EXPANSION FOR MOMENTS OF
REGRESSION QUANTILES WITH
APPLICATIONS TO NONPARAMETRIC
TESTING
arXiv:1306.6179v3 [math.ST] 14 Jul 2017

Enno Mammen§
Heidelberg University, Germany

Ingrid Van Keilegom ∗∗
KU Leuven, Belgium

Kyusang Yu ‡‡
Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea
July 17, 2017

Abstract
We discuss nonparametric tests for parametric specifications of regression quantiles. The test is based on the comparison of parametric and nonparametric fits of
these quantiles. The nonparametric fit is a Nadaraya-Watson quantile smoothing
estimator.
An asymptotic treatment of the test statistic requires the development of new
mathematical arguments. An approach that makes only use of plugging in a Bahadur expansion of the nonparametric estimator is not satisfactory. It requires too
strong conditions on the dimension and the choice of the bandwidth.
Our alternative mathematical approach requires the calculation of moments of
Nadaraya-Watson quantile regression estimators. This calculation is done by application of higher order Edgeworth expansions.
§

Institut für Angewandte Mathematik, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 205, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail address: mammen@math.uni-heidelberg.de.
∗∗
ORSTAT, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
E-mail address:
ingrid.vankeilegom@kuleuven.be.
‡‡
Department of Applied Statistics, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Korea, E-mail address:
kyusangu@konkuk.ac.kr .

1

AMS 1991 subject classifications. primary 62G07, secondary 62G20
Journal of Economic Literature Classification: C14
Keywords and phrases. Nonparametric Regression; Quantiles; Bahadur Expansions; Kernel Smoothing; Nonparametric Testing; Goodness-of-fit tests.

1

Introduction

Consider a data set of n i.i.d. tuples (Xi , Yi ), where Yi is a one-dimensional response
variable and Xi is a d-dimensional covariate. For 0 < α < 1 we denote the conditional
α-quantile of Yi given Xi = x by mα (x). Thus we can write
Yi = mα (Xi ) + εi,α

(i = 1, . . . , n),

(1)

with error variables εi,α that fulfill qα (εi,α |Xi ) = 0. Here, qα (εi,α |Xi ) is the α-quantile of
the conditional distribution of εi,α given Xi . Consider the null hypothesis
H0 : For all α ∈ A there exists a θ(α) ∈ Θ, such that mα = mα,θ(α) ,

(2)

where {mα,θ : θ ∈ Θ} is a parametric class of regression quantiles, Θ is a compact subset
of IRk and A ⊂ (0, 1). The set A can be a singleton A = {α}, but can also be a closed
subset of (0, 1) if a set of quantile functions is checked.
In this paper we aim at studying a test statistic for H0 , and to study its asymptotic
properties under the null and the alternative. We will see that this problem is an example
of a quantile model where the asymptotics cannot be developed by standard tools of
quantile regression. In particular, a direct application of Bahadur expansions requires
assumptions that are too restrictive.
Our test statistic is based on kernel smoothing. Let K(u1 , . . . , ud ) =

Qd

j=1

k(uj ), where

k is a one-dimensional density function defined on [−1, 1], and let h = (h1 , . . . , hd ) be a
d-dimensional bandwidth parameter. We assume that all bandwidths h1 , . . . , hd are of the
same order. For simplicity of notation we further assume that they are identical and by
abuse of notation we write h = h1 = . . . = hd . For any 0 < α < 1 and any x in the support
2

RX of X, let Fεα |X (·|x) be the conditional distribution function of εα = Y − mα (X), given
X = x, and let rα,θ(α) (x) be the α-quantile of Y − mα,θ(α) (X) given that X = x. Define


n
X
x − Xi
τα (Yi − mα,θ(α)
rbα (x) = arg min
K
b (Xi ) − r),
r
h
i=1
b
where τα (u) = αu+ − (1 − α)u− , u+ = uI(u > 0) and u− = uI(u < 0) and where θ(α)
is
an estimator of θ(α).
Note that instead of estimating the conditional quantile rα,θ(α) (x) by the above estimator, we could have considered the alternative estimator


n
X
x − Xi
alt
rbα (x) = arg min
K
τα (Yi − m) − mα,θ(α)
b (x).
m
h
i=1
However, the latter estimator has the important drawback that the consideration of responses Yi in a neighborhood of x induces a smoothing bias, whereas rbα (x) has no smoothing related bias, since it is based on the errors Yi − mα,θ(α) (Xi ), whose conditional quantile
of order α is exactly zero under H0 for all Xi .
We suppose that A is a closed subinterval of (0, 1). We define the following test
statistic :
Z Z
TbA =
A

RX

rbα (x)2 w(x, α)dxdα,

(3)

for some weight function w(x, α). For the case that A contains only one value α we use
Z
rbα (x)2 w(x)dx
(4)
Tbα =
RX

for some weight function w(x). One could also generalize our results to the case that A
is a finite set. To keep notation simple we omit this case in our mathematical analysis.
Our test is an omnibus test that has power against all types of alternatives. It is based
on the comparison of a kernel quantile estimator with the parametric fit. We will show
that the test statistic is asymptotically equivalent to a weighted L2 -distance between the
nonparametric and the parametric estimator. Similar tests have been used in a series of
papers for mean regression. Early references are Härdle and Mammen (1993), GonzálezManteiga and Cao-Abad (1993), Hjellvik, Yao and Tjøstheim (1998), Zheng (1996) and
3

Fan, Zhang and Zhang (2001). Furthermore recent references are Dette and Sprekelsen
(2004), Kreiss, Neumann and Yao (2008), Haag (2008), Leucht (2012), Gao and Hong
(2008) and Ait-Sahalia, Fan and Peng (2009). Most of the more recent work concentrates
on time series data.
The classical way to carry over results from parametric and nonparametric mean regression to quantile regression is the use of Bahadur expansions. The main point is that
asymptotically quantile regression is equivalent to weighted mean regression. This approach has been used in Chaudhuri (1991), Truong (1989), He and Ng (1999), He, Ng
and Portnoy (1998) and more recently in Hoderlein and Mammen (2009), Hong (2003),
Kong, Linton and Xia (2010), Lee and Lee (2008), El Ghouch and Van Keilegom (2009),
Li and Racine (2008), and De Backer, El Ghouch and Van Keilegom (2017). A detailed
review of quantile regression can be found in the book by Koenker (2005). Testing procedures in quantile regression were considered in Zheng (1998), Koenker and Machado
(1999), Bierens and Ginther (2001), Horowitz and Spokoiny (2002), Koenker and Xiao
(2002), and He and Zhu (2003), among others. They all considered tests for the parametric form of the quantile function. More recently, Rothe and Wied (2013) proposed
a test statistic for the hypothesis that the conditional distribution belongs to a certain
parametric class. Tests based on quantiles of the errors have also been considered in Su
and White (2012) in the context of testing conditional independence. Other recent papers are the ones by Volgushev et al. (2013) and Conde-Amboage, Sánchez-Sellero and
González-Manteiga (2015), who considered significance tests in quantile regression and
developed a test statistic based on marked empirical processes.
In this paper we will discuss how results from mean regression carry over to our
case. Whereas elsewhere a first attempt could be based on the application of a Bahadur
expansion, we will see that in our setting the accuracy of a direct application of Bahadur
expansions is too poor. We will shortly explain this here for the testing problem where A
contains only one value α. Suppose for simplicity at this stage that the parametric model
b
contains only one value θ0 = θ0 (α) and that θb = θ(α)
= θ0 . The Bahadur expansion of
4

rbα (x) is given by

Pn
reα (x) = −



x−Xi
h



{I(εi,α ≤ 0) − α}

,
x−Xi
K
f
(0|X
)
i
εα |X
i=1
h

i=1 K
Pn



(5)

where fεα |X is the conditional density of εα given X. This gives the following approximation for Tbα :
Z
Teα =
RX

reα (x)2 w(x)dx.

One can show that up to a logarithmic factor supx |b
rα (x) − reα (x)| and supx |b
rα (x)| are of
order (nhd )−3/4 and (nhd )−1/2 , respectively. This implies that up to a logarithmic factor,
the difference Tbα − Teα is of order (nhd )−5/4 . On the other hand as it is also the case in
mean regression Teα is equal to the sum of a deterministic term and a random term of
order n−1 h−d/2 . Thus the above approximation only helps if (nhd )−5/4 << n−1 h−d/2 or
equivalently if nh3d → ∞ for sample size n going to ∞. E.g. if one applies a bandwidth
h ∼ n−1/(4+d) that leads to rate optimal estimation of twice differentiable functions this
assumption would allow only a one-dimensional setting d = 1. Also in the case of minimax
optimal testing with twice differentiable functions under the alternative (see Ingster (1993)
and Guerre and Lavergne (2002)), the optimal bandwidth h ∼ n−2/(8+d) is only allowed
for dimension d = 1. In this paper we develop an asymptotic theory for L2 -type quantile
tests that works under the assumption that nh3d/2 → ∞. In the above examples this
allows dimensions d ≤ 7 and d ≤ 3. Furthermore, for our asymptotic discussion of
the distribution of the test statistic on the hypothesis we only need the assumption that
nhd → ∞. Thus on the hypothesis, our basic assumptions coincide with conditions needed
for the asymptotics of mean regression. We conjecture that also for the alternative the
assumption nh3d/2 → ∞ could be weakened but that then the asymptotic mean of the
test statistic changes. We will comment on this after the statement of Theorem 2.
In our approach we will make use of the fact that Bahadur expansions of kernel quantile
estimators calculated at two different points are asymptotically independent if they are
calculated at points that are such that the supports of the kernels do not overlap. Thus
the variance of an integral over a Bahadur expansion should be of smaller order than the
5

variance of the Bahadur expansion at a fixed point. The main technical difficulty that will
come up when applying this idea is the need to calculate moments of the kernel regression
quantiles. We will introduce a method for the expansion of such moments that is based on
Edgeworth expansions in a related problem. Our main result gives a bound between the
moments of kernel regression quantiles and the moments of its Bahadur approximation.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we will state our result on
moments of kernel regression quantiles. Our main result on the asymptotics of L2 -type
quantile tests is given in Section 3. We will also introduce some kind of wild bootstrap
procedure adapted to quantile regression and give a theoretical result on its consistency.
In Section 4 we present the results of a simulation study, and we analyze data on Engel
curves. The proofs are postponed to the last three sections.

2

Asymptotic moments

In this section we will present an asymptotic result on higher order moments of kernel
regression quantiles. This result will be our most important ingredient for getting our
result on the asymptotic distribution of our test statistic. In our result the moments of
kernel regression quantiles are compared with the moments of their Bahadur approximations. Recall that we are interested in the null hypothesis H0 defined in (2). We suppose
that for all α ∈ A,
mα (·) = mα,θ0 (α) (·) + n−1/2 h−d/4 ∆α (·).

(6)

For the case ∆α ≡ 0 the function mα lies on the hypothesis. In order to develop our
asymptotic theory, we need to work under the following assumptions. In the formulation
of the assumptions and in the proofs we use the convention that C, C1 , C2 , ... are generic
strictly positive constants that are chosen large enough, that c, c1 , c2 , ... are generic strictly
positive constants that are chosen small enough, and that C ∗ , C1∗ , C2∗ , ... are generic strictly
positive constants that are arbitrarily chosen. Using this convention we write Ln =
∗

(log n)C for a sequence with C > 0 large enough and L∗n = (log n)C for a sequence with
6

an arbitrarily chosen constant C ∗ > 0. All these variable names are used for different
constants and sequences, even in the same equation.
We will make use of the following assumptions.
(B1) The support RX of X is a compact convex subset of IRd . The density fX of X
is bounded and bounded away from zero on RX . The function ∆α is uniformly
absolutely bounded for α ∈ A.
(B2) The conditional distribution of εα given X = x allows a density fεα |X (e|x) that is
twice differentiable with respect to e. For this derivative it holds that |fε00α |X (e|x)| ≤
C for |e| ≤ c, x ∈ RX , and α ∈ A. The density fεα |X (e|x) also satisfies fεα |X (e|x) > 0
and |fεα |X (e0 |x0 ) − fεα |X (e|x)| ≤ C(kx0 − xk + |e0 − e|) for x, x0 ∈ RX and e, e0 ∈ R,
where k · k is the Euclidean norm. Moreover, the functions fX (x), mα (x) and ∆α (x)
are continuously differentiable with respect to x.
(B3) The bandwidth h satisfies h = o(1) and nhd /L∗n → ∞. The kernel k is a symmetric, continuously differentiable probability density function with compact support,
[−1, 1], say. It fulfills a Lipschitz condition and it is monotone strictly increasing on
[−1, 0]. It holds that k 0 (k −1 (u)) ≥ min c{uκ , (k(0) − u)κ } for some 0 ≤ κ < 1 where
k −1 : [0, k(0)] → [−1, 0] denotes the inverse of k : [−1, 0] → [0, k(0)].
In our asymptotics, the density fX and the functions ∆α are fixed and do not depend
on n. The cumulative distribution function F (·|x) of Y given X = x may depend on n.
We do not indicate this in our notation.
Assumptions (B1)–(B3) are standard assumptions for the study of smoothing estimators, with the exception of the last assumption in (B3). We now shortly explain why
this assumption is needed here. For fixed u and x = (x1 , . . . , xd )| , define the random
| n
o
Pn  x1 −X1,j
xd −Xd,j
∆
h
d −1/2
I(εj,α ≤ ∆α (x) + u(nh )
) − α with
vector Vn = j=1 k( h ), ..., k( h )
−1/2 −d/4
ε∆
h
∆α (Xj ), and where ∆hα (x) is defined in (10) below. In the proof of
j,α = εj,α + n

the following Theorem 1 we will develop Edgeworth expansions for the distribution of Vn .
7

Typically, the summands of Vn do not fullfil non-lattice type assumptions that are needed
for the verification of Edgeworth expansions. But under (B3) a non-lattice assumption
can be verified for the conditional distribution of a finite sum of summands of Vn . For
more details we refer to the proof of Theorem 1. The last assumption in (B3) can be
easily verified. It just puts a simple bound on the derivative of k −1 . E.g., it can be easily
checked for the triangle kernel and for all kernels of the form k (z) = 1 (|z| ≤ 1) cr (1 − z 2 )

r

with r ≥ 1. In case that k 0 is bounded away from zero on bounded intervals of (−1, 0)
the assumption follows if for some l, l∗ ∈ N, it holds that k 0 (x) = (x + 1)l + o((x + 1)l ) for
x ≥ −1 and x + 1 small enough and that k 0 (x) = −x2l

∗ +1

∗

+ o(x2l ) for x in a neighborhood

of 0.
We put
rbα∆ (x)

= arg min
r

n
X


K

i=1


 rb∆ (x)
α
r∆
(x)
=
α
 0

x − Xi
h



τα (ε∆
i.α − r),

if |b
rα∆ (x)| ≤ Ln (nhd )−1/2

(7)

(8)

otherwise.

In the main result of this section we will consider conditional moments of the truncated
kernel smoothing quantiles r∆
α , conditioned on the number of covariables falling into local
neighborhoods. Note that, with positive probability, kernel smoothing quantiles are not
defined because there is no covariable in the support of the kernel, with positive probability. Thus unconditional moments are not defined. In the following theorem we will
condition on local neighborhoods N − (x) = {u : xj − h ≤ uj ≤ xj + h for all j = 1, . . . , d}
that are designed such that the result can be easily used for the asymptotic analysis
of our test statistic in the next section. Note that N − (x) is the support of the kernel
h−d K(h−1 [x − ·]). The theorem could also easily be stated with other local neighborhoods. The conditional moments of the truncated kernel smoothing quantiles r∆
α will be
compared with the conditional moments of the following modified Bahadur expansion,
denoted by reα∆ (x) :
reα∆ (x) = reα∆,− (x) + ∆hα (x),
8

(9)

where ∆hα (x) is defined such that
h  x − X n
oi
j
h
Exj K
I(ε∆
≤
∆
(x))
−
α
= 0.
j,α
α
h

(10)

Here Exj denotes the conditional expectation, given that j ∈ N − (x). Furthermore reα∆,− (x)
is defined as
Pn

reα∆,− (x)



x−Xi
h



h
{I(ε∆
i,α ≤ ∆α (x)) − α}


= − P
n
x−Xi
fεα |X (∆hα (x, Xi )|Xi )
K
i=1
h


Pn
x−Xi
K
{I(εi,α ≤ ∆hα (x, Xi )) − α}
i=1
h


= − P
,
n
x−Xi
h (x, X )|X )
K
f
(∆
i
i
εα |X
α
i=1
h
i=1

K

where
∆hα (x, Xj ) = ∆hα (x) − n−1/2 h−d/4 ∆α (Xj ).
We have the following asymptotic result for the moments of kernel quantile estimators
and their Bahadur approximations.
Theorem 1. Assume (B1)–(B3). Then, for natural numbers l ≥ 1,
o
n
2l
∆,−
2l
−
(x)
−
r
e
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
= O(Ln (nhd )−l−1 ),
E r∆,−
α
α
n
o
2l−1
∆,−
2l−1
−
E r∆,−
(x)
−
r
e
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
= O(Ln (nhd )−l ),
α
α

(11)
(12)

uniformly in x ∈ RX , α ∈ A and C1∗ nhd ≤ m ≤ C2∗ nhd where N − (x) is the random
∆
h
number of Xi ’s that lie in N − (x), and where r∆,−
α (x) = r α (x) − ∆α (x). For the second

moments of the uncentered estimators r∆
eα∆ we have that
α and r
n
o
2
∆
2
−
E r∆
(x)
−
r
e
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
= O(Ln n−3/2 h−5d/4 ).
α
α

(13)

Under the additional assumption that ∆α ≡ 0 we get that
n
o
2
∆
2
−
E r∆
(x)
−
r
e
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
= O(Ln (nhd )−2 ).
α
α

(14)

We can apply the theorem when ∆α ≡ 0, in which case ∆hα ≡ 0 and reα∆ (x) = reα∆,− (x)
∆,−
∆,−
and r∆
eα∆,− (x) replaced by
α (x) = r α (x). Hence, (11) and (12) hold with r α (x) and r

r∆
eα∆ (x). In particular, for l = 1 (14) follows directly from (11).
α (x) and r
9

3

Asymptotic theory

b
We suppose that there exists an estimator θ(α)
that converges to θ0 (α). Hence, on the
hypothesis the true value of θ(α) is equal to θ0 (α). On the alternative, θ0 (α) may depend
b
on the chosen estimator θ(α).
In order to develop the asymptotic distribution of TbA and Tbα , we need the following
additional assumptions.
(B4) We assume that
sup
x∈RX ,α∈A

>
− 1 −c
b
|mα,θ(α)
b (x) − mα,θ0 (α) (x) − (θ(α) − θ0 (α)) γα (x)| = OP (n 2 )

for some function γα (x). The function w(x) is continuous, and the functions w(x, α),
γα (x) and ∆α (x) are continuous with respect to (α, x). For g(x) = w(x, α) and
g(x) = w(x) it holds that |g(x0 )−g(x)| ≤ Ckx0 −xk, and |γα (x0 )−γα (x)| ≤ Ckx0 −xkδ
for some 0 < δ < 1 and for all x, x0 ∈ RX and all α ∈ A.
(B5) For some ρ > 0 it holds that


−1/2 −d/4
∗
−δ − 21 −ρ
∗
− 14 d4
b
sup kθ(α) − θ0 (α)k = OP (n
h
)/Ln ∧ (h n
) ∧ (n h /Ln ) .
α∈A

The first assumption in (B4) can be shown under smoothness conditions on the relation
θ → mα,θ (x). For the case that A contains only one single element, this assumption in (B4)
would directly follow from (B5) and the assumption that θ → mα,θ (x) has a derivative that
b
is continuous in x. Assumption (B5) states that θ(α)
achieves at least a nearly parametric
rate. In the case of linear quantile regression (i.e. mα (X) = θ(α)> X), such an assumption

b
has been shown in Angrist et al (2006). Note that supα∈A kθ(α)
− θ0 (α)k = OP n−1/2
1

1

d

implies (B5) if ρ is chosen such that hδ nρ → 0. Note that n− 2 = o(n− 4 h 4 /L∗n ) because
of nhd /L∗n → ∞.
We now state our main result on the asymptotic distribution of our test statistics.

10

Theorem 2. Assume (B1)-(B5). For the case that ∆α 6≡ 0 make the additional assumption that nh3d/2 /L∗n → ∞. Then,
d

nhd/2 TbA − bh,A → N (DA , VA ),
d

nhd/2 Tbα − bh,α → N (Dα , Vα ),
where
Z Z

∆α (x)2 w(x, α) dx dα,

DA =
A

RX

bh,A = h
VA

Z

Z

w(x, α)
dx dα,
2
A
RX fX (x)fεα |X (0|x)
Z
Z
w(x, α)w(x, β)
2
2
(4)
α (1 − β)
= 4K (0)
dx dα dβ,
2
4
α,β∈A,α<β
RX fX (x)fεα |X (0|x)
−d/2

K

(2)

α(1 − α)

(0)

Z

∆α (x)2 w(x) dx,

Dα =
RX

−d/2

bh,α = h

K

(2)

Z
(0)α(1 − α)
RX

Vα = 4K (4) (0)α2 (1 − α)2

Z
RX

w(x)
dx,
fX (x)fε2α |X (0|x)

w2 (x)
dx,
fX2 (x)fε4α |X (0|x)

and where for any j, K (j) (0) denotes the j-times convolution product of K at 0.
In our theorem for the alternative we make the additional assumption that nh3d/2 /L∗n
converges to ∞. This assumption is used in the proof for the treatment of the deterministic
term Tn,2 , see Lemma 5. The assumption nh3d/2 /L∗n → ∞ can be weakened but with
another limit for Tn,2 . This would result in a limit theorem for the test statistic with
a mean that differs from bh,α . We have added a short discussion of this point after the
statement of Lemma 5.
We expect that Theorem 2 cannot be used for an accurate calculation of critical values.
The asymptotic normality result of Theorem 2 is based on the fact that kernel smoothers
are asymptotically independent if they are calculated at points that differ more than 2h.
Thus the convergence is comparable to the convergence of the sum of h−d independent
summands. This would motivate a rate of convergence of order h−d/2 . As has been
11

suggested for other goodness-of-fit tests in the literature, also here a way out is to use
a bootstrap procedure. We will introduce some kind of wild bootstrap for quantiles in
which the Bahadur expansion reα of rbα is resampled. For the definition of reα see (5) in
Section 2. For the bootstrap, we define
Pn
reα∗ (x)

=−



x−Xi
h



{I(Ui ≤ α) − α}

,
x−Xi b
K
f
(0|X
)
i
ε
|X
α
i=1
h

i=1 K
Pn



where fbεα |X is an estimator of fεα |X and Ui are independent random variables with uniform
distribution on [0, 1] that are independent of the sample. The bootstrap test statistics are
defined as:
TbA∗

Z Z
=
A

RX

reα∗ (x)2 w(x, α)dx dα

and
Tbα∗ =

Z
RX

reα∗ (x)2 w(x)dx.

For proving the consistency of this bootstrap procedure, we do not specify the choice of
the estimator fbεα |X that is used in the construction of the bootstrap procedure. We only
assume that the estimator is consistent:
(B6) It holds that
sup

fbεα |X (0|x) − fεα |X (0|x) → 0,

α∈A, x∈RX

in probability.
The next theorem shows the consistency of the above bootstrap approach.
Theorem 3. Assume (B1)-(B6). Then,
p

dK (L∗ (nhd/2 TbA∗ − bh,A ), N (DA , VA )) → 0,
p

dK (L∗ (nhd/2 Tbα∗ − bh,α ), N (Dα , Vα )) → 0,
where L∗ (...) denotes the conditional distribution, given the sample. Furthermore, dK is
the Kolmogorov distance, i.e. the sup norm of the difference between the corresponding
distribution functions.
12

Theorem 3 remains to hold if we replace (B1)–(B5) by weaker conditions. We do
not pursuit this because we need for consistency of bootstrap that both, Theorem 2 and
Theorem 3, hold.

4

Numerical study

In this section, we present the results of our numerical studies. In our first simulation
we show that a direct application of the Bahadur representation is not accurate enough
for studying the approximation of the distribution of our test statistics Tbα and TbA . For
R
this purpose, we compare the differences D1 = |b
rα (x)2 − reα (x)2 |w(x)dx and D2 =
R
R
| rbα (x)2 w(x)dx − reα (x)2 w(x)dx|. Here D1 is the integrated difference between the
quantile regression and its Bahadur representation and D2 is the difference between the
test statistic and its approximation based on Bahadur representation. It is clear that
D2 ≤ D1 . Our point is not that D2 is smaller than D1 but that the ratio D1 /D2 is large
and that it is decreasing for an increasing bandwidth. This result supports our theory
that a direct use of Bahadur expansions only works under very restrictive assumptions
on the bandwidth. Table 1 shows the results of D1 and D2 for the one dimensional case.
We also simulated a two dimensional model, whose results are shown in Table 2. In
the one dimensional model, we set Yi = Xi + (0.5Xi + 0.5)i , where i has a standard
normal distribution. This results in the αth quantile function mα (x) = x + 0.5zα (x + 1),
where zα stands for the αth quantile of the standard normal distribution. For the two
dimensional model, we set Yi = X1i + X2i + (0.5X1i − 0.5X2i + 1)i , where i has a
standard normal distribution and we get the αth quantile function mα (x1 , x2 ) = x1 +2x2 +
0.5zα (x1 − x2 + 2). For the one dimensional model, we generated Xi from the uniform
distribution supported on the unit interval (0, 1). For the two dimensional model we
generated (X1i , X2i ) from a distribution on the unit square (0, 1)×(0, 1) which has uniform
marginals but where the joint distribution differs from a uniform distribution. This is done
to allow for a dependence between the two regressors. We generated random vectors from

13

a bivariate normal distribution with correlations ρ = 0.2 and 0.8 and then transformed
them with their marginal distribution functions. We generated 400 data sets of size 200
and 400 for each model. For the one dimensional model, we used the bandwidths h =
0.05, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12 and 0.15 and we used the bandwidths h = 0.125, 0.150, 0.175 and 0.200
for the two dimensional model. We used the R package quantreg for fitting quantile
functions. From Table 1 and Table 2, one can see that the ratio of D1 over D2 is large
for small bandwidths and decreases as the bandwidth grows. This observation supports
our approach for the asymptotic theory. This implies that when we approximate the
test statistic it requires less strict assumptions on the bandwidth if we approximate the
integrated function rather than when we approximate the quantile function itself.
The second simulation study is conducted to show the validity of our bootstrap procedure. We considered four scenarios:
I. All quantiles are linear:
Yi = m0 (Xi ) + σ0 (Xi )i .
II. The median is linear and other quantiles are not linear:
Yi = m0 (Xi ) + σ1 (Xi )i .
III. All quantiles are non-linear:
(a)

Yi = m1 (Xi ) + σ0 (Xi )i ;

(b)

Yi = m1 (Xi ) + σ1 (Xi )i .

Here m0 (x) = x, m1 (x) = sin(2π(x − 0.5)), σ0 (x) = 21 (1 + x), and σ1 (x) = 2(1.1 +
sin(2π(x−0.5))). The covariates Xi are generated from a uniform distribution on the unit
interval (0, 1). We generated 200 samples of size 400. We generated 201 bootstrap samples
for each data set. The three scenarios are shown in Figure 1. In the bootstrap procedure,
we used a kernel density estimator for estimating the conditional density fεα |X (0|x).

14

Bandwidth
n = 200 α = 0.25

0.5

0.75

n = 400 α = 0.25

0.5

0.75

0.05

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.15

D1

0.195

0.116

0.091

0.077

0.059

D2

0.067

0.044

0.037

0.034

0.028

Ratio

2.922

2.653

2.473

2.284

2.073

D1

0.231

0.139

0.110

0.091

0.071

D2

0.124

0.078

0.065

0.056

0.046

Ratio

1.865

1.779

1.687

1.635

1.547

D1

0.196

0.117

0.092

0.077

0.059

D2

0.065

0.044

0.037

0.033

0.029

Ratio

3.028

2.696

2.481

2.305

2.070

D1

0.094

0.057

0.045

0.037

0.029

D2

0.033

0.022

0.019

0.017

0.014

Ratio

2.899

2.536

2.338

2.170

2.027

D1

0.109

0.068

0.054

0.045

0.036

D2

0.058

0.039

0.032

0.028

0.023

Ratio

1.867

1.755

1.684

1.614

1.552

D1

0.094

0.056

0.045

0.037

0.029

D2

0.032

0.022

0.019

0.017

0.015

Ratio

2.959

2.604

2.378

2.192

1.982

Table 1: Difference between two approximations: D1 is the integrated squared approximation error of a quantile estimator by its Bahadur representation and D2 is the approximation error of the test statistic Tbα by Teα .
We tried three bandwidths 0.075, 0.100, and 0.125 for the test statistic, and fifteen
choices of bandwidths (0.1, 0.2, 0.3) × (0.050, 0.075, 0.100, 0.125, 0.150) for estimating the
conditional density of the error used in the bootstrap procedure. We applied the proposed bootstrap test for testing the linearity of the lower quartile, the median, and the
upper quartile functions. We also tested the linearity hypothesis over these three different
quantile levels. In our scenarios there are four models under the null hypothesis: all three
quantiles in scenario I and the median in scenario II. In Table 3, we report the summary
statistics of rejection ratios of 45 different choices of bandwidths. Among 45 different
15

16
0.077
3.221

D2
Ratio

2.093

Ratio
0.247

0.142

D2
D1

0.296

3.066

Ratio
D1

0.081

D2

3.221

Ratio
0.249

0.077

D2
D1

0.247

2.093

Ratio
D1

0.142

D2

3.065

Ratio
0.296

0.081

D2
D1

0.249

D1

2.929

0.047

0.138

1.884

0.087

0.166

2.716

0.051

0.139

2.929

0.047

0.138

1.884

0.087

0.164

2.716

0.051

0.139

0.150

2.446

0.035

0.085

1.667

0.061

0.102

2.369

0.036

0.086

2.446

0.035

0.085

1.667

0.061

0.102

2.369

0.036

0.086

0.175

1.990

0.029

0.058

1.500

0.048

0.072

1.983

0.029

0.058

1.990

0.029

0.058

1.500

0.048

0.072

1.983

0.029

0.058

0.200

3.274

0.022

0.073

1.991

0.044

0.087

3.273

0.023

0.074

3.355

0.045

0.153

2.021

0.089

0.180

3.445

0.044

0.153

0.125

Bandwidths

2.666

0.019

0.051

1.785

0.034

0.061

2.716

0.019

0.051

2.831

0.037

0.106

1.832

0.069

0.126

2.828

0.037

0.105

0.150

2.230

0.017

0.037

1.610

0.028

0.046

2.278

0.017

0.038

2.378

0.032

0.077

1.659

0.056

0.094

2.371

0.033

0.077

0.175

1.899

0.015

0.028

1.467

0.024

0.035

1.958

0.015

0.029

2.022

0.029

0.059

1.504

0.048

0.072

2.024

0.029

0.059

0.200

Strong dependence

left panel in the table is the result for ρ = 0.2 and the right panel shows the result for ρ = 0.8.

Table 2: Difference between two approximations under a two dimensional model: D1 is the integrated squared approximation
error of a quantile estimator by its Bahadur representation and D2 is the approximation error of the test statistic Tbα by Teα . The

0.75

0.5

n = 400 α = 0.25

0.75

0.5

n = 200 α = 0.25

0.125

Weak dependence

choices of bandwidths, there was no case where the bootstrap test did not keep the significance level of 5% under scenario I. In slightly more than half of the cases the bootstrap
test did not keep the significance level in testing the linearity of the median under scenario II. These cases appeared when we used large bandwidths. Concerning the power of
the bootstrap test, we observed that almost all choices of the bandwidth showed a power
near one under scenario III-(a). One exception is the case with the smallest bandwidths
where we observe an empirical power around 0.8. One interesting observation is that the
bootstrap test shows a poor power for the lower quartile in scenario III-(b) where the
empirical power ranges from 0.045 to 0.27. This is however natural since the function
is not so far from a linear function as one can see in Figure 1. We also observed that
the median and the upper quartile in scenario III-(b) showed much stronger power. The
result of the test based on the test statistic integrated over levels shows a similar result.
In this case, only scenario I is in the null hypothesis and there was no case where the
empirical size of the bootstrap test is bigger than 5%. The power behavior is also similar.
The test showed the strongest power with the bigger bandwidths.
Figure 2 shows the distributions of estimated p-values by using the proposed bootstrap.
The plots are based on 200 simulated data sets for scenario II. The left panel shows the
distribution of estimated p-values for testing the linearity of the median, which lies in
the null and the right panel shows the distribution of estimated p-values for testing the
linearity of the upper quartile, which lies in the alternative. The distribution in the left
panel is close to the uniform distribution which we expect for the null hypothesis and the
right panel shows that the bootstrap p-values are close to zero, which we also expect.
To summarize our observations from this simulation study, in our setting the bootstrap
test keeps the level well except for cases where we use too large bandwidths. On the other
hand, too small bandwidths lead to relatively poor power. Interesting cases are scenario
II and scenario III-(b). Under scenario II, the median is linear but both quartiles are
not. The simulation result shows that the bootstrap test keeps the level for the median
and has some power for the other quantiles. Under scenario III-(b), the lower quartile
17

Scenario II

0

y

0.5

−2

−0.5

y

2

1.5

Scenario I

0.4

0.8

0.0

0.4

0.8

x

x

Scenario III−(a)

Scenario III−(b)

0

y

0.0

−2

−1.5

y

2

1.5

4

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

0.0

x

0.4

0.8
x

Figure 1: Shape of quantile curves in each scenario. The three curves in each panel
represent the 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75−quantile curves in each scenario.

18

Quartile functions
Scenario I

Scenario II

Scenario III (a)

Scenario III (b)

1st Quartile

Median

3rd Quartile

Sum quartiles

Q1

0.005

0.000

0.005

0.000

Med

0.010

0.005

0.010

0.005

Q3

0.010

0.010

0.015

0.010

Q1

0.470

0.030

0.450

0.380

Med

0.575

0.055

0.545

0.550

Q3

0.630

0.105

0.610

0.695

Q1

0.985

1.000

0.995

1.000

Med

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Q3

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Q1

0.065

0.300

0.735

0.545

Med

0.135

0.385

0.865

0.770

Q3

0.155

0.440

0.935

0.895

Table 3: First quartile, median and third quartile (obtained from 45 choices of the bandwidth) of the rejection proportions based on 200 generated samples.
is non-linear but close to the null. We observe that here the bootstrap test has stronger
power for the median and the upper quartile than for the lower quartile.
In the last simulation study, we compared our test with the test proposed by Zheng
(1998). We considered the same four scenarios as in the previous simulation study. In
this simulation, we generated 500 data sets of 400 observations. For the bootstrap we
generated 501 bootstrap samples. The other simulation settings are the same as in the
previous simulation study. To choose the bandwidth for Zheng’s test, we applied the
function npregbw in the R-package np, which is based on cross-validation with AIC. For
the nonparametric quantile estimator in our procedure, we used the bandwidth proposed
in Yu and Jones (1998). The bandwidths for the kernel estimator for the conditional
density in the bootstrap procedure were chosen by a rule of thumb using the function
bw.nrd in R. The level of the tests was set to 0.05. We observe in Table 4 that the level of
our test is close to the nominal level. None of the two tests is always more powerful than

19

0

0

20 40 60 80

Frequency

120

10 15 20 25 30

p−value under H1

5

Frequency

p−value under H0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

p

0.6

0.8

1.0

p

Figure 2: The left panel shows the distribution of estimated p-values under the null and
the right panel shows the distribution of estimated p-values under the alternative.
the other. In the null model both tests keep the level well. In Scenario II, Zheng’s test
shows stronger power than the proposed test, whereas in Scenario III(b), the proposed
test has higher power.
Quartile functions
Scenario I
Scenario II
Scenario III (a)
Scenario III (b)

1st Quartile

Median

3rd Quartile

Sum quartiles

Zheng

0.006

0.000

0.000

·

MVY

0.024

0.052

0.048

0.028

Zheng

0.954

0.008

0.950

·

MVY

0.696

0.002

0.650

0.884

Zheng

0.974

0.994

0.984

·

MVY

0.994

0.992

0.990

1.000

Zheng

0.034

0.334

0.460

·

MVY

0.048

0.404

0.992

0.954

Table 4: Rejection proportions based on 500 generated samples.
Finally, as an illustrating example, we applied the proposed test to a historic data set
20

of Ernst Engel. The data set was used in Koenker (2005), among many other publications.
The data set was first presented by Engel (1857) to support his famous Engel’s law. The
data set has two variables, household income and food expenditure and it contains 235
observations. Figure 3 shows the scatter plot of this dataset and the scatter plot of the
data after a log transform with base 10. As one can see in Figure 3, there is one outlier. We
removed this point from the data. Hence the analysis below is based on 234 observations.
We first analyzed the log transformed income versus the log transformed food expenditure.
We used five different bandwidths for calculating the test statistic. The bandwidth for
the conditional density estimator used in the bootstrap resampling was chosen by a rule
of thumb. To obtain the bootstrap distribution, we resampled the data set 1,001 times.
We test the linearity of quantiles for α = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9. As
can be seen from Table 5, the test did not reject linearity of quantiles for any of these
values at the significance level 5%. This was the case for all five bandwidth choices. We
also used the log transformed income with the original untransformed food expenditure
as a further example. Figure 4 shows the scatter plot of this dataset together with 0.1,
0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 linear quantile fits. The figure shows that high level quantiles deviate
from their linear fits. This is also seen by our test, since it rejects the linearity for high
level quantiles. The estimated p-values for the conditional quantiles of level 0.5 or higher
are smaller than 0.05 for every bandwidth we used.

5

Proof of Theorem 1

We need to show equations (11)–(13). Claim (13) follows from (11)–(12) because of
∆hα (x) = O(n−1/2 h−d/4 ). Furthermore, (14) is a direct consequence of (11), see the remark
after the statement of the theorem. It remains to show (11)–(12).
It holds that P (cm0 ≤ N − (x) ≤ Cm0 ) → 1, where we use the shorthand notation
m0 = nhd . At this point and in the following proofs we will make use of our convention
of using the symbols, c, C, ....

21

log10 (income) vs log10 (food expenditure)
Quantile level
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.050

0.289

0.246

0.629

0.999

0.996

1.000

0.999

1.000

1.000

0.075

0.152

0.383

0.997

0.992

0.993

0.979

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.100

0.105

0.745

0.997

0.964

0.971

0.970

0.999

1.000

0.993

0.125

0.100

0.986

0.988

0.908

0.895

0.992

1.000

1.000

0.963

0.150

0.149

0.996

0.976

0.894

0.843

0.997

0.999

1.000

0.935

Bandwidth

log10 (income) vs food expenditure
Quantile level
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.050

0.305

0.675

0.413

0.135

0.031

0.008

0.012

0.004

0.000

0.075

0.569

0.498

0.268

0.140

0.046

0.027

0.003

0.002

0.000

0.100

0.640

0.324

0.181

0.047

0.015

0.004

0.003

0.001

0.000

0.125

0.531

0.235

0.150

0.034

0.009

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.150

0.664

0.197

0.088

0.012

0.003

0.002

0.002

0.003

0.000

Bandwidth

Table 5: Estimated p-values for testing the linearity of conditional quantiles of Engel’s
data. The upper table shows the estimated p-values for testing the linearity of conditional quantiles of log10 (food expenditure) as a function of log10 (income) and the lower
table shows the estimated p-values for testing the linearity of conditional quantiles of
food expenditure as a function of log10 (income).

22

2000

●

3.2

●

1500

3.0

●
●●
●

1000

2.8
2.6

Y

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

2.4

1000

●●●
●

500

engel$foodexp

●

3000

5000

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

2.6

engel$income

3.0

3.4

X

Figure 3: The left panel shows the scatter plot of the original Engel data. The right panel
shows the scatter plot of log transformed data after removing one influential point. The
lines in the right panel represent linear quantile fits of levels 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9.
First note that
−1/2

rbα∆,− (x) ≤ um0

if and only if
 x − X n
o
X
j
−1/2
∆
h
K
I(εj,α ≤ ∆α (x) + um0 ) − α ≥ 0.
h
−

j∈N (x)

Let
oi
h  x − X n
j
−1/2
∆
h
I(εj,α ≤ ∆α (x) + um0 ) − α
gx,α (u) =
K
h
h  x − X n
oi
j
−1/2
j
h
= Ex K
I(εj,α ≤ ∆α (x, Xj ) + um0 ) − α
h
h x − X 
i
j
−1/2
= um0 Exj K
fεα |X (∆hα (x, Xj )|Xj )
h
h

i
1
x − Xj  0
j
h
+ u2 m−1
E
K
f
(∆
(x,
X
)|X
)
j
j
0
x
εα |X
α
2
h
Exj

−3/2

+O(Ln m0

),
23

(15)

2000
1500

●

●
●

1000

●●

500

food expenditure

●

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

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

●
●
●
●

●

●
●
●
●●
●
●

●

●

3.4

log10 income

Figure 4: The figure shows the scatter plot of log transformed income versus food expenditure after removing one influential point. The lines represent linear quantile fits of level
0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9.
uniformly in |u| ≤ C ∗ L∗n , because of Assumption (B2). Then, with
ηj,α,u,x = K

 x − X n
o
j
−1/2
h
I(ε∆
≤
∆
(x)
+
um
)
−
α
− gx,α (u),
0
j,α
α
h

we have that
P



rbα∆,− (x)

≤

−1/2
um0


N (x), N (x) = m
−

−



X
= P m−1/2
ηj,α,u,x ≥ −m1/2 gx,α (u) N − (x), N − (x) = m .
j∈N − (x)

We now argue that an Edgeworth expansion holds for the conditional density of Tη =
P
m−1/2 j∈N − (x) ηj,α,u,x , given N − (x), N − (x) = m, that is of the form
σ −1

s−3
X

m−r/2 Pr (−φ : {χν })(σ −1 [· − x]) + O(m−(s−2)/2 [1 + |σ −1 [· − x]|s ]−1 )

r=0

24

(16)

where, the error term holds uniformly in α ∈ A, |u| ≤ L∗n and x ∈ RX for C1∗ m0 ≤ m ≤
C2∗ m0 and constants C1∗ < C2∗ . Here, we use standard notation used e.g. in Bhattacharya
and Rao (1976), p. 53. In particular, σ 2 denotes the conditional variance of ηj,α,u,x , given
that j ∈ N − (x), and Pr (−φ : {χν }) denotes a product of a standard normal density φ
with a polynomial that has coefficients depending only on the conditional cumulants χν of
ηj,α,u,x of order ν ≤ s−1, given that j ∈ N − (x). Note that σ 2 and χν depend on u, α, x and
n and that we do not indicate this in our notation. Furthermore, the cumulants and the
variance converge to constants depending on α, uniformly in |u| ≤ L∗n and x ∈ RX . Note
that for n → ∞ the conditional distribution of ηj,α,u,x , given that j ∈ N − (x), converges
to the distribution of K(U )(Z − α) where U and Z are independent random variables,
U has a uniform distribution on [−1, 1] and Z is {0, 1}-valued with P (Z = 1) = α. This
helps to understand that limit theorems hold uniformly. The function Pr (−φ : {χν }) is
defined as
r
X
1
Pr (−φ : {χν })(u) =
(−1)r
m!
m=1
j

X
1 +...+jm

χj1 +2
χjm +2 (r+2m)
· ... ·
φ
(u),
(j1 + 2)!
(jm + 2)!
=r

see Section 7 in in Bhattacharya and Rao (1976). In our case expansion (16) follows from
Theorem 19.3 in Bhattacharya and Rao (1976). For this claim we have to verify that
their conditions (19.27), (19.29) and (19.30) hold. Our setting is slightly different from
theirs, since we consider triangular arrays of independent identically distributed random
variables instead of a sequence of independent random variables as is the case in Theorem
19.3 in Bhattacharya and Rao (1976). But the same proof applies because in our setting
we can verify the following uniform versions of (19.27), (19.29) and (19.30):
i
h
sup
Exj |ηj,α,u,x |s < ∞,

(17)

α∈A,|u|≤L∗n ,x∈RX ,n≥n0

Z
sup
α∈A,|u|≤L∗n ,x∈RX ,n≥n0

sup

q
gα,u,x
(t)dt < ∞ for some q > 0,

{gα,u,x (t) : |t| ≥ b} < 1 for all b > 0

(18)
(19)

α∈A,|u|≤L∗n ,x∈RX ,n≥n0

with gα,u,x (t) = |Exj [exp(itσ −1 ηj,α,u,x )]| for some n0 > 0. Note that gα,u,x , σ and ηj,α,u,x
depend on n.
25

Claim (17) follows by a direct argument using brute force bounds. For the proof of (18),
n
Pp
xd −Xd,j |
x1 −X1,j
I(ε∆
),
...,
k(
))
we consider the conditional density of Up =
(k(
j,α ≤
j=1
h
h
o
−1/2
−
∆hα (x) + um0 ) − α given the value of ε∆
j,α and given that Xj ∈ N (x) for j = 1, ..., p.
For p = 1 this density evaluated at (u1 , . . . , ud ) can be bounded by a constant times
(u1 · ... · ud )−κ ((k(0) − u1 ) · ... · (k(0) − ud ))−κ by Assumptions (B1) and (B3). This bound
holds uniformly over α, u, x and the value of ε∆
1,α .
We now show that for every κ∗ > 0, there exists p∗ > 0 such that the density of Up∗ can
∗

be bounded by a constant times (u1 ·...·ud )κ . For simplification of notation we assume for
the proof that d = 1. For the proof of the claim, we show first that for p ≥ (1−κ)−1 we get
that the conditional density of Up is uniformly bounded. This follows by an evaluation of
R1
Rv
convolution integrals where one uses that 0 u−κ1 (v − u)−κ2 du = v −(κ1 +κ2 −1) 0 w−κ1 (1 −
w)−κ2 dw ≤ Cv −(κ1 +κ2 −1) . Applied to U2 this gives that the density of U2 is bounded by
−(2κ−1)

Cu1

+ C|k(0) − u1 |−(2κ−1) + C(2k(0) − u1 )−(2κ−1) . Note that the density of U1 is

−κ
−κ
bounded by Cu−κ
≤ Cu−κ
. For the density of U3 we get the
1 (k(0)−u1 )
1 +C(k(0)−u1 )
−(3κ−2)

bound Cu1

+C|k(0)−u1 |−(3κ−2) +C|2k(0)−u1 |−(3κ−2) +C(3k(0)−u1 )−(3κ−2) . Finally,

for p ≥ (1 − κ)−1 it holds that pκ − (p − 1) ≤ 0 and we have that for p ≥ (1 − κ)−1 , the
density of Up is uniformly bounded. We now use that the k-fold convolution of a bounded
density with bounded support [0, z] for some z > 0 is bounded by C|u1 |k−1 . This gives
∗

that the density of Up∗ can be bounded by a constant times uκ1 if p∗ ≤ l0 (κ∗ + 1) with
l0 ≥ (1 − κ)−1 , l ∈ N. This result can be easily extended to d > 1.
P
From this result now we want to conclude that the conditional density of pj=1 ηj,α,u,x =
n
o P
n
Pp
xd −Xd,j
−1/2
x−Xj
x1 −X1,j
p
∆
h
K(
)
I(ε
≤
∆
(x)+um
)−α
=
k(
)·...·k(
)
I(ε∆
0
j,α
α
j,α ≤
j=1
j=1
h
h
h
o
−1/2
∆hα (x) + um0 ) − α is uniformly bounded, given the value of ε∆
j,α and given that Xj ∈
N − (x) for j = 1, ..., p. This follows immediately from the following result. Suppose that
Z = (Z1 , ..., Zd ) has support [0, 1]d and a density f that is bounded by f (z) ≤ Dz1 · ... · zd

26

then Z1 · ... · Zd has a density g that is bounded by D. For a proof of this result, note that
Z
g(u) = ∂u
f (z)dz1 ... dzd
z1 ·...·zd ≤u




v
1
∂u
f
, z2 , ..., zd
dv dz2 ... dzd
z2 · ... · zd
z2 · ... · zd
v≤u

Z 
u
1
f
, z2 , ..., zd
dz2 ... dzd
z2 · ... · zd
z2 · ... · zd

Z 
u
1
f
, z2 , ..., zd
dz2 ... dzd
z2 · ... · zd
u
Z
u
1
D
· z2 · ... · zd · dz2 ... dzd
z2 · ... · zd
u
Z

=
=
≤
≤

= D.
We now apply the result that for p chosen large enough, the conditional density of
Pp

j=1

ηj,α,u,x is bounded, given that Xj ∈ N − (x) for j = 1, ..., p, uniformly over α, u

and x. This implies that the square of this conditional density is integrable and by the
Fourier Inversion Theorem (see Theorem 4.1 (vi) in Bhattacharya and Rao (1976)) the
same holds for the squared modulus of its Fourier transform. Thus the modulus of the
P
−
Fourier transform of the conditional density of 2p
j=1 ηj,α,u,x , given that Xj ∈ N (x) for
j = 1, ..., 2p, is integrable. This shows (18) for q = 2p.
For the proof of (19) one applies the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma (see Theorem 4.1
in Bhattacharya and Rao (1976)). Consider for simplicity the case where d = 1. For
Exj [exp(itηj,α,u,x )] one gets that
exp[itgx,α (u)]Exj [exp(itηj,α,u,x )]


Z x+h Z
h
i
x−z
−1/2
h
=
exp itK
{I(e ≤ ∆α (x, z) + um0 ) − α}
h
x−h
e∈R
 Z x+h
× fεα |X (e|z)fX (z) de dz
fX (z)dz
x−h

Z

1

Z

=
−1

h
i
−1/2
h
exp itK (v) {I(e ≤ ∆α (x, x + hv) + um0 ) − α}

e∈R

Z

1

× fεα |X (e|x + hv)fX (x + hv) de dv

fX (x + hv)dv.
−1

27

The right hand side of this equation converges to
Z

1

Z

1

exp[it(1 − α)K(v)]dv + (1 − α)

α

exp[−itαK(v)]dv.
−1

−1

−1/2

This convergence holds uniformly in t ∈ R, α ∈ A, |u| ≤ L∗n m0

and x ∈ RX . By using

these facts we get (19) from the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma.
By applying Theorem 19.3 in Bhattacharya and Rao (1976) with s ≥ 4 we get that


−1/2
P rbα∆,− (x) ≤ um0
N − (x), N − (x) = m
(20)



 



2 −s
= 1 − Φ µα (u) + m−1/2 ρα (u) 1 − µα (u)2 φ µα (u) + O m−1
(1
+
µ
(u)
)
,
α
0
uniformly in u, α and x for C1∗ m0 ≤ m ≤ C2∗ m0 and constants C1∗ < C2∗ . Here we have
used the fact that terms for r = 2, ..., s − 3 in the expansion (16) can be bounded by


2 −s
O m−1
(1
+
µ
(u)
)
. We used the following notation
α
0
µα (u) = −

3
Exj (ηj,α,u,x
)
m1/2 gx,α (u)
and ρα (u) =
,
3
σα (u)
6σα (u)

2
with σα2 (u) = Exj (ηj,α,u,x
). It is easy to show that, uniformly in |u| ≤ C ∗ L∗n ,

2 i
h  x − X 
i
−1/2
I(εj,α ≤ ∆hα (x, Xj ) + um0 ) − α
σα2 (u) = Exj K 2
h
+O(Ln m−1
0 )
−1/2

= A1 (α) + um0

3
Exj (ηj,α,u,x
)

=

Exj

h

K

3

A2 (α) + O(Ln m−1
0 ),

 x − X 
i

h

I(εj,α ≤
−1/2

+O(Ln m0

+

−1/2
um0 )

−α

3 i

)

−1/2

= A3 (α) + O(Ln m0

∆hα (x, Xj )

),

and that
−1/2

µα (u) = −um1/2 m0

1
−1/2
A1 (α)−1/2 A5 (α) − u2 m1/2 m−1
A6 (α)
0 A1 (α)
2

1
−3/2
+ u2 m1/2 m−1
(α)A2 (α)A5 (α) + O(Ln m−1
0 A1
0 )
2
28

with
h  x − X 
i
i
A1 (α) = Exj K 2
(1 − 2α)P (εj,α ≤ ∆hα (x, Xj )) + α2 ,
h
h x − X 
i
i
2
h
j
(1 − 2α)fεα |X (∆α (x, Xj )|Xj ) ,
A2 (α) = Ex K
h
h  x − X 
i
i
3
3
j
2
h
A3 (α) = Ex K
(1 − 3α + 3α )P (εj,α ≤ ∆α (x, Xj )) − α ,
h
i
h  x − X 
i
2
2
j
h
A4 (α) = Ex K
(1 − 2α)P (εj,α ≤ ∆α (x, Xj )) + α .,
h
h x − X 
i
j
A5 (α) = Exj K
fεα |X (∆hα (x, Xj )|Xj ) ,
h
h x − X 
i
j
A6 (α) = Exj K
fε0α |X (∆hα (x, Xj )|Xj ) ,
h

−1/2

Note that µα (−u)2 = µα (u)2 + O(Ln m0

). Thus we get that uniformly in |u| ≤ C ∗ L∗n ,


 


 

m−1/2 ρα (u) 1 − µα (u)2 φ µα (u) − m−1/2 ρα (−u) 1 − µα (−u)2 φ µα (−u) (21)
= O(Ln m−1
0 ),

 

−1/2
m−1/2 ρα (u) 1 − µα (u)2 φ µα (u) = O(Ln m0 ).
−1/2

Note also that with um = um1/2 m0

(22)

, uniformly in |u| ≤ C ∗ L∗n ,





−1/2
1 − Φ µα (u) = 1 − Φ − um A1 (α)A5 (α)

 u2
−1/2
−1/2
m
+φ − um A1 (α)A5 (α)
(A1 (α)A6 (α)
1/2
2m
−3/2

−A1

(α)A2 (α)A5 (α)) + O(Ln m−1
0 ).

Hence, uniformly in |u| ≤ C ∗ L∗n ,
h

i
−1/2
1 − Φ(µα (u)) + Φ(−µα (−u)) = 2 1 − Φ − um A1 (α)A5 (α) + O(Ln m−1
0 ).(23)
From (21), (23) and the above calculations it now follows for l ≥ 1 that with Dm (α) =

29

−1/2

m1/2 m0

−1/2

A1

(α)A5 (α) and rbα∆,− (x) = rbα∆ (x) − ∆hα (x)

o
n
−1/2
rα∆,− (x)| ≤ L∗n m0 ) N − (x) = m
E ml0 rbα∆,− (x)2l I(|b
Z

L∗n

= 2l
0



−1/2
v 2l−1 P rbα∆,− (x) > vm0
N − (x) = m dv

Z

0

−2l
−L∗n

Z

L∗n

= 2l
0



−1/2
v 2l−1 P rbα∆,− (x) ≤ vm0
N − (x) = m dv

h 

−1/2
v 2l−1 P rbα∆,− (x) > vm0
N − (x) = m


i
−1/2
+P rbα∆,− (x) ≤ −vm0
N − (x) = m dv
Z

L∗n

= 2l

h 


 

v 2l−1 Φ µα (v) − m−1/2 ρα (v) 1 − µα (v)2 φ µα (v)

0




 
i
+1 − Φ µα (−v) + m−1/2 ρα (−v) 1 − µα (−v)2 φ µα (−v) dv + O(Ln m0−1 )
Z

L∗n

= 4l

v

2l−1



Φ − vDm (α) dv + O(Ln m−1
0 )

0

= 4lDm (α)

−2l

L∗n Dm (α)

Z

w2l−1 Φ(−w) dw + O(Ln m−1
0 )

0

Z
h


∗ 2l
∗
−2l
= 2 (Ln ) Φ − Ln Dm (α) + Dm (α)

L∗n Dm (α)

i

v φ(v) dv + O(Ln m−1
0 )
2l

0

uniformly in C1∗ m0 ≤ m ≤ C2∗ m0 with constants C1∗ < C2∗ . If L∗n = (log n)γ is chosen
with γ > 0 large enough we get that the right hand side of the last equation is equal to
R∞
Dm (α)−2l −∞ v 2l φ(v) dv + O(Ln m−1
0 ). This follows since it can be easily shown that
Z

L∗n Dm (α)

2l

Z

∞

z φ(z) dz −

2
0

∗

∗

z 2l φ(z) dz = o(Ln n−C ) = o(m−C ),

−∞



∗
∗ 2l
∗
(Ln ) Φ − Ln Dm (α) = o(m−C )
with γ chosen depending on C ∗ . Thus we get for l ∈ N that
n
o
−1/2
rα∆,− (x)| ≤ L∗n m0 ) N − (x) = m
E rbα∆,− (x)2l I(|b
Z ∞
l
−l A1 (α)
=m
z 2l φ(z) dz + O(Ln (nhd )−l−1 ).
A2l
(α)
−∞
5

30

(24)

With similar arguments one can show that
n
o
−1/2
E rbα∆,− (x)2l−1 I(|b
rα∆,− (x)| ≤ L∗n m0 ) N − (x) = m
=

(2l−1)/2
A
(α)
m−(2l−1)/2 1 2l−1
A5 (α)

Z

(25)

∞

z 2l−1 φ(z) dz + O(Ln (nhd )−l )

−∞

= O(Ln (nhd )−l ).
In this case one applies (22) instead of (21).
For the proof of (11) and (12) it remains to show that uniformly in C1∗ m0 ≤ m ≤ C2∗ m0 ,
with constants C1∗ < C2∗ , and for l ∈ N
n
o
E reα∆,− (x)2l N − (x) = m
=

κ/2
A (α)
m−κ/2 1κ
A5 (α)

Z

(26)

∞

z 2l φ(z) dz + O(Ln (nhd )−l−1 ),

−∞

n
o
∆,−
2l−1
−
E reα (x)
N (x) = m

(27)

= O(Ln (nhd )−l ).
It remains to show (26) – (27). For the proof of (26) note that for independent random
variables Z1 , ..., Zm with mean zero, variance 1 and bounded 2l-th absolute moment it
holds that
m
n
o Z
X
−1/2
2l
E (m
Zi )
=

∞

z 2l φ(z) dz + O(m−1 ),

−∞

i=1
iid

∗
because for Z1∗ , . . . , Zm
∼ N (0, 1) one has
m
n
o
X
P
−1/2
2l
E (m
Zi )
= m−l ∗ E(Zi1 . . . Zi2l ) + O(m−1 )
i=1

= m−l

P∗

E(Zi∗1 . . . Zi∗2l ) + O(m−1 )

m
o
n
X
−1/2
= E (m
Zi∗ )2l + O(m−1 )
i=1

= E((Z1∗ )2l ) + O(m−1 )
Z ∞
=
z 2l φ(z) dz + O(m−1 ),
−∞

31

P∗

where the sum

runs over all indices i1 , . . . , i2l that are such that each value of an

index appears exactly two times. For the proof of (27) one applies that for independent
random variables Z1 , ..., Zm with mean zero, variance 1 and bounded 2l + 1-th absolute
moment it holds that
m
m
o
n
X
X
2l−1
−l+1 −1/2
−1/2
Zi )
= m
m
E(
Zi )2l−1
E (m
i=1

i=1

P
= m−l+1 m−1/2 ∗∗ E(Zi1 . . . Zi2l−1 ) + O(m−3/2 ) = O(m−1/2 ),
where the sum

P∗∗

runs over all indices that are such that one value of an index appears

three times and for all other 2l − 4 indices each value appears exactly two times. This
concludes the proof of the theorem.

6

Proof of Theorem 2

For the proof of Theorem 2 we will use the following corollary of Theorem 1. For the
statement of the corollary we have to define another construction of local neighborhoods.
For their definition suppose first that X is one-dimensional. Then the support RX is a
compact interval. For arbitrary j and for k ∈ {1, 2, 3}, we can then define
Ijk = [(3j + k − 1)h, (3j + k)h],

and

∗
Ijk
= [(3j + k − 2)h, (3j + k + 1)h].

∗
The set of indices of the Xi (i = 1, . . . , n) that fall inside the interval Ijk
is denoted by

Njk . We write Njk for the number of elements of Njk . An arbitrary x ∈ RX belongs to a
unique Ijk and we define N (x) = Njk and N (x) = Njk . Thus N (x) is an interval of length
3h, such that x lies in the middle subinterval of N (x) of length h. If the dimension of X
is larger than one, this partition of the support into small intervals can be generalized in
an obvious way.
Corollary 1. Assume (B1)–(B3). Then, for natural numbers l ≥ 1,
n
o
∆,−
2l
∆,−
2l
E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) = m = O(Ln (nhd )−l−1 ),
n
o
2l−1
∆,−
2l−1
E r∆,−
(x)
−
r
e
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
= O(Ln (nhd )−l ),
α
α
32

uniformly in x ∈ RX , α ∈ A and C1∗ nhd ≤ m ≤ C2∗ nhd , where N (x) is the random number
∆
h
of Xi ’s that lie in N (x), and where r∆,−
α (x) = r α (x) − ∆α (x). For the second moments

of the uncentered estimators r∆
eα∆ we have that
α and r
o
n
2
2
∆
∆
E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) = m = O(Ln n−3/2 h−5d/4 ).
Under the additional assumption that ∆α ≡ 0 we get that
n
o
∆
2
∆
2
E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) = m = O(Ln (nhd )−2 ).
Proof of Corollary 1.
For m+ ≥ m we have by a simple argument with κ = 2l
o
n
n
κ
+
−
κ
∆,−
κ
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
,
N
(x)
=
m
=
E
or κ = 2l + 1 that E r∆,−
(x)
−
r
e
r∆,−
α
α
α (x) −
o
reα∆,− (x)κ N − (x) = m . Note that N − (x) ≤ N (x) because of N − (x) ⊂ N (x). Using (11)
and


m+
−
+
P N (x) ≤
N (x) = m
≤ C exp(−cnhd ),
4
uniformly in m+ ≥ 12 3d fX (x)nhd we conclude that
o
n
κ
∆,−
κ
+
(x)
−
r
e
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
= O(Ln (nhd )−l−1 ),
E r∆,−
α
α
uniformly in x ∈ RX , α ∈ A and 21 3d fX (x)nhd ≤ m+ ≤ 2 3d fX (x)nhd .
Since

P

1 d
3 fX (x)nhd ≤ N (x) ≤ 2 3d fX (x)nhd for all x ∈ RX
2


→ 1,

we get the statement of the corollary.
We now come to the proof of Theorem 2.
We only prove the statement for TbA . The asymptotic result for Tbα follows similarly.
We need to introduce a few more notations. With δθ,α (x) = −(θ(α) − θ0 (α))> γα (x) +
−1/2 −d/4
n−1/2 h−d/4 ∆α (x) and ε∆
h
∆α (Xi ) we define reα∆ as in (9) and we put
i,α = εi,α + n


n
X
x − Xi
∆
τα (εi.α + δθ,α (Xi ) − r).
rbα,θ (x) = arg min
K
r
h
i=1
∆
∆
Note that rbα∆ (x) = rbα,θ
(x), and that rbα (x) = rbα,
(x) + OP (n−1/2−c ) by Assumption (B4).
0
θb

We also define r∆
α as in (8). Let also
Wni (x, h) = Kh (x − Xi )/[

X
j

33

Kh (x − Xj )],

with Kh (·) = K(·/h)/hd .
The proof of Theorem 2 will make use of the following lemmas.
Lemma 1. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
sup sup rbα (x) = OP ((nhd )−1/2 Ln ),

(28)

sup sup rbα∆ (x) = OP ((nhd )−1/2 Ln ).

(29)

α∈A x∈RX

α∈A x∈RX

Proof of Lemma 1.

As is known for the case where there is no parametric part and

where ∆α ≡ 0, one has that
∆
sup sup rbα,θ
(x) − reα (x) = OP ((nhd )−3/4 Ln )
0
α∈A x∈RX

with reα defined as in (5). For a proof see Theorem 2 in Guerre and Sabbah (2012). By
standard smoothing theory we have that (still when ∆α ≡ 0)
sup sup reα (x) = OP ((nhd )−1/2 Ln ).

(30)

α∈A x∈RX

This shows (29) when ∆α ≡ 0. We can move from this case to ∆α 6= 0 by adding to the
observations terms of order OP (n−1/2 h−d/4 ). This changes the local quantiles by at most
this amount, and hence (29) still holds when ∆α 6= 0.
∆
In the case of rbα (x) = rbα,
(x) + OP (n−1/2−c ) we have to add to the observations terms
θb

of the order OP (Ln n−1/2 h−d/4 ) = OP ((nhd )−1/2 Ln ). This shows the first statement of the
lemma.
Lemma 2. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
b − θ0 (α))> γα (x) = OP (n− 21 −c ).
sup sup rbα (x) − rbα∆ (x) + (θ(α)
α∈A x∈RX

>
b
Proof of Lemma 2. First note that rbα (x)+(θ(α)−θ
0 (α)) γα (x) is equal to the quantile

estimator we would obtain when we shift all observations Yi in the window around x by
b − θ0 (α))> γα (x), and hence we need to show that the distance between
the amount (θ(α)
1

this latter estimator (say rbα,mod (x)) and rbα∆ (x) is OP (n− 2 −c ) uniformly in α and x.

34

Next, note that if now in addition we perturb all observations in the window around
>
b
x by adding mα,θ(α)
b (Xi ) − mα,θ0 (α) (Xi ) − (θ(α) − θ0 (α)) γα (Xi ), the quantile estimator

rbα,mod (x) will get perturbed by at most the maximal perturbation of the observations,
which is of the order OP (n−1/2−c ) by Assumption (B4).
After these two perturbations, the quantile estimator is now based on Yi −mα,θ0 (α) (Xi )+
b − θ0 (α))> (γα (x) − γα (Xi )) instead of Yi − m b (Xi ). Finally note that if we apply
(θ(α)
α,θ(α)
b
one more perturbation by subtracting (θ(α)
− θ0 (α))> (γα (x) − γα (Xi )) for all Xi in the
window around x, the estimator changes by at most OP (h−δ n−1/2−ρ hδ ) = OP (n−1/2−ρ ) by
Assumption (B5). The so-obtained estimator equals rbα∆ (x), which shows the statement of
the lemma.
Lemma 3. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
sup sup rbα∆ (x) − reα∆ (x) = OP ((nhd )−3/4 Ln ).
α∈A x∈RX

Proof of Lemma 3. Write
|b
rα∆ (x) − reα∆ (x)|
≤

=

1

n
X

inf x,α fεα |X (0|x)

i=1

1

n
X

inf x,α fεα |X (0|x)

Wni (x, h)fεα |X (0|Xi )b
rα∆ (x) +

n
X

Wni (x, h) I(ε∆
i,α ≤ 0) − α



i=1

Wni (x, h)fεα |X (0|Xi )b
rα∆ (x) − Fbε∆α |X (b
rα∆ (x)|x) + Fbε∆α |X (0|x)

i=1

d −1

+OP ((nh ) ),

(31)

P
where Fbε∆α |X (y|x) = i Wni (x, h)I(ε∆
i,α ≤ y). The latter equality follows from the fact
that
|Fbε∆α |X (b
rα∆ (x)|x) − α| ≤ |Fbε∆α |X (b
rα∆ (x)|x) − Fbε∆α |X (b
rα∆ (x) − |x)|
= OP ((nhd )−1 ).
The following expansion follows from standard kernel smoothing theory, uniformly for

35

d
x ∈ RX , α ∈ A, |y| ≤ an and for sequences an with a−1
n = O(nh ) :

Fbε∆α |X (y|x) − Fbε∆α |X (0|x)
Z y
X
fεα |X (u − n−1/2 h−d/4 ∆α (Xi )|Xi )du + OP ((nhd )−1/2 Ln a1/2
=
Wni (x, h)
n )
0

i

=

X

Z
Wni (x, h)

fεα |X (u|Xi )du + OP ((nhd )−1/2 Ln an1/2 ) + OP (n−1/2 h−d/4 an )

0

i

=y

y

X

Wni (x, h)fεα |X (0|Xi ) + OP ((nhd )−1/2 Ln an1/2 + a2n ) + OP (n−1/2 h−d/4 an ).

i

We now apply this bound to an = (nhd )−1/2 Ln and y = rbα∆ (x), which is possible thanks
to Lemma 1. This combined with (31) shows the statement of the lemma.
For proving Theorem 2, we will make use of the following decomposition, which follows
from Lemma 2 :
Z Z
TbA =
A

i2
b − θ0 (α))> γα (x) w(x, α) dx dα + oP (n−1 h−d/2 )
rbα∆ (x) − (θ(α)

h

rbα∆ (x)2

RX

Z Z
=
A

h

RX

Z Z
+
A

RX

Z Z
+
A

RX

h
n
oi
∆
2
∆
2
∆
2
∆
2
rα (x) − reα (x) − E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) w(x, α) dx dα
h

−2
RX

Z Z
−2
A

RX

Z Z
+
A

(b
rα∆ (x)

−

reα∆ (x))



b − θ0 (α))> γα (x)
(θ(α)

i

w(x, α) dx dα

h
i

b − θ0 (α))> γα (x) w(x, α) dx dα
reα∆ (x) (θ(α)

h
i2
b − θ0 (α))> γα (x) w(x, α) dx dα
(θ(α)

RX

Z Z
+
A

i
w(x, α) dx dα

n
o
∆
2
∆
2
E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) w(x, α) dx dα

Z Z
A

−

2
r∆
α (x)

RX

reα∆ (x)2 w(x, α) dx dα + oP (n−1 h−d/2 )

= Tn1 + ... + Tn7 + oP (n−1 h−d/2 ).
Lemma 4. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
Tn1 = oP (an ),
for any sequence {an } of positive constants tending to zero as n → ∞.
36

Proof of Lemma 4. Note that
Tn1 ≤ sup sup
α∈A x∈RX

|b
rα∆ (x)|2

Z Z
A



I |b
rα∆ (x)| > Ln (nhd )−1/2 w(x, α) dx dα.

RX

It is easily seen from Lemma 1 that
Z Z
A



I |b
rα∆ (x)| > Ln (nhd )−1/2 w(x, α) dx dα = oP (an ),

RX

for any an → 0, since the indicator inside the integral will be zero from some point on.
From Corollary 1 we get the following result.
Lemma 5. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
n
o
∆
2
∆
2
sup sup E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) = oP ((nhd/2 )−1 ),
α∈A x∈RX

and hence, Tn2 = oP ((nhd/2 )−1 ).
At this point we needed the additional assumption nh3d/2 /L∗n → ∞ for the case that
∆α 6≡ 0. We now shortly outline what happens if we are on the alternative and if this
assumption does not hold. Note that for |m − m0 | = o(m0 )
o
n
2
∆
2
E r∆
(x)
−
r
e
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
α
α
o
n
h
2
∆,−
h
2
(x)
+
∆
(x))
−
(e
r
(x)
+
∆
(x))
N
(x)
=
m
= E (r∆,−
α
α
α
α
n
o
n
o
∆,−
2
∆,−
2
h
∆,−
= E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) = m + 2∆α (x)E rα (x) N (x) = m .
For the first term on the right hand side we get from Corollary 1 that it is of order
o((nhd/2 )−1 ). For ∆hα (x) one can show that it is equal to n−1/2 h−d/4 ∆α (x)+O(Ln n−1/2 h−d/4 h2 ).
n
o
For the term E r∆,−
(x)
N
(x)
=
m
one can show that it is equal to (nhd )−1 ρ(x) +
α
O(Ln (nhd )−3/2 ) for some function ρ that does not depend on the function ∆α . This can
be done by using the arguments based on Edgeworth expansions that were central in the
proof of Theorem 1. This gives that
Tn2 = n

−3/2 −5d/4

Z Z

h

A

∆α (x)ρ(x)w(x, α) dx dα + o(n−3/2 h−5d/4 ) + o((nhd/2 )−1 ).

RX

37

Suppose now that nh3d/2 → 0. Then it holds that (nhd/2 )−1 = o(n−3/2 h−5d/4 ) and using
Lemma 10 we get that
−1 −d

Tn = n h K

(2)

Z

Z
α(1 − α)

(0)
A

+n−3/2 h−5d/4

RX

Z Z
A

w(x, α)
dx dα
fX (x)fε2α |X (0|x)

∆α (x)ρ(x)w(x, α) dx dα + oP (n−3/2 h−5d/4 ).

RX

This implies that the test rejects for large values of

R R
A

RX

∆α (x)ρ(x)w(x, α) dx dα. Thus,

in this high-dimensional setting the test behaves like a linear test and not like an omnibus
test.
Lemma 6. Suppose the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
Tn3 = OP (Ln n−5/4 h−3d/4 ) = oP ((nhd/2 )−1 ).
Proof of Lemma 6.

For simplicity of exposition of the argument, let us assume that

Xi is one-dimensional. For arbitrary j and for k ∈ {1, 2, 3}, define
Z Z
Ujk =
A

Ijk

h
n
oi
∆
2
∆
2
∆
2
∆
2
rα (x) − reα (x) − E rα (x) − reα (x) N (x) w(x, α) dx dα.

Then we can write Tn3 = Tn31 + Tn32 + Tn33 with Tn3k =

P

j

Ujk (k = 1, 2, 3). The

terms Tn31 , Tn32 and Tn33 are sums of O(h−1 ) conditionally independent summands. The
summands are uniformly bounded by a term of order OP (Ln n−5/4 h−1/4 ). This follows
from Lemma 5, from the fact that supα∈A supx |e
rα∆ (x)| = OP (Ln (nh)−1/2 ), see also (30),
and from the Bahadur representation for r∆
α (x), given in Lemma 3. It now follows that
Tn3k = OP (Ln n−5/4 h−3/4 ), which implies the statement of the lemma for d = 1. For d > 1
one can use the same approach.
Lemma 7. Suppose the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
Tn4 = oP ((nhd/2 )−1 ).
Proof of Lemma 7.

1

d

This is obvious, since Tn4 = OP (Ln (nhd )−3/4 n− 4 h 4 /L∗n ) =

oP ((nhd/2 )−1 ), thanks to Assumption (B5) and Lemma 3.

38

Lemma 8. Suppose the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
Tn5 = oP ((nhd/2 )−1 ).
Proof of Lemma 8. Write


Z Z Pn K x−Xi {I(ε∆ ≤ 0) − α}
i,α
i=1
h
b − θ0 (α))> γα (x)w(x, α) dx dα


(θ(α)
Tn5 = 2
Pn
x−X
i
A RX
fεα |X (0|Xi )
i=1 K
h


Z Z Pn K x−Xi {I(ε∆ ≤ 0) − α}
i,α
i=1
h
2
=
n A RX
gh,α (x)
b − θ0 (α))> γα (x)w(x, α) dx dα + oP ((nhd/2 )−1 )
×(θ(α)
Z

b − θ0 (α))> 1
= 2 (θ(α)
n
A

with gh,α (x) = E K


x−X
h

n
X

d/2 −1
ρh,α (Xi ){I(ε∆
) ),
i,α ≤ 0) − α} dα + oP ((nh

(32)

i=1


fεα |X (0|X) and
Z

ρh,α (v) =

K
RX

Using the notations Qh,α (Xi ) =

 x − v  γ (x)w(x, α)
α
dx.
h
gh,α (x)

ρ (X )
Pn h,α i
,
j=1 ρh,α (Xj )

Pn
∆
Fbε∆α (y) =
i=1 Qh,α (Xi )I(εi,α ≤ y) and

Fε∆α (y) = P (ε∆
α ≤ y), we have that
n

1X
ρh,α (Xi ){I(ε∆
i,α ≤ 0) − α}
n i=1
n
h
i 1 X

= Fbε∆α (0) − α
ρh,α (Xi )
n i=1
n
n
h
i 1 X
 h
i 1 X

b
= Fε∆α (0) − Fε∆α (0)
ρh,α (Xi ) + Fε∆α (0) − α
ρh,α (Xi )
n i=1
n i=1

= OP (n−1/2 ) + OP (n−1/2 h−d/4 ),
uniformly in α ∈ A, and hence the statement of the lemma holds because of (32) and
(B5).
Lemma 9. Suppose the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
Tn6 = oP ((nhd/2 )−1 ).
39

Proof of Lemma 9. The statement of the lemma follows from (B5).

Lemma 10. Suppose the assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Then,
d

nhd/2 Tn7 − bh,A → N (DA , VA ).
Proof of Lemma 10.

The proof is very similar to the proof of e.g. Proposition 1 in

Härdle and Mammen (1993). Write
x − X  x − X 
XZ Z
j
i
∆
−2
K
{I(ε∆
Tn7 = n
K
i,α ≤ 0) − α}{I(εj,α ≤ 0) − α}
h
h
A
R
X
i,j
×b
gα (x)−2 w(x, α) dx dα,


 ∆
P
i
where gbα (x) = n−1 ni=1 K x−X
fεα |X (0|Xi ). By writing I(ε∆
i,α ≤ 0) − α = I(εi,α ≤
h
 

0) − I(εi,α ≤ 0) + I(εi,α ≤ 0) − α , we can decompose Tn7 into Tn7 = Tn71 + Tn72 + 2Tn73 .
As in Härdle and Mammen (1993), Tn73 is negligible. Straightforward calculations show
that Tn71 = (nhd/2 )−1 (DA + oP (1)). Indeed,
E(Tn71 |X1 , . . . , Xn )
 x − X   x − X 
XZ Z

i
j
−2
K
K
Fεα |X (−n−1/2 h−d/4 ∆α (Xi )|Xi ) − Fεα |X (0|Xi )
=n
h
h
A RX
i,j


× Fεα |X (−n−1/2 h−d/4 ∆α (Xj )|Xj ) − Fεα |X (0|Xj ) gbα (x)−2 w(x, α) dx dα
x − X  x − X 
XZ Z
j
i
−2
=n
K
K
fεα |X (0|Xi )fεα |X (0|Xj )
h
h
A
R
X
i,j
×n−1 h−d/2 ∆α (Xi )∆α (Xj )b
gα (x)−2 w(x, α) dx dα (1 + oP (1))
Z Z
−1 −d/2
=n h
∆2α (x)w(x, α) dx dα (1 + oP (1))
A

RX

= n−1 h−d/2 DA (1 + oP (1)).
Next, write Tn72 = Tn72a + Tn72b with
Tn72a

n
1 X
=
Unii ,
n2 i=1

Tn72b =

1 X
Unij ,
n2 i6=j
40

where
Z Z
Unij =

K
A

RX

x − X  x − X 
i
j
K
{I(εi,α ≤ 0) − α}{I(εj,α ≤ 0) − α}
h
h

×b
gα (x)−2 w(x, α) dx dα.
By calculating its mean and variance it can be checked that nhd/2 Tn72a = bh,A + oP (1).
d

Thus for the lemma it remains to check that nhd/2 Tn72b → N (0, VA ). For the proof
of this claim one can proceed as in Härdle and Mammen (1993) and apply the central
limit theorem for U-statistics of de Jong (1987). For this purpose one has to verify that
P
4
n2 hd Var(Tn72b ) → VA , max1≤i≤n nj=1 Var(Unij )/Var(Tn72b ) → 0 and E[Tn72b
]/(Var(Tn72b ))2
→ 3. This can be done by straightforward but tedious calculations.
Proof of Theorem 2. The theorem follows immediately from Lemmas 4–10. Lemmas
4–9 imply the negligibility of the terms Tn1 , .., Tn6 . Lemma 10 shows the asymptotic
normality of nhd/2 Tn7 .

7

Proof of Theorem 3

The theorem can be shown by verification of the conditions of the central limit theorem
for U-statistics of de Jong (1987), in the same way as was done in the proof of Lemma
10. The crucial point in the proof is to note that I(Ui ≤ α) has the same distribution as
I(εi,α ≤ 0), and hence the calculations in the proof of Lemma 10 go through in this proof.

Acknowledgments
Research of the first author was prepared within the framework of a subsidy granted to
the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the
Global Competitiveness Program and it was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the Research Training Group RTG 1953. The research of the second author
was supported by the European Research Council (2016-2021, Horizon 2020 / ERC grant

41

agreement No. 694409), and by IAP research network grant nr. P7/06 of the Belgian
government (Belgian Science Policy).

References
Ait-Sahalia, Y., Fan, J. and Peng, H. (2009). Nonparametric transition-based tests for
diffusions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 104 1102-1116.
Angrist, J., Chernozhukov, V. and Fernández-Val, I. (2006). Quantile regression under
misspecification, with an application to the U.S. wage structure. Econometrica 74
539-563.
Bhattacharya, R. and Rao, R. (1976). Normal Approximations and Asymptotic Expansions. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Bierens, H.J. and Ginther, D. (2001). Integrated conditional moment testing of quantile
regression models. Empirical Economics 26 307-324.
Chaudhuri, P. (1991). Nonparametric estimates of regression quantiles and their local
Bahadur representation. Annals of Statistics 19 760-777.
Conde-Amboage, M., Sánchez-Sellero, C. and González-Manteiga, W. (2015). A lack-offit test for quantile regression models with high-dimensional covariates. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 88 128-138.
De Backer, M., El Ghouch, A. and Van Keilegom, I. (2017). Semiparametric copula
quantile regression for complete or censored data. Electronic Journal of Statistics
11 1660-1698.
de Jong, P. (1987). A central limit theorem for generalized quadratic forms. Probability
Theory and Related Fields 75 261-277.
Dette, H. and Sprekelsen, I. (2004). Some comments on specification tests in nonparametric absolutely regular processes. Journal of Time Series Analysis 25 159-172.
42

El Ghouch, A. and Van Keilegom, I. (2009). Local linear quantile regression with dependent censored data. Statistica Sinica 19 1621-1640.
Fan, J., Zhang, C. and Zhang, J. (2001). Generalized likelihood ratio statistics and
Wilks phenomenon. Annals of Statistics 29 153-193.
Gao, J. and Hong, Y. (2008). Central limit theorems for generalized U-statistics with
applications in nonparametric specification. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics 20
61-76.
González-Manteiga, W. and Cao-Abad, R. (1993). Testing the hypothesis of a general
linear model using nonparametric regression estimation. Test 2 161-188.
Guerre, E. and Lavergne, P. (2002). Optimal minimax rates for nonparametric specification testing in regression models. Econometric Theory 18 1139-1171.
Guerre, E. and Sabbah, C. (2012). Uniform bias study and Bahadur representation
for local polynomial estimators of the conditional quantile function. Econometric
Theory 28 87-129.
Haag, B. (2008). Non-parametric regression tests using dimension reduction techniques.
Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 35 719-738.
Härdle, W. and Mammen, E. (1993). Testing parametric versus nonparametric regression. Annals of Statistics 21 1926-1947.
He, X. and Ng, P. (1999). Quantile splines with several covariates. Journal of Statistical
Planning and Inference 75 343-352.
He, X., Ng, P. and Portnoy, S. (1998). Bivariate quantile smoothing splines. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society - Series B 60 537-550.
He, X. and Zhu, L.-X. (2003). A lack of fit test for quantile regression. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 98 1013-1022.
43

Hjellvik, V., Yao, Q. and Tjøstheim, D. (1998). Linearity testing using local polynomial
approximation. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 68 295-321.
Hoderlein, S. and Mammen, E. (2009). Identification and estimation of local average
derivatives in non-separable models without monotonicity. Econometrics Journal
12 1-25.
Hong, S.Y. (2003). Bahadur representation and its applications for local polynomial
estimates in non-parametric M-regression. Journal of Nonparametric Statistics 15
237-251.
Horowitz, J.L. and Spokoiny, V.G. (2002). An adaptive, rate-optimal test of linearity
for median regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 97
822-835.
Ingster, Y.I. (1993). Asymptotically minimax hypothesis testing for nonparametric alternatives I, II, III. Math. Methods of Statistics 2 85-114, 171-189, 249-268.
Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile Regression. Cambridge University Press.
Koenker, R. and Machado, J.A.F. (1999). Goodness of fit and related inference processes
for quantile regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94 12961310.
Koenker, R. and Xiao, Z. J. (2002). Inference on the quantile regression process. Econometrica 70 1583-1612.
Kong, E., Linton, O. and Xia, Y. (2010). Uniform Bahadur representation for local
polynomial estimates of M-regression and its application to the additive model.
Econometric Theory 26 1529-1564.
Kreiss, J.P., Neumann, M.H. and Yao, Q. (2008). Bootstrap tests for simple structures
in nonparametric time series regression. Statistics and its Interface 1 367-380.

44

Lee, K.L. and Lee, E.R. (2008). Kernel methods for estimating derivatives of conditional
quantiles. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society 37 365-373.
Leucht, A. (2012). Degenerate U - and V -statistics under weak dependence: Asymptotic
theory and bootstrap consistency. Bernoulli 18 552-585.
Li, Q. and Racine, J.S. (2008). Nonparametric estimation of conditional CDF and
quantile functions with mixed categorical and continuous data. Journal of Business
& Economic Statistics 26 423-434.
Rothe, C. and Wied, D. (2013). Misspecification testing in a class of conditional distributional models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 108 314-324.
Su, L. and White, H.L. (2012). Conditional independence specification testing for dependent processes with local polynomial quantile regression. Advances in Econometrics
29 355-434.
Truong, Y.K. (1989). Asymptotic properties of kernel estimators based on local medians.
Annals of Statistics 17 606-617.
Volgushev, S., Birke, M., Dette, H. and Neumeyer, N. (2013). Significance testing in
quantile regression. Electronic Journal of Statistics 7 105-145.
Yu, K. and Jones, M. C. (1998). Local Linear Quantile Regression. Journal of the
American Statistical Association 93 228-237.
Zheng, J.X. (1996). A consistent test of a functional form via nonparametric estimation
techniques. Journal of Econometrics 75 263-289.
Zheng, J.X. (1998). A consistent nonparametric test of parametric models under conditional quantile regressions. Econometric Theory 14 223-238.

45

