EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC
DIFFUSIONS

arXiv:1801.04848v1 [math.PR] 15 Jan 2018

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

Abstract. The aim of this paper is to introduce a new type of test statistic for simple null
hypothesis on one-dimensional ergodic diffusion processes sampled at discrete times. We deal
with a quasi-likelihood approach for stochastic differential equations (i.e. local gaussian approximation of the transition functions) and define a test statistic by means of the empirical
L2 -distance between quasi-likelihoods. We prove that the introduced test statistic is asymptotically distribution free; namely it weakly converges to a χ2 random variable. Furthermore,
we study the power under local alternatives of the parametric test. We show by the Monte
Carlo analysis that, in the small sample case, the introduced test seems to perform better than
other tests proposed in literature.

Keywords: asymptotic distribution free test, local alternatives, maximum-likelihood type estimator, discrete observations, quasi-likelihood function, stochastic differential equation.
1. Introduction
Let (Ω, F, F = (Ft )t≥0 , P ) be a filtered complete probability space. Let us consider a 1dimensional processes X = (Xt )t≥0 solution to the following stochastic differential equation
(1.1)

dXt = b(α, Xt )dt + σ(β, Xt )dWt ,

X0 = x0 ,

where x0 is a deterministic initial value. We assume that b : Θα × R → R, σ : Θβ × R → R are
Borel known functions (up to α and β) and (Wt )t≥0 is a one-dimensional standard Ft -Brownian
motion. Furthermore, α ∈ Θα ⊂ Rm1 , β ∈ Θβ ⊂ Rm2 , m1 , m2 ∈ N, are unknown parameters and
θ = (α, β) ∈ Θ := Θα × Θβ , where Θ represents a compact subset of Rm1 +m2 . We denote by
θ0 := (α0 , β0 ) the true value of θ and assume that θ0 ∈ Int(Θ).
The sample path of X is observed only at n + 1 equidistant discrete times tni , such that
n
ti − tni−1 = ∆n < ∞ for i = 1, ..., n, (with tn0 = 0). Therefore the data, denoted by (Xtni )0≤i≤n ,
are the discrete observations of the sample path of X. Let p be an integer with p ≥ 2. The
asymptotic scheme adopted in this paper is the following: T = n∆n → ∞, ∆n → 0 and n∆pn → 0
as n → ∞. This scheme is called rapidly increasing design, i.e. the number of observations grows
over time but no so fast.
This setting is useful, for instance, in the analysis of financial time series. In mathematical
finance and econometric theory, diffusion processes described by the stochastic differential equations (1.1) play a central role. Indeed, they have been used to model the behavior of stock prices,
exchange rates and interest rates. The underlying stochastic evolution of the financial assets can
be thought continuous in time, although the data are always recorded at discrete instants (e.g.
weekly, daily or each minute). For these reasons, the estimation problems for discretely observed
stochastic differential equations have been tackled by many authors with different approaches
(see, for instance, [10], [33], [11], [5], [23], [24], [2], [12], [18], [3], [6], [29], [34], [30], [26], [31], [20]).
For clustering time series arising from discrete observations of diffusion processes [7] propose a
Date: January 16, 2018.
1

2

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

new dissimilarity measure based on the L1 distance between the Markov operators. The changepoint problem in the diffusion term of a stochastic differential equation has been considered in
[6] and [16]. In [15], the authors faced the estimation problem for hidden diffusion processes observed at discrete times. An adaptive Lasso-type estimator is proposed in [8]. For the simulation
and the practical implementation of the statistical inference for stochastic differential equations
see [13], [14] and [17].
We also recall that the statistical inference for continuously observed ergodic diffusions is a
well-developed research topic; on this point the reader can consult [25].
The main object of interest of the present paper is the problem of testing parametric hypotheses for diffusion processes from discrete observations. This research topic is less developed
in literature. It is well-known that for testing two simple alternative hypotheses, the NeymanPearson lemma provides a procedure based on the likelihood ratio which leads to the uniformly
most powerful test. In the other cases uniformly most powerful tests do not exist and for this
reason the research of new criteria is justified.
For discretely observed stochastic differential equations, [21] introduced and studied the asymptotic behavior of three kinds of test statistics: likelihood ratio type test statistic, Wald type
test statistic and Rao’s score type test statistic.
Another possible approach is based on the divergences. Indeed, several statistical divergence
measures (which are not necessarily a metric) and distances have been introduced in order to
decide if two probability distributions are close or far. The main goal of this metric is to make
“easy to distinguish” between a pair of distributions which are far from each other than between
those which are closer. These tools have been used for testing hypotheses in parametric models.
The reader can consult on this point, for example, [27] and [28]. For stochastic differential
equations sampled at discrete times, [9] introduced a family of test statistics (for p = 2 and
n∆2n → 0) based on empirical φ-divergences.
We consider the following hypotheses testing problem concerning the vector parameter θ
H0 : θ = θ0 ,

vs H1 : θ 6= θ0 ,

and assume that X is observed at discrete times; that is the data (Xtni )0≤i≤n are available. In
this work we study different test statistics with respect to those used in [9] and [21]. Indeed,
the purpose of this paper is to propose a methodology based on a suitable “distance” between
the approximated transition functions. This idea follows from the observation that in the case
of continuous observations of (1.1), we could define the L2 -distance between the continuous
loglikelihood. Clearly this approach is not useful in our framework and then, similarly to the
aforementioned papers, we consider the local gaussian approximation of the transition density of
the process X from Xti−1 to Xti . In other words, we resort the quasi-likelihood function introduced in [23], defined by means of an approximation with higher order correction terms to relax
the condition of convergence of ∆n to zero. Therefore, let lp,i (θ), θ ∈ Θ, be the approximated
log-transition function from Xti−1 to Xti representing the parametric model (1.1). We deal with
n

Dp,n (θ1 , θ2 ) :=

1X
[lp,i (θ1 ) − lp,i (θ2 )]2 ,
n i=1

θ1 , θ2 ∈ Θ,

which can be interpreted as the empirical L2 -distance between two loglikelihoods. If θ̂p,n is the
maximum quasi-likelihood estimator introduced in [23], we are able to prove that, under H0 , the
test statistic
Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) := nDp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 )
is asymptotically distribution free; i.e. it converges in distribution to a chi squared random
variable. Furthermore, we study the power function of the test under local alternatives.

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

3

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains the notations and the assumptions of
the paper. The contrast function arising from the quasi-likelihood approach is briefly discussed
in Section 3. In the same section we define the maximum quasi-likelihood estimator and recall
its main asymptotic properties. In Section 4 we introduce and study a test statistic for the
hypotheses problem H0 : θ = θ0 vs H1 : θ 6= θ0 . The proposed new test statistic shares the
same asymptotic properties of the other test statistics presented in the literature. Therefore,
to justify its use in practice among its competitors, a numerical study is included in Section 5
which contains a comparison of several test statistics in the “small sample” case, i.e., when the
asymptotic conditions are not met. Our numerical analysis shows that, at least for p = 2, the
performance of T2,n is very good. The proofs are collected in Section 6.
It is worth to point out that for the sake of simplicity in this paper a 1-dimensional diffusion is
treated. Nevertheless, it is possible to extend our methodology to the multidimensional stochastic
differential equations setting.
2. Notations and assumptions
Throughout this paper, we will use the following notation.
• θ := (α, β) and α0 , β0 and θ0 denote the true values of α, β and θ respectively.
• c(β, x) = σ 2 (β, x).
• C is a positive constant. If C depends on a fixed quantity, for instance an integer k, we
may write Ck .
2
2
• ∂αh := ∂α∂ h , ∂βk := ∂β∂ k , ∂α2 h αk := ∂αh∂∂αk , h, k = 1, ..., m1 , ∂β2h βk := ∂βh∂∂βk , h, k =
2

•
•
•
•

1, ..., m2 , ∂α2 h βk := ∂α∂h ∂βk , h = 1, ..., m1 , k = 1, ..., m2 , ∂θ := (∂α , ∂β )0 , where ∂α :=
(∂α1 , ..., ∂αm1 )0 and ∂β := (∂β1 , ..., ∂βm2 )0 , ∂θ2 := [∂α2 j βk ]h=1,...,m1 ,k=1,...,m2 .
If f : Θ × R → R, we denote by fi−1 (θ) the value f (θ, Xtni−1 ); for instance c(β, Xtni−1 ) =
ci−1 (β).
For 0 ≤ i ≤ n, tni := i∆n and Gin := σ(Ws , s ≤ tni ).
The random sample is given by Xn := (Xtni )0≤i≤n and Xi := Xtni .
n
The probability law of (1.1) is denoted by Pθ and Eθi−1 [·] := Eθ [·|Gi−1
]. We set P0 := Pθ0
i−1
i−1
and E0 [·] := Eθ0 [·].
P

d

n→∞

n→∞

θ
• −→
and −→ stand for the convergence in probability and in distribution, respectively.

P

θ
• Let Fn : Θ × Rn → R and F : Θ → R; “Fn (θ, Xn ) −→
F (θ) uniformly in θ” stands for

n→∞

P

θ
sup |Fn (θ, Xn ) − F (θ)| −→
0.

n→∞

θ∈Θ
P

θ
Furthermore, if Fn (θ, Xn ) −→
0 uniformly in θ we set

n→∞

Fn (θ, Xn ) = oPθ (1).
• Let un be a R-valued sequence. We indicate by R a function Θ × R2 → R for which there
exists a constant C such that
R(θ, un , x) ≤ un C(1 + |x|)C ,

for all θ ∈ Θ, x ∈ R2 , n ∈ N.

Let us set Ri−1 (∆kn ) := R(θ, ∆kn , Xi−1 ). P
m Pn
• For a m × n matrix A, ||A||2 = tr(AA0 ) = i=1 j=1 |Aij |2 .
Let C↑k,h (R × Θ; R) be the space of all functions f such that:
(i) f (θ, x) is a R-valued function on Θ × R;

4

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

(ii) f (θ, x) is continuously differentiable with respect to x up to order k ≥ 1 for all θ; these
x-derivatives up to order k are of polynomial growth in x, uniformly in θ;
(iii) f (θ, x) and all x-derivatives up to order k ≥ 1, are h ≥ 1 times continuously differentiable
with respect to θ for all x ∈ R. Moreover, these derivatives up to the h-th order with
respect to θ are of polynomial growth in x, uniformly in θ.
We need some standard assumptions on the regularity of the process X.
A1 . (Existence and Uniqueness) There exists a constant C such that
sup |b(α, x) − b(α, y)| + sup |σ(β, x) − σ(β, y)| ≤ C|x − y|.
α∈Θα

β∈Θβ

A2 . (Ergodicity) The process X is ergodic for θ = θ0 with invariant probability measure
π0 (dx). Thus
Z
Z
1 T
Pθ
f (Xt )dt −→
f (x)π0 (dx),
T →∞
T 0
where f ∈ L1 (π0 ). Furthermore, we assume that π0 admits all moments finite.
A3 . inf x,β σ(β, x) > 0.
A4 . (Moments) For all q ≥ 0 and for all θ ∈ Θ, supt E|Xt |q < ∞.
A5 . [k] (Smoothness) b ∈ C↑k,3 (Θα × R, R) and σ ∈ C↑k,3 (Θβ × R, R).
A6 . (Identifiability) If the coefficients b(α, x) = b(α0 , x) and σ(β, x) = σ(β0 , x) for all x
(π0 -almost surely), then α = α0 and β = β0 .
Let Lθ the infinitesimal generator of X with domain given by C 2 (R) (the space of the twice
continuously differentiable function on R); that is if f ∈ C 2 (R)
c(β, x) ∂ 2 f
∂f
(x) +
(x), L0 := Lθ0 .
∂x
2 ∂x2
Under the assumption A5 [2(j − 1)] we can define Ljθ := Lθ ◦ Lj−1
with domain C 2j (R) and
θ
0
Lθ =Id.
We conclude this section with some well-known examples of ergodic diffusion processes belonging to the class (1.1):
• the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck or Vasicek model is the unique solution to
Lθ f (x) := b(α, x)

(2.1)

dXt = α1 (α2 − Xt )dt + β1 dWt ,

X0 = x0 ,

where b(α1 , α2 , x) = α1 (α2 − x) and σ(β1 , x) = β1 with α1 , α2 ∈ R and β1 > 0. This
stochastic process is a Gaussian process and it is often used in finance where β1 is the
volatility, α2 is the long-run equilibrium of the model and α1 is the speed of mean
reversion. For α1 > 0 the Vasicek process is ergodic with invariant law π0 given by a
β2
Gaussian law with mean α2 and variance 2α11 . It is easy to check that all the conditions
A1 − A6 fulfill;
• the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross (CIR) process is the solution to
(2.2)

p
Xt dWt , X0 = x0 > 0,
√
where b(α1 , α2 , x) = α1 (α2 − x) and σ(β1 , x) = β1 x with α1 , α2 , β1 > 0. If 2α1 α2 > β12
the process is strictly positive, otherwise non negative. This model has a conditional
density given by the non central χ2 distribution. The CIR process is useful in the
description of short-term interest rates and admits invariant law π0 given by a Gamma
β2
distribution with shape parameter 2αβ12α2 and scale parameter 2α11 . If (2.2) is strictly
1
positive, we can prove that the above assumptions hold true.
dXt = α1 (α2 − Xt )dt + β1

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

5

3. Preliminaries on the quasi-likelihood function
We briefly recall the quasi-likelihood function introduced by [23] based on the Itô-Taylor
expansion. The main problem in the statistical analysis of the diffusion process X is that its
transition density is in general unknown and then the likelihood function is unknown as well. To
overcome this difficulty one can discretizes the sample path of X by means of Euler-Maruyama’s
scheme; namely
(3.1)
Z

tn
i

Xi − Xi−1 =

Z

tn
i

b(α, Xs )ds +
tn
i−1

tn
i−1

σ(β, Xs )dWs ' bi−1 (α)∆n + σi−1 (β)(Wtni − Wtni−1 ).

Hence (3.1) leads to consider a local-Gaussian approximation to the transition density; that is
L(Xi |Xi−1 ) ' N (bi−1 (α)∆n , ci−1 (β)∆n )
and the approximated loglikelihood function of the random sample Xn , called quasi-loglikelihood
function, becomes

n 
1 X (Xi − Xi−1 − bi−1 (α)∆n )2
(3.2)
ln (θ) :=
+ log ci−1 (β) .
2 i=1
ci−1 (β)∆n
This approach suggests to consider the mean and the variance of the transition density of X;
that is
(3.3)

m(θ, Xi−1 ) := Eθ [Xi |Xi−1 ],

m2 (θ, Xi−1 ) := Eθ [(Xi − m(θ, Xi−1 ))2 |Xi−1 ],

and assume
L(Xi |Xi−1 ) ' N (m(θ, Xi−1 ), m2 (θ, Xi−1 )).
Thus we can consider as contrast function the following one

n 
1 X (Xi − m(θ, Xi−1 ))2
(3.4)
+ log m2 (θ, Xi−1 ) .
2 i=1
m2 (θ, Xi−1 )
Nevertheless, (3.4) does not have a closed form because m(θ, Xi−1 ) and m2 (θ, Xi−1 ) are unknown.
Therefore we substitute in (3.4) closed approximations of m and m2 based on the Itô-Taylor
expansion.
Let f (y) := y, for l ≥ 0, under the assumption A5 [2l], we have the following approximation
(see Lemma 1, [23])
(3.5)

m(θ, Xi−1 ) = rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ) + R(θ, ∆l+1
n , Xi−1 )

where
rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ) :=

l
X
∆i

n

i=0

i!

Liθ f (x).

Now let us consider the function (y − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))2 , which is for fixed x, y and θ a polynomial
in ∆n of degree 2l. We indicate by g ∆n ,x,θ,l (y) the sum of its first terms up to degree l; that is
Pl
g ∆n ,x,θ,l (y) = j=0 ∆jn g jx,θ (y) where
(3.6)

g 0x,θ (y) = (y − x)2

(3.7)

g 1x,θ (y) = −2(y − x)Lθ f (x)

(3.8)

g jx,θ (y) = −2(y − x)

Ljθ f (x)
+
j!

X
r,s≥1,r+s=j

Lrθ f (x) Lsθ f (x)
,
r!
s!

2 ≤ j ≤ l.

6

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

Under the assumption A5 [2(l − 1)](i), we have that Lrθ g jx,θ (y) is well-defined for r + j = l and we
set
(3.9)

Γl (∆n , x, θ) :=

l
X

∆jn

n

r=0

j=0

where γj (θ, x) are the coefficients of

l−j
X
∆r

∆jn .

r!

Lrθ g jx,θ (x) :=

l
X

∆jn γj (θ, x),

j=0

Therefore by (3.6) to (3.9), we obtain, for instance,

γ0 (θ, x) = L0θ g 0x,θ (x) = 0
γ1 (θ, x) = Lθ g 0x,θ (x) = c(β, x)
L2θ g 0x,θ
(x) + Lθ g 1x,θ (x) + L0θ g 2x,θ (x)
2


1
∂
∂
c(β, x) ∂ 2
c(β, x)
=
b(α, x) c(β, x) + 2c(β, x) b(α, x) +
2
∂y
∂y
4 ∂y 2

γ2 (θ, x) =

Let
Γl (∆n , x, θ) := ∆n c(β, x)[1 + Γl (∆n , x, θ)]
Pl

where Γl (∆n , x, θ) :=
(see Lemma 2, [23])
(3.10)

∆jn γj (θ,x)
.
∆n c(β,x)

j=2

For l ≥ 0, under the assumption A5 [2l](i), we have that

m2 (θ, Xi−1 ) = ∆n ci−1 (β)[1 + Γl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ)] + R(θ, ∆l+1
n , Xi−1 ).

It seems quite natural at this point to substitute (3.5) and (3.10) into the expression (3.4).
Nevertheless, in order to avoid technical difficulties related to the control of denominator and
logarithmic we consider a further expansion in ∆n of (1 + Γl )−1 and log(1 + Γl ).
Let k0 = [p/2]. Under the assumption A5 [2k0 ](i), we define the quasi-loglikelihood function of
Xn as
(3.11)

lp,n (θ) := lp,n (θ, Xn ) :=

n
X

lp,i (θ)

i=1

where
(3.12)



k0

X
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))2 
lp,i (θ) :=
∆jn dj (θ, Xi−1 )
1+


2∆n ci−1 (β)
j=1


k0

X
1
+
∆jn ej (θ, Xi−1 )
log ci−1 (β) +

2
j=1

and dj , resp. ej , is the coefficient of ∆jn in the Taylor expansion of (1 + Γk0 +1 (∆n , x, θ))−1 , resp.
log(1 + Γk0 +1 (∆n , x, θ)). It is not hard to show that, for example,
γ2 (θ, x)
,
c(β, x)
 2

1
γ2 (θ, x)
d2 (θ, x) = −e2 (θ, x) =
− γ3 (θ, x) .
c(β, x) c(β, x)

d1 (θ, x) = −e1 (θ, x) = −

Remark 3.1. It is worth to point out that by assumptions A3 and A5 emerge that dj and ej ,
for all j ≤ k0 , are three times differentiable with respect to θ. Furthermore, all their derivatives
with respect to θ are of polynomial growth in x uniformly in θ.

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

7

The contrast function (3.11) yields to the maximum quasi-likelihood estimator θ̂p,n := (α̂p,n , β̂p,n )
defined as
(3.13)

lp,n (θ̂p,n ) = inf lp,n (θ).
θ∈Θ

Let I(θ0 ) be the Fisher information matrix at θ0 defined as follows
 h,k

[Ib (θ0 )]h,k=1,...,m1
0
(3.14)
I(θ0 ) :=
,
0
[Iσh,k (θ0 )]h,k=1,...,m2
where

∂αh b ∂αk b
:=
(θ0 , x)π0 (dx),
c

Z 
1
∂βh c ∂βk c
(β0 , x)π0 (dx).
Iσh,k (θ0 ) :=
2
c2
Ibh,k (θ0 )

Z 

We recall an important asymptotic result which will be useful in the proof of our main theorem.
Theorem 1 ([23]). Let p be an integer and k0 = [p/2]. Under assumptions A1 to A4 , A5 [2k0 ]
and A6 , if ∆n → 0, n∆n → ∞, as n → ∞, the estimator θ̂p,n is consistent; i.e.
P

0
θ0 .
θ̂p,n −→

(3.15)

n→∞

If in addition n∆pn → 0 and θ0 ∈ Int(Θ) then
√

n∆ (α̂ − α0 )
d
√ n p,n
(3.16)
ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂p,n − θ0 ) =
−→ Nm1 +m2 (0, I −1 (θ0 )),
n→∞
n(β̂p,n − β0 )
where

ϕ(n) :=

1
n∆n Im1

0

0
1
I
n m2


.

Remark 3.2. We observe that l2,n does not coincide with (3.2), because (3.11) contains the
terms d1 and e1 . Nevertheless, ln also yields an asymptotical efficient estimator for θ and then
we refer to it when p = 2.
Remark 3.3. Under the same framework adopted in this paper, alternatively to θ̂p,n , [22] and
[30] proposed different types of adaptive maximum quasi-likelihood estimators. For instance, in
[30], the first type of adaptive estimator is introduced starting from the initial estimator β̃0,n is
defined by Un (β̃0,n ) = inf β∈Θβ Un (β), where

n 
1 X (Xi − Xi−1 )2
Un (β) :=
+ log ci−1 (β) .
2 i=1
∆n ci−1 (β)
For p ≥ 2, k0 = [p/2] and l0 = [(p − 1)/2], the first type adaptive estimator θ̃p,n = (α̃k0 ,n , β̃l0 ,n )
is defined for k = 1, 2, ..., k0 , as follows
lp,n (α̃k,n , β̃k−1,n ) = inf lp,n (α, β̃k−1,n ),
α∈Θα

lp,n (α̃k,n , β̃k,n ) = inf lp,n (α̃k,n , β).
β∈Θβ

The maximum quasi-likelihood estimator θ̂p,n and its adaptive versions, like θ̃p,n , are asymptotically equivalent (under a minor change of the initial assumptions); i.e. they have the same
properties (3.15) and (3.16) (see [30]). In what follow we will developed a test based on θ̂p,n ;
nevertheless in light of the previous discussion, it would be possible to replace θ̂p,n with θ̃p,n .

8

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

4. Test statistics
The goal of this section is to define and to analyze test statistics for the following parametric
hypotheses problem
(4.1)

vs H1 : θ 6= θ0 ,

H0 : θ = θ0 ,

concerning the stochastic differential equation (1.1). X is partially observed and therefore we
have discrete observations represented by Xn . The motivation of this research is due to the fact
that under non-simple alternative hypotheses do not exist uniformly most powerful parametric
tests. Therefore, we need proper procedure for making the right decision concerning statistical
hypothesis.
The first step consists in the introduction of a suitable measure regarding the “discrepancy”,
or the “distance”, between diffusions belonging to the parametric class (1.1). Furthermore, we
bearing in mind that as recalled in the previous section, for a general stochastic differential
equation X, the true probability transitions from Xi−1 to Xi do not exist in closed form as
well as the likelihood function. Suppose known the parameter β and assume observable the
sample path up to time T = n∆n . Let Qβ be the probability law of the process solution to
dYt = σ(β, Yt )dWt . The continuous loglikelihood of X is given by
Z
Z T
b(α, Xt )
1 T b2 (α, Xt )
dPθ
dXt −
dt.
=
log
dQβ
2 0 c(β, Xt )
0 c(β, Xt )
Thus we can consider the (squared) L2 (Qβ )-distance between the loglikelihoods log
log

dPθ2
dQβ

(4.2)

dPθ1
dQβ

and

with θ1 , θ2 ∈ Θ; that is
dPθ1
dPθ2
D(θ1 , θ2 ) := log
− log
dQβ
dQβ

2
L2 (Qβ )

2
Z 
dPθ1
dPθ2
=
log
− log
dQβ .
dQβ
dQβ

Clearly for testing the hypotheses (4.1) in the framework of discretely observed stochastic differential equations, the distance (4.2) is not useful. Nevertheless, the above L2 −metric for the
continuos observations suggests to consider
n
1X
(4.3)
Dp,n (θ1 , θ2 ) :=
[lp,i (θ1 ) − lp,i (θ2 )]2 , θ1 , θ2 ∈ Θ,
n i=1
which can be interpreted as the empirical version of (4.2), where the theoretical loglikelihood
is replaced by the quasi-loglikelihood defined by (3.11). The following theorem provides the
convergence in probability of Dp,n .
Theorem 2. Let p be an integer and k0 = [p/2]. Assume A1 − A4 , A5 [2k0 ] and A6 . Under H0 ,
if ∆n → 0, n∆n → ∞, as n → ∞, we have that
P

0
Dp,n (θ, θ0 ) −→
U (β, β0 )

n→∞

uniformly in θ, where
U (β, β0 )
2  
2



)
Z ( 
1
c(β0 , x)
c(β, x)
c(β0 , x)
c(β, x)
:=
3
− 1 + log
+2
− 1 log
π0 (dx).
4
c(β, x)
c(β0 , x)
c(β, x)
c(β0 , x)
The above result shows that Dp,n (θ, θ0 ) is not a true approximation of Dp,n (θ, θ0 ) because
R
2
it does not converge to [log(πθ (dx)/π0 (dx))] π0 (dx). Nevertheless, the function (4.3) allows
to construct the main object of interest of the paper. Let θ̂n be the maximum quasi-likelihood

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

9

estimator defined by (3.13), for testing the hypotheses (4.1) we introduce the following class of
test statistics
(4.4)

Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) := nDp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ).

The first result concerns the weak convergence of Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ). We prove that Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) is
asymptotically distribution free under H0 ; namely it weakly converges to a chi-squared random
variable with two degrees of freedom.
Theorem 3. Let p be an integer and k0 = [p/2]. Assume A1 − A4 , A5 [2k0 ] and A6 . Under H0 ,
if ∆n → 0, n∆n → ∞, n∆pn → 0, as n → ∞, we have that
d

Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) −→ χ2m1 +m2 .

(4.5)

n→∞

Given the level α ∈ (0, 1), our criterion suggests to
reject H0 if Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) > χ2m1 +m2 ,α ,
where χ2m1 +m2 ,α is the 1 − α quantile of the limiting random variable χ2m1 +m2 ; that is under H0
lim Pθ (Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) > χ2m1 +m2 ,α ) = α.

n→∞

Under H1 , the power function of the proposed test are equal to the following map


θ 7→ Pθ Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) > χ2m1 +m2 ,α
Often a way to judge the quality of sequences of tests is provided by the powers at alternatives
that become closer and closer to the null hypothesis. This justify the study of local limiting
power. Indeed, usually
the power functions of test statistic (4.4) cannot be calculated explicitly.


Nevertheless, Pθ Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) > χ2m1 +m2 ,α can be studied and approximated under contiguous
alternatives written as
(4.6)

H1,n : θ = θ0 + ϕ(n)1/2 h,

where h ∈ Rm1 +m2 such that θ0 +ϕ(n)1/2 h ∈ Θ. In order to get a reasonable approximation of the
power function, we analyze the asymptotic law of the test statistics under the local alternatives
H1,n . We need the following assumption on the contiguity of probability measures (see [32]):
B1 . Pθ0 +ϕ(n)h is a sequence of contiguous probability measures with respect to P0 ; i.e.
limn→∞ P0 (An ) = 0 implies limn→∞ Pθ0 +ϕ(n)1/2 h (An ) = 0 for every measurable sets
An .
Remark 4.1. The assumption B1 holds if we assume A1 − A4 , A5 [2k0 ] and the conditions:
(i) there exists a constant C > 0 such that the following estimates hold
|b(α, x)| ≤ C(1 + |x|),

∂
∂
b(α, x) + |σ(β, x)| +
σ(β, x) ≤ C
∂x
∂x

for all (α, β) ∈ Θ and x ∈ R;
(ii) there exists C0 > 0 and K > 0 such that
b(α, x)x ≤ −C0 |x|2 + K
for all (α, x) ∈ Θα × R;
(iii) there exists a constant C1 > 0 such that
1
≤ σ(β, x) ≤ C1 .
C1

10

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

Under the above assumptions, [12] proved the Local Asymptotic Normality (LAN) for the likelihood of the ergodic diffusions (1.1); i.e.


dPθ0 +ϕ(n)h
1
d
(Xn ) −→ h0 Nm1 +m2 (0, I(θ0 )) + h0 I(θ0 )h.
log
n→∞
dP0
2
By means of Le Cam’s first lemma (see [32]), LAN property implies the contiguity of Pθ0 +ϕ(n)h
with respect to P0 .
Now, we are able to study the asymptotic probability distribution of Tp,n under H1,n .
Theorem 4. Let p be an integer and k0 = [p/2]. Assume A1 − A4 , A5 [2k0 ], A6 and B1 fulfill.
Under the local alternative hypothesis H1,n , if ∆n → 0, n∆n → ∞, n∆pn → 0 as n → ∞, the
following weak convergence holds
(4.7)

d

Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) −→ χ2m1 +m2 (h0 I(θ0 )h),
n→∞

where the random variable χ2l+m (h0 I(θ0 )h) is a non-central chi square random variable with l +m
degrees of freedom and non-centrality parameter h0 I(θ0 )h.
Remark 4.2. If we deal with H0 : θ = θ0 and the local alternative hypothesis H1,n , Theorem 4
leads to the following approximation of the power functions



(4.8)
Pθ Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) > χ2m1 +m2 ,α ∼
= 1 − F χ2m1 +m2 ,α , n >> 1,
where F(·) is the cumulative function of the random variable χ2m1 +m2 (h0 I(θ0 )h).
Remark 4.3. The Generalized Quasi-Likelihood Ratio, Wald, Rao type test statistics have been
studied by [21], respectively, given by
(4.9)

Lp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) := 2(lp,n (θ̂p,n ) − lp,n (θ0 ))

(4.10)

Wp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) := (ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂p,n − θ0 ))0 Ip,n (θ̂p,n )ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂p,n − θ0 )

(4.11)

−1
Rp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) := (ϕ(n)1/2 ∂θ lp,n (θ0 ))0 Ip,n
(θ̂p,n )ϕ(n)1/2 ∂θ lp,n (θ0 ),

where
Ip,n (θ) =

1
2
n∆n ∂α lp,n (θ)
1
√
∂ ∂ l (θ)
n ∆n β α p,n

√1
∂ ∂ l (θ)
n ∆n α β p,n
1 2
∂
n β lp,n (θ)

!

and Rp,n is well-defined if Ip,n (θ) is nonsingular. The above test statistics are asymptotically
equivalent to Tp,n ; i.e. under H0 , Lp,n , Wp,n and Rp,n weakly converge to a χ2 random variable.
Remark 4.4. In [9], the authors dealt with (for p = 2) test statistics based on an empirical
version of the true φ-divergences; i.e.


n
X
exp ln (θ)
(4.12)
2
φ
exp ln (θ0 )
i=1
where φ represents a suitable convex function and ln is given by (3.2). In the present paper,
the starting point is represented by the L2 -distance between two diffusion parametric models.
Somehow, the approach developed in this work is close to that developed by [1], where a test
based on the L2 -distance measure between the density function and its nonparametric estimator
is introduced.

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

11

Remark 4.5. From a practical point of view, since sometimes α = α0 and β = β0 have different
meanings, it is possible to deal with a stepwise procedure. For instance as p = 2, first, we test
β = β0 by means of
!
!#2
"
n
X
1
1
ci−1 (β̃0,n )
(Xi − Xi−1 )2
β
−
Tn (β̃0,n , β0 ) :=
+ log
∆n
ci−1 (β0 )
ci−1 (β̃0,n ) ci−1 (β0 )
i=1
and then, in the second step, we test α = α0 by taking into account
n
X
Tnα (α̃1,n , α0 , β̃0,n ) :=
[l2,i (α̃1,n , β̃0,n ) − l2,i (α0 , β̃0,n )]2 ,
i=1

where α̃1,n and β̃0,n are the adaptive estimators defined in the Remark 3.3.
5. Numerical analysis
Although all test statistics presented in the above and in the literature satisfy the same
asymptotic results, for small sample sizes the performance of each test statistic is determined
by the statistical model generating the data and the quality of the approximation of the quasilikelihood function. To put in evidence these effects we consider the two stochastic models
presented in Section 2, namely the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU in the tables) of equation (2.1) and
the CIR model of equation (2.2). In this numerical study we consider the power of the test under
local alternatives for different test statistics:
• the φ divergence of equation (4.12) with φ(x) = 1 − x + x log(x), which is equivalent to
the approximated Kullback-Leibler divergence (see, [9]). We use the label AKL in the
tables for this approximate KL;
2

: this was proposed in [4], we name it BS in the
• the φ divergence with φ(x) = x−1
x+1
tables;
• the Generalized Quasi-Likelihood Ratio test with p = 2, see e.g., (4.9), denoted as
GQLRT in the tables;
• the Rao test statistics1 R(θ̂p,n , θ0 ) of equation (4.11), denoted as RAO in the tables;
• and the statistic Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) proposed in this paper and defined in equation (4.4), with
p = 2, denoted as T2,n in the tables.
The sample sizes have been chosen to be equal to n = 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 observations and
1
time horizon is set to T = n 3 , in order to satisfy the asymptotic theory. For testing θ0 against
h
the local alternatives θ0 + √n∆
for the parameters in the drift coefficient and θ0 + √hn for the
n
parameters in the diffusion coefficient, h is taken in a grid from 0 to 1, and h = 0 corresponds
to the null hypothesis H0 . For the data generating process, we consider the following statistical
models
OU: the one-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model solution to dXt = α1 (α2 −Xt )dt+β1 dWt ,
X0 = 1, with θ0 = (α1 , α2 , β1 ) = (0.5, 0.5, 0.25);
√
CIR: the one-dimensional CIR model solution to dXt = α1 (α2 − Xt )dt + β1 Xt dWt , X0 = 1,
with θ0 = (α1 , α2 , β1 ) = (0.5, 0.5, 0.125).
In each experiments the process have been simulated at high frequency using the EulerMaruyama scheme and resampled to obtain n = 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 observations. Remark
that, even if the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process has a Gaussian transition density, this density is
different from the Euler-Maruyama Gaussian density for non negligible time mesh ∆n (see, [13]).
1We do not consider the Wald test of (4.10) because it was shown in [21] that it performs similarly to the Rao
test statistics.

12

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

For the simulation we user the R package yuima (see, [17]). Each experiment is replicated 1000
times and from the empirical distribution of each test statistic, say Sn , we define the rejection
threshold of the test as χ̃23,0.05 , i.e. χ̃23,0.05 is the 95% quantile of the empirical distribution of
Sn , that is
0.05 = Freq(Sn (θ̂n , θ0 ) > χ̃23,0.05 ).
Similarly, we define the empirical power function of the test as
EPow(h) = Freq(Sn (θ̂n , θ0 + ϕ(n)1/2 h) > χ̃23,0.05 ),
where θ̂n is the maximum quasi-likelihood estimator defined in (3.13). The choice of using the
empirical threshold χ̃23,0.05 instead of the theoretical threshold χ23,0.05 from the χ23 distribution,
is due to the fact that otherwise the tests are non comparable. Indeed, the empirical level of
the test is not 0.05 for small sample sizes when χ23,0.05 is used as rejection threshold and, for
example, when h = 0 different choices of the test statistic produce different empirical levels of the
test. Tables 1 and 2 contain the empirical power function of each test. In these tables the bold
face font is used to put in evidence the test statistics with the highest empirical power function
EPow(h) for a given local alternative h > 0. As mentioned before, the natural benchmark test
statistics is the generalised quasi likelihood ratio test (GQLRT).
From this numerical analysis we can see several facts:
• the test statistic based on the AKL test statistics does not perform as the GQLR test
despite they are related to the same divergence; the latter being sometimes better;
• the T2,n seems to be (almost) uniformly more powerful in this experiment;
• all but RAO test seem to have a good behaviour when the alternative is sufficiently large;
• for the CIR model, the RAO test does not perform well under the alternative hypothesis
and this is probably because it requires very large T which, in our case, is at most T = 10.
For the OU Gaussian case, the performance are better and in line from those presented
in [21] for similar sample sizes.
Therefore, we can conclude that, despite all the test statistics share the same asymptotic properties, the proposed Tp,n seems to perform very well in the small sample case examined in the
above Monte Carlo experiments, at least for p = 2.
6. Proofs
In order to prove the theorems appearing in the paper, we need some preliminary results. Let
us start with the following lemmas.
Lemma 1. For k ≥ 1 and tni−1 ≤ t ≤ tni
E0i−1 [|Xt − Xi−1 |k ] ≤ Ck |t − tni−1 |k/2 (1 + |Xi−1 |)Ck .

(6.1)

If f : Θ × R → R is of polynomial growth in x uniformly in θ then
(6.2)

E0i−1 [f (θ, Xt )] ≤ Ct−tni−1 (1 + |Xi−1 |)C ,

tni−1 ≤ t ≤ tni .

Proof. See the proof of Lemma 6 in [23].
Lemma 2. For l ≥ 1
(6.3)

rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ) = Xi−1 + ∆n bi−1 (α) + R(θ, ∆2n , Xi−1 )

(6.4)

E0i−1 [(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))2 ] = ∆n ci−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆2n , Xi−1 )

(6.5)

E0i−1 [(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))3 ] = R(θ, ∆2n , Xi−1 )

(6.6)

E0i−1 [(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))4 ] = 3∆2n c2i−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆3n , Xi−1 )

(6.7)

E0i−1 [(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))5 ] = R(θ, ∆3n , Xi−1 )



EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

13

Table 1. Empirical power function EPow(h), for different sample sizes n and
local alternatives h. The empirical power and theoretical power is 0.05. Data
generating model: the 1-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process.

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.044
0.035
0.025
0.011
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.021
0.053
0.120
0.221
0.383

n = 50
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.048
0.046
0.032
0.041
0.029
0.033
0.031
0.042
0.054
0.069
0.108
0.147
0.216
0.269
0.359
0.448
0.527
0.591
0.670
0.736
0.794
0.852
0.882
0.910

RAO
0.050
0.053
0.057
0.064
0.078
0.096
0.121
0.138
0.146
0.149
0.150
0.148
0.145

T2,n
0.050
0.052
0.057
0.077
0.133
0.239
0.371
0.559
0.720
0.842
0.917
0.966
0.992

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.044
0.036
0.028
0.015
0.022
0.049
0.118
0.253
0.436
0.666
0.821
0.911

n = 250
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.050
0.049
0.046
0.048
0.050
0.076
0.078
0.153
0.157
0.304
0.304
0.486
0.496
0.703
0.704
0.847
0.851
0.928
0.931
0.973
0.976
0.992
0.993

RAO
0.050
0.051
0.052
0.058
0.114
0.168
0.222
0.280
0.339
0.389
0.419
0.462
0.485

T2,n
0.050
0.048
0.057
0.075
0.143
0.255
0.452
0.654
0.822
0.921
0.969
0.991
1.000

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.046
0.038
0.035
0.061
0.122
0.219
0.426
0.655
0.821
0.930
0.978
0.994

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.046
0.032
0.022
0.014
0.009
0.009
0.020
0.051
0.131
0.244
0.414
0.608

n = 100
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.047
0.046
0.035
0.035
0.029
0.030
0.038
0.042
0.089
0.083
0.159
0.163
0.283
0.291
0.465
0.472
0.644
0.659
0.789
0.801
0.883
0.893
0.937
0.944

RAO
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.058
0.082
0.101
0.128
0.155
0.183
0.199
0.213
0.221
0.225

T2,n
0.050
0.050
0.055
0.070
0.141
0.253
0.404
0.609
0.769
0.876
0.943
0.984
0.996

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.048
0.038
0.032
0.030
0.050
0.138
0.274
0.493
0.704
0.847
0.936
0.982

n = 500
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.049
0.044
0.043
0.050
0.050
0.084
0.080
0.175
0.175
0.329
0.323
0.555
0.552
0.751
0.747
0.869
0.869
0.957
0.957
0.987
0.987
0.997
0.997

RAO
0.050
0.052
0.067
0.082
0.134
0.202
0.279
0.363
0.454
0.522
0.584
0.630
0.678

T2,n
0.050
0.051
0.059
0.075
0.133
0.250
0.449
0.673
0.828
0.934
0.983
0.996
0.998

n = 1000
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.050
0.046
0.049
0.056
0.062
0.104
0.109
0.182
0.187
0.359
0.372
0.600
0.605
0.786
0.794
0.912
0.914
0.969
0.972
0.993
0.993
0.997
0.997

RAO
0.050
0.051
0.056
0.062
0.121
0.193
0.291
0.398
0.507
0.596
0.665
0.711
0.760

Tn
0.050
0.051
0.058
0.074
0.134
0.241
0.442
0.662
0.840
0.942
0.985
0.994
0.998

(6.8)

E0i−1 [(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))6 ] = 5 · 3∆3n c3i−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆4n , Xi−1 )

(6.9)

E0i−1 [(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))7 ] = R(θ, ∆4n , Xi−1 )

(6.10)

E0i−1 [(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))8 ] = 7 · 5 · 3∆4n c4i−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆5n , Xi−1 )

Proof. The equalities from (6.3) to (6.6) represent the statement of Lemma 7 in [23]. By using
the same approach adopted for the proof of the aforementioned lemma, we observe that from
(6.3) to (6.6), the result (6.7) and (6.8) hold, if we are able to show that
(6.11)

E0i−1 [(Xi − Xi−1 )5 ] = R(θ, ∆3n , Xi−1 )

(6.12)

E0i−1 [(Xi − Xi−1 )6 ] = 5 · 3∆3n c3i−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆4n , Xi−1 )

We only prove (6.12), because (6.11) follows by means of similar arguments. By applying the
Ito-Taylor formula (see Lemma 1, in [10]) to the function fx (y) = (y − x)6 we obtain
E0i−1 [(Xi − Xi−1 )6 ] = fXi−1 (Xi−1 ) + ∆n L0 fXi−1 (Xi−1 )
+

∆3
∆2n 2
L0 fXi−1 (Xi−1 ) + n L30 fXi−1 (Xi−1 )
2
3!

14

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

Table 2. Empirical power function EPow(h), for different sample sizes n and
local alternatives h. The empirical power and theoretical power is 0.05. Data
generating model: the 1-dimensional CIR process.

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.041
0.025
0.009
0.013
0.044
0.186
0.475
0.760
0.913
0.981
0.997
1.000

n = 50
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.044
0.045
0.032
0.031
0.040
0.042
0.148
0.167
0.416
0.458
0.700
0.741
0.883
0.907
0.967
0.981
0.994
0.998
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

RAO
0.050
0.052
0.059
0.068
0.075
0.069
0.067
0.067
0.061
0.059
0.051
0.041
0.041

T2,n
0.050
0.053
0.071
0.145
0.371
0.721
0.923
0.989
0.997
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.042
0.026
0.021
0.093
0.372
0.790
0.952
0.996
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

n = 250
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.049
0.046
0.045
0.046
0.086
0.084
0.347
0.342
0.752
0.756
0.943
0.944
0.994
0.994
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

RAO
0.050
0.052
0.054
0.057
0.062
0.064
0.065
0.064
0.060
0.060
0.057
0.055
0.050

T2,n
0.050
0.050
0.071
0.144
0.505
0.864
0.977
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

Z

∆n

u1

Z

u2

Z

+
0

0

n = 100
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.043
0.046
0.032
0.034
0.054
0.051
0.205
0.207
0.537
0.553
0.827
0.836
0.950
0.958
0.993
0.994
0.999
0.998
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

RAO
0.050
0.053
0.056
0.062
0.063
0.064
0.064
0.063
0.059
0.056
0.053
0.048
0.044

T2,n
0.050
0.051
0.070
0.150
0.461
0.797
0.957
0.995
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.043
0.030
0.032
0.180
0.598
0.898
0.992
0.998
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000

n = 500
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.043
0.042
0.046
0.044
0.095
0.091
0.384
0.380
0.802
0.800
0.972
0.972
0.998
0.998
0.999
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

RAO
0.050
0.051
0.051
0.052
0.055
0.058
0.058
0.059
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.055
0.051

T2,n
0.050
0.048
0.074
0.147
0.530
0.869
0.990
0.998
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

n = 1000
GQLRT
BS
0.050
0.050
0.048
0.047
0.059
0.057
0.120
0.118
0.429
0.428
0.844
0.840
0.983
0.983
0.998
0.998
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

AKL
0.050
0.044
0.035
0.067
0.274
0.725
0.953
0.996
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

Z

h=0.00
h=0.01
h=0.05
h=0.10
h=0.20
h=0.30
h=0.40
h=0.50
h=0.60
h=0.70
h=0.80
h=0.90
h=1.00

AKL
0.050
0.040
0.019
0.010
0.017
0.102
0.338
0.685
0.896
0.977
0.998
0.999
1.000

0

0

RAO
0.050
0.051
0.051
0.054
0.058
0.061
0.062
0.062
0.062
0.060
0.059
0.059
0.058

T2,n
0.050
0.050
0.079
0.144
0.527
0.886
0.989
0.999
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

u3

E0i−1 [L40 fXi−1 (Xtni−1 +u4 )]du1 du2 du3 du4 .

By applying (6.2), we obtain
Z
0

∆n

Z
0

u1

Z
0

u2

Z
0

u3

E0i−1 [L40 fXi−1 (Xtni−1 +u4 )]du1 du2 du3 du4 = R(θ, ∆4n , Xi−1 ).

Furthermore, by means of long and cumbersome calculations, we can show that fx (x) = L0 fx (x) =
L20 fx (x) = 0, while L30 fx (x) = 5 · 3 · 3!∆3n c3i−1 (β0 ).
Analogously to what done, from (6.3) to (6.8), the equalities (6.9) and (6.10) hold, if we are
able to show that
(6.13)

E0i−1 [(Xi − Xi−1 )7 ] = R(θ, ∆4n , Xi−1 ),

(6.14)

E0i−1 [(Xi − Xi−1 )8 ] = 7 · 5 · 3∆4n c4i−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆5n , Xi−1 ).

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

15

We only prove (6.14), because (6.13) follows by means of similar arguments. The application of
the Ito-Taylor formula to the function fx (y) = (y − x)8 yields
E0i−1 [(Xi − Xi−1 )8 ] = fXi−1 (Xi−1 ) + ∆n L0 fXi−1 (Xi−1 ) +

∆2n 2
L fX (Xi−1 )
2 0 i−1

∆3n 3
∆4
L0 fXi−1 (Xi−1 ) + n L40 fXi−1 (Xi−1 )
3!
4!
Z ∆n Z u1 Z u2 Z u3 Z u4
E0i−1 [L50 fXi−1 (Xtni−1 +u5 )]du1 du2 du3 du4 du5
+
+

0

By applying (6.2), we get
Z ∆n Z u1 Z u2 Z u3 Z
0

0

0

0

0

0

u4

0

0

0

E0i−1 [L50 fXi−1 (Xtni−1 +u5 )]du1 du2 du3 du4 du5 = R(θ, ∆5n , Xi−1 ).

Furthermore, by means of long and cumbersome calculations, we can show that fx (x) = L0 fx (x) =
L20 fx (x) = L30 fx (x) = 0 while L40 fx (x) = 7 · 5 · 3 · 4!∆4n c4 (β0 , x).

Lemma 3 (Triangular arrays convegence). Let Uin and U be random variables, with Uin being
Pn
P
Gin -measurable. The two following conditions imply i=1 Uin −→ U :
n→∞

n
X
i=1

P

n
E[Uin |Gi−1
] −→ U,
n→∞

Proof. See the proof of Lemma 9 in [11].

n
X
i=1

P

n
E[(Uin )2 |Gi−1
] −→ 0
n→∞



Lemma 4. Let f : Θ × R → R be such that f (θ, x) ∈ C↑1,1 (Θ × R, R). Let us assume A1 − A6 , if
∆n → 0 and n∆n → ∞ we have that
Z
n
1X
P0
f (x, θ)π0 (dx)
fi−1 (θ) −→
n→∞
n i=1
uniformly in θ.
Proof. See the proof of Lemma 8 in [23].

Lemma 5. Let f : Θ × R → R be such that f (θ, x) ∈ C↑1,1 (Θ × R, R). Let us assume A1 − A6 , if
∆n → 0 and n∆n → ∞, as n → ∞, we have that


0,
j = 1, k = 1,


R



f
(θ,
x)c(β
,
x)π
(dx),
j
= 1, k = 2,
0
0
n
R
1 X
k P0
fi−1 (θ)(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 )) −→
f (θ, x)R(θ, 1, x)π0 (dx), j = 2, k = 3,
n→∞ 
n∆jn i=1

0,
j = 1, k = 4,



3 R f (θ, x)c2 (β , x)π (dx), j = 2, k = 4,
0
0
uniformly in θ.
Proof. The cases j = 1, k = 1 and j = 1, k = 2 coincide with Lemma 9 and Lemma 10 in [23]
and then we use the same approach to show that remaining convergences hold true.
By setting
1
fi−1 (θ)(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))3 ,
ζin (θ) :=
n∆2n

16

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

we prove that the convergence holds for all θ. By taking into account Lemma 2
Z
n
1X
P0
i−1 n
f (θ, x)R(θ, 1, x)π0 (dx),
E0 [ζi (θ)] =
fi−1 (θ)R(θ, 1, Xi−1 ) −→
n→∞
n i=1
E0i−1 [(ζin (θ))2 ] =

n
1 X
P0
[5 · 3c3i−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, 1, Xi−1 )] −→
0.
2
n→∞
n ∆n i=1

Therefore by Lemma 3 we can conclude that
Z
P0
f (θ, x)R(θ, 1, x)π0 (dx),
ζin (θ) −→
n→∞

for all θ. For the uniformity of the convergence we use the same arguments adopted in the proof
of Lemma 8 in [23]. Hence, it is sufficient to prove the tightness of the sequence of random
elements
n
1 X fi−1 (θ)(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))3
Yn (θ) :=
n i=1
∆2n
taking values in the Banach space C(Θ) endowed with the sup-norm ||·||∞ . From the assumptions
of lemma follows that supn E0 [supθ∈Θ |∂θ Yn (θ)|] < ∞ which implies the tightness of Yn (θ) for
the criterion given by Theorem 16.5 in [19].
By setting
1
fi−1 (θ)(Xi − rl (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))4 ,
ζin (θ) :=
n∆2n
we prove that the convergence holds for all θ. By taking into account Lemma 2 and Lemma 5
Z
n
1X
P0
i−1 n
2
fi−1 (θ)[3ci−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 )] −→ 3 f (θ, x)c2 (β0 , x)π0 (dx),
E0 [ζi (θ)] =
n→∞
n i=1
E0i−1 [(ζin (θ))2 ] =

n
1 X
P0
[7 · 5 · 3c4i−1 (β0 ) + R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 )] −→
0.
n→∞
n2 i=1

Therefore by Lemma 3 we get the pointwise convergence. For the uniformity of the convergence
we proceed as done above.

Before to proceed with the proofs of the main theorems of the paper, we introduce some useful
quantities coinciding with (4.2)−(4.8) appearing in [23]. We can write down
(6.15)

lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 ) = ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 ) + ϕi,2 (θ, θ0 ) + ϕi,3 (θ, θ0 ) + ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 ),

where
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))2
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 ) :=
2∆n

(

1+

Pk0

j=1

∆jn dj (θ, Xi−1 )

ci−1 (β)

−

1+

Pk0

j=1

∆jn dj (θ0 , Xi−1 )

ci−1 (β0 )

(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))(rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ) − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))
∆n ci−1 (β)


k
0


X
× 1+
∆jn dj (θ, Xi−1 ) ,


j=1


k0

2 
X
(rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ) − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))
1+
ϕi,3 (θ, θ0 ) :=
∆jn dj (θ, Xi−1 ) ,


2∆n ci−1 (β)

ϕi,2 (θ, θ0 ) :=

j=1

)
,

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 ) :=

1
log
2



ci−1 (β)
ci−1 (β0 )

17

k


+

0
1X
∆j (ej (θ, Xi−1 ) − ej (θ0 , Xi−1 )).
2 j=1 n

Furthermore
h
h
∂αh lp,i (θ) = ηi,1
(θ) + ηi,2
(θ),

(6.16)

h = 1, 2, ..., m1 ,

where
h
ηi,1
(θ) := −(∂αh rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))

Pk0
h
ηi,2
(θ)

2

:= (Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))

j=1

o
n
Pk0
∆jn dj (θ, Xi−1 )
1 + j=1
∆n ci−1 (β)

∆jn ∂αh dj (θ, Xi−1 )
2∆n ci−1 (β)

,

k

+

0
1X
∆j ∂α ej (θ, Xi−1 ),
2 j=1 n h

and
(6.17)

k
k
k
∂βk lp,i (θ) = ξi,1
(θ) + ξi,2
(θ) + ξi,3
(θ),

k = 1, 2, ..., m2 ,

where


k0
k0
 1X
2 X
(X
−
r
(∆
,
X
,
θ))
i
k0
n
i−1
k
∆jn ∂βk ej (θ, Xi−1 ),
∆jn ∂βk dj (θ, Xi−1 ) +
ξi,1
(θ) :=

 2
2∆n ci−1 (β)
j=1
j=1


k0
 ∂ c (β)

2
X
(X
−
r
(∆
,
X
,
θ))
∂
c
(β)
β i−1
i
k0
n
i−1
βk i−1
j
k
∆
d
(θ,
X
)
+ k
,
ξi,2
(θ) := −
1
+
j
i−1
n


2∆n c2i−1 (β)
2c
i−1 (β)
j=1
n
o
Pk0
1 + j=1
∆jn dj (θ, Xi−1 )
k
ξi,3
(θ) := −(∂βk rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))
.
∆n ci−1 (β)
From (6.15) it is possible to derive
(6.18)

h,k
h,k
h,k
h,k
∂α2 h αk lp,i (θ) := δi,1
(θ) + δi,2
(θ) + δi,3
(θ) + δi,4
(θ),

h, k = 1, 2, ..., m1 ,

where
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))2
{(∂α2 h αk d1 )i−1 (θ) + R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 )},
2ci−1 (β)
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))
h,k
δi,2
{−∂α2 h αk bi−1 (α) + R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 )},
(θ) :=
ci−1 (β)
1
h,k
δi,3
(θ) := ∆n ∂α2 h αk e1 (θ, Xi−1 ),
2

 2
∂αh αk bi−1 (α)(bi−1 (α) − bi−1 (α0 )) + ∂αh bi−1 (α)∂αk bi−1 (α)
h,k
+ R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 ) ,
δi,4
(θ) := ∆n
ci−1 (β)
h,k
δi,1
(θ) :=

(6.19)

h,k
h,k
h,k
∂β2h βk lp,i (θ) := νi,1
(θ) + νi,2
(θ) + νi,3
(θ),

h, k = 1, 2, ..., m2 ,

where
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))2
{(∂β2h βk c−1 )i−1 (β) + R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 )},
2∆n
1
h,k
νi,2
(θ) := (Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))R(θ, 1, Xi−1 )),
2
1
h,k
νi,3 (θ) := (∂β2h βk log c)i−1 (β) + R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 )),
2
h,k
νi,1
(θ) :=

18

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

and
(6.20)

∂α2 h βk lp,i (θ) := µi,1 (θ) + µi,2 (θ),

h = 1, 2, ..., m1 , k = 1, 2, ..., m2 ,

where
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))2
R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 ),
2∆n
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))
µi,2 (θ) :=
R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 ) + R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 ).
∆n
µi,1 (θ) :=

Proof of Theorem 2. We observe that


n
4

X
1 X X
Dp,n (θ, θ0 ) =
(ϕi,k (θ, θ0 ))2 + 2
)ϕi,j (θ, θ0 )ϕi,k (θ, θ0 ) .


n
i=1

k=1

j<k

Under H0 , from Lemma 4 and Lemma 5, we derive
"

2 #
n
n
4
X
1
1
(X
−
r
(∆
,
X
,
θ
))
1
1X
i
k
n
i−1
0
0
(ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 ))2 =
−
+ R(θ, ∆n , Xi−1 )
n i=1
n i=1
4∆2n
ci−1 (β) ci−1 (β0 )
"

2 #
n
1 X (Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))4
1
1
=
−
+ oP0 (1)
n i=1
4∆2n
ci−1 (β) ci−1 (β0 )

2
Z
1
1
P0 3
2
c (β0 , x)
−
π0 (dx)
−→
n→∞ 4
c(β, x) c(β0 , x)

n
n 
1X
1 X (Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))2
2
(ϕi,2 (θ, θ0 ))2 =
[b
(α
)
−
b
(α)]
+ oP0 (1)
i−1
0
i−1
n i=1
n i=1
c2i−1 (β0 )
P

0
−→
0

n→∞


n
n 
1 X ∆2n [bi−1 (α0 ) − bi−1 (α)]4
1X
2
(ϕi,3 (θ, θ0 )) =
+ oP0 (1)
n i=1
n i=1
4c2i−1 (β)
P

0
−→
0

n→∞

 
2
n
n
1X
1X1
ci−1 (β)
2
(ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )) =
log
+ oP0 (1)
n i=1
n i=1 4
ci−1 (β0 )
2
Z  
c(β, x)
P0 1
−→
log
π0 (dx)
n→∞ 4
c(β0 , x)


n
n
1 X (Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ0 ))2
1X
1
1
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 ) =
−
n i=1
n i=1
4∆n
ci−1 (β) ci−1 (β0 )


ci−1 (β)
× log
+ oP0 (1)
ci−1 (β0 )




Z
1
1
c(β, x)
P0 1
−→
c(β0 , x)
−
log
π0 (dx)
n→∞ 4
c(β, x) c(β0 , x)
c(β0 , x)
n
1X
P0
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )ϕi,j (θ, θ0 ) −→
0, j = 2, 3,
n→∞
n i=1

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

19

n

1X
P0
0,
ϕi,2 (θ, θ0 )ϕi,j (θ, θ0 ) −→
n→∞
n i=1

j = 3, 4,

n

1X
P0
0,
ϕi,3 (θ, θ0 )ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 ) −→
n→∞
n i=1
uniformly in θ. Thus the statement of the theorem immediately follows.



Let
1
2
n∆n [∂αh αk Tp,n (θ, θ0 )]h=1,...,m1
k=1,...,m1
 1
√
[∂ 2 T (θ, θ0 )]h=1,...,m1
n ∆n αh βk p,n
k=1,...,m2


(6.21)

Cp,n (θ, θ0 ) :=

√1
[∂ 2 T (θ, θ0 )]h=1,...,m1
n ∆n αh βk p,n
k=1,...,m2 
1 2
n [∂βh βk Tp,n (θ, θ0 )]h=1,...,m2
k=1,...,m2



where
n
X

∂αh lp,i (θ)∂αk lp,i (θ) + [lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂α2 h αk lp,i (θ) ,

(6.22)

∂α2 h αk Tp,n (θ, θ0 ) = 2

(6.23)

n
X

∂β2h βk Tp,n (θ, θ0 ) = 2
∂βh lp,i (θ)∂βk lp,i (θ) + [lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂β2h βk lp,i (θ) ,

(6.24)

n
X

∂α2 h βk Tp,n (θ, θ0 ) = 2
∂αh lp,i (θ)∂βk lp,i (θ) + [lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂α2 h βk lp,i (θ) .

i=1

i=1

i=1

The following proposition concerning the asymptotic behavior of Cp,n (θ, θ0 ) plays a crucial
role in the proof of Theorem 3.
Proposition 1. Under H0 , assume A1 − A6 and ∆n → 0, n∆n → ∞, as n → ∞, the following
convergences hold
P

0
Cp,n (θ0 , θ0 ) −→
2I(θ0 )

(6.25)

n→∞

and
P

0
0,
sup ||Cp,n (θ0 + θ, θ0 ) − Cp,n (θ0 , θ0 )|| −→

(6.26)

||θ||≤εn

n→∞

εn → 0.

Proof of Proposition 1. We study the uniform convergence in probability of Cp,n (θ, θ0 ). Thus we
prove that uniformly in θ


K1 (θ, θ0 ) + K2 (θ, θ0 )
0
P0
(6.27)
Cp,n (θ, θ0 ) −→ 2K(θ, θ0 ) := 2
0
K3 (θ, θ0 ) + K4 (θ, θ0 )
n→∞
where
Z

∂αh b(α, x)∂αk b(α, x)
c(β0 , x)π0 (dx),
c2 (β, x)





Z
1
c(β0 , x)
c(β0 , x)
c(β, x)
K2 (θ, θ0 ) :=
∂α2 h αk d1 (x, θ)
−1 3
+ log
− 1 π0 (dx)
4
c(β, x)
c(β, x)
c(β0 , x)

Z  2
∂αh αk b(α, x)(b(α, x) − b(α0 , x)) + ∂αh b(α, x)∂αk b(α, x)
1
+
2
c(β, x)



c(β0 , x)
c(β, x)
×
− 1 + log
π0 (dx)
c(β, x)
c(β0 , x)
Z
−∂α2 h αk b(α, x)
+
c(β, x)
K1 (θ, θ0 ) :=

20

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

 


1
1
1
c(β0 , x)
−
R(θ, 1, x) + 2
(b(α, x) − b(α0 , x)) π0 (dx)
2 c(β0 , x) c(β, x)
c (β, x)



Z 
1
c(β0 , x)∂βh c(β, x)∂βk c(β, x) 3 c(β0 , x)
1 ∂βh c(β, x)∂βk c(β, x)
K3 (θ, θ0 ) :=
−
1
+
π0 (dx),
2
c3 (β, x)
2 c(β, x)
2
c2 (β, x)


Z
1
1
1
c(β0 , x)∂β2h βk log c(β, x)
K4 (θ, θ0 ) :=
−
π0 (dx)
4
c(β, x) c(β0 , x)


Z
1
c(β, x) c(β0 , x) 2
+
log
∂
c−1 (β, x)π0 (dx)
4
c(β0 , x) c(β, x) βh βk


Z
c(β, x)
1
log
+
∂β2h βk log c(β, x)π0 (dx).
4
c(β0 , x)
×

Let us start with the analysis of the quantity
be split in two terms. From (6.16) folllows that

1
2
n∆n ∂αh αk Tp,n (θ, θ0 )

given by (6.22) which can

n
n
1 X
1 X h
h
k
k
∂α lp,i (θ)∂αk lp,i (θ) =
(η (θ) + ηi,2
(θ))(ηi,1
(θ) + ηi,2
(θ))
n∆n i=1 h
n∆n i=1 i,1

for each θ ∈ Θ. Since ∂αh rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ) = ∆n ∂αh bi−1 (α) + R(θ, ∆2n , Xi−1 ), by taking into
account Lemma 5, we get
(6.28)
n
n
1 X h
1 X
k
∂αh lp,i (θ)∂αk lp,i (θ) =
η (θ)ηi,1
(θ) + oP0 (1)
n∆n i=1
n∆n i=1 i,1
n
1 X ∂αh bi−1 (α)∂αk bi−1 (α)
=
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))2 + oP0 (1)
n∆n i=1
c2i−1 (β)
P

0
−→
K1 (θ, θ0 )

n→∞

uniformly in θ. Now, by resorting (6.15) and (6.18), we rewrite the second term appearing in
(6.22) as follows


n
n
4 X
4
X
X
1 X
1
h,k

[lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂α2 h αk lp,i (θ) =
ϕi,l (θ, θ0 )δi,j
(θ) .
n∆n i=1
n∆n i=1
j=1
l=1

By applying Lemma 1 and Lemma 5,
Z
n
1 X
P0 3
h,k
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )δi,1 (θ) −→
n→∞ 4
n∆n i=1
Z
n
1 X
P0 1
h,k
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )δi,2
(θ) −→
n→∞ 2
n∆n i=1
Z
n
1 X
P0 1
h,k
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )δi,3
(θ) −→
n→∞ 4
n∆n i=1

the following convergence results hold


1
c2 (β0 , x)
1
2
∂αh αk d1 (θ, x)
−
π0 (dx),
c(β, x) c(β, x) c(β0 , x)


−∂α2 h αk b(α, x)
1
1
R(θ, 1, x)π0 (dx),
−
c(β, x)
c(β, x) c(β0 , x)


c(β0 , x)
∂α2 h αk e1 (θ, x)
− 1 π0 (dx),
c(β, x)

n
1 X
h,k
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )δi,4
(θ)
n∆n i=1
 2

Z 
∂αh αk b(α, x)(b(α, x) − b(α0 , x)) + ∂αh b(α, x)∂αk b(α, x)
c(β0 , x)
P0 1
−1
π0 (dx),
−→
n→∞ 2
c(β, x)
c(β, x)

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

21

Z
n
c(β0 , x)
1 X
P0
h,k
ϕi,2 (θ, θ0 )δi,2 (θ) −→
(−∂α2 h αk b(α, x))(b(α, x) − b(α0 , x))π0 (dx),
n→∞
n∆n i=1
c2 (β, x)


Z
n
c(β, x) c(β0 , x) 2
1 X
P0 1
h,k
(θ) −→
log
ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )δi,1
∂
d1 (θ, x)π0 (dx),
n→∞ 4
n∆n i=1
c(β0 , x) c(β, x) αh αk


Z
n
1 X
c(β, x)
P0 1
h,k
π0 (dx),
ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )δi,3
(θ) −→
∂α2 h αk e1 (θ, x) log
n→∞ 4
n∆n i=1
c(β0 , x)
n
1 X
h,k
ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )δi,4
(θ)
n∆n i=1

 2

Z
∂αh αk b(α, x)(b(α, x) − b(α0 , x)) + ∂αk b(α, x)∂αh b(α, x)
c(β, x)
P0 1
−→
log
π0 (dx),
n→∞ 2
c(β0 , x)
c(β, x)
n
1 X
P0
h,k
0, j = 1, 3, 4,
(θ) −→
ϕi,2 (θ, θ0 )δi,j
n→∞
n∆n i=1
n
1 X
P0
h,k
0,
ϕi,3 (θ, θ0 )δi,j
(θ) −→
n→∞
n∆n i=1

j = 1, 2, 3, 4,

n
1 X
P0
h,k
ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )δi,2
(θ) −→
0,
n→∞
n∆n i=1

uniformly in θ. Finally, since d1 (θ, x) = −e1 (θ, x), we get
n
1 X
P0
[lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂α2 h αk lp,i (θ) −→
K2 (θ, θ0 ).
n→∞
n∆n i=1

(6.29)

uniformly in θ. Hence, by (6.28) and (6.29), we immediately derive
1 2
P0
∂αh αk Tp,n (θ, θ0 ) −→
2(K1 (θ, θ0 ) + K2 (θ, θ0 ))
n→∞
n∆n

(6.30)

uniformly in θ.
Now, we consider the elements of the matrix Cn,p (θ, θ0 ) given by (6.23). First, we study the
convergence probability of
n

n

1X
1X h
h
h
k
k
k
∂βh lp,i (θ)∂βk lp,i (θ) =
(ξ (θ) + ξi,2
(θ) + ξi,3
(θ))(ξi,1
(θ) + ξi,2
(θ) + ξi,3
(θ)).
n i=1
n i=1 i,1
Since ∂βh rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ) = R(θ, ∆2n , Xi−1 ), from Lemma 5 and Lemma 1 we derive
n

(6.31)

n

1X
1X h
k
∂βh lp,i (θ)∂βk lp,i (θ) =
ξ (θ)ξi,2
(θ) + oP0 (1)
n i=1
n i=1 i,2
n

=

1 X ∂βh ci−1 (β)∂βk ci−1 (β)
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))4
n i=1
4∆2n c4i−1 (β)
n

1 X ∂βh ci−1 (β)∂βk ci−1 (β)
+
(Xi − rk0 (∆n , Xi−1 , θ))2
n i=1
2∆n c3i−1 (β)
n

+

1 X ∂βh ci−1 (β)∂βk ci−1 (β)
+ oP0 (1)
n i=1
4c2i−1 (β)

22

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS
P

0
−→
K3 (θ, θ0 )

n→∞

uniformly in θ. Now, by resorting (6.15) and (6.17), we rewrite the second term appearing in
(6.23) as follows


n
n
4 X
3
X
X
1X
1
h,k

[lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂β2h βk lp,i (θ) =
(θ) .
ϕi,k (θ, θ0 )νi,j
n i=1
n i=1
j=1
k=1

By taking into account again Lemma 1 and Lemma 5, the following results yield


Z
n
1X
1
1
P0 1
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )νi,3 (θ) −→
c(β0 , x)∂β2h βk log c(β, x)
−
π0 (dx)
n→∞ 4
n i=1
c(β, x) c(β0 , x)


Z
n
1X
c(β, x) c(β0 , x) 2
P0 1
ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )νi,1 (θ) −→
log
∂
c−1 (β, x)π0 (dx)
n→∞ 4
n i=1
c(β0 , x) c(β, x) βh βk


Z
n
1X
c(β, x)
P0 1
ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )νi,3 (θ) −→
log
∂β2h βk log c(β, x)π0 (dx)
n→∞ 4
n i=1
c(β0 , x)
n

1X
P0
ϕi,1 (θ, θ0 )νi,j (θ) −→
0,
n→∞
n i=1

j = 1, 2,

n

1X
P0
ϕi,k (θ, θ0 )νi,j (θ) −→
0,
n→∞
n i=1

k, j = 1, 2, 3,

n

1X
P0
ϕi,4 (θ, θ0 )νi,2 (θ) −→
0,
n→∞
n i=1
uniformly in θ. Finally
n

(6.32)

1X
P0
[lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂β2h βk lp,i (θ) −→
K4 (θ, θ0 )
n→∞
n i=1

uniformly in θ. Therefore, by (6.31) and (6.32), we get
(6.33)

1 2
P0
∂
Tp,n (θ, θ0 ) −→
2(K3 (θ, θ0 ) + K4 (θ, θ0 ))
n→∞
n βh βk

uniformly in θ.
Recalling the expressions (6.16), (6.17), (6.20) and (6.15), by means of similar arguments
adopted above, it is not hard to prove that
n
1 X
P0
√
∂α lp,i (θ)∂βk lp,i (θ) −→
0
n→∞
n ∆n i=1 h

and

n
1 X
P0
√
[lp,i (θ) − lp,i (θ0 )]∂α2 h βk lp,i (θ) −→
0
n→∞
n ∆n i=1

uniformly in θ. This implies that
(6.34)
uniformly in θ.

1
P0
√ ∂ 2 Tp,n (θ, θ0 ) −→
0
n→∞
n ∆n αh βk

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

23

In conclusion the results (6.30), (6.33) and (6.34) lead to the convergence (6.27). Moreover,
immediately (6.27) implies (6.25) since K(θ0 , θ0 ) = I(θ0 ). From the inequality
sup ||Cp,n (θ0 + θ, θ0 ) − Cp,n (θ0 , θ0 )||
||θ||≤εn

≤ sup ||Cp,n (θ0 + θ, θ0 ) − 2K(θ0 + θ, θ0 )|| + sup ||2K(θ0 + θ, θ0 ) − 2I(θ0 )||
||θ||≤εn

||θ||≤εn

+ ||2I(θ0 ) − Cp,n (θ0 , θ0 )||
follows (6.26). Indeed, (6.25) leads to ||2I(θ0 ) − Cp,n (θ0 , θ0 )|| −→ 0, εn → 0, while the term
n→∞

P

0
0, εn → 0, by the uniformity of the convergence
sup||θ||≤εn ||Cp,n (θ0 +θ, θ0 )−2K(θ0 +θ, θ0 )|| −→

n→∞

P

0
0, εn → 0, because
(i.e. by the result (6.27)). Furthermore, sup||θ||≤εn ||K(θ0 +θ, θ0 )−I(θ0 )|| −→

n→∞

the assumptions A3 and A5 , imply that K(θ, θ0 ) is a continuous function with respect to θ.



Now, we are able to prove Theorem 3.
Proof of Theorem 3. We adopt classical arguments. By Taylor’s formula, we have that
Tp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) = Tp,n (θ0 , θ0 ) + n∂θ Tp,n (θ0 , θ0 )(θ̂p,n − θ0 )
1
+ (ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂n − θ0 ))0 Λp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ))ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂p,n − θ0 )
2
1
= (ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂n − θ0 ))0 Λp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 )ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂n − θ0 )
2
where in the last step we denoted by
Z 1
Λp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) := ϕ(n)1/2
(1 − u)∂θ2 Tp,n (θ0 + u(θ̂p,n − θ0 ), θ0 )duϕ(n)1/2
(6.35)

0

Z
=
0

1

1
(1 − u)[Cp,n (θ0 + u(θ̂p,n − θ0 ), θ0 ) − Cp,n (θ0 , θ0 )]du + Cp,n (θ0 , θ0 ).
2

Proposition 1 implies
(6.36)

P

0
Λp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) −→
2I(θ0 ).

n→∞

By taking into account (6.35), (3.16) and (6.36), Slutsky’s theorem allows to conclude the proof.

Proof of Theorem 4. Under H1,n we have that (see Lemma 2 in [21])
d

ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂p,n − (θ0 + ϕ(n)h)) −→ N (0, I(θ0 )−1 ).
n→∞

Therefore, under the hypothesis H1,n
d

ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂p,n − θ0 ) = ϕ(n)−1/2 (θ̂p,n − θ) + h −→ N (h, I(θ0 )−1 )
n→∞

and
P

θ
Cp,n (θ̂p,n , θ0 ) −→
2I(θ0 )

n→∞

(under H1,n ).

Hence, from (6.35) we obtain the result (4.7).



Acknowlegments
We would like to thank both the referees for their comments which have greatly improved the
first version of the manuscript.

24

A. DE GREGORIO AND S.M. IACUS

Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References
[1] Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. (1996) Testing continuous-time models of the spot interest rate, Review of Financial Studies,
70, 385–426.
[2] Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. (2002). Maximum-likelihood estimation of discretely-sampled diffusions: A closed-form approximation approach, Econometrica, 70, 223–262.
[3] Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. (2008) Closed-form likelihood expansions for multivariate diffusions, Annals of Statistics 36,
906-937.
[4] Balakrishnan, V., Sanghvi, L. D. (1968) Distance between populations on the basis of attribute data, Biometrica, 24, 859-865.
[5] Bibby, B.M., Sørensen, M. (1995) Martingale estimating functions for discretely observed diffusion processes,
Bernoulli, 1, 17-39.
[6] De Gregorio, A., Iacus, S.M. (2008) Least squares volatility change point estimation for partially observed
diffusion processes, Comm. Statist. Theory Methods, 37, 2342-2357.
[7] De Gregorio, A., Iacus, S.M. (2010) Clustering of discretely observed diffusion processes, Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis, 54, 598-606.
[8] De Gregorio, A., Iacus, S.M. (2012) Adaptive LASSO-type estimation for multivariate diffusion processes,
Econometric Theory, 28, 838-860.
[9] De Gregorio, A., Iacus, S.M. (2013) On a family of test statistics for discretely observed diffusion processes,
Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 122, 292-316.
[10] Florens-Zmirou, D. (1989) Approximate discrete-time schemes for statistics of diffusion processes, Statistics,
20, 547-557.
[11] Genon-Catalot, V., Jacod, J. (1993) On the estimation of the diffusion coefficient for multidimensional
diffusion processes, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, 29, 119–151.
[12] Gobet, E. (2002) LAN property for ergodic diffusions with discrete observations, Ann. I. H. Poincaré – PR,
38, 711-737.
[13] Iacus, S.M. (2008) Simulation and Inference for Stochastic Differential Equations: with R examples, Springer
Series in Statistics, Springer NY.
[14] Iacus, S.M. (2011) Option pricing and estimation of financial models with R, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[15] Iacus, S.M., Uchida, M., Yoshida, N. (2009) Parametric estimation for partially hidden diffusion processes
sampled at discrete times, Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 119, 1580-1600.
[16] Iacus, S.M., Yoshida, N. (2012) Estimation for the change point of volatility in a stochastic differential
equation, Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 122, 1068-1092.
[17] Iacus, S.M., Yoshida, N. (2017) Simulation and Inference for Stochastic Processes with YUIMA, Springer
Series in Statistics, Springer NY.
[18] Jacod, J. (2006) Parametric inference for discretely observed non-ergodic diffusions, Bernoulli, 12, 383-401.
[19] Kallenberg, O. (2001) Foundations of Modern Probability, Springer-Verlag, London.
[20] Kamatani, K., Uchida, M. (2015) Hybrid multi-step estimators for stochastic differential equations based on
sampled data, Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes, 18, 177-204.
[21] Kitagawa, H., Uchida, M. (2014) Adaptive test statistics for ergodic diffusion processes sampled at discrete
times, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 150, 84-110.
[22] Kessler, M., (1995) Estimation des parametres d’une diffusion par des contrastes corrigés, C. R. Acad. Sci.
Paris Ser. I Math., 320, 359-362. Math. 320 (1995) 359–362.
[23] Kessler, M. (1997) Estimation of an ergodic diffusion from discrete observations, Scand. J. Stat., 24, 211–229.
[24] Kessler, M., Sørensen, M. (1999) Estimating equations based on eigenfunctions for a discretely observed
diffusion process, Bernoulli, 5, 299-314.
[25] Kutoyants, Yu. A. (2004) Statistical Inference for Ergodic Diffusion Processes, Springer-Verlag, London.
[26] Li, C. (2013) Maximum-likelihood estimation for diffusion processes via closed-form density expansions,
Annals of Statistics, 41, 1350-1380.
[27] Morales, D., Pardo, L., Vajda, I. (1997) Some New Statistics for Testing Hypotheses in Parametric Models,
Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 67, 137-168.
[28] Pardo, L. (2006) Statistical Inference Based on Divergence Measures, Chapman & Hall/CRC, London.
[29] Phillips, P.C.B., Yu, J. (2009) A two-stage realized volatility approach to estimation of diffusion processes
with discrete data, Journal of Econometrics, 150. 139-150.

EMPIRICAL L2 -DISTANCE TEST STATISTICS FOR ERGODIC DIFFUSIONS

25

[30] Uchida, M., Yoshida, N. (2012) Adaptive estimation of an ergodic diffusion process based on sampled data,
Stochastic Process. Appl., 17, 181-219.
[31] Uchida, M., Yoshida, N. (2014) Adaptive Bayes type estimators of ergodic diffusion processes from discrete
observations, Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes, 122, 2885-2924.
[32] Van der Vaart, A.W. (1998) Asymptotic Statistics, Cambridge University press,
[33] Yoshida, N. (1992) Estimation for diffusion processes from discrete observation, J. Multivariate Anal., 41,
220-242.
[34] Yoshida, N. (2011) Polynomial type large deviation inequality and its applications, Ann. Inst. Stat. Mat.,
63, 431-479.
Department of Statistical Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro, 5 - 00185,
Rome, Italy
Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan, Via Conservatorio 7, 20122 - Milan, Italy
E-mail address: alessandro.degregorio@uniroma1.it
E-mail address: stefano.iacus@unimi.it

