The null hypothesis of common jumps in case of irregular
and asynchronous observations
Ole Martin and Mathias Vetter∗

arXiv:1712.07159v1 [math.ST] 19 Dec 2017

Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
December 21, 2017

Abstract
This paper proposes novel tests for the absence of jumps in a univariate semimartingale and for the absence of common jumps in a bivariate semimartingale.
Our methods rely on ratio statistics of power variations based on irregular observations, sampled at different frequencies. We develop central limit theorems for
the statistics under the respective null hypotheses and apply bootstrap procedures to assess the limiting distributions. Further we define corrected statistics
to improve the finite sample performance. Simulations show that the test based
on our corrected statistic yields good results and even outperforms existing tests
in the case of regular observations.

Keywords and Phrases: Asynchronous observations; common jumps;
high-frequency statistics; Itô semimartingale; stable convergence
AMS Subject Classification: 62G10, 62M05 (primary); 60J60, 60J75 (secondary)

1

Introduction

A key issue of the statistical analysis in continuous time is to understand the fine
structure of the underlying processes based on discrete observations. Tools are
needed in order to answer fundamental questions about suitable models for these
processes, and probably the most basic ones are concerned with whether the processes evolve continuously in time or exhibit jumps. Within the class of semimartingales several statistical tests on this topic have been proposed in recent years, both
in one and in several (usually two) dimensions and under various null hypotheses.
For an overview see for example Sections 11.4 and 15.3 in Jacod and Protter (2012)
or Chapters 10 and 14 in Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2014).
In this work we are interested in the null hypothesis that common jumps of a
bivariate process exist. In fact this question was tackled and solved prominently in
Jacod and Todorov (2009), but only under the additional assumption that observations come in at equidistant and synchronous times. Both assumptions are rarely
justified in practice, which is why practitioners usually ignore a lot of observations
(and then work with one-minute observations, for example) in order to artificially
∗

Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Mathematisches Seminar, Ludewig-Meyn-Str. 4, 24118
Kiel, Germany. E-mail: martin@math.uni-kiel.de/vetter@math.uni-kiel.de

1

construct a sampling scheme which is close enough to justify the assumptions of regularity. Both from a theoretical and a practical point of view this is unsatisfactory,
and one would like to understand what happens when the underlying observations
come in randomly at irregular and asynchronous times. This is precisely what we
aim at in this paper, and our study complements the previous work Martin and Vetter (2017) in which a test for the presence of common jumps (so under the opposite
null hypothesis of no common jumps) was constructed.
It has turned out that the construction of a test in two dimensions is difficult
unless one properly understands the univariate situation. For this reason we provide two statistical procedures: First, we want to decide whether or not jumps are
present in a realized path of a stochastic process in one dimension, based on discrete irregular observations of the process and under the null hypothesis that jumps
exist. Second, we want to decide whether common jumps are present or not in two
realized processes, based on irregular and asynchronous observations and under the
null hypothesis that there exist common jumps. Thus, this work can not only be
understood as a generalization of the results in Jacod and Todorov (2009), but it
also complements the univariate discussion from Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2009).
e be a one-dimensional process observed at times t̃i,n and let
In the following let X
(l)
(1)
(2)
X = (X , X ) be a bivariate process where X (l) is observed at times ti,n , l = 1, 2,
all over the time interval [0, T ]. Then for some k ≥ 2 our tests are based on the
ratio statistics
P
4
e
e
i≥k:t̃i,n ≤T (Xt̃i,n − Xt̃i−k,n )
P
4
e −X
e
k i≥1:t̃i,n ≤T (X
t̃i,n
t̃i−1,n )
and
P

(1)

(2)

i,j≥k:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

k2

P

(1)

(1)

ti,n

ti−k,n

(X (1) − X (1)

(1)
(2)
i,j≥1:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

(1)

(2)

(2)

tj,n

tj−k,n

)2 (X (2) − X (2)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(X (1) − X (1) )2 (X (2) − X (2)
ti,n

ti−1,n

tj,n

)2 1{(t(1)

tj−1,n

(1)
(2)
(2)
i−k,n ,ti,n ]∩(tj−k,n ,tj,n ]6=∅}

)2 1{(t(1)

.

(1)
(2)
(2)
i−1,n ,ti,n ]∩(tj−1,n ,tj,n ]6=∅}

The common feature of both statistics is that they have a different asymptotic
e has jumps in [0, T ] or not,
behaviour, depending on whether, for the first one, X
(1)
(2)
or whether, for the second one, X
and X
have common jumps in [0, T ] or
not. In this paper we investigate the asymptotics of these statistics both under the
null hypothesis that (common) jumps are present and under the alternative that
(common) jumps do not exist. We will see that the limits are similar in structure to
those in the setting of equidistant observation times. Further we will develop central
limit theorems using techniques from Bibinger and Vetter (2015) and Martin and
Vetter (2017) for both statistics under the null hypothesis that (common) jumps are
present. Unlike in the setting of equidistant observation times the limiting variables
in the central limit theorem are not mixed normal but have a more complicated
distribution. We use the bootstrap method introduced in Martin and Vetter (2017)
to estimate the quantiles of this limit distribution and to construct a feasible testing
procedure.
Finally we conduct a simulation study to check the finite sample performance
of our tests. As in Martin and Vetter (2017) we use the models from Jacod and
Todorov (2009) to compare our results with the results from similar tests in the
setting of equidistant observations. Compared to these results we find that the finite
2

sample performance of our tests is rather poor, especially under the null hypothesis,
which is due to a rather large contribution of terms which vanish asymptotically
in the central limit theorem. To improve the performance of our tests we therefore
construct an estimator which (partially) corrects for those asymptotically vanishing
terms. Using this estimator we get a huge improvement in the performance of our
tests. In particular, our results become even better than the corresponding results
for the tests from Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2009), Jacod and Todorov (2009) and
Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2014) in the setting of equidistant observation times.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: As the structure of the results
and the formal arguments are simpler in the setting where we test for jumps in a onedimensional process we first derive in Section 2 two statistical tests for jumps within
(J)
a stochastic process. The formal setting and the estimator Φk,T,n is introduced in
Section 2.1. In Section 2.2 we derive the consistency of this estimator under both
hypotheses, we cover the asymptotics of the estimator in the form of a central limit
theorem in Section 2.3, and in Section 2.4 we use a bootstrap method to derive
(J)
two feasible tests, one using the original statistic Φk,T,n and one using a corrected
e (J) (ρ) based on the central limit theorem. Building on the results
estimator Φ
k,T,n
from Section 2 we proceed similarly in Section 3 to derive two statistical tests for
deciding whether or not two processes jump at a common time. In Section 4 we
examine the finite sample properties of the tests derived in Sections 2 and 3 by
means of a simulation study. The appendix containing the proofs is split into two
parts: Section 5 contains the main structure of the proofs, leaving out most technical
arguments. Section 6, available online, contains all proofs in details and thus fills
the gaps left in Section 5.

2

A test for the absence of jumps

In this section we will derive a statistical test based on high-frequency observations
which allows to decide whether an observed path of a process contains jumps or not.

2.1

Settings and test statistic

First we specify the mathematical model for the process and the observation times.
Let X be a one-dimensional Itô semimartingale on the probability space (Ω, F, P)
of the form
Zt
Xt = X0 +

Zt
bs ds +

0

Zt Z
σs dWs +

0

δ(s, z)1{|δ(s,z)|≤1} (µ − ν)(ds, dz)
0 R

Zt Z
+

δ(s, z)1{|δ(s,z)|>1} µ(ds, dz). (2.1)
0 R

Here, W denotes a standard Brownian motion, µ is a Poisson random measure on
R+ × R whose predictable compensator satisfies ν(ds, dz) = ds ⊗ λ(dz) for some
σ-finite measure λ on R endowed with the Borelian σ-algebra, b and σ are adapted
processes and δ is a predictable function on Ω × R+ × R. For a more detailed
discussion of the components of X consult Section 2.1 of Jacod and Protter (2012).
We write ∆Xs = Xs − Xs− with Xs− = limt%s Xt for a possible jump of X in s.
3

Further we define a sequence of observation schemes (πn )n∈N via
πn = (ti,n )i∈N0 , n ∈ N,
where the (ti,n )i∈N0 are increasing sequences of stopping times with t0,n = 0. By
|πn |T = sup {ti,n ∧ T − ti−1,n ∧ T |i ≥ 1}
we denote the mesh of the observation times up to some fixed time horizon T ≥ 0.
Formally we will develop a statistical test which allows to decide whether a realized
path X(ω) contains jumps in a given time interval [0, T ] or not. Specifically we
want to decide based on the observations (Xti,n (ω))i∈N0 to which of the following
two subsets of Ω
(J)

ΩT = {∃t ∈ [0, T ] : ∆Xt 6= 0} ,
(C)
(J) c
ΩT = ΩT
(J)

ω belongs. Here, ΩT is the set of all ω for which the path of X up to T has at least
(C)
one jump and ΩT is the set of all ω for which the path of X is continuous on [0, T ].
All our test statistics are based on the increments
∆i,k,n X = Xti,n − Xti−k,n ,

∆i,n X = ∆i,1,n X.

and we denote by Ii,k,n = (ti−k,n , ti,n ] , i ≥ k ≥ 1, Ii,n = Ii,1,n , the corresponding
observation intervals. For convenience we set Ii,k,n = ∅ and accordingly ∆i,k,n X = 0
for i < k.
Further we define for k ∈ N and a function h : R → R the functionals
X
V (h, [k], πn )T =
h(∆i,k,n X),
i≥k:ti,n ≤T

V (h, πn )T = V (h, [1], πn )T .
Considering these functionals for g : x 7→ x4 and k ≥ 2 we build the statistic
(J)

Φk,T,n =

V (g, [k], πn )T
kV (g, πn )T

whose asymptotics we use to construct a statistical tests for the absence of jumps.
Remark 2.1. In the setting of equidistant observation times ti,n = i/n our statistic
becomes
PbnT c
g(∆i,k,n X)
(J)
.
(2.2)
Φk,T,n = Pi=k
bT /nc
k i=1 g(∆i,n X)
On the other hand in Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2009) a test is constructed based on
the statistic
PbnT /kc
g(∆ik,k,n X)
(J)
i=1
Φk,T,n = P
(2.3)
bT /nc
i=1 g(∆i,n X)
where at the lower observation frequency n/k only increments over certain observation intervals Iik,k,n enter the estimation. Intuitively it seems that using the statistic
(2.2) should be better than using (2.3), because in (2.2) we utilize the available data
more exhaustively by using all increments at the lower observation frequency. This
intuition is confirmed by Proposition 10.19 in Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2014) where
central limit theorems are developed for both (2.2) and (2.3) and it is shown that
(2.2) has a smaller asymptotic variance.
4

2.2

Consistency
(J)

In order to derive results on the asymptotic behaviour of Φk,T,n we need to impose
certain structural assumptions on the Itô semimartingale X and the observation
scheme. Further we introduce the notation
X
n
|Ii,k,n |2
Gk,n (t) = 2
k
i≥k:ti,n ≤t

and abbreviate Gn (t) = G1,n (t).
Condition 2.2. The process bs is locally bounded and the process σs is càdlàg.
Furthermore, there exists a locally bounded process Γs withR |δ(ω, s, z)| ≤ Γs (ω)γ(z)
for some deterministic bounded function γ which satisfies (γ(z)2 ∧ 1)λ(dz) < ∞,
RT
and the process σ fulfills 0 |σs |ds > 0 almost surely. Additionally the following
assumptions on the observation scheme hold:
(i) The sequence of observation schemes (πn )n is exogenous, i.e. independent of
the process X and its components, and fulfills
P

|πn |T −→ 0.
(ii) The functions Gn (t), Gk,n (t) convergence pointwise on [0, T ] in probability to
strictly increasing functions G, Gk : [0, T ] → [0, ∞).
The structural assumptions on b, σ, δ are not very restrictive and occur elsewhere
in the literature in similar form. The assumption that σ almost surely does not vanish on [0, T ] and Condition 2.2(ii) are only needed to derive the asymptotic behaviour
(J)
(C)
(J)
(J)
of Φk,T,n on ΩT . Φk,T,n converges on ΩT also without these assumptions.
We will see in the proof of Theorem 2.3 that
(J)

P

V (g, πn )T −→ BT

=

X

(∆Xt )4 ,

t≤T
P

V (g, [k], πn )T −→

(J)
kBT
(J)

(J)

(C)

(J)

which yields the asymptotic behaviour of Φk,T,n on ΩT . On ΩT we have BT = 0
and we expand the fraction by n to get an asymptotic result. To describe the limit
in that case we define
Z T
Z T
(J)
(J)
CT =
3σs4 dG(s), Ck,T =
3σs4 dGk (s).
0

0

Theorem 2.3. Under Condition 2.2 it holds

(J)
1,
on ΩT ,
P
(J)
(J)
Φk,T,n −→ kCk,T
 (J) , on Ω(C)
T .
CT

Remark 2.4. We obtain
Gn (t) − Gn (s) + O(|πn |t ) ≤ kGk,n (t) − kGk,n (s) ≤ kGn (t) − kGn (s)
5

(2.4)

for all t ≥ s ≥ 0 from the series of elementary inequalities
k
X

a2i

≤

i=1

k
X

ai

2

≤k

i=1

k
X

a2i

(2.5)

i=1

which holds for any a1 , . . . , ak ≥ 0, k ∈ N. Here, the second inequality follows from
the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Equality in (2.5) holds for a1 ≥ 0, a2 = . . . = ak = 0
respectively a1 = . . . = ak > 0. The relations of Gn and Gk,n are preserved in the
limit which yields
G(t) − G(s) ≤ kGk (t) − kGk (s) ≤ kG(t) − kG(s)
for all t ≥ s ≥ 0. Hence we get
(J)

kCk,T

∈ [1, k].

(J)

CT
(J)

(J)

P

Based on the fact that Φk,T,n −→ 1 on ΩT

(J)

a random variable which is strictly greater than 1 if
we will construct a test with critical region
(J)

(C)

and that Φk,T,n converges on ΩT

(J)

(J)
kCk,T

>

(J)
CT

to

by Remark 2.4,

(J)

Ck,T,n = {Φk,T,n > 1 + ck,T,n }

(2.6)
(J)

for an appropriate series of decreasing random positive numbers ck,T,n , n ∈ N.
In the following we illustrate the result from Theorem 2.3 by looking at two
prominent observation schemes: first Poisson sampling which is truely random and
asynchronous and second equidistant sampling for which results exist in the literature and which will serve as a kind of benchmark.
Example 2.5. Consider the observation scheme where ti,n −ti−1,n are i.i.d. Exp(nλ),
λ > 0, distributed. We will call this observation scheme Poisson sampling as the
observation times ti,n correspond to the jump times of a Poisson process with intensity nλ. In this setting Condition 2.2(ii) is fulfilled as shown in Proposition 1 from
Hayashi and Yoshida (2008) with
G(t) =

2
t,
λ

and as proved in Section 6.3 with
Gk (t) =

k+1
t.
kλ

(2.7)

This yields that the limit under the alternative is (k + 1)/2.
Remark 2.6. In the case of equidistant synchronous observations, i.e. ti,n = i/n,
it holds G(t) = Gk,n (t) = t which yields
(J)

kCk,T
(J)

CT

6

= k.

|Iin (s)+2,3,n |
|Iin (s)+1,3,n |
|Iin (s),3,n |
s
tin (s)−3,n

tin (s)−2,n tin (s)−1,n

tin (s),n

tin (s)+1,n

tin (s)+2,n

3|Iin (s),1,n |
Figure 1: Illustrating the origin of ξk,n,− (s), ξk,n,+ (s) for k = 3.
(J)

(C)

Hence in this setting Φk,T,n converges to a known deterministic limit on ΩT

as well

(J)
Φk,T,n

which also allows to construct a test using
for the null hypothesis of no jumps
(compare Section 10.3 in Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2014)). This is not immediately
possible in the irregular setting, unless the law of the generating mechanism is known
to the statistician.

2.3

Central limit theorem
(J)

(J)

In this section we derive a central limit theorem for Φk,T,n which holds on ΩT .
Denote by in (s) the index of the interval Ii,n associated with s ∈ Ii,n and define
k−1
X
ξk,n,− (s) = n
(k − j)2 |Iin (s)−j,1,n |,

ξk,n,+ (s) = n

j=1

k−1
X

(k − j)2 |Iin (s)+j,1,n |.

j=1

ξk,n,− (s) + ξk,n,+ (s) is the σ(πn : n ∈ N)-conditional variance of
n

k−1
X

|k − j|∆in (s)+j,1,n W = n

k−1
X

∆in (s)+j,k,n W − nk∆in (s),1,n W.

j=0

j=−(k−1),j6=0

This identity is illustrated in Figure 1.
The following condition summarizes the assumptions we need additionally to Condition 2.2 to derive a central limit theorem.
Condition 2.7. The process X and the sequence of observation schemes (πn )n
fulfill Condition 2.2. Further the following additional assumptions on the observation
schemes hold:
(i) We have
|πn |T = oP (n−1/2 ).
(ii) The integral
Z
[0,T ]P

P
hY
i
g(x1 , . . . , xP )E
hp (ξk,n,− (xp ), ξk,n,+ (xp )) dx1 . . . dxP
p=1

7

(2.8)

converges for n → ∞ to
Z
g(x1 , . . . , xP )
[0,T ]P

P Z
Y

hp (y) Γ(xp , dy)dx1 . . . dxP

p=1 R

for all bounded continuous functions g : RP → R, hp : R2 → R, p = 1, . . . , P ,
and any P ∈ N. Here Γ(·, dy) is a family of probability measures on [0, T ]
RT
with uniformly bounded first moments and 0 Γ(x, {(0, 0)})dx = 0.
Part (i) of Condition 2.7 guarantees that |πn |T vanishes sufficiently fast, while part
(ii) of 2.7 yields that the (ξk,n,− (s), ξk,n,+ (s)) converge in law in a suitable sense.
Because of the exogeneity of the observation times we may assume in the following
that the probability space has the form
(Ω, F, P) = (ΩX × ΩS , X ⊗ S, PX ⊗ PS )

(2.9)

where X denotes the σ-algebra generated by X and its components and S denotes
the σ-algebra generated by the observation scheme (πn )n .
To describe the limit in the upcoming central limit theorem we define
q
X
(J)
Fk,T = 4
(∆XSp )3 (σSp − )2 ξk,− (Sp ) + (σSp )2 ξk,+ (Sp )USp .
(2.10)
p:Sp ≤T

Here, (Sp )p≥0 denotes an enumeration of the jump times of X and the (ξk,− (s), ξk,+ (s)),
s ∈ [0, T ], are independent random variables which are distributed according to
Γ(s, dy) and the Us , s ∈ [0, T ], are i.i.d. standard normal distributed random variables. Both the (ξk,− (s), ξk,+ (s)) and the Us are independent of X and its come Note that F (J) is
e F,
e P).
ponents and defined on an extended probability space (Ω,
k,T
well-defined because the sum in (2.10) is almost surely absolutely convergent and
independent of the choice for the enumeration (Sp )p≥0 ; compare Proposition 4.1.3
in Jacod and Protter (2012).
Theorem 2.8. If Condition 2.7 holds, we have the X -stable convergence
(J)

√  (J)
L−s Fk,T
n Φk,T,n − 1 −→
(J)
kBT

(2.11)

(J)

on ΩT .
(J)

(J)

Here, the limit Fk,T /(kBT ) in (2.11) is defined on the extended probability space
e Further the statement of the X -stable convergence on Ω(J) means that
e
e P).
(Ω, F,
T

we have



 √


(J)
e g F (J) /(kB (J) ) Y 1 (J)
E g n(Φk,T,n − 1) Y 1Ω(J) → E
T
k,T
Ω
T

T

for all bounded and continuous functions g and all X -measurable bounded random
variables Y . For more background information on stable convergence in law we refer
to Jacod and Protter (2012), Jacod and Shiryaev (2002) and Podolskij and Vetter
(2010).
8

Example 2.9. Condition 2.7 is fulfilled in the setting of Poisson sampling introduced in Example 2.5. Part (i) is fulfilled by Lemma 8 from Hayashi and Yoshida
(2008) which states
E [(|πn |T )q ] = o(n−α )

(2.12)

for all q ≥ 1 and α < q. That 2.7(ii) is fulfilled is proved in Section 6.3.1.

2.4

Testing procedure

In this section we develop a statistical test for testing the null hypothesis that
(J)
t 7→ Xt (ω) has jumps in [0, T ] (i.e. ω ∈ ΩT ) against the alternative that t 7→ Xt (ω)
(C)
is continuous on [0, T ] (i.e. ω ∈ ΩT ). To employ Theorem 2.8 for this purpose
(J)
we have to estimate the distribution of the limiting variable Fk,T and therefore the
distribution of ξk (Sp ) for the jump times Sp . Because the distribution of ξk (Sp )
depends on the unknown observation scheme around Sp , of which we observe only a
single realization, we use a bootstrap method to estimate the distribution from the
realization of the observation scheme close to Sp . For this method to work we need
some sort of local homogeneity which will be guaranteed by Condition 3.11(i).
To formalize the bootstrap method let Ln and Mn be sequences of natural numbers
which tend to infinity. Set
ξˆk,n,m,− (s) = n

k−1
X
(k − j)2 |Iin (s)+Vn,m (s)−j,1,n |,
j=1

ξˆk,n,m,+ (s) = n

(2.13)

k−1
X

(k − j)2 |Iin (s)+Vn,m (s)+j,1,n |

j=1

for m = 1, . . . , Mn where the random variable Vn,m (s) attains values in {−Ln , . . . , Ln }
with probabilities
Ln
 X
−1
P(Vn,m (s) = l|S) = |Iin (s)+l,n |
|Iin (s)+j,n |
, l ∈ {−Ln , . . . , Ln }.

(2.14)

j=−Ln

Here, (ξˆk,n,m,− (s), ξˆk,n,m,− (s)) is chosen from the (ξk,n,− (tin (s)+i,n ), ξk,n,− (tin (s)+i,n )),
i = −Ln , . . . , Ln , which make up the 2Ln +1 realizations of (ξˆk,n,− (t), ξˆk,n,− (t)) which
lie ’closest’ to s, with probability proportional to the interval length |Iin (s)+i,n |. This
corresponds to the probability with which a random variable which is uniformly distributed on the union of these intervals Iin (s)+i,n , i = −Ln , . . . , Ln , but otherwise
independent from the observation scheme would fall into the interval Iin (s)+i,n . Due
to the structure of the predictable compensator ν the jump times Sp of the Itô semimartingale X are also evenly distributed in time. This explains why we choose such a
random variable Vn,m (s) for the estimation of the law of (ξˆk,n,m,− (Sp ), ξˆk,n,m,− (Sp )).
Using the estimators (2.13) for realizations of ξk (s) we build the following esti(J)
mators for realizations of Fk,T
X
(J)
Fbk,T,n,m = 4
(∆i,n X)3 1{|∆i,n X|>β|Ii,n |$ }
i:ti,n ≤T

q
× (σ̂n (ti,n , −))2 ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n ) + (σ̂n (ti,n , +))2 ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n )Un,i,m ,
9

(2.15)

m = 1, . . . , Mn , where β > 0 and $ ∈ (0, 1/2). Here an increment which is large
compared to a given threshold is identified as a jump and the local volatility is
estimated by
(σ̂n (s, −))2 =
(σ̂n (s, +))2 =

1
bn
1
bn

X

(∆i,n X)2 ,

i:Ii,n ⊂[s−bn ,s)

X

(2.16)
(∆i,n X)2

i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

for a sequence (bn )n with bn → 0 and |πn |T /bn → 0. Further the Un,i,m are i.i.d. standard normal distributed random variables which are independent of F and defined
e
e F,
e P).
on the extended probability space (Ω,
Denote by
b (J) (α) = Q
bα
Q
k,T,n



(J)
Fbk,T,n,m |m = 1, . . . , Mn



 (J)
the bαMn c-th largest element of the set Fbk,T,n,m |m = 1, . . . , Mn .
b (J) (α) converges on Ω(J) under appropriate conditions to the
We will see that Q
T
k,T,n
(J)

(J)

X -conditional α-quantile Qk (α) of Fk,T which is defined via

e F (J) ≤ Q(J) (α) X (ω) = α, ω ∈ Ω(J) ,
P
T
k,T
k

(2.17)


(J)
(J)
(J)
and we set Qk (α) (ω) = 0, ω ∈ (ΩT )c . Such a random variable Qk (α) exists
(J)

if Condition 2.10 is fulfilled because the X -conditional distribution of Fk,T will be
(J)

almost surely continuous on ΩT

under Condition 2.10.

Condition 2.10. Assume that the process X and the sequence of observation
schemes (πn )n satisfy Condition 2.7 and that the set {s ∈ [0, T ] : σs = 0} is almost
P

surely a Lebesgue null set. Further, let the sequence (bn )n fulfill |πn |T /bn −→ 0
and suppose that (Ln )n and (Mn )n are sequences of natural numbers converging to
infinity and Ln /n → 0. Additionally,

(i)
e P((
e ξˆk,n,1,− (sp ), ξˆk,n,1,+ (sp )) ≤ xp , p = 1, . . . , P |S)
P
−

P
Y


e k,− (sp ), ξk,+ (sp )) ≤ xp ) > ε → 0
P((ξ

p=1

as n → ∞, for all ε > 0 and any x ∈ R2×P , P ∈ N, and sp ∈ (0, T ),
p = 1, . . . , P .
(ii) The volatility process σ is itself an Itô semimartingale, i.e. a process of the
form (2.1).
(C)

(iii) On ΩT

(J)

(J)

we have kCk,T > CT

almost surely.

Part (i) of Condition 2.10 guarantees that the bootstrapped realizations
(ξˆk,n,m,− (s), ξˆk,n,m,+ (s))

10

b (J) (α)
consistently estimate the distribution of (ξk,− (s), ξk,+ (s)) and thereby that Q
k,T,n
(J)

(J)

yields a valid estimator for Qk (α) on ΩT . Part (ii) is needed for the convergence
of the volatility estimators σ̂n (Sp , −), σ̂n (Sp , +) for jump times Sp , and part (iii)
(J)
guarantees that Φk,T,n converges under the alternative to a value different from 1,
which is the limit under the null hypothesis.
Theorem 2.11. If Condition 2.10 is fulfilled, the test defined in (2.6) with
(J)
ck,T,n

b (J) (1 − α)
Q
k,T,n
=√
, α ∈ [0, 1],
nkV (g, πn )T

(2.18)

has asymptotic level α in the sense that we have

e Φ(J) > 1 + c (J) F (J) → α
P
k,T,n
k,T,n

(2.19)

(J)

for all F (J) ⊂ ΩT with P(F (J) ) > 0.
The test is consistent in the sense that we have

e Φ(J) > 1 + c (J) F (C) → 1
P
k,T,n
k,T,n
(C)

for all F (C) ⊂ ΩT

(2.20)

with P(F (C) ) > 0.

Note that to carry out the test introduced in Theorem 2.11 the unobservable
√
(J)
variable n is not explicitly needed, even though n occurs in the definition of ck,T,n .
b (J) (1 − α). What
This factor actually cancels as it also enters as a linear factor in Q
k,T,n
remains is the dependence of bn and Ln on n, though, but for these auxiliary variables
only a rough idea of the magnitude of n usually is sufficient. Similar observations
hold for all tests constructed later on as well.
The simulation results in Section 4.1 show that the convergence in (2.19) is rather
√
(J)
slow, because certain terms in n(Φk,T,n − 1) which vanish in the limit contribute
significantly in the small sample. Our goal is to diminish this effect by including estimates for those terms in the testing procedure. The asymptotically vanishing terms
stem from the continuous part which is mostly captured in the small increments. To
estimate their contribution we define
(J)

Ak,T,n = n

X

(∆i,k,n X)4 1{|∆i,k,n X≤β|Ii,k,n |$ }

i≥k:ti,n ≤T

X

− kn

(∆i,n X)4 1{|∆

i≥1:ti,n ≤T

(l) $
i,n X|≤β|Ii,n | }

.

(J)

using the same β, $ as in (2.15). It can be shown that Ak,T,n is a consistent estimator
(J)

(J)

for k 2 Ck,T − kC1,T . We then define for ρ ∈ (0, 1) the adjusted estimator
(J)

e (J) (ρ) = Φ(J) − ρ
Φ
k,T,n
k,T,n

n−1 Ak,T,n
kV (g, πn )T

where we partially correct for the contribution of the asymptotically vanishing terms.

11

Corollary 2.12. Let ρ ∈ (0, 1). If Condition 2.10 is fulfilled, it holds with the
notation from Theorem 2.11

e Φ
e (J) (ρ) > 1 + c (J) F (J) → α
P
k,T,n
k,T,n
(J)

for all F (J) ⊂ ΩT

(2.21)

with P(F (J) ) > 0 and

e Φ
e (J) (ρ) > 1 + c (J) F (C) → 1
P
k,T,n
k,T,n

(C)

for all F (C) ⊂ ΩT

(2.22)

with P(F (C) ) > 0.

The closer ρ is to 1 the faster is the convergence in (2.21), but also the slower
is the convergence in (2.22). Hence an optimal ρ should be chosen somewhere in
between. Our simulation results in Section 4.1 show that it is possible to pick a ρ
very close to 1 without significantly worsening the power compared to the test from
Theorem 2.11.
Example 2.13. The assumptions on the observation scheme in Condition 2.10 are
fulfilled in the Poisson setting. That part (iii) is fulfilled has been shown in Example
2.5 and that part (i) is fulfilled is proved in Section 6.3.2.
In fact for our testing procedure to work in the Poisson setting we do not need the
weighting from (2.14). All intervals could also be picked with equal probability. This
is due to the fact that the interval lengths (n|Iin (s)+Vn,m (s)+j,n |)j=−(k−1),...,−1,1,...,k−1
and hence ξk,n,m,− (s), ξk,n,m,+ (s) are (asymptotically) independent of n|Iin (s)+Vn,m (s),n |.
However the weighting is important if the interval lengths of consecutive intervals
are dependent as illustrated in the following example.
Example 2.14. Define an observation scheme by t2i,n = 2i/n and t2i+1,n = (2i +
1 + α)/n, i ∈ N0 , with α ∈ (0, 1) (compare Example 33 in Bibinger and Vetter
(2015)). Let us consider the case k = 2. The observation scheme is illustrated in
Figure 2. It can be easily checked that Condition 2.2 holds with G(t) = (1 + α2 )t
and G2 (t) = t. Further it can be shown similarly as in Bibinger and Vetter (2015)
that Condition 2.7 is fulfilled for Γ defined via
Γ(s, {(1 + α, 1 + α)}) =

1−α
,
2

Γ(s, {(1 − α, 1 − α)}) =

1+α
2

for all s > 0. Hence in order for the distribution of ξˆk,n,1 (s) to approximate Γ(s, ·)
the variable in (s) + Vn,m (s) has to pick the intervals of length (1 + α)/n with higher
probability than those with length (1 − α)/n, because it holds
n|Iin (s)+Vn,m (s),n | = 1 + α ⇒ ξˆ2,n,m,− (s) = ξˆ2,n,m,+ (s) = 1 − α,
n|Ii (s)+V (s),n | = 1 − α ⇒ ξˆ2,n,m,− (s) = ξˆ2,n,m,+ (s) = 1 + α.
n

n,m

12

(1 + α)/n (1 − α)/n (1 + α)/n (1 − α)/n (1 + α)/n (1 − α)/n
1/n

3/n

t1,n

t0,n = 0

5/n

t3,n

t2,n = 2/n

t4,n = 4/n

t5,n

t6,n = 6/n

Figure 2: The sampling scheme from Example 2.14

3

A test for the absence of common jumps

In this section we will derive a statistical test based on high-frequency observations
which allows to decide whether two processes jump at a common time or not. The
methods we use are similar to those in Section 2. However, the form of the occuring variables and the proofs will be different because of special effects due to the
asynchronicity of the data.

3.1

Settings and test statistic

As a model for the stochastic process we again consider an Itô semimartingale
X = (X (1) , X (2) )∗ , which is now two-dimensional, defined on the probability space
(Ω, F, P) and of the form
Zt
Xt = X0 +

Zt
bs ds +

0

Zt Z
σs dWs +

0

δ(s, z)1{kδ(s,z)k≤1} (µ − ν)(ds, dz)
0

R2

Zt Z
δ(s, z)1{kδ(s,z)k>1} µ(ds, dz), (3.1)

+
0 R2

where W = (W (1) , W (2) )∗ is a two-dimensional standard Brownian motion and µ
is a Poisson random measure on R+ × R2 whose predictable compensator satisfies
ν(ds, dz) = ds ⊗ λ(dz) for some σ-finite measure λ on R2 endowed with the Borelian
σ-algebra. b is a two-dimensional adapted process,
!
(1)
σs
0
σs =
(3.2)
(2) p
(2)
ρs σs
1 − ρ2s σs
is a (2 × 2)-dimensional process and δ is a two-dimensional predictable process on
(1)
(2)
Ω × R+ × R2 . σs , σs ≥ 0 and ρs ∈ [−1, 1] are all univariate adapted.
The observation scheme
 (1)
(2)
πn = (ti,n )i∈N0 , (ti,n )i∈N0 , n ∈ N,
(3.3)
here consists of two (in general different) increasing sequences of stopping times
(l)
(l)
(ti,n )i∈N0 , l = 1, 2, with t0,n = 0. By
 (l)
(l)
|πn |T = sup ti,n ∧ T − ti−1,n ∧ T i ≥ 1, l = 1, 2
we again denote the mesh of the observation times up to T ≥ 0.
13

Formally we will develop a statistical test which allows to decide to which of the
following two subsets of Ω the ω which generated the observed path t 7→ Xt (ω)
belongs
(CoJ)


(1)
(2)
= ∃t ∈ [0, T ] : ∆Xt ∆Xt 6= 0 ,
(nCoJ)
(CoJ) c
ΩT
= ΩT
.

ΩT

(l)

(l)

(l)

We denote the observation intervals of X (l) by Ii,k,n = (ti−k,n , ti,n ], i ≥ k ≥ 1,
(l)

(l)

l = 1, 2, Ii,n = Ii,1,n , and by
(l)

(l)

(l)

∆i,k,n X (l) = Xti,n − Xti−k,n ,

(l)

(l)

∆i,n X (l) = ∆i,1,n X (l)
(l)

the increments of X (l) over those intervals. As in Section 2.1 we set Ii,k,n = ∅ and
(l)

∆i,k,n X (l) = 0 for k < i.
Further we define the following functionals for k ∈ N and h : R2 → R
X
(1)
(2)
V (h, [k], πn )T =
h(∆i,k,n X (1) , ∆j,k,n X (2) )1{I (1) ∩I (2)
i,k,n

(1)
(2)
i,j≥k:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

j,k,n 6=∅}

,

V (h, πn )T = V (h, [1], πn )T
which are generalizations of the famous estimator for the quadratic covariation based
on asynchronous observations from Hayashi and Yoshida (2005). Computing these
functionals for f : (x1 , x2 ) 7→ (x1 x2 )2 we build the statistic
(CoJ)

Φk,T,n =

V (f, [k], πn )T
k 2 V (f, πn )T

whose asymptotic behaviour for k ≥ 2 is the foundation for the upcoming statistical
test.
By
X
(CoJ)
(1)
(2)
BT
=
(∆Xt )2 (∆Xt )2
t≤T

we denote the sum of the squared co-jumps of X (1) and X (2) .
(l)

Remark 3.1. In the setting of equidistant observation times ti,n = i/n, l = 1, 2,
(CoJ)

the statistic Φk,T,n is equal to
PbnT c

(1)
i,j=k (Xi/n

(1)

(2)

(2)

− X(i−k)/n )2 (Xj/n − X(j−k)/n )2 1{((i−k)/n,n]∩((j−k)/n,j/n]6=∅}
.
PbnT c (1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
k 2 i=1 (Xi/n − X(i−1)/n )2 (Xi/n − X(i−1)/n )2

(3.4)

In Jacod and Todorov (2009) a test for common jumps is constructed based on the
statistic
PbnT /kc (1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(Xki/n − Xk(i−1)/n )2 (Xki/n − Xk(i−1)/n )2
i=1
(3.5)
PbnT c (1)
(1)
2 (X (2) − X (2)
2
(X
−
X
)
)
i=1
i/n
(i−1)/n
i/n
(i−1)/n
14

where at the lower observation frequency n/k only increments over the intervals
(l)
Iki,k,n , l = 1, 2, enter the estimation. Further in Section 14.1 of Aı̈t-Sahalia and
Jacod (2014) a test for common jumps based on
PbnT c

(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
2
2
i=k (Xi/n − X(i−k)/n ) (Xi/n − X(i−k)/n )
PbnT c (1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
k i=1 (Xi/n − X(i−1)/n )2 (Xi/n − X(i−1)/n )2

(3.6)

is discussed. As argued in Remark 2.1 it seems advantegeous to use the statistic
(3.6) over (3.5). However, in the asynchronous setting it is a priori not clear which
observation intervals should be best paired, because there is no one-to-one correspondence of observation intervals in one process to observation intervals in the
other process as there is in the synchronous situation. To use the available data as
exhaustively as possible we therefore decided to include products of squared increments over all overlapping observation intervals at the lower observation frequency
(CoJ)
in the numerator of Φk,T,n .

3.2

Consistency
(CoJ)

In this section we investigate under which conditions Φk,T,n converges to a certain
limit. The following structural assumptions which are similar to those in Condition
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
2.2 are needed to obtain an asymptotic result for Φk,T,n on ΩT
.
(1)

(2)

Condition 3.2. The process bs is locally bounded and the processes σs , σs , ρs
are càdlàg. Furthermore, there exists a locallyR bounded process Γs and a deterministic bounded function γ which satisfies (γ(z)2 ∧ 1)λ(dz) < ∞ such that
kδ(ω, s, z)k ≤ Γs (ω)γ(z). The sequence of observation schemes (πn )n fulfills
P

|πn |T −→ 0.
(CoJ)

Theorem 3.3. Under Condition 3.2 we have on ΩT
(CoJ)

P

Φk,T,n −→ 1.

(3.7)
(CoJ)

(nCoJ)

As in Section 2.3 the asymptotic behaviour of Φk,T,n on ΩT
cated than on

(CoJ)
ΩT
.

e k0 ,n (t) =
G
Hk0 ,n (t) =

is more compli-

First we introduce the following functions

n
(k 0 )3
n
(k 0 )3

(1)

X
(1)

(2)

|Ii,k0 ,n ∩ Ij,k0 ,n |2 ,
(2)

i,j≥k0 :ti,n ∧tj,n ≤t
(1)

X

(2)

|Ii,k0 ,n ||Ij,k0 ,n |1{I (1)

(1)
(2)
i,j≥k0 :ti,n ∧tj,n ≤t

i,k0 ,n

(2)

∩Ij,k0 ,n 6=∅}

,

p
(l)
(1)
(1)
(2)
for k 0 = 1, k. Set W t = (Wt , ρt Wt + 1 − (ρt )2 Wt )∗ such that W is the
(l)
Brownian motion driving X (l) , l = 1, 2. Further denote by in (s) the index of the

15

(l)

(l)

interval Ii,n associated with s ∈ Ii,n , l = 1, 2, and set
(l)

X

ηk0 ,n,− (s) =

j,k0 ,n

(3−l)
j≥k0 :tj,n ≤T

(l)

X

ηk0 ,n,+ (s) =

j,k0 ,n

(l)

(l)

W

(l)

in (s),n

(∆i,k0 ,n W
(l)

, . . . , ∆ (l)

(l)

(l)

(l) 2

) 1{i<i(l) (s)} ,
n

(l) 2

) 1{i≥i(l) (s)+k0 } ,
n

(l)
(3−l)
i:Ii,k0 ,n ∩Ij,k0 ,n 6=∅

in (s)−k0 +1,n

t (l)

(l)

X

(l)

Λk0 ,n (s) = ηk0 ,n,− (s), ∆ (l)

(∆i,k0 ,n W

(l)
(3−l)
i:Ii,k0 ,n ∩Ij,k0 ,n 6=∅

1{s∈I (3−l) }

(3−l)
j≥k0 :tj,n ≤T

(l)

X

1{s∈I (3−l) }

− s, ∆ (l)

in (s)+1,n

W

W

in (s)−1,n
(l)
(l)

(l)

(l)

, s − t (l)

,

in (s)−1,n

(l) (l)
, . . . , ∆ (l)
W , ηk0 ,n,+ (s)
0
i (s)+k −1,n
n

for k 0 = 1, k.
Condition 3.4. The assumptions from Condition 3.2 hold and σ almost surely
R T (1) (2)
fulfills 0 |σs σs |ds > 0. Further:
(i) It holds
|πn |T = oP (n−1/2 ).
e 1,n (t), G
e k,n (t), H1,n (t), Hk,n (t) converge pointwise on [0, T ] in
(ii) The functions G
e1 , G
e k , H1 , Hk : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞).
probability to strictly increasing functions G
(iii) The integral
Z
[0,T ]P1 +P2

P1
hY

n (1)
(1)
g(x1 , . . . , xP1 , x01 , . . . , x0P2 )E
h(1)
nΛ1,n (xp ), 2 Λk,n (xp )
p
k
p=1

×

P2
Y

(2)

h(2)
nΛ1,n (x0p ),
p

p=1

n (2) 0 i
Λ (x ) dx1 . . . dxP1 dx01 . . . dx0P2
k 2 k,n p

converges for n → ∞ to
Z
[0,T ]P1 +P2

g(x1 , . . . , xP1 , x01 , . . . , x0P2 )
×

P2 Z
Y
2
p=1 R

P1 Z
Y
2
p=1 R


h(1)
y Γ(1) (xp , dy)
p


h(2)
y 0 Γ(2) (x0p , dy 0 )dx1 . . . dxP1 dx01 . . . dx0P2
p
(l)

for all bounded continuous functions g : RP1 +P2 → R, hp : R2(k+1) → R,
p = 1, . . . , Pl , and any Pl ∈ N, l = 1, 2. Here Γ(l) (·, dy), l = 1, 2, are fami(l)
(l)
lies of probability measures on [0, T ] where (Λ1 (x), Λk (x)) ∼ Γ(l) (·, x) has
first moments which are uniformly bounded in x. Further the components
(l)
(l)
(l)
W have uniformly bounded
of Λk (x) which correspond to the ∆ (l)
in (x)+j,n

second moments.

16

(CoJ)

(nCoJ)

In order to describe the limit of Φk,T,n on ΩT
we define
Z T
Z T
(CoJ)
e k0 (s) +
(σs(1) σs(2) )2 dHk0 (s), k 0 = 1, k,
2(ρs σs(1) σs(2) )2 dG
Ck0 ,T =
0
0
X

(CoJ)
(1) 2 (2)
(2)
(1)
Dk0 ,T =
(∆XSp ) Rk0 (Sp ) + (∆XSp )2 Rk0 (Sp ) , k 0 = 1, k.
p:Sp ≤T
(l)

Here (Sp )p≥0 is an enumeration of the jump times of X and Rk0 (s) is defined by
0

(l)
Rk0 (s)

(l)
(l)
(σs− )2 ηk0 ,− (s)

=

+

k 
X

+

(l)

χj + σs−

p

δ− (s)U− (s)

j=−k0 +i

i=1

σs(l)

−1
X

(l)
σs−

i−1
2
X
p
(l)
(l)
δ+ (s)U+ (s) + σs
χj + (σs(l) )2 ηk0 ,+ (s), l = 1, 2, k 0 = 1, k,
j=1

where
(l)

(l)

(l)

(l)

(Λ1 (s), Λk (s)) = (η1,− (s), δ− (s), δ+ (s), η1,+ (s)),

(l)
(l)
(ηk,− (s), χ−k+1 , . . . , χ−1 , δ− (s), δ+ (s), χ1 , . . . , χk−1 , ηk,+ (s))
e whose dise F,
e P)
are random variables defined on an extended probability space (Ω,
tribution is given by
(l)

e(Λ1
P
(l)

(l)

(s),Λk (s))

(dy) = Γ(l) (s, dy), l = 1, 2.

(l)

The (Λ1 (s), Λk (s)), s ∈ [0, T ], are independent of each other and independent of
the process X and its components. The random variables U− (s), U+ (s) are i.i.d.
e as well. They are also independent of F
e F,
e P)
standard normal and defined on (Ω,
(l)
and of (Λ(l) (s), Λk (s)).
Theorem 3.5. Under Condition 3.4 we have the X -stable convergence
(CoJ)

(CoJ) L−s

Φk,T,n −→
(nCoJ)

on ΩT

Dk,T

(CoJ)

D1,T

(CoJ)

+ kCk,T

(3.8)

(CoJ)

+ C1,T

.
(CoJ)

From Theorem 3.3 we know that Φk,T,n converges to 1 under the null hypothesis
(CoJ)

and from Theorem 3.5 we can conclude that Φk,T,n converges under the alternative
(CoJ)

(CoJ)

to a limit which is almost surely different from 1 if kCk,T 6= C1,T , or under mild
additional conditions if there is at least one jump in one of the components of X on
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
[0, T ]. Indeed if we have kCk,T 6= C1,T , Φk,T,n has to be different from 1 because
(CoJ)

Ck,T

(CoJ)

, C1,T

(CoJ)

are F-conditionally constant and Dk,T

or their F-conditional distributions admit densities. If
(CoJ)
Dk,T

(CoJ)
D1,T

(CoJ)

and D1,T

(CoJ)
kCk,T

=

are either zero

(CoJ)
C1,T

holds mild
(CoJ)

conditions guarantee
6=
almost surely which also yields Φk,T,n 6= 1.
Hence we will construct a test with critical region
 (CoJ)
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
Ck,T,n = |Φk,T,n − 1| > ck,T,n
(3.9)
17

(1)

I (1)

(1)

n−1 Ln (s)

(1)

n−1 Rn (s)

in (s),n

X (1)
s

n−1 Ln (s)

n−1 Rn (s)

X (2)
(2)

(2)

(2)

n−1 Ln (s)

n−1 Rn (s)

I (2)

in (s),n
(l)

(l)

Figure 3: Illustration of the terms Ln (s), Rn (s), l = 1, 2, and Ln (s), Rn (s).
(CoJ)

for a (possibly random) sequence (ck,T,n )n∈N .
As in Section 2 we will consider the situation where the observation times are
generated by Poisson processes as an example for a random and irregular sampling
scheme which fulfills the conditions we need for the testing procedure to work.
Example 3.6. Consider the extension of the setting from Example 2.5 to two dimensions where the observation times of X (1) and X (2) originate from the jump times
(l)
(l)
of two independent Poisson processes, i.e. the ti,n − ti−1,n are Exp(nλl )-distributed
with λl > 0 and independent for i, n ≥ 1 and l = 1, 2.
That Condition 3.4(i) is fulfilled in this setting follows from (2.12). The convergences of G1,n and H1,n have been shown in Proposition 1 of Hayashi and Yoshida
(2008), the convergences of Gk,n and Hk,n are proved in Lemma 6.5. That Condition
3.4(iii) is fulfilled in the Poisson setting is proved in Section 6.3.1.

3.3

Central limit theorem
(CoJ)

(CoJ)

Before we start to derive a central limit theorem for Φk,T,n on ΩT
, we restrict
ourselves to the case k = 2. This simplifies notation, and also from the simulation
results in Section 4.1 for the test from Section 2 it seems to be optimal to choose k
as small as possible.
First we introduce the following notation to describe intervals around some time
s at which a common jump might occur
(l)

(l)

L(l)
n (s) = n|I (l)

|, R(l)
n (s) = n|I (l)

Ln (s) = n|I (1)

∩ I (2)

in (s)−1,n
(1)

in (s)−1,n

in (s)+1,n

(2)

in (s)−1,n

|,

l = 1, 2,
(1)

|, Rn (s) = n|I (1)

in (s)+1,n

(2)

∩ I (2)

in (s)+1,n

|

which are illustrated in Figure 3 and

(1)
(2)
(2)
Zn (s) = L(1)
n , Rn , Ln , Rn , Ln , Rn (s).
Limits of these variables will occur in the central limit theorem. To ensure convergence of the Zn (s) we need to impose the following assumption on the observation
scheme.

18

Condition 3.7. The process X and the sequence of observation schemes (πn )n
fulfill Condition 3.2, 3.4(i)-(ii). Further the integral
Z
P
i
hY
hp (Zn (xp )) dx1 . . . dxP
g(x1 , . . . , xP )E
[0,T ]P

p=1

converges for n → ∞ to
Z
P Z
Y

g(x1 , . . . , xP )
hp y Γ(xp , dy)dx1 . . . dxP
[0,T ]P

p=1 R

for all bounded continuous functions g : RP → R, hp : R6 → R and any P ∈ N.
Here Γ(·, dy) is a family of probability measures on [0, T ] with uniformly bounded
RT
first moments and 0 Γ(x, {0}6 )dx = 0.
Using the limit distribution of Zn (s) implicitly defined in Condition 3.7 we set
X
(CoJ)
(1)
(2)
F2,T = 4
∆XSp ∆XSp
p:Sp ≤T

×

h

(2)
∆XSp



(1)
σSp −

q
q
(1),−
(1)
(1),+
L(Sp )USp + σSp R(Sp )USp

q

(1)
(1)
(2)
+ (σSp − )2 (L(1) − L)(Sp ) + (σSp )2 (R(1) − R)(Sp )USp
q
q

(1),−
(1),+
(1)
(2)
(2)
+ ∆XSp σSp − ρSp − L(Sp )USp + σSp ρSp R(Sp )USp
q
(2)
(2)
(3)
+ (σSp − )2 (1 − (ρSp − )2 )L(Sp ) + (σSp )2 (1 − (ρSp )2 )R(Sp )USp
q
i
(2)
(2)
(4)
+ (σSp − )2 (L(2) − L)(Sp ) + (σSp )2 (R(2) − R)(Sp )USp .
Here, (Sp )p≥0 is an enumeration
of the common jump times of X (1) and X (2) ,

(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
L , R , L , R , L, R (s) is distributed according to Γ(s, ·) and the vectors
(1),−
(1),+
(2)
(3)
(4) 
Us
, Us
, Us , Us , Us
are standard normally distributed and independent
for different values of s. Similarly as for (2.10) we obtain that the infinite sum in
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
the definition of F2,T
has a well-defined limit. Using F2,T
we are able to state
the following central limit theorem.
Theorem 3.8. If Condition 3.7 is fulfilled, we have the X -stable convergence
(CoJ)

√  (CoJ)
L−s F2,T
n Φ2,T,n − 1 −→
(CoJ)
4BT
(CoJ)

on the set ΩT

(3.10)

.

Example 3.9. Condition 3.7 is fulfilled in the Poisson setting. The convergence
of the integrals follows as Condition 3.4(iii) from Lemma 6.6 which is stated and
proved in Section 6.3.1.
Example 3.10. Condition 3.7 is also fulfilled in the setting of equidistant obser(1)
(2)
vation times ti,n = ti,n = i/n. In that case we have

L(1) , R(1) , L(2) , R(2) , L, R (s) = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
19

for any s ∈ (0, T ]. Hence we get
h
X
(CoJ)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1),−
(1) (1),+ 
F2,T = 4
∆XSp ∆XSp ∆XSp σSp − USp + σSp USp
p:Sp ≤T
(2)

(1)

(1),−

(2)

(1),+

+ ∆XSp σSp − ρSp − USp + σSp ρSp USp
q
i
(2)
(2)
(3) 
+ (σSp − )2 (1 − (ρSp − )2 ) + (σSp )2 (1 − (ρSp )2 )USp
(CoJ)

and F2,T

is X -conditionally normally distributed with mean zero and variance
h
X
2
(1)
(2)
(2) (1)
(1) (2)
16
(∆XSp )2 (∆XSp )2 ∆XSp σSp − + ∆XSp σSp − ρSp −
p:Sp ≤T
(2) (1)

(1) (2)

+ ∆XSp σSp + ∆XSp σSp ρSp

2

i
(1)
(2)
(2)
+ (∆XSp )2 (σSp − )2 (1 − (ρSp − )2 ) + (σSp )2 (1 − (ρSp )2 )
which is similar to the result in Theorem 4.1(a) of Jacod and Todorov (2009).

3.4

Testing procedure

In this section we will develop a testing procedure based on Theorem 3.8 for which
(CoJ)
we have to estimate the law of the limiting variable F2,T . Therefore we need to
estimate the law of

Z(Sp ) = L(1) , R(1) , L(2) , R(2) , L, R (Sp ).
for a time Sp at which a common jump occurs. As in Section 2.4 we will apply a
bootstrap method for this purpose.
Let (Ln )n and (Mn )n be sequences of natural numbers which tend to infinity. Set
(l)
Lb(l)
n,m (s) = n I (l)

(l)

in (s)+Vn,m (s)−1,n

b (l) (s) = n I (l)
, R
(l)
n,m

(l)

in (s)+Vn,m (s)+1,n

,

(3.11)

b n,m (s) as the lengths of the overlapping parts of Lb(l)
and define Lbn,m (s), R
n (s), l = 1, 2,
(l)
(1)
(2)
b n (s), l = 1, 2, where Vn,m (s) = (Vn,m (s), Vn,m (s)) ∈ {−Ln , . . . , Ln } ×
respectively R
{−Ln , . . . , Ln } and
P(Vn,m (s) = (l1 , l2 )|S)
(1)

= |I (1)

in (s)+l1 ,n

(2)

∩ I (2)

in (s)+l2 ,n

Ln
X


|

j1 ,j2 =−Ln

(1)

|I (1)

in (s)+j1 ,n

(2)

∩ I (2)

in (s)+j2 ,n

−1
|
,

l1 , l2 ∈ {−Ln , . . . , Ln }. Because we are in a two-dimensional setting, we have to
simultaneously choose observation intervals of X (1) and X (2) around which the in(1)
(2)
tervals used for simulating Z(s) lie. Here we choose the intervals (Ii,n , Ij,n ) by a
probability which is proportional to the length of the overlapping parts of those two
intervals. As in Section 2.4 this corresponds to the probability with which a jump
(1)
(2)
time Sp uniformly distributed in time would fulfill Sp ∈ Ii,n and Sp ∈ Ij,n .
Based on (3.11) we define via

bn,m (s) = Lb(1) , R
b (1) , Lb(2) , R
b (2) , Lbn,m , R
b n,m (s), m = 1, . . . , Mn ,
Z
n,m
n,m
n,m
n,m
20

estimators for realizations of Z(s). Further we define using the components of
bn,m (s) and by considering increments which are larger than a certain threshold
Z
as jumps
X
(1)
(2)
(CoJ)
∆i,n X (1) ∆j,n X (2) 1{|∆(1) X (1) |>β|I (1) |$ } 1{|∆(2) X (2) |>β|I (2) |$ }
FbT,n,m = 4
(1)

i,n

(2)

i,n

j,n

j,n

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

×

h

(2)
∆j,n X (2)



σ̂

(1)

q
(1,2),−
Lbn,m (τi,j,n )Un,(i,j),m
q
(1)
b n,m (τi,j,n )U (1,2),+
+ σ̂ (1) (ti,n , +) R
n,(i,j),m

(1)
(ti,n , −)


(1)
b
+ (σ̂ (1) (ti,n , −))2 (Lb(1)
n,m − Ln,m )(τi,j,n )

1/2
(1)
(1)
b (1) − R
b n,m )(τi,j,n )
Un,i,m
+ (σ̂ (1) (ti,n , +))2 (R
n,m
q

(1)
(2)
(1,2),−
+ ∆i,n X (1) σ̂ (2) (tj,n , −)ρ̂(τi,j,n , −) Lbn,m (τi,j,n )Un,(i,j),m
q
(2) (2)
b n,m (τi,j,n )U (1,2),+
+ σ̂ (tj,n , +)ρ̂(τi,j,n , +) R
n,(i,j),m

(2) (2)
2
2 b
+ (σ̂ (tj,n , −)) (1 − (ρ̂(τi,j,n , −)) )Ln,m (τi,j,n )
1/2
(2)
(2)
b n,m (τi,j,n )
+ (σ̂ (2) (tj,n , +))2 (1 − (ρ̂(τi,j,n , +))2 )R
Un,j,m

(2)
b
+ (σ̂ (2) (tj,n , −))2 (Lb(2)
n,m − Ln,m )(τi,j,n )
1/2
i
(3)
(2) (2)
2 b (2)
b
+ (σ̂ (tj,n , +)) (Rn,m − Rn,m )(τi,j,n )
Un,j,m
× 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

j,n

(1)

(2)

(l)

(l)

with τi,j,n = ti,n ∧ tj,n . Here, we use (2.16) for the estimation of σs− , σs
estimators for ρs− , ρs defined by
ρ̂n (s, −) =

κ̂n (s, −)
,
(1)
(2)
σ̂n (s, −)σ̂n (s, −)

ρ̂n (s, +) =

and

κ̂n (s, +)
,
(1)
(2)
σ̂n (s, +)σ̂n (s, +)

where
κ̂n (s, −) =

κ̂n (s, +) =

1
bn
1
bn

(1)

X
(1)

(2)

∆i,n X (1) ∆i,n X (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s−bn ,s)
(1)

X
(1)

(2)

∆i,n X (1) ∆i,n X (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} ,
i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]
(1,2),−

(1,2),+

(1)

for a sequence (bn )n with bn → 0 and |πn |T /bn → 0. The Un,(i,j),m , Un,(i,j),m , Un,i,m ,
(2)

(3)

Un,j,m , Un,j,m are i.i.d. standard normal and we have β > 0 and $ ∈ (0, 1/2).
Similarly as in Section 2.4 we denote by
b (CoJ) (α) = Q
bα
Q
T,n



(CoJ)

|FbT,n,m | m = 1, . . . , Mn
(CoJ)



the bαMn c-th largest element of the set {|FbT,n,m ||m = 1, . . . , Mn } and we will
21

b (CoJ) (α) converges on Ω(CoJ) under appropriate conditions to the X see that Q
T,n
T
(CoJ)

conditional α-quantile Q(CoJ) (α) of |F2,T

| which is defined via


e |F (CoJ) | ≤ Q(CoJ) (α) X (ω) = α, ω ∈ Ω(CoJ) ,
P
T
2,T

(3.12)

(CoJ)

and we set Q(CoJ) (α)(ω) = 0, ω ∈ (ΩT
)c . Such a random variable Q(CoJ) (α)
exists because Condition 3.11 will guarantee that the X -conditional distribution of
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
F2,T
is almost surely continuous on ΩT
.
Condition 3.11. The process X and the sequence of observation schemes (πn )n
fulfill Condition 3.4 and 3.7. Further the set {s ∈ [0, T ] : kσs k = 0} is almost surely a
Lebesgue null set. (Ln )n and (Mn )n are sequences of natural numbers converging to
P

infinity with Ln /n → 0 and the sequence (bn )n fulfills |πn |T /bn −→ 0. Additionally,
(i)

P


Y
e
e
e
b
P(Z(sp ) ≤ xp ) > ε → 0 (3.13)
P P(Zn,1 (sp ) ≤ xp , p = 1, . . . , P |S) −
p=1

as n → ∞ for all ε > 0 and any xp ∈ R6 , sp ∈ (0, T ), p = 1, . . . , P , P ∈ N,
with si 6= sj for i 6= j.
(ii) It holds
X
√
(l)
(3−l)
n
|Ii,n |1/2 |Ij,n |1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅} = OP (1), l = 1, 2.
(l)

(3−l)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n

i,n

j,n

≤T

(iii) The process σ is a 2 × 2-dimensional matrix-valued Itô semimartingale.
(CoJ)

(iv) It holds 2C2,T

(CoJ)

6= C1,T

(CoJ)

or D2,T

(CoJ)

6= D1,T

almost surely.

b (CoJ) (α) consistently
As for Condition 2.10 part (i) of Condition 3.11 yields that Q
T,n
estimates Q(CoJ) (α). Part (ii) is a technical condition needed in the proof of Theorem
(l)
(l)
3.12. Further part (iii) provides that σ̂n (Sp , −), σ̂n (Sp , +), ρ̂n (Sp , −), ρ̂n (Sp , +)
(l)
(l)
are consistent estimators for σSp − , σSp , ρSp − , ρSp , and part (iv) guarantees that the
limit under the alternative is almost surely different from 1.
Denote by
(DisJ)

ΩT

(CoJ)

= {∃s ∈ [0, T ] : ∆Xs(1) 6= 0 ∨ ∆Xs(2) 6= 0} ∩ ΩT

the subset of Ω where either X (1) or X (2) has a jump in [0, T ] but there exists no
(nCoJ)
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
common jump. This is the subset of ΩT
on which D1,T , D2,T do not vanish
under Condition 3.11(i)–(ii).
Theorem 3.12. Let Condition 3.11 be fulfilled. The test defined in (3.9) with
(CoJ)
c2,T,n

b (CoJ) (1 − α)
Q
T,n
, α ∈ [0, 1],
=√
n4V (f, πn )T

(3.14)

has asymptotic level α in the sense that we have

e |Φ(CoJ) − 1| > c (CoJ) F (CoJ) → α
P
2,T,n
2,T,n
22

(3.15)

(CoJ)

for all F (CoJ) ⊂ ΩT
with P(F (CoJ) ) > 0.
Further the test is consistent in the sense that we have

e |Φ(CoJ) − 1| > c (CoJ) F → 1
P
2,T,n
2,T,n

(3.16)

(DisJ)

(nCoJ)

for all F ⊂ ΩT
with P(F ) > 0, and even for all F ⊂ ΩT
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
we have 2C2,T > CT
almost surely.

with P(F ) > 0 if

To improve the performance of our test in the finite sample we adjust the estimator
similarly as for the test in Corollary 2.12 by (partially) subtracting terms that
contribute in the finite sample but vanish asymptotically. Therefore we define for
β, $ as above the quantity
X
(1)
(2)
(CoJ)
(∆i,2,n X (1) )2 (∆j,2,n X (2) )2 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
AT,n = n
(CoJ)
Φ2,T,n

(1)

i,2,n

(2)

j,2,n

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

× 1{|∆(1)

i,2,n X

X

− 4n

(1)

(1)

(1) |≤β|I (1) |$ ∨|∆(2) X (2) |≤β|I (2) |$ }
i,2,n
j,2,n
j,2,n

(2)

(∆i,n X (1) )2 (∆j,n X (2) )2 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

× 1{|∆(1) X (1) |≤β|I (1) |$ ∨|∆(2) X (2) |≤β|I (2) |$ } .
i,n

i,n

j,n

j,n

Using this expression we then define for ρ ∈ (0, 1) by
(CoJ)

e (CoJ) (ρ) = Φ(CoJ) − ρ
Φ
2,T,n
2,T,n

n−1 AT,n

4V (f, πn )T

the adjusted estimator.
Corollary 3.13. Let ρ ∈ (0, 1). If Condition 3.11 is fulfilled, it holds with the
notation of Theorem 3.12

e |Φ
e (CoJ) (ρ) − 1| > c (CoJ) F (CoJ) → α
P
2,T,n
2,T,n
(CoJ)

for all F (CoJ) ⊂ ΩT

(3.17)

with P(F (CoJ) ) > 0 and

e |Φ
e (CoJ) (ρ) − 1| > c (CoJ) F → 1
P
2,T,n
2,T,n

(DisJ)

(3.18)
(nCoJ)

for all F ⊂ ΩT
with P(F ) > 0, and even for all F ⊂ ΩT
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
we have 2C2,T > CT
almost surely.

with P(F ) > 0 if

Example 3.14. The assumptions on the observation scheme from Condition 3.11
are fulfilled in the setting of Poisson sampling introduced in Example 2.9. That part
(i) holds is shown in Section 6.3.2 and that Condition 3.7 is fulfilled is proven in
Section 6.3.1. That part (ii) of Condition 3.11 is fulfilled can be proven in the same
P e
P e
e k,n (t) −→
e k,n (t) −→
way as G
Gk and H
Hk were shown; compare Lemma 6.5.
Similarly as discussed in Section 2.4 after Example 2.13 we can omit the weighting
in (3.12) for obtaining a working testing procedure also within the two-dimensional
23

Poisson setting. However, in the setting where both processes X (1) and X (2) are
observed at the observation times introduced in Example 2.14 with different α1 6= α2
it can be easily verified that the weighting in (3.12) is necessary and leads to a correct
(CoJ)
estimation of the distribution of F2,T .

4

Simulation results

We conduct simulation studies to verify the effectivity and to study the finite sample
properties of the developed tests.

4.1

Testing for jumps

In our simulation the observation times originate from a Poisson process with intensity n which corresponds to λ = 1 in Example 2.5 and yields on average n
observations in the time interval [0, 1]. We simulate from the model
Z
dXt = Xt σdWt + α Xt− xµ(dt, dx)
R

where X0 = 1 and the Poisson measure µ has the predictable compensator
ν(dt, dx) = κ

1[−h,−l]∪[l,h] (x)
dtdx.
2(h − l)

This model is a one-dimensional version of the model used in Section 6 of Jacod and
Todorov (2009).
We consider the parameter settings displayed in Table 1 with σ 2 = 8 × 10−5 in all
cases. We choose n = 100, n = 1,600 and n = 25,600. In a trading day of 6.5 hours
Case
I-j
II-j
III-j
Cont

α
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00

Parameters
κ
l
h
1 0.05 0.7484
5 0.05 0.3187
25 0.05 0.1238

Table 1: Parameter settings for the simulation.
this corresponds to observing X (1) and X (2) on average every 4 minutes, every 15
√
seconds and every second. Further we set β = 0.03, ω = 0.49 and use bn = 1/ n
√
for the local interval in the estimation of σs and Ln = bln(n)c, Mn = b10 nc in
the simulation of the ξˆk,n,m,− (s), ξˆk,n,m,+ (s). For the choice of these parameters see
Section 5 of Martin and Vetter (2017). The cases I-j to III-j correspond to the
presence of jumps of diminishing size. When there are smaller jumps we choose a
situation where there are more jumps such that the overall contribution of the jumps
to the quadratic variation is roughly the same in all three cases. The fraction of
the quadratic variation which originates from the jumps matches the one estimated
in real financial data from Todorov and Tauchen (2011). In all three cases where
the model allows for jumps we only use paths in the simulation study where jumps
were realized. In the fourth case Cont we consider a purely continuous model. The
24

parameter values are taken from Jacod and Todorov (2009).
We applied the two testing procedures from Theorem 2.11 and Corollary 2.12 for
k = 2, 3, 5 and the results are displayed in Figures 5 and 6. In Figure 5 the results
from Theorem 2.11 are presented. In the left column the empirical rejection rates
are plotted against the theoretical value of the test and in the right column we show
(J)
estimated density plots based on the simulated values of Φk,T,n . In Figure 6 we
present the results from the test in Corollary 2.12 for ρ = 0.9 (for the choice of
ρ = 0.9 see Figure 4) in the same way. The density plots here show the estimated
e (J) (ρ).
density of Φ
k,T,n
In Figure 5 we observe in the case Cont that the power of the test from Theorem
2.11 is very good for n = 1,600 and n = 25,600. Further the empirical rejection
rates match the asymptotic values rather well for all considered values of k in the
cases I-j and II-j at least for the highest observation frequency corresponding
to n = 25,600. However in the case III-j there is a severe over-rejection even for
n = 25,600. In general we observe over-rejection in all cases. The empirical rejection
rates match the asymptotic values better in the cases where there are on average
larger jumps. Further the results are better the smaller k is. Note that for n = 100
the cases III-j and Cont are not distinguishable using our test as the rejection
curves for n = 100 in those two cases are almost identical. The density plots show
(J)
the convergence of Φk,T,n to 1 in the presence of jumps and to (k + 1)/2 under the
alternative as predicted from Example 2.5.
In Figure 6 we immediately see that the observed rejection rates from the test
from Corollary 2.12 match the asymptotic values much better than those from Theorem 2.11. Hence adjusting the estimator has a huge effect on the finite sample
performance of the test. Here the observed rejection rates match the asymptotic
values quite well in the case III-j at least for n = 25,600 and in the cases I-j and
II-j we get already for n = 1,600 very good results. The results in the case Cont
show that the power remains to be very good. The density plots show that under
e (J) (ρ) is more centered around 1 than Φ(J) . Under the
the presence of jumps Φ
k,T,n
k,T,n
(J)
e
alternative Φ
(ρ) clusters around the value 1 + (1 − ρ)(k − 1)/2 which is much
k,T,n

e (J) (ρ) still seem to be large
closer to 1 than (k + 1)/2, but the observed values of Φ
k,T,n
enough such that they can be well distinguished from 1 as can be seen from the high
empirical rejection rate.
Figure 4 illustrates how the performance of the test from Corollary 2.12 depends
on the choice of the parameter ρ. For this purpose we investigate for k = 2 the
empirical rejection rates in the cases III-j and Cont with n = 25,600 for the test
with level α = 5% in dependence of ρ. We plot for ρ ∈ [0, 1] the empirical rejection
rate under the null hypothesis in the case III-j which serves as a proxy for the
type-I error of the test together with one minus the empirical rejection rate under
the alternative hypothesis in the case Cont which serves as a proxy for the type-II
error of the test. Finally we plot the sum of both error proxies to obtain an indicator
for the overall performance of the test in dependence of ρ. As expected we observe
a decrease in the type-I error as ρ increases and an increase in the type-II error.
While we observe an approximately linear decrease in the type-I error, the type-II
error is equal to zero until 0.8, then slightly increases and starts to steeply increase
at ρ = 0.9. As expected from the theory the type-II error converges to 1 − α for

25

1.0

ρ → 1. In this example the overall error is minimized for a relatively large value of
ρ close to ρ = 0.9.
Further we carried out simulations for the same four parameter settings based
on equidistant observation times ti,n = i/n. In this specific setting the test from
Theorem 2.11 coincides with tests discussed in Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2009) and in
Chapter 10.3 of Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2014). The simulation results are presented
in Figures 7, 8 and 9 in the same fashion as in Figures 5, 6 and 4 for the irregular
observations. We observe that the results both from Theorem 2.11 and Corollary
2.12 based on irregular observations are not significantly worse than those obtained
in the simpler setting of equidistant observation times. Especially we can conclude
that the adjustment technique introduced for Corollary 2.12 cannot only be used to
improve the finite sample performance of our test based on irregular observations,
but also can be used to improve existing tests in the literature which are based on
equidistant observations.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Level
1-Power
(Level+(1-Power))

0.0

0.05

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

ρ

Figure 4: This graphic shows for k = 2, α = 5% and n = 25,600 the empirical
rejection rate in the case Cont (dotted line) and 1 minus the empirical rejection rate
in the case III-j (dashed line) from the Monte Carlo simulation based on Corollary
2.12 as a function of ρ ∈ [0, 1].

26

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

0

0.0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5

6

8

10

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

10
8
6
4
2
0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

0.5

Cont

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont

8

0.0

6

1.0

4

0.5

III-j

II-j

2

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

2

4

6

0.5

0.5

8

10

12

14

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

II-j

1.0

I-j

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

0

0.0

0.0

1

2

3

0.5

0.5

4

5

6

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont
5

0.0

4

1.0

3

0.5

Cont

2

0.0

1

1.0

III-j

II-j

0

8
6
0.5

0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

I-j

1.0

II-j

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

(a) Rejection curves from the Monte (b) Density estimation of Φ(J) from the
k,T,n
Carlo for k = 2.
Monte Carlo for k = 2.

3.0

0

1

2

3

4

0.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.0

1

2

0.5

0.5

3

4

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

0.0

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

4
3
2
1
0

3.0

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

5

6

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont
2.5

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.5

Cont

1.5

0.0

1.0

2
1
1.0

0

0.0
0.5

III-j

II-j

0.5

3

4

5

1.0
0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

I-j

II-j

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

(c) Rejection curves from the Monte (d) Density estimation of Φ(J) from the
k,T,n
Carlo for k = 3.
Monte Carlo for k = 3.

0

1

2

3

4

(e) Rejection curves from the Monte (f) Density estimation of Φ(J)
k,T,n from the
Carlo for k = 5.
Monte Carlo for k = 5.

Figure 5: These graphics show the simulation results for the test from Theorem
2.11. The dotted lines correspond to n = 100, the dashed lines to n = 1,600 and the
solid lines to n = 25,600. In all cases N = 10,000 paths were simulated.
27

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

6
0

0.0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5

8

10

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

10
8
6
4
2
0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

0.5

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont
60

0.0

50

1.0

40

0.5

Cont

30

0.0

20

1.0

10

0.5

III-j

II-j

0

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

2

4

6

0.5

0.5

8

10

12

14

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

II-j

1.0

I-j

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.0

2.5

7
6
4

5
0.5

1.0

0

0.0

1

2

3

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont
35

1.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

1.0

1.0

1.0

30

0.5

25

0.0

20

1.0

15

0.5

Cont

10

0.0

5

1.0

III-j

II-j

0

8
6
0.5

0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

I-j

1.0

II-j

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

e (J) (0.9)
(a) Rejection curves from the Monte (b) Density estimation of Φ
k,T,n
Carlo for k = 2.
from the Monte Carlo for k = 2.

3.0

0

1

2

3

4

0.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

0

0.0

0.0

1

2

0.5

0.5

3

4

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

4
3
2
1
0

3.0

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

5

6

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont
20

1.0

15

0.5

Cont

10

0.0

5

1.0

III-j

II-j

0

5
4
0.5

0

0.0

1

2

3

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

I-j

1.0

II-j

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

e (J) (0.9)
(c) Rejection curves from the Monte (d) Density estimation of Φ
k,T,n
Carlo for k = 3.
from the Monte Carlo for k = 3.

0

1

2

3

4

e (J) (0.9) from
(e) Rejection curves from the Monte (f) Density estimation of Φ
k,T,n
Carlo for k = 5.
the Monte Carlo for k = 5.

Figure 6: These graphics show the simulation results for the test from Corollary
2.12. The dotted lines correspond to n = 100, the dashed lines to n = 1,600 and the
solid lines to n = 25,600. In all cases N = 10,000 paths were simulated.
28

8
6
1.0

0.0

(a) Rejection curves for k = 2.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2.0

2.5

6
5
4
2
1
0
1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

2.5

I-j

3

4

5

1.0
0.5

1.0

0

0.0

1

2

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

0.0

0.5

0.0

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

2
0

0.0

0.0

1

0.5

0.5

3

1.0

Cont

1.0

III-j

0.0

0.5

8
6
4
2
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

II-j

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont

3.0

0

1

2

3

4

(d) Density estimation of Φ3,T,n .

II-j

1.0

1.5

3.0

(J)

(c) Rejection curves for k = 3.
I-j

0.5

2.5

0.0

1.0

(e) Rejection curves for k = 5.

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

II-j
4

0.5

2.0

(J)
Φ2,T,n .

3

0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

1.5

1.5

5

1.0

3

0.5
1.0

1.0

4

0.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0
0.5

0.5

3

0.0

1.0

1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.0

2

1.0

3.0

2

0.5

Cont

2.5

1

0.0

2.0

1

4
2

1.0

0

0.0
0.5

III-j

1.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont

3.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

6

1.0

I-j

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

1.0

(b) Density estimation of

II-j

1.0

I-j

0.5

0.5

0

0.5

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

0.0

0.0

3.0

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

5

6

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont

2.0

1.0

3.0

1.5

0.5

0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

2.5

12

2.0

10

1.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

1.0

1.0

1.0

8

0.5

6

0.0

4

1.0

1.0

0.5

Cont

2

6
0.0

0.5

1.0

II-j

0.0

0.5

III-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5

8

10

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

II-j

1.0

I-j

0

1

2

(f) Density estimation of

3

4

(J)
Φ5,T,n .

Figure 7: Simulation results for the test from Theorem 2.11 based on equidistant
observations ti,n = i/n. The dotted lines correspond to n = 100, the dashed lines
to n = 1,600 and the solid lines to n = 25,600. In all cases N = 10,000 paths were
simulated.
29

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

60
0

0.0

0.0

20

40

0.5

0.5

80

100

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

0.5

Cont

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont

150

6
0.0

100

1.0

50

0.5

III-j

II-j

0

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5

8

10

12

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

II-j

1.0

I-j

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

0.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

30
0

0.0

0.0

10

20

0.5

0.5

40

50

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

3.0

0.0

0.5

3.0

0

1

1.5

2.0

2.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
III-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

0

0.0

0.0

5

10

0.5

0.5

15

20

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1

2

3

4

II-j

0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

0.5

3.0

3.0

4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

5

6

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont
25

0.0

3

20

1.0

2

e (J) (0.99).
Φ
3,T,n

15

0.5

Cont

3.0

10

0.0

2.5

5

1.0

III-j

2.0

0

5
4
0.5

0

0.0

1

2

3

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

I-j

1.0

1.0

II-j

1.5

c(MIN,
MAX)
Cont

(c) Rejection curves from the Monte (d) Density estimation of
Carlo for k = 3.
I-j

1.0

80

1.0

60

0.5

Cont

40

0.0

20

1.0

III-j

II-j

0

8
6

0.5

0

0.0

2

4

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.0

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

I-j

1.0

II-j

1.0

I-j

range(dens[[1]][[”y”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”y”]])

e (J) (0.99).
(a) Rejection curves from the Monte (b) Density estimation of Φ
2,T,n
Carlo for k = 2.

0

1

2

3

4

e (J) (0.99).
(e) Rejection curves from the Monte (f) Density estimation of Φ
5,T,n
Carlo for k = 5.

Figure 8: Simulation results for the test from Corollary 2.12 based on equidistant
observations ti,n = i/n. The dotted lines correspond to n = 100, the dashed lines
to n = 1,600 and the solid lines to n = 25,600. In all cases N = 10,000 paths were
simulated.
30

1.0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Level
1-Power
(Level+(1-Power))

0.0

0.05

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

ρ

Figure 9: This graphic shows for k = 2, α = 5%, n = 25,600 and equidistant
observations ti,n = i/n the empirical rejection rate in the case Cont (dotted line)
and 1 minus the empirical rejection rate in the case III-j (dashed line) from the
Monte Carlo simulation based on Corollary 2.12 as a function of ρ ∈ [0, 1]. We
achieve a minimal overall error for approximately ρ = 0.99.

4.2

Testing for disjoint jumps

We simulate according to the model used in Section 6 of Jacod and Todorov (2009),
since by using the same configurations as in their paper we can compare the performance of our approach to the performance of their methods in the case of equidistant
and synchronous observations. The model for the process X is given by
Z
Z
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
dXt = Xt σ1 dWt + α1
Xt− x1 µ1 (dt, dx1 ) + α3
Xt− x3 µ3 (dt, dx3 ),
ZR
ZR
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
dXt = Xt σ2 dWt + α2
Xt− x2 µ2 (dt, dx2 ) + α3
Xt− x3 µ3 (dt, dx3 ),
R

R

where [W (1) , W (2) ]t = ρt and the Poisson measures µi are independent of each other
and have predictable compensators νi of the form
νi (dt, dxi ) = κi

1[−hi ,−li ]∪[li ,hi ] (xi )
dtdxi
2(hi − li )

where 0 < li < hi for i = 1, 2, 3, and the initial values are X0 = (1, 1)T . We
consider the same twelve parameter settings which were discussed in Jacod and
Todorov (2009) of which six allow for common jumps and six do not. In the case
where common jumps are possible, we only use the simulated paths which contain
31

common jumps. For the parameters we set σ12 = σ22 = 8 × 10−5 in all scenarios
and choose the parameters for the Poisson measures such that the contribution
of the jumps to the total variation remains approximately constant and matches
estimations from real financial data; see Huang and Tauchen (2006). The parameter
settings are summarized in Table 2; compare Table 1 in Jacod and Todorov (2009).
The first six cases in Table 2 describe situations where common jumps might be
present, the other six cases situations where there exist no common jumps. In the
cases I-j, II-j and III-j there exist only common jumps and no disjoint jumps
and the Brownian motions W (1) and W (2) are uncorrelated. In the cases I-m, II-m
and III-m we have a mixed model which allows for common and disjoint jumps
and also the Brownian motions are positively correlated. In the cases I-d0, II-d0
and III-d0 the Brownian motions W (1) , W (2) are uncorrelated while in the cases
I-d1, II-d1 and III-d1 the processes are driven by the same Brownian motion
W (1) = W (2) . The prefixes I, II and III indicate an increasing number of jumps
present in the observed paths. Since our choice of parameters is such that the
overall contribution of the jumps to the quadratic variation is roughly the same in
all parameter settings, this corresponds to a decreasing size of the jumps. Hence in
the cases I-* we have few large jumps while in the cases III-* we have many small
jumps.
As a model for the observation times we use the Poisson setting discussed in
Examples 2.5 and 2.9 for λ1 = λ2 = 1 and we set T = 1. As in Section 4.1 we
choose n = 100, n = 1,600 and n = 25,600. We set β = 0.03 and $ = 0.49 for all
√
occuring truncations. We use bn = 1/ n for the local interval in the estimation of
√
(l)
(l)
σs− , σs , ρs and Ln = bln(n)c, Mn = b10 nc in the simulation of the Zbn,m (s). For
an explanation for the choice of these parameters see again Section 5 of Martin and
Vetter (2017). We only use paths in the simulation where µi ([0, 1], R) 6= 0 whenever
αi 6= 0, i = 1, 2, 3.
In Figures 10–13 we display the results from the simulation for the testing procedures from Theorem 3.12 and Corollary 3.13. First we plot in Figure 10 for all twelve
cases the empirical rejection rates from Theorem 3.12 in dependence of α ∈ [0, 1]
as for the plots in the left column of Figure 5. The six plots on the left show the
results for the cases where the hypothesis of the existence of common jumps is true.
Similarly as in Figure 5 we observe that the empirical rejection rates match the

Case
I-j
II-j
III-j
I-m
II-m
III-m
I-d0
II-d0
III-d0
I-d1
II-d1
III-d1

ρ
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

α1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

κ1

l1

h1

1
5
25
1
5
25
1
5
25

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

0.7484
0.3187
0.1238
0.7484
0.3187
0.1238
0.7484
0.3187
0.1238

Parameters
α2 κ2
l1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01 1 0.05
0.01 5 0.05
0.01 25 0.05
0.01 1 0.05
0.01 5 0.05
0.01 25 0.05
0.01 1 0.05
0.01 5 0.05
0.01 25 0.05

h1

0.7484
0.3187
0.1238
0.7484
0.3187
0.1238
0.7484
0.3187
0.1238

α3
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

κ3
1
5
25
1
5
25

Table 2: Parameter settings for the simulation.

32

l3
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

h3
0.7484
0.3187
0.1238
0.7484
0.3187
0.1238

I-d0
1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.0

0.0
0.5
0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0
0.0

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.5

0.5

III-d1

1.0

1.0
0.0
0.0

0.0

III-d0

0.5

1.0
0.5

1.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

III-m

0.0

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.0
0.5

0.0

II-d1

0.5
0.0

III-j

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0
1.0

0.5

II-d0

0.5

1.0
0.5
0.0

0.5

0.0

II-m
1.0

II-j

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.0
0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

I-d1
1.0

I-m
1.0

I-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

Figure 10: Empirical rejection curves from the Monte Carlo simulation for the test
derived from Theorem 3.12. The dotted lines represent the results for n = 100,
the dashed lines for n = 1,600 and the solid lines for n = 25,600. In each case
N = 10,000 paths were simulated.
postulated asymptotic level of the test better if n is larger or if common jumps are
larger on average. In all six cases where common jumps are present and for all values
of n the test overrejects. This is due to the fact that the asymptotically negligible
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
terms in Φ2,T,n (terms which are contained in Φ2,T,n but do not contribute in the
(CoJ)

limit) tend to be positive, hence Φ2,T,n is on average systematically larger than 1
(see Figure 11) which yields the bias. However, at least for n = 25,600 the observed
rejection rates match the asymptotic level quite well. Only in the cases III-j and
III-m where the jumps are on average very small the empirical rejection rates are
still far higher than the asymptotic level. The results are worse in the mixed model
than in the model where there are only common jumps, because idiosyncratic jumps
contribute to the asymptotically vanishing error. The test has very good power
against the alternative of idiosyncratic jumps as can be seen in the six plots on the
right hand side which correspond to the cases where there are no common jumps.
(CoJ)
Figure 11 shows density estimations for Φ2,T,n in all twelve cases. If there are
(CoJ)

common jumps it is visible in the density plots that Φ2,T,n converges to 1 as n → ∞.
However for n = 100, n = 1,600 in the cases II-j, II-m and for n = 100, n = 1,600,
n = 25,600 in the cases III-j, III-m the density peaks at a value significantly larger
than 1 which corresponds to the overrejection in Figure 10. Under the alternative of

33

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

1

2

3

4

5

I-d1

0

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

15
10
5
0

3.0

I-d0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

1.0

I-m

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0

5

10

15

I-j

1

2

3

4

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4
3
2
1
0

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

10 12
8
6
4
2
0

3.0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

1.0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14

c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],II-j
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), 0.8),
II-m
II-d0
II-d1
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), MAX))

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

5
4
3
2
1
0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

3.0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

1.0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14

c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],III-j
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), 0.8),
III-m
III-d0
III-d1
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), MAX))

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

(CoJ)

Figure 11: Density estimations for Φ2,T,n from the Monte Carlo. The dotted
lines correspond to n = 100, the dashed lines to n = 1,600 and the solid lines
to n = 25,600. In all cases N = 10,000 paths were simulated.
(CoJ)

disjoint jumps Φ2,T,n tends to cluster around 1.5 which corresponds to the results
obtained in Example 2.5 for the one-dimensional setting.
Our simulation results from Theorem 3.12 are worse than the results in the equidistant setting displayed in Figure 4 of Jacod and Todorov (2009) while the power of
our test is much better. This effect is partly due to the fact that, contrary to our
approach, in Jacod and Todorov (2009) idiosyncratic jumps, although their contribution is asymptotically negligible, are included in the estimation of the asymptotic
variance in the central limit theorem. Hence they consistently overestimate the
asymptotic variance which yields lower rejection rates. Further the asymptotically
(CoJ)
negligible terms in Φ2,T,n are larger relative to the asymptotically relevant terms in
the asynchronous setting than in the setting of synchronous observation times which
increases the rejection rates in the asynchronous setting.
The test from Corollary 3.13 outperforms the test from Theorem 3.12 in the
simulation study. This can be seen in Figures 12 and 13 which show the results
from the Monte Carlo simulation for the test from Corollary 3.13 with ρ = 0.75
(for the choice of ρ = 0.75 see Figure 14) in the same fashion as for Theorem 3.12
in Figures 10 and 11. In the cases where common jumps are present we observe
that the empirical rejection rates match the asymptotic level much better than in
Figure 10. In Figure 12 we see that in the cases I-j, I-m, II-j, II-m we get good
results already for n = 1,600 and in the cases III-j, III-m at least for n = 25,600.
34

I-d0
1.0

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.0

0.0
0.5
0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0
0.0

0.5

0.5
0.0
0.5

0.5

III-d1

1.0

1.0
0.0
0.0

0.0

III-d0

0.5

1.0
0.5

1.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

III-m

0.0

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.0
0.5

0.0

II-d1

0.5
0.0

III-j

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0
1.0

0.5

II-d0

0.5

1.0
0.5
0.0

0.5

0.0

II-m
1.0

II-j

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.0
0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

I-d1
1.0

I-m
1.0

I-j

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

Figure 12: Empirical rejection curves from the Monte Carlo simulation for the test
derived from Corollary 3.13. The dotted lines represent the results for n = 100,
the dashed lines for n = 1,600 and the solid lines for n = 25,600. In each case
N = 10,000 paths were simulated.
The power of the test from Corollary 3.13 is practically as good as for the test from
e (CoJ) (ρ) instead of Φ(CoJ) allows
Theorem 3.12. Hence using the adjusted statistic Φ
2,T,n
2,T,n
to get far better level results while the power of the test remains almost the same.
e (CoJ) (ρ) is much more centered
Figure 13 shows that the adjusted estimator Φ
2,T,n
(CoJ)

around 1 than Φ2,T,n if there exist common jumps which can be seen e.g. in the
e (CoJ) (ρ) clusters around a value very close to 1
cases III-j and III-m. Further Φ
2,T,n
also if there exist no common jumps. However, in the cases *-d0 and *-d1 the peak
of the density still occurs at a value which is noticeably larger than 1.
Figure 14 illustrates similarly as Figure 4 for the test for jumps the performance
of the test from Corollary 3.13 in dependence of ρ. We choose the cases III-j and
III-d0 as representatives for the null hypothesis and the alternative. As expected
the level as well as the power of the test decrease as ρ increases. Here we get the
lowest overall error for a value of ρ close to 0.75.

35

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

10

20

30

40

50

I-d1

0

15
10
5
0

15
10
5
0

3.0

I-d0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

1.0

I-m

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0

5

10

15

I-j

1

2

3

4

1.5

2.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

50
40
30
20
10
0

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

10 12
8
6
4
2
0

2.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

1.0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14

c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],II-j
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), 0.8),
II-m
II-d0
II-d1
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), MAX))

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

1.5

2.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

20
15
10
5
0

15
10
5
0

10 12
8
6
4
2
0

2.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

1.0

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0.5

range(dens[[1]]y, dens[[length(n)]]y)

0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14

c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],III-j
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
c(min(min(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
0.8),
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), 0.8),
III-m
III-d0
III-d1
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]], dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]),
min(max(dens[[1]][[”x”]],
MAX))
dens[[length(n)]][[”x”]]), MAX))

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1.0

e (CoJ) (ρ) from the Monte Carlo. The dotted
Figure 13: Density estimations for Φ
2,T,n
lines correspond to n = 100, the dashed lines to n = 1,600 and the solid lines to
n = 25,600. In all cases N = 10,000 paths were simulated.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Level
1-Power
(Level+(1-Power))

0.0

0.05

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

ρ

Figure 14: This graphic shows for α = 5% and n = 1,600 the empirical rejection
rate in the case III-j and 1 minus the empirical rejection rate in the case III-d0
from the Monte Carlo simulation based on Corollary 3.13 as a function of ρ ∈ [0, 1].
36

5

Structure of the proofs

Throughout the proofs we will assume that the processes bs , σs and Γs are bounded
on [0, T ]. By Conditions 2.2 and 3.2 they are all locally bounded. A localization
procedure then shows that the results for bounded processes can be carried over to
the case of locally bounded processes (see e.g. Section 4.4.1 in Jacod and Protter
(2012)).
Further we introduce the decomposition Xt = X0 + B(q)t + Ct + M (q)t + N (q)t
of the Itô semimartingale (2.1) or (3.1) with
Z
Z t

bs − (δ(s, z)1{kδ(s,z)k≤1} − δ(s, z)1{γ(z)≤1/q} )λ(dz) ds,
B(q)t =
0
Z t
Ct =
σs dWs ,
0
Z tZ
M (q)t =
δ(s, z)1{γ(z)≤1/q} (µ − ν)(ds, dz),
0
Z tZ
N (q)t =
δ(s, z)1{γ(z)>1/q} µ(ds, dz).
0

Here q is a parameter which controls whether jumps are classified as small jumps or
big jumps.
As we have already applied most of the techniques used in the upcoming proofs
in Martin and Vetter (2017), we keep the discussion of similar parts brief and add
references to Martin and Vetter (2017) for more detailed arguments. Parts in the
proofs which are new or specific to the tests introduced in this paper will be discussed
in full detail.

5.1

Proofs for Section 2
(J)

Proof of Theorem 2.3. We obtain the following two representations for Φk,T,n
Pk−1 P
(J)
Φk,T,n
(J)
Φk,T,n

=
=

i≥1:tki+l,n ≤T

l=0

(∆ki+l,k,n X)4

kV (g, πn )T
n
k

P

i≥k:ti,n ≤T

(∆i,k,n X)4

nV (g, πn )T

,

.

(5.1)
(5.2)

Theorem 3.3.1 from Jacod and Protter (2012) yields
X
P
(J)
(∆ki+l,k,n X)4 −→ BT , 0 ≤ l ≤ k − 1,
i≥1:tki+l ≤T
P

(J)

(J)

(J)

and V (g, πn )T −→ BT . Because of BT 6= 0 on ΩT plugging these into (5.1)
(J)
yields the convergence to 1 on ΩT .
Proposition A.2 in Martin and Vetter (2017) applied to the Itô semimartingale
et = (Xt , Xt )∗ and the observation scheme defined by t̃(l) = ti,n , l = 1, 2, yields
X
i,n
n

X

(J)

(∆i,n C)4 −→ CT
P

i:ti,n ≤T

37

(5.3)

(l)
e
e
by Condition 2.2 because of ρes = 1, σ
es = σs , l = 1, 2, and H(t)
= G(t)
= G(t).
Similarly we obtain

n X
P
(J)
(∆i,k,n C)4 −→ kCk,T .
k

(5.4)

i:ti,n ≤T

(C)

We then get the convergence on ΩT
nV (g, [k 0 ], πn )T −

n X
k0

from (5.2) using (5.3), (5.4) and
∆i,k0 ,n C

4

k 0 = 1, k,

P

1Ω(C) −→ 0,

(5.5)

T

i:ti ≤T

which will be proved in Section 6.1. Note that because of
surely and because G is strictly increasing we have

(J)
CT

RT
0

|σs |ds > 0 almost

> 0 almost surely.

Proof of Theorem 2.8. We prove
√

L−s

(J)

n (V (g, [k], πn )T − kV (g, πn )T ) −→ Fk,T

(5.6)

from which (2.11) easily follows.
Step 1. First we discretize σ and restrict ourselves to the big jumps ∆N (q)s of
which there are only finitely many. We define σ(r), C(r) for r ∈ N by σ(r)t = σj2−r
Rt
if t ∈ [(j − 1)2−r , j2−r ), C(r)t = 0 σ(r)s dWs . Further let (Sq,p )p be an enumeration
of the jump times of N (q). By dxe = min{n ∈ Z : n ≥ x} we denozr for x ∈ R the
smallest integer which is greater or equal to x. Using the notion of the jump times
we modify the discretized processes σ(r), C(r) further via
(
Z t
σSq,p if s ∈ [Sq,p , dSq,p /2r e/2r )
e
σ̃(r, q)s =
, C(r, q)t =
σ̃(r, q)s ds.
σ(r)s otherwise
0
Using this notation we then define
k−1
X
√ X
e q) + ∆i−j,n C(r,
e q)).
R(n, q, r) = 4 n
(∆i,n N (q))3
(k − j)(∆i+j,n C(r,
i:ti,n ≤T

j=1

and show
√
lim lim sup lim sup P(| n (V (g, [k], πn )T − kV (g, πn )T ) − R(n, q, r)| > ε) → 0

q→∞

r→∞

n→∞

(5.7)
for all ε > 0. The proof of (5.7) is given in Section 6.1.
Step 2. Next we prove
L−s

(J)

R(n, q, r) −→ Fk,T (q, r) := 4

X

(∆N (q)Sq,p )3

Sq,p ≤T

× (σ̃(r, q)Sq,p − )2 ξk,− (Sq,p ) + (σ̃(r, q)Sq,p )2 ξk,+ (Sq,p )
for all q > 0 and r ∈ N.

38

1/2

USq,p

(5.8)

To this end note that on the set Ω(n, q, r) where two different jumps of N (q) are
further apart than |πn |T and any jump time of N (q) is further away from j2−r than
k|πn |T for any j ∈ {1, . . . , bT 2r c} it holds
X

R(n, q, r)1Ω(n,q,r) = 4

(∆N (q)Sq,p )

3√

Sq,p ≤T

n

k−1
X

(k − j)

j=1

× (σ̃(r, q)Sq,p − ∆in (Sq,p )−j,n W + σ̃(r, q)Sq,p ∆in (Sq,p )+j,n W )1Ω(n,q,r) .
As in the proof of Proposition A.3 of Martin and Vetter (2017) it can be shown that
Condition 2.7(ii) yields the X -stable convergence
k−1
k−1
 √ X


√ X
n
(k − j)∆in (Sq,p )−j,n W, n
(k − j)∆in (Sq,p )+j,n W Sq,p ≤T
j=1

j=1
L−s

−→

 q

ξk,− (Sq,p )USq,p ,− ,

q


ξk,+ (Sq,p )USq,p ,+ Sq,p ≤T

for standard normally distributed random variables (Us,− , Us,+ ) which are independent of F and of the ξk,− (s), ξk,+ (s). Using this stable convergence, Proposition 2.2
in Podolskij and Vetter (2010) and the continuous mapping theorem we then obtain
4

X

3√

(∆N (q)Sq,p )

n

k−1
X

(k − j)

j=1

Sq,p ∈P (q,T )

L−s

(J)

× (σ̃(r, q)Sq,p − ∆in (Sq,p )−j,n W + σ̃(r, q)Sq,p ∆in (Sq,p )+j,n W ) −→ Fk,T (q, r).
Because of P(Ω(n, q, r)) → 1 as n → ∞ for any q, r this convergence yields (5.8).
Step 3. Finally we need to show
e (J) − F (J) (q, r)| > ε) = 0,
lim lim sup P(|F
k,T
k,T

q→∞

(5.9)

r→∞

for all ε > 0. (5.9) can be proven using that Γ(·, dy) has uniformly bounded first
moments together with the boundedness of the jump sizes of X respectively N (q).
Combining the results from Steps 1 to 3 we obtain (5.6).
The structure of the proof of Theorem 2.11 and especially of (5.10) therein is
identical to the structure of the proof of Theorem 4.2 and (A.27) in Martin and
Vetter (2017).
Proof of Theorem 2.11. For proving (2.19) we need to show

√
e n(V (g, [k], πn )T − kV (g, πn )T ) > Q
b k,T,n (1 − α) F (J) → α
P
which follows from Theorem 2.8 and

e {|Q
b (J) (α) − Q(J) (α)| > ε} ∩ Ω(J) → 0
lim P
T
k,T,n
k

n→∞

(5.10)

for all ε > 0 and any α ∈ [0, 1]. Hence it remains to prove (5.10) for which we give
a proof in Section 6.1.

39

(J)

(C)

For proving (2.20) we observe that Φk,T,n converges on ΩT to a limit strictly
greater than 1 by Theorem 2.3 and Condition 2.10(ii). On the other hand we will
show
(J)
ck,T,n
1Ω(C) = oPe (1)

(5.11)

T

in Section 6.1. Hence we obtain (2.20).
As a prerequisite for the proof of (5.10) we need the following Lemma which will
be proven in Section 6.1.
Lemma 5.1. Suppose Conditions 2.7 and 2.10(ii) are fulfilled and Sp is a stopping
time with ∆XSp 6= 0 almost surely. Then it holds
P

P

σ̂n (Sp , −)1{Sp <T } −→ σSp − 1{Sp <T } ,

σ̂n (Sp , +)1{Sp <T } −→ σSp 1{Sp <T } .

Proposition 5.2. Suppose Condition 2.10 is fulfilled. Then it holds
e
P

Mn
 1 X

e (J) ≤ Υ|X ) > ε ∩ Ω(J) → 0
1{Fb(J) ≤Υ} − P(F
T
k,T
Mn
k,T,n,m

(5.12)

m=1

for any X -measurable random variable Υ and all ε > 0.
The proof of Proposition 5.2 requires Lemma 5.1 and will be given in Section 6.1.
Proof of (5.10). We have
e Q
b (J) (α) > Q(J) (α) + ε} ∩ Ω(J) )
P({
T
k,T,n
k
e
=P
e
≤P

Mn
 1 X
Mn − (bαMn c − 1)
(J) 
1{Fb(J) >Q(J) (α)+ε} >
∩ ΩT
Mn
Mn
k,T,n,m
k

 1
Mn

m=1
Mn
X
m=1

1{Fb(J)

(J)
k,T,n,m >Qk (α)+ε}

(J) 

− Υ(α, ε) > (1 − α) − Υ(α, ε) ∩ ΩT

e (J) > Q(J) (α) + ε|X ). Because the X -conditional distribution of
with Υ(α, ε) = P(F
k,T
k
(J)

(J)

Fk,T is continuous on ΩT , it holds (1 − α) − Υ(α, ε) > 0 almost surely. (5.12) then
yields
e Q
b (J) > Q(J) (α) + ε} ∩ Ω(J) ) → 0
P({
T
k,T,n
k
because
Mn
1 X
1{Fb(J) >Q(J) (α)+ε} − Υ(α, ε)
Mn
k,T,n,m
k
m=1

(J)

converges on ΩT

in probability to zero by (5.12). Analogously we derive
e Q
b (J) < Q(J) (α) − ε} ∩ Ω(J) ) → 0
P({
T
k,T,n
k

which together with (5.13) yields (5.10).
40

(5.13)

(J)

(J)

P

(J)

Proof of Corollary 2.12. From Ak,T,n −→ k 2 Ck,T −kCT , which can be shown using
techniques from the proof of (A.26) in Martin and Vetter (2017), we deduce
√
(J)

on ΩT

(J)

nρ

n−1 Ak,T,n
kV (g, πn )T

(J)

1Ω(J) = ρn−1/2
T

Ak,T,n

P

1Ω(J) −→ 0

kV (g, πn )T

(5.14)

T

and
(J)

(J)

ρ

Ak,T,n

P

knV (g, πn )T

1Ω(C) −→ ρ

(J)

k 2 Ck,T − kCT

(5.15)

1Ω(C)

(J)

kCT

T

T

(C)

on ΩT .
(5.14) together with Theorem 2.8 yields the X -stable convergence
√
√
L−s
(J)
e (J) (ρ) − 1) = n(Φ(J) − ρ(kn)−1 A(J) /V (g, πn )T − 1) −→
n(Φ
Fk,T
k,T,n
k,T,n
k,T,n
(J)

on ΩT and hence (2.21) follows as in the proof of (2.19).
From (5.15) we derive
(J)

(J)

(J)
Φk,T,n

−ρ

n−1 Ak,T,n
kV (g, πn )T

P

1Ω(J) − 1 −→ (1 − ρ)

(J)

k 2 Ck,T − kCT

1Ω(C)

(J)

kCT

T

T

which is almost surely larger than 0 by Condition 2.10(ii) and hence (2.22) follows
as in the proof of (2.20).

5.2

Proofs for Section 3

Proof of Theorem 3.3. From (2.2) in Martin and Vetter (2017) we obtain
(CoJ)

P

V (f, πn )T −→ BT

,

k−1
X

V (f, [k], πn )T =

(1)

X

(2)

f (∆ki+l1 ,k,n X (1) , ∆kj+l2 ,k,n X (2) )

l1 ,l2 =0 i,j≥k:t(1)

(2)
ki+l1 ,n ∧tkj+l2 ,n ≤T

× 1{Iki+l1 ,k,n ∩Ikj+l2 ,k,n 6=∅}
P

−→

k−1
X

(CoJ)

BT

(CoJ)

= k 2 BT

,

l1 ,l2 =0

which yields (3.7).
Proof of Theorem 3.5. It holds
(CoJ)

Φk,T,n =

n/k 2 V (f, [k], πn )T
nV (f, πn )T

and the proof of
L−s

(CoJ)

(n/k 2 V (f, [k], πn )T , nV (f, πn )T ) −→ (Dk,T

(CoJ)

+ kCk,T

(CoJ)

, D1,T

(CoJ)

+ C1,T

)

is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2 in Martin and Vetter (2017). This yields (3.8)
R T (1) (2)
because by Condition 3.7 we have 0 |σs σs |ds > 0 which together with the fact
(CoJ)

that H1 is strictly increasing guarantees C1,T
41

(CoJ)

+ D1,T

(CoJ)

≥ C1,T

> 0.

The proof of Theorem 3.8 has the same structure as the proof of Theorem 2.8.
Proof of Theorem 3.8. We prove
√
L−s
(CoJ)
n (V (f, [2], πn )T − 4V (f, πn )T ) −→ F2,T

(5.16)

from which (3.10) easily follows.
e q) of σ, C as in Step 1 in
Step 1. We introduce discretized versions σ̃(q, r), C(r,
the proof of Theorem 2.8 with the only difference that by (Sq,p )p we denote an
enumeration of the jump times of N (1) (q)N (2) (q) and not of N (q). Thereby we turn
the focus to the common jumps. We then show
√
e q, r)| > ε) = 0
lim lim sup lim sup P(| n (V (f, [2], πn )T − 4V (f, πn )T ) − R(n,
q→∞

r→∞

n→∞

(5.17)
for all ε > 0 where
e q, r) = R
e(1) (n, q, r) + R
e(2) (n, q, r),
R(n,
X
√
(l)
(l) e (l)
e(l) (n, q, r) = n
2 ∆i−1,1,n N (l) (q)∆i,1,n C
(r, q)
R
(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T



(l)
e (l) (r, q)∆(l) N (l) (q) ∆(3−l) N (3−l) (q) 2 1 (l)
+ ∆i−1,1,n C
i,1,n
j,2,n
{I

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

, l = 1, 2.

The proof for (5.17) will be given in Section 6.2.
Step 2. Next we will show
L−s
(CoJ)
e q, r) −→
R(n,
FT
(q, r)

(5.18)

for any q > 0 and r ∈ N where
(CoJ)

FT

(q, r) := 4

(1)

X

(2)

∆XSq,p ∆XSq,p

Sq,p ∈P (q,T )

q
q
(2)
(1),−
(1),+
× ∆XSq,p σ̃ (1) (r, q)Sq,p − L(Sq,p )USq,p + σ̃ (1) (r, q)Sq,p R(Sq,p )USq,p
q

(2)
+ (σ̃ (1) (r, q)Sq,p − )2 (L(1) − L)(Sq,p ) + (σ̃ (1) (r, q)Sq,p )2 (R(1) − R)(Sq,p )USq,p
q
q

(1)
(1),−
(1),+
+ ∆XSq,p σ̃ (2) (r, q)Sq,p − ρ̃(r, q)Sq,p − L(Sq,p )USp + σ̃ (2) (r, q)Sq,p ρ̃(r, q)Sq,p R(Sp )USq,p
h



+ (σ̃ (2) (r, q)Sq,p − )2 (1 − (ρ̃(r, q)Sq,p − )2 )L(Sq,p )
+ (σ̃ (2) (r, q)Sq,p )2 (1 − (ρ̃(r, q)Sq,p )2 )R(Sq,p )
+

1/2

(3)

USq,p

q
i
(4)
(σ̃ (2) (r, q)Sq,p − )2 (L(2) − L)(Sq,p ) + (σ̃ (2) (r, q)Sq,p )2 (R(2) − R)(Sq,p )USq,p .

Here σ̃ (1) (r, q), σ̃ (2) (r, q), ρ̃(r, q) are discretized versions of σ (1) , σ (2) , ρ which are obe q) above. The proof of (5.18) will also be
tained in the same way as σ̃(r, q), C(r,
sketched in Section 6.2.
Step 3. Finally we consider
e (CoJ) − F (CoJ) (q, r)| > ε) = 0
lim lim sup P(|F
T
T

q→∞

(5.19)

r→∞

for all ε > 0 which can be proven using that the first moments of Γ(·, dy) are
uniformly bounded together with the boundedness of the jump sizes of X respectively
N (q).
Combining (5.17), (5.18) and (5.19) yields (5.16).
42

Proof of Theorem 3.12. For proving (3.15) we will prove
√
e
P


b (CoJ) (1 − α) F (J) → α
n |V (f, [2], πn )T − 4V (f, πn )T | > Q
T,n

which follows from Theorem 3.8 and
 (CoJ)
(CoJ) 
(CoJ)
e |Q
b
lim P
(α)| > ε ∩ ΩT
=0
T,n (α) − Q

(5.20)

n→∞

for all ε > 0 and any α ∈ [0, 1]. Hence it remains to prove (5.20) for which we give
a proof in Section 6.2.
(CoJ)
For proving (3.16) we observe that Φ2,T,n converges on the given F to a random
variable which is under Condition 3.11(iv) almost surely different from 1 by Theorem
(CoJ)
(CoJ)
3.5. Note to this end that Ck,T , C1,T
are F-conditional constant while the F(CoJ)

conditional distribution of Dk,T
(CoJ)

or Dk,T

(CoJ)

6= D1,T

(CoJ)

, D1,T

(CoJ)

is continuous. Hence kCk,T

(CoJ)

6= C1,T

almost surely imply
(CoJ)

kCk,T

(CoJ)

+ Dk,T

(CoJ)

6= C1,T

(CoJ)

+ D1,T

a.s.

Hence (3.16) follows from
(CoJ)
c2,T,n
1Ω(nCoJ) = oP (1)

(5.21)

T

which will be proved in Section 6.2.
As a prerequisite for the proof of (5.20) we need the following Lemma which will
be proven in Section 6.2.
Lemma 5.3. Suppose Conditions 3.7 and 3.11(ii) are fulfilled and Sp is a stopping
time with ∆XSp 6= 0 almost surely. Then for l = 1, 2 it holds
(l)

σ̂n(l) (Sp , −)1{Sp <T } −→ σSp − 1{Sp <T } ,
P

P

ρ̂n (Sp , −)1{Sp <T } −→ ρSp − 1{Sp <T } ,

(l)

σ̂n(l) (Sp , +)1{Sp <T } −→ σSp 1{Sp <T } , (5.22)
P

P

ρ̂n (Sp , +)1{Sp <T } −→ ρSp 1{Sp <T } .

(5.23)

Proposition 5.4. Suppose Condition 3.11 is fulfilled. Then it holds
e
P

Mn

 1 X
e (CoJ) ≤ Υ|X ) > ε ∩ Ω(J) → 0
1{Fb(CoJ) ≤Υ} − P(F
2,T
T
Mn
T,n,m

(5.24)

m=1

for any X -measurable random variable Υ and all ε > 0.
The proof of Proposition 5.4 requires Lemma 5.3 and will be given in Section 6.2.
The proof for (5.20) based on Proposition 5.4 is then identical to the proof of (5.10)
based on Proposition 5.2 and is therefore omitted here.
Proof of Corollary 3.13. Using arguments from the proof of Theorem 3.5 and the
proof of (A.26) in Martin and Vetter (2017) we derive
(CoJ) L−s

AT,n

(CoJ)

−→ 4(2C2,T

(CoJ)

− C1,T

43

(CoJ)

) + 4(D2,T

(CoJ)

− D1,T

).

(5.25)

(CoJ)

Hence on ΩT

it holds
(CoJ)

√ n−1 AT,n
P
1Ω(CoJ) −→ 0
n
4V (f, πn )T T
and combining this with (3.10) yields the X -stable convergence
(CoJ)
(CoJ)

n−1 AT,n
√  (CoJ)
L−s F2,T
− 1 −→
n Φ2,T,n − ρ
(CoJ)
4V (f, πn )T
4BT

(5.26)

(CoJ)

on ΩT
. Replacing (3.10) with (5.26) in the proof of (3.15) yields (3.17).
Under the alternative we obtain using Theorem 3.5 and (5.25)
(CoJ)

(CoJ)
Φ2,T,n

−ρ

n−1 AT,n

4V (f, πn )T


− 1 1Ω(nCoJ)
T

(CoJ)

L−s

−→ (1 − ρ)

(2C2,T

(CoJ)

− C1,T

(CoJ)

C1,T

(CoJ)

) + (D2,T

(CoJ)

− D1,T

(CoJ)

+ D1,T

)

1Ω(nCoJ)
T

where the limit is almost surely different from zero by Condition 3.11(iv). We then
(CoJ)
obtain (3.18) as in the proof of Theorem 3.12 because of c2,T,n 1Ω(nCoJ) = oP (1);
T

compare (5.21).

References
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and J. Jacod (2009). Testing for jumps in a discretely observed
process. Ann. Statist. 37 (1), 184–222.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and J. Jacod (2014). High-Frequency Financial Econometrics.
Princeton University Press. ISBN: 0-69116-143-3.
Bibinger, M. and M. Vetter (2015). Estimating the quadratic covariation of an
asynchronously observed semimartingale with jumps. Annals of the Institute of
Statistical Mathematics 67, 707–743.
Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of probability measures (2 ed.). Wiley series in
probability and statistics. Probability and statistics section. Wiley.
Brockwell, P. J. and R. A. Davis (1991). Time Series: Theory and Methods (2 ed.).
Springer Series in Statistics. Springer. ISBN: 1-441-90319-4.
Hayashi, T. and N. Yoshida (2005). On covariance estimation of non-synchronously
observed diffusion processes. Bernoulli 11 (2), 359–379.
Hayashi, T. and N. Yoshida (2008). Asymptotic normality of a covariance estimator
for non-synchronously observed processes. Annals of the Institute of Statistical
Mathematics 60 (2), 367–406.
Huang, X. and G. Tauchen (2006). The relative contribution of jumps to total price
variance. J. Financial Econometrics 4, 456–499.
44

Jacod, J. and P. Protter (2012). Discretization of Processes. Springer. ISBN: 364224-126-3.
Jacod, J. and A. Shiryaev (2002). Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes (2 ed.).
Springer. ISBN: 3-540-43932-3.
Jacod, J. and V. Todorov (2009). Testing for common arrivals of jumps for discretely
observed multidimensional processes. The Annals of Statistics 37 (1), 1792–1838.
Martin, O. and M. Vetter (2017). Testing for simultaneous jumps in case of asynchronous observations. To appear in: Bernoulli .
Podolskij, M. and M. Vetter (2010). Understanding limit theorems for semimartingales: a short survey. Statistica Neerlandica 64, 329–351.
Todorov, V. and G. Tauchen (2011). Volatility jumps. Journal of Business and
Economic Statistics 29, 356–371.

45

6

Online-Appendix: Proofs for the arguments omitted
in Section 5

We will make repeatedly use of the following estimates. Throughout the upcoming
proofs K and Kq will denote generic constants, the latter dependent on q, to simplify
notation.
Lemma 6.1. If Condition 2.2 or Condition 3.2 is fulfilled and the processes bt , σt , Γt
e p,q , eq ≥ 0 such that
are bounded there exist constants Kp , Kp0 , Kp,q , K
kB(q)s+t − B(q)s kp ≤ Kp,q tp ,


E kCs+t − Cs kp |Fs ≤ Kp tp/2 ,


0
E kM (q)s+t − M (q)s kp |Fs ≤ Kp0 teq ,


e p,q t + Kp,q tp ,
E kN (q)s+t − N (q)s kp |Fs ≤ K


0
E kXs+t − Xs kp |Fs ≤ Kp0 t,

(6.1)
(6.2)
(6.3)
(6.4)
(6.5)

for all s, t ≥ 0 with s + t ≤ T and all q > 0, p ≥ 1, p0 ≥ 2. Here, eq can be
e p,q may be chosen
chosen such that eq → 0 for q → ∞. For p ≥ 2 the constant K
independently of q.
Proof of Lemma 6.1. The inequalities (6.1)–(6.5) follow from Condition 2.2 respectively 3.2 and inequalities (2.1.33), (2.1.34), (2.1.37), (2.1.41) in Jacod and Protter
(2012).
The following elementary statement will be used frequently in the upcoming
proofs.
Lemma 6.2. Let (Yn )n∈N be a sequence of real-valued integrable random variables
on (Ω, F, P) and G ⊂ F a sub-σ-algebra. Then it holds

 P
P
E |Yn | G −→ 0 ⇒ Yn −→ 0
Proof. For ε < 1 it holds by Markov’s inequality and Jensen’s inequality
 

 


E E |Yn | ∧ 1 G
E E |Yn | G ∧ 1
E[|Yn | ∧ 1]
P(|Yn | > ε) = P(|Yn | ∧ 1 > ε) ≤
=
≤
.
ε
ε
ε
This estimate yields the claim as a sequence of random variables (Yen )n∈N converges
in probability to zero if and only if E[|Yen | ∧ c] → 0 for any c > 0.

6.1

Proofs for Section 2

Proof of (5.5). We will give the proof for k 0 = 1 only as the proof for general k 0 = k
is identical. It holds Xt 1Ω(C) = (Bt + Ct )1Ω(C) with
T

Z
Bt =
RT R
0

t

Z
bs −

0

since

T

R2


δ(s, z)1{kδ(s,z)k≤1} λ(dz) ds

(C)

δ(s, z)µ(ds, dz) ≡ 0 on ΩT .
1

(6.6)

(C)

On ΩT

we obtain using (6.1) and (6.2)

X


(∆i,n C)4 1Ω(C) S
E nV (g, πn )T − n
T

i:ti,n ≤T

X  



E (∆i,n B)4 S + E |∆i,n B|3 |∆i,n C| S

≤ nK

i:ti,n ≤T





+ E (∆i,n B)2 (∆i,n C)2 S + E |∆i,n B| |∆i,n C|3 S
X
4
7/2
3
5/2 
≤ nK
K Ii,n + K Ii,n
+ K Ii,n + K Ii,n
i:ti,n ≤T

X

≤ nK max{T 3/2 , 1}(|πn |T )1/2

Ii,n

2

i:ti,n ≤T

which vanishes as n → ∞ by Condition 2.2(i) and (ii). (5.5) then follows from
Lemma 6.2.
Proof of (5.7). To simplify notation we set ∆i,k0 ,n X = 0, Ii,k0 ,n = ∅, k 0 = 1, k,
whenever ti,n > T in this proof.
Step 1. We first prove
√
lim sup P(| n (V (g, [k], πn )T − kV (g, πn )T ) − R(n)| > ε) → 0
(6.7)
n→∞

where
R(n) =

√

X

n

3

4 (∆i,n X)

i:ti,n ≤T

k−1
X


(k − j) ∆i+j,n X + ∆i−j,n X .

j=1

Using the identity
4

(x1 + . . . + xk ) =

k
X

4

(xi ) + 4

i=1

+ 12

k X
X

k X
X
(xi ) xj + 6
(xi )2 (xj )2
3

i=1 j>i

i=1 j6=i
k XX
X

(xi )2 xj xj 0 + 24

i=1 j6=i j 0 >j

k XX X
X

x i x i0 x j x j 0

(6.8)

i=1 i0 >i j>i0 j 0 >j

which is a specific case of the multinomial theorem, we derive
√
n (V (g, [k], πn )T − kV (g, πn )T )
=

√

k−1
X X

(k − j) 4 (∆i,n X)3 (∆i+j,n X) + 4 (∆i,n X)3 (∆i−j,n X)

n

i:ti,n ≤T j=1

+ OP

√

n

k−1
X X

Kk,j (∆i,n X)2 (∆i+j,n X)2



+ OP

√

n|πn |T



(6.9)

i:ti,n ≤T j=1

where we used the inequalities |xi x0i | ≤ (xi )2 +(xi0 )2 , |xj xj 0 | ≤ (xj )2 +(xj 0 )2 to include
terms with powers (2, 1, 1, 0) and (1, 1, 1, 1) from (6.8) into the first summand of the
last line of (6.9). The last term in (6.9) is due to boundary effects at T .
2

By iterated expectations and inequality (6.5) we get
√

k−1
h X X
i √
nE
Kk,j (∆i,n X)2 (∆i+j,n X)2 S ≤ nKT |πn |T .
i:ti,n ≤T j=1

√
Hence those terms and the OP ( n|πn |T )-term vanish for n → ∞ by Condition 2.7(i).
This yields (6.7).
Step 2. Next we prove
lim lim sup P(|R(n) − R(n, q)| > ε) → 0

(6.10)

q→∞ n→∞

where
R(n, q) =

k−1
X

√ X
n
4 (∆i,n N (q))3
(k − j) ∆i+j,n C + ∆i−j,n C .
i:ti,n ≤T

j=1

Therefore we first consider
lim lim sup P(|R(n) − R0 (n, q))| > ε) → 0

(6.11)

q→∞ n→∞

for all ε > 0 with
0

R (n, q) =

√

n

X

3

4 (∆i,n N (q))

i:ti,n ≤T

k−1
X

(k − j) ∆i+j,n X + ∆i−j,n X



j=1

Using
3
|a3 − b3 | = |a − b||a2 + ab + b2 | ≤ |a − b|(a2 + b2 )
2
we derive
|R(n) − R0 (n, q)|
X
√
≤ nK

∆i,n X − ∆i,n N (q) (∆i,n X)2 + (∆i,n N (q))2



i:ti,n ≤T

×

k−1
X

|∆i+j,n X + ∆i−j,n X|.

(6.12)

j=1

The S-conditional expectation of (6.12) is after using iterated expectations, the
Hölder inequality with p1 = 3, p2 = 3/2 on ∆i,n (B(q) + C)((∆i,n X)2 + (∆i,n N (q))2 ),
the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality on ∆i,n M (q)((∆i,n X)2 + (∆i,n N (q))2 ) and Lemma

3

6.1 bounded by
X 
√
nK
(Kq |Ii,n |3 + |Ii,n |3/2 )1/3 (|Ii,n | + K|Ii,n | + Kq |Ii,n |3 )2/3
i:ti,n ≤T

+ (eq |Ii,n |)1/2 (|Ii,n | + K|Ii,n | + Kq |Ii,n |4 )1/2

k−1
X



|Ii+j,n |1/2

j=−(k−1),j6=0

≤ K(Kq (|πn |T )

1/6

≤ K(Kq (|πn |T )

1/6

3 1/2

+ (eq + Kq (|πn |T ) )
+ (eq )

1/2

√ X
|Ii,n |
) n

k−1
X

i:ti,n ≤T

j=−(k−1),j6=0

|Ii+j,n |1/2

√ X
) n
|Ii,k,n ||Ii,k,n |1/2
i:ti,n ≤T


≤ K(Kq (|πn |T )1/6 + (eq )1/2 ) nT

X

|Ii,k,n |2

1/2

(6.13)

i:ti,n ≤T

where we used |Ii,n ||Ii+j,n |1/2 ≤ |Imax{i,i+j},k,n |3/2 for |j| ≤ k − 1 and the CauchySchwarz inequality for sums to obtain the last two inequalities. The last bound
vanishes as n → ∞, q → ∞ by Condition 2.2. Hence by Lemma 6.2 we have proved
(6.11).
Further we prove
lim lim sup P(|R(n, q) − R0 (n, q))| > ε) → 0

(6.14)

q→∞ n→∞

for all ε > 0. Denote by Ω(n, q) the set where two jumps of N (q) are further apart
than k|πn |T . By iterated expectations and Lemma 6.1 it holds
E[|R(n, q) − R0 (n, q))|1Ω(n,q) |S]
k−1
X


√ X
≤K n
E |∆i,n N (q)|3
i:ti,n ≤T

|∆i+j,n (B(q) + M (q))| S



j=−(k−1),j6=0

√ X
≤K n
(|Ii,n | + Kq |Ii,n |3 )
i:ti,n ≤T

k−1
X

(Kq |Ii,n |2 + eq |Ii,n |)1/2

j=−(k−1),j6=0


≤ K(1 + Kq (|πn |T )2 )(Kq |πn |T + eq )1/2 nT

X

|Ii,k,n |2

1/2

i:ti,n ≤T

where the last inequality follows as in (6.13). The last bound vanishes as n → ∞,
q → ∞ by Condition 2.2. Hence by Lemma 6.2 we have proved (6.14) because of
P(Ω(n, q)) → 1 as n → ∞ for any q > 0 which together with (6.11) yields (6.10).
Step 3. Finally we consider
lim lim sup lim sup P(|R(n, q) − R(n, q, r)| > ε) → 0.

q→∞

r→∞

(6.15)

n→∞

Using iterated expectations, inequality (6.4) and (2.1.34) from Jacod and Protter

4

(2012) we obtain
E[|R(n, q) − R(n, q, r)||S]
k−1
X

X
√
|Ii,n |
≤ (K + Kq (|πn |T ) )E n
2

i:ti,n ≤T

Z
(

ti+j,n

kσs − σ̃(r, q)s k2 ds)1/2 S



ti+j−1,n

j=−(k−1),j6=0

2

≤ (K + Kq (|πn |T ) )
k−1
X

X
√
×E n
|Ii,n |(2k − 2)1/2
i:ti,n ≤T

Z

j=−(k−1),j6=0

ti+j,n

kσs − σ̃(r, q)s k2 ds

1/2


S .

ti+j−1,n

This quantity is using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for sums further bounded by
X Z ti,n
p

1/2 
2
2
(K + Kq (|πn |T ) ) Gn (T )E (2k − 2)
kσs − σ̃(r, q)s k2 ds
S
i:ti,n ≤T

p

= (K + Kq (|πn |T )2 ) Gn (T )E

Z

T

ti−1,n

1/2 
kσs − σ̃(r, q)s k2 ds
S

0
T

Z
p

P
−→ K G(T )E

kσs − σ̃(r, q)s k2 ds

1/2

S



0

where the convergence as n → ∞ follows from Condition 2.2. Here the limit vanishes
as r → ∞ for any q > 0 since the expectation vanishes as r → ∞ by dominated
convergence because σ, σ̃(r, q) are bounded by assumption and because (σ̃(r, q))r∈N
is a sequence of right continuous elementary processes approximating σ. Hence we
get (6.15) by Lemma 6.2.
Combining (6.7), (6.10) and (6.15) we obtain (5.7).
Proof of (5.11). Note that it holds
(J)
ck,T,n

=

√ b (J)
nQk,T,n (1 − α)

(6.16)

nkV (g, πn )T
(J)

(C)

where the denominator in (6.16) converges to kCT > 0 on ΩT as shown in the
√ b (J)
proof of Theorem 2.3. Hence it remains to show that the numerator nQ
n,T (1 − α)
(C)

is oPe (1) on ΩT . We have
√

√

b (J) (1 − α) ≤
nQ
n,T

Mn
n X
(J)
Fbk,T,n,m .
bαMn c

(6.17)

m=1

Further we get using
K|Ii,n |p + Kp |Ii,n |p/2
≤ Kp |Ii,n |p(1/2−$)
β p |Ii,n |p$
√
is defined as in (6.6), the inequality a + b ≤

P(|∆i,n (B + C)|p > β p |Ii,n |p$ |S) ≤
for p ≥ 1 where the process (Bt )t≥0

5

√

√
a + b for a, b ≥ 0, iterated expectations and twice the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
√

(J)
E n|Fbk,T,n,m |1Ω(C) S
T
√ X
≤ n
E[|∆i,n (B + C)|3 1{|∆i,n (B+C)|>β|Ii,n |$ }
i:ti,n ≤T

q
q

× σ̂n (ti,n , −) E[ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n )|F] + σ̂n (ti,n , +) E[ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n )|F] |S]
1/4
√ X
≤ n
E[(∆i,n (B + C))12 |S]P(|∆i,n (B + C)|p > β p |Ii,n |p$ |S)
i:ti,n ≤T

1/2 p
× E[2(σ̂n (ti,n , −))2 + 2(σ̂n (ti,n , +))2 |S]
K n|πn |T
X
p
12
6 1/4
p(1−2$)/4
≤ Kp n |πn |T
(Kq |Ii,n | + |Ii,n | ) |Ii,n |
(4bn /bn )1/2
i:ti,n ≤T

√

√ X
≤ Kp n(|πn |T )1/2+p(1−2$)/4 n
|Ii,n |3/2 .
i:ti,n ≤T

If we pick p such that p(1 − 2$)/4 ≥ 1/2 the final bound vanishes as n → ∞
by Condition 2.7(i) and 2.2(ii); compare (6.13). Hence by Lemma 6.2 we obtain
√ b (J)
nQn,T (1 − α) = oPe (1).
Proof of Lemma 5.1. First we prove the claim for a constant stopping time s ∈
(0, T ). We will only give the proof for σ̂n (s, +) as the proof for σ̂n (s, −) is identical.
Without loss of generality we assume s + bn ≤ T .
Using the elementary inequality
|x2 − y 2 | ≤

1+ε
|x − y|2 + εy 2
ε

which holds for all x, y ∈ R and ε > 0 (compare Step 2 in the proof of Theorem
9.3.2 of Jacod and Protter (2012)) we obtain
X
1
(σ̂n(l) (s, +))2 −
(∆i,n C)2
bn
i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

≤
≤

1
bn
1
bn

X

Kε (∆i,n (B(q) + M (q) + N (q)))2 + ε(∆i,n C)2



i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

X


3Kε ((∆i,n B(q))2 + (∆i,n M (q))2 + (∆i,n N (q))2 ) + ε(∆i,n C)2 .

i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

P
2
Here we have
i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ] (∆i,n N (q)) = 0 with probability approaching 1 as
n → ∞ because the probability for the event that there exists a jump of N (q) in
[s, s+bn ] vanishes as bn → 0. Further the S-conditional expectation of the remaining
terms is using (6.1)–(6.3) bounded by

K Kε eq + Kε,q |πn |T + ε
which vanishes as first n → ∞, then q → ∞ and finally ε → 0.
Hence it remains to show
X
1
P
(∆i,n C)2 −→ σs2 .
bn
i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

6

(6.18)

Therefore we apply Lemma 2.2.12 from Jacod and Protter (2012) with
ζin =

1
1
(∆in (s)+i,n C)2 − (σs )2 |Iin (s)+i,n |,
bn
bn

Gin = σ(Ftin (s)+i,n , S).

(6.19)

We obtain using the conditional Itô isometry and the fact that σ is bounded
X


n
|E[ζin |Gi−1
]| S
(6.20)
E
i:Iin (s)+i,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

1
=
bn
≤

1
bn

Z

E E[

X

ti−1,n

i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

X

ti,n


|(σu )2 − (σs )2 |du|Fti−1,n , S] S + OP (|πn |T /bn )


E E[ε|Ii,n | + K|Ii,n |1{supu∈I

i,n

|(σu )2 −(σs )2 |>ε} |Fti−1,n , S]

S



i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

+ OP (|πn |T /bn )
≤ (ε + KE[1{supu∈[s,s+bn ] |(σu )2 −(σs )2 |>ε} |S]) + OP (|πn |T /bn )
≤ ε + KP(

sup

u∈[s,s+bn ]

|(σu )2 − (σs )2 | > ε|S) + OP (|πn |T /bn )

(6.21)

where the first term vanishes as ε → 0, the second term vanishes as n → ∞ for
all ε > 0 because σ is right-continuous and the third term vanishes as n → ∞ by
Condition 2.10. Further we get
X
4|πn |T bn
P
n
K −→ 0
(6.22)
E[(ζin )2 |Gi−1
]≤
2
bn
i:Iin (s)+i,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

P

from (a − b)2 ≤ 2a2 + 2b2 , inequality (6.2), the boundedness of σ and |πn |T /bn −→ 0.
P
P
P
P
n ] −→
n ] −→
0 from (6.20) and
0 and i E[(ζin )2 |Gi−1
Hence we obtain i E[ζin |Gi−1
(6.22) which yields
X
P
ζin −→ 0
i:Iin (s)+i,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

by Lemma 2.2.12 from Jacod and Protter (2012) which implies (6.18).
The proof for the convergence of σ̂n (Sp , +) for a stopping time Sp is identical to
the proof for σ̂n (s, +) above. For σ̂n (Sp , −) however the situation is different. There
we use the sum over all i ∈ N with ti,n ∈ [Sp − bn , Sp ) which can be written as
tin (Sp −bn )+i−1,n ,

i = 1, . . . , in (Sp ) − in (Sp − bn ) + 1.

Here, in general tin (Sp −bn )+i−1,n is no stopping time and we cannot use conditional
expectations as above in that case. This problem can be circumvented by observing
that jump times Sp are asymptotically independent of (Cu )u∈[Sp −δ,Sp +δ] for δ → 0.
To formalize this idea we define new filtrations (Ftε )t≥0 , ε > 0, such that jump
times Sp with µ(Sp , (−∞, ε] ∪ [ε, ∞)) = 1 are F0ε -measurable. Then X is also an Itô
semimartingale with respect to the filtration (Ftε )t≥0 and we have C ε = C for the
continuous martingale part C ε of X under the filtration (Ftε )t≥0 . The convergence
of σ̂n (Sp , −) for any jump time Sp with µ(Sp , (−∞, ε] ∪ [ε, ∞)) = 1 then follows
because Sp is F0ε -measurable and therefore practically deterministic with respect to
the new filtration. The statement for general jump times Sp is obtained by letting
ε → 0. Consult Step 6 in the proof of Theorem 9.3.2 from Jacod and Protter (2012)
for more details.
7

Proof of Proposition 5.2. Denote by Sp , p = 1, . . . , P , the jump times of the P
largest jumps of X in [0, T ] and introduce the notation
Rk (P, n, m) =

P
X

(∆in (Sp ),n X)3 1{|∆in (Sp ),n X|>β|Iin (Sp ),n |$ }

p=1

1/2
× (σ̂n (tin (Sp ),n , −))2 ξˆk,n,m,− (tin (Sp ),n ) + (σ̂n (tin (Sp ),n , +))2 ξˆk,n,m,+ (tin (Sp ),n )
× Un,in (Sp ),m ,
Rk (P ) =

P
X
1/2
(∆XSp )3 (σSp − )2 ξk,− (Sp ) + (σSp )2 ξk,+ (Sp )
USp .
p=1

Step 1. From a result similar to Lemma A.6 in Martin and Vetter (2017), which
follows from Condition 2.10(i), and Lemma 5.1 we derive
e
P

Mn

 1 X
e k (P ) ≤ Υ|X ) > ε ∩ Ω(J) → 0
1{Rk (P,n,m)≤Υ} − P(R
T
Mn

(6.23)

m=1

as n → ∞ for any fixed P .
Step 2. Next we show
e
lim lim sup P

P →∞ n→∞

Mn
 1 X
(J) 
(1{Rk (P,n,m)≤Υ} − 1{Fb(J) ≤Υ} ) > ε ∩ ΩT = 0
Mn
k,T,n,m
m=1

(6.24)
for all ε > 0 which follows from
Mn
1 X
e k (P, n, m) − Fb(J)
P(|R
lim lim sup
k,T,n,m | > ε) = 0
P →∞ n→∞ Mn

(6.25)

m=1

for all ε > 0; compare Step 4 in the proof of Proposition A.7 from Martin and Vetter
(2017).
On the set Ω(q, P, n) on which the jumps of N (q) are among the P largest jumps
and two different jumps of N (q) are further apart than |πn |T it holds
(J)
|Rk (P, n, m) − Fbk,T,n,m |1Ω(q,P,n)
2
X
≤
|∆i,n (X − N (q))|3 1{|∆i,n X|>β|Ii,n |$ }
bn
i:ti,n ≤T

≤K

X
j6=i:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]

1/2
× ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n ) + ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n )
|Un,i,m |
1
X

3
3
|∆i,n (B(q) + C)| + |∆i,n M (q)|
bn

i:ti,n ≤T

1/2

2

(∆j,n X)

X

(∆j,n X)

2

1/2

j6=i:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]

1/2
× ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n ) + ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n )
|Un,i,m |.

(6.26)

For the continuous parts in (6.26) we get using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

8

Lemma 6.1 and ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n ), ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n ) ≤ nK|πn |T
h X
1
E
|∆i,n (B(q) + C)|3
bn

X

i:ti,n ≤T

(∆j,n X)2

1/2

j6=i:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]

i
1/2
× ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n ) + ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n )
|Un,i,m | S
1/2
X 

6
3 2bn
≤K
Kq |Ii,n | + |Ii,n |
n|πn |T
bn
i:ti,n ≤T

√

= K n|πn |T Kq (|πn |T )3 + 1

1/2

T

(6.27)

which vanishes as n → ∞ by Condition 2.7(i).
Denote
ξˆk,n,m (i) = ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n ) + ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n ).
We get for the remaining terms containing |∆i,n M (q)|3 in (6.26) using the Jensen
inequality and inequalities (6.3), (6.5)
1
h X
3
|∆i,n M (q)|
E
bn
i:ti,n ≤T

X

(∆j,n X)2

j6=i:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]

× ξˆk,n,m,− (ti,n ) + ξˆk,n,m,+ (ti,n )
1
X  h
E E[|∆i,n M (q)|3 |S, Fti−1,n ]
bn

≤K

i:ti,n ≤T

X

i:ti,n ≤T

h
 h1
+ E |∆i,n M (q)|3 E
bn
X
i:ti,n ≤T

×

Ln
 X

(∆j,n X)2

1/2

S

i

2

(∆j,n X)

1/2

S, Fti,n

i

i  q

S E 2 ξˆk,n,m (i) S

X

(∆j,n X)2 S

i1/2

j:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n )

X

(∆j,n X)2 S, Fti,n

i1/2

S

i

1/2

E ξˆk,n,m (i) S

j:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n ,ti,n +bn ]

Ln
−1  k−1
1/2 
 X
X
|Ii+ζ,n |
n
(k − j)2 (|Ii+l+j,n | + |Ii+l−j,n |)
|Ii+l,n |

i:ti,n ≤T

X
i:ti,n ≤T

j=1

ζ=−Ln

X
√
≤ Keq n
|Ii,n |

= Keq n

X

i

 b 1/2
n
|Ii,n | K
bn

l=−Ln

√

|Un,i,m | S

j:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n ,ti,n +bn ]

 h1
X 
|Ii,n | E
bn

≤ Keq

1/2

j:Ij,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n )

h
h 1
+ E |∆i,n M (q)|3 E
bn
≤ Keq

1/2

Ln
X

Ln
 X
−1
|Ii+l,n |
|Ii+ζ,n |

l=−Ln

|Ii,n |

√
+ OP ( n|πn |T )

k−1
X
j=−(k−1)

ζ=−Ln

|Ii+j,n |

1/2

Ln
X
l=−Ln

k−1
X

|Ii+l+j,n |1/2

j=−(k−1)
Ln
 X
−1
|Ii+l,n |
|Ii+l+ζ,n |
ζ=−Ln

(6.28)

where we changed the index i → i+l to derive the last equality. Then (6.28) vanishes

9

as in (6.13) because of
Ln
X

|Ii+l,n |

−1
|Ii+l+ζ,n |

ζ=−Ln

l=−Ln

≤

Ln
X

0
X

Ln
X

|Ii+l,n |

Ln
−1 X
|Ii+l+ζ,n |
+
|Ii+l,n |

ζ=−Ln

l=−Ln

l=0

Ln
X

−1
|Ii+l+ζ,n |
≤ 2. (6.29)

ζ=−Ln

Hence by Lemma 6.2 we get (6.25) because of P(Ω(q, P, n)) → ∞ as P, n → ∞ for
any q > 0.
Step 3. Finally we show
P e
(J)
e k (P ) ≤ Υ|X )1 (J) −→
P(R
P(Fk,T ≤ Υ|X )1Ω(J)
Ω
T

(6.30)

T

(J)

P

as P → ∞. We have Rk (P ) −→ Fk,T as P → ∞ and it can be shown that this
convergence yields (6.30); compare Step 3 in the proof of Proposition A.7 in Martin
and Vetter (2017).
Combining (6.23), (6.24) and (6.30) yields (5.12).

6.2

Proofs for Section 3

Proof of (5.17). Step 1. We first prove
√
lim P(| n (V (f, [2], πn )T − 4V (f, πn )T ) − R(n)| > ε) = 0

(6.31)

n→∞

for all ε > 0 where R(n) = R(1) (n) + R(2) (n) and
X
√
(l)
(l)
R(l) (n) = n
2∆i−1,1,n X (l) ∆i,1,n X (l)
(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

2
(3−l)
× ∆j,2,n X (3−l) 1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

,

l = 1, 2.

Therefore note that it holds
√
n (V (f, [2], πn )T − 4V (f, πn )T )
h
X
2 (2)
2
√
(1)
(1)
(2)
= n
∆i−1,1,n X (1) + ∆i,1,n X (1) ∆j−1,1,n X (2) + ∆j,1,n X (2)
(1)

(2)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

−

(1)

X

∆i−l1 ,1,n X (1)

2

(2)
i−l1 ,1,n ∩Ij−l2 ,1,n 6=∅}

l1 ,l2 =0,1

√
+ OP ( n|πn |T )
X
√
= n
(1)

h

(1)

i

2
(2)
∆j−l2 ,1,n X (2) 1{I (1)

(1)

(2)

1{I (1)

(2)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

(2)

2∆i−1,1,n X (1) ∆i,1,n X (1) ∆j−1,1,n X (2) + ∆j,1,n X (2)

2

(2)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

2 (2)
(1)
(1)
(2)
+ 2 ∆i−1,1,n X (1) + ∆i,1,n X (1) ∆j−1,1,n X (2) ∆j,1,n X (2)
X
2 (2)
2
(1)
+
∆i−l1 ,1,n X (1) ∆j−l2 ,1,n X (2) 1{I (1)
(2)
∩I
i−l1 ,1,n

l1 ,l2 =0,1

√
+ OP ( n|πn |T ),

j−l2 ,1,n

i
1{I (1)
=∅}

(2)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

(6.32)
10

√
where the OP ( n|πn |T )-terms are due to boundary effects. Because of the indicator
1{I (1)
we may use iterated expectations and inequality (6.5) to bound
(2)
∩I
=∅}
i−l1 ,1,n

j−l2 ,1,n

(1)

(2)

the S-conditional expectation of the sum over the (∆i−l1 ,1,n X (1) )2 (∆j−l2 ,1,n X (2) )2
in (6.32) by
√
4K n

(1)

X
(1)

(2)

|Ii,2,n ||Ij,2,n |1{I (1)

(2)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

(2)

=

32KH2,n (T )
√
n

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

which converges to zero in probability as n → ∞ because of Condition 3.4(ii). Hence
we obtain (6.31) by Lemma 6.2.
Step 2. Next we will show
lim lim sup P(|R(l) (n) − R(l) (n, q)| > ε) → 0

(6.33)

q→∞ n→∞

for all ε > 0 and l = 1, 2 with
R(l) (n, q) =

√

X

n

2
(l)
(l)
(3−l)
2∆i−1,1,n X (l) ∆i,1,n X (l) ∆j,2,n N (3−l) (q) 1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

(l)
(3−l)
i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

(3−l,l)

(l)

,

(3−l)

l = 1, 2. Denote by ∆(j,i),(k2 ,k1 ),n X the increment of X over the interval Ii,k1 ,n ∩Ij,k2 ,n
(3−l\l)

(3−l)

(l)

and by ∆(j,i),(k1 ,k2 ),n X the increment of X over Ij,k1 ,n \ Ii,k2 ,n (which might be the
sum of the increments over two separate intervals).
Using the elementary inequality
|a2 − b2 | = (ρ|a + b|)(ρ−1 |a − b|) ≤ ρ2 (a + b)2 + ρ−2 (a − b)2
(2)

(2)

which holds for any a, b ∈ R, ρ > 0 for a = ∆j,2,n X (2) and b = ∆j,2,n N (2) (q) yields
E[|R(l) (n) − R(l) (n, q)||S]

X
 (l)
2 
√
(l)
(3−l)
≤2 n
ρ2 E |∆i−1,1,n X (l) ∆i,1,n X (l) | ∆j,2,n (X (3−l) + N (3−l) (q)) S
(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

 (l)
2 
(l)
(3−l)
+ ρ−2 E |∆i−1,1,n X (l) ∆i,1,n X (l) | ∆j,2,n (X (3−l) − N (3−l) (q)) S 1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

.

(6.34)

Using
(l)

(3−l,l)

(l\(3−l))

|∆ι,1,n X (l) | ≤ |∆(j,ι),(2,1),n X (l) | + |∆(ι,j),(1,2),n X (l) |, ι = i − 1, i,
2
2
2
(3−l) 2
(3−l,l)
(3−l,l)
(3−l\l)
∆j,2,n Y ≤ 3 ∆(j,i),(2,1),n Y + 3 ∆(j,i−1),(2,1),n Y + 3 ∆(j,i),(2,2),n Y ,
for Y = X (3−l) +N (3−l) (q) to treat increments over overlapping and non-overlapping

11

intervals differently we obtain that the first summand in (6.34) is bounded by
6ρ

2

√


 (l)
2 
(l)
(3−l\l)
E |∆i−1,1,n X (l) ∆i,1,n X (l) | ∆(j,i),(2,2),n (X (3−l) + N (3−l) (q)) S

X

n

(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

X   (l)
2 
(3−l,l)
(3−l,l)
+
E |∆2i−1−ι,1,n X (l) ∆(j,ι),(2,1),n X (l) | ∆(j,ι),(2,1),n (X (3−l) + N (3−l) (q)) S
ι=i−1,i

 (l)
2 
(l\3−l)
(3−l,l)
+ E |∆2i−1−ι,1,n X (l) ∆(ι,j),(1,2),n X (l) | ∆(j,ι),(2,1),n (X (3−l) + N (3−l) (q)) S



× 1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

√
≤ Kρ2 n


(l)
(l)
(3−l)
(3−l)
(|Ii−1,1,n ||Ii,1,n |)1/2 (|Ij,2,n | + Kq |Ij,2,n |2 )

X
(3−l)

(l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

+

X 

≤T

(l)
(l)
|I2i−1−ι,1,n |1/2 |Iι,1,n

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

∩ Ij,2,n |1/2 (|Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n | + Kq |Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |4 )1/2

ι=i−1,i

+

(l)
(l)
(l)
(|Ii−1,1,n ||Ii,1,n |)1/2 (|Iι,1,n

∩

(3−l)
Ij,2,n |

+

(l)
Kq |Iι,1,n

∩


(3−l)
Ij,2,n |2 )


1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

√

≤ Kρ2 (1 + Kq |πn |T )H2,n (T )/ n
√
+ Kρ2 (1 + Kq (|πn |T )3 )1/2 n

(l)

X

(l)

(3−l)

|Ii,2,n |1/2 |Ii,2,n ∩ Ij,2,n |1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

(l)
(3−l)
i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

(6.35)

where we used iterated expectations, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the second
summand and Lemma 6.1 repeatedly. The first term in the last bound vanishes as
n → ∞ because of Condition 3.2 and 3.4(ii) while the second term vanishes after
letting n → ∞, q → ∞ and then ρ → 0 by Condition 3.4(i) and (ii) because of
X
√
(l)
(l)
(3−l)
n
|Ii,2,n |1/2 |Ii,2,n ∩ Ij,2,n |1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤

√

n

i,2,n

j,2,n

≤T

X

(l)

(l)

X

|Ii,2,n |1/2 |Ii,2,n | ≤ nT

(l)

(l)

|Ii,2,n |2

1/2

(l)

i≥2:ti,n ≤T

√
≤ (23 T H2,n (T ))1/2 + OP ( n|πn |T )

i≥2:ti,n ≤T

(6.36)

where the inequality in the second to last line follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz
inequality for sums.
Analogously we can bound the second summand in (6.34) by
√
Kρ−2 (Kq |πn |T + 1 + eq )H2,n (T )/ n
X
1/2
√
(l)
+ Kρ−2 (Kq (|πn |T )3 + |πn |T + eq )1/2 nT
|Ii,2,n |2
+ OP ( n|πn |T )
(l)

i≥2:ti,n ≤T

where the first term vanishes as n → ∞ and the second term vanishes as n → ∞
and then q → ∞ for any ρ > 0. Hence using Lemma 6.2 we have proved (6.33).
Step 3. Further we will show
e(l) (n, q)| > ε) → 0
lim lim sup P(|R(l) (n, q) − R

q→∞ n→∞

12

(6.37)

for all ε > 0 and l = 1, 2 with
e(l) (n, q) =
R

√
n

(l)

X
(l)

(l)

2 ∆i−1,1,n N (l) (q)∆i,1,n C (l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

 (3−l)
2
(l)
(l)
+ ∆i−1,1,n C (l) ∆i,1,n N (l) (q) ∆j,2,n N (3−l) (q) 1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

, l = 1, 2.

Using
2
(3−l,l)
(3−l,l)
E[∆(j,ι),(2,1),n (X (l) − N (l) (q)) ∆(j,ι),(2,1),n N (3−l) (q) |S]
(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

≤ (Kq |Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |1/6 + (eq )1/2 )|Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |
which can be derived as in (6.13) we get analogously to (6.35)
X
√
(l)
(l)
E n
2∆i−1,1,n (X (l) − N (l) (q))∆i,1,n (X (l) − N (l) (q))
(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

2

(3−l)
× ∆j,2,n N (3−l) (q) 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅} S
i,2,n
j,2,n
h
X
(l)
(l)
((Kq |Ii−1,1,n | + 1 + eq )|Ii−1,1,n |)1/2

√
≤K n

(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T
(l)

(l)

(3−l)

(3−l)

× ((Kq |Ii,1,n | + 1 + eq )|Ii,1,n |)1/2 (1 + Kq |Ij,2,n |)|Ij,2,n |
+

X 

(l)

(l)

((Kq |I2i−1−ι,1,n | + 1 + eq )|I2i−1−ι,1,n |)1/2

ι=i−1,i
(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

× (Kq |Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |1/6 + (eq )1/2 )|Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |
(l)

(l)

(l)

(l)

+ ((Kq |I2i−1−ι,1,n | + 1 + eq )|I2i−1−ι,1,n |)1/2 ((Kq |Iι,1,n | + 1 + eq )|Iι,1,n |)1/2
i
(l)
(3−l)
(l)
(3−l)
× (1 + Kq |Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)|Iι,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n | 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,2,n
j,2,n
√
≤ K(Kq |πn |T + 1 + eq )(1 + Kq |πn |T )H2,n (T )/ n
X
1/2
(l)
+ (Kq |πn |T + 1 + eq )1/2 (Kq (|πn |T )1/6 + (eq )1/2 ) nT
|Ii,2,n |2
(l)

i≥2:ti,n ≤T

(6.38)
which vanishes as n → ∞ and then q → ∞. Furthermore we get also analogously to
(6.35)
X
√
(l)
(l)
2∆i−1,1,n (B (l) (q) + M (l) (q))∆i,1,n (N (l) (q))
E n
(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

×
√
≤K n

≤T

2
(3−l)
∆j,2,n N (3−l) (q) 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,2,n
j,2,n
h

X
(l)

(3−l)

i,j≥2:ti,n ∧tj,n

(l)

S



(l)

(l)

(l)

((Kq |Ii−1,1,n | + eq )|Ii−1,1,n |)1/2 ((1 + Kq |Ii,1,n |)|Ii,1,n |)1/2

≤T
(3−l)

(3−l)

× (1 + Kq |Ij,2,n |)|Ij,2,n |
(l)

(l)

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

+ ((Kq |Ii−1,1,n | + eq )|Ii−1,1,n |)1/2 ((1 + Kq |Ii,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)|Ii,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)1/2
13

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

× ((1 + Kq |Ii,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |3 )|Ii,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)1/2
(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(l)

+ ((Kq |Ii−1,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n | + eq )|Ii−1,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)1/2 ((1 + Kq |Ii,1,n |)|Ii,1,n |)1/2
(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

× ((1 + Kq |Ii−1,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |3 )|Ii−1,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)1/2
(l)

(l)

(l)

(l)

+ ((Kq |Ii−1,1,n | + eq )|Ii−1,1,n |)1/2 ((1 + Kq |Ii,1,n |)|Ii,1,n |)1/2
(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

× (1 + Kq |Ii,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)|Ii,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |
(l)

(l)

(l)

(l)

+ ((Kq |Ii−1,1,n | + eq )|Ii−1,1,n |)1/2 ((1 + Kq |Ii,1,n |)|Ii,1,n |)1/2
i
(l)
(3−l)
(l)
(3−l)
× (1 + Kq |Ii−1,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n |)|Ii−1,1,n ∩ Ij,2,n | 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,2,n
j,2,n
√
1/2
3/2
≤ K(Kq |πn |T + eq ) (1 + Kq |πn |T ) H2,n (T )/ n
X
1/2
(l)
|Ii,2,n |2
+ (Kq |πn |T + eq )1/2 (1 + Kq |πn |T ) nT
(6.39)
(l)

i≥2:ti,n ≤T

which vanishes as n → ∞ and then q → ∞. The same obviously also holds if we
switch the roles of i − 1 and i. Hence using Lemma 6.2 the estimates (6.38) and
(l)
(l)
(6.39) yield (6.37) because ∆i−1,1,n N (q)∆i,1,n N (q) = 0 eventually for all i as there
are only finitely many big jumps.
Step 4. Finally it remains to show
e q) − R(n,
e q, r)| > ε) = 0
lim lim sup lim sup P(|R(n,

q→∞

r→∞

(6.40)

n→∞

e q) = R
e(1) (n, q) + R
e(2) (n, q). The proof for (6.40) is identical
for all ε > 0 with R(n,
to the proof of (6.15) because we have
(l)

(3−l)

|∆i−ι,1,n N (l) (q)|(∆j,2,n N (3−l) (q))2 1{I (l)

(3−l)
i,2,n ∩Ij,2,n 6=∅}

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

= |∆i−ι,1,n N (l) (q)|(∆i−ι,1,n N (3−l) (q))2 ≤ Kk∆i−ι,1,n N (q)k3
for ι = 0, 1 and l = 1, 2 on the set Ω(n, q) where two different jump times of N (q)
are further apart than 4|πn |T and because of P(Ω(n, q)) → 1 for any q > 0.
Combining (6.31), (6.33), (6.37) and (6.40) then yields (5.17).
Proof of (5.18). On the set Ω(n, q, r) where any jump times Sq,p in [0, T ] are further
apart than 4|πn |T from each other and from all j2−r with 1 ≤ j ≤ bT 2r c we have
√ X
e q, r)1Ω(n,q,r) = 1Ω(n,q,r) 4 n
R(n,
∆N (2) (q)Sq,p ∆N (1) (q)Sq,p
Sq,p ≤T



× ∆N

(2)

+ ∆N

(1)

(q)Sp

(1)
(1)
σ̃Sq,p − (r, q)∆ (1)
i (S

(q)Sq,p

n

h

q,p )−1,n

(1)

in (Sq,p )+1,n

W (1)



(2)
σ̃Sq,p − (r, q)
(2)

× ρ̃Sq,p − (r, q)∆ (2)

in (Sq,p )−1,n

(2)

(1)

W (1) + σ̃Sq,p (r)∆ (1)

(2)

+ σ̃Sq,p (r, q) ρ̃Sq,p (r, q)∆ (2)

in (Sq,p )+1,n

q


(2)
1 − ρ̃Sq,p − (r, q)2 ∆ (2)
W (2)
in (Sq,p )−1,n
q
i
(2)
W (1) + 1 − (ρ̃Sq,p (r, q))2 ∆ (2)
W (2)

W (1) +

in (Sq,p )+1,n

where the factor 4 stems from the fact that any jump of N (l) (q) is observed in two
(l)
(l)
consecutive intervals Ii−1,2,n , Ii,2,n , l = 1, 2.

14

Similarly as in the proof of Proposition A.3 in Martin and Vetter (2017) it can be
shown that Condition 3.7 yields the X -stable convergence
(1)

(1)

∆ (1)

W (1) , ∆ (1)

(2)

W (2) , ∆ (2)

in (Sq,p )−1,n

(2)

in (Sq,p )+1,n
(2)

∆ (2)

in (Sq,p )−1,n

(2)

W (1) , ∆ (2)
W (1) , ∆ (2)
W (1) ,
in (Sq,p )−1,n
in (Sq,p )+1,n


W (2) Sq,p ≤T

in (Sq,p )+1,n

q
q
L−s
(1)
(2)
−→
L(Sq,p )USq,p ,− + (L(1) − L)(Sq,p )USq,p ,− ,
q
q
(1)
(2)
R(Sq,p )USq,p ,+ + (R(1) − R)(Sq,p )USq,p ,+ ,
q
q
(1)
(3)
L(Sq,p )USq,p ,− + (L(2) − L)(Sq,p )USq,p ,− ,
q
q
(1)
(3)
R(Sq,p )USq,p ,+ + (R(2) − R)(Sq,p )USq,p ,+ ,
q
q


(4)
(4)
L(2) (Sq,p )USq,p ,− , R(2) (Sq,p )USq,p ,+

(6.41)

Sq,p ≤T

(i)

(i)

where Us,− , Us,+ for i = 1, . . . , 4 are standard normally distributed random variables
which are independent of F and of the random vectors (L1 , R1 , L2 , R2 , L, R)(s).
(6.41) together with Proposition 2.2 in Podolskij and Vetter (2010) and the continuous mapping theorem then yields
X
√
4 n
∆N (2) (q)Sq,p ∆N (1) (q)Sq,p
Sq,p ∈P (q,T )



h
i
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
× ∆N (2) (q)Sp σ̃Sq,p − (r, q)∆ (1)
W (1) + σ̃Sq,p (r, q)∆ (1)
W (1)
in (Sq,p )−1,n
in (Sq,p )+1,n
h
(2)
(2)
+ ∆N (1) (q)Sq,p σ̃Sq,p − (r, q) ρ̃Sq,p − (r, q)∆ (2)
W (1)
in (Sq,p )−1,n
q

(2)
W (2)
+ 1 − (ρ̃Sq,p − (r, q))2 ∆ (2)
in (Sq,p )−1,n
q
i
(2)
(2)
(2)
+ σ̃Sq,p (r, q) ρ̃Sq,p ∆ (2)
W (1) + 1 − ρ̃Sq,p (r, q))2 ∆ (2)
W (2)
in (Sq,p )+1,n

L−s

−→

in (Sq,p )+1,n

(CoJ)
FT
(q, r).

Because of P(Ω(n, q, r)) → 1 as n → ∞ for any q, r this yields (5.18).
Proof of (5.21). From the proof of Theorem 3.8 we know that nV (f, πn )T converges
(nCoJ)
on ΩT
stably in law to a non-negative random variable. Comparing (6.17) in
the proof of Theorem 2.11 it then suffices to show
√

(CoJ)

nFbT,n,m 1Ω(nCoJ) = oP (1)

(6.42)

T

uniformly in m for proving (5.21). In order to achieve this goal, observe that it holds
√
(CoJ)
E[ n|FbT,n,m |1Ω(nCoJ) |F]
T
X
X
≤ Kn

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(l)

|∆i,n X (l) |(∆j,n X (3−l) )2 |σ̂ (l) (ti,n , −) + σ̂ (l) (ti,n , +)|

l=1,2 i,j:t(l) ∧t(3−l) ≤T
i,n

j,n

q
(l)
(l)
× |Ii−1,n | + |Ii+1,n |1{|∆(l) X (l) |>β|I (l) |$ } 1{|∆(3−l) X (3−l) |>β|I (3−l) |$ }
i,n

i,n

15

j,n

j,n

× 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅} 1Ω(nCoJ)
i,n

j,n

1 X
≤ Kn
ε

T

(l)

X

(3−l)

(∆i,n X (l) )2 (∆j,n X (3−l) )2 1{|∆(l) X (l) |>β|I (l) |$ }
i,n

l=1,2 i,j:t(l) ∧t(3−l) ≤T
i,n

i,n

j,n

× 1{|∆(3−l) X (3−l) |>β|I (3−l) |$ } 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅} 1Ω(nCoJ)
j,n
j,n
i,n
j,n
T
X
X
(3−l) (3−l) 2 (l) (l)
(l)
(∆j,n X
) (σ̂ (ti,n , −) + σ̂ (l) (ti,n , +))2
+ Knε

(6.43)

l=1,2 i,j:t(l) ∧t(3−l) ≤T
i,n

×

(l)
(|Ii−1,n |

j,n

(l)

+ |Ii+1,n |)1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅} 1Ω(nCoJ)
i,n

j,n

(6.44)

T

where we used the elementary inequality |ab| ≤ a2 /ε + εb2 which holds for any
a, b ∈ R, ε > 0.
First we consider (6.43). Note that by Proposition A.5 from Martin and Vetter
(2017) it suffices on the subset where no common jumps are present to consider
(l)
(3−l)
(6.43) where (∆i,n X (l) )2 (∆j,n X (3−l) )2 is replaced with
(l)

(l)

(3−l)

(3−l)

((∆i,n C (l) )2 + (∆i,n N (q)(l) )2 )((∆j,n C (3−l) )2 + (∆j,n N (q)(3−l) )2 ).
(nCoJ)

(l)

(3−l)

Because we are on ΩT
the sum with (∆i,n N (q)(l) )2 (∆j,n N (q)(3−l) )2 vanishes
as n → ∞. Further we obtain using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, inequalities
(A.31) from Martin and Vetter (2017) and (6.2)
X
(1)
(2)
E[n
(∆i,n C (1) )2 (∆j,n C (2) )2 1{|∆(1) X (1) |>β|I (1) |$ }
(1)

i,n

(2)

i,n

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

× 1{|∆(2) X (2) |>β|I (2) |$ } 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} |S]
j,n
j,n
i,n
j,n
X
(1) (1) 8
(2)
(1)
(1)
E[(∆i,n C ) |S]E[(∆j,n C (2) )8 |S]P(|∆i,n X (1) | > β|Ii,n |$ |S)

≤n

(1)

(2)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤T

1/4
(2)
(2)
× P(|∆j,n X (2) | > β|Ij,n |$ |S)
1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

(1/2−$)/2

≤ K(|πn |T )

j,n

H1,n (T )

which vanishes as n → ∞ by Condition 3.4. Hence for showing that (6.43) vanishes
as n → ∞ it remains to discuss
X
X
(l)
(3−l)
Y (l) (n, q) = n
(∆i,n C (l) )2 (∆j,n N (q)(3−l) )2 1{|∆(l) X (l) |>β|I (l) |$ }
i,n

l=1,2 i,j:t(l) ∧t(3−l) ≤T
i,n

i,n

j,n

× 1{|∆(3−l) X (3−l) |>β|I (3−l) |$ } 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅} 1Ω(nCoJ) ,
j,n

j,n

i,n

j,n

l = 1, 2.

T

(6.45)
(l)

Let Sq,p denote an enumeration of the jump times of N (q)(l) . Then Y (l) (n, q) is
asymptotically equal to
X X
(3−l)
(∆N (q) (3−l) )2
Sq,p

l=1,2 S (3−l) ≤T
q,p

×n

X
(l)
i:ti,n ≤T

(l)

(∆i,n C (l) )2 1{|∆(l) X (l) |>β|I (l) |$ } 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l)
i,n

i,n

16

i,n

(3−l) (3−l)
in
(Sq,p ),n

1

(nCoJ)

6=∅} ΩT

.

In the proof of Proposition A.3 in Martin and Vetter (2017) it is shown that
n

L−s

(l)

X

(∆i,n C (l) )2 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l)
i,n

(l)

(3−l) (3−l)
in
(Sq,p ),n

i:ti,n ≤T

6=∅}

(l)

(3−l)
−→ R1 (Sq,p
)

(3−l)

for any jump time Sq,p of N (q)(3−l) . Further we obtain from (A.31) in Martin and
Vetter (2017) and inequality (6.2)
X
(l)
(∆i,n C (l) )2 1{|∆(l) X (l) |>β|I (l) |$ } 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l)
|S]
E[n
6=∅}
i,n

(l)

i,n

i,n

i:ti,n ≤T

≤n

(l)

X

(l)

(3−l) (3−l)
in
(Sq,p ),n

(l)

(E[(∆i,n C (l) )4 |S]P(|∆i,n X (l) | > β|Ii,n |$ |S))1/2 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l)
i,n

(l)

i:ti,n ≤T
(l)

X

≤ K(|πn |T )1/2−$ n

|Ii,n |1{I (l) ∩I (3−l)
i,n

(l)
i:ti,n ≤T

(3−l) (3−l)
in
(Sq,p ),n

6=∅}

(3−l) (3−l)
in
(Sq,p ),n

6=∅}

.

Here the expression in the last line vanishes as n → ∞ because of
X
(l)
E[n
|Ii,n |1{I (l) ∩I (3−l)
]
6=∅}
i,n

(l)

(3−l)
in
(s),n

i:ti,n ≤T
(l)

(l)

(l)

in (s),n
(l)

= E[η1,n,− (s) + (∆ (l)

W

(l) 2

(l)

) + η1,n,+ (s)]
(l)

= E[η1,n,− (s) + (s − t (l)

in (s)−1,n

(l)

) + (t (l)

in (s),n

− s) + η1,n,+ (s)]

where the right hand side converges as n → ∞ by Condition 3.4. This estimate
yields
X
(l)
lim P (|πn |T )−(1/2−$)/2 n
|Ii,n |1{|∆(l) X (l) |>β|I (l) |$ } 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l)
6=∅}
n→∞

i,n

(l)

i,n

i,n

i:ti,n ≤T

(3−l) (3−l)
in
(Sq,p ),n


(l)
(3−l)
≤ R1 (Sq,p
) = 1,
(3−l)

for any jump time Sq,p

from which we conclude
(CoJ)

lim P((|πn |T )−(1/2−$)/2 Y (l) (n, q) ≤ D1,T

n→∞

) = 1,

l = 1, 2.

Hence we finally get that (6.45) and also (6.43) vanish as n → ∞.
Next we consider (6.44). Using Condition 3.2 and the assumption that Γt is
bounded we obtain that there exists a q 0 > 0 with X = B(q 0 ) + C + M (q 0 ). Plugging
this decomposition into (6.44) and using Lemma A.4 from Martin and Vetter (2017)
we obtain that the S-conditional expectation of (6.44) is bounded by
Knε

X

(3−l)

X

|Ij,n |

l=1,2 i,j:t(l) ∧t(3−l) ≤T
i,n

1
bn

j,n

(l)

(l)

(l)

ι:Iι,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]

× 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,n


(l)
(l)
(l)
|Iι,n
| (|Ii−1,n | + |Ii+1,n |)

X

j,n

≤ KεH2,n (T ) + OP (n(|πn |T )2 ).
17

This expression converges to KεH2 (T ) as n → ∞. Hence alltogether we have shown
√
(CoJ)
lim lim sup P(E[ n|FbT,n,m |1Ω(nCoJ) |F] > δ) = 0

ε→0 n→∞

T

for any δ > 0 which by Lemma 6.2 yields (6.42).
The following Lemma is needed in the proof of Lemma (5.3). The techniques
used in the proof are taken from the proof of Theorem 3.1 in Hayashi and Yoshida
(2005).
Lemma 6.3. Let Y (1) , Y (2) be martingales which are adapted to the filtration
(Ft )t≥0 . Further let (s, t] be a deterministic interval and the observation scheme
be exogenous. If the inequalities
(1)

E[(Yt0

(1)

(2)

− Ys0 )2 |Fs0 ] ≤ KY (1) (t − s),

E[(Yt0

(2)

− Ys0 )2 |Fs0 ] ≤ KY (2) (t − s),
(6.46)

 (1)

(1)
(2)
(2)
E (Yt0 − Ys0 )2 (Yt0 − Ys0 )2 Fs0 ≤ KY (1) ,Y (2) (t0 − s0 )2 ,

(6.47)

hold, then for all s ≤ s0 ≤ t0 ≤ t we have
X
(1)
(2)
e (1) (2) (t − s)2
E[(
∆i,n Y (1) ∆j,n Y (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} )2 |σ(Fs , S)] ≤ K
Y ,Y
(1)

i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂(s,t]

e (1) (2) = 14K (1) K (2) + 3K (1) (2) .
where K
Y ,Y
Y
Y
Y ,Y
Proof. To shorten notation set 1i,j = 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} . Note that it holds
i,n

(1)

X
(1)

(2)

∆i,n Y (1) ∆j,n Y (2) 1i,j

j,n

2

(2)

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂(s,t]
(1)

X

=
(1)

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

∆i,n Y (1) ∆j,n Y (2) ∆i0 ,n Y (1) ∆j 0 ,n Y (2) 1i,j 1i0 ,j 0
(1)

(2)

i,j,i0 ,j 0 :Ii,n ∪Ij,n ∪Ii0 ,n ∪Ij 0 ,n ⊂(s,t]

=

(1)

X

(2)

(∆i,n Y (1) )2 (∆j,n Y (2) )2 1i,j

(6.48)

i=i0 ,j=j 0

+

(1)

X

(2)

(2)

(∆i,n Y (1) )2 ∆j,n Y (2) ∆j 0 ,n Y (2) 1i,j 1i,j 0

(6.49)

i=i0 ,j6=j 0

+

X

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

∆i,n Y (1) ∆i0 ,n Y (1) (∆j,n Y (2) )2 1i,j 1i0 ,j

(6.50)

i6=i0 ,j=j 0

+

X

(2)

(2)

∆i,n Y (1) ∆i0 ,n Y (1) ∆j,n Y (2) ∆j 0 ,n Y (2) 1i,j 1i0 ,j 0

(6.51)

i6=i0 ,j6=j 0

and we discuss the terms (6.48)–(6.51) separately.
(1,2)
For discussing (6.48) we denote by ∆(i,j),n Y (l) the increment of Y (l) , l = 1, 2,
(1)

(2)

(l\3−l)

over the interval Ii,n ∩ Ij,n and by ∆(i,{j}),n Y (l) the increment of Y (l) over the
(l)

(3−l)

interval Ii,n \ Ij,n

(which might also be the sum of increments over two distinct

18

intervals). Using this notation, iterated expectations and the inequalities (6.46),
(6.47) we obtain that the σ(Fs , S)-conditional expectation of (6.48) is equal to
X
(1,2)
(1\2)
(1,2)
(2\1)
E[(∆(i,j),n Y (1) + ∆(i,{j}),n Y (1) )2 (∆(i,j),n Y (2) + ∆(j,{i}),n Y (2) )2 |σ(Fs , S)]1i,j
i,j

=

X

(1,2)

(1\2)

(2\1)

E[((∆(i,j),n Y (1) )2 + (∆(i,{j}),n Y (1) )2 )(∆(j,{i}),n Y (2) )2

i,j
(1\2)

(1,2)

+ (∆(i,{j}),n Y (1) )2 (∆(i,j),n Y (2) )2 |σ(Fs , S)]1i,j
+

X

(1,2)

(1,2)

E[(∆(i,j),n Y (1) )2 (∆(i,j),n Y (2) )2 |σ(Fs , S)]

i,j

≤

X

(1)

(2)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

KY (1) KY (2) (|Ii,n ||Ij,n \ Ii,n | + |Ii,n \ Ij,n ||Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |)1i,j

i,j

+

X

(1)

(2)

KY (1) ,Y (2) |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |2

i,j
(1)

X

= (2KY (1) KY (2) + KY (1) ,Y (2) )
(1)

(2)

|Ii,n ||Ij,n |1i,j

(2)

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂(s,t]

≤ 3(2KY (1) KY (2) + KY (1) ,Y (2) )(|πn |t ∧ (t − s))(t − s).
(1\2)

For treating (6.49) we additionally denote by ∆(i,{j,j 0 }),n Y (1) the increment of Y (1)
(1)

(2)

(2)

over the interval Ii,n \ (Ij,n ∪ Ij 0 ,n ) (which might also be the sum of increments over
up to three distinct intervals). We then obtain by using iterated expectations, the
fact that Y (1) , Y (2) are martingales, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and (6.46) that
the σ(Fs , S)-conditional expectation of (6.49) is bounded by
X
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1\2)
E[(∆(i,j),n Y (1) + ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (1) + ∆(i,{j,j 0 }),n Y (1) )2
i,j6=j 0
(1,2)

(1,2)

× ∆(i,j),n Y (2) ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (2) |σ(Fs , S)] 1i,j 1i,j 0
=2

(1,2)

X

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

E[∆(i,j),n Y (1) ∆(i,j),n Y (2) ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (1) ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (2) |σ(Fs , S)]

i,j6=j 0

≤2

X

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

KY (1) KY (2) |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n ||Ii,n ∩ Ij 0 ,n |

i,j6=j 0

≤ KY (1) KY (2)

(1)

X

|Ii,n |2 ≤ 6KY (1) KY (2) (|πn |t ∧ (t − s))(t − s).

(1)

i:Ii,n ⊂(s,t]

By symmetry (6.50) can be treated similarly as (6.49). Hence it remains to discuss
(6.51). Using the notation introduced above we obtain that the σ(Fs , S)-conditional
expectation of (6.50) is equal to
X
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1\2)
E[(∆(i,j),n Y (1) + ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (1) + ∆(i,{j,j 0 }),n Y (1) )
i6=i0 ,j6=j 0
(1,2)

(1,2)

(1\2)

× (∆(i0 ,j),n Y (1) + ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (1) + ∆(i0 ,{j,j 0 }),n Y (1) )
(1,2)

(1,2)

(2\1)

× (∆(i,j),n Y (2) + ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (2) + ∆(j,{i,i0 }),n Y (2) )
(1,2)

(1,2)

(2\1)

× (∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (2) + ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (2) + ∆(j 0 ,{i,i0 }),n Y (2) )|σ(Fs , S)]1i,j 1i0 ,j 0
19

=

(1,2)

X

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

E[(∆(i,j),n Y (1) + ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (1) )(∆(i0 ,j),n Y (1) + ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (1) )

i6=i0 ,j6=j 0
(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

× (∆(i,j),n Y (2) + ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (2) )(∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (2) + ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (2) )|σ(Fs , S)]1i,j 1i0 ,j 0 .
(1\2)

Here terms including factors like ∆(i,{j,j 0 }),n Y (1) vanish using iterated expectations
(1)

(2)

(2)

because Y (1) is a martingale and Ii,n \ (Ij,n ∪ Ij 0 ,n ) overlaps with none of the other
intervals for i 6= i0 . Expanding the product above and observing that the expectation
vanishes for all products where one of i, i0 , j, j 0 occurs exactly once yields that the
σ(Fs , S)-conditional expectation of (6.51) is equal to
X
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
E[∆(i,j),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (1) ∆(i,j),n Y (2) ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (2)
i6=i0 ,j6=j 0
(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

+ ∆(i,j),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (2) ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (2)
(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

(1,2)

+ ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (1) ∆(i,j),n Y (2) ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (2)
+ ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (2) ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (2) |σ(Fs , S)]1i,j 1i0 ,j 0
X
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
E[∆(i,j),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (1) ∆(i,j),n Y (2) ∆(i0 ,j 0 ),n Y (2)

=

i6=i0 ,j6=j 0
(1,2)

+ ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (1) ∆(i0 ,j),n Y (2) ∆(i,j 0 ),n Y (2) |σ(Fs , S)]1i,j 1i0 ,j 0
(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

where the second identity holds as one of the intervals Ii,n ∩ Ij,n , Ii,n ∩ Ij 0 ,n ,
(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

Ii0 ,n ∩ Ij,n , Ii0 ,n ∩ Ij 0 ,n always has to be empty for i = i0 , j 6= j 0 . We then further obtain using iterated expectations, the conditional Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
and (6.47) that the σ(Fs , S)-conditional expectation of (6.51) is bounded by
X
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
KY (1) KY (2)
(|Ii,n ∩ Ij,n ||Ii0 ,n ∩ Ij 0 ,n | + |Ii,n ∩ Ij 0 ,n ||Ii0 ,n ∩ Ij,n |)1i,j 1i0 ,j 0
i6=i0 ,j6=j 0

≤ 2KY (1) KY (2)

X
(1)

i:Ii,n ⊂(s,t]

(1)

|Ii,n |

X

(1)

|Ii0 ,n | ≤ 2KY (1) KY (2) (t − s)2 .

(1)

i0 :Ii0 ,n ⊂(s,t]

We conclude the proof by combining the bounds for (6.48)–(6.51) and using Lemma
6.2.
Proof of Lemma 5.3. First note that (5.22) follows from Lemma 5.1. Further (5.23)
follows from (5.22) and
P

(1)

P

(1) (2)

(2)

κ̂n (Sp , −)1{Sp <T } −→ ρSp − σSp − σSp − 1{Sp <T } ,

(6.52)

κ̂n (Sp , +)1{Sp <T } −→ ρSp σSp σSp 1{Sp <T }
(1) (2)

because of σs σs 6= 0 almost surely for almost all s ∈ [0, T ] by Condition 3.7.
Hence it remains to prove (6.52).
We will only give the proof for κ̂n (s, +) as the proof for κ̂n (s, −) is identical.
Further we will give a formal proof only for constant stopping times s ∈ (0, T ) and
assume without loss of generality s+bn ≤ T as we did for Lemma 5.1. The extension
to jump times Sp then works analogous as for the estimators for σSp − , σSp ; compare
the proof of Theorem 9.3.2 in Jacod and Protter (2012).
20

We first prove
κ̂(l) (s, +) −

1
bn

(1)

X

(2)

∆i,n C (1) ∆j,n C (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} −→ 0.
P

i,n

(1)
(2)
i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

(6.53)

j,n

Therefore consider
κ̂(l) (s, +) −

=

1
bn

1
bn

(l)

X
(1)

i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]
(1)

X
(1)

(l)

∆i,n C (1) ∆j,n C (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
(2)

(1)

(2)

∆i,n B (1) (q)∆j,n X (2) + ∆i,n X (1) ∆j,n B (2) (q)



(2)

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]


(1)
(2)
− ∆i,n B (1) (q)∆j,n B (2) (q) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

+

1
bn

(1)

X
(1)

(6.54)

j,n

(2)

∆i,n N (1) (q)∆j,n (X (2) − B (2) (q))

(2)

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]


(1)
(2)
+ ∆i,n (C (1) + M (1) (q))∆j,n N (2) (q) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

+

X 1
bn

l=1,2

+

1
bn

(l)

X

(3−l)

∆i,n M (l) (q)∆j,n C (3−l) 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,n

(l)
(3−l)
i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

(1)

X

(2)

i,n

(6.56)

j,n

∆i,n M (1) (q)∆j,n M (2) (q)1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}

(1)
(2)
i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

(6.55)

j,n

(6.57)

j,n

where all terms (6.54)–(6.57) vanish for first n → ∞ and then q → ∞ as we will
show in the following.
The S-conditional expectation of the absolute value of (6.54) is using (6.1) and
(6.5) bounded by
X 1
bn

l=1,2

(l)

X

Kq |Ii,n |

(l)

i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

 (3−l)
× E (X (3−l)

(3−l)

t

t

(3−l) (l)
(3−l)
in
(t
)∧(in
(s+bn )−1),n
i,n

+

1
bn

(1)

X
(1)

)2 S

− X (3−l)

1/2

(3−l) (l)
(3−l)
in
(t
)−1)∨in
(s),n
i−1,n

(2)

Kq |Ii,n ||Ij,n |1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

≤ (3|πn |T )1/2

X 1
bn

l=1,2

X

(l)

Kq |Ii,n | + Kq |πn |T

(l)

i:Ii,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

≤ Kq (|πn |T )1/2
which vanishes as n → ∞. (6.55) vanishes as n → ∞ because of
lim P(∃t ∈ (s, s + bn ] : ∆N (q)t 6= 0) = 0.

n→∞

Using (6.2), (6.3) and
(l)

(3−l)

2
(3−l) 2
) |Fs ] ≤ Keq t,
E[(M (q)s+t − M (q)(l)
s ) (Cs+t − Cs

21

s, t ≥ 0, l = 1, 2,

which is obtained from Lemma A.4 in Martin and Vetter (2017) we may apply
Lemma 6.3 for (6.56) which yields
E[(6.56)2 |S] ≤ Keq .
The right hand side vanishes as q → ∞. Next consider the following decomposition
of (6.57) using the notation from the proof of Lemma 6.3
(6.57) =

1
bn

(1)

l=1,2

1
bn

+

(1,2)

∆(i,j),n M (1) (q)∆(i,j),n M (2) (q)

(2)

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

X 1
bn

+

(1,2)

X

(l\3−l)

X
(l)

(3−l)

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n

i,n

j,n

⊂[s,s+bn ]
(1\2)

X
(1)

(l,3−l)

∆(i,{j}),n M (l) (q)∆(i,j),n M (3−l) (q)1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
(2\1)

∆(i,{j}),n M (1) (q)∆(j,{i}),n M (2) (q)1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

where the S-conditional expectation of the first sum can be bounded by eq using
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
(6.3) because of |∆(i,j),n M (1) (q)∆(i,j),n M (2) (q)| ≤ Kk∆(i,j),n M (q)k2 . Further the
expectation of the square of the second and third sum can be bounded as in the proof
of Lemma 6.3 by (eq )2 because the condition (6.47) is only needed for the treatment
(1,2)
(1,2)
of the sum involving terms of the form (∆(i,j),n M (1) (q))2 (∆(i,j),n M (2) (q))2 which we
here treat separately. Hence we have proven (6.53).
(1) (2)

P

Then (6.53) yields that for proving κ̂n (s, +) −→ ρs σs σs
1
bn

(1)

X

(2)

it suffices to verify

∆i,n C (1) ∆j,n C (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} −→ ρs σs(1) σs(2) .
P

i,n

(1)
(2)
i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂[s,s+bn ]

(6.58)

j,n

For proving (6.58) define
ζin =

1
bn

(1)

X
(1)

(2)

∆j,n C (1) ∆k,n C (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} −
j,n

(2)

k,n

j,k:Ij,n ∪Ik,n ⊂(s+(i−1)bn /rn ,s+ibn /rn ]

1
ρs σs(1) σs(2)
rn

and Gin = σ(Fs+ibn /rn , S) for some deterministic sequence (rn )n∈N ⊂ N with rn → ∞
P

P

and rn |πn |T /bn −→ 0. Such a sequence (rn )n∈N always exists because of |πn |T /bn −→
0. Denote
(1)

(2)

L(n, i) = {(j, k) : Ij,n ∪ Ik,n ⊂ (s + (i − 1)bn /rn , s + ibn /rn ]}.
We then obtain using iterated expectations, the fact that C (1) , C (2) are martingales
and a form of the conditional Itô isometry for two different integrals
rn
X

n
E[ζin |Gi−1
]

i=1

=

=

rn
1 X
bn

1
bn

X

(1,2)

i=1 (j,k)∈L(n,i)
Z s+ibn /rn
rn
X

E[

i=1

(1,2)

n
E[∆(j,k),n C (1) ∆(j,k),n C (2) |Gi−1
] − ρs σs(1) σs(2)

s+(i−1)bn /rn )

n
(ρu σu(1) σu(2) − ρs σs(1) σs(2) )du||Gi−1
] + OP (rn |πn |T /bn ).

22

As argued for (6.20) this term vanishes in probability as n → ∞ because ρ, σ (1) , σ (2)
are right-continuous and bounded and because of the condition on rn . Note that we
obtain from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and inequality (6.2) that
(1)

(2)

− Cs(1) )2 (Ct

E[(Ct

(1)

≤ (E[(Ct

− Cs(2) )2 |σ(Fs , S)]
(2)

− Cs(1) )4 |σ(Fs , S)]E[(Ct

− Cs(2) )4 |σ(Fs , S)])1/2 ≤ K(t − s)2

holds for any t ≥ s ≥ 0. Hence we obtain using (a − b)2 ≤ 2a2 + 2b2 and Lemma 6.3
rn
X

n
E[(ζin )2 |Gi−1
]

i=1

≤

rn

2 X
E
2
bn
i=1

≤

(l)

X

(l)

∆j,n C (1) ∆k,n C (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
j,n

(j,k)∈L(n,i)


K
n
Gi−1
+ rn 2
rn

2

k,n

rn
2 X
K
b2n
K
=
K
+
2
2
bn
rn rn
rn
i=1

which vanishes as rn → 0 for n → ∞. Lemma 2.2.12 from Jacod and Protter (2012)
then yields
rn
X
i=1

ζin =

1
bn

(1)

X
(1)

(2)

∆i,n C (1) ∆i,n C (2) 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅} − ρs σs(1) σs(2)
i,n

(2)

j,n

i,j:Ii,n ∪Ij,n ⊂(s,s+bn ]
P

+ OP (rn |πn |T /bn ) −→ 0
(1) (2)

P

which is equivalent to (6.53) and therefore implies κ̂n (s, +) −→ ρs σs σs .
Proof of Proposition 5.4. Let Sp , p = 1, . . . , P , denote the jump times of the P
biggest common jumps of X on [0, T ]. Similarly as in the proof of Proposition 5.2
we define
R(P, n, m) = 4

P
X

(1)

(2)

∆ip ,n X (1) ∆jp ,n X (2) 1{|∆(1)

ip ,n X

p=1

×

h

(2)
∆jp ,n X (2)



σ̂

(1)

(1) |>β|I (1) |$ }
ip ,n

1{|∆(2)

jp ,n X

(2) |>β|I (2) |$ }
jp ,n

q
(1,2),−
Lbn,m (τip ,jp ,n )Un,(ip ,jp ),m
q
(1)
b n,m (τip ,jp ,n )U (1,2),+
+ σ̂ (1) (tip ,n , +) R
n,(ip ,jp ),m

(1)
(tip ,n , −)


(1)
b
+ (σ̂ (1) (tip ,n , −))2 (Lb(1)
n,m − Ln,m )(τip ,jp ,n )
1/2

(1)
(1)
b (1) − R
b n,m )(τip ,jp ,n )
+ (σ̂ (1) (tip ,n , +))2 (R
U
n,m
n,ip ,m
q

(1)
(2)
(1,2),−
+ ∆ip ,n X (1) σ̂ (2) (tjp ,n , −)ρ̂(τip ,jp ,n , −) Lbn,m (τip ,jp ,n )Un,(ip ,jp ),m
q
(2)
b n,m (τip ,jp ,n )U (1,2),+
+ σ̂ (2) (tjp ,n , +)ρ̂(τip ,jp ,n , +) R
n,(ip ,jp ),m

(2)
+ (σ̂ (2) (tjp ,n , −))2 (1 − (ρ̂(τip ,jp ,n , −))2 )Lbn,m (τip ,jp ,n )
1/2
(2)
(2)
b n,m (τip ,jp ,n )
+ (σ̂ (2) (tjp ,n , +))2 (1 − (ρ̂(τip ,jp ,n , +))2 )R
Un,jp ,m
23


(2)
b
+ (σ̂ (2) (tjp ,n , −))2 (Lb(2)
n,m − Ln,m )(τip ,jp ,n )
(2)
b (2) − R
b n,m )(τip ,jp ,n )
+ (σ̂ (2) (tjp ,n , +))2 R
n,m
(1)

1/2

(3)

Un,jp ,m

i

(2)

where (ip , jp ) = (in (Sp ), in (Sp )) and further set
R(P ) = 4

P
X

(1)

(2)

∆XSp ∆XSp

p=1

q
q

(2)
(1)
(1),−
(1)
(1),+
× ∆XSp σSp − L(Sp )USp + σSp R(Sp )USp
q

(2)
(1)
(1)
+ (σSp − )2 (L(1) − L)(Sp ) + (σSp )2 (R(1) − R)(Sp )USp
q
q

(1)
(2)
(2)
(1),−
(1),+
+ ∆XSp σSp − ρSp − L(Sp )USp + σSp ρSp R(Sp )USp
q
(2)
(2)
(3)
+ (σSp − )2 (1 − (ρSp − )2 )L(Sp ) + (σSp )2 (1 − (ρSp )2 )R(Sp )USp
q
i
(2)
(2)
(4)
+ (σSp − )2 (L(2) − L)(Sp ) + (σSp )2 (R(2) − R)(Sp )USp .
h

Using this notation we obtain
e
P

Mn
 1 X
(CoJ) 
e
1{R(P,n,m)≤Υ} − P(R(P
) ≤ Υ|X ) > ε ∩ ΩT
→0
Mn

(6.59)

m=1

and
P e
(CoJ)
e
P(R(P
) ≤ Υ|X )1Ω(CoJ) −→ P(F
≤ Υ|X )1Ω(CoJ)
2,T
T

T

as in Step 1 and Step 3 in the proof of Proposition 5.2. Here, Lemma 5.3 is needed
in the proof of (6.59).
Hence it remains to prove the equivalent to (6.25) in Step 2 of the proof of Proposition 5.2 which is
e
lim lim sup P

P →∞ n→∞

Mn
 1 X
(CoJ) 
(1{R(P,n,m)≤Υ} − 1{Fb(CoJ) ≤Υ} ) > ε ∩ ΩT
= 0,
Mn
T,n,m
m=1

implied by
lim lim sup

P →∞ n→∞

Mn
1 X
(CoJ)
e
P(|R(P,
n, m) − FbT,n,m | > ε) = 0
Mn

(6.60)

m=1

for all ε > 0.
On the set Ω(q, P, n) on which the common jumps of N (q) are among the P
largest common jumps and on which two different jumps of N (q) are further apart

24

than 2|πn |T it holds


(CoJ)
E |R(P, n, m) − FbT,n,m |1Ω(q,P,n) F
X
X
(l)
(3−l)
|∆i,n (X (l) − N (l) (q))||∆j,n X (3−l) |
≤K
l=1,2 i,j:t(l) ∧t(3−l) ≤T
i,n

j,n

q (l)

(3−l)
(l)
b (l)
× |∆j,n X (3−l) |σ̂ (l) (n, i)E (Lbn,m + R
n,m )(ti,n ) S
q (3−l)

(l)
(3−l)
(l)
(l)
(3−l)
b (3−l)
+ |∆i,n (X − N (q))|σ̂
(n, j)E (Lbn,m + R
n,m )(tj,n ) S


× 1{|∆(l) X (l) |>β|I (l) |$ ∧|∆(3−l) X (3−l) |>β|I (3−l) |$ } 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,n

i,n

j,n

j,n

i,n

(6.61)

j,n

with
(l)

(l)

σ̂ (l) (n, i) = (σ̂n(l) (ti,n , −))2 + (σ̂n(l) (ti,n , +))2

1/2

.

Because of P(Ω(q, P, n)) → ∞ as n, P → ∞ for all q > 0 it suffices to show that
(6.61) vanishes as first n → ∞ and then q → ∞ for proving (6.60).
Reconsidering the notation introduced in Step 2 in the proof of (5.17) we define
the following terms
(l)

Y(i,j),n =
(l)
Ye(i,j),n =

1
bn
1
bn

(l,3−l)

X

(∆(k,j),(1,1),n X (l) )2

1/2

,

(l)
(l)
(l)
k6=i:Ik,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]

(l\3−l)

X

(∆(k,j),(1,1),n , X (l) )2

1/2

,

(l)
(l)
(l)
k6=i:Ik,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]

l = 1, 2. Then the Minkowski inequality yields
(l)
(l)
σ̂ (l) (n, i) ≤ Y(i,j),n + Ye(i,j),n ,
(3−l)

(3−l)

σ̂ (3−l) (n, j) ≤ Y(j,i),n + Ye(j,i),n

(6.62)

which allows to treat the increments in the estimation of σ (l) , σ (3−l) over intervals
(3−l)
(l)
which do overlap with Ij,n , Ii,n and those which do not, separately.
We apply the inequalities (6.62) to get an upper bound for the S-conditional
expectation of (6.61). First we get using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, iterated
expectations and Lemma 6.1 the following bound for (6.61) where we replaced the
estimators for σ (l) , σ (3−l) with the first summands from (6.62)
X
 (l)
(3−l)
(l)
E |∆i,n (X (l) − N (l) (q))||∆j,n X (3−l) |2 Y(i,j),n
K
(l)

(3−l)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

p
(3−l)
(l)
(3−l) 
+ |∆j,n X (3−l) ||∆i,n (X (l) − N (l) (q))|2 Y(j,i),n S 2n|πn |T 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
j,n
i,n
X

1/2
(l) 2
(l)
(l)
(3−l)
(3−l) 1/2
≤K
(Kq |Ii,n | + |Ii,n | + eq |Ii,n |)(|Ij,n |/bn )
K|Ij,n |
(l)

(3−l)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

1/2
(3−l)
(l)
(l)
(l)
(l) 1/2 
+ (K|Ij,n |)(|Ii,n |/bn )
Kq |Ii,n |4 + |Ii,n |2 + eq |Ii,n |
p
× n|πn |T 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,n

j,n

25

≤ K(Kq (|πn |T + (|πn |T )3 ) + 1 + eq )1/2 (|πn |T /bn )1/2
X

√
(l)
(3−l)
(l)
(3−l)
× n
|Ii,n |1/2 |Ij,n | + |Ii,n ||Ij,n |1/2 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅} (6.63)
(l)

(3−l)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n

i,n

j,n

≤T

for l = 1, 2 which vanishes as n → ∞ for any q > 0 because of Condition 3.11(ii)
P

and |πn |T /bn −→ 0.
(l)
(3−l)
Further we obtain by treating increments over Ii,n ∩ Ij,n and increments over
(l)

(3−l)

non-overlapping parts of Ii,n , Ij,n differently the following bound for the S-conditional
expectation of (6.61) where we replaced the estimators for σ (l) , σ (3−l) with the second
summands from (6.62)
X

(l\3−l)
(3−l) (3−l) 2 e (l)
K
E[|∆
(X (l) − N (l) (q))||∆
X
| Y
j,n

(i,j),(1,1),n

(l)

(3−l)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n

(i,j),n

≤T
(l,3−l)

(3−l\l)

(l)

+ |∆(i,j),(1,1),n (X (l) − N (l) (q))||∆(j,i),(1,1),n X (3−l) |2 Ye(j,i),n |S]
(3−l\l)

(l)

(3−l)

+ E[|∆(j,i),(1,1),n X (3−l) ||∆i,n (X (l) − N (l) (q))|2 Ye(i,j),n
p
(3−l,l)
(l\3−l)
(3−l)
+ |∆(j,i),(1,1),n X (3−l) ||∆(i,j),(1,1),n (X (l) − N (l) (q))|2 Ye(j,i),n |S] n|πn |T
(l,3−l)
(l,3−l)
(l)
+ E[|∆(i,j),(1,1),n (X (l) − N (q)(l) )||∆(i,j),(1,1),n X (3−l) |2 Ye(i,j),n |S]
q
(l)
(l)
(3−l)
b (l)
× E[ (Lbn,m + R
n,m )(ti,n ∧ tj,n )|S]
 (3−l)
(l,3−l)
(l,3−l)
+ E[|∆(i,j),(1,1),n X (3−l) ||∆(i,j),(1,1),n (X (l) − N (l) (q)|2 Ye(j,i),n |S]
q

(3−l)
(l)
(3−l)
b (3−l)
× E[ (Lbn,m + R
n,m )(ti,n ∧ tj,n )|S] 1{I (l) ∩I (3−l) 6=∅}
i,n
j,n
X

(l)
(l) 1/2 (3−l)
≤K
(Kq |Ii,n | + 1 + eq )|Ii,n |) |Ij,n |
(l)

(3−l)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n

≤T

(3−l)
(Kq |Ii,n |

p
(3−l)
(l)
+
+ 1 + eq )|Ii,n |)|Ij,n |1/2 n|πn |T 1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
i,n
j,n

(l)
(3−l) 2
(l)
(3−l) 1/2
(l)
(3−l) 1/3 (l)
(3−l)
+ ((Kq |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n | + |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n | + eq )|Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |) |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |2/3
q
(l)
(l)
(3−l)
b (l)
× E[ (Lbn,m + R
n,m )(ti,n ∧ tj,n )|S]
(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

(l)

(3−l)

+ |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |1/2 ((Kq |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |3 + |Ii,n ∩ Ij,n | + eq )|Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |)1/2
q

(3−l)
(l)
(3−l)
b (3−l)
× E[ (Lbn,m + R
(6.64)
n,m )(ti,n ∧ tj,n )|S] .
Here, we used iterated expectations and
(l)

E[Ye(i,j),n |S] ≤

1
bn

(l)

X
(l)

(l)

K|Ik,n |

1/2

≤K

(l)

k6=i:Ik,n ⊂[ti,n −bn ,ti,n +bn ]
(3−l)

along with the similar bound for E[Ye(j,i),n |S].
The sum over the expression in the first set of square brackets in (6.64) vanishes
similarly as in (6.63) while the sum over the expression in the second set of square

26

brackets is bounded by
(l)

X

K(Kq (|πn |T )1/2 + eq )1/3
(l)

(3−l)

i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n
Ln
X

×

≤T

+

(l)
n|Ii+l1 +1,n |)1/2

(l)

(l)
((n|Ii−1,n |
Ln
X

+

(3−l)

(3−l)

|Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |

(3−l)

(l)
n|Ii+1,n |)1/2

(3−l)

+ (n|Ij+l2 −1,n | + n|Ij+l2 +1,n |)1/2 )
(l)

X
i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n

×

−1
(l)
(3−l)
|Ii+k1 ,n ∩ Ij+k2 ,n |

k1 ,k2 =−Ln

(l)
((n|Ii+l1 −1,n |

= K(Kq (|πn |T )1/2 + eq )
×

Ln
X


(l)
(3−l)
|Ii+l1 ,n ∩ Ij+l2 ,n |

l1 ,l2 =−Ln

×

(3−l)

|Ii,n ∩ Ij,n |

≤T
(3−l)

(3−l)

+ (n|Ij−1,n | + n|Ij+1,n |)1/2 )
Ln
X


(l)
(3−l)
|Ii+l1 ,n ∩ Ij+l2 ,n |

−1
(l)
(3−l)
|Ii+l1 +k1 ,n ∩ Ij+l2 +k2 ,n |

k1 ,k2 =−Ln

l1 ,l2 =−Ln

√
+ OP ( n|πn |T )

(6.65)

where the sum in the last line is less or equal than 4 which can be shown similarly to
√
(6.29). The OP ( n|πn |T )-term is due to boundary effects. Hence (6.65) is bounded
by
√ 
K(Kq (|πn |T )1/2 + eq ) n

(l)

X
(l)

(3−l)

i≥2:ti,n ≤T


√
(3−l)
|Ij,2,n |3/2 + OP ( n|πn |T )

X

|Ii,2,n |3/2 +

j≥2:tj,n

≤T

which vanishes as n, q → ∞ by Condition 3.4(ii); compare also (6.36).

6.3

Proofs regarding the Poisson setting
(l)

Lemma 6.4. Consider an observation scheme given by t0,n = 0 and
(l)

(l)

(l)

ti,n = ti−1,n + α(l) (n)−1 Ei,n , i ≥ 1,
(l)

where the Ei,n , i, n ∈ N, are i.i.d. random variables with values in R≥0 and α(l) (n)
are positive functions with α(l) (n) → ∞ as n → ∞.
(l)
If E1,1 ∈ L2 (Ω) it holds
(l)

(l)

−1

α (n)

X

(l)

g α (n)

(l)
Ii,n



P

−→

E[g(E1,1 )]
(l)

E[E1,1 ]

(l)
i:ti,n ≤T

T

(l)

for all functions g : R≥0 → R with g(E1,1 ) ∈ L1 (Ω).
Proof. This proof is based on the proof of Proposition 1 in Hayashi and Yoshida
(l)
(l)
(l)
(l)
(2008). Set m1 = E[E1,1 ], mg = E[g(E1,1 )] and
(l)

λ(l) (n) = dα(l) (n)T /m1 e.

27

Further define
(l)

NT (n) =

X
i∈N

1{t(l) ≤T } .
i,n

Step 1. We prove
(l)

P(|NT (n) − λ(l) (n)| > α(l) (n)1/2+ε ) → 0

(6.66)

as n → ∞ for ε ∈ (0, 1/2); compare Lemma 9 in Hayashi and Yoshida (2008).
(l)
Denote ν (l) = Var(E1,1 ). The case ν (l) = 0 is simple, so let us assume ν (l) > 0 in the
following. It holds
λ(l) (n)+α(l) (n)1/2+ε
(l)
NT (n)

(l)

(l)

− λ (n) > α (n)

1/2+ε

(l)

X

⇔

|Ii,n | < T

i=1

Pλ(l) (n)+α(l) (n)1/2+ε
⇔

(l)
(Ei,n

(l)
m1 )

−
i=1
p
(λ(l) (n) + α(l) (n)1/2+ε )ν (l)

<

α(l) (n)T − (λ(l) (n) + α(l) (n)1/2+ε )m1
p
(λ(l) (n) + α(l) (n)1/2+ε )ν (l)

where the left hand side is approximately standard normal distributed by the classical central limit theorem while the right hand side is approximately
−α(l) (n)1/2+ε m1
−α(l) (n)1/2+ε 
p
= O (l) 1/2∨(1/2+ε)/2 ≤ O(−α(l) (n)ε/2 )
α (n)
(λ(l) (n) + α(l) (n)1/2+ε )ν (l)
which tends to −∞ as n → ∞. Hence
(l)

P(NT (n) − λ(l) (n) > α(l) (n)1/2+ε ) → 0.

(6.67)

Analogously it follows
(l)

P(NT (n) − λ(l) (n) < −α(l) (n)1/2+ε ) → 0
which together with (6.67) yields (6.66).
Step 2. By the weak law of large numbers it holds
λ(l) (n)
(l)

α (n)

−1

X

(l)

(l)

g α (n)

(l)
Ii,n

i=1



λ (n)
X
λ(l) (n) 1
T
(l)  P
= (l)
g Ei,n −→ (l) m(l)
g .
(l)
α (n) λ (n) i=1
m1

Hence it remains to prove
(l)

λ(l) (n)∨NT (n)
(l)

X

α(l) (n)−1

g α(l) (n) Ii,n



P

−→ 0

(6.68)

(l)
i=λ(l) (n)∧NT (n)+1

as n → ∞. Because of (6.66) it suffices to prove the convergence (6.68) restricted
to the set
(l)
Ω(l) (n, ε) = {|NT (n) − λ(l) (n)| ≤ α(l) (n)1/2+ε }.
On this set (6.68) is bounded by
(l)

2α (n)

(1/2+ε)−1



1
(l)
2α (n)1/2+ε

λ(l) (n)+dα(l) (n)1/2+ε e

X

(l) 

g Ei,n



1Ω(l) (n,ε)

i=λ(l) (n)−bα(l) (n)1/2+ε c+1

which converges in probability to zero for ε < 1/2 as n → ∞ because the term in
(l)
parantheses converges by the weak law of large numbers in probability to mg .
28

Proof of (2.7). Because of |Ii,n | ∼ Exp(nλ) it holds |Ii,k,n | ∼ Γ(k, nλ). Lemma 6.4
(l)
with α(l) (n) = n/k and E1,1 ∼ ζ/k with ζ ∼ Γ(k, λ) yields
k−1
1Xn
Gn,k (t) =
k
k
l=0

P

−→

X

k−1
1Xk
|Iki+l,k,n | =
k
n

X

2

i:tki+l,n ≤t

l=0

i:tki+l,n ≤t

2
n
|Iki+l,k,n |
k

k−1
k(k + 1)/(kλ)2
k+1
1 X E[(ζ/k)2 ]
t=
t=
t.
k
E[ζ/k]
k/(kλ)
kλ
l=0

Lemma 6.5. Under the Poisson sampling introduced in Example 3.6 we have the
pointwise convergences
P e
e k,n (t) −→
G
Gk (t),
P

Hk,n (t) −→ Hk (t),
e k , Hk which are linear in t with positive slope.
for functions G
e k,n is similar. First
Proof. We will proof the claim for Hk,n only, since the proof for G
observe
X
n
(1)
(2)
Hk,n (t) = 3
|Ii,k,n ||Ij,k,n |1{I (1) ∩I (2) 6=∅}
k
i,k,n
j,k,n
(1)
(2)
i,j:ti,n ∧tj,n ≤t

L

=

=

1 1
k3 n

(1)

X

(2)

|Ii,k,1 ||Ij,k,1 |1{I (1)

(2)
i,k,1 ∩Ij,k,1 6=∅}

(1)
(2)
i,j:ti,1 ∧tj,1 ≤nt

bntc
1 bntc 1 X
Ym + OP (n−1 )
k 3 n bntc
m=1

L

where = denotes equality in law and
X
(1)
(2)
Ym =
|Ii,k,1 ||Ij,k,1 |1{I (1)

(2)
i,k,1 ∩Ij,k,1 6=∅}

(1)
(2)
i,j:ti−k,1 ∧tj−k,1 ∈(m−1,m]

, m ∈ N.

Because the Poisson process has stationary increments, the sequence Ym , m ∈ N,
is a stationary square integrable time series. Because further Ym1 , Ym2 become
asymptotically independent as |m1 − m2 | → ∞, compare (A.51) in Martin and
Vetter (2017), it is possible to conclude Cov(Ym1 , Ym2 ) → 0 as |m1 − m2 | → ∞. We
then obtain by a law of large numbers for stationary processes, compare Theorem
7.1.1 in Brockwell and Davis (1991),
P

Hk,n (t) −→
This yields the claim as clearly E[Y1 ] > 0.

29

t
E[Y1 ].
k3

6.3.1

Proof of Condition 2.7(ii), 3.4(iii) and 3.7 in the Poisson setting

The convergences claimed in Condition 2.7(ii), 3.4(iii) and 3.7 are all special cases
of the general statement made in the following Lemma and can be easily verified by
finding suitable functions f (1) , f (2) , f .
(1)

(2)

(3)

Lemma 6.6. Let d ∈ N and Zn (s), Zn (s), Zn (s) be Rd -valued random variables,
which can be written as
√
(l)
(l)
(l)
Zn(l) (s) = f (l) n(s − t (l)
), n(t (l)
− s), ( n∆i(l) (s)+j,n W )j∈[k−1] ,
n
in (s)−1,n
in (s),n

√ (l)
(l)
( n∆ (l)
W 1{I (3−l)
)
, l = 1, 2,
(l)
∩I
6=∅} i∈{0,...,k−1},j∈Z
in (s)+j,k,n
(l)

Zn(3) (s) = f (n|I (l)


in (s)+i,n

(3−l)
in
(s)+i,k,n

|)i∈[k]



(l)
in (s)+j,k,n

(1)

(2)

, (n|I (1)
l=1,2

in (s)+i,n

∩ I (2)

in (s)+j,n

|)i,j∈[k]



with [k] = {−k, . . . , k} for measurable functions f (1) , f (2) , f and a fixed k ∈ N.
Then under the Poisson sampling introduced in Example 3.6 the integral
Z
P1
hY
0
0
00
00
(1)
g(x1 , . . . , xP1 , x1 , . . . , xP2 , x1 , . . . , xP3 )E
h(1)
p (Zn (xp ))
[0,T ]P1 +P2 +P3

×

P2
Y

p=1

(2) 0
h(2)
p (Zn (xp ))

p=1

P3
Y

i
(3) 00
0
0
00
00
h(3)
p (Zn (xp )) dx1 . . . dxP1 dx1 . . . dxP2 dx1 . . . dxP3

p=1

(6.69)
converges for n → ∞ to
Z
P1 Z
Y
0
0
00
00
(1)
g(x1 , . . . , xP1 , x1 , . . . , xP2 , x1 , . . . , xP3 )
h(1)
p (y)Γ (dy)
[0,T ]P1 +P2 +P3

×

P2 Z
Y
p=1

p=1

(2)
h(2)
p (y)Γ (dy)

P3 Z
Y

(3)
0
0
00
00
h(3)
p (y)Γ (dy)dx1 . . . dxP1 dx1 . . . dxP2 dx1 . . . dxP3

p=1

(6.70)
(l)

for all bounded continuous functions g : RP1 +P2 +P3 → R, hp : Rd → R and all
P1 , P2 , P3 ∈ N.
Note that Γ(1) , Γ(2) , Γ(3) are probability measures on Rd which do not depend on
xp , x0p , x00p as in the general case in Conditions 2.7(ii), 3.4(iii) and 3.7 because the
Poisson process has stationary increments.
(l )

(l )

Proof. First we show that any two random variables Zn 1 (x1 ) and Zn 2 (x2 ) with
l1 , l2 ∈ {1, 2, 3}, x1 , x2 ∈ [0, T ], become asymptotically independent for x1 6= x2
which yields that the expectation in (6.69) factorizes in the limit. Let x1 < x2 and
define
 (l1 )
x1 + x2
,
≤
Ω−
n (l1 , x1 ) = t (l1 ) (3−l1 )
)+k,n
in (t (3−l )
2
1
in

(x1 )+k

 x1 + x2
(l )
Ω+
≤ t (l22 ) (3−l2 )
n (l2 , x2 ) =
in (t (3−l )
2
2
in

)−k−1,n
(x2 )−k−1

+
Ωn (l1 , l2 , x1 , x2 ) = Ω−
n (l1 , x1 ) ∩ Ωn (l2 , x2 ).

30

,

Here, Ωn (l1 , l2 , x1 , x2 ) describes the subset of Ω on which the set of intervals used
(l )
for the construction of Zn 1 (x1 ) and the set of intervals used for the construction of
(l )
Zn 2 (x2 ) are separated by (x1 + x2 )/2. Then there exist measurable functions g1 , g2
such that
(l )

= g1 ((Nn (t))t∈[0,(x1 +x2 )/2] , (W t 1 )t∈[0,(x1 +x2 )/2] )1Ω−
,
Zn(l1 ) (x1 )1Ω−
n (l1 ,x1 )
n (l1 ,x1 )
Zn(l2 ) (x2 )1Ω+
= g2 ((Nn (t) − Nn ((x1 + x2 )/2))t∈[(x1 +x2 )/2,∞) ,
n (l2 ,x2 )
(l )

(l )

(W t 2 − W (x21 +x2 )/2 )t∈[(x1 +x2 )/2,∞) )1Ω+
n (l2 ,x2 )
(1)

(2)

(l)

where Nn (t) = (Nn (t), Nn (t))∗ , Nn (t) =

P

i∈N 1{t(l) ≤t} ,

l = 1, 2, denotes the

i,n

Poisson processes which create the stopping times. These identities yield that the
(l )
random variables Zn 1 (x1 )1Ω−
, 1Ω−
are independent from the random
n (l1 ,x1 )
n (l1 ,x1 )
(l )

because the processes W and Nn (t), have
, 1Ω+
variables Zn 2 (x2 )1Ω+
n (l2 ,x2 )
n (l2 ,x2 )
independent increments. Hence we get
(l1 )
(l2 )
(l2 )
1)
1 +
]
E[h(l
p1 (Zn (x1 ))hp2 (Zn (x2 ))1Ω−
n (l1 ,x1 ) Ωn (l2 ,x2 )
(l1 )
(l2 )
1)
2)
= E[h(l
]E[h(l
]
p1 (Zn (x1 ))1Ω−
p2 (Zn (x2 ))1Ω+
n (l1 ,x1 )
n (l2 ,x2 )
(l )

=
=

(l )

(l )

(l )

E[hp11 (Zn 1 (x1 ))1Ω−
1 −
]
1 +
] E[hp22 (Zn 2 (x2 ))1Ω+
n (l2 ,x2 ) Ωn (l1 ,x1 )
n (l1 ,x1 ) Ωn (l2 ,x2 )
E[1Ω+
E[1Ω−
]
]
n (l2 ,x2 )
n (l1 ,x1 )
(l1 )
(l1 )
(l2 )
(l2 )
E[hp1 (Zn (x1 ))1Ωn (l1 ,l2 ,x1 ,x2 ) ]E[hp2 (Zn (x2 ))1Ωn (l1 ,l2 ,x1 ,x2 ) ]
E[1Ωn (l1 ,l2 ,x1 ,x2 ) ]

which is equivalent to
(l2 )
2)
E[hp(l11 ) (Zn(l1 ) (x1 ))h(l
p2 (Zn (x2 ))|Ωn (l1 , l2 , x1 , x2 )]
(l1 )
(l2 )
(l2 )
1)
= E[h(l
p1 (Zn (x1 ))|Ωn (l1 , l2 , x1 , x2 )]E[hp2 (Zn (x2 ))|Ωn (l1 , l2 , x1 , x2 )]. (6.71)

Further we obtain as in (A.51) of Martin and Vetter (2017)
P(Ωn (l1 , l2 , x1 , x2 )) ≥ 1 −

K/n
.
|x1 − x2 |

(6.72)

Denote P = P1 + P2 + P3 , AT (ε) = {(x1 , . . . , xk ) ∈ [0, T ]k |∃i, j : |xi − xj | ≤ ε} and
BT (σ) = {(x1 , . . . xk ) ∈ [0, T ]k : xσ(1) ≤ xσ(2) ≤ . . . ≤ xσ(k) } where σ denotes a
permutation of {1, . . . , k}. Using (6.71), (6.72), the inequality
|E[X] − E[X|A]| ≤ 2K

1 − P(A)
P(A)

which holds for any bounded random variable X ≤ K and any set A with P(A) > 0

31

(l)

together with the boundedness of g, hp , l = 1, 2, 3, yields
Z
P1
Y


(1)
E h(1)
(6.69) −
g(x1 , . . . , xP1 , x01 , . . . , x0P2 , x001 , . . . , x00P3 )
p (Zn (xp ))
[0,T ]P1 +P2 +P3

P2
Y

×

p=1



(2) 0
E h(2)
p (Zn (xp ))

+



0
0
00
00
(3) 00
E h(3)
p (Zn (xp )) dx1 . . . dxP1 dx1 . . . dxP2 dx1 . . . dxP3

p=1

p=1

≤ Kλλ

P3
Y

P⊗

(AT (ε))
P1
P1Y
+P2
Y
(1)
(1)
(2)
g(x1 , . . . , xP )E
hp (Zn (xp ))
h(2)
p (Zn (xp ))

Z

X

(6.69) −
BT (σ)\AT (ε)

σ∈SP
P
Y

×

(3)
h(3)
p (Zn (xp ))|

X Z
P

m≤l Pm

p=

P

m<l

3
Y
l=1

P
\
 (l) (l)

E hp (Zn (xp ))|
Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) ) dx1 . . . dxP

Y

×


Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) ) dx1 . . . dxP

g(x1 , . . . , xP )

BT (σ)\AT (ε)

σ∈SP

p=P1 +1

i=2

p=P1 +P2 +1

+

p=1
P
\

i=2

Pm +1

Z
g(x1 , . . . , xP )

−
BT (σ)\AT (ε)

3
Y

P

l=1 p=

m≤l

Pm

Y
P

m<l



(l)
E h(l)
p (Zn (xp )) dx1 . . . dxP

Pm +1

≤ KλλP ⊗ (AT (ε))
Z
X
+
K


T
1 − P Pi=2 Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) )
 dx1 . . . dxP
T
P Pi=2 Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) )
BT (σ)\AT (ε)
σ∈SP

T
Z
P
X
X
1 − P Pi=2 Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) )
+
K
 dx1 . . . dxP
T
P Pi=2 Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) )
BT (σ)\AT (ε) j=1
σ∈SP

≤ KλλP ⊗ (AT (ε))
Z
X
+
K

P
(P + 1) ki=2 P(Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) )c )
dx1 . . . dxP
P
1 − Pi=2 P(Ω(lσ(i−1) , lσ(i) , xσ(i−1) , xσ(i) ))c
BT (σ)\AT (ε)
σ∈SP
 
K/n −1
P
P K/n 
P⊗
≤ Kλλ (AT (ε)) +
K(P + 1)
1−P
2
ε
ε
for all ε > 0 where λλP ⊗ denotes the Lebesgue measure in RP . This term vanishes
as n → ∞ and then ε → 0. Next observe that it holds
Z
P1
Y


(1)
(6.70) −
E h(1)
g(x1 , . . . , xP1 , x01 , . . . , x0P2 , x001 , . . . , x00P3 )
p (Zn (xp ))
[0,T ]P1 +P2 +P3

×

P2
Y

p=1



(2) 0
E h(2)
p (Zn (xp ))

p=1

≤ KεP + KT P

P3
Y



(3) 00
0
0
00
00
E h(3)
p (Zn (xp )) dx1 . . . dxP1 dx1 . . . dxP2 dx1 . . . dxP3

p=1
Pl
3 X
X

Z
sup

(l)
(l)
(l)
h(l)
p (y)Γ (dy) − E[hp (Zn (x))] .

l=1 p=1 x∈[ε,T ]

32

Hence it remains to show that there exists some measure Γ(l) on Rd with
Z
(l)
(l)
(l)
sup
h(l)
p (y)Γ (dy) − E[hp (Zn (x))] → 0

(6.73)

x∈[ε,T ]

as n → ∞ for all ε > 0.
L
(l)
(l)
For proving (6.73) observe that it holds Zn (x) = Z1 (nx). Since the Poisson
(l)

processes generating the observation times in π1 and the Brownian motion W are
(l)
independent stationary processes the law of Z1 (nx) depends on n only through the
fact that all occuring intervals are bounded to the left by 0. Hence if Ω(n, m, x) de(l)
notes the set on which all intervals needed for the construction of Z1 (mx) are within
(l)
[mx − nx, ∞), it follows that all members of the sequence (Z1 (mx)1Ω(n,m,x) ))m≥n
have the same law. This yields because of P(Ω(n, m, x)) = P(Ω(n, n, x)), m ≥ n,
and
lim P(Ω(n, n, x)) = 1, x > 0,

n→∞
(l)

that the sequence (Z1 (nx))n∈N converges in law for x > 0. Hence the sequence
(l)
(Zn (x))n∈N converges in law for x > 0. By the stationarity of the processes the law
of the limit, which we denote by Γ(l) , does not depend on x. Finally we obtain the
uniform convergence in (6.73) because of P(Ω(n, n, x)) ≤ P(Ω(n, n, ε)) for x ≥ ε.
In the proof of Lemma 6.6 we obtained
L

Zn(l) (s)1Ω(l) (s) = Z (l) 1Ωe (l) (s)
n

n

(l)

(l)

(l)

e n (s))n with Ωn (s) ↑ Ω,
for a random variable Z (l) ∼ Γ(l) and sequences (Ωn (s))n , (Ω
(l)
e n (s) ↑ Ω.
e Hence if the limit law would admit a part which is singular to the
Ω
(l)
Lebesgue measure, this would also be true for the law of the Zn (s) with n suffi(l)
ciently large. In all three cases considered in this paper it can be shown that Zn (s)
has no atom. Hence in Condition 2.7(ii) and Condition 3.7 we obtain Γ(x, {0}) = 0.
Further by Theorem 6.7 from Billingsley (1999) there exist random variables
e
en(l) )n∈N ) defined on a probability space (Ω0 , F 0 , P0 ) with
(Z (l) , (Z
L

e(l) )n∈N ) = (Z (l) , (Z (l) )n∈N )
(Ze(l) , (Z
n
n
en(l) → Ze almost surely. An application of Fatou’s lemma then yields
and Z
e(l) kp ] ≤ lim inf E[kZe(l) (s)kp ] ≤ sup E[kZ
e(l) (s)kp ] = sup E[kZ (l) (s)kp ]
E[kZ (l) kp ] = E[kZ
n
n
n
n∈N

n∈N

n∈N

for p ≥ 0. For the cases in Condition 2.7(ii), 3.4(iii) and 3.7 it can be shown that the
supremum is finite for all p ≥ 0 and hence Γ(l) has finite moments. This yields the
requirement of uniformly bounded first and second moments in Condition 2.7(ii),
3.4(iii) and 3.7.

33

6.3.2

Proof of Condition 2.10(i) and 3.11(i) in the Poisson setting

Note that it holds
L
(ξˆk,n,1,− (s), ξˆk,n,1,+ (s)) =S (ξk,n,− (Un (s)), ξk,n,+ (Un (s)))

with Un (s) ∼ U[tin (s)−Ln −1 , tin (s)+Ln ] where LS denotes equality of the S-conditional
distributions. Hence the proof of Condition 2.10(i) in the Poisson setting is identical
to the proof of (4.3) in Martin and Vetter (2017). The same holds true for Condition
bn,1 (s) L=S Zn (Vn (s)) with
3.11(i) as Z
(1)

Vn (s) ∼ U[t (1)

in (s)−Ln −1,n

(1)

(2)

∨ t (2)

in (s)−Ln −1,n

34

, t (1)

in (s)+Ln ,n

(2)

∧ t (2)

in (s)+Ln ,n

].

