Robust Estimation of Change-Point
Location

arXiv:1701.02271v1 [math.ST] 9 Jan 2017

Carina Gerstenberger∗

We introduce a robust estimator of the location parameter for the change-point in the
mean based on the Wilcoxon statistic and establish its consistency for L1 near epoch
dependent processes. It is shown that the consistency rate depends on the magnitude
of change. A simulation study is performed to evaluate finite sample properties of the
Wilcoxon-type estimator in standard cases, as well as under heavy-tailed distributions and
disturbances by outliers, and to compare it with a CUSUM-type estimator. It shows that
the Wilcoxon-type estimator is equivalent to the CUSUM-type estimator in standard cases,
but outperforms the CUSUM-type estimator in presence of heavy tails or outliers in the
data.
KEYWORDS: Wilcoxon statistic; change-point estimator; near epoch dependence

1 Introduction
In many applications it can not be assumed that observed data have a constant mean
over time. Therefore, extensive research has been done in testing for change-points in the
mean, see e.g. Giraitis et al. (1996), Csörgö and Horváth (1997), Ling (2007), and others.
A number of papers deal with the problem of estimation of the change-point location.
Bai (1994) estimates the unknown location point for the break in the mean of a linear
process by the method of least squares. Antoch et al. (1995) and Csörgö and Horváth
(1997) established the consistency rates for CUSUM-type estimators for independent
data, while Csörgö and Horváth (1997) considered weakly dependent variables. Horváth
and Kokoszka (1997) established consistency of CUSUM-type estimators of location of
change-point for strongly dependent variables. Kokoszka and Leipus (1998, 2000) discussed CUSUM-type estimators for dependent observations and ARCH models. In spite
of numerous studies on testing for changes and estimating for change-points, however,
just a few procedures are robust against outliers in the data. In a recent work Dehling et
al. (2015) address the robustness problem of testing for change-points by introducing a
Wilcoxon-type test which is applicable under short-range dependence (see also Dehling
et al. (2013) for the long-range dependence case).
In this paper we suggest a robust Wilcoxon-type estimator for the change-point location
based on the idea of Dehling et al. (2015) and applicable for L1 near epoch dependent
*

Date: January 9, 2017.
Fakultät für Mathematik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germany

1

processes. The Wilcoxon change-point test statistic is defined as
Wn (k) =

k
n
X
X

(1{Xi ≤Xj } − 1/2)

(1)

i=1 j=k+1

and counts how often an observation of the second part of the sample, Xk+1 , . . . , Xn ,
exceeds an observation of the first part, X1 , . . . , Xk . Assuming a change in mean happens
at the time k ∗ , the absolute value of Wn (k ∗ ) is expected to be large. Hence, the Wilcoxontype estimator for the location of the change-point,
n
o
k̂ = min k : max Wn (l) = Wn (k) ,
(2)
1≤l<n

can be defined as the smallest k for which the Wilcoxon test statistic Wn (k) attains
its maximum. Since the Wilcoxon test statistic is a rank-type statistic, outliers in the
observed data can not affect the test statistic significantly. On the contrary, the CUSUMtype test statistic
k
n
1X
1X
Cn (k) =
Xi −
Xi ,
k
n
i=1

i=1

which compares the difference of the sample mean of the first k observations and the
sample mean over all observations, can be significantly disturbed by a single outlier.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the consistency and
the rates of the estimator k̂ in (2). Section 3 contains the simulation study. Section 4
provides useful properties of the Wilcoxon test statistic and the proof of the main result.
Sections 5 and 6 contain some auxiliary results.

2 Definitions, assumptions and main results
Assume the random variables X1 , . . . , Xn follow the change-point model
(
Yi + µ,
1 ≤ i ≤ k∗
Xi =
Yi + µ + ∆n , k ∗ < i ≤ n,

(3)

where the process (Yj ) is a stationary zero mean short-range dependent process, k ∗
denotes the location of the unknown change-point and µ and µ + ∆n are the unknown
means. We assume that Y1 has a continuous distribution function F with bounded second
derivative and that the distribution functions of Y1 − Yk , k ≥ 1 satisfy
P(x ≤ Y1 − Yk ≤ y) ≤ C|y − x|,

(4)

for all 0 ≤ x ≤ y ≤ 1, where C does not depend on k and x, y. We allow the magnitude
of the change ∆n vary with the sample size n.
Assumption 2.1. a) The change-point k ∗ = [nθ], 0 < θ < 1, is proportional to the
sample size n.

2

b) The magnitude of change ∆n depends on the sample size n, and is such that
∆n → 0,

n∆2n → ∞,

n → ∞.

(5)

Next we specify the assumptions on the underlying process (Yj ). The following definition
introduces the concept of an absolutely regular process which is also known as β-mixing.
Definition 2.1. A stationary process (Zj )j∈Z is called absolutely regular if

∞
− P (A) → 0
βk = sup E sup P A|Fn+k
n≥1

A∈F1n

as k → ∞, where Fab is the σ-field generated by random variables Za , . . . , Zb .
The coefficients βk are called mixing coefficients. For further information about mixing
conditions see Bradley (2002). The concept of absolute regularity covers a wide range of
processes. However, important processes like linear processes or AR processes might not
be absolutely regular. To overcome this restriction, in this paper we discuss functionals
of absolutely regular processes, i.e. instead of focusing on the absolute regular process
(Zj ) itself, we consider process (Yj ) with Yj = f (Zj , Zj−1 , Zj−2 , . . .), where f : RZ → R
is a measurable function. The following near epoch dependence condition ensures that
Yj mainly depends on the near past of (Zj ).
Definition 2.2. We say that stationary process (Yj ) is L1 near epoch dependent (L1
NED) on a stationary process (Zj ) with approximation constants ak , k ≥ 0, if conditional
k ), where G k is the σ-field generated by Z , . . . , Z , have property
expectations E(Y1 |G−k
−k
k
−k
k
) ≤ ak ,
E Y1 − E(Y1 |G−k

k = 0, 1, 2, . . .

and ak → 0, k → ∞.
Note that L1 NED is a special case of more general Lr near epoch dependence, where
k ) r ≤ a , r ≥ 1. L
approximation constants are defined using Lr norm: E Y1 −E(Y1 |G−k
r
k
NED processes are also called r-approximating functionals. In testing problems considered in this paper we allow for heavy-tailed distributions. Hence, we deal with L1 near
epoch dependence, which assumes existence of only the first moment E |Y1 |. The concept of near epoch dependence is applicable e.g. to GARCH(1,1) processes, see Hansen
(1991), and linear processes, see Example 2.1 below. Borovkova et al. (2001) provide
additional examples and information about properties of Lr near epoch dependent process.
P
Example 2.1. Let (Yj ) be a linear process, i.e. Yt = ∞
j=0 ψj Zt−j , where (Zj ) is whitenoise process and the coefficients ψj , j ≥ 0, are absolutely summable. Since (Zj ) is
k measurable for |t − j| ≤ k, we get
stationary and Zt−j is G−k
k
E |Yt − E(Yt |G−k
)| ≤

∞
X

k
|ψj | E |Zt−j − E(Zt−j |G−k
)|

j=k+1

≤2

∞
X
j=k+1

3

|ψj | E |Zt−j | = 2 E |Z1 |

∞
X
j=k+1

|ψj |.

Thus, the
P∞linear process (Yj ) is L1 NED on (Zj ) with approximation constants ak =
2 E |Z1 | j=k+1 |ψj |.
We will assume that the process (Yj ) in (3) is L1 near epoch dependent on some absolutely regular process (Zj ). In addition, we impose the following condition on the decay
of the mixing coefficients βk and approximation constants ak :
∞
X

√

k 2 (βk +

ak ) < ∞.

(6)

k=1

The next theorem states the rates of consistency of the Wilcoxon-type change-point
estimator k̂ given in (2) and the estimator θ̂ = k̂/n of the true location parameter θ for
the change-point k ∗ = [nθ].
Theorem 2.1. Let X1 , . . . , Xn follow the change-point model (3) and Assumption 2.1
be satisfied. Assume that (Yj ) is a stationary zero mean L1 near epoch dependent process
on some absolutely regular process (Zj ) and (6) holds. Then,
 1 
,
∆2n

(7)

 1 
.
n∆2n

(8)

k̂ − k ∗ = OP
and
θ̂ − θ = OP

The rate of consistency of θ̂ in (8) is given by n∆2n . The assumption n∆2n → ∞ in (5)
implies k̂ − k ∗ = oP (k ∗ ) and yields consistency of the estimator: θ̂ →p θ. In particular,

for ∆n ≥ n−1/2+ ,  > 0, the rate of consistency in (8) is n2 : θ̂ − θ = OP n−2 .
The same consistency rate n for the CUSUM-type change-point location estimator
θ̃C = k̃C /n, given by

k̃C = min k : max

1≤i≤n

i
X
j=1


n
n
k
X
i X
kX
Xj −
Xj =
Xj ,
Xj −
n
n
j=1

j=1

(9)

j=1

was established by Antoch et al. (1995) for independent data and by Csörgö and Horváth
(1997) for weakly dependent data.

3 Simulation results
In this simulation study we compare the finite sample properties of the Wilcoxon-type
change-point estimator k̂, given in (2), with the CUSUM-type estimator k̃C , given in (9).
We refer to the Wilcoxon-type change-point estimator by W and to the CUSUM-type
estimator by C.

4

We generate the sample of random variables X1 , . . . , Xn using the model
(
Yi + µ
, 1 ≤ i ≤ k∗
Xi =
Yi + µ + ∆ , k ∗ < i ≤ n

(10)

where Yi = ρYi−1 + i is an AR(1) process. In our simulations we consider ρ = 0.4, which
yields a moderate positive autocorrelation in Xi . The innovations i are generated from
a standard normal distribution and a Student’s t-distribution with 1 degree of freedom.
We consider the time of change k ∗ = [nθ], θ = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, the magnitude of change
∆ = 0.5, 1, 2 and the sample sizes n = 50, 100, 200, 500. All simulation results are based
on 10.000 replications. Note that we report estimation results not for k̂ and k̃C , but
θ̂ = k̂/n and θ̃C = k̃C /n.
Figure 1 contains the histogram based on the sample of 10.000 values of Wilcoxon-type
estimator θ̂ and the CUSUM-type estimator θ̃C , for the model (10) with ∆ = 1, θ = 0.5,
n = 50 and independent standard normal innovations i . Both estimation methods give
very similar histograms.
Table 1 reports the sample mean and the sample standard deviation based on 10.000
values of θ̂ and θ̃C for other choices of parameters ∆ and θ. It shows that performance
of both estimators improves when the sample size n and the magnitude of change ∆ are
rising, and when the change happens in the middle of the sample. In general, Wilcoxontype estimator performs in all experiments as good as the CUSUM-type estimator.
Figure 2 shows the histogram based on 10.000 values of θ̂ and θ̃C , for the model (10) with
t1 -distributed heavy-tailed iid innovations i , ∆ = 1, θ = 0.5 and n = 500. For heavytailed innovations i , both estimators deviate from the true value of the parameter θ more
significantly than under normal innovations. Nevertheless, the Wilcoxon-type estimator
seems to outperform the CUSUM-type estimator.
Figure 3 shows the histogram based on 10.000 values for θ̂ and θ̃C when the data
X1 , . . . , Xn is generated by (10) with ∆ = 1, θ = 0.5, n = 200 and i ∼ NIID(0, 1)
and contains outliers. The outliers are introduced by multiplying observations X[0.2n] ,
X[0.3n] , X[0.6n] and X[0.8n] by the constant M = 50. The histogram shows that the
Wilcoxon-type estimator is rarely affected by the outliers, whereas the CUSUM-type
estimator suffers large distortions.
Table 2 reports the sample mean and the sample standard deviation based on 10.000
values of θ̂ and θ̃C for ∆ = 1 and θ = 0.5 for sample size n = 50, 100, 200, 500 in the case
of the normal, normal with outliers and t1 -distributed innovations. Figures 1, 2 and 3
presents results for n = 50, 200, 500.
In general, we conclude that the Wilcoxon-type change-point location estimator performs
equally well as the CUSUM-type change-point estimator in standard situations, but
outperforms the CUSUM-type estimator in presence of heavy tails and outliers.

5

3500
2500

Frequency

500

1500

3500
2500
1500

Frequency

0

500
0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.8

(a) CUSUM θ̃C

0.4

0.6

0.8

(b) Wilcoxon θ̂

Figure 1: Histogram based on 10.000 values for the Wilcoxon-type estimator θ̂ and the
CUSUM-type estimator θ̃C . Xi follows the model (10) with ∆ = 1, θ = 0.5,
n = 50 and normal innovations i ∼ NIID(0, 1).

∆
0.5

θ
0.25
0.50
0.75

1

0.25
0.50
0.75

2

0.25
0.50
0.75

mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd

n=50
C
W
0.46 0.46
0.21 0.21
0.50 0.50
0.18 0.18
0.54 0.54
0.20 0.20
0.39 0.39
0.18 0.18
0.50 0.50
0.12 0.12
0.61 0.60
0.17 0.17
0.30 0.31
0.10 0.10
0.50 0.50
0.05 0.05
0.69 0.68
0.09 0.10

n=100
C
W
0.43 0.44
0.20 0.20
0.50 0.50
0.16 0.16
0.57 0.56
0.20 0.20
0.35 0.35
0.14 0.14
0.50 0.50
0.09 0.09
0.65 0.65
0.15 0.15
0.28 0.29
0.06 0.07
0.50 0.50
0.03 0.03
0.72 0.71
0.06 0.07

n=200
C
W
0.40 0.40
0.18 0.18
0.50 0.50
0.13 0.13
0.61 0.61
0.18 0.18
0.31 0.31
0.10 0.10
0.50 0.50
0.05 0.05
0.69 0.69
0.10 0.10
0.27 0.28
0.04 0.04
0.50 0.50
0.02 0.01
0.73 0.73
0.04 0.04

n=500
C
W
0.34 0.34
0.13 0.13
0.50 0.50
0.08 0.08
0.66 0.66
0.13 0.13
0.28 0.28
0.05 0.06
0.50 0.50
0.02 0.02
0.72 0.72
0.05 0.06
0.26 0.26
0.02 0.02
0.50 0.50
0.01 0.01
0.74 0.74
0.02 0.02

Table 1: Sample mean and the sample standard deviation based on 10.000 values of θ̂
and θ̃C . Xi follows the model (10) with normal innovations i ∼ NIID(0, 1).

6

2000
1500
0

500

1000

Frequency

600
400

Frequency

200
0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.0

1.0

0.2

(a) CUSUM θ̃C

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

(b) Wilcoxon θ̂

3000
2000

Frequency

1000

1500
0

0

500

Frequency

2500

4000

Figure 2: Histogram of CUSUM-type estimator θ̃C and Wilcoxon-type estimator θ̂ based
on 10.000 values of θ̃C and θ̂ for the model (10) with iid t1 -distributed innovations, ∆ = 1, θ = 0.5 and n = 500.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.8

(a) CUSUM θ̃C

0.4

0.6

0.8

(b) Wilcoxon θ̂

Figure 3: Histogram based on 10.000 values of θ̃C and θ̂ for the model (10) with normal
innovations i ∼ NIID(0, 1), ∆ = 1, θ = 0.5, n = 200 and outliers.
Innovations
normal
t1
normal with
outliers

mean
sd
mean
sd
mean
sd

n=50
C
W
0.50 0.50
0.12 0.12
0.52 0.50
0.23 0.20
0.50 0.49
0.17 0.13

n=100
C
W
0.50 0.50
0.09 0.09
0.51 0.50
0.24 0.19
0.50 0.50
0.16 0.09

n=200
C
W
0.50 0.50
0.05 0.05
0.51 0.50
0.24 0.17
0.50 0.50
0.15 0.06

n=500
C
W
0.50 0.50
0.02 0.02
0.50 0.50
0.25 0.14
0.51 0.50
0.09 0.02

Table 2: Sample mean and the sample standard deviation of θ̂ and θ̃C based on 10.000
replications for the normal, normal with outliers and t1 -distributed innovations,
∆ = 1 and θ = 0.5.

7

4 Useful properties of the Wilcoxon test statistic and proof of
Theorem 2.1
This section presents some useful properties of the Wilcoxon test statistic and the proof
of Theorem 2.1.
Throughout the paper without loss of generality, we assume that µ = 0 and ∆n > 0. We
let C denote a generic non-negative constant, which may vary from time to time. The
notation an ∼ bn means that two sequences an and bn of real numbers have property
an /bn → c, as n → ∞, where c 6= 0 is a constant. kgk∞ = supx |g(x)| stands for the
d

supremum norm of function g. By −
→ we denote the convergence in distribution, by →p
d

the convergence in probability and by = we denote equality in distribution.

4.1 U-statistics and Hoeffding decomposition
The Wilcoxon test statistic Wn (k) in (1) under the change-point model (3) can be
decomposed into two terms
Wn (k) =

k
n
X
X

(1{Xi ≤Xj } − 1/2)

i=1 j=k+1

(P P
Pk Pn
n
k
j=k∗ +1 1{Yj <Yi ≤Yj +∆n } ,
j=k+1 (1{Yi ≤Yj } − 1/2) +
i=1
= Pk Pn
Pki=1
∗ Pn
i=1
j=k+1 1{Yj <Yi ≤Yj +∆n } ,
i=1
j=k+1 (1{Yi ≤Yj } − 1/2) +
(
Un (k) + Un (k, k ∗ ), 1 ≤ k ≤ k ∗
=
Un (k) + Un (k ∗ , k), k ∗ < k ≤ n,

1 ≤ k ≤ k∗
k ∗ < k ≤ n,
(11)

where
Un (k) =

k
n
X
X

(1{Yi ≤Yj } − 1/2),

1 ≤ k ≤ n,

(12)

1 ≤ k ≤ k∗ ,

(13)

k ∗ < k ≤ n.

(14)

i=1 j=k+1
∗

Un (k, k ) =

k
n
X
X

1{Yj <Yi ≤Yj +∆n } ,

i=1 j=k∗ +1
∗

∗

Un (k , k) =

k
n
X
X

1{Yj <Yi ≤Yj +∆n } ,

i=1 j=k+1

The first term Un (k) depends only on the underlying process (Yj ), while the terms
Un (k, k ∗ ) and Un (k ∗ , k) depend in addition on the change-point time k ∗ and the magnitude ∆n of the change in the mean.
The term Un (k) can be written as a second order U-statistic
Un (k) =

k
n
X
X

(h (Yi , Yj ) − Θ) ,

i=1 j=k+1

8

1 ≤ k ≤ n,

with the kernel function h (x, y) = 1{x≤y} and the constant Θ = E h (Y10 , Y20 ) = 1/2,
where Y10 and Y20 are independent copies of Y1 .
We apply to Un (k) Hoeffding’s decomposition of U-statistics established by Hoeffding
(1948). It allows to write the kernel function as the sum
h (x, y) = Θ + h1 (x) + h2 (y) + g (x, y) ,

(15)

where

h1 (x) = E h x, Y20 − Θ = 1/2 − F (x) ,


h2 (y) = E h Y10 , y − Θ = F (y) − 1/2,

g (x, y) = h (x, y) − h1 (x) − h2 (y) − Θ.
By definition of h1 and h2 , E h1 (Y1 ) = 0 and E h2 (Y1 ) = 0. Hence, E g(x, Y1 ) =
E g(Y1 , y) = 0, i.e. g(x, y) is a degenerate kernel.
The term Un (k, k ∗ ) in (13) (and Un (k ∗ , k) in (14)) can be written as a U-statistic
∗

Un (k, k ) =

k
n
X
X

hn (Yi , Yj ),

1 ≤ k ≤ k∗ ,

i=1 j=k∗ +1

with the kernel hn (x, y) = h(x, y + ∆n ) − h(x, y) = 1{y<x≤y+∆n } . The Hoeffding decomposition allows to write the kernel as
hn (x, y) = Θ∆n + h1,n (x) + h2,n (y) + gn (x, y) ,

(16)

with Θ∆n = E 1{Y20 ≤Y10 ≤Y20 +∆n } ,

h1,n (x) = E hn x, Y20 − Θ∆n = F (x) − F (x − ∆n ) − Θ∆n ,

h2,n (y) = E hn Y10 , y − Θ∆n = F (y + ∆n ) − F (y) − Θ∆n ,
gn (x, y) = hn (x, y) − h1,n (x) − h2,n (y) − Θ∆n .
By assumption the distribution function F of Y1 has bounded probability density f and
bounded second derivative. This allows to specify the asymptotic behaviour of Θ∆n , as
n → ∞,

Θ∆n = E 1{Y20 <Y10 ≤Y20 +∆n } = P Y20 < Y10 ≤ Y20 + ∆n
Z

Z
2
=
(F (y + ∆n ) − F (y)) dF (y) = ∆n
f (y) dy + o(1) .
(17)
R

R

Note that E h1,n (Y1 ) = 0 and E h2,n (Y1 ) = 0. Therefore, gn (x, y) is a degenerate kernel,
i.e. E gn (x, Y1 ) = E gn (Y1 , y) = 0. Furthermore, kh1,n k∞ → 0, as n → ∞, since
|h1,n (x)| ≤ | F(x) − F(x − ∆n ) − Θ∆n | ≤ C∆n + Θ∆n ≤ C∆n ,
where C > 0 is a constant and ∆n → 0, as n → ∞.

9

(18)

4.2 1-continuity property of kernel functions h and hn
Asymptotic properties of near epoch dependent processes (Yj ) introduced in Section 2
are well investigated in the literature, see e.g. Borovkova et al. (2001). In the context
of change-point estimation we are interested in asymptotic properties of the variables
h(Yi , Yj ), where h(x, y) = 1{x≤y} is the Wilcoxon kernel, and also in properties of the
terms h1 (Yj ) and h1,n (Yj ) of the Hoeffding decomposition of the kernels in (15) and (16).
We will need to show that the variables (h(Yi , Yj )), (h1 (Yj )) and (h1,n (Yj )) retain some
properties of (Yj ). To derive them, we will use the fact that the kernels h in (15) and
hn in (16) satisfy the 1-continuity condition introduced by Borovkova et al. (2001).
Definition 4.1. We say that the kernel h (x, y) is 1-continuous with respect to a distribution of a stationary process (Yj ) if there exists a function φ() ≥ 0,  ≥ 0 such that
φ () → 0,  → 0, and for all  > 0 and k ≥ 1



E h (Y1 , Yk ) − h Y10 , Yk 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ φ () ,
(19)
1



E h (Yk , Y1 ) − h Yk , Y10 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ φ () ,
1
and



h Y1 , Y20 − h Y10 , Y20 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ φ () ,
1




0
0
0
E h Y2 , Y1 − h Y2 , Y1 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ φ () ,
1
E



(20)

where Y20 is an independent copy of Y1 and Y10 is any random variable that has the same
distribution as Y1 .
For a univariate function g(x) we define the 1-continuity property as follows.
Definition 4.2. The function g (x) is 1-continuous with respect to a distribution of a
stationary process (Yj ) if there exists a function φ() ≥ 0,  ≥ 0 such that φ () → 0,
 → 0, and for all  > 0



E g (Y1 ) − g Y10 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ φ () ,
(21)
1

where Y10 is any random variable that has the same distribution as Y1 .
Corollary 4.1 below establishes the 1-continuity of functions h(x, y) = 1{x≤y} and hn (x, y) =
1{y<x≤y+∆n } , n ≥ 1. For hn , n ≥ 1 we assume that (19) and (20) hold with the same
φ() for all n ≥ 1. We start the proof by showing the 1-continuity of the more general
kernel function h(x, y; t) = 1{x−y≤t} .
Lemma 4.1. Let (Yj ) be a stationary process, Y1 have distribution function F which
has bounded first and second derivative and Y1 − Yk , k ≥ 1 satisfy (4). Then the function
h(x, y; t) = 1{x−y≤t} is 1-continuous with respect to the distribution function of (Yj ).

10

Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of 1-continuity of the kernel function h(x, y; t) =
1{|x−y|≤t} given in Example 2.2 of Borovkova et al. (2001).
Note that 1{Y1 −Yk ≤t} − 1{Y10 −Yk ≤t} = 0 if Y1 − Yk ≤ t and Y10 − Yk ≤ t; or Y1 − Yk > t and
Y10 − Yk > t. The difference is not zero if Y1 − Yk ≤ t and Y10 − Yk > t; or Y1 − Yk > t and
Y10 − Yk ≤ t. Let |Y1 − Y10 | ≤ , where  > 0. Then Y1 − Yk < t −  implies Y10 − Yk < t,
and Y1 − Yk > t +  implies Y10 − Yk > t.
Hence, |1{Y1 −Yk ≤t} − 1{Y10 −Yk ≤t} |1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ 1{t−≤Y1 −Yk ≤t+} . Therefore,
1

E



1{Y1 −Yk ≤t} − 1



{Y10 −Yk ≤t}

1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ P (t −  ≤ Y1 − Yk ≤ t + ) ≤ C1 , (22)
1

because of assumption (4). Similar argument yields


E 1{Yk −Y1 ≤t} − 1{Yk −Y10 ≤t} 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ P (t −  ≤ Y1 − Yk ≤ t + ) ≤ C1 ,
1


E 1{Y1 −Y20 ≤t} − 1{Y10 −Y20 ≤t} 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ P(t −  ≤ Y1 − Y20 ≤ t + ) ≤ C2 ,
1


E 1{Y20 −Y1 ≤t} − 1{Y20 −Y10 ≤t} 1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ P(t −  ≤ Y1 − Y20 ≤ t + ) ≤ C2 ,
1

where Y20 is an independent copy of Y1 , noting that by the mean value theorem and
|d F(y)/dy| ≤ C,
Z
0
P(t −  ≤ Y1 − Y2 ≤ t + ) =
(F (y + t + ) − F (y + t − )) dF (y)
R
Z
≤ C f (y)dy = C2 .
R

These bounds imply (19) and (20) with φ() = C, where C does not depend on t. This
completes the proof.
Corollary 4.1. Assume that assumptions of Lemma 4.1 are satisfied. Then,
(i) Function h(x, y) = 1{x≤y} is 1-continuous with respect to the distribution function
of (Yj ).
(ii) Function hn (x, y) = 1{y<x≤y+∆n } is 1-continuous with respect to the distribution
function of (Yj ).
Proof. (i) follows from Lemma 4.1, noting that 1{x≤y} = h(x, y; 0).
(ii) We need to verify (19) and (20). Write hn (x, y) = h(x, y) − h(x, y + ∆n ) = 1{x≤y} −
1{x≤y+∆n } . Then by (22),


E |hn (Y1 , Yk ) − hn (Y10 , Yk )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ E |1{Y1 ≤Yk } − 1{Y10 ≤Yk } |1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤}
1
1

+ E |1{Y1 ≤Yk +∆n } − 1{Y10 ≤Yk +∆n } |1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ C.
1

11


Similar argument yields E |hn (Yk , Y1 ) − hn (Yk , Y10 )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ C,
1


E |hn (Y1 , Y20 ) − hn (Y10 , Y20 )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ C,
1

0
0
0
E |hn (Y2 , Y1 ) − hn (Y2 , Y1 )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ C.
1
Hence, (19) and (20) hold with φ() = C.
Note that condition (4) is satisfied if variables (Y1 , Yk ), k ≥ 1, have joint probability
densities that are bounded by the same constant C for all k. If the joint density does
not exist, for examples of verification of condition (4) see pages 4315, 4316 of Borovkova
et al. (2001).
Lemma 2.15 of Borovkova et al. (2001) yields that if a general function h(x, y) is 1continuous, i.e. satisfies (19) and (20) with function φ() then E h (x, Y20 ), where Y20 is
an independent copy of Y1 , is also 1-continuous and satisfies the condition in (21) with
the same function φ(). Hence, hi (x) and hi,n (x), i = 1, 2 are 1-continuous and satisfy
the condition in (21) with φ() = C.
Next we turn to 1-continuity property of g(x, y). By Hoeffding decomposition (15),
g(x, y) = h(x, y) − Θ − h1 (x) − h2 (y). Since h(x, y), h1 (x) and h2 (x) in (15) are 1continuous and satisfy (19), (20) and (21) with the same function φ() = C, then
g(x, y) is also 1-continuous with function φ() = C. Indeed,


E |g(Y1 , Yk ) − g(Y10 , Yk )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤}
1




0
≤ E |h(Y1 , Yk ) − h(Y1 , Yk )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} +E |h1 (Y1 ) − h1 (Y10 )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ 2φ()
1

1

and similarly, E |g(Yk , Y1 ) − g(Yk , Y10 )|1{|Y1 −Y 0 |≤} ≤ 2φ().
1
Using the same argument, it follows that the function gn (x, y) = hn (x, y) − Θ∆n −
h1,n (x) − h2,n (x) in the Hoeffding decomposition (16) is also 1-continuous and satisfies
(19), (20) with φ() = C.


4.3 NED property of (h1 (Yj )) and (h1,n (Yj ))
In Proposition 2.11 of Borovkova et al. (2001) it is shown that if (Yj ) is L1 NED on a
stationary absolutely regular process (Zj ) with approximation constants ak and g(x) is
1-continuous √
with function
√ φ, then (g(Yj )) is also L1 NED on (Zj ) with approximation
constants φ 2ak + 2 2ak ||g||∞ .
Thus, the processes (h1 (Yj )) and (h2 (Yj )) in (15) and (h1,n (Yj )) and (h2,n (Yj )) in (16)
√
are L1 NED processes with approximation constants a0k = C ak .
Corollary 3.2 of Wooldridge P
and White (1988) provides a functional central limit theorem for partial sum process ki=1 Ỹi , k ≥ 1, where (Ỹj ) is L2 NED on a strongly mixing

12

process (Z̃j ). To apply this result to (h1 (Yj )) which is L1 NED on (Zj ) with approximation constants a0k , we need to show that (h1 (Yj )) is also L2 NED process. Note that
k ) have property
the variables ηk := h1 (Y1 ) − E(h1 (Y1 )|G−k
E ηk2 = E ηk2 1

1

|ηk |≤a0k − 2



+ E ηk2 1

1



|ηk |>a0k − 2

≤

1

−
a0k 2

q
q
q
4
0
0
E |ηk | + ak E |ηk | ≤ ak + a0k C =: a00k .

The last inequality holds, because by Definition 2.2 of L1 near epoch dependence,
k )| ≤ a0 and because |h (Y )| ≤ 1/2. Therefore the process
E |h1 (Y1 ) − E(h1 (Y1 )|G−k
1 1
k
(h1 (Yj )) is L2 NED on (Zj ) with approximation constant a00k . Since absolute regular
process (Zj ) is strongly mixing process, from Corollary 3.2 of Wooldridge and White
(1988), we obtain


[nt]
1 X
d
h1 (Yi )
−
→ (σW (t))0≤t≤1 ,
n1/2 i=1
0≤t≤1
P
where W (t) is a Brownian motion and σ 2 = ∞
k=−∞ Cov(h1 (Y0 ), h1 (Yk )).
Since h2 (x) = −h1 (x), all properties of (h1 (Yj )) remain valid also for (h2 (Yj )).

4.4 Proof of Theorem 2.1
First we show consistency property |k ∗ −k̂| = oP (k ∗ ) of the estimate k̂ = argmax1≤k≤n |Wn (k)|.
To prove it, we verify that for any  > 0,


(23)
lim P |k ∗ − k̂| ≤ k ∗ = 1.
n→∞

This means that the estimated value k̂ with probability tending to 1 is in a neighbourhood
of the true value k ∗ :

P k̂ ∈ [k ∗ (1 − ), k ∗ (1 + )] → 1.
We will show that as n → ∞,

P
max

k:|k−k∗ |≥k∗


|Wn (k)| < |Wn (k ∗ )| → 1.

(24)

Since |Wn (k ∗ )| ≤ maxk:|k∗ −k|≤k∗ |Wn (k)|, this proves (23).
By (11),
(
Un (k) + Un (k, k ∗ ),
Wn (k) =
Un (k) + Un (k ∗ , k),

1 ≤ k ≤ k∗
k ∗ < k ≤ n.


Theorem 6.1 implies max1≤k≤n |Un (k)| = OP n3/2 and Proposition 5.1 below yields


max ∗ |Un (k, k ∗ ) − k (n − k ∗ ) Θ∆n | = oP n3/2 ,
1≤k≤k


∗
∗
3/2
max
|U
(k
,
k)
−
k
(n
−
k)
Θ
|
=
o
n
.
n
∆n
P
∗
k ≤k≤n

13

Hence,
Wn (k ∗ ) = k ∗ (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n + (Un (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − k ∗ (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n ) + Un (k ∗ )
= k ∗ (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n + OP (n3/2 ),
max

|Wn (k)| ≤ (1 − )k ∗ (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n + OP (n3/2 ),

max

|Wn (k)| ≤ k ∗ (n − (1 + )k ∗ )Θ∆n + OP (n3/2 ).

1≤k≤k∗ (1−)
(1+)k∗ ≤k≤n

Thus,
|Wn (k ∗ )| −

max

k:|k∗ −k|≥k∗

|Wn (k)| ≥ δn + OP (n3/2 ),

where δn = k ∗ min(n − k ∗ , k ∗ )Θ∆n .
√
√
By definition k ∗ = [nθ] ∼ nθ, and by (17) and (5), nΘ∆n ∼ c n∆n → ∞. Hence,
δn−1 = o(n−3/2 ) and δn + OP (n3/2 ) = δn (1 + OP (n3/2 δn−1 )) = δn (1 + oP (1)) which
proves (24).
Next we establish the rate of convergence in (7), k ∗ − k = OP (1/∆2n ). Set a(n) =
Then for fixed M > 0, a(n) → ∞, as n → ∞. We will verify that


lim P |k ∗ − k̂| ≤ a(n) → 1,
as M → ∞,

M
.
∆2n

n→∞

which implies (7). As in (24), we prove this by showing


lim P
max
|Wn (k)| < |Wn (k ∗ )| → 1,
n→∞

k:|k−k∗ |≥a(n)

as M → ∞.

(25)

Define Vk := Wn2 (k) − Wn2 (k ∗ ). If |Wn (k) | attains its maximum at k 0 , it is easy to see
that Vk attains its maximum at the same k 0 . Hence, k̂ = min{k : max1≤l≤n |Wn (l)| =
|Wn (k)|} = min{k : max1≤l≤n Vl = Vk }. Thus, instead of (25) it remains to show that


lim P
max
Vk < 0 → 1,
M → ∞.
(26)
n→∞

k:|k−k∗ |≥a(n)

Define k̃ := min{k : |k − k ∗ | ≤ k ∗ ; Vk = maxnα≤l≤nβ Vl }. Since by (23) k̂ is a consistent
estimator of k ∗ , it holds limn→∞ P(k̂ = k̃) = 1.
So, in the proof of (26) it suffices to consider max over k, such that |k − k ∗ | ≤ k ∗ ,
|k − k ∗ | ≥ a(n), which corresponds to (1 − )k ∗ ≤ k ≤ k ∗ − a(n) and k ∗ + a(n) < k ≤
(1 + )k ∗ .
Let us start with (1 − )k ∗ ≤ k ≤ k ∗ − a(n). Since k ∗ − k > 0, relation (26) holds for
such k, if
lim P

n→∞




Vk
<
0
→ 1,
(1−)k∗ ≤k≤k∗ −a(n) (n(k ∗ − k))2
max

14

M → ∞.

(27)

Note that
−Vk
Wn2 (k ∗ ) − Wn2 (k)
=
(n(k ∗ − k))2
(n(k ∗ − k))2


Wn (k ∗ ) − Wn (k) 2
Wn (k ∗ ) − Wn (k) Wn (k ∗ )
=−
+
2
.
n(k ∗ − k)
n(k ∗ − k)
n(k ∗ − k)

(28)

By (11), Wn (k) = Un (k) + Un (k, k ∗ ). Then,
Wn (k ∗ ) − Wn (k)
n − k∗
=
Θ∆n + δ1,k + δ2,k ,
n(k ∗ − k)
n
where
δ1,k =

Un (k ∗ ) − Un (k)
,
n(k ∗ − k)

δ2,k =

Un (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − Un (k, k ∗ ) n − k ∗
−
Θ∆n .
n(k ∗ − k)
n

Observe that by (17), Θ∆n ∼ c∗ ∆n , c∗ > 0, and k ∗ /n → θ. Therefore, (n − k ∗ )/nΘ∆n ∼
c0 ∆n , where c0 = (1 − θ)c∗ . Moreover, max1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) |δi,k | = oP (∆n ), i = 1, 2, by (47)
and (48) of Lemma 5.4. Hence,


Wn (k ∗ ) − Wn (k) 2
Wn (k ∗ ) − Wn (k)
= c0 ∆n (1 + oP (1)),
= c20 ∆2n (1 + oP (1)).
n(k ∗ − k)
n(k ∗ − k)
(29)
In turn,
Wn (k ∗ )
Un (k ∗ , k ∗ )
Un (k ∗ )
=
+
n(k ∗ − k)
n(k ∗ − k)
n(k ∗ − k)
and

δ3,k
Un (k ∗ , k ∗ )
k ∗ (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n
=
+
,
n
n
n
where δ3,k = Un (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − k ∗ (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n . By Proposition 5.1, max1≤k≤k∗ δ3,k /n =
oP (n1/2 ). Since
k ∗ (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n
∼ k ∗ c0 ∆n ∼ θc0 n∆n
n
√
and n = o(n∆n ), this implies
Un (k ∗ , k ∗ )
= k ∗ c0 ∆n (1 + oP (1)).
n
Next, by Theorem 6.1 below, Un (k ∗ ) = OP (n3/2 ), and hence, Un (k ∗ )/n = OP (n1/2 ).
Therefore, Wn (k ∗ )/n = k ∗ c0 ∆n (1 + oP (1)). Hence, for (1 − )k ∗ ≤ k ≤ k ∗ − a(n),
k ∗ c0 ∆n (1 + oP (1))
1
Wn (k ∗ )
=
≥ c0 ∆n (1 + oP (1)).
n(k ∗ − k)
k∗ − k


(30)

Using (29) and (30) in (28), it follows
−

2

Vk
2 2 2
2 2
c
∆
(1
+
o
(1))
−
c
∆
(1
+
o
(1))
≥
−
1
(c0 ∆n )2 (1 + oP (1)) > 0.
≥
P
P
0 n
(n(k ∗ − k))2
 0 n


15

This proves (27). Similar argument yields


lim P
max
Vk < 0 → 1,
n→∞

M → ∞,

k∗ +a(n)≤k≤k∗ (1+)

which completes the proof of (26) and the theorem.



5 Auxiliary results
This section contains auxiliary results used in the proof of Theorem 2.1.
We establish asymptotic properties of the quantities Un (k), Un (k, k ∗ ) and Un (k ∗ , k)
defined in (12)-(14) and appearing in the decomposition (11) of Wn (k).
The following lemma derives a Hájek-Rényi type inequality for L1 NED random variables.
Lemma 5.1. Let (Yj ) be a stationary L1 near epoch dependent process on some absolutely regular process (Zj ), satisfying (6). Assume that E Yj = 0 and |Yj | ≤ K ≤ ∞ a.s.
for some K ≥ 0. Then, for all fixed  > 0, for all 1 ≤ m ≤ n,

P


k
1 X
1 C
max
Yi >  ≤ 2 √ ,
m≤k≤n k
 m

(31)

i=1

where C > 0 does not depend on m, n, .
Proof. To prove (31), we use the Hájek-Rényi type inequality of Theorem 6.3 established
in Kokoszka and Leipus (2000),
2

 P



X
X
2 X
2

m
k
k
n
1 X
1
1
1
max
Yi +
−
E
Yi
Yi >  ≤ 2 E
m≤k≤n k
m
(k + 1)2 k 2
i=1
i=1
i=1
k=m

 X
n
k
n
X
X
1
1
2
. (32)
+2
E |Yk+1 |
E Yk+1
Yj +
2
(k + 1)
(k + 1)2
j=1

k=m

First we bound E
for i, j ≥ 0

Pk

i=1 Yi

2

k=m

. Under assumptions of this lemma, by Lemma 6.1 below,

|Cov (Yi , Yi+j )| = |E (Yi Yi+j )| ≤ 4Kab j c + 2K 2 βb j c ≤ C(ab j c + βb j c ).
3

3

3

By stationarity of (Yj ),
|E (Yi Yj )| = |Cov (Yi , Yj )| = Cov Y0 , Y|i−j|

16



.

3

(33)

Hence,

E

k
X

Yi

2

=

i=1

k
X

k
X

E (Yi Yj ) ≤

i,j=1

Cov Y0 , Y|i−j|



i,j=1
k
X

≤C

(ab |i−j| c + βb |i−j| c ) ≤ C
3

i,j=1

3

k X
∞
X

(ab k c + βb k c ) ≤ Ck,

i=1 k=0

3

3

by (33) and (6). Since |Yj | ≤ K, then
k
k
k


 X

 X
2 1/2
X
√
E |Yk+1 |
Yj ≤ K E
Yj ≤ K E
Yi
≤ C k.
j=1

j=1

i=1

Using these bounds in (32) together with
1
1
≤ 2,
2
(k + 1)
k

1
1
4
1 + 2k
− 2 ≤
≤ 3,
2
2
2
(k + 1)
k
(k + 1) k
k

we obtain (31):
2



 P




k
n
n
X
X
1 X
1
1
1
C
max
Yi >  ≤ C
+
+
≤√ .
2
3/2
m≤k≤n k
m
k
m
k
i=1
k=m
k=m

The next lemma establishes asymptotic bounds of the sums
(1)
Sk

=

k
X

(2)
Sk

h1,n (Yi ) ,

=

i=1

k
X

h2,n (Yj ) .

(34)

j=1

Lemma 5.2. Assume that (Yj ) is a stationary zero mean L1 near epoch dependent process on some absolutely regular process (Zj ) and (6) holds. Furthermore, let Assumption
(i)
2.1 be satisfied and Sk , i = 1, 2, be as in (34). Then
(i)

max n−1/2 Sk

1≤k≤n

= oP (1) ,

i = 1, 2.

(35)

Proof.PTo show (35) for i = 1, we will use the inequality given in Theorem 6.2. Define
Sk = ki=1 n−1/2 h1,n (Yi ), k ≥ 1, and set S0 = 0. We need to evaluate E(Sl − Sk )4 for
1 ≤ k < l ≤ n. Note that
4

E (Sl − Sk ) = n

−2

E

l
X

4

h1,n (Yi )

=n

−2

E

l−k
X
i=1

i=k+1

17

4

h1,n (Yi ) ,

where the last equality holds because (h1,n (Yj )) is a stationary process. Since (h1,n (Yj )) is
L1 NED on an absolutely regular process, see Section 4.3, E h1,n (Y0 ) = 0 and |h1,n (x)| ≤
C∆n by (18), then by Lemma 6.1 and the comment below
l−k
X

E

4

h1,n (Yi )

≤ C(l − k)2 ∆2n ,

i=1

where C does not depend on l, k or n. Thus,
C(l − k)2 ∆2n
1
1
= 4
P(|Sl − Sk | ≥ λ) ≤ 4 E |Sl − Sk |4 ≤
4
2
λ
λ n
λ

 X
l

2
un,i

,

i=k+1

where un,i = C 1/2 ∆n n−1 . Hence, Sj satisfies assumption (53) of Theorem 6.2 with
β = 4, α = 2. Therefore, by (54), for any fixed  > 0, as n → ∞,

P

max n

−1/2

1≤k≤n


 n
2
K X
KC∆2n
≥ ≤ 4
→ 0,
un,i =

4

(1)
Sk

i=1

since ∆n → 0. The proof of (35) for i = 2 follows using a similar argument as in the
proof for i = 1.
Proposition 5.1. Assume that (Yj ) is L1 near epoch dependent process on some absolutely regular process (Zj ) and (6) holds. Furthermore, let Assumption 2.1 be satisfied.
Then
max n−3/2 Un (k, k ∗ ) − k (n − k ∗ ) Θ∆n = oP (1)

(36)

max n−3/2 Un (k ∗ , k) − k ∗ (n − k) Θ∆n = oP (1) ,

(37)

1≤k≤k∗

and
k∗ ≤k≤n

where Θ∆n is the same as in (17).
Proof. By the Hoeffding decomposition (16),
hn (x, y) − Θ∆n = h1,n (x) + h2,n (y) + gn (x, y) .
Hence,
∗

∗

Un (k, k ) − k(n − k )Θ∆n =

n
k
X
X

h1,n (Yi ) + h2,n (Yj ) + gn (Yi , Yj )



i=1 j=k∗ +1
∗

= (n − k )

k
X

h1,n (Yi ) + k

n
X
j=k∗ +1

i=1

18

h2,n (Yj ) +

n
k
X
X
i=1 j=k∗ +1

gn (Yi , Yj ) .

Denote
Un(g) (k, k ∗ )

=

∗

k
n
X
X
i=1

Un(g) (k ∗ , k)

gn (Yi , Yj ) ,

=

j=k∗ +1

k
n
X
X

gn (Yi , Yj ) .

(38)

i=1 j=k+1

Since |n − k ∗ | ≤ n, k ∗ ≤ n and

Pn

i=k∗ +1 h2,n (Yj )

(2)

(2)

= Sn − Sk∗ , then



(2)
(1)
Un (k, k ∗ ) − k(n − k ∗ )Θ∆n ≤ n Sk + Sn(2) + Sk∗ + Un(g) (k, k ∗ ) ,


(1)
(2)
Un (k ∗ , k) − k ∗ (n − k)Θ∆n ≤ n Sk∗ + Sn(2) + Sk
+ Un(g) (k ∗ , k) ,
(i)

where Sk , i = 1, 2 are defined in (34). Therefore,
max n−3/2 Un (k, k ∗ ) − k(n − k ∗ )Θ∆n


(2)
(1)
≤ max n−1/2 Sk + Sn(2) + Sk∗ + max ∗ n−3/2 Un(g) (k, k ∗ ) . (39)

1≤k≤k∗

1≤k≤k

1≤k≤n

The degenerate kernel gn is bounded and 1-continuous, see Subsections 4.1 and 4.2.
Thus, by Proposition 6.1 below,
max n−3/2 Un(g) (k, k ∗ )

1≤k≤k∗

≤ max n
1≤k≤n

−3/2

k
n
X
X

∗

gn (Yi , Yj ) + max ∗ n

−3/2

1≤k≤k

i=1 j=k+1

k
k
X
X

gn (Yi , Yj ) = oP (1). (40)

i=1 j=k+1

Similar argument implies
max n−3/2 Un(g) (k ∗ , k) = oP (1).

k∗ <k≤n

Using in (39) the bounds (40) and (35) of Lemma 5.2 we obtain
max n−3/2 Un (k, k ∗ ) − k(n − k ∗ )Θ∆n = oP (1)

1≤k≤k∗

which proves (36). The proof of (37) follows using similar argument.
Denote
Ũn(g) (k) =

k
n
X
X

g(Yi , Yj ).

(41)

i=1 j=k+1

Lemma 5.3. Assume that (Yj ) is L1 near epoch dependent process on some absolutely
regular process (Zj ) and (6) holds. Furthermore, let Assumption 2.1 be satisfied and let

19

(g)

(g)

(g)

a(n) = M/∆2n , M > 0, and Ũn (k), Un (k, k ∗ ) and Un (k ∗ , k) are defined as in (41),
(38). Then there exists C > 0 such that for any  > 0,

P

max

k:|k−k∗ |≥a(n)


P

max

1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)


P

max

k∗ +a(n)≤k≤n


(g)
Ũn (k)
C  n2
1
>

≤
+
,
k∗ − k
2 a(n) n


(g)
Un (k, k ∗ )
> ≤
k∗ − k

(g)
Un (k ∗ , k)
> ≤
k − k∗

(42)

C  n2
1
+
,
2 a(n) n

(43)

C  n2
1
+
,
2 a(n) n

where C does not depend on , n and a(n).
Proof. Recall {k : |k − k ∗ | ≥ a(n)} = {k ≤ k ∗ − a(n)} ∪ {k ≥ k ∗ + a(n)}. We consider
only the case max1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) since the proof for maxk∗ +a(n)≤k≤n is similar.
(g)

(g)

(g)

Proof of (42). Define Rk = Ũn (k) − Ũn (k − 1), k ≥ 1, Ũn (0) = 0 and R0 = 0. Then
P
(g)
Ũn (k) = ki=1 Ri . Inequality (55) of Theorem 6.3, applied to the random variables Ri
with ck = 1/(k ∗ − k) yields
2



ρn :=  P


k
X
1
max
Ri > 
1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) k ∗ − k
i=1

k∗ −a(n)

X
1
2
E
R
+
≤ ∗
1
(k − 1)2
k=1

k∗ −a(n)

+2

X
k=1

1
E
∗
(k − k − 1)2

1
1
− ∗
E
∗
2
(k − k − 1)
(k − k)2


|Rk+1 |

k
X

k∗ −a(n)


Rj

+

j=1

X
k=1

(k ∗

X
k

2
Ri

i=1

1
2
. (44)
E Rk+1
− k − 1)2

In Subsections 4.1 and 4.2, we showed that kernel function g(x, y) is bounded and 1continuous. Therefore, by Lemma 6.2 below
E

h

(Ũn(g) (k))2

i

=E

X
k

2
Ri

≤ Ck(n − k),

k = 1, . . . , n.

(45)

i=1

Lemma 6.2 also yields

2
(k + 1) − k
2
E Rk+1
= E Ũn(g) (k + 1) − Ũn(g) (k) ≤ n3 C
= Cn,
n2

k = 1, . . . , n. (46)

Then,

E

|Rk+1 |

k
X


Rj


≤

2
E Rk+1

1/2 
E

j=1

k
X
j=1

20

Rj

2 1/2

√ p
≤ C n k(n − k).

1
(k∗ −k−1)2

From (44), (45) and (46), using

−

1
(k∗ −k)2

≤

2
,
(k∗ −k−1)3

we obtain

√ p

k∗ −a(n) 
X
n k(n − k) + n
k(n − k)
n−1
+
+
.
ρn ≤ C
(k ∗ − 1)2
(k ∗ − k − 1)3
(k ∗ − k − 1)2


k=1

Noting that

p

k(n − k) ≤ n, (k ∗ − k − 1)−3 ≤ (k ∗ − k − 1)−2 , it follows
∗


k −a(n)
1
X
n2 
1
n2
≤
C
+
+
.
ρn ≤ C
n
(k ∗ − k − 1)2
n a(n)


k=1

(g)

Proof of (43). It follows a similar line to the proof of (42). Denote R̃k = Un (k, k ∗ ) −
(g)
Un (k − 1, k ∗ ). We verified in Subsections 4.1 and 4.2 that function gn (x, y) is bounded
and 1-continuous. Therefore, by Lemma 6.2 below,
2
X
k
h
i
(g)
∗ 2
E (Un (k, k )) = E
R̃i ≤ Ck(n − k ∗ ),

k = 1, . . . , k ∗

i=1

and

2
2
= E Un(g) (k + 1, k ∗ ) − Un(g) (k, k ∗ )
E R̃k+1
=E

n
 X

2
gn (Yk+1 , Yj ) ≤ C(n − k ∗ ),

k = 1, . . . , k ∗ .

j=k∗ +1

Combining both bounds, we obtain

E

R̃k+1

k
X


R̃j


≤

2
E R̃k+1

1/2 
E

j=1

k
X

R̃j

2 1/2

√
≤ C(n − k ∗ ) k.

j=1

Using the same argument as in the proof of (42), we obtain


1
C 1
n2 
(g)
∗
P
max
U
(k,
k
)
>

≤
+
.
n
2 n a(n)
1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) k ∗ − k
This completes proof of (43) and the lemma.
Lemma 5.4. Assume that (Yj ) is a stationary zero mean L1 near epoch dependent process on some absolutely regular process (Zj ) and (6) holds. Furthermore, let Assumption
2.1 be satisfied and let a(n) = M/∆2n , M > 0. Then, as n → ∞, M → ∞,
(i) For any  > 0,

P

1
n∆n

max

k:|k−k∗ |≥a(n)


Un (k ∗ ) − Un (k)
>  → 0.
k∗ − k

21

(47)

(ii) For any  > 0,


Un (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − Un (k, k ∗ )
1
∗
max
P
− (n − k )Θ∆n >  → 0,
n∆n 1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)
k∗ − k
and


P

1
n∆n

max

k∗ +a(n)≤k≤n

(48)


Un (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − Un (k ∗ , k)
∗
− k Θ∆n >  → 0,
k − k∗

where Θ∆n is the same as in (17).
Proof. Notice that {k : |k − k ∗ | ≥ a(n)} = {k ≤ k ∗ − a(n)} ∪ {k ≥ k ∗ + a(n)}. We
will prove relations (47) and (48) for max1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) . The proof for maxk∗ +a(n)≤k≤n is
similar.
Mn
2
Notice, that a(n) = ∆
2 n = o(M n) since n∆n → ∞ by assumption (5). Therefore, for a
n
fixed M , a(n) = o(k ∗ ) and k ∗ − a(n) > 1 as n → ∞.
(i) Denote
k
X
S̃k =
h1 (Yi ).
i=1

By Hoeffding’s decomposition (15), for k ≤ k ∗ , and using h1 (x) = −h2 (x), it follows
Un (k) =

k
n
X
X


h1 (Yi ) + h2 (Yj ) + g(Yi , Yj )

i=1 j=k+1

= (n − k)

k
X

h1 (Yi ) − k

i=1

n
X

h1 (Yj ) +

k
n
X
X

g(Yi , Yj ) = nS̃k − k S̃n + Ũn(g) (k),

i=1 j=k+1

j=k+1

(g)

where Ũn (k) is defined in (41). Hence,

Un (k ∗ ) − Un (k) = n S̃k∗ − S̃k − (k ∗ − k)S̃n + Ũn(g) (k ∗ ) − Ũn(g) (k) .
Therefore, for 1 ≤ k ≤ k ∗ − a(n),
1 Un (k ∗ ) − Un (k)
n∆n
k∗ − k
(g)

(g)

Ũn (k ∗ )
1 S̃k∗ − S̃k
1 S̃n
1 Ũn (k)
≤
+
+
+
∆n k ∗ − k
∆n n
n∆n a(n)
n∆n k ∗ − k
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

=: ρk + ρk + ρk + ρk .
It suffices to show that for any  > 0, as n → ∞, for l = 1, . . . , 4,


(l)
P
max
ρk >  → 0, M → ∞,
1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

which proves (47) for max1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) .

22

(49)

For l = 1, stationarity of the process (h1 (Yj )) yields
∗

n

k
X

S̃k∗ − S̃k =

o n
o
d
h1 (Yi ) , 1 ≤ k ≤ k ∗ − a(n) = S̃k∗ −k , 1 ≤ k ≤ k ∗ − a(n) .

i=k+1

Therefore,
max

1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

(1) d

ρk =

1
∆n

max

k≥1:

k∗ −k≥a(n)

S̃k∗ −k d 1
=
k∗ − k
∆n

max
a(n)≤j≤n

S̃j
.
j

Since (h1 (Yj )) is L1 NED on an absolutely regular process (Zj ), E h1 (Y1 ) = 0 and
|h1 (x)| ≤ 1/2, then by Lemma 5.1,


1
1
max
S̃k = OP p
.
(50)
a(n)≤k≤n k
a(n)
Thus,
max

1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

(1)
ρk


= OP

1
p
∆n a(n)




= OP

1
√
M


= oP (1),

as M → ∞,

which proves (49) for l = 1.
For l = 2, by (50), |S̃n |/n = OP (n−1/2 ). Thus,
(2)
ρk



1 S̃n
1
√
=
= OP
= oP (1),
∆n n
∆n n

√
since ∆n n → ∞ by (5), which proves (49) for l = 2.
To show (49) for l = 3, recall that g(x, y) ≤ 3/2 is 1-continuous, see Subsection 4.3.
Therefore, by Lemma 6.2,

2
(g)
Ũn (k ∗ )
E p
≤ C,
k ∗ (n − k ∗ )
which implies that
(g)

Ũn (k ∗ )
p
= OP (1).
k ∗ (n − k ∗ )
Thus,
(3)
ρk

p ∗

(g)
Ũn (k ∗ )
k (n − k ∗ )
=
= OP
n∆n a(n)
n∆n a(n)




 
1
∆n
1
= OP
= OP
= oP (1),
= OP
∆n a(n)
M
M

which proves (49) for l = 3.

23

as M → ∞,

Finally, for l = 4, by Lemma 5.3,
P



max

1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

(g)

Ũn (k)
>
n∆
n
1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) k ∗ − k
 n2
C
1 C  1
1 
≤
+
=
+
→ 0,
(n∆n )2 a(n) n
2 M
n3 ∆2n



(4)
ρk >  = P

max

as M → ∞,

which proves (49) for l = 4 and completes the proof of (i).
(1)

(2)

(g)

(ii) Let Sk , Sk and Un (k, k ∗ ) be defined as in (34) and (38). By Hoeffding’s decomposition (16), for k ≤ k ∗ ,
∗

∗

Un (k, k ) − k(n − k )Θ∆n =

k
n
X
X


h1,n (Yi ) + h2,n (Yj ) + gn (Yi , Yj )

i=1 j=k∗ +1
∗

= (n − k )

k
X

n
X

h1,n (Yi ) + k

h2,n (Yj ) +

j=k∗ +1

i=1

k
n
X
X

gn (Yi , Yj )

i=1 j=k∗ +1
(1)

(2)

= (n − k ∗ )Sk + k(Sn(2) − Sk∗ ) + Un(g) (k, k ∗ ).
Hence,
Un (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − Un (k, k ∗ ) − (k ∗ − k)(n − k ∗ )Θ∆n
(1)

(1)

(2)

= (n − k ∗ )(Sk∗ − Sk ) + (k ∗ − k)(Sn(2) − Sk∗ ) + Un(g) (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − Un(g) (k, k ∗ ) .
Therefore, for 1 ≤ k ≤ k ∗ − a(n),
1 Un (k ∗ , k ∗ ) − Un (k, k ∗ )
− (n − k ∗ )Θ∆n
n∆n
k∗ − k
(1)

(1)

1 Sk ∗ − Sk
≤
∆n
k∗ − k
(1)

(2)

(2)

(g)

(2)

(g)

Un (k ∗ , k ∗ )
1 Sn − Sk∗
1 Un (k, k ∗ )
+
+
+
∆n
n
n∆n a(n)
n∆n
k∗ − k

(3)

(4)

=: νk + νk + νk + νk .
It suffices to show that for any  > 0, as n → ∞, for l = 1, . . . , 4,


(l)
P
max
νk >  → 0, M → ∞,
1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

(51)

which proves (48) for max1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) . The process (h1,n (Yj )) is stationary and L1 NED
on an absolutely regular process, see Section 4.3. Furthermore, it has zero mean and
(1)
|h1,n | ≤ C∆n by (18). Hence, by the same argument as for ρk , using Lemma 5.1, it
follows
max

1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

(1) d

νk =

1
∆n

(1)

max
a(n)≤j≤n

|Sj |
j

= OP

24




 1 
1
p
= OP √
= oP (1),
M
∆n a(n)

as M → ∞.
(2)
Lemma 5.2 yields max1≤k≤n n−1/2 |Sk | = oP (1). Therefore,
max

1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

(2)
νk ≤ √

1
(2) 
n−1/2 |Sn(2) | + n−1/2 |Sk∗ | = oP (1),
n∆n

√
since n∆n → ∞.
We showed in Subsections 4.1 and 4.2 that the function gn (x, y) is bounded and 1continuous. Hence, by Lemma 6.2,
 (g) ∗ ∗ 2
Un (k , k )
E p
≤ C.
k ∗ (n − k ∗ )
(3)

Therefore, the claim max1≤k≤k∗ −a(n) νk = oP (1) follows using the same argument as in
the proof of (49) for l = 3.
By Lemma 5.3,
P



max

1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)

(4)
νk

(g)

|Un (k, k ∗ )|
max
>
n∆
n
k∗ − k
1≤k≤k∗ −a(n)
 n2
C
1 C  1
1 
≤
+
=
+
→ 0,
(n∆n )2 a(n) n
2 M
n3 ∆2n



> =P

as M → ∞,

which proves (51) for l = 4. This completes the proof of (48) and the lemma.

6 Auxiliary results from the literature
This section contains results from the literature used in the proofs of this paper.
Lemma 6.1 states a correlation and a moment inequality for L1 NED random variables,
established by Borovkova et al. (2001).
Lemma 6.1. (Lemma 2.18 and 2.24, Borovkova et al. (2001)) Let (Yj ) be L1 near epoch
dependent on an absolutely regular, stationary process with mixing coefficients βk and
approximation constants ak , and such that |Y0 | ≤ K ≤ ∞ a.s. Then, for all i, k ≥ 0,
|Cov(Yi , Yi+k )| ≤ 4Kab k c + 2K 2 βb k c .
3

In addition, if

P∞

k=0

k 2 (a

k

3

+ βk ) < ∞, then there exists C > 0 such that for all n ≥ 1
X

n
 4
E
Yi − E Yi
≤ Cn2 .
(52)
i=1

The proof of Lemma 2.24 in Borovkova et al. (2001) shows that (52) holds with C =
C0 K 2 , where C0 > 0 does not depend on K and n.
In Theorem 3 of Dehling et al. (2015) the asymptotic distribution of the Wilcoxon
test statistic for L1 NED random process is obtained. We use this result to show the
consistency of the Wilcoxon-type estimator k̂.

25

Theorem 6.1. (Theorem 3, Dehling et al. (2015)) Assume that (Yj ) is stationary and
L1 near epoch dependent process on some absolutely regular process (Zj ) and (6) holds.
Then,
k
n


X
X
1
d
max
1
−
1/2
→ σ sup |B (τ )| ,
{Y
≤Y
}
i
j
3/2
n 1≤k<n i=1 j=k+1
0≤τ ≤1
where (B (τ ))0≤τ ≤1 is the standard Brownian bridge process,
σ2 =

∞
X

Cov (F (Yk ) , F (Y0 )) ,

k=−∞

and F denotes the distribution function of Yj .
We use the following results from Dehling et al. (2015) to handle the degenerate part
g(x, y) of the Hoeffding decomposition (15).
Proposition 6.1. (Proposition 1, Dehling et al. (2015)) Let (Yj ) be stationary and L1
near epoch dependent on an absolutely regular process with mixing coefficients βk and
approximation constants ak satisfying
∞
X

k (βk +

√

ak + φ(ak )) < ∞,

k=1

with φ() as in Definition 4.1. If g(x, y) is a 1-continuous bounded degenerate kernel,
then, as n → ∞,
k
n
X
X
1
max
g (Yi , Yj ) →p 0.
n3/2 1≤k≤n i=1 j=k+1
Lemma 6.2. (Lemma 1 and 2, Dehling et al. (2015)) Under assumptions of Proposition 6.1 there exists C > 0 such that for all 1 ≤ m ≤ k ≤ n, n ≥ 2,
2
X
k
n
X
g(Yi , Yj ) ≤ Ck(n − k),
E
i=1 j=k+1


k
n
m
n
2
X
X
X
X
k−m
−3
E n
g(Yi , Yj ) −
g(Yi , Yj )
≤C
.
n2
i=1 j=k+1

i=1 j=m+1

In our proofs we use the maximal inequality of Billingsley (1999), which is valid for
stationary/non-stationary and independent/dependent random variables ξi .
Theorem P
6.2. (Theorem 10.2, Billingsley (1999)) Let ξ1 , . . . , ξn be random variables
and Sk = ki=1 ξk , k ≥ 1, S0 = 0 denotes the partial sum. Suppose that there exist
α > 1, β > 0 and non-negative numbers un,1 , . . . , un,n such that

P


|Sj − Si | ≥ λ

≤

26

1
λβ

 X
j
l=i+1

α
un,l

,

(53)

for λ > 0, 0 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ n. Then for all λ > 0, n ≥ 2,
 n
α

K X
un,l ,
P max |Sk | ≥ λ ≤ β
1≤k≤n
λ


(54)

l=1

where K > 0 depends only on α and β.
By the Markov inequality, (53) is satisfied if
β

E |Sj − Si | ≤

 X
j

α
un,l

.

l=i+1

In the proof of Lemma 5.1 we use a Hájek-Rényi type inequality established by Kokoszka
and Leipus (2000).
Theorem 6.3. (Theorem 4.1, Kokoszka and Leipus (2000)) Let X1 , ..., Xn be any random variables with finite second moments and c1 , ..., cn be any non-negative constants.
Then
2

 P


max ck

m≤k≤n

k
X


k
m
n−1
X
X
X
2
2
2
Xi >  ≤ cm
E (Xi Xj )
E (Xi Xj ) +
ck+1 − ck

i=1

i,j=1

+2

n−1
X

i,j=1

k=m

c2k+1 E


|Xk+1 |

k
X
j=1

k=m


Xj

+

n−1
X

2
.
c2k+1 E Xk+1

k=m

(55)

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Herold Dehling, Liudas Giraitis and Isabel Garcia for
valuable discussions. The research was supported by the Collaborative Research Centre 823 Statistical modelling of nonlinear dynamic processes and the Konrad-AdenauerStiftung.

References
Antoch, J., Hušková, M. and Veraverbeke, N. (1995). Change-point problem and bootstrap. J. Nonparametr. Stat. 5, 123-144.
Bai, J. (1994). Least squares estimation of a shift in linear processes. J. Time Series Anal. 15, 453-472.
Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of Probability Measures, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.
Borovkova, S., Burton, R. and Dehling, H. (2001). Limit theorems for functionals of mixing processes
with applications to U-statistics and dimension estimation. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353, 4261-4318.
Bradley, R.C. (2002). Introduction to Strong Mixing Conditions. Kendrick Press, Heber City.

27

Csörgö, M. and Horváth, L. (1997). Limit Theorems in Change-Point Analysis. Wiley, New York.
Dehling, H., Fried, R., Garcia Arboleda, I. and Wendler, M. (2015). Change-point detection under
dependence based on two-sample U-statistics. In: Dawson, D., Kulik, R., Jaye, M. O., Szyszkowicz,
B., Zhao, Y.(Eds.) Asymptotic laws and methods in stochastics. Fields Institute Communication 76,
195-220.
Dehling, H., Rooch, A. and Taqqu, M. S. (2013). Non-parametric change-point tests for long-range
dependent data. Scand. J. Stat. 40, 153-173.
Giraitis, L., Leipus, R. and Surgailis, D. (1996). The change-point problem for dependent observations.
J. Statist. Plann. Inference 53, 297-310.
Hansen, B. E. (1991). GARCH(1,1) processes are near epoch dependent. Econom. Lett. 36, 181-186.
Hoeffding, W. (1948). A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution. Ann. Math. Stat. 19,
293-325.
Horváth, L. and Kokoszka, P. (1997). The effect of long-range dependence on change-point estimators.
J. Statist. Plann. Inference 64, 57-81.
Kokoszka, P. and Leipus, R. (1998). Change-point in the mean of dependent observations. Statist. Probab.
Lett. 40, 385-393.
Kokoszka, P. and Leipus, R. (2000). Change-point estimation in ARCH models. Bernoulli 6, 513-539.
Ling, S. (2007). Testing for change points in time series models and limiting theorems for NED sequences.
Ann. Statist. 35, 1213-1237.
Wooldridge, J. M. and White, H. (1988). Some invariance principles and central limit theorems for
dependent heterogeneous processes. Econometric Theory 4, 210–230.

28

