LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE
FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION OF LÉVY-DRIVEN CARMA
PROCESSES FOR NON-EQUIDISTANT DISCRETE TIME
OBSERVATIONS

arXiv:1509.01384v2 [math.PR] 15 Aug 2016

ŻYWILLA FECHNER

1,2

AND ROBERT STELZER

2

Abstract. This paper considers a continuous time analogue of the classical autoregressive moving average processes, Lévy-driven CARMA processes. First we describe limiting
properties of the periodogram by means of the so-called truncated Fourier transform if
observations are available continuously. The obtained results are in accordance with their
counterparts from the discrete-time case. Then we discuss the numerical approximation
of the truncated Fourier transform based on non-equidistant high frequency data. In
order to ensure convergence of the numerical approximation to the true value of the
truncated Fourier transform a certain control on the maximal distance between observations and the number of observations is needed. We obtain both convergence to the
continuous time quantity and asymptotic normality under a high-frequency infinite time
horizon limit.

1. Introduction
The classical autoregressive moving average process ARMA has been broadly discussed
in the literature. For a comprehensive discussion see e.g. the monograph by Brockwell
and Davis [7] and references therein. In the discrete time models we restrict ourselves to
observations at fixed equidistant points in time. In many cases these observations made
at discrete times come from an underlying continuous process, thus the natural question
arises: can we model also the time series in continuous time? One of the earliest results
dealing with properties of such processes can be found in Doob [11]. Later this problem
was discussed by Brockwell in [4] for continuous time ARMA processes driven by Gaussian
noise. The next step was to extend these ideas to the models with noise modelled by
jump processes, so-called Lévy-driven CARMA models introduced by Brockwell in [3]. In
these papers time series are modelled as continuous time processes with continuous time
noises (with or without jumps) and the inference is based mainly on discrete equidistant
data. One of the latest results can be found in the paper [8] of Brockwell, Davis and Yang,
which consideres QML estimations of the AR and MA parameters based on equidistant
observations.
The estimation procedure of Lévy-driven CARMA processes in high-frequency settings has
been discussed by Fasen and Fuchs in [13], where the authors deal with the limit behaviour
of the periodogram of CARMA processes under equidistant sampling when the sampling
interval tends to 0. The results are analogous to ARMA processes: the periodogram
for CARMA processes is not a consistent estimator of the spectral density function, but
after appropriate smoothing the consistency can be obtained. Some related results were
discussed by Fasen and Fuchs in [14], where asymptotic distributions of periodograms of
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 62M10, 62M15, Secondary 60G10, 60G51 .
Key words and phrases. CARMA Process, Frequency Domain, High-frequency Data, Lévy Process,
Trapezoidal Rule.
1

2

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

CARMA processes driven by a symmetric α-stable Lévy noise are obtained and where it
is shown that the vector composed of periodograms for various frequencies converges in
distribution to a function of a multidimensional stable random vector. Likewise, Fasen [12]
considers the behaviour of the periodogram for an equidistantly sampled continuous time
moving average process when only the number of observations goes to infinity.
The problem of statistical analysis of such processes has been studied further for example
by Gillberg in his dissertation [15], where different approaches to the estimation of CARMA
processes with Gaussian noise are discussed both using equidistant and non-equidistant observations. The author works mainly in the frequency domain. He describes the properties
of the truncated Fourier transform of a CARMA process with Gaussian noise on a fixed
interval [0, T ] based on equidistant frequencies. In the non-equidistant case he has used a
method based on splines in order to find an approximation of the spectral density.
Another approach for the estimation of a zero-mean stationary process (Yt )t∈R with finite
second-order moments and continuous covariance function has been discussed by Lii and
Masry in [16] and [17], where they described some properties of a smoothed periodogram.
Here observations are assumed to be given on a random grid (τk ) of an interval [0, T ],
where τk is a stationary point process on the real line which is independent of (Yt )t∈R .
In the present paper we are going to describe the asymptotic behaviour of the so-called
truncated Fourier transform of a CARMA process, which is a building block for an estimation of the spectral density of a CARMA process. We are going to use some of the ideas
from [15] to prove results in more general settings.
The paper is structured as follows: first we recall second order Lévy-driven CARMA models and summarize the results needed later in Section 2. Then we define in Section 3 the
truncated Fourier transform of a CARMA process and we investigate its asymptotic properties at a fixed frequency: for a non-zero frequency we obtain that the limiting law of the
real and imaginary part is the two dimensional normal distribution with mean zero and the
covariance matrix depending on the spectral density of the CARMA process. If we consider the truncated Fourier transform at zero, we obtain a one dimensional normal law with
mean zero and variance depending only on two parameters of the CARMA process. We
show that the limiting law of the joint distribution of the squared modulus of the truncated
Fourier transform at different positive frequencies converges to a vector of independent and
exponentially distributed random variables with mean depending on the values of the spectral density. All these results can be interpreted as the limiting behaviour of the truncated
Fourier transform when the CARMA process is observed continuously. The next step in
Section 3.2 is to approximate the truncated Fourier transform when the CARMA process
is observed on a non-equidistant deterministic grid. In order to find a numerical approximation value of the truncated Fourier transform we apply the trapezoidal rule. We are
interested in the convergence of the truncated Fourier transform when the length of the
interval T goes to infinity and the mesh of the grid to zero. Since the interplay of the
length of the interval, of the number of elements of the grid and of the maximal distance
between the elements of the grid plays a crucial role, in order to ensure the convergence
of the approximating sum to the true value of the truncated Fourier transform we have
to impose some limiting conditions on these quantities. In the last Section 4 we look at
some illustrative simulations of the truncated Fourier transform based on non-equidistant
observations. We consider Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type (CAR(1)) and CARMA(2,1) processes
driven by a standard Brownian motion, a Variance Gamma process and a “two-sided Poisson process” and we compare our simulations with the theoretical asymptotic distributions
described earlier.

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

3

Notation. The symbol N := {1, 2, 3, . . . } denotes the set of positive integers, N0 :=
N ∪ {0}, R is the set of real numbers and C denotes the set of complex numbers. The
symbol Rm×n , resp. Cm×n denotes the space of real- (resp. complex-) valued matrices
with m rows and n columns. For A ∈ Cm×n the symbol AT denotes the transposed of a
matrix A. We are working on a given filtered probability space (Ω, F, (Ft )t≥0 , P) satisfying
the usual hypothesis (cf. Protter [20], Chapter 1).
d

Moreover, by X = Y we denote that the random variables X and Y are equal in distribution.
2. Preliminaries
We begin with the model set-up given by Brockwell (see [3], [4]). A second-order Lévydriven continuous-time ARMA(p, q) process is defined in terms of a state-space representation of the formal differential equation
(1)

a(D)Y (t) = b(D)DL(t),

t ≥ 0.

Here, D denotes differentiation with respect to t, non-negative integers p, q satisfying
p > q and (L(t))t≥0 is a one dimensional Lévy process (i.e. a continuous time process
with stationary and independent increments and L(0) = 0 a.s.) with EL(1)2 < ∞. A
comprehensive monograph dealing with Lévy processes is e.g. [1]. The polynomials
a(z) := z p + a1 z p−1 + · · · + ap ,

b(z) := b0 + b1 z + · · · + bp−1 z p−1 ,

are called the autoregressive- and moving average polynomial, respectively. We assume
that bq 6= 0 and bj = 0 for q < j < p. The state-space representation consists of the
observation and state equations:
(2)

Y (t) = bT X(t),

(3)

dX(t) = AX(t)dt + edL(t),

where


0
0
..
.

1
0
..
.

0
1
..
.

...
...
..
.

0
0
..
.









A := 
,


 0
0
0
...
1 
−ap −ap−1 −ap−2 . . . −a1
e := [0, . . . 0, 1]T ,



X(t)
X (1) (t)
..
.









X(t) := 
,
 (p−2) 
X
(t)
(p−1)
X
(t)

b := [b0 , b1 , . . . bp−1 ]T ,

i.e.
A ∈ Rp×p ,

X(t) ∈ Rp×1

e ∈ Rp ,

b ∈ Rp .

If p = 1, we set A = −a1 .
Assumption 2.1. The Lévy process satisfies EL(1) = 0 and E|L(1)|2 = σ 2 < ∞.
Observe that E[L(s)L(t)] = min{s, t}E|L(1)|2 . It was shown by Brockwell in [6] that the
solution X(t) of (3) satisfies
Z t
At
(4)
X(t) = e X(0) +
eA(t−u) edL(u),
0

where the integral is defined as the L2 -limit of approximating Riemann sums.

4

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

Assumption 2.2. X(0) is independent of (L(t))t≥0 .
From now on let us assume that Assumption 2.2 holds. It is well-known ([6, Proposition 2])
that under Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2 theR process {X(t)}t≥0 is strictly stationary and causal
∞
iff X(0) has the same distribution as 0 eAu edL(u) and the p (not necessarily distinct)
eigenvalues λ1 , . . . , λp of A have negative real parts, i.e.
<(λi ) < 0,

i = 1, . . . , p.

e=
Now we extend the Lévy process (L(u))u≥0 to the whole line in the usual way: Let L
e
(L(t))t≥0 be an independent copy of (L(t))t≥0 . For t ∈ R we define
e
L∗ (t) := L(t)1[0,∞) (t) + L(−t−)1
(−∞,0] (t).
In order to get stationary solutions of (3) we need the following assumptions:
Assumption 2.3. All eigenvalues of A have strictly negative real parts.
Assumption 2.4.
d

Z

0

X(0) =

e−Au edL∗ (u)

−∞

In Brockwell [6] it was shown that if Assumptions 2.3 and 2.4 are satisfied the process
{X(t)}t∈R given by
Z t
(5)
X(t) =
eA(t−u) edL∗ (u)
−∞

is a strictly stationary solution of (3) (with L replaced by L∗ ) for t ∈ R with corresponding
CARMA process
Z t
(6)
Y (t) =
bT eA(t−u) edL∗ (u).
−∞

For t ≥ 0 one can rewrite it in the following form
Z t
T At
(7)
Y (t) = b e X(0) +
bT eA(t−u) edL(u).
0

In the present paper the spectral density of a CARMA process plays a crucial role.
The spectral density is the Fourier transform of the autocovariance function γY (h) :=
Cov(Y (0), Y (h)) for h ∈ R. The spectral density of a CARMA process is
Z ∞
σ 2 |b(iω)|2
1
, ω ∈ R.
γY (h)e−ihω dh =
(8)
fY (ω) =
2π −∞
2π |a(iω)|2
3. Limit behaviour of the Fourier transform
In this section we are going to deal with the Fourier transform of the CARMA process
assuming that the observations are given continuously on the time interval [0, T ]. A similar
idea for Gaussian CARMA processes was presented in [15] for equidistant observations.
The truncated continuous-time Fourier transform of the process Y at a fixed frequency
ω ∈ R is given by
Z T
1
FT (Y )(ω) := √
Y (t)e−iωt dt.
T 0
Observe that the norming constant √1T is taken as this ensures convergence in distribution
for T → ∞ as will be shown later.

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

5

3.1. Properties of the Truncated Fourier Transform of a CARMA Process. First
we derive an alternative representation.
Lemma 3.1. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are satisfied. Then the truncated Fourier
transform of the CARMA process Y at a fixed frequency ω ∈ R is of the form
Z

1
1 b(iω) T −iωt
e
dL(t) + √ bT (iωI − A)−1 X(0) − e−iωT X(T ) ,
(9)
FT (Y )(ω) = √
T a(iω) 0
T
or equivalently
(10)

1
FT (Y )(ω) = √ bT (iωI − A)−1
T
Z T 




−iωu
−iωT A(T −u)
(−iωI+A)T
×
e
−e
e
edL(u) + I − e
X(0) .
0

Proof. Let ω be an arbitrary frequency. Observe that by Corollary 3.4 from [21, p. 51]
one has
b(iω)
.
bT (A − iωI)−1 e = −
a(iω)
Denote
F (t) = bT (A − iωI)−1 e(A−iωI)t , t ∈ [0, T ],
Z t
G(t) =
e−Au edL(u) t ∈ [0, T ].
0

Observe that G(0) = 0 and since F is continuous and of finite variation, we get [F, G] =
0, where [·, ·] denotes the usual quadratic covariation of semimartingales (see e.g. [20]).
Applying the (multidimensional) integration by parts formula
Z T
Z T
dF (t)G(t) = F (T )G(T ) − F (0)G(0) −
F (t)dG(t) − [F, G]
0

0
T

Z
= F (T )G(T ) −

F (t)dG(t)
0

we obtain
Z T

Z

T

b (A − iωI)

dF (t)G(t) =
0

T

−1

(A − iωI)e

(A−iωI)t

0
T

Z

Z

=
0

t

t

Z

e−Au edL(u)dt

0

bT eA(t−u) edL(u)e−iωt dt

0

T

= b (A − iωI)

−1 (A−iωI)T

Z

e

e
0

T

= b (A − iωI)

−1 −iωT

Z

T

e

0

T

−At

Z
edL(t) −

T

bT (A − iωI)−1 e(A−iωI)t e−At edL(t)

0

b(iω)
eA(T −t) edL(t) +
a(iω)

Z

T

e−iωt dL(t).

0

Thus
RT Rt

(11)
= bT (A −

T A(t−u) edL(u)e−iωt dt
0 0 b e
RT
b(iω)
iωI)−1 e−iωT 0 eA(T −t) edL(t) + a(iω)

RT
0

e−iωt dL(t).

6

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

Using the form of the strictly stationary solution of (3) given in (4) we get
Z T
eA(T −t) edL(t) = X(T ) − eAT X(0).
(12)
0

RT
Moreover, since 0 e(A−iωI)t dt = (iωI − A)−1 (I − e(A−iωI)T ), we have
Z T
(13)
bT e(A−iωI)t X(0)dt = bT (iωI − A)−1 (I − e(A−iωI)T )X(0).
0

We have
Z T
1
Y (t)e−iωt dt
FT (Y )(ω) = √
T 0

Z T
Z t
(7) 1
T At
T A(t−u)
√
=
b e X(0) +
b e
edL(u) e−iωt dt
T 0
0
Z T

1
(11),(12),(13) 1 b(iω)
√
e−iωu dL(u) + √ bT (iωI − A)−1 X(0) − e−iωT X(T ) .
=
T a(iω) 0
T
To get the equivalent form note,
 Z T

√

T F(Y )(ω) = bT (iωI − A)−1 e
e−iωu dL(u) + X(0) − e−iωT X(T )
0
Z T 




(12) T
−1
−iωu
−iωT A(T −u)
(−iωI+A)T
= b (iωI − A)
e
−e
e
edL(u) + I − e
X(0) ,
0

which completes the proof of this Lemma. 2
The next step is to calculate moments of the truncated Fourier transform. First, recall the
so-called compensation formula: If (Lt )t≥0 is a Lévy process with finite first moments and
f is a bounded deterministic function, then
Z T

Z T
(14)
E
f (u)dLu = E[L1 ]
f (s)ds.
0

0

Secondly, observe that the solution of the system (2) and (3) is of the form (4), where X
is the process with mean m(t) = E[X(t)] and PX (t) = E[X(t)X(t)T ] satisfying
mX (t) = eAt mX (0)
(15)

At

AT t

PX (t) = e PX (0)e

+σ

2

Z

t

T (t−u)

eA(t−u) eeT eA

du

0

In particular, for stationary processes these solutions are constant and the so called Lyapunov equation
(16)

APX + PX AT + σ 2 eeT = 0

holds true. For Lévy-driven CARMA processes the form of the autocovariance function in
terms of solutions of Lyapunov equations is formulated e.g. in [19, Proposition 3.13.].
We are first going to show that the truncated Fourier transform of a stationary CARMA
process is a zero-mean random variable. Next, we find the covariance between the truncated
Fourier transform at two different frequencies. As we have mentioned earlier, the spectral
density function plays a central role.

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

7

Theorem 3.2. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 are satisfied. Then E(FT (Y )(ω)) = 0
for all ω ∈ R. For ω1 , ω2 ∈ R we have
(17)

E [FT (Y )(ω1 )FT (Y )(ω2 )] = σ 2

1
|b(iω1 )|2
+ K(T, ω1 , −ω1 ),
|a(iω1 )|2 T

if

ω1 = −ω2

and
1
K1 (T, ω1 , ω2 ), if ω1 6= −ω2 ,
T
where K is a bounded function of T given by (20) below and

(18)

E [FT (Y )(ω1 )FT (Y )(ω2 )] =

K1 (T, ω1 , ω2 ) = K(T, ω1 , ω2 )+bT (iω1 I−A)−1 σ 2

1 − exp(−T i(ω1 + ω2 )) T
ee (iω2 I−AT )−1 b.
i(ω1 + ω2 )

Proof.
For the first part it is enough to observe that by the compensation formula
R
T −iωu
E 0 e
dL(u) = 0 and E[X(t)] = 0. For the second part observe that using Lemma
3.1 and formula (10) we have
1
E[FT (Y )(ω1 )FT (Y )(ω2 )] = bT (iω1 I − A)−1 ×
T
Z T 




(−iω1 I+A)T
−iω1 u
−iω1 T A(T −u)
X(0) ×
edL(u) + I − e
e
−e
e
E
0
Z T




(−iω2 I+AT )T
T
−iω2 u
−iω2 T AT (T −u)
T
×
dL(u) + X(0) I − e
−e
e
e e
0

1 T
e 2 I − AT )−1 b,
b (iω1 I − A)−1 I(iω
T
where Ie = I1 + I2 + I3 + I4 with

Z T 
Z T



−iω2 u
−iω2 T AT (T −u)
T
−iω1 u
−iω1 T A(T −u)
dL(u)
−e
e
edL(u) ·
e e
I1 := E
e
−e
e
0
0
Z T 



(−iω2 I+AT )T
T
−iω1 u
−iω1 T A(T −u)
edL(u) · X(0) I − e
I2 := E
e
−e
e
0


Z T



−iω2 u
−iω2 T AT (T −u)
T
(−iω1 I+A)T
dL(u)
−e
e
X(0) ·
e e
I3 := E I − e
0
i


h
T
I4 := E I − e(−iω1 I+A)T X(0)X(0)T I − e(−iω2 I+A )T .
(iω2 I − AT )−1 b =

We have that I2 = I3 = 0 since (Lt )t≥0 is independent of X(0). Observe that by the Itô
isometry, the compensation formula and the fact that E[[L, L]1 ] = Var(L(1)) = σ 2 we have

Z T

Z T
Z T
I11 :=E
eT e−iω2 u dL(u) = E
e−i(ω1 +ω2 )u eeT d[L, L]u
e−iω1 u edL(u)
0

0

Z
= E[[L, L]1 ]

T

0

e−i(ω1 +ω2 )u eeT du = σ 2

0

Z

T

e−i(ω1 +ω2 )u eeT du.

0

Thus
(
(19)

I11

=

σ 2 T eeT ,

ω1 =
1−exp(−T i(ω1 +ω2 ))
2
σ
eeT ,
i(ω1 +ω2 )

−ω2 ,
ω1 6= −ω2 .

Thus, if ω1 = −ω2 , then
1 T
1
b (iω1 I − A)−1 I11 (iω2 I − AT )−1 b = · σ 2 T bT (iω1 I − A)−1 eeT (iω2 I − AT )−1 b
T
T

8

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

= σ 2 bT (A − iω1 I)−1 eeT (iω1 I + AT )−1 b



b(iω1 )
b(−iω1 )
|b(iω1 )|2
2
−
= σ2
.
=σ −
a(iω1 )
a(−iω1 )
|a(iω1 )|2
Now

Z T
T
eT e−iω2 T eA (T −u) dL(u)
e−iω1 u edL(u)
0
0

Z T
T
= e−iω2 T E
e−iω1 u eeT eA (T −u) d[L, L]u

I12 : = E

Z

T

0

= e−iω2 T E[[L, L]1 ]

T

Z

e−iω1 u eeT eA

T (T −u)

du

0

=e

−iω2 T

σ

2

T

Z

e−iω1 u eeT eA

T (T −u)

du.

0

In the same way
Z
3
I1 : = E

T

e

−iω1 T A(T −u)

e

Z

T −iω2 u

edL(u)

e e

0

=e

T


dL(u)

0

−iω1 T

σ

2

T

Z

eA(T −u) eeT e−iω2 u du.

0

Combining these two we arrive at


h
T
I12 + I13 =e−i(ω1 +ω2 )T σ 2 eeT (iω1 I + AT )−1 e(iω1 I+A )T − I


i
+ (iω2 I + A)−1 e(iω2 I+A)T − I eeT .
Now
I14

Z
:=E

T

e

−iω1 T A(T −u)

e

Z

T −iω2 T AT (T −u)

e e

edL(u)

e


dL(u)

0

0

=e

T

−i(ω1 +ω2 )T

σ

2

Z

T

eA(T −u) eeT eA

T (T −u)

du.

0

Now
TT

I4 =E[X(0)X(0)T ] − e−iω1 T eAT E[X(0)X(0)T ] − e−iω2 T E[X(0)X(0)T ]eA
+ e−i(ω1 +ω2 )T eAT E[X(0)X(0)T ]eA

TT

.

By stationarity we have
E[X(0)X(0)T ] =: PX = PX (0) = PX (T ),
where PX satisfies (16). Combining this with (15) we obtain
TT

I14 + I4 =PX − e−iω1 T eAT PX − e−iω2 T PX eA
T

+ e−i(ω1 +ω2 )T eAT PX eA

+ e−i(ω1 +ω2 )T (PX − eAT PX eA T )



T
=e−iω1 T PX I − eAT + e−iω2 T I − eA PX


+ PX 1 − e−iω1 T − e−iω2 T + e−i(ω1 +ω2 )T .
Since A is a stable matrix, eAT is bounded.

TT

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

9

Thus

(20)

h
h


T
K(T, ω1 , ω2 ) =bT (iω1 I − A)−1 e−i(ω1 +ω2 )T σ 2 eeT (iω1 I + AT )−1 e(iω1 I+A )T − I


i
+ (iω2 I + A)−1 e(iω2 I+A)T − I eeT



T
+ e−iω1 T PX I − eA T + e−iω2 T I − eAT PX


+ PX 1 − e−iω1 T − e−iω2 T + e−i(ω1 +ω2 )T ] (iω2 I − AT )−1 b

is bounded in T for fixed ω1 , ω2 ∈ R.

2

Now we give the form of the covariance matrix. Put

Σ(ω1 , ω2 ) := [Σij ]1≤i,j≤4



T 
<FT (Y )(ω1 ) <FT (Y )(ω1 )
=FT (Y )(ω1 ) =FT (Y )(ω1 ) 


 
= E
<FT (Y )(ω2 ) <FT (Y )(ω2 )  .
=FT (Y )(ω2 ) =FT (Y )(ω2 )

Theorem 3.3. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 are satisfied. For ω1 6= ω2 and
ω1 6= −ω2 there exists a bounded matrix K2 ∈ C4×4 such that


|b(iω1 )|2 |b(iω1 )|2 |b(iω2 )|2 |b(iω2 )|2
1
1 2
,
,
,
+ K2 .
Σ(ω1 , ω2 ) = σ diag
2
2
2
2
2
|a(iω1 )| |a(iω1 )| |a(iω2 )| |a(iω2 )|
T
Proof. For k, l = 1, 2 let us denote
Σ1 (ω1 , ω2 ) := E [<FT (Y )(ω1 )<FT (Y )(ω2 )] ,

Σ2 (ω1 , ω2 ) := E [=FT (Y )(ω1 )=FT (Y )(ω2 )] ,

Σ3 (ω1 , ω2 ) := E [<FT (Y )(ω1 )=FT (Y )(ω2 )] .
All entries Σi,j of the matrix Σ are of one of the above forms. Indeed, Σ11 , Σ33 are of the
form Σ1 for k = l and k, l ∈ {1, 2}. Similarly, Σ22 , Σ44 are of the form Σ2 for k = l and
k, l ∈ {1, 2}. Moreover, Σ13 , Σ31 are of the form Σ1 for k 6= l and k, l ∈ {1, 2} and Σ24 ,
Σ42 are of the form Σ2 for k 6= l and k, l ∈ {1, 2}. All other elements are of the form Σ3 .
Observe that for each ω we have
FT (Y )(ω) + FT (Y )(−ω)
FT (Y )(ω) − FT (Y )(−ω)
<FT (Y )(ω) =
, =FT (Y )(ω) =
.
2
2i
Using Theorem 3.2 we obtain

|b(0)|2
1

σ 2 |a(0)|
ω1 = ω2 = 0;
2 + T K(0),



2
 1 2 |b(iω1 )|
1
σ
+ K (ω ),
ω1 = ω2 ;
Σ1 (ω1 , ω2 ) := 2 |a(iω1 )|22 T 1,1 1

1 2 |b(iω1 )|
1

σ
ω1 = −ω2 ;
2 + T K1,2 (ω1 ),

1 )|

 2 |a(iω
1
ω1 6= ω2 and ω1 6= −ω2 ,
T K1,3 (ω1 , ω2 ),

0,
ω1 = 0 or ω2 = 0;



 1 σ 2 |b(iω1 )|22 + 1 K2,1 (ω1 ),
ω 1 = ω2 ;
2
T
|a(iω1 )|
Σ2 (ω1 , ω2 ) :=
2
|b(iω
)|
1
1
1
2
− σ
ω1 = −ω2 ;

2 − T K2,2 (ω1 ),

1 )|
 2 |a(iω
1
ω1 6= ω2 and ω1 6= −ω2 ,
T K2,3 (ω1 , ω2 ),

0,
ω2 = 0;

1
K
(ω
),
ω
=
ω
Σ3 (ω1 , ω2 ) :=
3,1
1
1
2 or ω1 = −ω2 ;
1 T
K
(ω
,
ω
),
ω
=
6
ω
2
1
2 and ω1 6= −ω2 .
T 3,2 1

10

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

Here K is given by (20) and Ki,j are bounded in T for i, j = 1, 2, 3. 2
Now we are going to investigate asymptotic properties of the truncated Fourier transform.
First, we will show that the second summand of (9) converges in probability to zero.
Lemma 3.4. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are satisfied. Let
Z
1 b(iω) T −iωt
e
dL(t).
Z̃(T ) := FT (Y )(ω) − √
T a(iω) 0
Then
P − lim |Z̃(T )| = 0.
T →∞

Proof. Observe that


1
|Z̃(T )| = √ bT (iωI − A)−1 X(0) − e−iωT X(T )
T
1
1
≤ √ bT (iωI − A)−1 X(0) + √ bT (iωI − A)−1 X(T ) .
T
T
Obviously,
1
lim √ bT (iωI − A)−1 X(0) = 0 a.s. as T → ∞.
T →∞
T
Because of stationarity, X(T ) is bounded in probability and √1T converges to zero thus
1
√ bT (iωI − A)−1 X(T ) → 0 in probability.
T
Therefore
P − lim |Z̃(T )| = 0.
T →∞

This completes the proof. 2

Now we will show that the first summand of formula (9) converges in distribution. Thus,
together with Lemma 3.4 we obtain the limit in distribution of the truncated Fourier
transform. We have two cases: the first case is if the frequency ω = 0. Then the truncated
Fourier transform is a real valued function. In the second case for frequencies ω 6= 0
the truncated Fourier transform is a complex valued function. In both cases we first give
the description of the distribution of the truncated Fourier transform and afterwards we
describe the distribution of the squared modulus of the truncated Fourier transform.
Theorem 3.5. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1 and 2.3 are satisfied. Let
Z
1 b(0) T
Z(T ) := √
dL(t).
T a(0) 0
Then
!


b(0) 2 2
1 a(0)Z(T ) 2
d − lim Z(T ) ∼ N 0,
σ , d − lim 2
∼ χ2 (1)
T →∞
T →∞ σ
a(0)
b(0)
Proof. Observe that

RT
0

dL(t) = L(T ), thus Z(T ) =

Limit Theorem d − limT →∞
 
2 
b(0)
N 0, a(0) σ 2 .

√1 L(T )
T

b(0)
√1
L(T ).
T a(0)

By the standard Central

= N (0, σ 2 ). Therefore d − limT →∞

b(0)
√1
L(T )
T a(0)

=

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION
a(0)Z(n)
b(0)σ ∼ N (0, 1).
2
a(0)Z(T )
∼ χ2 (1). 2
b(0)

Observe that for all n ∈ N the random variable
mapping theorem we have d − limT →∞

1
σ2

11

Then by the continuous

In order to find the asymptotic distribution of the truncated Fourier transform we use the
multivariate Central Limit Theorem. Note that we state all results for positive frequencies
as the corresponding results for negative can be obtained by taking the complex conjugate.
Theorem 3.6. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1 and 2.3 are satisfied. Assume that ω > 0. Put
Z
1 b(iω) T −iωt
e
dL(t)
Z(T ) := √
T a(iω) 0
and
Z(T ) =



<Z(T )
.
=Z(T )

Then
d − lim Z(T ) ∼ N (0, Σ),
T →∞

σ2

where Σ =

2

2

b(iω)
a(iω)

I2×2 .

Proof. We firstshow that
j ∈ {0, . . . , N − 1} put

√1
N

R

2πN
ω

0

e−iωt dL(t) is asymptotically normal. For N ∈ N and

"R 2π(j+1)/ω
#

cos(ωt)dL(t)
Xj1
:= R2πj/ω
.
Xj :=
2π(j+1)/ω
Xj2
sin(ωt)dL(t)


2πj/ω

Observe that Xj are independent and identically distributed random vectors with mean
f1 := σ2 π I2×2 . Therefore,
zero and the covariance matrix Σ
ω
Z 2πN
N
−1
X
ω
e−iωt dL(t) =
Xj .
0

j=0

Applying the classical CLT we obtain


Z 2πN
N
−1
X
√
ω
1
1
f1 ) as N → ∞.
N
Xj  = √
e−iωt dL(t) → N ∼ N (0, Σ
N
N 0
j=0

So

√
√ ω
2πN

R

2πN
ω

0

Observe that
"
A·

2
ω f
e−iωt dL(t) → N (0, Σ1 ), where Σ1 = 2π
Σ1 = σ2 I2×2 . Put
 



b(iω)
b(iω)
< a(iω)
= a(iω)

 .
A :=   b(iω) 
b(iω)
= a(iω)
−< a(iω)

√
√ ω
2πN
√
√ ω
2πN

R 2πN/ω
R02πN/ω
0

cos(ωt)dL(t)

#



<Z(2πN )
=
.
=Z(2πN )
sin(ωt)dL(t)

Thus Z = A · X is normally distributed with mean zero and the covariance matrix Σ =
AΣ1 AT =

σ2
2

b(iω)
a(iω)

2

I2×2 . 2

12

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

Now we apply this theorem to find the asymptotic distribution of the truncated Fourier
transform squared.
Theorem 3.7. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions
2.1 
and 2.3 are satisfied. Let Z be defined as in Theorem

3.6. Then |Z|2 ∼ Exp σ 2

b(iω)
a(iω)

2

, where Exp(λ) denotes the exponential distribution

with mean λ.
Proof We use the notation of the proof of Theorem 3.6. Thus |Z|2 is proportional to
2

b(iω)
chi-square random variables with two degrees of freedom, i.e. |Z|2 = σ2 a(iω)




2
2
b(iω)
σ 2 b(iω)
2
2
2
2
X ∼ χ (2). Thus |Z| ∼ Γ 1, 2 a(iω)
so |Z| ∼ Exp σ a(iω)
. 2

2

X, where

Now we are going to give the description of the convergence of the random vector consisting
of the truncated Fourier transform at different frequencies.
Theorem 3.8. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are satisfied. Let 0 < ω1 < · ·· < ωd 
be
T
σ2
fixed frequencies. Then [< (FT (Y )(ωj )) , = (FT (Y )(ωj ))]j=1,...,d converges to N 0, 2 B ,
with
!
b(iω1 ) 2 b(iω1 ) 2
b(iωd ) 2 b(iωd ) 2
B = diag
,
,...,
,
a(iω1 )
a(iω1 )
a(iωd )
a(iωd )


T
and |FT (ωj )|2 j=1,...,d converges to a random vector whose coordinates are independent


b(iωj ) 2
2
Exp σ a(iωj )
distributed random variables for j = 1, . . . , d.
Proof For fixed n ∈ N and k = 1, . . . , n, put
Z 2kπ
Z
(2i−1)
(2i)
Xk
(ωi ) :=
cos(ωi t)dL(t), Xk (ωi ) :=
2(k−1)π

2kπ

sin(ωi t)dL(t),

i = 1, . . . , d.

2(k−1)π









P
P
(2i) 2
(2i−1) 2
= nk=1 Var X (2i) (ωi ) . Put
Let sn
= nk=1 Var X (2i−1) (ωi ) and sn
Zn(2i−1) (ωi )

(2i−1)
(ωi )
k=1 Xk
,
(2i−1)
sn

Pn
:=

Zn(2i) (ωi )

(2i)
k=1 Xk (ωi )
.
(2i)
sn

Pn
:=

Then we will show that by the Cramer-Wold-device the random vector Z ∈ R2d with
h
iT
(2i−1)
(2i)
Z = Zn
(ωi ), Zn (ωi )
converges in distribution to N (0, I2d×2d ).
i=1,...,d

We first apply the Lindeberg-Feller Central Limit Theorem (see e.g. Billingsley [2]) to each
coordinate of the vector Z. Observe that for all i = 1, . . . , d by the Itô isometry we obtain
!
Z 2kπ
Z 2kπ


(2i−1)
2
Var Xk
(ωi ) = Var
cos(ωi t)dL(t) = σ
cos2 (ωi t)dt
2(k−1)π

= σ2
Thus


s(2i−1)
n

2

=

n
X
k=1

2(k−1)π

4πωi + sin(4πωi k) − sin(4πωi (k − 1))
.
4ωi
h
i
4nπωi + sin(4πωi n)
(2i−1)
Var Xk
(ωi ) = σ 2
.
4ωi

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

13

In the same way,


s(2i)
n

2

=

n
X
k=1

h
i
4nπωi − sin(4πωi n)
(2i)
.
Var Xk (ωi ) = σ 2
4ωi

Observe that
1  (2i−1) 2
1  (2i) 2
= lim
= σ 2 π.
sn
sn
n→∞ n
n→∞ n
If the Lindeberg condition is satisfied, the 2i-th, respectively 2i − 1-th coordinate of Z for
i = 1, . . . , d, i.e.
Z 2πn
√
2 ωi
Zn(2i−1) (ωi ) = p
cos(ωi t)dL(t)
σ 4πnωi + sin(4πnωi ) 0
Z 2πn
√
2 ωi
(2i)
Zn (ωi ) = p
sin(ωi t)dL(t)
σ 4πnωi − sin(4πnωi ) 0
lim

converges to N (0, 1). Taking
p
σ
4πnωi + sin(4πnωi )
√
Yn(2i−1) (ωi ) =
,
2 2πnωi

p
4πnωi − sin(4πnωi )
√
Yn(2i) (ωi ) =
2 2πnωi
σ

and noting that

σ
σ
lim Yn(2i−1) (ωi ) = √ , lim Yn(2i) (ωi ) = √
n→∞
n→∞
2
2
is constant at all frequencies, by Slutsky arguments for i = 1, . . . , d we get


Z 2πn
σ2
1
(2i−1)
(2i−1)
√
(21)
,
cos(ωi t)dL(t) = Zn
(ωi )Yn
(ωi ) → N 0,
2
2πn 0


Z 2πn
1
σ2
√
(22)
sin(ωi t)dL(t) = Zn(2i) (ωi )Yn(2i) (ωi ) → N 0,
.
2
2πn 0
Now we are going to prove the Lindeberg condition for odd coordinates of Z (for the even
ones an analogous reasoning holds), i.e. for all  > 0 it holds


n
2
X
1
(2i−1)
n
o
lim 
E Xk
(ωi ) 1 |X (2i−1) (ω )|>s(2i−1) = 0.

n→∞
i
n
(2i−1) 2
k
sn
k=1
(2i−1)

Observe that if the random variables {Xk
(ωi )} are uniformly square integrable, then
they satisfy the Lindeberg condition. Indeed,


n

−2 X
2
(2i−1)
(2i−1)
n
o
sn
E Xk
(ωi ) 1 X (2i−1) (ω ) >s(2i−1)


= s(2i−1)
n

n
−2 X

"

E

(2i−1)

Xk

(ωi )

2

≤ s(2i−1)
n

=

σ

−2

2 4nπωi

"
n sup E
k=1,...,n

+ sin(4πωi n)
4ωi



n

#
1

k=1



i

k

k=1

(2i−1)

Xk

2
(2i−1)
Xk
(ωi ) 1
"

−1
n sup E
k=1,...,n




2  (2i−1) 2
(ωi ) > sn

#
(2i−1)

Xk


2  (2i−1) 2
(ωi ) > sn

2
(2i−1)
Xk
(ωi ) 1

#
(2i−1)

Xk


2  (2i−1) 2
(ωi ) > sn

14

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER


−1
i n)
n → πσ1 2 , uniform square integrability implies in this
Since limn→∞ σ 2 4nπωi +sin(4πω
4ωi
case
the Lindeberg
condition. It remains to show the uniform square integrability of
n
o
(2i−1)
.
Xk
(ωi )
k∈N

Assume first, that our driving process (L(t))t≥0 is of bounded variation. Then
Z

2kπ

Z

2kπ

Z

cos(ωi t)dLt ≤

Mk =
2(k−1)π

d|Lt |,

2(k−1)π

2(k−1)π

0

d|Lt | =

R 2π
0

d|Lt |. We


d|Lt | >K

2

2π

=E

2(k−1)π

2(k−1)π

2(k−1)π

d

R 2kπ

where | · | denotes the total variation of the process. But
have

2
Z 2kπ


2

E |Mk | 1{|Mk |>K} ≤ E
d|Lt | 1n R 2kπ
"Z

2kπ

| cos(ωi t)|d|Lt | ≤

o

#

d|Lt | 1{|R 2π d|Lt ||>K } .
0

R 2π
By the square integrability of 0 d|Lt |, which is implied by the square integrability of
(L(t))t≥0 we obtain the uniform integrability of (Mk )k∈N .
Now we assume that (L(t)) is a square integrable martingale with finite moments of all
orders. Observe that Xk is square integrable for all k ∈ N. By the Burkholder-DavisGundy Inequality (see e.g. Protter [20]) for each p ≥ 1 there exists a positive constant Cp
such that
"
!p #
#p/2 
" Z
Z
Z
2kπ

2kπ

cos(ωi t)dL(t)

E

2kπ

≤ Cp E 

cos(ωi t)dL(t),
2(k−1)π

2(k−1)π

cos(ωi t)dL(t)
2(k−1)π

Since
"Z

2kπ

Z
cos(ωi t)dL(t),

2(k−1)π

#

2kπ

Z

2kπ

cos2 (ωi t)d[L, L]t

cos(ωi t)dL(t) =
2(k−1)π

2(k−1)π

using the above inequality for p = 4 we obtain

!4 
"Z
Z 2kπ
E
cos(ωi t)dL(t)  ≤ C4 E

#

2kπ
2

cos (ωi t)d[L, L]t

2(k−1)π

2(k−1)π

≤σ

2

Z

2kπ

cos2 (ωi t)dt < C

2(k−1)π
(2i−1)

(2i−1)

for some constant C. Since {Xk
(ωi )} are square integrable and {Xk
4
bounded in L (Ω, F, P) they are uniformly square integrable.

(ωi )} are

As any Lévy process is by the Lévy-Itô decomposition the sum of a finite variation Lévy
process and an independent square integrable martingale with moments of all orders, we
obtain the claimed uniform squre integrability for all driving Lévy processes.


2
Likewise one shows that θT Z converges in distribution to N 0, σ2 θT θ for all θ ∈ R2d . So
the Cramer-Wold device concludes.

.

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

15

h
iT
(2i−1)
(2i−1)
(2i)
(2i)
converges in distribution to
Therefore Zn
(ωi )Yn
(ωi ), Zn (ωi )Yn (ωi )
i=1,...,d


2
N 0, σ2 I2d×2d and thus using Lemma 3.4 and equations (21), (22) [FT (ωj )]Tj=1,...,d con

2
verges to N 0, σ2 B , where B is defined above. Repeating the reasoning from the proof

T
of Theorem 3.7 we obtain that |FT (ωj )|2 j=1,...,d converges to a vector of independent,


b(iω ) 2
for j = 1, . . . , d. 2
exponentially distributed random variables with Exp σ 2 a(iωjj )
Note that Theorem 3.6 is basically a special case of Theorem 3.8 . However, the proof in
the case of several frequencies is much more complicated and a more elementary reasoning
was also presented.
The limiting result is the analogue of the one for discrete time ARMA models. (See e.g.
[7] Chapter 10.)
3.2. Numerical Approximation of Integrals and Limiting Behaviour of the Truncated Pathwise Fourier Transform Based on Non-equidistant Discrete Grids.
In this section we deal with the numerical approximation of the integral
Z T
1
√
(23)
FT (Y )(ω) :=
Y (t)e−iωt dt.
T 0
Our aim is to describe conditions under which we are able to calculate numerically the
truncated Fourier transform of a CARMA process based on non-equidistant observations.
The main result is the following:
Theorem 3.9. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
d
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 are satisfied. Assume
 that
F: R→R
(T )
be a twice continuously differentiable function with kF 00 k∞ < ∞. Let xi
i=0,...,N (T )−2

be a partition of the interval [a, b] with


(T )
(T )
maxj=0,...,N (T )−1 xj+1 − xj . Put
(T )

(24)

(N (T ))
α0

(25)

(N (T ))
αj

=

x1

= a and

(T )
xN (T )−1

(T )

(T )


− x0
(T )
F x0
,
2

(T )

=

(T )
x0

(N (T ))
αN (T )−1

=

= b and let hmax (T ) =

(T )

xN (T )−1 − xN (T )−2
2



(T )
F xN (T )−1 ,

(T )

xj+1 − xj−1
2



(T )
F xj
,

j = 1, . . . , N (T ) − 2.

Then there exist positive constants C1 , C2 such that

2
N (T )−1

 Z b
X
(N (T ))
(T )
E
αj
Y xj
−
Y (t)F (t)dt  ≤ C1 (C2 + T )N (T )2 h6max (T )
a

j=0

and thus if limT →∞ T N (T )2 h6max (T ) = 0, then
N (T )−1

lim

T →∞

X
j=0

(N (T ))
αj
F



(T )
xj



Z
−

b

Y (t)F (t)dt
a

= 0.
L2

16

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

We begin by establishing an error bound of the trapezoidal method for non-equidistant
data. For a very accessible approach of quadrature rules procedures we refer to [22].
Recall the basic properties of the trapezoidal rule:
Lemma 3.10. Let f : [a, b] → R be a twice continuously differentiable function. Write
Z b
b−a
f (x)dx =
(26)
[f (a) + f (b)] + E T (f ).
2
a
Then
(27)

|E T (f )| ≤

(b − a)3
sup |f 00 (x)|.
12 x∈[a,b]

For the composite trapezoidal rule for an equidistant grid a < a + (b − a) n1 < . . . , a + (b −
a) ni < · · · < b we have
"
#

Z b
n−1
X 
b−a
i
(28)
f (x)dx =
f (a) + 2
+ f (b) + EnT (f ).
f a + (b − a)
2n
n
a
i=1

Then
(29)

|EnT (f )| ≤

(b − a)3
sup |f 00 (x)|.
12n2 x∈[a,b]

A proof can be found e.g. in [22].
Now we are going to formulate a version of the trapezoidal rule for non-equidistant points.
We assume that we have some control on the maximal distance between observations.
Lemma 3.11. Let a = x0 < x1 < · · · < xN −1 < xN = b be an arbitrary partition of the
interval [a, b] and assume that f : [a, b] → R is a twice continuously differentiable function.
Put hmax = maxj=0,...,N −2 (xj+1 − xj ). Then
Z b
N
−1
X
xj+1 − xj
f (x)dx =
[f (xj ) + f (xj+1 )] + E T (f ),
2
a
i=0

where |E T (f )| ≤

3
N kf 00 k∞ hmax
12 .

Proof
Let us write
[a, b] =

N[
−1

[xj , xj+1 ],

Ij := [xj , xj+1 ]

j=0

and apply Lemma 3.10 for each interval Ij . Therefore
Z xj+1
xj+1 − xj
f (x)dx =
[f (xj ) + f (xj+1 )] + EjT (f ),
2
xj
with
|EjT (f )| ≤

|xj+1 − xj |3
12

sup

|f 00 (x)|.

x∈[xj ,xj+1 ]

For each i = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1 we have
sup
x∈[xj ,xj+1 ]

|f 00 (x)| ≤ sup |f 00 (x)| =: kf 00 k∞ .
x∈[a,b]

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

17

Therefore
b

Z

f (x)dx =
a

N
−1
X
i=0

xj+1 − xj
[f (xj ) + f (xj+1 )] + E T (f ),
2

where
|E T (f )| =

N
−1
X

EjT (f ) ≤ kf 00 k∞

i=0

N
−1
X
i=0

≤ kf 00 k∞

N
−1
X
i=0

(xj+1 − xj )3
12

h3max
h3
= N kf 00 k∞ max .
12
12

This completes the proof. 2
We use some results and ideas from [10]. The aim is to find an approximation similar to
Proposition 5.4 of [10] of the integral appearing in the truncated Fourier transform in the
case that the observations of the process Y are given on a non-equidistant grid. Let
N
T[0,T
]f =

N
−1
X
j=0

xj+1 − xj
[f (xj ) + f (xj+1 )]
2

be the trapezoidal rule discussed in Lemma 3.11. Recall first the Fubini type theorem for
stochastic integrals from [10].
Lemma 3.12. [10, Theorem 2.4] Let [a, b] ⊂ R be a bounded interval and (L(t))t≥0 be a
Lévy process with finite second moments. Assume that F : [a, b]×R → Rd is a bounded function B([a, b])⊗B([−s, t])-measurable for all s, t ∈ (0, ∞) and the family {u 7→ F (s, u)}u∈[a,b]
is uniformly absolutely integrable and uniformly converges to zero as |u| → 0. Then
Z bZ
Z Z b
(30)
F (s, u)dL(u)ds =
F (s, u)dsdL(u) a.s.
a

R

R

a

In the paper [10] the assumption about measurability in the statement of the theorem is
not explicitely stated. However, an inspection of their proof combined with results from
[23] shows that the precise statement has to be in the above form.
Secondly, note that for non-equidistant data the corresponding error estimation [10, Proposition A.6] has the following form:
Proposition 3.13. Let [a, b] ⊂ R be a compact interval and use the notation of Lemma
3.11.
(1) If f : [a, b] → R is twice continuously differentiable, then
Z b
h3
N
f (s)ds − T[a,b]
f ≤ N kf 00 k∞ max .
12
a
(2) If F : [a, b] → Rd is twice continuously differentiable, then
Z b
√
h3
N
F (s)ds − T[a,b]
F ≤ dN kF 00 k∞ max ,
12
a
where k · k denotes the Euclidean norm in Rd .
Here kF 00 k∞ := maxi=1,...,d supti ∈[a,b] kF 00 (ti )k.

18

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

Put
EfT,N
g

N
T[0,T
] f (·)g(·)

:=

T

Z
−

g(s)f (s)ds.
0

Proof of Theorem 3.9. Assume that we have observed the process Y on the grid
(T )
(T )
(T )
0 = x0 < x1 < · · · < xN (T )−1 = T . We have
N (T )−1

(31)

N
T[0,T
]F Y

(N (T ))

X

=

αj

(T )

Y (xj ),

j=0
(N (T ))

(j = 0, . . . , N (T ) − 1) are the coefficients given by (24) and (25).
R
Observe that f (a) = f (s)δa (s)ds. Moreover, for all j = 0, . . . , N (T ) − 1 we know that
(T )
xj ∈ [0, T ], therefore for all u ∈ [0, T ] and for all j = 0, . . . , N (T ) − 1 we have


(T )
1[u,T ] xj
= 1h0,x(T ) i (u).
where αj

j

Thus by (31) we have
N (T )−1
N
T[0,T
]F Y

=

N (T )−1
(N (T ))
αj
Y

X



(T )
xj



=

j=0

=

0

N (T )−1

−∞

j=0

X

=

)−1
T N (T
X

Z
+
0

b e

−∞

j=0

=

)−1
T N (T
X

+
0

Z

0

−∞
T

b e

b e

(T )

xj



(T )
T A xj −u

b e

edL (u) +

!

e1h0,x(T ) i (u)dL∗ (u)





(T )
(N (T )) T A xj −u
(T )
αj
b e
e1[u,T ] xj
dL∗ (u)

0

)−1
T N (T
X

j

(N (T ))

αj

δx(T ) (s)bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u)
j

j=0

Z

T

=
−∞

δx(T ) (s)bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u)

j=0

u
T

(N (T ))

max{0,u}

N (T )−1

X

(N (T ))

αj

δx(T ) (s)bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u).
j

j=0

Thus using the representation (6) and the Fubini-type Theorem 3.12 we have
Z T
Z T
Z s
F (s)Y (s)ds =
F (s)
bT eA(s−u) edL∗ (u)ds
0

0

−∞

∗

edL (u)



(T )
(N (T )) T A xj −u
edL∗ (u)
αj
b e

αj

edL∗ (u)

−∞

j

)−1
T N (T
X

0

Z

+
Z

Z



(T )
T A xj −u

j=0

Z

=
Z

∗

(T )

xj



(T )
(N (T )) T A xj −u
αj
b e
edL∗ (u)

j=0

X

Z

0



(T )
(N (T )) T A xj −u

N (T )−1

Z



(T )
T A xj −u

−∞

αj

0

Z

0

Z

(N (T ))
αj

j=0

Z

(N (T ))
αj

j=0

N (T )−1

X

X

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION
T

Z

T

Z

19

F (s)bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u)

=
−∞ max{0,u}
Z 0 Z T

F (s)bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u)

=
−∞ 0
Z TZ T

+
0

F (s)bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u).

u

Thus
N
EFT,N
Y = T[0,T ] F Y −

Z

0

T

Z

=
T

T

Z

T

Z

+

(N (T ))

αj

u

δx(T ) (s) − F (s) Y (s)ds
j

δx(T ) (s) − F (s) bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u)
j



N (T )−1

X

(N (T ))

αj

j=0

N (T )−1


0




j=0





N (T )−1

X

0

0

X

0



T

F (s)Y (s)ds =



−∞

Z



Z

(N (T ))

αj

δx(T ) (s) − F (s) bT eA(s−u) edsdL∗ (u).

j=0

j

Let us denote
(32)

Γ(N ) (u) : =

Z

T

N (T )−1

X


0

(33)

G(N ) (u) : =

Z





(N (T ))

αj

j=0
T

δx(T ) (s) − F (s) bT eA(s−u) eds,





N (T )−1

X


u

u ≤ 0,

j

(N (T ))

αj

j=0

δx(T ) (s) − F (s) bT eA(s−u) eds,

u ∈ [0, T ].

j

By Assumption 2.3 we know that there exist positive constants α, β such that
(34)

k exp(At)k ≤ β exp(−αt).

Note that by Lemma 3.11 and Proposition 3.13 we have


Z T N (T
)−1
X
(N (T ))

α
δ (T ) (s) − F (s) bT eA(s−u) eds
j

u0

xj

j=0

Rd

N (T )−1

X

=

j=0

≤
with
such
such

√

(N (T ))

αj

δx(T ) (s)bT eA(xj −u) e −
j

dN (T )kFe00 (u)k∞

Z

T

u0

F (s)bT eA(s−u) eds
Rd

h3max (T )
12

Fe(s) = F (s)bT eA(s−u) e and u0 ∈ [0, T ]. If u0 = 0, then there exist α
e > 0 and D > 0
that kFe00 (u)k∞ ≤ D exp(e
αu) for u ≤ 0. Therefore there exists a constant D1 > 0
that
√
h3 (T )
kΓ(N ) (u)kRd ≤ dN (T )kFe|00[0,T ] k∞ max
≤ D1 N (T )h3max (T ) exp(e
αu), u ≤ 0.
12

If now u0 = u is any element of [0, T ], then there exists D > 0 such that kFe00 |[u,T ] k∞ ≤ D
for u ∈ [0, T ]. Therefore there exists a constant D2 > 0 such that for u ∈ [0, T ] we have
√
h3 (T )
kG(N ) (u)kRd ≤ dN (T )kFe|00[u,T ] k∞ max
≤ D2 N (T )h3max (T ).
12

20

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

By the Itô isometry
Z 0
Γ(N ) (u)dL∗ (u)
−∞

2

"Z

0

Γ(N ) (u)dL∗ (u)

=E

T Z

−∞

L2

"Z

−∞

T Z
(N )
∗
Γ (u)dL (u)

0

=E
−∞
0

Z

= σ2

−∞
Z 0

≤ σ2
=σ

Γ(N ) (u)dL∗ (u)

#

−∞


(N )
T (N )
[Γ (u)] Γ (u)du
kΓ(N ) (u)k2Rd du
D1 N (T )h3max (T ) exp(e
αu)

−∞
2

0

−∞
0

Z

≤ σ2

#
Γ(N ) (u)dL∗ (u)

0

N (T )2 h6max (T )D12

Z

2

du

0

exp(2e
αu)du
−∞

= DΓ N (T )2 h6max (T ),
where DΓ > 0 is a constant. In a similar way we obtain
"Z
T Z
Z T
2
T
(N )
(N )
G (u)dL(u)
=E
G (u)dL(u)
0

0

L2

"Z

T

G(N ) (u)dL(u)

T Z

0

=σ
≤σ

2

Z

T
(N )

T

(u)] G

(N )

T

G(N ) (u)dL(u)

#


(u)du

0
T

kG

(N )

0

= DG N (T )

2

(u)k2Rd du

≤σ

2

Z

T

2
D2 N (T )h3max (T ) du

0

T h6max (T )

for some constant DG > 0. Therefore
" Z
0
2
kEFT,N
k
≤
2
Γ(N ) (u)dL∗ (u)
2
Y L
−∞

(u)dL(u)

0

[G
Z

G

(N )

0

=E
2

#

T

2

Z
+

L2

2

T

G(N ) (u)dL(u)

0

#
,

L2

thus
2
2
2 6
kEFT,N
Y kL2 ≤ C1 (C2 + T )N (T ) hmax (T ) ,
2
where C1 , C2 are positive constants. If limT →∞ T N (T )2 h6max (T ) = 0, then limT →∞ kEFT,N
Y kL2 =
0. This completes the proof. 2

Now we are going to apply Theorem 3.9 to find a numerical approximation of the truncated Fourier transform. Using the notation of Theorem 3.9 we denote the trapezoidal
approximation of
Z T
1
FT (Y )(ω) = √
Y (t)e−iωt dt
T 0
by TT (Y )(ω), i.e.
N −1
1 X (N )  (N ) 
TT (Y )(ω) = √
αj Y xj
,
T j=0

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION



(N )

where the grid points xj
(T )

(N (T ))
α0

=

x1

=

j=0,...,N (T )−1

21

are given as in Theorem 3.9 and
(T )

(T )


− x0
(T )
F x0
,
2

(T )

(N (T ))
αj



(N (T ))
αN (T )−1

=

(T )

xN (T )−1 − xN (T )−2
2



(T )
F xN (T )−1 ,

(T )

xj+1 − xj−1
2

F



(T )
xj



,

j = 1, . . . , N (T ) − 2.

with F (x) = e−iωx .
Theorem 3.14. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 are satisfied and that the process Y is
(T )
(T )
(T )
observed at not necessarily equidistant points 0 = x0 < x1 < · · · < xN (T )−1 = T . Let


(T )
(T )
hmax (T ) := maxj=0,...,N (T )−2 xj+1 − xj . If
lim N (T )h3max (T ) = 0,

T →∞

then
lim kTT (Y )(ω) − FT (Y )(ω)kL2 = 0

T →∞

and thus also
P − lim [TT (Y )(ω) − FT (Y )(ω)] = 0.
T →∞

Proof We identify C with R2 in the canonical way. Applying Theorem 3.9 for d = 2,
F (t) = [cos(ωt), − sin(ωt)]T we get

2


N (T )−1

 Z T
X
cos(ωt)
(N (T ))
(T )
E
αj
Y xj
−
Y (t)
dt  ≤ C1 (C2 + T )N (T )2 h6max (T ).
−
sin(ωt)
0
j=0

Dividing both sides by T > 0 we obtain

2


Z T
N (T )−1 (N (T ))


X αj
1
C1 C2
cos(ωt)
(T )
√
Y xj
−√
Y (t)
dt  ≤
+C1 N (T )2 h6max (T ).
E
−
sin(ωt)
T
T
T 0
j=0
Passing to the limit with T → ∞ and using the assumption limT →∞ N (T )h3max (T ) = 0 we
get the assertion. 2
Now we are going to state the central limit theorem for the truncated Fourier transform:
Theorem 3.15. Let X and Y be processes given by the state-space representation (2) and
(3). Suppose that Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 are satisfied and the process Y is
(T )
(T )
(T )
observed at not necessarily equidistant points 0 = x0 < x1 < · · · < xN (T )−1 = T . Let
(T )

(T )

(N )

hmax (T ) := maxj=0,...,N (T )−2 (xj+1 − xj ). Let αj be defined as in Theorem 3.9. Assume
that
lim N (T )h3max (T ) = 0.
T →∞

Put Σ =

σ2
2

b(iω)
a(iω)

2

I2×2 . If ω 6= 0, then


<(TT Y (ω))
d − lim
= N (0, Σ) ,
T →∞ =(TT Y (ω))

22

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER


b(iω)
d − lim <(TT Y (ω))2 + =(TT Y (ω))2 = Exp σ 2
T →∞
a(iω)

2

!
.

If ω = 0, then

d − lim TT Y (0) = N
T →∞

0,

and
1 a(0)TT Y (0)
T →∞ σ 2
b(0)

d − lim

b(0)
a(0)

!

2
σ

2

2

∼ χ2 (1).

Clearly, an analogous statement using Theorem 3.8 holds for the joint distribution when
the truncated Fourier transform is taken at different frequencies.
Proof of Theorem 3.15. Put
Z
1 b(iω) T −iωt
Z(T ) := √
e
dL(t)
T a(iω) 0
and consider the following two-dimensional random vectors:






<(Z(T ))
<(FT Y (ω))
<(TT Y (ω))
Zn :=
, Un :=
, Vn :=
.
=(Z(T ))
=(FT Y (ω))
=(TT Y (ω))
Observe that it is enough to consider the above limits for T = n. By Lemma 3.4 we know
that
P − lim kUn − Zn k = 0.
n→∞

From Theorem 3.6 we get
d − lim Zn = N (0, Σ).
n→∞

Therefore
d − lim Un = N (0, Σ).
n→∞

By Theorem 3.14 we have
P − lim (Vn − Un ) = 0.
n→∞

Therefore,
d − lim Vn = N (0, Σ).
n→∞

In the same way we obtain
2

d − lim |Z| = Exp σ
n→∞

2

b(iω)
a(iω)

2

!
.

In order to obtain the assertion for ω = 0 we repeat the above resonings applying Theorem
3.5 instead of Theorem 3.4. 2
4. Illustrative simulations
We now turn to a numerical illustration of the theoretical convergence results given in
Section 3.2. We are looking at simulations of CARMA processes and their numerically
approximated truncated Fourier transform over different time horizons and maximal grid
widths. To illustrate the convergence to the asymptotic normal distribution we shall look
at several frequencies and different driving Lévy processes, standard Brownian motion,
a Variance Gamma process and a “two sided Poisson process”. Of course, the truncated
Fourier transform of (Yt ) is obtained using the trapezoidal rule based on non-equidistant observations of the CARMA process (Yt ) given on the interval [0, T ]. On an interval [0, T ] we

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

23

generate a non-equidistant grid in the following way: we
 fix the maximal distance hmax (T )
between elements of the grid and from each interval i · 21 hmax (T ), (i + 1) · 12 hmax (T ) for
i = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1 we draw a number according to the uniform distribution. This results
in a non-equidistant grid with the number of points being N (T ) = 2T /hmax + 1.
For our simulations we used the R Project for Statistical Computing. For the simulation
we first generate the non-equidistant grid by the above procedure and then join it with a
regular grid of mesh 0.001, which is still on average five times finer than the non-equidistant
grid of the largest time horizon considered. On this joint grid the CARMA process Y is
simulated with a standard Euler scheme for the state space representation. Afterwards
only the simulated values at the times of the original non-equidistant grid are used to
compute the approximation of the truncated Fourier transform with the trapezoidal rule.
In all cases we simulate 2000 independent paths of the CARMA process and compute the
associated values of the truncated Fourier transform at the following frequencies:
[ω1 , ω2 , ω3 , ω4 ] = [0, 0.1, 1, 10].
For the non-zero frequencies real and imaginary part have to be considered separately.
However, in the following we look only at the real parts as the behaviour of the imaginary
parts is most similar. Mainly, the results are presented via QQ-plots where the theoretical
values follow the (limiting) law described in Theorem 3.15.
We are going to consider CARMA processes with the following autoregressive and moving
average orders: (p, q) = (1, 0), i.e. an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process, and (p, q) = (2, 1).
For the time horizon T and the maximum distance of the non-equidistant observation times
we consider the pairs (T = 10, hmax = 0.1), (T = 50, hmax = 0.05) and (T = 100, hmax =
0.01).
For each case we consider three different driving Lévy noises: standard Brownian Motion,
a Variance Gamma process and a “two sided Poisson process”. For the definition and
properties of the Variance Gamma process we refer to [18] and references therein. We
construct the process in the following way: Vt = G1t −G2t , where G1t and G2t are independent
Gamma processes with shape parameter 1 and scale parameter 4. Likewise the “two sided
Poisson process” is the difference of two independent Poisson processes with rate 10, i.e. a
compound Poisson process with rate 20 and jumps +1 and −1 both with probability 1/2.
Example 4.1. We consider the CAR(1) model. Then A = −a1 and
a(z) := z + a1 ,

b(z) = b0 .

So the spectral density is
f (ω) =

σ 2 b(iω)
2π a(iω)

2

=

σ2
b20
.
2π ω 2 + a21

For the simulations we take [b0 , a1 ] = [1, 2].
QQ-plots showing the results for 2000 simulated paths for the four different frequencies
and three different combinations of time horizon and maximum grid width can be found
in Figures 1, 2 and 3 for the driving Lévy process being a standard Brownian motion, a
Variance Gamma and a two-sided Poisson process, respectively.
Example 4.2. We consider the CARMA(2, 1) model. We have


 
 


X(t)
0
1
b0
0
A :=
, b :=
, e :=
, Xt :=
−a2 −a1
1
1
X (1) (t)

24

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

The autoregressive and moving-average polynomials are of the form
a(z) = z 2 + a1 z + a2 ,

b(z) = z + b0 .

We have
b(iω)
iω + b0
,
=
2
a(iω)
(iω) + (iω)a1 + a2

f (ω) =

σ 2 b(iω)
2π a(iω)

2

=

σ2
b20 + ω 2
2π ω 4 + (a21 − 2a2 )ω 2 + a22

For the simulation procedure we take [b0 , b1 , a1 , a2 ] = [1, 1, 1, 2].
QQ-plots showing the results for 2000 simulated paths for the four different frequencies
and three different combinations of time horizon and maximum grid width can be found
in Figures 4, 6 and 8 for the driving Lévy process being a standard Brownian motion, a
Variance Gamma and a two-sided Poisson process, respectively. Likewise, Figures 5, 7 and
9 show corresponding histograms.
The simulation results seem to indicate the following.
In Figure 1 we notice at first a pretty good fit of the empirical quantiles from the simulations with the theoretical ones of the asymptotic distribution across all time horizons and
frequencies. Looking more carefully, the fit in the tails clearly improves when the time
horizon/fineness of the grid increases, but it is never bad. For the longest time horizon
and finest grid the fit is clearly very good. Of course, it should not be forgotten that
in this case the distribution of the (trapezoidal approximation of the) truncated Fourier
transform is always exactly Gaussian and not only asymptotically. When looking across
the non-zero frequencies one notes that for the shortest time horizon the quantiles for the
smallest frequency 0.1 appear to lie on a line which is somewhat different from the line of
the theoretical quantiles. This indicates that the quantiles of the simulated paths come
from a normal distribution, but one with a different variance then the asymptotic one. It
is no surprise that this occurs for the lowest frequency and the smallest time interval, as
for low frequencies one observes – regardless of the fineness of the sampling – the fewest
full cycles over a time interval of fixed length. For this combination of time horizon and
frequency we see only one full cycle.
Turning to Figure 2, we first notice that the fit in the tails improves again clearly with
increasing (T, 1/hmax ). Especially, for the highest (T, 1/hmax ) one sees that the fit in
the tails is a bit worse now for a driving Variance Gamma process compared with the
driving Brownian motion in Figure 1. Of course, now the simulated values are indeed
only asymptotically following a Gaussian distribution. Looking at the different non-zero
frequencies one again sees that the fit improves for the higher frequencies. Most notably
for the lowest frequency one sees for the smallest T = 10 again that the points do seem
to lie on a straight line in the normal QQ-plot, but one with a different slope than for
the theoretical quantiles. Hence, the variance is clearly different from the asmpytotic one.
Obviously, this effect is now more pronounced than in the case of the driving Brownian
motion.
Moving on to the case of the driving process being a two-sided Poisson process in Figure 3
we first of all note that again the fit in particular in the tails clearly improves with increasing
(T, 1/hmax ). For the highest (T, 1/hmax ) the simulated and theoretical asymptotic quantiles
agree again extremely well. Again it is certainly a bit worse than in the case of a driving
Brownian motion, but it seems to be very similar to the Variance Gamma case, although
maybe for frequency 0 the agreement of the quantiles is slightly worse. Turning to the
behaviour across non-zero frequencies, we see again that the quantiles are closer for higher
frequencies and that for the smallest non-zero frequency and time horizon the empirical

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION
Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0

−3

−3

−3

−2

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

2

3

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

25

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

2
1
0
−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

2
0
−4

−3

−3

−2

−2

Sample Quantiles

3

3

4

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

2
1
0
−3

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−3

−3

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

3

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0

−2

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0

Sample Quantiles

−1

1
0
−1
−2

−3

−3

−3

Sample Quantiles

2

2

2

3

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 1. Normal QQ plots for the real part of the truncated Fourier
transform of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process driven by standard Brownian Motion for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns). The theoretical quantiles are coming from the (limiting) law
described in Theorem 3.15.

3

26

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER
Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

2
1
0
−2
−3

−3
−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
1
0
−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1
−2
−3

Sample Quantiles

2

3

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

1

2

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

4
3
2
1
0
−2
−3

−2
−3
−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

0
−2
−4

Sample Quantiles

2

2

4

0

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot
3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0

−4

−3

−3

−2

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

2

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

0

−4

−4

−2

Sample Quantiles

2
1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

−3

−2

2
0
−2
−4

Sample Quantiles

2

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 2. Normal QQ plots for the real part of the truncated Fourier
transform of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process driven by a Variance Gamma process for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns). The theoretical quantiles are coming from the (limiting) law
described in Theorem 3.15.

3

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION
Normal Q−Q Plot

0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2
1
0

−3

−4

−3

−2

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

Normal Q−Q Plot

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

27

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

−4

−3

−2

−2

2
0

Sample Quantiles

0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

4

3

4

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

1
0
−2
−3

−2
−3

−3

−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

2

3

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0

−2

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
1
0

Sample Quantiles

−1

1
0
−1
−2

−3

−3

−3
−4

Sample Quantiles

2

2

3

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 3. Normal QQ plots for the real part of the truncated Fourier
transform of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process driven by a twosided Poisson process for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns). The theoretical quantiles are coming from the (limiting) law
described in Theorem 3.15.

3

28

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER
Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

2
−2

0

Sample Quantiles

2
1
0

Sample Quantiles

−1

2
0
−4

−3

−2

−2

Sample Quantiles

3

4

4

Normal Q−Q Plot

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

1
0
−2
−3

−3
−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
0
−2
−4

Sample Quantiles

2

2

4

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

1
0
−2
−3

−2
−3

−4

−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

2

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

0

1

2
−2

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
0

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

−3

−2
−3

Sample Quantiles

2

3

3

4

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 4. Normal QQ plots for the real part of the truncated Fourier
transform of the simulated CARMA(2,1) processes driven by standard Brownian Motion for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns). The theoretical quantiles are coming from the (limiting) law
described in Theorem 3.15.

3

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION
Histogram of data

Histogram of data

−2

0

2

4

0.3
0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0

0.0
−4

−3

−2

−1

0

data

3

4

−4

−2

0

2

4

data

(c) ω = 0, T = 100
Histogram of data
0.4

Histogram of data

2

4

0.3
0.1
−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

0.3
Density

0.1
0

2

4

−3

2

3

0.4
0.3

0.4

Density

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

Density

1

Histogram of data

0.3

0.3
0.2

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

4

0

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Histogram of data

0.1

2

data

−1

data

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

0.0

0

−2

data

Histogram of data

−2

3

0.0
−2

data

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

2

0.4

0.4
0.2

Density

0.1
0.0
2

1

Histogram of data

0.3

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0

0

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Histogram of data

0.0

−2

−1

data

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

Histogram of data

−4

−2

data

0.2

0
data

0.2

−2

0.0

0.0
−4

0.2

Density

0.2
0.1

Density

0.3

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Density

2

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

Histogram of data

Density

1
data

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

Density

0.2

Density

0.3
0.2

Density

0.2
0.1

Density

0.3

0.4

0.4

Histogram of data

29

−2

0

2
data

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

4

−2

0

2

data

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 5. Histograms and limiting density for the real part of the truncated Fourier transform of the simulated CARMA(2,1) processes driven by
standard Brownian Motion for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns)

4

30

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER
Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0
−1
−2

Sample Quantiles

2
1
0

−4

−3

−3

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

3

4

3

4

Normal Q−Q Plot

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

−2
−4

−4

−3

−2

0

Sample Quantiles

2
0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

4

3

4

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

1
0
−2
−3

−3
−4

−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

−2

2
0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

3

3

4

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

3

1
0
−2
−3

−2
−3
−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

2
0
−2
−4

Sample Quantiles

2

2

3

4

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 6. Normal QQ plots for the real part of the truncated Fourier
transform of the simulated CARMA(2,1) processes driven by a Variance Gamma process for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns). The theoretical quantiles are coming from the (limiting) law
described in Theorem 3.15.

3

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION
Histogram of data

Density

0.1

0.2

Density
2

4

−2

0

data

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

4

−4

2

4

0.1
0.0
−4

−2

0

data

2

4

−4

0.4

0.4

Histogram of data

4

Density

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

Density

0.3

0.3

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

2

−4

−2

0

data

2

−3

−2

−1

data

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

2

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Histogram of data

0.0

0

0
data

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

Histogram of data

−2

−2

data

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

−4

0.2

Density

0.3

0.3
0.2

Density

0.1
0

2

Histogram of data

0.0
−2

0

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Histogram of data

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

−4

−2

data

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

Histogram of data

Density

2

data

0.2

0

0.0

0.1
0.0
−2

0.2

0.3

0.4
0.3

0.4
0.3
0.2

Density

0.1
0.0
−4

Density

Histogram of data
0.4

Histogram of data

31

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

1

2

3

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Histogram of data

Histogram of data

−2

0

2

data

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

4

0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
−4

0.2

Density

0.3
0.2

Density

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

Density

0.3

0.4

Histogram of data

0
data

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

data

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

data

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 7. Histograms and limiting density for the real part of the truncated Fourier transform of the simulated CARMA(2,1) processes driven by
a Variance Gamma process for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns)

3

32

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER
Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

0

Sample Quantiles

−2

2
1
0

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−4

−3

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

2
0
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

−3

−2

−2

0

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

2
0
−2
−4

Sample Quantiles

2

2

4

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

1
0
−2

−3

−3

−3

−1

Sample Quantiles

1
0
−1

Sample Quantiles

−2

1
0
−1
−2

Sample Quantiles

2

2

2

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

Theoretical Quantiles

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

0

1

2

3

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Normal Q−Q Plot

Normal Q−Q Plot

0

1

2
−4

−3

−2

−1

Sample Quantiles

0

Sample Quantiles

−2

1
0
−1
−2
−3

Sample Quantiles

2

2

3

3

Normal Q−Q Plot

−1

Theoretical Quantiles

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

3

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

Theoretical Quantiles

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 8. Normal QQ plots for the real part of the truncated Fourier
transform of the simulated CARMA(2,1) processes driven by a two
sided Poisson process for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns). The theoretical quantiles are coming from the (limiting) law
described in Theorem 3.15.

3

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION
Histogram of data

Histogram of data

−4

−2

0

2

0.0

0.1

0.2

Density

0.3

0.3
0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

Density

0.2
0.1

Density

0.3

0.4

Histogram of data

33

4

−2

0

data

2

4

−4

−2

data

(a) ω = 0, T = 10

(b) ω = 0, T = 50

2

4

(c) ω = 0, T = 100

Histogram of data

Histogram of data

−2

0

2

0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0
−4

0.2

Density

0.3
0.2

Density

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.00

0.05

Density

0.3

0.25

0.4

Histogram of data

0
data

4

−3

−2

−1

0

data

1

2

3

−4

−2

0

data

(d) ω = 0.1, T = 10

(e) ω = 0.1, T = 50

4

(f) ω = 0.1, T = 100

Histogram of data

Histogram of data

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

4

0.1
0.0

0.1
0.0

0.0
−3

0.2

Density

0.3
0.2

Density

0.2
0.1

Density

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

Histogram of data

2

data

−4

−3

−2

data

−1

0

1

2

3

−3

−2

data

(g) ω = 1, T = 10

0

1

2

3

data

(h) ω = 1, T = 50

(i) ω = 1, T = 100

Histogram of data

Histogram of data

−2

−1

0

1

2

data

(j) ω = 10, T = 10

3

0.3
0.1
0.0

0.0
−3

0.2

Density

0.2

Density

0.1

0.2
0.1
0.0

Density

0.3

0.3

0.4

Histogram of data

−1

−4

−2

0

2

data

(k) ω = 10, T = 50

−2

0

2

data

(l) ω = 10, T = 100

Figure 9. Histograms and limiting density for the real part of the truncated Fourier transform of the simulated CARMA(2,1) processes driven by
a two-sided Poisson process for the frequencies 0, 0.1, 1, 10 (rows) and time
horizons/maximum non-equidistant grid sizes 10/0.1, 50/0.05, 100/0.01
(columns)

4

34

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

quantiles seem to be in line with a normal distribution with a somewhat different variance
compared to the asymptotic one. The size of this effect seems to be rather similar to the
Variance Gamma case. Interestingly, also at frequency 0 the QQ-plot seems to indicate for
T = 10 that the empirical quantiles are close to the ones of a normal distribution with a
slightly different variance than the asymptotic one.
To summarize the simulation study in the CAR(1)/OU-type case we can clearly conclude
that the asymptotic distribution result approximates the finite-sample distribution of the
trapezoidal approximation of the truncated Fourier transform in our simulations very well
and that the convergence to the asymptotic distribution is fast. For small frequencies,
especially when one has about one full cycle or less over the time horizon considered, one has
to be careful, as then the distribution tends to be somewhat different from the asymptotic
one for good reasons. This effect seems to be more pronounced when one considers a
Lévy process with jumps compared to a Brownian motion. In general the quality of the
approximation of the simulated quantiles by the asymptotic ones is somewhat better in
the case of a Brownian motion than in a pure jump process. Comparing the driving jump
processes, the finite activity rather discrete two-sided Poisson process with the infinite
activity Variance Gamma process, we do not see any significant differences. It should
be noted that both jump processes are, however, light-tailed in the sense that they have
exponential moments. It would not be surprising if this picture changes when considering a
really heavily tailed driving Lévy process. Note that our theoretical results are valid also in
rather heavily-tailed cases. For the asymptotic normality of the (trapezoidal approximation
of the) truncated Fourier transform we only needed finite second moments.
Turning to the simulations of CARMA(2,1) processes, most of the findings of the CAR(1)/
OU case remain valid, so we only point out the differences. In the case of a driving Brownian
motion, depicted in Figure 4, the only difference seems to be that for T = 10 and ω = 0.1
the empirical quantiles are now appearing to lie on a line farther away from the theoretical
quantiles which implies that in the CARMA(2,1) case the variance in the simulations is
clearly farther away from the asymptotic one than in the OU case. The same applies for
the Variance Gamma case of Figure 6 and the two-sided Poisson case of Figure 6. On
top of the QQ plots we now also provide histograms in Figures 5, 7 and 9, respectively,
together with plots of the limiting normal density. To us it seems very hard to see the
convergence to normality with increasing T in the histograms, which reflects the fact that
it is essentially the tails which need to converge and they are much clearer visible in the
QQ plots than in histograms. It is also not easy to see in them that for ω = 0.1, T = 10
the variance of the simulated values is different from the asymptotic theoretical one. The
only thing one notices is that for ω = 0.1, T = 10 the histogram routine of R tends to
use very different bins than in all the other cases. Note that all histograms were obtained
using the default parameters of the hist function in R, so the binning was done by the
standard automatic selection to give “nice” histograms. Hence, from our simulations of
CARMA(2,1) processes we can conclude that the orders of the CARMA processes and the
particular autoregressive and moving average parameters appear not to really matter for
the (qualitative) behaviour of the (trapezoidal approximation of the) truncated Fourier
transform.
5. Conclusion and Outlook
We have obtained an asymptotic normality result for the (trapezoidal approximation of
the) truncated Fourier transform under essentially minimal assumptions (i.e. second moments) and seen via a simulation study that this result approximates the finite sample

LIMIT BEHAVIOUR OF THE TRUNCATED PATHWISE FOURIER-TRANSFORMATION

35

behaviour very well, unless the frequency is too low compared to the length of the considered time interval. This suggests clearly that it should be very promising to develop
statistical inference techniques for non-equidistantly sampled CARMA processes by considering continuous observation techniques and using numerical approximation schemes to
compute the quantities of interest based on the observed non-equidistant data. The appropriate set-up to get convergence and asymptotic distribution results is to send the time
horizon to infinity and to send at the same time the maximum distance of observation time
points to zero.
Based on our results in this paper it seems natural to locally smooth the trapezoidal approximation of the truncated Fourier transform to get consistent estimators of the spectral
density and to use it in a Whittle type estimator for the AR and MA parameters. Considering this is beyond the scope of the present paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
by research grant STE 2005/1-2.
The authors would like to cordially thank Włodzimierz Fechner for careful reading of the
manuscript and his helpful remarks.
References
[1] David Applebaum, Lévy processes and stochastic calculus, Second Edition, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2009.
[2] Patrick Billingsley, Probability and measure, Third, Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical
Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1995.
[3] Peter J. Brockwell, Lévy-driven CARMA processes, Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. 53 (2001), no. 96-120,
113—124.
, Continuous-time ARMA processes, in: Handbook of Statistics, Eds.: D.N. Shanbhag, C.R.
[4]
Rao, vol. 19, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2001.
[5]
, Representations of continuous-time ARMA processes, J. Appl. Probab 41A (2004), 375–382.
[6]
, Lévy driven continuous-time ARMA processes, in: Handbook of financial time series, Eds.:
T.G. Andersen, R.A. Davis, J.-P. Kreiss and T. Mikosch, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009.
[7] Peter J. Brockwell and Richard A. Davis, Time series: theory and methods, Springer, New York, 2006.
Reprint of the 2nd (1991) edition.
[8] Peter J. and Davis Brockwell Richard A. and Yang, Estimation for non-negative Lévy-driven CARMA
processes, J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 29 (2011), no. 2, 250–259.
[9] Peter J. Brockwell and Alexander Lindner, Existence and uniqueness of stationary Lévy-driven
CARMA processes, Stochastic Process. Appl. 119 (2009), no. 8, 2660–2681.
[10] Peter J. Brockwell and Eckhard Schlemm, Parametric estimation of the driving Lévy process of multivariate CARMA processes from discrete observations, J. Multivariate Anal. 115 (2013), 217–251.
[11] J. L. Doob, The elementary Gaussian processes, Ann. Math. Statistics 15 (1944), 229–282.
[12] V. Fasen, Statistical inference of spectral estimation for continuous-time MA processes with finite
second moments, Math. Methods Statist. 22 (2013), no. 4, 283-309.
[13] Vicky Fasen and Florian Fuchs, Spectral estimates for high-frequency sampled continuous-time autoregressive moving average processes, J. Time Series Anal. 34 (2013), no. 5, 532–551.
, On the limit behavior of the periodogram of high-frequency sampled stable CARMA processes,
[14]
Stochastic Process. Appl. 123 (2013), no. 1, 229–273.
[15] Jonas Gillberg, Frequency Domain Identification of Continuous-Time Systems: Reconstruction and
Robustness, Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations 1031 (2006).
[16] Keh-Shin Lii and Elias Masry, Model fitting for continuous-time stationary processes from discretetime data, J. Multivariate Anal. 41 (1992), no. 1, 56–79.
[17]
, Spectral estimation of continuous-time stationary processes from random sampling, Stochastic
Process. Appl. 52 (1994), no. 1, 39–64.

36

ŻYWILLA FECHNER AND ROBERT STELZER

[18] Dilip B. Madan, Peter P. Carr, and Eric C. Chang, The Variance Gamma Process and Option Pricing,
European Finance Review 2 (1998), 79–105.
[19] Tina Marquardt and Robert Stelzer, Multivariate CARMA processes, Stochastic Process. Appl. 117
(2007), no. 1, 96–120.
[20] Philip E. Protter, Stochastic integration and differential equations, 2nd edn., Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2004.
[21] Eckhard Schlemm and Robert Stelzer, Multivariate CARMA processes, continuous-time state space
models and complete regularity of the innovations of the sampled processes, Bernoulli 18 (2012), no. 1,
46—63.
[22] Erik Talvila and Matthew Wiersma, Simple derivation of basic quadrature formulas, Atl. Electron. J.
Math. 5 (2012), no. 1, 47–59.
[23] Mark Veraar, The stochastic Fubini theorem revisited, Stochastics 84 (2012), no. 4, 543–551.
1

Institute of Mathematics, University of Silesia, Bankowa 14, 40-007 Katowice, Poland,
Institute of Mathematical Finance, Ulm University, Helmholtzstraße 18, 89069 Ulm,
Germany
2

E-mail address: zfechner@gmail.com, robert.stelzer@uni-ulm.de

