arXiv:1612.08261v1 [] 25 Dec 2016

Change point estimation based on
Wilcoxon tests in the presence of
long-range dependence
Annika Betken
Faculty of Mathematics
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
44780 Bochum, Germany
e-mail: annika.betken@rub.de
Abstract: We consider an estimator for the location of a shift in the
mean of long-range dependent sequences. The estimation is based on the
two-sample Wilcoxon statistic. Consistency and the rate of convergence for
the estimated change point are established. In the case of a constant shift
height, the 1/n convergence rate (with n denoting the number of observations), which is typical under the assumption of independent observations,
is also achieved for long memory sequences. It is proved that if the change
point height decreases to 0 with a certain rate, the suitably standardized
estimator converges in distribution to a functional of a fractional Brownian
motion. The estimator is tested on two well-known data sets. Finite sample
behaviors are investigated in a Monte Carlo simulation study.
Primary 62G05, 62M10; secondary 60G15, 60G22.
Keywords and phrases: change point estimation, long-range dependence, Wilcoxon test, self-normalization.

Contents
1 Introduction . . .
2 Main Results . .
3 Applications . . .
4 Simulations . . .
5 Proofs . . . . . .
References . . . . . .
A Auxiliary Results

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
4
7
9
16
30
32

1. Introduction
Suppose that the observations X1 , . . . , Xn are generated by a stochastic process
(Xi )i≥1
Xi = µi + Yi ,
∗ Research supported by the German National Academic Foundation and Collaborative
Research Center SFB 823 Statistical modelling of nonlinear dynamic processes.

1

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

2

where (µi )i≥1 are unknown constants and where (Yi )i≥1 is a stationary, longrange dependent (LRD, in short) process with mean zero. A stationary process
(Yi )i≥1 is called “long-range dependent” if its autocovariance function ρ, ρ(k) :=
Cov(Y1 , Yk+1 ), satisfies
ρ(k) ∼ k −D L(k), as k → ∞,

(1)

where 0 < D < 1 (referred to as long-range dependence (LRD) parameter) and
where L is a slowly varying function.
Furthermore, we assume that there is a change point in the mean of the
observations, that is
(
µ,
for i = 1, . . . , k0 ,
µi =
µ + hn , for i = k0 + 1, . . . , n,
where k0 = bnτ c denotes the change point location and hn is the height of the
level-shift.
In the following we differentiate between fixed and local changes. Under fixed
changes we assume that hn = h for some h 6= 0. Local changes are characterized
by a sequence hn , n ∈ N, with hn −→ 0 as n −→ ∞; in other words, in a model
where the height of the jump decreases with increasing sample size n.
In order to test the hypothesis
H : µ1 = . . . = µn
against the alternative
A : µ1 = . . . = µk 6= µk+1 = . . . = µn for some k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1}
the Wilcoxon change point test can be applied. It rejects the hypothesis for large
values of the Wilcoxon test statistic defined by


n
k
X
X
1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
Wn := max |Wk,n | , where Wk,n :=
1≤k≤n−1
2
i=1
j=k+1

(see Dehling, Rooch and Taqqu (2013a)). Under the assumption that there is a
change point in the mean in k0 we expect the absolute value of Wk0 ,n to exceed
the absolute value of Wl,n for any l 6= k0 . Therefore, it seems natural to define
an estimator of k0 by


k̂W = k̂W (n) := min k : |Wk,n | = max |Wi,n | .
1≤i≤n−1

Preceding papers that address the problem of estimating change point locations
in dependent observations X1 , . . . , Xn with a shift in mean often refer to a
family of estimators based on the CUSUM change point test statistics Cn (γ) :=
max1≤k≤n−1 |Ck,n (γ)|, where
!
1−γ

k
n
X
k(n − k)
1X
1
Ck,n (γ) :=
Xi −
Xi
n
k i=1
n−k
i=k+1

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

3

with parameter 0 ≤ γ < 1. The corresponding change point estimator is defined
by


k̂C,γ = k̂C,γ (n) := min k : |Ck,n (γ)| = max |Ci,n (γ)| .
(2)
1≤i≤n−1

For long-range dependent Gaussian processes Horváth and Kokoszka (1997) derive the asymptotic distribution of the estimator k̂C,γ under the assumption of
a decreasing jump height hn , i.e. under the assumption that hn approaches 0
as the sample size n increases. Under non-restrictive constraints on the dependence structure of the data-generating process (including long-range dependent
time series) Kokoszka and Leipus (1998) prove consistency of k̂C,γ under the
assumption of fixed as well as decreasing jump heights. Furthermore, they establish the convergence rate of the change point estimator as a function of the
intensity of dependence in the data if the jump height is constant. Ben Hariz
and Wylie (2005) show that under a similar assumption on the decay of the autocovariances the convergence rate that is achieved in the case of independent
observations can be obtained for short- and long-range dependent data, as well.
Furthermore, it is shown in their paper that for a decreasing jump height the
convergence rate derived by Horváth and Kokoszka (1997) under the assumption of gaussianity can also be established under more general assumptions on
the data-generating sequences.
Bai (1994) establishes an estimator for the location of a shift in the mean
by the method of least squares. He proves consistency, determines the rate of
convergence of the change point estimator and derives its asymptotic distribution. These results are shown to hold for weakly dependent observations that
satisfy a linear model and cover, for example, ARMA(p, q)-processes. Bai extended these results to the estimation of the location of a parameter change
in multiple regression models that also allow for lagged dependent variables
and trending regressors (see Bai (1997)). A generalization of these results to
possibly long-range dependent data-generating processes (including fractionally
integrated processes) is given in Kuan and Hsu (1998) and Lavielle and Moulines
(2000). Under the assumption of independent data Darkhovskh (1976) establishes an estimator for the location of a change in distribution based on the
two-sample Mann-Whitney test statistic. He obtains a convergence rate that has
order n1 , where n is the number of observations. Allowing for strong dependence
in the data Giraitis, Leipus and Surgailis (1996) consider Kolmogorov-Smirnov
and Cramér-von-Mises-type test statistics for the detection of a change in the
marginal distribution of the random variables that underlie the observed data.
Consistency of the corresponding change point estimators is proved under the
assumption that the jump height approaches 0. A change point estimator based
on a self-normalized CUSUM test statistic has been applied in Shao (2011) to
real data sets. Although Shao assumes validity of using the estimator, the article
does not cover a formal proof of consistency. Furthermore, it has been noted by
Shao and Zhang (2010) that even under the assumption of short-range dependence it seems difficult to obtain the asymptotic distribution of the estimate.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

4

In this paper we shortly address the issue of estimating the change point
location on the basis of the self-normalized Wilcoxon test statistic proposed in
Betken (2016).
In order to construct the self-normalized Wilcoxon test statistic, we have
to consider the ranks Ri , i = 1, . . .P
, n, of the observations X1 , . . . , Xn . These
n
are defined by Ri := rank(Xi ) =
j=1 1{Xj ≤Xi } for i = 1, . . . , n. The selfnormalized two-sample test statistic is defined by
Pk
SWk,n = 

i=1

1
n

Pk

2
t=1 St (1, k)

Ri −

+

1
n

k
n

Pn

i=1

Pn

Ri

2
t=k+1 St (k

1/2 ,
+ 1, n)

where
St (j, k) :=

t
X

k

Rh − R̄j,k



with R̄j,k :=

h=j

X
1
Rt .
k − j + 1 t=j

The self-normalized Wilcoxon change point test for the test problem (H, A) rejects the hypothesis for large values of Tn (τ1 , τ2 ) = maxk∈{bnτ1 c,...,bnτ2 c} |SWk,n |,
where 0 < τ1 < τ2 < 1. Note that the proportion of the data that is included
in the calculation of the supremum is restricted by τ1 and τ2 . A common choice
for these parameters is τ1 = 1 − τ2 = 0.15; see Andrews (1993).
A natural change point estimator that results from the self-normalized
Wilcoxon test statistic is


k̂SW = k̂SW (n) := min k : |SWk,n | =
max
|SWi,n | .
bnτ1 c≤i≤bnτ2 c

We will prove consistency of the estimator k̂SW under fixed changes and under
local changes whose height converges to 0 with a rate depending on the intensity
of dependence in the data. Nonetheless, the main aim of this paper is to characterize the asymptotic behavior of the change point estimator k̂W . In Section
2 we establish consistency of k̂W and k̂SW , derive the optimal convergence rate
of k̂W and finally consider its asymptotic distribution. Applications to two wellknown data sets can be found in Section 3. The finite sample properties of the
estimators are investigated by simulations in Section 4. Proofs of the theoretical
results are given in Section 5.
2. Main Results
Recall that for fixed x, x ∈ R, the Hermite expansion of 1{G(ξi )≤x} − F (x) is
given by
1{G(ξi )≤x} − F (x) =

∞
X
Jq (x)
q=1

q!

Hq (ξi ),

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

5

where Hq denotes the q-th order Hermite polynomial and where

Jq (x) = E 1{G(ξi )≤x} Hq (ξi ) .
Assumption 1. Let Yi = G(ξi ), where (ξi )i≥1 is a stationary, long-range dependent Gaussian process with mean 0, variance 1 and LRD parameter D. We
assume that 0 < D < 1r , where r denotes the Hermite rank of the class of
functions 1{G(ξi )≤x} − F (x), x ∈ R, defined by
r := min {q ≥ 1 : Jq (x) 6= 0 for some x ∈ R} .
Moreover, we assume that G : R −→ R is a measurable function and that (Yi )i≥1
has a continuous distribution function F .
Let
gD,r (t) := t

rD
2

r

L− 2 (t)

and define
dn,r

n
cr , where cr :=
:=
gD,r (n)

s

2r!
.
(1 − Dr)(2 − Dr)

−
Since gD,r is a regularly varying function, there exists a function gD,r
such that
−
−
gD,r (gD,r
(t)) ∼ gD,r
(gD,r (t)) ∼ t, as t → ∞,
−
(see Theorem 1.5.12 in Bingham, Goldie and Teugels (1987)). We refer to gD,r
as the asymptotic inverse of gD,r .
The following result states that k̂nW and k̂SW
are consistent estimators for
n
the change point location under fixed as well as certain local changes.

Proposition 1. Suppose that Assumption 1 holds. Under fixed changes,

k̂W
n

and

k̂SW
n

are consistent estimators for the change point
The estimators are
 location.

n
−1
also consistent under local changes if hn = o dn,r and if F has a bounded
density f . In other words, we have
k̂W P
−→ τ,
n

k̂SW P
−→ τ
n

in both situations. Furthermore, it follows that the Wilcoxon test is consistent
P
under these assumptions (in the sense that nd1n,r max1≤k≤n−1 |Wk,n | −→ ∞).
The following theorem establishes a convergence rate for the change point
estimator k̂W . Note that only under local changes the convergence rate depends
on the intensity of dependence in the data.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

6

−
Theorem 1. Suppose that Assumption 1 holds and let mn := gD,r
(h−1
n ). Then,
we have

k̂W − k0 = OP (mn )
if either
• hn = h with h 6= 0
or
• limn→∞ hn = 0 with h−1
n =o



n
dn,r



and F has a bounded density f .

Remark 1.
1. Under fixed changes mn is constant. As a consequence, |k̂W −k0 | = OP (1).
This result corresponds to the convergence rates obtained by Ben Hariz
and Wylie (2005) for the CUSUM-test based change point estimator and
by Lavielle and Moulines (2000) for the least-squares estimate of the
change point location. Surprisingly, in this case the rate of convergence
is independent of the intensity of dependence in the data characterized by
the value of the LRD parameter D. An explanation for this phenomenon
might be the occurrence of two opposing effects: increasing values of the
LRD parameter D go along with a slower convergence of the test statistic Wk,n (making estimation more difficult), but a more regular behavior
of the random component (making estimation easier) (see Ben Hariz and
Wylie (2005)).



2. Note that if h−1
n =o

n
dn,r

−
and mn = gD,r
(h−1
n ), it holds that

• mn −→ ∞,
•
•

mn
n −→ 0,
dmn ,r
mn ∼ hn ,

as n −→ ∞.
Based on the previous results it is possible to derive the asymptotic distribution of the change point estimator k̂W :
Theorem 2. Suppose that Assumption 1 holds with r = 1 and assume that
−
F has a bounded density f . Let mn := gD,1
(h−1
n ), let BH denote a fractional
Brownian motion process and define h(s; τ ) by
(
R
s(1 − τ ) f 2 (x)dx if s ≤ 0
R
.
h(s; τ ) =
−sτ f 2 (x)dx
if s > 0
. If h−1
n =o



n
dn,1



, then, for all M > 0,


1  2
Wk0 +bmn sc,n − Wk20 ,n , −M ≤ s ≤ M,
en

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

7

with en = n3 hn dmn ,1 , converges in distribution to


Z
Z
2τ (1 − τ ) f 2 (x)dx sign(s)BH (s) J1 (x)dF (x) + h(s; τ ) , −M ≤ s ≤ M,
in the Skorohod space D [−M, M ]. Furthermore, it follows that m−1
n (k̂W − k0 )
converges in distribution to


Z
argmax−∞<s<∞ sign(s)BH (s) J1 (x)dF (x) + h(s; τ ) .
(3)
Remark 2.
1. Under local changes the assumption on hn is equivalent to Assumption
C.5 (i) in Horváth and Kokoszka (1997). Moreover, the limit distribution
(3) closely resembles the limit distribution of the CUSUM-based change
point estimator considered in that paper.
2. The proof of Theorem 2 is mainly based on the empirical process noncentral limit theorem for subordinated Gaussian sequences in Dehling and
Taqqu (1989). The sequential empirical process has also been studied by
many other authors in the context of different models. See, among many
others, the following: Müller (1970) and Kiefer (1972) for independent
and identically distributed data, Berkes and Philipp (1977) and Philipp
and Pinzur (1980) for strongly mixing processes, Berkes, Hörmann and
Schauer (2009) for S-mixing processes, Giraitis and Surgailis (1999) for
long memory linear (or moving average) processes, Dehling, Durieu and
Tusche (2014) for multiple mixing processes. Presumably, in these situations the asymptotic distribution of k̂W can be derived by the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 2 for subordinated Gaussian processes. In
particular, Theorem 1 in Giraitis and Surgailis (1999) can be considered
as a generalization of Theorem 1.1 in Dehling and Taqqu (1989), i.e. with
an appropriate normalization the change point estimator k̂W , computed
with respect to long-range dependent linear processes as defined in Giraitis and Surgailis (1999), should converge in distribution to a limit that
corresponds to (3) (up to multiplicative constants).
3. Applications
We consider two well-known data sets which have been analyzed before. We
compute the estimator k̂W based on the given observations and put our results
into context with the findings and conclusions of other authors.
The plot in Figure 1 depicts the annual volume of discharge from the Nile river
at Aswan in 108 m3 for the years 1871 to 1970. The data set is included in any
standard distribution of R. Amongst others, Cobb (1978), Macneill, Tang and
Jandhyala (1991), Wu and Zhao (2007), Shao (2011) and Betken and Wendler
(2015) provide statistically significant evidence for a decrease of the Nile’s annual
discharge towards the end of the 19th century.

8

1000
800
600

annual discharge

1200

1400

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

time

Fig 1. Measurements of the annual discharge of the river Nile at Aswan in 108 m3 for the
years 1871-1970. The dotted line indicates the potential change point estimated by k̂W ; the
dashed lines designate the sample means for the pre-break and post-break samples.

The construction of the Aswan Low Dam between 1898 and 1902 serves
as a popular explanation for an abrupt change in the data around the turn
of the century. Yet, Cobb gave another explanation for the decrease in water
volume by citing rainfall records which suggest a decline of tropical rainfall at
that time. In fact, an application of the change point estimator k̂W identifies a
change in 1898. This result seems to be in good accordance with the estimated
change point locations suggested by other authors: Cobb’s analysis of the Nile
data leads to the conjecture of a significant decrease in discharge volume in
1898. Moreover, computation of the CUSUM-based change point estimator k̂C,0
considered in Horváth and Kokoszka (1997) indicates a change in 1898. Balke
(1993) and Wu and Zhao (2007) suggest that the change occurred in 1899.
The second data set consists of the seasonally adjusted monthly deviations of
the temperature (degrees C) for the Northern hemisphere during the years 1854
to 1989 from the monthly averages over the period 1950 to 1979. The data has
been taken from the longmemo package in R. It results from spatial averaging of
temperatures measured over land and sea. In view of the plot in Figure 2 it seems
natural to assume that the data generating process is non-stationary. Previous
analysis of this data offers different explanations for the irregular behavior of
the time series. Deo and Hurvich (1998) fitted a linear trend to the data, thereby
providing statistical evidence for global warming during the last decades. However, the consideration of a more general stochastic model by the assumption
of so-called semiparametric fractional autoregressive (SEMIFAR) processes in
Beran and Feng (2002) does not confirm the conjecture of a trend-like behavior.
Neither does the investigation of the global temperature data in Wang (2007)
support the hypothesis of an increasing trend. It is pointed out by Wang that
the trend-like behavior of the Northern hemisphere temperature data may have

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

9

−1.5

Northern hemisphere temperature

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

time

Fig 2. Monthly temperature of the Northern hemisphere for the years 1854-1989 from the data
base held at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.
The temperature anomalies (in degrees C) are calculated with respect to the reference period
1950-1979. The dotted line indicates the location of the potential change point; the dashed
lines designate the sample means for the pre-break and post-break samples.

been generated by stationary long-range dependent processes. Yet, it is shown
in Shao (2011) and also in Betken and Wendler (2015) that under model assumptions that include long-range dependence an application of change point
tests leads to a rejection of the hypothesis that the time series is stationary. According to Shao (2011) an estimation based on a self-normalized CUSUM test
statistic suggests a change around October 1924. Computation of the change
point estimator k̂W corresponds to a change point located around June 1924.
The same change point location results from an application of the previously
mentioned estimator k̂C,0 considered in Horváth and Kokoszka (1997). In this
regard estimation by k̂W seems to be in good accordance with the results of
alternative change point estimators.
4. Simulations
We will now investigate the finite sample performance of the change point estimator k̂W and compare it to corresponding simulation results for the estimators
k̂SW (based on the self-normalized Wilcoxon test statistic) and k̂C,0 (based on
the CUSUM test statistic with parameter γ = 0) . For this purpose, we consider
two different scenarios:
1. Normal margins: We generate fractional Gaussian noise time series (ξi )i≥1
and choose G(t) = t in Assumption 1. As a result, the simulated observa-

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

10

tions (Yi )i≥1 are Gaussian with autocovariance function ρ satisfying


D
ρ(k) ∼ 1 −
(1 − D) k −D .
2
Note that in this case the Hermite coefficient J1 (x) is not equal to 0
for all x ∈ R (see Dehling, Rooch and Taqqu (2013a)) so that m = 1,
where m denotes the Hermite rank of 1{G(ξi )≤x} − F (x), x ∈ R. Therefore,
Assumption 1 holds for all values of D ∈ (0, 1).
2. Pareto margins: In order to get standardized Pareto-distributed data
which has a representation as a functional of a Gaussian process, we consider the transformation
− 21 


1
βk
βk 2
−β
−
k(Φ(t))
G(t) =
(β − 1)2 (β − 2)
β−1
with parameters k, β > 0 and with Φ denoting the standard normal distribution function. Since G is a strictly decreasing function, it follows by
Theorem 2 in Dehling, Rooch and Taqqu (2013a) that the Hermite rank
of 1{G(ξi )≤x} − F (x), x ∈ R, is m = 1 so that Assumption 1 holds for all
values of D ∈ (0, 1).
To analyze the behavior of the estimators we simulated 500 time series of length
600 and added a level shift of height h after a proportion τ of the data. We have
done so for several choices of h and τ . The descriptive statistics, i.e. mean,
sample standard deviation (S.D.) and quartiles, are reported in Tables 1, 2, and
3 for the three change point estimators k̂W , k̂SW and k̂C,0 .
The following observations, made on the basis of Tables 1, 2, and 3, correspond to the expected behavior of consistent change point estimators:
• Bias and variance of the estimated change point location decrease when
the height of the level shift increases.
• Estimation of the time of change is more accurate for breakpoints located
in the middle of the sample than estimation of change point locations that
lie close to the boundary of the testing region.
• High values of H go along with an increase of bias and variance. This
seems natural since when there is very strong dependence, i.e. H is large,
the variance of the series increases, so that it becomes harder to accurately
estimate the location of a level shift.
A comparison of the descriptive statistics of the estimator k̂W (based on the
Wilcoxon statistic) and k̂SW (based on the self-normalized Wilcoxon statistic)
shows that:
• In most cases the estimator k̂SW has a smaller bias, especially for an early
change point location. Nevertheless, the difference between the biases of
k̂SW and k̂W is not big.
• In general the sample standard deviation of k̂W is smaller than that of
k̂SW . Indeed, it is only slightly better for τ = 0.25, but there is a clear
difference for τ = 0.5.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

11

All in all, our simulations do not give rise to choosing k̂SW over k̂W . In
particular, better standard deviations of k̂W compensate for smaller biases of
k̂SW .
Comparing the finite sample performance of k̂W and the CUSUM-based
change point estimator k̂C,0 we make the following observations:
• For fractional Gaussian noise time series bias and variance of k̂C,0 tend to
be slightly better, at least when τ = 0.25 and especially for relatively high
level shifts. Nonetheless, the deviations are in most cases negligible.
• If the change happens in the middle of a sample with normal margins,
bias and variance of k̂W tend to be smaller, especially for relatively high
level shifts. Again, in most cases the deviations are negligible.
• For Pareto(3, 1) time series k̂W clearly outperforms k̂C,0 by yielding
smaller biases and decisively smaller variances for almost every combination of parameters that has been considered. The performance of the
estimator k̂C,0 surpasses the performance of k̂W only for high values of
the jump height h.

400
100

200

300

H = 0.9

H = 0.8
H = 0.7
H = 0.6

0

mean absolute error

500

It is well-known that the Wilcoxon change point test is more robust against
outliers in data sets than the CUSUM-like change point tests, i.e. the Wilcoxon
test outperforms CUSUM-like tests if heavy-tailed time series are considered.
Our simulations confirm that this observation is also reflected by the finite
sample behavior of the corresponding change point estimators.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

sample size

Fig 3. The MAE of k̂W for different values of H.

As noted in Remark 1, k̂W − k0 = OP (1) under the assumption of a constant
change point height h. This observation is illustrated by simulations of the mean
absolute error
m
1 X
k̂W,i − k0 ,
MAE =
m i=1
where k̂W,i , i = 1, . . . , m, denote the estimates for k0 , computed on the basis of
m = 5000 different sequences of fractional Gaussian noise time series.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

12

Figure 3 depicts a plot of MAE against the sample size n with n varying
between 1000 and 20000.
Since k̂W − k0 = OP (1) due to Theorem 1, we expect MAE to approach a
constant as n tends to infinity. This can be clearly seen in Figure 3 for H ∈
{0.6, 0.7, 0.8}. For a high intensity of dependence in the data (characterized by
H = 0.9) convergence becomes slower. This is due to a slower convergence of
the test statistic Wn (k) which, in finite samples, is not canceled out by the effect
of a more regular behavior of the sample paths of the limit process.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the sampling distribution of k̂W for a change in the mean based on 500 fractional Gaussian noise and Pareto time series
of length 600 with Hurst parameter H and a change in mean in τ of height h.
margins
normal

τ
0.25

h
0.5

2

0.5

0.5
1
2

Pareto(3, 1)

0.25

0.5
1
2

0.5

0.5
1
2

H = 0.6
193.840 (64.020)
(150, 168, 217.25)
164.244 (27.156)
(150, 153.5, 167)
153.604 (8.255)
(150, 151, 154)

H = 0.7
227.590 (99.788)
(150, 191, 284.25)
176.362 (42.059)
(150, 158, 190)
156.656 (12.393)
(150, 151, 158)

H = 0.8
252.408 (110.084)
(157, 226.5, 335.25)
188.328 (63.751)
(150, 159.5, 206.25)
164.338 (29.570)
(150, 151, 164)

H = 0.9
270.646 (113.720)
(172.75, 250, 353)
215.108 (88.621)
(150 176 256)
173.610 (41.514)
(150, 152, 180.25)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

299.506 (30.586)
(291, 300, 309)
300.014 (9.141)
(298, 300, 302)
300.064 (1.294)
(300, 300, 300)

301.870 (61.392)
(274.75, 300.5, 320.25)
300.438 (18.695)
(297, 300, 304)
299.922 (3.215)
(300, 300, 300)

300.774 (82.610)
(264, 299, 339.25)
302.592 (42.213)
(293, 300 307)
299.504 (5.520)
(300, 300, 300)

298.930 (98.368)
(233, 299, 353)
300.902 (50.487)
(290, 300, 311)
300.282 (7.494)
(300, 300, 300)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

158.166 (17.762)
(150, 151, 159.25)
154.160 (8.765)
(150, 151, 155)
152.256 (4.852)
(150, 150, 152)

164.080 (31.219)
(150, 152, 168)
156.090 (13.516)
(150, 151, 157)
155.592 (11.092)
(150, 151, 155.25)

179.512 (58.871)
(150, 154, 191.25)
164.712 (28.774)
(150, 152, 168)
160.686 (24.599)
(150, 151, 159)

194.126 (74.767)
(150, 159, 218.25)
178.174 (54.429)
(150, 152, 186)
169.374 (38.197)
(150, 150, 172)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

298.072 (6.008)
(297, 300, 300)
299.178 (2.712)
(299, 300, 300)
299.798 (1.008)
(300, 300, 300)

296.432 (13.441)
(296, 300, 300)
298.744 (4.587)
(299, 300, 300)
299.716 (1.543)
(300, 300, 300)

293.060 (26.221)
(294, 300, 301)
296.674 (11.585)
(298, 300, 300)
299.384 (3.070)
(300, 300, 300)

289.946 (45.739)
(291, 300, 301)
296.168 (20.424)
(300, 300, 300)
298.896 (6.560)
(300, 300, 300)

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

1

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

13

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the sampling distribution of k̂SW for a change in the mean based on 500 replications of fractional Gaussian noise and
Pareto time series of length 600 with Hurst parameter H and a change in mean in τ of height h.
margins
normal

τ
0.25

h
0.5

2

0.5

0.5
1
2

Pareto(3, 1)

0.25

0.5
1
2

0.5

0.5
1
2

H = 0.6
172.288 (63.639)
(135, 153, 183.25)
152.406 (24.840)
(140, 149, 158)
148.836 (9.007)
(144, 150, 152)

H = 0.7
216.934 (110.934)
(138, 171, 272.5)
160.618 (39.834)
(139, 150.5, 172.25)
150.208 (13.575)
(142.75, 150, 154)

H = 0.8
242.202 (119.655)
(143, 207.5, 333.5)
174.424 (70.673)
(136, 150, 188.25)
153.194 (28.251)
(138, 150, 158)

H = 0.9
268.878 (122.615)
(157, 243.5, 370.25)
204.906 (99.648)
(139.75, 161.5, 243.75)
160.026 (40.979)
(137.75, 150, 165)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

297.712 (43.291)
(277, 297, 320)
299.052 (16.132)
(290, 299, 308)
300.010 (6.054)
(297, 300, 303.25)

302.204 (77.719)
(262, 300, 337)
299.910 (28.907)
(288, 300, 313)
299.612 (10.079)
(294, 300, 305)

302.866 (96.511)
(248, 298.5, 369.5)
302.386 (55.267)
(277, 300, 324.25)
298.844 (14.059)
(291, 300, 307)

297.662 (110.175)
(215, 301, 369.5)
300.956 (62.821)
(270, 300, 329)
301.424 (21.022)
(289, 300, 312)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

151.562 (18.392)
(142, 150, 157)
150.206 (9.116)
(145, 150, 154)
149.210 (6.201)
(146, 150, 152)

155.034 (32.505)
(140, 150, 163)
150.272 (15.405)
(143, 150, 156)
149.934 (11.821)
(143, 150, 153)

165.260 (58.363)
(136, 150, 173)
152.824 (25.074)
(140, 150, 159.25)
151.946 (21.426)
(140, 150, 156)

182.706 (83.268)
(136.75, 150, 196.25)
166.602 (58.982)
(136, 150, 174.25)
156.836 (39.311)
(136, 150, 160.25)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

300.524 (11.841)
(294, 300, 307)
300.498 (6.600)
(297, 300, 304)
300.444 (4.411)
(298, 300, 303)

299.488 (21.317)
(290, 300, 310)
300.560 (10.383)
(296, 300, 306)
300.234 (7.517)
(296, 300, 304)

299.664 (37.136)
(287, 300, 317)
299.520 (18.862)
(292, 300, 309.25)
300.524 (11.122)
(295.75, 300, 307)

295.048 (55.000)
(280.75, 300, 318)
297.766 (28.308)
(289, 300, 312.25)
298.840 (16.004)
(292, 300, 308)

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

1

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

14

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the sampling distribution of k̂C,0 for a change in the mean based on 500 replications of fractional Gaussian noise and
Pareto time series of length 600 with Hurst parameter H and a change in mean in τ of height h.
margins
normal

τ
0.25

h
0.5

2

0.5

0.5
1
2

Pareto(3, 1)

0.25

0.5
1
2

0.5

0.5
1
2

H = 0.6
193.060 (64.917)
(150, 166.5, 222)
162.028 (22.948)
(150, 153, 164)
152.374 (6.249)
(150, 150, 152)

H = 0.7
228.948 (101.442)
(151, 191.5, 286.75)
173.838 (39.845)
(150, 156.5, 187.25)
154.878 (10.395)
(150, 150, 156)

H = 0.8
253.114 (111.182)
(156.75, 226, 341.5)
187.386 (63.865)
(150, 158, 206)
159.700 (22.064)
(150, 151, 158)

H = 0.9
271.380 (114.590)
(172.75, 249.5, 354.25)
213.114 (87.356)
(150, 173, 254.25)
165.940 (33.124)
(150, 150, 165)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean(S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

297.840 (30.249)
(290, 299, 308)
299.870 (9.356)
(298, 300, 302)
300.060 (1.473)
(300, 300, 300)

302.060 (63.878)
(276, 301, 322)
299.662 (21.281)
(297, 300, 304)
299.916 (3.199)
(300, 300, 300)

300.246 (84.346)
(261.75, 300, 340)
303.646 (42.245)
(293, 300, 307)
299.442 (5.234)
(300, 300, 300)

298.910 (97.904)
(236.25, 299, 353.25)
299.762 (52.492)
(290, 300, 311)
300.460 (8.179)
(300, 300, 300)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

175.632 (48.517)
(150, 159, 185)
156.586 (14.133)
(150, 152, 159)
150.314 (1.349)
(150, 150, 150)

198.452 (79.303)
(150, 168, 223.75)
160.350 (27.204)
(150, 152, 161)
150.566 (3.984)
(150, 150, 150)

205.506 (88.482)
(150, 173, 251.25)
170.278 (45.402)
(150, 153, 171)
152.474 (18.578)
(150, 150, 150)

210.444(93.831)
(150, 167, 259.5)
177.278 (66.661)
(150, 150, 174)
155.496 (29.408)
(150, 150, 150)

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

296.260 (22.306)
(292, 300, 303.25)
298.240 (6.104)
(299, 300, 300)
299.604 (1.843)
(300, 300, 300)

292.904 (43.471)
(288.75, 300, 305)
297.306 (9.361)
(299, 300, 300)
299.228 (3.385)
(300, 300, 300)

289.192 (64.033)
(273.75, 300, 308.25)
293.116 (26.614)
(298, 300, 300)
298.350 (8.354)
(300, 300, 300)

287.966 (64.827)
(285, 300, 303)
292.864 (37.601)
(300, 300, 300)
297.632 (14.525)
(300, 300, 300)

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

1

mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles
mean (S.D.)
quartiles

15

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

16

5. Proofs
In the following let Fk and Fk+1,n denote the empirical distribution functions
of the first k and last n − k realizations of Y1 , . . . , Yn , i.e.
Fk (x) :=

k
1X
1{Yi ≤x} ,
k i=1

Fk+1,n (x) :=

n
X
1
1{Yi ≤x} .
n−k
i=k+1

For notational convenience we write Wn (k) instead of Wk,n and SWn (k) instead
of SWk,n . The proofs in this section as well as the proofs in the appendix
are partially influenced by arguments that have been established in Horváth
and Kokoszka (1997), Bai (1994) and Dehling, Rooch and Taqqu (2013a). In
particular, some arguments are based on the empirical process non-central limit
theorem of Dehling and Taqqu (1989) which states that
D

d−1
n,r bnλc(Fbnλc (x) − F (x)) −→

1
(r)
Jr (x)ZH (λ),
r!
(r)

where r is the Hermite rank defined in Assumption 1, ZH is an r-th or
D
der Hermite process1 , H = 1 − rD
∈ 12 , 1 , and “−→” denotes conver2
gence in distribution with respect to the σ-field generated by the open balls
in D ([−∞, ∞] × [0, 1]), equipped with the supremum norm.
The Dudley-Wichura version of Skorohod’s representation theorem (see
Shorack and Wellner (1986), Theorem 2.3.4) implies that, for our purposes,
we may assume without loss of generality that
sup
λ∈[0,1],x∈R

 1
(r)
d−1
Jr (x)ZH (λ) −→ 0
n,r bnλc Fbnλc (x) − F (x) −
r!

almost surely.
Proof of Proposition 1. The proof of Proposition 1 is based on an application
of Lemma 1 in the appendix. According to Lemma 1 it holds that, under the
assumptions of Proposition 1,
bnλc
1 X
n2 hn i=1

n
X
j=bnλc+1



1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
2



P

−→ Cδτ (λ), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1,

where δτ : [0, 1] −→ R is defined by
(
λ(1 − τ ) for λ ≤ τ
δτ (λ) =
(1 − λ)τ for λ ≥ τ
1 If r = 1, the Hermite process equals a standard fractional Brownian motion process with
Hurst parameter H = 1 − D
. We refer to Taqqu (1979) for a general definition of Hermite
2
processes.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

17

and C denotes some non-zero constant.
P
It directly follows that nd1n,r max1≤k≤n−1 |Wn (k)| −→ ∞.
Furthermore,
1
2
n hn

max

1≤k≤bn(τ −ε)c



k
n
X
X
1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
2
i=1
j=k+1

converges in probability to
C

sup

δτ (λ) = C(τ − ε)(1 − τ )

0≤λ≤τ −ε

for any 0 ≤ ε < τ .
For ε > 0 define
1
n2 hn

Zn,ε :=

max

1≤k≤bnτ c

|Wn (k)| −

1
n2 hn

max

1≤k≤bn(τ −ε)c

|Wn (k)| .

P

As Zn,ε −→ C(1 − τ )ε, it follows that P (k̂W < bn(τ − ε)c) = P (Zn,ε = 0) −→ 0.
An analogous line of argument yields
P (k̂W > bn(τ + ε)c) −→ 0.
All in all, it follows that for any ε > 0
!
k̂W
− τ > ε = 0.
n

lim P

n−→∞

This proves consistency of the change point estimator which is based on the
Wilcoxon test statistic.
In the following it is shown that n1 k̂SW is a consistent estimator, too. For this
purpose, we consider the process SWn (bnλc), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1. According to Betken
(2016) the limit of the self-normalized Wilcoxon test statistic can be obtained
by an application of the continuous mapping theorem to the process
bnλc
1 X
an i=1

n
X
j=bnλc+1



1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
2


, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1,

where an denotes an appropriate normalization. Therefore, it follows by the
corresponding argument in Betken (2016) that
P

SWn (bnλc) −→ 

Rλ
0

|δτ (λ)|
2
R1
δτ (t) − λt δτ (λ) dt + λ δτ (t) −

2

1−t
1−λ δτ (λ)

 12
dt

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

18

uniformly in λ ∈ [0, 1]. Elementary calculations yield
√

√
3λ 1 − λ
sup
SWn (k) −→ sup
,
(τ − λ)
τ1 ≤λ≤τ −ε
bnτ1 c≤k≤k0 −nε
√ √
3 λ(1 − λ)
P
.
sup
SWn (k) −→ sup
(τ − λ)
τ +ε≤λ≤τ2
k0 +nε≤k≤bnτ2 c
P

P

As SWn (k0 ) −→ ∞ due to Theorem 2 in Betken (2016), we conclude that
P (k̂SW > k0 + nε) and P (k̂SW < k0 − nε) converge to 0 in probability. This
P
proves n1 k̂SW −→ τ .
Proof of Theorem 1. In the following we write k̂ instead of k̂W . For convenience,
we assume that h > 0 under fixed changes, and that for some n0 ∈ N hn > 0
for all n ≥ n0 under local changes, respectively. Furthermore, we subsume both
changes under the general assumption that limn→∞ hn = h (under fixed changes
hn = h for all n ∈ N, under local changes h = 0). In order to prove Theorem 1,
we need to show that for all ε > 0 there exists an n(ε) ∈ N and an M > 0 such
that


P k̂ − k0 > M mn < ε
for all n ≥ n(ε).
For M ∈ R+ define Dn,M := {k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1} | |k − k0 | > M mn }.
We have
!


P k̂ − k0 > M mn ≤ P
sup |Wn (k)| ≥ |Wn (k0 )| ≤ P1 + P2
k∈Dn,M

with
!
P1 := P

sup (Wn (k) − Wn (k0 )) ≥ 0 ,
k∈Dn,M

!
P2 := P

sup (−Wn (k) − Wn (k0 )) ≥ 0 .
k∈Dn,M

Note that Dn,M = Dn,M (1) ∪ Dn,M (2), where
Dn,M (1) := {k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1} | k0 − k > M mn } ,
Dn,M (2) := {k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1} | k − k0 > M mn } .
Therefore, P2 ≤ P2,1 + P2,2 , where
!
P2,1 := P

sup

(−Wn (k) − Wn (k0 )) ≥ 0 ,

k∈Dn,M (1)

!
P2,2 := P

sup
k∈Dn,M (2)

(−Wn (k) − Wn (k0 )) ≥ 0 .

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

19

In the following we will consider the first summand only. (For the second summand analogous implications result from the same argument.)
For this, we define
cn (k) := δn (k)∆(hn ),
W
where
(
δn (k) :=

k(n − k0 ),
k0 (n − k),

k ≤ k0
k > k0

and
Z
(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x).

∆(hn ) :=
Note that
P2,1 ≤ P



sup

!

cn (k) − Wn (k) + W
cn (k0 ) − Wn (k0 ) ≥ W
cn (k0 )
W

k∈Dn,M (1)

≤P

!
c
Wn (bnλc) − Wn (bnλc) ≥ k0 (n − k0 )∆(hn ) .

2 sup
λ∈[0,τ ]

We have
cn (bnλc)
Wn (bnλc) − W

sup
λ∈[0,τ ]

bnλc

n
X

X

= sup



Z
1{Yi ≤Yj +hn } − F (x + hn )dF (x)

λ∈[0,τ ] i=1
j=bnτ c+1
bnλc

bnτ c

X

X

+


1{Yi ≤Yj } −

i=1 j=bnλc+1

1
2


.

Due to Lemma 2 in the appendix and Theorem 1.1 in Dehling, Rooch and Taqqu
(2013a)
2 sup

cn (bnλc) = OP (ndn,r ) ,
Wn (bnλc) − W

λ∈[0,τ ]

i.e. for all ε > 0 there exists a K > 0 such that
!
P

2 sup

cn (bnλc) ≥ Kndn,r
Wn (bnλc) − W

<ε

λ∈[0,τ ]

for all n. Furthermore, k0 (n − k0 )∆(hn ) ∼ Cn2 hn for some constant C. Note
that Kndn,r ≤ k0 (n − k0 )∆(hn ) if and only if
K≤

k0 n − k0 ∆(hn ) nhn
.
n
n
hn dn,r

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

20

The right
 hand
 side of the above inequality diverges if hn = h is fixed or if
n
−1
hn = o dn,r . Therefore, it is possible to find an n(ε) ∈ N such that
!
P2,1 ≤ P

2 sup

cn (bnλc) ≥ k0 (n − k0 )∆(hn )
Wn (bnλc) − W

λ∈[0,τ ]

!
≤P

2 sup

cn (bnλc) ≥ Kndn,r
Wn (bnλc) − W

λ∈[0,τ ]

<ε
for all n ≥ n(ε).
We will now turn to the summand P1 . We have P1 ≤ P1,1 + P1,2 , where
!
P1,1 := P

sup

Wn (k) − Wn (k0 ) ≥ 0 ,

k∈Dn,M (1)

!
P1,2 := P

sup

Wn (k) − Wn (k0 ) ≥ 0 .

k∈Dn,M (2)

In the following we will consider the first summand only. (For the second summand analogous implications result from the same argument.)
We define a random sequence kn , n ∈ N, by choosing kn ∈ Dn,M (1) such
that


cn (k) + W
cn (k0 ) − Wn (k0 )
Wn (k) − W
sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

cn (kn ) + W
cn (k0 ) − Wn (k0 ).
= Wn (kn ) − W
Note that for any sequence kn , n ∈ N, with kn ∈ Dn,M (1)
cn (k0 ) − W
cn (kn ) = (n − k0 )ln ∆(hn )
W
where ln := k0 − kn . Since kn ∈ Dn,M (1) and mn −→ ∞ we have
ln
dln ,r

r

r

= ln1−H L− 2 (ln ) ≥ (M mn )1−H L− 2 (M mn )

for n sufficiently large. Thus, we have
r
 n−k m
2
1 c
0
n
1−H L (mn )
c
Wn (k0 ) − Wn (kn ) ≥
M
∆(hn ).
r
ndln ,r
n dmn ,r
L 2 (M mn )

If hn is fixed, the right hand side of the inequality diverges. Under local changes
the right hand side asymptotically behaves like
Z
1−H
(1 − τ )M
f 2 (x)dx,

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

21

d

n ,r
since, in this case, hn ∼ m
mn due to the assumptions of Theorem 1.
In any case, for δ > 0 it is possible to find an n0 ∈ N such that
Z

1 c
cn (kn ) ≥ M 1−H (1 − τ ) f 2 (x)dx − δ
Wn (k0 ) − W
ndln ,r

for all n ≥ n0 .
All in all, the previous considerations show that there exists an n0 ∈ N and
a constant K such that for all n ≥ n0
!


1
cn (k) + W
cn (k0 ) − Wn (k0 ) ≥ b(M )
P1,1 ≤ P
sup
Wn (k) − W
k∈Dn,M (1) ndk0 −k,r
where b(M ) := KM 1−H − δ with δ > 0 fixed.
Some elementary calculations show that for k ≤ k0
cn (k) + W
cn (k0 ) − Wn (k0 ) = An,1 (k) + An,2 (k) + An,3 (k) + An,4 (k),
Wn (k) − W
where
Z
An,1 (k) := −(n − k0 )(k0 − k)

(Fk,k0 (x + hn ) − F (x + hn )) dFk0 ,n (x),

Z
An,2 (k) := −(n − k0 )(k0 − k) (Fk0 ,n (x) − F (x)) dF (x + hn ),
Z
An,3 (k) := (k0 − k)k (Fk (x) − F (x)) dFk,k0 (x),
Z
An,4 (k) := −k(k0 − k) (Fk,k0 (x) − F (x)) dF (x).
Thus, for n ≥ n0
P1,1 ≤ P

sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

≤

4
X

P

1

4
X

ndk0 −k,r

i=1

1

sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

i=1

ndk0 −k,r

!
|An,i (k)| ≥ b(M )
!
1
|An,i (k)| ≥ b(M ) .
4

For each i ∈ {1, . . . , 4} it will be shown that
P

1

sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

ndk0 −k,r

!
1
ε
|An,i (k)| ≥ b(M ) <
4
4

for n and M sufficiently large.
1. Note that
sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

≤

sup

1
|An,1 (k)|
ndk0 −k,r
sup d−1
k0 −k,r (k0 − k) (Fk,k0 (x) − F (x)) .

k∈Dn,M (1) x∈R

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

22

Due to stationarity
sup d−1
k0 −k,r (k0 − k) (Fk,k0 (x) − F (x))

sup

k∈Dn,M (1) x∈R
D

=

sup d−1
k0 −k,r (k0 − k) (Fk0 −k (x) − F (x)) .

sup

k∈Dn,M (1) x∈R

Note that
sup d−1
k0 −k,r (k0 − k) (Fk0 −k (x) − F (x))

sup

k∈Dn,M (1) x∈R

≤

sup d−1
k0 −k,r (k0 − k) (Fk0 −k (x) − F (x)) −

sup

k∈Dn,M (1) x∈R

+

1 (r)
Z (1)Jr (x)
r! H

1
(r)
Z (1) sup |Jr (x)| .
r! H
x∈R

Since
sup d−1
n,r n (Fn (x) − F (x)) −
x∈R

1 (r)
Z (1)Jr (x) −→ 0 a.s.
r! H

if n −→ ∞, and as k0 − k ≥ M mn with mn −→ ∞, it follows that
sup

sup d−1
k0 −k,r (k0 − k) (Fk0 −k (x) − F (x)) −

k∈Dn,M (1) x∈R

1 (r)
Z (1)Jr (x)
r! H

converges to 0 almost surely. Therefore,
P

1

sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

ndk0 −k,r

1
|An,1 (k)| ≥ b(M )
4

!

1
≤P
sup sup
− k) (Fk,k0 (x) − F (x)) ≥ b(M )
4
x∈R
k∈Dn,M (1)


1
1
ε
(r)
≤P
ZH (1) sup |Jr (x)| ≥ b(M ) + .
r!
4
8
x∈R

!

d−1
k0 −k,r (k0

for n sufficiently large. Note that supx∈R |Jr (x)| < ∞. Furthermore, it is
well-known that all moments of Hermite processes are finite. As a result,
it follows by Markov’s inequality that for some M0 ∈ R


1
1
4r!
ε
(r)
(r)
P
ZH (1) sup |Jr (x)| ≥ b(M ) ≤ E ZH (1)
<
r!
4
sup |Jr (x)| b(M )
8
x∈R
x∈R

for all M ≥ M0 .
2. We have
1

|An,2 (k)|
ndk0 −k,r
Z
−1
≤ dn,r (n − k0 ) (Fk0 ,n (x) − F (x)) dF (x + hn )
sup

k∈Dn,M (1)

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

23

for n sufficiently large. As a result,
1

sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

ndk0 −k,r

|An,2 (k)| ≤ sup d−1
n,r (n − k0 ) (Fk0 ,n (x) − F (x)) .
x∈R

Due to the empirical process non-central limit theorem of Dehling and
Taqqu (1989) we have
D

sup d−1
n,r (n − k0 ) (Fk0 ,n (x) − F (x)) −→
x∈R

1
(r)
(r)
Z (1) − ZH (τ )) sup |Jr (x)| .
r! H
x∈R

Moreover,
1
D 1
(r)
(r)
(r)
Z (1) − ZH (τ ) sup |Jr (x)| = (1 − τ )H ZH (1) sup |Jr (x)|
r! H
r!
x∈R
x∈R
(r)

since ZH is a H-self-similar process with stationary increments. Thus, we
have
!
1
1
P
sup
|An,2 (k)| ≥ b(M )
4
k∈Dn,M (1) ndk0 −k,r


1
ε
1
(r)
H
(1 − τ ) ZH (1) sup |Jr (x)| ≥ b(M ) +
≤P
r!
4
8
x∈R
for n sufficiently large. Again, it follows by Markov’s inequality that


1
1
ε
(r)
P
(1 − τ )H ZH (1) sup |Jr (x)| ≥ b(M ) <
r!
4
8
x∈R
for M sufficiently large.
3. Note that
1
ndk0 −k,r

|An,3 (k)| ≤ d−1
n,r k

Z
(Fk (x) − F (x)) dFk,k0 (x)

for n sufficiently large. Therefore,
sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

1
ndk0 −k,r

|An,3 (k)| ≤

sup
x∈R,0≤λ≤1


d−1
n,r bnλc Fbnλc (x) − F (x) .

The expression on the right hand side of the inequality converges in distribution to
1
(r)
sup Z (λ) sup |Jr (x)|
r! 0≤λ≤1 H
x∈R
due to the empirical process non-central limit theorem. Since
n
o n
o
D
(r)
(r)
ZH (λ), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1 = λH ZH (1), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1 ,

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

24

we have
sup
0≤λ≤1

(r)

D

(r)

ZH (λ) = |ZH (1)|.

As a result, the aforementioned argument yields
!
1
P
sup
|An,3 (k)| ≥ b(M )
4
k∈Dn,M (1) ndk0 −k,r


1
1
ε
(r)
ZH (1) sup |Jr (x)| ≥ b(M ) +
≤P
r!
4
8
x∈R
ε
<
4
1

for n and M sufficiently large.
4. We have
sup
k∈Dn,M (1)

≤

sup

1
ndk0 −k,r

|An,4 (k)|

sup d−1
k0 −k,r (k0 − k) (Fk,k0 (x) − F (x)) .

k∈Dn,M (1) x∈R

Hence, the same argument that has been used to obtain an analogous
result for An,1 can be applied to conclude that
!
ε
1
1
P
sup
|An,4 (k)| ≥ b(M ) <
4
4
k∈Dn,M (1) ndk0 −k,r

for n and M sufficiently large.
All in all, it follows that for all ε > 0 there exists an n(ε) ∈ N and an M > 0
such that


P k̂ − k0 > M mn < ε
for all n ≥ n(ε). This proves Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 2. Note that
Wn2 (k0 + bmn sc) − Wn2 (k0 )
= (Wn (k0 + bmn sc) − Wn (k0 )) (Wn (k0 + bmn sc) + Wn (k0 )) .
We will show that (with an appropriate normalization) Wn (k0 +bmn sc)−Wn (k0 )
converges in distribution to a non-deterministic limit process whereas Wn (k0 +
bmn sc) + Wn (k0 ) (with stronger normalization) converges in probability to a
deterministic expression. For notational convenience we write dmn instead of

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

25

dmn ,1 , J instead of J1 , k̂ instead of k̂W and we define ln (s) := k0 + bmn sc. We
have
Wn (k0 + bmn sc) − Wn (k0 ) = Ṽn (ln (s)) + Vn (ln (s)),
where

Ṽn (l) =


k0
P



−



−

n
P

1{Yi ≤Yj +hn } − 1{Yi ≤Yj }

i=l+1 j=k0 +1
k0
l
P
P

1{Yi ≤Yj +hn } − 1{Yi ≤Yj }





if s < 0
if s > 0

i=1 j=k0 +1

and

Vn (l) =


k0
l
P
P





1{Yi ≤Yj } −

i=1 j=l+1
l
n
P
 P





1
2



1{Yi ≤Yj } −

i=k0 +1 j=l+1

−
1
2

k0
P

n
P

i=l+1 j=k0 +1
k0
l
 P
P

−

i=1 j=k0 +1

1
2



1{Yi ≤Yj } −

1
2

1{Yi ≤Yj } −

if s < 0
.


if s > 0

We will show that nd1m Ṽn (ln (s)) converges to h(s; τ ) in probability and
n
R
that nd1m Vn (ln (s)) converges in distribution to sign(s)BH (s) J(x)dF (x) in
n
D [−M, M ].
We rewrite Ṽn (ln (s)) in the following way:
Z

Ṽn (ln (s)) = −(k0 − ln (s))(n − k0 )
Fln (s),k0 (x + hn ) − Fln (s),k0 (x) dFk0 ,n (x)
if s < 0,
Z
Ṽn (ln (s)) = −k0 (ln (s) − k0 )

(Fk0 (x + hn ) − Fk0 (x)) dFk0 ,ln (s) (x)

if s > 0.
For s < 0 the limit of

Ṽn (ln (s)) corresponds to the limit of

1
ndmn

−(1 − τ )d−1
mn (k0 − ln (s))

Z
(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x)

due to Lemma 3 and stationarity of the random sequence Yi , i ≥ 1. Note that
Z
d−1
(k
−
l
(s))
(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x)
n
mn 0
Z
1
= −d−1
(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x).
mn bmn schn
hn
R
d
The above expression converges to −s f 2 (x)dx, since hn ∼ mmnn .

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

For s > 0 the limit of

1
ndmn

26

Ṽn (ln (s)) corresponds to the limit of

−τ d−1
mn (ln (s) − k0 )

Z
(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x)

due to Lemma 3 and stationarity of the random sequence Yi , i ≥ 1. Note that
Z
d−1
(l
(s)
−
k
)
(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x)
0
mn n
Z
1
= d−1
(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x)
mn bmn schn
hn
R
d
The above expression converges to s f 2 (x)dx, since hn ∼ mmnn .
All in all, it follows that nd1m Ṽn (ln (s)) converges to h(s; τ ) defined by
n

(
h(s; τ ) =

R
s(1 − τ ) f 2 (x)dx
R
−sτ f 2 (x)dx

In the following it is shown that

1
ndmn

if s ≤ 0
.
if s > 0

Vn (ln (s)) converges in distribution to

Z
sign(s)BH (s)

J(x)dF (x), −M ≤ s ≤ M.

Note that if s < 0,
Z


Fln (s),k0 (x) − F (x) dFln (s) (x)
Z

− (k0 − ln (s))(n − k0 )
Fln (s),k0 (x) − F (x) dFk0 ,n (x)
Z
+ ln (s)(k0 − ln (s)) (Fln (s) (x) − F (x))dF (x)
Z
+ (k0 − ln (s))(n − k0 ) (Fk0 ,n (x) − F (x)) dF (x).

Vn (ln (s)) = − ln (s)(k0 − ln (s))

If s > 0, we have
Z

Vn (ln (s)) =(ln (s) − k0 )(n − ln (s))
Fk0 ,ln (s) (x) − F (x) dFln (s),n (x)
Z

+ k0 (ln (s) − k0 )
Fk0 ,ln (s) (x) − F (x) (x)dFk0 (x)
Z

− (ln (s) − k0 )(n − ln (s))
Fln (s),n (x) − F (x) dF (x)
Z
− k0 (ln (s) − k0 ) (Fk0 (x) − F (x)) dF (x).

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

27

The arguments that appear in the proof of Lemma 3 can also be applied to show
that the limit of nd1m Vn (ln (s)) corresponds to the limit of
n

1
(A1,n (s) + A2,n (s) + A3,n (s)) ,
ndmn
where
Z


Fln (s),k0 (x) − F (x) dF (x)

A1,n (s) := (−ln (s) − n + k0 )(k0 − ln (s))
if s < 0,
Z
A1,n (s) := (n − ln (s) + k0 )(ln (s) − k0 )


Fk0 ,ln (s) (x) − F (x) dF (x)

if s > 0,
(
R
(k0 − ln (s))ln (s) (Fln (s) (x) − F (x))dF (x)
if s < 0

R
A2,n (s) :=
,
−(ln (s) − k0 )(n − ln (s)) Fln (s),n (x) − F (x) dF (x) if s > 0
(
R
(k0 − ln (s))(n − k0 ) (Fk0 ,n (x) − F (x)) dF (x) if s < 0
R
A3,n (s) :=
.
−(ln (s) − k0 )k0 (Fk0 (x) − F (x)) dF (x)
if s > 0
Note that for s < 0
1
1
A2,n (s) = −
bmn scln (s)
ndmn
ndmn

Z
(Fln (s) (x) − F (x))dF (x).

The above expression converges to 0 uniformly in s, since
since
Z
l
(s)
(Fln (s) (x) − F (x))dF (x)
sup d−1
n
n

mn
dmn

= o( dnn ) and

−M ≤s≤0

≤ sup d−1
n bnλc(Fbnλc (x) − F (x)) − BH (λ)J(x)
x,λ

Z
+ sup |BH (λ)|

J(x)dF (x) ,

0≤λ≤1

R
i.e. sup−M ≤s≤0 d−1
n ln (s) (Fln (s) (x) − F (x))dF (x) is bounded in probability.
An analogous argument shows that nd1m A3,n (s) vanishes if n tends to ∞.
n
Therefore, it remains to show that nd1m A1,n (s) converges in distribution to
n
a non-deterministic expression. Due to stationarity
Z

1
D n + bmn sc −1
A1,n (s) =
dmn bmn sc
F−bmn sc (x) − F (x) dF (x)
ndmn
n

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

28

for s < 0. As a result, nd1m A1,n (s) converges in distribution to
n
R
−BH (s) J(x)dF (x).
If s > 0, an application of the previous arguments shows that nd1m A2,n (s)
n
and nd1m A3,n (s) converge to 0 whereas nd1m A1,n (s) converges in distribution
nR
n
to BH (s) J(x)dF (x).
All in all, it follows that
Z
1
D
(Wn (k0 + bmn sc) − Wn (k0 )) −→ sign(s)BH (s) J(x)dF (x) + h(s; τ )
ndmn
in D[−M, M ].
Furthermore, it follows that with the stronger normalization hn n2 the limit
of hn1n2 Wn (k0 + bmn sc) corresponds to the limit of hn1n2 Wn (k0 ).
We have
Z
1
1
Wn (k0 ) =
k0 (n − k0 ) (Fk0 (x + hn ) − Fk0 (x)) dFk0 ,n (x)
hn n2
hn n2


k0
n
X
1 X
1
+
1
−
.
{Yi ≤Yj }
hn n2 i=1
2
j=k0 +1

The second summand on the right hand side vanishes as n
= o (n/dn ). Due to Lemma 3 the limit of
tends Rto ∞, since h−1
n
k
(F
(x
+
h
)
−
F
(x))
dFk0 ,n (x) corresponds to the limit of
d−1
0
k
n
k
n
0
0
R
d−1
k
(F
(x
+
h
)
−
F
(x))
dF
(x).
Therefore,
0
n
n
Z
Z
h−1
(F
(x
+
h
)
−
F
(x))
dF
(x)
−→
f 2 (x)dx a.s.
k0
n
k0
k0 ,n
n
0)
In addition, kn0 (n−k
−→ τ (1 − τ ).
n
From this we can conclude that

1
P
(Wn (k0 + mn s) + Wn (k0 )) −→ 2τ (1 − τ )
hn n2

Z

f 2 (x)dx

in D[−M, M ]. This completes the proof of the first assertion in Theorem 2.
In order to show that


Z
D
m−1
(
k̂
−
k
)
−→
argmax
sign(s)B
(s)
J(x)dF
(x)
+
h(s;
τ
)
,
0
H
−∞<s<∞
n
we make use of Lemma 4.
For this purpose, we note that according to Lifshits’ criterion for unimodality of Gaussian processes (see RTheorem 1.1 in Ferger (1999)) the random function GH,τ (s) = sign(s)BH (s) J(x)dF (x) + h(s; τ ) attains its maximal value
in [−M, M ] at a unique point with probability 1 for every M > 0. Hence, an
application of Lemma 4 in the appendix yields
sargmaxs∈[−M,M ]

 D
1
Wn2 (k0 + bmn sc) − Wn2 (k0 ) −→ argmaxs∈[−M,M ] GH,τ (s).
en

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

29

It remains to be shown that instead of considering the sargmax in [−M, M ]
we may as well consider the smallest argmax in R. By the law of the iterated
logarithm for fractional
Brownian motions we have lim|s|→∞ BHs(s) = 0 a.s. so
R
that sign(s)BH (s) J(x)dF (x) + h(s; τ ) −→ −∞ a.s. if |s| → ∞. Therefore, the
limit corresponds to argmaxs∈(−∞,∞) GH,τ (s) if M is sufficiently large.
For M > 0 define


ˆ
|Wn (i)| .
k̂(M ) := min k : |k0 − k| ≤ M mn , |Wn (k)| =
max
|k0 −i|≤M mn

Note that

sargmaxs∈[−M,M ] Wn2 (k0 + bmn sc) − Wn2 (k0 )

− sargmaxs∈(−∞,∞) Wn2 (k0 + bmn sc) − Wn2 (k0 )
ˆ
= m−1
k̂(M ) − k̂ + OP (1).
n
Therefore, we have to show that for some M ∈ R
P
ˆ
m−1
k̂(M ) − k̂ −→ 0
n

as n tends to infinity. Note that




ˆ
P k̂ = k̂(M ) = P k̂ − k0 ≤ M mn


= 1 − P k̂ − k0 > M mn .
Furthermore, we have



lim lim inf 1 − P |k̂ − k0 | > M mn
M →∞ n→∞


= 1 − lim lim sup P |k̂ − k0 | > M mn
M →∞ n→∞

=1
because |k̂ − k0 | = OP (mn ) by Theorem 1. As a result, we have


ˆ
lim lim inf P k̂ = k̂(M ) = 1.
M →∞ n→∞

Hence, for all ε > 0 there is an M0 ∈ R and an n0 ∈ N such that


ˆ
P k̂ 6= k̂(M ) < ε
for all n ≥ n0 and all M ≥ M0 . This concludes the proof of Theorem 2.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

30

References
Andrews, D. W. K. (1993). Tests for parameter instability and structural
change with unknown change point. Econometrica 61 821 – 856.
Bai, J. (1994). Least squares estimation of a shift in linear processes. Journal
of Time Series Analysis 15 453 – 472.
Bai, J. (1997). Estimation of a change point in multiple regression models.
Review of Economics and Statistics 79 551 – 563.
Balke, N. S. (1993). Detecting level shifts in time series. Journal of Business
& Economic Statistics 11 81 – 92.
Ben Hariz, S. and Wylie, J. J. (2005). Convergence rates for estimating a
change-point with long-range dependent sequences. Comptes Rendus Mathematique 341 765 – 768.
Beran, J. and Feng, Y. (2002). SEMIFAR models - a semiparametric framework for modelling trends, long-range dependence and nonstationarity. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 40 393 – 419.
Berkes, I., Hörmann, S. and Schauer, J. (2009). Asymptotic results for
the empirical process of stationary sequences. Stochastic Processes and their
Applications 119 1298 – 1324.
Berkes, I. and Philipp, W. (1977). An almost sure invariance principle for
the empirical distribution function of mixing random variables. Probability
Theory and Related Fields 41 115 – 137.
Betken, A. (2016). Testing for change-points in long-range dependent time
series by means of a self-normalized Wilcoxon test. Journal of Time Series
Analysis 20 785 – 809.
Betken, A. and Wendler, M. (2015). Subsampling for General Statistics
under Long Range Dependence. arXiv:1509.05720.
Bingham, N. H., Goldie, C. M. and Teugels, J. L. (1987). Regular variation. Cambridge University Press.
Cobb, G. W. (1978). The problem of the Nile: Conditional solution to a changepoint problem. Biometrika 65 243 – 251.
Darkhovskh, B. S. (1976). A nonparametric method for the a posteriori detection of the “disorder”time of a sequence of independent random variables.
Theory of Probability & Its Applications 21 178 – 183.
Dehling, H., Durieu, O. and Tusche, M. (2014). Approximating class approach for empirical processes of dependent sequences indexed by functions.
Bernoulli 20 1372 – 1403.
Dehling, H., Rooch, A. and Taqqu, M. S. (2013a). Non-parametric changepoint tests for long-range dependent data. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics
40 153 – 173.
Dehling, H., Rooch, A. and Taqqu, M. S. (2013b). Power of change-point
tests for long-range dependent data. arXiv:1303.4917.
Dehling, H. and Taqqu, M. S. (1989). The empirical process of some longrange dependent sequences with an application to U-statistics. The Annals of
Statistics 17 1767 – 1783.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

31

Deo, R. S. and Hurvich, C. M. (1998). Linear trend with fractionally integrated errors. Journal of Time Series Analysis 19 379 – 397.
Ferger, D. (1999). On the uniqueness of maximizers of Markov–Gaussian processes. Statistics & Probability Letters 45 71 – 77.
Giraitis, L., Leipus, R. and Surgailis, D. (1996). The change-point problem
for dependent observations. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 53
297 – 310.
Giraitis, L. and Surgailis, D. (1999). Central limit theorem for the empirical
process of a linear sequence with long memory. Journal of Statistical Planning
and Inference 80 81 – 93.
Horváth, L. and Kokoszka, P. (1997). The effect of long-range dependence
on change-point estimators. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 64
57 – 81.
Kiefer, J. (1972). Skorohod embedding of multivariate RV’s, and the sample
DF. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 24 1 –
35.
Kokoszka, P. and Leipus, R. (1998). Change-point in the mean of dependent
observations. Statistics & Probability Letters 40 385 – 393.
Kuan, C. M. and Hsu, C. C. (1998). Change-point estimation of fractionally
integrated processes. Journal of Time Series Analysis 19 693 – 708.
Lavielle, M. and Moulines, E. (2000). Least-squares estimation of an unknown number of shifts in a time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis 21
33 – 59.
Macneill, I. B., Tang, S. M. and Jandhyala, V. K. (1991). A Search for
the Source of the Nile’s Change-Points. Environmetrics 2 341 – 375.
Müller, D. W. (1970). On Glivenko-Cantelli convergence. Probability Theory
and Related Fields 16 195 – 210.
Philipp, W. and Pinzur, L. (1980). Almost sure approximation theorems for
the multivariate empirical process. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie
und verwandte Gebiete 54 1 – 13.
Seijo, E., Sen, B. et al. (2011). A continuous mapping theorem for the smallest
argmax functional. Electronic Journal of Statistics 5 421 – 439.
Shao, X. (2011). A simple test of changes in mean in the possible presence of
long-range dependence. Journal of Time Series Analysis 32 598 – 606.
Shao, X. and Zhang, X. (2010). Testing for change points in time series.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 1228 – 1240.
Shorack, G. R. and Wellner, J. A. (1986). Empirical processes with applications to statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Taqqu, M. S. (1979). Convergence of integrated processes of arbitrary Hermite
rank. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 50 53
– 83.
Wang, L. (2007). Gradual changes in long memory processes with applications.
Statistics 41 221 – 240.
Wu, W. B. and Zhao, Z. (2007). Inference of trends in time series. Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 69 391 –
410.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

32

Appendix A: Auxiliary Results
In the following we prove some Lemmas that are needed for the proofs of our
main results. Lemma 1 characterizes the asymptotic behavior of the Wilcoxon
process under the assumption of a change-point in the mean. It is used to prove
consistency of the change-point estimators k̂W and k̂SW .
Lemma 1. Define δτ : [0, 1] −→ R by
(
λ(1 − τ )
δτ (λ) =
(1 − λ)τ

for λ ≤ τ
.
for λ ≥ τ

Assume that Assumption 1 holds and that either
a) hn = h with h 6= 0,
or
b) limn→∞ hn = 0 with h−1
n =o



n



dn,r

and F has a bounded density f .

Then, we have
bnλc
1 X
n2 hn i=1

n
X
j=bnλc+1



1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
2



P

−→ Cδτ (λ), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1,

where
(1 R
Rh

C :=

(F (x + h) − F (x)) dF (x)

if hn = h, h 6= 0,
if limn→∞ hn = 0 and h−1
n =o

2

f (x)dx



n
dn,r

.

Proof. First, consider the case hn = h with h 6= 0. For bnλc ≤ bnτ c we have
bnλc
1 X
n2 i=1

n
X
j=bnλc+1

bnλc

=



1 X
n2 i=1

1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
2

n
X




1{Yi ≤Yj +h} −

j=bnτ c+1

1
2


+

bnλc
1 X
n2 i=1

bnτ c

X


1{Yi ≤Yj } −

j=bnλc+1

1
2


.

By Lemma 1 in Betken (2016) the first summand Ron the right hand side of
the equation converges in probability to λ(1 − τ ) (F (x + h) − F (x)) dF (x)
uniformly in λ ≤ τ . The second summand vanishes as n tends to ∞.
If bnλc > bnτ c,
bnλc
1 X
n2 i=1

n
X
j=bnλc+1

bnτ c

=



1 X
n2 i=1

1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
2

n
X
j=bnλc+1




1{Yi ≤Yj +h} −

1
2


+

1
n2

bnλc

X

n
X

i=bnτ c+1 j=bnλc+1



1
1{Yi ≤Yj } −
.
2

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

33

In this case, the first summand
on the right hand side of the equation converges
R
in probability to (1 − λ)τ (F (x + h) − F (x)) dF (x) uniformly in λ ≥ τ due to
Lemma 1 in Betken (2016) while the second summand converges in probability
to zero. All in all, it follows that
bnλc
1 X
n2 i=1

n
X



j=bnλc+1

1
1{Xi ≤Xj } −
2



Z

P

−→ δτ (λ)

(F (x + h) − F (x)) dF (x)

uniformly in λ ∈ [0, 1].
If limn→∞ hn = 0, the process
bnλc
1 X
ndn,r i=1

−

n
X


1{Xi ≤Xj } −

j=bnλc+1

1
2



Z

n
dn,r

(F (x + hn ) − F (x)) dF (x), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1,

δτ (λ)

converges in distribution to
Z


1
(r)
(r)
Jr (x)dF (x) ZH (λ) − λZH (1) , 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1,
r!
due to Theorem

 3.1 in Dehling, Rooch and Taqqu (2013b). By assumption
n
−1
hn = o dn,r , so that
bnλc
1 X
n2 hn i=1

n
X


1{Xi ≤Xj } −

j=bnλc+1

1
2



P

Z

−→ δτ (λ)

f 2 (x)dx, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1.

The proof of Theorem 1, which establishes a convergence rate for the estimator k̂W , requires the following result:
Lemma 2. Suppose that Assumption 1 holds and let hn , n ∈ N, be a sequence
of real numbers with limn→∞ hn = h.
1. The process
bnλc
1 X
ndn,r i=1

n
X



Z
1{Yi ≤Yj +hn } −


F (x + hn )dF (x) , 0 ≤ λ ≤ τ,

j=bnτ c+1

converges in distribution to
Z
1 (r)
(1 − τ ) ZH (λ) Jr (x + h)dF (x)
r!
Z
1  (r)
(r)
−λ
ZH (1) − ZH (τ )
Jr (x)dF (x + h)
r!
uniformly in λ ≤ τ .

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

34

2. The process
bnτ c
1 X
ndn,r i=1

n
X



Z
1{Yi ≤Yj +hn } −


F (x + hn )dF (x) , τ ≤ λ ≤ 1,

j=bnλc+1

converges in distribution to
Z
1 (r)
(1 − λ) ZH (τ ) Jr (x + h)dF (x)
r!
Z
1  (r)
(r)
ZH (1) − ZH (λ)
Jr (x)dF (x + h)
−τ
r!
uniformly in λ ≥ τ .
Proof. We give a proof for the first assertion only as the convergence of the second term follows by an analogous argument. The steps in this proof correspond
to the argument that proves Theorem 1.1 in Dehling, Rooch and Taqqu (2013a).
For λ ≤ τ it follows that
bnλc

X

n
X

Z
1{Yi ≤Yj +hn } = (n − bnτ c) bnλc

Fbnλc (x + hn )dFbnτ c+1,n (x).

i=1 j=bnτ c+1

This yields the following decomposition:
bnλc
1 X
ndn,r i=1

n
X



Z
1{Yi ≤Yj +hn } − F (x + hn )dF (x)

j=bnτ c+1

Z

n − bnτ c −1
=
dn,r bnλc
Fbnλc (x + hn ) − F (x + hn ) dFbnτ c+1,n (x)
n
Z

n − bnτ c −1
+
dn,r bnλc F (x + hn )d Fbnτ c+1,n − F (x).
n
For the first summand we have
Z

sup d−1
bnλc
Fbnλc (x + hn ) − F (x + hn ) dFbnτ c+1,n (x)
n,r
0≤λ≤τ
Z
1 (r)
− ZH (λ) Jr (x + h)dF (x)
r!
Z

≤ sup
d−1
n,r bnλc Fbnλc (x + hn ) − F (x + hn )
0≤λ≤τ

−

1 (r)
Z (λ)Jr (x + hn )dFbnτ c+1,n (x)
r! H
Z

+

1
(r)
sup Z (λ)
r! 0≤λ≤τ H

+

1
(r)
sup Z (λ)
r! 0≤λ≤τ H

(Jr (x + hn ) − Jr (x + h)) dFbnτ c+1,n (x)
Z


Jr (x + h)d Fbnτ c+1,n − F (x) .

(4)

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

35

We will show that each of the summands on the right hand side converges
to 0. The first summand converges to 0 because of the empirical non-central
limit theorem of Dehling and Taqqu (1989). In order to show convergence of
(r)
the second and third summand, note that sup0≤λ≤τ |ZH (λ)| < ∞ a.s. since the
sample paths of the Hermite processes are almost surely continuous.
Furthermore, we have
Z
Z Z
Jr (x + h)dFbnτ c+1,n (x) = −
1{x+h≤G(y)} Hr (y)ϕ(y)dydFbnτ c+1,n (x)
Z Z
=−
1{x≤G(y)−h} dFbnτ c+1,n (x)Hr (y)ϕ(y)dy
Z
= − Fbnτ c+1,n (G(y) − h)Hr (y)ϕ(y)dy.
Analogously, it follows that
Z
Z
Jr (x + hn )dFbnτ c+1,n (x) = − Fbnτ c+1,n (G(y) − hn )Hr (y)ϕ(y)dy.
Therefore, we may conclude that
Z
(Jr (x + hn ) − Jr (x + h)) dFbnτ c+1,n (x)
Z
≤ 2 sup Fbnτ c+1,n (x) − F (x)
|Hr (y)| ϕ(y)dy
x∈R
Z
+ |F (G(y) − hn ) − F (G(y) − h)| |Hr (y)| ϕ(y)dy.
The first expression on the right Rhand side converges to 0 by the GlivenkoCantelli theorem and the fact that |Hr (y)| ϕ(y)dy < ∞; the second expression
converges to 0 due to continuity of F and the dominated convergence theorem.
To show convergence of the third summand note that
Z

Jr (x + h)d Fbnτ c+1,n (x) − F (x)
=

1
n − bnτ c

n
X

(Jr (Yi + h) − E Jr (Yi + h))

i=bnτ c+1

n
n
1 X
≤
(Jr (Yi + h) − E Jr (Yi + h))
n − bnτ c n i=1

+

bnτ c
X
bnτ c
1
(Jr (Yi + h) − E Jr (Yi + h)) .
n − bnτ c bnτ c i=1

For both summands on the right hand side of the above inequality the ergodic
theorem implies almost sure convergence to 0.

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

36

For the second summand in (4) we have
Z

n − bnτ c −1
dn,r bnλc F (x + hn )d Fbnτ c+1,n − F (x)
n
Z

bnλc −1
=−
dn,r (n − bnτ c)
Fbnτ c+1,n (x) − F (x) dF (x + hn ).
n
Since

bnλc
n

−→ λ uniformly in λ, consider

d−1
n,r (n − bnτ c)

Z


Fbnτ c+1,n (x) − F (x) dF (x + hn )

Z
1 (r)
(r)
− (ZH (1) − ZH (τ )) Jr (x)dF (x + hn )
r!
Z
1 (r)
d−1
≤
Z (1)Jr (x)dF (x + h)
n,r n (Fn (x) − F (x)) −
r! H
Z
 1 (r)
d−1
Z (τ )Jr (x)dF (x + hn )
+
n,r bnτ c Fbnτ c (x) − F (x) −
r! H
Z
1
(r)
(r)
+
Z (1) − ZH (τ )
Jr (x)d (F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) .
r! H
The first and second summand on the right hand side converge to 0 because
of the empirical process non-central limit theorem. For the third summand we
have
Z
Z
(Jr (x − hn ) − Jr (x − h)) dF (x) .
Jr (x)d (F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) =
As shown before in this proof, convergence to 0 follows by the Glivenko-Cantelli
theorem and the dominated convergence theorem.
Lemma 3 and Lemma 4 are needed for the proof of Theorem 2.
Lemma 3. Suppose that Assumption 1 holds and let ln , n ∈ N, and hn , n ∈ N,
be two sequences with ln → ∞, limn→∞ hn = h and ln = O(n). Then, it holds
that
Z

−1
sup dln ,r bln sc
Fbln sc (x + hn ) − Fbln sc (x + h) dFn (x)
0≤s≤1

− d−1
ln ,r bln sc

Z
(F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) dF (x)

(5)

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

37

and
sup
0≤s≤1

d−1
ln ,r bln sc

Z
(Fn (x + hn ) − Fn (x + h)) dFbln sc (x)

− d−1
ln ,r bln sc

Z
(F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) dF (x)

(6)

converge to 0 almost surely.
Proof. For the expression (5) the triangle inequality yields
Z

sup d−1
bl
sc
Fbln sc (x + hn ) − Fbln sc (x + h) dFn (x)
n
ln ,r
0≤s≤1

−

d−1
ln ,r bln sc

Z
(F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) dF (x)

 1 (r)
d−1
Z (s)Jr (x)
ln ,r bln sc Fbln sc (x) − F (x) −
r! H
s∈[0,1],x∈R
Z
1
(r)
+
(Jr (x + hn ) − Jr (x + h))dFn (x)
sup Z (s)
r! 0≤s≤1 H
Z
l
(F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) d (Fn − F ) (x) .
+ d−1
n
ln ,r

≤2

sup

The first summand converges to 0 because of the empirical non-central limit
(r)
(r)
theorem. Moreover, sup0≤s≤1 ZH (s) < ∞ a.s. due to the fact that ZH
isR continuous with probability 1. It is shown in the proof of Lemma 2 that
(Jr (x + hn ) − Jr (x + h))dFn (x) −→ 0. As a result, the second summand
vanishes as n tends to ∞.
Furthermore, note that
Z
d−1
l
(F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) d (Fn − F ) (x)
ln ,r n

Z 
1 (r)
d−1
n
(F
(x)
−
F
(x))
−
≤K
(1)J
(x)
dF (x + hn )
Z
n
r
n,r
r! H

Z 
1 (r)
+K
d−1
n
(F
(x)
−
F
(x))
−
Z
(1)J
(x)
dF (x + h)
n
r
n,r
r! H
Z
1
(r)
+K
ZH (1)
Jr (x)d (F (x + hn ) − F (x + h))
r!
for some constant K and n sufficiently large, since ln = O(n). The first and
second summand on the right hand side of the above inequality converge to 0
due to the empirical process non-central limit theorem. In addition, we have
Z
Z
Jr (x)d (F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) =
(Jr (x − hn ) − Jr (x − h)) dF (x)

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation

38

Therefore, it follows by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 2 that the
third summand converges to 0.
Considering the term in (6), note that
sup
0≤s≤1

d−1
ln ,r bln sc

Z

− d−1
ln ,r bln sc

(Fn (x + hn ) − Fn (x + h)) dFbln sc (x)
Z
(F (x + hn ) − F (x + h)) dF (x)

 1 (r)
Z (s)Jr (x)
d−1
ln ,r bln sc Fbln sc (x) − F (x) −
r! H
0≤s≤1,x∈R
Z
1
(r)
Jr (x)d (Fn (x + hn ) − Fn (x + h))
+
sup ZH (s)
r! 0≤s≤1

≤2

sup

1 (r)
+ 2K sup d−1
Z (1)Jr (x)
n,r n (Fn (x) − F (x)) −
r! H
x∈R
Z
1
(r)
+
ZH (1)
|Jr (x + hn ) − Jr (x + h)| dF (x)
r!
for some constant K and n sufficiently large. The first and third summand on
the right hand side of the above inequality converge to 0 due to the empirical
process non-central limit theorem. The last summand converges to 0 due to the
corresponding argument in the proof of Lemma 2. It holds that
Z
Jr (x)d (Fn (x + hn ) − Fn (x + h))
Z
(Fn (G(y) − hn ) − Fn (G(y) − h)) Hr (y)ϕ(y)dy
=

Z
≤ 2 sup |Fn (x) − F (x)| + sup |F (x − hn ) − F (x − h)|
|Hr (y)| ϕ(y)dy.
x∈R

x∈R

The right hand side of the above inequality converges to 0 almost surely due
to the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem and because F is uniformly continuous. As a
result, the second summand converges to 0, as well.
Lemma 4 establishes a condition under which convergence in distribution of
a sequence of random variables entails convergence of the smallest argmax of
the sequence.
Lemma 4. Let K be a compact interval and denote by D(K) the corresponding
Skorohod space, i.e. the collection of all functions f : K −→ R which are rightcontinuous with left limits. Assume that Zn , n ∈ N, are random variables taking
D
values in D(K) and that Zn −→ Z, where (with probability 1) Z is continuous
D
and Z has a unique maximizer. Then sargmax(Zn ) −→ sargmax(Z).
Proof. Due to Skorohod’s representation theorem there exist random variables
D
Z̃n and Z̃ defined on a common probability space (Ω̃, F̃ , P̃ ), such that Z̃n = Zn ,

A. Betken/Wilcoxon-based change point estimation
D

a.s.

39

Z̃ = Z and Z̃n −→ Z̃. Due to Lemma 2.9 in Seijo et al. (2011) the smallest
argmax functional is continuous at W (with respect to the Skorohod-metric
and the sup-norm metric) if W ∈ D(K) is a continuous function which has
a unique maximizer. Since (with probability 1) Z is continuous with unique
a.s.
maximizer, sargmax(Z̃n ) −→ sargmax(Z̃). As almost sure convergence implies
D
convergence in distribution, we have sargmax(Z̃n ) −→ sargmax(Z̃) and thereD
fore sargmax(Zn ) −→ sargmax(Z).

