ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT
FOR THE RESIDUALS OF AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

arXiv:1706.09811v2 [math.ST] 19 Dec 2017

AGNÈS LAGNOUX, THI MONG NGOC NGUYEN, AND FRÉDÉRIC PROÏA
Abstract. We investigate in this paper a Bickel-Rosenblatt test of goodness-offit for the density of the noise in an autoregressive model. Since the seminal work
of Bickel and Rosenblatt, it is well-known that the integrated squared error of the
Parzen-Rosenblatt density estimator, once correctly renormalized, is asymptotically Gaussian for independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) sequences. We
show that the result still holds when the statistic is built from the residuals of
general stable and explosive autoregressive processes. In the univariate unstable
case, we prove that the result holds when the unit root is located at −1 whereas
we give further results when the unit root is located at 1. In particular, we establish that except for some particular asymmetric kernels leading to a non-Gaussian
limiting distribution and a slower convergence, the statistic has the same order
of magnitude. We also study some common unstable cases, like the integrated
seasonal process. Finally we build a goodness-of-fit Bickel-Rosenblatt test for the
true density of the noise together with its empirical properties on the basis of a
simulation study.

1. Introduction and Motivations
For i.i.d. sequences of random variables, there is a wide range of goodness-of-fit
statistical procedures in connection with the underlying true distribution. Among
many others, one can think about the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Cramér-von
Mises criterion, the Pearson’s chi-squared test, or more specific ones like the whole
class of normality tests. Most of them have become of frequent practical use and directly implemented on the set of residuals of regression models. For such applications
the independence hypothesis is irrelevant, especially for time series where lagged dependent variables are included. Thus, the crucial issue that naturally arises consists
in having an overview of their sensitivity facing some weakened assumptions. This
paper focus on such a generalization for the Bickel-Rosenblatt statistic, introduced
by the eponymous statisticians [3] in 1973, who first established its asymptotic normality and gave their names to the associated testing procedure. The statistic is
closely related to the L2 distance on the real line between the Parzen-Rosenblatt
kernel density estimator and a parametric distribution (or a smoothed version of it).
Key words and phrases. Autoregressive process, Bickel-Rosenblatt statistic, Goodness-of-fit,
Hypothesis testing, Nonparametric estimation, Parzen-Rosenblatt density estimator, Residual
process.
1

2

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

Namely it takes the form of
Z

R

2
fbn (x) − f (x) a(x) dx

with notation that we will detail in the sequel. Some improvements are of interest for
us. First, Takahata and Yoshihara [20] in 1987 and later Neumann and Paparoditis
[14] in 2000 extended the result to weakly dependent sequences (with mixing or
absolute regularity conditions). As they noticed, these assumptions are satisfied by
several processes of the time series literature. Then, Lee and Na [12] showed in
2002 that it also holds for the residuals of an autoregressive process of order 1 as
soon as it contains no unit root (we will explain precisely this fact in the paper).
Such a study leads to a goodness-of-fit test for the distribution of the innovations
of the process. Bachmann and Dette [1] went further in 2005 by putting the results
obtained by Lee and Na into practice. Their study also enables to get an asymptotic
normality of the correctly renormalised statistic under some fixed alternatives.
The main purpose of this paper is the generalization of the results of Lee and Na
to autoregressive processes of order p (p > 1) besides refining the set of hypotheses,
to discuss on the effect of unit roots on the statistic and to derive a goodness-of-fit
test in the same way. On finite samples, it has been observed that the Gaussian
behavior is difficult to reach and that, instead, an asymmetry occurs for dependent
frameworks (see, e.g., Valeinis and Locmelis [21]). In the simulation study, we will
use the configurations suggested in this previous paper, and the ones of Fan [9] and
Ghosh and Huang [10] to try to minimize this effect. In the end of this section, we
introduce the context of our study and present both notation and vocabulary used
in the sequel. Moreover, we recall the well-known asymptotic behavior of the BickelRosenblatt statistic for i.i.d. random variables. In Section 2, we give an overview of
the existing results about the least-squares estimation of the autoregressive parameter, depending on the roots of its characteristic polynomial, since it is of crucial
interest for our reasonings. Section 3 is dedicated to our results that are proved
in the Appendix. To sum up, we establish the asymptotic behavior of the BickelRosenblatt statistic applied to the residuals of stable and explosive autoregressive
processes of order p (p > 1), together with some results related to common unstable
autoregressions (like the random walks and the seasonally integrated processes). We
also suggest some considerations to deal with general unstable processes or mixed
processes (for example, the unstable ARIMA(p − 1,1,0) process would deserve a
particuliar attention due to its widespread use in the econometric field). In Section
4, we build a goodness-of-fit test in keeping with our context and discuss on some
empirical bases.
To start with, let us consider an autoregressive process of order p (AR(p)) defined
by
(1.1)

Xt = θ1 Xt−1 + . . . + θp Xt−p + εt

for any t > 1 or equivalently, in a compact form, by
Xt = θT Φt−1 + εt

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

3

where θ = (θ1 , . . . , θp )T is a vector parameter, Φ0 is an arbitrary initial random
vector, Φt = (Xt , . . . , Xt−p+1 )T and (εt ) is a strong white noise having a finite positive
variance σ 2 and a marginal density f (positive on the real line). The corresponding
characteristic polynomial is defined, for all z ∈ C, by
Θ(z) = 1 − θ1 z − . . . − θp z p

(1.2)

and the companion matrix associated with Θ

θ1 θ2 . . .
1 0 ...

0 1 ...
(1.3)
Cθ = 
. . .
 .. ..
..
0 0 ...

(see, e.g., [8, Sec. 4.1.2]) is given by

θp−1 θp
0
0

0
0.
..
.. 
.
.
1
0

It follows that the process may also be written as
(1.4)

Φt = Cθ Φt−1 + Et
T

where Et = (εt , 0, . . . , 0) is a p–dimensional noise. It is well-known that the stability
of this p–dimensional process is closely related to the eigenvalues of the companion
matrix that we will denote and arrange like
ρ(Cθ ) = |λ1 | > |λ2 | > . . . > |λp |.

In particular, according to [8, Def. 2.3.17], the process is said to be stable when
|λ1 | < 1, purely explosive when |λp | > 1 and purely unstable when |λ1 | = |λp | =
1. Among the purely unstable processes of interest, let us mention the seasonal
model admitting the complex s–th roots of unity as solutions of its autoregressive
polynomial Θ(z) = 1 − z s for a season s ∈ N\{0, 1}. In the paper, this model will
be shortened as seasonal unstable of order p = s, it satisfies θ1 = . . . = θs−1 = 0 and
θs = 1. In a general way, it is easy to see that det(Cθ ) = (−1)p+1 θp so that Cθ is
invertible as soon as θp 6= 0 (which will be one of our hypotheses when p > 0). In
addition, a simple calculation shows that
det(Cθ − λ Ip ) = (−λ)p Θ(λ−1 )

which implies (since Θ(0) 6= 0) that each zero of Θ is the inverse of an eigenvalue of
Cθ . Consequently, the stability of the process may be expressed in the paper through
the eigenvalues of Cθ as well as through the zeroes of Θ. We will also consider that
z p Θ(z −1 ) = z p − θ1 z p−1 − . . . − θp

is the minimal polynomial of Cθ (which, in the terminology of [8], means that the
process is regular ). Now, assume that X−p+1 , . . . , X0 , X1 , . . . , Xn are observable (for
n ≫ p) and let
!−1 n
n
X
X
(1.5)
θbn =
Φt−1 ΦT
Φt−1 Xt
t−1

t=1

t=1

be the least-squares estimator of θ (for p > 0). The associated residual process is

(1.6)

εbt = Xt − θbnT Φt−1

4

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

for all 1 6 t 6 n, or simply εbt = Xt when p = 0. Hereafter, K is a kernel and (hn )
is a bandwidth. That is, K is a non-negative function satisfying
Z
Z
Z
2
K(x) dx = 1,
K (x) dx < +∞ and
x2 K(x) dx < +∞,
R

R

R

and (hn ) is a positive sequence decreasing to 0. The so-called Parzen-Rosenblatt
estimator [15, 17] of the density f is given, for all x ∈ R, by


n
x − εbt
1 X
b
K
.
(1.7)
fn (x) =
n hn t=1
hn

The local behavior of this empirical density has been well studied in the literature.
However, for a goodness-of-fit test, we focus on the global fitness of fbn to f on the
whole real line. From this viewpoint, we consider the Bickel-Rosenblatt statistic
that we define as
Z
2
(1.8)
Tbn = n hn
fbn (x) − (Khn ∗ f )(x) a(x) dx
R

h−1
n

K(·/hn ), a is a positive piecewise continuous
where Khn =
R integrable function
and ∗ denotes the convolution operator, i.e. (g ∗ h)(x) = R g(x − u) h(u) du. A
statistic of probably greater interest and easier to implement is
Z
2
(1.9)
Ten = n hn
fbn (x) − f (x) a(x) dx.
R

Bickel and Rosenblatt show in [3] that under appropriate conditions, if Tn is the
statistic given in (1.8) built on the strong white noise (εt ) instead of the residuals,
then, as n tends to infinity,
Tn − µ D
√
(1.10)
−→ N (0, τ 2 )
hn
where the centering term is
Z
Z
(1.11)
µ=
f (s) a(s) ds
K2 (s) ds
R

R

and the asymptotic variance is given by
2
Z
Z Z
2
2
2
(1.12)
τ =2
f (s) a (s) ds
K(t) K(t + s) dt ds.
R

R

R

The aforementioned conditions are summarized in [10, Sec. 2], they come from
the original work of Bickel and Rosenblatt later improved by Rosenblatt [18]. In
addition to some technical assumptions that will be recalled in (A0 ), we just notice
that a choice of a continuous and positive kernel defined on R and a bandwidth
hn = h0 n−κ must coincide with 0 < κ < 1/4,
Z
Z
p
′
3
|K (x)| |x| ln ln |x| dx < +∞ and
(K′ (x))2 dx < +∞.
|x| > 3

R

If K is chosen to be bounded on a compact support, then 0 < κ < 1 in the bandwidth
is a sufficient condition. We can find in later references (like [20], [14] or [1]) some

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

5

alternative proofs of the asymptotic normality (1.10) with a(x) = 1 and appropriate
assumptions. However in this paper we will keep a as an integrable function, so as
to make the calculations easier and to follow the original framework of Bickel and
Rosenblatt.
Remark 1.1. It is convenient to have short expressions for terms that converge in
probability to zero. In the whole study, the notation oP (1) (resp. OP (1)) stands for a
sequence of random variables that converges to zero in probability (resp. is bounded
in probability) as n → ∞.
2. Preliminary results
We start by giving some (already known) preliminary results related to the behavior of (Xt ), depending on the eigenvalues of Cθ and, in each case, the asymptotic
behavior of the least-squares estimator. In the sequel, we assume that Φ0 shares the
same assumptions of moments as (εt ). We only focus on results that will be useful
for our reasonings.
2.1. Asymptotic behavior of the process.
Proposition 2.1 (Stable case). Assume that (εt ) is a strong white noise such that,
for some ν > 1, E[|ε1 |ν ] is finite. If (Xt ) satisfies (1.1) and is stable (that is |λ1 | < 1
or, equivalently, Θ(z) 6= 0 for all |z| 6 1), then as n tends to infinity,
n
X
t=1

|Xt |ν = O(n) a.s.

sup |Xt | = o(n1/ν ) a.s.

and

16t6n

See [2, Lem. A.2] and [16, Lem. B.2]. In addition if ν > 2, then
n
X

√
Φt = OP ( n).

t=1

Proof. The last result is deduced from the invariance principle of [7, Thm. 1], since
(Xt ) is (asymptotically) stationary in this case. Indeed, we clearly have
X

n
n
n
1 X ∗
1
1 X
t
√
Φt = √
Φ +√
C (Φ0 − Φ∗0 )
n t=1
n t=1 t
n t=1 θ

where (Φ∗t ) is the (second-order) stationary version of the process for ν > 2.√We
conclude that (Φt ) and (Φ∗t ) share the same invariance principle (with rate n),
since ρ(Cθ ) < 1.

Proposition 2.2 (Purely explosive case). Assume that (εt ) is a strong white noise
having a finite variance σ 2 . If (Xt ) satisfies (1.1)–(1.4) and is purely explosive (that
is |λp | > 1 or, equivalently, Θ(z) 6= 0 for all |z| > 1), then
lim Cθ−n Φn = Φ0 +

n→+∞

∞
X
k=1

Cθ−k Ek = Z a.s.

6

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

and
lim C −n
n→+∞ θ

n
X

Φt−1 ΦTt−1

t=1

!

(Cθ−n )T

=

∞
X

Cθ−k Z Z T (Cθ−k )T = G a.s.

k=1

In addition, G is (a.s.) positive definite. See [11, Thm. 2].
Proposition 2.3 (Purely unstable case). Assume that (εt ) is a strong white noise
having a finite variance σ 2 . If (Xt ) satisfies (1.1)–(1.4) with p = 1 and is unstable
(that is |λ| = 1 or, equivalently, Θ(z) 6= 0 for all |z| =
6 1), then for k ∈ N,
n
X

Xt2 k = OP (nk+1 )

t=1

In addition,

n
X
t=1

Xt =



and

√
|Xn | = OP ( n).

3/2
OP (n
√ ) for λ = 1
OP ( n) for λ = −1.

The same rates are reached in the seasonal case for p = s.
These results are detailed in Lemma A.4 and then proved.
2.2. Asymptotic behavior of the least-squares estimator. In this subsection,
(εt ) is supposed to have a finite moment of order 2 + γ, for some γ > 0. The consistency results have been established in [11, Thm. 1], while the weak convergences
are proved in [5], [19, Thm. 2] and [6, Thm. 3.5.1] respectively.
Proposition 2.4 (Stable case). In the stable case (|λ1 | < 1), the least-squares
estimator θbn of θ is strongly consistent. In addition,
√
D
n (θbn − θ) −→ N (0, σ 2 Γ−1
p )

where Γp is the p × p asymptotic covariance matrix of the process.

Proposition 2.5 (Purely explosive case). In the purely explosive case (|λp | > 1),
the least-squares estimator θbn of θ is strongly consistent. In addition,
D
Cθn (θbn − θ) −→ U

where U is a nondegenerate random vector given in (1.8)–(1.9)–(1.10) of [19].
Proposition 2.6 (Purely unstable case). In the purely unstable case (|λ1 | = |λp | =
1), the least-squares estimator θbn of θ is strongly consistent. In the univariate case
(p = 1), we have in addition
1
(W 2 (1) − 1)
D
n (θbn − θ) −→ sgn(θ) 2R 1
W 2 (u) du
0

where (W (t), t ∈ [0, 1]) is a standard Wiener process and sgn(θ) stands for the sign
of θ.

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

7

In the seasonal case (p = s), since Θ(z) = 0 is an equation admitting the complex
s–th roots of unity as solutions,
D
n (θbn − θ) −→ S(Ws )

where S(Ws ) is a functional of a standard Wiener process (Ws (t), t ∈ [0, 1]) of
dimension s that can be explicitly built following the given reference.
3. The Bickel-Rosenblatt statistic
In this section, we derive the limiting distribution of the test statistics Tbn and Ten
given by (1.8) and (1.9), based on the residuals in the stable, some unstable and
purely explosive cases. For the whole study, we make the following assumptions.
(A0 ) The strong white noise (εt ) has a bounded density f which is positive, twice
differentiable, and the second derivative f ′′ is itself bounded. The weighting
function a is positive, piecewise continuous and integrable. The kernel K is
bounded, continuous on its support. The kernel K and the bandwidth (hn )
are chosen to satisfy the hypotheses of Bickel and Rosenblatt summarized at
the end of Section 1.
Some additional hypotheses are given below, not simultaneously needed.
(A1 ) The kernel K is such that K′′′ exists and is bounded on the real line,
Z
Z
 ′
′′
|K (x)| + |K (x)| dx < +∞,
(K′′ (x))2 dx < +∞,
R
Z
Z R
|x K′ (x)| dx < +∞ and
x2 |K′ (x)| dx < +∞.
R

R

(A2 ) The kernel K satisfies
Z

R

|K(x + δ) − K(x)| dx 6 B δ

for some B > 0 and all δ > 0.
(A3 ) The bandwidth (hn ) satisfies
lim n hαn = +∞

n → +∞

and/or

lim n hβn = 0.

n → +∞

(A4 ) The noise (εt ) and the initial vector Φ0 have a finite moment of order ν.
Remark 3.1. To be rigorous in the technical tools used in the proofs, we have
in addition to consider that any kernel with compact support must be approximated
arbitrarily well by kernels satisfying the above hypotheses, around the discontinuities.
Lee and Na [12] also made this observation in their simulation study.
Theorem 3.2 (Stable case). In the stable case (|λ1 | < 1), assume that (A0 ), (A1 ),
(A3 ) with α = 4, and (A4 ) with ν = 4 hold. Then, as n tends to infinity,
Tbn − µ D
√
−→ N (0, τ 2 )
hn
where µ and τ 2 are given in (1.11) and (1.12), respectively. In addition, the result
is still valid for Ten if (A3 ) with β = 9/2 holds.

8

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

Proof. See Section A.1.



Remark 3.3. Theorem 3.2 holds for hn = h0 n−κ as soon as 2/9 < κ < 1/4. A
standard choice may be hn = h0 n−1/4+ǫ for a small ǫ > 0.
Theorem 3.4 (Purely explosive case). In the purely explosive case (|λp | > 1),
assume that (A0 ), (A2 ), (A3 ) with α = 1 and (A4 ) with ν = 2 + γ hold, for some
γ > 0. Then, as n tends to infinity,
Tbn − µ D
√
−→ N (0, τ 2 )
hn

where µ and τ 2 are given in (1.11) and (1.12), respectively. In addition, the result
is still valid for Ten if (A3 ) with β = 9/2 holds.

Proof. See Section A.2.



Remark 3.5. Theorem 3.4 holds for hn = h0 n−κ as soon as 2/9 < κ < 1 if K has
a compact support, the usual bandwidth hn = h0 n−1/4 is appropriate. For a kernel
positive on R, we must restrict to 2/9 < κ < 1/4 and a standard choice may be
hn = h0 n−1/4+ǫ for a small ǫ > 0.
We now investigate the asymptotic behavior of the statistics for some unstable
cases. We establish in particular that the analysis of [12] is only partially true.
Proposition 3.6 (Purely unstable case). In the unstable case for p = 1 (λ = ±1),
assume that (A0 ), (A1 ), (A3 ) with α = 4, and (A4 ) with ν = 4 hold. If λ = −1
then, as n tends to infinity,
Tbn − µ D
√
−→ N (0, τ 2 )
hn
R
where µ and τ 2 are given in (1.11) and (1.12), respectively. If λ = 1 and R K′ (s) ds =
0 then
Tbn − µ
√
= OP (1).
hn
e
The
R ′results are still valid for Tn if (A3 ) with β = 9/2 holds. Finally, if λ = 1 and
K (s) ds 6= 0 then, as n tends to infinity,
R
!2 Z
Z
2
Z 1
1
2
(W
(1)
−
1)
D
2
2
′
2
hn (Tbn − µ) −→ σ
W (u) du
f (s) a(s) ds
K (s) ds
R1
W 2 (u) du 0
R
R
0
where (W (t), t ∈ [0, 1]) is a standard Wiener process. In the seasonal case with
p = s, we also reach
Tbn − µ
√
= OP (1)
hn
or
Z
2
Z
2
D
2
T
2
′
hn (Tbn − µ) −→ σ S(Ws ) H(Ws )
f (s) a(s) ds
K (s) ds
R

R

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

R

9

R

depending on whether R K′ (s) ds = 0 or R K′ (s) ds 6= 0, respectively, where S(Ws )
is defined in Proposition 2.6, H(Ws ) will be clarified in the proof and (Ws (t), t ∈
[0, 1]) is a standard Wiener process of dimension s.
Proof. See Section A.3.



Remark 3.7. This last result needs some observations.
(1) Proposition 3.6 holds for hn = h0 n−κ as soon as 2/9 < κ < 1/4 and λ = −1.
A standard choice may be hn = h0 Rn−1/4+ǫ for a small ǫ > 0.
(2) One can observe that the value of R K′ (s) ds is crucial to deal
the unR with
′
stable case. In fact, all usual kernels are even, leading to R K (s) ds = 0.
It seems that the unstable case always holds in applications (except for some
very particular asymmetric kernels having different bound values).
(3) At the end of theRassociated proof, we show that,
R for λ = 1 and a choice of
kernel such that R K′ (s) ds 6= 0, we also need R s K(s) ds = 0 to translate
the result from Tbn to Ten under (A3 ) with β = 6. In this case, the result holds
for hn = h0 n−κ as soon as 1/6 < κ < 1/4.
(4) In [13, Thm. 3.2], Lee and Wei had already noticed that only the unit roots
located at 1 affect the residual process. Our result is coherent from that point
of view, and the link between both studies lies in the fact that
Tbn = n hn

Z 
R

hn

1
√

Z



x−s
K
n R
hn



b n (F (s))
dH

2

a(x) dx

where F is the cumulative distribution function of the noise and where, for
all 0 6 u 6 1,
n

X

b n (u) = √1
H
1{F (bεt ) 6 u} − u .
n t=1

To conclude this part, we draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the purely
unstable case is not fully treated. The general results may be a challenging study
due to the phenomenon of compensation arising through unit roots different from
1. Lemma A.8 at the end of the Appendix is not used as part of this paper but
may
Pt be a trail for future studies. It illustrates the compensation via the fact that
( k=1 Xk ) is of the same order as (Xt ) in a purely unstable process having no unit
root located at 1. Mixed models (|λ1 | > 1 and |λp | 6 1) should lead to similar
reasonings, they also have to be handled to definitively lift the veil on the BickelRosenblatt statistic for the residuals of autoregressive processes. As a priority, it
seems that unstable ARIMA(p − 1,1,0) processes would deserve close investigations
due to their widespread use in the econometric field. The difficulty arising here is
that the estimator converges at the slow rate of stability while the process grows at
the fast rate of instability: a compensation will be needed.

10

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

4. A goodness-of-fit Bickel-Rosenblatt test
Our objective is now to derive a goodness-of-fit testing procedure from the results
established in the previous section. First, one can notice that the choice of

1/f (x) for x ∈ [−δ ; δ]
a(x) =
0
for x ∈
/ [−δ ; δ]
for any δ > 0 leads to the simplifications
2
Z δ b
f
n (x) − f (x)
dx,
Ten = n hn
f (x)
−δ

and

2

τ = 4δ

Z Z
R

R

µ = 2δ

Z

K2 (s) ds
R

2
K(t) K(t + s) dt ds.

Bickel and Rosenblatt [3] suggest a similar choice for the weight function a, with
[0 ; 1] for compact support. Nevertheless, it seems more reasonable to work on a
symmetric interval in order to test for the density of a random noise. In addition, µ
and τ 2 become independent of f , which will be useful to build a statistical procedure
based on f . For a couple of densities f and f0 such that f0 does not cancel on [−δ ; δ],
let us define
2
Z δ
f (x) − f0 (x)
(4.1)
∆δ (f, f0 ) =
dx.
f0 (x)
−δ
Hence, ∆δ (f, f0 ) = 0 means that f and f0 coincide almost everywhere on [−δ ; δ],
and everywhere under our usual continuity hypotheses on the densities. On the
contrary, ∆δ (f, f0 ) > 0 means that there exists an interval I ⊆ [−δ ; δ] with nonempty interior on which f and f0 differ. Accordingly, let
H0 : “∆δ (f, f0 ) = 0” vs. H1 : “∆δ (f, f0 ) > 0”.
The natural test statistic is therefore given by
(4.2)

Te 0 − µ
Zen0 = n√
τ hn

where Ten0 is the statistic Ten reminded above built using f0 instead of f .

Proposition 4.1 (A goodness-of-fit test). Consider the set of residuals from one of
the following AR(p) models:
• a stable process with p > 1, under the hypotheses of Theorem 3.2,
• an explosive process with p > 1, under the hypotheses of Theorem 3.4,
• an unstable process with p = 1 and λ = −1, under the hypotheses of Proposition 3.6.
Then, under H0 : “∆δ (f, f0 ) = 0” where f0 is a continuous density which does not
cancel on [−δ ; δ] for some δ > 0,
D
Zen0 −→ N (0, 1).

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

11

In addition, under H1 : “∆δ (f, f0 ) > 0”,
P
Zen0 −→ +∞.

Proof. The proof is immediate using our previous results. The consistency under
H1 is reached using the fact that
Ten − µ Te 0 − Ten
.
Zen0 = √ + n √
τ hn
τ hn



For any level 0 < α < 1, we reject H0 as soon as
Zen0 > u1−α

where u1−α stands for the (1 − α)–quantile of the N (0, 1) distribution. For our
simulations, we focus on a normality test (probably the most useful in regression, for
goodness-of-fit). We have trusted the observations of [10], [9] or [21]. In particular,
only the N (0, 1) and the U([−1 ; 1]) kernels are usedR (in fact a smoothed version of
the latter, to satisfy the hypotheses), with obviously R K′ (s) ds = 0. The bandwidth
is hn = h0 n−1/4+ǫ for a small ǫ > 0, where h0 is calibrated to reach an empirical
level close to α = 5% for the neutral model (p = 0), and the true distribution of the
noise is N (0, 1). We only give an overview of the results in Table 1 for some typical
models:
•
•
•
•
•
•

M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5

–
–
–
–
–
–

neutral model (p = 0),
stable model (p = 3, θ1 = −1/12, θ2 = 5/24, θ3 = 1/24),
stable but almost unstable model (p = 1, θ1 = 99/100),
unstable model with negative unit root (p = 1, θ1 = −1),
unstable model with positive unit root (p = 1, θ1 = 1),
explosive model (p = 2, θ1 = 0, θ2 = 121/100).
K
n
h0
M0
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5

50
0.10
0.051
0.059
0.055
0.054
0.048
0.049

N (0, 1)
100
500
0.14
0.14
0.049 0.049
0.051 0.047
0.046 0.051
0.054 0.047
0.051 0.047
0.047 0.058(∗)

U([−1 ; 1])
50
100
500
0.20 0.25
0.32
0.052 0.048 0.048
0.058 0.050 0.050
0.044 0.046 0.051
0.059 0.051 0.048
0.050 0.045 0.050
0.046 0.049 0.054(∗)

Table 1. Empirical level of the test under H0 , for the configurations
described above. We used δ = 2, n ∈ {50, 100, 500} and 1000 replications. (∗) Simulations that needed more than one numerical trial, due
to the explosive nature of the process and the large value of n.

12

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

For model M4 , it is important to note that Proposition 4.1 may not hold. Nevertheless, we know by virtue of Proposition 3.6 that the statistic has the same order
of magnitude, thus it seemed interesting to look at its empirical behavior in comparison with the other models (and we observe that it reacts as well). We now turn
to the empirical power of the test, for the configuration n = 100 and the N (0, 1)
kernel. In Figures 1–2 below, we represent the percentage of rejection of H0 against
the N (m, 1) and N (0, σ 2) alternatives, for different values of the parameters, to
investigate the sensitivity towards location and scale. We also make experiments
in Figure 3 with different distributions as alternatives (Student, uniform, Laplace
and Cauchy). First of all, the main observation is that all models give very similar
results (all curves are almost superimposed) even if n is not so large. That corroborates the results of the paper: residuals from stable, explosive or some (univariate)
unstable models satisfy the Bickel-Rosenblatt original convergence. Our procedure
is roughly equivalent to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov one to test for location or scale
in the Gaussian family (in fact it seems to be slightly less powerful for location and
slightly more powerful for scale). However, it appears that our procedure better
managed to discriminate some alternatives with close but different distributions.
The objective of the paper is mainly theoretical and of course, a much more extensive study is needed to give any permanent conclusion about the comparison (role
of n, h0 , κ, K, δ, the true distribution of (εt ), etc.).
Remark 4.2. In the unstable case with p R= 1 and a positive unit root (namely,
the random walk), and a kernel satisfying R K′ (s) ds 6= 0, even if it is of lesser
statistical interest, it is also possible to exploit Proposition 3.6 to derive a statistical
procedure. Indeed, let
Z
Z δ
2
2
σ0 =
s f0 (s) ds and F0 =
f0 (s) ds
R

−δ

with an adjustment of σ02 if f0 is not centered. Then, we can choose

e0 − µ
h
T
n
Zen0 = √ Rn ′
σ0 F0 R K (s) ds

and compare it with the quantiles associated with the distribution of
!2
Z
1
(W 2 (1) − 1) 1
2
W (u) du .
Z = R1
W 2 (u) du 0
0

Acknowledgments. The authors warmly thank Bernard Bercu for all his advices
and suggestions during the preparation of this work.
Appendix. Proofs of the main results
In this section, we prove our results.

13

0.6
0.4
0.0

0.2

Empirical Power

0.8

1.0

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

−1

−0.8

−0.5

−0.2

0

0.2

0.5

0.8

1

m

Figure 1. Empirical power of the test under H1 , for n = 100, K =
N (0, 1), h0 = 0.14, δ = 2 and 1000 replications. The alternatives
are N (m, 1) for some m ∈ [−1 ; 1] with true value m = 0. Results
obtained from M0 , . . ., M5 are superimposed in blue. The dotted line
in red corresponds to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for M0 .
A.1. Proof of Theorem 3.2. We follow the same lines as in the proof in [12, Thm.
2.1], and we only consider the case where the kernel satisfies hypothesis (A1 ). The
difference between the statistics can be expressed like
Z
2
b
(A.3)
Tn − Tn = n hn
fbn (x) − fn (x) a(x) dx + Rn
R

with

Rn = 2 n hn

Z

R

fbn (x) − fn (x)




fn (x) − (Khn ∗ f )(x) a(x) dx.

Using the mean value theorem, we can write for all 1 6 t 6 n,






x − εbt
x − εt
εt − εbt ′ x − εt
(εt − εbt )2 ′′
K
K (∆tx )
−K
=
K
+
hn
hn
hn
hn
2 h2n
where

∆tx =

x − εt + ζ(εt − εbt )
hn

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

0.6
0.4
0.0

0.2

Empirical Power

0.8

1.0

14

0.2

0.5

0.8

1

1.2

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

σ

2

Figure 2. Empirical power of the test under H1 , for n = 100, K =
N (0, 1), h0 = 0.14, δ = 2 and 1000 replications. The alternatives are
N (0, σ 2 ) for some σ 2 ∈ [0.2 ; 3.5] with true value σ 2 = 1. Results
obtained from M0 , . . ., M5 are superimposed in blue. The dotted line
in red corresponds to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for M0 .
for some 0 < ζ < 1. Note that

and obviously that

εt − εbt = (θbn − θ)T Φt−1 = hθbn − θ, Φt−1 i
hθbn − θ, Φt−1 i 6 kθbn − θk kΦt−1 k.

On the one hand, we consider the first term (say, In ) of the right-hand side of (A.3)
that can be bounded like


)2
Z (
n  
x − εbt
x − εt
1 X
K
−K
a(x) dx
In = n hn
n hn t=1
hn
hn
R

)2
Z (X
n
2
x − εt
6
hθbn − θ, Φt−1 i K′
a(x) dx
3
n hn R t=1
hn

0.6
0.4
0.0

0.2

Empirical Power

0.8

1.0

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

t(1)

t(2)

t(5)

U([−2;2])

L(1)

L(1.5)

L(2)

C(1)

Alternative Distributions

Figure 3. Empirical power of the test under H1 , for n = 100, K =
N (0, 1), h0 = 0.14, δ = 2 and 1000 replications. The alternatives
are from left to right the Student t(1), t(2), t(5) distributions, the
uniform U([−2 ; 2]) distribution, the centered Laplace L(1), L(1.5)
and L(2) distributions and the centered Cauchy C(1) distribution.
Results obtained from M0 , . . ., M5 are superimposed in blue. The red
points correspond to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for M0 .
1
+
2 n h5n

(A.4)

Z (X
n
R

t=1

hθbn − θ, Φt−1 i2 K′′ (∆tx )

)2

a(x) dx.

At this step, we need two technical lemmas.

Lemma A.1. We have

)2
Z (X
n
x
−
ε
t
I1,n =
hθbn − θ, Φt−1 i K′
a(x) dx = OP (hn ).
hn
R
t=1
Proof. One clearly has
(Z
!2
n
X
I1,n 6 2
hθbn − θ, Φt−1 i vt (x) a(x) dx
R

t=1

15

16

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

+

(A.5)
where
′

vt (x) = K



x − εt
hn

Z

n
X

R



t=1

hθbn − θ, Φt−1 i e(x)

 

x − ε1
′
−E K
hn

!2

)

a(x) dx

and

= 2 (J1,n + J2,n )

 

x − ε1
′
e(x) = E K
.
hn

Now let us consider J1,n and J2,n . First,
Z X
n
2
2
Φt−1 vt (x) a(x) dx
J1,n 6 k θbn − θk
R

t=1

XZ
p

= kθbn − θk2

(A.6)

n
X

R

i=1

Xt−i vt (x)

t=1

!2

a(x) dx.

Let i ∈ {1, . . . , p}. Then,



!2
!2 
Z X
Z
n
n
X
E
Xt−i vt (x) a(x) dx =
Xt−i vt (x)  a(x) dx
E
R

R

t=1

t=1

Z X
n
 2   2 
E Xt−i
=
E vt (x) a(x) dx
=

R t=1
n
X
t=1

 2 
E Xt−i

Z

R



E vt2 (x) a(x) dx.

But, under our assumptions, we recall that E[Xn2 ] = O(1) from the asymptotic
stationarity of the process and
" 
2 #
Z
Z
 2 
x
−
ε
1
a(x) dx
E K′
E vt (x) a(x) dx 6
h
n
R
R
Z
Z
′
2
f (x − hn z) a(x) dx dz = O(hn )
= hn (K (z))
R

R

since Var(Z) 6 E[Z 2 ] for some random variable Z and by Assumptions (A0 ) and
(A1 ). Thus J1,n = OP (hn ) via Proposition 2.4. Then, by a direct calculation,
!2 Z
n
X
J2,n =
(θbn − θ)T
Φt−1
e 2 (x) a(x) dx
R

t=1

(A.7)

=

h2n

(θbn − θ)

T

n
X
t=1

Φt−1

!2 Z Z
R

R

′

K (z) f (x − hn z) dz

Using Proposition 2.1, it follows that J2,n = OP (h2n ).

2

a(x) dx.


ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

17

Lemma A.2. We have
)2


Z (X
n
1
2 ′′
2
b
.
I2,n =
hθn − θ, Φt−1 i K (∆tx ) a(x) dx = OP hn +
2
n
h
R
n
t=1
Proof. We directly get
)2
Z (X
n
kΦt−1 k2 K′′ (∆tx ) a(x) dx
I2,n 6 kθbn − θk4
R

t=1

)2


x
−
ε
t
a(x) dx
kΦt−1 k2 K′′ (∆tx ) − K′′
6 3 kθbn − θk4
h
n
R
t=1

 
)2
 
Z (X
n
x
−
ε
x
−
ε
1
t
+
− E K′′
a(x) dx
kΦt−1 k2 K′′
h
hn
n
R
t=1
!
)2
 
Z (X
n
x
−
ε
1
a(x) dx
+
kΦt−1 k2 E K′′
h
n
R
t=1
Z (X
n

(A.8) = 3 kθbn − θk4 (K1,n + K2,n + K3,n ).

From the mean value theorem, under our hypotheses,






x − εt
x − εt + ζ(εt − εbt )
x − εt
′′
′′
′′
′′
K (∆tx ) − K
= K
−K
hn
hn
hn


ζ(εt − εbt ) ′′′ x − εt + ξ ζ(εt − εbt )
=
K
hn
hn
for some 0 < ζ, ξ < 1. We deduce that




bt )
|εt − εbt |
x − εt
′′′ x − εt + ξ ζ(εt − ε
′′
′′
K
6
.
K (∆tx ) − K
hn
hn
hn
Consequently, since K′′′ is bounded,
!2
n
n
n
X
C X
C X
2
4
kΦt−1 k |εt − εbt |
6
kΦt−1 k
(εt − εbt )2
K1,n 6 2
hn t=1
h2n t=1
t=1

n
n
X
X
C b
2
4
kθn − θk
kΦt−1 k
kΦt−1 k2
6
2
hn
t=1
t=1

(A.9)

for some arbitrary constants. Then, K1,n = OP (n h−2
n ) as soon as we suppose that
(εt ) has a finite moment of order ν = 4 (by virtue of Proposition 2.1). Now we
proceed as for J1,n to get
" 
2 #
Z
n
X


x
−
ε
1
E K′′
E[K2,n ] 6
E kΦt−1 k4
a(x) dx
hn
R
t=1
Z
Z
n
X


4
′′
2
(A.10)
f (x − hn z) a(x) dx dz = O(n hn )
= hn
E kΦt−1 k
(K (z))
t=1

R

R

18

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

 
which shows K2,n = OP (n hn ), since E Xn4 = O(1) under the hypotheses of stability
and fourth-order moments. Finally,
!2
2
Z Z
n
X
|K′′ (z)| f (x − hn z) dz a(x) dx
K3,n 6 h2n
kΦt−1 k2
R

(A.11)

6 C h2n

R

n
X
t=1

kΦt−1 k2

!2

t=1

= OP (n2 h2n )

for a constant C. Whence we deduce that I2,n = OP (h2n + n−1 h−2
n ).



We are now ready to conclude the proof of Theorem 3.2. If we come back to In
in (A.4), then the combination of Lemmas A.1 and A.2 leads to


1
1
1
In
√ = OP
+
+
= oP (1)
(A.12)
5/2
7/2
15/2
hn
n hn
n hn
n2 hn
15/4

as soon as n hn
(A.13)

→ +∞. Now by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
r
r 
|Rn |
In Tn
In
√ 62
= OP
= oP (1)
hn
hn
hn

from the previous reasoning, the asymptotic normality (1.10) and Assumption (A3 )
with α = 4. It follows from (A.3), (A.12) and (A.13) that
Tbn − µ
Tn − µ
√
= √
+ oP (1)
hn
hn
which ends the first part of the proof. The second part makes use of a result of
Bickel and Rosenblatt [3]. Indeed, denote by T̄n the statistic given in (1.9) built on
the strong white noise (εt ) instead of the residuals. They show that
|Tn − T̄n |
√
= oP (1)
hn

(A.14)
9/2

as soon as n hn → 0. A similar calculation leads to
Ten = In + T̄n + R̄n

where

R̄n = 2 n hn

We deduce that

Z

R

fbn (x) − fn (x)




fn (x) − f (x) a(x) dx.

|Ten − T̄n |
In
|R̄n |
√
6 √ + √ = OP
hn
hn
hn

r

In
hn



= oP (1)

as soon as T̄n satisfies the original Bickel-Rosenblatt convergence and (A.12) and
9/2
(A.13) hold, that is n hn → 0 and n h4n → +∞. It only remains to note that
|Tbn − Ten |
|Tbn − Tn | |Tn − T̄n | |T̄n − Ten |
√
√
6
+ √
+ √
,
hn
hn
hn
hn

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

each term being oP (1).

19



A.2. Proof of Theorem 3.4. Let In be the first term of the right-hand side of
(A.3), like in the last proof, and note that
Z
2
In = n hn
(A.15)
fbn (x) − fn (x) a(x) dx 6 2 (In,1 + In,2 ),
R

where for an arbitrary rate that we set to vn2 = ln(n hn ),




2

Z n−[v
n] 
X
x − εt
x − εbt
1
−K
K
a(x) dx,
In,1 =

n hn R  t=1
hn
hn


 


2
Z  X
n
x − εbt
x − εt
1
K
−K
a(x) dx.
In,2 =

n hn R 
hn
hn
t=n−[vn ]+1

Under our hypotheses, this choice of (vn ) ensures

(A.16)

lim vn = +∞

n → +∞

and

v2
√n = 0.
n → +∞ n hn
lim

Let us look at In,1 . By Cauchy-Schwarz,
In,1

2
x − εt
−K
K
a(x) dx
hn
R t=1


Z n−[v
Xn ]  x − εbt 
x − εt
2 kKk∞ (n − [vn ])
−K
a(x) dx
K
6
n hn
hn
hn
R t=1

Z n−[v
Xn ] 
εt − εbt
2 kak∞ kKk∞ (n − [vn ])
− K(u) du
K u+
6
n
hn
R t=1
n − [vn ]
6
n hn

Z

n−[vn ] 

X



x − εbt
hn





n−[vn ]
2 B kak∞ kKk∞ (n − [vn ]) X
|εt − εbt |
6
n hn
t=1

n−[vn ]
2 B kak∞ kKk∞ (n − [vn ]) X b
=
(θn − θ)T Φt−1
n hn
t=1

n−[vn ]
2 B kak∞ kKk∞ (n − [vn ]) X b
−[v ] −n+[vn ]
(θn − θ)T Cθn Cθ n Cθ
Φt−1 .
=
n hn
t=1

Here we recall that |λp | > 1. Consequently, ρ(Cθ−1 ) = 1/|λp | < 1. It follows
that there exists a matrix norm k · k∗ = sup(| · u|∗ ; u ∈ Cp , |u|∗ = 1) satisfying
kCθ−1 k∗ < 1 (see e.g. [8, Prop. 2.3.15]), and a constant k ∗ such that, with C ∗ =

20

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

2 B k ∗ kak∞ kKk∞ , we obtain
In,1

n−[vn ]
C ∗ (n − [vn ]) X b
(θn − θ)T Cθn
6
n hn
t=1

C ∗ (n − [vn ]) b
(θn − θ)T Cθn
6
n hn

C ∗ (n − [vn ]) b
(θn − θ)T Cθn
6
n hn

−[vn ]

∗

Cθ

−n+[vn ]

Cθ

Φt−1

∗

n−[vn ]

X

n]
kCθ−1 k[v
∗
∗

n]
kCθ−1 k[v
∗
∗

−n+[vn ]

Cθ

Φt−1

∗

t=1

n−[vn ]

Cθ−t

sup
0 6 t 6 n−[vn ]−1

Φt

∗

X
ℓ=1

kCθ−1 kℓ∗ .

But Proposition 2.2 ensures that supt |Cθ−t Φt |∗ is a.s. bounded for a sufficiently
large n, and we also have
!−1
!
n
n
X
X
Cθn
Φt−1 ΦTt−1
(θbn − θ)T Cθn =
ΦTt−1 εt (Cθ−n )T (Cθn )T
t=1

t=1

n
X

=

(Cθ−n Φt−1 εt )T G−1
n

t=1

where

Gn = Cθ−n

n
X

Φt−1 ΦTt−1

t=1
∗

!

(Cθ−n )T .

We deduce that, for some constant k ,
(θbn − θ)T Cθn

∗

6 k ∗ ε♯n kG−1
n k∗

sup
0 6 t 6 n−1

(Cθ−t Φt )T

∗

n
X
ℓ=1

kCθ−1 kℓ∗

√
where [8, Cor. 1.3.21] shows that ε♯n = supt |εt| = o( n) a.s. under our conditions
of moments on (εt ). Proposition 2.2 and the fact that kCθ−1 k∗ < 1 lead to


n − [vn ] [vn ]
a.s.
R
(A.17)
In,1 = o √
n hn

for some 0 < R < 1. Let us now turn to In,2 for which the same strategy gives


2
Z  
n
X
[vn ]
x − εt
x − εbt
I2,n 6
−K
a(x) dx
K
n hn
hn
hn
t=n−[vn ]+1 R



Z  
n
X
bt
2 [vn ]
2 x−ε
2 x − εt
K
+K
a(x) dx
6
n hn
hn
hn
R
t=n−[vn ]+1
Z
n
X
4 kak∞ [vn ]
K2 (u) du
6
n
t=n−[vn ]+1 R
Z
4 kak∞ [vn ]2
=
K2 (u) du.
n
R

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

Thus,
(A.18)

In,2 = O



[vn ]2
n



21

a.s.

Finally, from (A.3), (A.17) and (A.18), we have


p
n − [vn ] [vn ] [vn ]2
(A.19)
In = O √
= o( hn ) a.s.
R
+
n
n hn

for some 0 < R < 1, as a consequence of the properties of (vn ) in (A.16). The cross
term Rn is treated in the same way as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Indeed, since
our choice of (vn ) also ensures that In = o(hn ) a.s., the same reasoning leads to the
conclusion. It follows from (A.15) and (A.19) that
Tn − µ
Tbn − µ
√
= √
+ o(1) a.s.
hn
hn

which ends the first part of the proof. The second part merely consists in noting
that (A.14) still holds.

A.3. Proof of Proposition 3.6. In this proof, the notation =⇒ refers to the weak
convergence of sequences of random elements in D([0, 1]), the space of right continuous functions on [0, 1] having left-hand limits, equipped with the Skorokhod
topology (see Billingsley [4]). One can find in Thm. 2.7 of the same reference the
statement and the proof of the continous mapping theorem. In Lemmas A.4 and
A.8 below, (Yn )n>1 is a sequence of random variables satisfying, for some δ > 0,
(A.20)

1 X
Yt =⇒ LP (·)
nδ t ∈ P

and

[n·]

[n·]
1 X
(−1)[n·]−t Yt =⇒ Λ(·)
nδ t=1

where LP and Λ are random paths in D([0, 1]) and where P[n·] stands either for
{1, . . . , [n·]}
P or for the sets of even/odd integers in {1, . . . , [n·]}. We use the convention ∅ = 0 and the notation [x] to designate the integer part of any x > 0.

Remark A.3. The first convergence obviously holds for a strong white noise having
a finite variance and δ = 1/2, via Donsker theorem [4, Thm. 8.2]. In this case,
LP is a Wiener process and P[n·] changes its variance (half as many terms leads
to a doubled variance). If the distribution is symmetric, then Λ ≡ LP for P[n·] =
{1, . . . , [n·]}, whereas an invariance principle for stationary processes (see, e.g., [7,
Thm. 1]) enables to identify Λ in the nonsymmetric case.
Lemma A.4 (Univariate unstable case). Let X0 = 0 and, for 1 6 t 6 n, consider
Xt = θ Xt−1 + Yt ,

θ = ±1,

where (Yt ) satisfies (A.20). Then,

n
X
OP (nδ+1 ) for θ = 1
Xt =
OP (nδ )
for θ = −1
t=1

22

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

and, in both cases, for k ∈ N,

n
X

Xt2k = OP (n2kδ+1 ).

t=1

Proof. Let θ = 1. Then,
n
1 X

nδ+1

Xt

t=1

n
t
1X 1 X
=
Ys
n t=1 nδ s=1

=

n Z
X
t=1

t+1
n

t
n

Z 1
[nu]
1 X
D
Ys du −→
L(u) du
nδ s=1
0

from the continuous mapping theorem, where L ≡ LP for P[n·] = {1, . . . , [n·]}.
Following the same lines,
!2k
n
n
t
1X 1 X
1 X 2k
X
=
Ys
n2kδ+1 t=1 t
n t=1 nδ s=1
2k

Z 1
[nu]
n Z t+1
X
X
n
1
D


=
Ys
du −→
L2k (u) du.
δ
t
n
0
t=1 n
s=1

Now let θ = −1. Then,

n
X

Xt =

t=1

X

Yt

t ∈ Pn

where Pn ⊂ {1, . . . , n} is the set of even integers (resp. odd integers) between 1 and
n, for an even (resp. odd) n. Then we conclude to the first result. Finally,
!2k
n
n
t
1X 1 X
1 X 2k
t−s
X
=
(−1) Ys
n2kδ+1 t=1 t
n t=1 nδ s=1
2k

Z 1
[nu]
n Z t+1
X
X
n
1
D
[nu]−s

=
(−1)
Ys  du −→
Λ2k (u) du.
δ
t
n
0
t=1 n
s=1


Proof of Proposition 2.3 – Seasonal case. Let X−s+1 = . . . = X0 = 0 and
Sk = {ℓ ∈ {1, . . . , n}, ℓ[s] = k}, for k ∈ {0, . . . , s − 1}, the notation ℓ[s] refering
to the remainder of the Euclidean division of ℓ by s. Then the subsets Sk form
a partition of {1, . . . , n}, the path (X1 , . . . , Xn ) is√made of s uncorrelated random
walks and Donsker theorem directly gives the OP ( n) rate for |Xn |. In addition,
n
X
t=1

Xta

=

s−1 X
X

Xta

k=0 t ∈ Sk

so that, for a ∈ {1, 2, 4}, the results follow from Lemma A.4.



ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

23

We now turn to the proof of Proposition 3.6. Following the idea of [12], we make
once again the decomposition
In
Rn
Tn − µ
Tbn − µ
√
=√ +√ + √
hn
hn
hn
hn

(A.21)

where µ is the centering term (1.11) of the statistic, In is given in (A.4), Tn is the
original Bickel-Rosenblatt statistic and Rn is the cross term in (A.3) such that
r 
In
|Rn |
√ = OP
(A.22)
hn
hn
as we have seen earlier. Going on with the decomposition of In in (A.4) and using
the same notation, we establish the two following lemmas. In all the sequel, the case
p = s refers to the seasonal process θ1 = . . . = θs−1 = 0 and θs = 1.
Lemma A.5. When p = 1 or p = s, Lemma A.2 still holds in the unstable case.
Proof. First, with p = 1 and θ = ±1, we note that
X
E[Xn2 ] =
θ 2n−t−s E[εt εs ] = O(n)
1 6 t,s 6 n

and

X

E[Xn4 ] =

θ 4n−t−s−u−v E[εt εs εu εv ] = O(n2 )

1 6 t,s,u,v 6 n

under our assumptions on the noise, and the same results obviously hold for p = s
where Xn still has a random walk behavior. Thus, K2,n in (A.10) is OP (n3 hn ).
Lemma A.4 and the second part of Proposition 2.3 also give
n
X

Xt2

2

= OP (n )

and

t=1

n
X

Xt4 = OP (n3 )

t=1

and, accordingly with Proposition 2.6, K1,n in (A.9) is OP (n3 h−2
n ) and K3,n in (A.11)
is OP (n4 h2n ). Finally, (A.8) concludes the proof.

Lemma A.6. Let pR = 1. Then, Lemma A.1 holds for λ = θ = −1. On the contrary,
for λ = θ = 1 and R K′ (s) ds 6= 0,
whereas for

R

R

I1,n = OP (n h2n )

K′ (s) ds = 0,
I1,n = OP (n h4n ).

The last two results also hold for p = s.
Proof. On the one hand, let θ = −1. The reasoning of (A.6) shows that J1,n is still
OP (hn ), using Proposition 2.6 and E[Xn2 ] = O(n). From Lemma A.4, we know that
n
X
t=1

√
Xt = OP ( n).

24

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

Then, J2,n in (A.7) must be OP (n−1 h2n ) and I1,n = OP (hn ). On the other hand, we
have to investigate the case where θ = 1. Since E[Xn2 ] does not depend on θ, J1,n
has exactly the same behavior. For a better readability, let
2
Z Z
′
K (z) f (x − hn z) dz a(x) dx.
Ln =
R

R

Under our assumptions, it is easy to see that
Z
 Z
2
2
′
(A.23)
lim Ln =
f (s) a(s) ds
K (s) ds
n → +∞

as soon as
(A.24)
as soon as

R

R

R

R

R

R

′

K (s) ds 6= 0, and that
Z
 Z
2
Ln
′
2
′
lim
=
f (s) a(s) ds
s K (s) ds
n → +∞ h2
R
R
n
K′ (s) ds = 0. Lemma A.4 also gives
n
X

Xt = OP (n3/2 )

t=1

R
which shows that J2,n is OP (n h2n ) or OP (n h4n ), depending on R K′ (s) ds. The latter
reasoning still applies for p = s, via the second part of Proposition 2.3. The proof
is achieved using (A.5) and the hypotheses of Proposition 3.6.

The combination of Lemmas A.5 and A.6 is sufficient to establish that
Tbn − µ D
√
−→ N (0, τ 2 )
hn

holds for θ = −1, despite the instability, and replacing Tbn by Ten is possible without
9/2
disturbing the asymptotic normality,
as a consequence of (A.14) for n hn → 0.
R ′
When θ = 1 or p = s and R K (s) ds = 0, Lemmas A.5 and A.6 show that In =
√
OP (hn ) = oP ( hn ). It follows from (A.21) and (A.22) that
|R |
√ n = OP (1)
hn
which unfortunately prevents us from concluding to the Bickel-Rosenblatt convergence in this case. However, we still have the order of magnitude
Tbn − µ
√
= OP (1)
hn

and

Ten − µ
√
= OP (1).
hn

R
Finally for R K′ (s) ds 6= 0, the same lines also imply, together with (A.21), Lemmas
A.5 and A.6 and the asymptotic normality (1.10), that
hn (Tbn − µ) = OP (1).

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

25

It remains to study the asymptotic behavior of the correctly renormalized statistic
using the explicit expression of J2,n in (A.7). From the proof of Lemma A.4, Proposition 2.6 and the continuous mapping theorem, we get for the univariate unstable
case with θ = 1,
!2
!2
Z 1
n
1
2
X
2
(W
(1)
−
1)
1
D
−→ σ 2 2R 1
Xt−1
n (θbn − θ)
W (u) du
2 (u) du
n3/2 t=1
W
0
0
where (W (t), t ∈ [0, 1]) is a standard Wiener process. Now for the seasonal case,
reusing the same notation as above,
s−1 Z 1
s−1
n
X
X
s
1 X
1 X
D
X
−→
σ
Ws(k+1) (u) du
X
=
(A.25)
t
t
3/2
3/2
n
n t∈S
0
t=1
k=0

k=0

k

(i)

where Ws stands for the i–th component of the standard Wiener process (Ws (t), t ∈
[0, 1]) of dimension s, since the path can be seen as the concatenation of s uncorrelated random walks. Using the Cramèr-Wold and the continuous mapping theorems,
it follows that
!2
n
X
2
1
D
n (θbn − θ)T 3/2
Φt−1
−→ σ 2 S(Ws )T H(Ws )
n
t=1

with the notation of Proposition 2.6, where H(Ws ) is a random vector of size s
containing the limit variable (A.25) on each component. The proof is then ended
using the limiting behavior of Ln .

R ′
Remark A.7. To go beyond, note that for θ = 1 and R K (s) ds 6= 0, we get
q
b
e
hn |Tn − Tn | 6 2 hn Tbn Un + hn Un
where

Z

(Khn ∗ f )(x) − f (x)

2

a(x) dx.
R
A straightforward calculation shows that Un = O(n h3n ) if R s K(s) ds 6= 0 whereas
R
Un = O(n h5n ) if R s K(s) ds = 0. In the second case, Tbn may be replaced by Ten
as soon as n h6n → 0. But it the first case, one needs n h4n → 0 which contradicts
Assumption (A3 ) with α = 4.
Un = n hn

R

This last lemma is not used as part of this paper, but it may be a trail for future
studies. It is related to the conclusion of Section 3 and illustrates the phenomenon
of compensation in purely unstable processes.
Lemma A.8. Let X−1 = X0 = 0 and, for 1 6 t 6 n, consider
Xt = 2 cos θ Xt−1 − Xt−2 + Yt ,

0 6 θ 6 π,

where (Yt ) satisfies (A.20). Then,

n
X
OP (nδ+2 ) for θ = 0
Xt =
OP (nδ )
for 0 < θ 6 π.
t=1

26

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

Moreover, if the process is generated by
Xt = Xt−2 + Yt ,
then

n
X

Xt = OP (nδ+1 ).

t=1

Proof. For θ = 0, let Zt = Xt − Xt−1 . Then, Zt − Zt−1 = Yt and from Lemma A.4,
n
X
Zt = OP (nδ+1 ).
t=1

A second application of Lemma A.4 gives the result. If 0 < θ 6 π, we obtain
n
n
Xn−1 + (1 − 2 cos θ) Xn
1 X
2 (1 − cos θ) X
X
=
Yt .
+
t
δ
δ
nδ
n
n
t=1
t=1

In the last case, let Zt = Xt − Xt−1 and note that Zt = −Zt−1 + Yt . Then, Lemma
A.4 gives
n
X
Zt = OP (nδ ).
t=1

We conclude by applying again Lemma A.4 to the relation Xt = Xt−1 + Zt .



Remark A.9. In the previous lemma, θ = 0 corresponds to the unit roots {1, 1}
in an AR(2) process generated by (Yt ) whereas 0 < θ 6 π corresponds to the unit
roots {ei θ , e−i θ }, including {−1, −1} for θ = π. The last case corresponds to the
unit roots {−1, 1}, in other words this is the seasonal model for s = 2.
References
[1] D. Bachmann and H. Dette. A note on the the Bickel-Rosenblatt test in autoregressive time
series. Statist. Probab. Lett., 74:221–234, 2005.
[2] B. Bercu and F. Proı̈a. A sharp analysis on the asymptotic behavior of the Durbin-Watson
statistic for the first-order autoregressive process. ESAIM Probab. Stat., 17(1):500–530, 2013.
[3] P. J. Bickel and M. Rosenblatt. On some global measures of the deviations of density function
estimates. Ann. Statist., 1:1071–1095, 1973.
[4] P. Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics:
Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, second edition, 1999.
[5] P. J. Brockwell and R. A. Davis. Time series: theory and methods. Springer Series in Statistics.
Springer, New York, 2006.
[6] N. H. Chan and C. Z. Wei. Limiting distributions of least squares estimates of unstable
autoregressive processes. Ann. Statist., 16(1):367–401, 1988.
[7] J. Dedecker and E. Rio. On the functional central limit theorem for stationary processes. Ann.
Inst. Henri Poincaré, B., 36(1):1–34, 2000.
[8] M. Duflo. Random iterative models. Applications of Mathematics (vol. 34), New York.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
[9] Y. Fan. Testing the goodness of fit of a parametric density function by kernel method. Econometric Theory., 10:316–356, 1994.
[10] B. K. Ghosh and W. M. Huang. The power and optimal kernel of the Bickel-Rosenblatt test
for goodness of fit. Ann. Statist., 19:999–1009, 1991.

ON THE BICKEL-ROSENBLATT TEST FOR AUTOREGRESSIVE PROCESSES

27

[11] T. L. Lai and C. Z. Wei. Asymptotic properties of general autoregressive models and strong
consistency of least-squares estimates of their parameters. J. Multivariate Anal., 13:1–23, 1983.
[12] S. Lee and S. Na. On the Bickel-Rosenblatt test for first-order autoregressive models. Statist.
Probab. Lett., 56:23–35, 2002.
[13] S. Lee and C. Z. Wei. On residual empirical processes of stochastic regression models with
applications to time series. Ann. Statist., 27(1):237–261, 1999.
[14] M. H. Neumann and E. Paparoditis. On bootstrapping L2 -type statistics in density testing.
Statist. Probab. Lett., 50:137–147, 2000.
[15] E. Parzen. On estimation of a probability density function and mode. Ann. Math. Statist.,
33:1065–1076, 1962.
[16] F. Proı̈a. Further results on the H-Test of Durbin for stable autoregressive processes. J. Multivariate Anal., 118:77–101, 2013.
[17] M. Rosenblatt. Remark on some nonparametric estimates of a density function. Ann. Math.
Statist., 27:832–837, 1956.
[18] M. Rosenblatt. A quadratic measure of deviation of two-dimensional density estimates and a
test of independence. Ann. Statist., 3:1–14, 1975.
[19] B. P. Stigum. Asymptotic properties of dynamic stochastic parameter estimates (III). J. Multivariate Anal., 4:351–381, 1974.
[20] H. Takahata and K. I. Yoshihara. Central limit theorems for integrated square error of nonparametric density estimators based on absolutely regular random sequences. Yokohama Math.
J., 35:95–111, 1987.
[21] J. Valeinis and A. Locmelis. Bickel-Rosenblatt test for weakly dependent data. Math. Model.
Anal., 17:383–395, 2012.
Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse; UMR5219.
CNRS. UT2J, F-31058 Toulouse, France.
E-mail address: lagnoux@univ-tlse2.fr

Université de Toulouse;

Ho Chi Minh City University of Science, 227 Nguyen Van Cu, Phuong 4, Ho Chi
Minh, Vietnam
E-mail address: ngtmngoc@hcmus.edu.vn
Laboratoire Angevin de REcherche en MAthématiques (LAREMA), CNRS, Université d’Angers, Université Bretagne Loire. 2 Boulevard Lavoisier, 49045 Angers
cedex 01.
E-mail address: frederic.proia@univ-angers.fr

