Estimation of the marginal expected shortfall
under asymptotic independence

arXiv:1709.04285v1 [math.ST] 13 Sep 2017

Juan-Juan Cai* and Eni Musta*
Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, Mekelweg 4, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands. e-mail:
* j.j.cai@tudelft.nl; ** e.musta@tudelft.nl
Abstract: We study the asymptotic behavior of the marginal expected shortfall when the
two random variables are asymptotic independent but positive associated, which is modeled
by the so-called tail dependent coefficient. We construct an estimator of the marginal expected shortfall which is shown to be asymptotically normal. The finite sample performance
of the estimator is investigated in a small simulation study. The method is also applied to
estimate the expected amount of rainfall at a weather station given that there is a once every
100 years rainfall at another weather station nearby.
Keywords and phrases: marginal expected shortfall, asymptotic independence, tail dependent coefficient.

1. Introduction
Let X and Y denote two risk factors. The marginal expected shortfall (MES) is defined as E[X|Y >
QY (1 − p)], where QY is the quantile function of Y and p is a small probability. The name of MES
originates from its application in finance as an important ingredient for constructing a systemic risk
measure; see for instance [1] and [8]. In actuarial science, this quantity is known as the multivariate
extensions of tail conditional expectation (or, conditional tail expectation); see for instance [5] and
[11].
Under the assumption that X is in the Fréchet domain of attraction, [7] has established the
following asymptotic limit; see Proposition 1 in that paper. With QX the quantile function of X,
E[X|Y > QY (1 − p)]
= a ∈ [0, ∞)
p→0
QX (1 − p)
lim

(1.1)

where a > 0 if X and Y are asymptotic dependent and a = 0 if they are asymptotic independent.
Based on this result, an estimator for MES is established in [7], which is not applicable for asymptotic independent data. It is the goal of this paper to study the asymptotic behavior of MES and
to develop an estimation of MES for asymptotic independent data.
Under the framework of multivariate extreme value theory, there are various ways to describe
asymptotic dependence, for instance by means of exponent measure, spectral measure or Pickands
dependence functions, cf. Chapter 6 of [12] and Chapter 8 of [3]. However, these measures don’t
distinguish the relative strength of the extremal dependence for an asymptotic independent pair.
The so-called coefficient of tail dependence introduced by [14] is mostly used to measure the
strength of the extremal dependence for an asymptotic independent pair. In this paper, we make
use of the coefficient of tail dependence, denoted as η to model asymptotic independence. Namely,
we assume that there exists an η ∈ (0, 1] such that the following limit exists and is positive:
1

lim p− η P (X > QX (1 − p) and Y > QY (1 − p)) .

p→0

We are interested in the scenario that η ∈ (1/2, 1), which corresponds to asymptotic independence
but positive association of X and Y . For this type of distributions, one has
P (X > QX (1 − p) and Y > QY (1 − p))  P (X > QX (1 − p)) P (Y > QY (1 − p)) ,
that is, the joint extremes of (X, Y ) happen much more often than those of a distribution with
independent components of X and Y . This gives an intuitive explanation that even if the pair
1
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

2

are asymptotic independent, the extremal dependence can still be strong and thus needs to be
accounted for. We also assume that X is in the Fréchet domain of attraction, so it has a heavy
right tail. As our result shall reveal, the risk represented by MES can also be very big under the
combination of positive association and X being heavy tailed, cf. Proposition 2.1. Thus from the
application point of view, it is very important to consider MES for such a model assumption.
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 contains the main theoretical results on the limit
behaviour of M ES and the asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator of MES. The performance of the estimation method is illustrated by a simulation study in Section 3 and by an
application to precipitation data in Section 4. The proofs of the main theorems are provided in
Section 5.
2. Main results
We first derive the asymptotic limit for MES as p → 0, based on which we shall then construct
an estimator for MES. Let F1 and F2 denote the marginal distribution functions of X and Y ,
respectively. As usual in extreme value analysis, it is more
to work with, in stead of
←
 convenient
1
,
j
=
1,
2, where ← denotes the
the quantile function, the tail quantile defined as Uj = 1−F
j
left continuous inverse. Then MES can be written as
E [X|Y > U2 (1/p)] =: θp .
We now present our model, namely, assumptions on the tail distribution of X and the extremal
dependence of X and Y . First, we assume that X has a heavy right tail, that is, there exists a
γ1 > 0 such that
lim

t→∞

U1 (tx)
= x γ1 ,
U1 (t)

x > 0.

(2.1)

Second, we assume the positive association of X and Y . Precisely, there exists an η ∈ (1/2, 1] such
that for all (x, y) ∈ (0, ∞)2 , the following limit exists
1

lim t η P (X > U1 (t/x), Y > U2 (t/y)) =: c(x, y) ∈ (0, ∞).

t→∞

(2.2)

As a consequence, c is a homogeneous function of order η1 . The condition of (2.2) is also assumed
in [13] for estimating η. Note that if η = 1, it corresponds to X and Y being asymptotic dependent.
For η < 1, this condition is linked to the so-called hidden regular variation (cf. [15]) in the following
way:
ν ∗ ((x, ∞] × (y, ∞]) = c(x−1/γ1 , y −1/γ1 ),
where ν∗ is defined in (3) of [15].
In order to obtain the limit result on θp for p → 0, we need a second order strengthening
condition of (2.1).
A(1) There exists d ∈ (0, ∞) such that
lim

t→∞

U1 (t)
= d.
t γ1

We also need some technical conditions on the extremal dependence of X and Y . For t > 0, define
1

ct (x, y) = t η P (X > U1 (t/x), Y > U2 (t/y)) ,

0 < x, y < t.

(2.3)

A(2) There exists β1 > γ1 such that limt→∞ supx≤1 |ct (x, 1) − c(x, 1)| x−β1 = 0.
A(3) There exists 0 < β2 < γ1 such that limt→∞ sup1<x<t |ct (x, 1) − c(x, 1)| x−β2 = 0.

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

3

Proposition 2.1. Assume that X takes values in (0, ∞) and conditions A(1)-A(3) hold. If − η1 +

R∞ 
1
1 + γ1 > 0, 0 c x− γ1 , 1 dx < ∞ and x 7→ c(x, 1) is a continuous function, then we have
lim

t→∞

θ1/t
− η1 +1

t

∞

Z
=

U1 (t)



1
c x− γ1 , 1 dx.

(2.4)

0

Remark 2.1. If η = 1, then the result of (2.4) coincide with the result of Proposition 1 in [7].
Provided with a random sample (X1 , Y1 ), . . . , (Xn , Yn ), we now construct an estimation of θp ,
where p = p(n) → 0, as n → ∞. Propositions 2.1 suggests the following approximation. With t
sufficiently large,
 − η1 +1+γ1
 − η1 +1
1
U1 (1/p)
1
θp ∼
θ 1t .
θ 1t ∼
pt
U1 (t)
pt
We choose t =
n → ∞. Then,

n
k,

where k = k(n) is a sequence of integers such that k → ∞ and k/n → 0, as

θp ∼

k
pn

− η1 +1+γ1
θk .
n

From this extrapolation relation, the remaining task is to estimate η, γ1 and θ k . There are welln
known existing methods for estimating γ1 and η; see Chapters 3 and 7 of [12]. For θ k , we propose
n
a nonparametric estimator given by
θ̂k/n =

n
1X
Xi 1{Yi >Yn−k,n } .
k i=1

(2.5)

Let γ̂1 and η̂ denote estimators of γ1 and η, respectively. We construct the following estimator for
θp :

θ̂p = θ̂k/n

k
np

− η̂1 +1+γˆ1
.

(2.6)

Next we prove the asymptotic normality of θ̂p . The following conditions will be needed.
B(1) − η1 + 1 + γ1 > 0 and there exists δ̄ > 0 such that, for ρ ∈ {1, 2, 2 + δ̄},
Z
sup
y∈[1/2,2]

∞

c (x, y) dx−ργ1 < ∞, and

0

Z

∞

c(x, y)2 dx−γ1 < ∞.

1

B(2) There exists β1 > (2 + δ̄)γ1 and τ < 0 such that
sup

|ct (x, y) − c(x, y)| x−β1 = O(tτ ).

x≤1
1/2≤y≤2

B(3) There exists −τ /(1 − γ1 ) < β2 < γ1 such that
sup

|ct (x, y) − c(x, y)| x−β2 = O(tτ )

1<x<t
1/2≤y≤2

with the same τ as in B(2) .
1
and a regularly varying function A1 with index ρ1 such that
B(4) There exists ρ1 < 21 − 2η
sup x−γ1
x>1

U1 (tx)
− 1 = O {A1 (t)} .
U1 (t)

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

4

B(5) As n → ∞, k = O(nα ) for some α that satisfies the following condition
− η1 + 1 + 2τ + 2β2 (1 − γ1 )
η
1
η
1−η < α < min 1 −
,1 +
,1 +
,
1 + ηγ1 λ
1 − 2η − 2ηγ1 λ
2ρ1 − 1
− η1 + 2τ + 2β2 (1 − γ1 )


with some max β2 , 1−η
< λ < 1.
√ γ1 η
√
B(6) γ̂1 is such that k(γ̂1 − γ1 ) = Op (1), and η̂ is such that k(η̂ − η) = Op (1).
Theorem 2.1. Suppose that X takes values in (0, ∞), γ1 ∈ (0, 1) and Conditions B(1)-B(6) hold.
Assume that dn = k/(np) ≥ 1 and limn→∞ (n/k)−1/2η+1/2 log(dn ) = 0. Then, as n → ∞,
!
1
 n − 2η
+ 21 √
θ̂p
d
k
−1 −
→ N (0, σ 2 )
k
θp
where
σ2 =

Z

∞

c(x, 1) dx−γ1

−2
.

0

Remark 2.2. Note that the condition limn→∞ (n/k)−1/2η+1/2 log(dn ) = 0 implies that η < 1.
Moreover, from γ1 < 1 and − η1 + 1 + γ1 > 0 (see B(1)), it follows that η > 1/2.
3. Simulation Study
In this section, we study the finite sample performance of our method. We apply our estimator
given by (2.6) to data simulated from the following two distributions. We consider sample size
n = 5000, and p = 10/n, 1/n and 1/(10n).
Let Z1 , Z2 , and Z3 be independent Pareto random variables with parameters 0.3, 0.4, and 0.4
Example 1. Define X = Z1 ∨ Z2 and Y = Z1 ∨ Z3 .
Example 2. Define (X, Y ) = B(Z1 , Z1 ) + (1 − B)(X1 , X3 ), where B is a Bernoulli (1/2) random
variable independent of Z1 , Z2 , and Z3 .
For both distributions, γ1 = 0.4, η = 43 and c(x, y) = d(x ∧ y)1/η , 0 < x, y < ∞, for some
constant d > 0. And assumptions B(1)-B(7) are satisfied by both models with properly chosen δ̄,
β1 , β2 , τ and α. To complete our estimator given by (2.6), we use the Hill estimator for γ1 and
an estimator for η proposed in [13]. Let k1 and k2 be two intermediate sequences. Define
γ̂1 =

k1
1 X
log(Xn−i+1,n ) − log(Xn−k1 ,n ),
k1 i=1

and
η̂ =

(n)
k2
Tn,n−i+1
1 X
log (n)
,
k2 i=1
Tn,n−k2

(3.1)

(n)

n+1
n+1
with RiX and RiY denoting the ranks of Xi and Yi in their
where Ti
= n+1−R
X ∧ n+1−RY
i
i
respective samples.
For p = 10/n, we compare our estimator with the nonparametric estimator, namely,
n

θ̂emp =

1 X
Xi 1{Yi >Yn−10,n } ,
10 i=1

which is obtained by letting k/n = p in (2.5).
For each estimator, we compute the relative error defined as biasp =

1
m

θ̂p,i
i=1 θp

Pm

− 1, where θ̂p,i

is an estimate based on the i-th sample. A relative error for θ̂emp is computed in the same way,
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

!

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

5

●
●

Example2

●

●

2.0

●
●
●
●
●

●
●
●

●
●
●
●
●

1.5

1.5

2.0

●

Example1

●

●

●
●
●
●
●

0.0
−0.5
−1.0

−1.0

−0.5

0.0

0.5

●
●

0.5

●
●

●

1.0

1.0

●

●
●
●
●
●
●

biasemp

biasp1

biasp2

biasp3

biasemp

biasp1

biasp2

biasp3

Fig 1: The relative errors of the estimators with n = 5000, p1 = 10/n, p2 = 1/n, p3 = 1/(10n),
and k = k1 = k2 = 200, for both examples.

denoted as biasemp . Figure 1 shows the relative errors obtained by generating m = 500 samples
for each scenario. From the boxplots, for the situation where the empirical estimator is applicable,
that is p = 10/p, our estimator has a slightly larger bias but a smaller variance. As p becomes
smaller, the empirical estimator is not applicable, yet our estimator still has decent performance
with growing variance.
4. Application
We apply our estimation to daily precipitation data from two weather stations in the Netherlands,
namely Cabauw and Rotterdam. The distance between these two stations is about 32 km. The
station Cabauw is close to the Lek river while the station Rotterdam is close to the river Nieuwe
Maas, which is the continuation of Lek. Heavy rainfall at both stations might lead to a severe
flood in this region. Thus, the expected amount of rainfall in Cabauw given a heavy rainfall
in Rotterdam is an important risk measure for the hydrology safety control. We estimate this
quantity based on the data from August 1st, 1990 to December 31, 2016. After removing the
missing values, there are in total 9605 observations. There is open access to the data at http:
//projects.knmi.nl/klimatologie/uurgegevens/selectie.cgi.
Let X be the daily rainfall at Cabauw and Y be the daily rainfall at Rotterdam. Before applying
our estimation, we shall look at the sign of the extreme value index of X and the extremal
dependence of X and Y . From the Hill estimates of γ as shown in right panel of Figure 2, we
conclude that γ > 0, which is in line with the existing literature. For instance, [4] obtains 0.1082
as the estimate of γ for the daily rainfall in the Netherlands and [10] reports 0.066 as the estimate
of γ for the daily rainfall in the southwest of England.
Next, we compute the Hill estimator of η given by (3.1). The estimates are above 0.5 as shown
in the right panel of Figure 2.
Finally, we apply our estimator to answer the following question. Provided that the amount of
rainfall in Rotterdam exceeds the M -year return level, what is the expected amount of rainfall in
Cabauw, respectively, for M = 50 and 100? Let RM denote the M -year return level. [9] gives the
definition of RM as the level expected to be exceeded once every M years. As we consider the
daily precipitation, RM = U2 (365M ).
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

6

0.5

0.10

0.15

0.6

0.20

0.7

^
η

^γ
0.25

0.8

0.30

0.35

0.9

0.40

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

100

k

200

300

400

500

k

Fig 2: The Hill estimates of γ1 for the daily precipitation at Cabauw (left panel) and the estimates
of η for the daily precipitations at Cabauw and Rotterdam (right panel).

Choosing k1 = k2 = 200, we obtain the following estimates of γ and η: γ̂1 = 0.326 and η̂ = 0.835.
Figure 3 plots the estimates of θp against k, from which we conclude k = 50 lying in the interval
where the estimates are stable. We thus report the following estimates of θ̂p : 41.6 mm for M = 50
and 45.5 mm for M = 100.
5. Proofs
Proof of Proposition 2.1. We recall that for any positive random variable Z, the expectation can
be written as
Z ∞
E[Z] =
P(Z > x) dx.
0

Then by definition of θp and a change of variable, we have
Z ∞
θ1/t =
tP(X > x, Y > U2 (t)) dx
0
Z ∞
1
− η1 +1
=t
U1 (t)
t η P(X > xU1 (t), Y > U2 (t)) dx.

(5.1)

0
1

Define ft (x) := t η P(X > xU1 (t), Y > U2 (t)), x > 0. Then
Z ∞
θ1/t
=
ft (x) dx.
1
0
t− η +1 U1 (t)
For any fixed x, by (2.2) and the continuity of the function x 7→ c(x, 1), we have


1
lim ft (x) = c x− γ1 , 1 .
t→∞

We shall apply the generalized dominated convergence theorem to validate that limt→∞
R∞  − 1 
c x γ1 , 1 dx.
0

R∞
0

ft (x) dx =

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

7

40
34

36

38

θ^p

42

44

46

p=1/(50*365)
p=1/(100*365)

0

50

100
k

150

200

Fig 3: The estimates of the conditional expected rainfall at Cabauw given that the rainfall at
Rotterdam exceed the 50 (red) and 100 (black) year return level.

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

8

By assumption A(1), for any  > 0, there exists t0 such that
U1 (t)
− d < ,
tγ1

for all t > t0 .

Hence, for c1 = (d + )/(d − ) and x > c1 (t0 /t)γ1 , we get
U1 (t)x


U1 t(x/c1 )

1
γ1

=

U1



d−
U1 (t)/tγ1

c1 >
c1 = 1.
1
d
+
γ
γ1
1
t(x/c1 )
/(t x/c1 )

Consequently, for x > c1 (t0 /t)γ1 ,






1
1
1
ft (x) ≤ t η P X > U1 t(x/c1 ) γ1 , Y > U2 (t) = ct (x/c1 )− γ1 , 1 .
1

On the other hand, for 0 < x ≤ c1 (t0 /t)γ1 , ft (x) ≤ t η −1 . Define

( 
1
ct (x/c1 )− γ1 , 1
if x > c1 (t0 /t)γ1 ;
gt (x) :=
1
t η −1
otherwise.
Then ft (x) ≤ gt (x). By generalized dominated convergence theorem, it is then sufficient to prove
that
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z ∞ 

1
lim
gt (x) dx =
lim gt (x) dx =
c (x/c1 )− γ1 , 1 dx.
t→∞

0

t→∞

0

0

Observe that
Z

∞

Z

c1 (t0 /t)γ1

1

t η −1 dx + c1

gt (x) dx =
0

∞

Z



1
ct x− γ1 , 1 dx

(t0 /t)γ1

0
1

=c1 tγ01 t η −1−γ1 + c1
Z

∞

Z

∞



1
ct x− γ1 , 1 dx

(t0 /t)γ1




1
c x− γ1 , 1 dx,

→0 + c1
0

as t → ∞. The last convergence follows from that η1 − 1 − γ1 < 0,
and the fact that
Z ∞
Z ∞




1
1
ct x− γ1 , 1 dx −
c x− γ1 , 1 dx
(t0 /t)γ1

Z

1

(t0 /t)γ1

Z




1
1
ct x− γ1 , 1 − c x− γ1 , 1 dx +

≤

R (t0 /t)γ1  − 1 
c x γ1 , 1 dx → 0,
0

(t0 /t)γ1
Z 1

∞





1
1
ct x− γ1 , 1 − c x− γ1 , 1 dx

1

x−β2 /γ1 dx + o(1)

=o(1)
(t0 /t)γ1

Z

∞

x−β1 /γ1 dx → 0,

1

by Assumptions A(2) and A(3).
Through out the proof section, we denote the convergence speed in Theorem 2.1 by
Tn =

1
+ 12
√  n − 2η
k
.
k

(5.2)

From Assumption B(5), Tn → ∞, as n → ∞. By construction, the asymptotic normality of θˆp
depends on the asymptotic behaviour of θ̂k/n , which is given in Proposition 5.1.
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

9

Proposition 5.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, it holds
 1 −1

Tn nk η 
d
θ̂ k − θ k −
→ N (0, σ12 ),
n
n
U1 (n/k)
where σ12 = −

R∞
0

c(x, 1) dx−2γ1 .

The proof of Proposition 5.1 is postponed to the Appendix.
Proof of Theorem 2.1. Recall that dn =
position

k
np .

By the definition of θˆp , we make the following decom-

1

1

− +1+γˆ1
− η +1+γ1
1
1
dn η̂
θ̂k/n
θk/n
θˆp
γ̂1 −γ1 η − η̂ θ̂k/n dn
=
= dn
dn
θp
θp
θk/n
θp

=: I1 · I2 · I3 · I4 .
We shall show √
that these four terms all converges to unity at certain rates. First, from the assumption that k(γˆ1 − γ1 ) = OP (1), it follows that


 
log dn
1
√
I1 − 1 = e(γˆ1 −γ1 ) log dn − 1 = (γˆ1 − γ1 ) log dn + o ((γˆ1 − γ1 ) log dn ) = OP
= op
.
Tn
k
In the last equality, we used the assumption that limn→∞ (n/k)−1/2η+1/2 log dn = 0. Recall that
Tn is defined in (5.2).
 
In the same way, we get I2 − 1 = op T1n .
Combining Propositions 5.1 and 2.1, we derive that
1
1
 U (n/k) n − η +1
 T n  η −1 
Tn 
n k
1
k
Tn (I3 − 1) =
θ̂k/n − θk/n =
θ̂k/n − θk/n ·
θk/n
U1 (n/k)
θk/n
Z ∞ 
−1

1
P
→
N (0, σ12 ).
c x− γ1 , 1 dx

0
P

That is, Tn (I3 − 1) → Γ1 , where Γ1 is a normal distribution with mean zero and variance, σ 2 =
 −2
R

R∞
1
∞
− 0 c(x, 1) dx−2γ1 0 c x− γ1 , 1 dx
, which is the limit distribution in Theorem 2.1.
Then we deal with the last term, I4 . Here we need a rate for the convergence in Proposition
2.1. Continuing with (5.1),
Z ∞  1
θk/n
n η
=
P(X > xU1 (n/k), Y > U2 (n/k)) dx
− η1 +1
k
0
U1 (n/k) (n/k)
(5.3)
Z ∞
=−
c nk (sn (x), 1) dx−γ1 ,
0

with


n
1 − F1 U1 (n/k)x−γ1 .
(5.4)
k
By the regular variation of 1 − F1 , we have limn→∞ sn (x) = x, for any x > 0. By Lemma 6.1 (iii)
and (v) in the Appendix, we have that
 
Z ∞
Z ∞
1
−γ1
−γ1
n
c k (sn (x), 1) dx
=
c(x, 1) dx
+o
.
(5.5)
T
n
0
0
sn (x) =

It follows from Assumptions B(4) and B(5) that
U1 (1/p)
− 1 = O(A(n/k)) = o
U1 (n/k)dγn1



1
√
k


.

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

10

Combing this result with (5.3) and (5.5) leads to
 γ1
− 1 +1
U1 (1/p) (1/p) η U1 (n/k) k
− 1 +1
θp
U1 (1/p) np
U1 (n/k) (n/k) η
  Z ∞
Z ∞
 −1 
−1

1
1
1
c(x, 1) dx−γ1 + o
=
c(x, 1) dx−γ1 + o
1+o √
Tn
Tn
k
0
0
 
1
=1+o
.
Tn
θk/n

I4 =

Thus, we obtain
θ̂p
− 1 = I1 I2 I3 I4 − 1
θp
  
 

 2 
Γ1
1
1
1
+ op
1+
1+o
−1
= 1 + op
Tn
Tn
Tn
Tn
 
Γ1
1
=
+ op
.
Tn
Tn
The proof is completed.

6. Appendix: Proof of Proposition 5.1
In this section, all the limit processes involved are defined in the same probability space via the
Skorohod construction, i.e. they are only equal in distribution to the original processes. If we define
en =
we have
θ̂k/n =

n
(1 − F2 (Yn−k,n )) ,
k

n
1X
Xi 1{Yi >U2 (n/ken )} .
k i=1

P

Note that en −
→ 1 because 1 − F2 (Yn−k,n ) is the (k + 1)th order statistics of a random sample from
the standard uniform distribution.
We first investigate the asymptotic behavior of
θ̃ ky =
n

n
1 X
Xi 1{Yi >U2 ( n )}
ky
ky i=1

as a random process for y ∈ [1/2, 2].
Let W (y) denote a mean zero Gaussian process on [1/2, 2] with covariance structure
Z ∞
1
E[W (y1 )W (y2 )] = −
c(x, y1 ∧ y2 ) dx−2γ1 ,
y1 , y2 ∈ [1/2, 2].
y1 y2 0
 1 −1 √
Proposition 6.1. Suppose conditions B(1)-B(5) hold. Let Sn = nk 2η 2 k. Then as n → ∞,



Sn
d
θ̃ ky − θ ky
→ {W (y)}y∈[1/2,2] .
(6.1)
n
n
U1 (n/k)
y∈[1/2,2]
The convergence of the process holds in distribution in the Skorokhod space D([1/2, 2]).

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

11

Before proving Proposition 6.1, we first show two lemmas. The first lemma states some some
properties of the functions ct (x, y) and c(x, y), that will be used frequently in the proof. The second
lemma is established to compute the covariance of the limit process in Proposition 6.1.
R∞
Lemma 6.1. (i) If 0 c(x, y) dx−2γ1 < ∞, then
Z ∞
Z ∞Z ∞
−γ1
1
=
c(x, y) dx−2γ1 .
dx
c(x1 ∧ x2 , y) dx−γ
2
1
(ii) The function y 7→
y1 , y2 ∈ [1/2, 2],

0

0

0

R∞
0

c(x, y) dx−γ1 is Lipschitz, i.e. there exists C > 0 such that for each

∞

Z

c(x, y1 ) dx−γ1 −

Z

∞

c(x, y2 ) dx−γ1 ≤ C|y1 − y2 |.

0

0

(iii) Assumptions B(1), B(3)-B(5) imply that
Z ∞
Z
−γ1
sup Tn
c(x, y) dx
−
y∈[1/2,2]

0

∞

c(sn (x), y) dx−γ1 → 0.

0

(iv) If Assumptions B(2)-B(3) hold, then, for ρ = 1, 2, 2 + δ̄,
Z ∞
Z ∞ 
n 
c nk x ∧ , y dx−ργ1 −
c(x, y) dx−ργ1 → 0.
k
0
0
(v) If Assumptions B(2), B(3) and B(5) hold, then,
Z ∞
Z ∞ 
n 
c(x, y) dx−γ1 → 0,
sup Tn
c nk x ∧ , y dx−γ1 −
k
y∈[1/2,2]
0
0
and,
Z
sup
y∈[1/2,2]

Tn

∞

c (sn (x), y) dx
0

n
k

−γ1

Z
−

(6.2)

(6.3)

∞

c(sn (x), y) dx−γ1 → 0,

(6.4)

0

.
Proof. The first statement follows from simple transformations of the integral. Indeed we have
Z ∞Z ∞
1
1
c(x1 ∧ x2 , y) dx−γ
dx−γ
1
2
0
0
Z ∞Z ∞
Z ∞ Z x1
−γ1
−γ1
1
1
=
c(x1 , y) dx2 dx1 +
c(x2 , y) dx−γ
dx−γ
2
1
0
x1
0
0
Z ∞
1
1
=2
x−γ
c(x1 , y) dx−γ
1
1
0
Z ∞
=
c(x, y) dx−2γ1 .
0
1

By the homogeneity property of c(x, y): c(kx, ky) = k η c(x, y), we have
Z ∞
Z ∞
−γ1
c(x, y1 ) dx
−
c(x, y2 ) dx−γ1
0
0




Z ∞
Z ∞
x
x
1/η
1/η
−γ1
, 1 dx
−
y2 c
, 1 dx−γ1
=
y1 c
y1
y2
0
0
Z ∞
Z ∞
1/η−2γ1
1/η−2γ1
−γ1
= y1
c (x, 1) dx
− y2
c (x, 1) dx−γ1
0

0

≤ K|y1 − y2 |.
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence


n λ
k

(iii) Let ln =

with λ as in Assumption B(5). We start by writing
∞

Z
sup

c(x, y) dx−γ1 −

Tn

y∈[1/2,2]

sup

c(sn (x), y) dx−γ1

0
ln

Tn

y∈[1/2,2]

[c(x, y) − c(sn (x), y)] dx−γ1

(6.5)

0
∞

Z
+

∞

Z

0

Z
≤

12

sup

c(x, y) dx

Tn

y∈[1/2,2]

−γ1

Z

∞

c(sn (x), y) dx

+

−γ1


.

ln

ln

First we deal with the first term in the right hand side of (6.7). By the homogeneity property of
c(x, y), we have
 1/η
x2
− 1 c(x1 , y)
|c(x1 , y) − c(x2 , y)| ≤
x1
It follows that,
ln

Z
sup

[c(x, y) − c(sn (x), y)] dx−γ1

Tn

y∈[1/2,2]

0

Z
≤

sup

ln



Tn

y∈[1/2,2]

0

sn (x)
x

1/η

− 1 c(x, y) dx−γ1 .

Note that, for any 0 > 0, for sufficiently large n and x < ln , (see [6], page 85)
sn (x)/x − 1 x−ρ1 − 1
−
≤ x−ρ1 max(x0 , x−0 ).
A1 (n/k)
γ1 ρ1
This implies that
sn (x)
− 1 ≤ |A1 (n/k)|
x


x−ρ1 − 1
−ρ1
0
−0
+x
max(x , x ) .
γ1 ρ1



Since, for 0 < −ρ1 (1 − λ)/λ,

|A1 (n/k)|

x−ρ1 − 1
+ x−ρ1 max(x0 , x−0 )
γ1 ρ1


= o(1)

by a Taylor expansion, we obtain
 −ρ1

sn (x)
x
−1
− 1 = |A1 (n/k)|
+ x−ρ1 max(x0 , x−0 )
x
γ1 ρ1

 −ρ1

x
−1
+ o A1 (n/k)
+ x−ρ1 max(x0 , x−0 )
.
γ1 ρ1
Consequently,
Z
sup

Tn

y∈[1/2,2]

0

ln



sn (x)
x

1/η

Z
≤C

sup
y∈[1/2,2]

Tn |A(n/k)|

− 1 c(x, y) dx−γ1
(6.6)

ln

x

−ρ1

0

−0

max(x , x

)c(x, y) dx

−γ1

0

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

13

Furthermore, using the triangular inequality and Cauchy-Schwartz, we get
ln

Z

x−ρ1 max(x0 , x−0 )c(x, y) dx−γ1

0
1

Z
≤

x

−ρ1 −0

c(x, y) dx

−γ1

1/2

∞

Z

2

c(x, y) dx

+

−γ1

Z

x

−2ρ1 +20

dx

−γ1

1

1

0

1/2

ln


γ 
−ρ + − 1
= O ln 1 0 2
Going back to (6.6), we obtain
Z
sup

ln



Tn

y∈[1/2,2]

0

sn (x)
x

1/η

− 1 c(x, y) dx−γ1 = O


γ 
1
+ 21 −λ 21
√  n − 2η
k
→ 0,
k

because of assumption B(5).
Next, we deal with the second term in the right hand side of (6.7). By Cauchy-Schwartz and
assumption B(1), we obtain
Z

∞

c(x, y) dx

−γ1

Z
≤ γ1

ln

≤

1/2 Z

∞

x

−γ1 −1

ln
Cln−γ1 /2

dx

1/2

∞
2 −γ1 −1

c(x, y) x

dx

1

(6.7)

for some constant C > 0. Moreover, since
Tn ln−γ1 /2 =

γ
1
+ 12 −λ 21
√  n − 2η
k
,
k

by assumption B(5), it follows that
∞

Z

c(x, y) dx−γ1 → 0.

sup Tn
y

ln

Furthermore, the triangular inequality yields
Z ∞
c(sn (x), y) dx−γ1
l

Z n∞
≤
ln
Z ∞

≤

c nk (sn (x), y) dx−γ1 +
c (sn (x), y) dx

ln

n
k

−γ1

+

Z

∞

ln

[c(sn (x), y) − c nk (sn (x), y)] dx−γ1

sup
0<x<n/k
y∈[1/2,2]

c nk (x, y) − c(x, y)
xβ2

Z

∞

sn (x)β2 dx−γ1 .

ln

Note that, by assumption B(3),
sup
0<x<n/k
y∈[1/2,2]

 n τ 
c nk (x, y) − c(x, y)
=
O
.
P
β
x 2
k

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

14

Then, using the definition of sn , a change of variable and Jensen inequality, we obtain
Z ∞n
Z ∞
oβ2
n
β2
−γ1
=
sn (x) dx
dx−γ1
P X > U1 (n/k)x−γ1
k
ln
ln
 n β2 Z ln−γ1
β
=
{P (X > U1 (n/k)x)} 2 dx
k
0
( Z −γ1
)β2
ln
 n β2
≤
ln−γ1 lnγ1
P (X > U1 (n/k)x) dx
k
0
(
)β2
Z U1 (n/k)ln−γ1
 n β2
lnγ1
−γ1
ln
P (X > x) dx
=
k
U1 (n/k) 0
 n β2 −λγ1  lγ1 β2
n
≤
E[X]β2
k
U1 (n/k)
 

n β2 −γ1
=o
.
k

(6.8)

Hence, assumption B(5) implies
Z

∞

sup Tn
y

ln

[c(sn (x), y) − c nk (sn (x), y)] dx−γ1

1
+ 12 +τ +β2 −λγ1
√  n − 2η
k
→ 0.
k

On the other hand, using the definition of sn , we get
Z ∞
c nk (sn (x), y) dx−γ1
ln


 
Z ∞  1/η 
n
n
n
P X > U1
, Y > U2
dx−γ1
k
ksn (x)
ky
ln
ky  n 1/η −γ1
≤ γ1
ln
n k
and as a result
Z

∞

sup Tn
y

ln

1
− 12 −λγ1
√  n  2η
→ 0,
c nk (sn (x), y) dx−γ1 ≤ C k
k

because of assumption B(5).
(iv) We write
Z ∞ 
Z ∞
n 
sup
c nk x ∧ , y dx−ργ1 −
c(x, y) dx−ργ1
k
y∈[1/2,2]
0
0
(Z n
Z
Z nk
k
−ργ1
−ργ1
n
n
≤ sup
c k (x, y) dx
−
c(x, y) dx
+ c k (n/k, y)
y∈[1/2,2]

≤

sup
0<x<n/k
y∈[1/2,2]

0

0

c nk (x, y) − c(x, y)
xβ1 ∧ xβ2

Z
0

∞

xβ1 ∧ xβ2 dx−ργ1 +

 n −ργ1
k

∞

dx−ργ1 +
n
k

(6.9)

Z

)

∞

c(x, y) dx−ργ1
n
k

c nk (n/k, 2) + o(1).
(6.10)

The first term in the right hand side of the inequality converges to zero by assumptions B(2)-B(3).
Moreover, by assumption B(1), we have
 n −ργ1
 n  η1 −1−ργ1
c nk (n/k, 2) ≤
→ 0.
k
k
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

15

(v) We first give the proof for (6.4). By Assumptions B(2) and B(3), we have
Z ∞
c nk (sn (x), y) − c(sn (x), y) dx−γ1
sup Tn
y∈[1/2,2]

≤ Tn

0

sup
0<x<n/k
y∈[1/2,2]

c nk (x, y) − c(x, y)
xβ1 ∧ xβ2

Z

∞

sn (x)β1 ∧ sn (x)β2 dx−γ1 .

0

  n τ  Z ∞
= O Tn
sn (x)β1 ∧ sn (x)β2 dx−γ1 .
k
0
Next we obtain an upper bound for the integral in the last equality. Since sn (x) is monotone and
sn (1) = 1, we get the following bound for the integral from zero to one,
Z 1
Z
sn (x)β1 dx−γ1 <
sn (x)β1 ∧ 1 dx−γ1 ,
0

R

which is shown to be O(1) in [7] (page 438). Moreover, using the definition of sn , a change of
variable and Jensen inequality, we obtain
Z ∞
Z ∞n
oβ2
n
β2
−γ1
sn (x) dx
P X > U1 (n/k)x−γ1
dx−γ1
=
k
1
1
 n β2 Z 1
β
{P (X > U1 (n/k)x)} 2 dx
=
k
0
β2
 n β2 Z 1
≤
P (X > U1 (n/k)x) dx
k
0
(
)β2
Z U1 (n/k)
 n β2
1
P (X > x) dx
=
k
U1 (n/k) 0
 n β2 −γ1 β2
≈
E[X].
k
By Assumption B(5),

O Tn

 n τ +β2 −γ1 β2 
k

=

1
+ 21 +τ +β2 (1−γ1 )
√  n − 2η
k
→ 0.
k

(6.11)

Thus, (6.4) is proved.
The proof for (6.3) can be obtained in a similar way. We use the triangular inequality as in (6.10)
to get
Z ∞
Z ∞

n 
sup Tn
c nk x ∧ , y dx−γ1 −
c(x, y) dx−γ1
k
y∈[1/2,2]
0
0
Z ∞
c nk (x, y) − c(x, y)
≤ Tn sup
xβ1 ∧ xβ2 dx−ργ1
xβ1 ∧ xβ2
0<x<n/k
0
y∈[1/2,2]

+ Tn

 n −γ1
k

Z
c nk (n/k, 2) + Tn

∞

c(x, 2) dx−ργ1
n
k

= A1 + A2 + A3 .
A1 converges to zero by (6.11). Moreover, as in (6.7),
  

n −γ1 /2
A3 = O Tn
→0
k
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

16

by assumption B(5). Finally,
  



1
− 12 −γ1
√  n  2η
n −γ1 + η1 −1
A2 = OP Tn
= OP
k
→ 0,
k
k
(see (6.9)).
Lemma 6.2. Assume B(1)-B(3). For y ∈ [1/2, 2] and ρ ∈ {1, 2, 2 + δ̄}, define
ρ
 n 1/η  Z ∞
−γ1
An (y, ρ) =
1{1−F1 (X1 )< k x,1−F2 (Y1 )< ky } dx
.
−
n
n
k
0
Then

Z
E[An (y, ρ)] → −

∞

c(x, y) dx−ργ1 .

0

Proof. Denote W1 = 1 − F1 (X1 ) and V1 = 1 − F2 (Y1 ). Then, we can write the integral as
Z ∞
n
−γ1
1{W1 < k x,V1 < ky } dx−γ1 = −1{V1 < ky }
W1
.
n
n
n
k
0
As a result, by (5) and a change of variable, we obtain
n
 n 1/η 
−ργ1 
E[An (y, ρ)] =
W1
E 1{V1 < ky }
n
k
k


Z
 n 1/η ∞
ky
k − ργ1
1
=
, V1 <
dx
P W1 < x
k
n
n
0


Z
 n 1/η ∞
ky
k
=−
dx−ργ1
P W1 < x, V1 <
k
n
n
0
Z ∞ 
n 
=−
c nk x ∧ , y dx−ργ1 .
k
0
The statement follows from (6.2).
Proof of Proposition 6.1. For i = 1, . . . , n, let Wi = 1 − F1 (Xi ) and Vi = 1 − F2 (Yi ). We write
n Z
1 X ∞
1{Xi >x,Yi >U2 ( n )} dx
ky
ky i=1 0
Z
n
U1 (n/k) X ∞
=−
1{Wi < k sn (x),Vi < k y} dx−γ1
n
n
ky
i=1 0

θ̃ ky =
n

where sn (x) is defined in (5.4).
Similarly, we have
θ ky
n

nU1 (n/k)
=−
ky

Z

∞

0



k
k
P W1 < sn (x), V1 < y dx−γ1 .
n
n

(6.12)

This means that E[θ̃ ky ] = θ ky , and it enables us to write the left hand side of (6.1) as
n

n

n

 X

Sn
∗
∗
θ̃ ky − θ ky =
Zn,i
(y) − E[Zn,i
(y)] ,
n
n
U1 (n/k)
i=1

where
∗
Zn,i
(y)

Sn
=−
ky

Z
0

∞

1{Wi < k sn (x),Vi < k y} dx−γ1 .
n
n

(6.13)

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

17

Recall that we have limn→∞ sn (x) = x by the regular variation of 1 − F1 . We shall study a
simpler process obtained by replacing sn (x) with x in (6.13):
Z
Sn ∞
1{Wi < k x,Vi < k y} dx−γ1 .
Zn,i (y) = −
(6.14)
n
n
ky 0
To prove (6.1), it suffices to show that
 ∗

nE |Zn,1
(y) − Zn,1 (y)| → 0,

sup

(6.15)

y∈[1/2,2]

and

(

n
X

)
d

(Zn,i (y) − E[Zn,i (y)])

i=1

→ {W (y)}y∈[1/2,2] .

(6.16)

y∈[1/2,2]

Note that (6.15) implies that
sup

n
X

 P
∗
Zn,i
(y) − Zn,i (y) −
→0

y∈[1/2,2] i=1

and
sup

n
X

 P
∗
E[Zn,i
](y) − E[Zn,i (y)] −
→0

y∈[1/2,2] i=1

Step 1: Proof of (6.15)
Using the definitions and the triangular inequality we write

Z ∞ 
1
 n  2η
− 12
 ∗

k
k
n
k
√
(x ∧ sn (x)) < W1 < (x ∨ sn (x)) , V1 < y dx−γ1
P
nE |Zn,1
− Zn,1 | = −
k
n
n
n
ky 0
Z ∞ h 


i
Tn
n
=−
c nk x ∧
∨ sn (x), y − c nk (x ∧ sn (x), y) dx−γ1
y 0
k
Z
Tn ∞
≤−
|c(x, y) − c(sn (x), y)| dx−γ1
y 0
Z

Tn ∞
n 
−
c nk x ∧ , y − c(x, y) dx−γ1
y 0
k
Z
Tn ∞
−
c nk (sn (x), y) − c(sn (x), y) dx−γ1 .
y 0
All three terms in the left hand side converge to zero by Lemma 6.1 (iii) and (v).
Step 2: Proof of (6.16)
We aim to apply Theorem 2.11.9 in [17]. We will prove that the four conditions of this theorem
are satisfied. Here (F, ρ) = {[1/2, 2], ρ(y1 , y2 ) = |y1 − y2 |} and kZkF = supy∈F |Z(y)|.
a) Fix  > 0. Using that kZn,1 kF ≤ 4Zn,1 (2), we get, with δ̄ as defined in Assumption B(1).




nE kZn,1 kF 1{kZn,1 kF >} ≤ 4nE Zn,1 (2)1{Zn,1 (2)>}
4n h 2+δ̄ i
(2)
≤ 1+δ̄ E Zn,1

" Z
2+δ̄ #
∞
n Sn2+δ̄
−γ1
= 1+δ̄ δ̄ 2+δ̄ E −
1{Wi < k x,Vi < 2k } dx
n
n

2 k
0
"
2+δ̄ #
 n 1/η  Z ∞
1
−δ̄
−γ1
= 1+δ̄ δ̄ Tn E
−
1{Wi < k x,Vi < 2k } dx
n
n
k
 2
0
→ 0.

(6.17)

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

18

The last convergence follows from that Tn → ∞ and Lemma 6.2.
b) Take a sequence δn → 0. Then, by the triangular inequality and that y1 , y2 ≥ 1/2, it follows
that
sup

n
X


E (Zn,i (y1 ) − Zn,i (y2 ))2

|y1 −y2 |<δn i=1

"Z
2 #
n   1 −1
∞
X
n η
1
−γ1
1{Wi < k x, k y2 <Vi < k y1 } dx
≤ 4 sup
E
n
n
n
k
|y1 −y2 |<δn i=1 k
0
"
2 #
 n  η1 Z ∞
1
1
−γ1
1{W1 < k x,V1 < k y1 } dx
+
sup
2 − y2 E
n
n
k
|y1 −y2 |<δn y2
0
1
 n  η1 
n
−2γ1 
1
1
E 1{ k y1 <V1 < k y2 }
W1
+
sup
= 4 sup
2 − y 2 E[An (y1 , 2)],
n
n
k
|y1 −y2 |<δn y2
|y1 −y2 |<δn k
1
(6.18)
where An (y1 , 2) is defined as in Lemma 6.2. Thus, the second summand converges to zero limn→∞ E[An (y1 , 2)] <
∞ and δn → 0. Moreover, by the triangular inequality and Lemma 6.1 (ii, iv),
 n  η1 
n
−2γ1 
E 1{ k y<V1 < k (y+δn )}
W1
n
n
k
k

 n  η1 Z ∞  k
k
k
(6.19)
P
y < V1 < (y + δn ), W1 < x dx−2γ1
=−
k
n
n
n
0
Z ∞
Z ∞



n
n 
=
c nk x ∧ , y + δn dx−2γ1 −
c nk x ∧ , y dx−2γ1 → 0.
k
k
0
0


c) Let N[] (, F, Ln2 ) be the minimal number of sets N in a partition [1/2, 2] = ∪N
j=1 In,j such
that
"
#
n
X
2
E
sup |Zn,i (y1 ) − Zn,i (y2 )| ≤ 2 ,
∀ j = 1, . . . , N .

y1 ,y2 ∈In,j

i=1


Consider the partition given by In,j
= [1/2 + (j − 1)∆n , 1/2 + j∆n ]. Then N = 3/2∆n . We aim
at finding ∆n such that for every sequence δn → 0 it holds

Z

δn

q

log N[] (, F, Ln2 ) d → 0.

0

By the same reasoning for (6.18), we obtain
"
#
nE

sup

y1 ,y2 ∈In,j

≤

sup

y1 ,y2 ∈In,j

|Zn,1 (y1 ) − Zn,1 (y2 )|2

 n  η1 
n
−2γ1 
1
1
− 2 EAn (y1 , 2) + 4 sup
E 1{ k y1 <V1 < k y2 }
W1
n
n

y12
y2
k
k
y1 ,y2 ∈In,j

=:Bn + Cn .
For the first term we have Bn ≤ K1 ∆n for some constant K1 > 0 by Lemma 6.2. Let ȳ1 =
1/2 + (j − 1)∆n and ȳ2 = 1/2 + j∆n . Next, we derive two different upper bounds for Cn . First,

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

19

by Holder inequality, we obtain

 n  η1 

n −2γ1
Cn ≤ 4
E 1{ k ȳ1 <V1 < k ȳ2 } W1
n
n
k
k
1/q
 n  η1 h
i1/p 

n −2qγ1
E 1{ k ȳ1 <V1 < k ȳ2 }
≤4
E 1{V1 < k ȳ2 } W1
n
n
n
k
k
1
 n  η1 − p1 − ηq
1
≤4
|ȳ1 − ȳ2 | p E[An (ȳ2 , 2q)]
k
1
 n  η1 − p1 − ηq
1
= K2
∆np ,
k
for some constant K2 . The last equality is obtained by applying Lemma 6.2 and choosing q =
(2 + δ̄)/2 and 1/p + 1/q = 1.
Second, by the same reasoning for (6.19), the triangular inequality and Lemma 6.1 (ii), (iv), we
get a second bound on Cn ,
Z ∞h 


i
n
n
Cn ≤ −8
c nk x ∧ , ȳ2 − c nk x ∧ , ȳ1 dx−2γ1
k
k
Z0 ∞
= −8
[c(x, ȳ2 ) − c(x, ȳ1 ] dx−2γ1
0
Z ∞h 

i
n
−8
c nk x ∧ , ȳ2 − c(x, ȳ2 ) dx−2γ1
k
Z0 ∞ h

i
n
−8
c(x, ȳ1 ) − c nk x ∧ , ȳ1 dx−2γ1
k
0
 n τ
≤ K3 ∆n + K4
k
for some constants
K3 and K4 .
 ∗
n τ
2
If  < k
for some τ ∗ ∈ (τ, 0) we use the first bound on Cn , i.e.
Bn + Cn ≤ 2K2
and by choosing
∆n = (2K2 )−p
we get Bn + Cn ≤ 2 . Hence
N ≤
Otherwise, if 2 >

 ∗
n τ
,
k

1
 n  η1 − p1 − ηq

1

∆np

k

p
 n − ηp +1+ ηq

k

2p ,

p
p
3(2K2 )p  n  η −1− ηq
.
2p
k

for sufficiently large n,
K4

 n τ
k

∗

<

1  n τ
1
< 2
2 k
2

and we use the second bound on Cn with
∆n =

2
,
2(K1 + K3 )

i.e. we get
Bn + Cn ≤ (K1 + K3 )∆n + K4

 n τ
k

≤ 2 .

Hence, in this case,
N ≤

3(K1 + K3 )
.
2

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

20

p
√
√
√
Now we distinguish between two cases. If δn log(n/k) → 0, using a + b ≤ a + b and
log(x) ≤ x for large x, we get

Z δn q
Z δn s
p
p
n
−1−
log(n/k) + 2p log −1 + log 3(2K2 )p d
log N[] (, F, L2 ) d ≤
η
ηq
0
0
!
Z δn p
Z δn √
≤K
log(n/k) d +
−1 d
0

0

and the left hand side converges
p
p to zero as δn → 0.
∗
On the other hand, if δn log(n/k) 9 0, take δn∗ = (n/k)τ . Note that δn∗ log(n/k) → 0.
Hence we write
Z δn∗ q
Z δn q
Z δn q
log N[] (, F, Ln2 ) d =
log N[] (, F, Ln2 ) d +
log N[] (, F, Ln2 ) d
0

Z

δn

≤ o(1) +

p

∗
δn

0

log(3(K1 + K3 )/2 ) d

∗
δn

√ Z
≤ o(1) + 2

δn

√

−1 d → 0.

0

d) We have to show that the marginals converge, i.e. for each M ∈ N and for each y1 , . . . , yM ∈
[1/2, 2], the random vector
!
n
n
X
X
(Zn,i (y1 ) − E[Zn,i (y1 )]) , . . . ,
(Zn,i (yM ) − E[Zn,i (yM )])
i=1

i=1

converges to a multivariate normal distribution. It suffices to show that for each a1 , . . . , aM ∈ R
we have
" n
#
M
n
X
X
X
aj
(Zn,i (yj ) − E[Zn,i (yj )]) =:
(Nn,i − E[Nn,i ])
j=1

i=1

i=1

PM

converges a normal distribution, where Nn,i = j=1 aj Zn,i (yj ). This will follow from the LindebergFeller central limit theorem (see e.g. [16]), once we show that for each  > 0,
n
X


E |Nn,i |2 1{|Nn,i |>} → 0

(6.20)

i=1

and

n
X

2
Var (Nn,i ) → σN
.

(6.21)

i=1

We proceed with (6.20). First,
n
X




E |Nn,i |2 1{|Nn,i |>} = nE |Nn,1 |2 1{|Nn,1 |>}
i=1

h
i
nE |Nn,1 |2+δ̄
≤

δ̄

≤ Kn

M
X
j=1

|aj |2+δ̄

h
i
E |Zn,1 (2)|2+δ̄
δ̄

,

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

21

which converges to zero by (6.17). For (6.21), we write
 
2   
2 


n
M
M


X
X
X

  



Var(Nn,i ) = n E 
aj Zn,1 (yj )  − E
aj Zn,1 (yj )




i=1
j=1
j=1

= nE 


2
M
√ X
aj ak Zn,1 (yj )Zn,1 (yk ) −  n
aj E [Zn,1 (yj )]


M
X

j=1

j,k=1

=n

M
X

aj ak E [Zn,1 (yj )Zn,1 (yk )] + o(1)

j,k=1

√

nE [Zn,1 (yj )] → 0, for j = 1, . . . , M . Moreover, observe that
"Z
2 #
∞
 n  η1 1
−γ1
nE [Zn,1 (yj )Zn,1 (yk )] =
E
1{U1 < k x,V1 < k (yj ∧yk )} dx
n
n
k
yj yk
0

because it is easy to check that

=

1
E[An (yj ∧ yk , 2)].
yj yk

Thus, by Lemma 6.2, it follows that (6.21) holds with
2
σN

Z
M
X
aj ak ∞
=−
c(x, yj ∧ yk ) dx−2γ1 .
yj yk 0

(6.22)

j,k=1

We have now P
verified the four conditions required by Theorem 2.11.9 in [17], which leads to the
n
conclusion that i=1 (Zn,i − E[Zn,i ]) converges in distribution to a Gaussian process. Finally, we
compute the covariance structure of the limit process. For each y1 , y2 ∈ [1/2, 2], by independence,
we have
!
n
n
X
X
Zn,i (y2 )
E[W (y1 )W (y2 )] = lim Cov
Zn,i (y1 ),
n→∞

i=1

i=1

= lim nCov(Zn,1 (y1 ), Zn,1 (y2 ))
n→∞

= lim (nE [Zn,1 (y1 )Zn,1 (y2 )] − nE [Zn,1 (y1 )] E [Zn,1 (y2 )])
n→∞
Z ∞
1
c(x, y1 ∧ y2 ) dx−2γ1
=−
y1 y2 0
Z ∞ 

1
1
=
c x− 2γ1 , y1 ∧ y2 dx.
y1 y2 0
The fourth equality follows the same reasoning as that for (6.22).
Proof of Proposition 5.1. Note the convergence speed in this proposition is
that in Proposition 6.1. By definition
θ̂ k = en θ̃ ken .
n

Sn
U1 (n/k) ,

the same as

n

Hence






Sn
Sn
Sn
θ̂ k − θ k =
en θ̃ ken − θ ken +
en θ ken − θ k
n
n
n
n
n
U1 (n/k) n
U1 (n/k)
U1 (n/k)
=: T1 + T2 .

(6.23)

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

22

d

First, we show that T1 → W (1). We start by writing


Sn
T1 = en
(θ̃ ken − θ ken ) − W (en ) + en W (en ).
n
U1 (n/k) n
P

Because en −
→ 1, the first term of the right hand side, with probability tending to one, is bounded
by
Sn
2 sup
(θ̃ ky − θ ky ) − W (y) ,
n
n
y∈[1/2,2] U1 (n/k)
which is op (1) by Proposition 6.1 and continuous mapping theorem. Moreover, by Corollary 1.11
d

P

d

in [2] and en −
→ 1, W (en ) −
→ W (1). Thus, T1 → W (1).
Using (6.12), we can write
Z
Tn ∞
Sn
c nk (sn (x), y) dx−γ1 .
θ ky = −
U1 (n/k) n
y 0
Thus, T2 can be rewritten as follows
Z ∞

T2 = Tn
c nk (sn (x), en ) − c nk (sn (x), 1) dx−γ1
0
Z ∞

= Tn
c nk (sn (x), en ) − c(sn (x), en ) dx−γ1
0
Z ∞
+ Tn
{c(sn (x), en ) − c(sn (x), 1)} dx−γ1
Z0 ∞

+ Tn
c(sn (x), 1) − c nk (sn (x), 1) dx−γ1
0

= op (1) + T21 + o(1).
P

The last equality follows from the fact that en → 1 and (6.4). Further, we can decompose T21 into
three terms as follows.
Z ∞
Z ∞
T21 = Tn
{c(sn (x), en ) − c(x, en )} dx−γ1 + Tn
{c(x, 1) − c(sn (x), 1)} dx−γ1
0
0
Z ∞
−γ1
+ Tn
{c(x, en ) − c(x, 1)} dx .
0

= op (1) + o(1) + OP (Tn |en − 1|),
by Lemma 6.1 (iii) and (ii). Finally,
Tn |en − 1| =

1
 n − 2η
+ 12 √

k

k|en − 1| → 0,

√
because k|en − 1| = OP (1) (see (26) in [7]). Consequently, T2 = op (1) and it has no contribution
in the limit distribution.

References
[1] V.V. Acharya, L.H. Pedersen, T. Philippon, and M. Richardson. Measuring systemic risk.
Preprint, 2012.
[2] R.J. Adler. An Introduction to Continuity, Extrema, and Related Topics for General Gaussian
Processes. Institute of Mathematical Statistics Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, 1990.
imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

Cai and Musta/ MES estimation under asymptotic independence

23

[3] J. Beirlant, Y. Goegebeur, J. Segers, and J. Teugels. Statistics of Extremes, Theory and
Applications. Chichester: Wiley, 2004.
[4] T.A. Buishand, L. de Haan, and C. Zhou. On spatial extremes: with application to a rainfall
problem. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2:624–642, 2008.
[5] J. Cai and H. Li. Conditional tail expectations for multivariate phase-type distributions.
Journal of Applied Probability, 42:810–825, 2005.
[6] J.-J. Cai. Estimation concerning risk under extreme value conditions. Tilburg University,
2012.
[7] J.-J. Cai, J. H. J. Einmahl, L. de Haan, and C. Zhou. Estimation of the marginal expected
shortfall: the mean when a related variable is extreme. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.
Series B (Methodological), 77:417–442, 2015.
[8] M. Caporin and P. Santucci de Magistris. On the evaluation of marginal expected shortfall.
Applied Economics Letters, 19:175–179, 2012.
[9] S. Coles. An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values. Springer-Verlag, London,
2001.
[10] S.G. Coles and J.A. Tawn. Modelling extremes of the areal rainfall process. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 58:329–347, 1996.
[11] A. Cousin and E. Di Bernardino. On multivariate extensions of conditional-tail-expectation.
Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 55:272–282, 2014.
[12] L. de Haan and A. Ferreira. Extreme Value Theory: An Introduction. Berlin: Springer, 2006.
[13] G. Draisma, H. Drees, A. Ferreira, and L. de Haan. Bivariate tail estimation: dependence in
asymptotic independence. Bernoulli, 10(2):251–280, 2004.
[14] A. Ledford and J. Tawn. Statistics for near independence in multivariate extreme values.
Biometrika, 83:169–187, 1996.
[15] S. Resnick. Hidden regular variation, second order regular variation and asymptotic independence. Extremes, 5:303–336, 2002.
[16] A. W. van der Vaart. Asymptotic statistics, volume 3 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and
Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[17] A. W. van der Vaart and J. A. Wellner. Weak convergence and empirical processes with
applications to statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.

imsart-generic ver. 2014/10/16 file: MES_CAI_MUSTA.tex date: September 14, 2017

