. Under condition p1q and assuming that
nÑ8

vn ÝÑ `8,

(9)

if γk ă γC , then
d

Zn ÝÑ N p0, σ 2 q

as n Ñ 8

2

where σ is defined in the statement of Theorem 1.
Proposition 3. Under conditions p1q and p2q , if γk ă γC , then
γ
rn,k “ γ
qn,k ` Rn,φ
where Rn,φ , Rn,g (and consequently Rn too) are

and

p n ` Rn,g
∆n “ ∆

(10)

´1{2
oP pvn q.

?
Corollary 2. Under the conditions of Proposition 3, vn p∆n ´1q converges in distribution to N p0, 1{p1´rqq
where r “ γk {γC Ps0, 1r.
?
?
Lemma 2. Under conditions p1q, p3q and vn gptn q Ñ λ ě 0, the bias term vn pγn,k ´ γk q in (8) converges
to λm as n Ñ 8, where m is defined in Theorem 1.
Propositions 2 and 3 will be proved in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 respectively, sometimes with the help of other
results stated and established in the Appendix. The proofs of Corollary 2 and Lemma 2 are short, we state
them below.
Concerning Corollary 2, once the proof of Proposition 2 has been gone through, it will become clear
?
ˆ n ´ 1q converges in distribution to the centred gaussian distribution of variance
to the reader that vn p∆
?
?
?
ˆ n ´ 1q “ řn W̃i,n where W̃i,n “ vn Ṽi,n “ vn pVi,n ´ 1q are centred, and
1{p1 ´ rq, because vn p∆
i“1
n
n
1
VarpW̃i,n q “ n1 1´r
` op1{nq (this is proved similarly as (11) and (15)). Since Proposition 3 states that
ˆ n ` oP pvn1{2 q, the same central limit theorem holds for ∆n and the corollary is proved.
∆n “ ∆
ş
pkq
Concerning now Lemma 2, remind that γn,k “ φn puqdFn puq. An integration by parts and the fact
that Fspkq pxq “ x´1{γk lk pxq yield
˙
ˆ
ż `8
?
?
lk pytn q
´1{γk ´1
vn pγn,k ´ γk q “ vn
´ 1 dy,
y
lk ptn q
1
and, using assumption p3q and Proposition 3.1 in de Haan and Ferreira (2006), we can write
ˆ
˙
ż `8
ż `8
lk pytn q
´1{γk ´1
y
´ 1 dy “ gptn q
y ´1{γk ´1 hρk pyqdy ` opgptn qq.
lk ptn q
1
1
ş`8
?
The result then follows from assumption vn gptn q Ñ λ ě 0 and the fact that 1 y ´1{γk ´1 hρk pyqdy “ m.
In the rest of the paper, we will very often handle the well-known sub-distributions functions H p0q and
H
defined, for all t ě 0, by
p1,kq

H p0q ptq “ PpZ ď t, δ “ 0q

and

H p1,kq ptq “ PpZ ď t, ξ “ kq.

Note that we have
dH p0q “ Fs dG

and

s pkq .
dH p1,kq “ GdF

5.1. Proof of Proposition 2
We first write
? ´
n
¯
ÿ
vn
Ũi,n ´ γk Ṽi,n
Zn “
Wi,n where Wi,n “
n
i“1

"
and

Ũi,n “ Ui,n ´ γn,k
Ṽi,n “ Vi,n ´ 1

where Wi,n , Ũi,n and Ṽi,n are centred, because the random variables Ui,n and Vi,n have expectations respectively equal to γn,k and 1. Indeed, we have
´
¯
´
¯ ş
ş
p1q
n pZi q
n puq
E Ui,n “ E φGpZ
δ
I
“ φGpuq
dH p1,kq puq “ φn puqdF pkq puq “ γn,k
s
s
q i Ci “k
i

and
´
¯
´
¯
şş
p2q
1´δi
E Ui,n “ E HpZ
ψpφ
,
Z
q
“
n
i
Ď
q
i

1
Itąu φn ptq dF pkq ptq dH p0q puq
Ď
Hpuq

12

“

şş

1
Itąu φn ptq dF pkq ptq dGpuq
s
Gpuq

as well as
´
¯
´ş
¯
´
¯
şşş
Z
p3q
p2q
dGpuq
E Ui,n “ E 0 i ψpφn , uq dCpuq “
Iząu Itąu φn ptq dHpzq dF pkq ptq Gpuq
“
E
U
s
Ď
i,n .
Hpuq
The proof for EpVi,n q “ 1 is similar.
We will now prove the asymptotic normality of Zn by using the Lyapunov criteria.
Lemma 3. Under the conditions p1q and p9q , if γk ă γC :
piq we have
2
2
VarpŨ1,n ´ γk Ṽ1,n q “ EpU1,n
q ` γk2 EpV1,n
q ´ 2γk EpU1,n V1,n q ` op1q
piiq we have
ż
ż 2
φn puq pkq
2
dF puq ´ pψpφn , uqq2 dCpuq
EpU1,n q “
s
Gpuq
ż 2
ż
gn puq pkq
2
EpV1,n q “
dF puq ´ pψpgn , uqq2 dCpuq
s
Gpuq
ż
ż
φn puqgn puq pkq
EpU1,n V1,n q “
dF puq ´ ψpφn , uqψpgn , uq dCpuq
s
Gpuq

(11)

(12)
(13)
(14)

piiiq we have, noting r “ γk {γC (which belongs to s0, 1r under our conditions) as well as p “ γ{γF “
γC {pγF ` γC q Ps0, 1r,
ˆ 2
˙
ˆ
˙
γk p1 ` r2 q
1´p
2γk3
1
` op1q ´ s
` op1q ` op1q
VarpŨ1,n ´ γk Ṽ1,n q “
pkq
p1 ´ rq3
s nq
Hptn q γp2 ´ γk {γq3
Fsn ptn qGpt
(15)
Lemma 4. Under the conditions p1q and p9q , if γk ă γC , then
řn
2`δ
Ñ 0, as n tends to infinity, for some δ ą 0.
i“1 E |Wi,n |
řn
We can then immediately prove Proposition 2. Indeed, since Zn “ i“1 Wi,n , Lemma 3 yields
vn
VarpŨ1,n ´ γk Ṽ1,n q.
VarpZn q “ nVarpW1,n q “
n
pkq
s n q, becomes
which, since vn “ nFsn ptn qGpt
¯
`
˘´
VarpZn q “ γk2 p1 ` r2 qp1 ´ rq´3 ´ 2p1 ´ pqγk3 γ ´1 p2 ´ γk {γq´3 Fspkq ptn q{Fsptn q ` op1q.
Therefore, depending on the limit c of the ratio Fspkq ptn q{Fsptn q when n Ñ 8 (for instance, it converges to
0 when γk ă γF ), it is simple to check that the variance of Zn converges to the value σ 2 described in the
statement of Theorem 1. Thanks to Lemma 4, the Lyapunov CLT applies and Proposition 2 is proved.
The two subsections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 are now respectively devoted to the proofs of Lemmas 3 and 4.
5.1.1. Proof of Lemma 3
Part piq of the lemma is straightforward : since Ũ1,n and Ṽ1,n are centred, we have indeed
VarpŨ1,n ´ γk Ṽ1,n q

2
2
“ EppŨ1,n ´ γk Ṽ1,n q2 q “ EpŨ1,n
q ` γk2 EpṼ1,n
q ´ 2γk EpŨ1,n Ṽ1,n q

“

2
2
2
pEpU1,n
q ´ γn,k
q ` γk2 pEpV1,n
q ´ 1q ´ 2γk pEpU1,n V1,n q ´ γn,k q

and the result comes by using the fact that γn,k converges to γk as n Ñ 8.
Now we proceed to the proof of part piiq, and will only prove (12) because, by definition of φn and gn ,
the proofs for (13) and (14) will be completely similar. First of all, we obviously have
p1q

p2q

p3q

p1q

p2q

p1q

p3q

p2q

p3q

pU1,n q2 “ pU1,n q2 ` pU1,n q2 ` pU1,n q2 ` 2U1,n U1,n ´ 2U1,n U1,n ´ 2U1,n U1,n
p1q

(16)

The first term in the right-hand side of (12) is equal to EppU1,n q2 q, and the second one (without the minus
p2q

p1q

p3q

sign) is equal to EppU1,n q2 q and to EpU1,n U1,n q because
ˆ
˙ ż
ż
1 ´ δ1
1
p2q 2
2
2
p0q
2
EppU1,n q q “ E s 2
pψpφn , Z1 qq “
s 2 pzq pψpφn , zqq dH pzq “ pψpφn , zqq dCpzq
H pZ1 q
H
13

and
ż
p1q p3q
EpU1,n U1,n q

φn pzq
s
Gpzq

ˆż z

˙

ψpφn , uqdCpuq dH p1,kq pzq
˙
ˆż 8
ż
ż
pkq
φn pzqdF pzq dCpuq “
pψpφn , zqq2 dCpzq
“
ψpφn , uq
“

0

u
p1q p2q
The expectation EpU1,n U1,n q equals 0 because δ1 p1 ´ δ1 q is constantly 0, and we
p3q
p2q p3q
that EppU1,n q2 q “ 2EpU1,n U1,n q, which ends the proof of (12) in view of (16).
şz
şz
ψpφn , uqdCpuq and using the simple fact that hpzq “ hpyq ` y ψpφn , uqdCpuq for
0
p3q

EppU1,n q2 q

are now going to prove
Indeed, noting hpzq “
every y ă z, we have

ż 8 ˆż z

˙
ψpφn , yqhpzqdCpyq dHpzq
0
0
˙
*
˙
ż 8 "ż z ˆż z
ż 8 ˆż z
ψpφn , uqdCpuq ψpφn , yqdCpyq dHpzq
ψpφn , yqhpyqdCpyq dHpzq `
“
y
0
0
0
0
˙
*
˙
ż 8 "ż z ˆż u
ż 8 ˆż z
ψpφn , yqdCpyq ψpφn , uqdCpuq dHpzq
ψpφn , yqhpyqdCpyq dHpzq `
“
0
0
0
0
0
˙
ż 8 ˆż z
ψpφn , yqhpyqdCpyq dHpzq
“ 2
“

0

0

and
ˆ

p2q p3q
EpU1,n U1,n q

˙
ż
1 ´ δ1
dGpyq
s
“ E s
ψpφn , Z1 q hpZ1 q “ Hpyqhpyqψpφ
n , yq s
s
HpZ1 q
HpyqGpyq
˙
ż 8 ˆż 8
“
dHpzq hpyqψpφn , yq dCpyq
0
y
ˆ
˙
ż8 żz
1
p3q
“
ψpφn , yqhpzqdCpyq dHpzq “ EppU1,n q2 q
2
0
0

as announced.
We can now start proving part piiiq of the lemma, in which the exact nature of the function φn matters.
s and C are regularly varying of respective orders ´1{γk , ´1{γC and 1{γ
First remind that functions Fspkq , G
(for C, this is proved in Lemma 8 with δ “ 1). Let us define the constants cj and dj (j “ 0, 1, 2) by
cj “

j!γkj
p1 ´ qqj`1

and dj “

j!γkj`1
.
γp2 ´ γk {γqj`1

Since γk ă γC was assumed, then according to Lemma 7 part piiq (applied first with a ` b “ 1{γC ´ 1{γk ă 0
for cj , and then with a ` b “ ´2{γk ` 1{γ “ p1{γC ´ 1{γk q ` p1{γF ´ 1{γk q ă 0 for dj ) , we have
ˆ ˙
˙2
ˆ ˙ ˆ spkq
ż8
ż8
u dF pkq puq
F puq
dCpuq nÑ8
Fspkq ptn q
u
j
j
log
„ cj s
and
ÝÑ dj .
(17)
log
pkq pt q
s
s
t
t
Cptn q
Gpuq
Gpt
q
F
n
n
n
n
tn
tn
2
2
Hence, by definition of φn , gn , the first terms of EpU1,n
q, EpV1,n
q and EpU1,n V1,n q in relations (12), (13) and
(14) are respectively equivalent (as n Ñ 8) to c2 Dptn q, c0 Dptn q and c1 Dptn q where Dptn q denotes

1
Dptn q “ spkq
s nq .
F ptn qGpt
Since c2 ` γk2 c0 ´ 2γk c1 is found to be equal to γk2 p1 ` r2 q{p1 ´ rq3 , then in view of (11) this
ş proves 2the first
term
in
relation
(15).
We
now
need
to
obtain
equivalent
expressions
for
the
quantities
pψpφn , uqq dCpuq,
ş
ş
pψpgn , uqq2 dCpuq and ψpφn , uqψpgn , uq dCpuq in order to prove the second part of relation (15) and therefore finish the proof of Lemma 3.
For saving space, we will use temporarily the following notations :
ln puq “ log pu{tn q , Rn puq “ Fspkq puq{Fspkq ptn q
According to the technical Lemma 9 of the Appendix and, after splitting the integral into

14

ş`8
0

and

ş`8
tn

, we

can write
ż

ż tn
2
dCpuq
pψpφn , uqq2 dCpuq “ γn,k
0
ż `8 ´
¯
´2{γk
´1{γk
`
ln2 puqRn2 puq `γk2 pu{tn q
`2γk ln puqRn puq pu{tn q
dCpuq ` opCptn qq, (18)
tn

where opCptn qq in p18q is due to part piiq of Lemma 7 and to the fact that n puq in Lemma 9 converges to 0
uniformly in u. According to the second part of relation p17q, we thus have
ż
pψpφn , uqq2 dCpuq “ pγk2 ` d2 ` γk2 d0 ` 2γk d1 qCptn q ` opCptn qq
(19)
The other terms are treated similarly (using the fact that ψpgn , uq “ 1 when u ď tn , and “ Fspkq puq{Fspkq ptn q
when u ą tn ) and we obtain
ż
pψpgn , uqq2 dCpuq “ p1 ` d0 q Cptn q ` opCptn qq,
(20)
ż
ψpφn , uqψpgn , uq dCpuq “ pγk ` d1 ` γk d0 q Cptn q ` opCptn qq.
(21)
In view of (11), combining p19q, p20q and p21q and using Remark 3 (following Lemma 8) to write that
s n q (as n Ñ 8), this proves the second term in relation (15).
Cptn q „ p1 ´ pq{Hpt
5.1.2. Proof of Lemma 4
2`δ

We have to prove that, for some δ ą 0 small enough, nE |W1,n |
tends to 0, as n Ñ 8. In the sequel,
cst denotes an unspecified absolute positive constant. According to the definition of W1,n , it is clear that
¸
˜
3 ˇ
3 ˇ
1`δ{2
ˇ
ˇ
ÿ
ÿ
vn
ˇ pjq ˇ2`δ
ˇ pjq ˇ2`δ
2`δ
2`δ
2`δ
n |W1,n |
ď cst 1`δ
` γk
` |γn,k ´ γk |
ˇV1,n ˇ
ˇU1,n ˇ
n
j“1
j“1
1`δ{2

First, we clearly have n´1´δ vn

|γn,k ´ γk |

2`δ

pjq

ÝÑ 0 as n Ñ 8. Secondly, since V1,n has the same form

pjq

as U1,n , with gn instead of φn (i.e. without the log factor), we will only prove that there exists some δ ą 0
such that, as n Ñ 8,
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
´
¯1`δ{2 ˇ
ˇ pjq ˇ2`δ
ˇ pjq ˇ2`δ nÑ8
n´1´δ vn1`δ{2 E ˇU1,n ˇ
“ n´δ{2 Fspkq ptn qḠptn q
E ˇU1,n ˇ
ÝÑ 0
for j P t1, 2, 3u
(22)
For j “ 1, we have
ˇ
ż `8
ż `8 ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ φn pzq ˇ2`δ
ˇ p1q ˇ2`δ
2`δ
p1,kq
pkq
´2´δ
´2´δ
s
s
ˇ
ˇ
E ˇU1,n ˇ
“
plogpz{tn qq
dH
pzq “ pF ptn qq
pGpzqq
ḠpzqdF pkq pzq
ˇ Ḡpzq ˇ
tn
0
ˆ
˙1`δ
¯´1´δ ż `8
´
Ḡptn q
dF pkq pzq
2`δ
pkq
s
plogpz{tn qq
“
F ptn qḠptn q
.
Ḡpzq
Fspkq ptn q
tn
Applying part piiq of Lemma 7 for α “ 2 ` δ, a “ p1 ` δq{γC and b “ ´1{γk (with δ sufficiently small so
s n q Ñ 8, this ends
that a ` b “ 1{γC ´ 1{γk ` δ{γC is kept ă 0), and using the fact that vn “ nFspkq ptn qGpt
the proof of (22) for j “ 1.
For j “ 2, we have
ˇ
ż `8 ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ ψpφn , zq ˇ2`δ
ˇ p2q ˇ2`δ
ˇ
ˇ
E ˇU1,n ˇ
“
FspzqdGpzq.
ˇ H̄pzq ˇ
0
By definition of ψ, φn , and γn,k , we have ψpφn , zq “ γn,k when z ď tn . Therefore, splitting the integral
şt
ş`8
above into two integrals 0n and tn we obtain
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ p2q ˇ2`δ
E ˇU1,n ˇ
“ I1 ptn q ` I2 ptn q,
where, on one hand,
ż tn
2`δ

I1 ptn q “ pγn,k q

0

F̄ pzqdGpyq
“ pγn,k q2`δ
pH̄pzqq2`δ
15

ż tn
0

dCpzq
Cptn q
ď pγn,k q2`δ
pH̄pzqqδ
pH̄ptn qqδ

and, on the other hand, using the technical Lemma 9, for some δ 1 ą 0,
ˆ ˙´1{γk
ˆ ˙´1{γk `δ1 ˇˇ2`δ
ż `8 ˇˇ ˆ ˙ spkq
z
F̄ pzqdGpzq
F pzq
z
z
ˇ
ˇ
I2 ptn q ď
` γk
` n puq
ˇlog
ˇ
pkq pt q
s
ˇ
ˇ
t
t
t
pH̄pzqq2`δ
F
n
n
n
n
tn
#ż
ˆ ˙ ˆ spkq
˙2`δ
`8
z
F pzq
dCpzq
ď cst
log2`δ
δ
pkq pt q
s
t
p
H̄pzqq
F
n
n
tn
+
ż `8 ˆ ˙´p2`δq{γk
ż `8 ˆ ˙p´1{γk `δ1 qp2`δq
z
z
dCpzq
dCpzq
2`δ
2`δ
` sup |n puq|
` γk
tn
tn
pH̄pzqqδ
pH̄pzqqδ
uątn
tn
tn
#ż
ˆ ˙ ˆ spkq
˙δ
˙2`δ ˆ
`8
Cptn q
z
F pzq
dCpzq
H̄ptn q
2`δ
“ cst
log
pkq pt q
s
t
Cptn q
pH̄ptn qqδ
H̄pzq
F
n
n
tn
+
ˆ
˙
ˆ
˙
˙
˙δ
ˆ
ż `8
ż `8
δ
´p2`δq{γk
p´1{γk `δ 1 qp2`δq ˆ
z
z
H̄ptn q dCpzq
H̄ptn q dCpzq
2`δ
` γk
` op1q
tn
Cptn q
tn
Cptn q
H̄pzq
H̄pzq
tn
tn
`
˘
`
˘
s n q , therefore I1 ptn q “ O pH̄ptn qq´1´δ . It is then
Applying Lemma 8 to δ “ 1, we have Cptn q “ O 1{Hpt
`
˘
1`δ{2
s n q Ñ 8, since
easy to check that n´δ{2 Fspkq ptn qḠptn q
I1 ptn q tends to 0, because Fspkq ď Fs and nHpt
pkq
s n q ě Fs ptn qGpt
s n q.
Hpt
For I2 ptn q, since by Lemma 8 the function C is regularly varying with index 1{γ, the application
` of part piiq of
˘
Lemma 7 to α “ 0 or 2`δ and to various couples of values of a and b finally yields I2 ptn q “ O pH̄ptn qq´1´δ ,
`
˘1`δ{2
and consequently n´δ{2 Fspkq ptn qḠptn q
I2 ptn q tends to 0.
We now come to the study of relation (22) for j “ 3. We have
˙2`δ
ż `8 ˆż z
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ p3q ˇ2`δ
E ˇU1,n ˇ
“
ψpφn , uqdCpuq
dHpzq.
0

0

şt
ş`8
Proceeding as above by splitting the integral into two integrals 0n and tn , we obtain
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ p3q ˇ2`δ
E ˇU1,n ˇ
“ J1 ptn q ` J2 ptn q,
where
ż tn
J1 ptn q “ pγn,k q2`δ

2`δ

ż tn ˆ

pCpzqq2`δ dHpzq “ ´pγn,k q2`δ H̄ptn q pCptn qq
0

0

Cpzq
Cptn q

˙2`δ

dH̄pzq
H̄ptn q

and
p1q

p2q

J2 ptn q ď cstpJ2 ptn q ` J2 ptn qq,
where
p1q
J2 ptn q

ż `8ˆż tn
“
0

tn

˙2`δ
ż `8
2`δ
2`δ
2`δ
2`δ
pCptn qq dHpzq “ γn,k
pCptn qq
ψpφn , uqdCpuq
dHpzq “ γn,k
H̄ptn q
tn

and, using the technical Lemma 9 as we did some lines above,
˙2`δ
ż `8 ˆż z
p2q
J2 ptn q “
ψpφn , uqdCpuq
dHpzq
tn
tn
¨
¸2`δ
ˆ ˙ spkq
˙2`δ
ż `8ˆż z
ż `8 ˜ż z ˆ ˙´1{γk
u
F
puq
u
ď cst ˝
log
dCpuq
dHpzq ` γk
dCpuq
dHpzq
tn Fspkq ptn q
tn
tn
tn
tn
tn
˛
¸2`δ
ż `8 ˜ż z ˆ ˙´1{γk `δ1
u
` sup |n puq|2`δ
dCpuq
dHpzq‚.
(23)
t
uątn
n
tn
tn
`
˘
p1q
Using Lemma 8 and part piiiq of Lemma 7, we find that both J1 ptn q and J2 ptn q are O pH̄ptn qq´1´δ and,
p2q

though the term J2 ptn q is more involved, we are also going to prove below that the same property holds
`
˘1`δ{2
p2q
for J ptn q : this will finish the proof of Lemma 4 because n´δ{2 Fspkq ptn qḠptn q
pH̄ptn qq´1´δ tends to
2

16

0, as already seen in the proof for j “ 2.
We only treat the first integral in the right-hand side of p23q, since the two others are very similar, i.e.
we need to prove that
ˆ ˙ spkq
˙2`δ
ˆ
˙
ż `8 ˆż z
u F puq
1
log
.
(24)
dCpuq
dHpzq “ O
tn Fspkq ptn q
pH̄ptn qq1`δ
tn
tn
Now,
ż `8 ˆż z

ˆ
log

tn

tn

u
tn

¸2`δ
˙ spkq
˙2`δ
ż `8 ˜ż z{tn
spkq pytn q dCpytn q
F puq
F
logpyq spkq
dHpzq
dCpuq
dHpzq “ pCptn qq2`δ
Fspkq ptn q
F ptn q Cptn q
t
1
n

Using Potter-bounds p41q for Fspkq P RV´1{γk , integration by parts and then Potter-bounds p41q for C P
RV1{γ , it is easy to see that for n sufficiently large and  ą 0, there exists some positive constants c, c1 , c2
such that
˜ż
¸2`δ
ˆ ˙ ˆ ˙a
ˆ ˙a
z{tn
Fspkq pytn q dCpytn q
z
z
z
logpyq spkq
ď c log2`δ
` c1
` c2 .
Cpt
q
t
t
t
F
pt
q
n
n
n
n
n
1
where a “ p2 ` δqp γ1 ´

` 2q. Consequently

˙2`δ
˙
u Fspkq puq
log
dCpuq
dHpzq
tn Fspkq ptn q
tn
tn
ˆ ż `8
ˆ ˙ ˆ ˙a
˙
ż `8 ˆ ˙a
z
z
dH̄pzq
z
dH̄pzq
2`δ
2`δ
1
2
pCptn qq H̄ptn q ´c
´ c
´c .
log
tn
tn
tn
H̄ptn q
H̄ptn q
tn
tn
ż `8 ˆż z

ď

1
γk

ˆ

This yields p24q, by using part piiq of Lemma 7 to this value of a, to b “ ´1{γ (and to α “ 2 ` δ or α “ 0),
as well as Lemma 8.
5.2. Proof of Proposition 3
Let us start with an important note. In Proposition 3, the main result is that the remainder terms Rn,φ
´1{2
and Rn,g are oP pvn q. Proving this will be conducted in a similar way as proving that Rn is oP pn´1{2 q in
Theorem 1.1 of Stute (1995). But, recall that in our situation, the function that we integrate here is φn ,
which is depending on n, with a ”sliding” support rtn , `8r. We will need to be particularly cautious with
integrability issues, especially when dealing with U-statistics for the terms Rn,2 and Rn,3 in the remainder
Rn,C , defined below.
Before we proceed with the proof, let us define the following empirical (sub)-distribution functions : for
t ě 0,
n
n
n
ÿ
1 ÿ
1 ÿ
IZi ďt , Hnp0q ptq “
IZi ďt δi , Hnp1,kq ptq “
IZi ďt δi ICi “k .
Hn ptq “
n i“1
n i“1
i“1
First note that, since gn is the function φn without the log factor, it should be clear to the reader that
ˆ n ` Rn,g and ?vn Rn,g “ oP p1q will be simpler than proving that γ
rn,k “ γ
qn,k ` Rn,φ
proving that ∆n “ ∆
?
and vn Rn,φ “ oP p1q. We will thus only prove the latter two relations.
Let us start with the first one, in other words let us define the remainder term Rn,φ . Remind that
ş
pkq
snp1q ` U
snp2q ´ U
snp3q , where U
snpjq
rn,k and γ
qn,k are γ
rn,k “ φn puqdFn puq and γ
qn,k “ U
the definitions of γ
pjq
pkq
denotes the mean of the n variables Ui,n . We need to decompose the integral of φn with respect to Fn ,
which is a stepwise subdistribution function which jumps at the (ordered) observations Zpiq are equal to
s n pZpi´1q qq. But it is known that (see Lemma 2.1 in Stute (1995))
Iξpiq “k {pnG
# ż ´
+
Zpiq
1
´1
p0q
s
s n pZpi´1q q “ exp n 0 logp1 ` pnHn pxqq q dHn pxq
G

17

` şz ´1 p0q ˘
s
s dH
Therefore, using the fact that Gpzq
“ exp ´ 0 H
, we have
rn,k
γ

“

“

n
s ´q
GpZ
1 ÿ φn pZpiq q
piq
I
s n pZpi´1q q
s ´ q ξpiq “k G
n i“1 GpZ
piq
˜ ż ´
¸
ż Zi´
n
Zi
1 ÿ φn pZi q
dH p0q
´1
p0q
s
.
s
s ´ q Iξi “k exp n 0 logp1 ` pnHn pxqq q dHn pxq ´ 0
n i“1 GpZ
H
i

Consequently, using the mean value theorem for exp, and introducing the important notations
ż Zi´
ż Zi´
p0q
dHn
´1
p0q
s
Bi,n “ n
logp1 ` pnHn pxqq q dHn pxq ´
sn
H
0
0
´
ż Zi´
ż
p0q
Zi
dHn
dH p0q
Ci,n “
´
sn
s ,
H
H
0
0
it is easy to see that
rn,k
γ

“

n
n
n
1 ÿ φn pZi q
1 ÿ φn pZi q
1 ÿ φn pZi q
I
`
I
B
`
ξ
“k
ξ
“k
i,n
i
i
´
´
s
s
s ´ q Iξi “k Ci,n
n i“1 GpZ
n i“1 GpZ
n i“1 GpZ
i q
i q
i

`
“

n
1 ÿ
φn pZi qIξi “k pBi,n ` Ci,n q2 e∆i,n
2n i“1

n
ÿ
φn pZi q
s p1q ` Rn,B ` 1
U
n
s ´ q Iξi “k Ci,n ` Rn,∆ ,
n i“1 GpZ
i

(25)

p1q

sn is the first term in the definition of γ
where U
qn,k , and ∆i,n is a random quantity lying between
şZi´
p0q
s n pxqq´1 q dHn pxq.
and n 0 logp1 ` pnH

şZi´
0

s ´1 dH p0q
H

What we now need to do is to show that the term involving the quantity Ci,n in relation (25) above can be
snp3q plus a remainder term Rn,C , and therefore we have γ
snp2q ´ U
rn,k “ γ
qn,k ` Rn,φ , where
written as U
Rn,φ “ Rn,B ` Rn,C ` Rn,∆ .

(26)
´1{2

The rest of the proof will, afterwards, be devoted to showing that each term of Rn,φ is oP pvn

q.

Proceeding as in Stute (1995) or Suzukawa (2002), and using the fact that for any given function f we
ş
řn
p1,kq
“ n1 i“1 f pZi qIξi “k , we can write
have f dHn
n
1 ÿ φn pZi q
p1q
p2q
p3q
s ´ q Iξi “k Ci,n “ ´Cn ` 2Cn ´ Cn ` Rn,1
n i“1 GpZ
i

(27)

where
¡

Cnp1q
Cnp2q
Cnp3q
Rn,1
p1q

φn pzq
p0q
p1,kq
s
s 2 pvq Iząv Iuąv dHn puqdHn pvqdHn pzq,
GpzqH
ĳ
φn pzq
“
Iząv dHnp0q pvqdHnp1,kq pzq,
s
s
GpzqHpvq
ĳ
φn pzq
“
Iząv dH p0q pvqdHnp1,kq pzq,
s
s
GpzqHpvq
ĳ
s n ´ Hq
s 2 pvq
φn pzq
pH
p0q
p1,kq
“
Iząv s 2
s
s n pvq dHn pvqdHn pzq.
Gpzq
H pvqH
“

p2q

Note that Cn and Cn are a kind of U -statistics, which need to be approximated by sums of independent
variables called Hoeffding decompositions : more precisely, if we introduce the functions (important in the
sequel)
φn pwq
Iuąv
hpv, wq “ s ´ s
Iwąv Ivă8 Iwă8 and hpu, v, wq “ hpv, wq s
(28)
Gpw qHpvq
Hpvq

18

for u P R, v P R Y t`8u and w P R Y t`8u, then these decompositions are defined by
¡
p p1q “
C
hpu, v, wqdHn puqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq `
n
¡
hpu, v, wqdHpuqdHnp0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq `
¡
hpu, v, wqdHpuqdH p0q pvqdHnp1,kq pwq
¡
´ 2
hpu, v, wqdHpuqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq
ĳ
ĳ
p0q
p1,kq
p p2q “
C
hpv,
wqdH
pvqdH
pwq
`
hpv, wqdH p0q pvqdHnp1,kq pwq
n
n
ĳ
´
hpv, wqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq.

(29)

(30)

Therefore, if we introduce the remainder terms
p p1q
Rn,2 “ Cnp1q ´ C
n

and

p p2q
Rn,3 “ Cnp2q ´ C
n

(31)

then (27) becomes
n
1 ÿ φn pZi q
p3q
p p1q
p p2q
s ´ q Iξi “k Ci,n “ ´Cn ` 2Cn ´ Cn ` Rn,C
n i“1 GpZ
i

where

Rn,C “ Rn,1 ´ Rn,2 ` 2Rn,3 .

snp3q . This is indeed the case because, if we
snp2q ´ U
pnp2q ´ Cnp3q “ U
pnp1q ` 2C
We are thus left to prove that ´C
note
ť
θn “ hpv, wqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq,
(32)
p3q

p1q

pn equals ´2θn , the third one equals Cn , the second
then, by definition of h, the last (fourth) term in C
s ´ qdF pkq pwq)
one is (because dH p1,kq pwq “ Gpw
¡
ĳ
hpu, v, wqdHpuqdHnp0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq “
hpv, wqdHnp0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq
“
“
“

ż
n
1 ÿ
s ´ q dF pkq pwq
p1 ´ δi q hpZi , wqGpw
n i“1
ż
n
1 ÿ 1 ´ δi 8
pkq
s i q Z φn pwq dF pwq
n i“1 HpZ
i
n
1 ÿ 1 ´ δi
s p2q
s i q ψpφn , Zi q “ Un
n i“1 HpZ

s ´ qdF pkq pwq and dH p0q pvq “ FspvqdGpvq)
and the first one is (because dH p1,kq pwq “ Gpw
¡
n ĳ
1 ÿ
p0q
p1,kq
pwq “
hpu, v, wqdHn puqdH pvqdH
hpZi , v, wqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq
n i“1
n ĳ
1 ÿ
φn pwq
“
Ivăw IvăZi dGpvq dF pkq pwq
s Hpvq
s
n i“1
Gpvq
n ż
1 ÿ Zi
s p3q .
ψpφn , vq dCpvq “ U
“
n
n i“1 0
pnp2q equals U
snp2q , the second one equals Cnp3q , and the last one equals ´θn . After
Likewise, the first term of C
pnp1q ` 2C
pnp2q ´ Cnp3q “ U
snp2q ´ U
snp3q , and the
straightforward simplifications, we obtain the desired equality ´C
rn,k “ γ
qn,k ` Rn,φ is over.
proof of γ
The proof of Proposition 3 is now based on the following two lemmas : Lemma 5 is proved in subsection
5.2.1, and Lemma 6 is the longest to establish, its proof will be split across subsections 5.2.2 to 5.2.5.
Lemma 5. If conditions p1q and (2) hold with γk ă γC , then we have
?
?
?
vn Rn,B “ oP p1q, vn Rn,1 “ oP p1q, and vn Rn,∆ “ oP p1q.
19

Lemma 6. If conditions p1q and (2) hold with γk ă γC , then we have
?
vn Rn,j “ oP p1q
for j “ 2 and for j “ 3.
5.2.1. Proof of Lemma 5
‚ We start with the remainder term Rn,B , which is defined as
Rn,B “
where Bi,n “ n
we obtain

şZi´
0

n
1 ÿ φn pZi q
s ´ q Iξi “k Bi,n ,
n i“1 GpZ
i

p0q

s n pxqq´1 q dHn pxq ´
logp1 ` pnH
1
´
2n

ż Zi´
0

şZi´
0

p0q
dHn
Ďn .
H

2

Since, for all x ě 0, x ´ x2 ď logp1 ` xq ď x,

p0q

dHn pxq
s n pxqq2 ď Bi,n ď 0
pH

and then
|Rn,B |

˜ż ´
¸+
p0q
Zi
1
φn pZi q
dHn pxq
s n pxqq2
s ´ q Iξi “k 2n
pH
GpZ
0
i
#
¸+
˜ż ´
ˆ s
˙2
n
p0q
Zi
Hpxq
1 ÿ φn pZi q
dHn pxq
sup
.
2
s n pxq
s
s ´ q Iξi “k
2n2 i“1 GpZ
H
pHpxqq
0ďxăZpnq
0
i
n
1 ÿ
n i“1

ď

ď
But

ż Zi´
0

#

p0q

dHn pxq
“
2
s
pHpxqq

ż Zi´
0

dH p0q pxq
`
2
s
pHpxqq

ż Zi´
0

(33)

p0q

dpHn ´ H p0q qpxq
,
2
s
pHpxqq

so, if we define
Tnp1q “

n
n
1 ÿ p1q
1 ÿ p2q
Ti,n and Tnp2q “
T
n i“1
n i“1 i,n

where
p1q
Ti,n

“

1 φn pZi q
s ´ q Iξi “k
n GpZ
i

ż Zi´
0

dH p0q pxq
2
s
pHpxqq

ż Zi´

p0q

dpHn ´ H p0q qpxq
,
2
s
pHpxqq
0
?
?
p1q
p2q
then it remains to prove (thanks to part piq of Lemma 10) that vn Tn “ oP p1q and vn Tn “ oP p1q.
?
p1q
p1q
φn pZi q
s ěH
s p0q implies that T p1q ď 1
Concerning Tn , since H
vn Tn “ oP p1q is a
i,n
s ´ qH
Ďp0q pZ ´ q Iξi “k , then
n GpZ
i
i
consequence of Lemma 11, used with α “ 0 and d “ 1.
p2q

Ti,n

“

1 φn pZi q
s ´ q Iξi “k
n GpZ
i

p2q

Concerning Tn , an integration by parts yields
ˇż ´
ˇ
ż Zi´ s p0q
ˇ Zi dpH p0q ´ H p0q qpxq ˇ
s np0q ´ H
s p0q |pZ ´ q
s p0q |pxq
|H
|Hn ´ H
n
ˇ
ˇ
i
s p0q p0q ´ H
s p0q p0q|
ď
`
2
dHpxq ` |H
ˇ
ˇ
n
2
s
s 3 pxq
s 2 pZ ´ q
ˇ 0
ˇ
pHpxqq
H
H
0
i
1
s np0q ´ H
s p0q |pxq ˆ H
s p0q pxq ˙ 2 ´α
? |H
ď
sup
n
ˆ
s
s p0q pxqq21 ´α
Hpxq
pH
0ďxăZpnq
¨
˛
ż Zi´
1
2
dHpxq
s p0q
s p0q
˝
`
˘ 25 `α ‚ ` |Hn p0q ´ H p0q|,
? ` s ´ ˘ 32 `α ` ?n
s
0
n HpZ q
Hpxq
i

s p0q ď H
s thus imply
for any given 0 ă α ă 12 . Lemma 10 (applied with a “ 1{2 ´ α ă 1{2) and the fact H
that
ˇż ´
ˇ
ˇ Zi dpH p0q ´ H p0q qpxq ˇ
1
n
ˇ
ˇ
s p0q p0q ´ H
s p0q p0q|,
` |H
ˇ
ˇ ď OP p1q ? `
n
˘3
2
s
ˇ 0
ˇ
´ 2 `α
pHpxqq
s
n HpZ q
i

20

?
p2q
p2q
so that, by definition of Ti,n , the desired statement vn Tn “ oP p1q is a consequence of Lemma 11, applied
with α ą 0 sufficiently small and d “ 32 , and of
a
? ÿ
s nq
?
vn n 1 φn pZi q
Fspkq ptn qGpt
p0q
p0q
p0q
p0q
s
s
s
s
s p1q “ oP p1q.
I
|
H
p0q
´
H
p0q|
“
n|
H
p0q
´
H
p0q|
ˆ
ˆU
ξ
“k
n
n
n
i
´
s
n i“1 n GpZ
n
i q
snp1q converges to γk and H
s np0q p0q ´ H
s p0q p0q equals 1 řn Iδ “0 ´ Ppδ “ 0q, which is OP pn´1{2 q by
Indeed U
i“1 i
n
the standard central limit theorem.
‚ Let us now turn to the remainder term Rn,1 , which is defined as
ĳ
s n ´ Hq
s 2 pvq
pH
φn pzq
p0q
p1,kq
I
Rn,1 “
ząv
s
s 2 pvqH
s n pvq dHn pvqdHn pzq.
Gpzq
H
A simple calculation leads to
ˆ
˙
? |Hn ´ H|pxq 2
Rn,1 ď
sup
n
1
s
2 ´α
pHpxqq
0ďxăZpnq

sup
0ďxăZpnq

n
s
Hpxq
1 ÿ
ˆ
s n pxq n2
H
i“1

#

φn pZi q
s ´ q Iξi “k
GpZ
i

˜ż ´
Zi
0

p0q

dHn pvq
2`2α
s
pHpvqq

¸+

for any 0 ă α ă 21 . Taking α sufficiently small, the rest of the proof is very similar to the one for Rn,B
(compare to p33q) and relies on Lemma 10 and Lemma 11.
‚ We can finally deal with the last remainder term Rn,∆ , defined as
Rn,∆ “

n
1 ÿ
φn pZi qIξi “k pBi,n ` Ci,n q2 e∆i,n ,
2n i“1

where ∆i,n is a random quantity lying between an :“
Since ea “ 1{ḠpZi´ q, we have
Rn,∆ “

şZi´
0

s ´1 dH p0q and bn :“
H

şZi´
0

p0q

s n pxqq´1 q dHn pxq.
logp1`pnH

n
1 ÿ φn pZi q
Iξ “k pBi,n ` Ci,n q2 e∆i,n ´an .
2n i“1 ḠpZi´ q i

Since bn ´ an “ Bi,n ` Ci,n , where Bi,n ă 0 and Ci,n “

şZi´
0

p0q
dHn
Ďn
H

´

şZi´
0

dH p0q
Ď ,
H

we clearly have

ep∆i,n ´aq ď maxp1, eCi,n q ď e|Ci,n | .
But Ci,n “ Λ̂n,G pZi q ´ ΛG pZi q, where ΛG is the cumulative hazard function associated to G, and Λ̂n,G its
Nelson-Alen estimator. Relying on Zhou (1991) Theorem 2.1, we can deduce that sup1ďiďn |Ci,n | “ OP p1q.
Hence, ep∆i,n ´aq “ OP p1q.
Now,
ż ´
p0q
1 Zi dHn
Ci,n ´
s n q2 ď Bi,n ` Ci,n ď Ci,n .
2n 0 pH
By writing
ż Zi´
Ci,n “
0

p0q

dpHn ´ H p0q q
`
sn
H

ż Zi´ ˆ
0

1
1
´ s
s
Hn
H

˙
dH p0q ,
p2q

we prove (using Lemma 10 and simple integrations as for the previous treatment of Tn
? s
1{2`α
s np0q p0q ´ H
s p0q p0q| for 0 ă α ă 1{2.
q ` |H
OP p1q 1{p npHpZ
i qq

above) that |Ci,n | ď

s i qq1`2α q´1 `OP pn´1 q ď OP p1qpnpH
s p0q pZi qq1`2α q´1 `OP pn´1 q,
Hence, on one hand pCi,n q2 ď OP p1qpnpHpZ
and on the other hand
˜
¸
ˆ
˙
ż ´
p0q 2
1 Zi dHn
1
1
´1
Ci,n ´
ď
O
p1q
`
P
s n q2
s p0q pZi qq1`2α
s p0q pZi qq2 ` OP pn q,
2n 0 pH
npH
n2 pH
s np0q p0q ´ H
s p0q p0q|2 , which does not depend on
for any given 0 ă α ă 1{2 (where the OP pn´1 q comes from |H
i). Therefore, it is sufficient to prove that
?
?
n
n
vn logpZi {tn qIξi “k IZi ątn
vn logpZi {tn qIξi “k IZi ątn
1 ÿ
1 ÿ
and
´
pkq
p0q
1`2α
pkq
s
s
s
s p0q pZi qq2
n i“1 F ptn qḠpZi qnpH pZi qq
n i“1 F ptn qḠpZi´ qn2 pH
21

are oP p1q, and that

n
´
¯1{2 1 ÿ
logpZi {tn qIξi “k IZi ątn
s nq
n´1{2 Fspkq ptn qGpt
ˆ
n i“1
Fspkq ptn qḠpZi´ q

is oP p1q as well. But the first two statements are consequences of Lemma 11 with α ą 0 sufficiently close to
0 and, respectively, d “ 1 and d “ 2. And for the third statement, the expectation of the expression turns
s n qq1{2 , which tends
out (thanks to Lemma 7 part piiq) to be equivalent to a constant times n´1{2 pFspkq ptn qGpt
to 0.
5.2.2. Preliminaries to the proof of Lemma 6
We start this section by introducing important objects, issued from an idea appearing (to the best of our
knowledge) in Stute (1994). We define the improper variables pVi q1ďiďn and pWj q1ďjďn by
"
"
`8 if δj “ 0 or Cj ‰ k
Zi
if δi “ 0
and Wj “
Vi “
Zj
if δj “ 1 and Cj “ k
`8 if δi “ 1
which have H p0q and H p1,kq for respective subdistribution functions. We thus have 1 ´ δi “ IVi ă8 and
p1q
p2q
ICj “k “ IWj ă8 , which, according to the definitions of Cn and Cn on one hand, and of functions h and h
(in (28)) on the other hand, leads to
Cnp2q “

n n
1 ÿÿ
1 ÿÿ
φn pZj q
IZj ąZi p1 ´ δi qδj ICj “k “ 2
hpVi , Wj q
´ s
2
s
n i“1 j“1 GpZj qHpZi q
n i‰j

and
Cnp1q “

n n n
1 ÿÿÿ
1 ÿÿÿ
φn pZj q
I
I
p1
´
δ
qδ
I
“
hpZl , Vi , Wj q.
Z
ąZ
Z
ąZ
i
j
C
“k
j
i
i
j
l
´
s
s2
n3 l“1 i“1 j“1 GpZ
n3 i‰j,i‰l
j qH pZi q

Since the latter triple sum is not convenient, we also define
ÿÿ ÿ
«
«
1 ÿÿ
r p1q ` C p1q where C
r p1q “ 1
s i q,
Cnp1q “ C
hpVi , Wj q{HpV
hpZl , Vi , Wj q and Cnp1q “ 3
n
n
n
3
n i,j,l distincts
n i‰j
«
pnp1q , and Cnp1q will be a remainder. We can indeed rewrite
rnp1q will be the quantity approximated by C
where C
(31) as
´ 2
¯
p2q
p2q
n
p
p p2q {n,
Rn,3 “ npn´1q
C
´
C
´C
(34)
n
n
n2
npn´1q n
´
¯
«p1q
n3
r p1q p p1q ´ 3n´2
p p1q
(35)
Rn,2 “ npn´1qpn´2q
n3
npn´1qpn´2q Cn ´ Cn
n2 Cn ` Cn .
The terms in parentheses in (34) and (35) turn out to be genuine U-statistics of 2 and 3 variables, denoted
by
ÿÿ
ÿÿ ÿ
1
1
Un “ npn´1q
H pVi , Wj q and Vn “ npn´1qpn´2q
H pZl , Vi , Wj q
(36)
i‰j

i,j,l distincts

where functions H and H will be defined in a few lines (relation (37)) after some preliminaries, certainly
well-known in the U-statistics literature, but which we include here to make our proof self-contained (and
since we are dealing with improper variables).
If V and W denote independent improper random variables with subdistribution functions H p0q and
H p1,kq (i.e. V “ ZIδ“0 ` 8Iδ“1 and W “ Z 1 δ 1 IC 1 “k ` 8p1 ´ δ 1 ` IC 1 ‰k q where pZ, δ, C q and pZ 1 , δ 1 , C 1 q are
independent copies of pZ1 , δ1 , C1 q), we introduce the following notations : for any function g : r0, 8sˆr0, 8s Ñ
R,
g1‚ pvq “ Epgpv, W qq and g‚1 pwq “ EpgpV, wqq ,
as well as, for any function g : r0, 8rˆr0, 8s ˆ r0, 8s Ñ R, with Z (of distribution function H) independent
of V and W ,
g1‚‚ puq “ Epgpu, V, W qq

,

g‚1‚ pvq “ EpgpZ, v, W qq

and

g‚‚1 pwq “ EpgpZ, V, wqq.

Since hpv, wq “ 0 whenever v or w equals 8, we then have (the proof is simple)
ĳ
θn “
hpv, wqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq “ EphpV, W qq “ EphpZ, V, W qq.
22

Therefore, setting (for z in r0, 8r and v and w in r0, 8s)
H pv, wq “
H pz, v, wq “

hpv, wq ´ h1‚ pvq ´ h‚1 pwq ` θn
hpz, v, wq ´ h1‚‚ pzq ´ h‚1‚ pvq ´ h‚‚1 pwq ` 2θn

(37)

it is then not difficult to check (using (29) and (30)) that Un and Vn in relation (36) are indeed equal to the
differences in parentheses in relations (34) and (35), respectively. Lemma 6 thus becomes a consequence of
?
?
the following facts : vn Un “ oP p1q, vn Vn “ oP p1q, and
«p1q
pnp1q {n and C
pnp2q {n are oP pvn´1{2 q.
the three sequences Cn , C
(38)
We will prove these statements in the next 3 subsections.
5.2.3. Proof of

?

vn Un “ oP p1q

We note I “ tI “ pi, jq ; 1 ď i ă j ď nu, HI “ H pVi , Wj q when I “ pi, jq P I , and N “ npn ´ 1q{2.
It is clear that it suffices to prove that
ÿ ?v
n
SN “ oP p1q where SN “
N HI .
IPI

The good point is that SN turns out to be a sum of identically distributed centred and uncorrelated random
variables HI , but unfortunately these variables HI are not square-integrable and potentially only have a
moment of order slightly larger than 4{3 when γk ă γC . In order to deal with this difficulty, since we cannot
handle directly the Lp norm of SN of order p “ 4{3, we will follow a strategy similar to that found in Csorgo,
Szyszkowicz and Wang (2008), based on truncation. We set
"
H1 “ H pV1 , W2 q
˚
?
(39)
H pv, wq “ H pv, wqI|H pv,wq|ďMn ´ EpH1 I|H1 |ďMn q where
M n “ n 2 { vn
The variables HI˚ “ H ˚ pVi , Wj q (I P I ) are centred and bounded, but they lose the non-correlation
property of the variables HI . This is why we define now
˚
˚
HI˚˚ “ H ˚˚ pVi , Wj q where H ˚˚ pv, wq “ H ˚ pv, wq ´ H1‚
pvq ´ H‚1
pwq

which are centred and bounded but are also uncorrelated (see part piq of Lemma 13), and we write
?
?
v ř
v ř
p1q
p2q
SN “ SN ` SN “ Nn IPI HI˚˚ ` Nn IPI pHI ´ HI˚˚ q.
p1q

(40)

p2q

We thus need to prove that SN and SN both converge to 0 in probability.
Concerning SN , since the HI˚˚ are centred and uncorrelated, we have
´
¯
´ř
¯
`
˘
p1q
2
E pSN q2 “ pvn {N 2 qE p IPI HI˚˚ q “ pvn {N qE pH ˚˚ pV1 , W2 qq2 ď cstpvn {n2 qEpH12 I|H1 |ďMn q
p1q

where H1 was defined in (39) (the justification of the last inequality is postponed to part piiq of Lemma
?
s n qq1{2 , and introduce
13). Remind that H1 is not square-integrable and Mn “ n2 { vn “ n3{2 {pFspkq ptn qGpt
3{2
pkq
1{2´
s
s
mn “ n {pF ptn qGptn qq
“ opMn q for some given small  ą 0. We then write
´
¯
´
¯
¯
vn
vn 2{3 ´
p1q
4{3
4{3
E pSN q2 ď cst 2 m2{3
E
|H
|
`
cst
M
E
|H
|
I
“ cstpAn ` Bn q.
1
1
|H1 |ąmn
n n
n2 n
Thanks to Lemma 12 (parts piq and piiq) and to the definition of mn , the term An is bounded by a quantity
˘´2{3
2{3 `
s n qq2{3 “ op1q. We now rely on Hölder’s
which is equivalent (as n Ñ 8) to vnn2 mn vnn
“ pFspkq ptn qGpt
inequality for dealing with the term Bn . Let p ą 1 and q ą 1 such that 1{p ` 1{q “ 1. Since θn “ EpH1 q,
again thanks to Lemma 12 (piq, piiq and pvq), for p sufficiently close to 1 so that 4p{3 ă 1 ` p1 ` 2γk {γC q´1 ,
we have
´ v ¯2{3 ´
¯1{p
n
1{q
Bn ď
E|H1 |4p{3
pPp|H1 | ą mn qq
n
´ v ¯2{3 ˆ ˆ´ v ¯2p1´4p{3q ˙˙1{p
n
n
ď
O
m´1{q
p4θn q1{q
n
n
n
´ v ¯2{3`2p1´1{qq´8{3
n
s n qq´{q p´ log Gpt
s n qq1{q
ď Op1q
Mn´1{q pFspkq ptn qGpt
n
´
¯´3{2q
`
˘
s n qq´2{q pGpt
s n qq p´ log Gpt
s n qq 1{q “ op1q npFspkq ptn qGpt
s n qq1`4{3
ď Op1q vn´3{2q pFspkq ptn qGpt
23

which converges to 0 thanks to assumption (2), for  ą 0 small enough (we used part pvq of Lemma 12 in
the third upper bound).
p2q

We are thus left to prove that SN also converges to 0, but this time in L1 . We start by writing that
´
¯
?
?
vn ř
p2q
˚˚
˚
˚
E |SN |
ď
vn E p |H1 ´ H ˚ pV1 , W2 q ` H1‚
pV1 q ` H‚1
pW2 q| q
IPI E p|HI ´ HI |q “
N
˘
`
?
ď 4 vn E |H1 |I|H1 |ąMn ,
the last inequality being proved in the appendix (part piiiq of Lemma 13). The follow-up is a bit similar to
the treatment of Bn above, relying on Lemma 12 (parts piq, piiq and pvq) and on Hölder’s inequality : for
p ą 1 close to 1 and a large q such that 1{p ` 1{q “ 1, we can write
´
¯
´
¯1{p
?
p2q
1{q
E |SN |
ď 4 vn Mn´1{3 E|H1 |4p{3
pPp|H1 | ą Mn qq
"´
*1{q
¯´3{2
´3{2q
1{q
pkq
1`
3{2
s
s
s
s
s
ď Op1q vn
p´ log Gptn qq
ď Op1q npF ptn qGptn qq
pGptn qq p´ log Gptn qq
which, for  ą 0 small enough, is op1q thanks to assumption (2).
5.2.4. Proof of

?

vn Vn “ oP p1q

The proof is very similar to the one contained in the previous subsection. We nonetheless provide a few
details to convince the reader of the validity of the result. We note now I “ tI “ pi, j, lq ; 1 ď i ă j ă l ď nu
and H I “ H pZl , Vi , Wj q when I “ pi, j, lq P I , with N “ npn ´ 1qpn ´ 2q{6 denoting the cardinal of the
index set I . Since the observations pZi qiďn are i.i.d., it should be clear to the reader that it suffices to prove
that
ÿ ?v
n
SN “ oP p1q where SN “
N H I.
IPI

As previously, the problem lies with the moments of the centred and uncorrelated variables H I , and now
we only have a guaranteed moment of order slightly more than 6{5 instead of 4{3 in the previous situation.
Fortunately, the cardinal N is now of order n3 , which turns out to be the right compensation.
We thus define, for pu, v, wq P r0, 8rˆr0, 8s ˆ r0, 8s,
"
H 1 “ H pZ3 , V1 , W2 q
˚
?
H pu, v, wq “ H pu, v, wqI|H pu,v,wq|ďMn ´ EpH 1 I|H 1 |ďMn q where
M n “ n 3 { vn
as well as
H ˚˚
“ H ˚˚ pZl , Vi , Wj q where H ˚˚ pu, v, wq “ H ˚ pu, v, wq ´ H ˚1‚‚ puq ´ H ˚‚1‚ pvq ´ H ˚‚‚1 pwq
I
which are centred and bounded but are also uncorrelated (see part piq of Lemma 13 in the Appendix), and
we write
?
?
v ř
v ř
p1q
p2q
SN “ SN ` SN “ Nn IPI H ˚˚
` Nn IPI pH I ´ H ˚˚
I
I q.
s n qq and skipping details, we assess that
Introducing mn “ Mn pFspkq ptn qGpt
´
¯
´
¯
´
¯
vn
vn
p1q
6{5
E pSN q2 ď cst 3 m4{5
` cst 3 Mn4{5 E |H 1 |6{5 I|H1 |ąmn
n E |H 1 |
n
n
and that this quantity converges to 0, as n Ñ 8, thanks to parts piq and piiiq of Lemma 12. The same
p2q nÑ8
argument is used to prove that Ep|SN |q ÝÑ 0.
5.2.5. Proof of relation (38)
? «p1q
Let us first prove that, for some d Ps4{5, 1r, Ep| vn Cn |d q tends to 0, as n tends to infinity. Recall that
«p1q
řř
s
Cn “ n13
i‰j hpVi , Wj q{HpVi q. Since d ă 1, we have
´
¯d{2
`
˘
? «
s n qFspkq ptn q
s 1 q|d .
Ep| vn Cnp1q |d q ď nd{2´3d Gpt
npn ´ 1qE |hpV1 , W2 q{HpV
2´5d{2

According to part pivq of Lemma 12, the right-hand side of the inequality above is Op1q vn
to 0, since d ą 4{5, and so we are done.
24

, which tends

? p p1q
p p1q
Let us now prove that Ep| vn C
n {n|q tends to 0, as n tends to infinity. Cn is defined in p29q, where
?
v
the expectation of each of the four integrals is θn : therefore, we only need to prove that n n θn tends to 0.
This is straightforward using part pvq of Lemma 12.
? p p2q
We can prove in a very similar way that Ep| vn C
n {n|q tends to 0, as n tends to infinity.
5.3. Proof of Proposition 1
Using the same notations as in the begining of Section 5, we have,
ˆ
˙
Zn
´1
pn,k ´ γk “ ∆n
γ
? ` Rn ` pγn,k ´ γk q .
vn
Zn
?
vn

The fact that

P

Ñ 0 is due to the application of a triangular weak law of large numbers (see Chow and
ř
ř
Teicher (1997) for example) to n1 Ũi,n and to n1 Ṽi,n . By carrefully following the proof of proposition 3
in Section 5.2, we can see that Rn “ oP p1q. The condition γk ă γC is not used, neither in the treatment of
Zn
?
vn nor in that of Rn . Details are omited.
5.4. Proof of Corollary 1
The proof is very similar to the one of Theorem 2 in Worms and Worms (2016), with γk and Fspkq here
replacing γ1 and Fs there. For completeness, we provide some details about it. Reminding the notations
Fs pkq pt q
dn “ Fspkq ptn q{pn Ñ 8 and ∆n “ Fsnpkq ptn q , we easily write
n
˜
¸
pkq
x̂pn ,tn
tn
t n γk 1
γ
pn,k
γ
pn,k
2
3
´ 1 “ pkq p∆n dn q
d T ` Tn ` Tn ,
´ 1 “ ∆n
pkq
pkq n n
x pn
x pn
x pn
γ
p

´p
γ

´γk

n
´ 1, Tn2 :“ tpkq
dγk ´ 1 and Tn3 :“ 1 ´ ∆n n,k . We are going to prove that both Tn2
xpn n
?
`
˘
?
v
and Tn3 are oP plog dn { vn q, and that log dnn Tn1 ÝÑ N λm, σ 2 : this will conclude the proof, since both ∆n
n
dγnk tend to 1.
(Corollary 2) and tpkq

where Tn1 :“ dnn,k

xpn

Concerning Tn1 , the mean value theorem yields
?
?
¯ ?
vn 1
vn ´ ppγn,k ´γk q logpdn q
Tn “
e
´ 1 “ vn pp
γn,k ´ γk q exppEn q,
log dn
log dn
where |En | ď |p
γn,k ´γk | log dn and therefore En tends to 0 in probability thanks to Theorem 1 and assumption
p4q. The desired result for Tn1 is then implied by Theorem 1 again.
?
Concerning the fact that Tn2 “ oP plog dn { vn q, the proof is completely similar to the evoked one in
Worms and Worms (2016), so we omit it here (basically, this is based on some uniform regular variation
?
implied by the assumed negativity of the second order parameter ρk , and on the assumption that vn gptn q
converges).
Finally, concerning Tn3 we use the mean value theorem to write
?
γ
´p
´1
vn 3
?
γ
pn,k Dn n,k
Tn “
. vn p∆n ´ 1q,
log dn
log dn
´p
γ

´1

P

where Dn lies between ∆n and 1. But Corollary 2 (and the consistency of γ
pn,k?) implies that γ
pn,k Dn n,k ÝÑ
?
v
γk on one hand, and vn p∆n ´ 1q “ OP p1q on the other hand ; therefore, log dnn Tn3 “ Op1{ logpdn qq “ op1q.
6. Appendix
This appendix contains various results : some of them are used repeatedly in the proof of the main result
(in particular Proposition 4, Lemmas 7, and 10, and to a lesser extent Lemmas 9 and 8), the other ones
concern parts of the main proof which are postponed to the appendix for better clarity of the main flow of
the proof (Lemmas 11, 12 and 13).

25

Definition 1. An ultimately positive function f : R` Ñ R is regularly varying (at infinity) with index
α P R, if
f ptxq
lim
“ xα p@x ą 0q.
tÑ`8 f ptq
This is noted f P RVα . If α “ 0, f is said to be slowly varying.
Proposition 4. (See de Haan and Ferreira (2006) Proposition B.1.9)
Suppose f P RVα . If x ă 1 and  ą 0, then there exists t0 “ t0 pq such that for every t ě t0 ,
p1 ´ qxα` ă

f ptxq
ă p1 ` qxα´
f ptq

p1 ´ qxα´ ă

f ptxq
ă p1 ` qxα` .
f ptq

and if x ě 1 ,
(41)

Lemma 7. Let x P R˚` , α P R` , β ą ´1, and for a and b real numbers, f and g are two regular varying
functions at infinity, with index, respectively, a and b. Then, as t Ñ `8,
ż `8
Γpβ ` 1q
.
logβ pyq y ´x´1 dy “
piq Jβ pxq “
xβ`1
1
ż `8
f pytq dgpytq
bΓpα ` 1q
, if a ` b ă 0
piiq Iα,a,b “
logα pyq
Ñ
f
ptq
gptq
p´a
´ bqα`1
1
ż1
f pytq dgpytq
b
piiiq Ja,b “
Ñ
, if a ` b ą 0
gptq
a`b
0 f ptq
Proof :
piq A simple change of variable and the definition of the Γ function yields the result.
piiq For the sake of simplicity, we are going to treat the case a ă 0 and b ă 0. The only difference for
the other cases is the sign in front of the  or 1 appearing below (coming from the application of p41q
several times), which can depend on the sign of a, b or another constant, but does not affect the result.
Using Potter-bounds p41q for f yields, for n sufficiently large and  ą 0 ,
ż `8
ż `8
dgpytn q
dgpytn q
ď Iα,a,b ď p1 ´ q
.
p1 ` q
logα pyq y a´
logα pyq y a`
gptn q
gptn q
1
1
Let us treat only the upper bound and the case α ‰ 0 (the other cases being similar). By integration
by parts, with a ` b ă 0, we have
ż `8
ż `8
ż `8
gpytn q
α
α´1
a´ dgpytn q
a´1´ gpytn q
log pyq y
“ ´α
log
pyq y
dy ´ pa ´ q
logα pyq y a´1´
dy.
gptn q
gptn q
gptn q
1
1
1
Using Potter-bounds p41q for g yields, for n sufficiently large and 1 ą 0
ż `8
dgpytn q
logα pyq y a´
ď ´αp1 ´ 1 qJα´1 p´a ´ b `  ` 1 q ´ pa ´ qp1 ` 1 qJα p´a ´ b `  ´ 1 q.
gptn q
1
Doing the same with the lower bound and making  and 1 tend to 0, yields the result after simplifications.
piiiq As in piiq, using Potter-bounds p41q for f , integration by parts and then again p41q for g yields the
result.
Lemma 8. For any δ ą 0, let Cδ denote the function
żt
dGpvq
Cδ ptq “
s
sδ .
0 GpvqH pvq
s δ ptqq,
Under condition p1q, this function is regularly varying of order δ{γ and we have Cδ ptq „ pγ{γC q{pδ H
as t Ñ `8.
26

ş H
s
s
Ďδ ptq Gptq
dGptuq
s δ ptqCδ ptq “ ´ 1 Ď
Proof : by writing H
, the lemma is an immediate consequence of part piiiq
s
s
0 H δ ptuq Gptuq
Gptq
of Lemma 7, with a ` b “ pδ{γ ` 1{γC q ` p´1{γC q “ δ{γ ą 0 and ´b{pa ` bq “ pγ{γC q{δ.
Remark 3. In the Lemma above, C1 is the important function C introduced at the beginning of Section 5,
s
s
and thus Cptq „ pγ{γC q{Hptq
“ p1 ´ γ{γF q{Hptq,
as t Ñ `8. Hence, C is regularly varying at infinity with
index 1{γ, a property which proves useful several times in the main proofs.
Lemma 9. Let ψpφn , uq “
condition p1q, we have
ψpφn , uq

ş`8
u

φn psqdF pkq pxq, for u ě 0 and φn puq “

1
Fs pkq ptn q

logpu{tn qIuątn . Under

“ γn,k , if u ď tn
ˆ ˙´1{γk `δ
ˆ ˙ spkq
ˆ ˙´1{γk
u
u F puq
u
if u ą tn ,
` γk
` n puq
“ log
tn Fspkq ptn q
tn
tn

where n puq is a sequence tending to 0 uniformly in u, as n Ñ 8, and δ a positive real number such that
´ γ1k ` δ ă 0.
Proof : We only consider the second situation where u ą tn (the first one is straightforward) :
ż `8
ż `8
dFspkq pytn q
pkq
φn psqdF pxq “ ´
logpyq spkq
u
F ptn q
u
t
n

An integration by part and the fact that Fspkq is regularly varying at infinity with index ´1{γk , yields
ˆ ˙´1{γk
ˆ ˙ spkq
ż `8
u
u F puq
`
γ
` ∆n puq,
φn psqdF pkq pxq “ log
k
pkq
s
tn F ptn q
tn
u
where
∆n puq “

˙
ż `8 ˆ spkq
F pytn q
dy
´1{γk
´
y
pkq
s
u
y
F ptn q
tn

Let δ be a positive real number. Then
ˇż
ˆ
˙ ˇˇ
ˇ `8
spkq pytn q
ˇ
ˇ
´1{γk ´1`δ
1{γk ´δ F
´δ
|∆n puq| “ ˇ
y
y
dy ˇ
spkq ptn q ´ y
ˇ u
ˇ
F
tn
ˇ
ˇ
ż
ˇ
ˇ `8 ´1{γ ´1`δ
Fspkq pytn q
k
ď sup ˇˇy 1{γk ´δ spkq
´ y ´δ ˇˇ
y
dy,
u
F ptn q
yě1
t
n

where the function y Ñ y

1{γk ´δ

spkq

F

and, when ´ γ1k ` δ ă 0, we have

pyq is regularly varying with index ´δ. Then since
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ 1{γ ´δ Fspkq pytn q
ˇ
´δ ˇ nÑ8
k
ˇ
´
y
sup ˇy
ˇ ÝÑ 0
Fspkq ptn q
yě1

ş`8
u
tn

y ´1{γk ´1`δ dy “ cst pu{tn q

´1{γk `δ

, this concludes the proof.

Lemma 10. Recalling that H is a distribution function with infinite right endpoint, we have :
s
s n pxq “ OP p1q
piq sup0ďxăZ pnq Hpxq{
H
piiq for any a ă 1{2,
?

n sup
tě0

s n ptq ´ Hptq|
s
|H
“ OP p1q
s
pHptqqa

and

?

p0q

n sup
tě0

s n ptq ´ H
s p0q ptq|
|H
“ OP p1q.
p0q
s
pH ptqqa

Proof : part piq is well known (see for instance section 3 of chapter 10 of Shorack and Wellner (1986)), while
the two statements in piiq are proved by usual empirical processes techniques, showing that the family
a
s
of functions pft qtă8 defined in one case by ft pzq “ Iząt {pHptqq
, and in the other case by ft pδ, zq “
p0q
a
s ptqq are Donsker whenever a ă 1{2 (using respective square integrable envelope functions
p1 ´ δqIząt {pH
a
s
s p0q pzqqa , which bound from above the functions ft uniformly in
f ˚ pzq “ 1{pHpzqq
and f ˚ pδ, zq “ p1 ´ δq{pH
t) .
27

Lemma 11. Under conditions (1) and (2), suppose that α ě 0 and d ě 1 are real numbers. If γk ă γC and
?
vn
φpZi q
Xi,n “ 1`d s
s p0q pZi qqd`α Iξi “k ,
n
GpZi qpH
řn
P
then we have i“1 Xi,n ÝÑ 0, as n tends to infinity, if α is 0 or sufficiently close to it.
Proof :
According to the LLN for triangular arrays, we need to prove the following three statements :
řn
nÑ8
piq @ ą 0,
ÝÑ 0
i“1 Pp|Xi,n | ą q
řn
nÑ8
2
piiq
ÝÑ 0
i“1 EppXi,n q I|Xi,n |ď1 q
řn
nÑ8
piiiq
ÝÑ 0
i“1 EpXi,n I|Xi,n |ď1 q
But, Xi,n being positive, piiiq clearly implies piiq. We thus need to prove that piq and piiiq hold.
Let us start with assertion piq. If  ą 0 is given, then
1{2
s nq ˆ H
s p0q ptn q ˙d`α
logpZi {tn q
Gpt
vn
.
“ 1`d spkq
s n qpH
s p0q ptn qqd`α IZi ątn Iξi “k GpZ
s iq H
s p0q pZi q
n
F ptn qGpt

Xi,n

1

Now, put a “ γ1C ` d`α
(ą 0); since, for a given 1 ą 0, there exists c ą 0 such that @x ě 1, logpxq ď cx ,
γ
s ´1 pH
s p0q q´pd`αq P RV´a , we can write (using the definition of vn )
and using Potter-bounds p41q for G
#
+
ˆ ˙a`21
¯´pd`αq
´
Z
i
s p0q ptn q
cp1 ` 1 q
ą  X tξi “ k and Zi ą tn u
t |Xi,n | ą  u Ă
vn´1{2 n´d H
tn
(
Ă
Zi ą cp, 1 q tn wn X tξi “ k and Zi ą tn u ,
´
¯1{pa`21 q
` p0q
˘
1{2
s ptn q d`α
where wn “ vn nd H
and cp, 1 q is a constant depending on  and 1 only. Consequently, if wn tends to infinity,
ż8
n
ÿ
k
s
Pp|Xi,n | ą q ď nEpIZi ącp,1 q tn wn Iξi “k q “ n
GpxqdF
pxq
cp,1 q tn wn

i“1

ď vn

spkq

pF

1

s
Gqpcp,
 q tn wn q
pkq
s
s
pF Gqptn q

ď cst vn wn´β ,
where β “

1
γC

`

1
γk

s P RV´ 1
´ 1 and the last inequality is due to Potter-bounds p41q applied to Fspkq G
γ

C

´ γ1

.

k

vn wn´β

Ñ 0, as n Ñ 8.
Then, assertion piq above will be true as soon as we prove that wn Ñ 8 and
s p0q ptq is equivalent to a positive constant times Hptq
s
s n q ě vv {n, then
Since H
when t Ñ `8, and Hpt
1
α
´η
r
a`21
ě cst pn vn q , for r “ 2 ` d ` α ą 0 and η “ r ě 0. Assumption (2) finally yields that wn tends
wn
to `8, since 0 ď η ď η0 for α sufficiently close to 0.
˘d`α
´pa`21 q{β 1{2 d ` s p0q
vn n H ptn q
tends to
Now, proving that vn wn´β tends to 0 is equivalent to proving that vn
`8. The same arguments as in the previous paragraph yield that it is sufficient to prove that vnA n´α “
A
α
pn´η vn q tends to `8, for A “ ´pa ` 21 q{β ` 1{2 ` d ` α and η “ A
. This is a consequence of hypothesis
p2q, since A ą 0 and α ď η0 A, for α sufficiently close to 0. This ends the proof of piq.
s ´1 pH
s p0q q´pd`αq
Let us now start the proof of assertion piiiq. If  ą 0 is given, using Potter-Bounds (41) for G
a´
which belongs to RV´a , and introducing hpxq “ logpxqx , we find that (for some positive constant c)
I|Xi,n |ď1 IZi ątn ď IhpZi {tn qďcwn IZi ątn
` p0q
˘
1{2
s ptn q d`α . Hence, denoting by h´1 the inverse function of h,
where we set wn “ vn nd H
I|Xi,n |ď1 IZi ątn Iξi “k ď Itn ăZi ătn h´1 pcwn q Iξi “k .

28

Consequently, using once again Potter-Bounds p41q and bounding the log with a constant times a power of
z{tn , we get
1{2 ż tn h´1 pcwn q
logpz{tn q
vn
p1,kq
pzq
nEpX1,n I|X1,n |ď1 q ď
d
pkq
s
s
s p0q pzqqd`α dH
n
F ptn qGpzqp
H
tn
ż ´1
vn h pcwn q b`21 dF pkq pstn q
ď cst
s
,
wn 1
Fspkq ptn q
1

where b “ d`α
and 1 ą 0 is some given positive value (the inequality logpsq ď cst s , @s ě 1, was used).
γ
But, by integration by parts and p41q applied to Fspkq , setting hn “ h´1 pcwn q, we have
ż ´1
¯
vn ´
vn h pcwn q b`21 dF pkq pstn q
b´1{γk `31
s
ď
cst
1
`
h
.
n
wn 1
wn
Fspkq ptn q
Proceeding similarly as in the previous paragraphs, we find that wn {vn Ñ 8 (and thus wn and hn as well)
1
thanks to assumption (2), for α close to 0. We are thus left to prove that pvn {wn q ˆ hbn tends to 0, where
b1 “ b ´ 1{γk ` 31 . If b ´ 1{γk is negative, this is immediate. We thus suppose that b ´ 1{γk ě 0 and, after
1
1
1
1
some simple computations, we find out that pvn {wn qhbn tends to 0 if vn´a` wna´b ´ tends to 8, a property
which holds true thanks to assumption (2), for α close to 0 (we omit the details).
Lemma 12. Suppose that V1 and W2 are independent improper random variables of respective subdistribution functions H p0q and H p1,kq , and Z3 is independent of V1 and W2 and has distribution H. Consider h,
h, H and H the functions defined in (28) and (37).
piq For any d ě 1, there exist some positive constants c and c1 such that
E p |H d pV1 , W2 q| q ď c E p hd pV1 , W2 q q

and

E p |H d pZ3 , V1 , W2 q| q ď c1 E p hd pZ3 , V1 , W2 q q.

piiq For any d Ps1, 1 ` p1 ` 2γk {γC q´1 r, we have
`
˘
s n qq2p1´dq .
E p hd pV1 , W2 q q “ O pFspkq ptn qGpt
s n qq´2{3 and Ephd pV1 , W2 qq
In particular, if γk ă γC , then Eph4{3 pV1 , W2 qq is of the order of pFspkq ptn qGpt
is finite whenever d is (greater than but) sufficiently close to 4{3.
piiiq For any d Ps1, 1 ` p1 ` 3γk {γC q´1 r, we have
`
˘
s n qq3p1´dq .
E p hd pZ3 , V1 , W2 q q “ O pFspkq ptn qGpt
s n qq´3{5 and Ephd pZ3 , V1 , W2 qq
In particular, if γk ă γC , then Eph6{5 pZ3 , V1 , W2 qq is of the order of pFspkq ptn qGpt
is finite whenever d is (greater than but) sufficiently close to 6{5.
`
˘
`
˘
´1
´1
s d pV1 q “ O pFspkq ptn qGpt
s n qq2´3d .
pivq For any d Ps1{2, p2γC
`γF´1 `γk´1 q{p3γC
`2γF´1 qr, we have E hd pV1 , W2 q{H
In particular, if γk ă γC then taking δ (greater than but) sufficiently close to 4{5 is permitted, otherwise
it is 2{3 instead of 4{5.
ť
s n qq.
pvq The integral θn “ hpv, wqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq is equivalent, as n Ñ 8, to γk p´ log Gpt
Proof :
piq Let d ě 1, and remind that h is a non-negative function. Using several times the inequality |a ` b|d ď
2d´1 p|a|d ` |b|d q, we can write
(
Ep|H d pV1 , W2 q|q ď cst Ephd pV1 , W2 qq ` Erph1‚ pV1 qqd s ` Erph‚1 pW2 qqd s ` pEphpV1 , W2 qqqd .
But using the fact that the L1 norm is bounded by the Ld norm whenever d ě 1, we have pEphpV1 , W2 qqqd ď
Ephd pV1 , W2 qq and it is quite simple to prove (by independency of V1 and W2 ) that it is also the
case of Erph1‚ pV1 qqd s “ ErpEphpV1 , W2 q|V1 qqd s ď ErEphd pV1 , W2 q|V1 qs “ Ephd pV1 , W2 qq, as well as for
Erph‚1 pW2 qqd s. The inequality is thus proved. The other one (concerning H and h) is proved similarly.

29

piiq Let d ą 1. Since hpv, 8q “ hp8, wq “ 0 (@v, w), we have
ĳ
´d
s Gpwqq
s
Ephd pV1 , W2 qq “ pFspkq ptn qq´d
logd pw{tn qpHpvq
Iwątn Iwąv dH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq
ˆż w
˙
ż8
pkq
dGpvq
s 1´d pwq dF pwq
“ pFspkq ptn qq1´d
logd pw{tn q
G
d´1
pkq
s
s
s
pvq
F ptn q
0 GpvqH
tn
ˆs
˙d´1
ż8
Cd´1 ptn q
Gptn q
Cd´1 pwq dF pkq pwq
d
log
pw{t
q
“
n
s n qqd´1 t
s
Cd´1 ptn q Fspkq ptn q
pFspkq ptn qGpt
Gpwq
n
where the function Cd´1 was defined in the statement of Lemma 8. This lemma and Lemma 7, applied
with α “ d, a “ pd ´ 1q{γC ` pd ´ 1q{γ and b “ ´1{γk (the constraint specified on d certifies that
a ` b ă 0), imply that the integral in the previous line converges to a constant. And Lemma 8 also
implies that the ratio in front of this integral is equivalent, as n Ñ 8, to a positive constant times
`
˘
`
˘
s n qFspkq ptn qGpt
s n q 1´d , which is itself lower than Fspkq ptn qGpt
s n q 2p1´dq , as desired.
Hpt
piiiq Let d ą 1. By definition of h in (28), and proceeding as in the previous item, Ephd pZ3 , V1 , W2 qq equals
¡
´ ¯
´2d s
s
pGpwqq´d Iwątn Iwąv Iuąv dHpuqdH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq
logd twn pHpvqq
pFspkq ptn qq´d
ˆs
˙d´1
ż8
Gptn q
C2d´2 ptn q
C2d´2 pwq dF pkq pwq
d
log
pw{t
q
,
“
n
s n qqd´1 t
s
C2d´2 ptn q Fspkq ptn q
pFspkq ptn qGpt
Gpwq
n
`
˘
`
˘
s n qq2´2d pFspkq ptn qGpt
s n qq1´d “ O pFspkq ptn qGpt
s n qq3p1´dq as soon as,
which is equivalent to O pHpt
thanks to Lemma 7, the sum ppd ´ 1q{γC ` p2d ´ 2q{γq ´ 1{γk is negative, which turns out to be true
whenever d ă 1 ` p2 ` 3γk {γC q´1 , as specified.
pivq The proof is very similar to the previous ones, starting from
ĳ
` d
˘
d
pkq
´d
´2d s
s
s
s
E h pV1 , W2 q{H pV1 q “ pF ptn qq
logd pw{tn qpHpvqq
pGpwqq´d Iwątn Iwąv dH p0q pvqdH p1,kq pwq
so we omit the details.
s is slowly varying at infinity null at 0, we have
pvq Noting that ´ log G
ˆż w
ˆ ż8
˙
ż8
s n q dFspkq putn q ˙
dF pkq pwq
´ log Gput
s n qq ´
s
θn “
logpw{tn q
“
p´
log
Gpt
dGpvq{Gpvq
logpuq
s n q Fspkq ptn q
Fspkq ptn q
´ log Gpt
tn
0
1
which can be dealt with using part piiq of Lemma 7 with α “ 1, a “ 0 and b “ ´1{γk : the obtained
constant is indeed equal to γk .
Lemma 13. In this Lemma, various notations defined in sections 5.2.2 to 5.2.4 are used.
piq The variables HI˚˚ for I P tpi, jq ; 1 ď i ă j ď nu are centred and uncorrelated . This is also true for
the variables H ˚˚
I for I P tpi, j, lq ; 1 ď i ă j ă l ď nu.
“
‰
piiq We have E pH ˚˚ pV1 , W2 qq2 ď 48ErH12 I|H1 |ďMn s.
`
˘
˚
˚
piiiq We have E p |H1 ´ H ˚ pV1 , W2 q ` H1‚
pV1 q ` H‚1
pW2 q| q ď 4E |H1 |I|H1 |ąMn
Proof :
piq Let us consider the first situation, where I “ tpi, jq ; 1 ď i ă j ď nu. First, if I “ pi, jq P I , then
˚
˚
˚
EpHI˚˚ q “ 0´EpH1‚
pVi qq´EpH‚1
pWj qq ; but, by definition of H1‚
and independency of Vi and Wj , we
˚
˚
˚
have EpH1‚ pVi qq “ EpH pVi , Wj qq “ 0, and EpH‚1 pWj qq “ 0 is obtained similarly, so we proved that
˚˚
˚˚
EpHI˚˚ q “ 0. Note that we can prove (with similar arguments) that H1‚
pvq “ H‚1
pwq “ 0 for every
v, w in r0, 8s, a property which is repeatedly used below . Let us now deal with the non-correlation of
1
1
HI˚˚ and HI˚˚
1 , by considering the various cases where I ‰ I with I “ pi, jq and I “ pk, lq are in I .
If all four indices i, j, k, l are distinct, then non-correlation of HI˚˚ and HI˚˚
is immediate by mutual
1
independence of the variables Z1 , . . . , Zn .
30

˚˚
pv, Wj qH ˚˚ pv, Wl qq “
If i “ k but j ‰ l, then EpHI˚˚ HI˚˚
1 q “ EpψpVi qq where ψpvq “ EpH
˚˚
pH1‚
pvqq2 “ 0, by independence of Vi with pWj , Wl q, and of Wj and Wl .
˚˚
The case i ‰ k and j “ l is similar using H‚1
p¨q ” 0.
˚˚
If i “ l but j ‰ k, then EpHI˚˚ HI˚˚
pv, Wj qH ˚˚ pVk , wqq “
1 q “ EpψpVi , Wi qq where ψpv, wq “ EpH
˚˚
˚˚
H1‚ pvqH‚1 pwq “ 0 ˆ 0 “ 0 ; the case j “ k and i ‰ l is treated similarly.

Note that the case i “ l and j “ k (i.e. HI˚˚ “ H ˚˚ pVi , Wj q, HI 1 “ H ˚˚ pVj , Wi q) is not permitted
(it would lead to dependency) since we cannot have simultaneously i ă j and j ă i ; this is the reason
why, in the beginning of section 5.2.3, we restricted the study of the sum Un to that of the sum SN
having terms H pVi , Wj q satisfying i ă j.
˚˚
1
The second situation, for H ˚˚
I and H I 1 with I ‰ I in I “ tI “ pi, j, lq ; 1 ď i ă j ă l ď nu, is a bit
more tedious (with more cases to detail) but very similar, so we omit its proof.

piiq We start by the trivial bound
(
˚
˚
ErpH ˚˚ pV1 , W2 qq2 s ď 4 ErpH ˚ pV1 , W2 qq2 s ` ErpH1‚
pV1 qq2 s ` ErpH‚1
pW2 qq2 s .
Noting H1´ “ H1 I|H1 |ďM(n , we can write, on one hand, by definition of H ˚ , ErpH ˚ pV1 , W2 qq2 s ď
2 ErpH1´ q2 s ` pErH1´ sq2 ď 4ErpH1´ q2 s. On the other hand, if W is independent of V1 , we have
˚
ErpH1‚
pV1 qq2 s “ ErpErH ˚ pV1 , W q|V1 sq2 s ď ErErpH ˚ pV1 , W qq2 |V1 ss “ ErpH ˚ pV1 , W2 qq2 s, which is
˚
pW2 qq2 s,
the same term as the first one, and is thus lower than 4ErpH1´ q2 s. The same is true of ErpH‚1
so the desired inequality is proved.
piiiq First recall that H1 denotes H pV1 , W2 q. Now, since H1 is centred and we trivially have H1 “
H1 I|H1 |ďMn ` H1 I|H1 |ąMn , noting H1` “ H1 I|H1 |ąMn yields
H1 ´ H ˚ pV1 , W2 q “ H1` ´ EpH1` q.
Secondly, using the fact that H1‚ p¨q ” 0 (simple to prove), we can write
`
˚
pvq ` EpH1` q,
H1‚
pvq “ EpH pv, W qI|H pv,W q|ďMn q ´ EpH1 I|H 1|ďMn q “ ´H1‚
`
`
where H1‚
pvq denotes EpH pv, W qI|H pv,W q|ąMn q and satisfies EpH1‚
pV1 qq “ EpH1` q, and similarly
`
˚
H‚1
pwq “ ´H‚1
pwq ` EpH1` q
`
`
pW2 qq “ EpH1` q. Summing these three terms
with H‚1
pwq “ EpH pV, wqI|H pV,wq|ąMn q and EpH‚1
finally leads to
`
˘
`
`
˚
˚
E p |H1 ´ H ˚ pV1 , W2 q ` H1‚
pV1 q ` H‚1
pW2 q| q “ E |H1` ´ H1‚
pV1 q ´ H‚1
pW2 q ` EpH1` q|

which is lower than 4Ep|H1` |q, as announced.

References
References
A. Aalen and S. Johansen . An empirical transition matrix for nonhomogeneous Markov chains based on censored observations.
In Scand J Stat (5) pages 141-150 (1978)
J. Beirlant, G. Dierckx, A. Guillou and A. Fils-Villetard . Estimation of the extreme value index and extreme quantiles under
random censoring. In Extremes 10, pages 151-174 (2007)
N. H. Bingham, C.M. Goldie and I.L. Teugels. Regular variation. Cambridge University press (1987)
Y.S. Chow and H. Teicher . Probability theory. Independence, interchangeability, martingales. Springer (1997)
M. Crowder . Classical competing risks. Chapman and Hall, London (2001)
M. Csorgo, B. Szyszkowicz and Q. Wang . Asymptotics of studentized U-type processes for change-point problems. In Acta
Math. Hunga. 121 (4), pages 333-357 (2008)
L. de Haan and A. Ferreira . Extreme Value Theory : an Introduction. Springer Science + Business Media (2006)
J. Einmahl, A. Fils-Villetard and A. Guillou . Statistics of extremes under random censoring. In Bernoulli 14, pages 207-227
(2008)
J-D. Fermanian . Nonparametric estimation of competing risks models with covariates. In Journal of Multivariate Analysis(85)
pages 156-191 (2003)
S. Geffray. Strong approximations for dependent competing risks with independent censoring. In Test (18) pages 76-95 (2009)
M.L. Moeschberger and J.P. Klein. Statistical Methods for Dependent Competing Risks. In Lifetime Data Analysis (1), pages
195-204 (1995)

31

L. Peng and and J.P. Fine. Nonparametric quantile inference with competing-risks data. In Biometrika (94), pages 735-744
(2007)
G.R. Shorack and J.A. Wellner. Empirical processes with applications in statistics. John Wiley and Sons (1986)
W. Stute . Strong and weak representations of cumulative hazard function and Kaplan-Meier estimators on increasing sets. In
Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 43, pages 315-329 (1994)
W. Stute . The central limit theorem under random censorship. In Annals of statistics 23 (2), pages 422-439 (1995)
A. Suzukawa . Asymptotic properties of Aalen-Johansen integrals for competing risks data. In Journal of the Japan Statistical
Society 32 (1), pages 77-93 (2002)
A. Tsiatis. A nonidentifiability aspects of the problem of competing risks. In Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 72, pages 20-22 (1975)
J. Worms and R. Worms. New estimators of the extreme value index under random right censoring, for heavy-tailed distributions.
In Extremes 17 (2), pages 337-358 (2014)
J. Worms and R. Worms. A Lynden-Bell integral estimator for extremes of randomly truncated data. In Statistics and
Probability Letters (109), pages 106-117 (2016)
M. Zhou (1991). Some Properties of the Kaplan-Meier Estimator for Independent Nonidentically Distributed Random Variables.
In Annals of statistics 19 (4), pages 2266-2274 (1991)

32

