Statistical Inference for Ergodic Point Processes and Application to
Limit Order Book
Simon Clinet and Nakahiro Yoshida
Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo

∗

arXiv:1512.01899v3 [math.ST] 27 Sep 2016

CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency
September 28, 2016

Abstract
We construct a general procedure for the Quasi Likelihood Analysis applied to a multivariate point
process on the real half line in an ergodic framework. More precisely, we assume that the stochastic intensity
of the underlying model belongs to a family of processes indexed by a finite dimensional parameter. When
a particular family of laws of large numbers applies to those processes, we establish the consistency, the
asymptotic normality and the convergence of moments of both the Quasi Maximum Likelihood estimator
and the Quasi Bayesian estimator. In addition, we illustrate our main results by showing how they can
be applied to various Limit Order Book models existing in the literature. In particular, we address the
fundamental cases of Markovian models and exponential Hawkes process-based models.

Keywords : Multivariate point process, ergodicity, Hawkes process, inferential statistics, Quasi Likelihood
Analysis, Limit Order Book.

1

Introduction

Most financial transactions take place nowadays in electronic markets. In the so-called continuous-time double
auctions system, traders can freely send buying or selling orders at any price level. As the matching process
of those asynchronous orders is rather complex, every submission is centralized in an Electronic Limit Order
Book (also denoted by LOB), waiting to be executed according to its price and time priority. An LOB is thus
a multidimensional queuing system, that gathers the total volume of non-executed orders for every price level.
Essentially, market agents interact with this dynamical system via three elementary rules. They may submit a
buying (resp. selling) limit order that will increase the size of one queue on the bid (resp. ask) side of the LOB.
They also may send a buying (resp. selling) market order that will immediately consume the corresponding
liquidity at the best available price. Finally they can submit cancellation orders to remove one of their latent
limit order in the LOB. Driven by these simple mechanisms, the characteristics of the Order Book, such as
its mid price, its shape, or the number of orders submitted in a given time window are subject to random
fluctuations as time passes.
As the macroscopic price movements of an asset are determined by the evolution of its Order Book through
time, understanding the stochastic structure of this object is a fundamental issue. It is also a way to describe
∗ Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo: 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan. e-mail:
simon@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp, nakahiro@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp

1

in a high-dimensional context the microstructure phenomena related to the stock price movements. Indeed,
phenomena such as the Epps effect, traditionally represented by an unknown noise process in many studies
that confine themselves to one-dimensional price models, are captured when the whole Limit Order Book is
taken into account. While the availability of high-frequency financial data has made in-depth analysis of LOB
dynamics accessible, it is now possible to use statistical tools in order to highlight either empirical facts about
their shapes and their evolution [26, 9], or to design and select models that are able to reproduce some of those
stylized facts. For the latter, modelling the stochastic behavior of Limit Order Books has been the subject
of an intense research over the last decade, the simplest approaches being zero-intelligence models, in which
interarrival times of orders are exponentially distributed. The seminal work about this basic representation
[34] has been followed by many extensions, see e.g. [1, 11, 13, 12, 27]. Despite their mathematical tractability,
such models are too simple to be entirely satisfactory, essentially because of the absence of any structure of
dependence in the order submission process. Lately more complex dynamics have been proposed, including
Markovian models [16], Hawkes process driven bid-ask prices [5, 40], or even Hawkes processes-based LOB
models [2, 35, 6], the latter being reputed to efficiently capture the time clustering property of orders, and the
cross-dependences in the order flow.
The fact that an LOB is mechanically driven by the orders submitted over time has encouraged many
authors to see Order Books through the stochastic structure of their interarrival times (∆T0 , ∆T1 , ...) between
two successive events. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to describe a Limit Order Book as a high-dimensional
point process, that is a process N whose components Ntα − Ntα′ count the number of orders of same type, and
′
at the same price level, that have been successively submitted in a time interval [t, t ]. In a parametric context,
estimating the true parameter θ∗ of the model based on the observations is therefore a very general and crucial
issue that may take place in (at least) two distinct asymptotics. As, for liquid stocks, a tremendously large
number of events happen during short periods of times, the heavy traffic limit (very large number of events
on a fixed time window) offers a favorable framework for the construction of consistent estimators. In [30], a
sequence of multivariate point processes is thus assumed to be observable on a time interval [T0 , T1 ]. Under
suitable assumptions on the sequence of stochastic intensities itself, it is shown that even in this non-ergodic
context it is possible to conduct the so-called Quasi Likelihood Analysis procedure (QLA). In particular, both
the Quasi Maximum Likelihood estimator (QMLE) and the Quasi Bayesian estimator (QBE) are consistent,
asymptotically mixed normal, and their moments converge.
In this work, instead, we focus on the long run characteristics of the LOB seen as a point process. While the
time parameter T tends to infinity, assuming that the LOB satisfies a suitable ergodicity assumption, we make
use of this property to derive the asymptotic properties of the QMLE and the QBE. This problematic is by no
means new since the consistency and the asymptotic normality of the Maximum Likelihood estimator (MLE) for
ergodic stationary point processes were established a few decades ago in [29] and [33]. [37] has also suggested a
different approach based on parameter estimation for the spectral density of the process. In the non-stationary
regime, the inhomogeneous Poisson process case has been deeply investigated in [22], and conditions for the
convergence of moments of the MLE and the Bayesian estimator (BE) of a general point process have been stated
in [21] (see Theorems 4.5.5 and 4.5.6). Furthermore, Maximum Likelihood estimations have been empirically
conducted for the abovementioned models, but the fact that such procedure is consistent is sometimes unclear.
As a matter of fact, the term ergodicity itself can be subject to various definitions according to the underlying
structure of the process (stationarity, Markovian property, ...). However, all those structures share an essential
property, namely a family of laws of large numbers (LLN). Indeed, denoting by λ(t, θ) the stochastic intensity
of the point process, we have in many cases
1
T

Z

0

T

f (λ(s, θ))ds →P π(f, θ),

(1.1)

those convergences being the crucial assumptions to determine the asymptotic properties of both the QMLE
and the QBE, regardless of the nature of the operator π. We therefore consider (1.1) as a general definition of
ergodicity in the present paper. We sometimes need to consider slightly more general processes than the simple
vector λ(t, θ) in (1.1) for technical considerations, although this is not necessary in many cases. Needless to

2

say that this almost model-free representation covers thus a wide range of examples, and our main result is the
derivation of the full Quasi Likelihood Analysis for point processes in this unified context. Under suitable assumptions that are given in this paper, both the QMLE and the QBE satisfy the following asymptotic properties :

θT →P
√
T (θT − θ∗ ) →d
√
E[f ( T (θT − θ∗ ))] →

θ∗ ,
Γ

− 21

(1.2)
ξ,

E[f (Γ

− 12

(1.3)
ξ)], ξ ∼ N ,

(1.4)

where Γ is the Fisher information, N is the standard normal distribution, and f is any continuous function
of polynomial growth. Here →P and →d respectively stand for the convergence in probability and the convergence in distribution. Let us give a few comments on the latter result. The convergence (1.4) is essentially
a consequence of the local asymptotic normality (LAN) of our statistical model at point θ∗ , along with some
deviation inequality on the Quasi Likelihood random field. It is also well-known that if those properties hold
true uniformly in θ∗ , then our estimators are asymptotically efficient in the sense of the Hájek-Le Cam bound.
In other words, they attain the minimum of an asymptotic minimax bound for the risk associated to any loss
function of polynomial growth. We refer the reader to [14] and [18], Sections II.11-12 and III.1-2 for precise
statements of these results. Finally, let us mention that the convergence of moments is very often needed in order
to identify the bias correction term for the construction of information criteria. A presentation of information
criterion-based model selection can be found in the introduction of [38].
From a practical point of view, such general framework provides solid results on two very popular estimators
that are commonly used in empirical works. Despite the fact that their properties were partially known in
various cases, we believe that this unified view will both consolidate those results by systematically ensuring
(1.2)-(1.4) and help the practitioner to easily validate the theoretic properties of her estimators when she is
confronted with point process regression. Indeed, the central condition for our result is the LLN (1.1), which
can often be naturally derived from the underlying structure of the model she is willing to use. On the other
hand, the question of the choice of the model, that also arises in practice is more complex. Consequently, further considerations, such as model selection, mispecification, or inference for more general processes are beyond
the scope of this paper but are quickly mentioned in the conclusion. We finally insist on the fact that such
general QLA procedure is applicable to any context involving an ergodic point process. Accordingly, the range
of applications does not reduce to finance, but extends to diverse fields such as seismology and optics (see the
introduction of [22]), or neurobiology (see Examples 2 and 3 in [10]) to name a few.
The paper is organized as follows. We introduce a general ergodic multivariate point process model in
Section 2. Section 3 is devoted to show, under a classical approach first, the consistency and the asymptotic
normality of the QMLE under suitable regularity conditions. These results are then generalized to the convergence of moments of both the QMLE and the QBE under stronger assumptions. We give some applications and
examples that are picked from the literature on Limit Order Books and that satisfy those general conditions in
Section 4, and we conclude this paper in Section 5. Finally, we gather some annex proofs and lemmas in Section 6.

3

2

Multivariate point process

We first introduce the general framework for a parametrized multivariate point process. Let B = (Ω, F , F, P),
F = (Ft )t∈R+ be a stochastic basis, and assume that we are given a multidimensional point process Nt =
(Ntα )α∈I , I = {1, ..., d} that is adapted to F. For example, each Ntα can be thought as the number of limit (resp.
cancellation, market) orders at some given price level pα that have been submitted in the time interval [0, t].
The general definition of a Limit Order Book and the multivariate point process associated to it will be given
in Section 4, since no Limit Order Book knowledge is needed to understand this statistical part. The filtration
F = (Ft )tR+ is generated by the collection of observable processes involved in the structure of N . In the most
basic case F is generated solely by N itself and is thus the so-called canonical filtration of the point process, as
is the case for the self-exciting Hawkes process as defined in Section 4.2. On the other hand, Examples 3.3, 3.4
and 3.6 along with the LOB models described in Examples 4.2 and 4.3 include additional observed explanatory
processes.
For the sake of simplicity N is assumed to be defined on R+ , N = (Nt )t∈R+ , N0 = 0, and its components
N α have Rno common jumps. N can also be seen as an integer measure if we write for any Borel subset A,
N (A) = A dNs . In particular Nt = N ([0, t]). Understanding the dynamic of a point process on R+ can be
done, as usual, by studying its underlying stochastic intensity. We recall that if we write Λt the Ft -compensator
of Nt , we call λ the (predictable) Ft -stochastic intensity of N , that is the unique (predictable) process such that
Λt =

Z

t

λ(s)ds

0

if such representation exists. Intuitively speaking, λ(t)dt is, conditionally to Ft , the average (multivariate)
number of jumps dNt , or in an informal way, E [dNt |Ft ] = λ(t)dt.
Since λ determines the law of the process N , the choice of the form of λ is an important question. In a
parametric context, it is common to allow the stochastic intensity itself to depend on a parameter θ as follows :
for some finite dimensional relatively compact open space Θ ⊂ Rn , n ≥ 1, we consider the family of adapted (and
Rt
thus observable) processes Λt (θ) = 0 λ(s, θ)ds. We assume that there exists an unknown true value θ∗ ∈ Θ
such that λ(t, θ∗ ) is the actual Ft -intensity of Nt . The process Ñt = Nt − Λt (θ∗ ) is thus a local martingale.
Let us introduce a few
the paper, if x designates a real number, a vecP terms and notations. All nalong
⊗2
stands for the product of x and its transpose :
tor or a matrix, |x| =
i |x|i . For a vector x ∈ R , x
1
x⊗2 = x.xT ∈ Rn×n . If X is a random variable, kXkp = E [|X|p ] p . If aT and bT are sequences of random
aT
variables, aT = oP (bT ) stands for bT 1{bT 6=0} →P 0. We also write aT = OP (bT ) to say that abTT 1{bT 6=0} is
stochastically bounded. For a process X, FtX = σ{Xs , 0 ≤ s ≤ t} designates the canonical filtration of X.
Finally, for a Borel space (E, B(E)), Cb (E, R) is the set of continuous, bounded functions from the space E to
R, equipped with their underlying topologies.
We will work with the following two fundamental conditions on the family (λ(t, θ))t∈R+ ,θ∈Θ :
[A1 ] The mapping λ : Ω × R+ × Θ → R+ is F ⊗ B(R+ ) ⊗ B(Θ)-measurable. Moreover, almost surely,
(i) for any θ ∈ Θ, s → λ(s, θ) is left continuous.

(ii) for any s ∈ R+ , θ → λ(s, θ) is in C 3 (Θ), and admits a continuous extension to Θ.

[A2 ] The intensity processes and their first derivatives satisfy
P3
(i) for any p > 1, supt∈R+ i=0 supθ∈Θ ∂θi λ(t, θ) p < +∞.

(ii) for any p > 1, for any α ∈ I, supt∈R+ supθ∈Θ λα (t, θ)−1 1{λα (t,θ)6=0}
4

p

< +∞.

(iii) For any θ ∈ Θ, for any α ∈ I, λα (t, θ) = 0 if and only if λα (t, θ∗ ) = 0.
Remark 1. The processes supθ∈Θ ∂θi λ(., θ) are F ⊗ B(R+ )-measurable mappings. Indeed, the continuity in θ
of λ ensures that the sup can be taken over a countable dense subset {θi |i ∈ N} ⊂ Θ. Note also that allowing
intensities to vanish in [A2] is necessary in an LOB framework since in practice cancellation orders can occur
at some level α ∈ I only if the corresponding limit is not empty.
We introduce the Quasi-Log Likelihood process as

lT (θ) =

XZ
α∈I

T
0

log(λα (s, θ))dNsα −

XZ
α∈I

T

λα (s, θ)ds.

Note that although λα (s, θ) may vanish, (2.1) is well defined as the non-negative process
verifies

E

"Z

0

T

#

1{λα (s,θ)=0} dNsα = E

"Z

0

T

(2.1)

0

#

1{λα (s,θ∗ )=0} λα (s, θ∗ )ds = 0.

RT
0

1{λα (s,θ)=0} dNsα

(2.2)

α
Writing ∆Nsα for Nsα − Ns−
, we notice that P-a.s., thanks to (2.2), for any s ∈ R+ , 1{λα (s,θ)=0} ∆Nsα = 0.
The previous equality entails the finiteness of log(λα (s, θ)) whenever a jump occurs, and therefore the integral
in dNsα of the Quasi-Log Likelihood process is well-defined. In most situations, this process is indeed the real
Log Likelihood process up to a constant term, as is the case when Ft = FtN is the canonical filtration of N (see
Theorem 5.45, Chapter III in [19]).

Finally we say that a statistic θ̂T is an asymptotic Quasi-Maximum Likelihood estimator if it asymptotically
maximizes the rescaled Quasi-Log Likelihood process in the following sense :
lT (θ)
lT (θ̂T )
≥ sup
− oP
T
θ∈Θ T



1
√
T



.

(2.3)

We also call QMLE or exact QMLE the estimator that maximizes the rescaled Quasi-Log Likelihood. In
section 3 we give a general ergodicity assumption, and prove the consistency and the asymptotic normality
of any asymptotic QMLE. We finally derive the convergence of moments of both the exact QMLE and the
QBE under a stronger version of the ergodicity assumption. A summary of the asymptotic properties of the
estimators and the related assumptions can be found in Table 1.

3
3.1

Quasi Likelihood Analysis
The ergodicity assumption

We make an extensive use of the law of large numbers in our proofs. In particular the Fisher information matrix
and the asymptotic Quasi-Log Likelihood can be expressed as such time average limits. In the sequel, we refer
to the following general definition when we consider ergodic processes :
Definition 3.1. Let (E, B(E)) be a Borel space, and X : Ω × R+ → E a stochastic process. We say that X is
ergodic if there exists a mapping π : Cb (E, R) → R such that for any ψ ∈ Cb (E, R)
1
T

Z

0

T

ψ(Xs )ds →P π(ψ).

5

The main assumption that is at the core of our results is the following ergodicity condition on the processes
(λα (., θ∗ ), λα (., θ), ∂θ λα (., θ)) taking values in E = R+ × R+ × Rn :
[A3 ] For any α ∈ I, θ ∈ Θ, the triplet (λα (., θ∗ ), λα (., θ), ∂θ λα (., θ)) is ergodic in the sense of Definition 3.1. In
other words, there exists a mapping πα : Cb (E, R) × Θ → R such that for any (ψ, θ) ∈ Cb (E, R) × Θ, the
following convergence holds :
1
T

Z

0

T

ψ(λα (s, θ∗ ), λα (s, θ), ∂θ λα (s, θ))ds →P πα (ψ, θ).

Every component of the process (λ(., θ∗ ), λ(., θ), ∂θ λ(., θ)) is therefore assumed to be ergodic. Before we turn
to the statement of our main results, let us raise a few examples to illustrate this property in various situations.
Example 3.2. Assume that N is a univariate inhomogeneous Poisson process, that is a point process whose
intensity is Ra deterministic function. If t → λ(t, θ) is periodic of period τ ∈ R+ − {0}, then [A3] holds with
τ
π(f, θ) = τ1 0 f (λ(s, θ∗ ), λ(s, θ), ∂θ λ(s, θ))ds. [A3] also holds if for i ∈ {0, 1}, ∂θi λ(t, θ) → ∂θi λ∞ (θ) as t → ∞
with π(f, θ) = f (λ∞ (θ∗ ), λ∞ (θ), ∂θ λ∞ (θ)).
Example 3.3. Assume that N counts the jumps of an observable Pure Jump-Type Markovian process Y on
a discrete state space (see [20], chapter 12). It is a straightforward consequence of the definition of Y and N
that the FtY -stochastic intensity has the representation λ(t, θ) = g(Yt− , θ) for some function g. Let us assume
further that Y is ergodic (see [23] for a presentation of ergodicity
R for Markovian processes). If Y takes values
in Y and has invariant probability π Y , [A3] holds with π(f, θ) = Y f (g(y, θ∗ ), g(y, θ), ∂θ g(y, θ))π Y (dy).

Example 3.4. Let us assume that N is a univariate Cox process directed by some observable left-continuous
ergodic Markovian process Y (a rigourous definition of a Cox process can be found in [20], chapter 12). Ac(N,Y )
cordingly, assume that the Ft
-intensity has the form λ(t, θ) = g(Yt , θ) for some continuous function g. The
same conclusion as in Example 3.3 holds.
Example 3.5. Consider a univariate stationary point process N , that is a point process such that for any
r ∈ N and any bounded Borel subsets A1 , ..., Ar , the distribution of (N (A1 + t), ..., N (Ar + t)) does not depend
on t. The FtN -intensity of N is thus automatically a stationary process. Let us assume that N is stationary
ergodic, meaning that its invariant σ-field is trivial. It is straightforward to see that [A3] holds with π(f, θ) =
E [f (λ(0, θ∗ ), λ(0, θ), ∂θ λ(0, θ))], by virtue of Birkhoff ’s ergodic Theorem.
Example 3.6. Take the same representation as in Example 3.4, but instead of the Markovian property, assume
that the process (Yt )t has continuous paths and enjoys the regenerative property (see [4] chapter VI). Call τ1 , τ2 , ...
the (random) regenerative Rtimes of Y and assume that µ = E[τ1 ] < ∞. Then the ergodicity condition [A3] is
τ
satisfied with π(f, θ) = µ1 E 0 1 f (g(Ys , θ∗ ), g(Ys , θ), ∂θ g(Ys , θ))ds.

We will present examples that are directly related to LOB modelling in Section 4. Before we turn to the
classical approach, let us state a few useful results about the mapping π and the class of functions that satisfy
[A3]. Such extension is necessary because variables of interest such as the Fisher information are of the form
π(f, θ) for unbounded functions f that have singularities when one of their argument vanishes. Using [A2], it is
indeed possible to extend the range of functions for which [A3] holds, and show that each πα (ψ, θ) can be seen
as the integral of ψ with respect to an actual probability measure παθ on E.
Definition 3.7. Recall that E = R+ ×R+ ×Rd . We write C↑ (E, R) the set of functions ψ : (u, v, w) → ψ(u, v, w)
from E to R that satisfy :
• ψ is continuous on (R+ − {0}) × (R+ − {0}) × Rd .
• ψ is of polynomial growth in (u, v, w,

1{u>0} 1{v>0}
, v ).
u

• For any (u, v, w) ∈ E, ψ(0, v, w) = ψ(u, 0, w) = 0.
Proposition 3.8. For a measure µ, let L1 (µ) be the space of functions that are integrable with respect to µ.
Then for any θ ∈ Θ and for any α ∈ I, the following properties hold.
6

(i) The law of large numbers stated in [A3] still holds for any ψ ∈ C↑ (E, R). In particular, the mapping πα (., θ)
can be extended to C↑ (E, R). Moreover, for any ψ ∈ C↑ (E, R) the convergence is uniform in θ.
R
(ii) There exists a probability measure παθ on (E, B(E)) such that for any ψ ∈ C↑ (E, R), πα (ψ, θ) = E ψ(x)παθ (dx).
In particular, C↑ (E, R) ⊂ L1 (παθ ).
We are now ready to investigate the asymptotic properties of our estimators.

3.2

A classical approach for the QMLE

From now on we adopt a martingale approach to derive the consistency and the asymptotic normality of any
asymptotic QMLE θ̂T . The main results are stated in Theorem 3.9 and Theorem 3.11. Consider
YT (θ) =

1
(lT (θ) − lT (θ∗ ))
T

and the asymptotic rescaled Quasi-Log Likelihood
n v
o
XZ
Y(θ) =
1{u>0,v>0} log
u − (v − u) παθ (du, dv, dw).
u
(u,v,w)∈E

(3.1)

α∈I

As we shall see in this section, Y(θ) is the limit of YT (θ) uniformly in θ ∈ Θ. The non-degeneracy of Y is as
usual a crucial point to derive the consistency of our estimator. One possible formulation is the following :
[A4 ] For any θ ∈ Θ − {θ∗ }, Y(θ) 6= 0.
Theorem 3.9. Under [A1]-[A4], any asymptotic QMLE θ̂T is consistent.
θ̂T →P θ∗ .
We first deal with the uniform convergence of YT to Y.
Lemma 3.10. Under [A1]-[A3],
sup |YT (θ) − Y(θ)| →P 0.

θ∈Θ

Proof. Define as previously the following local martingale :
Z t
λα (s, θ∗ )ds.
Ñtα = Ntα −
0

We rewrite YT (θ) as
YT (θ)

=
−

Z
λα (s, θ)
1X T
1 α ∗
dÑsα
log α
∗ ) {λ (s,θ )6=0}
T
λ
(s,
θ
α∈I 0

Z T
X
1
λα (s, θ) α
∗
α
α
∗
λ (s, θ ) 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds,
λ (s, θ) − λ (s, θ ) − log α
T
λ (s, θ∗ )
0
α∈I

and for α ∈ I we put
MTα (θ) =
and

Z

0

T

log

λα (s, θ)
1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} dÑsα
λα (s, θ∗ )

7

VTα (θ) = −

1
T

Z

T

0



λα (s, θ) − λα (s, θ∗ ) − log


λα (s, θ) α
∗
λ
(s,
θ
)
1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds.
λα (s, θ∗ )

Let us first show that the martingale term MTα (θ) tends to zero uniformly in θ. Thanks to [A2], MTα (θ) is a
well-defined Lp integrable martingale. We apply Sobolev’s inequality (see e.g. [20], Theorem 4.2, Part I, case
A, with j = 0, m = 1, and any p > n). We thus take some integer p > n and some constant K(Θ, p) such that
M α (θ)
E sup T
T
θ∈Θ

p

≤

K(Θ, p)
Tp

Z

Θ

p
dθE |MTα (θ)|

+

Z

Θ

p
dθE |∂θ MTα (θ)|



.

Now, applying successively Davis-Burkholder-Gundy’s inequality, Jensen’s inequality and assumption [A2]
it is straighforward to see that for some constant C > 0

E[(MTα (θ))p ]

! p2

2
λα (s, θ)
α
∗
CE
log α
λ (s, θ )1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds
λ (s, θ∗ )
0
p
Z T
p
p
λα (s, θ)
log α
CT 2 −1 E
(λα (s, θ∗ )) 2 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds
∗
λ (s, θ )
 p 0
O T2 ,
Z

≤
≤
=

and
E[(∂θ MTα (θ))p ] ≤
≤
=

T

! p2
2
∂θ λα (s, θ)
λα (s, θ∗ )1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds
CE
λα (s, θ)
0
p
Z T
p
p
∂θ λα (s, θ)
−1
2
E
CT
(λα (s, θ∗ )) 2 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds
α (s, θ)
λ
 p 0
O T2 ,
Z

T



p
RT
Mα
where the permutation of the symbol ∂θ and 0 is permitted by Lemma 6.1. Hence E supθ∈Θ TT
→ 0.
P
α
Finally, thanks to Proposition 3.8, VT (θ) = α∈I VT (θ) converges in probability to Y(θ) uniformly in θ. Thus

sup |YT (θ) − Y(θ)| →P 0.

θ∈Θ

Remark 2. The Sobolev’s inequality depends on regularity properties of the domain Θ, usually expressed as
geometric conditions. Such conditions can be found in [3]. We will assume the following sufficient condition that
is used in [30] as well : inf θ∈Θ Leb(B(θ, ǫ) ∩ Θ) ≥ a0 (ǫn ∧ 1) for any ǫ > 0, where a0 is some positive constant,
B(θ, ǫ) is the open ball centered on θ with diameter ǫ, and Leb is the Lebesgue measure.
Finally the consistency easily follows :
Proof of Theorem 3.9. from the expression
o
n v
XZ
u − (v − u) παθ (du, dv, dw),
Y(θ) =
1{u>0,v>0} log
u
(u,v,w)∈E
α∈I

we immediately deduce that Y ≤ 0 and Y(θ∗ ) = 0. By [A4], θ∗ is thus a global maximum of Y, and by the
previous lemma this ensures the consistency of any asymptotic QMLE.

8

We now turn to the asymptotic normality of θ̂T . Using again [A2] and a variant of Lemma 6.1, we define
for any θ ∈ Θ,
∂θ lT (θ)

T

XZ

=

α∈I

0

λα (s, θ)−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ)1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} dNsα −

XZ
α∈I

T

∂θ λα (s, θ)ds,

0

which, evaluated at point θ∗ , has the form
∂θ lT (θ∗ ) =

XZ

T

0

α∈I

λα (s, θ∗ )−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ∗ )1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} dÑsα ,

and
∂θ2 lT (θ)

T

XZ

=

0

α∈I

T

XZ

−

0

α∈I

XZ

+

T

0

α∈I


∂θ λα (s, θ)−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ) 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} dÑtα
(∂θ λα )⊗2 (s, θ)λα (s, θ)−2 λα (s, θ∗ )1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds
∂θ2 λα (s, θ)λα (s, θ)−1 (λα (s, θ) − λα (s, θ∗ ))1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds.

Finally consider the Fisher information matrix
XZ
1{u>0} θ∗
πα (du, dv, dw) ∈ Rn×n .
Γ=
w⊗2
u
(u,v,w)∈E

(3.2)

α∈I

If Γ is not singular, the asymptotic normality holds :
Theorem 3.11. Let θ̂T be an asymptotic QMLE and assume that Γ is positive definite. We have
√
1
T (θ̂T − θ∗ ) →d Γ− 2 ξ,
where ξ follows a standard normal distribution.
We have divided the proof of this result into the next two lemmas.
Lemma 3.12. Under [A1]-[A3], if VT is a ball centered on θ∗ shrinking to {θ∗ }, then
sup |T −1 ∂θ2 lT (θ) + Γ| →P 0.

θ∈VT

Proof. We first deal with
We can easily see that the processes
 the martingale part as for the consistency.

∂θ λα (s, θ)−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ) 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} and ∂θ2 λα (s, θ)−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ) 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} are dominated by polynoms in
∂θi λα (t, θ) and λα (t, θ)−1 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} for i ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3}, and thus by an immediate application of Sobolev’s
inequality and [A2], we get for any p > n
1
E sup
θ∈Θ T

Z

p

T

α

∂θ λ (s, θ)

0

thus
X
1
sup
T θ∈Θ
α∈I

For θ ∈ VT , we have

−1

Z

T
0

α


∂θ λ (s, θ) 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} dÑtα

 p
= O T−2 ,


∂θ λα (s, θ)−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ) 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} dÑtα →P 0.

9

1
T

Z

T

∂θ2 λα (s, θ)λα (s, θ)−1 (λα (s, θ) − λα (s, θ∗ ))1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds

0

Z
|θ − θ∗ | T
sup ∂θ2 λα (s, θ)λα (s, θ)−1 sup |∂θ λα (s, θ)|1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds
T
θ∈Θ
0 θ∈Θ
= OP (|θ − θ∗ |)
= OP (diam[VT ]),

≤

therefore

Z
1 X T 2 α
sup
∂θ λ (s, θ)λα (s, θ)−1 (λα (s, θ) − λα (s, θ∗ ))1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds →P 0.
θ∈VT T
0
α∈I

For the middle term, consider the process
UTα (θ)

1
=
T

Z

T

0

(∂θ λα )⊗2 (s, θ)λα (s, θ)−2 λα (s, θ∗ )1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds,

which, evaluated at point θ∗ equals
UTα (θ∗ )

1
=
T

|θ − θ∗ |
T

Z

Z

T

0

(∂θ λα )⊗2 (s, θ∗ )λα (s, θ∗ )−1 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds.

For θ ∈ VT ,
|UTα (θ)

−

UTα (θ∗ )|

≤
≤
=

T


(∂θ λα )⊗2 (s, θ)
λα (s, θ∗ )ds
∂θ
λα (s, θ)2
0


Z
|∂θ λα (s, θ)||∂θ2 λα (s, θ)| |∂θ λα (s, θ)|2 |∂θ2 λα (s, θ)|
|θ − θ∗ | T
λα (s, θ∗ )ds
+
2 sup
α (s, θ)|2
α (s, θ)|3
T
|λ
|λ
θ∈Θ
0
OP (diam[VT ]).


Finally, apply Proposition 3.8 to UTα (θ∗ ) and write Γ ∈ Rn×n the limit of
Lemma 3.13. We have :




1
1
∗
√ ∂θ luT (θ )
→d Γ 2 (Wu )u∈[0,1] ,
T
u∈[0,1]

P

α∈I

UTα (θ∗ ) to conclude.

where W is a standard Brownian motion (where the convergence happens in the Skorokhod space D([0, 1])).
Proof. We consider the process
SuT =

XZ
α∈I

uT

0

1
√ λα (s, θ∗ )−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ∗ )1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} dÑsα ,
T

and show a functional central limit theorem when T → ∞. Indeed, as ∆N α1 ∆N α2 = 0 almost surely for
α1 6= α2 , we have
hS T , S T iu = u

XZ
α∈I

0

uT

1 α
λ (s, θ∗ )−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ∗ )2 1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} ds,
uT

and by ergodicity we deduce that

10

hS T , S T iu →P uΓ.
We now check Lindenberg’s condition. For any a > 0,

E

X

(∆SsT )2 1{|∆SsT |>a}

s≤u

1X
|∆SsT |3
a
s≤u
Z
3
1 X uT λα (s, θ∗ )−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ∗ )
√
dNsα
E
a
T
0
α∈I
Z uT
X
1
1
3
E
λα (s, θ∗ )−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ∗ ) λα (s, θ∗ )ds
3
a
2
T
0
α∈I

X 1 Z uT 
α
∗ −1
α
∗ 3 α
∗
E sup λ (s, θ ) ∂θ λ (s, θ ) λ (s, θ ) ds
3
T2 0
θ∈Θ
α∈I


1
→ 0.
O √
T

≤ E
=
=
≤
=

The conclusion then holds applying 3.24, chapter VIII, in [19].
We finally establish the asymptotic normality from the previous lemmas :
Proof of Theorem 3.11. Let θ̄T be the value that maximizes θ → lT (θ). Thanks to [A2], we put ζT1 ∈ [θ̄T , θ̂T ]
and ζT2 ∈ [θ∗ , θ̂T ] such that
∂θ lT (θ̂T ) = ∂θ2 lT (ζT1 )(θ̂T − θ̄T ) = oP
on one hand, and

√ 
T

∂θ lT (θ̂T ) = ∂θ lT (θ∗ ) + ∂θ2 lT (ζT2 )(θ̂T − θ∗ )
√
on the other hand. This yields, after scaling by T ,
−

∂θ lT (θ∗ )
∂ 2 lT (ζT2 ) √
√
T (θ̂T − θ∗ ).
+ oP (1) = θ
T
T

We then multiply by −Γ−1 on both sides and use Lemma 3.12 and Lemma 3.13, and the asymptotic normality
follows.

3.3

The general QLA

We slightly strengthen assumptions about ergodicity and derivability of the intensity process in order to apply
the general Quasi Likelihood Analysis. In particular, this yields the convergence of moments of the QMLE as
well as the convergence of moments for the QBE. From now on, we will be only interested in the exact QMLE,
that is the estimator that maximizes the Quasi Log Likelihood θ → lT (θ).
[B1 ] The mapping λ : Ω × R+ × Θ → R+ is F ⊗ B(R+ ) ⊗ B(Θ)-measurable. Moreover, almost surely,
(i) for any θ ∈ Θ, s → λ(s, θ) is left continuous.

(ii) for any s ∈ R+ , θ → λ(s, θ) is in C 4 (Θ), and admits a continuous extension to Θ.

[B2 ] The intensity processes and their first derivatives satisfy

11

(i) for any p > 1, supt∈R+

P4

i=0

supθ∈Θ ∂θi λ(t, θ)

p

< +∞.

(ii) for any p > 1, for any α ∈ I, supt∈R+ supθ∈Θ λα (t, θ)−1 1{λα (t,θ)6=0}

p

< +∞.

(iii) For any θ ∈ Θ, for any α ∈ I, λα (t, θ) = 0 if and only if λα (t, θ∗ ) = 0.

The ergodicity assumption needs to be strengthened as well. The key point in the following assumption is
to postulate the existence of a rate of convergence for the LLN. Let D↑ (E, R) be the set of functions ψ that are
of class C 1 on (R+ − {0}) × (R+ − {0}) × Rn and such that ψ, |∇ψ| ∈ C↑ (E, R).
[B3 ] For any α ∈ I, there exists a mapping πα : D↑ (E, R) × Θ → R and there exists 0 < γ <
any (ψ, θ) ∈ D↑ (E, R) × Θ and for every p > 1 the following convergence holds :
sup T γ
θ∈Θ

1
T

T

Z

0

ψ(λα (s, θ∗ ), λα (s, θ), ∂θ λα (s, θ))ds − πα (ψ, θ)

p

1
2

such that for

→ 0.

[B4 ] Define χ0 as:
χ0 =

inf

θ∈Θ\{θ ∗ }

−

Y(θ)
.
|θ − θ∗ |2

We assume that
χ0 > 0.
For a given prior density p on the space Θ, we define the Quasi-Bayesian Estimator as follows:

θ̃T =

Z

Θ

exp(lT (θ))p(θ)dθ

−1 Z

θexp(lT (θ))p(θ)dθ.

Θ

We are going to apply results from [39] about Quasi Likelihood Analysis based on polynomial type large
deviations. This approach follows techniques that have been developed in [18] to prove the asymptotic properties
of the MLE and the BE in a general context. In particular, the convergence of moments of those estimators
is obtained as a consequence of the convergence in distribution of the Likelihood random field along with a
polynomial type large deviation inequality similar to the one stated in Theorem 3.14. In our case, we adopt the
notations of [39] and represent the Quasi Likelihood process as follows. For any u ∈ UT = {u ∈ Rn |θ + T −1/2 u ∈
Θ}, we write θu = θ + T −1/2 u and define the Quasi Likelihood random field
ZT (u) = exp{lT (θu ) − lT (θ∗ )}.
The next theorem gives a large deviation inequality on ZT , which in turn is widely used to establish the
convergence of moments of the estimators.
Theorem 3.14. Under [B1]-[B4], the two following results hold:
Polynomial type large deviation inequality for every L > 0, there exists CL such that :
#
"
CL
P
sup
ZT (u) ≥ e−r ≤ L .
r
u∈UT ,|u|>r
Convergence of moments If θ̂T is the QMLE and θ̃T the QBE, we have :
i
h √
1
E f ( T (θ̂T − θ∗ )) → E[f (Γ− 2 ξ)],
i
h √
1
E f ( T (θ̃T − θ∗ )) → E[f (Γ− 2 ξ)],

for any continuous f of polynomial growth, and such that ξ follows a standard normal distribution.

12

To prove this result, and in order to highlight the LAN property (at point θ∗ ) of the model, we rewrite
ZT (u) as


1
ZT (u) = exp ∆T [u] − ΓT [u, u] + rT [u] ,
2

(3.3)

with
∆T [u] =

u
√ ∂θ lT (θ∗ )
T

and

ΓT [u, u] =

−∂θ2 lT (θ∗ )




u⊗2
.
T

Finally rT [u] is defined as the following residual in the Taylor formula :
1
lT (θu ) = lT (θ∗ ) + ∆T [u] − ΓT [u, u] + rT [u].
2
The following technical lemma is proved in the appendix :
Lemma 3.15. Under [B1]-[B3], for every p > 1,
sup k∆T kp < ∞,

(3.4)

T ∈R+

T γ sup |YT (θ) − Y(θ)|

sup

θ∈Θ

T ∈R+

p

< ∞,

sup kT γ |ΓT − Γ|kp < ∞,

(3.5)

(3.6)

T ∈R+

sup
T ∈R+

T −1 sup |∂θ3 lT (θ)|
θ∈Θ

p

< ∞.

(3.7)

Let us deal with the proof of Theorem 3.14.
Proof of Theorem 3.14. We first show the polynomial type large deviation inequality. We apply Theorem 3 in
′′
2γ
α
, 1−α
}[, Conditions (A1 ),
[39]. Setting β1 = γ, β2 = 12 − γ, ρ = 2, ρ2 ∈]0, 2γ[, α ∈]0, ρ22 [, and ρ1 ∈]0, min{1, 1−α
′
(A4 ), (A6) in [39] are satisfied thanks to Lemma 3.15, as well as (B1), (B2) thanks to the non-degeneracy
assumption [B4] above.
We now make use of Theorem 4 in [39] to show the convergence of moments for the QMLE. We first extend
the definition of ZT (u) to any u ∈ Rn by taking ZT (u) continuously decreasing to zero outside UT . We need to
show that the finite dimensional distribution of ZT are convergent, and then that logZT is tight in T , seen as a
family of processes in u ∈ K for any compact set K of Rn . Because we have the majoration




1
3
3
− 32
E [|rT [u]|] ≤ T E sup |∂θ lT (θ)||u| = O √
→ 0,
T
θ∈Θ
the finite dimensional convergence, and thus the LAN property, is a direct consequence of the classical approach
given the expressions of ∆T and ΓT .

13

Take then an arbitrary compact set K, and put wT (δ) = sup|u2 −u1 |≤δ |logZT (u2 ) − logZT (u1 )| where the
supremum is taken over the set K. We need to prove that for every ǫ > 0,
lim sup P[wT (δ) ≥ ǫ] = 0.

δ→0 T

Using Markov’s inequality we first have for amy p > n
ǫ−p E|wT (δ)|p
p
ǫ−p E sup |lT (θu2 ) − lT (θu1 )| .

P[wT (δ) ≥ ǫ] ≤
≤

|u2 −u1 |≤δ

We have
lT (θu2 ) − lT (θu1 ) =

T

XZ

0

α∈I

λα (s, θu2 )
log α
dÑ α −
λ (s, θu1 ) s

Z

T

0



λα (s, θu2 ) λα (s, θu2 ) − λα (s, θu1 )
λα (s, θ∗ )ds,
log α
−
λ (s, θu1 )
λα (s, θ∗ )

that we bound from above in two steps. Defining MTα (θu ) =
and p > n,

sup

E

|u2 −u1 |≤δ

Z

T

log

0

λα (s, θu2 )
dÑ α
λα (s, θu1 ) s

RT

logλα (s, θu )dÑsα , we first write for some α ∈ I

0

p

= E

sup
|u2 −u1 |≤δ

|MTα (θu2 ) − MTα (θu1 )|

p

≤ δ T − 2 E sup |∂θ MTα (θu )|
p

p

p

u∈K

≤ K1 δ p
where we have applied Sobolev’s inequality and Davis-Burkholder-Gundy’s inequality at the last step. One can
check that the same holds for the integral with respect to Lebesgue measure:

E

sup
|u2 −u1 |≤δ

Z

0

T



λα (s, θu2 ) λα (s, θu2 ) − λα (s, θu1 )
log α
λα (s, θ∗ )ds
−
λ (s, θu1 )
λα (s, θ∗ )

p

≤ K2 δ p .

This shows that
sup P[wT (δ) ≥ ǫ] ≤

T ∈R+

Kδ p
→ 0, δ → 0.
ǫp

Finally, thanks to the polynomial type large deviation inequality and Lemma 2 in [39], for some δ > 0 we
have

!−1 
Z
 < ∞.
sup E 
ZT (u)du
T ∈R+

u:|u|≤δ

The convergence of moments of the QBE is then a direct consequence of Theorem 8 in [39].

3.4

Mixing criteria for ergodicity

We conclude this theoretical part by giving two mixing criteria that respectively imply the ergodicity conditions
[A3] and [B3]. As we shall see in the sequel, it is sometimes easier to check such condition, as is the case for
the Hawkes processes. In order to match with our definition 3.1, we say that a process (Xt )t∈R+ taking values
in some state space E is C-mixing, for some set of functions C from E to R, if for any φ, ψ ∈ C, the following
convergence holds
ρu = sup Cov[φ(Xs ), ψ(Xs+u )] → 0, |u| → +∞
s∈R+

14

[M1 ] The following two properties hold :
Mixing For any α ∈ I, (λα (t, θ∗ ), λα (t, θ), ∂θ λα (t, θ))t∈R+ is Cb (E, R)-mixing.

Stability For any α ∈ I, there exists λ̄α such that for any θ ∈ Θ,

(λα (t, θ∗ ), λα (t, θ), ∂θ λα (t, θ)) →d (λ̄α (θ∗ ), λ̄α (θ), ∂θ λ̄α (θ)).
Note that in the stationary case with C = {1A |A ∈ B(R)}, the above condition is nothing more than a mixing
assumption in the classical sense (see e.g. [8]) which is a well-known sufficient condition for the ergodicity of
the invariant measure. In the same spirit of [B3], we also reformulate [M1] with a minimal rate of convergence
in the mixing and the stability equations.
[M2 ] There exists 0 < γ <

1
2

such that :

Mixing For any α ∈ I, (λα (t, θ∗ ), λα (t, θ), ∂θ λα (t, θ))t∈R+ is D↑ (E, R)-mixing uniformly in θ ∈ Θ. Moreover the rate ρ verifies :
2γ
ρu = o(u−ǫ ) for some ǫ >
.
1 − 2γ
Stability There exists λ̄α such that for any ψ ∈ D↑ (E, R),
sup tγ E[ψ(λα (t, θ∗ ), λα (t, θ), ∂θ λα (t, θ))] − E[ψ(λ̄α (θ∗ ), λ̄α (θ), ∂θ λ̄α (θ))] → 0.

θ∈Θ

The next lemma links the above mixing criteria to the ergodicity assumptions [A3] and [B3] and specifies
the nature of the operator π in those cases.
Lemma 3.16. If [M1], [A1] and [A2] (resp. [M2], [B1] and [B2]) are satisfied, then so is the ergodicity
condition [A3] (resp. [B3]), and moreover the mapping πα writes:
πα (ψ, θ) = E[ψ(λ̄α (θ∗ ), λ̄α (θ), ∂θ λ̄α (θ))].

Estimator
Definition

Asymptotic QMLE

√
lT (θT ) ≥ supθ∈Θ lT (θ) − oP ( T )

Exact QMLE
lT (θT ) = supθ∈Θ lT (θ)

QBE

θT =

R
θexp(lT (θ))p(θ)dθ
RΘ
exp(lT (θ))p(θ)dθ
Θ

Regularity Assumptions

[A1], [A2] and [A4]

[B1], [B2] and [B4]

Ergodicity Assumption

[A3] or [M1]
√
1
E[f ( T (θT − θ∗ ))] → E[f (Γ− 2 ξ)]

[B3] or [M2]
√
1
E[f ( T (θT − θ∗ ))] → E[f (Γ− 2 ξ)]

Property

∀f ∈ Cb (Rn , R)

∀f ∈ Cp (Rn , R)

Table 1: Summary of the asymptotic properties of the three estimators presented in Section 3. In each definition,
θT represents the estimator itself. Cb (Rn , R) (resp. Cp (Rn , R)) is the set of functions from Rn to R which are
continuous and bounded (resp. continuous and of polynomial growth) .

4

Applications

As mentioned in the introduction, a fruitful approach to Limit Order Book process modelling consists in focusing
on the point process that counts different events of interest occurring over time. More precisely, recall that in
a simplified representation of the continuous-time double auction system any agent interacts with the market
through three types of orders :

15

• Limit order : Submit a buy (resp. sell) order at a lower (resp. higher) price than the best ask (resp. bid)
price. The order is immediately inserted in the corresponding queue (regarding the price level p at which
the order has been sent).
• Market order : Consume the liquidity at the best ask (resp. bid) price for a buy (resp. sell) order.
• Cancellation order : Remove one limit order that is waiting in the LOB.
In practice every order is characterized by a volume v that represents the amount of shares one is willing
to buy or sell, and a price level p that is constrained to belong to a price grid G ⊂ {k.∆p|k ∈ N}. ∆p is the
smallest distance between two price limits and is called the ticksize. Let us then call a (finite dimensional) Limit
Order Book a process that is constituted of m ∈ N queues stored in X(t) ∈ Zm . At time t ∈ R+ , Xα
t contains
the total volume of limit orders that have been submitted through time at a given level and that have not been
executed yet. As sellers should always submit limit orders at higher prices than buyers, A Limit Order Book
can always be split into two distinct parts : The queues associated to selling limit orders, at higher prices, or
the ask side, and the queues at lower prices, that contain buying limit orders, or the bid side. It is also common
to call spread the empty zone between the best limits, that is the limits laying between the highest bid and the
lowest ask.
As the number of queues should be potentially infinite, such modelling is not straightforward, and many
representations exist in the literature. Most of those representations can be actually classified into two main
families : The absolute LOB’s associate to each price level p ∈ G a label α ∈ N and for the whole life of the
process X, Xα will contain the volume of latent limit orders that have been submitted at this price level. It
is common to count positively the limit orders on the ask side, and negatively those on the bid side. Such
representations only involve a finite price range {k1 ∆p , ..., k2 ∆p }, and are thus satisfactory provided that most
events occur in this window. An illustration of this model can be found in [13]. On the other hand, the relative
LOB’s are generally centered around a reference price, that is a price that either plays a role for the shape of
the LOB itself, or has a good economical interpretation. As an example, the former is often taken as the best
ask price or the best bid price, see [1]. The latter can be an underlying unobserved process that is assumed
to be the true price, that is the value toward which the market price would tend if, say, the information was
perfectly shared. In any case, the relative representation associates a label α to each price level relatively to
its position compared to the reference price. The general framework introduced in [17] is based on this representation. Therefore, as such price is typically stochastic, any price movement shifts the labelling to the left
or to the right as time passes. Both representations have their pros and cons, that we will not discuss here.
In the following we are not concerned with this technical choice since the statistical procedure remains the same.
Since any order is characterized by a (random) volume v, the jumps of X need not be of size 1. To conduct
the QLA through a point process perspective, it is quite common to simply decompose X through the arrival of
orders of different types, and ignore in a first approximation the size of those orders. We thus define
• An m-dimensional point process L that counts the limit orders, compensated by ΛL .
• An m-dimensional point process C that counts the cancellation orders, compensated by ΛC .
• A 2-dimensional point process M that counts the market orders, compensated by ΛM .
Note that it is possible to take into account the size of the orders by splitting again every point process
according to the volume of the orders. A general approach would therefore consist in constructing a point
process that counts the orders of type Y ∈ {C, L, M }, at price level α ∈ {1, ..., m}, and of volume v ∈ {1, ..., v̄}
for any triplet (Y, α, v). Such decomposition is done in a Markovian framework in [17]. In practice, v̄ is large and
it is thus preferable for dimension considerations to construct K zones for the volume V1 , ..., VK and collect the
orders whose volume belongs to a given zone. Other criteria are sometimes taken into account when considering
the modelling of an Order Book. In [36], the author shows that aggressiveness of orders is also a very important
feature when it comes to describing the stationary distribution of best limits sizes. Basically, an order is said
to be aggressive if it is a market order that consumes all the liquidity at one of the best limits, or if it is a limit

16

order placed inside the spread.
It is also worth noting that the knowledge of X is sufficient to reconstruct the process L since it counts
the jumps that increase the absolute value of the size of one queue. On the other hand, market orders and
cancellation orders at best limits cannot be distinguished from the knowledge of X alone. Practically speaking,
when working with real data, it is crucial to assume that the events that diminish the size of one queue are
labelled in one way or the other so one can distinguish market and cancellation orders. This is possible if for
example one has access to the record of trades on the market. Other practical issues, such as hidden liquidity,
or cross trades can also make the data analysis difficult.
Let us assume from now on that the LOB X and the point process N that gathers the events of interest are
constructible, and fully observable. We focus on the parametrization of the intensities along with the ergodicity
of the models existing in the literature.

4.1

Markovian models

Some models assume the existence of an observable underlying process (Yt )t adapted to the filtration F =
(Ft )t∈R+ such that the parametrized intensity process writes
λ(t, θ)

= h(Yt , θ).

Example 4.1. Consider first the very simple following model, inspired of [12]. The LOB (X(t))t is represented
in a level-I perspective (best ask and best bid limits only). It is assumed that every time one queue gets empty,
it is randomly regenerated. This accounts for the volume that is stored in the new best limit, that is the first
non-empty limit after the one that just depleted, and that is inaccessible in this two dimensional representation.
The authors postulate that all the intensities are constant, and thus (Lt , Mt , Ct )t is a 6-dimensional Poisson
process :
λ(t)

= λ0 .

The multivariate Poisson process being obviously ergodic, this toy model trivially enjoys all the properties
derived in Theorem 3.14.
Example 4.2. In [1], Abergel and Jedidi define a multidimensional LOB whose cancellation intensities are
linear functions of the size of the queues of the LOB itself, and other intensities remain constant. In other
words, any intensity at a given level α ∈ I is of the form
λL,α (t)

= λL,α
0 ,

λC,α (t)

= λC,α
0 |Xα (t−)|,

and the market orders intensities on the best limits write
λM,Bid (t) = λM,Bid
,
0
λM,Ask (t) = λM,Ask
.
0
Such model presupposes that market agents are independent, and that every order that has been posted is
cancelled after exponential random times. In their paper, Abergel and Jedidi prove that such feedback mechanism
> 0 for all α ∈ I are sufficient to show that (Xt )t is a V -geometric Markovian
along with the condition λC,α
0
process (see [25, 24] for a deep insight of this notion).

17

The above mentioned models and their variants are reputed for their mathematical tractability. For example,
analytical expressions of quantities of interest that quantify the shape of the Limit Order Book are derived in
[27]. Needless to say that being able to write closed formulas is generally admitted to be a significant criterion
for practical considerations. On the other hand, it is also equally admitted that such Poisson process-based
models perform poorly when it comes to closely reproducing most stylized facts observed on the markets, as it
is shown in [16]. In particular, the lack of dependency between the successive orders, and between the queues
is one of the major drawbacks of those basic models. The following example is a quite general Markovian
framework that allows such dependencies.
Example 4.3. In [16] and [17], the model described in Example 4.2 is generalized. X is defined as a general
Pure Jump-Type Markovian process, as in Example 3.3. Recall that the intensity vector is therefore a pure
function of the LOB state :
λ(t, θ)

=

h(X(t−), θ).

Whatever the form of h, the authors establish the V -geometric ergodicity of the Markovian process X in the
case where cancellation intensities become predominant whenever the size of one limit gets too large.

4.2

Multivariate Hawkes process

In this section we are interested in the special case of multivariate Hawkes process with exponential kernel as
Hawkes process-based models have been applied to various topics in finance, notably to Limit Order Books.
As we shall see in the remaining part of this paper, it turns out that the full QLA is applicable to such class
of models. Both computation of the MLE and simulation methods for the exponential Hawkes process can be
found in [31].
Those processes were introduced by Hawkes in 1971, see [15] and were extensively used to model earthquakes and their aftershocks. Lately they have been used in finance to model various phenomena such as price
variation, market impact, and Limit Order Book mechanisms. [7] provides a very complete summary of the
different applications of Hawkes processes in finance. Let us mention in particular the use of Hawkes processes
in [35] to model the interaction between liquidity providers and liquidity takers. In this work a level-I LOB is
described, in which the point process gathering limit and market orders is modelled as a multivariate Hawkes
process. The use of those self-exciting processes highlights the fact that orders seem to trigger each other. It
quantifies to what extent self excitations and mutual excitations have an impact on the interarrival time of
order submissions, and their relative importance. For example, it is shown in [35] that market orders (and thus
liquidity takers) strongly influence limit orders (liquidity providers), but limit orders, in turn, have a negligible
impact on market orders. Recently, a more theoretical work by Abergel and Jedidi [2] establishes V -geometric
ergodicity and scaling limits in a Hawkes-based Markovian framework applied to a general LOB. It is basically
a generalization of Example 4.2, where the Poisson assumption on limit orders and market orders is relaxed.
More specifically, keeping the same notations as above, instead of a mere Poisson process, the vector (L, M ) is
supposed to form a multivariate Hawkes process while the dynamic of C remains unchanged. Motivated by those
examples whose detailed descriptions can be found in the abovementioned papers, we turn to the definition of
a general Hawkes process.
Let Nt = (Ntα )α∈I , I = {1, ..., d}, N0 = 0, be a multidimensional point process and write FN = (FtN )t∈R+ ,
where we recall that FtN = σ{Ns |0 ≤ s ≤ t} is the canonical filtration of N . We say that N is a linear Hawkes
process or Hawkes’ self-exciting process starting from 0 if there exist h : R+ → Rd×d
and ν ∈ (R∗+ )d such that
+
N
the Ft -intensity λ(t) of N writes
α

λ (t) = να +

XZ
β∈I

0

t−

hαβ (t − s)dNsβ , α ∈ I.

(4.1)

The baseline intensities να ’s represent the rate of spontaneous occurences of events, while the kernels hαβ ’s
model self-interaction in the system. Indeed, if a shock occurs at time t0 on the covariate N β , an aftershock

18

will happen on the covariate N α around time t1 with high probability if hαβ (t1 − t0 ) is large. When hαβ = 0,
the covariate N β has no influence on the chain of events related to N α . For example, in the model from [2], and
in accordance with the empirical results found in [35], the mutual excitation structure of the process (L, M ) is
assumed to be of the form “MM-LL-LM”, i.e market orders excite both market orders and limit orders, whereas
limit orders only trigger themselves.
Let us define the matrix Φ = [φαβ ]αβ where
φαβ =

Z

+∞

hαβ (s)ds,

0

and write ρ(Φ) its spectral radius. We also define the elementary excitations as
Z t−
hαβ (t − s)dNsβ ,
ǫαβ (t) =
0



that we gather in the matrix E(t) = ǫαβ(t) αβ . Finally, given A = [aαβ ]αβ and C = [cαβ ]αβ ∈ Rd×d
+ , we say
that N is an exponential Hawkes process if the kernel functions hαβ are of the form
hαβ (s) = cαβ e−aαβ s .
h
i
c
Note that the matrix Φ has the representation Φ = aαβ
in that case. We now recall a few results about
αβ
αβ

the Hawkes process and its exponential form.

Proposition 4.4. Let N be a multivariate Hawkes process, and assume that ρ(Φ) < 1. Then :
′

′

′

′

′

(i) There exists a probability space (Ω , F , P ) and two point processes N and N̄ defined on Ω and on the
′
whole real line such that N|R+ is distributed as N , and N̄ is a stationary point process whose FtN̄ -intensity
λ̄ verifies :
X Z t−
α
λ̄ (t) = να +
hαβ (t − s)dN̄sβ .
β∈I

−∞

(ii) Let S be the shift operator, meaning that for any t ∈ R+ , St N = (Ns+t )s∈R+ . Then N is stable in the
following sense :
St N →D N̄|R+ ,
where D designates the weak convergence associated to the vague topology on integer valued measures.
(iii) If N is an exponential Hawkes process, there exist q > 0 and A > 0 such that, for any α ∈ I, for any
t ∈ R+ ,
λα (t) − λ̄α (t)

1

≤ Ae−qt .

See [10] for deeper explanations about this mode of convergence. The first two points of Proposition 4.4 are
immediate consequences of Theorem 1 and Lemma 4 in [10] along with the assumption on ρ(Φ). Note that they
do not require N to be exponential. In practice, the first point allows us to assume the existence of a stationary
version of N on the same probability space, and the second assertion states that N tends in distribution to
N̄ for a certain topology. Finally, the last point states that in the exponential case, the L1 deviation of the
transient intensity from its stationary version is, not surprisingly, exponentially decreasing.
As is well known, The process E is Markovian if the kernel are of exponential form. It also enjoys a very
strong ergodicity property, that is introduced in the next proposition. Following the definitions in [24], we say

19

that a continuous time Markovian Process X is V -geometrically ergodic if, denoting by P its transition kernel,
there exists some norm-like function V on the state space of X, B < +∞, and r < 1 such that :
P t (x, .) − P X̄

≤

V

B(V (x) + 1)rt ,

(4.2)

for any initial state x, and any t ∈ R+ , where P X̄ is the stationary law of X̄t . Here, k.kV designates the
V -variation norm (See [25]), that is, for any measure µ on a measured space (S, S),
Z
kµkV = sup
ψ(s)µ(ds) .
(4.3)
ψ|ψ≤V

S

Proposition 4.5. Assume that ρ(Φ) < 1. Then :
(i) The elementary excitation process E is a Markovian process taking values in Rd×d
+ .
(ii) E is V -geometrically ergodic, and moreover V : Rd×d
→ R+ can be chosen as V (ǫ) = ehM,ǫi for some
+
P
d×d
M = [mαβ ]αβ ∈ R+ and with hM, ǫi = α,β∈I mαβ ǫαβ .
By virtue of the Markovian property and the expression (4.3), (4.2) thus writes for any 0 ≤ s ≤ t,
sup
ψ|ψ≤V





E ψ(Et )|FsE − E ψ(Ē) ≤ B(V (Es ) + 1)rt−s

(4.4)

where Ē follows the stationary distribution of the process E.
We now consider an exponential Hawkes process as a model parametrized by the triplet (ν, C, A) ∈ Rd+ ×
d×d
d
× Rd×d
× Rd×d
+ . More precisely we consider a relatively compact open parameter state Θ ⊂ R+ × R+
+
such that for any triplet θ = (ν, C, A) ∈ Θ, for any α, β ∈ I,
Rd×d
+

0 <
0 <
0 <

ν ≤ να ≤ ν̄ < +∞,
c ≤ cαβ ≤ c̄ < +∞,

a ≤ aαβ ≤ ā < +∞.

In particular, we assume for the sake of identifiability that the cαβ are positive. Let us assume, in the spirit
of the first part, that there exists θ∗ = (ν ∗ , C ∗ , A∗ ) ∈ Θ, such that θ∗ is the real parameter that drives the
dynamic of N . We are now ready to state the main result of this section.
Theorem 4.6. The exponential Hawkes model verifies the conditions [B1], [B2], [M2], and [B4]. In particular,
by virtue of Theorem 3.14 and Lemma 3.16, if θ̂T = (ν̂T , ĈT , ÂT ) is the QMLE and θ̃T = (ν̃T , C̃T , ÃT ) the QBE
of the model, we have
h √
i
1
E f ( T (θ̂T − θ∗ )) → E[f (Γ− 2 ξ)],
i
h √
1
E f ( T (θ̃T − θ∗ )) → E[f (Γ− 2 ξ)],

where Γ is the Fisher information, f is any continuous function of polynomial growth, and ξ follows a standard
normal distribution.

[B1] is immediate given the explicit expression of the intensity function. Unfortunately, the ergodicity
condition [B3] is not a direct consequence of the V -geometric ergodicity of the process E. This is due to the fact
that the vector (λ(t, θ∗ ), λ(t, θ), ∂θ λ(t, θ)) cannot be expressed as a pure function of the marginal E(t). On the
other hand, since the stochastic structure of the process (λ(., θ∗ ), λ(., θ), ∂θ λ(., θ)) is globally driven by E, the
exponential rates in (4.4) and in Proposition 4.4 (iii) are strong enough to ensure the mixing assumption [M2].
The detailed proofs can be found in the appendix.

20

5

Conclusion

We have introduced in this paper a general ergodic framework for point process regression models, in which we
were able to derive general asymptotic properties of both the Quasi Maximum Likelihood estimator and the
Quasi Bayesian estimator. Because such formulation of ergodicity covers a wide range of models, we have shown
that the Quasi Likelihood Analysis approach is robust in the sense that it applies to various contexts, provided
that they encompass a family of laws of large numbers on the parametric stochastic intensity.
Since, in practice, for Limit Order Books, parameters (and other variables of interest) are often estimated
via such time average limits, we have decided to focus on various point process models that are directly involved
in the modelling of the dynamics of LOB’s. In particular, we have seen that Markovian models, self-exciting
exponential Hawkes processes, and their mixtures that can be found in the literature are examples of applications
of the QLA.
It is also important to know the limits of such procedure. Parametric estimations are undoubtebly powerfull
when it comes to calibrating on real data a model that looks well suited to, say, the reproduction of stylized facts
observed in practice. Nevertheless, in many cases the choice of a parametric model is quite arbitrary although
it should be investigated with the help of mathematical tools. Information criteria (AIC, BIC), sparsity (e.g.
LASSO type estimations), and hypothesis testing, are examples of model selection methods that can quantify
in some sense to what extent models perform well (this last statement being deliberately vague here), even in
mispecified contexts. Another approach consists in checking the validity of a model by testing the constancy of
the parameters over time. In the same spirit as in [32], but in a different asymptotic though, empirical tests
could be conducted to investigate the stability of parameters. Should they fail, the choice of an ergodic model
itself would have to be reconsidered. Although such considerations are beyond the scope of the present paper,
they should be investigated in the future.
Let us conclude this work by pointing out that in the litterature there is virtually no LOB model that allows
random volumes of orders, except slight generalizations, either to the simple I.I.D case (see e.g. [27]), or in a
theoretic Markovian framework [17]. The lack of such model extensions is probably due to the fact that the very
rich and complex structure of Order Books is still poorly understood. The QLA could be generalized to more
intricate models for Limit Order Books in order to address the most general structure between random time
events Ti and random order sizes Vi . Accordingly, statistical inferences for marked point processes should thus
be the subject of a further work as well. Along with the abovementioned model selection machinery, applications
to real data analysis would certainly shed light on these little-known mechanisms.

Acknowledgement
This work was in part supported by CREST Japan Science and Technology Agency, Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science : Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 24340015 (Scientific Research), No. 26540011
(Challenging Exploratory Research); NS Solutions Corporation; and by a Cooperative Research Program of the
Institute of Statistical Mathematics.

6
6.1

Appendix
Proofs of Section 3

Proof of Proposition 3.8. Let us start with the identification of the mapping πα (., θ) on Cb (E, R). For the sake
of simplicity we write Xsα (θ) = (λα (s, θ∗ ), λα (s, θ), ∂θ λα (s, θ)), and we consider the sequence of probability
measures on E defined for any Borel subset A ⊂ E :
θ
πT,α
(A) =

1
T

Z

0

T

P[Xsα (θ) ∈ A]ds.
21

For any ψ ∈ Cb (E, R), an immediate application of the dominated convergence theorem and [A3] shows that
θ
θ
ψ(x)π
T,α (dx) → πα (ψ, θ). On the other hand, it is straightforward to see that the family (πT,α )T ∈R+ is tight
E
θ
α
since the family (Xt (θ))t∈R+ is tight itself. Thus along a subsequence (πT,α )T ∈R+ converges weakly to some
R
παθ , and for any ψ ∈ Cb (E, R), πα (ψ, θ) = E ψ(x)παθ (dx) which determines uniquely παθ .
R

Let us now show (i). Let ψ ∈ C↑ (E, R). Because we can separate ψ as usual ψ = ψ+ − ψ− , where ψ+ and
ψ− are respectively the positive and negative parts of ψ, it is not restrictive to assume that ψ is non-negative.
Consider first the case where ψ is continuous on the whole set E. Put then δ > 0, and consider for T ∈ R+
VTα (θ) =

1
T

Z

1
T

Z

T

T

0

ψ(Xsα (θ))ds

and
VTδ,α (θ) =

0

(ψ(Xsα (θ)) ∧ δ) ds,

so

E

VTα (θ)

−

VTδ,α (θ)

"Z

T

≤

1
E
T

"Z

T

≤

1
E
T

≤
≤

0

1
E
Tδ
Q
,
δ

0

Z

0

T

(ψ(Xsα (θ))

− δ) 1{ψ(Xsα (θ))≥δ} ds

ψ(Xsα (θ))1{ψ(Xsα (θ))≥δ} ds

#

#

ψ(Xsα (θ))2 ds

′

where Q = supt∈R+ E supθ∈Θ ψ(Xtα (θ))2 . Now taking T and T positive real numbers, we get :
E|VTα (θ) − VTα′ (θ)|

α,δ
α
≤ E|VTα (θ) − VTα,δ (θ)| + E|VTα,δ (θ) − VTα,δ
′ (θ)| + E|V ′ (θ) − V ′ (θ)|
T
T

≤ 2

Q
+ E|VTα,δ (θ) − VTα,δ
′ (θ)|.
δ

Note that the second term can be controlled since the ergodicity assumption [A3] and the boundedness of
moments of VTα,δ (θ) also imply the convergence in Lp of the LLN for any p ≥ 1. For any ǫ > 0, taking large
′
δ and sufficiently large T and T we can thus conclude that E|VTα (θ) − VTα′ (θ)| ≤ ǫ, showing that VTα (θ) is a
Cauchy sequence in T , and thus converges to a finite value πα (ψ, θ). In particular, thanks to the monotone
convergenceR theorem applied to the family ψ ∧ δ and the measure παθ we have also shown that the identity
πα (ψ, θ) = E ψ(x)παθ (dx) holds. This shows that πα (., θ) can be extended to C↑ (E, R).

In the case where ψ has singularities at points of the form (0, v, w) and (u, 0, w), first construct a sequence
of function ψη ∈ Cb (E, R) such that ψη ↑ ψ when η → 0 and such that for any (u, v, w) ∈ E, ψη (u, v, w) = 0
whenever u ≤ η or v ≤ η, and ψη (u, v, w) = ψη (u, v, w) whenever u ≥ 2η and v ≥ 2η . Such construction is
possible because ψ is lower semi-continuous. It is then straightforward to show that VTα (θ) is again a Cauchy
sequence in L1 as previously.
We now turn to the uniform convergence in θ. Once again, assume first for the sake of simplicity that ψ is
continuous on E. As Θ is compact, it is sufficient to show that the family (θ → VTα (θ))T ∈R+ is equicontinuous
for, say, the L1 norm. Since supt∈R+ E[supθ∈Θ |Xtα (θ)|] < ∞, the family (Xtα (θ))t∈R+ ,θ∈Θ is tight. Consider
22

thus ǫ > 0 and a compact K ∈ E such that P[Xtα (θ) ∈
/ K] < ǫ for all t and θ. Let ψ̃ be a C 1 function with
compact support such that kψ − ψ̃k∞,K < ǫ and ψ̃ ≤ 2ψ outside K, where k.k∞,K is the infinite norm over K.
In particular ψ̃ is k-Lipschitzian for some k > 0. Then
′

′

E|ψ(Xtα (θ)) − ψ(Xtα (θ ))| ≤

′

E|(ψ − ψ̃)(Xtα (θ))| + E|(ψ − ψ̃)(Xtα (θ ))| + E|ψ̃(Xtα (θ)) − ψ̃(Xtα (θ ))|,

but
E|(ψ − ψ̃)(Xtα (θ))|

≤
≤
≤

ǫ + E|(ψ − ψ̃)(Xtα (θ))1{Xtα (θ)∈K}
|
/

 12
2
1
ǫ + E (ψ − ψ̃)(Xtα (θ))
P[Xtα (θ) ∈
/ K] 2
1

ǫ + Mǫ2 ,

where M = 3 supt∈R+ k supθ∈Θ ψ(Xtα (θ))k2 . On the other hand,
′

′

E|ψ̃(Xtα (θ)) − ψ̃(Xtα (θ ))| ≤

kE|Xtα (θ) − Xtα (θ )|
′

k|θ − θ | sup E sup |∂θ Xtα (θ)| .

≤

t∈R+

θ∈Θ

′

Thus we deduce that by taking θ sufficiently close to θ ,
′

1

E|VTα (θ) − VTα (θ )| ≤ 3ǫ + M ǫ 2 ,
the bound being independent of T . Such equicontinuity along with the pointwise convergence ensures the
uniform
convergence.
 The case where ψ has singularities is treated similarly using the tightness of the family

1{λα (t,θ)6=0}
α
.
Xt (θ), λα (t,θ)
t∈R+ ,θ∈Θ

RT
The following lemma is a verification of the permutation rule of the symbols ∂θ and 0 .
RT
Lemma 6.1. The process 0 log(λα (s, θ))dÑsα is well defined and admits a derivative for any θ ∈ Θ and we
have :
Z
Z
T

∂θ

0

log(λα (s, θ))dÑsα =

T

0

∂θ log(λα (s, θ))dÑsα .

RT
Proof of Lemma 6.1. For the 0 ...dNs part the result is immediate since for almost any ω the integral is
RT
simply a finite sum of terms that are differentiable in θ. For the 0 ...ds part, we first need to show that
RT
log(λα (s, θ))λα (s, θ∗ )ds is well defined a.s., but we have :
0
E

Z

0

using the majoration |log(x)| ≤
Z

0

1
x

T

|log(λα (s, θ))λα (s, θ∗ )| ds < +∞,

+ |x − 1| and [A2]. With a similar argument we can easily show that

T

|∂θ log(λα (s, θ))λα (s, θ∗ )| ds ≤

Z

0

T

sup ∂θ log(λα (s, θ)) λα (s, θ∗ )ds < +∞ P-a.s..

θ∈Θ

Now, for a given ω such that these random variables are finite, we can conclude by applying the dominated
α
α
(s,θ0 )[ω]
when θ → θ0 , with respect to the measure
convergence theorem to the function s → λ (s,θ)[ω]−λ
θ−θ0
α
∗
λ (s, θ )[ω]ds.

23

The following lemma is useful to prove the Lp boundedness of stochastic integrals with respect to the
processes N α or Ñ α .
Lemma 6.2. let ft be a predictable process and consider the martingale Ñt = Nt − Λt (θ∗ ). Then for any p ≥ 1,
α ∈ I, we have the following majoration for some constant Cp :




"Z
#
2p
2p−1
Z T
Z T
T
p
.
E
fs dÑsα  ≤ Cp E
fs2 λα (s, θ∗ )ds + Cp E 
fs2 λα (s, θ∗ )ds
0

0

0

whenever the expectations are well defined.

Proof of Lemma 6.2. For p = 1 it is sufficient to notice that we have :


"Z
#
2
Z T
T
α
2
α
∗
E
fs dÑs  = E
fs λ (s, θ )ds
0

0

For p > 1, notice that by the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, one can write :


E

Z

2p

T

fs dÑsα

0





 ≤

Dp E 

fs2 dNsα

0



2p−1 Dp E 

≤

2p−1

T

Z

Z




2p−1

T

fs2 dÑsα

0



 + 2p−1 Dp E 

And by induction, one gets for some constant Qp :


2p
Z T
Z
p
X
E
fs dÑsα  ≤ Qp
E
0



T

0

q=1

Z

T

0

2p−1

fs2 λα (s, θ∗ )ds




2p−q
q
ft2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt

.

Now we show that for any q ∈ {1, ..., p},
T

Z

0

If

RT
0

q

ft2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt

!2p−q

≤ max


 Z

T

0



!2p−1 Z
2 α
∗
ft λ (t, θ )dt
,

T

0

ft2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt = 0, we trivially get 0 ≤ 0. On the other hand, assuming
gt = 
RT
0

Then µ(dt) =
Z

0

gt2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt
T

q

RT

ft2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt

 12 .

RT
0

ft2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt > 0, put

!2p−q

=

Z

T
0

q

gt2

−2

µ(dt)

!2p−q

≤

Z

T

0

p

Z

0

T

q
gt2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt

!2p−q

( Z
≤ max 1,

0

And from the expression of g we finally get the overall result.

24

T

p
gt2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt

−2−q
! 2p−1
p−1
2

p

gt2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt

gt2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt ≥ 1 or not, we can conclude

0

.



is a probability measure on [0, T ]. We thus have, by Jensen’s inequality :

gt2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt

Depending on whether

ft

p

ft2 λα (t, θ∗ )dt




)

.

−1

.

Proof of Lemma 3.15. Without loss of generality we can assume that p is of the form p = 2q > n. For (3.4),
it is sufficient to apply Lemma 6.2 to fs = λα (s, θ∗ )−1 ∂θ λα (s, θ∗ )1{λα (s,θ∗ )6=0} , along with [B2]. Following the
same reasoning as for the classical approach, to get (3.5) it is sufficient to show that :
MTα (θ)
T
θ∈Θ

T γ sup

p

→ 0,

and
T γ sup |VT (θ) − Y(θ)|
θ∈Θ

p

→ 0.

For the first part, once again it is sufficient to apply Sobolev’s inequality and then Lemma 6.2 to get the
convergence for any p > n. For the second part, we wish to use Sobolev’s inequality once again, but we need
first to show that Y is of class C 1 on Θ. This is ensured by the fact that supθ∈Θ |∂θ VT (θ) − U(θ)| →P 0 for
some U thanks to [B3]. Thus Y is C 1 and ∂θ Y = U. Now, using Sobolev’s inequality, there exists some constant
A(Θ, p) such that :

T

γp



E sup |VT (θ) − Y(θ)|
θ∈Θ

p



≤ A(Θ, p)T

γp

Z

Θ

p

E [|VT (θ) − Y(θ)| ] dθ +

Z

Θ

p



E [|∂θ VT (θ) − ∂θ Y(θ)| ] dθ .

for any p > n. Because of the ergodicity assumption we have :
T γp sup E [|VT (θ) − Y(θ)|p ] + T γp sup E [|∂θ VT (θ) − ∂θ Y(θ)|p ] → 0,
θ∈Θ

θ∈Θ

which finally shows (3.5). (3.6) is a simple application of [B3], and finally (3.7) is a straightforward consequence
of Sobolev’s inequality and Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality.
Proof of Lemma 3.16. We first show the implication [M1] =⇒ [A3]. For T ∈ R+ , (ψ, θ) ∈ Cb (E, R) × Θ, we
write
Xtα (θ) = (λα (t, θ∗ ), λα (t, θ), ∂θ λα (t, θ)),
and

Z
1 T
ψ(Xtα (θ))dt.
=
T 0
Define πα as above and then, evaluating the mean square error, we get
VTα (θ)

2

E[(VTα (θ) − π(ψ, θ))2 ] = Var[VTα (θ)] + (E[VTα (θ) − πα (ψ, θ)])
Z
ZZ
1
1 T
α
α
≤
Cov[ψ(Xt (θ)), ψ(Xs (θ))]dsdt +
(E[ψ(Xtα (θ)) − πα (ψ, θ)])2 dt.
T2
T 0
[0,T ]2
Now, using the mixing property for the first term of the right hand side leads to
1
T2

ZZ

[0,T ]2

Cov[ψ(Xtα (θ)), ψ(Xsα (θ))]dsdt

≤
≤

ZZ
1
ρ|t−s| dsdt
T2
[0,T ]2
ZZ
ZZ
supu∈R+ ρu
1
√ ρ
1
1{|t−s|≤√T } dsdt.
dsdt
+
{|t−s|≥ T } |t−s|
T2
T2
[0,T ]2
[0,T ]2

 
The first term tends to 0 thanks to the mixing property, and the second term is of order O √1T . The
covariance term thus tends to 0 as T → +∞. The convergence of the bias term to 0 is immediate given the
convergence in distribution of the argument of ψ.

25

It remains to show [M2] =⇒ [B3]. It is sufficient to prove the L2 convergence since the convergence in Lp
for any p ≥ 1 will be a straightforward consequence of the boundedness of moments of the intensity. Write the
rescaled bias-variance decomposition
E[T 2γ (VTα (θ) − π(ψ, θ))2 ] =
≤
≤

2

T 2γ Var[VTα (θ)] + T 2γ (E[VTα (θ) − πα (ψ, θ)])
ZZ
Z
T 2γ−2
Cov[ψ(Xtα (θ), ψ(Xsα (θ)]dsdt + T 2γ−1
[0,T ]2

T

0

2

(E[ψ(Xtα (θ) − πα (ψ, θ)]) dt

A1 (T, θ) + A2 (T, θ).

Thanks to [M2], we have uniformly in θ ∈ Θ that E[ψ(Xtα (θ) − πα (ψ, θ)] = o(t−γ ), and thus the fact that
supθ∈Θ A2 (T, θ) → 0 is clear. For A1 (T, θ), take some 0 < δ < 1 to be defined later and write
A1 (T, θ)

≤ T
≤ T

2γ−2

ZZ

[0,T ]2

2γ−2

ZZ

[0,T ]2

ρ|t−s| dsdt
1{|t−s|≥T δ } ρ|t−s| dsdt + T

2γ−2

ZZ

sup ρu

u∈R+

[0,T ]2

1{|t−s|≤T δ } dsdt.

A short computation leads to the two following dominations (uniformly in θ ∈ Θ) :
ZZ

T 2γ−2
1{|t−s|≥T δ } ρ|t−s| dsdt = o T 2γ−ǫδ ,
[0,T ]2
ZZ

T 2γ−2 sup ρu
1{|t−s|≤T δ } dsdt = O T 2γ+δ−1 ,
u∈R+

[0,T ]2

and consequently both terms can be controlled if there exists δ such that 2γ − ǫδ ≤ 0 and 2γ + δ − 1 < 0, that
is, if 2γ
ǫ < 1 − 2γ. But this is exactly the above-stated condition on ǫ.

6.2

Proofs of Section 4

Proof of Proposition 4.4. Only the third point remains to be proved. We first notice that, for α ∈ I,
α

α

E|λ (t) − λ̄ (t)|

= E

XZ

t−

0

β∈I


XZ

≤ E
β∈I

0

hαβ (t −
t−

s)dNsβ

−

XZ
β∈I

t−

hαβ (t − s)dN̄sβ

−∞

hαβ (t − s)d N β − N̄ β

s




XZ
 +E

0

−∞

β∈I




XZ t
XZ
β
β



≤ E
hαβ (t − s) λ (s) − λ̄ (s) ds + E
β∈I

0

β∈I

where N β − N̄ β is the counting measure such that ∆ N β − N̄ β
that the expression of its compensator is λβ (s) − λ̄β (s) . Let
ftα

s

λα (t) − λ̄α (t)

=

rtα

=

β∈I

0

−∞

1



hαβ (t − s)λ̄β (s)ds .

26

hαβ (t − s)λ̄β (s)ds
0

−∞



hαβ (t − s)λ̄β (s)ds ,

= ∆Nsβ − ∆N̄sβ . In [10], the authors show

and

XZ

E



Finally we define the convolution product between two functions as
Z t
φ ∗ ψ(t) =
φ(t − s)ψ(s)ds
0

and the convolution product between two multidimensional applications U : R+ → Rm,n and V : R+ → Rn,q as
U ∗ V : R+ → Rm,q such that
n
X

(U ∗ V )i,j (t) =

Ui,k ∗ Vk,j (t).

k=1

The above equation can thus be rewritten in the following vector form :
≤ rt + h ∗ f (t),

ft

and by an immediate induction one gets for any n ∈ N that
ft

n
X

≤

k=0

h∗k ∗ r(t) + h∗(n+1) ∗ f (t).

Now, for a multidimensional application U : R+ → Rm,n , write the norm
kU k1,Leb

m X
n Z
X

=

i=1 j=1

0

+∞

|Ui,j (t)|dt.

Since all f α ’s are bounded, say, by some Kf ∈ R+ , it is immediate to see that
|h∗n ∗ f (t)|

≤ Kf kh∗n k1,Leb
≤ Kf |Φn | → 0

as ρ(Φ) < 1. Thus we can define the process

R

+∞
X

=

k=0

h∗k ∗ r

and notice that, first, ft ≤ Rt , and that R is a solution to the Markov renewal equation
R = r + h ∗ R.
This type of equations is deeply studied in [4], chapter VII. Let us define Φq as

Φq

=

Z

+∞

eqt h(t)dt.

0

It is shown in Theorem 4.6 of [4], chapter VII, that if Φ0 = Φ is irreducible, and if there exists a real q such
that ρ(Φq ) = 1, then for every α ∈ I

ftα ≤ Rα (t) = O e−qt .
h
i
c
Φ is obviously irreducible since all its coefficients are positive. Now, as for q sufficiently small Φq = aαβαβ−q ,

the application q → ρ(Φq ) is continuous, ρ(Φ0 ) < 1 and ρ(Φq ) → +∞ as q → +∞ and thus Theorem 4.6 from
[4] applies.

27

Proof of Proposition 4.5. The Markovian property of the elementary excitations is a well-known result, see [28].
The V -geometric ergodicity has also been proved for a linear V , see [2]. The case of an exponential V follows a
very similar procedure. As in [2], we need to apply Theorem 6.1 from [24].
Define L the infinitesimal generator of E. If for some V , c > 0, and f < ∞, the following drift criterion holds
−cV (ǫ) + f , ǫ ∈ Rd×d
+ ,

LV (ǫ) ≤

and if every compact set is petite (see [25]), then Theorem 6.1 of [24] applies and E is V -geometrically ergodic.
We first show the drift condition, and postpone the second property to Lemma 6.3 below. Let us take some
M ∈ Rd×d
to be fixed later. It is not hard to see that the infinitesimal generator of E has the following
+
representation
X

Lf (ǫ) =

α∈I

λα (f (ǫ + C̃α ) − f (ǫ)) −

X

aαβ ∂ǫαβ f (ǫ)ǫαβ ,

α,β∈I

P
with the obvious notation λβ = νβ + γ∈I ǫβγ , and where C̃α is the matrix whose elements are all zeros except
for the α-th column wich is the α-th column of C. Applied to the V of the proposition, we get
LV (ǫ)
V (ǫ)

=

X

λβ (e

P

α∈I

mαβ cαβ

β∈I

− 1) −

X

aαβ mαβ ǫαβ .

α,β∈I

Consider now some continuous function ξ such that ξ(x) = o(x) on a vicinity of 0 and such that the following
Taylor expansion holds :
X
P
e α∈I mαβ cαβ − 1 ≤
mαβ cαβ + ξ(|M |).
α∈I

We thus get
LV (ǫ)
V (ǫ)

≤

X

νβ

β∈I

X
α∈I

(mαβ cαβ + ξ(|M |)) +

X

ǫβγ

X
α∈I

β,γ∈I

(mαβ cαβ + ξ(|M |)) −

X

aαβ mαβ ǫαβ .

α,β∈I

Consider now κ ∈ (R+ )d an eigenvector of ΦT , the transposed matrix of Φ, associated to ρ(Φ), and put for
any α, β ∈ I
mαβ

=

κα
.
aαβ

Such eigenvector exists thanks to Perron-Frobenius theorem. It is easy to see that we have then
LV (ǫ)
V (ǫ)

≤ (ρ(Φ) − 1)

X

(κβ + dξ(|κ|))ǫβγ +

β,γ∈I

X

νβ (κβ + dξ(|κ|)).

β∈I

Let us fix c > 0. Consider the set

K

=





2

ǫ ∈ Rd+ (ρ(Φ) − 1)

X

(κβ + ξ(|κ|))ǫβγ +

β,γ∈I

X
β∈I

Since ρ(Φ) − 1 < 0, K is a compact set. We have thus :
28

νβ (κβ + dξ(|κ|)) ≥ −c





.

LV (ǫ) ≤ −cV (ǫ) + sup |LV (y)| + c sup V (y),
y∈K

y∈K

which is the desired drift condition.
We now show in the following lemma that E is a ψ-irreducible T-chain. See [25], Chapters 4 and 6, for more
information about this concept.
Lemma 6.3. For t ∈ R+ , let Qt be the transition kernel associated to E(t), i.e. for any ǫ ∈ Rd×d
and
+
d×d
A ∈ B(R+ ),
Qt (ǫ, A) = P[E(t) ∈ A|E(0) = ǫ].
E verifies the following properties :
(i) E is a T-chain, i.e. there exists a non-trivial kernel T such that for any A ∈ B(Rd×d
+ ), T(., A) is lower
semi-continuous, and
Q(., A) ≥ T(., A).
(ii) E is ψ-irreducible.
Every compact set is thus a petite set.
We denote by (Tn )n∈N the stopping times associated to the jumps of N . In other words, Tk represents the
time of the k-th jump of N , and we arbitrarily define T0 = 0. We also write ∆Tn = Tn − Tn−1 and finally Kn
for the label in I for which the jump has occured, i.e. Kn is a random variable that takes values in I and that
is the only β ∈ I such that ∆NTβn = 1. The following result is well-known :
P
P
Lemma 6.4. for an initial state E(0) = ǫ, write µα (t, ǫ) = να + β∈I ǫαβ e−aαβ t , and µ(t, ǫ) = α∈I µα (t, ǫ).
Then :
(i) ∆T1 has the distribution density (with respect to Lebesgue measure) f ∆T1 (t|E(0) = ǫ) = f (t, ǫ) = µ(t, ǫ)e−
(ii) Moreover, conditionnally to ∆T1 , K1 has the distribution P[K1 = β|∆T1 , E(0) = ǫ] =

Rt
0

µ(s,ǫ)ds

β

µ (∆T1 ,ǫ)
µ(∆T1 ,ǫ) .

Proof of Lemma 6.3. By an immediate application of the strong Markovian property and Lemma 6.4, we easily
get that for any j ≥ 1,
f ∆Tj (t|E(Tj−1 )) = f (t, E(Tj−1 )),
and
P[Kj = β|∆Tj , E(Tj−1 )] =

µβ (∆Tj , E(Tj−1 ))
,
µ(∆Tj , E(Tj−1 ))

and thus, the joint density of (∆T1 , K1 , ..., ∆Tn , Kn ) given E(0) = ǫ can be written as
f (∆T1 ,K1 ,...,∆Tn,Kn ) (t1 , k1 , ..., tn , kn |ǫ)

=

µkn (tn , ǭ(t1 , k1 , ..., tn−1 , kn−1 |ǫ))
f (tn , ǭ(t1 , ..., tn−1 , kn−1 |ǫ)) × ...
µ(tn , ǭ(t1 , k1 , ..., tn |ǫ))

...

×

µk1 (t1 , ǫ)
f (t1 , ǫ),
µ(t1 , ǫ)

where ǭ(t1 , k1 , ..., tj , kj |ǫ) is the value of E(Tj ) when (∆T1 , K1 , ..., ∆Tn , Kn ) = (t1 , k1 , ..., tj , kj ), i.e.

29

.

ǭαβ (t1 , k1 , ..., tj , kj |ǫ) = e−(t1 +...+tj ) ǫαβ +

X

cαβ e−aαβ (ti+1 +...+tj ) .

i≤j|ki =β

Note that in particular both ǭ(t1 , k1 , ..., tj , kj |ǫ) and f (∆T1 ,K1 ...,∆Tn,Kn ) are C ∞ in (t1 , ..., tn ) and in ǫ. We
now show that Qt has a lower semi-continuous component T. To do this, consider first the following domination,
for ǫ ∈ Rd×d
and A ∈ B(Rd×d
+
+ ) :
Qt (ǫ, A)

= P[E(t) ∈ A|E(0) = ǫ]


≥ P {E(t) ∈ A} ∩ {#{j|Tj ≤ t} = d2 } ∩

\n

∆NTβ(β−1)d+i

β∈I


o
= 1, i ≤ d |E(0) = ǫ .

We thus select only events for which there are exactly d2 jumps before t, and the first d jumps occur on
N , the next d ones occur on N 2 , and so on. In that case, the value of E(t) is completely determined by
(t, T1 , ..., Td2 ), and has the form
1

ǭαβ (t, T1 , ..., Td2 |ǫ) = ǫαβ e−aαβ t +

X

cαβ e−aαβ (t−T1 +...+Ti ) .

(β−1)d≤i≤βd−1

2

Again, ǫ → ǭ(t, t1 , ..., td |ǫ) is C ∞ in ǫ. For conciseness, we write φn (t1 , ..., tn |ǫ) for f (∆T1 ,K1 ,...,∆Tn,Kn ) (t1 , k1 , ..., tn , kn |ǫ)
with each ki equal to the unique β such that (β − 1)d ≤ i ≤ βd − 1 and kd2 +1 is any arbitrary β (it plays no
role). We have thus
Qt (ǫ, A) ≥

Z

···

Z

2 +1

d
R+

1{ǭ(t,t1 ,...,td2 |ǫ)∈A} 1{t1 +...+td2 <t}∩{t1 +...+td2 +1 >t} φd2 +1 (t1 , ..., td2 |ǫ)dt1 ..dtd2 +1 .

Since the indicator 1{ǭ(t,t1 ,...,td2 |ǫ)∈A} is not lower semi-continous in ǫ whenever A is not open, we need to
remove the dependency of this term in ǫ by a change of variable. Consider the transformation
Ψǫ : (t1 , ..., td2 ) → Ψǫ (t1 , ..., td2 ) = ǫ(t, t1 , ..., td2 |ǫ).
Ψǫ is clearly C ∞ in its argument and in ǫ. We write JΨǫ (t1 , ..., tn ) = |det∇Ψǫ (t1 , ..., tn )| the determinant
of the Jacobian matrix of Ψǫ at the point (t1 , ..., tn ). Tedious but straightforward computation leads to the
following representation of the Jacobian :

∗

···

∗

M2 (t1 , ..., t2d ) · · ·
..
..
.
.

∗
..
.

M1 (t1 , ..., td )
0
..
.

JΨǫ (t1 , ..., td2 ) =

···

0
=

Y

···

Md (t1 , ..., td2 )

Ji (t1 , ..., tid ),

i∈I

where Jk (t1 , ..., tkd ) = detMk (t1 , ..., tkd ). Note that in particular it does not depend on ǫ. Thus it is sufficient
to show that under some conditions, each Jk 6= 0. Again, after elementary linear operations on the Mk ’s, it is
possible to represent |Jk | as follows :

30

1
Jk (t1 , ..., tkd ) =

Y

e

cik aik e−aik (t−t1 −...−t1+(k−1)d )

a1k t2+(k−1)d

..
.

i∈I

ea1k (t2+(k−1)d +...+tdk )

···

···

···
..
.

···
..
.

···

···

1
e

adk t2+(k−1)d

..
.

.

ea1k (t2+(k−1)d +...+tdk )

Telling if Jk 6= 0 is not easy for general (t1 , ..., td2 ). On the other hand, if there exists k ∈ I and two
indices i, j ∈ I such that aik = ajk , two columns of the determinant are equal and thus Jk = 0. Jk also vanishes if one cij = 0. For now let’s assume for simplicity that for any k ∈ I, for any i, j ∈ I, aik 6= ajk , and cij 6= 0.
Note that if t1 = ... = td2 = t0 > 0, each Jk is a Vandermonde determinant, and thus
Jk (t0 , ..., t0 )

=

Y

cik aik e−aik (t−(1+(k−1)d)t0 )

i∈I

Y
(e−alk t0 − e−ajk t0 ) 6= 0.
j≥l

By continuity, if all the ti ’s are close enough to each other, say, belong to some interval ]t0 − η, t0 + η[ for η
small enough and such that t0 − η > 0, we have JΨǫ 6= 0. Writing
B(t1 , ..., td2 +1 ) = {(t1 , ..., td2 ) ∈]t0 − η, t0 + η[} ∩ {t1 + ... + td2 < t} ∩ {t1 + ... + td2 +1 > t},
we have by change of variable
Qt (ǫ, A)

≥
=

Z

Z

···
···

Z

2 +1

d
R+

Z

1{ǭ(t,t1 ,...,td2 |ǫ)∈A} 1{B(t1 ,...,td2+1 )} φd2 +1 (t1 , ..., td2 +1 |ǫ)dt1 ...dtd2 +1
2

Ψǫ (Rd
+ )×R+

1{(y1 ,...,yd2 )∈A} 1{B(Ψ−1
ǫ (y1 ,...,y

d2 ),td2 +1 )}

···


−1
· · · φd2 +1 Ψ−1 (y1 , ..., yd2 ), td2 +1 |ǫ JΨǫ Ψ−1
dy1 ...dyd2 dtd2 +1 .
ǫ (y1 , ..., yd2 )

Finally, it is easy to see that B(Ψǫ−1 (y1 , ..., yd2 ), td2 +1 ) is a countable union of open intervals whose boundaries
−1
depend continuously on ǫ, and 1B(Ψ−1
and
) is thus lower semi-continuous in ǫ. Because φd2 +1 , Ψ
ǫ (y1 ,...,y 2 ),t 2
d

d +1

JΨ are continuous in their component and in ǫ, this finally shows that Qt has a non-trivial lower semi-continuous
component T, and E is a T-chain.
Since 0 is trivially a reachable point for E, Proposition 6.2.1 in [25] implies that E is ψ-irreducible. Thus
Theorem 6.2.5 (ii) in [25] implies that every compact set is petite, and we are done.
Remark 3. If there exists k, i, j ∈ I such that aik = ajk = a the kernel of E is degenerate. On the other hand,
one can easily see that, if cjk 6= 0,
Z t
cik
ǫjk (t).
ǫik (t) = cik
e−a(t−s) dNsk =
cjk
0
Thus by reducing the dimension of the state space of E, i.e. putting Ẽ = [ǫαβ ]αβ∈I2 −(i,k) , we see that
Ẽ is obviously still Markovian. We can also do this operation whenever some cij is null. E˜ is then still a
Markovian process but verifies the non-degeneracy conditions on A and C. In practice we can therefore assume
the non-degeneracy condition, since the ergodicity of the reduced process implies obviously the ergodicity of E.
We finally turn to the verification of [B2], [M2], and [B4] to complete the proof of Theorem 4.6.

31

Lemma 6.5. The parametric exponential Hawkes model verifies [B2].
Proof. Points (ii) and (iii) are immediate since for any t ∈ R+ and α ∈ I we have λα (t, θ) ≥ ν > 0. Before
showing (i), note that any component of ∂θi λ(t, θ), (i ≤ 3) can be expressed as a linear combination of the
following terms :
≤ ν̄,
Z t−
≤
c̄(t − s)j e−a(t−s) dNsβ ,
0
Z t−
(t − s)j e−a(t−s) dNsβ ,
≤

να
Z

t−

cαβ (t − s)j e−aαβ (t−s) dNsβ

0

t−

Z

0

(t − s)j e−aαβ (t−s) dNsβ

0

for j ≤ 3. It is thus sufficient to show that for any p > 0, α, β ∈ I,
sup E
t∈R+

p

t−

Z

(t − s)j e−a(t−s) dNsβ

0

< +∞.

Without loss of generality we may assume that p = 2k , k ≥ 1. Using Lemma 6.2 again, we have for some
constant B depending on k only,

E

Z

0

2k

t−
j −a(t−s)

(t − s) e

dNsβ

≤

BE

t−

Z

(t − s)

0

+

BE

Z

∗

λ (s, θ )ds + BE

e

Z

0

2k

t−

j −a(t−s) β

(t − s) e

0

=

2k j −2k a(t−s) β

2k−1

t−
2j −2a(t−s) β

(t − s) e

λ (s, θ )ds

∗

λ (s, θ )ds

I + II + III.

Since for any q ∈ N, E[λ(s, θ∗ )q ] converges to a finite value whenever s → +∞ (it is an immediate consequence
of the V -geometric ergodicity shown in Proposition 4.5), for all β ∈ I, we bound from above E[λβ (s, θ∗ )q ] by
R +∞
some common value mq . We also write M (m, r) = 0 um e−ru du < +∞ for every m ∈ N and r > 0. To
control I, write :
I

≤ Bm1

Z

t
0

k

k

(t − s)2 j e−2

a(t−s)

ds

≤ Bm1 M (2k j, 2k a).
To deal with II, put q = 2k−1 . If t = 0, we trivially have II = 0. When t > 0, by Jensen’s inequality applied
2as
to the probability measure µ(ds) = R et e2asdsds on [0, t], we have
0

II

= E

Z

≤

Z

≤

Z

≤

t−
0
t

e

q

(t − s)2j e−2a(t−s) λβ (s, θ∗ )ds

2as

ds

0
t

e

2as

ds

0

q

E

q−1

Z

0

e

t−

q
(t − s)2qj e−2aqt λβ (s, θ∗ ) µ(ds)

−2a(q−1)t

1
M (2qj, 2a)mq .
(2a)q−1

E

Z

0

Finally III is dominated as II.

32

t−

q
(t − s)2qj e−2a(t−s) λβ (s, θ∗ ) ds

∗

Lemma 6.6. The parametric exponential Hawkes model verifies [M2].
Proof of Lemma 6.6. Let us deal with the mixing condition first. Consider two elements φ, ψ of D↑ (E, R). Note
that since the exponential Hawkes process intensities are bounded from below it is sufficient to consider the case
where φ, ψ and their derivatives are of polynomial growth in their arguments. Define thus for α ∈ I,
X α (t, θ)

(λα (t, θ∗ ), λα (t, θ), ∂θ λα (t, θ)),

=

and its truncation at s ≤ t :
X̃ α (s, t, θ)



λα (t, θ∗ ),

=

XZ
β∈I

s

t

hαβ (t − u, θ)dNuβ ,

XZ
β∈I

We then write, for some s ≤ t − u,
|Cov[φ(X(t, θ)), ψ(X(t + u, θ))]|

≤
+

s

t



∂θ hαβ (t − u, θ)dNuβ  .

Cov[φ(X(t, θ)), ψ(X̃(t + s, t + u, θ))]
h

i
Cov φ(X(t, θ)), ∇ψ(ξ(t + s, t + u, θ)) X(t + u, θ) − X̃(t + s, t + u, θ)

= A1 (θ) + A2 (θ),
h
i
where ξ(t + s, t + u, θ) ∈ X̃(t + s, t + u, θ), X(t + u, θ) . It is easy to see that, given the exponential kernel of
the intensities, there exists ã, such that for any m ≥ 1,
sup E X(t + u, θ) − X̃(t + s, t + u, θ)

2

=

O(e−ã(u−s) ).

θ∈Θ

Therefore, as ψ, ∇ψ and φ are of polynomial growth, this leads to
sup A2 (θ)

=

O(e−ã(u−s) )

θ∈Θ

For a random variable φ(Z), we now write φ̂(Z) for φ(Z) − E[φ(Z)]. We thus have
A1 (θ)

=
=
=

h
i
E φ̂(X(t, θ))ψ̂(X̃(t + s, t + u, θ))
h
h
ii
E
E φ̂(X(t, θ))E ψ̂(X̃(t + s, t + u, θ)) | Ft+s
h
ii
h
E φ̂(X(t, θ))E ψ̂(X̃(t + s, t + u, θ)) | Et+s ,

where we have applied the strong Markovian property to thehprocess ψ̂(X̃(t + s, t + u, θ))
i which is measurable
with respect to the σ-algebra σ{Ev |t + s ≤ v ≤ t + u}. As E ψ̂(X̃(t + s, t + u, θ)) | Et+s is a function of Et+s ,
u − s and θ, we denote it by F (Et+s , u − s, θ). Note that F (Et+s , u − s, θ) is centered. We thus get
A1 (θ)

=
=
=

h
i
E φ̂(X(t, θ))F (Et+s , u − s, θ)
h
i

E φ̂(X(t, θ))E F (Et+s , u − s, θ)|FtE
i
h
E φ̂(X(t, θ))E [F (Et+s , u − s, θ)|Et ] ,

33

using once again the strong Markovian property. Again, because of the poynomial growth of ψ and the uniform
boundedness of the moments of Ev in v ∈ R+ , one can easily check that F (Et+s , u − s, θ) can be bounded from
above uniformly
of u − s and θ, and
√ in u − s and θ by some measurable random variable F (Et+s ) independent
√
dominated by V up to a multiplication by a constant factor. Finally, as E is also V -geometrically ergodic
(see [25], lemma 15.2.5), we have that, since F (Et+s , u − s, θ) is centered,
|E [F (Et+s , u − s, θ)|Et ]| ≤

Rrs

From here, we can conclude for A1 (θ) that
A1 (θ)

≤

p
V (Et ).

i
h
p
Rrs E φ̂(X(t, θ))
V (Et )

and thus, using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the uniform boundedness of E [V (Et )], (it is an easy consequence
of Dynkin’s formula, see e.g. [24]), we get that

s

sup A1 (θ) ≤ Rr sup E

θ∈Θ

θ∈Θ



φ̂(X(t, θ))

2

 21

1

E[V (Et )] 2 ,

thus
A1 (θ)

=

O(rs ).

Setting s = u2 , we finally get that there exists some r̃ < 1 such that
sup |Cov[φ(X(t, θ)), ψ(X(t + u, θ))]| =

O(r̃u ),

θ∈Θ

which shows the mixing condition with an exponential rate. We now turn to the stability condition. As in [M2],
for a process Y , Ȳ designates its stationary version if it exists. We have


tγ E φ(X(t, θ)) − φ(X̄(t, θ))



≤ tγ E |∇φ(ξ(t, θ))| X(t, θ) − X̄(t, θ)

for some ξ(t, θ) ∈ [X(t, θ), X̄(t, θ)]. The right hand side can be split as follows :


tγ E |∇φ(ξ(t))| X(t, θ) − X̄(t, θ)
≤

≤




tγ E |∇φ(ξ(t))| 1{∇φ(ξ(t))≤t1+γ } + 1{∇φ(ξ(t))>t1+γ } X(t, θ) − X̄(t, θ)
i
h
3
t1+2γ |X(t, θ) − X̄(t, θ)| 1 + t−1 E |∇φ(ξ(t))| X(t, θ) − X̄(t, θ) .

Finally, thanks to Proposition 4.4 (iii), and because each X α (t, θ) − X̄ α (t, θ) can be represented as a sum of
integrals with respect to the measures dN β − dN̄ β for β ∈ I, |X(t, θ) − X̄(t, θ)| 1 is exponentially decreasing
uniformly in θ and thus the first term on the right hand side tends to zero. For the second term, it is sufficient
to notice that the expectation is uniformly bounded in t and θ.
Lemma 6.7. The exponential Hawkes model statisfies the non-degeneracy condition [B4].
Proof. We first show that whenever θ 6= θ∗ , Y(θ) 6= 0. consider thus θ ∈ Θ and assume that Y(θ) = 0. As

X 
λ̄α (t, θ) α
α
α
∗
∗
−Y(θ) =
E λ̄ (t, θ) − λ̄ (t, θ ) − log α
λ̄ (t, θ ) ,
λ̄ (t, θ∗ )
α∈I
34

and, for any α ∈ I,
λ̄α (t, θ) − λ̄α (t, θ∗ ) − log

λ̄α (t, θ) α
λ̄ (t, θ∗ ) ≥
λ̄α (t, θ∗ )

0,

we thus have

λ̄α (t, θ) − λ̄α (t, θ∗ ) − log

λ̄α (t, θ) α
λ̄ (t, θ∗ )
λ̄α (t, θ∗ )

= 0 P-a.s.,

and it is easy to see that this in turn implies that for any t ∈ R+ , and any α ∈ I,
λ̄α (t, θ)

=

λ̄α (t, θ∗ ) P-a.s.

Now, as the trajectories of λ(., θ) are left continuous for any θ ∈ Θ, we can conclude that P-a.s., the whole
trajectories of λ(., θ) and λ(., θ∗ ) coincide. We have thus, P-a.s.,

να −

να∗

XZ

=

β∈I

t

−∞



∗
c∗αβ e−aαβ (t−s) − cαβ e−aαβ (t−s) dN̄sβ ,

(6.1)

but as the left hand side is constant, the right hand side, which is a jump process, must have jumps of size zero,
and thus C = C ∗ . It is then easy to see that the right hand side is now C 1 in the variable t, and its derivative
must be zero. Taking the derivative on both side this gives

0 =

XZ
β∈I

t

−∞



∗
c∗αβ a∗αβ e−aαβ (t−s) − cαβ aαβ e−aαβ (t−s) dN̄sβ .

Provided that the cαβ are non zeros, we get that A = A∗ . Finally the right side of (6.1) vanishes and
ν = ν ∗ . We now turn
h to the proof of the second part
i of the lemma. [B4] holds true if the Fisher information
P
1
α
∗ T
α
∗
matrix Γ = α∈I E λ̄α (t,θ∗ ) ∂θ λ̄ (t, θ )∂θ λ̄ (t, θ ) is positive definite. Let us rewrite the elements of θ in the


following order : First a11 · · · a1d c11 · · · c1d ν1 , the parameters involved in the writing of λ̄1 (., θ∗ ),


2d+1 d
) , such that
then those involved in the writing of λ̄2 (., θ∗ ) and so on. Fix thus x = x1 · · · xd ∈ (R+
xT Γx = 0, and let us show that x = 0. As the expression of Γ is a block diagonal matrix, we have for any
t ∈ R+ that
0

= xT Γx 
X
=
xTα E


1
α
∗ T
α
∗
∂θ λ̄ (t, θ )∂θ λ̄ (t, θ ) xα
λ̄α (t, θ∗ )
α∈I

X 
2
1
α
∗
=
E α
∂θ λ̄ (t, θ )xα .
λ̄ (t, θ∗ )
α∈I
As for the first part of the proof, it implies that for any α ∈ I the following process is null almost surely :
∂θ λ̄α (., θ∗ )xα = 0 P-a.s.
In particular it admits derivatives and those derivatives have no jumps. Writing xα = (xα,a , xα,c , xα,ν ), by
an immediate induction we get for any n ≥ 1 and any α, β ∈ I

35

n−1 β
ncαβ aαβ
xα,a − anαβ xβα,c

=

0,

and thus
cαβ xβα,a −

aαβ β
x
n α,c

=

0.

Taking n → +∞, we get xβα,a = 0 and thus xβα,c = 0. Finally, this implies that
0 = ∂θ λ̄α (., θ∗ )xα = xα,ν ,
and thus xα = 0.

References
[1] F. Abergel and A. Jedidi. A mathematical approach to order book modeling. International Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Finance, 16(05):1350025, 2013.
[2] F. Abergel and A. Jedidi. Long time behaviour of a hawkes process-based limit order book. Available at
SSRN 2575498, 2015.
[3] R. A. Adams and J. J. Fournier. Sobolev spaces, volume 140. Academic press, 2003.
[4] S. Asmussen. Applied probability and queues, volume 51. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
[5] E. Bacry, S. Delattre, M. Hoffmann, and J.-F. Muzy. Modelling microstructure noise with mutually exciting
point processes. Quantitative Finance, 13(1):65–77, 2013.
[6] E. Bacry, T. Jaisson, and J.-F. Muzy. Estimation of slowly decreasing hawkes kernels: Application to high
frequency order book modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7096, 2014.
[7] E. Bacry, I. Mastromatteo, and J.-F. Muzy. Hawkes processes in finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.04592,
2015.
[8] P. Billingsley. Ergodic theory and information. 1965.
[9] J.-P. Bouchaud, J. D. Farmer, and F. Lillo. How markets slowly digest changes in supply and demand.
Fabrizio, How Markets Slowly Digest Changes in Supply and Demand (September 11, 2008), 2008.
[10] P. Brémaud and L. Massoulié. Stability of nonlinear hawkes processes. The Annals of Probability, pages
1563–1588, 1996.
[11] R. Cont and A. De Larrard. Order book dynamics in liquid markets: limit theorems and diffusion approximations. Available at SSRN 1757861, 2012.
[12] R. Cont and A. De Larrard. Price dynamics in a markovian limit order market. SIAM Journal on Financial
Mathematics, 4(1):1–25, 2013.
[13] R. Cont, S. Stoikov, and R. Talreja. A stochastic model for order book dynamics. Operations research,
58(3):549–563, 2010.
[14] J. Hájek. Local asymptotic minimax and admissibility in estimation. In Proceedings of the sixth Berkeley
symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 1, pages 175–194, 1972.
[15] A. G. Hawkes. Point spectra of some mutually exciting point processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society. Series B (Methodological), pages 438–443, 1971.

36

[16] W. Huang, C.-A. Lehalle, and M. Rosenbaum. Simulating and analyzing order book data: The queuereactive model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(509):107–122, 2015.
[17] W. Huang and M. Rosenbaum. Ergodicity and diffusivity of markovian order book models: a general
framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.04936, 2015.
[18] I. A. Ibragimov and R. Z. Has’minskii. Statistical estimation: asymptotic theory, volume 16. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2013.
[19] J. Jacod and A. Shiryaev. Limit theorems for stochastic processes, volume 288. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2013.
[20] O. Kallenberg. Foundations of modern probability. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
[21] Y. A. Kutoyants. Parameter estimation for stochastic processes, volume 6. Heldermann, 1984.
[22] Y. A. Kutoyants. Statistical inference for spatial Poisson processes, volume 134. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.
[23] S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie. Stability of markovian processes ii: continuous-time processes and sampled
chains. Advances in Applied Probability, pages 487–517, 1993.
[24] S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie. Stability of markovian processes iii: Foster-lyapunov criteria for continuoustime processes. Advances in Applied Probability, pages 518–548, 1993.
[25] S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie. Markov chains and stochastic stability. Springer Science & Business Media,
2012.
[26] S. Mike and J. D. Farmer. An empirical behavioral model of liquidity and volatility. Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, 32(1):200–234, 2008.
[27] I. Muni Toke. The order book as a queueing system: average depth and influence of the size of limit orders.
Quantitative Finance, 15(5):795–808, 2015.
[28] D. Oakes. The markovian self-exciting process. Journal of Applied Probability, pages 69–77, 1975.
[29] Y. Ogata. The asymptotic behaviour of maximum likelihood estimators for stationary point processes.
Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 30(1):243–261, 1978.
[30] T. Ogihara and N. Yoshida. Quasi likelihood analysis for point process regression models. preprint, 2015.
[31] T. Ozaki. Maximum likelihood estimation of hawkes’ self-exciting point processes. Annals of the Institute
of Statistical Mathematics, 31(1):145–155, 1979.
[32] Y. Potiron. Estimating the integrated parameter of the locally parametric model in high-frequency data.
Working paper, 2015.
[33] M. L. Puri and P. D. Tuan. Maximum likelihood estimation for stationary point processes. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 83(3):541–545, 1986.
[34] E. Smith, J. D. Farmer, L. s. Gillemot, S. Krishnamurthy, et al. Statistical theory of the continuous double
auction. Quantitative finance, 3(6):481–514, 2003.
[35] I. M. Toke. ” market making” behaviour in an order book model and its impact on the bid-ask spread.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1003.3796, 2010.
[36] I. M. Toke. Stationary distribution of the volume at the best quote in a poisson order book model. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1502.03871, 2015.
[37] P. D. Tuan. Estimation of the spectral parameters of a stationary point process. The Annals of Statistics,
pages 615–627, 1981.

37

[38] M. Uchida and N. Yoshida. Information criteria in model selection for mixing processes. Statistical Inference
for Stochastic Processes, 4(1):73–98, 2001.
[39] N. Yoshida. Polynomial type large deviation inequalities and quasi-likelihood analysis for stochastic differential equations. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 63(3):431–479, 2011.
[40] B. Zheng, F. Roueff, and F. Abergel. Modelling bid and ask prices using constrained hawkes processes:
Ergodicity and scaling limit. SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, 5(1):99–136, 2014.

38

