arXiv:1704.03262v1 [] 11 Apr 2017

Gaussian autoregressive process with dependent innovations.
Some asymptotic results.
Fabio Gobbi
Sabrina Mulinacci
University of Bologna - Department of Statistics
April 3, 2018
Abstract
In this paper we introduce a modified version of a gaussian standard first-order autoregressive process where we allow for a dependence structure between the state variable Yt−1
and the next innovation ξt . We call this model dependent innovations gaussian AR(1) process (DIG-AR(1)). We analyze the moment and temporal dependence properties of the new
model. After proving that the OLS estimator does not consistently estimate
the autoregressive
√
parameter, we introduce an infeasible estimator and we provide its T -asymptotic normality.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 62M10, 62F10
Keywords: autoregressive processes, dependent innovations,

1

√
T -asymptotic normality.

Introduction

In this paper we consider a modified version of the standard first-order autoregressive process,
Yt = φYt−1 + ξt , in which, unlike the classical case, we assume that the state variable at the time
t − 1, Yt−1 , and the next innovation ξt are no longer independent.
The model here considered is a particular case of the class of the C-convolution based processes
studied in Cherubini et al. (2011) and Cherubini et al. (2012). Recent literature has mainly focused
on stationary copula-based Markov process (see, among the others, Chen and Fan, 2006, and Beare,
2010), while the mentioned C-convolution based processes have a stationary dependence structure
between each level and the next innovation generating a process which no longer stationary.
In particular, this paper focuses on the case where the pairs (Yt−1 , ξt )t have a joint distribution
function given by a gaussian copula with a time-invariant parameter ρ and the innovations (ξt )t
are identically distributed with a gaussian distribution: in addition, we assume that the resulting
stochastic process is a Markov process. This model first appeared in Cherubini et al. (2016) where
some moment properties have been analyzed without, however, considering temporal dependencies.
The unit root case (φ = 1) is studied in Gobbi and Mulinacci (2017) while here we will concentrate
on the case |φ| < 1. We call the model “dependent innovations gaussian AR(1) process (DIGAR(1))”.
The analysis of the model starts from the study of the implied temporal dependence properties
both in the sequence (Yt )t and in the sequence of innovations (ξt )t which, as expected, are no
more independent. As a consequence, statistical inference on the model changes significantly.
In particular, estimating the autoregressive parameter can no longer be made by ordinary least
squares (OLS). As we shall prove, the OLS estimator is not consistent for φ and, as expected,
the asymptotic bias depends on ρ. To overcome this drawback,
in this paper we propose a new
√
infeasible estimator of φ which allows us to achieve a T -consistency and asymptotic normality.
The new estimator takes into account a correction due to the presence of ρ whose importance
1

will be emphasized both as regards the estimation procedure and as regards the dynamics of the
process.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the DIG-AR(1) process. Section 3 shows
the autocorrelation functions of (Yt )t and (ξt )t . In Section 4 we prove that the OLS estimator is
not consistent for
√ the autoregressive parameter and we introduce a new infeasible estimator which
is proved to be T -asymptotically normal. Section 5 concludes.

2

The model

In this paper we consider a generalized version of the standard stationary gaussian first-order
autoregressive process, AR(1), defined as
Yt = φYt−1 + ξt ,
where Y0 = 0 a.s., |φ| < 1 (condition for the weak stationarity) and the sequence of innovations
(ξ)t≥1 is i.i.d. and normally distributed with zero mean and standard deviation σξ (gaussian white
noise process): as a consequence, ξt is independent of Yt−1 for all t. It is just the case to recall
that in this framework we have


 E[Yt ] = 0, t ≥ 1
σ2

ξ
E[Yt2 ] = 1−φ
2, t ≥ 1

 η = corr(Y
k
k
t , Yt+k ) = φ , k = 1, 2, ...

For a detailed discussion of AR(1) processes see, among others, Hamilton (1994) and Brockwell
and Davis (1991). The modified version of the AR(1) process considered in this paper is inspired
by the Markov processes modeling with dependent increments considered in Cherubini et al. (2011,
2012, 2016): the idea is to relax the assumption of independence between ξt and Yt−1 , allowing for
some time-invariant gaussian dependence.
More precisely
Definition 2.1. A dependent innovations gaussian AR(1) process (DIG-AR(1)) is a discrete time
stochastic process defined as
Yt = φYt−1 + ξt , t ∈ N
(1)
where Y0 = 0 a.s., |φ| < 1, (ξt )t are identically distributed with ξt ∼ N (0, σξ2 ) and the copula
associated to the vector (ξt , Yt−1 ) is gaussian with time-invariant parameter ρ with |ρ| < 1 for all
t.

Therefore, in this version of the model the sequence of innovations is no more a gaussian white
noise but it has a temporal dependence structure that we will analyze in the following. Moreover, in
Section 4.3.1 of Cherubini et al. (2016), the authors determine the variance of Yt and its asymptotic
convergence, that is
!
t−1
t−1
X
X
2(i−1)
2(t−1)
2
2
φ2i−1 Vt−i ,
+ 2ρσξ
φ
+
Vt = σξ φ
i=1

i=1

and
Vt −→

t↑+∞



p
σξ ρφ + ρ2 φ2 + 1 − φ2
1 − φ2

.

The limit, that we denote with V̄ (ρ, φ), can be written as


p
ρφ + ρ2 φ2 + 1 − φ2
p
,
V̄ (ρ, φ) = S
1 − φ2
2

σ
where S = √ ξ

1−φ2

is the standard deviation of the AR(1) process. It is just the case to observe

that, when ρ = 0, V̄ (0, φ) = S. As shown in Figure 1, we can notice that V̄ (ρ, φ) > S if ρφ > 0
whereas V̄ (ρ, φ) < S if ρφ < 0. In plain words, Yt becomes more and more volatile if the correlation
between ξt and Yt−1 has the same sign of the autoregressive coefficient. On the other hand, the
volatility tends to decrease if they have opposite sign.

22
20
φ=0.95
φ=0.7
φ=−0.7
φ=−0.95

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0
ρ

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Figure 1: Graph of V̄ (ρ, φ) as a function of ρ for different values of φ. Here we fix σξ = 1.
In addition to the above assumptions, we assume that the stochastic process (Yt )t is a Markov
process. As proved in Darsow et al. (1992) a necessary condition for a process (Yt )t to be Markovian
is that, if Cs,t is the copula associated to (Ys , Yt ), then
Cs,t (u, v) = Cs,r ∗ Cr,t (u, v) =

Z

0

1

∂
∂
Cs,r (u, w)
Cr,t (w, v) dw, ∀s < r < t.
∂w
∂w

Morover, as shown in section 3.2.3 in Cherubini et al. (2012), if copulas Cs,r and Cr,t are gaussian
with parameters τs,r and τr,t , respectively, then Cs,t is again gaussian with parameter
τs,t = τs,r τr,t .

3

(2)

Autocorrelation functions and mixing-properties

In this subsection we study the behavior of the autocorrelation functions of the process (Yt )t
when t −→ +∞. It is just the case to recall that in the standard AR(1) process the k-th order
autocorrelation function of (Yt )t depends only on k and it is equal to φk . In our more general
setting, this is no longer true. In section 4.3.1 of Cherubini et al. (2016) it is shown that the
copula between Yt and Yt+1 is gaussian with time-dependent parameter given by
τt,t+1 =
and
τt,t+1 −→ φ +
t↑+∞

φVt + ρσξ
,
Vt+1
ρσξ
= τ̄ (ρ, φ).
V̄ (ρ, φ)
3

(3)

The limit of the k-th order autocorrelation function of the Markov process (Yt )t is a function
of k, σξ and ρ as the following proposition shows.
Proposition 3.1. The k-th order autocorrelation function of the DIG-AR(1) Markov process (Yt )t

k
ρσξ
tends to φ + V̄ (ρ,φ)
for any k ≥ 1 as t −→ +∞.

Proof. Thanks to (2), we have that the copula between Yt and Yt+k is gaussian with parameter
τt,t+k =

k−1
Y
s=0

φVt+s + ρσξ
.
Vt+s+1

Therefore, since for any s ≥ 1 as t −→ +∞
ρσξ
Vt+s + ρσξ
V̄ (ρ, φ) + ρσξ
=φ+
,
−→
Vt+s+1
V̄ (ρ, φ)
V̄ (ρ, φ)

(4)

we easily get the result.
It is interesting to consider the role of ρ in the dynamics of the limit of τt,t+k with respect to
the standard case when τt,t+k = φk . If φ > 0 the limit autocorrelation monotonically decreases
to zero as k increases, more slowly if ρ > 0 and more rapidly if ρ < 0. On the contrary, if φ < 0
the limit autocorrelation fluctuates more widely if ρ < 0 whereas the fluctuations are more blunt
if ρ > 0.
On the other hand, the innovations (ξt )t are of course no longer serially independent as in
the standard case and the k-th order autocorrelation function approaches to a limit which again
depends on ρ, σξ and k.
Proposition 3.2. Given the DIG-AR(1) Markov process of Definition 2.1, the k-th order autocorrelation function of (ξt )t , δt,t+k , for any k ≥ 1, tends to
δt,t+k −→

t↑+∞

V̄ (ρ, φ)τ̄ k−1 (ρ, φ)
(τ̄ (ρ, φ) − φ)(1 − φτ̄ (ρ, φ))
σξ2

where τ̄ is defined in (3).
Proof. We have
E[ξt ξt+k ] = E[(Yt − φYt−1 )(Yt+k − φYt+k−1 )] =

= E[Yt Yt+k ] − φE[Yt Yt+k−1 ] − φE[Yt−1 Yt+k ] + φ2 E[Yt−1 Yt+k−1 ] =

= τt,t+k Vt Vt+k − φτt,t+k−1 Vt Vt+k−1 − φτt−1,t+k Vt−1 Vt+k + φ2 τt−1,t+k−1 Vt−1 Vt+k−1 .
Since for any fixed k ≥ 1, τt,t+k −→ τ̄ k−1 (ρ, φ) and Vt −→ V̄ (ρ, φ) as t −→ +∞ we get

E[ξt ξt+k ] −→V̄ 2 (ρ, φ) τ̄ k (ρ, φ) − φτ̄ k+1 (ρ, φ) − φτ̄ k−1 (ρ, φ) + φ2 τ̄ k (ρ, φ) =
= V̄ 2 (ρ, φ)τ̄ k−1 (ρ, φ)(τ̄ (ρ, φ) − φ)(1 − φτ̄ (ρ, φ)).

It follows
δt,t+k −→

V̄ 2 (ρ, φ)τ̄ k−1 (ρ, φ)
(τ̄ (ρ, φ) − φ)(1 − φτ̄ (ρ, φ)).
σξ2

4

To conclude this section we briefly discuss the mixing properties of the sequence (Yt )t . Given a
(not necessarily stationary) sequence of random variables (Xt )t∈Z , defined on a given probability
space (Ω, F , P), let Ftl be the σ-field Ftl = σ(Xt , t ≤ t ≤ l) with −∞ ≤ t ≤ l ≤ +∞ and let
I

+∞
t
β̃(F−∞
, Ft+k
)=

J

1 XX
|P(Ai ∩ Bj ) − P(Ai )P(Bj )|,
{Ai },{Bj } 2 i=1 j=1
sup

(5)

where the second supremum is taken over all finite partitions {A1 , ...AI } and {B1 , ...BJ } of Ω such
t
∞
that Ai ∈ F−∞
for each i and Bj ∈ Ft+k
for each j. Define the following dependence coefficient
+∞
t
βk = sup β̃(F−∞
, Ft+k
).
t∈Z

We say that the sequence (Xt )t∈Z is β−mixing (or absolutely regular) if βk → 0 as k → +∞ (see
Volkonskii and Rozanov, 1959 and 1961, for more details).
Proposition 3.3. The DIG-AR(1) Markov process (Yt )t is β-mixing.
Proof. The result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.1 in Gobbi and Mulinacci (2017) and
the proof is very close to that of Corollary 3.1 therein. In fact, since |τt,t+1 | < 1 for all t and its
ρσǫ
,
V̄ (ρ,φ)

limit, φ +

satisfies φ +

ρσǫ
V̄ (ρ,φ)

< 1, we have that η̂ = sup|τt,t+1 | < 1. Of course, exactly
t

as shown in the proof of Corollary 3.1 of Gobbi and Mulinacci (2017) the density of the copula
associated to the vector (Yt , Yt+1 ) is uniformly bounded in L2 ([0, 1]) and Theorem 2.1 of Gobbi
and Mulinacci (2017) applies, allowing to conclude that the process is β-mixing.

4

An infeasible estimator of the autoregressive parameter

This section is devoted to the analysis of the consistency of the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimator, φ̂T , of the autoregressive coefficient φ in our DIG-AR(1) markovian model. Unfortunately,
unlike the standard case, the OLS estimator is no more consistent. Therefore, we
√ propose an infeasible estimator which is by construction consistent and that it is proved to be T -asymptotically
normal.
WePrecall that given a random sample (Y1 , ...., YT ) generated by (Yt )t , the OLS estimator is

φ̂T =

T

Yt Yt−1
. In the
2
Yt−1
a.s.
φ̂T −→ φ as T

t=2
P
T

standard AR(1) model, since (Yt )t is a stationary and ergodic process we

t=2

−→ +∞ (see, among others, Anderson, 1971 and Hamilton, 1994). This
have that
is no more the case in our more general context.
Proposition 4.1. Let (Yt )t be a markovian DIG-AR(1) process as in Definition 2.1. Then, the
OLS estimator φ̂T of φ is not consistent; in particular
a.s.

φ̂T −→ τ̄ (ρ, φ)
where τ̄ (ρ, φ) is defined in (3).
Let’s observe that, coherently with the standard AR(1) process, the OLS estimator converges
to the limit of the first-order autocorrelation. Unfortunately, in our DIG-AR(1) model such a
first-order autocorrelation does not coincide with the autoregressive parameter.
Proof. First we observe that the assumption of markovianity of (Yt )t implies that, if (Ft )t is the
filtration generated by (Yt )t , then P(ξt ≤ x|Ft−1 ) = P(ξt ≤ x|Yt−1 ) for all x ∈ R and, thanks to
the assumptions of the model, the conditional distribution of ξt given Yt−1 is


ρσξ
Yt−1 , σξ2 (1 − ρ2 ) .
(6)
(ξt |Yt−1 ) ∼ N
Vt−1
5

Now, consider the expression of φ̂T ,
φ̂T =

PT

t=2 Yt Yt−1
PT
2
t=2 Yt−1

PT

= φ + Pt=2
T

ξt Yt−1

t=2

2
Yt−1

.

Differently
from the standard case (see Andrews, 1988 and Hamilton, 1994) in our setting the
P
ratio

T

Pt=2
T

ξt Yt−1
2
Yt−1

t=2

does not converge to zero as T −→ +∞. In particular, the process (ξt Yt−1 )t is

not a martingale difference sequence and its mean is not constant over time, E[ξt Yt−1 ] = ρσξ Vt−1 .
However, the process
Zt = ξt Yt−1 − Yt−1 E[ξt |Yt−1 ]
(7)
is a martingale difference sequence with respect to the filtration (Ft )t and, since thanks to equation
Y2

t−1
(6), Yt−1 E[ξt |Yt−1 ] = ρσξ Vt−1
, we have

PT

t=2 Zt

φ̂T − φ = PT

t=2

2
Yt−1

+

2
Yt−1
t=2 Vt−1
ρσξ PT
.
2
t=2 Yt−1

PT

Since, thanks to (6),



 
 
2
2
(1 − ρ2 ) = σξ2 Vt−1
(1 − ρ2 )
E Zt2 = E E Zt2 |Yt−1 = E σξ2 Yt−1

(8)

(9)

and Vt is a convergent deterministic sequence and hence bounded by a positive constant ∆, we
have that
 
2
≤ σξ2 (1 − ρ2 )∆2 < +∞.
sup E Zt2 = σξ2 (1 − ρ2 ) sup Vt−1
t

t

Since the sequence of the second moments of Zt is bounded, we can apply Theorem 3.77 in White
(1984) and conclude that
T
1X
a.s.
Zt −→ 0,
T t=2

as T −→ +∞.
Notice that, since (Yt )t is β-mixing (see Proposition 3.3), also (Yt2 )t is β-mixing.
Moreover, (see Bradley, 2007) for a Markov process (Xt )t , (5) can be rewritten as
+∞
t
β̃(F−∞
, Ft,t+k
)=

1
k Ft,t+k (x, y) − Ft (x)Ft+k (y) kT V
2

where k · kT V is the total variation norm in the Vitali sense and Ft,t+k , Ft and Ft+k are the
cumulative distribution functions of (Xt , Xt+k ), Xt and Xt+k . If (at )t is a sequence of positive
constants, it can be easily shown that, as a consequence of the Vitali’s total variation norm defini+∞
t
tion, the coefficient β̃(F−∞
, Ft,t+k
) calculated for the Markov process (at Xt )t is exactly the same
 2 
Yt−1
as that calculated for (Xt )t . This allows to conclude that Vt−1
is β-mixing.
t
h 4 i
 4 
Y
2
4
= 3 supt Vt−1
are both finite, thanks to
and supt E Vt−1
Since supt E Yt−1 = 3 supt Vt−1
t−1
Theorem 3.57 in White (1984), we have that

T
T
1 X 2
1 X 2 a.s.
Yt−1 −
V
−→ 0
T t=2
T t=2 t−1

and

T
T
2
1 X
1 X Yt−1
a.s.
−
Vt−1 −→ 0.
T t=2 Vt−1
T t=2

6

But, thanks to Cesàro averages theorem(see appendix A30 in Billingsley, 1968), we have that
PT
PT
1
1
2
2
t=2 Vt−1 −→ V̄ (ρ, φ) and T
t=2 Vt−1 −→ V̄ (ρ, φ) and
T
T
T
2
1 X 2 a.s. 2
1 X Yt−1
a.s.
−→ V̄ (ρ, φ).
Yt−1 −→ V̄ (ρ, φ) and
T t=2
T t=2 Vt−1

(10)

Substituting in (8) we get the conclusion.
It is interesting to analyze the impact of the correlation coefficient ρ on the asymptotic bias of
the OLS estimator for different and fixed values of the autoregressive parameter φ. In particular,
ρσ
Figure 2 shows the graph of the asymptotic bias τ̄ (ρ, φ0 ) − φ0 = V̄ (ρ,φξ 0 ) : we observe that if ρ and
φ0 have the same sign the bias is low and decreases if the value of the autoregressive parameter
raises in absolute value; on the other hand, if ρ and φ0 have opposite sign the bias is high and
tends to increase with the absolute value of the correlation.

2

φ0=0.95
φ =−0.95

1

0

0
−1
−2
−1

−0.8

2

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0
ρ

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

−0.2

0
ρ

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

φ0=0.5
φ0=−0.5

1
0
−1
−2
−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

ρσ

Figure 2: Graph of the asymptotic bias τ̄ (ρ, φ0 ) − φ0 = V̄ (ρ,φξ 0 ) as a function of ρ for different
values of the autoregressive parameter φ0 Here we fix σξ = 1.

Thanks to Proposition 4.1 we can introduce a new infeasible estimator φ̃ of φ, which is consistent
by construction, defined as
2
PT Yt−1
t=2 Vt−1

φ̃T = φ̂T − ρσξ PT

t=2

where φ̂ is the OLS estimator of φ.

The following proposition provides a

√

2
Yt−1

(11)

T -asymptotic normality for φ̃T .

Theorem 4.1. Let (Yt )t be a markovian DIG-AR(1) process as in Definition 2.1 and φ̃T be the
infeasible estimator given in (11). Then
√
L
T (φ̃T − φ) −→ X ∼ N (0, η̄),
√ 2
1−ρ
σ
L
where η̄ = ξV̄ (ρ,φ) and −→ denotes the convergence in distribution.
7

Proof. By (8) we have
√
T (φ̃T − φ) =

T
√1
t=2 Zt
T
.
PT
1
2
t=2 Yt−1
T

P

(12)

PT
a.s.
2
where (Zt )t is the martingale difference defined in (7). Since, see (10), T1 t=2 Yt−1
−→ V̄ 2 (ρ, φ),
in order to prove the statement, we apply the central limit theorem of Proposition 7.8 in Hamilton
(1994) to the numerator
in (12). Let us show that the assumptions of that Proposition are satisfied.
 
Let σt2 = E Zt2 : thanks to (9) and the assumptions of the model, σt2 > 0 for all t and, using
Cesàro averages theorem,
T
T
1X 2
1X 2
σt = σξ2 (1 − ρ2 )
V
−→ σξ2 (1 − ρ2 )V̄ 2 (ρ, φ) = σ̄ 2 ,
T t=2
T t=2 t−1

which is strictly positive
 all |ρ| < 1 and all |φ| < 1. Moreover, it is a straightforward computation
 for
to show that supt E Zt4 < +∞ and, in order to apply the mentioned central limit theorem, it
PT
1
2
2 P
remains to prove that
t=2 Zt −→ σ̄ .
T

2 2
2
2
Since E Zt |Yt−1 = σξ Yt−1 (1 − ρ ), the process (Wt )t defined as
2
Wt = Zt2 − σξ2 Yt−1
(1 − ρ2 )

is a martingale difference sequence with respect to the filtration
(Ft )t generated by the process

(Yt )t . Moreover, since it can be easily shown that supt E Wt2 < +∞, we can apply Theorem 3.77
in White (1984) to the martingale difference (Wt )t and conclude that
T
1X
a.s.
Wt −→ 0.
T t=2

Therefore

T
T
T
X
1 X
1 X 2
a.s.
2
2 1
Z =
Wt + σξ (1 − ρ )
Y 2 −→ σ̄ 2 ,
T t=2 t
T t=2
T t=2 t−1

as required. Hence, by Proposition 7.8 in Hamilton (1994), we have that √1T
distribution to a random variable distributed as N (0, σ̄) and, in conclusion,
!
p
√
σξ 1 − ρ2
L
,
T (φ̃T − φ) −→ X ∼ N 0,
V̄ (ρ, φ)

PT

t=2

Zt converges in

which is the statement of the theorem.

5

Concluding remarks

The paper proposes a modified version of the standard AR(1) process allowing for a time-invariant
dependence between the state variable Yt−1 and the next innovation ξt . This induces temporal
dependence in the sequence of innovations and the standard methods of derivation of the asymptotic
properties of the estimators of parameters are no longer applicable. In fact, we show that the
standard OLS estimator, generally used for the estimation of the autoregressive parameter, is no
more consistent and its asymptotic
√ bias is computed. As a consequence we propose a new infeasible
estimator and we establish its T -asymptotic normality.

References
[1] Anderson T.W. (1971): The Statistical Analysis of Time Series, New York, Wiley.
8

[2] Beare B. (2010): ”Copulas and temporal dependence”, Econometrica, 78(1), 395-410.
[3] Billingsley P. (1968): Convergence of Probability Measures. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[4] Bradley R.C. (2007): Introduction to strong mixing conditions, vols. 1-3. Kendrick Press. Herber
City.
[5] Brockwell P. J. - Davis R. A. (1991) Time Series. Theory and Methods, Springer Series in
Statistics. Springer-Verlag.
[6] Chen X., Fan Y. (2006): ”Estimation of Copula-Based Semiparametric Time Series Models”,
Journal of Econometrics, 130, 307335.
[7] Cherubini U., Gobbi F., Mulinacci S., Romagnoli S. (2012): Dynamic Copula Methods in
Finance, John Wiley & Sons.
[8] Cherubini U., Gobbi F., Mulinacci S., (2016): Convolution Copula Econometrics, SpringerBriefs in Statistics.
[9] Cherubini, U., Mulinacci S., Romagnoli S. (2011): ”A Copula-based Model of Speculative Price
Dynamics in Discrete Time”, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 102, 1047-1063.
[10] Darsow W.F. - Nguyen B. - Olsen E.T.(1992): ”Copulas and Markov Processes”, Illinois
Journal of Mathematics, 36, 600-642.
[11] Durante F., Sempi C. (2015): Principles of copula theory, Boca Raton: Chapman and
Hall/CRC
[12] Gobbi F., Mulinacci S. (2017): ”β-mixing and moments properties of a non-stationary copulabased Markov process”, http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01458
[13] Hamilton J. D. (1994): Time Series Analysis, Princeton University Press.
[14] Joe H. (1997): Multivariate Models and Dependence Concepts, Chapman & Hall, London
[15] Nelsen R.(2006): An Introduction to Copulas, Springer
[16] White H. (1984): Asymptotic theory for econometricians, Academic Press, New York.
[17] Volkonskii V.A., Rozanov Yu.A. (1959): ”Some limit theorems for random functions I”, Theor.
Probab. Appl., 4, 178-197.
[18] Volkonskii V.A., Rozanov Yu.A. (1961): ”Some limit theorems for random functions II”,
Theor. Probab. Appl., 6, 186-198.

9

