arXiv:1710.01612v2 [math.ST] 6 Jan 2018

Sensitivity of the Hermite rank
Shuyang Bai

Murad S. Taqqu

University of Georgia

Boston University

January 9, 2018

Abstract
The Hermite rank appears in limit theorems involving long memory. We show that an Hermite rank higher
than one is unstable when the data is slightly perturbed by transformations such as shift and scaling.
We carry out a “near higher order rank analysis” to illustrate how the limit theorems are affected by a
shift perturbation that is decreasing in size. We also consider the case where the deterministic shift is
replaced by centering with respect to the sample mean. The paper is a companion of Bai and Taqqu [2]
which discusses the instability of the Hermite rank in the statistical context.

1

Introduction

A stationary sequence {X(n)} with finite variance is said to have long memory or long-range dependence, if
Cov[X(n), X(0)] ≈ n2H−2

(1)

as n → ∞, where ≈ means asymptotic equivalence up to a positive constant1 , the parameter H ∈ (1/2, 1) is
called the Hurst index. See, e.g., the recent monographs Giraitis et al. [9], Beran et al. [3], Samorodnitsky
[22] and Pipiras and Taqqu [19] for more information on the notion long memory.
The study of the asymptotic behavior of partial sums of long-memory sequences has been of great interest
in probability and statistics. In particular, complete results have been obtained for the following class of
models called Gaussian subordination. Let {Y (n)} be a stationary Gaussian process with long memory in
the sense of (1), which we suppose to have mean 0 and variance 1 without loss of generality. Now consider

Key words: Long-range dependence; Long memory; Hermite rank; power rank; limit theorem; instability;
2010 AMS Classification: 62M10, 60F05
1 In

general, we can allow inserting a slowly varying factor (Bingham et al. [4]), e.g., a logarithmic function, in the asymptotic

relation (1), but we shall not do that for simplicity.

1

the transformed process
X(n) = G(Y (n)),

(2)

where G(·) : R → R is a function such that EX(n)2 = EG(Y (n))2 < ∞. The goal is to establish limit
theorems for the normalized sums of X(n), the transformed stationary process.
To develop the limit theorems, one has to use the notion of Hermite rank, which is an integer attached
to the function G(·). It is defined as follows. Let Z denote a standard Gaussian random variable and
let γ(dx) = φ(x)dx := (2π)−1/2 e−x

2

/2

dx denote its distribution. The Hermite rank is associated with the

orthogonal decomposition of G(·) in the space


Z
2
G(z) φ(z)dz < ∞
L (γ) = L (φ) = {G(·) : EG(Z) < ∞} = G(·) :
2

2

2

R

into Hermite polynomials, which are defined as H0 (x) = 1, H1 (x) = x, H2 (x) = x2 − 1, and more generally,
Hm (x) = (−1)m ex

2

/2

d −x2 /2
e
dxm

for

m ≥ 1.

(3)

Then { √1m! Hm (·), m ≥ 0} forms an orthonormal basis of L2 (γ) (see Pipiras and Taqqu [19], Proposition
5.1.3).
Definition 1.1. The Hermite rank k of G(·) ∈ L2 (γ) is defined as


Z
k = inf m ≥ 1 : EG(Z)Hm (Z) =
G(x)Hm (x)γ(dx) 6= 0 ,

(4)

R

where Hm (·) is the m-th order Hermite polynomial. Equivalently, k is the order of the first nonzero coefficient
in the L2 (γ)-expansion:
G(·) − EG(Z) =
that is, cm = 0 for m < k and ck 6= 0 where
cm =

∞
X

cm Hm (·),

m=k

E[G(Z)Hm (Z)]
m!

k ≥ 1,

(5)

for m ≥ 0.

(6)

The following celebrated results due to Dobrushin and Major [7], Taqqu [24] and Breuer and Major [5]
have been established involving the Hermite rank.
Theorem 1.2. Suppose that G(·) ∈ L2 (γ) has Hermite rank k ≥ 1. Then the following conclusions hold.
• Central limit case: suppose that 1/2 < H < 1 −
memory in the sense that
2

σ :=

∞
X

1
2k

(this implies k ≥ 2). Then {G(X(n))} has short

Cov[G(X(n)), G(X(0))]

n=−∞

converges absolutely and
1
N 1/2

[N t] 

X

n=1

 f.d.d.
G(X(n)) − EG(X(n)) −→ σB(t),
2

t ≥ 0,

(7)

f.d.d.

where −→ denotes convergence of the finite-dimensional distributions and B(t) is the standard Brownian
motion.
• Non-central limit case: suppose that 1 −

1
2k

< H < 1. {G(X(n))} has long memory with Hurst index:


1
,1 .
(8)
HG = (H − 1)k + 1 ∈
2

Furthermore, as N → ∞, we have2
1
N HG

[N t] 

X

n=1

for some c 6= 0, and
ZH,k (t) =

Z

′
Rk

 f.d.d.
G(X(n)) − EG(X(n)) −→ cZH,k (t),


Z


k
tY

0 j=1

H−3/2

(s − xj )+

is the so-called k-th order Hermite process, where

R′

Rk



ds B(dx1 ) . . . B(dxk ),

(9)

(10)

· B(dx1 ) . . . B(dxk ) denotes the k-tuple Wiener-Itô

integral with respect to the standard Brownian motion B(·) (Major [15]).
Bai and Taqqu [2] point out that despite the probabilistic interest of Theorem 1.2, its straightforward
application to large-sample statistical theories can be problematic. This is due to a strong instability feature
in the notion Hermite rank. This paper can be viewed as a technical companion to Bai and Taqqu [2]
containing some mathematical characterization of such instability and related problems. In particular, the
paper contains the following results:
1. The instability of the Hermite rank with respect to transformations including shift, scaling, etc.
2. A “near higher order rank” analysis of Theorem 1.2 perturbed by a diminishing shift.
3. Coincidence of Hermite rank and power rank (Ho and Hsing [11]) in the Gaussian case.
The third result is not closely related to the first two, but it is obtained as a direct byproduct of the analysis of
the instability problems. The paper is organized as follows: the results described above are stated in Sections
2, 3 and 4. Section 5 contain some auxiliary results involving analytic function theory. The theorems are
proved in Section 6.
Throughout the paper, aN ≪ bN means as N → ∞, aN /bN → 0, and aN ≈ bN means aN /bN → c for
some positive constant c > 0.

2

How a transformation affects the Hermite rank

First we state the results regarding the instability of the Hermite rank under transformation. Their relevance
is explained in Remark 2.4 which follows. The proofs are given in Section 6.
2 In

fact, we have weak convergence in the space D[0, 1] with uniform metric.

3

Recall that x is an accumulation point or limit point of a set E ⊂ Rp , if every neighborhood of x contains

an infinite number of elements of E. The so-called derived set E ′ consists of all the accumulation points of
E. For example, if E = {0} ∪ [1, 2), then E ′ = [1, 2].
Theorem 2.1 (Instability with respect to shift). Suppose that the measurable function G(·) : R → R is not

a.e. constant and G(· ± M ) ∈ L2 (γ) for some M > 0. Then G(· + x) ∈ L2 for all x ∈ [−M, M ], and the

interval (−M, M ) contains no accumulation point of the set
E = {x ∈ (−M, M ) : G(· + x) has Hermite rank ≥ 2},
namely, E ′ ∩ (−M, M ) = ∅.
Theorem 2.2 (Instability with respect to scaling). Suppose that the measurable function G : R → R is not

a.e. symmetric and G(· × M ) ∈ L2 (γ) for some M > 1. Then G(· × y) ∈ L2 for all y ∈ (0, M ], and the

interval (0, M ) contains no accumulation point of the set
E = {y ∈ (0, M ) : G(· × y) has Hermite rank ≥ 2},
namely, E ′ ∩ (0, M ) = ∅.
Remark 2.3. The requirement of G being non-symmetric in Theorem 2.2 is essential because any non-zero
symmetric function f ∈ L2 (γ) has Hermite rank 2 since due to the symmetry of the measure γ
Z
Z
f (z)zγ(dz) = 0,
f (z)H1 (z)γ(dz) =
R

R

while

Z

R

due to symmetry of γ.

2

f (z)(z − 1)γ(dz) =

Z

f (z)H2 (z)γ(dz) = 2

Z

∞

f (z)z 2 γ(dz) > 0

0

R

Remark 2.4. The preceding two theorems point to the instability of the Hermite rank. They imply, for
example, that the particular values x = 0 in Theorem 2.1 or y = 1 in Theorem 2.2 cannot be an accumulation
point of the set E with Hermite rank greater or equal to 2. Hence some neighborhood of x = 0 or y = 1
contains at most one point (x = 0 or y = 1) with Hermite rank k ≥ 2. This means that a slight level shift or
scale change (when the original transformation is non-symmetric) will force the rank to change from perhaps
being ≥ 2 to being 1. In the case of shift, this is stated as Theorem 2.14 in Bai and Taqqu [2]. Note that
the rank 2 of a non-constant symmetric function in Remark 2.3 is still unstable with respect to a level shift
by Theorem 2.1.
In addition, one can consider the shift and scaling joint together, namely, deal with an affine transformation.
Theorem 2.5 (Instability with respect to affine transformation). Suppose that the measurable G(·) is not
constant a.e. and G(±M1 + · × M2 ) ∈ L2 (γ). Then the set
E = {(x, y) ∈ (−M1 , M1 ) × (0, M2 ) : G(x + · × y) has Hermite rank ≥ 2}
4

has Hausdorff dimension (see Falconer [8], Section 2.2) not exceeding 1. So in particular, E has 0 twodimensional Lebesgue measure.
To illustrate Theorem 2.5, consider the function G(z) = z 2 = 1 + H2 (z) which has Hermite rank 2.
Suppose that it is perturbed by an affine transformation involving a shift x and a scale y and becomes
(x + zy)2 = x2 + 2xyz + y 2 z 2 = x2 + y 2 + (2xy)z + y 2 (z 2 − 1) = x2 + y 2 + (2xy)H1 (z) + y 2 H2 (z).
After centering, the centered function in z becomes (2xy)H1 (z) + y 2 H2 (z), which has Hermite rank 1 if and
only if x 6= 0 (it no longer has Hermite rank 2 as G(z) does) . The set E in Theorem 2.5 corresponds to the
one-dimensional line {(x, y) : x = 0} which has Lebesgue measure zero.
Finally, we can formulate an abstract result about the instability with respect to general nonlinear
transformations.
Theorem 2.6. Suppose that G ∈ L2 (γ) and let Fθ be a family of transformations parameterized by θ ∈ D ⊂

Rp , where D is an open region containing the origin 0 = (0, . . . , 0) and let F0 be the identity transformation.
Suppose that G is perturbed and becomes G ◦ Fθ .

Assume that G ◦ Fθ ∈ L2 (φ) for all θ ∈ D, Z is a standard normal random variable, and let
U (θ) := E[(G ◦ Fθ )(Z) × H1 (Z)] = E[(G ◦ Fθ )(Z) × Z].

be the first coefficient of the Hermite expansion of G ◦ Fθ , and assume that the following properties hold:
(a) U (θ) is real analytic in θ ∈ D;
(b) If U (θ) = 0 holds for all θ ∈ D, then G is constant a.e..
Then either G is constant a.e., or if not, then the set
E = {θ ∈ D : G ◦ Fθ has Hermite rank ≥ 2} = {θ ∈ D : U (θ) = 0}
has Hausdorff dimension not exceeding p − 1. In particular, E has zero p-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
Remark 2.7. Here is a more informative description of the set E in Theorem 2.5 and 2.6 above. First, E
is called the zero set of U if it consists of all θ ∈ D such that U (θ) = 0. Second, the zero set E = {θ ∈
D : U (θ) = 0} of a (multivariate) real analytic function U is called a real analytic variety. According to
Lojasiewicz’s Structure Theorem (Theorem 6.3.3 of Krantz and Parks [13]), E ⊂ Rp can be expressed as
a union of submanifolds of dimensions 0, 1, . . . , p − 1. We state here the results in terms of the Hausdorff
dimension for simplicity.

3

Being near a higher order Hermite rank

In the so-called near integration analysis of unit root (e.g., Phillips [18]), one studies the asymptotic behavior
of an autoregressive model when the autoregression coefficient tends to 1 (unit root) as the sample size
5

increases. Such analysis sheds lights on the situation where the coefficient is close to but not exactly 1. Here
in a similar spirit, we carry out a “near higher order rank” analysis for Theorem 2.1 regarding the limit
PN
theorem for the sum n=1 G(Y (n) + xN ), where the shift xN → 0 as the number of summands N → ∞.
The result is given in the following theorem, where c, ci ’s denote constants whose value can change from line

to line.
Theorem 3.1. Let {Y (n)} be a standardized stationary Gaussian process whose covariance satisfies (1) with

Hurst index H ∈ (1/2, 1). Suppose that the function G(·) is not constant a.e., G(· ± M ) ∈ L2 (γ) for some
M > 0, and has an Hermite rank k ≥ 1. Set
SN (xN ) =

N h
X

n=1

i
G(Y (n) + xN ) − EG(Y (n) + xN ) ,

where xN → 0.
• Central limit case: suppose that 1/2 < H < 1 −

1
2k

N (1/2−H)/(k−1) → 0 and

(if k = 1 this case does not exist). Then as N → ∞,

(a) if xN ≪ N (1/2−H)/(k−1) :

N −1/2 S[N t] (xN )

(b) if xN ≈ N

N

(1/2−H)/(k−1)

:

(c) if N (1/2−H)/(k−1) ≪ xN → 0:

(11)

−1/2

S[N t] (xN )

f.d.d.

−→ cB(t);

f.d.d.

−→ c1 ZH,1 (t) + c2 B(t);

f.d.d.

N −H x1−k
N S[N t] (xN ) −→ cZH,1 (t);

where the fractional Brownian motion ZH,1 (t) and the Brownian motion B(t) are independent.
• Non-central limit case: suppose that 1 −

1
2k

< H < 1. Let HG be as in (8). Then as N → ∞, N H−1 → 0,

and
(a) if 0 < xN ≪ N H−1 :

N −HG S[N t] (xN )

(b) if xN ≈ N

N

H−1

:

(c) if N H−1 ≪ xN → 0:

−HG

S[N t] (xN )

f.d.d.

−→ cZH,k (t);
Pk
−→
m=1 cm ZH,m (t);

f.d.d.
f.d.d.

N −H x1−k
N S[N t] (xN ) −→ cZH,1 (t);

where the Hermite processes ZH,m (t)’s are defined through the same Brownian motion in (10).
The terms ”central limit case” and ”non-central limit case” in the preceding theorem refer to the terminology used in Theorem 1.2 and thus to the type of limits one obtains when there is no shift, that is when
xN = 0.
Remark 3.2. Theorem 3.1 has some interesting implications. In the central limit case, the critical order
N (1/2−H)/(k−1) depends negatively on H. The larger H, the smaller the critical order. Thus the larger H
(but below 1 − 1/(2k)) is, the more easily the effect of a higher-order rank in the limit theorem gets surpassed
by a shift perturbation. In the non-central limit case, however, the relation is reversed since the critical order
N H−1 depends positively on H. Note that in the non-central limit case, the order N H−1 determining the
border of the regimes does not depend on the rank k

6

In Theorem 3.3 below, we provide a result on the non-centered sum

PN

n=1

G(Y (n) + xN ), assuming that

EG(Y (n)) = 0. It is expected that if xN tends to 0 too slowly, then a deterministic trend will appear in the
limit.
Theorem 3.3. Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.1, if in addition EG(Y (n)) = 0 and SN is replaced by

then the following conclusions hold:

SeN (xN ) =

• Central limit case: suppose that H < 1 −

1
2k .

(b) if xN ≈ N

G(Y (n) + xN ),

N −1/2 Se[N t] (xN )

:

(c) if N 1−1/(2k) ≪ xN → 0:
where ZH,k (t) and B(t) are independent.
• Non-central limit case: suppose that H > 1 −

N −1/2 Se[N t] (xN )

1
2k .

−→ cB(t)

f.d.d.

−→ c1 t + c2 B(t);
ct;

Let HG be as in (8). Then as N → ∞:

N −HG Se[N t] (xN )

(b) if xN ≈ N H−1 :

f.d.d.

f.d.d.
e
N −1 x−k
N S[N t] (xN ) −→

N −HG Se[N t] (xN )

(a) if 0 < xN ≪ N H−1 :

(12)

n=1

Then as N → ∞:

(a) if xN ≪ N −1/(2k) :
1−1/(2k)

N
X

f.d.d.

−→ cZH,k (t);
Pk
−→ c0 t + m=1 cm ZH,m (t);

f.d.d.
f.d.d.

e
N −1 x−k
N S[N t] (xN ) −→ ct;

(c) if N H−1 ≪ xN → 0:

where the Hermite processes ZH,m (t)’s are defined through the same Brownian motion in (10).
In the next theorem the argument xN in Theorem 3.3 is replaced by a subtracted sample mean.
Theorem 3.4. Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.3, assume in addition that G(·) is a polynomial. Let
PN
ȲN = N −1 n=1 Y (n). Then the following conclusions hold:

• Central limit case: suppose that H < 1 −

1
2k .

Then as N → ∞,
f.d.d.

N −1/2 Se[N t] (−ȲN ) −→ cB(t)

• Non-central limit case: suppose that H > 1 −
N

−HG

1
2k .

Let HG be as in (8). Then as N → ∞,

f.d.d.
Se[N t] (−ȲN ) −→

k
X

cm ZH,m (t)

m=1

where the Hermite processes ZH,m (t) ’s are defined through the same Brownian motion in (10).
Remark 3.5. As an example, one may take G(z) = z 2 in (12), which leads to the sample variance as
considered in Hosking [12] and Dehling and Taqqu [6]. See also Section 3.1 of Bai and Taqqu [2]. Comparing
Theorem 3.4 with Theorem 1.2, centering {Y (n)} by subtracting the sample mean may not affect the
fluctuation order of the sum, but can change the limit distribution.
The proofs of Theorem 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 and Theorems 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4 can be found in Section 6, and are all
based on the analysis of analytic functions.
7

4

On the coincidence of Hermite and power ranks

The Hermite rank has been defined in (4). We now define the power rank which is used in the approach of
Ho and Hsing [11] for limit theorems for transformations of long-memory moving-average processes. Given
a function G(·) and a random variable Y satisfying EG(Y )2 < ∞, let
G∞ (y) = EG(Y + y)

(13)

given that the expectation exists and suppose that G∞ (·) has derivatives of order sufficiently high. The
power rank of G(·) with respect to Y is defined as
inf{m ≥ 1 : G(m)
∞ (0) 6= 0},

(14)

(m)

where G∞ (y) denotes the m-th derivative of G∞ (y). The following fact was stated in Ho and Hsing [11]
without a detailed proof. It was proved by Lévy-Leduc and Taqqu [14] in the case where G(·) is a polynomial.
Proposition 4.1. Suppose that G(·) ∈ L2 (γ). Then the power rank in (14) coincides with the Hermite rank
(4) if Y is Gaussian.
Proof. Proposition 4.1 is a direct consequence of (17) below, namely,
∞
∞
(m)
X
X
G∞ (0) m
E[G(Z)Hm (Z)] m
x =
x ,
m!
m!
m=0
m=0

5

Auxiliary results

We prove here some auxiliary results involving the Weierstrass transform and analytic function theory.
Let Z denote throughout a standard Gaussian random variable and let φ = dγ/dx = (2π)−1/2 e−x

2

/2

denote its density. Define the function
G∞ (x) = EG(Z + x) =

Z

G(z + x)φ(z)dz =

Z

R

R

G(z)φ(z − x)dz,

(15)

whenever the integrability holds. The function G may not be smooth, but the function G∞ is smooth due
to the convolution with the smooth φ(z). G∞ is called the Weierstrass transform of G (see Hirschman and
Widder [10], Chapter VIII).
First we state some preliminary facts. Recall that a function f : Rp → R is real analytic over an open

domain D ⊂ Rp , if at every point y = (y1 , . . . , yp ) ∈ D, there exists a neighborhood B ⊂ D of y, such that
f (x1 , . . . , xp ) =

∞
X

i1 ,...,ip =1

ai1 ,...,ip (x1 − y1 )i1 . . . (xp − yp )ip

for some coefficient a(i1 , . . . , ik ), where the series converges absolutely in B. It is well-known that f is
infinitely differentiable, and common elementary operations including composition, affine transform, multiplication preserve analyticity. See, e.g., Krantz and Parks [13], Chapter 1.
8

Lemma 5.1.
(a) If g(· + a), g(· + b) ∈ L1 (φ), a < b, then
(a1) g(· + x) ∈ L1 (φ) for any a < x < b;
(a2) the Weierstrass transform Eg(Z + x) is a real analytic function in x ∈ (a, b).
(b) If g(· × c) ∈ L1 (φ), then g(· × y) ∈ L1 (φ) for any 0 < y < c.
Proof. (a) The first statement (a1) follows from the fact that φ(z − x) ≤ Aφ(z − a) + Bφ(z − b) for some
sufficiently large constants A, B > 0 by exploring the shape of φ. To obtain statement (a2), first as in item
2.2 of Hirschman and Widder [10] Chapter VIII, the Weierstrass transform (Wg)(x) := Eg(Z +x) = (g ∗φ)(x)
R
can be expressed by a bilateral Laplace transform (Lg)(x) := R e−zx g(z)dz as
1
(Wg)(x) = √
2π

Z

where g(z) = f (z)e−z

2

f (z)e−(x−z)

R

2

/2

2

/2

e−x /2
dz = √
2π

. Note that e−x

2

/2

Z

2

e(−x)(−z) [f (z)e−z

2

/2

R

e−x /2
(Lg)(−x),
]dz = √
2π

(16)

is analytic. Then the analyticity of Wg follows from the

analyticity of the bilateral Laplace transform Lg. See Widder [25] Chapter VI, p.140. The statement (b)
R
follows from φ(x/y) ≤ Cφ(x/c) for some sufficiently large constant C > 0, because R |g(xc)|φ(x)dx =
R
c−1 R |g(x)|φ(x/c)dx < ∞

Lemma 5.2. Suppose G ∈ L2 (φ). Then E|G(Z + x)| < ∞, namely, G(x + ·) ∈ L1 (φ), for all x ∈ R.
Furthermore, G∞ (x) in (15) admits the analytic expansion
G∞ (x) =

∞
∞
(m)
X
X
G∞ (0) m
x =
cm xm ,
m!
m=0
m=0

(17)

(m)

where G∞ is the m-th derivative of G∞ and
cm =

E[G(Z)Hm (Z)]
m!

are the coefficients of the Hermite expansion in (6).
If in addition, G(· ± M ) ∈ L2 (φ), M > 0, then
G(m)
∞ (x) = E[G(Z + x)Hm (Z)],

|x| < M,

m = 0, 1, 2, . . . .

(18)

Proof. Let Hm (x)’s be the Hermite polynomials defined in (3). Then by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality
and Corollary 5.1.2 of Pipiras and Taqqu [19], one has for any x ∈ R that
Z
∞
∞
∞
X
X
X
|x|m
|x|m
|x|m
√
kGkL2 (φ) kHm kL2 (φ) = kGkL2 (φ)
|G(z)Hm (z)|φ(z)dz ≤
<∞
m! R
m!
m!
m=1
m=1
m=1
since kHm kL2 (φ) =

√
m!. By Proposition 1.4.2 of Nourdin and Peccati [17], one has
∞
X
xm
Hm (z) = exp(−(z − x)2 /2 + z 2 /2).
m!
m=0

9

(19)

So
Z
Z
Z
∞
X
xm
−(z−x)2 /2+z 2 /2
G(z)φ(z − x)dz = G∞ (x),
G(z)e
φ(z)dz =
G(z)Hm (z)φ(z)dz =
m! R
R
R
m=0
where the change of the order between the sum and the integral in the first equality can be justified by (19)
and Fubini’s Theorem. This shows that G∞ has the desired expansion (17). Note that the same computation
R
as above with G replaced by |G| shows that E|G(Z + x)| = R |G(z)|φ(z − x)dz < ∞ by (19).
The formula (18) follows from
Z
Z
Z
d
d
(m)
G∞ (x) = m
G(z) m φ(z − x)dz = G(z)Hm (z − x)φ(z − x)dx
G(z)φ(z − x)dz =
dx
dx
R
R

by (3), where the differentiation under the integral can be justified by the Dominated Convergence Theorem
and the Mean Value Theorem as in the proof of Lemma 5.5 below.
Lemma 5.3 (Uniqueness of Weierstrass transform). If f ∈ L1 (φ) and the convolution f ∗ φ = 0 a.e., then
f = 0 a.e..
Proof. First, express as in (16) the Weierstrass transform by a bilateral Laplace transform. Then the
conclusion follows from the uniqueness of the bilateral Laplace transform. See Widder [25] Chapter VI,
Theorem 6b.
Lemma 5.4. Suppose that G(· × M ) ∈ L2 (φ) for some M ∈ (1, +∞). Then E|G(yZ)Z| < ∞ and
F (y) := EG(yZ)Z
is an analytic function in y ∈ (0, M ).
Proof. Since φ(t/y) ≤ cφ(t/M ) for some constant c > 0,
Z
Z
Z
1
E|G(yZ)Z| =
|G(yz)z|φ(z)dz = 2
|G(t)t|φ(t/y)dt ≤ C
|G(M z)z|φ(z)dz,
y R
R
R
and hence by Cauchy-Schwartz,
E|G(yZ)Z| ≤ CkG(· × M )kL2 (φ) < ∞
for some constant C > 0 depending only on y. Next applying the change of variable u = (yz)2 on z ≥ 0 and
on z < 0, we have
F (y) = EG(yZ)Z =

Z

2

1
e−z /2
√
dz =
zG(yz) √
2π
2y 2 2π
R

Z

0

∞


[G(u1/2 ) − G(−u1/2 )] exp[−u(2y 2 )−1 ]du . (20)

The integral in (20) is a Laplace transform evaluated at (2y 2 )−1 . The Laplace transform is real analytic
over the the open half interval where the integrability holds (Widder [25] Chapter II, Theorem 5a). The
function y −2 is also analytic in y ∈ (0, M ). The conclusion then follows since elementary operations preserve
analyticity.
10

Lemma 5.5. Let D = (−M1 , M1 ) × (0, M2 ), M1 > 0, M2 > 1. Suppose that g is a measurable function
such that g(±M1 + · × M2 ) ∈ L2 (φ). Then the function


Z
(u − x)2
g(u) exp −
f (x, y) :=
du
2y 2
R

is real analytic over (x, y) ∈ D.
Proof. The assumption implies that
g(x + · × y) ∈ L2 (φ)

(21)

for all (x, y) ∈ D by Lemma 5.1. By Theorem 1 of Siciak [23], one needs to show that
(1) f is C ∞ (infinitely smooth);
(2) f is univariately analytic along any direction at an arbitrary point (x0 , y0 ) ∈ D.
For part (1), we need to check that the partial derivatives of all orders of f (x, y) exist and are continuous.
First, the derivatives with respect to x and y can be taken under the integral sign by applying the Dominated
Convergence Theorem and the Mean Value Theorem with the help of the following facts which are justified
afterwards:
1. For any integers i, j ≥ 0,
(u − x)2
(u − x)2
∂ i+j
−1
exp(−
)
=
Q(u,
x,
y
)
exp(−
)
∂xi ∂y j
2y 2
2y 2
for some trivariate polynomial Q(x1 , x2 , x2 ).
2. For any x0 ∈ R and small δ > 0, there exists a polynomial Q∗ with non-negative coefficient such that
sup
|x−x0 |≤δ

|Q(u, x, y −1 )| ≤ Q∗ (|u|, |y|−1 );

A similar bound holds for sup|y−y0 |≤δ |Q(u, x, y −1 )|.
2

3. If δ is chosen sufficiently small so that exp(− 4δ
y 2 ) ≥ 1/2, then
sup
|x−x0 |≤δ

exp(−

(u − x0 + δ)2
(u − x0 − δ)2
(u − x)2
)
≤
exp(−
)
+
exp(−
),
2y 2
2y 2
2y 2

and for any δ > 0,
sup
|y−y0 |≤δ

exp(−

(u − x + δ)2
(u − x + δ)2
)
=
exp(−
).
2y 2
2(y0 + δ)2

4. For any integer n ≥ 0 and polynomial Q,
Z
(u − x)2
|g(u)|Q(|u|) exp(−
)du < ∞
2y 2
for all (x, y) ∈ D.
11

Item 1 can be verified easily by induction and the elementary differentiation rules.
To see Item 2, write the polynomial as Q(u, x, v) = a0 (x) + a1 (x)u + a2 (x)v + . . .. So |Q(u, x, v)| ≤
|a0 (x)| + |a1 (x)u| + |a2 (x)v| + . . .. Note that each coefficient |ai (x)| is a continuous function. Over a compact
interval [x0 − δ, x0 + δ], each |ai (x)| is bounded by a positive constant. Replacing |ai (x)|’s by these constants
yields the conclusion.
2

For Item 3, the maximum of the function exp(− (u−x)
2y 2 ) in x over the interval [x0 − δ, x0 + δ] can be either
2

1 if u ∈ [x0 − δ, x0 + δ], or exp(− (u−x2y02±δ) ) otherwise. In the case where u ∈ [x0 − δ, x0 + δ], by the choice
of δ described in Item 3 and |u − x0 ± δ| ≤ 2δ, we have
exp(−

(u − x0 + δ)2
(u − x0 − δ)2
) + exp(−
) ≥ 1/2 + 1/2 ≥ 1;
2
2y
2y 2
2

2

(u−x0 +δ)
0)
in the case where u ∈
/ [x0 − δ, x0 + δ], e.g., if u < x0 − δ, then one has exp(− (u−x
) by
2y 2 ) ≤ exp(−
2y 2

monotonicity. The second inequality follows easily from monotonicity.
To obtain Item 4, by Cauchy-Schwartz and (21), we have
Z
(u − x)2
)du ≤ y(2π)1/2 [Eg(x + yZ)2 ]1/2 [EQ(|x + yZ|)2 ]1/2 < ∞
|g(u)|Q(|u|) exp(−
2y 2
Continuity of f (x, y) can as well be verified using Dominated Convergence and the facts 2∼4 above.
To check claim (2), set x(t) = x0 + at, y = y0 + bt where (a, b) ∈ R2 satisfying a2 + b2 = 1. Suppose that
(x(t), y(t)) ∈ D when |t| < δ , where δ > 0 will be adjusted smaller if necessary later. We want to check the
real analyticity of




(u − x0 − at)2
f (t) := f (x(t), y(t)) =
g(u) exp −
du.
2(y0 + bt)2
R
Z

(22)

at t = 0. Note that the function


(u − x0 − az)2
h(u, z) := exp(A(u, z)) := exp −
2(y0 + bz)2



is complex analytic in z ∈ Bδ := {z ∈ C : |z| < δ} for each fixed u ∈ R since y0 + bz 6= 0. Next, by choosing
δ small enough, one can ensure that for some constant c, µ > 0 sufficiently large and σ ∈ (0, M2 ), such that
Re[A(u, z)] = −

−y02 u2 + Re[. . .]
−u2 + Re[. . .]
Re[(u − x0 − az)2 (y0 + bz̄)2 ]
=
=
.
1/2
1/2
2|y0 + bz|4
2|y0 + bz|4
2|y0 + bz/y0 |4

(23)

Since y0 ∈ (0, M2 ) and |z| < δ where δ is sufficiently small, there exists σ ∈ (0, M2 ), so that
1/2

|y0

1/2

+ bz/y0 |4 ≥ σ 2

(24)

for all |z| < δ. On the other hand, the bracket [. . .] in (23) is of the form
c1 (z, z̄, x0 )u + c0 (z, z̄, x0 ),
where c1 and c0 are polynomials. For all |z| < δ, one has for some large µ, c > 0 that
Re[. . .] ≤ |c1 (z, z̄, x0 )||u| + |c0 (z, z̄, x0 )| ≤ 2µ|u| − µ2 + 2σ 2 c
12

(25)

Combining (23), (24) and (25), one has
Re[A(u, z)] ≤

−u2 + 2µ|u| − µ2
+c
2σ 2

Hence for some constant C > 0,

In

R



|h(u, z)| = exp(Re[A(u, z)]) ≤ C[exp −(u2 + µ)2 /(2σ 2 ) + exp −(u2 − µ)2 /(2σ 2 ) ],

R

z ∈ Bδ .

(26)

|g(u)h(u, z)|du, replace |h(u, z)| by the preceding bound (26), and note that g(±µ + · × σ) ∈ L1 (φ) for

any µ ∈ R and σ ∈ (0, M ) by Lemma 5.1 (b) and Lemma 5.2. Then one deduces that
Z
sup
|g(u)h(u, z)|du < ∞.
z∈Bδ

R

This fact with Fubini’s Theorem justifies the following order change of integrals:
I
I
Z
Z
I
f (z)dz =
dz g(u)h(u, z)du =
g(u)du
h(u, z)dz = 0,
∆

∆

R

R

∆

where ∆ is a closed triangle within Bδ , and the last equality is due to Cauchy’s theorem since h(u, z) is
complex analytic in z ∈ Bδ . Then the complex analyticity of f (z) over Bδ follows from Morera’s Theorem
(Theorem 10.17 of Rudin [21]). Restricting Bδ to Im(z) = 0 yields the real analyticity.

6

Proof of the theorems

We prove here Theorems 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 involving the instability of the Hermite rank and and Theorems 3.1,
3.3 and 3.4 involving ”near higher order rank”.
Proof of Theorem 2.1. Suppose that the function G is not a.e. constant. Define E = {x ∈ (−M, M ) : G(· +
x) has Hermite rank ≥ 2}. Note first that we have E = {x ∈ (−M, M ) :

(1)

G∞ (x) = 0} in view of

Lemma 5.2 applied to G(· + x). Indeed, since the Hermite rank of G(· + x) is greater than 1, we have
(1)

G∞ (x) = EG(Z + x)H1 (Z) = 0. Now suppose by contradiction that E has an accumulation point in
(1)

(−M, M ). Since G∞ is analytic by Lemma 5.2, so is the derivative G∞ (x). By Rudin [20] Theorem 8.5,
(1)

G∞ is identically zero on (−M, M ) and hence G∞ is a constant on (−M, M ). But by (15), G∞ = G ∗ φ.
By Lemma 5.3 and linearity, G is a.e. a constant as well which contradicts the theorem assumption.
Proof of Theorem 2.2. Suppose that the function G is not a.e. symmetric. Now the set with Hermite rank
≥ 2 is E = {y ∈ (0, M ) : F (y) := EG(yZ)Z = 0}. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.1 above.
Suppose by contradiction that E has an accumulation point in (0, M ). Since F is analytic on (0, M ) by
Lemma 5.4, so F (y) is identically zero on (0, M ). Then we apply the uniqueness of the Laplace transform
(Widder [25] Chapter II, Theorem 6.3) to relation (20) to conclude that G(z) = G(−z) a.e., which contradicts
the assumption.

13

Proof of Theorem 2.5. Define
F (x, y) = E[ZG(x + yZ)].
As before E = {(x, y) ∈ D : F (x, y) = 0}. By a change of variable z = (u − x)/y we can write


Z
1
(u − x)2
F (x, y) = √
(u − x)G(u) exp −
du.
2y 2
y 2 2π R

(27)

Then F (x, y) is a bivariate real analytic function by Lemma 5.5 since (±M1 + M2 u)G(±M1 + M2 u) ∈ L2 (φ)
by Cauchy-Schwartz. If F (x, y) ≡ 0, which implies F (x, 1) ≡ 0, then the Hermite rank of G(· + x) is greater
than 1 for all x ∈ (−M1 , M1 ), which contradicts Theorem 2.1. So F (x, y) is not identically zero. The claimed
properties of E, the zero set of the analytic F , then follow from Mityagin [16] (see also Krantz and Parks
[13], Section 4.1).

Proof of Theorem 2.6. If G is not a constant a.e., by assumption (b), the analytic U (θ) is not identically
zero on D. So taking into account assumption (a), the zero set E has the claimed properties by Mityagin
[16].
Proof of Theorem 3.1. First by the Hermite expansion (5) we can write:
∞
X

G(Z + xN ) =

cm (xN )Hm (Z),

(28)

m=0

We set as in (15) that G∞ (xN ) = EG(Z + xN ), where Z ∼ N (0, 1). In view of Lemma 5.2, we have
cm (xN ) =

1
1 (m)
EG(Z + xN )Hm (Z) =
G (xN ).
m!
m! ∞

and
F∞ (xN ) := EG(Z + xN )2 =

∞
X

cm (xN )2 EHm (Z)2 =

m=0

∞
X

cm (xN )2 m!.

(29)

m=0
(1)

k−1
Since G has Hermite rank k, in view of Lemma 5.2 we have G∞ (0) = . . . = G∞
(0) = 0 6= Gk∞ (0). By

the analytic expansion,
(k)

G∞ (xN ) =
and
G(m)
∞ (xN ) =
where

G∞ (0) k
xN + O(xk+1
N )
k!

dm G
1
k−m
(xN ) =
gk xN
+ O(xk−m+1
),
N
m
dx
(k − m)!

m = 1, . . . , k,

gk = G(k)
∞ (0).
Then
S[N t] (xN ) =

[N t] h

X

n=1

i
G(Y (n) + xN ) − EG(Y (n) + xN )

= AN (t) + BN (t) + CN (t) + DN (t) + H.O.T. = AN (t) + BN (t) + RN (t) + H.O.T.
14

(30)

In (30),



[N t]
k−1
X
X
X
gk
gk
k−1 H
k−m H[m]
 1
 1
AN (t) = (xN
N )
Hk (Y (n))
Y (n) , BN (t) =
(xN
N
)
(k − 1)! N H n=1
(k
−
m)!
N H[m] n=1
m=2


[N t]
[N t]
∞
X
X
X
1
gk
CN (t) = N H[k]  H[k]
Hk (Y (n)) , DN (t) =
cm (xN )
Hm (Y (n)), RN (t) = CN (t) + DN (t),
k! N
n=1
n=1
m=k+1


[N t]

(31)

where
Pb

m=a



H[m] = max (H − 1)m + 1, 1/2 ,

(32)

. . . is understood as zero if a > b, and H.O.T. stands for a higher-order term that will be asymptotically

negligible as N → ∞ after suitable normalization. In (31), the expressions within a bracket [ · ] converge

in distribution and their variances also converge. See, e.g., Pipiras and Taqqu [19], Chapter 5. The term
AN (t) involves the first Hermite polynomial since H1 (Y ) = Y ; the term BN (t) involves the second up to
the (k − 1)th Hermite polynomial; the term CN (t) involves the kth Hermite polynomial; the term DN (t)
involves all the Hermite polynomials of orders higher than k. RN (t) involves the terms m ≥ k in (28).
We assume for simplicity that H 6= 1/(2m), m = 1, . . . , k. Otherwise the proof undergoes a slight
P[N t]
modification involving an logarithmic factor. We have to consider the behavior of n=1 Hm (Y (n)) for all

m ≥ 1. Let

k0 = sup{m ∈ Z+ : H > 1 − 1/(2m)}.

(33)

In view of (33), when m > k0 the central limit theorem in Theorem 1.2 holds and when m < k0 it is the
non-central limit theorem that holds. Alternatively, the central limit theorem holds when H < 1 − 1/(2k)
and the non-central limit theorem holds when H > 1 − 1/(2k).
• Consider first the central limit case where H < 1 − 1/(2k).

k−1 H
In this case, AN (t) is associated with the order xN
N and RN (t) is associated with the order N 1/2 .

We now focus on BN (t) and claim that it is asymptotically negligible compared with either AN (t) or RN (t),
namely,
k−m H[m]
k−1 H
xN
N
≪ max(xN
N , N 1/2 ),

m = 2, . . . , k − 1.

(34)

Indeed, when m > k0 , this is obvious since H[m] = 1/2; Suppose now m ≤ k0 . In this case, H[m] =

k−m H[m]
(H − 1)m + 1. However, in cases (a) and (b), where xN ≪ or ≈ N (1/2−H)/(k−1) , the factor xN
N
has

an exponent bounded by
(m − 1)k
k + m − 2km
1
(1/2 − H)(k − m)
+ (H − 1)m + 1 =
H+
+1< ,
k−1
k−1
2(k − 1)
2

(35)

where the last inequality can be obtained by plugging in the inequality H < 1 − 1/(2k) and some elementary computation. Hence in cases (a) and (b), the relation (34) is proved. In the case (c) where xN ≫
15

k−m (H−1)m+1
k−1 H
N (1/2−H)/(k−1) , it can be checked that xN
N
≪ xN
N using the inequality

1/2−H
k−1

> H − 1,

and the latter inequality follows from H < 1 − 1/(2k). We have thus proved (34) and hence BN (t) is
asymptotically negligible. We are left with AN (t) and RN (t).
The different asymptotic regimes in the central limit case in Theorem 3.1 come about when comparing
k−1 H
the order xN
N of AN (t) with the order N 1/2 of RN (t) = CN (t) + DN (t). But we also have to deal with

the convergence of the processes. By Bai and Taqqu [1], we have the joint convergence


[N t]
[N t] ∞
X
X X gm
1
1
f.d.d.

Y (n), 1/2
Hm (Y (n)) −→ (c1 ZH,1 (t), c2 B(t))
H
N n=1
m!
N
n=1

(36)

m=k

where the fractional Brownian motion ZH,1 (t) and the Brownian motion B(t) are independent. From (36)
we set
′
RN
(t) =

[N t] ∞
XX

n=1 m=k

gm
Hm (Y (n)),
m!

which is RN (t) with xN = 0.
′
We cannot use (36) directly because we have RN (t) instead of RN
(t). We thus need to compare them

first. Since Y (n) is standardized, we have |γY (n)|m ≤ |γY (n)|k if m ≥ k, where γY (n) = Cov[Y (n), Y (0)].
Thus by a computation similar to those on p.299 of Pipiras and Taqqu [19] using the orthogonality of the
Hermite polynomials,
′
E|RN (t) − RN
(t)|2 =

X

m>K

≤ (N t)

m!(cm (xN ) − cm (0))2
∞
X

n=−∞

|γY (n)|k

!

X

([N t] − |n|)γY (n)m

|n|<[N t]

∞
X

m=k

m!(cm (xN ) − cm (0))2 .

(37)

Note that for a K > k,
∞
X

m=k

m!(cm (xN ) − cm (0))2 ≤

Recall F∞ (x) =

P∞

m=0

K
X

m=k

m!(cm (xN ) − cm (0))2 + 2

X

m!(cm (xN )2 + cm (0)2 ).

(38)

m>K

m!cm (x)2 in (29), which is analytic in view of Lemma 5.1. Hence

X

m>K

2

m!cm (xN ) = F∞ (xN ) − F∞ (0) + F∞ (0) −

K
X

m!cm (xN )2 .

m=0

(m)

As N → ∞, by the continuity of F∞ and cm (x) = G∞ (x)/m!, we have
X

m>K

m!cm (xN )2 →

X

m!cm (0)2 .

(39)

m>K

Take the limit N → ∞ in (38) using (39) and the continuity of cm , the right-hand side of (38) is only left
P
with the term 2 m>K m!cm (0)2 , which tends to 0 as K → ∞. Combining this with (37), we have
′
lim N −1 E|RN (t) − RN
(t)|2 = 0.

N →∞

16

(40)

It thus follows from (36) that


[N t]
[N t]
X
X
1
1
f.d.d.

Y (n), 1/2
RN (t) −→ (c1 ZH,1 (t), c2 B(t)) .
N H n=1
N
n=1

k−1 H
In case (a), we have xN
N ≪ N 1/2 and thus as N → ∞, AN (t) is negligible compared to RN (t) and
f.d.d.

k−1 H
thus we get N −1/2 RN (t) −→ c2 B(t). In case (c), xN
N ≫ N 1/2 and the limit is c1 ZH,1 (t). In case (b),

k−1 H
where xN
N ≈ N 1/2 , both limits appear. Finally, note that N −H x1−k
N AN (t) is proportional to the first

component on the left-hand side of (36), while by (40), the term N −1/2 RN (t) can be asymptotically replaced
′
by N −1/2 RN
(t), which is the second component on the left-hand side of (36). The rest of the proof in the

central limit case can be carried out easily.
1
2k .

• Now we consider the non-central limit case where H > 1 −
P[N t]
of n=1
Hm (Y (n)) for all m ≥ 1.

We have to study, as before, the behavior

We first consider the terms AN (t), BN (t) and CN (t) which involve m ≤ k. In this case, we have the

following relation: any n, m ∈ Z+ ,
k−m (H−1)m+1
k−n (H−1)n+1
xN
N
≪ xN
N
⇐⇒ xN ≪ N H−1 ,

which holds with ≪ replaced by ≈ or ≫ as well.

Hence in case (a), the term AN (t) in (30) contributes; in case (b), the terms AN (t), BN (t) and CN (t) all
contribute; in case (c), the term CN (t) contributes.
We shall show below that the term DN (t), which involves m > k, is negligible. Set γY (n) = Cov(Y (n), Y (0)) ≈

n2H−2 . By a similar computation as in (37),
EDN (t)2 =

X

m!cm (xN )2

m>k

X

([N t] − |n|)γY (n)m .

(41)

X

n(2H−2)(k+1) ≤ c2 (N t)2H[k+1] ,

(42)

|n|<[N t]

For an arbitrarily small ǫ > 0, we have for m > k that
X

([N t] − |n|)γY (n)m ≤ c1 (N t)

|n|<[N t]

|n|<[N t]

for some constants c1 , c2 > 0. where H[m] is as in (32). Since H[k + 1] < H[k] when H > 1 − 1/(2k), in
view of (41), (42) and (29),
EDN (t)2 ≤ c2 (N t)2H[k+1] F∞ (xN ) ≪ N 2H[k] ≈ ECN (t)2 .
So the order of DN (t) is always dominated by that of CN (t). So we only need to focus on AN (t), BN (t) and
CN (t). Then the rest of the proof can be carried out using the following consequence of Bai and Taqqu [1]:


[N t]


X
1
f.d.d.


H
(Y
(n)),
m
=
1,
.
.
.
,
k
−→
c
Z
(t),
m
=
1,
.
.
.
,
k
(43)
m
m H,m
N (H−1)m+1 n=1
where the Hermite processes ZH,m (t)’s are defined through the same Brownian motion in (10).

17

Proof of Theorem 3.3. The proof is done as the proof of Theorem 3.1 based on (36) and (43), and we thus
only provide an outline. By Taylor expansion of G∞ in (17), and since EG(Y (n)) = g0 = G∞ (0) = 0 and
the Hermite rank is k, we have
EG(Y (n) + xN ) = G∞ (xN ) =

gk k
x + O(xk+1
N ).
k! N

Adding the leading term above to (30), we have
Se[N t] (xN ) = ZN (t) + AN (t) + BN (t) + CN (t) + DN (t) + H.O.T. = ZN (t) + AN (t) + BN (t) + RN (t) + H.O.T.
(44)

where
ZN (t) =

gk k
(x [N t]) + H.O.T.
k! N

In the central limit case where H < 1 − 1/(2k), the term BN (t) is negligible compared to AN (t) and

k−1 H
RN (t) as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 above. We thus compare the orders xkN N of ZN (t), xN
N of AN (t)

k−1 H
and N 1/2 of RN (t). Indeed, if xN ≪ N −1/(2k) , then xkN N ≪ N 1/2 and xN
N ≪ N 1/2 , so only RN (t)

contributes; if xN ≈ N −1/(2k) , then xkN N ≈ N 1/2 and xkN N ≪ N 1/2 , so ZN (t) and RN (t) contribute; if

k−1 H
xN ≫ N −1/(2k) , then xkN N ≫ N 1/2 and xkN N ≫ xN
N , so only ZN (t) contributes.

A similar analysis can be carried out in the non-central limit case. As in the proof of Theorem 3.1,
the term BN (t) only contributes in the case xN ≈ N H−1 . The asymptotic regimes in the other cases are

k−1 H
determined by comparing the orders xkN N of ZN (t), xN
N of AN (t) and N (H−1)k+1 of CN (t).

Proof of Theorem 3.4. The proof is again similar to those of Theorem 3.1 and 3.3, and we thus only provide
an outline. Since G(·) is a polynomial, in (31) the ∞ in the sum defining DN (t) is replaced by a finite
integer. This is important since the arguments leading to (40) can no longer be applied.
The key is to note that −ȲN is associated with the order N H−1 , which replaces xN in all the terms

in (44). More precisely, in the central limit case where H < 1 − 1/(2k), comparing the order N k(H−1) of

ZN (t), the order N (k−m)(H−1)+H[m] of AN (t) and BN (t), 0 < m < k, and the order N 1/2 of RN (t), where

H[m] is as in (32), one can find that RN (t) is the contributing term. The conclusion then follows from (36)
and the Slutsky Lemma using the continuity of the coefficients cm (·). In the non-central limit case where
H > 1 − 1/(2k), we compare the order N k(H−1) of ZN (t), the order N k(H−1)+1 of AN (t), BN (t), CN (t),

0 < m ≤ k, and the order N H[k+1] of DN (t). In this case, the terms AN (t) and BN (t) contribute.

Acknowledgment. This work was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-1309009 at Boston
University.

18

References
[1] S. Bai and M.S. Taqqu. Multivariate limit theorems in the context of longrange dependence. Journal
of Time Series Analysis, 34(6):717–743, 2013.
[2] S. Bai and M.S. Taqqu. How the instability of ranks under long memory affects large-sample inference.
To appear in Statistical Science, 2017.
[3] J. Beran, Y. Feng, S. Ghosh, and R. Kulik. Long-Memory Processes: Probabilistic Properties and
Statistical Methods. Springer, 2013.
[4] N.H. Bingham, C.M. Goldie, and J.L. Teugels. Regular Variation. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and
Its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[5] P. Breuer and P. Major. Central limit theorems for non-linear functionals of Gaussian fields. Journal
of Multivariate Analysis, 13(3):425–441, 1983.
[6] H. Dehling and M.S. Taqqu. Bivariate symmetric statistics of long-range dependent observations. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 28(2):153–165, 1991.
[7] R.L. Dobrushin and P. Major. Non-central limit theorems for non-linear functional of Gaussian fields.
Probability Theory and Related Fields, 50(1):27–52, 1979.
[8] K. Falconer. Fractal geometry: mathematical foundations and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[9] L. Giraitis, H.L. Koul, and D. Surgailis. Large Sample Inference for Long Memory Processes. World
Scientific Publishing Company Incorporated, 2012.
[10] I.I. Hirschman and D.V. Widder. The Convolution Transform. Dover Books on Mathematics. Dover
Publications, 2005.
[11] H. Ho and T. Hsing. Limit theorems for functionals of moving averages. The Annals of Probability, 25
(4):1636–1669, 1997.
[12] J.R.M. Hosking. Asymptotic distributions of the sample mean, autocovariances, and autocorrelations
of long-memory time series. Journal of Econometrics, 73(1):261–284, 1996.
[13] S.G. Krantz and H.R. Parks. A Primer of Real Analytic Functions. Birkhäuser Boston, 2nd edition,
2002.
[14] C. Lévy-Leduc and M.S. Taqqu. Long-range dependence and the rank of decompositions. Fractal Geometry and Dynamical Systems in Pure and Applied Mathematics II: Fractals in Applied Mathematics,
601:289, 2013.

19

[15] P. Major. Multiple Wiener-Itô Integrals: With Applications to Limit Theorems. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics. Springer, 2 edition, 2014.
[16] B. Mityagin. The zero set of a real analytic function. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.07276, 2015.
[17] I. Nourdin and G. Peccati. Normal Approximations With Malliavin Calculus: From Stein’s Method to
Universality. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[18] P.C.B. Phillips. Towards a unified asymptotic theory for autoregression. Biometrika, pages 535–547,
1987.
[19] V. Pipiras and M.S. Taqqu. Long-range dependence and self-similarity, volume 45. Cambridge University
Press, 2017.
[20] W. Rudin. Principles of Mathematical Analysis. International series in pure and applied mathematics.
McGraw-Hill, 3 edition, 1976.
[21] W. Rudin. Real and complex analysis. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 1987.
[22] G. Samorodnitsky. Stochastic Processes and Long Range Dependence. Springer, 2016.
[23] J. Siciak. A characterization of analytic functions of n real variables. Studia Mathematica, 3(35):293–297,
1970.
[24] M.S. Taqqu. Convergence of integrated processes of arbitrary Hermite rank. Probability Theory and
Related Fields, 50(1):53–83, 1979.
[25] D.V. Widder. The Laplace Transform. Dover books on mathematics. Dover Publications, 2010.
Shuyang Bai
Department of Statistics
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30606
bsy9142@uga.edu
Murad S. Taqqu
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Boston University
Boston, MA 02215
murad@bu.edu

20

