Stochastic Gradient Descent in Continuous Time: A Central Limit
Theorem
Justin Sirignano∗ and Konstantinos Spiliopoulos†‡

arXiv:1710.04273v2 [math.PR] 2 Nov 2017

November 3, 2017

Abstract
Stochastic gradient descent in continuous time (SGDCT) provides a computationally efficient method
for the statistical learning of continuous-time models, which are widely used in science, engineering, and
finance. The SGDCT algorithm follows a (noisy) descent direction along a continuous stream of data.
The parameter updates occur in continuous time and satisfy a stochastic differential equation. This paper
analyzes the asymptotic convergence rate of the SGDCT algorithm by proving a central limit theorem
for strongly convex objective functions and, under slightly stronger conditions, for non-convex objective
functions as well. An Lp convergence rate is also proven for the algorithm in the strongly convex case.

1

Introduction

“Stochastic gradient descent in continuous time” (SGDCT) is a statistical learning algorithm for continuoustime models, which are common in science, engineering, and finance. SGDCT is the continuous-time analog of
the well-known stochastic gradient descent. Given a continuous stream of data, stochastic gradient descent in
continuous time (SGDCT) can estimate unknown parameters or functions in stochastic differential equation
(SDE) models. [3] analyzes the numerical performance of SGDCT for a number of applications in finance
and engineering.
Batch optimization for the statistical estimation of continuous-time models may be impractical for large
datasets where observations occur over a long period of time. Batch optimization takes a sequence of descent
steps for the model error for the entire observed data path. Since each descent step is for the model error
for the entire observed data path, batch optimization is slow (sometimes impractically slow) for long periods
of time or models which are computationally costly to evaluate (e.g., partial differential equations).
SGDCT provides a computationally efficient method for statistical learning over long time periods and for
complex models. SGDCT continuously follows a (noisy) descent direction along the path of the observation;
this results in much more rapid convergence. Parameters are updated online in continuous time, with the
parameter updates θt satisfying a stochastic differential equation.
Consider a diffusion Xt ∈ X = Rm :
dXt = f ∗ (Xt )dt + σdWt .

(1.1)

The goal is to statistically estimate a model f (x, θ) for f ∗ (x) where θ ∈ Rk . The function f ∗ (x) is unknown.
Wt ∈ Rm is a standard Brownian motion. The diffusion term Wt represents any random behavior of the
system or environment. The functions f (x, θ) and f ∗ (x) may be non-convex.
The stochastic gradient descent update in continuous time follows the SDE:


(1.2)
dθt = αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )(σσ ⊤ )−1 dXt − ∇θ f (Xt , θt )(σσ ⊤ )−1 f (Xt , θt )dt ,

∗ Department of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, E-mail:
jasirign@illinois.edu
† Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Boston University, Boston, E-mail: kspiliop@math.bu.edu
‡ Research of K.S. supported in part by the National Science Foundation (DMS 1550918)

1

α
. The
where ∇θ f (Xt ; θt ) is matrix-valued and αt is the learning rate. For example, αt could equal CC0 +t
parameter update (1.2) can be used for both statistical estimation given previously observed data as well as
online learning (i.e., statistical estimation in real-time as data becomes available).
We assume that Xt is sufficiently ergodic (to be concretely specified later in the paper) and that it has
some well-behaved π(dx) as its unique invariant measure. As a general notation, if h(x, θ) is a generic L1 (π)
function, then we define its average over π(dx) to be
Z
h(x, θ)π(dx).
h̄(θ) =

X

Let us set
g(x, θ) =

E
−1
1
1D
2
f (x, θ) − f ∗ (x), σσ ⊤
(f (x, θ) − f ∗ (x)) .
kf (x, θ) − f ∗ (x)kσσ⊤ =
2
2

The gradient ∇θ g(Xt , θ) cannot be evaluated since f ∗ (x) is unknown. However, dXt = f ∗ (Xt )dt + σdWt
is a noisy estimate of f ∗ (x)dt, which leads to the algorithm (1.2). SGDCT follows a noisy descent direction
along a continuous stream of data produced by Xt .
ḡ is a natural objective function for the estimation of the continuous-time
R dynamics. Heuristically, it
is expected that θt will tend towards the minimum of the function ḡ(θ) = X g(x, θ)π(dx). The data Xt
will be correlated over time, which complicates the mathematical analysis. This differs from the standard
discrete-time version of stochastic gradient descent where the the data is usually considered to be i.i.d. at
every step.
a.s.
The authors previously proved in [3] that k∇ḡ(θt )k → 0. In this paper, we prove several new results
regarding the convergence rate of the algorithm θt .
The first main result of the paper is an Lp convergence rate and a central limit theorem in the case where
p
K
ḡ(θ) is strongly convex. Let θ∗ be the global minimum of ḡ(θ). We prove that E[kθt − θ∗ k ] ≤ (C +t)
p/2 for
0
√
d
α
. The Lp
p ≥ 1 and t(θt − θ∗ ) → N (0, Σ̄) when ḡ(θ) is strongly convex and the learning rate αt is CC0 +t
convergence rate is proven in Theorem 2.7 and the central limit theorem is proven in Theorem 2.8. We prove
these results for models f (x, θ) with up to quadratic growth in θ and polynomial growth in x. Theorems 2.7
and 2.8 do not make use of the results in [3].
The second main result is a central limit theorem when the objective function ḡ(θ) is non-convex. We
√
d
prove that t(θt − θ∗ ) → N (0, Σ̄) when ḡ(θ) is non-convex with a single critical point; see Theorem 2.12.
We prove this result for models f (x, θ) with up to linear growth in θ and polynomial growth in x. As a part
of the proof, we also strengthen the convergence result of [3], which did not allow f (x, θ) to grow in θ; see
Theorem 2.10.
Analogous results for Theorems 2.7, 2.8, and 2.12 hold of course for a general class of learning rates
αt ; see Proposition 2.13. The precise statement of the mathematical results and the technical assumptions
required are presented in Section 2.
These mathematical results are important for two reasons. First, they establish theoretical guarantees
for the rate of convergence of the algorithm. Secondly, they can be used to analyze the effects of different
features such as the learning rate αt , the level of noise σ, and the shape of the objective function ḡ(θ).
We are able to precisely characterize the regime under which the optimal convergence rate exists as well as
characterize the limiting covariance Σ̄. The regime depends entirely upon the choice of the learning
rate.
Rt
h(X
The
proofs
in
this
paper
require
addressing
several
challenges.
First,
fluctuations
of
the
form
α
s , θs )−
s
0

h̄(θs ) ds must be analyzed. We evaluate, and control with rate α2t , these fluctuations using a Poisson partial
differential equation. Second, the model f (x, θ) is allowed to grow with θ. This means that the fluctuations
as well as other terms can grow with θ. Therefore, we must prove an a priori stability estimate for kθt k.
Proving a central limit theorem for the non-convex ḡ(θ) in Theorem 2.12 is challenging since the convergence
speed of θt can become arbitrarily slow in certain regions, and the gradient can even point away from the
global minimum θ∗ . We prove the central limit theorem for the non-convex case by analyzing two regimes
[0, τδ ] and [τδ , ∞), where τδ is defined such that kθt − θ∗ k < δ for all t ≥ τδ . The proof also requires the
analysis of stochastic integrals with anticipative integrands, which is challenging since standard approaches
(such as the Itô Isometry) cannot be directly applied.

2

1.1

Literature Review

The vast majority of the statistical learning, machine learning, and stochastic gradient descent literature
addresses discrete-time algorithms. In contrast, this paper analyzes a statistical learning algorithm in continuous time. Below we review the existing literature that is most relevant to our work. We also comment
on the importance of developing and analyzing continuous-time algorithms for addressing continuous-time
models.
Many discrete-time papers study algorithms for θn without the X-dynamics (for example, stochastic
gradient descent with i.i.d. noise at each step). The inclusion of the X-dynamics makes analysis significantly
more challenging. An L2 convergence rate and central limit theorem result for discrete-time stochastic
gradient descent is presented in [8]. Our setup and assumptions are different from [8]. Our proof leverages
the continuous-time nature of our setting, which is the formulation of interest in many engineering and
financial problems (see [3]).
[4] studies continuous-time stochastic mirror descent in a setting different than ours. In the framework
of [4], the objective function is known. In this paper, we consider the statistical estimation of the unknown
dynamics of a random process (i.e. the X process satisfying (1.1)).
Statisticians and financial engineers have actively studied parameter estimation of SDEs, although typically not with statistical learning or machine learning approaches. The likelihood function will usually be
calculated from the entire observed path of X (i.e., batch optimization) and then maximized to find the
maximum likelihood estimator (MLE). Unlike in this paper, the actual optimization procedure to maximize
the likelihood function is often not analyzed.
Some relevant publications in the financial statistics literature include [1], [2], [7], and [10]. [7] derives
the likelihood function for continuously observed X. The MLE can be calculated via batch optimization.
[1] and [2] consider the case where X is discretely observed and calculate MLEs via a batch optimization
approach. [10] estimates parameters by a Bayesian approach. Readers are referred to [9, 15, 11] for thorough
reviews of classical statistical inference methods for stochastic differential equations.
Continuous-time models are common in engineering and finance. There are often coefficients or functions
in these models which are uncertain or unknown; stochastic gradient descent can be used to learn these
model parameters from data.
It is natural to ask why use SGDCT versus a straightforward approach which (1) discretizes the continuoustime dynamics and then (2) applies traditional stochastic gradient descent. We elaborated in detail in regards
to this issue in [3], where specific examples are provided there to showcase the differences. For completeness,
let us briefly discuss the issues that arise.
SGDCT allows for the application of numerical schemes of choice to the theoretically correct statistical
learning equation for continuous-time models. This can lead to more accurate and more computationally efficient parameter updates. Numerical schemes are always applied to continuous-time dynamics and different
numerical schemes may have different properties for different continuous-time models. A priori performing
a discretization to the system dynamics and then applying a traditional discrete-time stochastic gradient
descent scheme can result in a loss of accuracy, or may not even converge, see [3]. For example, there is no
guarantee that (1) using a higher-order accurate scheme to discretize the system dynamics and then (2) applying traditional stochastic gradient descent will produce a statistical learning scheme which is higher-order
accurate in time. Hence, it makes sense to first develop the continuous-time statistical learning equation,
and then apply the higher-order accurate numerical scheme.
In addition to model estimation, SGDCT can be used to solve continuous-time optimization problems,
such as American options. In [3], SGDCT was combined with a deep neural network to solve American
options in up to 100 dimensions. Alternatively, one could discretize the dynamics and then use the Qlearning algorithm (traditional stochastic gradient descent applied to an approximation of the discrete HJB
equation). However, as we showed in [3], Q-learning is biased while SGDCT is unbiased. Furthermore, in
SDE models with Brownian motions, the Q-learning algorithm can blow up as the time step size ∆ becomes
small; see [3] for details.

1.2

Organization of Paper

In Section 2 we state our assumptions and the main results of this paper. The proof of the Lp convergence
rate for p ≥ 1 is in Section 3. The proof of the CLT in the strongly convex case is in Section 4. Section
3

5 proves the central limit theorem for a class of non-convex models. In Section 6, the convergence rate
results are used to analyze the behavior and dynamics of the stochastic gradient descent in continuous-time
algorithm. Some technical results required for the proofs are presented in Appendix A. Appendix B contains
the proof of Theorem 2.10, which strengthens the convergence result of [3]. In particular, Appendix B
provides the necessary adjustments to the proofs of [3] in order to guarantee convergence in the case where
the model f (x, θ) is allowed to grow with respect to θ.

2

Main Results

We prove three main results. Theorem 2.7 is an Lp convergence for the strongly convex case. Theorem
2.8 is a central limit theorem for the strongly convex case. Theorem 2.12 is a central limit theorem for the
non-convex case with a single critical point.
We say that “the function h(θ) is strongly convex with constant C” if there exists a C > 0 such that
z ⊤ ∆θ h(θ)z ≥ Cz ⊤ z for any non-zero z ∈ Rk . Conditions 2.6 and 2.11 require that CCα > 1 where Cα is
the magnitude of the learning rate and C is the strong convexity constant for the objective function ḡ(θ∗ )
at point θ = θ∗ . This is an important conclusion of the convergence analysis in this paper: the learning rate
needs to be sufficiently large in order to achieve the optimal rate of convergence. This dependence of the
convergence rate on the learning rate is not specific to the algorithm SGDCT in this paper, but applies to
other algorithms (even deterministic gradient descent algorithms). We discuss this in more detail in Section
6.
It should be emphasized that the assumptions for Theorem 2.7 and Theorem 2.8 (the strongly convex
case) allow for the model f (x, θ) to grow up to quadratically in θ. On the other hand, Theorem 2.12 (the
non-convex case) is proven under the assumption that f (x, θ) grows up to linearly in θ. The growth of the
model f (x, θ) is allowed to be polynomial in x for Theorems 2.7, 2.8, and 2.12.
The proofs of Theorems 2.7, 2.8, and 2.12 are in Sections 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Some technical
results required for these proofs are presented in Appendix A. Appendix B contains the changes necessary
to generalize the proof of convergence of [3] from bounded ḡ(θ) to ḡ(θ) that can grow up to quadratically in
θ; see Theorem 2.10 for the corresponding rigorous statement.
Let us now list our conditions. Condition 2.1 guarantees uniqueness and existence of an invariant measure
for the X process. Condition 2.1 and the second part of Condition 2.2 guarantee that equation (1.1) is wellposed.
Condition 2.1. We assume that σσ ⊤ is non-degenerate bounded diffusion matrix and lim|x|→∞ f ∗ (x)·x = −∞
In regards to regularity of the involved functions, we impose the following Condition 2.2.

2
∇θ g
∈ C X , Rk , ∇θ g(·, θ) ∈
Condition 2.2.
1. We assume that ∇θ g(x, ·) ∈ C 2 (Rk ) for all x ∈ X , ∂ ∂x
2
C α (X ) uniformly in θ ∈ Rk for some α ∈ (0, 1).
2. The function f ∗ (x) is C 2+α (X ) with α ∈ (0, 1). Namely, it has two derivatives in x, with all partial
derivatives being Hölder continuous, with exponent α, with respect to x.
3. For every t ≥ 0, equation (1.2) is well-posed.
Conditions 2.3 and 2.4 are imposed in order to guarantee that θt has bounded moments uniformly in
time t.
Condition 2.3. There exists a constant R < ∞ and an almost everywhere positive function κ(x) such that
h−∇θ g(x, θ), θ/ kθki ≤ −κ(x) kθk , for kθk ≥ R.
Condition 2.4. Consider the function
1/2

θ
θ
⊤
.
,
τ (x, θ) = ∇θ f (x, θ)∇θ f (x, θ)
kθk kθk

(2.1)

Then, there exists a function λ(x), growing not faster than polynomially in kxk, such that for any θ1 , θ2 ∈ Rk ,
t > 0 and x ∈ Rm
|τ (x, θ1 ) − τ (x, θ2 )| ≤ |λ(x)|ρ (kθ1 − θ2 k)
4

(2.2)

R
where ρ(ξ) is an increasing function on [0, ∞) with ρ(0) = 0 and ξ>0 ρ−2 (ξ)dξ = ∞.
Notice that Condition 2.4 simplifies considerably when θ is one-dimensional and that it is always true in
the case where ∇θ f (x, θ) is independent of θ (which happens for example when f (x, θ) is affine in θ).
p
The Conditions 2.3 and 2.4 are necessary to prove that supt≥0 E[kθt k ] < K for p ≥ 2. This uniform
bound on moments, which we prove in Appendix A.1, is in turn required for the proofs of the Lp convergence
and central limit theorem in Theorems 2.7 and 2.8. The function g(x, θ) is allowed to grow, which means
that some a priori bounds on the moments of θt are necessary.
In regards to the learning rate we assume
α
Condition 2.5. The learning rate is αt = CC0 +t
where Cα > 0 is a constant.
Condition 2.5 makes the presentation of the results easier. However, as we shall see in Corollary 2.13 the
α
is not necessary as long as αt satisfies certain conditions. We chose to present the
specific form αt = CC0 +t
results under this specific form both for presentation purposes and because this is the usual form that the
learning rate takes in practice. However, we do present the result for a general learning rate in Corollary
2.13.


Condition 2.6.
1. ∇iθ f (x, θ) ≤ K 1 + kxkq + kθk(2−i)∨0 , for i = 0, 1, 2, 3 and for some finite constants
K, q < ∞.
2. ḡ(θ) is strongly convex with constant C.
3. CCα > 1.
4. ḡ(θ) ∈ C 3 .
5.



4−i
, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3 and for some finite constant K < ∞.
∇iθ ḡ(θ) ≤ K 1 + kθk

R t As will be seen from the proof of the Theorems 2.7 and 2.8, one needs to control terms of the form
0 αt (∇ḡ(θs ) − g(Xs , θs ))ds. Due to ergodicity of the X process one expects that such terms are small in
magnitude and go to zero as t → ∞. However, the speed at which they go to zero is what matters here. We
treat such terms by rewriting them equivalently using appropriate Poisson type partial differential equations
(PDE). Conditions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.6 guarantee that these Poisson equations have unique solutions that do
not grow faster than polynomially in the x and θ variables (see Theorem A.1 in Appendix A).
Theorem 2.7. Assume that Conditions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 hold. Then, for p ≥ 1, there exists a
constant 0 < K < ∞ such that
K
p
.
E[kθt − θ∗ k ] ≤
(C0 + t)p/2
In order to state the central limit theorem results we need to introduce some notation. Let us denote by
v(x, θ) the solution to the Poisson equation (A.5) with H(x, θ) = ∇θ g(x, θ) − ∇θ ḡ(θ). Let us also set

⊤


Z
⊤ −1
⊤ −1
⊤
h(x, θ) = ∇θ f (x, θ)(σσ ) −∇x v(x, θ) σσ ∇θ f (x, θ)(σσ ) −∇x v(x, θ)
and h̄(θ) = h(x, θ)π(dx).
Theorem 2.8. Assume that Conditions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 hold. Then,
√
d
t(θt − θ∗ ) → N (0, Σ̄),
where Σ̄ is defined to be
Σ̄ = Cα2

Z

∞

e−s(Cα ∆ḡ(θ

∗

)−I)

h̄(θ∗ )e−s(Cα (∆ḡ)

⊤

(θ ∗ )−I )

ds.

0

The main result of [3] states that if ḡ(θ) and its derivatives are bounded with respect to θ, then under assumptions of ergodicity for the X process one has convergence of the algorithm, in the sense that
limt→∞ k∇θ ḡ(θ)k = 0. In this paper, we allow growth of ḡ(θ) with respect to kθk. In particular, as we shall
state in Theorem 2.10 and prove in Appendix B, the results of [3] hold true without considerable extra work
if one allows up to linear growth for f (x, θ) with respect to θ, which translates into up to quadratic growth
for ḡ(θ) and up to linear growth of ∇ḡ(θ) with respect to θ. Let us formalize the required assumptions in
the form of Condition 2.9 below.
5

Condition 2.9.
K, q < ∞.
2.

1.



q
(1−i)∨0
, for i = 0, 1, 2 and for some finite constants
∇iθ f (x, θ) ≤ K 1 + kxk + kθk



2−i
, for i = 0, 1, 2 and for some finite constant K < ∞.
∇iθ ḡ(θ) ≤ K 1 + kθk

3. ∇ḡ(θ) is globally Lipschitz.

Theorem 2.10. Assume that Conditions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.9 hold. Then,
lim k∇θ ḡ(θ)k = 0,

t→∞

a.s.

Theorem 2.10 proves convergence for non-convex ḡ(θ) even when f (x, θ) grows at most linearly in θ.
Theorem 2.10 is proven in Appendix B. The proof is based on the uniform bound for the moments of θ
established in Appendix A.
Theorem 2.10 is required for proving a central limit theorem for non-convex ḡ(θ). The central limit
theorem for non-convex ḡ(θ) is proven in Theorem 2.12.
1. ḡ(θ) may be non-convex but has a single critical point θ∗ .

Condition 2.11.

2. There is a δ ∗ > 0 small enough such that ḡ(θ) is strongly convex in the region kθ − θ∗ k < δ ∗ with
constant C and CCα > 1.
3. ḡ(θ) ∈ C 3 .
4. ∇θi ḡ(θ) > 0 if θi − θi∗ > R0 and ∇θi ḡ(θ) < 0 if θi − θi∗ < −R0 for i = 1, 2, . . . , k and for some R0 > 0
large enough.
The fourth part in Condition 2.11 guarantees that ∇θi ḡ(θ) always points inwards towards the global
minimum θ∗ if |θi | is sufficiently large.
Theorem 2.12. Assume that Conditions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.9 and 2.11 hold. Then, we have that
√
d
t(θt − θ∗ ) → N (0, Σ̄),
where Σ̄ is defined as in Theorem 2.8.
If f (x, θ) and ∇θ f (x, θ) are uniformly bounded in θ and polynomially bounded in x, Theorem 2.12 is
true without Conditions 2.3 and 2.4.
Proposition 2.13 shows that under certain conditions on the learning rate αt , the specific form of the
learning rate assumed in Condition 2.5 is not necessary. In particular, the convergence rate and central limit
theorem results can be proven for a general learning rate αt . The proof of Proposition 2.13 follows exactly
the same steps as the proofs of Theorems 2.7, 2.8, and 2.12 albeit more tedious algebra and is omitted.
(p)

Rt

Proposition 2.13. Let us denote Ψt,s = e−pC s αρ dρ , for p ≥ 1 and consider the matrix-valued solution
Φ∗t,s to equation (4.1). Theorems 2.7, 2.8, and 2.12 also hold under a general learning rate αt satisfying the
conditions:
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z ∞
αt dt = ∞,
α2t dt < ∞,
|α′s |ds < ∞, ∃p > 0 such that lim αt tp = 0,
t→∞
0
0
0
Z t
Z t

p/2
(1)
1/2
(p)
α2s Ψt,s ds ≤ o(αt )
α2s + |α′s | Ψt,s αsp/2−1 ds ≤ O(αt ), and
∀p ≥ 2
0
0
Z t
5/2 (2)
αs Ψt,s ds ≤ o(αt ),
0
Z t
2
α2s Φ∗t,s ds = O(αt ),
0

∀p ≥ 2

(p)

p/2

(1)

1/2

Ψt,0 ≤ O(αt ) and Ψt,0 ≤ o(αt ).
6

In particular, the statements of Theorems 2.7, 2.8, and 2.12 then take the form
p/2

p

E[kθt − θ∗ k ] ≤ Kαt
and
−1/2

αt

d

(θt − θ∗ ) → N (0, Σ̄).

h
i
k

C2
where now Σ̄ = Σ̄i,j i,j=1 is as in (4.9) but with the bracket term (λm +λ α′ )Cα −1 replaced by
m



lim α−1
t

t→∞

Z

t

α2s e−(λm +λm′ )

0

Rt
s

αu du


ds .

α
as the learning rate, then the conditions that appear in
It is easy to check that if we use αs = CC0 +s
Proposition 2.13 all hold if CCα > 1.
We conclude this section by mentioning that in the bounds that appear in the subsequent sections,
0 < K < ∞ will denote unimportant fixed constants (that do not depend on t or other important parameters).
The constant K may change from line to line but it will always be denoted by the same symbol K. Without
loss of generality and in order to simplify notation in the proofs, we will let C0 = 0, consider t ≥ 1 (i.e., the
initial time is set to t = 1), and let σ be the identity matrix.

3

Theorem 2.7 - Lp convergence rate in strongly convex case

The proofs in this paper will repeatedly make use of two important uniform moment bounds. First, as we
prove in Appendix A.1, we have that
sup E[kθt kp ] < K,
t≥0

for p ≥ 2. Second, it is known from [12] that under the imposed conditions for the X process
p

sup E[kXt k ] < K,
t≥0

for p ≥ 2.
To begin the proof for the Lp convergence rate, re-write the algorithm (1.2) for θt in terms of g(x, θ) and
ḡ(θ).
dθt

= αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )(dXt − f (Xt , θt )dt)

= αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )(f ∗ (x) − f (Xt , θt ))dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt
= −αt ∇θ g(Xt , θt )dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt

= −αt ∇θ ḡ(θ) + αt ∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt ) dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt .

(3.1)

A Taylor expansion yields:

∇θ ḡ(θt ) =

=

∇θ ḡ(θ∗ ) + ∆ḡ(θt1 )(θt − θ∗ )
∆ḡ(θt1 )(θt − θ∗ ),

where θt1 is an appropriately chosen point in the segment connecting θt and θ∗ . Substituting this Taylor
expansion into equation (3.1) produces the equation:
d(θt − θ∗ ) = −αt ∆ḡ(θt1 )(θt − θ∗ )dt + αt (∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt ))dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt .
Let Yt = θt − θ∗ . Then, Yt satisfies the SDE
dYt = −αt ∆ḡ(θt1 )Yt dt + αt (∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt ))dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt .
7

By Itô formula, we then have for p ≥ 2
X
p
p−2
p−2
d kYt k = p kYt k
Ytk αt (∇θ f (Xt , θt ))k,i dWti − pαt kYt k
Yt , ∆ḡ(θt1 )Yt dt
i,k

+ pαt kYt k

p−2

hYt , ∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt )i dt

!2 

2
X
X
X
p 2
p−2 
−1
+ αt kYt k
(∇θ f (Xt , θt ))i,k + (p − 2)
kYt k Ytk (∇θ f (Xt , θt ))k,i  dt. (3.2)
2
i
i,k

k

Using the strong convexity of ḡ we obtain the inequality
X
d kYt kp ≤ p kYt kp−2
Ytk αt (∇θ f (Xt , θt ))k,i dWti − pCαt kYt kp dt
i,k

p−2

+ pαt kYt k

hYt , ∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt )i dt

!2 

2
X
X
X
p 2
(∇θ f (Xt , θt ))i,k + (p − 2)
kYt k−1 Ytk (∇θ f (Xt , θt ))k,i  dt.
+ αt kYt kp−2 
2
i
i,k

k

Let’s now define the process
Z t
Rt
X
p−2
Mt = p
e−pC s αρ dρ αs kYs k
Ysk (∇θ f (Xs , θs ))k,i dWsi ,
1

i,k

and notice that Mt solves the SDE
dMt = −pCαt Mt dt + p kYt k

p−2

X

Ytk (∇θ f (Xt , θt ))k,i dWti .

i,k

p

Next, if we set Γt = kYt k − Mt we obtain that
p−2

dΓt ≤ −pCαt Γt dt + pαt kYt k
hYt , ∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt )i dt

!2 


X
X
X
2
p
(∇θ f (Xt , θt ))i,k + (p − 2)
kYt k−1 Ytk (∇θ f (Xt , θt ))k,i  dt.
+ α2t kYt kp−2 
2
i
i,k

k

Next, we define the function

(p)

Ψt,s = e−pC

Rt
s

αρ dρ

=

 s pCCα
t

,

and the comparison principle gives
Z th
i
(p)
(p)
p
p−2
Γt ≤ Ψt,1 kY1 k + p
αs Ψt,s kYs k
hYs , ∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(Xs , θs )i ds
1

!2 
Z t

2
X
X
X
p
(p)
p−2 
−1
+
Ψ α2 kYs k
(∇θ f (Xs , θs ))i,k + (p − 2)
kYs k Ysk (∇θ f (Xs , θs ))k,i  ds
2 1 t,s s
i
i,k

=

Γ1t

+

Γ2t

+

k

Γ3t .

(3.3)

The next step is to rewrite the second term of (3.3), i.e., Γ2t =

i
Rth
(p)
p−2
αs Ψt,s kYs k
hYs , ∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(Xs , θs )i ds.
1

We construct the corresponding Poisson equation and use its solution to analyze Γ2t . Define G(x, θ) =
hθ − θ∗ , ∇θ ḡ(θ) − ∇θ g(x, θ)i and let v(x, θ) be the solution to the PDE Lx v(x, θ) = G(x, θ). Here Lx is the

8

infinitesimal generator of the X process. Due to Theorem A.1, the Poisson PDE solution has the following
bounds:
kv(x, θ)k + k∇x v(x, θ)k ≤ K(1 + kθkm1 )(1 + kxkm2 ),
X ∂ iv
∂ 2v
∂3v
m
m
(x,
θ)
+
(x, θ) ≤ K(1 + kθk 3 )(1 + kxk 4 )
(x,
θ)
+
i
2
∂θ
∂x∂θ
∂x∂θ
i=1,2

(3.4)

for appropriate, but unimportant for our purposes, constants m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 . By Itô’s formula:
Z t
Z t
v(Xt , θt ) − v(Xs , θs ) =
Lx v(Xu , θu )du +
Lθ v(Xu , θu )du
s
s
Z t
Z t
αu ∇θ v(Xu , θu )∇θ f (Xu , θu )dWu
∇x v(Xu , θu )dWu +
+
s

s

Z

+

t

αu ∇θx v(Xu , θu )∇θ f (Xu , θu )du.

s

Define vt ≡ v(Xt , θt ) and recognize that:
G(Xt , θt )dt

Lx v(Xt , θt )dt

=

dvt − Lθ v(Xt , θt )dt − ∇x v(Xt , θt )dWt − αt ∇θ v(Xt , θt )∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt

=
−

αt ∇θx v(Xt , θt )∇θ f (Xt , θt )dt.

(3.5)

Using this result, Γ2t can be rewritten as:
Γ2t

Z th
i
(p)
p−2
αs Ψt,s kYs k
hYs , ∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(Xs , θs )i ds
1
Z t
(p)
αs Ψt,s kYs kp−2 dvs
1
Z t
(p)
αs Ψt,s kYs kp−2 ∇x v(Xs , θs )dWs
1
Z t
(p)
αs Ψt,s kYs kp−2 Lθ v(Xs , θs )ds

=
=
−
−

1

Z

−

t

1

Z

−

t

α2s Ψt,s kYs k

(p)

p−2

∇θ v(Xs , θs )∇θ f (Xs , θs )dWs

(p)

p−2

∇θx v(Xs , θs )∇θ f (Xs , θs )ds

α2s Ψt,s kYs k

1
Γ2,1
t

=

2,3
2,4
2,5
+ Γ2,2
t + Γt + Γt + Γt .

(3.6)
(p)

Let’s first rewrite the first term Γ2,1
t . We apply Itô’s formula to αs Ψt,s kYs k
(p)

αt Ψt,t kYt k

p−2

(p)

vt − α1 Ψt,1 kY1 k
+

Z

1

(p)

t

αs

∂Ψt,s
∂s

t

t

p−2

vs :

Cα (p)
p−2
Ψt,s kYs k
vs ds
2
s
1
1
Z t
Z t
h
i
(p)
(p)
p−2
p−2
p−2
kYs k
vs ds +
αs Ψt,s vs d kYs k
+
αs Ψt,s d kYs k
, vs .

p−2

v1 =

Z

(p)

p−2

αs Ψt,s kYs k

1

9

dvs −

Z

1

Then, we have the following representation for Γ2,1
t :
Z t
(p)
p−2
Γ2,1
=
αs Ψt,s kYs k
dvs
t
1

Z t
(p)
∂Ψt,s
Cα (p)
p−2
Ψ
kY
k
v
ds
−
α
kYs kp−2 vs ds
=
−
kY1 k
v1 +
s
s
s
t,s
2
∂s
1
1 s
Z t
Z t
i
h
(p)
(p)
−
αs Ψt,s vs d kYs kp−2 −
αs Ψt,s d kYs kp−2 , vs
1
1
Z t
Z t
(p)
(p)
(p)
(p)
= αt Ψt,t kYt kp−2 vt − α1 Ψt,1 kY1 kp−2 v1 + Cα−1
α2s Ψt,s kYs kp−2 vs ds − pC
α2s Ψt,s kYs kp−2 vs ds
(p)
αt Ψt,t kYt kp−2 vt

(p)
α1 Ψt,1

t

Z

p−2

1

−

Z

1

t

(p)

αs Ψt,s vs d kYs k

p−2

−

Z

t

1

(p)

h

p−2

αs Ψt,s d kYs k

1

i

, vs .

(3.7)

Now, we are ready to put things together. Equation (3.2) with p − 2 in place of ph is then usedi to evaluate
p−2
the second to last term of (3.7) and similarly for the quadratic covariation term d kYs k
, vs of the last
term of (3.7). Plugging (3.7) in (3.6) and that in (3.3), we get that there is an unimportant constant K < ∞
large enough and a matrix-valued function ζ(x, θ) that grows at most polynomially in x and θ such that
(p)

p

(p)

(p)

p−2

Γt ≤ Ψt,1 kY1 k + αt Ψt,t kYt k
vt − α1 Ψt,1 kY1 k
Z t
(p)
p−2
ζ(Xs , θs )ds + M̂t ,
+K
α2s Ψt,s kYs k

p−2

v1
(3.8)

1

where M̂t is a mean zero and square integrable (this follows from the uniform moment bounds on the X and
θ processes) Brownian stochastic intergal.
Recall now that we want to evaluate E kYt kp . Recalling the definition of Γt and taking expectation in
(3.8) we obtain
Z t
i
h
(p)
(p)
(p)
p−2
p
p
p−2
p−2
α2s Ψt,s kYs k
ζ(Xs , θs )ds.
E kYt k ≤ E Ψt,1 kY1 k + αt kYt k
vt − α1 Ψt,1 kY1 k
v1 + KE
1

(p)
Ψt,1

(p)
Ψt,1

≤ t−p . Hence we have obtained that
Recalling that
= t−pCCα and that CCa > 1 we get that
for any p ≥ 2 the following inequality holds
Z t
h
i
(p)
p
p−2
p−2
E kYt k ≤ Kt−p + E αt kYt k
vt + KE
α2s Ψt,s kYs k
ζ(Xs , θs )ds.
(3.9)
1

The next step is to proceed by induction. Using the uniform moment bounds for X and θ together with
the polynomial growth of v(x, θ) and ζ(x, θ), we get for p = 2
Z t
(2)
2
E kYt k ≤ Kt−2 + E [αt vt ] + KE
α2s Ψt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds
1


Z t
−2
−1
−2CCα
2CCα −2
≤K t +t +t
s
ds
1

≤ Kt−1 ,

where the unimportant constant K may change from line to line. Hence the desired statement is true for
p = 2. Next let us assume that it is true for exponent p − 1 and we want to prove that it is true for exponent
p. Using Hölder inequality with exponents r1 , r2 > 1 such that 1/r1 + 1/r2 = 1 and choosing r1 = p−1
p−2 > 1
we get
1/r1

i
h
(E|vt |r2 )1/r2
E αt kYt kp−2 vt ≤ αt E kYt kp−1
≤ Kt−1 t−
10

p−2
2

= Kt−p/2 ,

and likewise
Z t
Z t
1/r1

(p)
(p)
r 1/r
(p−2)r1
p−2
E
(E kζ(Xs , θs )k 2 ) 2 ds
α2s Ψt,s E kYs k
α2s Ψt,s kYs k
ζ(Xs , θs )ds ≤
1

1

≤K

Z

t

1
t

1/r1

(p)
(p−2)r1
ds
α2s Ψt,s E kYs k

1
(p)
α2s Ψt,s (p−2)/2 ds
s
1
Z t
p
−pCCα
≤ Kt
spCCα −1− 2 ds
1


−p/2
≤K t
− t−pCCα
≤K

Z

≤ Kt−p/2 .

Putting the last two displays together, (3.9) gives
E kYt kp ≤ Kt−p/2 ,
which is the statement of Theorem 2.7 for integer p ≥ 2. The statement for any p ≥ 1 then follows from
Hölder inequality. This concludes the proof of the theorem.

4

Proof of Central Limit Theorem in strongly convex case

To prove the central limit theorem, we use a second-order Taylor expansion:
∇θ ḡ(θt ) =

∇θ ḡ(θ∗ ) + ∆ḡ(θ∗ )(θt − θ∗ ) +

1 ∂ 3 ḡ 1
(θ )(θt − θ∗ )(θt − θ∗ )⊤ ,
2 ∂θ3 t

where θt1 is an appropriate point chosen in the segment that connects θt to θ∗ . Then, the evolution of θt
follows:
d(θt − θ∗ ) =

−αt ∆ḡ(θ∗ )(θt − θ∗ )dt −

αt ∂ 3 ḡ 1
(θ )(θt − θ∗ )(θt − θ∗ )⊤ dt + αt (∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt ))dt
2 ∂θ3 t

+αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt .
Let Yt = θt − θ∗ . Then, Yt satisfies the SDE
dYt = −αt ∆ḡ(θt∗ )Yt dt −

αt ∂ 3 ḡ 1
(θ )Yt Yt⊤ dt + αt (∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt ))dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt .
2 ∂θ3 t

Let Φ∗t,s ∈ Rk×k be the fundamental solution satisfying
dΦ∗t,s
Φ∗s,s

=
=

−αt ∆ḡ(θ∗ )Φ∗t,s dt,
I,

(4.1)

where I is the identity matrix. As in Section 3 we set without loss of generality C0 = 0 and assume that the
initial time is at t = 1. Then, Yt can be written in terms of Φ∗t,s :
Z t
Z t
Z t
3
∗
∗ αs ∂ ḡ 1
⊤
∗
Yt = Φt,1 Y1 −
Φt,s
(θ )Ys Ys ds +
Φt,s αs (∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(Xs , θs ))ds +
Φ∗t,s αs ∇θ f (Xs , θs )dWs
2 ∂θ3 s
1
1
1
= Γ1t + Γ2t + Γ3t + Γ4t .
(4.2)
qP
2
Next, a convergence rate for Φ∗t,s must be established in the matrix norm kAk =
i,j Ai,j . Consider
Rt
the change of variables τ (t) = s + s αu du and define Φ̃∗τ,s via Φ̃∗τ,s = Φ∗t,s . For αt = Ctα , we have τ (t) =
s + Cα (log(t) − log(s). Performing this change of variables,
dΦ̃∗τ,s
Φ̃∗s,s

= −∆ḡ(θ∗ )Φ̃∗τ,s dτ,

= I,

11

(4.3)

for τ ≥ s. Note that the columns of the matrix solution Φ̃∗τ,s evolve independently. This makes the analysis
∗
∗ i
∗
much simpler. Define Φ̃∗,j
τ,s as the j-th column of Φ̃τ,s and ∆ḡ(θ ) as the i-th row of the matrix ∆ḡ(θ ).
Consider the one-dimensional differential equation:


2


d
d
∗,j,k 2
∗,j,1 2
∗,j
+ · · · + Φ̃τ,s
Φ̃τ,s
Φ̃τ,s
=
dτ
dτ


∗,j,1
∗ 1 ∗,j
∗,j,k
∗ k ∗,j
= −2 Φ̃τ,s ∆ḡ(θ ) Φ̃τ,s + · · · + Φ̃τ,s ∆ḡ(θ ) Φ̃τ,s
⊤
⊤


∗,j
∗
∗,j
∗,j
Φ̃∗,j
∆ḡ(θ
)
Φ̃
<
−2C
Φ̃
= −2 Φ̃∗,j
τ,s = −2C Φ̃τ,s
τ,s
τ,s
τ,s

2

,

where we have used the strong convexity assumption. This of course yields the convergence rate:
2

Φ̃∗τ,s

≤ Ke−2C(τ −s).

Changing variables again yields the convergence rate in the original time coordinate t:
Φ∗t,s

2

=

Φ̃∗τ,s

2

≤ Ke−2C

≤ Ke−2C(τ −s)

Rt
s

α̃u du

= Kt−2CCα s2CCα .

(4.4)

We recall some important properties of Φ∗t,s (for reference, see Proposition 2.14 in [14]). Φ∗t,s is differentiable in t with the semi-group property Φ∗t,1 = Φ∗t,s Φ∗s,1 . Furthermore, Φ∗t,s is invertible with inverse
= Φ∗s,t . Therefore,
Φ∗,−1
t,s
∂ ∗
Φ
∂s t,s



∂
∗,−1
∗
Φt,1 Φs,1
=
∂s
∗
∂
∗,−1 ∂Φs,1 ∗,−1
∗
= Φ∗t,1 Φ∗,−1
Φ
s,1 = Φt,1 Φs,1
∂s
∂s s,1


= −Φ∗t,s αs ∆ḡ(θ∗ )Φ∗s,1 Φ∗,−1
s,1
= −αs Φ∗t,s ∆ḡ(θ∗ ).

(4.5)

Combining the calculation (4.5) with the bound (4.4) yields:
∂ ∗
Φ
∂s t,s

2

≤ Kαs t−2CCα s2CCα .

√
Now, let’s examine the
process tYt , which represents the fluctuations of θ√
t around the global minimum
√
a.s.
p
θ∗ . First, observe that tΓ1t → 0 due to the bound (4.4). Let’s now examine tΓ2t . Recall that E[kYt k ] ≤
K
from the Lp convergence rate in the previous section. Applying this result with p = 2, 3 we obtain
tp/2

√ 2
tΓt
E

1



 Z
√
≤ E t

t


∂ 3 ḡ 1
⊤
(θ
)Y
Y
ds
s
s
∂θ3 s
1
1


Z
t
√
1
1
∗
+ 5/2 ds
≤ K t
Φt,s
s2
s
1
√ −CC Z t CC −2
√
α
≤ K tt
s α ds ≤ K tt−1 = Kt−1/2 .
Φ∗t,s αs

(4.6)

1

√
p
Therefore, tΓ2t → 0.
√
Next, we address the term tΓ3t . We construct the corresponding Poisson equation and use its solution
to analyze Γ3t . Define G(x, θ) = ∇θ ḡ(θ) − ∇θ g(x, θ) and let v(x, θ) be the solution to the PDE Lx v(x, θ) =
12

√
G(x, θ). Proceeding in a fashion similar to equation (3.5) (but with different function v now) we write tΓ3t
as:
√ 3
√ Z t
tΓt =
t
αs Φ∗t,s (∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(Xs , θs ))ds
1
√ Z t
t
=
αs Φ∗t,s dvs
1
√ Z t
t
αs Φ∗t,s ∇x v(Xs , θs )dWs
−
1
√ Z t
−
t
αs Φ∗t,s Lθ v(Xs , θs )ds
1
√ Z t 2 ∗
t
−
αs Φt,s ∇θ v(Xs , θs )∇θ f (Xs , θs )dWs
1
Z
t
√
α2s Φ∗t,s ∇θx v(Xs , θs )∇θ f (Xs , θs )ds
t
−
1
√ 3,1 √ 3,2 √ 3,3 √ 3,4 √ 3,5
=
tΓt + tΓt + tΓt + tΓt + tΓt ,
(4.7)
where v(x, θ) satisfies bounds similar to the ones in (3.4). Following similar steps as in Section 3,


√
L1
3,1
3,3
3,4
3,5
t |Γt | + |Γt | + |Γt | + |Γt | → 0,

√
3,3
3,4
3,5 p
which of course
that t(Γ3,1
t + Γt + Γt + Γt ) → 0.
√ implies
√
4
The term tΓ3,2
t + tΓt is now analyzed. This term will produce the limiting Gaussian random variable.
Recalling the reduction to σ = I, we have


Z t
√ 3,2 √ 4 √
(4.8)
tΓt + tΓt = t
αs Φ∗t,s ∇θ f (Xs , θs ) − ∇x v(Xs , θs ) dWs .
1



⊤
R
Let h(x, θ) = ∇θ f (x, θ) − ∇x v(x, θ) ∇θ f (x, θ) − ∇x v(x, θ)
and h̄(θ) = h(x, θ)π(dx).
q

q

Let
3

H(x, θ) = h(x, θ) − h̄(θ). Recall that k∇θ f (x, θ)k ≤ K(1 + kxk + kθk), k∇x v(x, θ)k ≤ K(1 + kxk + kθk ),
2

q

3

2

q

∂ v
≤ K(1 + kxk + kθk ), and ∂x∂θ
≤ K(1 + kxk + kθk). The latter bounds on v(x, θ)
2 (x, θ)
and its derivatives are from equation (3.4). These bounds imply that the function H(x, θ) and its derivatives have polynomial growth in kxk and kθk. Based on Theorem A.1, the solution w(x, θ) to the PDE
Lx w(x, θ) = H(x, θ) and its derivatives will also have at most polynomial growth in kxk and kθk.
√ 4 d
√
tΓt → N (0, Σ̄) for the appropriate limiting variance-covariance matrix Σ̄.
We will prove that tΓ3,2
t +
The proof will rely upon the Poisson partial differential equation approach using the at most polynomial
growth of its solution and its derivatives together with the uniform boundedness of the moments of Xt and
θt processes to analyze the rate of convergence.
√ 4
√
tΓt is:
The quadratic covariation matrix of tΓ3,2
t +
Z t
Σt = t
α2s Φ∗t,s h(Xs , θs )Φ∗,⊤
t,s ds.
∂ v
∂x∂θ (x, θ)

1

p

It is necessary to show that Σt → Σ̄ as t → ∞. To begin, we show a simpler limit. Consider the process:
Z t
Σ̄t = t
α2s Φ∗t,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ∗,⊤
t,s ds.
1

It will be proven now that Σ̄t converges to a limit Σ̄ as t → ∞. Let us now establish the limit Σ̄ as
t → ∞. Recall that ∆ḡ(θ∗ ) is both strictly positive matrix and symmetric. Therefore, by the eigenvalue
decomposition we can write that
∆ḡ(θ∗ ) = U ΛU ⊤ ,
13

where U = [u1 , · · · , uk ] is the corresponding matrix of orthogonal eigenvectors u1 , . . . , uk ∈ Rk and Λ =
diag(λ1 , · · · , λk ) is the diagonal matrix with the positive eigenvalues λi > 0 for i = 1, · · · , k. Next, we notice
Rt
that a time transformation as in (4.3) allows us to write that for τ (t) = s + s αu du and Φ̃∗τ (t),s = Φ∗t,s
Φ̃∗τ,s = e−∆ḡ(θ

∗

)(τ −s)

.

Combining the latter results we then obtain that
Φ∗t,s = U e−Λ

Rt
s

αu du

U ⊤.

For notational convenience, let us now set
Λt,s = e−

Rt
s

αu duΛ

Let us write λ(t,s),i =

 
 s λk Cα 


Rt
Rt
s λ1 Cα
.
,··· ,
= diag e−λ1 s αu du , · · · , e−λk s αu du = diag
t
t

s λi Cα
t

for i = 1, · · · , k. The (i, j)-th element of the matrix Φ∗t,s takes the form
Φ∗t,s,i,j

k
X

=

λ(t,s),m ui,m uj,m .

m=1

P
Naturally (Φ∗,⊤ )t,s,k′ ,j = Φ∗t,s,j,k′ = km′ =1 λ(t,s),m′ uj,m′ uk′ ,m′ . Hence, the (i, j)-th element of the matrix
Σ̄t takes the form
#
Z t "X
k
X
∗
2
∗,⊤
∗
Φt,s,i,n
αs
Σ̄t,i,j = t
h̄(θ )n,k′ (Φ )t,s,k′ ,j ds
1

=t

Z

1

=

n

t

α2s

k′ =1

"
X X
n

λ(t,s),m ui,m un,m

m

!

X

∗

h̄(θ )n,k′

X

λ(t,s),m′ uj,m′ uk′ ,m′

m′

k′

!#

ds

XXXX Z t 


t
α2s λ(t,s),m ui,m un,m h̄(θ∗ )n,k′ λ(t,s),m′ uj,m′ uk′ ,m′ ds
n

m

k′

m′

1

X X X X  Z t  s (λm +λm′ )Cα 
ds ui,m un,m h̄(θ∗ )n,k′ uj,m′ uk′ ,m′
=
t
α2s
t
1
n m k ′ m′


XXXX
Cα2
1 − t1−(λm +λm′ )Cα ui,m un,m h̄(θ∗ )n,k′ uj,m′ uk′ ,m′ .
=
(λm + λm′ ) Cα − 1
′
′
n m
k

m

By the Rayleigh-Ritz theorem, λ1 , . . . , λk ≥ C. Therefore, Cα (λm + λk′ ) ≥ 2Cα C > 1. Then, we get
that the (i, j)-th element of the limiting quadratic covariation matrix Σ̄ takes the form

XXXX
Cα2
Σ̄i,j = lim Σ̄t,i,j =
ui,m un,m h̄(θ∗ )n,k′ uj,m′ uk′ ,m′
t→∞
′
(λ
+
λ
)
C
−
1
m
m
α
n m k ′ m′

XX
X
X
Cα2
=
(4.9)
uj,m′ uk′ ,m′ .
ui,m un,m
h̄(θ∗ )n,k′
(λm + λm′ ) Cα − 1
′
′
n m
m

k

Notice that we can conveniently write that
Z ∞
⊤
∗
∗
Σ̄ = Cα2
e−s(Cα ∆ḡ(θ )−I) h̄(θ∗ )e−s(Cα (∆ḡ) (θ )−I ) ds.

(4.10)

0

It remains to show that E Σt − Σ̄t
E Σt − Σ̄
Then, E Σt − Σ̄

1

1

→ 0 as t → ∞. If this is true, then the triangle inequality yields

≤ E Σt − Σ̄t

1

p

1

→ 0 would imply that Σt → Σ̄.
14

+ E Σ̄t − Σ̄

1

→ 0.

To prove that E Σt − Σ̄t

→ 0, we begin by defining
Z t
V̄t = t
α2s Φ∗t,s h̄(θs )Φ∗,⊤
t,s ds.

1

1

≤ Σt − V̄t 1 + V̄t − Σ̄t 1 . We first address the second term:
Z t
∗,⊤ 
∗
∗
.
(4.11)
t
α2s Φ∗t,s h̄(θs )Φ∗,⊤
t,s − Φt,s h̄(θ )Φt,s ds

By the triangle inequality, Σt − Σ̄t
V̄t − Σ̄t

1

=

1

1

1

The (i, j)-th element of the matrix V̄t − Σ̄t is:

Z t X
k
k
X
X
X

∗,⊤
∗,⊤
2
∗
∗
∗
αs
V̄t − Σ̄t i,j = t
Φt,s,i,n
h̄(θs )n,k′ Φt,s,k′ ,j −
Φt,s,i,n
h̄(θ )n,k′ Φt,s,k′ ,j ds.
1

=

t

Z

n

t

1

α2s

X

k
X

Φ∗t,s,i,n

n

θs1

n

k′ =1

k′ =1

k′ =1

∗,⊤
∗
∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
n,k′ (θs − θ )Φt,s,k′ ,j ds,

where
is an appropriately chosen point in the segment connecting θs and θ∗ . Recall now that v and its
derivatives can grow at most polynomially in kxk and kθk. As a result of the specific growth rates we have
6

∇θ h̄(θ) ≤ K(1 + kθk ).
2

In addition, E[kθs − θ∗ k ] ≤ K
s from the convergence rate in Section 3. Using these facts, the uniform in
time moments bound on θt , and the Cauchy Schwartz inequality,
Z t
k
X
X

∗,⊤
∗
Φ∗t,s,i,n
∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
α2s E
E[| V̄t − Σ̄t i,j |] ≤ t
n,k′ (θs − θ )Φt,s,k′ ,j ds
1

n

t

≤ Kt

Z

t

≤ Kt

Z

1

α2s

k′ =1

X

Φ∗t,s,i,n

n

1


k
X
E ∇θ h̄(θs1 )n,k′

k′ =1

5

s− 2 Φ∗t,s

2

2

 21 
 21
2
E kθs − θ∗ k
Φ∗,⊤
t,s,k′ ,j ds

ds.

Therefore, V̄t − Σ̄t 1 → 0 as t → ∞.
Now, let’s address Σt − V̄t 1 using the Poisson equation method.

Z t 
∗,⊤
∗
ds.
−
Φ
h̄(θ
)Φ
Σt − V̄t = t
α2s Φ∗t,s h(θs , Xs )Φ∗,⊤
s
t,s
t,s
t,s
1

The (i, j)-th element of the matrix Σt − V̄t is:

Z t X
k 
X

2
∗
αs
Φt,s,i,n
V̄t − Σ̄t i,j = t
h(θs , Xs )n,k′ − h̄(θs )n,k′ Φ∗,⊤
t,s,k′ ,j ds.
1

n

k′ =1

Using Itô’s formula, the bounds (A.6) on the Poisson equation Lx w = H, the moment bounds on Xt and
θt , and the Itô Isometry, it can be shown that

E V̄t − Σ̄t i,j → 0,

as t → ∞. This of course implies that E V̄t − Σ̄t
p

1

→ 0. Combining results and using the triangle inequality,

we have the desired result Σt → Σ̄ as t → ∞.
The convergence in probability of the quadratic variation Σt for equation (4.8) implies that (4.8) converges in distribution to a mean zero normal random variable with covariance Σ̄ (see Section 1.2.2 in [15]).
Combining all of the results yields the central limit theorem:
√
d
tYt → N (0, Σ̄),
which is our desired result.
15

5

Proof of Central Limit Theorem in the non-convex case

From Theorem 2.10, we know that k∇ḡ(θt )k → 0 almost surely. Under the imposed conditions this implies
that either kθt − θ∗ k → 0 or kθt k → ∞. We must therefore first show that kθt k remains finite almost surely.
The parameter θt evolves as:
Z t
Z t
Z t


θt = θ1 +
−αs ∇θ ḡ(θs )ds +
αs ∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(θs , Xs ) ds +
αs ∇θ f (Xs , θs )dWs .
(5.1)
1

1

1

Recall from Condition 2.11 that ∇θi ḡ(θ) > 0 if θi − θi∗ > R0 and ∇θi ḡ(θ) < 0 if θi − θi∗ < −R0 for
i = 1, 2, . . . , k. If |θt,i (ω)| → ∞, then either θt,i (ω) → +∞ or θt,i (ω) → −∞ since θt has continuous
paths (i.e., a divergent sequence such as −2n cannot occur). Next, note that the second and third integrals
in equation (5.1) converge to finite random variables almost surely. Suppose that θt,i (ω) → +∞. This
Rt
implies that there exists a T (ω) such that θt,i > θi∗ for all t ≥ T (ω). However, T (ω) −αs ∇θi ḡ(θs )ds < 0.
This, combined with the fact that the second and third terms in (5.1) converge to finite random variables
almost surely, proves that θt,i < +∞ with probability one. A similar argument shows that θt,i > −∞ with
probability one. Therefore, |θt,i − θi∗ | → 0 almost surely.
a.s.
θt → θ∗ implies that, for any δ > 0 sufficiently small, there exists a (random) time τδ such that
kθt − θ∗ k < δ for all t ≥ τδ . Notice that for fixed δ > 0, τδ is almost surely finite, but we also remark that
τδ is not a stopping time. In this section, the parameter δ is chosen sufficiently small such that 0 < δ < δ ∗ ,
where δ ∗ is taken from Condition 2.11. Using a Taylor expansion:
∇θ ḡ(θt ) =

∇θ ḡ(θ∗ ) + ∆ḡ(θt1 )(θt − θ∗ ) = ∆ḡ(θt1 )(θt − θ∗ ),

where θt1 is appropriately chosen in the segment connecting θt to θ∗ . Then we have
d(θt − θ∗ ) = −αt ∆ḡ(θt1 )(θt − θ∗ )dt + αt (∇θ ḡ(θt ) − ∇θ g(Xt , θt ))dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt .
Let Φt,s satisfy
dΦt,s

=

Φs,s

=

−αt ∆ḡ(θt1 )Φt,s dt,
I,

and notice that for t > s > τδ ,
2

kΦt,s k ≤ Kt−2CCα s2CCα .
We will also later make use of the fact that Φt,s satisfies the semi-group property Φt,s = Φt,τ Φτ,s (for
reference, see Proposition 2.14 in [14]).
Letting Yt = θt − θ∗ , we obtain
Z t
Z t
αs Φt,s (∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(Xs , θs ))ds +
αs Φt,s ∇θ f (Xs , θs )dWs
Yt = Φt,1 Y1 +
1

=

1

Γ1t + Γ2t + Γ3t .

The first term Γ1t is analyzed below.
Lemma 5.1.
√ 1 a.s.
tΓt → 0,
as t → ∞.

16

Proof. For t ≥ τδ we have

√ 1
tΓt

1

√

t Φt,τδ̄ Φτδ̄ ,1 Y1 1
√
≤ K t Φt,τδ̄ Φτδ̄ ,1 Y1
=

1

≤ Kt−CCα + 2 τδ̄CCα Φτδ̄ ,1 Y1
1

= K(τδ̄ )t−CCα + 2 .

where K(τδ̄ ) = τδ̄CCα Φτδ̄ ,1 Y1 is almost surely finite since P[τδ̄ < ∞] = 1. Then, since CCα > 1,
as t → ∞.

√ 1 a.s.
tΓt → 0

Let v(x, θ) satisfy the Poisson PDE Lx v = G(x, θ) where G(x, θ) = ∇θ ḡ(θ) − ∇θ g(x, θ). The solution
v(t, x) and its relevant partial derivatives will be growing at most polynomially in kxk and linearly in kθk
due to the assumptions of Theorem 2.12. Itô’s formula yields the representation
Z t
Γ2t =
αs Φt,s (∇θ ḡ(θs ) − ∇θ g(Xs , θs ))ds
1
Z t
=
αs Φt,s dvs
1
Z t
−
αs Φt,s ∇x v(Xs , θs )dWs
1
Z t
−
αs Φt,s Lθ v(Xs , θs )ds
1
Z t
α2s Φt,s ∇θ v(Xs , θs )∇θ f (Xs , θs )dWs
−
1
Z t
α2s Φt,s ∇θx v(Xs , θs )∇θ f (Xs , θs )ds
−
=

1
Γ2,1
t

2,4
2,5
2,3
+ Γ2,2
t + Γt + Γt + Γt .

In order now to analyze the terms involved in Γ2t and Γ3t we need some intermediate results that we state
now below. For presentation purposes the proof of these Lemmas is deferred to the end of this section.
Lemma 5.2. Let ζ(x, θ) be a (potentially matrix-valued) function that can grow at most polynomially in x
and θ. Then, we have that
√ Rt
a.s.
1. It1 = t 1 α2s Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds → 0, as t → ∞, and
√ Rt
2. It2 = t 1 α2s Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )dWs → 0, in probability, as t → ∞.
√
(recall√that the operator Lθ has a multiplicative
Lemma 5.2√immediately gives that the terms tΓ2,3
t
converge
almost
surely
to
zero
and
that tΓ2,4
converges in probability to zero, as
factor of αt ), tΓ2,5
t
t
t → ∞. To see this it is enough to notice
that
all
of
these
terms
take
the
form of the It1 and It2 quantities
√ 2,1
mentioned in Lemma 5.2. The term tΓt also converges almost surely to zero by first rewriting using Itô
(p)
formula, as it was done for the corresponding term of Section 3 (refer to (3.7) with p = 2 and replace Ψt,s
by Φt,s ) and then using again Lemma 5.2.
limiting Gaussian random variable will be produced by Γ2,2
and Γ3t . Therefore, it remains to analyze
t
√ The
2,2
3
t(Γt + Γt ). We have


√ Z t
√ 2,2
3
t(Γt + Γt ) = t
αs Φt,s ∇θ f (Xs , θs ) − ∇x v(Xs , θs ) dWs .
1

Using the results from [15], it is sufficient to prove the convergence in probability of
Z t
Σt = t
α2s Φt,s h(Xs , θs )Φ⊤
t,s ds
1

17



⊤
to a deterministic quantity. We recall here that h(x, θ) = ∇θ f (x, θ)−∇x v(x, θ) ∇θ f (x, θ)−∇x v(x, θ) .

As before, let Φ∗t,s be the solution to

dΦ∗t,s
Φ∗s,s

−αt ∆ḡ(θ∗ )Φ∗t,s dt,
I.

=
=

Recall that Φ∗t,s satisfies the bound
Φ∗t,s

2

≤ Kt−2CCα s2CCα .

Define Σ̄t and Σ̄∗t as:
Σ̄t

=

t

Z

t

1

Σ̄∗t

=

t

Z

1

t

α2s Φt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
t,s ds.
α2s Φ∗t,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ∗,⊤
t,s ds.

Note that we already proved in the previous section that Σ̄∗t converges in probability to Σ̄ as t → ∞. We
would like to show that Σ̄t − Σ̄∗t → 0 as t → ∞, almost surely.
Lemma 5.3.

Σ̄t − Σ̄∗t → 0, with probability 1, as t → ∞.

To prove that Σt − Σ̄t → 0, we begin by defining
V̄t = t

Z

1

t

α2s Φt,s h̄(θs )Φ⊤
t,s ds

By the triangle inequality, Σt − Σ̄t ≤ Σt − V̄t + V̄t − Σ̄t . We then have the following lemmas.
Lemma 5.4.

V̄t − Σ̄t → 0, with probability 1, as t → ∞.

Lemma 5.5.

Σt − V̄t → 0, in probability, as t → ∞.

By the triangle inequality,
Σt − Σ̄

≤

≤

Σt − Σ̄t + Σ̄t − Σ̄

Σt − V̄t + V̄t − Σ̄t + Σ̄t − Σ̄ .
p

Combining Lemmas 5.5, 5.3, and 5.4, Σt − Σ̄ → 0 as t → ∞. Therefore, using the results from [15],
√ 2,2
d
t(Γt + Γ3t ) → N (0, Σ̄),

as t → ∞.
Combining all of the results yields the central limit theorem:
√
d
tYt → N (0, Σ̄),
which is our desired result.

5.1

Proof of Lemmas 5.2-5.5

In this subsection we give the proof of the lemmas that were used in the proof of the central limit theorem
of the non-convex case.
First we need an intermediate result to properly handle convergence to zero of multidimensional stochastic
integrals. Such a result should be standard in the literature, but because we did not manage to locate an
appropriate statement we present Lemma 5.6.
18

Rt
Lemma 5.6. Let Zt = 1 b(t, s, Xs , θs )dWs . Let p ∈ N be a given integer, and consider a constant c > p − 21
and a matrix E where EE ⊤ is positive definite, such that
Z t
1
p
t−c+p− 2
αps sc b(t, s, Xs , θs )E ⊤ ds → 0,
(5.2)
1

as t → ∞. Then, if

Rt
1

p

p

b(t, s, Xs , θs )b(t, s, Xs , θs )⊤ ds → 0 as t → ∞, Zt → 0 as t → ∞.

Proof of Lemma 5.6. Let η > 0 be arbitrarily chosen and construct the random variable
s
Z
2c − 2p + 1 −c+p− 12 t p c
t
αs s EdWs .
Z̃t = η
Cα2p
1
d

d

From Section 1.2.2 in [15], Zt + Z̃t → N (0, η 2 EE ⊤ ) as t → ∞. In addition, Z̃t → N (0, η 2 EE ⊤ ) as
t → ∞. From the triangle inequality,


k
X
ǫ
2
P Zt,i >
P kZt k > ǫ ≤
k
i=1
r 
r 


k
k
X
X
ǫ
ǫ
P |Zt,i | >
P |Zt,i + Z̃t,i − Z̃t,i | >
=
k
k
i=1
i=1
r 

k
X
ǫ
P |Z̃t,i | + |Zt,i + Z̃t,i | >
k
i=1
r 
r 

k  
X
1 ǫ
1 ǫ
P |Z̃t,i | >
+ P |Zt,i + Z̃t,i | >
.
2 k
2 k
i=1


=
≤
≤



2

(5.3)

For each fixed η > 0, the RHS of the inequality (5.3) converges to a finite quantity as t → ∞ due to the
continuous mapping theorem and the convergence in distribution of Zt,i + Z̃t,i and Z̃t . Furthermore, the
limit of the RHS can be made arbitrarily small by choosing a sufficiently small η. Therefore, for any δ > 0,
there exists a η > 0 such that:


2
lim P kZt k > ǫ < δ.
t→∞

Proof of Lemma 5.2. Let us first prove the first statement of the lemma. Without loss of generality, let
t ≥ τδ . To begin, divide [0, t] into two regimes [1, τδ ∧ t] and [τδ ∧ t, τδ ∨ t]:
√ Z t 2
√ Z τδ ∧t 2
√ Z τδ ∨t 2
1
It = t
αs Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds = t
αs Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds + t
αs Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds.
1

=

It1,1

+

1

τδ ∧t

It1,2 .

(5.4)

Let us first study the second term.
It1,2

1

=

√ Z
t

√
≤K t

τδ ∨t

α2s Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds

τδ ∧t
Z τδ ∨t
τδ ∧t

1

α2s kΦt,s k kζ(Xs , θs )k ds

≤ Kt−CCα+1/2
≤ Kt−CCα+1/2

τδ ∨t

Z

τδ ∧t
Z τδ ∨t
1

m1

+ kθs k

m2

) ds

m1

+ kθs k

m2

) ds.

sCCα −2 (1 + kXs k
sCCα −2 (1 + kXs k
19

Let us now define the quantity
Lt = Kt−CCα +1/2

t

Z

sCCα −2 (1 + kXs k

1

m1

m2

+ kθs k

) ds,

and notice that with probability one we have
lim sup It1,2
t→∞

1

≤ lim sup Lt .
t→∞

For ε > 0, consider now the event At,ε = Lt ≥ tε−1/2 . Using the uniform in time bounds for the
moments of Xs and θs we obtain that
Z t


E |Lt | ≤ Kt−CCα +1/2
sCCα −2 ds ≤ K t−1/2 − t−CCα +1/2 .


1

Then, Markov’s inequality and the fact that CCα > 1 give
P [At,ε ] ≤

E |Lt |
≤ Kt−ε .
tε−1/2

The latter then implies that
X

n∈N

P [A2n ,ε ] < ∞,

which then due to the Borel-Cantelli lemma, guarantees the existence of a finite positive random variable
d(ω) and of some n0 < ∞ such that for every n ≥ n0 ,
L2n ≤ d(ω)2−nε .
For any t ∈ [2n , 2n+1 ] and n ≥ n0 ,
Lt

n(−CCα +1/2)

Z

≤

K2

≤

K2CCα−1/2 L2n+1

≤
≤

1

2n+1

sCCα −2 (1 + kXs km1 + kθs km2 )ds.

K2CCα−1/2 d(ω)2−(n+1)ε
K(ω)t−ε .
a.s.

a.s.

Therefore, Lt → 0, which immediately implies that It1,2 → 0. Next, we analyze the first term on the
RHS of equation (5.4). If t > τδ , the semi-group property yields:
It1,1

=

Therefore, if t > τδ ,
√ Z
t

1

√ R τδ ∧t 2
R τ ∧t
√
t 1
αs Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds = tΦt,τδ 1 δ α2s Φτδ ,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds.

τδ ∧t

α2s Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds

Z
√
≤ K t kΦt,τδ k
≤ C(τδ )t

τδ

1
−CCα +1/2

α2s Φτδ ,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds

.

The constant C(τδ ) is almost surely finite since P[τδ < ∞] = 1 and because kXs k and kθs k are almost
surely finite for s ≤ τδ . Therefore, using the constraint CCα > 1, we have obtained
Z τδ ∧t
√
a.s.
α2s Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds → 0.
t
1

Combining results, the integral (5.4) converges to 0 almost surely as t → ∞.
20

Next, we prove the second statement
√ of the lemma, where we shall use Lemma 5.6. In the notation of
Lemma 5.6, let us set b(t, s, x, θ) = tα2s Φt,s ζ(x, θ) and, with some abuse of notation, let us consider the
quantity
Z t
[It2 ] = t
α4s Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )ζ T (Xs , θs )ΦTt,s ds.
1

Now [It2 ] is a matrix with elements
[It2 ]i,j = t
=t

Z

t

Z

τδ ∧t

1

1

α4s

X

Φt,s,i,n

n

α4s

= [It2 ]1i,j +

X

k
X

ζζ ⊤

k′ =1

Φt,s,i,n

n
[It2 ]2i,j .

k
X

k′ =1



n,k′

ζζ

⊤

(Xs , θs )Φt,s,k′ ,j ds



n,k′

(Xs , θs )Φt,s,k′ ,j ds + t

Z

τδ ∨t

τδ ∧t

α4s

X

Φt,s,i,n

n

k
X

k′ =1

ζζ ⊤



n,k′

(Xs , θs )Φt,s,k′ ,j ds

Proceeding as in the first part of the lemma shows that for each index i, j, the corresponding element of
the matrix [It2 ] goes to zero, i.e.,
[It2 ]i,j = [It2 ]1i,j + [It2 ]2i,j → 0, a.s., as t → ∞.
To complete the proof, we then need to use Lemma 5.6. Let us define
Z t
√
1
α2+p
sc tΦt,s ζ(Xs , θs )E ⊤ ds
Dt = t−c+p− 2
s
1
Z τδ ∧t
Z τδ ∨t
−c+p
c
⊤
−c+p
=t
α2+p
s
Φ
ζ(X
,
θ
)E
ds
+
t
α2+p
sc Φt,s ζ(Xs , θs )E ⊤ ds.
t,s
s s
s
s
1

τδ ∧t

= Dt1 + Dt2 .

By Lemma 5.6, if we show that for the appropriate choices of p, c and E, Dt goes to zero in probability
as t → ∞, then we would have shown that the second statement of the lemma holds, i.e. that It2 → 0 in
probability as t → ∞.
We pick p = 2, c = 2CCα and E = I to be the identity matrix. Let us first start with Dt2 . Notice that
for the (i, j) element of the matrix we have
Z τδ ∨t
2
−2CCα +2
Dt 1 ≤ Kt
α4s s2CCα kΦt,s ζ(Xs , θs )k ds
≤ Kt−3CCα+2

Z

τδ ∧t
τδ ∨t

τδ ∧t

s3CCα −4 (1 + kXs k

m1

+ kθs k

m2

)ds.

It is clear that from this point the analysis of Dt2 is identical to the analysis of It1,2 . In particular, define
the quantity
Z t
m
m
−3CCα +2
L̂t = Kt
s3CCα −4 (1 + kXs k 1 + kθs k 2 )ds,
1

n
o
and, for ε > 0, consider the event Ât,ε = L̂t ≥ tε−1 . Using Markov’s inequality and the uniform in time
bounds for the moments of Xs and θs we obtain that
Rt
i E L̂t
h
t−3CCα +2 1 s3CCα −4 ds
P Ât,ε ≤ ε−1 ≤ K
t
tε−1
−ε
≤ Kt .
21

From here on, the rest of the argument follows the Borel-Cantelli argument that was used for the proof
a.s.
of the first part of the lemma. This yields that Dt2 → 0 as t → ∞.
Next, using the semi-group property and for τδ < t, Dt1 can be re-written as:
Z τδ
Dt1 = t−2CCα +2
α4s s2CCα Φt,τδ Φτδ ,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds.
1
Z τδ
−2CCα +2
=t
Φt,τδ
α4s s2CCα Φτδ ,s ζ(Xs , θs )ds.
1

Therefore, by similar logic as for the term It1,1 , we obtain
Dt1

≤ C(τδ )t−3CCα +2 ,
a.s.

where C(τδ ) is almost surely finite. Therefore, since CCα > 1, Dt1 → 0 as t → ∞. Consequently, as t → ∞,
we have indeed obtained
a.s.

Dt = Dt1 + Dt2 → 0,
which by Lemma 5.6 implies that the second statement of the lemma is true. This concludes the proof of
the lemma.
Proof of Lemma 5.3. Φt,s can be expressed in terms of Φ∗t,s . To see this, first perform a Taylor expansion:
dΦt,s

=

Φs,s

=

−αt ∆ḡ(θ∗ )Φt,s dt − αt Ct Yt Φt,s dt,
I,

Ct are the third-order partial derivatives of ḡ(θ) and, based on the imposed assumptions, they are uniformly
bounded. Therefore,
Z t
Φt,s = Φ∗t,s −
αu Φ∗t,u Cu Yu Φu,s du.
s

Rt

Define ξt,s = s αu Φ∗t,u Cu Yu Φu,s du. Recall that there exists an almost surely finite random time τδ such
that kYt k < δ for all t ≥ τδ and any δ small enough. From the bounds on Φt,s and Φ∗t,s , we have that for
t > s > τδ where δ small enough,
Z t
2
2
kξt,s k ≤ t
α2u Φ∗t,u Cu Yu Φu,s du
s
Z t
2
2
2
≤ tK
α2u Φ∗t,u kYu k kΦu,s k du
s
Z t
≤ Kδ 2 t−2CCα +1 s2CCα
u−2 du
s

2 −2CCα 2CCα

≤ Kδ t

s

.

We have used the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality in the first inequality above. Now, consider the case where
t > τδ but s < τδ .
Z t
αu Φ∗t,u Cu Yu Φu,s du
ξt,s =
s
Z t
Z τδ
αu Φ∗t,u Cu Yu Φu,s du
αu Φ∗t,u Cu Yu Φu,s du +
=
τδ
s
Z τδ
αu Φ∗τδ ,u Cu Yu Φu,s du + ξt,τδ .
= Φ∗t,τδ
s

22

From the previous bound, kξt,τδ k ≤ Kδt−CCα τδCCα . Therefore, using the fact that τδ is almost surely
finite, the bounds on Φ∗t,τδ and ξt,τδ , and the triangle inequality,
kξt,s k ≤ C(τδ )t−CCα ,
when t > τδ but s < τδ .
We will use these results to derive the limit of Σ̄t as t → ∞.
Z t
Σ̄t = t
α2s Φt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
t,s ds
1
Z t
Z t
Z t
∗,⊤
⊤
∗
⊤
∗
2
2 ∗
ds
α2s Φ∗t,s h̄(θ∗ )ξt,s
αs ξt,s h̄(θ )Φt,s ds − t
= t
αs Φt,s h̄(θ )Φt,s ds − t
1
1
1
Z t
Z t
⊤
ds.
α2s Φ∗t,s h̄(θ∗ )ξt,s
α2s ξt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
= Σ̄∗t − t
t,s ds − t

(5.5)

1

1

Let’s consider the second term in (5.5). Without loss of generality, assume t > τδ .
t

Z

2

t

1

α2s ξt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
t,s ds

Z

≤ t3
≤ t

t

τδ
Z t

3

2

α2s ξt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
t,s

≤ Kδ 2 t−4CCα +3
≤ Kδ 2 + C(τδ )t

Z

t

Z

τδ

1

2
α2s ξt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
t,s

τδ

ds + t3
ds + t

3

Z

1

τδ

α2s ξt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
t,s

2

ds

⊤
α2s ξt,s h̄(θ∗ )Φ⊤
τδ ,s Φt,τδ

2

ds

s4CCα −4 ds + C(τδ )t−4CCα +3

τδ
−4CCα +3

.

(5.6)

C(τδ ) is almost surely finite since τδ is almost surely finite. The third term in (5.5) is similar. Using (5.5)
and the bound (5.6), we have that with probability one:
lim sup Σ̄t − Σ̄∗t
t→∞

≤ Kδ.

This implies that limt→∞ Σ̄t − Σ̄∗t = 0 since δ can be as small as we want. This concludes the proof of the
lemma.
Proof of Lemma 5.4.
V̄t − Σ̄t

=

t

Z

1

t


∗
⊤
α2s Φt,s h̄(θs )Φ⊤
t,s − Φt,s h̄(θ )Φt,s ds .

Using the semi-group property,

Z τδ 
∗
⊤
⊤
⊤
⊤
2
αs Φt,τδ Φτδ ,s h̄(θs )Φτδ ,s Φt,τδ − Φt,τδ Φτδ ,s h̄(θ )Φτδ ,s Φt,τδ ds
V̄t − Σ̄t = t
1

Z t 
∗
⊤
⊤
2
αs Φt,s h̄(θs )Φt,s − Φt,s h̄(θ )Φt,s ds.
+ t
τδ

The (i, j)-th element of the matrix V̄t − Σ̄t is:
V̄t − Σ̄t



i,j

=

k
X

t

m,ℓ,n,k′ =1

+

t

Z

t

τδ

α2s

Z

X
n,k′

1

τδ

∗
α2s Φt,τδ ,i,m Φτδ ,s,m,ℓ ∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
ℓ,n (θs − θ )Φτδ ,s,n,k′ Φt,τδ ,k′ ,j

∗
Φt,s,i,n ∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
n,k′ (θs − θ )Φt,s,k′ ,j ds.

23

By the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and the bound ∇θ h̄(θ) ≤ K(1 + kθk) we have
2
 Z t X
1 ⊤
∗
2
αs
Φt,s,i,n ∇θ h̄(θs )n,k′ (θs − θ )Φt,s,k′ ,j ds
t
≤ t3

Z

τδ

n,k′

t

X

τδ

α4s

n,k′

2 −4CCα +3

≤ Kδ t
≤ Kδ 2 .
We also have that:
 Z
t

τδ

1

≤ t3

Z

τδ
1

≤ Kt3

k
X

α2s

m,ℓ,n,k′ =1

α4s



m,ℓ,n,k′ =1

≤ C(τδ )t

Z

k
X

ds

s4CCα −4 ds
τδ

(5.7)

−θ

∗

⊤
)Φ⊤
τδ ,s,n,k′ Φt,τδ ,k′ ,j ds

∗
Φt,τδ ,i,m Φτδ ,s,m,ℓ ∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
ℓ,n (θs − θ )Φτδ ,s,n,k′ Φt,τδ ,k′ ,j

2 Z

Φt,τδ ,k′ ,j Φt,τδ ,i,m

τδ

1

−4CCα +3

2

t

Φt,τδ ,i,m Φτδ ,s,m,ℓ ∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
ℓ,n (θs

m,ℓ,n,k′ =1

k
X

∗
Φt,s,i,n ∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
n,k′ (θs − θ )Φt,s,k′ ,j

2

2

ds

2

∗
(θ
−
θ
)
α4s Φ2τδ ,s,m,ℓ ∇θ h̄(θs1 )⊤
Φ2τδ ,s,n,k′ ds
ℓ,n s

.

(5.8)

Since τδ < ∞ with probability 1, C(τδ ) is also finite with probability 1. Combining the results from equations
(5.7) and (5.8),

V̄t − Σ̄t i,j ≤ Kδ 2 + C(τδ )t−4CCα +3 .

Therefore, we have that lim supt→∞ V̄t − Σ̄t ≤ Kδ 2 . Since δ is arbitrarily small, we have that V̄t −
 a.s.
Σ̄t i,j → 0, concluding the proof of the lemma.
Proof of Lemma 5.5. Notice that we have

Z t 
⊤
h̄(θ
)Φ
−
Φ
α2s Φt,s h(θs , Xs )Φ⊤
Σt − V̄t = t
s
t,s
t,s ds.
t,s

(5.9)

1

and consequently the (i, j)-th element of the matrix Σt − V̄t is:
V̄t − Σ̄t



= t

i,j

Z

t

1

α2s

X

Φt,s,i,n

n

k 
X

k′ =1


h(θs , Xs )n,k′ − h̄(θs )n,k′ Φ⊤
t,s,k′ ,j ds.

Let wn,k′ (x, θ) be the solution to the Poisson equation Lwn,k′ (x, θ) = h(θ, x)n,k′ − h̄(θ)n,k′ . The solution
to θ and x due to
wn,k′ (t, θ) and its relevant partial derivatives will grow at most polynomially with respect

the assumptions of Theorem 2.12. The next step is to rewrite the difference V̄t − Σ̄t i,j using that Poisson
equation and Itô’s formula and then to show that each term on the right hand side of the resulting equation
goes to zero.
For example we shall have that
t

Z

t

1

= t

α2s

X

Φt,s,i,n

n

Z

1

t

α2s

X
n


k 
X
h(θs , Xs )n,k′ − h̄(θs )n,k′ Φt,s,k′ ,j ds

k′ =1

Φt,s,i,n

k
X

k′ =1

Φt,s,k′ ,j ∇x wn,k′ (Xs , θs )⊤ dWs + (∗),
24

(5.10)

where (∗) is a collection of Riemann integrals resulting from the application of Itô’s formula. Now each
of these terms can be shown to go to zero with an argument exactly parallel to Lemma 5.2. Due to the
similarity of the argument, the details are omitted.

6

Convergence Analysis

The central limit theorem provides an important theoretical guarantee for the performance of the SGDCT
algorithm developed in [3]. Theorem 2.12 is particularly significant since it shows that the asymptotic
1
convergence rate of t− 2 even holds for a certain class of non-convex models. This is important since many
models are non-convex.
In addition, the analysis yields insight into the behavior of the algorithm and provides guidance on
selecting the optimal learning√rate for numerical performance. The regime where the central limit theorem
holds with the optimal rate t is Cα C > 1. Cα is the magnitude of the learning rate. For example, take
α
. Therefore, the learning rate magnitude must be chosen sufficiently large in order to achieve the
αt = CC0 +t
optimal rate of convergence. The larger the constant C is, the steeper the function ḡ(θ) is around the global
minimum θ∗ . The smaller the constant C is, the smaller the function ḡ(θ) is around the global minimum θ∗ .
The “flatter” the region around the global minimum point, the larger the learning rate magnitude must be.
If the region around the global minimum point is steep, the learning rate magnitude can be smaller.
1
The condition of Cα C > 1 to ensure the convergence rate of t− 2 is not specific to the SGDCT algorithm,
but is in general a characteristic of continuous-time statistical learning algorithms. The convergence rate of
any continuous-time gradient descent algorithm with a decaying learning rate will depend upon the learning
rate magnitude Cα . Consider the deterministic gradient descent algorithm
dθt
= −αt ∇θ ḡ(θ).
dt
Let αt =

Cα
C0 +t

and assume ḡ(θ) is strongly convex. Then,
kθt − θ∗ k ≤ Kt−CCα .

Note that the convergence rate depends entirely upon the choice of the learning rate magnitude Cα . If Cα
is very small, the deterministic gradient descent algorithm will even converge at a rate much smaller than
1
t− 2 .
1
t− 2 is the fastest possible convergence rate given that the noise in the system (1.1) is a Brownian motion.
This is due to the quadratic variation of a Brownian motion growing linearly in time. However, other types
1
of noise with variances which grow sub-linearly in time could allow for a faster rate of convergence than t− 2 .
An example of a stochastic process whose variance grows sub-linearly in time is a fractional Brownian motion
with appropriately chosen Hurst parameter. Analyzing the convergence rate under more general types of
noise would be a very interesting topic for future research.
In the central limit theorem result, we are also able to precisely characterize the asymptotic covariance
k

Σ̄ = Σ̄i,j i,j=1 , with
Σ̄i,j =

XX
n

ui,m un,m

m

and
Σ̄ = Cα2

X

∗

h̄(θ )

n,k′

k′

Z

∞

e−s(Cα ∆ḡ(θ

X
m′

∗

)−I)


Cα2
uj,m′ uk′ ,m′
(λm + λm′ ) Cα − 1

h(θ∗ )e−s(Cα (∆ḡ)

⊤

(θ ∗ )−I )

ds.

0

The covariance depends upon the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix ∆ḡ(θ∗ ), which is the Hessian
matrix ∆ḡ(θ) at the global minimum θ∗ . The larger the eigenvalues, the smaller the variance. This means
that the steeper the function ḡ(θ) is near the global minimum θ∗ , the smaller the asymptotic variance. The
flatter the function ḡ(θ) is near the global minimum, the larger the asymptotic variance. If the function
is very flat, θt ’s drift towards θ∗ is dominated by the fluctuations from the noise Wt . The covariance also
25

depends upon the learning rate magnitude Cα . The larger the learning rate magnitude, the larger the
asymptotic variance Σ̄. Although a sufficiently large learning rate is required to achieve the optimal rate of
1
convergence t− 2 , too large of a learning rate will cause high variance.

7

Conclusion

Stochastic gradient descent in continuous time (SGDCT) provides a computationally efficient method for
the statistical learning of continuous-time models, which are widely used in science, engineering, and finance.
The SGDCT algorithm follows a (noisy) descent direction along a continuous stream of data. The algorithm
updates satisfy a stochastic differential equation. This paper analyzes the asymptotic convergence rate of
the SGDCT algorithm by proving a central limit theorem. An Lp convergence rate is also proven for the
algorithm.
In addition to a theoretical guarantee, the convergence rate analysis provides important insights into the
behavior and dynamics of the algorithm. The asymptotic covariance is precisely characterized and shows
the effects of different features such as the learning rate, the level of noise, and the shape of the objective
function.
Rt
The
 proofs in this paper require addressing several challenges. 2First, fluctuations of the form 0 αs h(Xs , θs )−
h̄(θs ) ds must be analyzed. We evaluate, and control with rate αt , these fluctuations using a Poisson partial
differential equation. Secondly, the model f (x, θ) is allowed to grow with θ. This means that the fluctuations
as well as other terms can grow with θ. Therefore, we must prove an a priori stability estimate for kθt k.
Proving a central limit theorem for the non-convex ḡ(θ) in Theorem 2.12 is challenging since the convergence
speed of θt can become arbitrarily slow in certain regions, and the gradient can even point away from the
global minimum θ∗ . We prove the central limit theorem for the non-convex case by analyzing two regimes
[0, τδ ] and [τδ , ∞), where τδ is defined such that kθt − θ∗ k < δ for all t ≥ τδ . The proof also requires the
analysis of stochastic integrals with anticipative integrands, which is challenging since standard approaches
(such as the Itô Isometry) cannot be directly applied.

A

Preliminary Estimates

This section presents two key bounds that are used throughout the paper. Section A.1 proves uniform in
p
time moment bounds for θt . That is, we prove that E[kθt k ] is bounded uniformly in time. Section A.2
presents a bound on the solutions for a class of Poisson partial differential equations. In the paper, we relate
certain equations to the solution of a Poisson partial differential equation and then apply this bound.

A.1

Moment bounds

It is easy to see that for kθk > R (in fact for kθk > 0) one has for kθt k =


q
Pk

i=1

θti

2

 

n
n θ i θ j ∇ f ∇T f (X , θ )
X
X
∇θ f ∇Tθ f (Xt , θt ) i,i
θ
t t i,j
t
t
hθ
,
∇
g(X
,
θ
)i
θ
t
θ
t
t
 dt
+ α2t
d kθt k = −αt
− α2t
3
kθt k
2
kθ
k
t
2
kθ
k
t
i=1
i,j=1
1
+ αt
hθt , ∇θ f (Xt , θt )dWt i
kθt k


 
T
n
n θ i θ j ∇ f ∇T f (X , θ )
X
X
∇
f
∇
f
(X
,
θ
)
θ
t
t
θ
t
t
hθt , ∇θ g(Xt , θt )i
t t
θ
θ
i,j
i,i 
= −αt
+ α2t
dt
− α2t
3
kθt k
2
kθ
k
t
2
kθ
k
t
i=1
i,j=1
+ αt τ (Xt , θt )dW̃t ,

for an independent one-dimensional Brownian motion W̃ . Let us also now consider the process θ̃t which
satisfies
dθ̃t = −αt κ(Xt )θ̃t dt + αt ∇θ f (Xt , θ̃t )dWt ,
26

where κ(x) is from Condition 2.3. Then, we get similarly that for θ̃ > 0 and θ̃t =



d θ̃t = −αt κ(Xt ) θ̃t − α2t
+ αt

1

θ̃t



θ̃ti θ̃tj ∇θ̃ f ∇Tθ̃ f (Xt , θ̃t )

n
X

2 θ̃t

i,j=1

i,j

3

+ α2t

n
X


= −αt κ(Xt ) θ̃t − α2t

2 θ̃t

i,j=1

i,j

3

+ α2t

n
X

θ̃ti

2

 
∇θ̃ f ∇Tθ̃ f (Xt , θ̃t )
i,i 
 dt
2 θ̃t



 
∇θ̃ f ∇Tθ̃ f (Xt , θ̃t )
i,i 
 dt
2 θ̃t

i=1



θ̃ti θ̃tj ∇θ̃ f ∇Tθ̃ f (Xt , θ̃t )

n
X

i=1



E
D
θ̃t , ∇θ̃ f (Xt , θ̃t )dWt



r
Pk

i=1

+ αt τ (Xt , θ̃t )dW̃t

Due to Conditions 2.3 and 2.4 and continuity of the involved drift and diffusion coefficients for kθk , θ̃ >

R > 0, we may use the comparison theorem (see for example [5]) to obtain that


P kθt k ≤ θ̃t , t ≥ 0 = 1.

(A.1)

It is easy to see that the proof of the comparison theorem 1.1 of [5] goes through almost verbatim,
despite the presence of the term λ(x) in Condition 2.4. The reason is that |λ(x)| is assumed to have at most
polynomial growth in kxk and all moments of Xt are bounded uniformly in t.
Now, notice that θ̃t can be written as the solution to the integral equation
Z t
R
Rt
− 0t αs κ(Xs )ds
θ̃t = θ̃0 e
+
αs e− s αr κ(Xr )dr ∇θ f (Xs , θ̃s )dWs .
0

From the latter representation we obtain, recall that κ(x) is almost surely positive, that for any p ≥ 1
E θ̃t

2p

≤ E θ̃0
≤ E θ̃0
≤ E θ̃0
≤ E θ̃0
≤ E θ̃0
≤ E θ̃0
≤ E θ̃0

2p

+E

t

Z

αs e−

Rt
s

αr κ(Xr )dr

0

2p

+E

2p

+E

0
t

Z

α2s e−2

−2p
α2p
s e

0

2p

t

Z

Rt
s

αr κ(Xr )dr

∇θ f (Xs , θ̃s )

Rt

αr κ(Xr )dr

∇θ f (Xs , θ̃s )

s

t

Z

∇θ f (Xs , θ̃s )dWs

2p

0

2p

+K

Z

0

2p

≤K +K

Z

t

α2p
s ds + K

Z

t

0

α2p
s E θ̃s

2p



0

ds

2p

p

ds

α2p
s E θ̃s

2p

ds

ds


1  1−2p
+K
C0
− (C0 + t)1−2p + K
2p − 1
t

2

2p

α2p
∇θ f (Xs , θ̃s )
ds
s
0

Z t
2p
2pq
+K
α2p
1 + E kXs k + E θ̃s
s
+E

2p

Z

0

t

α2p
s E θ̃s

2p

ds.

ds,

where the unimportant finite constant K < ∞ changes from line to line. Hence, Gronwall lemma then
immediately gives that for any p ≥ 1 there exists a finite constant K < ∞ such that
sup E θ̃t
t>0

27

2p

≤ K.

(A.2)

Combining (A.1) and (A.2) we then obtain that for any p ≥ 1 and for an appropriate finite constant K,
2p

sup E kθt k
t>0

≤ K,

completing the proof of the targeted bound.

A.2

Poisson PDE

We recall the following regularity result from [13] on the Poisson equations in the whole space, appropriately
stated to cover our case of interest.

Theorem A.1. Let Conditions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.6 be satisfied. Assume that H(x, θ) ∈ C α,2 X , Rk ,
Z
H(x, θ)π(dx) = 0,
(A.3)
X

and that for some positive constants K, p1 , p2 , p3 and q,
kH(x, θ)k
∂H
(x, θ)
∂θ
∂2H
(x, θ)
∂θ2

p

q

p

q

p

q

≤

K(1 + kθk 1 )(1 + kxk ),

≤

K(1 + kθk 2 )(1 + kxk ),

≤

K(1 + kθk 3 )(1 + kxk ).

Let Lx be the infinitesimal generator for the X process. Then the Poisson equation
Z
u(x, θ)π(dx) = 0
Lx u(x, θ) = H(x, θ),

(A.4)

(A.5)

X

has a unique solution that satisfies u(x, ·) ∈ C 2 for every x ∈ X , ∂θ2 u ∈ C (X × Rn ) and there exist positive
constants K ′ and m such that
ku(x, θ)k + k∇x u(x, θ)k ≤ K ′ (1 + kθkp1 )(1 + kxkm ),
∂2u
∂u
p
m
(x, θ) +
(x, θ) ≤ K ′ (1 + kθk 2 )(1 + kxk ),
∂θ
∂x∂θ
∂2u
∂3u
p
m
(x,
θ)
+
(x, θ) ≤ K ′ (1 + kθk 3 )(1 + kxk ).
∂θ2
∂x∂θ2

(A.6)

Terms of the form H(x, θ) = h(x, θ) − h̄(θ) must be analyzed and controlled throughout the paper. Note
that H(x, θ) satisfies the centering condition (A.3). For example, the term G(x, θ) = ∇θ g(x, θ) − ∇θ ḡ(θ)
needs to be controlled. G(x, θ) satisfies the centering condition (A.3) and Condition 2.6 implies the bounds
(A.4) with appropriate choices for p1 , p2 , p3 and q. Therefore, the Poisson solution (A.5) associated with
H(x, θ) = G(x, θ) satisfies the bounds (A.6).

B

Proof of Convergence with Linear Growth in f (x, θ)

Under the global Lipschitz assumption on ∇ḡ(θ) and the uniform bounds on the moments of θ derived in
(1)
Appendix A.1 the proof is exactly the same as in [3], except for the term Jt of Lemma 3.1, in Section 3 of
[3] which we re-define below and prove converges almost surely to 0.
(1)

Jt

= αt kv(Xt , θt )k .

Using the bounds (A.6) and results from [12], there is some 0 < K < ∞ (that may change from line to
line below) and 0 < q < ∞ such that for t large enough


(1)
E|Jt |2 ≤ Kα2t E 1 + kXt kq + kθt k2 ≤ Kα2t .
28

o
n
(1)
Consider p > 0 such that limt→∞ α2t t2p = 0 and for any δ ∈ (0, p) define the event At,δ = Jt ≥ tδ−p .

Then we have for t large enough such that α2t t2p ≤ 1
(1)

P (At,δ ) ≤

E|Jt |2
1
α2 t2p
≤ K t2δ ≤ K 2δ .
2(δ−p)
t
t
t

The latter implies that
X

n∈N

P (A2n ,δ ) < ∞.

Therefore, by Borel-Cantelli lemma we have that for every δ ∈ (0, p) there is a finite positive random
variable d(ω) and some n0 < ∞ such that for every n ≥ n0 one has
(1)

J2n ≤

d(ω)
.
2n(p−δ)

Thus for t ∈ [2n , 2n+1 ) and n ≥ n0 one has for some finite constant K < ∞
(1)

Jt

≤ Kα2n+1

sup
s∈(0,2n+1 ]

kv(Xs , θs )k ≤ K

d(ω)
2(n+1)(p−δ)

≤K

d(ω)
.
tp−δ

The latter display then guarantees that for t ≥ 2n0 we have with probability one
(1)

Jt

≤K

d(ω)
→ 0, as t → ∞.
tp−δ

References
[1] Y. Ait-Sahalia, Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Discretely Sampled Diffusions: A Closed-form Approximation Approach, Econometrica, Vol. 70, No. 1, (2002), pp. 223-262.
[2] Y. Ait-Sahalia, Closed-form likelihood expansions for multivariate diffusions, Annals of Statistics, Vol.
36, No. 2, (2008), pp. 906-937.
[3] Justin Sirignano and Konstantinos Spiliopoulos, Stochastic Gradient Descent in Continuous Time, SIAM
Journal on Financial Mathematics, 2017, to appear.
[4] M. Raginsky and J. Bouvrie, Continuous-time stochastic mirror descent on a network: variance reduction, consensus, convergence, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2012.
[5] N. Ikeda and S. Watanabe, A comparison theorem for solutions of stochastic differential equations and
its applications, Osaka J. Math., Vol. 14, (1977), pp. 619-633.
[6] A. Yu. Veretennikov, On polynomial mixing bounds for stochastic differential equations, Stochastic
Processes and their Applications Vol. 70, Issue 1, (1997), pp. 115-127.
[7] I. Basawa and B. Rao, Asymptotic inference for stochastic processes, Stochastic Processes and their
Applications, Vol.10, No. 3, (1980), pp. 221-254.
[8] A. Benveniste, M. Metivier, and P. Priouret, Adaptive Algorithms and Stochastic Approximations.
Springer-Verlag, 2012.
[9] J. P. N. Bishwal, Parameter estimation in stochastic differential equations, in: Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1923, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
[10] O. Elerian, S. Chib, and N. Shephard, Likelihood inference for discretely observed nonlinear diffusions,
Econometrica, Vol. 69, No. 4, (2001), pp. 959-993.
[11] B. L. S. P. Rao, Statistical inference for diffusion type processes, Arnold, 1999.
29

[12] E. Pardoux and A.Yu. Veretennikov, On Poisson equation and diffusion approximation 1, Annals of
Probability, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2001), pp. 1061-1085.
[13] E. Pardoux and A. Y. Veretennikov, On Poisson equation and diffusion approximation 2, The Annals
of Probability, Vol. 31, No. 3, (2003), 1166-1192.
[14] C. Chicone, Ordinary differential equations with applications, second edition, Springer, New York, 2006.
[15] Y. Kutoyants, Statistical Inference for Ergodic Diffusion Processes. Springer, 2004.

30

