A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING IN
MULTIVARIATE NONPARAMETRIC TIME SERIES
NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

arXiv:1705.07605v1 [math.ST] 22 May 2017

1

Department of Mathematics, University of Hamburg, Bundesstrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg,
Germany
2 Department of Probability and Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles
University, Sokolovská 83, 186 75 Praha 8, Czech Republic

May 23, 2017
Abstract. This paper is concerned with modeling the dependence structure of two (or
more) time-series in the presence of a (possible multivariate) covariate which may include past
values of the time series. We assume that the covariate influences only the conditional mean
and the conditional variance of each of the time series but the distribution of the standardized
innovations is not influenced by the covariate and is stable in time. The joint distribution
of the time series is then determined by the conditional means, the conditional variances
and the marginal distributions of the innovations, which we estimate nonparametrically, and
the copula of the innovations, which represents the dependency structure. We consider a
nonparametric as well as a semi-parametric estimator based on the estimated residuals. We
show that under suitable assumptions these copula estimators are asymptotically equivalent
to estimators that would be based on the unobserved innovations. The theoretical results
are illustrated by simulations and a real data example.

Keywords and phrases: Asymptotic representation; CHARN model; empirical copula process;
goodness-of-fit testing; nonparametric AR-ARCH model; nonparametric SCOMDY model;
weak convergence.
1. Introduction
Modeling the dependency of k observed time series can be of utmost importance for applications, e. g. in risk management (for instance to model the dependence between several
exchange rates). We will take the approach to model k dependent nonparametric AR-ARCH
time series
Yji = mj (X i ) + σj (X i ) εji , i = 1, . . . , n, j = 1, . . . , k,
where the covariate X i may include past values of the process, Yj i−1 , Yj i−2 , . . . (j = 1, . . . , k),
or other exogenous variables. Further the innovations (ε1i , . . . , εki ), i ∈ Z, are assumed to
be independent and identically distributed random vectors and (ε1i , . . . , εki ) is independent
∗

The second and the third authors gratefully acknowledge support from the grant GACR 15-04774Y.
1

2

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

of the past and present covariates X ` , ` ≤ i, ∀i. For identifiability we assume E εji = 0,
var(εji ) = 1 (j = 1, . . . , k), such that the functions mj and σj represent the conditional
mean and volatility function in the jth time series. Such models are also called multivariate
nonparametric CHARN (conditional heteroscedastic autoregressive nonlinear) models and
have gained much attention over the last decades, see Fan and Yao (2005) and Gao (2007)
for extensive overviews.
Note that due to the structure of the model and Sklar’s theorem (see e.g., Nelsen, 2006),
for zj = (yj − mj (x))/σj (x) (j = 1, . . . , k) one has
P(Y1i ≤ y1 , . . . , Yki ≤ yk | X i = x) = P(ε1i ≤ z1 , . . . , εki ≤ zk ) = C(F1ε (z1 ), . . . , Fkε (zk )),
where Fjε (j = 1, . . . , k) denote the marginal distributions of the innovations and C their
copula. Thus the joint conditional distribution of the observations, given the covariate, is
completely specified by the individual conditional mean and variance functions, the marginal
distributions of the innovations, and their copula. The copula C describes the dependence
structure of the k time series, conditional on the covariates, after removing influences of the
conditional means and variances as well as marginal distributions.
We will model the conditional mean and variance function nonparametrically like Härdle
et al. (1998), among others. Semiparametric estimation, e. g. with additive structure for mj
and multiplicative structure for σj2 as in Yang et al. (1999) can be considered as well and
all presented results remain valid under appropriate changes for the estimators and assumptions. Further we will model the marginal distributions of the innovations nonparametrically,
whereas we will take two different approaches to estimate the copula C: nonparametrically
and parametrically. As the innovations are not observable, both estimators will be based
on estimated residuals. We will show that the asymptotic distribution is not affected by
the necessary pre-estimation of the mean and variance functions. This remarkable result is
intrinsic for copula estimation, while the asymptotic distribution of empirical distribution
functions is typically influenced by pre-estimation of mean and variance functions. Moreover,
comparison of the nonparametric and parametric copula estimator gives us the possibility to
test goodness-of-fit of a parametric class of copulas.
Our approach extends the following parametric and semiparametric approaches in time
series contexts. Chen and Fan (2006) introduced SCOMDY (semiparametric copula-based
multivariate dynamic) models, which are very similar to the model considered here. However,
the conditional mean and variance functions are modeled parametrically, while the marginal
distributions of innovations are estimated nonparametrically and a parametric copula model
is applied to model the dependence. See also Kim et al. (2007) for similar methods for some
parametric time series models including nonlinear GARCH models, Rémillard et al. (2012),
Kim et al. (2008) and the review by Patton (2012). Chan et al. (2009) give a goodness-of fit
test for the innovation copula in the GARCH context. Further, in an i.i.d. setting Gijbels et al.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

3

(2015) show that in nonparametric location-scale models the asymptotic distribution of the
empirical copula is not influenced by pre-estimation of the mean and variance function. This
results was further generalized by Portier and Segers (2015) to a completely nonparametric
model for the marginals.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we define the estimators and
state some regularity assumptions. In Subsection 2.1 we show weak convergence of the copula
process, while in Subsection 2.2 we show asymptotic normality of a parameter estimator when
considering a parametric class of copulas. Subsection 2.3 is devoted to goodness-of-fit testing.
In Section 3 we present simulation results and in Section 4 a real data example. All proofs
are given in the Appendix.

2. Main results
For the ease of presentation we will focus on the case of two time series, i. e. k = 2, but all
results can be extended to general k ≥ 2 in an obvious manner. Suppose we have observed

for i = 1, . . . , n a section of the stationary stochastic process Y1i , Y2i , X i i∈Z that satisfies
(1)

Y1i = m1 (X i ) + σ1 (X i ) ε1i ,

Y2i = m2 (X i ) + σ2 (X i ) ε2i ,

i = 1, . . . , n,


where X i = (Xi1 , . . . , Xid )T is a d-dimensional covariate and the innovations (ε1i , ε2i ) i∈Z
are independent identically distributed random vectors. Further (ε1i , ε2i ) is independent of
the past and present covariates X k , k ≤ i, ∀i, and E ε1i = E ε2i = 0, var(ε1i ) = var(ε2i ) = 1.
If the marginal distribution functions F1ε and F2ε of the innovations are continuous, then the
copula function C of the innovations is unique and can be expressed as
(2)


−1
−1
(u2 ) ,
C(u1 , u2 ) = Fε F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε

(u1 , u2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 .

As the innovations (ε1i , ε2i ) are unobserved, the inference about the copula function C is
based on the estimated residuals
(3)

εbji =

Yji − m
b j (X i )
,
σ
bj (X i )

i = 1, . . . , n,

j = 1, 2,

where m
b j and σ
bj are the estimates of the unknown functions mj and σj . In what follows
we will consider the local polynomial estimators of order p; see Fan and Gijbels (1996) or
Masry (1996), among others. I.e. m
b j (x) is for a given x = (x1 , . . . , xd )T defined as βb0 , the
b with multi-index 0 = (0, . . . , 0), where β
b is the solution to the minimization
component of β
problem
(4)

min
β=(βi )i∈I

n h
X
X
i 2
Yj` −
βi ψi,hn X ` − x Khn (X ` − x).
`=1

i∈I

4

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

Here I = I(d, p) denotes the set of multi-indices i = (i1 , . . . , id ) with i. = i1 + · · · + id ≤ p and
 ik 1
Q
k
ψi,hn (x) = dk=1 x(k)
ik ! . Further
hn

Khn (X ` − x) =

d
Y

(k)

k=1

with k being a kernel function and hn =
Further σj2 (x) is estimated as

1
hn

k



X`k −xk
(k)
hn

(1)
(d) 
hn , . . . , hn



,

the smoothing parameter.

σ
bj2 (x) = sbj (x) − m
b 2j (x),
where sbj (x) is obtained in the same way as m
b j (x) but with Yj` replaced with Yj`2 .
For any function f defined on J, interval in Rd , define for ` ∈ N, δ ∈ [0, 1),
kf k`+δ = max sup |Di f (x)| + max sup

i∈I(d,`) x,x0 ∈J
i.=`
x6=x0

i∈I(d,`) x∈J

where Di =

∂ i.
i ,
i
∂x11 ...∂xdd

|Di f (x) − Di f (x0 )|
,
kx − x0 kδ

`+δ
(J) the set of
and k · k is the Euclidean norm on Rd . Denote by CM

e `+δ (J) the subset
`-times differentiable functions f on J, such that kf k`+δ ≤ M . Denote by C
2
of C2`+δ (J) of the functions that satisfy inf x∈J f (x) ≥ 21 .
In what follows we are going to prove that under appropriate regularity assumptions using
the estimated residuals (3) instead of the (true) unobserved innovations εji affects neither the
asymptotic distribution of the empirical copula estimator nor the parametric estimator of a
copula.
2.1. Empirical copula estimation. Mimicking (2) the copula function C can be estimated
nonparametrically as


en (u1 , u2 ) = Fbεb Fb−1 (u1 ), Fb−1 (u2 ) ,
(5)
C
2b
ε
1b
ε
where
(6)

n

1 X
Fbεb(y1 , y2 ) =
wni 1 εb1i ≤ y1 , εb2i ≤ y2 ,
Wn

Wn =

i=1

n
X

wnj

j=1

is the estimate of the joint distribution function Fε (y1 , y2 ) and
n

1 X
b
Fjbε (y) =
wni 1 εbji ≤ y ,
Wn

j = 1, 2,

i=1

the corresponding marginal empirical cumulative distribution functions. Here we make use
of a weight function wn (x) = 1{x ∈ Jn } and put wni = wn (X i ). For some real positive
sequence cn → ∞ we set Jn = [−cn , cn ]d .
(or)
Now let Cn be the ‘oracle’ estimator based on the unobserved innovations, i.e.


−1
−1
(7)
Cn(or) (u1 , u2 ) = Fbε Fb1ε
(u1 ), Fb2ε
(u2 ) ,

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

5


P
where Fbε (z1 , z2 ) = n1 ni=1 1 ε1i ≤ z1 , ε2i ≤ z2 is the estimator of Fε (z1 , z2 ) based on the
unobserved innovations and Fbjε (j = 1, 2) the corresponding marginal empirical cumulative
distribution functions.
Regularity assumptions.
(β) The process (X i , Y1i , Y2i )i∈Z is strictly stationary and absolutely regular (β-mixing)
with the mixing coefficient βi that satisfies βi = O(i−b ) with
1 + (s − 1)(1 + d)
s−2
where s is specified in assumption (M) below.
(1,1)
(1,2)
(2,2)
(Fε ) The second-order partial derivatives Fε , Fε
and Fε
of the joint cumula(j,k)
tive distribution function Fε (y1 , y2 ) = P(ε1 ≤ y1 , ε2 ≤ y2 ), with Fε (y1 , y2 ) =
2
∂ Fε (y1 ,y2 )
∂yj ∂yk , satisfy
b>

max

sup

j,k∈{1,2} y1 ,y2 ∈R2

Fε(j,k) (y1 , y2 )(1 + yj )(1 + yk ) < ∞.

Further the innovation density fjε (j = 1, 2) satisfies




−1
−1
−1
−1
lim 1 + Fjε
(u) fjε Fjε
(u) = 0 and
lim 1 + Fjε
(u) fjε Fjε
(u) = 0.

u→0+

u→1−

(FX ) The observations X i (i ∈ Z) have density fX that is bounded and differentiable
with bounded uniformly continuous first order partial derivatives. We assume the

existence of some qf > 0 and some positive sequence cn = O (log n)1/d such that
(1)

(j)

(j)

d
for αn  (log n)−qf and J+
n = ×j=1 [−cn − hn , cn + hn ],

inf fX (x) ≥ αn(1) .

x∈J+
n

(M) For some s > 2, for j = 1, 2, E |εj0 |2s < ∞, the functions σj2s fX and |mj σj |s fX are
bounded and there are some i∗ ∈ N, B > 0 such that for all i ≥ i∗ ,
sup σj2 (x0 )σj2 (xi )fX 0 ,X i (x0 , xi ) ≤ B,

x0 ,xi

sup mj (x0 )mj (xi ) σj (x0 )σj (xi )fX 0 ,X i (x0 , xi ) ≤ B,

x0 ,xi

where fX 0 ,X i denotes the joint density of (X 0 , X i ) and is bounded (for i ≥ i∗ ).
p+γ
(mσ) Let, for j = 1, 2 and for each n ∈ N, mj and σj be elements of CM
(Jn ) for
n
q
some γ ∈ (0, 1] and a sequence Mn = O((log n) m ) for some qm ≥ 0. Further,
(2)
E[σj4 (X 1 )] < ∞ and inf x∈Jn σj (x) ≥ αn for some positive sequence that fulfils
(2)

αn  (log n)−qσ for some qσ ≥ 0.
(k)

(Bw) There exists a sequence hn such that hhnn → ak , where ak ∈ (0, ∞), k = 1, . . . , d.
Further, for γ from assumption (mσ) and for some δ > 0,
nh2p+2γ
(log n)D = o(1),
n

nh3d+2δ
(log n)−D → ∞
n

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

6

for all D > 0, and
b−1−d−
log n
= o(1) for θ =
θ
d
n hn
b+3−d−

1+b
s−1
1+b
s−1

with b from assumption (β) and s from assumption (M).
(k) k : R → R is a symmetric (d+2)-times continuously differentiable probability density
function supported on [−1, 1].

Remark 1. Using Fε (y1 , y2 ) = C F1ε (y1 ), F2ε (y2 ) assumption (Fε ) requires that
n


−1
−1
sup
C (j,k) (u1 , u2 ) fjε Fjε
(uj ) fkε Fkε
(uk )
u1 ,u2 ∈[0,1]2

o



−1
−1
−1
0
+ C (j) (u1 , u2 ) fjε
Fjε
(uj ) 1{j = k} 1 + Fjε
(uj )
1 + Fkε
(uk ) < ∞,
2

C(u1 ,u2 )
1 ,u2 )
and C (j,k) (u1 , u2 ) = ∂ ∂u
stand for the first and second
where C (j) (u1 , u2 ) = ∂C(u
∂uj
j ∂uk
order partial derivatives of the copula function.
Thus provided that for some δ > 0


C (j,k) (u1 , u2 ) = O u2 δ (1−u )2 δ1u2 δ (1−u )2 δ ,
j
k
j
k

−1
−1
then we need that the functions fjε Fjε (u) (1 + Fjε (u) ) are of order O(uδ (1 − u)δ ).

Remark 2. Parts of our assumptions are reproduced from Hansen (2008) because we apply his
results about uniform rates of convergence for kernel estimators several times in our proofs.
Note that in his Theorem 2 we set q = ∞.
Theorem 1. Suppose that assumptions (β), (Fε ), (FX ), (Bw), (M), (k), (Jn ) and (mσ)
are satisfied. Then

√ 
en (u1 , u2 ) − C (or) (u1 , u2 ) = oP (1).
sup
n C
n
(u1 ,u2 )∈[0,1]2

(or)

Note that Theorem 1 together with the weak convergence of Cn (u1 , u2 ) (see e.g., Propo

e n = √n C
en − C weakly converges in
sition 3.1 of Segers, 2012) implies that that process C
the space of bounded functions `∞ ([0, 1]2 ) to a centred Gaussian process GC , which can be
written as
GC (u1 , u2 ) = BC (u1 , u2 ) − C (1) (u1 , u2 ) BC (u1 , 1) − C (2) (u1 , u2 ) BC (1, u2 ) ,
where BC is a Brownian bridge on [0, 1]2 with covariance function


E BC (u1 , u2 )BC (u01 , u02 ) = C(u1 ∧ u01 , u2 ∧ u02 ) − C(u1 , u2 ) C(u01 , u02 ) .
P
Nevertheless in applications we recommend to use rather Wn = ni=1 wni instead of n as the
sample size.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

7

2.2. Semiparametric copula estimation. The copula C describes the dependency between the two time series of interest, given the covariate. For applications modeling this
dependency structure parametrically is advantageous because a parametric model often gives
easier access to interpretations. Goodness-of-fit testing will be considered in the next section.
Suppose that the joint distribution of (ε1i , ε2i ) is given by the copula function C(u1 , u2 ; θ),
where θ = (θ1 , . . . , θp )T is an unknown parameter that belongs to a parametric space Θ ⊂ Rp .
In copula settings we are often interested in semi-parametric estimation of the parameter θ, i.e.
estimation of θ without making any parametric assumption on the marginal distributions F1ε
and F2ε . The methods of semi-parametric estimation for i.i.d. settings are summarized in
Tsukahara (2005). The question of interest is what happens if we use the estimated residuals (3) instead of the unobserved innovations εji . Generally speaking, thanks to Theorem 1
the answer is that using εbji instead of εji does not change the asymptotic distribution provided that the parameter of interest can be written as a Hadamard differentiable functional
of a copula.
2.2.1. Method-of-Moments using rank correlation. This method is in a general way described
for instance in Embrechts et al. (2005, Section 5.5.1). To illustrate the application of Theorem 1 for this method consider that the parameter θ is one-dimensional. Then the method of
the inversion of Kendall’s tau is a very popular method of estimating the unknown parameter.
For this method the estimator of θ is given by
θbn(ik) = τ −1 (b
τn ),
where
Z

1Z 1

C(u1 , u2 ; θ) dC(u1 , u2 ; θ) − 1

τ (θ) = 4
0

0

is the theoretical Kendall’s tau and τbn is an estimate of Kendall’s tau. In our settings the
Kendall’s tau would be computed from the estimated residuals (b
ε1i , εb2i ) for which wni > 0.
By Theorem 1 and Hadamard differentiability of Kendall’s tau proved in Veraverbeke et al.
(2011, Lemma 1), the estimators of Kendall’s tau based on εbji or on εji are asymptotically
equivalent. Thus provided that τ 0 (θ) 6= 0 one gets that


n
o
 d
√
2
τ
n θbn(ik) − θ −−−→ N 0, [τ 0σ(θ)]
where στ2 = var 8 C(U11 , U21 ; θ) − 4 U11 − 4 U21 ,
2 ,
n→∞

and
(8)



U11 , U21 = F1ε (ε11 ), F2ε (ε21 ) .

Analogously one can show that working with residuals has asymptotically negligible effects
also for the method of moments introduced in Brahimi and Necir (2012).

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

8

2.2.2. Minimum distance estimation. Here one can follow for instance Tsukahara (2005, Section 3.2). Note that thanks to Theorem 1 the proof of Theorem 3 of Tsukahara (2005) does not
(or)
en . Thus provided assumptions (B.1)-(B.5) of Tsukahara
change when Cn is replaced with C
1 ,u2 ;θ)
(2005) are satisfied with δ(u1 , u2 ; θ) = ∂C(u∂θ
, then the estimator defined as
ZZ

(md)
en (u1 , u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 ; t) 2 du1 du2
θbn
= arg min
C
[0,1]2

t∈Θ

is asymptotically normal and satisfies



√  (md)
d
n θbn − θ −−−→ N 0p , Σ(md) ,
n→∞

where
(md)

Σ

 ZZ
= var
[0,1]2

h
γ(u1 , u2 ; θ) 1{U11 ≤ u1 , U21 ≤ u2 }
−

2
X

C (j) (u1 , u2 ; θ) 1{Uj1

)
i
≤ uj } du1 du2 ,

j=1

with
#−1

" ZZ

δ(v1 , v2 ; θ) δ T (v1 , v2 ; θ) dv1 dv2

γ(u1 , u2 ; θ) =

δ(u1 , u2 ; θ).

[0,1]2

2.2.3. M-estimator, rank approximate Z-estimators. To define a general M -estimator let us
introduce




e1i , U
e2i = Wn Fb1bε εb1i , Fb2bε εb2i
U
(9)
Wn +1
n
that can be viewed as estimates of the unobserved (U1i , U2i ). Note that the multiplier WWn +1

e1i , U
e2i bounded away
is introduced in order to have both of the coordinates of the vector U

from zero and one. The M -estimator of the parameter θ is now defined as
θbn = arg min
t∈Θ

n
X

e1i , U
e2i ; t
wni ρ U



i=1

where ρ(u1 , u2 ; θ) is a given loss function. This class of estimators includes among others the
(pl)
pseudo-maximum likelihood estimators (θb ), for which ρ(u1 , u2 ; θ) = − log c(u1 , u2 ; θ), with
n

c(·) being the copula density function.
Note that the estimator θbn is usually searched for as a solution to the estimating equations
(10)

n
X


e1i , U
e2i ; θbn = 0p ,
wni φ U

i=1

where φ(u1 , u2 ; θ) = ∂ρ(u1 , u2 ; θ)/∂θ. In Tsukahara (2005) the estimator defined as the
solution of (10) is called a rank approximate Z-estimator.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

9

In what follows we give general assumptions under which there exists a consistent root
(θbn ) of the estimating equations (10) that is asymptotically equivalent to the consistent root
(or)
(θb ) of the ‘oracle’ estimating equations given by
n

n


X
b1i , U
b2i ; θb(or) = 0p ,
φ U
n

(11)

i=1

where

b1i , U
b2i =
U

(12)

n
n+1


Fb1ε (ε1i ), Fb2ε (ε2i )

are the standard pseudo-observations calculated from the unobserved innovations and their
marginal empirical distribution functions Fbjε (y).
Unfortunately, these general assumptions exclude some useful models (e.g. pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator in the Clayton family of copulas) for which the function φ(u1 , u2 ; θ)
viewed as a function of (u1 , u2 ) is unbounded. The reason is that for empirical distribution
functions calculated from estimated residuals εbji we lack some of the sophisticated results
for an empirical distribution function calculated from (true) innovations εji . For such copula
families one can use for instance the Method-of-Moments using rank correlation (see Section 2.2.1) to stay on the safe side. Nevertheless the simulation study in Section 3 suggests
that the pseudo-maximum likelihood estimation can be used also for the Clayton copula (and
probably also for other families of copulas with non-zero tail dependence) provided that the
dependence is not very strong.
Regularity assumptions. In what follows let θ stand for the true value of the parameter and
V (θ) for an open neighbourhood of θ.
(Id) θ is a unique minimizer of the function r(t) = E ρ(U1i , U2i ; t) and θ is an inner point
of Θ.
(φ) There exists V (θ) such that for each l1 , l2 ∈ {1, . . . , p} the functions φl1 (u1 , u2 ; t) =
∂φ(u1 ,u2 ;t)
1 ,u2 ;t)
and φl1 ,l2 (u1 , u2 ; t) = ∂φ(u
∂tl1
∂tl1 ∂tl2 are for each t ∈ V (θ) continuous in (u1 , u2 )
and of uniformly bounded Hardy-Kraus variation (see e.g., Berghaus et al., 2017).
(j)
(φ ) There exists V (θ) and a function h(u1 , u2 ) such that for each t ∈ V (θ)
(j)

(j)

max max φl (u1 , u2 ; t) ≤ h(u1 , u2 ), where φl (u1 , u2 ; t) =

j=1,2 l=1,...,p

∂φl (u1 ,u2 ;t)
∂uj

and E h(U11 , U21 ) < ∞.
2 ;t)
(Γ) Each element of the (matrix) function Γ(t) = E ∂φ(U∂t1 ,U
is a continuous function
T
and the matrix Γ = Γ(θ) is positively definite.
Theorem 2. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 1 are satisfied and that also (Id),
(φ), (φ(j) ), and (Γ) hold. Then with probability going to one there exists a consistent root θbn

10

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

of the estimating equations (10), which satisfies


√ 
d
(13)
n θbn − θ −−−→ Np 0p , Γ−1 Σ Γ−1 ,
n→∞

where
(

ZZ



Σ = var φ U11 , U21 ; θ +
ZZ
+

1{U11 ≤ v1 } − v1



1{U21 ≤ v2 } − v2



 ∂φ(v1 ,v2 ;θ)
∂v1

dC(v1 , v2 ; θ)
)

 ∂φ(v1 ,v2 ;θ)
∂v2

dC(v1 , v2 ; θ) .

The proof of Theorem 2 is given in Appendix B. Note that the asymptotic distribution of
the estimator θbn coincides with the distribution given in Section 4 of Genest et al. (1995)
(or)
that corresponds to the consistent root θb
of the estimating equations (11). Thus using
n

the residuals instead of the true innovations has asymptotically negligible effect on the (first(or)
order) asymptotic properties. In fact, it can be even shown that both θbn and θb
have the
n

same asymptotic representations and thus
√

(or) 
n θbn − θbn
= oP (1).

2.3. Goodness-of-fit testing. When modeling multivariate data using copulas parametrically one needs to choose a suitable family of copulas. When choosing the copula family tests
of goodness-of-fit are often a useful tool. Thus we are interested in testing H0 : C ∈ C0 , where
C0 = {Cθ , θ ∈ Θ} is a given parametric family of copulas.
Many testing methods have been proposed (see e.g. Genest et al., 2009; Kojadinovic and
Holmes, 2009, and the references therein). The most standard ones are based on the comparison of nonparametric and parametric estimators of a copula. For instance the Cramér-von
Mises statistics is given by
ZZ


en (u1 , u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 ; θbn ) 2 dC
en (u1 , u2 ),
(14)
Sn =
C
where θbn is an estimate of the unknown parameter θ. As the asymptotic distributions of
en (u1 , u2 ) and θbn are the same as the asymptotic distribution of C
en(or) (u1 , u2 ) and θb(or)
C
n
we suggest that the significance of the test statistic can be assessed in the same way as in
i.i.d. settings. Thus one can use for instance the parametric bootstrap by simply generating
independent and identically distributed observations from the copula function C(u1 , u2 ; θbn ).
The test statistic is then simply recalculated from this observations in the same way as if
we directly observed the innovations. The only difference is that instead of generating n
observations we recommend to generate only Wn observations.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

11

Similar remarks hold when testing other hypotheses about the copula such as symmetry, for
instance. Note that testing H0 : C(u1 , u2 ) ≡ u1 u2 provides a test for conditional independence
of the two time series, given the covariate.

3. Simulation study
A small Monte Carlo study was conducted in order to compare the semiparametric estimators based on the residuals with the ‘oracle’ estimators based on (unobserved) innovations.
The inversion of Kendall’s tau (IK) method and the maximum pseudo-likelihood (MPL)
method were considered for the following five copula families: Clayton, Frank, Gumbel, normal, and Student with 4 degrees of freedom. The values of the parameters are chosen so that
they correspond to the Kendall’s tau τ = 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75. The data were simulated from
the following four models:
(Model 1)

Y1i = 0.5(Xi + 1)2 + e1+0.1Xi ε1i ,

Y2i = 0.8(Xi − 1)2 + e1+0.2Xi ε2i ,

(Model 2)

Y1i = 0.7Y1,i−1 + ε1i ,

Y2i = −0.5Y2,i−1 + ε2i ,

(Model 3)
(Model 4)

zY1i = 0.5

Y1,i−1
+ ε1i ,
2
1 + 0.1Y1,i−1

Y1i = σ1i ε1i ,

2
2
σ1i
= 1 + 0.3Y1,i−1
,

Y2i = −0.4Y2,i−1 + ε2i ,
Y2i = σ2i ε2i ,

2
2
σ2i
= 5 + 0.2Y2,i−1
,

where the innovations εji , j = 1, 2, follow marginally the standard normal distribution, and
Xi is an exogenous variable following the ARMA model Xt = 0.5Xt−1 + ξt + 0.4ξt−1 with
ξi being i.i.d. from a standard normal distribution. The simulations were conducted also for
innovations εji , j = 1, 2 with Student marginals with 5 degrees of freedom but the results are
similar. For brevity of the paper we do not present them here.
The nonparametric estimates m
b j and σ
bj are constructed as local polynomial estimators of
order p = 1 with K being the triweight kernel and the bandwidth hn chosen by the crossvalidation method for each estimate separately. The bandwidth is chosen from the interval
(0, H), where H is the range of the corresponding explanatory variable. Finally, cn = log n.
For each setting, we compute the estimate of the copula parameter θ from the true (but
(ik,or)
unobserved) innovations using the inversion of Kendall’s tau method (θbn
) and the max(pl,or)
imum pseudo-likelihood method (θbn
). These oracle estimators are compared with their
(ik)
(pl)
counterparts computed from the residuals (θbn ) and (θbn ). The performance of the estimators is measured by the bias, variance (VAR) and the mean square error (MSE), which are
estimated from the 1 000 random samples. Finally, the sample sizes n = 200, 500 and 1000 are
considered. The obtained results are listed for the five copulas separately in Tables 1,2,3,4 and
(ik)
(pl)
5. As θbn and θbn are natural competitors, the bigger of the two corresponding performance
measures (bias, VAR, MSE) is stressed by the bold font.

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

12

n = 200
Known innovations

Model

estim

bias

VAR

MSE

bias

VAR

MSE

bias

VAR

0.25

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.008

0.019

0.019

0.008

0.008

0.009

-0.001

0.005

0.005

0.026

0.015

0.016

0.019

0.007

0.008

0.007

0.004

0.004

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.022

0.066

0.067

0.019

0.027

0.028

0.003

0.015

0.016

0.027

0.054

0.054

0.017

0.024

0.024

0.002

0.014

0.014

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.052

0.383

0.386

0.055

0.162

0.165

0.014

0.084

0.085

-0.065

0.287

0.291

-0.029

0.126

0.126

-0.036

0.073

0.075

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.014

0.029

0.029

0.005

0.011

0.011

0.002

0.005

0.005

0.027

0.023

0.023

0.010

0.009

0.009

0.002

0.004

0.004

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.007

0.104

0.104

-0.004

0.039

0.039

-0.006

0.019

0.019

-0.058

0.080

0.084

-0.057

0.031

0.034

-0.047

0.016

0.018

-0.158

0.569

0.594

-0.123

0.223

0.238

-0.098

0.107

0.117

-0.723

0.509

1.032

-0.566

0.237

0.557

-0.443

0.151

0.347

0.005

0.029

0.029

0.004

0.010

0.010

-0.002

0.005

0.005

0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

2

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

3

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

4

n = 1000

τ

0.25

1

n = 500

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.018

0.023

0.023

0.013

0.008

0.009

0.003

0.004

0.004

-0.034

0.096

0.097

-0.006

0.033

0.033

-0.010

0.017

0.017

-0.092

0.077

0.086

-0.038

0.028

0.030

-0.028

0.015

0.016

-0.485

0.522

0.757

-0.194

0.205

0.243

-0.120

0.099

0.113

-1.166

0.481

1.842

-0.592

0.209

0.559

-0.368

0.105

0.240

0.003

0.028

0.028

0.002

0.010

0.010

-0.004

0.005

0.005

0.016

0.023

0.023

0.011

0.008

0.009

0.002

0.004

0.004

0.095

0.096

-0.012

0.033

0.033

-0.016

0.017

0.017

-0.093

0.077

0.086

-0.047

0.028

0.030

-0.036

0.015

0.016

-0.488

0.495

0.733

-0.242

0.189

0.247

-0.168

0.092

0.120

-1.128

0.427

1.699

-0.648

0.177

0.597

-0.432

0.094

0.281

0.005

0.030

0.030

0.004

0.010

0.010

-0.003

0.005

0.005

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.037

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

MSE

0.016

0.024

0.024

0.010

0.009

0.009

0.000

0.004

0.004

-0.018

0.099

0.099

-0.004

0.033

0.033

-0.011

0.016

0.017

-0.083

0.079

0.086

-0.050

0.028

0.030

-0.046

0.015

0.017

-0.233

0.542

0.596

-0.098

0.200

0.209

-0.088

0.091

0.099

-0.837

0.421

1.122

-0.517

0.185

0.452

-0.402

0.102

0.264

Table 1. Estimation for Clayton copula.

In agreement with the results of Genest et al. (1995) and Tsukahara (2005) the results for
the (oracle) estimates based on (unobserved) innovations are in favour of MPL method. This
continues to hold also when working with estimated residuals provided that the dependence
is not very strong (i.e. τ = 0.25 or τ = 0.50). But if the dependence is strong (i.e. τ = 0.75)
then one should consider using the IK method. This seems to be true in particular for the
Clayton copula and to some extent also to the Frank copula and the Gumbel copula. A closer
inspection of the results reveals that while the variance of MPL method is almost always
slightly smaller than the variance of the IK method, the bias can be substantially larger. On

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

n = 200
Known innovations

Model

estim

bias

VAR

MSE

bias

VAR

MSE

bias

VAR

MSE

0.25

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.026

0.142

0.143

-0.006

0.071

0.071

0.012

0.037

0.037

0.032

0.142

0.143

-0.002

0.071

0.071

0.013

0.037

0.037

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.044

0.237

0.239

-0.001

0.117

0.117

0.018

0.062

0.063

0.044

0.234

0.236

0.000

0.116

0.116

0.017

0.061

0.062

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.073

0.774

0.780

0.009

0.388

0.388

0.038

0.199

0.201

0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

2

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

3

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

4

n = 1000

τ

0.25

1

n = 500

13

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75

-0.031

0.758

0.759

-0.040

0.377

0.379

0.006

0.197

0.197

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.017

0.218

0.218

-0.010

0.091

0.091

-0.009

0.043

0.043

-0.005

0.218

0.218

-0.005

0.091

0.091

-0.005

0.043

0.043

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.059

0.358

0.362

-0.043

0.151

0.153

-0.024

0.072

0.073

-0.055

0.349

0.352

-0.040

0.149

0.150

-0.023

0.072

0.072

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.424

1.225

1.405

-0.287

0.509

0.591

-0.168

0.244

0.272

-0.555

1.154

1.462

-0.336

0.499

0.611

-0.192

0.242

0.278

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.018

0.221

0.222

-0.020

0.085

0.085

0.002

0.041

0.041

-0.010

0.222

0.222

-0.016

0.085

0.085

0.004

0.041

0.041

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.093

0.366

0.375

-0.054

0.140

0.143

-0.014

0.070

0.070

-0.093

0.361

0.369

-0.055

0.138

0.141

-0.016

0.069

0.069

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.899

1.390

2.198

-0.415

0.513

0.685

-0.195

0.252

0.290

-1.048

1.325

2.424

-0.481

0.501

0.732

-0.234

0.250

0.305
0.041

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.021

0.222

0.222

-0.025

0.085

0.085

-0.001

0.041

-0.012

0.223

0.223

-0.020

0.085

0.085

0.000

0.041

0.041

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.107

0.359

0.371

-0.070

0.139

0.143

-0.028

0.069

0.070

-0.108

0.354

0.366

-0.071

0.137

0.142

-0.030

0.068

0.069

-0.930

1.298

2.163

-0.511

0.492

0.753

-0.291

0.238

0.323

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-1.076

1.219

2.376

-0.575

0.479

0.810

-0.331

0.236

0.345

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.015

0.230

0.230

-0.022

0.084

0.085

0.000

0.041

0.041

-0.006

0.230

0.230

-0.017

0.084

0.085

0.002

0.041

0.041

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.059

0.381

0.385

-0.053

0.142

0.144

-0.017

0.070

0.070

-0.058

0.375

0.379

-0.053

0.140

0.143

-0.018

0.069

0.069

-0.483

1.353

1.587

-0.259

0.511

0.578

-0.144

0.238

0.258

-0.632

1.267

1.667

-0.317

0.493

0.594

-0.176

0.233

0.264

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

Table 2. Estimation for Frank copula.

the other hand the results suggest that for the normal and the Student copula one can stay
with MPL method even in case of a strong dependence.
Finally note that for large sample sizes the performance of the estimates based on residuals
is usually almost as good as of the oracle estimates based on (unobserved) innovations. But
there is still some price to pay even for the sample size n = 1000 and this price relatively
increases with the level of dependence. The question for possible further research is how to
explain the bad performance of PML method when based on residuals for the Clayton copula
with a strong dependence.

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

14

n = 200
Known innovations

Model

estim

bias

VAR

MSE

bias

VAR

MSE

bias

VAR

MSE

0.25

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.057

0.047

0.047

0.007

0.022

0.022

0.011

0.013

0.013

0.142

0.047

0.049

0.062

0.021

0.022

0.040

0.012

0.012

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.103

0.153

0.154

0.034

0.069

0.069

0.024

0.040

0.040

0.207

0.148

0.152

0.109

0.066

0.067

0.057

0.037

0.037

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

0.211

0.799

0.804

0.098

0.359

0.360

0.040

0.201

0.201

0.026

0.713

0.713

0.055

0.321

0.321

-0.034

0.173

0.174

0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

2

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

3

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

4

n = 1000

tau

0.25

1

n = 500

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.080

0.074

0.074

0.026

0.028

0.028

-0.023

0.014

0.014

0.173

0.067

0.070

0.062

0.026

0.027

0.003

0.013

0.013

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.025

0.243

0.243

-0.006

0.089

0.089

-0.070

0.045

0.046

0.042

0.218

0.219

-0.038

0.082

0.082

-0.106

0.043

0.044

-0.595

1.227

1.262

-0.386

0.442

0.457

-0.394

0.235

0.250

-1.607

1.038

1.296

-1.228

0.411

0.562

-1.041

0.259

0.367

0.013

0.068

0.068

-0.018

0.027

0.027

-0.002

0.014

0.014

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.099

0.066

0.067

0.034

0.026

0.026

0.026

0.013

0.013

-0.158

0.227

0.230

-0.095

0.083

0.084

-0.041

0.044

0.044

-0.152

0.211

0.213

-0.070

0.079

0.079

-0.037

0.041

0.041

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-2.175

1.182

1.655

-0.986

0.451

0.548

-0.532

0.236

0.265

-3.347

1.019

2.139

-1.537

0.425

0.661

-0.918

0.216

0.300

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.003

0.067

0.067

-0.023

0.027

0.027

-0.007

0.014

0.014

0.086

0.066

0.066

0.029

0.026

0.026

0.018

0.013

0.013

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.173

0.227

0.230

-0.119

0.082

0.083

-0.064

0.044

0.044

-0.165

0.210

0.213

-0.095

0.078

0.079

-0.063

0.040

0.041

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-2.118

1.150

1.598

-1.154

0.444

0.577

-0.733

0.223

0.277

-3.150

0.988

1.980

-1.667

0.406

0.684

-1.105

0.200

0.322

0.015

0.069

0.069

-0.017

0.027

0.027

-0.006

0.014

0.014

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.093

0.068

0.068

0.030

0.026

0.026

0.012

0.013

0.013

-0.061

0.234

0.234

-0.069

0.085

0.085

-0.042

0.044

0.045

-0.081

0.210

0.211

-0.064

0.079

0.080

-0.073

0.040

0.041

-0.713

1.268

1.319

-0.429

0.453

0.471

-0.291

0.223

0.231

-1.736

1.087

1.389

-0.965

0.399

0.492

-0.740

0.198

0.253

Table 3. Estimation for Gumbel copula (10 multiples of BIAS, VAR and MSE).

4. Application
To illustrate the proposed methods let us consider daily log returns of USD/CZK (US
Dollar/Czech Koruna) and GBP/CZK (British Pound/Czech Koruna) exchange rates from
4th January 2010 to 31st December 2012. Note that we take only data till the end of 2012
(total of 758 observations for each series), because in November 2013 the Czech National
Bank started its intervention aimed at CZK/EUR exchange rate, and this might violate the
assumption of stationarity and independence for more recent data.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

n = 200
Known innovations

Model

tau

estim

bias

VAR

0.25

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

-0.051
0.710

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

-0.052
0.418

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

1

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

2

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

3

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

4

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75

n = 500
MSE

bias

VAR

0.290

0.290

-0.072

0.262

0.267

0.388

0.103

0.103

-0.052

0.087

0.089

0.242

-0.031

0.009

0.009

-0.049

0.008

0.008

-0.580

0.439

0.273

0.402

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.644
-0.264

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.406

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

15

n = 1000
MSE

bias

VAR

MSE

0.141

0.141

-0.041

0.071

0.071

0.127

0.129

0.224

0.061

0.062

0.050

0.050

-0.029

0.026

0.026

0.043

0.043

0.139

0.021

0.021

-0.022

0.005

0.005

-0.010

0.002

0.002

-0.021

0.004

0.004

-0.011

0.002

0.002

0.443

-0.130

0.171

0.172

0.026

0.087

0.087

0.403

0.183

0.155

0.156

0.144

0.077

0.077

0.163

0.167

-0.234

0.064

0.064

-0.084

0.031

0.031

0.142

0.142

-0.168

0.055

0.055

-0.116

0.027

0.027

0.016

0.018

-0.209

0.006

0.007

-0.115

0.003

0.003

-0.676

0.016

0.020

-0.483

0.007

0.009

-0.336

0.003

0.004

-0.476

0.452

0.454

-0.287

0.161

0.162

-0.179

0.079

0.079

0.530

0.413

0.416

0.200

0.149

0.150

0.098

0.068

0.068

-0.912

0.169

0.177

-0.402

0.060

0.062

-0.228

0.028

0.029

-0.349

0.142

0.143

-0.122

0.052

0.052

-0.074

0.023

0.023

-1.061

0.022

0.033

-0.441

0.007

0.009

-0.224

0.003

0.003

-1.246

0.021

0.036

-0.526

0.006

0.009

-0.267

0.002

0.003

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.530

0.448

0.451

-0.343

0.162

0.163

-0.216

0.079

0.079

0.469

0.409

0.412

0.137

0.150

0.150

0.060

0.068

0.068

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.967

0.168

0.177

-0.489

0.059

0.062

-0.291

0.028

0.029

-0.401

0.138

0.140

-0.219

0.051

0.052

-0.133

0.023

0.024

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-1.013

0.020

0.030

-0.504

0.006

0.009

-0.290

0.003

0.004

-1.179

0.019

0.032

-0.580

0.006

0.009

-0.328

0.002

0.003

-0.425

0.478

0.480

-0.352

0.166

0.168

-0.200

0.080

0.080

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.528

0.438

0.440

0.092

0.154

0.154

0.035

0.069

0.069

-0.648

0.180

0.185

-0.387

0.061

0.062

-0.238

0.029

0.029

-0.125

0.150

0.151

-0.174

0.053

0.054

-0.138

0.024

0.024

-0.407

0.019

0.021

-0.206

0.006

0.006

-0.131

0.003

0.003

-0.565

0.017

0.020

-0.301

0.005

0.006

-0.197

0.002

0.003

Table 4. Estimation for normal copula (100 multiples of BIAS, VAR and MSE).

Daily foreign exchange rates have been successfully modelled using the nonparametric
autoregression, e.g., in Härdle et al. (1998) and Yang et al. (1999). Here, we apply a simple
model of two separate nonparametric autoregressions of order 1 and search for a feasible
copula for the innovations. The conditional means and variances are modelled using local
polynomials with degree p = 1. The smoothing parameters are chosen using the crossvalidation (CV) method as 0.038, 0.061, 0.025, 0.056 for mU SD , mGBP , σU SD , and σGBP
respectively. The fitted conditional means and standard deviations are plotted together with

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

16

n = 200
Known innovations

Model

tau

estim

bias

VAR

0.25

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

-0.276
0.309

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn

-0.184
0.185

(ik,or)
θbn
(pl,or)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.303
0.294

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.491
-0.268

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

0.25
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

1

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

2

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

3

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25

4

0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75

n = 500
MSE

bias

VAR

0.350

0.351

-0.051

0.351

0.352

0.267

0.130

0.130

-0.032

0.119

0.120

0.143

-0.066

0.013

0.013

-0.098

0.011

n = 1000
MSE

bias

VAR

MSE

0.179

0.179

-0.131

0.093

0.093

0.176

0.176

0.064

0.092

0.092

0.067

0.067

-0.084

0.035

0.035

0.061

0.061

0.033

0.032

0.032

-0.015

0.006

0.006

-0.028

0.003

0.003

0.011

-0.046

0.005

0.005

-0.041

0.003

0.003

0.513

0.514

-0.139

0.210

0.210

-0.239

0.113

0.114

0.514

0.514

0.084

0.207

0.208

-0.081

0.112

0.112

0.204

0.206

-0.256

0.079

0.080

-0.249

0.042

0.043

0.183

0.183

-0.231

0.072

0.073

-0.236

0.040

0.040

-0.396

0.022

0.024

-0.230

0.008

0.009

-0.178

0.004

0.005

-0.641

0.020

0.024

-0.435

0.007

0.009

-0.327

0.004

0.005

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.995

0.520

0.529

-0.230

0.209

0.210

-0.254

0.103

0.104

-0.423

0.526

0.528

0.070

0.209

0.209

-0.094

0.102

0.102

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-1.235

0.201

0.216

-0.381

0.081

0.082

-0.276

0.039

0.040

-1.067

0.189

0.201

-0.317

0.074

0.075

-0.232

0.036

0.037

-1.214

0.028

0.043

-0.449

0.009

0.011

-0.251

0.004

0.005

-1.594

0.027

0.052

-0.651

0.009

0.013

-0.356

0.004

0.005
0.104

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn
(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-1.061

0.515

0.526

-0.305

0.210

0.210

-0.308

0.104

-0.469

0.521

0.524

-0.028

0.209

0.209

-0.163

0.102

0.102

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-1.302

0.202

0.219

-0.466

0.081

0.083

-0.361

0.040

0.041

-1.113

0.190

0.203

-0.416

0.075

0.076

-0.331

0.037

0.038

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-1.162

0.026

0.039

-0.508

0.009

0.012

-0.328

0.004

0.005

-1.475

0.024

0.046

-0.686

0.008

0.013

-0.434

0.004

0.005

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.881

0.525

0.533

-0.175

0.215

0.216

-0.278

0.103

0.104

-0.243

0.530

0.531

0.071

0.215

0.215

-0.157

0.101

0.101

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

-0.902

0.202

0.210

-0.291

0.082

0.083

-0.277

0.039

0.040

-0.658

0.191

0.196

-0.254

0.077

0.078

-0.282

0.036

0.037

-0.503

0.023

0.025

-0.197

0.009

0.009

-0.153

0.004

0.004

-0.734

0.021

0.026

-0.359

0.008

0.009

-0.268

0.003

0.004

(ik)
θbn
(pl)
θbn

Table 5. Estimation for Student copula (100 multiples of BIAS, VAR and MSE).

the data in Figure 1. It is visible that the conditional mean functions are rather flat and
range around zero.
We use the goodness-of-fit test proposed in Section 2.3 in order to decide which copula
should be used for modelling the innovations from the two autoregressions. The significance of
the test statistics is assessed with the help of the bootstrap test based on B = 999 bootstrap
samples. We test Clayton, Frank, Gumbel, normal and Student copula with 4 degrees of
freedom respectively and obtain p-values 0.001, 0.001, 0.002, 0.062, 0.289. Hence, we conclude

0.02
0.00
−0.01

0.00

GBP

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

data
fitted cond. mean
fitted st.dev.

−0.02

−0.03 −0.02 −0.01

USD

17

0.03

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

−0.03

data
fitted cond. mean
fitted st.dev.

0

200

400

600

0

200

Time

400

600

Time

Figure 1. Fitted conditional mean and variance for the analyzed log returns.

1.0

that the Student copula seems to be the best choice for the innovations. The normal copula
is also not rejected on the 5% level, but the corresponding p-value is rather borderline, so
the Student copula seems to provide a better fit. The maximum likelihood method estimates
4.693 degrees of freedom and parameter ρ = 0.782. Figure 2 shows plot of pseudo-observations
e1i , U
e2i ) given by (9), together with contours of the fitted Student copula.
(U

●
●
●●●
●
●● ●●
●●
●
●● ●
●
● ●● ●
●
● ●●●●
●
●
●● ●
●●
●
●●
●●
● ● ●●
● ●●●
●
●● ● ● ●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
● ●●
● ●
●
●
● ● ●● ●●
●
●
● ●●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●● ●
●
●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
●● ● ●
●●●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●●
●
●● ●
●
● ●● ●
●
●
● ● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
● ●● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
● ●
●
●
●●●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ● ●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
● ●●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
● ●●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ●
●● ●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ●
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●●●
●●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
● ●
●●●●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
●● ●● ●
●●
●
●
● ● ● ●●● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●● ●
●
●
●
●●●●●
●
●
●● ●
● ● ● ● ●●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●

●

●

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

●

0.0

0.2

0.4

●

0.6

●

●

●●

0.8

1.0

e1i , U
e2i ) given by (9) together with contours
Figure 2. Pseudo-observations (U
of the fitted Student copula (black curves).

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

18

Appendix A - Proof of Theorem 1
P
Recall the definition Wn = nj=1 wnj . Introduce
n

1 X
−1
−1
wni 1 εb1i ≤ F1ε
(u1 ), εb2i ≤ F2ε
(u2 )
Wn
i=1

−1
−1
= Fbεb F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 )

b n (u1 , u2 ) =
G

and note that

bn G
b −1 (u1 ), G
b −1 (u2 ) ,
en (u1 , u2 ) = G
C
1n
2n
b 1n and G
b 2n denote the marginals of G
b n . Further G
b n is a distribution function on [0, 1]2
where G
b 1n (0) = G
b 2n (0) = 0. Thus one can make use of the
with the marginals cdfs satisfying G
−1
Hadamard differentiability of the ‘copula mapping’ Φ : G 7→ G(G−1
1 , G2 ) proved in Theorem 2.4 of Bücher and Volgushev (2013) provided we show that the process

√
b n (u1 , u2 ) = n G
b n (u1 , u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 ) , (u1 , u2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 ,
(A1)
G
converges in distribution in the space `∞ ([0, 1]2 ) to a process G with continuous trajectories
such that G(u, 0) = G(0, u) = G(1, 1) = 0 for each u ∈ [0, 1].
b n . Denote
A1: Decomposition and weak convergence of G
G(or)
n (u1 , u2 ) =

n
1X 
−1
−1
(u2 ) ,
(u1 ), ε2i ≤ F2ε
1 ε1i ≤ F1ε
n
i=1
n
X

e (or) (u1 , u2 ) = 1
G
n
Wn


−1
−1
(u2 ) .
(u1 ), ε2i ≤ F2ε
wni 1 ε1i ≤ F1ε

i=1

b n as
Now one can decompose the process G
 √
 √

√
bn = n G
en + G
e (or) + G(or) ,
bn − G
e (or) + n G
e (or) − G(or) + n G(or) − C = G
(A2) G
n
n
n
n
n
n
(or)

(or)

e n, G
e n and Gn stand for the first, second and third term respectively on the
where G
right-hand side of the first equation in (A2).
In Section A2 it will be shown that the first term on the right-hand side of (A2) satisfies
uniformly in (u1 , u2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 ,
 n h
−1
i
(1) (u , u ) f
X
C
F
(u
)
1
2
1ε
1
F −1 (u )
1ε
e n (u1 , u2 ) =
√
G
ε1i + 1ε 2 1 (ε21i − 1)
n
i=1
 n
−1
i
(2)
C (u1 , u2 ) f2ε F2ε (u2 ) X h
F −1 (u )
√
+
ε2i + 2ε 2 2 (ε22i − 1) + oP (1)
(A3)
n
i=1

where (in agreement with the last two conditions in (Fε )) for u1 ∈ {0, 1} the first term on
the right-hand side of (A3) is defined as zero and analogously for u2 ∈ {0, 1}.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

19

In Section A3, we will show the asymptotic negligibility of the second term on the righthand side of (A2), i.e.

√
e (or) (u1 , u2 ) =
e (or) (u1 , u2 ) − G(or) (u1 , u2 ) = oP (1).
(A4)
sup
G
sup
n G
n
n
n
(u1 ,u2 )∈[0,1]2

(u1 ,u2 )∈[0,1]2

Now combining (A2) with (A3) and (A4) yields that uniformly in (u1 , u2 )
(A5)

b n (u1 , u2 ) = An (u1 , u2 ) + Bn (u1 , u2 ) + oP (1),
G

where
(A6)

n

1 X
√
An (u1 , u2 ) =
1{U1i ≤ u1 , U2i ≤ u2 } − C(u1 , u2 ) ,
n
i=1

n
2
h
1 X X (j)
−1
Bn (u1 , u2 ) = √
C (u1 , u2 ) fjε Fjε
(uj ) εji +
n

−1
Fjε
(uj ) 2
(εji
2

i
− 1) .

i=1 j=1

The asymptotic representation (A5) together with standard techniques yields the weak conb n.
vergence of the process G
Now thanks to Hadamard differentiability of the copula functional and Theorem 3.9.4 of van
der Vaart and Wellner (1996),


 √ 
√ 
en (u1 , u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 ) = n G
bn G
b −1 (u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 )
b −1 (u1 ), G
n C
2n
1n
(A7)

b n (u1 , u2 ) − C (1) (u1 , u2 )G
b n (u1 , 1) − C (2) (u1 , u2 )G
b n (1, u2 ) + oP (1).
=G

Note that for each (u1 , u2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2
(A8)

Bn (u1 , u2 ) − C (1) (u1 , u2 )Bn (u1 , 1) − C (2) (u1 , u2 )Bn (1, u2 ) = 0.

Further combining (A7) with (A5), (A6) and (A8) gives

√ 
en (u1 , u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 )
n C
(A9)

= An (u1 , u2 ) − C (1) (u1 , u2 )An (u1 , 1) − C (2) (u1 , u2 )An (1, u2 ) + oP (1).

Now the right-hand side of (A9) coincides with the asymptotic representation of the ‘oracle’

√  (or)
copula process n Cn − C , which implies the statement of Theorem 1.
A2: Showing (A3). Let us introduce the process
n

1 X
Zn (f ) = √
f (X i , ε1i , ε2i ),
n
i=1

that is indexed be the following set of functions
n


F = (x, y1 , y2 ) 7→ 1 x ∈ [−c, c]d 1 y1 ≤ z1 b1 (x) + a1 (x), y2 ≤ z2 b2 (x) + a2 (x) ,
o
c ∈ R+ , z1 , z2 ∈ R, a1 , a2 ∈ G, b1 , b2 ∈ Ge ,

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

20

where, for δ from assumption (Bw) and some ν > d(1 + dδ ),


(A10)
G = a : Rd → R | a ∈ C1d+δ Rd , sup kxkν |a(x)| ≤ 1 ,
x

(A11)

Ge =



d

b:R →R|b∈

e d+δ
C
2

d

R , sup kxkν |b(x) − 1| ≤ 1 .


x

Denote the centred process as
(A12)

Z̄n (f ) = Zn (f ) − E Zn (f ),

f ∈ F,

and note that f may be formally identified by (c, z1 , z2 , a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 ). We will use the notation
f =(c,
ˆ z1 , z2 , a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 ).
Consider the semi-norm given by
Z 1
kf k2,β =
β −1 (u) Q−1
f (u) du,
0

where

β −1 (u) = inf x > 0 : βbxc ≤ u},



Q−1
f (u) = inf x > 0 : P f (ε11 , ε21 , X 1 ) > x ≤ u .

Then completely analogously as in the proof of Lemma 1 in Dette et al. (2009) one can show
that the logarithm of the bracketing number N[ ] (, F, k · k2,β ) can be bounded by







d
d
e k · k2
(A13)
log O(−2d )N[ ] 2 , G, k · k2 N[ ] 2 , G,
= O log() + O −2 ν + d+δ ,
where the rate follows from our Lemma 2 in Appendix C. Further one bracket is sufficient for
 ≥ 1. Thus by (A13) and because ν > d(1 + dδ ),
Z ∞q
log N[ ] (, F, k · k2,β ) d < ∞.
0

From Dedecker and Louhichi (2002), Section 4.3, it follows that the centred process Z̄n given
by (A12) is asymptotically k.k2,β -equicontinuous.
To apply this result in order to prove (A3) note that
√ X
n
 n
n
b 1 (Xi )−m1 (Xi )
−1
i)
e
Gn (u1 , u2 ) =
wni 1 ε1i ≤ F1ε
(u1 ) σσb11 (X
+m
,
(X
)
σ1 (Xi )
i
Wn
i=1
o
m
b 2 (Xi )−m2 (Xi )
−1
i)
ε2i ≤ F2ε
(u2 ) σσb22 (X
+
(Xi )
σ2 (Xi )


−1
−1
−1 ε1i ≤ F1ε
(u1 ), ε2i ≤ F2ε
(u2 )
and introduce the process
√ X
n
 n
o
n
−1
−1
wni 1 ε1i ≤ F1ε
(u1 )bb1 (Xi ) + b
a1 (Xi ), ε2i ≤ F2ε
(u2 )bb2 (Xi ) + b
a2 (Xi )
Ǧn (u1 , u2 ) =
Wn
i=1
n
o
−1
−1
− 1 ε1i ≤ F1ε
(u1 ), ε2i ≤ F2ε
(u2 )

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

21

with b
aj , bbj , j = 1, 2, from Lemma 1 and Remark 3 in Appendix C. Then one obtains by
monotonicity arguments applying Lemma 1(i) that, on an event with probability converging
to one



Wn e
Zn fn` − Zn gn ) ≤
Gn (u1 , u2 ) − Ǧn (u1 , u2 ) ≤ Zn fnu − Zn gn )
n
for some deterministic positive sequence γn = o(n−1/2 ). Here,

−1
−1
−1
−1
fn` =
ˆ cn , F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 ), b
a1 − γn , bb1 − γn sign(F1ε
(u1 )), b
a2 − γn , bb2 − γn sign(F2ε
(u2 )) ,

−1
−1
−1
−1
fnu =
ˆ cn , F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 ), b
a1 + γn , bb1 + γn sign(F1ε
(u1 )), b
a2 + γn , bb2 + γn sign(F2ε
(u2 )) ,

−1
−1
gn =
ˆ cn , F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 ), b
a1 , bb1 , b
a2 , bb2 .
We only consider the upper bound, the lower one can be handled completely analogous. First


note that Zn fnu − Zn gn ) = Z̄n fnu − Z̄n gn ) + Rn , where with probability converging to
one,
√
(A14)
|Rn | ≤ 2 n max
sup
|Fjε (uv + w) − Fjε (u(v + sγn ) + w + γn )| = o(1),
j=1,2

u∈R,s∈{−1,1}
v∈(1/2,1),w∈(−1,1)

where the last equality follows by a Taylor expansion, assumption (Fε ) and γn = o(n−1/2 ).
Now introducing the notation (j = 1, 2)


−1
−1
−1
(A15)
Fjε
(u, x, γ) = Fjε
(u) bbj (x) + γ sign(Fjε
(u)) + b
aj (x) + γ
one can show that for a sufficiently large M similarly as in the proof of Lemma 1 in Dette
et al. (2009)
 n
o
−1
−1
kfnu − gn k2,β ≤ M P 1 X 1 ∈ Jn , ε11 ≤ F1ε
(u1 , X 1 , γn ), ε21 ≤ F2ε
(u2 , X 1 , γn )
o

n
−1
−1
(u2 , X 1 , 0) > 0
(u1 , X 1 , 0), ε21 ≤ F2ε
− 1 X 1 ∈ Jn , ε11 ≤ F1ε


−1
−1
(u1 , X 1 , γn )
≤ M P X 1 ∈ Jn , F1ε
(u1 , X 1 , 0) ≤ ε11 ≤ F1ε


−1
−1
+ M P X 1 ∈ Jn , F2ε
(u2 , X 1 , 0) ≤ ε21 ≤ F2ε
(u2 , X 1 , γn )
and this can be bounded by M n−1/2 times the bound on the right hand side of (A14) and
thus converges to zero in probability uniformly in u1 , u2 . From k.k2,β -equicontinuity of Z̄n
one obtains
Z̄n (fnu ) − Z̄n (gn ) = oP (1)
uniformly with respect to u1 , u2 and in combination with (A14) and analogous considerations

for the lower bound Zn fn` − Zn gn ) we obtain
e n (u1 , u2 ) − Ǧn (u1 , u2 ) = oP (1).
sup G

u1 ,u2

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

22

The remaining proof of (A3) is divided into two parts. First we prove that
sup Ǧn (u1 , u2 ) − E∗ [Ǧn (u1 , u2 )] = oP (1)

(A16)

u1 ,u2

and then we calculate E∗ [Ǧn (u1 , u2 )]. Here, with slight abuse of notation, E∗ denotes expectation, considering the functions b
aj , bbj as deterministic.
Showing (A16). Note that we have
Ǧn (u1 , u2 ) − E∗ [Ǧn (u1 , u2 )] = Z̄n (fn ) − Z̄n (gn ),

(A17)
where


−1
−1
(u2 ), b
a1 , bb1 , b
a2 , bb2 ,
(u1 ), F2ε
fn = cn , F1ε


−1
−1
(u2 ), 0, 1, 0, 1 ,
(u1 ), F2ε
gn = cn , F1ε

with 0 and 1 standing for functions that are constantly equal to zero and one respectively.
Similarly to before one can show that for a sufficiently large M
i
 h


−1
(u1 , X 1 , 0) − u1 1 X 1 ∈ Jn
kfn − gn k2,β ≤ M E F1ε F1ε
i
h


−1
(u2 , X 1 , 0) − u2 1 X 1 ∈ Jn
+ E F2ε F2ε
using notation (A15).
Now note that with Lemma 1 (iii) in Appendix C we obtain kfn − gn k2,β = oP (1) uniformly
in u1 , u2 . Finally with the help of (A17) and the asymptotic k.k2,β -equicontinuity of the
process Z̄n one can conclude (A16).
Calculating E∗ [Ǧn (u1 , u2 )]. With the help of a second-order Taylor series expansion of the
right-hand side one gets



−1
−1
−1
−1
E∗ [Ǧn (u1 , u2 )] = Fε F1ε
(u1 , X, 0), F2ε
(u2 , X, 0) − Fε F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 )
=

2


√ X
−1
−1
n
E∗ wn (X) Fε(j) F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 ) YjX (uj )
j=1
√

(A18)

+

n
2

2 X
2
X



−1
−1
E∗ wn (X) Fε(j,k) F1ε
(u1X ), F2ε
(u2X ) YjX (uj ) YkX (uk ) ,

j=1 k=1

where
−1
−1
−1
Yjx (u) = Fjε
(u, x, 0) − Fjε
(u) = b
aj (x) + Fjε
(u)(bbj (x) − 1),

j = 1, 2,

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

23


−1
and the point ujx lies between the points Fjε Fjε
(uj , x, 0) and uj . Now using Lemma 1 (iv)
in Appendix C for j = 1, 2
√



−1
−1
n E∗ wn (X) Fε(j) F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 ) YjX (uj )
h 


i
√
−1
−1
−1
∗ b
+
= n Fε(j) F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 ) E∗ b
aj (X)1{X ∈ J+
}
+F
(u
)E
(
b
(X)
−
1)
1
{X
∈
J
}
j
j
n
n
jε
n h
i
 1 X
F −1 (uj )
√
εji + jε 2
(ε2ji − 1) + oP (1)
n
i=1

−1
n
i
Fjε (uj ) X h
F −1 (uj )
εji + jε 2
(ε2ji − 1) + oP (1)

−1
−1
F1ε
(u1 ), F2ε
(u2 )

=

Fε(j)

=

C (j) (u1 , u2 ) fjε
√
n

i=1

uniformly in (u1 , u2 ).
To conclude the proof of (A3) we need to show that ‘the second order terms’ in (A18) are
asymptotically negligible. To show that note that by assumption (Fε ) and Lemma 1 (iii)
there exists a finite constant M such that with probability going to one


−1
−1
(uk )
(uj ) 1 + Fkε
1 + Fjε



−1
−1
−1
−1
(uk )
(uj ) 1 + Fkε
(u2x ) 1 + Fjε
(u1x ), F2ε
≤ Fε(j,k) F1ε


−1
−1
(ukx )
(ujx ) 1 + Fkε
1 + Fjε


−1
−1
1 + Fjε
(ujx ) 1 + Fkε
(ukx )


−1
−1
(uk )
(uj ) 1 + Fkε
1 + Fjε


≤M
−1
−1
1 + Fjε
(ujx ) 1 + Fkε
(ukx )


−1
−1
(uk )
(uj ) 1 + Fkε
M 1 + Fjε
≤


1 
1 
1
1
−1
−1
(uk ) 1 + op (n− 4 ) + op (n− 4 )
(uj ) 1 + op (n− 4 ) + op (n− 4 ) 1 + Fkε
1 + Fjε

−1
−1
(u2x )
(u1x ), F2ε
Fε(j,k) F1ε



≤ 2M
uniformly in (u1 , u2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 and x ∈ Jn .
Thus to prove


−1
−1
EX wn (X) Fε(j,k) F1ε
(u1X ), F2ε
(u2X ) YjX (uj ) YkX (uk ) = oP (1),
it is sufficient to use once more Lemma 1 (iii).
A3: Showing (A4). Note that with the notation Wn =

Pn

i=1 wni

one can decompose


√
(or)
e (or)
n G
n (u1 , u2 ) − Gn (u1 , u2 )
 √

√
(or)
e (or)
= n G
n (u1 , u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 ) − n Gn (u1 , u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 )

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

24

(A19)

=

 n
−1 X
 

−1
−1
√
wni 1 ε1i ≤ F1ε
(u1 ), ε2i ≤ F2ε
(u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 )
n

n
Wn

i=1

n
 

1 X
−1
−1
+√
(wni − 1) 1 ε1i ≤ F1ε
(u1 ), ε2i ≤ F2ε
(u2 ) − C(u1 , u2 )
n
i=1

1
= Wn − 1 Bn1 (u1 , u2 ) + Bn2 (u1 , u2 ),

where Bn1 (u1 , u2 ) stands for the first term on the right-hand side of the equation (A19)
(except for the factor Wnn − 1) and Bn2 (u1 , u2 ) for the second term. Further using standard
techniques one can show that both Bn1 (u1 , u2 ) and Bn2 (u1 , u2 ) viewed as processes on [0, 1]2
are asymptotically equi-continuous. Moreover as

n
−
1
=
o
(1),
and
E
w
(X
)
−
1
= −P(X 1 6∈ Jn ) = o(1),
n
1
P
Wn

one can conclude that both processes W1n − 1 Bn1 (u1 , u2 ) and Bn2 (u1 , u2 ) are uniformly
asymptotically negligible in probability, which together with (A19) implies (A4).

Appendix B - Proof of Theorem 2
Thanks to assumption (φ), the estimator θbn is a solution to the estimating equations (10).
In what follows, first we prove the existence of a consistent root of the estimating equations (10) and then we derive that this root satisfies
(B1)

√

n


1 X b b
n θbn − θ = Γ−1 √
φ U1i , U2i ; θ + oP (1),
n
i=1

b1i , U
b2i ) are introduced in (12). The statement of the theorem now follows for p = 1
where (U
by Proposition A 1(ii) of Genest et al. (1995) and for p > 1 by Theorem 1 of Gijbels et al.
(2017).

en0 (u1 , u2 ) = 1 Pn wni 1 U
e1i ≤ u1 , U
e2i ≤ u2 , where pseudoProving consistency. Put C
i=1
Wn
e1i , U
e2i ) are defined in (9). Note that
observations (U
(B2)

en (u1 , u2 ) − C
e 0 (u1 , u2 ) = OP
C
n

sup
(u1 ,u2 )∈[0,1]2

1
Wn



= OP

1
n



.

Fix l ∈ {1, . . . , p}. By Corollary A.7 of Berghaus et al. (2017) one gets
Z 1Z 1
n

1 X
e
e
en0 (v1 , v2 )
wni φl U1i , U2i ; t =
φl (v1 , v2 ; t) dC
Wn
0
0
i=1
Z 1Z 1

en0 (v1 , v2 ) dφl (v1 , v2 ; t) + φl (1, 1; t
=
C
0

Z
(B3)

−
0

0
1

en0 (v1 , 1) dφl (v1 , 1; t) −
C

Z
0

1

e 0 (1, v2 ) dφl (1, v2 ; t).
C
n

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

25

Note that thanks to assumption (φ(j) ) (uniformly in t ∈ V (θ))
Z 1
Z 1
n
1 X
0
e
1{Ue1i ≤ v1 } dφl (v1 , 1; t)
Cn (v1 , 1) dφl (v1 , 1; t) =
wni
Wn
0
0
i=1

1
=
Wn

Wn
X
i=1

Z

1
i
Wn +1
Z 1

= φl (1, 1; t) −

(B4)

Wn
1 X
φl ( Wni+1 , 1; t)
dφl (v1 , 1; t) = φl (1, 1; t) −
Wn
i=1

φl (v1 , 1; t) dv1 + OP
0

and analogously also
Z 1
Z
en0 (1, v2 ) dφl (1, v2 ; t) = φl (1, 1; t) −
(B5)
C
0

1
Wn



1

φl (1, v2 ; t) dv2 + OP

0

1
Wn



.

Now combining (B3), (B4) and (B5) yields
Z 1Z 1
n

1 X
e
e
e 0 (v1 , v2 ) dφl (v1 , v2 ; t) + Al (t) + OP
(B6)
wni φl U1i , U2i ; t =
C
n
Wn
0
0

1
n



,

i=1

where
(B7)


Al (t) = −φl (1, 1; t +

Z

1

Z
φl (v1 , 1; t) dv1 +

0

1

φl (1, v2 ; t) dv2 .
0

Analogously one gets
(B8)


E φl U11 , U21 ; t =

Z

1Z 1

C(v1 , v2 ) dφl (v1 , v2 ; t) + Al (t).
0

0

Now using (B2), (B6), (B8) and assumption (φ) gives that uniformly in t ∈ V (θ)
n

1 X
e1i , U
e2i ; t − E φl (U11 , U21 ; t)
wni φl U
Wn
i=1
Z 1Z 1
 0

e (v1 , v2 ) − C(v1 , v2 ) dφl (v1 , v2 ; t) + OP
=
C
n
0

0

1
n



= oP (1),

where we have used Theorem 1 and assumption (φ). The existence of a consistent root of
estimating equations (10) now follows by assumptions (Id) and (Γ).
Analogously one can show the existence of a consistent root of estimating equations (11).
Showing (B1). Let θbn be a consistent root of the estimating equations (10). Then by the
mean value theorem applied to each coordinate of the vector-valued function
n

1 X
e1i , U
e2i ; t
wni φ U
Ψn (t) =
Wn
i=1

one gets
n


1 X
e1i , U
e2i ; θbn
0p =
wni φ U
Wn
i=1

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

26

n
n





1 X
1 X
∗
e
e
e
e
=
wni φ U1i , U2i ; θ +
wni Dφ U1i , U2i ; θ n θbn − θ ,
Wn
Wn
i=1

i=1

1 ,u2 ;t)
and θ ∗n is between θbn and θ. Note that as the mean value
where Dφ stands for ∂φ(u∂t
∗,p
theorem is applied to a vector valued function there are in fact p different points θ ∗,1
n , . . . , θn
for each coordinate of the function Ψn (t) but all of them are consistent so for simplicity of
notation we do not distinguish them.
Thus to finish the proof of (B1) it is sufficient to show that

n

1 X
e1i , U
e2i ; θ ∗ = Γ + oP (1)
wni Dφ U
n
Wn

(B9)

i=1

and
√ X
n
n
X


n
e1i , U
e2i ; θ = √1
b1i , U
b2i ; θ + oP (1).
wni φ U
φ U
Wn
n

(B10)

i=1

i=1

When proving (B9) one can mimic the proof of consistency of θbn and show that there
exists V (θ) (an open neighbourhood of θ such that)
sup
t∈V (θ)

n

1X
e1i , U
e2i ; t − E Dφ (U11 , U21 ; t) = oP (1).
wni Dφ U
n
i=1

Using the consistency of θbn and assumption (Γ) yields (B9).
0(or)

Thus one can concentrate on proving (B10). Put Cn
b1i , U
b2i ) are defined in (12). Note that
u2 , where (U
(B11)

sup
(u1 ,u2 )∈[0,1]2

(u1 , u2 ) =

1
n

Cn(or) (u1 , u2 ) − Cn0(or) (u1 , u2 ) = OP

Pn

i=1

1
n



1 Ub1i ≤ u1 , Ub2i ≤


.

Analogously as (B6) one can also show that for l = 1, . . . , p
Z 1Z 1
n

1X
b
b
φl U1i , U2i ; θ =
φl (v1 , v2 ; θ) dCn0(or) (v1 , v2 )
n
0
0
i=1
Z 1Z 1
(B12)
=
Cn0(or) (v1 , v2 ) dφl (v1 , v2 ; θ) + Al (θ) + OP
0

0

where Al (θ) is given in (B7).
Now using (B2), (B6), (B11), (B12), Theorem 1 and (φ) one gets
√ X
n
n


n
1 X
e
e
b1i , U
b2i ; θ
wni φl U1i , U2i ; θ − √
φl U
Wn
n
i=1
i=1
Z 1Z 1

√  0
e (u1 , u2 ) − C 0(or) (u1 , u2 ) dφl (u1 , u2 ; θ) + oP
=
n C
n
n
0

0

which verifies (B10) and finishes the proof of (B1).

√1
n



1
n



,

= oP (1),

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

27

Appendix C - Auxiliary results
Lemma 1. Assume that (β), (Fε ), (M), (FX ), (Bw), (k), (Jn ) and (mσ) are satisfied.
Then there exist random functions b
aj and bbj on Jn such that for j = 1, 2
(i) sup
x∈Jn



m
b j (x) − mj (x)
σ
bj (x) b
−b
aj (x) = oP n−1/2 , sup
− bj (x) = oP n−1/2 ,
σj (x)
x∈Jn σj (x)

(ii) kb
aj kd+δ = oP (1),
aj (x) = oP
(iii) sup b

kbbj − 1kd+δ = oP (1) for δ > 0 from assumption (Bw),


n−1/4 ,
sup bbj (x) − 1 = oP n−1/4 ,
x∈Jn

x∈Jn

Z
(iv)

b
aj (x)fX (x) dx =

Jn

1
n

n
X


εji + oP n−1/2 ,

i=1

n


X


bbj (x) − 1 fX (x) dx = 1
ε2ji − 1 + oP n−1/2 .
2n
Jn

Z

i=1


Proof. For ease of presentation we set j = 1 and assume hn = hn , . . . , hn . We will first
prove the assertions for m
b 1 . The proof basically goes along the lines of the proof of Lemma
1 by Müller et al. (2009), but changes are necessary due to the dependency of observations
in our model and because our covariate density is not assumed to be bounded away from
zero on its support. Recall that I(d, p) denotes the set of multi-indices i = (i1 , . . . , id ) with
i. = i1 + · · · + id ≤ p and we set I = I(d, p), where p is the order of the polynomials used in
the local polynomial estimation.
b denote the solution of the minimizaProof of assertion (i) for m
b 1 . Fix some x ∈ Jn and let β
b satisfies the normal equations
tion problem (4). Then β
X
b = 0 ∀i ∈ I,
b ik (x)β
Ai (x) + Bi (x) −
Q
k
k∈I

where
n

Ai (x) =

1X
σ1 (X ` ) ε1` ψi,hn (X ` − x) Khn (X ` − x),
n

Bi (x) =

n
1X
m1 (X ` )ψi,hn (X ` − x)Khn (X ` − x),
n

`=1

b ik (x) =
Q

1
n

`=1
n
X

ψi,hn (X ` − x) ψk,hn (X ` − x) Khn (X ` − x).

`=1

1/2
From Theorem 2 in Hansen (2008) we obtain for %n = log n/(nhdn )
,
(C1)

b ik (x) − Qik (x) = OP (%n ),
sup Q
x∈Jn

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

28



b ik (x) , i, k ∈ I. Note that
where we define Qik (x) = E Q
Z
Qik (x) = ψi,(1,..1) (u) ψk,(1,..1) (u) fX (x + hn u) K(u) du,
and for x ∈ Jn , consider the matrices Q(x) with entries Qik (x), i, k ∈ I. Analogously put
b
b ik (x), i, k ∈ I.
Q(x)
for the matrix with entries Q
It follows from assumption (FX ) that 0 < λn ≤ aT Q(x) a ≤ Λ < ∞ for all vectors a of
unit Euclidean length, where λn is a sequence of positive real numbers of the same rate as
(1)
αn in assumption (FX ). Thus Q(x) has eigenvalues in the interval [λn , Λ], and on the event


λn
b
En = sup Q(x) − Q(x) ≤
2
x∈Jn
b
b
one has aT Q(x)
a ≥ λn /2 for all a of unit Euclidean length, such that the matrix Q(x)
is
invertible as well. Here and throughout kQk denotes the spectral norm of a matrix Q. Note
(1) 
that P(En ) → 1 by (C1) and %n = o αn , which holds under assumption (Bw). For the
remainder of the proof we assume that the event En takes place because its complement does
not matter for the assertions of the lemma. It follows from the normal equations that for
x ∈ Jn ,

b −1 (x) A(x) + B(x) ,
m
b 1 (x) = eT Q
1

where e1 = (1, 0, . . . , 0)T and A(x) and B(x) denote the vectors with components Ai (x) and
Bi (x), i ∈ I, respectively. Now define
−1
b
a1 (x) = eT
1 Q (x)A(x)

(C2)

1
,
σ1 (x)

x ∈ Jn ,

then we have the decomposition
m
b 1 (x) − m1 (x)
−b
a1 (x) = r1 (x) + r2 (x)
σ1 (x)

(C3)
with remainder terms

1
,
σ1 (x)
 1
b −1
b
r2 (x) = eT
,
1 Q (x) B(x) − Q(x)β(x)
σ1 (x)

−1
b −1
r1 (x) = eT
1 Q (x) − Q (x) A(x)

where β(x) is the vector with components β i (x) = hi.n Di m1 (x), i ∈ I. From Theorem 2 in
Hansen (2008) we obtain
(C4)

sup Ai (x) = OP (%n ),

i ∈ I.

x∈Jn

For the treatment of the inverse matrices in r1 (x) we use Cramer’s rule and write
b −1 (x) − Q−1 (x) =
Q

T

1
1
b
 C(x) T
−
 C(x)
b
det Q(x)
det Q(x)

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

29



b
T
T
det Q(x) − det Q(x)
1
b
b
 C(x)
− C(x) ,
+

 C(x)
b
det Q(x)
det Q(x)
det Q(x)

=

b
b
where C(x)
and C(x) denote the cofactor matrices of Q(x)
and Q(x), respectively. Due to
b
the boundedness of the functions Qik each element of C(x) − C(x) can be absolutely bounded
b
by OP (%n ) by (C1) and the same rate is obtained for det(Q(x)) − det(Q(x))
, uniformly in
|I|

x. Using the lower bound λn for the determinant of Q(x), and assumption (mσ) to bound
1/σ1 gives the rate



(%n )2
(C5)
sup r1 (x) = OP
= oP n−1/2
(1) 2|I| (2)
(αn )

x∈Jn

αn

by assumption (Bw). In order to show negligibility of r2 (x) first note that the spectral
b −1 (x) is given by the reciprocal of the square root of the smallest eigenvalue of
norm of Q
T Q(x).
b
b
Q(x)
With
1/2
λn
Tb
b
b
b
≥ (aT Q(x)T Q(x)a)1/2 − Q(x)
− Q(x) ≥
aT Q(x)
Q(x)a
= Q(x)a
2
b −1
(on En ) for all a with ||a|| = 1, we obtain the rate O(λ−1
n ) for Q (x) . Further, by Taylor
expansion of m1 (X ` ) in the definition of Bi (x) and using assumption (mσ) we have
n

1X
≤ Mn
kX ` − xkp+γ kψi,hn (X ` − x)k Khn (X ` − x)
n
`=1

= O Mn hp+γ
fbX (x),
n


b
Bi (x) − Q(x)β(x)
i

P
where the kernel density estimator fbX (x) = n1 n`=1 Khn (X ` − x) converges to fX (x) uniformly in x ∈ Jn , see Theorem 6 by Hansen (2008). Altogether we have



p+γ
n hn
= oP n−1/2
(C6)
sup r2 (x) = OP M(1)
(2)
αn αn

x∈Jn

using assumption (Bw).
Now assertion (i) for m
b 1 follows from (C2), (C3), (C5) and (C6).
Proof of assertion (ii) for b
a1 .
kb
a1 kd+δ = max sup Di b
a1 (x)
i∈I(d,d) x∈Jn

+ max max
i∈I(d,d)
i.=d





sup
x,x0 ∈Jn
kx−x0 k≤hn

|Di b
a1 (x)
kx

− Dib
a1 (x0 )|
,
− x0 kδ

sup
x,x0 ∈Jn
kx−x0 k>hn

≤ max sup Di b
a1 (x)
i∈I(d,d) x∈Jn

+ max
i∈I(d,d+1)
i.=d+1

sup Di b
a1 (x) h1−δ
+ 2 max sup Di b
a1 (x) h−δ
n
n

x∈Jn

i∈I(d,d)
i.=d

x∈Jn

|Di b
a1 (x)
kx



− Dib
a1 (x0 )| 

− x0 kδ

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

30

by the mean value theorem. Again by Theorem 2 of Hansen (2008) we have
sup hi.n Di Ak (x) = OP (%n ),

i ∈ I(d, d + 1).

x∈Jn

Further note that



∂
∂
−1
−1
Q (x) = Q (x)
Q(x) Q−1 (x)
∂xk
∂xk
(1) 

and that the spectral norm of Q−1 (x) can be bounded by O 1/αn
before. We apply the product rule for derivatives to obtain
kb
a1 kd+δ ≤ max

j
` X
X

`=1,...,d

+2

OP



j=0 k=0

j
d X
X

OP



j=0 k=0

= OP



%n h−d
n
(1) (2)
αn αn

= OP



%n
(1)
hd+δ
α
n
n αn



`−j
%n h−k
n Mn
(2) `−j+1
(1) j−k+1
(αn )
(αn )

d−j
%n h−k
n Mn
(1) j−k+1
(2) d−j+1
(αn )
(αn )





+

j
d+1 X
X

OP



j=0 k=0

with considerations as

d+1−j
%n h−k
n Mn
(2)
(1) j−k+1
(αn )d−j+2
(αn )



hn1−δ

h−δ
n

 −d−1 


hn
%n h−d
1−δ
−δ
n
+ OP %n(1)
h
+
O
P
(2)
(1) (2) hn
n
αn αn
αn αn

= oP (1)
(2)

by assumption (Bw). Assertion (ii) for b
a1 follows.
Proof of assertion (iii) for b
a1 . From the definition of b
a1 and (C4) we obtain that



a1 (x) = OP (1)%n (2) = oP n−1/4
sup b
αn αn

x∈Jn

and thus (iii) follows for b
a1 .
Proof of assertion (iv) for b
a1 . To prove (iv) note that
Z
n
1X
ε1i ∆n (X i )
b
a1 (x)fX (x) dx =
n
Jn
i=1

with
Z

1
eT Q−1 (x) ψ hn (X i − x) Khn (X i − x) fX (x) dx
σ1 (x) 1
Z
fX (X i − uhn )
= σ1 (X i ) 
eT
Q−1 (X i − uhn ) ψ(u) K(u)
du.

1
X i −cn X i +cn
σ1 (X i − uhn )
,

∆n (X i ) = σ1 (X i )

hn

hn

From the support properties of the kernel function it follows that ∆n (X i )1{X i 6∈ J+
n } = 0.
−
d
Further, for Jn = [−cn + hn , cn − hn ] note that
n

(C7)


1X
−
−1/2
ε1i ∆n (X i ) 1{X i ∈ J+
n \ Jn } = oP n
n
i=1

because the expectation is zero and the variance is bounded by
 

1
1 1
−
2
sup
sup fX (x) E 1 X 1 ∈ J+
n \ Jn σ1 (X 1 )
n x∈Jn σ1 (x) λn x∈Rd

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

≤

31

 1  Mn hn 

1  1 
\ J−
= O (1) (2) = o n−1 .
O (1) (2) Mn P X 1 ∈ J+
n
n
αn αn
αn αn
n
n

It remains to consider
n

1X
ε1i ∆n (X i )1{X i ∈ J−
n },
n
i=1

(1)

(2)

with ∆n (X i ) = ∆n (X i ) + ∆n (X i ), where
Z
−1
(1)
eT
∆n (X i ) =
1 Q (X i − uhn ) ψ(u) K(u) fX (X i − uhn ) du,
[−1,1]d

Z

∆(2)
n (X i ) =

[−1,1]d



σ1 (X i )
−1
eT
1 Q (X i − uhn ) ψ(u) K(u) fX (X i − uhn ) σ1 (X i −uhn ) − 1 du.
(2)

Now, by applying the mean value theorem for σ1 , for X i ∈ J−
n , ∆n (X i ) can be bounded
(1) (2) 
absolutely by O Mn hn /(αn αn ) = o(1). Thus analogously as when showing (C7) one can
use Markov’s inequality to get
Z
n
n


1X
1X
−
−1/2
b
a1 (x)fX (x) dx −
ε1i =
ε1i ∆(1)
.
n (X i ) − 1 1{X i ∈ Jn } + oP n
n
n
Jn
i=1

i=1

 (1)
2

To obtain the desired negligibility it remains to show E ∆n (X i ) − 1 1{X i ∈ J−
n } → 0.
To this end we write
Z
−1
1=
eT
1 Q∗ (x − hn u)ψ(u)K(u)fX (x − hn u) du,
[−1,1]d

where for x ∈ J+
n the matrix Q∗ (x) has entries
Z
Q∗ik (x) = fX (x) ψi (u)ψk (u)K(u) du,

i, k ∈ I.

Note that Q∗ (x) has the smallest eigenvalue of order λn . Thus we obtain the bound

2

−
E ∆(1)
n (X i ) − 1 1{X i ∈ Jn }
 Z

−1
−1
eT
=E
1 Q (X i − uhn ) − Q∗ (X i − uhn )
[−1,1]d

ψ(u)K(u)fX (X i − uhn ) du
Z
≤ O(1)

Z

J−
n

[−1,1]d

2

Q−1 (x − uhn ) − Q−1
∗ (x − uhn )

1{X i ∈
2



J−
n}

du fX (x) dx

2
≤ O(1) sup kQ−1 (x)k2 sup kQ−1
∗ (x)k
x∈J+
n

x∈J+
n

Z
J−
n

Z
[−1,1]d

kQ(x − uhn ) − Q∗ (x − uhn )k2 du fX (x) dx.

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

32

Now with bounds for the matrix norms similar to before, and inserting the definitions of Q
and Q∗ we obtain


2
−
E (∆(1)
n (X i ) − 1) 1{X i ∈ Jn }
Z

Z Z
1
|fX (x − uhn + hn v) − fX (x − uhn )|2 K(v) dv du fX (x) dx
≤O
(1) 4
(αn )

=O



J−
n



h2n
(1)

(αn )4

[−1,1]d

[−1,1]d

= o(1)

by the mean value theorem and assumptions (FX ) and (k).
Proof of assertions (i)–(iv) for σ
b1 . Recall the definition σ
b12 = sb1 − m
b 21 , where sb1 is the local
polynomial estimator based on (X i , Y1i2 ), i = 1, . . . , n. With the notation s1 (x) = E[Y1i2 |
X i = x] = σ12 (x) + m21 (x) we obtain
σ
b1 (x)
σ1 (x)

= 1+

sb1 (x) − s1 (x) m
b 1 (x) − m1 (x) m1 (x)
−
+ r(x),
σ1 (x)
σ1 (x)
2σ12 (x)

where
r(x) = −

1 (m
(b
σ12 (x) − σ12 (x))2
b 1 (x) − m1 (x))2
−
.
2
σ12 (x)
2σ12 (x)(b
σ1 (x) + σ1 (x))2

Put
−1
e
b
c1 (x) = eT
1 Q (x)A(x)

1

,
2 σ12 (x)

x ∈ Jn ,

e
where A(x)
denotes the vector with components
n

1 X
e
Ai (x) =
2 m1 (X ` )σ1 (X ` ) ε1` + σ12 (X ` ) ε21` − 1 ψi,hn (X ` − x) Khn (X ` − x),
n

i ∈ I.

`=1

Along the lines of the proof of (i) and (ii) for m
b 1 one can prove that
sup
x∈Jn






sb1 (x) − s1 (x)
%2n
Mn hp+γ
n
−
b
c
(x)
=
O
+
O
= oP n−1/2
1
P
P
(1) |I|
(2) 2
(1)
(2) 2
2
(αn ) (αn )
αn (αn )
2σ1 (x)

and
sup |b
c1 (x)| = OP
x∈Jn

Now noticing that
the rate

σ
b12 (x)−σ12 (x)



%n
(1)
(2)
αn (αn )2


= oP n−1/4 .

= sb1 (x)−s1 (x)−(m
b 1 (x)−m1 (x))(m
b 1 (x)+m1 (x)) we obtain



sup |r(x)| = oP n−1/2 + OP
x∈Jn



%2n
(1)
(2)
(αn )2 (αn )4



= oP n−1/2



and (i) follows for σ
b1 .
If we define bb1 (x) = 1 + b
c1 (x) − b
a1 (x)m1 (x)/σ1 (x), then (ii) and (iii) follow analogously to
before. The only difference is an additional factor σ1 (x) in the denominator that needs to be
considered.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

33

To show validity of (iv) note that the regression model Y1i2 = s1 (X i ) + ηi holds with error
term ηi = σi2 (X i )(ε21i − 1) + 2m1 (X i )σ1 (X i )ε1i . From this one obtains analogously to the
derivation of (iv) for b
a1 that
Z
n
n

sb1 (x)
1 X 2
1 X m1 (X i )
f
(x)
dx
=
(ε
−
1)
+
ε1i + oP n−1/2 .
X
1i
2
2n
n
σ (X i )
Jn 2σ1 (x)
i=1
i=1 1
R
But the second sum is also the dominating term in Jn b
a1 (x)m1 (x)/σ1 (x)fX (x) dx, which is
again shown analogously to the proof of (iv) for b
a1 . Thus (iv) follows for bb1 .

Remark 3. Note that due to property (iii) of Lemma 1 and assumption (FX ) we have for
x ∈ Jn = [−cn , cn ]d ,
kxkν |b
a1 (x)| ≤ O((log n)ν/d )o(n−1/4 ) = o(1)
for every ν > 0. In the proof of Lemma 1, b
a1 (x) was only defined for x ∈ Jn . Now we define
d+δ
d
b
a1 on R in a way that if b
a1 ∈ C1 (Jn ) and kxkν |b
a1 (x)| ≤ 1, then b
a1 ∈ G defined in (A10).


d
Then P b
a1 ∈ G → 1 by Lemma 1. Analogously bb1 is defined on R such that P bb1 ∈ Ge → 1
for Ge from (A11).
Lemma 2. Let H = G or Ge denote one of the function classes defined in (A10) and (A11),
then we have with ν > d(1 + d/δ) and δ from assumption (Bw),


d
d
log N (, H, k · k∞ ) = O − ν + d+δ
for  & 0, and thus the same bound holds for log N[ ] (, H, k · k2 ).
e and let  > 0. Choose D = D() = −1/ν .
Proof. Let H = G (the proof is similar for G)
Let B denote the ball of radius D around the origin. Let a1 , . . . , am : B → R denote the
centers of -balls with respect to the supremum norm that cover C1d+δ (B), that is m =
N (, C1d+δ (B), k · k∞ ). Then for each a ∈ G we have a|B ∈ C1d+δ (B) and thus there exists
j0 ∈ {1, . . . , m} such that supx∈B |a(x) − aj0 (x)| ≤ . Now define aj (x) = 0 for x ∈ Rd \ B,
j = 1, . . . , m. Then
n
o
sup |a(x) − aj0 (x)| ≤ max , sup |a(x)| ≤ 
x∈Rd

kxkν |a(x)|

kxk≥D

because
≤ 1 by definition of G. We obtain N (, G, k · k∞ ) = m and due to van der
Vaart and Wellner (1996), Theorem 2.7.1, we have for some universal K




d
d
d
− νd + d+δ
d
1 − d+δ
d − d+δ
log m ≤ K λ B 
= O (D + 2) 
=O 
,

where B 1 = x : kx − Bk < 1
Thus the first assertion follows. The second assertion follows by van der Vaart and Wellner
(1996), proof of Cor. 2.7.2.


34

NATALIE NEUMEYER1 , MAREK OMELKA2 , ŠÁRKA HUDECOVÁ2

References
Berghaus, B., Bücher, A., and Volgushev, S. (2017). Weak convergence of the empirical copula
process with respect to weighted metrics. Bernoulli, 23(1):743–772.
Brahimi, B. and Necir, A. (2012). A semiparametric estimation of copula models based on
the method of moments. Stat. Methodol., 9(4):467–477.
Bücher, A. and Volgushev, S. (2013). Empirical and sequential empirical copula processes
under serial dependence. J. Multivariate Anal., 119:61–70.
Chan, N.-H., Chen, J., Chen, X., Fan, Y., and Peng, L. (2009). Statistical inference for
multivariate residual copula of GARCH models. Statist. Sinica, 19:53–70.
Chen, X. and Fan, Y. (2006). Estimation and model selection of semiparametric copula-based
multivariate dynamic models under copula misspecification. J. Econometrics, 135:125–154.
Dedecker, J. and Louhichi, S. (2002). Maximal inequalities and empirical central limit theorems. In Dehling, H., Mikosch, T., and Sorensen, M., editors, Empirical process techniques
for dependent data, pages 137–160. Birkhäuser Boston.
Dette, H., Pardo-Fernández, J. C., and Keilegom, I. V. (2009). Goodness-of-fit tests for
multiplicative models with dependent data. Scand. J. Statist., 36(4):782–799.
Embrechts, P., Frey, R., and McNeil, A. (2005). Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts,
Techniques, and Tools. Princeton Series in Finance, Princeton.
Fan, J. and Gijbels, I. (1996). Local Polynomial Modelling and Its Applications. Chapman &
Hall/CRC, London.
Fan, J. and Yao, Q. (2005). Nonlinear Time Series : Nonparametric and Parametric Methods.
Springer series in statistics. Springer, New York.
Gao, J. (2007). Nonlinear Time Series: Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.
Genest, C., Ghoudi, K., and Rivest, L.-P. (1995). A semiparametric estimation procedure of
dependence parameters in multivariate families of distributions. Biometrika, 82:543–552.
Genest, C., Rémillard, B., and Beaudoin, D. (2009). Goodness-of-fit tests for copulas: A
review and a power study. Insurance Math. Econom., 44:199–213.
Gijbels, I., Omelka, M., Pešta, M., and Veraverbeke, N. (2017). Score tests for covariate effects in conditional copulas. J. Multivariate Anal. Available online, doi:
10.1016/j.jmva.2017.05.001.
Gijbels, I., Omelka, M., and Veraverbeke, N. (2015). Estimation of a copula when a covariate
affects only marginal distributions. Scand. J. Statist., 42(4):1109–1126.
Hansen, B. E. (2008). Uniform convergence rates for kernel estimation with dependent data.
Econometric Theory, 24:726–748.
Härdle, W., Tsybakov, A., and Yang, L. (1998). Nonparametric vector autoregression.
J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 68(2):221–245.

A COPULA APPROACH FOR DEPENDENCE MODELING

35

Kim, G., Silvapulle, M. J., and Silvapulle, P. (2007). Semiparametric estimation of the error
distribution in multivariate regression using copulas. Aust. N. Z. J. Stat., 49(3):321–336.
Kim, G., Silvapulle, M. J., and Silvapulle, P. (2008). Estimating the error distribution in
multivariate heteroscedastic time-series models. J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 138(5):1442–
1458.
Kojadinovic, I. and Holmes, M. (2009). Tests of independence among continuous random vectors based on Cramér–von Mises functionals of the empirical copula process. J. Multivariate
Anal., 100(6):1137–1154.
Masry, E. (1996). Multivariate local polynomial regression for time series: uniform strong
consistency and rates. J. Time Series Anal., 17(6):571–599.
Müller, U. U., Schick, A., and Wefelmeyer, W. (2009). Estimating the error distribution
function in nonparametric regression. Statist. Probab. Lett., 79:957–964.
Nelsen, R. B. (2006). An Introduction to Copulas. Springer, New York. Second Edition.
Patton, A. J. (2012). A review of copula models for economic time series. J. Multivariate
Anal., 110:4–18.
Portier, F. and Segers, J. (2015). On the weak convergence of the empirical conditional copula
under a simplifying assumption. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06544.
Rémillard, B., Papageorgiou, N., and Soustra, F. (2012). Copula-based semiparametric models for multivariate time series. J. Multivariate Anal., 110:30–42.
Segers, J. (2012). Weak convergence of empirical copula processes under nonrestrictive
smoothness assumptions. Bernoulli, 18:764–782.
Tsukahara, H. (2005). Semiparametric estimation in copula models. Canad. J. of Statist.,
33:357–375.
van der Vaart, A. W. and Wellner, J. A. (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes.
Springer, New York.
Veraverbeke, N., Omelka, M., and Gijbels, I. (2011). Estimation of a conditional copula and
association measures. Scand. J. Statist., 38:766–780.
Yang, L., Härdle, W., and Nielsen, J. (1999). Nonparametric autoregression with multiplicative volatility and additive mean. J. Time Series Anal., 20(5):579–604.

