arXiv:1712.08665v1 [] 22 Dec 2017

Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation for
cointegrated solutions of continuous-time
state space models observed at
discrete-time points
Vicky Fasen-Hartmann †‡

Markus Scholz §

In this paper we investigate quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) estimation for the parameters of a cointegrated solution of a continuous-time linear state space model observed at discrete time points. The class of cointegrated solutions of continuous-time linear state space models is equivalent to the class of cointegrated continuous-time ARMA
(MCARMA) processes. The model is not in innovation form. Therefore we have to
construct some pseudo-innovations to be able to define a QML-function. We divide the
parameter vector appropriate in long-run and short-run parameters using a representation for cointegrated solutions of continuous-time linear state space models as a sum of a
Lévy process plus a stationary solution of a linear state space model. Then we establish
the consistency of our estimator in three steps. First, we show the consistency for the
QML estimator of the long-run parameters. In the next step, we calculate its consistency
rate. Finally, we use these results to prove the consistency for the QML estimator of the
short-run parameters. After all we derive the limiting distributions of the estimators. The
long-run parameters are asymptotically mixed normally distributed whereas the short-run
parameters are asymptotically normally distributed.
AMS Subject Classification 2010: Primary: 91G70, 62H12
Secondary: 62M10, 60F05
Keywords: Asymptotically normal, cointegration, (super-)consistency, identifiability, Kalman filter,
MCARMA process, mixed normal distribution, pseudo-innovation, quasi-maximum likelihood estimation, state space model.

1 Introduction
This paper deals with the statistical inference of cointegrated solutions of continuous-time linear state
space models. The source of randomness in our model is a Lévy process, i.e. an Rm -valued stochastic
† Institute

of Stochastics, Englerstraße 2, D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany, email: vicky.fasen@kit.edu
by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the research grant FA 809/2-2 is gratefully acknowl-

‡ Financial support

edged.
§ Allianz

Lebensversichung-AG, Reinsburgstraße 19, D-70197 Stuttgart, Germany.

1

process L = (L(t))t≥0 with L(0) = 0m P-a.s., stationary and independent increments and càdlàg sample
paths. A typical example of a Lévy process is a Brownian motion. More details on Lévy processes can
be found, e.g., in the monograph of Sato [31]. For A ∈ MN,N (R), B ∈ MN,m (R) and C ∈ Md,N (R) an
Rd -valued continuous-time linear state space model (A, B,C, L) is defined by the state and observation
equation
dX (t) = AX (t)dt + BdL(t)
Y (t) = CX (t)
for t ≥ 0.

(1.1)

The state vector process X = (X (t))t≥0 is an RN -valued process and the output process Y = (Y (t))t≥0
is Rd -valued. The topic of this paper are cointegrated solutions Y of linear state space models. Cointegrated means that Y is non stationary but has stationary increments and there exist linear combinations
of Y which are stationary. The cointegration space is the space spanned by all vectors β so that β TY
is stationary. Since the driving noise in this model is a Lévy process we allow flexible marginals, in
particular, they can be Gaussian if we use a Brownian motion as Lévy process. The class of cointegrated solutions of linear state space models is huge; they are equal to the class of cointegrated multivariate continuous-time ARMA (MCARMA) processes (see Fasen and Scholz [13]). As the name
suggests, MCARMA processes are the continuous-time versions of the popular and well-established
ARMA processes in discrete-time. Continuous-time models provide the basis for option pricing, asset allocation and term structure theory. The underlying observations of asset prices, exchange rates,
and interest rates are often irregularly spaced, in particular, in the context of high frequently data.
Consequently, one often works with continuous-time models which infer the implied dynamics and
properties of the estimated model at different frequencies from the one used in the estimation.
There is not much known about the statistical inference of cointegrated solutions of continuoustime state space and MCARMA models, respectively which allow a moving average part respectively,
go away from the Gaussian assumption. Most attention is paid to cointegrated Gaussian MCAR(p)
processes, in particular Gaussian MCAR(1) processes which are multivariate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
processes. An algorithms to estimate the structural parameters in a cointegrated Gaussian MCAR(p)
model by maximum-likelihood started already by Harvey and Stock [15, 16], and were further explored in the well-known paper of Bergstrom [4] without analyzing the properties of the estimators.
Frequency domain estimators for a cointegrated Gaussian MCAR(p) model are presented in Chambers and McCrorie [9]. Besides, statistical inference and identification of ergodic continuously observed Gaussian MCAR(1) processes are considered in Kessler and Rahbek [20] and observations at
discrete time points in Kessler and Rahbek [21]. Stockmarr and Jacobsen [36] do analogous things
by observing the process on a discrete time-grid, which is getting finer and finer. There are only few
papers investigating non-Gaussian cointegrated MCARMA processes. For example, Fasen [10] treats
a multiple regression model in continuous-time where the stationary part is a multivariate OrnsteinUhlenbeck process and the process is observed on an equidistant time-grid. The model in Fasen [11]
is similarly, however there the stationary part is an MCARMA process and the process is observed on
a high-frequency time grid.
Sampling Y with distant h > 0 results in Y (h) = (Y (kh))k∈N , a cointegrated solution of a state-space
model in discrete time. QML estimation for cointegrated solutions of state space models in discrete
time were investigated in Aoki [1] and in the unpublished work of Bauer and Wagner [2]. However,
our discrete-time state space model has a different representation and does not fit into their framework
since our noise is only going into the state equation whereas in [1, 2] it is going into both the state and
the observation equation. On this way their model is already in innovation form making calculations
easier. However, their model excludes not only our model but also aggregated linear processes.

2

Although linear state-space models sampled equidistantly belong to the class of ARMA processes
problems arise by identifying the ARMA parameters. Unfortunately there do not exist explicit representations for the ARMA parameters; even stationary solutions of state space models have semiexplicit ARMA representations (see Schlemm and Stelzer [33, Theorem 4.2]). Moreover, in this
representation the innovations are only uncorrelated and not iid. However, most of the well-known
results for cointegrated ARMA models assume an iid noise elsewise even a Gaussian white noise, see
e.g., the monographs of Johansen [18], Lütkepohl [23] and Reinsel [27]. Hence, it is at the state of
the art more or less impossible to use the ARMA structure of Y (h) for estimation of identifiable model
parameters. Therefore we need a different attempt which incorporates as well the identifiability of the
model parameters; our ansatz is QML estimation.
Without any transformation of the state space model given in (1.1) we do not see directly if there
exists a cointegrated solution not to mention the cointegration space. In the case of a minimal statespace model the eigenvalues of A determine if there exists a stationary or a cointegrated solution. If
A has eigenvalue 0 and it has the same geometric and algebraic multiplicity, and all other eigenvalues
have negative real parts then there exists a cointegrated solution Y . It is well-known in econometrics
that in a cointegrated model the asymptotic behavior of the QML estimator for the long-run parameters
and the QML estimator for the short-run parameters differ. Therefore we need a representation for a
cointegrated solution of a linear state space model where we can see clearly the cointegration space
to get a separation in long-run and short-run parameters. If there exists a cointegrated solution of a
continuous-time linear state space model then due to Fasen and Scholz [13, Theorem 3.2] it has the
form
Y (t) = C1 Z +C1 B1 L(t) +Yst (t),

t ≥ 0,

(1.2)

where B1 ∈ Mc,m (R) and C1 ∈ Md,c (R) have rank c ≤ d. The process Yst is a stationary solution of a
state space model driven by the Lévy process L and Z is a c-dimensional random vector. The process
Y is obviously cointegrated with cointegration space C1⊥ , the space orthogonal to C1 , if Var(L(1)) is
non-singular. Because then Y is non-stationary with stationary increments and C1⊥ TY = C1⊥ TYst is
stationary but C1TY is in any component non-stationary. The probabilistic properties of Y are analyzed
in detail in Fasen and Scholz [13] and lay the groundwork for the present paper.
The aim of this paper is to investigate QML estimators for C1 , B1 and the parameters of the stationary process Yst from the discrete-time observations Y (h), . . . ,Y (nh) for some fixed h > 0. The
parameters of C1 are the long-run parameters whereas the other parameters are the short-run parameters. Since our process Y (h) is not in innovation form we use the Kalman-filter to calculate the linear
innovations and to construct an error correction form (see Fasen and Scholz [13, Proposition 5.4 and
Theorem 5.7]). However, the linear innovations and the error correction form are of infinite order in
contrast to the usual finite order as, e.g., in [24, 28, 37] for VARMA models and in [1, 2] for discretetime state space models making calculations more involved. Infinite means that we use infinitely
many past values. However, in practice we do not have infinitely many past values of Y (h) for our
QML method so that we have to approximate the innovations without using the past values but as well
not loosing much information. Not only from the practical point of view problems arise by the infinite
order representation but also from the theoretical point of view since Y (t) is only defined for t ≥ 0
excluding the infinite past as well. Since Y (h) is non-stationary it is not obvious to define Y (−kh) for
negative values. Therefore we have to develop a method to construct Y (−kh) for k ∈ N making it
possible to interpret this infinite error correction form appropriate. Indeed the linear innovations are
stationary but in general it is not possible to say anything about the mixing properties; for more details
we refer to [33] in the case of stationary models. Hence, standard limit results for stationary mixing

3

processes can not be applied.
The representation of the innovations motivates the definition of the pseudo-innovations and hence,
the pseudo-Gaussian likelihood function. The term pseudo reflects in the first case that we do not use
the real innovations and in the second case that we do not have a Gaussian model. This approach is
standard for stationary models (cf. [34]) but not so well investigated for non-stationary models. In
our model the pseudo-innovations are non-stationary as well and hence, classical methods for QML
estimation for stationary models do not work, e.g., the convergence of the quasi-maximum-likelihood
function by a law of large numbers and an ergodic theorem, respectively. To avoid the problem of
the non-stationarity in our model we use a stepwise approach to derive asymptotic results. In the
first step, we prove the consistency of the long-run parameter estimator and in the second step its
consistency rate; the long-run parameter estimator is super-consistent. In the third step we are able
prove the consistency of the short-run parameter estimator. However, for the proof we have to divide
the likelihood-function appropriate so that one part depends only on the short-run parameters and is
based on stationary processes. This decomposition is not obvious and presumes as well a splitting
of the pseudo-innovations in a non-stationary and a stationary part depending only on the short-run
parameters. This concept of a stepwise proof goes back to Saikkonen [29, 30] for MLE in Gaussian
cointegrated models. As in Saikkonen [29, 30] we require for the investigation of the asymptotic
behavior of our estimators some kind of stochastic equicontinuity conditions. However, our conditions
are somewhat different to [29, 30] fitting into the context of our model.
The paper is structured on the following way. An introduction into QML estimation for cointegrated continuous-time linear state space models is given in Section 2. First, we state in Section 2.1
the assumptions on our parametric family of cointegrated output processes Y . Then we define the
pseudo-innovations for the QML estimation by the Kalman filter in Section 2.2. Based on the pseudoinnovations we calculate the pseudo-Gaussian log-likelihood function in Section 2.3. In Section 2.4
we introduce some identifiability conditions to get a unique minimum of the likelihood function. The
main results of this paper are given in Section 3 and Section 4. First, we show the consistency of the
QML estimator in Section 3. Finally, we calculate the asymptotic distribution of the QML estimator
in Section 4. The short-run QML estimator is asymptotically normally distributed and mimics the
properties for QML estimators for stationary models whereas the long-run QML estimator is asymp√
totically mixed normally distributed with a convergence rate of n instead of n occurring in stationary
models. We conclude the paper with some comments on the practical applicability of our estimator in
Section 5. Eventually, in Appendix A we present some asymptotic results and stochastic equicontinuity conditions which we use throughout the paper. Because of their technicality and to keep the paper
readable they are moved to the appendix.
Notation
We use as norms the Euclidean norm k·k in Rd and the Frobenius norm k·k for matrices, which is
submultiplicative. 0d×s denotes the zero matrix in Rd×s and Id is the identity matrix in Rd×d . For a
matrix A ∈ Rd×d we denote by AT its transpose, tr(A) its trace, det(A) its determinant, rank A its rank,
λmin (A) its smallest eigenvalue and σmin (A) its smallest singular value. If A is symmetric and positive
1
1
semi-definite we write A 2 for the principal square root, i.e. A 2 is a symmetric, positive semi-definite
1
1
matrix satisfying A 2 A 2 = A. For a matrix A ∈ Rd×s with rank A = s, A⊥ is a d × (d − s)-dimensional
matrix with rank (d − s) satisfying AT A⊥ = 0s×(d−s) and A⊥T A = 0(d−s)×s . The space of all m × ndimensional real-valued matrices is Mm,n (R). For two matrices A ∈ Rd×s and B ∈ Rr×n , we denote
by A ⊗ B the Kronecker product which is an element of Rdr×sn and by vec(A) the operator which
converts the matrix A into a column vector. We write ∂i for the partial derivative operator with respect

4

to the ith coordinate and ∂i, j for the second partial derivative operator with respect to the ith and jth
coordinate. Further, for a matrix function f (ϑ ) in Md,m (R) with ϑ ∈ Rs the gradient with respect to
f (ϑ ))
the parameter vector ϑ is denoted by ∇ϑ f (ϑ ) = ∂ vec(
∈ Rdm×s . Let ξ = (ξk )k∈N and η = (ηk )k∈N
∂ϑT
be d-dimensional stochastic processes then Γξ ,η (l) = Cov(ξ1 , η1+l ) and Γξ (l) = Cov(ξ1 , ξ1+l ), l ∈
p

w

N0 , are the covariance functions. Finally, we denote with −−→ weak convergence and with −−→
convergence in probability. In general C denotes a constant.

2 Step-wise quasi-maximum likelihood estimation
2.1 Parametric model
Let Θ ⊂ Rs , s ∈ N, be a parameter space. We assume that we have a parametric family (Yϑ )ϑ ∈Θ of
solutions of continuous-time cointegrated linear state space models of the form
Yϑ (t) = C1,ϑ Z +C1,ϑ B1,ϑ Lϑ (t) +Yst,ϑ (t),

t ≥ 0,

(2.1)

where (Yst,ϑ (t))t≥0 is a stationary solution of the state-space model
dXst,ϑ (t) = A2,ϑ Xst,ϑ (t)dt + B2,ϑ dLϑ (t),
Yst,ϑ (t) = C2,ϑ Xst,ϑ (t)

(2.2)

with A2,ϑ ∈ MN−c,N−c (R), B1,ϑ ∈ Mc,m (R), B2,ϑ ∈ MN−c,m (R), C1,ϑ ∈ Md,c (R) and C2,ϑ ∈ Md,N−c (R).
Only the covariance matrix ΣϑL of the Lévy process Lϑ is parameterized. The parameter vector of the
underlying process Y is denoted by ϑ 0 , i.e. (A2 , B1 , B2 ,C1 ,C2 , L) = (A2,ϑ 0 , B1,ϑ 0 , B2,ϑ 0 ,C1,ϑ 0 ,C2,ϑ 0 , Lϑ 0 )
where Yst is a stationary solution of the state space model (A2 , B2 ,C2 , L). Throughout the paper we
shortly write (A2,ϑ , B1,ϑ , B2,ϑ ,C1,ϑ ,C2,ϑ , Lϑ ) for the cointegrated state space model with solution Yϑ
as defined in (2.1). To be more precise we have the following assumptions on our model.
Assumption A. For any ϑ ∈ Θ the cointegrated state space model (A2,ϑ , B1,ϑ , B2,ϑ ,C1,ϑ ,C2,ϑ , Lϑ )
satisfies the following conditions:
(A1) The parameter space Θ is a compact subset of Rs .
(A2) The true parameter vector ϑ 0 lies in the interior of the parameter space Θ.
(A3) The Lévy process Lϑ has mean zero and non-singular covariance matrix ΣϑL = E[Lϑ (1)Lϑ (1)T ].
Moreover, there exists a δ > 0 such that EkLϑ (1)k4+δ < ∞ for any ϑ ∈ Θ.
(A4) The eigenvalues of A2,ϑ have strictly negative real parts.
(A5) The triplet (A2,ϑ , B2,ϑ ,C2,ϑ ) is minimal with McMillan degree N − c (see [14, Chapter 4.2] for
the definition of McMillian degree).
(A6) The matrices B1,ϑ and C1,ϑ have full rank c.
(A7) The c-dimensional random vector Z does not depend on ϑ , EkZk2 < ∞ and Z is independent of
Lϑ .
⊥ are three
(A8) The functions ϑ 7→ A2,ϑ , ϑ 7→ Bi,ϑ , ϑ 7→ Ci,ϑ for i ∈ {1, 2}, ϑ 7→ ΣLϑ and ϑ1 7→ C1,
ϑ1
times continuously differentiable.

5

T T
(A9) Aϑ := diag(0, A2,ϑ ), Bϑ := (BT
1,ϑ , B2,ϑ ) , Cϑ := (C1,ϑ ,C2,ϑ ). Moreover, Cϑ has full rank.

(A10) For any λ , λ ′ ∈ σ (Aϑ ) = σ (A2,ϑ ) ∪ {0} and any k ∈ Z\{0}: λ − λ ′ 6= 2π k/h (Kalman-Bertram
criterion).
Remark 2.1.
(i) (A1) and (A2) are standard assumptions for QML estimation.
(ii) Assumption (A3)-(A4) are sufficient assumptions to guarantee that there exists a stationary
solution Yst,ϑ of the state space model (2.2).
(iii) Due to assumption (A5) the state space representation of Yst,ϑ in (2.2) with A2,ϑ ∈ MN−c,N−c (R),
B2,ϑ ∈ Md−c,m (R) and C2,ϑ ∈ Md,N−c (R) is unique up to a change of basis.
(iv) We require that c respectively the cointegration rank r = d − c is known in advance to be able to
estimate the model adequately. In reality, it is necessary to estimate first the cointegration rank
r and obtain from this c = d − r.
(v) Using the notation in (A9) it is possible to show that Yϑ is the solution of the state space model
(Aϑ , Bϑ ,Cϑ , Lϑ ). Furthermore, on account of (A5) and (A6) the state space model (Aϑ , Bϑ ,Cϑ )
is minimal with McMillian degree N (see [13, Lemma 2.4]) and hence, as well unique up to a
(h)
(h)
change of basis. That in combination with (A10) is sufficient that Yϑ := (Yϑ (k))k∈N0 :=
(Yϑ (kh))k∈N0 is a solution of a discrete-time state space model with McMillian degree N as
well.
⊥ is not uniquely defined. However, we assume that we have an unique map ϑ 7→
(vi) Usually C1,
1
ϑ1
⊥
C1,ϑ1 which is as well three times differentiable..

Furthermore, we assume that the parameter space Θ is a product space of the form Θ = Θ1 ×Θ2 with
Θ1 ⊂ Rs1 and Θ2 ⊂ Rs2 , and ϑ = (ϑ1T , ϑ2T )T is a s-dimensional parameter vector where ϑ1 ∈ Θ1 and
ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 . The idea is that ϑ1 is the s1 -dimensional vector of long-run parameters modelling the cointegration space and hence, responsible for the cointegration of Yϑ whereas ϑ2 is the s2 -dimensional
vector of short-run parameters which has no influence on the cointegration of the model. Since the
matrix C1,ϑ is responsible for the cointegration property (cf. [13, Theorem 3.2]) we parameterize C1,ϑ
with the sub-vector ϑ1 and use for all the other matrices ϑ2 . In summary we parameterize the matrices
with the following sub-vectors (A2,ϑ2 , B1,ϑ2 , B2,ϑ2 ,C1,ϑ1 ,C2,ϑ2 , Lϑ2 ) for (ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) ∈ Θ1 × Θ2 = Θ.

2.2 Linear and pseudo-innovations
In this section, we define the pseudo-innovations which are essential to define the QML function.
Sampling at distance h > 0 maps the class of continuous-time state space models to discrete-time state
space models. These class of state space models are not in innovation form and hence, we use a result
from Fasen and Scholz [13] to calculate the linear innovations by the Kalman filter. The Kalman
filter constructs the linear innovations as εϑ∗ (k) = Yϑ (kh) − Pk−1Yϑ (kk) where Pk is the orthogonal
projection onto span{Yϑ (lh) : −∞ < l ≤ k}. Thus, εϑ∗ (k) is orthogonal to the Hilbert space generated
by span{Yϑ (lh), −∞ < l < k} where the closure is taken in the Hilbert space of square-integrable
random variables with inner product (Z1 , Z2 ) 7→ E(Z1T Z2 ). In our setting the linear innovations are as
follows.

6

(h)

Definition 2.2. Let Ωϑ be the unique solution of the discrete-time algebraic Riccati equation
(h)

(h)

(h)

T

(h)

Ωϑ =eAϑ h Ωϑ eAϑ h − eAϑ h Ωϑ CϑT Cϑ Ωϑ CϑT
where
(h)
Σϑ

(h)

=

Z h
0

B1,ϑ ΣϑL BT1,ϑ

T

and Kϑ = eAϑ h Ωϑ CϑT Cϑ Ωϑ CϑT
novations
of

εϑ∗

= (εϑ∗ (k))k∈N

eA2,ϑ u B2,ϑ ΣϑL BT1,ϑ

T

B1,ϑ ΣLϑ BT2,ϑ eA2,ϑ u eA2,ϑ u B2,ϑ ΣϑL BT2,ϑ eA2,ϑ u
(h)

(h)

−1
(h)
(h) T
Cϑ Ωϑ eAϑ h + Σϑ ,

(h)
of Yϑ

−1

!

du,

be the steady-state Kalman gain matrix. Then the linear in(h)

:= (Yϑ (k))k∈N := (Yϑ (kh))k∈N are the unique stationary solution
(h)

(h) (h)

Xϑ∗ (k) = (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ )Xϑ∗ (k − 1) + Kϑ Yϑ (k − 1),
(h)

εϑ∗ (k) = Yϑ (k) −Cϑ Xϑ∗ (k).
(h)

(h)

Moreover, Vϑ = E(εϑ∗ (1)εϑ∗ (1)T ) = Cϑ Ωϑ CϑT is the prediction covariance matrix of the Kalman
filter.
More details on the well-definedness of this definition can be found in Fasen and Scholz [13]. In our
case of a cointegrated process Y the process (Xϑ∗ (k))k∈N is non-stationary in contrast to the stationary
process (εϑ∗ (k))k∈N . We obtain recursively
(h)

k−1

(h)

(h) (h)

(h)

εϑ∗ (k) = Yϑ (k) −Cϑ (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ )k−1 Xϑ∗ (1) − ∑ Cϑ (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) j−1 Kϑ Yϑ (k − j).
j=1

(h)

Since all eigenvalues of (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) lie inside the unit circle (see Scholz [35, Lemma 4.6.7]) the
 j−1 (h) j
(h)
function L(z, ϑ ) = Id −Cϑ ∑∞j=1 eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ
Kϑ z for z ∈ C is well-defined and due to Fasen
and Scholz [13, Lemma 5.6] has the representation as
⊥T
L(z, ϑ ) = −α (ϑ )C1,
ϑ z + k(z, ϑ )(1 − z)
(h)

(h)

Aϑ h −K C )i K
for some linear filter k(z, ϑ ) = Id − ∑∞j=1 K j (ϑ )z j with K j (ϑ ) = ∑∞
ϑ
i= j Cϑ (e
ϑ
ϑ in Md,d (R)
and a matrix α (ϑ ) ∈ Md,d−c (R) with full rank d − c. This representation of L(z, ϑ ) helps us to
choose the initial condition in the Kalman recursion appropriate so that the linear innovations are
really stationary. Therefore,
it is important to know that the stationary process Yst,ϑ can be deRt
fst,ϑ (t − s) dLϑ (s), t ∈ R, with fst,ϑ (u) = C2,ϑ eA2,ϑ u B2,ϑ 1[0,∞) (u) and
fined on R as Yst,ϑ (t) = −∞
Lϑ (−t−) for t < 0 with
the Levy process (Lϑ (t))t∈R is defined on the negative real-line as Lϑ (t) = e
(h)
e
an independent copy (Lϑ (t))t≥0 of (Lϑ (t))t≥0 . Then we have an adequate definition of ∆Yϑ (k) :=
R kh
(h)
(h)
(h)
Yϑ (k) − Yϑ (k − 1) for negative values as well as ∆Yϑ (k) = −∞
f∆,ϑ (kh − s) dLϑ (s), k ∈ Z, with
f∆,ϑ (u) = fst,ϑ (u) − fst,ϑ (u − h) +C1,ϑ B1,ϑ 1[0,h) (u). As notation we use B for the backshift operator
(h)

(h)

satisfying BYϑ (k) = Yϑ (k − 1).

Lemma 2.3. Let Assumption A hold. Then
(h)

(h)

εϑ∗ (k) = −Π(ϑ )Yϑ (k − 1) + k(B, ϑ )∆Yϑ (k),

7

k ∈ N,

(h)

(h)

(h)

∞
⊥ T and k(B, ϑ )∆Y
where Π(ϑ ) = α (ϑ )C1,
ϑ
ϑ (k) = ∆Yϑ (k) − ∑ j=1 K j (ϑ )∆Yϑ (k − j). The matrix
sequence (K j (ϑ )) j∈N is uniformly exponentially bounded, i.e. there exist positive constants c and
0 < ρ < 1 such that supϑ ∈Θ kK j (ϑ )k ≤ cρ j , j ∈ N.

Proof. It remains to show that (K j (ϑ )) j∈N is uniformly exponentially bounded. The proof follows in
(h)
the same line as Schlemm and Stelzer [34, Lemma 2.6] using that all eigenvalues of (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ )
lie inside the unit circle (cf. Scholz [35, Lemma 4.6.7]).
(h)

(h)

Due to Π(ϑ )Yϑ (k − 1) = Π(ϑ )Yϑ ,st (k − 1) we receive
(h)

(h)

εϑ∗ (k) = −Π(ϑ )Yϑ ,st (k − 1) + k(B, ϑ )∆Yϑ (k).
(h)

From this representation we see nicely that (εϑ∗ (k))k∈N is indeed a stationary process. Defining Yϑ
on the negative integers as
k−1

(h)

(h)

(h)

Yϑ (−k) = C1,ϑ Z +Yst,ϑ (0) − ∑ ∆Yϑ (− j) = C1,ϑ Z + Lϑ (−kh) +Yst,ϑ (−k)
j=0

(h)

for k ∈ N0 ,
(h) (h)

we use as initial condition in the Kalman recursion Xϑ∗ (1) = ∑∞j=0 (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) j Kϑ Yϑ (− j) so
that
(h)

(h)

(h) (h)

εϑ∗ (k) = Yϑ (k) − ∑∞j=1 Cϑ (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) j−1 Kϑ Yϑ (k − j).
Definition 2.4. The pseudo-innovations are defined for k ∈ N as
(h)

(h)

(h)

εk (ϑ ) = −Π(ϑ )Yk−1 + k(B, ϑ )∆Yk

∞

(h)

(h)

(h) (h)

= Yk − ∑ Cϑ (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) j−1 Kϑ Yk− j .
j=1

(h)

For ϑ = ϑ 0 the pseudo-innovations (εk (ϑ 0 ))k∈N are the linear-innovations (εϑ∗ 0 (k))k∈N .
Lemma 2.5. Let Assumption A hold.
(h)

(h)

(a) The matrix functions Π(ϑ ), k(z, ϑ ), Vϑ and (Vϑ )−1 are Lipschitz continuous on Θ and three
times partial differentiable.
(h)

(b) supϑ ∈Θ k(Vϑ )−1 k ≤ C.
(h)

(c) infϑ ∈Θ σmin ((Vϑ )−1 ) > 0.
Proof. (a) is a consequence of Assumption A and [35, Lemma 5.9.3]. However, [35, Lemma 5.9.3]
shows only the twice continuous differentiability but the proof of the existence of the third partial
differential is analog.
(b) follows from (a) and the compactness of Θ.
(h)
(c) Due to [35, Lemma 5.9.1] the matrix (Vϑ )−1 is non-singular. Thus, we can conclude the statement
from (a) and the compactness of Θ.
Thus, the pseudo innovations are three times differentiable and we receive an analog version of
Lemma 2.3.

8

Lemma 2.6. Let Assumption A hold and let u, v ∈ {1, . . . , s}. Then the following results hold.
(i) The matrix sequence (∂v K j (ϑ )) j∈N in Md,d (R) is uniformly exponentially bounded such that
(h)
(h)
(h)
∂v εk (ϑ ) = −∂v Π(ϑ )TYk−1 − ∑∞j=1 ∂v K j (ϑ )∆Yk− j .
(ii) The matrix sequence (∂u,v K j (ϑ )) j∈N in Md,d (R) is uniformly exponentially bounded such that
(h)
(h)
(h)
∂u,v εk (ϑ ) = −∂u,v Π(ϑ )TYk−1 − ∑∞j=1 ∂u,v K j (ϑ )∆Yk− j .
Proof. The proof is analog to Schlemm and Stelzer [34, Lemma 2.11] and recall the representation
given in Lemma 2.3 where (K j (ϑ )) j∈N is an uniformly exponentially bounded matrix sequence.
Finally, we end this subsection with some probabilistic properties of the pseudo-innovations. For
reasons of brevity, we write ∂i1 := ∂ ϑ∂ 1i for the partial derivatives with respect to the ith -component of
the long-run parameter vector ϑ1 ∈ Θ1 , i ∈ {1, . . . , s1 }, and similarly ∂ jst := ∂ ϑ∂ 2 j for the partial deriva-

tives with respect to the jth -component of the short-run parameter vector ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 , j ∈ {1, . . . , s2 }.
Analogously we define ∂i,1j and ∂i,stj , respectively for the second partial derivatives.
Lemma 2.7. Let Assumption A hold and i, j ∈ {1, . . . , s2 }. Then
(h)

(h)

(h)

(a) (εk (ϑ 0 )T , ∂ jst εk (ϑ 0 )T , ∂i,stj εk (ϑ 0 )T )k∈N is a stationary and ergodic sequence.
(h)

(h)

(b) Ekεk (ϑ 0 )k4 < ∞,
(h)

Ek∂ jst εk (ϑ 0 )k4 < ∞

(h)

(c) E(∂ist εk (ϑ 0 )εk (ϑ 0 )T ) = 0d×d
(h)

(h)

and

(h)

Ek∂i,stj εk (ϑ 0 )k4 < ∞.

and
(h)

(h)

E(∂i,stj εk (ϑ 0 )εk (ϑ 0 )T ) = 0d×d .

(h)

(d) E(εk (ϑ 0 )εk (ϑ 0 )T ) = Vϑ0 .
Proof.
(a) Representation (1.2) yields
(h)

(h)

(h)

Π(ϑ 0 )Yk

⊥
= α (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )(C1,
)TYk = Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k ,
ϑ10
 ⊥ T (h)
(h)
) Yst,k ,
∂ist Π(ϑ 0 )Yk = ∂ist α (ϑ 0 ) (C1,
ϑ10

(h)
(h)
⊥
∂i,stj Π(ϑ 0 )Yk = ∂i,stj α (ϑ 0 ) (C1,
)TYst,k ,
ϑ0
1

and hence,

(h)

(h)

(h)

εk (ϑ 0 ) = −Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 + k(B, ϑ )∆Yk ,
(h)

(h)

∞

(h)

∂ist εk (ϑ 0 ) = −∂ist Π(ϑ 0 )TYst,k−1 − ∑ ∂ist Kl (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−l ,
(h)

(h)

l=1
∞

(2.3)

(h)

∂i,stj εk (ϑ 0 ) = −∂i,stj Π(ϑ 0 )TYst,k−1 − ∑ ∂i,stj Kl (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−l .
l=1

These are obviously stationary processes. Fasen and Scholz [13, Proposition 5.8] state already that
(h)
(εk (ϑ 0 ))k∈N is ergodic with finite second moments. The same arguments lead to the ergodicity of
(h)
(h)
(h)
(εk (ϑ 0 )T , ∂ jst εk (ϑ 0 )T , ∂i,stj εk (ϑ 0 )T )k∈N .
(h)

(b) The finite fourth moment of (εk (ϑ 0 ))k∈N and its partial derivatives are consequences of their

9

series representation (2.3) with uniformly exponentially bounded coefficient matrices and the finite
(h)
(h)
fourth moment of Yst,k and ∆Yk due to Assumption (A3) and [25, Proposition 3.30].
(h)

(h)

(c) A consequence of (2.3) is that both ∂ist εk (ϑ 0 ) and ∂i,stj εk (ϑ 0 ) are elements of the Hilbert
(h)

(h)

space generated by {Yl , −∞ < l < k}. But εk (ϑ 0 ) is orthogonal to the Hilbert space generated by
(h)
{Yl , −∞ < l < k} so that the statements follow.
(d) is a conclusion of the construction of the linear innovations by the Kalman filter.

2.3 Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation
We estimate the model parameters via an adapted quasi-maximum likelihood estimation method. Minus two over n times the logarithm of the pseudo-Gaussian likelihood function is given by
(h)

Ln (ϑ ) =

i
1 n h
(h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
T
π
+
log
detV
+
ε
ϑ
)
V
ε
ϑ
)
.
d
log
2
(
(
∑
ϑ
ϑ
k
k
n k=1

(h)

The pseudo-innovations εk (ϑ ) are constructed by the infinite past {Y (h) (l) : −∞ < l < k}. However,
(h)
(h)
the infinite past is not known, we only have the finite observations Y1 , . . . ,Yn . Therefore, we have to
(h)
approximate the pseudo-innovations and the likelihood-function. For a starting value Xb1 (ϑ ), which
is usually a deterministic constant, we define recursively the approximate pseudo-innovations as
(h)
(h)
(h) (h)
(h)
Xbk (ϑ ) = (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ )Xbk−1 (ϑ ) + Kϑ Yk−1 ,
(h)
(h)
(h)
b
εk (ϑ ) = Yk −Cϑ Xbk (ϑ ),

and the approximate likelihood-function as

i
n h
(h)
(h) −1 (h)
T
cn(h) (ϑ ) = 1 ∑ d log 2π + log detV (h) + b
b
(
(
ε
ϑ
)
V
ε
ϑ
)
.
L
k
k
ϑ
ϑ
n k=1

Then the QML estimator

T bT T
cn(h) (ϑ )
ϑbn := (ϑbn,1
, ϑn,2 ) := argminϑ ∈Θ L

cn(h) (ϑ ). The estimator
is defined as the minimizer of the pseudo-Gaussian log-likelihood function L
ϑbn,1 estimates the long-run parameter ϑ1 and the estimator ϑbn,2 estimates the short-run parameter ϑ2 .
cn(h) (ϑ ) or Ln(h) (ϑ ) as a conclusion
However, for our asymptotic results it doesn’t matter if we use L
of the next proposition.

Assumption B. For every u, v ∈ {1, . . . , s} we assume that




(h)
(h)
2
2
b
b
E sup kX1 (ϑ )k < ∞, E sup k∂u X1 (ϑ )k < ∞
ϑ ∈Θ

ϑ ∈Θ

(h)
and Xb1 (ϑ ) is independent of (Lϑ (t))t≥0 .

and



(h)
E sup k∂u,v Xb1 (ϑ )k2

ϑ ∈Θ



<∞

Proposition 2.8. Let Assumption A and B hold. Moreover, let γ < 1 and u, v ∈ {1, . . . , s}. Then
p
cn(h) (ϑ ) − Ln(h) (ϑ )| −−
(a) nγ supϑ ∈Θ |L
→ 0,

10

cn(h) (ϑ ) − ∂u Ln(h) (ϑ )| −−p→ 0,
(b) nγ supϑ ∈Θ |∂u L

cn(h) (ϑ ) − ∂u,v Ln(h) (ϑ )| −−p→ 0.
(c) nγ supϑ ∈Θ |∂u,v L

The proof of this proposition is similarly to the proof of [33, Lemma 2.7 and Lemma 2.15]. However,
(h)
(h)
they are some essential differences since in their paper (Yk )k∈N and (εk (ϑ ))k∈N are stationary
sequences where in our setup they are non-stationary. Furthermore, we require different convergence
rates. A detailed proof can be found in Appendix B.
We split now the pseudo-innovation sequence based on the decomposition ϑ = (ϑ1T , ϑ2T )T so that
one part is stationary and depends only ϑ2 :
(h)

(h)

(h)

εk (ϑ ) = εk,1 (ϑ ) + εk,2 (ϑ ),
 (h) 
 (h)

(h)
(2.4)
εk,1 (ϑ ) := − Π(ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) − Π(ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) Yk−1 + k(B, ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) − k(B, ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) ∆Yk

where

(h)

(h)

(h)

(h)

εk,2 (ϑ ) := εk,2 (ϑ2 ) = −Π(ϑ10 , ϑ2 )Yk−1 + k(B, ϑ10 , ϑ2 )∆Yk .

and

Due to similar calculations as in (2.3) we receive that the process
(h)

(h)

(h)

εk,2 (ϑ2 ) = −Π(ϑ10 , ϑ2 )Yst,k−1 + k(B, ϑ10 , ϑ2 )∆Yk ,

(2.5)

k ∈ N,

(h)

is indeed stationary. Moreover, εk,1 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = 0 for any ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 and k ∈ N. Finally, we separate the
(h)

log-likelihood function Ln (ϑ ) in
(h)

(h)

(h)

Ln (ϑ ) = Ln,1 (ϑ ) + Ln,2 (ϑ2 ),
where
(h)

(h)

(h)

Ln,1 (ϑ ) := Ln (ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) − Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ2 )
(h)

(h)

= log detVϑ − log detVϑ 0 ,ϑ +
1

2

1 n (h)
(h) −1 (h)
εk,1 (ϑ )T Vϑ
εk,1 (ϑ )
∑
n k=1

2
1 n (h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h) −1 (h)
T
ε
ϑ
)
V
ε
ϑ
εk,2 (ϑ2 )T Vϑ
εk,2 (ϑ2 )
(
(
)
+
2
∑
∑
k,1
k,2
ϑ
n k=1
n k=1
1 n (h)
(h) −1 (h)
εk,2 (ϑ2 ),
− ∑ εk,2 (ϑ2 )T Vϑ 0 ,ϑ
1 2
n k=1
1 n (h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h) −1 (h)
εk,2 (ϑ2 ).
Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) := Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = d log 2π + log detVϑ 0 ,ϑ + ∑ εk,2 (ϑ2 )T Vϑ 0 ,ϑ
1 2
1 2
n k=1
n

+

(h)

(h)

Obviously, Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) depends only on the short-run parameters whereas Ln,1 (ϑ ) depends on all
parameters. Furthermore, we have the following relations:
(h)

Ln,1 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = 0
(h)

and

(h)

(h)

Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) for any ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 .
(h)

(2.6)

This immediately implies Ln (ϑ 0 ) = Ln,2 (ϑ20 ). In the remaining of the paper we will see that the
(h)
asymptotic properties of ϑbn,1 are determined by L (ϑ ) whereas the asymptotic properties of ϑbn,2
n,1

11

(h)

(h)

are completely determined by Ln,2 (ϑ2 ). Since Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) is based only on stationary processes it
is not surprising that ϑbn,2 exhibits the same asymptotic properties as QML estimators for stationary
processes.

2.4 Identifiability
In order to properly estimate our model, we need a unique minimum of the likelihood function and
therefore we need some identifiability criteria for the family of stochastic processes (Yϑ , ϑ ∈ Θ). The
first assumption guarantees the uniqueness of the long-run parameter ϑ10 .
⊥T C k ≥ ckϑ − ϑ 0 k for ϑ ∈ Θ.
Assumption C. There exist a constant c > 0 so that kC1,
1
1
ϑ1 1

Remark 2.9.
⊥T C k has a zero in ϑ 0 but not that kC ⊥T C k =
(i) Without Assumption C we have only that kC1,
ϑ1 1
1
1,ϑ1 1 6 0
0
⊥T
0
for ϑ1 6= ϑ1 . In particular, C1,ϑ1 C1 6= 0(d−c)×c for ϑ1 6= ϑ1 implies that the space spanned by C1
and C1,ϑ1 are not the same.
⊥T and C ⊥T C = 0
⊥T
(ii) Due to the Lipschitz-continuity of C1,
(d−c)×c the upper bound kC1,ϑ1 C1 k ≤
ϑ1
1,ϑ 0 1
1

Ckϑ1 − ϑ10 k is valid as well.

⊥T C B k > 0 for ϑ 0 6= ϑ since
(iii) Note that Assumption C implies that kΠ(ϑ )C1 B1 k = kα (ϑ )C1,
1
1
ϑ1 1 1

(h)
α (ϑ ) and B1 have full rank, and thus, the process εk,1 (ϑ ) k∈N is indeed non-stationary for all
long-run parameters ϑ1 6= ϑ10 .

(iv) The matrix function α (ϑ ) is continuous and has full column rank d − c so that necessarily
infϑ ∈Θ σmin (α (ϑ )) > 0. Applying Bernstein [5, Corollary 9.6.7] gives for some C > 0
⊥T
0
kΠ(ϑ )C1 k ≥ inf {σmin (α (ϑ ))} kC1,
ϑ1 C1 k ≥ Ckϑ1 − ϑ1 k.

ϑ ∈Θ

The next assumption guarantees the uniqueness of the short-run parameter ϑ20 .
Assumption D. For any ϑ20 6= ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 there exists a z ∈ C such that either

h
h
 i−1 (h)
 i−1 (h)
(h)
(h)
K
or Vϑ 0 ,ϑ 6= V (h) .
Kϑ 0 ,ϑ 6= C IN − eAh − K (h)C z
Cϑ 0 ,ϑ2 IN − eAϑ2 h − Kϑ 0 ,ϑ Cϑ 0 ,ϑ2 z
1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

(h)

Lemma 2.10. Let Assumption A and D hold. The function L2 : Θ2 → R defined by


(h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
ε1,2 (ϑ2 )
L2 (ϑ2 ) := d log(2π ) + log detVϑ 0 ,ϑ + E ε1,2 (ϑ2 )T Vϑ 0 ,ϑ
1

2

1

2

(2.7)

has a unique global minimum at ϑ20 .

Proof. The proof is analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.10 in Schlemm and Stelzer [34].
(h)

Without the additional Assumption D we obtain only that L2 (ϑ2 ) has a minimum in ϑ20 but not the
uniqueness.
Due to Fasen and Scholz [13, Theorem 3.1] a canonical form for cointegrated state space processes
already exists and can be used to construct a model class satisfying Assumption C and Assumption D.
Further details are presented in [12].

12

3 Consistency of the QML estimator
In order to show the consistency of the QML estimator, we follow the ideas of Saikkonen [30]. Thus,
we prove the consistency in three steps. In the first step, we prove the consistency of the long-run
QML estimator ϑbn,1 and next we determine its consistency rate. Thirdly, we prove the consistency of
the short-run QML estimator ϑbn,2 by making use of the consistency rate of the long-run QML estimator. Throughout the rest of this paper we assume that Assumption A - D always hold. Furthermore,
we denote by (W (r))0≤r≤1 = ((W1 (r)T ,W2 (r)T ,W3 (r)T )T )0≤r≤1 a (2d + m)-dimensional Brownian
motion with covariance matrix
!
T
Z h
ΣL
ΣL eA2 u
duψ (1)T
(3.1)
ΣW = ψ (1)
Tu
A
u
A
u
T
A
2
2
2
e B 2 ΣL e B 2 ΣL B 2 e
0
where



C1 B1
C2
,
ψ0 :=  0d×m
C2
Im×m 0m×N−c
∞

ψ (z) =

∑ ψ jz j,

z ∈ C,

j=0




0d×m C2 (eA2 h j − eA2 h( j−1) )
 , j ≥ 1,
ψ j =  0d×m
C2 eA2 h j
Im×m
0m×N−c

(3.2)

(Wi (r))0≤r≤1 , i = 1, 2, are d-dimensional Brownian motions and (W3 (r))0≤r≤1 is an m-dimensional
Brownian motion.

3.1 Consistency of the long-run QML estimator
To show the consistency for the long-run parameter it suffices to show the following theorem where
B(ϑ10 , δ ) := {ϑ1 ∈ Θ1 : kϑ1 − ϑ10 k ≤ δ } denotes the closed ball with radius δ around ϑ10 , and
B(ϑ10 , δ ) := Θ1 \B(ϑ10 , δ ) denotes its complement.
Theorem 3.1. For any δ > 0 we have

lim P
inf
n→∞


cn(h) (ϑ 0 ) > 0 = 1.
cn(h) (ϑ ) − L
L

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

Corollary 3.2. In particular, ϑbn,1 − ϑ10 = o p (1).

3.1.1 Proof of Theorem 3.1

The following lemmata are important for the proof of the theorem.
(h)

Lemma 3.3. Let L(h) := (Lk )k∈Z := (L(kh))k∈Z and define
(h)

Ln,1,1 (ϑ ) :=
(h)

i
1 n h
(h) −1
(h) T
(h)
Vϑ
Π(ϑ )C1 B1 Lk−1 ,
Π(ϑ )C1 B1 Lk−1
∑
n k=1
(h)

(h)

Ln,1,2 (ϑ ) := Ln,1 (ϑ ) − Ln,1,1 (ϑ ).
(h)

Then |Ln,1,2 (ϑ )| ≤ Ckϑ1 − ϑ10 kUn for ϑ ∈ Θ with Un = 1 + Vn + Wn = O p (1), and Un and Vn are
defined as in Proposition A.3.

13

Proof. Define


(h)
(h)
(h)
εk,1,1 (ϑ ) := − Π(ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) − Π(ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) C1 B1 Lk−1 = −Π(ϑ1 , ϑ2 )C1 B1 Lk−1 ,
(h)

(h)

(h)

εk,1,2 (ϑ ) := εk,1 (ϑ ) − εk,1,1 (ϑ )


 (h)
 (h)
= − Π(ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) − Π(ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) Yst,k−1 + k(B, ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) − k(B, ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) ∆Yk .
(h)

(h)

(h)

(h)

Then (εk,1,2 (ϑ ))k∈N is a stationary sequence and εk,1 (ϑ ) = εk,1,1 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ ). First, note that
(h)

(h)

(h)

Ln,1,2 (ϑ ) = log detVϑ1 ,ϑ2 − log detVϑ 0 ,ϑ +
1

2

2 n (h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
εk,1,1 (ϑ )T Vϑ
[εk,2 (ϑ2 ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]
∑
n k=1

1 n (h)
(h)
(h)
(h) −1
εk,1,2 (ϑ )T Vϑ
[2εk,2 (ϑ2 ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]
∑
n k=1


1 n (h)
(h) −1
(h)
(h) −1
εk,2 (ϑ2 ).
− Vϑ 0 ,ϑ
+ ∑ εk,2 (ϑ2 )T Vϑ
1 2
n k=1
+

In the following we use Bernstein [5, (2.2.27) and Corollary 9.3.9] to get the upper bound
1 n (h)
(h)
(h) −1 (h)
[εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]
εk,1,1 (ϑ )T Vϑ
∑
n k=1


1 n  (h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
[εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]
tr εk,1,1 (ϑ )T Vϑ
∑
n k=1
!
n
(h) −1 1
(h)
(h)
(h)
= tr Vϑ
∑ [εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,1 (ϑ )T
n k=1
=

(h) −1

≤ k(Vϑ

k

1 n (h)
(h)
(h)
∑ [εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,1 (ϑ )T .
n k=1

Similarly we find upper bounds for the other terms. Moreover, due to Lemma 2.5 (b)
(h)

(h)

(h)

|Ln,1,2 (ϑ )| ≤ | log detVϑ1 ,ϑ2 − log detVϑ 0 ,ϑ | +C
1

2

1 n (h)
(h)
(h)
[εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,1 (ϑ )T
∑
n k=1

+C

1 n
(h)
(h)
(h)
[2εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,2 (ϑ )T
∑
n k=1

+C

Vϑ1 ,ϑ2

(h)

−1

(h)

− Vϑ 0 ,ϑ
1

2

−1

1 n (h)
(h)
∑ εk,2 (ϑ2 )εk,2 (ϑ2 )T .
n k=1

Since Vϑ−1 and log detVϑ are Lipschitz continuous by Lemma 2.5(a), we obtain
(h)

|Ln,1,2 (ϑ )| ≤ C kϑ1 − ϑ10 k +

1 n (h)
(h)
(h)
∑ [εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,1 (ϑ )T
n k=1

14

(3.3)

1 n
1 n (h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
+
[2εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,2 (ϑ )T + kϑ1 − ϑ10 k
∑
∑ εk,2 (ϑ2 )εk,2 (ϑ2 )T
n k=1
n k=1

!

.

Moreover, Π(ϑ ) is Lipschitz continuous as well (see Lemma 2.5(a)) and the sequence of matrix functions (K j (ϑ )) j∈N and (∇ϑ K j (ϑ )) j∈N are exponentially bounded (see Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.6).
(h)
Due to (A.4) and εk,1,1 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = 0 we receive
1 n (h)
(h)
(h)
∑ [εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,1 (ϑ )T ≤ Ckϑ1 − ϑ10 kVn
n k=1

(3.4)

(h)

and due to (A.6) and εk,1,2 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = 0
1 n
(h)
(h)
(h)
[2εk,2 (ϑ ) + εk,1,2 (ϑ )]εk,1,2 (ϑ )T ≤ Ckϑ1 − ϑ10 kWn .
∑
n k=1

(3.5)

1 n (h)
(h)
∑ εk,2 (ϑ2 )εk,2 (ϑ2 )T ≤ CWn
n k=1

(3.6)

Finally,

(h)

as well. Then (3.3)-(3.6) result in the upper bound |Ln,1,2 (ϑ )| ≤ Ckϑ1 − ϑ10 k(1 +Vn +Wn ). A direct
consequence of Proposition A.3 is Un = 1 +Vn +Wn = O p (1).
Lemma 3.4.
(h)

(h)

p

(a) supϑ2 ∈Θ2 |Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − L2 (ϑ2 )| −→ 0 as n → ∞.
(b)

(h)
1
n Ln,1 (ϑ )

R

(h)

−−
→ 01 k(Vϑ )−1/2 Π(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr and the convergence holds in the space of
continuous functions on Θ with the supremum norm.
w

Proof.
(a) is a consequence of Proposition A.1(a) and the continuous mapping theorem.
(b) First, supϑ ∈Θ | n1 Ln,1,2 (ϑ )| = o p (1) due to Lemma 3.3 and Θ compact. Second, a conclusion of
Proposition A.1(b) and the continuous mapping theorem is that
!
!
1 n (h) (h)T
1 (h)
(h) −1/2
(h) −1/2
T
T T
Π(ϑ )C1 B1
(ϑ ) = tr Vϑ
L
∑ Lk−1Lk−1 B1 C1 Π(ϑ ) Vϑ
n n,1,1
n2 k=1



Z 1
w
(h) −1/2
(h) −1/2
T
T
T T
Π(ϑ )C1 B1
−
−
→ tr Vϑ
W3 (r)W3 (r) dr B1 C1 Π(ϑ ) Vϑ
=

Z 1
0

0

(h)

k(Vϑ )−1/2 Π(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr,

and the convergence holds in the space of continuous functions on Θ with the supremum norm due
(h)
to the continuity of Π(ϑ ) and (Vϑ )−1 (cf. Lemma 2.5). In the first and in the last equality we used
Bernstein [5, 2.2.27] which allows us to permutate matrices in the trace.

15

Proof of Theorem 3.1. On the one hand, due to Proposition 2.8
inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

≥
=

cn(h) (ϑ 0 )
cn(h) (ϑ ) − L
L

inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

inf

(h)
(h)
cn(h) (ϑ ) − Ln(h) (ϑ )|
(Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ 0 )) − 2 sup |L

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

ϑ ∈Θ



(h)
(h)
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ 0 ) + o p (1).

On the other hand, due to Lemma 2.10 and Lemma 3.4(a)
(h)

(h)

inf Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 )

ϑ2 ∈Θ2

≤

(h)

(h)

(h)

(h)

(h)

(h)

sup |Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − L2 (ϑ2 )| + inf L2 (ϑ2 ) − L2 (ϑ20 ) + |L2 (ϑ20 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 )| = o p (1).
ϑ2 ∈Θ2

ϑ2 ∈Θ2

Using (2.6) and the above results we receive
cn(h) (ϑ 0 ) ≥
cn(h) (ϑ ) − L
L

inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

≥

=



(h)
(h)
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ 0 ) + o p (1)

inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2


(h)
(h)
(h)
Ln,1 (ϑ ) + inf Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 ) + o p (1)

inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

ϑ ∈Θ2

(h)
Ln,1 (ϑ ) + o p (1).

inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

Hence, it suffices to show that for any c > 0

lim P
inf

(h)
Ln,1 (ϑ )

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

n→∞


> c = 1.

(3.7)

An application of Lemma 3.4(b) and the continuous mapping theorem yield
1 (h)
w
Ln,1 (ϑ ) −
inf
−
→
0
n
ϑ ∈B(ϑ1 ,δ )×Θ2

inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

Z 1
0

(h)

k(Vϑ )−1/2 Π(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr.

(3.8)

Due to Bernstein [5, Corollary 9.6.7]
Z 1
0

(h)

(h)

k(Vϑ )−1/2 Π(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr ≥ σmin ((Vϑ )−1 )

Z 1
0

kΠ(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr.

(3.9)

Moreover,
Z 1
0

kΠ(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr

Z 1 


tr [B1W3 (r)]T [Π(ϑ )C1 ]T [Π(ϑ )C1 ][B1W3 (r)] dr
0


Z 1
T
T
= tr [Π(ϑ )C1 ] [Π(ϑ )C1 ] [B1W3 (r)][B1W3 (r)] dr

=

0

where
we used Bernstein [5, 2.2.27] to permutate the matrices in the trace. The random matrix
R1
T
[B
W
1 3 (r)] [B1W3 (r)] dr is P-a.s. positive definite since B1 and the covariance matrix of W3 have
0
full rank. Hence, there exists an m × m-dimensional symmetric positive random matrix W ∗ with

16

R1

T
0 [B1W3 (r)][B1W3 (r)] dr

Z 1
0

= W ∗W ∗T . Then we obtain similarly as above with Bernstein [5, 2.2.27]



kΠ(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr = tr [W ∗ ]T [Π(ϑ )C1 ]T [Π(ϑ )C1 ]W ∗ = kΠ(ϑ )C1W ∗ k2 .

Again an application of Bernstein [5, Corollary 9.6.7] and (3.9) yields
Z 1
0

(h)

(h)

k(Vϑ )−1/2 Π(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr ≥ σmin ((Vϑ )−1 )
(h)

Z 1
0

kΠ(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr

(3.10)

= σmin ((Vϑ )−1 )kΠ(ϑ )C1W ∗ k2


(h)
≥ σmin ((Vϑ )−1 )σmin W ∗W ∗T kΠ(ϑ )C1 k2

Z 1
(h) −1
T
B1W3 (r)[B1W3 (r)] dr kΠ(ϑ )C1 k2 .
= σmin ((Vϑ ) )σmin
0

 R

R1
1
T
T
T
T
Since B1 0 W3 (r)W3 (r) drB1 is P-a.s. positive definite σmin B1 0 W3 (r)W3 (r) drB1 > 0 P-a.s. On
(h)

the one hand, infϑ ∈B(ϑ 0 ,δ )×Θ2 σmin ((Vϑ )−1 ) > 0 due Lemma 2.5. On the other hand, Assumption C
1
(cf. Remark 2.9) implies that infϑ ∈B(ϑ 0 ,δ )×Θ2 kΠ(ϑ )C1 k2 > c2 δ 2 > 0. To conclude
1

inf

ϑ ∈B(ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

Z 1
0

(h)

k(Vϑ )−1/2 Π(ϑ )C1 B1W3 (r)k2 dr > 0
(h)

P-a.s.

p

which finally gives with (3.8) that infϑ ∈B(ϑ 0 ,δ )×Θ2 Ln,1 (ϑ ) −→ ∞ and thus, (3.7) is proven.
1

3.2 Super-consistency of the long-run QML estimator
From the previous section we already know that the QML estimator ϑbn,1 for the long-run parameter
is consistent. In the following we will calculate its consistency rate. For 0 ≤ γ < 1 define the set

for n ∈ N
(3.11)
Nn,γ (ϑ10 , δ ) := ϑ1 ∈ Θ1 : kϑ1 − ϑ10 k ≤ δ n−γ
and N n,γ (ϑ10 , δ ) := Θ1 \Nn,γ (ϑ10 , δ ) as its complement.

Theorem 3.5. Let 0 ≤ γ < 1. For any δ > 0 we have


(h)
(h)
0
c
c
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ ) > 0 = 1.
lim P
inf
n→∞

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

Corollary 3.6. In particular, ϑbn,1 − ϑ10 = o p (n−γ ) for 0 ≤ γ < 1.
3.2.1 Proof of Theorem 3.5
The proof uses the next lemma.

Lemma 3.7. Let the notation of Lemma 3.3 hold. Then


(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(a) Ln,1,1 (ϑ ) ≥ Cσmin ((Vϑ )−1 )kϑ1 − ϑ10 k2 σmin 1n ∑nk=1 B1 Lk−1 [B1 Lk−1 ]T .


(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(b) Ln,1,1 (ϑ ) ≤ Ck(Vϑ )−1 kkϑ1 − ϑ10 k2 tr 1n ∑nk=1 B1 Lk−1 [B1 Lk−1 ]T .
17

Proof.
(a) Several applications of Bernstein [5, Corollary 9.6.7] give similarly as in (3.10)
(h)

Ln,1,1 (ϑ ) =
≥

1 n
(h)
(h)
∑ k(Vϑ )−1/2Π(ϑ )C1 B1Lk−1k2
n k=1
(h)
σmin ((Vϑ )−1 )σmin

!
1 n
(h) T
(h)
∑ B1Lk−1[B1Lk−1] kΠ(ϑ )C1 k2 .
n k=1

An application of Assumption C (cf. Remark 2.9) yields (a).
(b) The submultiplicativity of the norm gives
(h)

Ln,1,1 (ϑ ) =

1 n
(h)
(h)
∑ k(Vϑ )−1/2 Π(ϑ )C1 B1Lk−1k2
n k=1
(h)

≤ k(Vϑ )−1/2 k2 kΠ(ϑ )C1 k2
=

1 n
(h)
∑ kB1 Lk−1k2
n k=1

!
1 n
(h) T
(h)
∑ [B1Lk−1][B1Lk−1] .
n k=1

(h)
k(Vϑ )−1/2 k2 kΠ(ϑ )C1 k2 tr

In the last line we applied Bernstein [5, 2.2.27]. Due to Π(ϑ10 , ϑ2 )C1 = 0d×c we have
(h)
Ln,1,1 (ϑ )

≤

!
1 n
(h) T
(h)
∑ B1Lk−1 [B1Lk−1] .
n k=1

(h)
k(Vϑ )−1 kkΠ(ϑ )C1 − Π(ϑ10 , ϑ2 )C1 k2 tr

Finally, the Lipschitz continuity of Π(ϑ ) and hence of Π(ϑ )C1 yield the statement.
Proof of Theorem 3.5. Due to Proposition 2.8 the lower bound
inf


cn(h) (ϑ 0 ) ≥
cn(h) (ϑ ) − L
n L

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

≥

inf


(h)
(h)
n Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ 0 ) + o p (1)

inf

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2


(h)
(h)
(h)
nLn,1 (ϑ ) + inf n Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 ) + o p (1)

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

ϑ ∈Θ2

(h)

holds. We investigate now the second term. Note that Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) depends only on the short-run pa(h)
rameter. Therefore, we take the infeasible estimator ϑbst := arg min
L (ϑ2 ) for the short-run
ϑ2 ∈Θ2

n,2

(h)

n,2

parameter ϑ20 minimizing Ln,2 (ϑ2 ). For this reason, we can interpret this as a „classical“ stationary
(h)

estimation problem. Applying a Taylor-expansion of nLn,2 around ϑ20 yields



 √
√
(h)
(h)
(h)
st
st
n · Ln,2 (ϑbn,2
n∇ϑ2 Ln,2 (ϑ n,2 ) · n(ϑbn,2
) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 ) =
− ϑ20 )

st − ϑ 0 k. Since √n∇ L (h) (ϑ
for an appropriate intermediate value ϑ n,2 ∈ Θ2 with kϑ n,2 − ϑ20 k ≤ kϑbn,2
ϑ2 n,2
n,2 )
2
√ bst
0
and n(ϑn,2 − ϑ2 ) are asymptotically normally distributed (these are special and easier calculations

(h)
st ) − L (h) (ϑ 0 ) = O (1). Finally,
as in Section 4.2) we can conclude n · Ln,2 (ϑbn,2
p
2
n,2

inf


cn(h) (ϑ 0 ) ≥
cn(h) (ϑ ) − L
n· L

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

18

inf

(h)

n · Ln,1 (ϑ ) + O p (1).

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

Thus, if we can show that
p

(h)

sup
ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

(3.12)

nLn,1 (ϑ ) −−→ ∞,

then for any c > 0
lim P

n→∞




(h)
(h)
0
c
c
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ ) > 0

inf

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

≥ lim P
n→∞



inf

ϑ ∈N n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2



(h)
(h)
0
c
c
n Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ ) > c = 1.


Before we prove (3.12) we first note that due to Equation (3.7) we only have to consider the set
M n,γ (ϑ10 , δ1 ) := N n,γ (ϑ10 , δ1 ) ∩ B(ϑ10 , δ1 ) ⊆ Θ1 ∩ B(ϑ10 , δ1 )
(h)

for n large enough instead of the whole set N n,γ (ϑ10 , δ1 ) in the infimum. Note that infϑ ∈Θ σmin ((Vϑ )−1 ) >
0 by Lemma 2.5. Then Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.7 give the lower bound
(h)

(h)

(h)

Ln,1 (ϑ ) ≥ Ln,1,1 (ϑ ) − |Ln,1,2 (ϑ )|
≥

≥ Cnkϑ1 − ϑ10 k2 σmin
|

Finally,
inf

ϑ ∈M n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

!
1 n
(h) T
(h)
∑ B1Lk−1[B1Lk−1] −Ckϑ1 − ϑ10 kUn
n k=1
!
!
1
1 n
(h) T
(h)
∑ B1Lk−1[B1Lk−1] − nkϑ1 − ϑ 0k Un .
n2 k=1
1
{z
}

(h)
Cσmin ((Vϑ )−1 )kϑ1 − ϑ10 k2 σmin

(h)
nLn,1 (ϑ )

=:Zn (ϑ )

inf

≥

ϑ ∈Mn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

≥ Cn2−2γ

inf

Cn2 kϑ1 − ϑ10 k2

ϑ ∈M n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

!

Zn (ϑ )

Zn (ϑ ).

Due to Proposition A.1(b) and Lemma 3.3 we receive
 Z 1

w
T
T
inf
→ σmin B1
Zn (ϑ ) −−
W3 (r)W3 (r) drB1 > 0
ϑ ∈M n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

inf

ϑ ∈M n,γ (ϑ10 ,δ )×Θ2

!

P-a.s.

0

(h)

p

Thus, finally supϑ ∈Mn,γ (ϑ 0 ,δ )×Θ2 nLn,1 (ϑ ) −−→ ∞ for 0 ≤ γ < 1.
1

3.3 Consistency of the short-run QML estimator
Next, we consider the consistency of the short-run parameter estimator ϑbn,2 with the help of the order
of consistency of the long-run parameter estimator ϑbn,1 which we determined in Corollary 3.6. We
show a sufficient condition given by the next theorem. Therefore define for δ > 0 the set B(ϑ20 , δ ) :=
{ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 : kϑ2 − ϑ20 k ≤ δ } as closed ball with radius δ around ϑ20 and B(ϑ20 , δ ) := Θ2 \B(ϑ20 , δ ) as

19

its complement.
Theorem 3.8. Then for any δ > 0 we have


(h)
(h)
0
c
c
lim P
inf
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ ) > 0 = 1.
ϑ ∈Θ1 ×B(ϑ20 ,δ )

n→∞

Corollary 3.9. In particular, ϑbn,2 − ϑ20 = o p (1).

3.3.1 Proof of Theorem 3.8

Again we prove some auxiliary results before we state the proof of the theorem.
Lemma 3.10. For

1
2

< γ < 1, δ1 > 0 and ε > 0 we have


(h)
lim P
sup
|Ln,1 (ϑ )| ≤ ε = 1.
n→∞

ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×Θ2

Proof. Due to Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.7 we have the upper bound
(h)

(h)

(h)

|Ln,1 (ϑ )| ≤ |Ln,1,1 (ϑ )| + |Ln,1,2 (ϑ )|
≤

(h)
Ck(Vϑ )−1 kkϑ1 − ϑ10 k2 tr

!
1 n
(h)
(h) T
∑ B1Lk−1[B1Lk−1] +Ckϑ1 − ϑ10 kUn.
n k=1

Then, using Lemma 2.5 results in
sup
ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×Θ2

(h)
Ln,1 (ϑ )

1−2γ

≤ C δ1 n

tr

!
1 n
(h) T
(h)
∑ B1Lk−1[B1Lk−1 ] +Cδ1n−γ Un .
n2 k=1

(3.13)

Since Un = O p (1) by Lemma 3.3 and
!
 Z1

1 n
w
(h)
(h) T
T
T
tr
∑ B1Lk−1[B1Lk−1] −−→ tr B1 0 W3 (r)W3 (r) drB1 > 0 P-a.s.
n2 k=1
by Proposition A.1(b) and the continuous mapping theorem, the right hand side of (3.13) converges
to 0 in probability if 12 < γ < 1. This proves the lemma.
Lemma 3.11. For any δ > 0 and ε > 0 we have


(h)
(h)
0
lim P
inf Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) > ε = 1.
ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ )

n→∞

Proof. We have


(h)
(h)
Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 )

inf

ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ )

≥

inf

ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ )




(h)
(h)
Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − L2 (ϑ2 ) +

20

inf

ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ )



(h)
(h)
−Ln,2 (ϑ20 ) + L2 (ϑ20 )

+

inf

ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ )




(h)
(h)
L2 (ϑ2 ) − L2 (ϑ20 ) .

On the one hand, the first two terms converge to zero in probability due to Lemma 3.4(a) and the con
(h)
(h)
(h)
tinuous mapping theorem. On the other hand, infϑ2 ∈B(ϑ 0 ,δ ) L2 (ϑ2 ) − L2 (ϑ20 ) > 0 since L2 (ϑ2 )
2
has a unique minimum in ϑ20 by Lemma 2.10.
Proof of Theorem 3.8. Let us assume that 12 < γ < 1. Apparently, the parameter subspace Θ1 is
the union of Θ1 = N n,γ (ϑ10 , δ1 ) ∪ Nn,γ (ϑ10 , δ1 ) and thus, we have already shown Theorem 3.8 for
the set N n,γ (ϑ10 , δ1 ) × B(ϑ20 , δ ) instead of Θ1 × B(ϑ20 , δ ) in Theorem 3.5. It remains to investigate
Nn,γ (ϑ10 , δ1 ) × B(ϑ20 , δ ). For any δ1 > 0 we obtain by Proposition 2.8



(h)
(h)
0
c
c
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ ) > 0
lim P
inf
n→∞

ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ )

= lim P
n→∞

≥ lim P
n→∞

≥ lim P
n→∞







inf

ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ )


(h)
(h)
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ 0 )

(h)
Ln,1 (ϑ ) + inf
inf
ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ )
ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ )
(h)
sup
|Ln,1 (ϑ )|
0
0
ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ1 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ2 ,δ )

≤ε;


>0


(h)
(h)
Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 )

inf

ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ )


>0

(h)
(h)
Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) − Ln,2 (ϑ20 ) >



ε .

Then a consequence of Lemma 3.10 and Lemma 3.11 is



(h)
(h)
0
c
c
Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ ) > 0 ≥ 1
lim P
inf
n→∞

ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ )

which proves in combination with Theorem 3.5 the claim.

4 Asymptotic distributions of the QML estimator
The aim of this section is to derive the asymptotic distributions of the long-run parameter estimator
ϑbn,1 and the short-run parameter estimator ϑbn,2 . These two estimators have a different asymptotic
behavior and a different convergence rate. On the one hand, we prove the asymptotic normality of
the short-run QML estimator and on the other hand, we show that the long-run QML estimator is
asymptotically mixed normally distributed.

4.1 Asymptotic distribution of the long-run parameter estimator
We derive in this section the asymptotic distribution of the long-run QML estimator ϑbn,1 . From
Corollary 3.6 we already know that ϑbn,1 − ϑ10 = o p (n−γ ), for 0 ≤ γ < 1. Since the true parameter
ϑ 0 = ((ϑ10 )T , (ϑ20 )T )T is an element of the interior of the compact parameter space Θ = Θ1 × Θ2
due to Assumption A, the estimator ϑbn,1 is at some point also an element of the interior of Θ1 with
probability one. Because the parametrization is assumed to be threefold continuously differentiable,
T ,ϑ
bT )T via the first order condition ∇ϑ L
cn(h) (ϑbn,1 , ϑbn,2 ) = 0s .
we can find the minimizing ϑbn = (ϑbn,1
1
1
n,2

21

We apply a Taylor-expansion of the score vector around the point (ϑ10 , ϑbn,2 ) resulting in
c(h) (ϑ , ϑbn,2 )n(ϑbn,1 − ϑ 0 ),
cn(h) (ϑ 0 , ϑbn,2 ) + n−1 ∇2 L
0s1 = ∇ϑ1 L
ϑ1
n
n,1
1
1

(h)

(4.1)

c (ϑ , ϑbn,2 ) denotes the matrix whose ith row, i = 1, . . . , s1 , is equal to the ith row of
where ∇ϑ2 1 L
n
n,1
(h)
i
2
c
b
In the case
∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ n,1 , ϑn,2 ) with ϑ in,1 ∈ Θ1 such that kϑ in,1 − ϑ10 k ≤ kϑbn,1 − ϑ10 k.
c(h) (ϑ , ϑbn,2 ) is non-singular we receive
∇ϑ2 1 L
n
n,1


−1
c(h) (ϑ , ϑbn,2 )
cn(h) (ϑ 0 , ϑbn,2 ).
n(ϑbn,1 − ϑ10 ) = − n−1 ∇2ϑ1 L
∇ ϑ1 L
n,1
1
n

cn(h) (ϑ ) and the HesThus, we have to consider the asymptotic behavior of the score vector ∇ϑ1 L
cn(h) (ϑ ). Based on Proposition 2.8 it is sufficient to consider ∇2 Ln(h) (ϑ ) and
sian matrix ∇2ϑ1 L
ϑ1
(h)

∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ ), respectively.

4.1.1 Asymptotic behavior of the score vector
First, we show the convergence of the gradient with respect to the long-run parameter ϑ1 . For this,
we consider the partial derivatives with respect to the ith -component of the parameter vector ϑ , i =
1, . . . , s1 , of the log-likelihood function. These partial derivatives are given due to the differentiation
rules for matrix functions (see, e.g., Lütkepohl [23, Appendix A.13]) by
(h)
∂i Ln (ϑ )

= tr
+




1 n  (h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h) −1
(h)
T
− ∑ tr Vϑ
εk (ϑ )εk (ϑ ) Vϑ
∂iVϑ
n k=1
 (h) −1 (h)
(h)
∂i εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
εk (ϑ ).
(4.2)

(h)
(h) −1
∂iVϑ
Vϑ

2 n
∑
n k=1



Proposition 4.1. The score vector with respect to the long-run parameters ϑ1 satisfies
(h)

(1)

w

∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ 0 ) −−→ J1 (ϑ 0 ) := J1 (ϑ 0 )

(s1 )

···

J1

where
(i)
J1 (ϑ 0 )

= 2 tr



+ 2 tr

(h) −1
Vϑ 0

"

−∂i1 Π(ϑ 0 ), 0d×d

(h) −1
Vϑ 0

Z

0

1

#

#

T

W (r) dW (r)
∞



T
(ϑ 0 ) ,
k(1, ϑ 0 )
−Π(ϑ 0 )



!#

Γ∂ 1 k(B,ϑ 0 )∆Y (h) ,ε (h) (ϑ 0 ) (0) + ∑ Γ−∂ 1 Π(ϑ 0 )∆Y (h) ,ε (h) (ϑ 0 ) ( j)
i

j=1

i

and (W # (r))0≤r≤1 = ((W1 (r)T ,W2 (r)T )T )0≤r≤1 with the notation of Proposition A.1.
Proof. Equation (4.2) implies for i = 1, . . . , s1 that




n
(h) −1 1 (h)
(h)
(h) 
(h) −1
(h) −1 1
(h)
0 (h)
0 T
)
)
∂i1 Ln (ϑ 0 ) = tr Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0 − tr Vϑ 0
∂i1Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0
ε
ϑ
ε
ϑ
(
(
∑ k
k
n k=1

22

+ 2 · tr



(h) −1 1
Vϑ 0
n

n

∑
k=1

 (h)
(h)
∂i1 εk (ϑ 0 ) εk (ϑ 0 )T



=: In,1 + In,2 + In,3 .

(h)

(h)

(h)

Note that the second term In,2 converges due to the ergodicity of (εk (ϑ 0 ))k∈N , E(εk (ϑ 0 )εk (ϑ 0 )T ) =
(h)
Vϑ 0 (see Lemma 2.7(a,e)) and Birkhoff’s Ergodic Theorem (cf. Bradley [7, 2.3 Ergodic Theorem])
so that



 (h) −1 (h) 
a.s.
(h) −1
(h) −1 1 (h)
1 (h)
In,2 −−→ − tr Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0 .
Vϑ 0 = − tr Vϑ 0
a.s.

Hence, In,1 + In,2 −−→ 0. Thus, it only remains to show the convergence of the last term In,3 . We obtain
with Proposition A.1(a,c) and the continuous mapping theorem
 (h)
1 n
(h)
∂i1 εk (ϑ 0 ) εk (ϑ 0 )T
∑
n k=1

 (h)
 (h)
1 n
1 n
(h) T
(h)
1
0
0
∂
ϑ
ϑ
[
[ ∂i1 Π(ϑ 0 ) Yk−1 ][Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 ]T
][k(B,
]
+
Π(
)
Y
)∆Y
∑
∑
i
k−1
k
n k=1
n k=1
 (h) (h)
1 n
+ ∑ [ ∂i1 k(B, ϑ 0 ) ∆Yk ]εk (ϑ 0 )T
n k=1
∞
Z 1
w
−−→ − ∂i1 Π(ϑ 0 )
W1 (r)dW1 (r)T k(1, ϑ 0 )T − ∑ Γ∂i1 Π(ϑ 0 )∆Y (h) ,k(B,ϑ 0 )∆Y (h) ( j)
=−

0

Z 1

+ ∂i1 Π(ϑ 0 )

0

j=1
∞

W1 (r) dW2 (r)T Π(ϑ 0 )T + ∑ Γ∂ 1 Π(ϑ 0 )∆Y (h) ,Π(ϑ 0 )Y (h) ( j)
j=1

st

i

(4.3)

+ Γ∂ 1 k(B,ϑ 0 )∆Y (h) ,ε (h) (ϑ 0 ) (0).
i

w

(i)

Then the continuous mapping theorem results in In,3 −−→ J1 (ϑ 0 ) which concludes the proof.
4.1.2 Asymptotic behavior of the Hessian matrix
(h)

The second partial derivatives of the log-likelihood function Ln (ϑ ) are given by


(h)
(h) 
(h) 
(h) −1
(h) −1 2 (h)
(h) −1
∂i, j Ln (ϑ ) = tr Vϑ
∂i, jVϑ − Vϑ
∂iVϑ
∂ jVϑ
Vϑ

1 n  (h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h) −1 2 (h)
− ∑ tr Vϑ
εk (ϑ )εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
∂i, jVϑ
n k=1

−1 (h)
1 n  (h) −1
(h) −1
(h)
(h) 
(h)
∂ jVϑ
∂iVϑ
V (h) εk (ϑ )εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
+ ∑ tr Vϑ
n k=1

1 n  (h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h) 
(h)
(h) −1
(h) −1
εk (ϑ )εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
∂ jVϑ
∂iVϑ
Vϑ
+ ∑ tr Vϑ
n k=1
 (h) −1 (h) 
1 n  (h) −1
(h)
(h)
∂ j εk (ϑ )εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
∂iVϑ
− ∑ tr Vϑ
n k=1

2 n 
(h)
(h) −1 (h)
+ ∑ ∂i, j εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
εk (ϑ )
n k=1

23


 (h) −1
2 n  (h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h)
tr Vϑ
εk (ϑ ) ∂i εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
∂ jVϑ
∑
n k=1



2 n  (h)
(h) −1
(h)
∂ j εk (ϑ )
+ ∑ ∂i εk (ϑ )T Vϑ
n k=1

−

8

=:

∑ In, j .

(4.4)

j=1

Since the Hessian matrix should be asymptotically positive definite we need an additional assumption.


⊥T C
Assumption E. The ((d − c)c × s1 )- dimensional gradient matrix ∇ϑ1 C1,
is of full column
1
ϑ1
rank s1 .
The asymptotic distribution of the Hessian matrix is given in the next proposition.
Proposition 4.2. Let Assumption E additionally hold. Define the (s1 × s1 )-dimensional random matrix Z1 (ϑ 0 ) as


Z 1

(h) −1 1
0
0
T
1
0 T
∂i Π(ϑ ) W1 (r)W1 (r) dr ∂ j Π(ϑ )
[Z1 (ϑ )]i, j := 2 · tr Vϑ 0
0

for i, j = 1, . . . , s1 . Then Z1 (ϑ 0 ) is almost surely positive definite and
(h)

w

n−1 ∇ϑ2 1 Ln (ϑ 0 ) −−→ Z1 (ϑ 0 ).
Proof. First, we prove the asymptotic behavior of the score vector and then, in the next step, that the
limit is almost surely positive definite.
Step 1: The first term n1 In,1 in (4.4) converges to zero due to the additional normalizing rate of n−1 .
Due to Proposition A.1 (a,c) we have for j = 2, . . . , 7 that In, j = O p (1) (see exemplarily (4.3) for In,5 )
and hence, 1n ∑7j=2 In, j converges in probability to zero. To summarize
(h)
n−1 ∂i,1j Ln (ϑ 0 )

1
= In,8 + o p (1) = 2 · tr
n



(h) −1 1
Vϑ 0
n2

n

∑

(h)
(h)
∂i1 εk (ϑ 0 )∂ j1 εk (ϑ 0 )T

k=1



+ o p (1).

Due to Lemma 2.6 and Proposition A.1 (a,c) we receive
(h)
n−1 ∂i,1j Ln (ϑ 0 )

= 2 · tr



(h) −1 1
Vϑ 0
n2

n

∑

(h) (h)T
∂i1 Π(ϑ 0 )Yk−1Yk−1 ∂ j1 Π(ϑ 0 )T

k=1



+ o p (1).

Then Proposition A.1(b) and the continuous mapping theorem result in
(h)
n−1 ∂i,1j Ln (ϑ 0 )

w

−−→ 2 · tr



(h) −1 1
∂i Π(ϑ 0 )
Vϑ 0

Z 1
0

T

W1 (r)W1 (r) dr

T
∂ j1 Π(ϑ 0 )



.

In particular, we have also the joint convergence of the partial derivatives.
R

Step 2: Note that we can take W1 = C1 B1W3 and define M := B1 01 W3 (r)W3 (r)T drBT
1 , which is a
P-a.s. positive definite c × c matrix. We apply the Cholesky decomposition M = M∗ M∗T . By using

24

properties of the vec operator and the Kronecker product (see [5, Chapter 7.1]) we have
T 

(h) − 1
(h) − 1
Vϑ 0 2 ∂i1 Π(ϑ 0 )C1 M Vϑ 0 2 ∂ j1 Π(ϑ 0 )C1
T 


(h) − 12
(h) − 1
⊥T
0 1 ⊥T
α
(
ϑ
∂
vec
V
C
M
C
M
= 2vec Vϑ 0 2 α (ϑ 0 )∂i1C1,
)
C
j 1,ϑ10 1 ∗
ϑ10 1 ∗
ϑ0




T 


(h) −1
⊥T
0 T
0
1 ⊥T
)
V
)
vec
C
= 2vec ∂i1C1,
M
⊗
.
C
α
(
ϑ
α
(
ϑ
∂
C
0
0
1
1
0
j 1,ϑ
ϑ
ϑ

[Z1 (ϑ 0 )]i, j = 2 tr



1

1

(4.5)




(h) −1
(h) −1
α (ϑ 0 ) = rank(M) · rank α (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
α (ϑ 0 ) due
Furthermore, rank M ⊗ α (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0


(h) −1
to [5, Fact 7.4.23] and thus, M ⊗ α (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
α (ϑ 0 ) has full rank c · (d − c) a.s. Now, if we

consider the Hessian matrix Z1 (ϑ 0 ), we have




T 


(h) −1
0 T
0
⊥T
⊥T
)
V
)
∇
C
Z1 (ϑ 0 ) = 2∇ϑ1 C1,
M
⊗
.
C
C
α
(
ϑ
α
(
ϑ
0
0
ϑ
1
1
0
1
1,ϑ
ϑ
ϑ
1

1



⊥T C
is of full column rank
Due to Assumption E the ((d − c)c × s1 )-dimensional matrix ∇ϑ1 C1,
1
0
ϑ1
and hence, the product has full rank s1 . Therefore, we have the positive definiteness almost surely.
4.1.3 Asymptotic mixed normality of the long-run QML estimator
We are able now to show the weak convergence of the long-run QML estimator and thus, we have one
main result.
Theorem 4.3. Let Assumption E additionally hold. Then we have as n → ∞
w
n(ϑbn,1 − ϑ10 ) −−→ −Z1 (ϑ 0 )−1 · J1 (ϑ 0 )

where J1 (ϑ 0 ) is defined as in Proposition 4.1 and Z1 (ϑ 0 ) as in Proposition 4.2, respectively.
Proof. From (4.1) we know that
cn(h) (ϑ 0 , ϑbn,2 ) + n−1 ∇2 L
c(h) (ϑ , ϑbn,2 )n(ϑbn,1 − ϑ 0 ).
0s1 = ∇ϑ1 L
1
ϑ1
n
n,1
1

(4.6)
(h)

In Proposition 4.1 we already derived the asymptotic behavior of the score vector ∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )
(h)
and in Proposition 4.2 the asymptotic behavior of the Hessian matrix n−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ20 ). However,
(h)
for the proof of Theorem 4.3 we require now the asymptotic behavior of ∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑbn,2 ) and
n−1 ∇2 L (h) (ϑ , ϑbn,2 ). Therefore we use a kind of stochastic equicontinuity condition.
ϑ1

n

n,1

Lemma 4.4. For every ε > 0 and every η > 0, there exists an integer n(ε , η ) and real numbers
δ1 , δ2 > 0 such that for 21 < γ < 1,


(h)
(h)
(a) P supϑ2 ∈B(ϑ 0 ,δ2 ) k∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) − ∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k > ε ≤ η for n ≥ n(ε , η ),
2



(h)
(h)
(b) P supϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ 0 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ 0,δ2 ) kn−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln (ϑ )−n−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln (ϑ 0 )k > ε ≤ η
1

2

25

for n ≥ n(ε , η ).

Proof.
(h)
(h)
(a) Note that on the one hand, ∇ϑ1 Ln,1,1 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = 0 since εn,1,1 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) = 0 and on the other hand,
(h)

∇ϑ1 Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) = 0 clearly. Hence,
(h)

sup
ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

(h)

sup

=

(h)

k∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) − ∇ϑ1 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k

ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

(h)

k∇ϑ1 Ln,1,2 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) − ∇ϑ1 Ln,1,2 (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k.

We can conclude with similar calculations as in Lemma 3.3 applying (A.4) and (A.6) that
(h)

sup
ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

(h)

k∇ϑ1 Ln,1,2 (ϑ10 , ϑ2 ) − ∇ϑ1 Ln,1,2 (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k ≤

sup
ϑ2 ∈B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

Ckϑ2 − ϑ20 kUn ≤ Cδ2Un .

Since Un = O p (1) due to Lemma 3.3 we obtain the statement.
(h)
(b) Due to ∇2ϑ1 Ln,2 (ϑ2 ) = 0 we have
(h)

sup
ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

≤

(h)

kn−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln (ϑ ) − n−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln (ϑ 0 )k
(h)

sup
ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

(h)

sup

+

(h)

kn−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln,1,1 (ϑ ) − n−1 ∇ϑ2 1 Ln,1,1 (ϑ 0 )k

ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

(h)

kn−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln,1,2 (ϑ ) − n−1 ∇2ϑ1 Ln,1,2 (ϑ 0 )k.

Then the first term is bounded by (A.2) and the second term by (A.4) and (A.6), respectively. Hence,
≤

sup
ϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ20 ,δ2 )

≤ C δ2

1
1 n (h) (h)
Ckϑ − ϑ 0 k 2 ∑ Lk−1 [Lk−1 ]T + Ckϑ − ϑ 0 kUn
n k=1
n

!

1
1 n (h) (h) T
Lk−1 [Lk−1 ] + Cδ2Un .
∑
2
n k=1
n

Since Un = O p (1) due to Lemma 3.3 and
statement (b) follows.

1
n2

(h)

(h)

∑nk=1 Lk−1 [Lk−1 ]T = O p (1) due to Proposition A.1(b),

cn(h) (ϑ 0 , ϑbn,2 ) to J1 (ϑ 0 ) follows then by Proposition 2.8, ProposiThe weak convergence of ∇ϑ1 L
1
tion 4.1 and Lemma 4.4(a). Due to Proposition 2.8, Proposition 4.2 and Lemma 4.4(b) we have that
c(h) (ϑ , ϑbn,2 ) converges weakly to the random matrix Z1 (ϑ 0 ). In particular, Proposition A.1
n−1 ∇ϑ2 1 L
n,1
n
also guarantees the joint convergence of both terms. Finally, the almost sure positive definiteness of
Z1 (ϑ 0 ) allows us to take the inverse and reorder (4.1) so that

−1
w
c(h) (ϑ , ϑbn,2 )
cn(h) (ϑ 0 , ϑbn,2 ) −−
→ −Z1 (ϑ 0 )−1 · J1 (ϑ 0 ).
∇ ϑ1 L
n(ϑbn,1 − ϑ10 ) = − n−1 ∇2ϑ1 L
1
n
n,1

26

4.2 Asymptotic distribution of the short-run parameter estimator
Lastly, we derive the asymptotic normality of the short-run QML estimator ϑbn,2 which we prove by
using a Taylor-expansion of the QML-function similarly as in Section 4.1. Before we start the proof
(h)
(h)
we want to derive some mixing properties of the process (Yst,k , ∆Yk )k∈Z because this will be used
throughout this section.
(h)

(h)

Lemma 4.5. The process (Yst,k , ∆Yk )k∈Z is strongly mixing with mixing coefficients α∆Y (h) ,Y (h) (m) ≤
st
Cρ m for some 0 < ρ < 1. In particular, for any δ > 0,
∞

∑ α∆Y

m=1

δ

(h) ,Y (h)
st

(m) 2+δ < ∞.

(h)

Proof. Due to Equation (2.2) the process Yst has the state space representation
(h)

(h)

(h)

(h)

Xst,k = eA2 h Xst,k−1 +

with

Yst,k = C2 Xst,k

Z kh

(k−1)h

eA2 (kh−u) B2 dLu ,

k ∈ N.

(h)

Masuda [26, Theorem 4.3] proved that (Xst,k )k∈N is β -mixing with an exponentially rate since
(h)

(h)

EkXst,k k2 < ∞. Having Ek∆Lk k2 < ∞ in mind as well we can conclude on the same way as in [26,
Theorem 4.3] that the Markov process
! 
! Z



(h)
(h)
kh
∆Lk−1
∆Lk
0m×m
0m×(N−c)
Im
dLu .
=
+
(h)
(h)
0(N−c)×m
eA2 h
eA2 (kh−u) B2
Xst,k
Xst,k−1
(k−1)h
is β -mixing with mixing coefficients β∆L(h) ,X (h) (m) ≤ Cρ1m for some 0 < ρ1 < 1. Hence, it is as well
α -mixing with mixing coefficient α∆L(h) ,X (h) (m) ≤ β∆L(h) ,X (h) (m) ≤ Cρ1m . Finally, it is obvious of the
definition of α -mixing that
(h)
∆Yk
(h)
Yst,k

!

=



C1 B1 C2
−C2
0d×m C2 0d×N−c





(h) 
∆Lk

(h) 
 Xst,k 
(h)
Xst,k−1

is α -mixing with α∆Y (h) ,Y (h) (m) ≤ α∆L(h) ,X (h) (m − 1) ≤ Cρ1m−1 .
st

4.2.1 Asymptotic behavior of the score vector
First, we prove that the partial derivatives have finite variance.
(h)

Lemma 4.6. For any ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 , n ∈ N, and i = 1, . . . , s2 the random variable E|∂ist Ln (ϑ 0 )|2 < ∞.
Proof. We have due to Lemma 2.7 (b) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality


(h)
(h) −1 (h)
εk (ϑ 0 )εk (ϑ 0 )T

Vϑ 0

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0



 (h) −1 (h) 0
(h)
εk (ϑ )
+ 2 · ∂ist εk (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
 21

(h)
(h)
(h)
≤ C · Ekεk (ϑ 0 )k4 +C · Ekεk (ϑ 0 )k4 Ek∂ist εk (ϑ 0 )k4 < ∞,

E − tr

Vϑ 0

so that the statement follows with (4.2).

27

2

Now we can prove the convergence of the covariance matrix of the score vector where we plug in the
true parameter.
(h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
εk,2 (ϑ2 ) that
Lemma 4.7. We have for all ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 and ℓk,2 (ϑ2 ) = εk,2 (ϑ2 )T Vϑ 0 ,ϑ
1

h

2

i

(h)
(h)
(h)
lim Var ∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 ) = ∑ Cov ∂ist ℓ1,2 (ϑ20 ), ∂ jst ℓ1+l,2 (ϑ20 )

n→∞



l∈Z

1≤i, j≤s2

=: I(ϑ20 ).

(4.7)

Proof. We can derive the result in a similar way as in Schlemm and Stelzer [34, Lemma 2.14]. Hence,
we only sketch the proof to show the differences. A detailed proof can be found in Scholz [35, Section
5.9]. It is sufficient to show that for all ϑ2 ∈ Θ2 and all i, j = 1, . . . , s2 the sequence

(h)
[Var ∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 ) ]i, j = n−1

n

n

∑ ∑

k1 =1 k2 =1



(h)
(h)
(i, j)
Cov ∂ist ℓk1 ,2 (ϑ20 ), ∂ jst ℓk2 ,2 (ϑ20 ) =: In (ϑ20 )

(4.8)

converges as n → ∞. By the representation of the partial derivatives in (4.2) and (2.3) the sequence


 (h) −1 (h) 0
(h)
(h) −1 st (h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h)
∂ist ℓk,2 (ϑ20 ) = − tr Vϑ 0
εk,2 (ϑ20 )εk,2 (ϑ20 )T Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0 + ∂ist εk,2 (ϑ20 )T Vϑ 0
εk,2 (ϑ2 )


 (h) −1 (h) 0
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h) −1 st (h)
(h)
= − tr Vϑ 0
εk (ϑ 0 )εk (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0 + ∂ist εk (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
εk (ϑ )

is stationary and the covariance in (4.8) depends only on the difference l = k1 − k2 . If we can show
that


st (h)
0
st (h)
0
(
(
ℓ
),
ℓ
)
|<∞
(4.9)
|
Cov
∂
ϑ
∂
ϑ
∑
i 1,2 2
j 1+l,2 2
l∈Z

then the Dominated Convergence Theorem implies
(i, j)

In

(ϑ20 )

n−1

=

n

∑



(h)
(h)
(n − |l|) Cov ∂ist ℓ1,2 (ϑ20 ), ∂ jst ℓ1+l,2 (ϑ20 )

l=−n

n→∞

−−−→



st (h)
0
st (h)
0
∑ Cov ∂i ℓ1,2(ϑ2 ), ∂ j ℓ1+l,2 (ϑ2 ) .

l∈Z

Due to Lemma 4.5 and the uniformly exponentially bound of (K j (ϑ )) and (∂ist K j (ϑ )) finding the
dominant goes in the same vein as in the proof of [34, Lemma 2.14].
In the following we derive the convergence of the score vector with respect to the short-run parameters
by a truncation argument.
Proposition 4.8. For the gradient with respect to the short-run parameters the asymptotic behavior
√
w
(h)
n · ∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 ) −−→ N (0, I(ϑ20 ))
holds, where I(ϑ20 ) is the asymptotic covariance matrix given in (4.7).


(h)
Proof. First, we realize that representation (4.2) and Lemma 2.7 (c,d) result in E ∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 ) =
0s2 . Due to (2.3) we can rewrite (4.2) for m ∈ N as
(h)

∂ist Ln (ϑ 0 ) =

 1 n 

1 n  (i)
(i)
(i)
(i)
Ym,k − EYm,k + ∑ Zm,k − EZm,k ,
∑
n k=1
n k=1
28

(4.10)

(i)

where Ym,k := tr



+

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

m

∑

ι1 =0
m

+
−

ι2 =0
m



∑

tr

∑

tr

ι1 ,ι2 =0

+2·
(i)



(h) −1

(h)



Vϑ 0

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

(h)T

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

(h)T

(h)

Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 ∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0

(h) −1

Vϑ 0

(h)

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

(h)T

∑

tr

∑

ι2 =0
m



∑

tr

ι1 ,ι2 =0
(i)

(i)



Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 ∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0

ι1 =0
m



m

−2·

(h) −1

Vϑ 0

− tr


(h) −1 (h)T
(h) 
Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T
∂ist Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 Vϑ 0


(h) 
(h) −1 (h)T
Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T
tr ∂ist Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Vϑ 0

+ 2 · tr
−2·



Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0


(h) −1
(h) (h)T
(h) −1 st (h)
Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
tr Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0

Vϑ 0




(h)T
(h) 
(h) −1
∂ist Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 Vϑ 0
∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T




(h) 
(h) −1
(h)T
∂ist Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Vϑ 0
∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T ,

Zm,k :=Vm,k +Um,k ,


∞
(i)
(h) −1
(h) (h)T
(h) −1 st (h)
and Vm,k := ∑ tr Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0
Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
ι1 =m+1
∞

−

ι1 =m+1 ι2 =0
∞

+2·
(i)

Um,k :=

∞

∑ ∑ tr

−2·

∑

∑

tr



(h) −1

∑ ∑

+2·

tr
tr

ι2 =m+1
∞
∞

∑ ∑





(h)

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

(h)T

Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 ∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0

(h)T

(h)

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

Π(ϑ )Yst,k−1 ∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
(h) −1

Vϑ 0






(h)T
(h) 
(h) −1
∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T ,
∂ist Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Vϑ 0

(h)

(h)T



(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 ∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0


(h) 
(h) −1
(h)T
∂ist Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 Vϑ 0
∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T

tr

ι1 =0 ι2 =m+1

(1) T



Vϑ 0

∞

∑

(h) −1

Vϑ 0


(h) 
(h) −1 (h)T
∂ist Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Vϑ 0
Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T

ι1 =m+1 ι2 =0

ι1 =0 ι2 =m+1
m

−2·



∑ ∑ tr

ι2 =m+1
∞

−

tr



ι1 =m+1
∞
∞

∞






(h) −1
(h)T
(h) 
∂ist Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Vϑ 0
∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T .
(1) T

(s ) T

(s ) T

We define Ym,k := (Ym,k , . . . ,Ym,k2 )T as well as Zm,k := (Zm,k , . . . , Zm,k2 )T and use a truncation
argument analogous to Schlemm and Stelzer [34, Lemma 2.16]. The main difference to [34] is that in
(i)
(i)
(i)
our case the definition of Ym,k , Vm,k and Um,k is more complex including the two stochastic processes
(h)

∆Y (h) , Yst and additional summands. We show the claim in three steps.
(h)
Step 1: The process Ym,k depends only on m + 1 past values of ∆Y (h) and Yst . Hence, it inherits the

29

(h)

strong mixing property of (∆Y (h) ,Yst ) and satisfies αYm (l) ≤ α∆Y (h) ,Y (h) (max{0, l − m − 1}). Thus,
st

δ /(2+δ )
∑∞
l=1 (αYm (l))

< ∞. Using the Cramér-Wold device and the univariate
by Lemma 4.5 we have
central limit theorem of Ibragimov [17, Theorem 1.7] for strongly mixing random variables we obtain
1 n
w
√ ∑ (Ym,k − EYm,k ) −−→ N (0s2 , Im (ϑ20 ))
n k=1
as n → ∞ where Im (ϑ20 ) := ∑l∈Z Cov(Ym,1 , Ym,1+l ). Next, we need to show that
m→∞

Im (ϑ20 ) −−−→ I(ϑ20 ).

(4.11)


(h)
(h)
( j) 
(i)
Therefore, we first prove that Cov Ym,k ,Ym,k+l → Cov ∂ist ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 ), ∂ jst ℓ1+l,2 (ϑ 0 ) as m → ∞. Note
that the bilinearity property of the covariance operator implies

(i) ( j) 
(h)
(h)
| Cov Ym,k ,Ym,k+l − Cov ∂ist ℓk,2 (ϑ 0 ), ∂ jst ℓk+l,2 (ϑ 0 ) |


(i)
( j)
(h)
(i)
(h)
(h)
= | Cov Ym,k ,Ym,k+l − ∂ jst ℓk+l,2 (ϑ 0 ) + Cov Ym,k − ∂ist ℓk,2 (ϑ 0 ), ∂ jst ℓk+l,2 (ϑ 0 ) |
1/2
(i) 1/2
( j)
(h)
≤ Var Ym,1
Var Ym,1 − ∂ jst ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 )
1/2
1/2
(i)
(h)
(h)
+ Var Ym,1 − ∂ist ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 )
Var ∂ jst ℓl,2 (ϑ 0 )
,
(4.12)

where

(i)

(h)

Ym,k − ∂ist ℓk,2 (ϑ 0 ) = −

∞

∑

tr

∑

tr

ι1 =m+1
∞

−

ι2 =m+1

+

∑




(h) −1

Vϑ 0

tr

ι1 ,ι2
max{ι1 ,ι2 }>m

∞

+2·
+2·
−2·

∑

tr

∑

tr

ι1 =m+1
∞
ι2 =m+1

∑

(h) −1

Vϑ 0





ι1 ,ι2
max{ι1 ,ι2 }>m

(h)

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

(h)T

Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
(h)

(h)T

(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 ∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0

(h) −1

Vϑ 0

(h)

(h)T





(h) −1 st (h)
∂i Vϑ 0

Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 ∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0




(h) 
(h) −1 (h)T
Yst,k−1 Π(ϑ 0 )T
∂ist Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Vϑ 0


(h) −1
(h) 
(h)T
∂ist Π(ϑ 0 )Yst,k−1 Vϑ 0
∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T
tr




(h) 
(h) −1
(h)T
∂ist Kι1 (ϑ 0 )∆Yk−ι1 Vϑ 0
∆Yk−ι2 Kι2 (ϑ 0 )T .

We obtain with the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the exponentially decreasing coefficients (Kl (ϑ 0 ))l∈N
(h)
and the finite 4th-moment of Yst and ∆Y (h) due to Assumption A that for some 0 < ρ < 1,

(i)
(h)
Var Ym,1 − ∂ist ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 ) ≤ Cρ m .


(h)
(i)
(i)
Moreover, by the proof of Lemma 4.6 we have Var ∂ jst ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 ) < ∞ and then, Var Ym,1 ) ≤ 2E Ym,1 −
2
2
(h)
(h)
∂ist ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 ) + 2E ∂ jst ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 ) < ∞ as well. Thus, (4.12) converges uniformly in l at an exponential

30

rate to zero as m → ∞ and


(h)
(h)
( j)  m→∞
(i)
Cov Ym,k ,Ym,k+l −−−→ Cov ∂ist ℓ1,2 (ϑ 0 ), ∂ jst ℓ1+l,2 (ϑ 0 ) .

Then the same arguments as in [34, Lemma 2.16] guarantee that there exists a dominant (cf. Scholz
[35, Section 5.9]) so that dominated convergence results in (4.11) (cf. proof of Lemma 4.7).
Step 2: In this step, we show that √1n ∑nk=1 (Zm,k − EZm,k ) is asymptotically negligible. We have


1 n
tr Var √ ∑ Zm,k
n k=1

!



1 n
≤ 2 · tr Var √ ∑ Um,k
n k=1

!



1 n
+ 2 · tr Var √ ∑ Vm,k
n k=1

!

,

(4.13)

where Um,k and Vm,k are defined in the same vein as Zm,k . Since both terms can be treated similarly
we consider only the first one

!
s2
∞

1 n
1 n
( j)
(i)
′
tr Var √ ∑ Um,k
)
≤
tr
Cov(U
,
U
=
m,k
m,k
∑ ∑ | Cov(Um,1 ,Um,1+l )|. (4.14)
n k=1
n k,k∑
′ =1
i, j=1 l=−∞
With the same arguments as in [34, Lemma 2.16] we obtain independent of i and j the upper bound
∞

(i)

( j)

2m

∑ | Cov(Um,1 ,Um,1+l )| ≤

l=0

(i)

∞

( j)

∑ | Cov(Um,1 ,Um,1+l )| +

l=0

≤ Cρ m



∑
l=2m+1

(i)

( j)

| Cov(Um,1 ,Um,1+l )|


 δ

δ +2
m + ∑ α∆Y (h) ,Y (h) (l)
,
∞

st

l=0




which implies tr Var √1n ∑nk=1 Um,k ≤ C(m +C)ρ m due to (4.14). With the same ideas one obtains
 

an equivalent bound for tr Var √1n ∑nk=1 Vm,k
and thus, we have with (4.13) that


1 n
tr Var √ ∑ Zm,k
n k=1

!

≤ C(m +C)ρ m .

(4.15)

Step 3: With the multivariate Chebyshev inequality (cf. Schlemm [32, Lemma 3.19]) and (4.15) from
Step 2 we obtain for every ε > 0 that


√
1 n
(h)
0
n∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ ) − √ ∑ [Ym,k − EYm,k ] > ε
lim lim sup P
m→∞ n→∞
n k=1

!
s2
1 n
s2
≤ lim lim sup 2 tr Var √ ∑ Zm,k
≤ lim 2 C(m +C)ρ m = 0.
m→∞ n→∞ ε
m→∞
n k=1
ε
All in all, the results of Step 1 and Step 3 combined with Brockwell and Davis [8, Proposition 6.3.9]
yield the asymptotic normality in Proposition 4.8.
4.2.2 Asymptotic behavior of the Hessian matrix
We require an additional assumption for the Hessian matrix with respect to the short-run parameters
(h)
to be positive definite. Therefore, we need some notation. We write shortly Fϑ := eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ .

31

The function is similar to the function in Schlemm and Stelzer [34, Assumption C11]. However, we
define Fϑ different since we do not have a moving average representation of Y (h) with respect to the
innovations ε (h) . Hence, we have to adapt the criterion in [34] and define the function
h
iT 
ih
(h) T
j T
T
T
I ⊗ Kϑ ⊗Cϑ (vec IN ) (vec Fϑ ) . . . (vec Fϑ )
.
ψϑ , j :=  j+1
(4.16)
(h)
vec Vϑ
Assumption F. Let there exist a positive index j0 such that the [( j0 + 2)d 2 × s2 ] matrix ∇ϑ2 ψϑ 0 , j0 has
rank s2 .
Proposition 4.9. Let Assumption F additionally hold. Then
p

(h)

∇2ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 ) −−→ Zst (ϑ 0 ),
where the (s2 × s2 )-dimensional matrix Zst (ϑ 0 ) is given by

 (h) −1 st (h) 0 
(h)
[Zst (ϑ 0 )]i, j = 2E ∂ist ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
∂ j ε1 (ϑ )


1


(h) −1 st (h)
(h) − 1
(h) −
(h)
∂ j Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0 2 .
+ tr Vϑ 0 2 ∂ist Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0

Moreover, the limiting matrix Zst (ϑ 0 ) is almost surely a non-singular deterministic matrix.
Proof. We proceed as in the proof of Proposition 4.2.
(h)
(h)
(h)
Step 1: Since (∂i,stj εk (ϑ 0 ), ∂ jst εk (ϑ 0 ), εk (ϑ 0 ))k∈N is a stationary and ergodic sequence with finite
absolute moment (see Lemma 2.7(a)) we obtain with Birkhoff’s Ergodic Theorem


p
(h)
(h) −1 st (h)
(h) 
(h) 
(h) −1
(h) −1
∂i,stj Ln (ϑ 0 ) −−→ tr Vϑ 0
∂i, jVϑ 0 − Vϑ 0
∂ist Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0
∂ jst Vϑ 0
i

h

(h) −1 st (h)
(h)
(h)
(h) −1
− tr Vϑ 0
∂i, jVϑ 0
E ε1 (ϑ 0 )ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
h

i

(h) −1
(h) −1 st (h)
(h) 
(h)
(h)
(h) −1
∂ jst Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0
E ε1 (ϑ 0 )ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
+ tr Vϑ 0


h
i
(h) −1
(h)
(h)
(h) −1 st (h)
(h) 
(h) −1
∂ jst Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0
+ tr Vϑ 0
E ε1 (ϑ 0 )ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0

h
i

(h)
(h)
(h) −1 st (h)
(h) −1
E ∂ jst ε1 (ϑ 0 )ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
− tr Vϑ 0
∂i Vϑ 0

h
i

(h) −1
(h)
(h)
+ 2 · tr Vϑ 0
E ε1 (ϑ 0 ) ∂i,stj ε1 (ϑ 0 )T

h

i
(h) −1
(h) −1 st (h)
(h)
(h)
∂ j Vϑ 0
− 2 · tr Vϑ 0
E ε1 (ϑ 0 )∂ist ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0


i
h
(h)
(h)
(h) −1
+ 2 · E ∂ist ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
∂ jst ε1 (ϑ 0 ) .

Combining this with Lemma 2.7 (c,d) results in


h
 (h) −1 st (h) 0 i
p
(h)
(h) 
(h)
(h) −1
(h) −1 st (h)
∂i,stj Ln (ϑ 0 ) −−→ tr Vϑ 0
∂ist Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0
∂ j Vϑ 0 + 2 · E ∂ist ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
∂ j ε1 (ϑ ) .
Step 2: Next we check that Zst (ϑ 0 ) is positive definite with probability one which we show by contradiction similarly to the corresponding proofs in Schlemm and Stelzer [34, Lemma 3.22] or Boubacar

32

and Francq [6, Lemma 4], respectively. From Step 2 we know that
p

(h)

where
and

∇2ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 ) −−→ Zst (ϑ 0 ) = Zst,1 (ϑ 0 ) + Zst,2 (ϑ 0 ),

h 
i

(h) −1
(h)
(h)
∂ jst ε1 (ϑ 0 )
Zst,1 (ϑ 0 ) := 2 · E ∂ist ε1 (ϑ 0 )T Vϑ 0
1≤i, j≤s2
h 
1
1 i




−
−1
−
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
Zst,2 (ϑ 0 ) := tr Vϑ 0 2 ∂ist Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0
∂ jst Vϑ 0 Vϑ 0 2

(4.17)

1≤i, j≤s2

.

We can factorize Zst,2 (ϑ 0 ) in the following way
Zst,2 (ϑ 0 ) = a1 . . . as2

T

a1 . . . as2



with

ai :=



(h) − 21

Vϑ 0

(h) − 21

⊗ Vϑ 0



(h) 

vec ∂ist Vϑ 0

and thus, Zst,2 (ϑ 0 ) is obviously positive semi-definite. Similarly, Zst,1 (ϑ 0 ) is positive semi-definite.
It remains to check that for any c ∈ Rs2 \ {0s2 } we have cT Zst,i (ϑ 0 )c > 0 for at least one i ∈ {1, 2}.
We assume for the sake of contradiction that there exists a vector c ∈ Rs2 \{0s2 } such that
cT Zst,1 (ϑ 0 )c + cT Zst,2 (ϑ 0 )c = 0.

(✸)

In order to be zero, each summand cT Zst,1 (ϑ 0 )c and cT Zst,2 (ϑ 0 )c must be zero, since Zst,1 (ϑ 0 ) as
well as Zst,2 (ϑ 0 ) are positive semi-definite. But cT Zst,1 (ϑ 0 )c = 0 is only possible if
i
h
∞ 
(h)
(h) (h)
c P-a.s.
0d = (∇ϑ2 ε1 (ϑ 0 ))c = − ∑ ∇ϑ2 Cϑ 0 Fϑj−1
0 Kϑ 0 Yk− j
j=1

Rewriting this equation yields

i
i
h
h
∞ 
(h) (h)
(h) (h)
∇ϑ2 Cϑ 0 Kϑ 0 Yk−1 c = − ∑ ∇ϑ2 Cϑ 0 Fϑj−1
c P-a.s.
0 Kϑ 0 Yk− j

(4.18)

j=2

Hence, for every row i = 1, . . . , d and c = (c1 , . . . , cm )T we obtain
"
#
"
s2

d

∑ ∑

m=1 l=1

(h)
(h)
∂mst (Cϑ 0 Kϑ 0 )i,l Yk−1,l

∞

cm = − ∑

s2

d

∑ ∑

j=2 m=1 l=1

(h)
(h)
∂mst (Cϑ 0 Fϑj−1
0 Kϑ 0 )i,l Yk− j,l

#

cm

P-a.s.

which is equivalent to


i T
i T
h
h
∞ 
(h)
(h)
(h)
j−1 (h)
T
∇
K
c
=
−
Y
∇ϑ2 eT
K
F
C
e
C
0
0
ϑ
∑ 2 i ϑ ϑ 0 ϑ 0 c Yk− j
i ϑ
k−1
ϑ0

P-a.s.

j=2


i T
h
(h)
(h)
(h)
But then ∇ϑ2 eT
c Yk−1 lies in span{Y j : j ≤ k − 2}. By the definition of the linear innoK
C
0
i ϑ
ϑ0

h
i T
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
vations this is only possible if ∇ϑ2 eT
C
c εk−1 = 0 P-a.s. However, Vϑ 0 = E(εk−1 (εk−1 )T )
K
0
i ϑ
ϑ0
i
h
(h)
is non-singular due to [35, Lemma 5.9.1] so that necessarily ∇ϑ2 eT
i Cϑ 0 Kϑ 0 c = 0d for i = 1, . . . , d.

33

(h)

This is again equivalent to ∇ϑ2 (Cϑ 0 Kϑ 0 )c = 0d 2 . Plugging this in (4.18) gives
i
i
h
h
∞
(h) (h)
(h) (h)
∇ϑ2 Cϑ 0 Fϑ 0 Kϑ 0 Yk−2 c = − ∑ ∇ϑ2 Cϑ 0 Fϑj−1
0 Kϑ 0 Yk− j c.
j=3

(h)

Then we can show similarly ∇ϑ2 (Cϑ 0 Fϑ 0 Kϑ 0 )c = 0d 2 and obtain recursively that
(h)

∇ϑ2 (Cϑ 0 Fϑj 0 Kϑ 0 )c = 0d 2 ,

(4.19)

j ∈ N0 .

On the other hand, we obtain due cT Zst,2 (ϑ 0 )c = 0 under assumption (✸) that
(h) 
∇ϑ2 Vϑ 0 c = 0d 2 .

(4.20)


The definition of ψϑ , j in (4.16), (4.19) and (4.20) imply that ∇ϑ2 ψϑ 0 , j c = 0( j+2)d 2 holds for all
j ∈ N, which contradicts Assumption F. Hence, Zst (ϑ 0 ) is almost surely positive definite.
4.2.3 Asymptotic normality of the short-run QML estimator
We conclude this section with the last main result of this paper, namely the asymptotic distribution of
the short-run QML estimator.
Theorem 4.10. Let Assumption F additionally hold. Furthermore, suppose


(h)
(h)
I(ϑ 0 ) = lim Var ∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 )
and Zst (ϑ 0 ) = lim ∇ϑ2 2 Ln (ϑ 0 ).
n→∞

Then as n → ∞,

√

n→∞

w

n(ϑbn,2 − ϑ20 ) −−→ N (0, Zst (ϑ 0 )−1 I(ϑ 0 )Zst (ϑ 0 )−1 ).

(4.21)

Again we need the following auxiliary result for the proof.

Lemma 4.11. For every ε > 0 and every η > 0, there exists an integer n(ε , η ) and real numbers
δ1 , δ2 > 0 such that for 43 < γ < 1,


√
√
(h)
(h)
(a) P supϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ 0 ,δ1 ) k n∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ1 , ϑ20 )− n∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k > ε ≤ η for n ≥ n(ε , η );
1



(h)
(h)
(b) P supϑ ∈Nn,γ (ϑ 0 ,δ1 )×B(ϑ 0,δ2 ) k∇2ϑ2 Ln (ϑ ) − ∇2ϑ2 Ln (ϑ 0 )k > ε ≤ η
1

2

for n ≥ n(ε , η ).

Proof.
(a) We use the upper bound
sup
ϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )

≤

√
√
(h)
(h)
k n∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ1 , ϑ20 ) − n∇ϑ2 Ln (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k
sup
ϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )

+

√
√
(h)
(h)
k n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,1 (ϑ1 , ϑ20 ) − n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,1 (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k

sup
ϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )

√
√
(h)
(h)
k n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,2 (ϑ1 , ϑ20 ) − n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,2 (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k.

34

(4.22)

Since Π(ϑ 0 )C1 = 0d×c and ∇ϑ2 (Π(ϑ 0 )C1 ) = 0dcs2 we can apply (A.3) and receive
sup
ϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )

≤C

√
√
(h)
(h)
k n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,1 (ϑ1 , ϑ20 ) − n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,1 (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k
sup

n

3
2

ϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )

≤ Cn

3
2 −2γ

tr

kϑ1 − ϑ10 k2 tr

1 n (h) (h) T
∑ Lk−1 [Lk−1]
n2 k=1

!

1 n (h) (h) T
∑ Lk−1[Lk−1]
n2 k=1

(4.23)

!

p

−−→ 0

(4.24)



(h)
(h)
where we used γ > 3/4 and tr n12 ∑nk=1 Lk−1 [Lk−1 ]T = O p (1) due to Proposition A.1(b). For the
second term we get by (A.4) and (A.6), and similar calculations as in Lemma 3.3 that
sup
ϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )

√
√
(h)
(h)
k n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,2 (ϑ1 , ϑ20 ) − n∇ϑ2 Ln,1,2 (ϑ10 , ϑ20 )k

≤

sup
ϑ1 ∈Nn,γ (ϑ10 ,δ1 )

√

1

p

nCkϑ1 − ϑ10 kUn ≤ Cn 2 −γ Un −−→ 0

(4.25)

due to γ > 3/4 and Un = O p (1). A combination of (4.22)-(4.25) proves (a).
(b) The proof is similar to (a).
Proof of Theorem 4.10. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 4.3 using Proposition 4.8, Proposition 4.9, Proposition 2.8 and Lemma 4.11.

5 Conclusion
The main contribution of the present paper is the development of a QML estimation procedure for the
parameters of cointegrated solutions of continuous-time linear state space models sampled equidistantly. To the best of our knowledge it is the first paper estimating the parameters of a cointegrated
output Y of a linear state space and MCARMA model, respectively. We showed that the QML estimator for the long-run parameter is super-consistent and that of the short-run parameter is consistent.
Moreover, the QML estimator for the long-run parameter converges with a n-rate to a mixed normal
√
distribution whereas the short-run parameter converges with a n-rate to a normal distribution.
In this paper we lay the mathematical basis for QML for cointegrated solutions of state-space models. In a separate paper [12] we present a canonical form for the state space model satisfying the
assumptions of this paper, and apply the method to a simulation study. In this simulation study we see
that the estimator works quite well in practice. We decided to split the paper because the introduction
into a canonical form is quite lengthy and would blow up the present paper. Moreover, a drawback of
our estimation procedure is that we assume that the cointegration rank is known in advance which is
not the case in reality. First we have to estimate and test the cointegration rank. For this it is possible
to incorporate some well-known results for estimating and testing the cointegration rank for cointegrated VARMA processes as, e.g., presented in [3, 24, 28, 37]. This will also be considered in [12].
Some parts of [12] can already be found in Scholz [35].

35

A Auxiliary results
A.1 Asymptotic results
For the derivation of the asymptotic behavior of our estimators we require the asymptotic behavior of
the score vector and the Hessian matrix. To obtain these asymptotic results we use the next proposition.
(h)

Proposition A.1. Let Assumption A hold. Furthermore, let (Lk )k∈N0 := (L(kh))k∈N0 be the Lévy
(h)
process sampled at distance h and ∆Lk = L(kh) − L((k − 1)h). Define for n ∈ N, k ∈ N0 ,


(h)

∆Yk
 (h)
(h)
ξk :=  Yst,k

(h)
∆Lk





(h)

Sn :=

and

n

(h)

∑ ξk

.

k=1

∞
i
i
Let L(z, ϑ ) = ∑∞
i=0 Li (ϑ )z and L(z, ϑ ) = ∑i=0 Li (ϑ )z , ϑ ∈ Θ, z ∈ C, where (Li (ϑ ))i∈N0 is a nonstochastic uniformly exponentially bounded continuous matrix sequence in Md,2d+m (R) and similarly (Li (ϑ ))i∈N0 is a nonstochastic uniformly exponentially bounded continuous matrix sequence in
Md,2d+m (R). Moreover, Π(ϑ ) ∈ Md,2d+m (R), Π(ϑ ) ∈ Md,2d+m (R) are continuous matrix functions
(h)

(h)

(h)

as well. We write L(B, ϑ )ξ (h) = (L(B, ϑ )ξk )k∈N0 with L(B, ϑ )ξk = ∑∞
i=0 Li (ϑ )ξk−i and similarly
(h)
T
T
T
T
L(B, ϑ )ξ . Let (W (r))0≤r≤1 = ((W1 (r) ,W2 (r) ,W3 (r) ) )0≤r≤1 be the Brownian motion as defined in the beginning of Section 3. Then
(a) sup
ϑ ∈Θ

i p
h
1 n
(h)
(h) T
(h)
(h) T
ϑ
)
ξ
ϑ
)
ξ
ϑ
)
ξ
ϑ
)
ξ
[L(B,
][L(B,
]
−
E
[L(B,
][L(B,
]
−→ 0
∑
1
1+ j
k
k+ j
n k=1
n

(h)

(h)

w

−
→ Π(ϑ )
(b) n−2 ∑ Π(ϑ )Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T Π(ϑ )T −
k=1

−1

(c) n

n

∑

(h)
(h)
Π(ϑ )Sk−1 [L(B, ϑ )ξk ]T

k=1

w

−
−
→ Π(ϑ )

for j ∈ N0 ,

Z 1

W (r)W (r)T dr Π(ϑ )T ,

Z 1

W (r)dW (r)T L(1, ϑ )T + ∑ ΓΠ(ϑ )ξ (h) ,L(B,ϑ )ξ (h) ( j).

0

0

∞

j=1

The stated weak convergence results also hold jointly.
Before we state the proof of Proposition A.1 we need some auxiliary results.
Lemma A.2. Let ψ de defined as in (3.2). Then the following statements hold.
(h)

(h)

(a) E(ξk ) = 02d+m and Ekξk k4 < ∞.
(b)

1
n

(h)

p

∑nk=1 ξk −−→ 02d+m
(h)

(h) (h) T
1 n
n ∑k=1 ξk [ξk+l ]

and

p

(h)

(h)

−−→ E(ξ1 [ξ1+l ]T ) =: Γξ (h) (l) for l ∈ N0 .

(h)

T
(c) ∑∞
l=0 Ekξ1 [ξ1+l ] k < ∞.


w
(h)
−−→ (ψ (1)W ∗ (r))0≤r≤1 where (W ∗ (r))0≤r≤1 is a (m + (N − c))-dimensional
(d) √1n S⌊nr⌋
0≤r≤1

Brownian motion with covariance matrix
ΣW ∗ =

Z h
0

T

ΣL
ΣL BT2 eA2 u
T
A
u
A
u
e 2 B2 ΣL e 2 B2 ΣL BT2 eA2 u

36

!

du

and ψ is defined as in (3.2).
(e)

1
n

(h)

(h)

w

∑nk=2 Sk−1 [ξk ]T −−→ ψ (1)

R1
0

W ∗ (r)dW ∗ (r)T ψ (1)T + ∑∞
l=1 Γξ (h) (l).
(h)

Proof. We shortly sketch the proof. The sequence (ξk )k∈N has the MA-representation

(h)
∆Yk
 (h) 
(h)
 Yst,k  = ξk =
(h)
∆Lk


k

∑

(h)

(A.1)

ψk− j η j

j=−∞

T

R kh
(h)
(h)
(h) T
T
A2 (kh−u) B dL . Hence, (ξ (h) )
with the iid sequence ηk := ∆L(h)
=
and
R
,
R
2
u
k∈N
(k−1)h e
k
k
k
k
is stationary and ergodic as a measurable map of a stationary ergodic process (see Krengel [22, Theorem 4.3 in Chapter 1]).
(a) is due to Assumption A.
(b) is a direct consequence of Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem.
(h)

(c) follows from Ekηk k4 < ∞, kψ j k ≤ Cρ j for some C > 0, 0 < ρ < 1 and the MA-representation
(A.1).
(d,e) are conclusions of Johansen [19, Theorem B.13] and the MA-representation (A.1).
Proof of Proposition A.1. (a) The proof follows directly by Theorem 4.1 of Saikkonen [29] and the
comment on [29, p.163, line 4] if we can show that Assumption 4.1 and 4.2 of that paper are satisfied.
Since we have uniformly exponentially bounded families of matrix sequences, Saikkonen [29, Assumption 4.1] is obviously satisfied. Saikkonen [29, Assumption 4.2 ] is satisfied due to Lemma A.2.
Note that we have two different coefficient matrices, whereas the results in Saikkonen [29] are
proved for the same coefficient matrix. However, [29, Theorem 4.1] also holds if the coefficient matrices are different as long as each sequence of matrix coefficients satisfies the necessary conditions
as mentioned in the paper of Saikkonen [29, p. 163].
(b,c) Due to Lemma A.2, Saikkonen [29, Assumption 4.3] is satisfied as well. Hence, we can
conclude the weak convergence result from [29, Theorem 4.2(iii)] and [29, Theorem 4.2(iv)], respectively.

A.2 Equicontinuity results
A kind of stochastic equicontinuity condition for the processes given in Proposition A.1 is presented
next.
Proposition A.3. Let the assumption and notation of Proposition A.1 hold. Assume further that
Π(ϑ ), Π(ϑ ) are Lipschitz-continuous and the sequence of matrix functions (∇ϑ (Li (ϑ )))i∈N0 and
(∇ϑ (Li (ϑ )))i∈N0 are uniformly exponentially bounded.
n

(h)

(h)

(a) Define Xn (ϑ ) = ∑ Π(ϑ )Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T Π(ϑ )T . Then
k=1

kXn (ϑ ) − Xn (ϑ 0 )k ≤ Ckϑ − ϑ 0 k

37

n

(h)

(h)

∑ Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T
k=1

.

(A.2)

If additionally Π(ϑ 0 ) = 0d×(2d+m) and Π(ϑ 0 ) = 0d×(2d+m) then
kXn (ϑ ) − Xn (ϑ 0 )k ≤ Ckϑ − ϑ 0 k2
n

n

(h)

(h)

∑ Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T

(A.3)

.

k=1

(h)

(h)

(b) Define Xn (ϑ ) = ∑ Π(ϑ )Sk−1 [L(B, ϑ )ξk ]T . Then
k=1

kXn (ϑ ) − Xn (ϑ 0 )k ≤ Cnkϑ − ϑ 0 kVn

(A.4)

where
Vn =

1 n
1 n (h) (h) T
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
Sk−1 [ξk ] + kSn k[kρ (B)kξn k] + ∑ k∆Sk k[kρ (B)kξk k]
∑
n k=1
n k=1
+

i
1 n (h) h
(h) T
Sk−1 L(B, ϑ 0 )ξk
∑
n k=1

(A.5)

= O p (1),

(h)

(h)

kρ (z) = c ∑∞j=0 ρ j z j for some 0 < ρ < 1, c > 0, and kρ (B)kξk k := c ∑∞j=0 ρ j kξk− j k.
n

(h)

(h)

(c) Define Xn (ϑ ) = ∑ [L(B, ϑ )ξk ][L(B, ϑ )ξk ]T . Then there exists a random variable Wn =
k=1

O p (1) so that
kXn (ϑ ) − Xn (ϑ 0 )k ≤ Cnkϑ − ϑ 0 kWn .

(A.6)

In particular, Vn +Wn = O p (1).
Proof.
(a) We have the upper bound
kXn (ϑ ) − Xn (ϑ 0 )k
n

≤

(h)

(h)

∑ [Π(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )]Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]TΠ(ϑ )T

k=1

n

+

(h)

(h)

∑ Π(ϑ 0 )Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T[Π(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )]T

k=1


≤ kΠ(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )kkΠ(ϑ )k + kΠ(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )kkΠ(ϑ 0 )k

n

(h)

(h)

∑ Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T

.

k=1

Since Π(ϑ ) and Π(ϑ ) are Lipschitz continuous, max(kΠ(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )k, kΠ(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )k) ≤ Ckϑ −
ϑ 0 k and supϑ ∈Θ max(kΠ(ϑ )k, kΠ(ϑ )k) ≤ C. Thus, (A.2) holds. Moreover, (A.3) is valid because for
Π(ϑ 0 ) = 0d,2d+m , Π(ϑ 0 ) = 0d,2d+m the upper bound
kXn (ϑ ) − Xn (ϑ 0 )k = kXn (ϑ )k ≤ kΠ(ϑ )kkΠ(ϑ )k

n

(h)

(h)

∑ Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T
k=1

≤ kΠ(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )kkΠ(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )k

38

n

(h)

(h)

∑ Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T
k=1

≤ Ckϑ − ϑ 0 k2

n

(h)

(h)

∑ Sk−1 [Sk−1 ]T
k=1

is valid.
(b) Using a Taylor expansion leads to
vec(L(z, ϑ )) − vec(L(z, ϑ 0 )) =

∞

∑ [vec(L j (ϑ )) − vec(L j (ϑ 0 ))]z j =
j=0

∞

∑ ∇ϑ vec(L∗j (ϑ ( j)))(ϑ − ϑ 0 )z j

j=0

where vec(L∗j (ϑ ( j))) denotes the matrix whose ith row is equal to the ith row of vec(L j (ϑ i ( j)))
with ϑ i ( j) ∈ Θ such that kϑ i ( j) − ϑ 0 k ≤ kϑ − ϑ 0 k for i = 1, . . . , d(2d + m). Due to assumption,
k∇ϑ vec(L∗j (ϑ ( j)))k ≤ Cρ j for j ∈ N0 and some 0 < ρ < 1 so that
kL(z, ϑ ) − L(z, ϑ 0 )k ≤ kρ (|z|)kϑ − ϑ 0 k.

(A.7)

Hence,
 (h)
(h)
k L(B, ϑ ) − L(B, ϑ 0 ) ξk k ≤ kϑ − ϑ 0 k[kρ (B)kξk k].

(A.8)

Define L∇ (z, ϑ , ϑ 0 ) := L(z, ϑ ) − L(z, ϑ 0 ) =: ∑∞j=0 L∇j (ϑ , ϑ 0 )z j . Then we apply a Beveridge-Nelson
decomposition (see Saikkonen [29, (9)]) to get
(h)

L∇ (B, ϑ , ϑ 0 )ξk

(h)

= L∇ (1, ϑ , ϑ 0 )ξk + ηk (ϑ , ϑ 0 ) − ηk−1 (ϑ , ϑ 0 )
(h)

∇
0
with ηk (ϑ , ϑ 0 ) := − ∑∞j=0 ∑∞
i= j+1 Li (ϑ , ϑ )ξk− j . Thus,

h
 (h) iT
1 n
(h)
Π(ϑ )Sk−1 L(B, ϑ ) − L(B, ϑ 0 ) ξk
∑
n k=1
= Π(ϑ )

1 n (h) (h) T ∇
1 n (h)
1 n (h)
Sk−1 [ξk ] L (1, ϑ , ϑ 0 )T + Π(ϑ ) ∑ Sk−1 [ηk (ϑ , ϑ 0 )]T − Π(ϑ ) ∑ Sk−1 [ηk−1 (ϑ , ϑ 0 )]T
∑
n k=1
n k=1
n k=1

= Π(ϑ )

1 n (h) (h) T ∇
1 n
(h)
(h)
0 T
0 T
]
L
[
S
(1,
)
+
)]
−
(
ξ
ϑ
,
ϑ
Π(
ϑ
)S
[
η
ϑ
,
ϑ
Π(
ϑ
)
n
n
∑ k−1 k
∑ ∆Sk [ηk (ϑ , ϑ 0 )]T .
n k=1
n k=1

Due to (A.7), kL∇ (1, ϑ , ϑ 0 )k ≤ Ckϑ − ϑ 0 k and kL∇j (ϑ , ϑ 0 )k ≤ Ckϑ − ϑ 0 kρ j so that kηk (ϑ , ϑ 0 )k ≤
(h)

kϑ − ϑ 0 k[kρ (B)kξk k] as well. Finally, we receive

 (h) iT
1 n (h) h
Sk−1 L(B, ϑ ) − L(B, ϑ 0 ) ξk
(A.9)
∑
n k=1
#
"
n
n
1
1
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
≤ Ckϑ − ϑ 0 k
∑ Sk−1 [ξk ]T + kSn k[kρ (B)kξn k] + n ∑ k∆Sk k[kρ (B)kξk k] ,
n k=1
k=1

Π(ϑ )

and
[Π(ϑ ) − Π(ϑ 0 )]

i
i
1 n (h) h
1 n (h) h
(h) T
(h) T
≤ Ckϑ − ϑ 0 k
. (A.10)
Sk−1 L(B, ϑ 0 )ξk
Sk−1 L(B, ϑ 0 )ξk
∑
∑
n k=1
n k=1

39

Then (A.9) and (A.10) result in (A.4).
(h)
(h) T
1 n
n ∑k=1 Sk−1 [ξk ]

in the definition of Vn is O p (1) by
(h)
1 n
Lemma A.2. Moreover,
= n ∑k=1 ξk = O p (1) by Birkhoff’s Ergodic Theorem; similarly the
(h)
(h)
1 n
third term n ∑k=1 k∆Sk k[kρ (B)kξk k] is O p (1) by Birkhoff’s Ergodic Theorem. Finally, the last
h
i
n (h)
(h) T
term n1 ∑ Sk−1 L(B, ϑ 0 )ξk
is O p (1) by Proposition A.1(c).
k=1

It remains to prove (A.5). The first term
1 (h)
n Sn

(c) The proof is similarly to the proof of (b).

B Proof of Proposition 2.8
First, we present some auxiliary results for the proof of Proposition 2.8.
(h)

(h)

(h) (h)

Lemma B.1. Let Assumption A and B hold. Define X1 (ϑ ) = ∑∞j=0 (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) j Kϑ Y− j . Then

n

o

(h)
(h)
1
E supϑ ∈Θ kb
< ∞.
εk (ϑ )k2
(a) E supϑ ∈Θ kX1 (ϑ )k2 < ∞ and maxk∈N (1+k)
n

o


(h)
(h)
1
< ∞.
εk (ϑ )k2
(b) E supϑ ∈Θ k∂u X1 (ϑ )k2 < ∞ and maxk∈N (1+k)
E supϑ ∈Θ k∂u b


n

o
(h)
(h)
1
(c) E supϑ ∈Θ k∂u,v X1 (ϑ )k2 < ∞ and maxk∈N (1+k)
E supϑ ∈Θ k∂u,v b
< ∞.
εk (ϑ )k2
(h)

Proof. We prove (a) exemplary for (b) and (c). First, remark that EkY j k2 ≤ C(1 + | j|) for j ∈ Z.
(h)

Since all eigenvalues of (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) lie inside the unit circle (see Scholz [35, Lemma 4.6.7]) and
all matrix functions are continuous on the compact set Θ and, hence, bounded, we receive for some
(h)
(h)
(h)
0 < ρ < 1 that supϑ ∈Θ keAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ k ≤ ρ and supϑ ∈Θ kX1 (ϑ )k ≤ C ∑∞j=0 ρ j kY− j k. Thus,


(h)

E sup kX1 (ϑ )k2
ϑ ∈Θ



∞

≤C

(h)

∑ ρ j (EkY− j k2 )1/2

j=0

!2

∞

≤C

∑ ρ j (1 + j)1/2

j=0

!2

< ∞.

Similarly,
k−1

(h)
(h)
(h)
sup kb
εk (ϑ )k ≤ kYk k +Cρ k−1 sup kXb1 (ϑ )k + ∑ Cρ j kYk− j k,

ϑ ∈Θ

such that
E



(h)
sup kb
εk (ϑ )k2
ϑ ∈Θ



ϑ ∈Θ

2 2k−2

2

≤ 3EkYk k + 3C ρ


E

j=1





(h)
sup kXb1 (ϑ )k2
ϑ ∈Θ
(h)



k−1

+3

j=1



≤ C (1 + k) + ρ 2k−2 E sup kXb1 (ϑ )k2 + k
ϑ ∈Θ

∑ Cρ
∞

∑ρj

j=0

Finally, due to Assumption B
max
k∈N





1
(h)
εk (ϑ )k2
E sup kb
(1 + k)
ϑ ∈Θ









(h)
≤ C 1 + E sup kXb1 (ϑ )k2 +

ϑ ∈Θ

40

j

(h)
(EkYk− j k2 )1/2

!2 

.

!2 
∑ ρ j  < ∞.
∞

j=0

!2

Lemma B.2. Let Assumption A and B hold. Furthermore, let u, v ∈ {1, . . . , s}.
(a) Then there exists a positive random variable ξ with Eξ 2 < ∞ and a constant 0 < ρ < 1 so that
(h)
(h)
supϑ ∈Θ kb
εk (ϑ ) − εk (ϑ )k ≤ Cρ k−1 ξ for any k ∈ N.

(b) Then there exists a positive random variable ξ u with E(ξ (u) )2 < ∞ and a constant 0 < ρ < 1 so
(h)
(h)
εk (ϑ ) − ∂u εk (ϑ )k ≤ Cρ k−1 ξ (u) for any k ∈ N.
that supϑ ∈Θ k∂u b

(c) Then there exists a positive random variable ξ (u,v) with E(ξ (u,v) )2 < ∞ and a constant 0 < ρ < 1
(h)
(h)
εk (ϑ ) − ∂u,v εk (ϑ )k ≤ Cρ k−1 ξ (u,v) for any k ∈ N.
so that supϑ ∈Θ k∂u,v b

Proof. (a) We use the representation

(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
b
εk (ϑ ) − εk (ϑ ) = Cϑ (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ )k−1 (Xb1 (ϑ ) − X1 (ϑ ))

(h)
(h)
and define ξ = supϑ ∈Θ kXb1 (ϑ )k + supϑ ∈Θ kX1 (ϑ )k. Due to Assumption B and Lemma B.1(a) we
(h)
know that Eξ 2 < ∞. Since all eigenvalues of (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ ) lie inside the unit circle and Cϑ is
bounded as a continuous function on the compact set Θ there exists a C > 0 and 0 < ρ < 1 so that
(h)
supϑ ∈Θ kCϑ (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ )k−1 k ≤ Cρ k−1 and
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
sup kb
εk (ϑ ) − εk (ϑ )k ≤ sup kCϑ (eAϑ h − Kϑ Cϑ )kk−1 sup kXb1 (ϑ ) − X1 (ϑ )k ≤ Cρ k−1 ξ .

ϑ ∈Θ

ϑ ∈Θ

ϑ ∈Θ

(b,c) can be proven similarly.
Proof of Proposition 2.8.
(a) First,

cn(h) (ϑ ) − Ln(h) (ϑ )
L
i
1 n h (h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h) −1 (h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
T
T
b
b
b
=
ε
ϑ
)
−
ε
ϑ
))
V
ε
ϑ
)
−
ε
ϑ
)
V
ε
ϑ
)
−
ε
ϑ
))
.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
∑ k
ϑ
ϑ
k
k
k
k
k
n k=1

Then

(h)

(h)

cn (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ )|
n sup |L
ϑ ∈Θ


n 
(h) −1
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
≤ sup k(Vϑ ) k ∑ sup kb
εk (ϑ ) − εk (ϑ )k sup kb
εk (ϑ )k + sup kεk (ϑ )k .
ϑ ∈Θ

k=1 ϑ ∈Θ

ϑ ∈Θ

ϑ ∈Θ

Due to Lemma 2.5 and Lemma B.2(a)
n

≤ Cξ

∑ρ
k=1

k





(h)
(h)
sup kb
εk (ϑ )k + sup kεk (ϑ )k
ϑ ∈Θ
ϑ ∈Θ

with E(ξ 2 ) < ∞. From this and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we can conclude that


(h)
(h)
c
nE sup |Ln (ϑ ) − Ln (ϑ )|
ϑ ∈Θ

41

2 1/2

≤ C(Eξ )

" 

1/2
1/2 #
(h)
(h)
2
2
+ E sup kεk (ϑ )k
.
∑ ρ E sup kbεk (ϑ )k
n

k

k=1

ϑ ∈Θ

ϑ ∈Θ

An application of Lemma B.1(a) yields
∞

≤ C(Eξ 2 )1/2 ∑ ρ k (1 + k)1/2 < ∞.
k=1

cn(h) (ϑ ) − Ln(h) (ϑ )| = O p (1) so that (a) follows. Again (b) and (c) can be
This proves, n supϑ ∈Θ |L
proven similarly.

References
[1] AOKI , M. (1990). State space modeling of time series 2. ed. Springer, Berlin.
[2] BAUER , D. AND WAGNER , M. (2002). Asymptotic properties of pseudo maximum likelihood estimates for multiple frequency I(1) processes. Diskussionsschriften. Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
[3] BAUER , D. AND WAGNER , M. (2002). Estimating cointegrated systems using subspace algorithms. J.
Econometrics 111, 47–84.
[4] B ERGSTROM , A. R. (1997). Gaussian estimation of mixed-order continuous-time dynamic models with
unobservable stochastic trends from mixed stock and flow data. Econometric Theory 13, 467–505.
[5] B ERNSTEIN , D. S. (2009). Matrix mathematics: theory, facts, and formulas 2nd ed. Princeton Univ.
Press, Princeton.
[6] B OUBACAR M AÏNASSARA , Y. AND F RANCQ , C. (2011). Estimating structural VARMA models with
uncorrelated but non-independent error terms. J. Multivar. Anal. 102, 496–505.
[7] B RADLEY, R. C. (2007). Introduction to strong mixing conditions vol. 1. Kendrick, Heber City.
[8] B ROCKWELL , P. J. AND DAVIS , R. A. (1998). Time Series: Theory and Methods 2nd ed. Springer Ser.
Statist. Springer, New York.
[9] C HAMBERS , A. AND M C C RORIE , J. R. (2007). Frequency domain estimation of temporally aggregated
Gaussian cointegrated systems. J. Econometrics 136, 1–29.
[10] FASEN , V. (2013). Time series regression on integrated continuous-time processes with heavy and light
tails. Econometric Theory 29, 28–67.
[11] FASEN , V. (2014). Limit theory for high frequency sampled MCARMA models. Adv. Appl. Probab. 46,
846–877.
[12] FASEN -H ARTMANN , V.
process. In preparation.

AND

S CHOLZ , M. (2017). A canonical form for a cointegrated MCARMA

[13] FASEN -H ARTMANN , V. AND S CHOLZ , M. (2017). Cointegrated continuous-time linear state-space and
MCARMA models. Submitted for publication.
[14] H ANNAN , E. AND D EISTLER , M. (2012). The Statistical Theory of Linear Systems. Society for Industrial
and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
[15] H ARVEY, A. C. AND S TOCK , J. H. (1985). The estimation of higher-order continuous time autoregressive
models. Econometric Theory 1, 97–112.

42

[16] H ARVEY, A. C. AND S TOCK , J. H. (1988). Continuous time autoregressive models with common
stochastic trends. J. Econom. Dynam. Control. 12, 365–384.
[17] I BRAGIMOV, I. A. (1962). Some limit theorems for stationary processes. Theory Probab. Appl. 7,
349–382.
[18] J OHANSEN , S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector
autoregressive models. Econometrica 59, 1551–1580.
[19] J OHANSEN , S. (2009). Likelihood-based inference in cointegrated vector autoregressive models. Advanced texts in econometrics. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
[20] K ESSLER , M. AND R AHBEK , A. (2001). Asymptotic likelihood based inference for co-integrated homogenous Gaussian diffusions. Scand. J. Statist. 28, 455–470.
[21] K ESSLER , M. AND R AHBEK , A. (2004). Identification and inference for multivariate cointegrated and
ergodic Gaussian diffusions. Stat. Inference Stoch. Process. 7, 137–151.
[22] K RENGEL , U. (1985). Ergodic theorems: with a supplement. de Gruyter Stud. Math. 6. De Gruyter,
Berlin.
[23] L ÜTKEPOHL , H. (2005). New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Springer, Berlin.
[24] L ÜTKEPOHL , H. AND C LAESSEN , H. (1997). Analysis of cointegrated VARMA processes. J. Econometrics 80, 223–239.
[25] M ARQUARDT, T.
117, 96–120.

AND

S TELZER , R. (2007). Multivariate CARMA processes. Stochastic Process. Appl.

[26] M ASUDA , H. (2004). On multidimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes driven by a general Lévy
process. Bernoulli 10, 97–120.
[27] R EINSEL , G. C. (1997). Elements of multivariate time series analysis 2. ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[28] S AIKKONEN , P. (1992). Estimation and testing of cointegrated systems by an autoregressive approximation. Econometric Theory 8, 1–27.
[29] S AIKKONEN , P. (1993). Continuous weak convergence and stochastic equicontinuity results for integrated
processes with an application to the estimation of a regression model. Econometric Theory 9, 155–188.
[30] S AIKKONEN , P. (1995). Problems with the asymptotic theory of maximum likelihood estimation in
integrated and cointegrated systems. Econometric Theory 11, 888–911.
[31] S ATO , K.-I. (1999). Lévy processes and infinitely divisible distributions. Cambridge Stud. Adv. Math.
68. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
[32] S CHLEMM , E. (2011). Estimation of continuous-time ARMA models and random matrices with dependent entries. PhD thesis. Technische Universität München.
[33] S CHLEMM , E. AND S TELZER , R. (2012). Multivariate CARMA processes, continuous-time state space
models and complete regularity of the innovations of the sampled processes. Bernoulli 18, 46–63.
[34] S CHLEMM , E. AND S TELZER , R. (2012). Quasi maximum likelihood estimation for strongly mixing
state space models and multivariate Lévy-driven CARMA processes. Electron. J. Stat. 6, 2185–2234.
[35] S CHOLZ , M. (2016). Estimation of Cointegrated Multivariate Continuous-time Autoregressive Moving
Average Processes. PhD thesis. Karlsruher Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe.
[36] S TOCKMARR , A. AND JACOBSEN , M. (1994). Gaussian diffusions and autoregressive processes: weak
convergence and statistical inference. Scand. J. Statist. 21, 403–429.
[37] YAP, S. F. AND R EINSEL , G. C. (1995). Estimation and testing for unit roots in a partially nonstationary
vector autoregressive moving average model. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 90, 253–267.

43

