Consistency of the plug-in functional predictor of the
Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process in Hilbert and Banach spaces
Javier Álvarez-Liébana1 , Denis Bosq2 and M. Dolores Ruiz-Medina1

arXiv:1706.06354v1 [] 20 Jun 2017

21st June 2017
1

Department of Statistics and O. R., University of Granada, Spain.
LSTA, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, Paris, France.
E-mail: javialvaliebana@ugr.es
2

Summary
New results on functional prediction of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process in an autoregressive Hilbert-valued
and Banach-valued frameworks are derived. Specifically, consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator of the
autocorrelation operator, and of the associated plug-in predictor is obtained in both frameworks.

Key words: Autoregressive Hilbertian processes; Banach-valued autoregressive processes; consistency;
maximum likelihood parameter estimator; Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process.

1

Introduction

This paper derives new results in the context of linear processes in function spaces. An extensive literature has been developed in this context, in the last few decades (see, for example, Bosq (2000);
Ferraty and Vieu (2006); Ramsay and Silverman (2005), among others). In particular, the problem of
functional prediction of linear processes in Hilbert and Banach spaces has been widely addressed. We refer
to the reader to the papers by: Bensmain and Mourid (2003); Bosq (1996); Bosq (2002); Bosq (2004);
Bosq (2007); Dedecker and Merlevede (2003); Dehling and Sharipov (2005); Glendinning and Fleet (2007);
Guillas (2000); Guillas (2001); Kargin and Onatski (2008); Labbas and Mourid (2003); Marion and Pumo (2004);
Mas (2002); Mas (2004); Mas (2007); Mas and Menneteau (2003); Mas and Pumo (2007); Menneteau (2005);
Mourid (2002); Mourid (2004); Mokhtari and Mourid (2002); Pumo (1998); Rachedi (2004); Rachedi (2005);
Rachedi and Mourid (2003); Ruiz-Medina (2012); Turbillon, Marion and Pumo (2007); Turbillon et. al (2008),
and the references therein. In the above-mentioned papers, different projection methodologies have been
adopted in the derivation of the main asymptotic properties of the formulated functional parameter estimators and predictors. Particularly, Bosq (2000) and Bosq and Blanke (2007) apply Functional Principal
Component Analysis; Antoniadis, Paparoditis and Sapatinas (2006) and Antoniadis and Sapatinas (2003)
consider wavelet bases; Laukaitis, Vasilecas and Laukaitis (2009) propose wavelet estimation methods.
1

Applications of these functional estimation results can be found in the papers by: Antoniadis and Sapatinas (2003);
Damon and Guillas (2002); Hormann and Kokoszka (2011); Laukaitis (2008); Ruiz-Medina and Salmern (2009),
among others.
We pay attention here to the problem of functional prediction of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (O.U.)
process (see, for example, Uhlenbeck and Ornstein (1930), and Wang and Uhlenbeck (1945), for its introduction and properties). See also Doob (1942) for the classical definition of O.U. process from the
Langevin (linear) stochastic differential equation. We can find in Kutoyants (2004) and Liptser and Shiraev (2001)
an explicit expression of the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the scale parameter θ, characterizing its covariance function. Its strong consistency is proved, for instance, in Kleptsyna and Le Breton (2002).
We formulate here the O.U. process as an Autoregressive Hilbertian process of order one (ARH(1) process), and as an Autoregressive Banach -valued process of order one (ARB(1) process). Consistency of
the MLE of θ is applied to prove consistency of the corresponding MLE of the autocorrelation operator
of the O.U. process. We adopt the methodology applied in Bosq (1991), since our interest relies on
forecasting the values of the O.U. process over an entire time interval. Specifically, considering the O.U.
process {ξt }t∈R , on the basic probability space (Ω, A, P ), we can define
0 ≤ t ≤ h, n ∈ Z,

Xn (t) = ξnh+t ,

(1)

satisfying

Xn (t)

= ξnh+t =

Z

nh+t

e−θ(nh+t−s) dWs = ρθ (Xn−1 ) (t) + εn (t) ,

−∞

n ∈ Z,

(2)

with

ρθ (x) (t) = e

−θt

x (h) ,

ρθ (Xn−1 ) (t) = e

−θt

Z

nh

e

−θ(nh−s)

dWs ,

εn (t) =

−∞

Z

nh+t

e−θ(nh+t−s) dWs ,
nh

(3)

for 0 ≤ t ≤ h. Thus, X = (Xn , n ∈ Z) satisfies the ARH(1) equation (2) (see also equation (5) below for

its general definition). The real separable Hilbert space H is given by H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) ,

where β[0,h] is the Borel σ-algebra generated by the subintervals in [0, h] , λ is the Lebesgue measure,

and δ(h) (s) = δ (s − h) is the Dirac measure at point h. The associated norm
kf kH=L2 ([0,h],β[0,h] ,λ+δ(h) ) =

s
Z

h

f 2 (t)dt + f 2 (h)
0

establishes the equivalent classes of functions given by the relationship f ∼λ+δ(h) g if and only if

2


λ + δ(h) ({t : f (t) 6= g (t)}) = 0, with


λ + δ(h) ({t : f (t) 6= g (t)}) = 0 ⇔ λ ({t : f (t) 6= g (t)}) = 0 and f (h) = g (h) ,

(4)

where, as before, δ(h) is the Dirac measure. We will prove, in Lemma 1 below, that X = (Xn , n ∈ Z),
constructed in (1) from the O.U. process, satisfying equations (2)–(3), is the unique stationary solution

to equation (2), in the space H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) , admitting a MAH(∞) representation.
Similarly, in Lemma 4 below, we will prove that X = (Xn , n ∈ Z), constructed in (1) from the O.U.
process, satisfying equations (2)–(3), is the unique stationary solution to equation (2), admitting a
MAB(∞) representation, in the space B = C ([0, h]) , the Banach space of continuous functions, whose
support is the interval [0, h] , with the supremum norm.
The main results of this paper provide the almost surely convergence to ρθ of the MLE ρθb of ρθ ,
in the norm of L(H), the space of bounded linear operators in the Hilbert space H (respectively, in
the norm of L(B), the space of bounded linear operators in the Banach space B). The convergence in
probability of the associated plug-in ARH(1) and ARB(1) predictors, i.e., the convergence in probability
of ρθb(Xn−1 ) to ρθ (Xn−1 ) in H and B, respectively, is proved as well.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, the main results of this paper are obtained.
Specifically, Section 2.1 provides the definition of O.U. process as an ARH(1) process. Strong consistency
in L(H) of the estimator of the autocorrelation operator is derived in Section 2.2. Consistency in H of
the associated plug-in ARH(1) predictor is then established in Section 2.3. The corresponding results in
Banach spaces are given in Section 2.4. For illustration purposes, a simulation study is undertaken in
Section 3. Final comments can be found in Section 4. (The basic preliminary elements applied in the
proof of the main results of this paper and the proof of Lemma 1 can be found in the supplementary
material).

2

Prediction of O.U. process in Hilbert and Banach spaces

In this section, we consider H to be a real separable Hilbert space. Recall that a zero-mean ARH(1)
process X = (Xn , n ∈ Z), on the basic probability space (Ω, A, P ), satisfies (see Bosq (2000))
Xn = ρ (Xn−1 ) + εn ,

n ∈ Z,

(5)

where ρ denotes the autocorrelation operator of process X. Here, ε = (εn , n ∈ Z) is assumed to be
a strong-white noise, i.e., ε is a Hilbert-valued zero-mean stationary process, with independent and
identically distributed components in time, and with σ 2 = Ekεn k2H < ∞, for all n ∈ Z.

3

2.1 O.U. process as ARH(1) process
As commented in the Introduction, equations (1)–(3) provide the definition of O.U. process as an ARH(1)


process, with H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) . The norm in the space H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) of
ρθ (x), with ρθ introduced in (3) and x ∈ H, is given by
kρθ (x)k2H

=

Z

h



2

|ρθ (x) (t) | d λ + δ(h) (t) =

0

Z

0

h

|ρθ (x) (t) |2 dt + |ρθ (x) (h) |2 ,

(6)

for each h strictly positive. The following lemma provides, for each k ≥ 1, the exact value of the norm

of ρkθ , in the space of bounded linear operators on L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) . As a direct consequence,
the existence of k0 such that kρkθ kL(H) < 1, for k ≥ k0 , is also derived for θ > 0.

Lemma 1 Let us consider, for n ∈ Z, Xn satisfying equations (1)–(3). For each k ≥ 1, the norm of ρkθ
is given by
kρkθ kL(H)
Furthermore, for k ≥ k0 =

=

1
θ

r

+1

e−2θ(k−1)h

+

1 + e−2θh (2θ − 1)
= e−θ(k−1)h kρθ kL(H) .
2θ

(7)

kρkθ kL(H) < 1,

(8)

,

where [t]+ denotes the closest upper integer of t, for every t ∈ R+ .
The proof of this lemma can be found in the supplementary material.
Remark 1 From equation (8), applying Theorem 3.1. in Bosq (2000), p. 74, Lemma 1 implies that
X = (Xn , n ∈ Z), constructed in (1) from O.U. process, defines the unique stationary solution to

equation (2) in the space H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) , admitting the MAH(∞) representation
Xn =

+∞
X

ρkθ (εn−k ) ,

n ∈ Z, ρθ ∈ L (H) .

k=0

(9)


k
Remark 2 Note that, for all x ∈ H, and k ≥ 2, kρkθ kL(H) ≤ kρθ kL(H) .

2.2 Functional parameter estimation and consistency
We now prove strong consistency of the estimator ρθbn of operator ρθ in L(H), with, as before,

H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) , and θbn denoting the MLE of θ, based on the observation of O.U. process
on the interval [0, T ], with T = nh. Note that, from equation (3), for all x ∈ H, and for a given sample
b

size n, ρθbn (x) = e−θn t x (h) , where the MLE of θ is given, for T = nh, by
ξ2

θbT

=

ξ2

1 + T0 − TT
,
R
2 T 2
ξ
dt
t
T 0
4

T > 0,

(10)

with ξt , t ∈ [0, T ], being the observed values of the O.U. process over the interval [0, T ]. Thus, ρθbn is
introduced in an abstract way, since it can only be explicitly computed, for each particular function
x ∈ H considered. However, the norm kρθ − ρθbn kL(H) is explicitly computed in equation (13) below.
The following results will be applied in the proof of Proposition 1.
Lemma 2 If t ∈ [0, +∞), it holds that |e−ut − e−vt | ≤ |u − v|t, for any u, v ≥ 0.
The proof of this lemma is given in the supplementary material.
Theorem 1 (see Kleptsyna and Le Breton (2002), Proposition 2.2, p. 4, and Kutoyants (2004), p. 63 and p. 117).
The MLE of θ defined in equation (10) is strongly consistent, i.e.,
lim θbT = θ

T →∞

almost surely.

(11)

The proof follows from Ibragimov-Khasminskii’s Theorem.

Proposition 1 Let H be the space L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) . Then, the estimator ρθbn of operator ρθ ,
based on the MLE θbn of θ, is strongly consistent in L (H) , i.e.,

kρθ − ρθbn kL(H) →a.s. 0.

(12)

Proof. The following straightforward almost surely identities are obtained:

kρθ − ρθbn kL(H)

=

sup



 
 k ρθ − ρθb (x) kH 
n



kxkH
v

uZ h 



u





2


|
ρ
−
ρ
(x)
(t)
|
d
λ
+
δ
(t)
u
θ

b
(h)
θn
u
0
u
= sup u
Z h


x∈H 
t



|x (t) |2 d λ + δ(h) (t)




0

v
u
Z h
2 
2


u


b
b



e−θt − e−θnt dt + e−θh − e−θn h 

u
u
0
u
2
= sup ux (h)
Z h

x∈H 
t




x2 (t) dt + x2 (h)




x∈H

0

=

s
Z

0

h

2
2


b
b
e−θt − e−θn t dt + e−θh − e−θnh ,

(13)

where the last identity is obtained in a similar way to equation (7) in Lemma 1 (see also equations
(26)–(30) in the supplementary material).

5

From Lemma 2 and equation (13), for n sufficiently large, we have

kρθ − ρθbn kL(H)

≤
=

s
Z

h

t |θ − θbn | dt + h |θ − θbn | = |θ − θbn |
2

0

|θ − θbn |h

2

r

2

2

s
Z

h

t2 dt + h2

0

h
+ 1 almost surely.
3

(14)

The strong-consistency of ρθbn in L (H) directly follows from Theorem 1 and equation (14).

Remark 3 From Proposition 2.3(i) in Kleptsyna and Le Breton (2002), p. 5 (see also Theorem 2 below),
the MLE θbT of θ satisfies

E



θ − θbT

2 

=O



2θ
T



,

T → ∞.

(15)

In addition, from equation (14), considering T = nh, h > 0,

i h
i
h
h
+1 .
E kρθ − ρθbn k2L(H) ≤ E |θ − θbn |2 h2
3

(16)

Equations (15) and (16) lead to

with G(θ, θbn , h) = O
consistent.

2θ
n



i
h
E kρθ − ρθbn k2L(H) ≤ G(θ, θbn , h),
, n → ∞. Therefore, the functional parameter estimator ρθbn of ρθ is

√
n-

2.3 Consistency of the plug-in ARH(1) predictor
bn , constructed from the MLE ρ b of ρθ in Proposition
Let us consider the plug-in ARH(1) predictor X
θn
1, given by

bn (t) = ρ b (Xn−1 ) (t) = e−θbn t Xn−1 (h) ,
X
θn

0 ≤ t ≤ h, n ∈ Z.

(17)

bn , given in equation (17), from Proposition 1 by
Corollary 1 below provides the consistency of X

applying the following lemma and theorem.


1
Lemma 3 Let {Zn }n∈Z be a sequence of random variables such that Zn ∼ N 0, 2θ
, with θ > 0,
p
and let {Yn }n∈Z be another sequence of random variables such that ln (n)Yn →p 0, n → ∞. Then,
Yn |Zn | →p 0, n → ∞, where, as usual, →p indicates convergence in probability.
The proof of this lemma can be found in the supplementary material.

6

Theorem 2 Let θbT be the MLE of θ defined in equation (10), with θ > 0. Hence,
E



θ − θbT

2 

In particular,
lim E

T →∞

=O





2θ
T

θ − θbT



,

2 

T → ∞.

(18)

= 0.

(19)

The proof of this result is given in in Proposition 2.3(i) in Kleptsyna and Le Breton (2002), p. 5.

Corollary 1 Let H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) be the Hilbert space introduced above. Then, the plug-in
ARH(1) predictor (17) of O.U. process is consistent in H, i.e.,



k ρθ − ρθbn (Xn−1 ) kH →p 0.

(20)

Proof. By definition,


k ρθ − ρθbn (Xn−1 ) kH

= |Xn−1 (h) |

s
Z

h

0



b

e−θt − e−θn t

2

2

b
dt + e−θh − e−θn h .

(21)

From equations (13)–(14) and (21), we then obtain, for n sufficiently large,
r


h
b
+ 1 a.s.
k ρθ − ρθbn (Xn−1 ) kH ≤ |Xn−1 (h) ||θ − θn |h
3

(22)



q
h
b
|θ − θn |h 3 + 1

Let us set {Yn }n∈Z =
and {Zn }n∈Z = {Xn−1 (h)}n∈Z , with
n∈Z

1
Xn−1 ∼ N 0, 2θ
, for every n ∈ Z. From Theorem 1, Yn →a.s. 0, n → ∞. Hence, to apply Lemma 3,

we need to prove that

p
ln (n)Yn →p 0,

n → ∞.

(23)

From Chebyshev’s inequality and Theorem 2, we get, for all ε > 0,

P

p
|θ − θbn | ln (n)h

r

h
+1≥ε
3

!

h2
≤

h
3

i
h

+ 1 ln (n) E |θ − θbn |2
ε2

→n→+∞ 0.

(24)



Therefore, from Lemma 3, we obtain the convergence in probability of k ρθ − ρθbn (Xn−1 ) kH to zero.


2.4 Prediction of O.U. process in B = C ([0, h])
As before, let B be now the Banach space of continuous functions, whose support is the interval [0, h],
with the supremum norm, denoted as C ([0, h]) . The following lemma states that kρkθ kL(B) ≤ 1, for
7

θ > 0, and for every k ≥ 1, with L (B) being the space of bounded linear operators on the Banach space
B = C ([0, h]) , and ρθ being introduced in equation (3). Consequently, considering condition (c1 ) in
Bosq (2000), p. 74,

with

a = 2, b = 1/2 and j = 1, from Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.1, in Bosq (2000), pp. 74–75, X = (Xn , n ∈
Z), constructed in (1) from O.U. process, defines the unique stationary solution to equation (2), in the
Banach space B = C ([0, h]) , admitting a MAB(∞) representation.
Lemma 4 Let ρθ introduced in (3), defined on B = C ([0, h]) . Then, for k ≥ 1, kρkθ kL(B) ≤ 1, with
θ > 0.
Proof.
From
ρkθ (x)(t) = e−θt e−θ(k−1)h x(h),
for each k ≥ 1 and θ > 0, we have
kρkθ kL(B)

=

sup
x∈B

=
=



kρkθ (x) kB
kxkB



= sup
x∈B

sup0≤t≤h | exp(−θt) exp(−θ(k − 1)h)x(h)|
sup0≤t≤h |x(t)|

|x(h)| exp(−θ(k − 1)h) sup0≤t≤h exp(−θt)
|x(h)| sup0≤t≤h exp(−θt)
sup
≤ sup
sup0≤t≤h |x(t)|
|x(h)|
x∈B
x∈B
sup exp(−θt) = 1.

(25)

0≤t≤h


We now check strong consistency of the MLE ρθbn of ρθ in L(B). From (25),
b

kρθ − ρθbn kL(B) ≤ sup |e−θt − e−θn t |,

a.s.

(26)

0≤t≤h

From Lemma 2, for n sufficiently large, we then have
kρθ − ρθbn kL(B) ≤ h|θ − θbn |,

a.s.

(27)

Theorem 1 then leads to the desired result on strong consistency of the estimator ρθbn of ρθ in L(B).
√
Furthermore, from Theorem 2 , in a similar way to Remark 3, n-consistency of ρθbn in L (B) also follows
from equations (18) and (27).
Similarly to Corollary 1, in the following result, the consistency, in the Banach space
B = C([0, h]), of the plug-in predictor (17) is obtained.
Corollary 2 The ARB(1) plug-in predictor (17) of a zero-mean O.U. process is consistent in B =

8

C([0, h]), i.e., as n → ∞,



k ρθ − ρθbn (Xn−1 ) kB →p 0.

(28)

Proof. From Lemma 2, for n sufficiently large, and for each h > 0,


k ρθ − ρθbn (Xn−1 ) kB

=

b
sup |e−θt − e−θnt ||Xn−1 (h) | ≤ h|θ − θbn ||Xn−1 (h) |,

a.s.

(29)

0≤t≤h

n
o
As derived in the proof of Corollary 1, from Theorem 2, the random sequence {Yn }n∈Z = h|θ − θbn |
n∈Z
q
p
p
is such that ln (n)Yn ≤ h3 + 1 ln (n)Yn →p 0, n → ∞. Moreover, {Zn }n∈Z = {Xn−1 (h)}n∈Z is such

1
. Lemma 3 then leads, as n → ∞, to the desired convergence result from equathat Xn−1 (h) ∼ N 0, 2θ
tion (29)



k ρθ − ρθbn (Xn−1 ) kB ≤ Yn |Zn | →p 0.

(30)


3

Simulations

In this section, a simulation study is undertaken to illustrate the asymptotic results presented in this
paper about the MLE θbn of θ, and the consistency of the ML functional parameter estimators of the

autocorrelation operator, and the associated plug-in predictors, in the ARH(1) and ARB(1) frameworks.

3.1 Estimation of scale parameter θ
For simulation of the sample-paths of O.U. process, an extension of the Euler method, the EulerMurayama method (see Kloeden and Platen (1992)) is applied, from the Langevin stochastic differential
equation satisfied by the O.U. process {ξt , t ∈ [0, T ]}
dξt = −θξt + dWt ,

θ > 0,

t ∈ [0, T ] ,

ξ0 = x0 .

(31)

Thus, let 0 = t0 < t1 < t2 < · · · < tn = T be a partition of real interval [0, T ] . Then, (31) can be
discretized as
ξbi+1 = ξbi − θξbi + ∆Wi ,

ξb0 = ξ0 = 0,

where {∆Wi }i=0,...,n−1 are i.i.d. Wiener increments, i.e., ∆Wi ∼ N (0, ∆t) =

(32)
√
∆tN (0, 1). In the

following, we take ∆t = 0.02 as discretization step size, considering N = 1000 simulations of the O.U.
process. In particular, Figure 1 shows some realizations of the discrete version of the solution to (31)
generated from (32).
9

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

−0.2

−0.4

−0.6

Figure 1: Three sample paths of O.U. process {ξt }0≤t≤T generated with T = 5, ∆t = 0.02, θ = 5,
ξb0 = 0
−0.8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Let us first illustrate the asymptotic normal distribution of θbT , i.e., for T sufficiently large, we can

(see Theorem 1 in the supplementary material).
consider θbT ∼ N θ, 2θ
T
Z T
−
ξt dξt
From equation (10), we take θbT = Z 0T
(see also equation (9) in the supplementary material),
2
ξt dt
0

to compute the following approximation of the MLE θbT of θ, for each one of the N = 1000 simulations
performed of the O.U. process on [0, T ], and for each one of the six values of parameter θ considered:

θbT ≃

−

n−1
X
i=0



ξbti ,s (θ) ξbti+1 ,s (θ) − ξbti ,s (θ)
n−1
X
i=0

, t0 = 0, tn = T, ∆t = 0.02, s = 1, . . . , N,

(33)

ξbt2i ,s (θ)∆t

where ξbti ,s (θ) represents the s-th discrete generation of the O.U. process, evaluated at time ti , with

covariance scale parameter θ, for θ = 0.1, 0.4, 0.7, 1, 2, 5. Table 1 displays the empirical probabilities
q
of the error θbT − θ to be within the band ±3 2θ
T , from N = 1000 discrete simulations of the O.U.
process, considering different sample sizes T = 12000 + 1000(l − 1), l = 1, . . . , 7, and the values θ =

0.1, 0.4, 0.7, 1, 2, 5. Figure 2 displays the cases θ = 0.1 (at the left-hand side) and θ = 5 (at the right-hand
side). It can be observed that, for each one of the sample sizes considered, T = 12000 + 1000(l − 1), l =
q
1, . . . , 7, approximately a 99% of the realizations of θbT − θ lie within the band ±3 2θ
T , which supports
the asymptotic Gaussian distribution.

10

Figure 2: The values of θbT − θ, based on N = 1000 simulations of the O.U. process over the interval
[0, T ], forqT = 12000 + (l − 1)1000, l = 1, . . . , 7, are
q represented against the confidence bands given by

+3σ = 3 2θ
T (upper dotted line) and −3σ = −3
side) and θ = 5 (at the right-hand side)

2θ
T

(lower dotted line), for θ = 0.1 (at the left-hand

T \θ

0.1

0.4

0.7

1

2

5

12000

0.9983

1

0.9983

0.9983

1

0.9983

13000

0.9967

0.9983

0.9983

1

0.9950

1

14000

0.9983

0.9967

1

0.9967

1

0.9983

15000

0.9983

0.9967

0.9983

0.9983

1

0.9983

16000

0.9967

0.9950

0.9967

0.9983

1

1

17000

0.9933

0.9983

1

0.9967

0.9950

1

18000

0.9967

0.9967

0.9950

1

1

0.9983

Table 1: Empirical probabilities of the error of the MLE of θ to lie within the band ±3σ = ±3
different sample sizes T, and values of parameter θ

q

2θ
T ,

for

Regarding asymptotic efficiency, stated in Theorem 2, from N = 1000 simulations of the O.U. process
over the interval [0, T ], for T = 50 + 250(l − 1), l = 1, . . . , 25, the corresponding empirical mean square
N 
2
X
1
errors EM SEN,T (θ) = N
θ − θbT (ωs ) , N = 1000, T = 50 + 250(l − 1), l = 1, . . . , 25 (abbreviated
s=1

as EMSE), considering the cases θ = 0.1, 0.4, 0.7, 1, are displayed in Figure 3. Here, θbT (ωs ), ωs ∈ Ω,

s = 1, . . . , N, represent the respective approximated values (33) of the MLE of θ, computed from ξti ,s ,
s = 1, . . . , N, ti ∈ [0, T ], i = 1, . . . , n. It can be observed, from the results displayed in Figure 3, that
Theorem 2 holds for T sufficiently large.

11

−3

x 10
4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0
1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Figure 3: Empirical functional mean quadratic errors, based on N = 1000 generations of O.U. process,
for different sample sizes (see horizontal axis), and for the values θ = 0.1 (line with stars), θ = 0.4 (line
with circles), θ = 0.7 (line with crosses), θ = 1 (line with inclined crosses) and θ = 2 (line with triangles)

3.2 Consistency of ρθbT = ρθbn in L(H) and L(B)
The strong-consistency of ρθbn in L(H) is derived in Proposition 1 from the following almost surely upper
bound

kρθ −

ρθbn k2L(H)

≤

|θ − θbn |h

r

h
+ 1.
3

(34)

Here, from N = 1000 simulations of the O.U. process on the interval [0, T ], with T = nh = n =
200000 + (l − 1)200000 (h = 1), for l = 1, . . . , 5, the corresponding values of θbT − θ = θbn − θ are
computed, considering the cases θ = 0.4, 0.7, 1. Table 2 shows the empirical probability of θbT − θ to lie
q
within the band ±3 2θ
T , for each one of sample sizes T = 200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5, and cases

θ = 0.4, 0.7, 1, considered. It can be observed that for the sample sizes studied, in the case of θ = 1,

the empirical probabilities are equal to one. Thus, the almost surely convergence to zero of the upper
√
√
bound (34) holds, with approximated convergence rate T = n. Note that, for the other two cases,
θ = 0.4 and θ = 0.7, the empirical probabilities are also very close to one (see also Table 1 for smaller
sample sizes, where we can also observe the empirical probabilities very close to one for the same band).
In particular, Figure 4 displays the cases θ = 0.4 (at the left-hand side) and θ = 1 (at the right-hand
side).

12

T \θ

0.4

0.7

1

200000

1

1

1

400000

1

1

1

600000

0.9988

1

1

800000

0.9988

0.9988

1

1000000

0.9977

1

1

q
Table 2: Empirical probability of θbT − θ to be within the band ±3σ = ±3 2θ
T , from N = 1000
simulations of O.U. process over the interval [0, T ], with T = n = 200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5,
considering the cases θ = 0.4, 0.7, 1

Figure 4: The values of θbT − θ are represented, corresponding to N = 1000 simulations of O.U. process
over the interval [0, T ], with T = n = 200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5, considering
q the cases θ = 0.4

(at the left-hand side), and θ = 1 (at right-hand side). The upper dotted line is +3
q
dotted line is −3 2θ
T

2θ
T

and the lower

It can be observed from Table 2 that a better performance is obtained for the largest values of θ,
which corresponds to the weakest dependent case. Furthermore, from the upper bound (27), the strong
consistency of ρθbn in L(B), with, as before, B = C([0, h]), is also illustrated from the results displayed
in Table 2 and Figure 4.

3.3 Consistency of the ARH(1) and ARB(1) plug-in predictors for the O.U. process
Let us now consider the derived upper bounds (22) and (29) in Corollaries 1 and 2, for the ARH(1)
and ARB(1) predictors, respectively. From the generation of N = 1000 discrete realizations of the O.U.
process over the interval [0, T ], for T = n = 200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5, the upper bounds (22)
and (29) are evaluated, for the cases θ = 0.4, 0.7, 1. The following empirical probabilities for ε2 = 0.008,
"
#
r
h
H
b
b
b
Pθ,N (T ) = 1 − P |Xn−1 (h) ||θ − θn |h
+1>ε
3

N = 1000, T = n = 200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5, θ = 0.4, 0.7, 1,
h
i
B
Pbθ,N
(T ) = 1 − Pb |Xn−1 (h) ||θ − θbn |h > ε

N = 1000, T = n = 200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5, θ = 0.4, 0.7, 1,
13

(35)

(36)

q
Figure 5: The values of |Xn−1 (h) ||θ − θbn |h h3 + 1 (top) and |Xn−1 (h) ||θ − θbn |h (bottom) are
represented, based on N = 1000 generations of O.U. process over the interval [0, T ], for T = n =
200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5, against ε = 0.008 (horizontal dotted line), considering θ = 0.4 (at
the left-hand side) and θ = 1 (at the right-hand side)
are reflected in Table 3, for the Hilbert-valued (see (22)) and Banach-valued (see (29)) frameworks (see
also Figure 5). It can be observed that the empirical probabilities are equal to one in both frameworks
for the largest sample sizes, in any of the cases considered.
Hilbert-valued case

Banach-valued case

T \θ

0.4

0.7

1

0.4

0.7

1

200000

0.9800

0.9800

0.9800

0.9871

0.9906

0.9871

400000

0.9953

0.9953

0.9953

0.9965

0.9977

0.9977

600000

0.9988

0.9977

0.9988

0.9988

0.9988

1

800000

1

0.9988

0.9988

1

1

1

1000000

1

1

1

1

1

1

Table 3: Empirical probabilities (35) and (36), based on N = 1000 simulations of the O.U. process over
the interval [0, T ], for T = n = 200000 + (l − 1)200000, l = 1, . . . , 5, considering the cases θ = 0.4, 0.7, 1,
and ε2 = 0.008
The strong-consistency of the MLE of θ and of the autocorrelation operator of the O.U. process, in
Banach and Hilbert spaces, has been first illustrated. The almost surely rate of convergence to zero is
shown as well. The numerical results on the consistency of the associated ARH(1) and ARB(1) plug-in
predictors then follow, from the computation of the corresponding empirical probabilities for the derived
upper bounds. Note that the numerical results displayed in Section 3 are obtained under generation of
sample sizes ranging from 12000 up to a million of time instants, considering 1000 repetitions for each
one of such sample sizes. In all these simulations performed, the discretization step size considered has

14

been ∆t = 0.02.

4

Final comments

The problem of functional prediction of the O.U. process could be of interest in several applied fields.
For example, in finance, in the context of Vasicek model (see Vasicek (1977)) the results derived allow to
predict the curve representing the interest rate over a temporal interval, in a consistent way. Note that,
in this context, the ML estimate computed for parameter θ provides a consistent approximation of the
speed reversion, which univocally determines the proposed functional predictor of the interest rate.
Summarizing, this paper addresses the problem of functional prediction of the O.U. process from
ARH(1) and ARB(1) perspectives. Specifically, considering the O.U. process as an ARH(1) and an
ARB(1) process, new results on strong consistency (almost surely convergence to the true parameter
value), in the spaces L(H) and L(B) of the MLE of its autocorrelation operator are derived. Consistency
results (convergence in probability to the true value) of the associated plug-in predictors are obtained as
well. The numerical results shown, in addition, the normality and the asymptotic efficiency of the MLE
of the scale parameter θ of the covariance function of the O.U. process.

Acknowledgements
This work has been supported in part by projects MTM2012-32674 (co-funded by European Regional
Development Funds), and MTM2015–71839–P of the DGI, MINECO.

References
[1] Antoniadis, A., Paparoditis, E. and Sapatinas, T. (2006). A functional wavelet-kernel approach for time
series prediction, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 68 837–857.
[2] Antoniadis, A. and Sapatinas, T. (2003). Wavelet methods for continuous-time prediction using Hilbertvalued autoregressive processes, J. Multivariate Anal. 87 133–158.
[3] Bensmain, N. and Mourid, T. (2001). Estimateur ”sieve” de l’opérateur d’un processus ARH(1). C. R.
Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 332 1015–1018.
[4] Bosq, D. (1991). Modelization, nonparametric estimation and prediction for continuous time processes. Nonparametric functional estimation and related topics (Spetses, 1990) 335 NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math.
Phys. Sci. Kluwer Acad. Publ. Dordrecht 509–529.
[5] Bosq, D. (1996). Limit theorems for Banach-valued autoregressive processes. Applications to real continuous
time processes. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 3 537–555.

15

[6] Bosq, D . (2000). Linear Processes in Function Spaces. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[7] Bosq, D. (2002). Estimation of mean and covariance operator of autoregressive processes in Banach spaces.
Stat. Inference Stoch. Process. 5 287–306.
[8] Bosq, D. (2004). Standard Hilbert moving averages. Ann. I.S.U.P. 48 17–28.
[9] Bosq, D. (2007). General linear processes in Hilbert spaces and prediction, J. Stat. Plann. Inference 137
879–894.
[10] Bosq, D. and Blanke, D. (2007). Inference and Predictions in Large Dimensions. John Wiley, Chichester.
[11] Damon, J. and Guillas, S. (2002). The inclusion of exogenous variables in functional autoregressive ozone
forecasting. Environmetrics 13 759–774.
[12] Dedecker, J. and Merlevede, F. The conditional central limit theorem in Hilbert spaces. Stochastic
processes and their applications 108, 2003, pp. 229–262.
[13] Dehling, H. and Sharipov, O. S. (2005). Estimation of mean and covariance operator for Banach space
valued autoregressive processes with dependent innovations. Stat. Inference Stoch. Process. 8 137–149.
[14] Doob, J. L. (1942). The Brownian movement and stochastic equations. Annals of Mathematics 43 319–337.
[15] Ferraty, F. and Vieu, P. (2006). Nonparametric Functional Data Analysis. Springer Series in Statistics,
Springer, New York.
[16] Glendinning, R. and Fleet, S. (2007). Classifying functional time series. Signal Process. 87 79–100.
[17] Guillas, S. (2000). Noncausality and functional discretization, limit theorems for an ARHX(1) process. C.
R. Acad. Sci. Paris 331 Série I 91–94.
[18] Guillas, S. (2001). Rates of convergence of autocorrelation estimates for autoregressive Hilbertian processes.
Statist. Probab. Lett. 55 281–291.
[19] Hormann, S. and Kokoszka, P. (2011). Consistency of the mean and the principal components of spatially
distributed functional data. Recent advances in functional data analysis and related topics. Contrib. Statist.
Physica-Verlag/Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 169–175.
[20] Kargin, V. and Onatski, A. (2008). Curve forecasting by functional autoregression. J. Multivariate Anal.
99 2508–2526.
[21] Kleptsyna, M.L. and Le Breton, A. (2002). Statistical analysis of the fractional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
type process. Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes 5 229–248.
[22] Kloeden, P. E. and Platen, E. (1992). Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations. Springer,
Berlin

16

[23] Kutoyants, Y. (2004). Statistical Inference for Ergodic Diffusion Processes. Springer Series in Statistics,
London.
[24] Labbas, A. and Mourid, T. (2003). Estimation et prévision d’un processus autorégressif Banach. Ann.
I.S.U.P. 47 19–38.
[25] Laukaitis, A. (2008). Functional data analysis for cash flow and transactions intensity continuous-time
prediction using Hilbert-valued autoregressive processes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 185 1607–1614.
[26] Laukaitis, A., Vasilecas, O. and Laukaitis R. (2009). Estimation of the autoregressive operator by
wavelet packets. Statist. Probab. Lett. 79 38–43.
[27] Liptser, R. S. and Shiraev, A. N. (2001). Statistics of Random Processes I, II. Springer, New York.
[28] Marion, J.-M. and Pumo, B. (2004). Comparison of ARH(1) and ARHD(1) models on physiological data.
Ann. I.S.U.P. 48 29–38.
[29] Mas, A. (2002). Weak convergence for the covariance operators of a Hilbertian linear process. Stochastic
Process. Appl. 99 117–135.
[30] Mas, A. (2004). Consistance du prédicteur dans le modle ARH(1) : le cas compact. Ann. I.S.U.P. 48 39–48.
[31] Mas, A. (2007). Weak convergence in the functional autoregressive model. J. Multivariate Anal. 98 1231–
1261.
[32] Mas, A. and Menneteau, L. (2003). Large and moderate deviations for infinitedimensional autoregressive
processes. J. Multivariate Anal. 87 241–260.
[33] Mas, A. and Pumo, B. (2007). The ARHD model. J. Stat. Plann. Inference 137 538–553.
[34] Menneteau, L. (2005). Some laws of the iterated logarithm in Hilbertian autoregressive models. J. Multivariate Anal. 92 405–425.
[35] Mokhtari, F. and Mourid, T. (2002). Prédiction des processus á temps continu autorégressifs via les
espaces á noyau reproduisant. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 334 65–70.
[36] Mourid, T. (2002). Estimation and prediction of functional autoregressive processes. Statistics 36 125–138.
[37] Mourid, T. (2004). Processus autorégressifs hilbertiens á coefficients aléatoires. Ann. I.S.U.P. 48 79–85.
[38] Pumo, B. (1998). Prediction of continuous time processes by C[0,1] -valued autoregressive process. Stat.
Inference Stoch. Process. 1 297–309.
[39] Rachedi, F. (2004). Vitesse de convergence de l’estimateur crible d’un ARB(1). Ann. I.S.U.P. 48 87–96.
[40] Rachedi, F. (2005) Vitesse de convergence en norme p-intégrale et normalité asymptotique de l’estimateur
crible de l’opérateur d’un ARB(1). C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 341 369–374.

17

[41] Rachedi, F. and Mourid, T. (2003). Estimateur crible de l’opérateur d’un processus ARB(1). C. R. Math.
Acad. Sci. Paris 336 605–610.
[42] Ramsay J.O. and Silverman, B.W. (2005). Functional Data Analysis. Springer Series in Statistics.
Springer, New York.
[43] Ruiz-Medina, M. D. (2012). Spatial functional prediction from spatial autorregresive Hilbertian processes.
Environmetrics 23 119–128.
[44] Ruiz-Medina, M. D. and Salmerón, R. (2009). Functional maximum-likelihood estimation of ARH(p)
models. Stochastic Environ- mental Research and Risk Assessment 24 131–146.
[45] Turbillon, C., Bosq, D., Marion, J. -M. and Pumo, B. (2008). Moving averages in Hilbert spaces, C.
R., Math., Acad. Sci. Paris 346 347– 350.
[46] Turbillon, C., Marion, J. -M. and Pumo, B. (2007). Estimation of the moving-average operator in a
Hilbert space. In Recent advances in stochastic modeling and data analysis. World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ,
pp. 597–604.
[47] Uhlenbeck, G. E. and Ornstein, L. S. (1930). On the theory of Brownian motion. Physical Review 36
823–841.
[48] Vasicek, O. (1977). An equilibrium characterization of the term structure. J.Financial Economics 5 177–
188.
[49] Wang, M. C. and G. E. Uhlenbeck (1945). On the theory of Brownian motion II. Reviews of Modern
Physics 17 323–342.

18

Supplementary Material: Consistency of the plug-in functional
predictor of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process in Hilbert and
Banach spaces

arXiv:1706.06354v1 [] 20 Jun 2017

Javier Álvarez-Liébana1 , Denis Bosq2 and M. Dolores Ruiz-Medina1
21st June 2017
1

Department of Statistics and O. R., University of Granada, Spain.
LSTA, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6, Paris, France.
E-mail: javialvaliebana@ugr.es
2

Summary
The definition and properties of O.U. process are given here, as well as the proof of Lemma 1.

Key words: Autoregressive Hilbertian processes; Banach-valued autoregressive processes; consistency;
maximum likelihood parameter estimator; Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process.

1

Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process

Let ξ (ω) = {ξt (ω)}t∈R , ω ∈ Ω, be a real-valued sample-path continuous stochastic process defined on
the basic probability space (Ω, Σ, P) , with index set the real line R. As demonstrated in Doob (1942),
process ξ is an O.U. process if it provides the Gaussian solution to the following stochastic linear Langevin
differential equation:
dξt = θ (µ − ξt ) dt + σdWt ,

θ, σ > 0,

t ∈ R,
(1)

(1)
(2)

where W = {Wt }t∈R is a standard bilateral Wiener process, i.e., Wt = Wt χR+ (t) + W−t χR− (t), with
(1)

Wt

(2)

and W−t being independent standard Wiener processes, and χR+ and χR− respectively denoting

the indicator functions over the positive and negative real line. Applying, in equation (1), the method
of separation of variables, considering f (ξt , t) = ξt eθt , we obtain

ξt

= µ+

Z

t

σe−θ(t−s) dWs ,

−∞

θ, σ > 0, t ∈ R,

(2)

where the integral is understood in the Itb
o sense (see Ash and Gardner (1976) and Sobczyk (1991) for
more details). Particularizing to ξ = {ξt }t∈R+ , the O.U. process is transformed into

ξt = ξ0 e−θt + µ 1 − e−θt +

Z

t

σe−θ(t−s) dWs ,

0

1

θ, σ > 0, t ∈ R+ .

(3)

It is well-known that the solution ξ = {ξt }t∈R to the stochastic differential equation
dξt = µ (ξt , t) dt +

p
D (ξt , t)dWt ,

t ∈ R,

(4)

has marginal probability density function f (x, t) , satisfying the following Fokker-Planck scalar equation
(see, for example, Kadanoff (2000)):
∂
−∂
1 ∂2
[D (x, t) f (x, t)] ,
f (x, t) =
[µ (x, t) f (x, t)] +
∂t
∂x
2 ∂x2

t ∈ R.

(5)

∂
f (x, t) = 0), under f (x, x0 ) = δ (x − x0 ),
In the case of O.U. process, the stationary solution ( ∂t

adopts the form
f (x, t) =

r

2
θ −θ(x−µ)
σ2
,
e
πσ 2

θ, σ > 0, t ∈ R,

(6)

which corresponds to the probability density function of a Gaussian distribution with mean µ and variance

σ2
2θ ,

i.e., which corresponds to the probability density function of a random variable X such that


2
X ∼ N µ, σ2θ . From (2), the mean and covariance functions of O.U. process (see, for instance,

Uhlenbeck and Ornstein (1930) and Doob (1942)) can be computed as follows:

µξ (t)

= E [ξt ] = µ + σE

Z

t

−∞

Cξ (t, s)


e−θ(t−s) dWs = µ,

t ∈ R,

2 −θ(t+s)

= Cov [ξs , ξt ] = E [(ξs − µ) (ξt − µ)] = σ e
= σ 2 e−θ(t+s)

Z

∞

t
θu

e dWu

−∞

e2θu χ[−∞,t] (u) χ[−∞,s] (u) du = σ 2 e−θ(t+s)

−∞

=

E

Z

σ 2 −θ|t−s|
σ 2 −θ(t+s) 2θ min{s,t}
e
e
=
e
,
2θ
2θ

Z

Z

s

−∞
min{s,t}

θv

e dWv



e2θu du

−∞

t, s ∈ R,
(7)

where Cov [X, Y ] denotes the covariance between random variables X and Y . Additionally, from (3), we
obtain the following identities:

E [ξt ] =
Cov [ξs , ξt |ξ0 = c] =


µe−θt + µ 1 − e−θt = µ,

E [ξt |ξ0 = c] = µ + e−θt (c − µ) ,

σ 2 −θ|t−s|
e
+ c2 − 2cµ + µ2 e−θ(s+t) , t, s ∈ R+ ,
2θ

where c is a constant. In the subsequent development, we will consider µ = 0 and σ = 1.

2

t ∈ R+ ,

(8)

2

Maximum likelihood estimation of the covariance scale parameter θ

The MLE of θ in (7) is given by (see Graczyk and Jakubowski (2006), Kutoyants (2004), p. 63, and
Liptser and Shiraev (2001), p. 265)
Z T
Z T
Z T
RT
−
ξt dξt
θ
ξt2 dt −
ξt dWt
ξt dWt
0
0
0
b
θT = Z T
=
= θ − Z0 T
,
Z T
2
2
2
ξt dt
ξt dt
ξt dt
0

0

θ, T > 0.

(9)

0

Thus, equation (9) becomes
ξ2

θbT

=

ξ2

1 + T0 − TT
,
R
2 T 2
T 0 ξt dt

T > 0.

(10)

We will assume that T is large enough such that θbT > 0 almost surely. It is well-known that the MLE

θbT of θ is strongly consistent (see details in Kleptsyna and Le Breton (2002), Proposition 2.2, p. 4, and
Kutoyants (2004), p. 63 and p. 117).

Theorem 1 The following limit in distribution sense holds for the MLE θbT of θ, given in equation (10):
√ RT

√ 
− T 0 ξt dWt
b
lim T θT − θ = lim
= Z,
Z T
T →∞
T →∞
ξt2 dt

with

Z ∼ N (0, 2θ) .

(11)

0

Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.1 in Jiang (2012), p. 2, lead to the following almost surely identities
(see also Bosq (2000), Theorem 2.10, p. 54, and Ledoux and Talagrand (1991), pp. 196–203, in relation
to the law of the iterated logarithm)

lim sup q
T →+∞

4θ
T

− lim inf q

θbT − θ

= 1 a.s.,

θbT − θ

= 1 a.s.,
log (log (T ))
!
r
4θ log (log (T ))
b
|θ − θT | = O
a.s.
T
T →+∞

3

(12)

log (log (T ))

4θ
T

(13)

(14)

Preliminary inequalities and results

In this section we recall some inequalities and well-known convergence results on random variables, as
well as basic deterministic inequalities, that have been applied in the derivation of the main results of
3

paper Consistency of the plug-in functional predictor of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process in Hilbert and
Banach spaces

Lemma 1 Let X be a zero-mean normal distributed random variable, i.e., X ∼ N 0, σ 2 , with σ > 0.

Then,

x2

P (|X| ≥ x) ≤ e− 2σ2 , ∀x ≥ 0.

(15)

Proof. Let X ′ be such that X ′ ∼ N (0, 1) . Then,
′

P (|X | ≥ x) = 2FX ′ (−x) =

r

2
π

Z

∞
x

t2

e− 2 dt, ∀x ≥ 0.

(16)

Let us set
2

− x2

−

g (x)

= e

g ′ (x)

= −xe−

x2
2

r

Z
2 ∞ − t2
e 2 dt, g (0) = 0, lim g (x) = 0,
x→∞
π x
!
r
r
x2
2 − x2
2
+
e 2 = e− 2
−x .
π
π
(17)

 q 

q
2
Function g is monotone increasing over 0, π2 , and g is monotone decreasing over
π,∞ .
From equations (16) and (17),

P (|X ′ | ≥ x) ≤ e−
Now, consider X ′ =

X
σ,

x2
2

, ∀x ≥ 0.


with X ∼ N 0, σ 2 , then,
x2

P (|X| ≥ x) ≤ e− 2σ2 , ∀x ≥ 0.

(18)



1
, with θ > 0,
Lemma 2 Let {Zn }n∈Z be a sequence of random variables such that Zn ∼ N 0, 2θ
p
and let {Yn }n∈Z be another sequence of random variables such that ln (n)Yn →p 0, n → ∞. Then,
Yn |Zn | →p 0, n → ∞, where, as usual, →p indicates convergence in probability.
Proof. Considering the indicator function χ(·) , it holds

Yn |Zn | =

Yn |Zn |χ{|Zn |<an } + Yn |Zn |χ{|Zn |≥an } ≤ Yn an + Yn |Zn |χ{|Zn |≥an } ,

(19)


where {an }n∈Z is a sequence of positive numbers such that the event Yn |Zn |χ{|Zn |≥an } is equivalent
4

to {|Zn | ≥ an }. From (19) and Lemma 1, if we take an > 2ε , for all n ∈ Z, we get


2
ε
ε
+ P (|Zn | ≥ an ) ≤ P Yn an ≥
+ e−θan , ∀ε > 0.
P Yn an ≥
2
2

P (Yn |Zn | ≥ ε) ≤
For an = c

p
ln (n) > 2ε , with
X

n∈Z

√1
θ

< c < +∞,

P (|Zn | ≥ an ) ≤

X

2

e−θan =

n∈Z

X 1
< +∞,
nθc2

(21)

n∈Z

which implies that limn→∞ P (|Zn | ≥ an ) = 0 in equation (20). On the other hand, since
0, for every ε > 0,
0 = lim P
n→∞

(20)

p

ln (n)Yn →p

 a
p
ε
ε
n
ln (n)Yn ≥
= lim P Yn
.
≥
n→∞
2
c
2

(22)

Thus, Yn |Zn | →p 0.

Lemma 3 If t ∈ [0, +∞), it holds that |e−xt − e−yt | ≤ |x − y|t, for any x, y ≥ 0.
Proof. Let us first assume that x ≥ y > 0. From Mean Value Theorem applied over ez , there exists
0 < α < 1 such that

ez+h −ez
h

|e−xt − e−yt | =

= ez+αh . Taking z = −xt and z +h = −yt, we get the following inequalities:

|x − y|te−xt+α(x−y)t = |x − y|text(α−1) e−yαt ≤ |x − y|te−yαt ≤ |x − y|t.

(23)

Similar inequalities are obtained for the case y ≥ x > 0, by applying Mean Value Theorem over
interval [x, y] instead of [y, x].


4

Proof of Lemma 1

The proof of Lemma 1, appearing in Section 1.1 of the paper Consistency of the plug-in functional
predictor of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process in Hilbert and Banach spaces, is now provided.
Proof. Let us first consider the case k = 1, from
ρθ (x) (t) = e−θt x (h) ,

ρθ (Xn−1 ) (t) = e−θt

Z

nh

e−θ(nh−s) dWs ,

−∞

εn (t) =

Z

nh+t

e−θ(nh+t−s) dWs ,
nh

(24)

and
kρθ (x)k2H

=

Z

0

h


|ρθ (x) (t) |2 d λ + δ(h) (t) =
5

Z

0

h

|ρθ (x) (t) |2 dt + |ρθ (x) (h) |2 ,

(25)

we have

kρθ kL(H)

=


v
!
u Z h


u


u
−2θt
−2θh
2 (h) 


x
e
dt
+
e




u 0


kρθ (x) kH
u
.
= sup u
sup
Z
h
t

kxkH
x∈H 
x∈H


2
2


x
(t)
dt
+
x
(h)







(26)

0

Furthermore, trivially,

kρθ kL(H)

v
!
u Z h
u
−2θt
−2θh
u
x2 (h) sZ
dt + e
u 0 e
h
u
e−2θt dt + e−2θh .
= sup u
≤
Z
h
x∈H t
0
2
2
x (t) dt + x (h)

(27)

0

Additionally, the function x0 : [0, h] −→ R, given by
h ∈ M ⊂ [0, h],

x0 (t) = χM (t),

Z

dt = 0,

(28)

M


with χM , denoting the indicator function of set M, belongs to H = L2 [0, h] , β[0,h] , λ + δ(h) , since
Rh
Rh
x20 (h) = 1, 0 x20 (t)dt = 0, and kx0 k2H = 0 x20 (s)ds + x20 (h) = 1. Thus, by definition of kρθ kL(H) ,
kρθ (x0 )kH
=
kx0 kH

s
Z

h

e−2θt dt + e−2θh

0

≤ kρθ kL(H)

(29)

Equations (26), (27) and (29) lead to

kρθ kL(H) =

s

Z

h

e−2θt dt

+

e−2θh

0

=

r

1 + e−2θh (2θ − 1)
.
2θ

(30)

We are now going to compute kρkθ kL(H) , for k ≥ 2. Since, for all x ∈ H,
ρkθ (x)(t) = e−θt e−θ(k−1)h x(h),

we obtain
kρkθ kL(H)

vh
i
u
u e−2θ(k−1)h R h e−2θt dt + e−2θkh x2 (h)
u
0
= sup t
.
Rh
x∈H
x2 (t)dt + x2 (h)
0

(31)

(32)

Considering function x0 defined in equation (28), applying similar arguments to those given in the
computation of kρθ kL(H) , we have
kρkθ kL(H) =

r

e−2θ(k−1)h

1 + e−2θh (2θ − 1)
= e−θ(k−1)h kρθ kL(H) .
2θ

6

(33)

Now, from equation (30),

1
kρθ kL(H) < 1 ⇔ 1 − e−2θh < 2θ 1 − e−2θh ⇔ θ > .
2

(34)

Furthermore, for θ ∈ (0, 1/2],
kρθ kL(H) =
since

p
√
α (θ) < 1 + h,

(35)

p
α (θ) is a monotonically decreasing function on (0, 1/2] , with α (θ) = 1 if θ =

1
2

and α (θ) → 1+h,

h > 0,

(36)

when θ → 0. Hence, if θ(k − 1) ≥ 1,
kρkθ kL(H)

=e

−θ(k−1)h

p
p
α (θ) ≤ e−h α (θ) <

which implies that kρkθ 0 kL(H) < 1, when k0 ≥

1
θ

√

1+h
< 1,
eh

+ 1.


References
[1] Ash, R. B. and Gardner, M. F. (1976). Topics in stochastic processes, Bulletin of the American
Mathematical Society 82 817–820.
[2] Bosq, D. (2000). Linear Processes in Function Spaces. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[3] Doob, J. L. (1942). The Brownian movement and stochastic equations. Annals of Mathematics 43
319–337.
[4] Graczyk, P. and Jakubowski, T. (2006). Analysis of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck and Laguerre stochatic
processes. Ecole CIMPA Familles orthogonales et semigroupes en analyse et probabilités
http://math.univ-angers.fr/publications/prepub/fichiers/00229.pdf
[5] Jiang, H. (2012). Berry-Essen bounds and the law of the iterated logarithm for estimators fo parameters in an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with linear drift, Journal of Applied Probability 49 978–989.
[6] Kadanoff, L.P. (2000). Statistical Physics: Statics, Dynamics and Renormalization. World Scientific, Singapur.
[7] Kleptsyna, M.L. and Le Breton, A. (2002). Statistical analysis of the fractional OrnsteinUhlenbeck type process. Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes 5 229–248.
[8] Kutoyants, Y. (2004). Statistical Inference for Ergodic Diffusion Processes. Springer Series in
Statistics, London.
7

[9] Ledoux, M. and Talagrand, M. (1991). Probability in Banach spaces. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[10] Liptser, R. S. and Shiraev, A. N. (2001). Statistics of Random Processes I, II. Springer, New
York.
[11] Sobczyk, K. (1991). Stochastic Differential Equations, with Applications to Physics and Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
[12] Uhlenbeck, G. E. and Ornstein, L. S. (1930). On the theory of Brownian motion. Physical
Review 36 823–841.

8

