arXiv:1611.04323v2 [math.ST] 16 Nov 2017

Central Limit Theorem and bootstrap procedure for
Wasserstein’s variations with application to structural
relationships between distributions
Eustasio del Barrioa , Paula Gordalizaa , Hélène Lescornelb and Jean-Michel Loubesb∗
a

IMUVA, Universidad de Valladolid and b Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse
November 17, 2017

Abstract
Wasserstein barycenters and variance-like criterion using Wasserstein distance are used
in many problems to analyze the homogeneity of collections of distributions and structural
relationships between the observations. We propose the estimation of the quantiles of the
empirical process of the Wasserstein’s variation using a bootstrap procedure. Then we use
these results for statistical inference on a distribution registration model for general deformation functions. The tests are based on the variance of the distributions with respect to their
Wasserstein’s barycenters for which we prove central limit theorems, including bootstrap
versions.

AMS subject classifications: Primary, 62H10; secondary,62E20
Keywords: Wasserstein distance, Wasserstein variation, Central Limit Theorem, goodness of fit.

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Wasserstein variation and deformation models for distributions

3

3 Bootstraping Wasserstein’s variations

5

4 Assessing fit to non-parametric deformation models

7

5 Goodness-of-fit in semiparametric deformation models

9

6 Simulations
6.1 Construction of an α-level test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Power of the test procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14
14
14

7 Appendix
7.1 Proofs for section 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Proofs for sections 4 and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
15
17
24

∗

Corresponding author: loubes@math.univ-toulouse.fr

1

1

Introduction

Analyzing the variability of large data sets is a difficult task when the information conveyed by
the observations possesses an inner geometry far from the Euclidean one. Indeed, deformations
on the data such as translations, scale location models for instance or more general warping
procedures prevent the use of the usual methods in statistics. Looking for a way to measure
structural relationships between data is of high importance. This kind of issues arises when
considering the estimation of probability measures observed with deformations. This situation
occurs often in biology, for example when considering gene expression. There has been over the
last decade a large amount of work to deal with registrations issues. We refer for instance to
Amit et al. (1991), Allasonnière, Amit and Trouvé (2007) or Ramsay and Silverman (2005) and
references therein. However, when dealing with the registration of warped distributions, the
literature is scarce. We mention here the method provided for biological computational issues
known as quantile normalization in Bolstad et al. (2003), Gallón, Loubes and Maza (2013) and
references therein. Recently, using optimal transport methodologies, comparisons of distributions have been studied using a notion of Fréchet mean for distributions, see for instance in
Agueh and Carlier (2011) or a notion of depth as in Chernozhukov et al. (2014).
A natural frame for applications is given by observations drawn from a deformation model
in the sense that we observe J independent samples of random variables in R, with sample j
following distribution µj , such that
Xi,j = gj (εi,j ) ,

j = 1, . . . , J,

i = 1 . . . , n,

where (εi,j ) are i.i.d. random variables with unknown distribution µ. The functions gj belong
to a class G of deformation functions, which models how the distributions µj ’s can be warped
one to another by functions in the chosen class. This model is the natural extension of the
functional deformation models studied in the statistical literature for which estimation procedures are provided in Gamboa, Loubes and Maza (2007) while testing issues are tackled in
Collier and Dalalyan (2015). In the setup of warped distributions a main goal is the estimation
of the warping functions, possibly as a first step towards registration or alignment of the (estimated) distributions. Of course, without some constraints on the class G the deformation model
is meaningless (we can, for instance, obtain any distribution on Rd as a warped version of a fixed
probability having a density if we take the optimal transportation map as the warping function;
see Villani (2009)) and one has to consider smaller classes of deformation functions to perform a
reasonable registration. In the case of parametric classes estimation of the warping functions is
studied in Agulló-Antolı́n et al. (2015). However, estimation/registration procedures may lead
to inconsistent conclusions if the chosen deformation class G is too small. It is, therefore, important to be able to assess fit to the deformation model given by a particular choice of G and
this is the main goal of this paper. We note that within this framework, statistical inference on
deformation models for distributions has been studied first in Freitag and Munk (2005). Here
we provide a different approach which allows to deal with more general deformation classes.
The pioneer works Czado and Munk (1998) and Munk and Czado (1998) study the existence
of relationships between distributions F and G by using a discrepancy measure between the distributions, ∆(F, G), built using the Wasserstein distance. The authors consider the assumption
∆(F, G) > ∆0 versus ∆(F, G) ≤ ∆0 for ∆0 a chosen threshold. Thus when the test is rejected,
this implies that there is a statistical evidence that the two distributions are similar with respect to the chosen criterion. In this direction, we define a notion of variation of distributions
using the Wasserstein distance, Wr , in the set of probability measures with finite r-th moments,
Wr (Rd ), r ≥ 1, which generalizes the notion of variance for random distributions over Rd . This
2

quantity can be defined as
1/r
J
X
1

Vr (µ1 , . . . , µJ ) =
inf
Wrr (µj , η) ,
d
J
η∈Wr (R )
j=1


which measures the spread of the distributions. Then, to measure closeness to a deformation
model we take a look at the minimal variation among warped distributions, a quantity that
we could consider as a minimal alignment cost. Under some mild conditions a deformation
model holds if and only if this minimal alignment cost is null and we can base our assessment
of a deformation model on this quantity. As in Czado and Munk (1998) and Munk and Czado
(1998) we provide results (CLT’s and bootstrap versions) that enable to reject that the minimal
alignment cost exceeds some threshold (hence, to conclude that it is below that threshold). Our
results are given in a setup of general, nonparametric classes of warping functions. If, still, one
is interested in the more classical goodness-of-fit problem for the deformation model we also
provide results in a somewhat more restrictive setup.
The paper is organized as follows. The main facts about Wasserstein variation are presented
in Section 2, together with the key idea that fit to a deformation model can be recast in terms of
the minimal Wasserstein variation among warped versions of the distributions. Later, in Section
3 we prove some Lipsichtz bounds for the law of empirical Wasserstein variations as well as of
minimal alignment costs on Rd . The implications of these results include that quantiles of the
minimal warped variation criterion can be consistently estimated by some suitable bootstrap
quantiles, which can be approximated by simulation, yielding some consistent tests of fit to
deformation models, provided that the empirical criterion has some regular limiting distribution.
This issue, namely, Central Limit Theorems for empirical minimal Wasserstein variation is
further explored for univariate distributions in Sections 4, covering non parametric deformation
models, and 5, with a sharper analysis for the case of semiparametric deformation models. These
sections propose consistent tests for deformation models in the corresponding setups. Section 6
provides some simulations to assess the quality of the bootstrap procedure. Finally, proofs are
postponed to Section 7.

2

Wasserstein variation and deformation models for distributions

Much recent work has been conducted to measure the spread or the inner structure of a collection
of distributions. In this paper we define a notion of variability which relies on the notion of
Fréchet mean for the space of probability endowed with the Wasserstein metrics,
of which we

d
will recall the definition hereafter. First, for d≥ 1, consider the set Wr R of probabilities
with finite r-th moment. For µ and ν in Wr Rd , we denote by Π(µ, ν) the set of all probability
measures π over the product set Rd × Rd with first (resp. second) marginal µ (resp. ν). The Lr
transportation cost between these two measures is defined as
Z
r
Wr (µ, ν) = inf
kx − ykr dπ(x, y).
π∈Π(µ,ν)


This transportation cost allows to endow the set Wr Rd with the metric Wr (µ, ν). More details
on Wasserstein distances and their links with optimal transport problems can be found in Rachev
(1984) or Villani (2009) for instance.

3

Within this framework, we can define a global measure of separation of a collection of measures µj , j = 1, . . . , n, as follows. Given probabilities µ1 , . . . , µJ ∈ Wr (Rd ) let
Vr (µ1 , . . . , µJ ) =

inf

η∈Wr (Rd )

J
1 X

J

j=1

1/r
Wrr (µj , η)

be the Wasserstein r-variation of µ1 , . . . , µJ or the variance of the µj ’s.
The special case
P r = 2 has been studied in the literature. Existence of a minimizer of
the map η 7→ J1 Jj=1 W22 (µj , η) is proved in Agueh and Carlier (2011), as well as uniqueness
under some smoothness assumptions. Such a minimizer,
µB , is called a barycenter or Fréchet
1 PJ
2
mean of µ1 , . . . , µJ . Hence, V2 (µ1 , . . . , µJ ) = ( J j=1 W2 (µj , µB ))1/2 . Empirical versions of the
barycenter are analyzed in Boissard, Le Gouic and Loubes (2015) or Le Gouic, T and Loubes, J-M.
(2016). Similar ideas have also been developed in Cuturi, M. and Doucet, A. (2014) or Bigot and Klein
(2012).
This quantity, which is an extension of the variance for probability distributions is a good
candidate to evaluate the concentration of a collection of measures around its Fréchet mean. In
particular, it can be used to measure fit to a distribution deformation model. More precisely,
assume as in the Introduction that we observe J independent i.i.d. samples with sample j,
j = 1, . . . , J consisting of i.i.d. observations Xi,j , i = 1, . . . , n with common distribution µj . We
change for later convenience the notation in the Introduction. We assume that Gj is a family
(parametric or nonparametric) of invertible warping functions and denote G = G1 × · · · × GJ .
The deformation model assumes then that
there exists (ϕ∗1 , . . . ϕ∗J ) ∈ G and i.i.d. (εi,j ) 1≤i≤n such that
1≤j≤J

Xi,j =

−1
ϕ∗j
(εi,j )

∀1 ≤ j ≤ J

(2.1)

Equivalently, the deformation model (2.1) means that there exist (ϕ∗1 , . . . ϕ∗J ) ∈ G such that
ϕ∗j (Xi,j ), 1 ≤ j ≤ J, 1 ≤ i ≤ n, are all i.i.d. or, if we write µj (ϕj ) for the distribution of
ϕj (Xi,j ), that there exists (ϕ∗1 , . . . ϕ∗J ) ∈ G such that
µ1 (ϕ∗1 ) = · · · = µJ (ϕ∗J ).

(2.2)

We propose to use the Wasserstein variation to measure fit to model ((2.1)), through the
minimal alignment cost
Ar (G) :=

inf

(ϕ1 ,...,ϕJ )∈G

Vrr (µ1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µJ (ϕJ )) .

(2.3)

Let us assume that µ1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µJ (ϕJ ), (ϕ1 , . . . , ϕJ ) ∈ G are in Wr (Rd ). If the deformation
model (2.1) holds then Ar (G) = 0. Under the additional mild assumption that the minimum in
(2.3) is attained we have that the deformation model can be equivalently formulated as
Ar (G) = 0

(2.4)

and a goodness-of-fit test to the deformation model becomes, formally, a test of
H0 : Ar (G) = 0

vs.

Ha : Ar (G) > 0.

(2.5)

A testing procedure can be based on the empirical version of Ar (G), namely,
An,r (G) :=

inf

(ϕ1 ,...,ϕJ )∈G

Vrr (µn,1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µn,J (ϕJ )) ,
4

(2.6)

where µn,j (ϕj ) denotes the empirical measure on ϕj (X1,j ), . . . , ϕj (Xn,j ). We would reject the
deformation model (2.1) for large values of An,r (G).
As noted in Czado and Munk (1998) or Munk and Czado (1998) the testing problem (2.5)
can be considered as a mere sanity check for the deformation model, since lack of rejection of
the null does not provide statistical evidence that the deformation model holds. Consequently,
as in the cited references, we will also consider the alternative testing problem
H0 : Ar (G) ≥ ∆0

vs.

Ha : Ar (G) < ∆0 ,

(2.7)

where ∆0 > 0 is a fixed threshold. With this formulation the test decision of rejecting the null
hypothesis implies that there is statistical evidence that the deformation model is approximately
true. In this case rejection would correspond to small observed values of An,r (G). In later
sections we provide theoretical results that allow the computation of approximate critical values
and p-values for the testing problems (2.5) and (2.7) under suitable assumptions.

3

Bootstraping Wasserstein’s variations

We present now some general results on Wasserstein distances that will be applied to estimate
the asymptotic distribution of the minimal alignment cost statistic, An,r (G), defined in (2.6). In
this section, we write L(Z) for the law of any random variable Z. We note the abuse of notation
in the following, in which Wr is used both for Wasserstein distance on R and on Rd , but this
should not cause much confusion.
Our first result shows that the laws of empirical transportation costs are continuous (and
even Lipschitz) functions of the underlying distributions.

Theorem 3.1. Set ν, ν ′ , η probability measures in Wr Rd , Y1 , . . . , Yn i.i.d. random vectors with
common law ν, Y1′ , . . . , Yn′ , i.i.d. with law ν ′ and write νn , νn′ for the corresponding empirical
measures. Then
Wr (L(Wr (νn , η)), L(Wr (νn′ , η))) ≤ Wr (ν, ν ′ ).
The deformation assessment criterion introduced in section 2 is basd on the Wasserstein rvariation of distributions, Vr . It is convenient to note that Vrr (ν1 , . . . , νJ ) can also be expressed
as
Z
Vrr (ν1 , . . . , νJ ) =
inf
T (y1 , . . . , yJ )dπ(y1 , . . . , yJ ),
(3.1)
π∈Π(ν1 ,...,νJ )

where Π(ν1 , . . . , νJ ) denotes
the set of probability measures on Rd with marginals ν1 , . . . , νJ and
P
T (y1 , . . . , yJ ) = minz∈Rd J1 Jj=1 kyj − zkr .
Here we are interested in empirical Wasserstein r-variations, namely, the r-variations computed from the empirical measures νnj ,j coming from independent samples Y1,j , . . . , Ynj ,j of
i.i.d. random variables with distribution νj . Note that in this case problem (3.1) is a linear
optimization problem for which a minimizer always exists.
As before, we consider the continuity of the law of empirical Wasserstein r-variations with
respect to the underlying probabilities. This is covered in the next result.
Theorem 3.2. With the above notation
Wrr (L(Vr (νn1 ,1 , . . . , νnJ ,J )), L(Vr (νn′ 1 ,1 , . . . , νn′ J ,J )))

5

J
1X r
Wr (νj , νj′ ).
≤
J
j=1

A useful consequence of the above results is that empirical Wasserstein distances or rvariations can be bootstrapped under rather general conditions. To be more precise, we take
in Theorem 3.1 ν ′ = νn , the empirical measure on Y1 , . . . , Yn and consider a bootstrap sample
Y1∗ , . . . , Ym∗ n of i.i.d. (conditionally given Y1 , . . . , Yn ) observations with common law νn . We
∗
for the
will assume that the resampling size mn satisfies mn → ∞, mn = o(n) and write νm
n
∗
∗
∗
empirical measure on Y1 , . . . , Ymn and L (Z) for the conditional law of Z given Y1 , . . . , Yn .
Theorem 3.1 now reads
∗
Wr (L∗ (Wr (νm
, ν)), L(Wr (νmn , ν))) ≤ Wr (νn , ν).
n

Hence, if Wr (νn , ν) = OP (1/rn ) for some sequence rn > 0 such that rmn /rn → 0 as n → ∞,
then, using that Wr (L(aX), L(aY )) = aWr (L(X), L(Y )) for a > 0, we see that
rmn
∗
rn Wr (νn , ν) → 0
(3.2)
Wr (L∗ (rmn Wr (νm
, ν)), L(rmn Wr (νmn , ν))) ≤
n
rn
in probability.
Asume that, in addition, rn Wr (νn , ν) ⇀ γ (ν) for a smooth distribution γ (ν). Then (see,
e.g., Lemma 1 in Janssen and Pauls (2003)) if ĉn (α) denotes the α quantile of the conditional
∗ , ν))
distribution L∗ (rmn Wr (νm
n
P (rn Wr (νn , ν) ≤ ĉn (α)) → α

as n → ∞.

(3.3)

We conclude in this case that the quantiles of rn Wr (νn , ν) can be consistently estimated by the
bootstrap quantiles, ĉn (α), which, in turn, can be approximated through Monte-Carlo simulation.
As an example, if d = 1 and r = 2, under integrability and smoothness assumptions on ν we
1/2
R
√
1
B 2 (t)
dt
, where f and F −1 are the density and the quantile
have nW2 (νn , ν) ⇀ 0 f 2 (F
−1 (t))
function of ν, see del Barrio, Giné and Utzet (2005), and (3.3) holds.
For the deformation model (2.1), statistical inference is based on An,r (G), introduced in
(2.6). Now consider A′n,r (G), the corresponding version obtained from samples with underlying
distributions µ′j . Then, a version of Theorem 3.2 is valid for these minimal alignment costs,
provided the deformation classes are uniformly Lipschitz, namely, under the assumption that
Lj :=

sup
x6=y,ϕj ∈Gj

kϕj (x) − ϕj (x)k
,
kx − yk

j = 1, . . . , J

(3.4)

are finite.
Theorem 3.3. If L = max(L1 , . . . , Lj ) < ∞, with Lj as in (3.4), then
Wrr (L((An,r (G))1/r ), L((A′n,r (G))1/r )) ≤ Lr

J
1X r
Wr (µj , µ′j ).
J
j=1

Hence, the Wasserstein distance of the variance of two collections of distributions can be
controlled using the distance between the distributions. The main consequence of this fact is
that the minimal alignment cost can be also bootstrapped as soon as a distributional limit
theorem exists for An,r (G), as in the discussion above. In sections 4 and 5 below we present
distributional results of this type in the one dimensional case. We note that, while general
central limit theorems for the empirical transportation cost are not available in dimension d > 1,
some recent progress has been made in this line, see, e.g., Rippl, Munk and Sturm (2015) for
Gaussian distributions and Sommerfeld and Munk (2016), which gives such type of results for
distributions on Rd with finite support. Further advances in this line would enable to extend
the results in the following section to higher dimension.
6

4

Assessing fit to non-parametric deformation models

We focus in this and the next sections on the case d = 1 and r = 2 and will simply write A(G) and
An (G) (instead of A2 (G) and A2,n (G)) for the minimal alignment cost and its empirical version,
defined in (2.3) and (2.6). Otherwise we keep the notation in section 2, with X1,j , . . . , Xn,j
i.i.d. r.v.s with law µj being one of the J independent samples. Now Gj is a class of invertible
warping functions from R to R which we assume to be increasing. We note that in this case
the barycenter of a set of probabilities µ1 , . . . , µP
J with distribution functions F1 , . . . , FJ is the
−1
1
probability having quantile function FB := J Jj=1 Fj−1 , see, e.g., Agueh and Carlier (2011).
We observe further that µj (ϕj ) is determined by the quantile function ϕj ◦ Fj−1 . We will write
FB−1 (ϕ) =

J
1X
ϕj ◦ Fj−1
J

(4.1)

j=1

for the quantile function of the barycenter of µ1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µJ (ϕJ ), while ⇀ will denote convergence in distribution.
In order to prove a CLT for An (G) we need to make assumptions on the integrability and
regularity of the distributions µj as well as on the smoothness of the warping functions. We
consider first the assumptions on the distributions. For each µj , j = 1, . . . , J, we denote its
distribution function by Fj . We will assume that µj is supported on an (possibly unbounded)
interval in the interior of which Fj is C 2 and Fj′ = fj > 0 and satisfies
sup
x

Fj (x)(1−Fj (x))fj′ (x)
fj (x)2

< ∞,

(4.2)

and, further, that for some q > 1
Z
and for some r > 4

1
0

q

(t(1−t)) 2
q dt
(fj (Fj−1 (t)))

<∞

(4.3)

E [|Xj |r ] < ∞.

(4.4)

Assumption (4.2) is a classical regularity requirement for the use of strong approximations
for the quantile process, as in Csörgő and Horváth (1993) or del Barrio, Giné and Utzet (2005).
Our proof relies on the use of these techniques. Then (4.3) and (4.4) are mild integrability
conditions. If Fj has regularly varying tails of order −r (as, for instance, Pareto tails) then
both conditions hold (and also (4.2)) as long as r > 4 and 1 < q < 2r/(r + 2). Of course the
conditions are fulfilled by distributions with lighter tails such as exponential or Gaussian laws
(for any q ∈ (1, 2)).
Turning to the assumptions on the classes of warping functions, we recall that a uniform
Lipsichtz condition was needed for the approximation bound in Theorem 3.3. For the CLT
in this section we need some refinement of that condition, the extent of which
 will depend
q
on the integrability exponent q in (4.3), as follows. We set p0 = max q−1 , 2 and define on
1

Hj = C 1 (R) ∩ Lp0 (Xj ) the norm khj kHj = sup |h′j (x)| + E [|hj (Xj )|p0 ] p0 , and on the product
P
space H1 × · · · × HJ , khkH = Jj=1 khj kHj and assume that
Gj ⊂ Hj is compact for k · kHj and sup h′ (xhn ) − h′ (x)
h∈Gj

7

−→

suph∈Gj |xh
n −x|→0

0,

(4.5)

and, finally, that for some r > max(4, p0 ),
E sup |h (Xj )|r < ∞.

(4.6)

h∈Gj

We note that (4.6) is a slight strengthening of the uniform moment bound already contained
q
, 4) in (4.5) and (4.6) would follow). Our next result gives
in (4.5) (we could take p0 > max( q−1
a CLT for An (G) under the assumptions on the distributions and deformation classes described
above. The limit can be simply described in terms of a centered Gaussian process indexed by
the set of minimizers of the variation functional, namely,
U (ϕ) = V22 (µ1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µJ (ϕJ )).
P
An elementary computation shows that (U 1/2 (ϕ) − U 1/2 (ϕ̃))2 ≤ J1 Jj=1 E(ϕj (Xj ) − ϕ̃j (Xj ))2 ,
from which we conclude continuity of U with respect to k · kH . In particular, the set
n
o
Γ = ϕ ∈ G : U (ϕ) = inf U (φ)
(4.7)
φ∈G

is a nonempty compact subset of G.
Theorem 4.1. Assume that (Bj )1≤j≤J are independent Brownian bridges. Set
cj (ϕ) = 2

Z

1
0

ϕ′j ◦ Fj−1 (ϕj ◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ))

Bj
fj ◦ Fj−1

P
and C(ϕ) = J1 Jj=1 cj (ϕ), ϕ ∈ G. Then, under assumptions (4.2) to (4.6), C is a centered
Gaussian process on G with trajectories a.s. continuous with respect to k · kH . Furthermore,
√
n(An (G) − A(G)) ⇀ min C(ϕ).
ϕ∈Γ

A proof of Theorem 4.1 is given in the Appendix below. The random variables
B
Fj−1 f ◦Fj−1 (ϕj
j
j

◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ)) are centered Gaussian, with variance
Z

R1
0

ϕ′j ◦

ϕ′ (F −1 (t))

(min(s, t) − st) f j F j−1 (t) (ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t))
)
j( j
[0,1]2
×

ϕ′j (Fj−1 (s))
fj (Fj−1 (s))

(ϕj (Fj−1 (s)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(s))dsdt.

In particular, if U has a unique minimizer the limiting distribution in Theorem 4.1 is normal.
However, our result works in more generality, even without uniqueness assumptions.
We remark also that although we have focused for simplicity on the case of samples of equal
size, the case of different sample sizes, nj , j = 1, . . . , J, can also be handled with straightforward
changes. More precisely, let us write An1 ,...,nJ (G) for the minimal alignment cost computed from
the empirical distribution of the samples and assume that nj → +∞ and
nj
→ (γj )2 > 0,
n1 + · · · + nJ
then with straightforward changes in our proof we can see that
q
n1 ...nJ
J −1 (An1 ,...,nJ (G) − A(G)) ⇀ min C̃(ϕ),
(n1 +···+nJ )

ϕ∈Γ

8

(4.8)

where C̃(ϕ) =

1
J

PJ

j=1 c̃j (ϕ)


and c̃j (ϕ) = Πp6=j γp cj (ϕ).

If we try, as argued in section 2, to base our assessment of fit to the deformation model
(2.1) on An (G), we should note that the limiting distribution in Theorem 4.1 depends on the
unknown distributions µj and cannot be used for the computation of approximate critical values
or p-values without further adjustments. We show now how this can be done in the case of the
testing problem (2.7), namely, the test of
H0 : Ar (G) ≥ ∆0

vs.

Ha : Ar (G) < ∆0 ,

for some fixed threshold ∆0 > 0, through the use of a bootstrap procedure.
∗ , . . . , X∗
Let us consider bootstrap samples X1,j
mn ,j of i.i.d. observations sampled from µn,j ,
the empirical distribution on X1,j , . . . , Xn,j . We write µ∗mn ,j for the empirical measure on
∗ , . . . , X∗
X1,j
mn ,j and introduce
A∗mn (G) = inf V22 (µ∗mn ,1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µ∗mn ,J (ϕJ )).
ϕ∈G

√
Now, we base our testing procedure on the conditional α-quantiles (given the Xi,j ’s) of mn (A∗mn (G)−
∆0 ), which we denote ĉn (α; ∆0 ). Our next result, which follows from Theorems 3.3 and 4.1,
shows that the test that rejects H0 when
√
n(An (G) − ∆0 ) < ĉn (α; ∆0 )
is a consistent test of approximate level α for (2.7). We note that the bootstrap quantiles
ĉn (α; ∆0 ) can be computed using Monte-Carlo simulation.
√
Corollary 4.2. If mn → ∞, and mn = O( n), then under assumptions (4.2) to (4.6)

if A(G) > ∆0
0

√
P n(An (G) − ∆0 ) < ĉn (α; ∆0 ) → α
if A(G) = ∆0
(4.9)

1
if A(G) < ∆0

Rejection in the testing problem (2.7) would result, as noted in section 2, in statistical evidence supporting that the deformation model holds approximately (hence, that related registration methods can be safely applied). If, nevertheless, we were interested in gathering statistical
evidence against the deformation model then we should consider the classical goodness-of-fit
problem (2.5). Some technical difficulties arise then. Note that if the deformation model holds,
that is, if A(G) = 0, then we have ϕj ◦ Fj−1 = FB−1 (ϕ) for each ϕ ∈ Γ, which implies that the
result of Theorem 4.1 becomes
√
nAn (G) ⇀ 0.

Hence, a nondegenerate limit law for An (G) in this case requires a more refined analysis, that
we handle in the next section.

5

Goodness-of-fit in semiparametric deformation models

In many cases, deformation functions can be made more specific in the sense that they follow a
known shape depending on parameters that may differ for sample to sample. In our approach
to the classical goodness-of-fit problem (2.5) we consider a parametric model in which ϕj = ϕθj
for some finite dimensional parameter θj that describes the warping effect within a fixed shape.

9

Now, that the deformation model holds means that there exist θ ∗ = (θ1∗ , . . . , θJ∗ ) such that for
1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ J,
Xi,j = ϕ−1
θ ∗ (εi,j ) .
j

Hence, from now on, we will consider the following family of deformations, indexed by a parameter λ ∈ Λ ⊂ Rp :
ϕ:Λ×R →
R
(λ, x)
7→ ϕλ (x)
The classes Gj become now {ϕθj : θj ∈ Λ}. We denote Θ = ΛJ and write An (Θ) and A(Θ)

instead of An (G) and A(G). We also use the simplified notation µj (θj ) instead of µj ϕθj ,
FB (θ) for FB (ϕθ1 , . . . , ϕθJ ) and similarly for the empirical versions. Our main goal is to prove
a weak limit theorem for An (Θ) under the null in (2.5). Therefore, throughout this section we
assume that model (2.1) holds. This means, in particular, that the quantile functions of the
−1
samples satisfy Fj−1 = ϕ−1
θj∗ ◦ G , with G the d.f. of the εi,j ’s. As before, we assume that the
warping functions are invertible and increasing, which now means that, for each λ ∈ Λ, ϕλ is an
invertible, increasing function. It is convenient at this point to introduce the notation
ψj (λ, x) = ϕλ (ϕ−1
θ ∗ (x)),
j

j = 1, . . . , J

(5.1)

and ε for a random variable with the same distribution as the εi,j . Note that ψj (θj∗ , x) = x.
Now, under smoothness assumptions on the functions ψj that we present in detail below, if
the parameter space is compact then the function
Un (θ1 , . . . , θJ ) = V22 (µn,1 (θ1 ), . . . , µn,J (θJ ))
admits a minimizer, that we will denote by θ̂n , that is
θ̂n ∈ argmin Un (θ).

(5.2)

θ∈Θ

Of course, since we are assuming that the deformation model holds, we know that θ ∗ is a
minimizer of
U (θ1 , . . . , θJ ) = V22 (µ1 (θ1 ), . . . , µJ (θJ )).
For a closer analysis of the asymptotic behavior of An (Θ) under the deformation model we need
to make the following identifiability assumption
θ ∗ belongs to the interior of Λ and is the unique minimizer of U.

(5.3)

Note that, equivalently, this means that θ ∗ is the unique zero of U .
As in the case of nonparametric deformation models, we need to impose some conditions on
the class of warping functions and on the distribution of the errors, the εi,j . For the former,
we write D or Du for derivative operators with respect to parameters (hence, for instance,
Dψj (λ, x) = (D1 ψj (λ, x), . . . , Dp ψj (λ, x))T is the vector consisting of partial derivatives of ψj
with respect to its first p arguments evaluated at (λ, x); D 2 ψj (λ, x) = (Du,v ψj (λ, x))u,v is the
hessian matrix for fixed x and so on). ψj′ (λ, x) and similar notation will stand for derivatives
with respect to x. Then we will assume that for each j = 1, . . . , J, u, v = 1, . . . , p, and some
r>4
ψj (·, ·) is C 2 ,
(5.4)



r
r
r
E sup ψj (λ, ε) < ∞, E sup Du ψj (λ, ε) < ∞, E sup Du,v ψj (λ, ε) < ∞, (5.5)
λ∈Λ

λ∈Λ

λ∈Λ

10

and
ψj′ (·, ·) is bounded on Λ × R

supλ∈Λ |xλ
n −x|→0
sup ψj′ (λ, xλn ) − ψj′ (λ, x) −−−−−−−−−−−→ 0.

and

(5.6)

λ∈Λ

Turning to the distribution of the errors, we will assume that G is C 2 with G′ (x) = g(x) > 0
on some interval and
G(x) (1 − G(x)) g ′ (x)
< ∞.
(5.7)
sup
g(x)2
x
Additionally (but see the comments after Theorem 5.1 below) we make the assumption that
Z 1
t(1 − t)
dt < ∞.
(5.8)
2
−1
0 g (G (t))
Finally, before stating the asymptotic result for An (Θ), we introduce the p × p matrices
Z
2(J − 1) 1
Σi,i =
Di ψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t))ψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t))T dt,
J2
0
Z 1
2
Di ψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t))ψi (θj∗ , G−1 (t))T dt, i 6= j
Σi,j = − 2
J 0

and the (pJ) × (pJ) matrix




Σ1,1 · · · Σ1,J

..  .
Σ =  ...
. 
ΣJ,1 · · · ΣJ,J

(5.9)

Σ is a symmetric, positive semidefinite matrix. To see this, consider x1 , . . . , xJ ∈ Rp and
xT = [xT1 , . . . , xTJ ] and note that
Z 1 X
2
(J − 1)(xi · Di ψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t)))2
x′ Σx =
J2 0
i
X

− 2
(xi · Di ψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t)))(xj · Dj ψj (θj∗ , G−1 (t))) dt
i<j

=

2
J2

Z

0

1X
i<j

((xi · Di ψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t))) − (xj · Dj ψj (θj∗ , G−1 (t))))2 dt ≥ 0.

In fact, Σ is positive definite, hence invertible, apart from some degenerate cases, For instance,
if p = 1, Σ is invertible unless all the functions Di ψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t)) are proportional.
We are ready now for the announced distributional limit theorem.
Theorem 5.1. Assume that the deformation model holds. Under assumptions (5.3) to (5.7)
θ̂n → θ ∗
in probability. If, in addition, Φ is invertible, then
√
n(θ̂n − θ ∗ ) ⇀ Σ−1 Y,
where Y = (Y1T , . . . , YJT )T with
2
Yj =
J

Z

0

1

Dψj (θj∗ , G−1 (t))
11

B̃j (t)
dt,
g(G−1 (t))

B̃j = Bj − J1
holds, then

PJ

k=1 Bk

and (Bj )1≤j≤J independent Brownian bridges. Furthermore, if (5.8) also

nAn (Θ) ⇀

J Z
1 X 1  B̃j 2 1 T −1
− Y Σ Y.
J
g ◦ G−1
2
0
j=1

We have to make a number of comments here. First, we note that, while, for simplicity, we
have formulated Theorem 5.1 assuming that the deformation model holds, the CLT for θ̂n still
holds (with some additional assumptions and changes in Φ) in the case when the model is false
and θ ∗ is not the true parameter, but the one that gives the best (but imperfect) alignment.
Since our focus here is the assessment of the deformation models we refrain from pursuing this
issue.
Our second comment is about the indentifiability condition (5.3). At first sight it can seem
to be too strong to be realistic. Actually, for some deformation models it could happen that
ϕθ ◦ ϕη = ϕθ∗η for some θ ∗ η ∈ Θ. In this case, if Xi,j = ϕ−1
θ ∗ (εi,j ) with εi,j i.i.d., then, for any θ,
j

∗
∗
Xi,j = ϕ−1
θ∗θj∗ (ε̃i,j ) with ε̃i,j = ϕθ (εi,j ) which are also i.i.d. and, consequently, (θ ∗ θ1 , . . . , θ ∗ θJ )
is also a zero of U . This applies, for instance, to location and scale models. A simple fix to
this issue is to select one of the signals as the reference, say the J-th signal, and assume that
θJ∗ is known (since it can be, in fact, chosen arbitrarily). The criterion function becomes then
Ũ (θ1 , . . . , θJ−1 ) = U (θ1 , . . . , θJ−1 , θJ∗ ). One could then make the (more realistic) assumption
∗
that θ̃ ∗ = (θ1∗ , . . . , θJ−1
) is the unique zero of Ũ and base the analysis on Ũn (θ1 , . . . , θJ−1 ) =
Un (θ1 , . . . , θJ−1 , θJ∗ ) and θ̃ˆn = arg minθ̃ Ũn (θ̃). The results in this section can be adapted almost
√ ˆ
T ) and
verbatim to this setup. In particular, n(θ̃n − θ̃ ∗ ) ⇀ Σ̃−1 Ỹ , with Ỹ T = (Y1T , . . . , YJ−1
Σ̃ = [Σi,j ]1≤i,j≤J−1 . Again, the invertibility of Σ̃ is almost granted. In fact, arguing as above,
we see that and Σ̃ is positive definite if the functions Dψi (θi∗ , G−1 (t)), i = 1, . . . , J − 1, are not
null.
Next, we discuss about the smoothness and integrability conditions on the errors. As before,
(5.7) is a regularity condition that enables to use strong approximations for the quantile process.
One might be surprised that the moment condition (4.4) does not show up here, but in fact it is
contained in (5.5) (recall that ψj (θj∗ , x) = x). The integrability condition (5.8) is necessary and
R 1 B(t)2
sufficient for ensuring 0 g2 (G
−1 (t)) dt < ∞ (from which we see that the limiting random variable
in the last claim in Theorem 5.1 is an a.s. finite random variable) and implies that

nW22 (Gn , G) ⇀

Z

1
0

B(t)2
dt,
g2 (G−1 (t))

with Gn the empirical d.f. on a sample of size n and d.f G. We refer to del Barrio, Giné and Utzet
(2005) and Samworth and Johnson (2004) for details. Condition (4.4) is a strong assumption
on the tails of G and does not include, for instance, normal distributions. On the other hand,
under the less stringent condition
Z 1Z 1
(s ∧ t − st)2
dsdt < ∞,
(5.10)
2
−1
2
−1
0
0 g (G (s))g (G (t))
which is satisfied for normal laws, it can be shown that the limit as δ → 0
Z

1−δ
δ

B(t)2 − t(1 − t)
dt,
g2 (G−1 (t))
12

exists in probability and can be expressed as a weighted sum of independent, centered χ21 random
variables, see del Barrio, Giné and Utzet (2005) for details. Then, denoting that kind of limits
R1
2 −t(1−t)
dt, under some additional tail conditions (still satisfied by normal laws; these
as 0 B(t)
g 2 (G−1 (t))
are conditions (2.10) and (2.22) to (2.24) in the cited reference) we have
Z 1
B(t)2 − t(1 − t)
2
nW2 (Gn , G) − cn ⇀
dt,
g2 (G−1 (t))
0
R 1−1/n EB(t)2
dt. A simple look at the proof of Theorem 5.1 shows that under these
with cn = 1/n
g 2 (G−1 (t))
conditions (instead of (5.8)) we can conclude that
R 1 B̃ 2 (t)− J −1
P
t(1−t)
J
nAn (Θ) − J−1
c ⇀ J1 Jj=1 0 j g2 (G−1
dt − 12 Y T Σ−1 Y.
(5.11)
J2 n
(t))
Our last comment about the assumptions for Theorem 5.1 concerns the compactness assumption on the parameter space. This may lead in some examples to artificial constraints on
the parameter space. On the other hand, under some conditions (see, e.g., Corollary 3.2.3 in
Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996)) it is possible to prove that the global minimizer of the empirical criterion lies in a compact neighborhood of the true minimizer. In such cases the conclusion
of Theorem 5.1 would extend for the unconstrained deformation model. As a toy example consider the case of deformations by changes in scale, with J = 2. As above we fix the parameters
of, say, the first sample, and consider the family of deformations ϕσ (x) = σx. We assume that
the deformation model holds, with the first sample having d.f. G and the second σ1∗ G−1 (hence,
R 1 −1
−1 2
− σFn,2
) , from which
σ ∗ is the unique minimizer of U (σ)). We obtain that Un (σ) = 14 0 (Fn,1
R −1 −1  R −1 2 
∗
we see that σ̂n =
Fn,1 Fn,2 / (Fn,2 ) → σ a.s. and thus the conclusion of Theorem 5.1
remains valid if we take Θ = (0, ∞). To avoid further technicalities we prefer to think of this as
a different problem that should be handled in an ad hoc way for each particular example.
Turning back to our goal of assessment of the deformation model (2.1) based on the observed
value of An (Θ), Theorem 5.1 gives some insight into the threshold levels for rejection of the null
in the testing problem (2.5). However, the limiting distribution still depends on unknown objects
and designing a tractable test requires to estimate the quantiles of this distribution. This is the
goal of our next result.
∗ , . . . , X∗
n
We consider bootstrap samples X1,j
mn ,j of i.i.d. observations sampled from µj , write
∗ , . . . , X∗
∗
µ∗mn ,j for the empirical measure on X1,j
mn ,j and Amn (Θ) for the minimal alignment cost
computed from the bootstrap samples. We also write ĉn (α) for the conditional α quantile of
mn A∗mn (Θ) given the Xi,j .
Corollary 5.2. Assume that the semiparametric deformation models holds. If mn → ∞, and
mn /n → 0, then under assumptions (5.3) to (5.8) we have that
P (nAn (Θ) > ĉn (1 − α)) → α.

(5.12)

Corollary 5.2 show that the test that rejects H0 : A(Θ) = 0 (which, as disussed in section 2,
is true if and only if the deformation model holds) when nAn (Θ) > ĉn (1− α) is asymptotically of
level α. It is easy to check that the test is consistent against alternatives that satisfy regularity
and integrability assumptions as in Theorem 5.1.
The key to Corollary 5.2 is that under the assumptions a bootstrap CLT holds for mn A∗mn (Θ).
As with Theorem 5.1, the integrability conditions on the errors can be relaxed and still have
a bootstrap CLT. That would be the case if we replace (5.12) by (5.10) and the additional
conditions mentioned above under which (5.11) holds. Then, the further assumption that the
errors have a log-concave distribution and mn = O(nρ ) for some ρ ∈ (0, 1) would be enough to
prove a bootstrap CLT, see the comments after the proof of Corollary 5.2 in the Appendix. In
particular, a bootstrap CLT holds for Gaussian tails.
13

6

Simulations

We present in this section different simulations in order to study the goodness of fit test we
propose in this paper. In this framework, we consider the scale-location family of deformations,
i.e θ ∗ = (µ∗ , σ ∗ ) and observations such that Xi,j = µ∗j + σj∗ ǫi,j , for different distributions of ǫi,j .

6.1

Construction of an α-level test

First, we aim at studying the bootstrap procedure which enables to build the test. For this we
choose a level α = 0.05 and aim at estimating the quantile of the asymptotic distribution using
a bootstrap method.
Let B be the number of bootstrap samples, we proceed as follows to design a bootstrapped
goodness of fit test.
1. For all b = 1, . . . , B,
b

b

∗ , . . . , X ∗ , with fixed size 0 < m 6 n,
1.1. For j = 1, . . . , J, create a bootstrap sample X1,j
m,j
of the first observation sample X1,j , . . . , Xn,j
2
∗b
1.2. Compute u∗b
(θ).
= inf Um
m
θ∈Θ

2. Sort the values u∗b
m

2

, b = 1, . . . , B,





∗(B) 2
∗(1) 2
,
6 . . . 6 um
um
∗(B(1−α))

then take q̂m (1 − α) = um
statistic inf Un (θ).

, the 1 − α quantile of the bootstrap distribution of the

θ∈Θ

3. The test rejects the null hypothesis if

nu2n



∗(B(1−α)) 2
.
> m um

Once the test is built, we first ensure that the level of the test has been correctly achieved.
For this we repeat the test for large K (here K = 1000) to estimate the probability of rejection
of the test as
K
1 X 

 .
1 2
p̂n =
∗(B(1−α)) 2
K
nun,k >m um,k
k=1

We present in Table 1 these results for different J and several choices for m = mn depending on
the size of the initial sample.
As expected, the bootstrap method enables to build a test of level α provided the bootstrap
sample is large enough. The required size of the sample increases with the number of different
distributions J to be tested.

6.2

Power of the test procedure

Then we compute the power of previous test for several situations. In particular we must
compute the probability of rejection of the null hypothesis under Ha . Hence for several number
of distributions, we test the assumption that the model comes from a warping frame, when
a different distribution called γ is observed. The simulations are conducted for the following
choices of the number of sample and for the different distributions;

14

• J = 2 : N (0, 1) and γ;

• J = 3 :N (0, 1), N 5, 22 and γ;


• J = 5 : N (0, 1), N 5, 22 , N (3, 1), N 1. 5, 32 and γ;





• J = 10 : N (0, 1), N 5, 22 , N (3, 1), N 1. 5, 32 , N 7, 42 , N 2. 5, 0. 52 , N 1, 1. 52 ,
N 4, 32 , N 6, 52 and γ;

and also for different choices of γ.

• Exponential distribution with parameter 1;
• Double exponential with parameter 1 (a.k.a Laplace distribution);
• Student distribution T (3) and T (4) with 3 and 4 degrees of freedom.
All simulations are done for different sample sizes and different bootstrap samples, n and
mn . The results are presented in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
We observe that the power of the test is very high in most of the cases. For the Exponential
distribution, the power is close to 1. Indeed this distribution is very different from the Gaussian
distribution since it is not symmetric, resulting easy to discard the null assumption. The three
other distributions do share with the Gaussian the property of symmetry, and yet the power
of the test is also close to one, increasing with the number of observations. Finally, for the
Student’s distribution, the higher the number of degrees of freedom, the more similar it becomes
to a Gaussian distribution. This explains why it becomes more difficult for the test to reject the
null hypothesis when using a Student with 4 degrees of freedom rather than with 3.

7
7.1

Appendix
Proofs for section 3

Proof of Theorem 3.1. We set Tn = Wr (νn , η) and Tn′ = Wr (νn′ , η) and Πn (η) for the set
of probabilities on {1, . . . , n} × Rd with first marginal equal to the discrete uniform distribution
on {1, . . . , n} and second marginal equal to η and note that we have Tn = inf π∈Πn (η) a(π) if we
denote
!1/r
Z
kYi − zkr dπ(i, z)
a(π) =
.
{1,...,n}×Rd

We define similarly a′ (π) from the Yi′ sample to get Tn′ = inf π∈Πn (η) a′ (π). But then, using the
inequality |kak − kbk| ≤ ka − bk,
′

|a(π) − a (π)| ≤

Z

{1,...,n}×Rd

!1/r

kYi − Yi′ kr dπ(i, z)

This implies that

n

|Tn − Tn′ |r ≤

n

=

1X
kYi − Yi′ kr .
n
i=1

15

1X
kYi − Yi′ kr
n
i=1

!1/r

If we take now (Y, Y ′ ) to be an optimal coupling of ν and ν ′ , so that E [kY − Y ′ kr ] =
Wrr (ν, ν ′ ) and (Y1 , Y1′ ), . . . , (Yn , Yn′ ) to be i.i.d. copies of (Y, Y ′ ) we see that for the corresponding
realizations of Tn and Tn′ we have
n



 1X
E kYi − Yi′ kr = Wr (ν, ν ′ )r .
E |Tn − Tn′ |r ≤
n
i=1

But this shows that Wr (L(Tn ), L(Tn′ )) ≤ Wr (ν, ν ′ ), as claimed.



′
′ = V (ν ′
Proof of Theorem 3.2. We write Vr,n = Vr (νn1 ,1 , . . . , νnJ ,J ) and Vr,n
r n1 ,1 , . . . , νnJ ,J ).
We note that
Z
r
Vr,n =
inf
T (i1 , . . . , iJ )dπ(i1 , . . . , iJ ),
π∈Π(U1 ,...,UJ )

P
where Uj is the discrete uniform distribution on {1, . . . , nj } and T (i1 , . . . , iJ ) = minz∈Rd J1 Jj=1 kYij ,j
′ ’s. Hence we
−zkr . We write T ′ (i1 , . . . , iJ ) for the equivalent function computed from the Yi,j
have
J
1X
1/r
′
1/r r
kYij ,j − Yi′j ,j kr ,
|T (i1 , . . . , iJ ) − T (i1 , . . . , iJ ) | ≤
J
j=1

which implies
Z

1/r
1/r Z
−
T (i1 , . . . , iJ )dπ(i1 , . . . , iJ )
T (i1 , . . . , iJ )dπ(i1 , . . . , iJ )
≤
=

Z
1
J

J
1X
kYij ,j − Yi′j ,j kr dπ(i1 , . . . , iJ )
J

r

j=1

J Z
X
j=1

kYij ,j −

Yi′j ,j kr dπ(i1 , . . . , iJ )

So,
J
1X
′ r
|Vr,n − Vr,n
| ≤
J
j=1

J
1X
=
J
j=1

nj
1 X
′ r
kYi,j − Yi,j
k
nj

nj
1 X
′ r
kYi,j − Yi,j
k
nj
i=1

i=1

!

!

.

′ ), . . . , (Y
′
If we take (Yj , Yj′ ) to be an optimal coupling of νj and νj′ and (Y1,j , Y1,j
nj ,j , Ynj ,j ) to be
i.i.d. copies of (Yj , Yj′ ), for j = 1, . . . , J, then we obtain
J

1X
′ r
E |Vr,n − Vr,n | ≤
J



j=1

!
nj
J

1 X 
1X r
′ r
Wr (νj , νj′ ).
E kYi,j − Yi,j k
=
nj
J
j=1

i=1

The conclusion follows.

Proof of Theorem 3.3. We argue as in the proof of Theorem 3.2 and write


Z
An,r (G) = inf
inf
T (ϕ; i1 , . . . , iJ )dπ(i1 , . . . , iJ ) ,
ϕ∈G

π∈Π(U1 ,...,UJ )

16

P
where T (ϕ; i1 , . . . , iJ ) = miny∈R J1 Jj=1 kZij ,j (ϕj ) − ykr . We write T ′ (ϕ; i1 , . . . , iJ ) for the same
′ (ϕ )’s. Now, from the fact kZ (ϕ )−Z ′ (ϕ )kr ≤ Lr kX −X ′ kr
function computed on the Zi,j
j
i,j
j
j
i,j
i,j
i,j
we see that
|T (ϕ; i1 , . . . , iJ )1/r − T ′ (ϕ; i1 , . . . , iJ )1/r |r ≤ Lr

J
1X
kXij ,j − Xi′j ,j kr
J
j=1

and, as a consequence, that
|Vr (µn,1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µn,J (ϕJ )) −

Vr (µ′n,1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µ′n,J (ϕJ ))|r

nj
J
Lr X X 1
≤
kXij ,j − Xi′j ,j kr
J
nj
j=1 ij =1

which implies
1/r

|(An,r (G))

−

(A′n,r (G))1/r |r

J

L r X  1 Pn j
′ kr .
≤
kX
−
X
i,j
i,j
i=1
nj
J
j=1

′ ), i = 1, . . . , n are i.i.d. copies
If, as in the proof of Theorem 3.2, we assume that (Xi,j , Xi,j
j
′
of an optimal coupling for µj and µj , with different samples independent from each other we
obtain that
J
i Lr X
h
1/r
′
1/r r
Wrr (µj , µ′j ).
E |(An,r (G)) − (An,r (G)) | ≤
J
j=1



7.2

Proofs for sections 4 and 5

We provide here proofs of the main results in sections 4 and 5. Our approach relies on the
consideration the processes
Cn (ϕ) =

√

n(Un (ϕ) − U (ϕ))

and

C(ϕ) =

J
1X
cj (ϕ),
J
j=1

ϕ ∈ G,

(7.1)

where Un (ϕ) = V22 (µn,1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µn,J (ϕJ )), U (ϕ) = V22 (µ1 (ϕ1 ), . . . , µJ (ϕJ )),
Z 1
Bj
ϕ′j ◦ Fj−1 (ϕj ◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ))
cj (ϕ) = 2
fj ◦ Fj−1
0
and (Bj )1≤j≤J are independent standard Brownian bridges on (0, 1). We prove below that the
empirical deformation cost process Cn converges weakly to C as random elements in L∞ (G),
the space of bounded, real valued functions on G. Theorem 4.1 will follow as a corollary of this
result.
We will make frequent use in this section of the following technical Lemma, which follows
easily from the triangle and Holder’s inequalities. We omit the proof.
Lemma 7.1. Under Assumption (4.6)
i) supϕj ∈Gj
ii) supϕj ∈Gj

√ R1
√ R n1
n 0 (ϕj ◦ Fj−1 )2 → 0, supϕj ∈Gj n 1− 1 (ϕj ◦ Fj−1 )2 → 0.
n

√ R
√ R1
−1 2
−1 2
n 0 (ϕj ◦ Fn,j
) → 0 in probability.
) → 0, supϕj ∈Gj n 1− 1 (ϕj ◦ Fn,j
1
n

n

17

iii) If moreover (4.3) holds then for all 1 ≤ j, k ≤ J
Z 1 p
t(1 − t)
sup ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) dt < ∞
−1
0 fk (Fk (t)) ϕj ∈Gj

(7.2)

Theorem 7.2. Under assumptions (4.2) to(4.6) Cn and C have a.s. trajectories in L∞ (G).
Furthermore, C is a tight Gaussian random elemnt and Cn converges weakly to C in L∞ (G).
R1
R1
P
P
−1
−1
(ϕ))2 and U (ϕ) = J1 Jj=1 0 (ϕj ◦
−Fn,B
Proof. We start noting that Un (ϕ) = J1 Jj=1 0 (ϕj ◦Fn,j
P
P
−1
−1
(ϕ) = J1 Jj=1 ϕj ◦Fn,j
Fj−1 −FB−1 (ϕ))2 with Fn,B
, FB−1 (ϕ) = J1 Jj=1 ϕj ◦Fj−1 . Now, (4.6) implies
R1
that supϕj ∈Gj 0 (ϕj ◦Fj−1 )2 < ∞. Similarly, assumption (4.5) implies Kj := supϕj ∈Gj ,x∈(cj ,dj ) |ϕ′j (x)| <
R 1 −1
R1
R1
R1
−1 2
−Fj−1 )2 , we see that supϕj ∈Gj 0 (ϕj ◦
∞. Noting that 0 (ϕj ◦Fn,j
) ≤ 2 0 (ϕj ◦Fj−1 )2 +2Kj2 0 (Fn,j
−1 2
Fn,j
) < ∞ a.s. and, with little additional effort, conclude that Cn has a.s. bounded trajectories.
R1
B
On the other hand, writing dj,k (ϕ) = 0 ϕ′j ◦ Fj−1 f ◦Fj−1 ϕk ◦ Fk−1 we see that for ϕ, ρ ∈ G
j

|dj,k (ϕ) − dj,k (ρ)| ≤ kϕ′j − ρ′j k∞
+

1

Z

1

0

j

Bk
ϕk ◦ Fk−1
fk ◦ Fk−1

Bk
(ϕk ◦ Fk−1 − ρk ◦ Fk−1 )
fk ◦ Fk−1
0
Z 1
Bk
′
′
−1
≤ kϕj − ρj k∞ sup
−1 ϕk ◦ Fk
f
◦
F
ϕk ∈Gk
0
k
k
1/q R
1/p0
R
q
1
1
Bk
−1
−1 p0
|ϕ
◦
F
−
ρ
◦
F
|
+ sup |ρ′j | 0 f ◦F
−1
k
k
k
k
0
Z

ρ′j ◦ Fj−1

(cj ,dj )

k

k

But using iii) of Lemma 7.1
Z 1
h
i Z 1 pt(1 − t)
Bk
−1
E sup
≤
sup |ϕj (Fj−1 (t))|dt < ∞.
−1 ϕk ◦ Fk
−1
f
◦
F
f
(F
(t))
ϕk ∈Gk
ϕj ∈Gj
0
0
k
k k
k

R1 B
Hence, almost surely, supϕ∈G 0 f ◦Fj−1 ϕj ◦Fj−1 < ∞. Furthermore, from assumption (4.3), we
j
j
R1
Bj q
get that, a.s., 0 f ◦F −1 < ∞ and thus, for some a.s. finite random variable T , |dj,k (ϕ) − dj,k (ρ)| ≤
j

j

T kϕ − ρkG for ϕ, ρ ∈ G. From this conclude that the trajectories of C are a.s. bounded, uniformly continuous functions on G, endowed with the norm k·kG introduced in (4.5). In particular,
C is a tight random element in L∞ (G), see, e.g., p. 39-41 in Van der Vaart and Wellner (1996).
From this point we pay attention to the quantile processes, namely,
√
−1
(t) − Fj−1 (t)), 0 < t < 1, j = 1, . . . , J.
ρn,j (t) = nfj (Fj−1 (t))(Fn,j

A trivial adaptation of Theorem 2.1, p. 381 in Csörgő and Horváth (1993) shows that, under
(4.2), there exist, on a rich enough probability space, independent versions of ρn,j and independent families of Brownian bridges {Bn,j }n=1 ∞, j = 1, . . . , J, satisfying

|ρn,j (t) − Bn,j (t)|
Op (log(n)) if ν = 0
1/2−ν
=
(7.3)
n
sup
ν
Op (1) if 0 < ν ≤ 1/2
(t(1 − t))
1/n≤t≤1−1/n
We work, without loss of generality, with these versions of ρn,j and Bn,j . We show now that
sup Cn (ϕ) − Ĉn (ϕ) → 0 in probability

ϕ∈G

18

(7.4)

PJ

B

R1

ϕ′j ◦ Fj−1 (ϕj ◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ)) f ◦Fn,j−1 . To check
j
j
1 PJ
2 PJ
this we note that some simple algebra yields Cn (ϕ) = J j=1 c̃n,j + J j=1 r̃n,j with
Z 1
√
−1
c̃n,j = n
− ϕj ◦ Fj−1 )(ϕj ◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ)),
(ϕj ◦ Fn,j
with Ĉn (ϕ) =

1
J

j=1 cn,j

(ϕ) and cn,j (ϕ) = 2

0

0

r̃n,j =

√

n

Z

1

0

−1
−1
(ϕ) − FB−1 (ϕ))]2 .
− ϕj ◦ Fj−1 ) − (Fn,B
[(ϕj ◦ Fn,j

From the elementary inequality (a1 + · · · + aJ )2 ≤ Ja21 + · · · + Ja2J we get that
√ J
√ J Z
Z 1
J
4 nX
4 nX 1
1X
−1
−1
(Fn,j
− Fj−1 )2 ,
(ϕj ◦ Fn,j
− ϕj ◦ Fj−1 )2 ≤
r̃n,j ≤
Kj
J
J
J
0
0
j=1

j=1

j=1

supϕj ∈Gj ,x∈(cj ,dj ) |ϕ′j (x)|

< ∞, as above. Now we can use (4.4) and argue as in the
√ R 1 −1
− Fj−1 )2 → 0
proof of Theorem 2 in Álvarez-Esteban et al. (2008) to conclude that n 0 (Fn,j
in probability and, as a consequence, that
with Kj :=

sup Cn (ϕ) −

ϕ∈G

J
1X
c̃n,j (ϕ) → 0 in probability.
J

(7.5)

j=1

On the other hand, the Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality shows that
 Z n1
2
−1
n
− ϕj ◦ Fj−1 )(ϕj ◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ))
(ϕj ◦ Fn,j
0

≤

√

n

Z

1
n

0

(ϕj ◦

−1
Fn,j

−

√
ϕj ◦ Fj−1 )2 n

Z

1
n

0

(ϕj ◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ))2

and using i) and ii) of Lemma 7.1, the two factors converge to zero uniformly in ϕ. A similar
argument works for the upper tail and allows to conclude that we can replace in (7.5) c̃n,j (ϕ)
√ R 1− 1
with c̃˜n,j (ϕ) := 2 n 1 n (ϕj ◦ F −1 − ϕj ◦ F −1 )(ϕj ◦ F −1 − F −1 (ϕ)). Moreover,
n

sup
ϕ∈G

Z

0

1
n

ϕ′j

◦ Fj−1

n,j

j

j

Bn,j
−1
−1
−1 (ϕj ◦ Fj − FB (ϕ)) ≤ Kj
fj ◦ Fj

Z

0

B

1
n

Bn,j
−1
−1
−1 sup (ϕj ◦ Fj − FB (ϕ))
fj ◦ Fj ϕ∈G

and by iii) of Lemma 7.1 and Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality
i Z n1 pt(1 − t)
h Z n1
Bn,j
−1
−1
≤
sup ϕj (Fj−1 (t))−FB−1 (ϕ)(t) dt → 0.
E
−1 sup (ϕj ◦Fj −FB (ϕ))
−1
f
◦
F
f
(F
(t))
ϕ∈G
ϕ∈G
0
0
j
j
j
j
Hence, supϕ∈G

R n1
0

ϕ′j ◦ Fj−1 f

Bn,j
−1
j ◦Fj

(ϕj ◦ Fj−1 − FB−1 (ϕ)) → 0 in probability and similarly for the

right tail. Now, for every t ∈ (0, 1) we have

−1
−1
(t) − Fj−1 (t))
(t) − ϕj ◦ Fj−1 (t) = ϕ′j (Kn,ϕj (t))(Fn,j
ϕj ◦ Fn,j

(7.6)

−1
for some Kn,ϕj (t) between Fn,j
(t) and F −1 (t). Therefore, (recall (7.6)), to prove (7.4) it suffices
to show that
Z 1− 1
n
Bn,j (t)
(7.7)
sup
(ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t))dt
ϕ′j (Fj−1 (t))
−1
1
f
(F
(t))
ϕ∈G
j
j
n
Z 1− 1
n
ρn,j (t)
−
ϕ′j (Kn,ϕj (t))
(ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t))dt → 0
−1
1
f
(F
(t))
j
j
n

19

in probability. To check it we take ν ∈ (0, 1/2) in (7.3) to get
Z

1
1− n

|ρn,j (t) − Bn,j (t)|
sup ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t) dt
fj (Fj−1 (t))
ϕ∈G
Z 1− 1
n (t(1 − t))ν
ν− 21
sup ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t) dt → 0
OP (1)
≤n
−1
1
f
(F
(t))
ϕ∈G
k
k
n

1
n

(7.8)

in probability (using dominated convergence and iii) of Lemma 7.1). We observe next that,
−1
(t)
for each t ∈ (0, 1), supϕj ∈Gj |Kn,ϕj (t) − Fj−1 (t)| → 0 a.s., since Kn,ϕj (t) lies between Fn,j
−1
−1
′
′
and Fj (t). Therefore, using (4.5) we see that supϕj ∈Gj |ϕj (Kn,ϕj (t)) − ϕj (Fj (t)| → 0 a.s.
while, on the other hand, supϕj ∈Gj |ϕ′j (Kn,ϕj (t)) − ϕ′j (Fj−1 (t))| ≤ 2Kj . But then, by dominated
convergence we get that
i
h
E sup |ϕ′j (Kn,ϕj (t)) − ϕ′j (Fj−1 (t))|2 → 0.
ϕj ∈Gj

Since by iii) of Lemma 7.1 we have that t 7→

√

t(1−t)
fj (Fj−1 (t))

grable we conclude that
E sup
ϕ∈G

Z

1
1− n
1
n

|ϕ′j (Kn,ϕj (t)) − ϕ′j (Fj−1 (t))|

supϕ∈G |ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t)| is inte-

|Bn,j (t)|
|ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t)|dt
fj (Fj−1 (t))

tends to 0 as n → ∞ and, consequently,
sup
ϕ∈G

Z

1
1− n
1
n

|ϕ′j (Kn,ϕj (t)) − ϕ′j (Fj−1 (t))|

|Bn,j (t)|
|ϕj (Fj−1 (t)) − FB−1 (ϕ)(t)|dt
fj (Fj−1 (t))

vanishes in probability. Combining this fact with (7.8) we prove (7.7) and, as a consequence,
(7.4). Finally, observe that for all n ≥ 1, C has the same law as Ĉn . This completes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. From Skohorod Theorem (see, e.g., Theorem 1.10.4 in Van der Vaart and Wellner
(1996)) we know that there exists on some probability space versions of Cn and C for which
convergence of Cn to C holds almost surely. From now on, we place us on this space and observe
that
√
√
√
n(An (G) − A(G)) ≤ n inf Un − n inf U = inf Cn (ϕ).
(7.9)
Γ

Γ

ϕ∈Γ

On the other hand, if we consider the (a.s.) compact set Γn = {ϕ ∈ G : U (ϕ) ≤ inf G U +
√2 kCn k }, then, if ϕ ∈
/ Γn , Un (ϕ) ≥ inf G U + √1n kCn k∞ , while if ϕ ∈ Γ, then, Un (ϕ) ≤
∞
n

inf G U + √1n kCn k∞ . Thus, necessarily, inf G Un = inf Γn Un = inf Γn (Un − U + U ) ≥ inf Γn (Un −
U ) + inf Γn U = inf Γn (Un − U ) + inf Γ U . Together with (7.9) this entails
√
inf Cn (ϕ) ≤ n(An (G) − A(G)) ≤ inf Cn (ϕ)
(7.10)
ϕ∈Γ

ϕ∈Γn

Note that for the versions that we are considering kCn − Ck∞ → 0 a.s.. In particular, this
implies that inf Γ Cn → inf Γ C a.s.. Hence, the proof will be complete if we show that a.s.
inf Cn → inf C.
Γ

Γn

20

(7.11)

To check this last point, consider a sequence ϕn ∈ Γn such that Cn (ϕn ) ≤ inf Γn Cn + n1 . By
compactness of G, taking subsequences if necessary, ϕn → ϕ0 for some ϕ0 ∈ G. Continuity
of U yields U (ϕn ) → U (ϕ0 ) and as a consequence, that U (ϕ0 ) ≤ inf G U , that is, ϕ0 ∈ Γ a.s..
Furthermore,
Cn (ϕn ) − C(ϕ0 ) ≤ kCn − Ck∞ + |C (ϕn ) − C (ϕ0 )| → 0.
This shows that
lim inf inf Cn ≥ C (ϕ0 ) > inf C

(7.12)

Γ

Γn

and yields (7.11). This completes the proof.

Proof of Corollary 4.2. In Theorem 3.3, take µ′j = µn,j . Then, writing L∗ for the conditional law given the Xi,j , the result of Theorem 3.3 reads
W22 (L((Amn (G))1/2 ), L∗ ((A∗mn (G))1/2 ))

J
1X 2
≤L
W2 (µj , µn,j ),
J
2

j=1

with L = supϕ∈G ϕ′j
< ∞. Since Wr (L(aX + b), L(aY + b)) = aWr (L(X), L(Y )) for a >
∞
0, b ∈ R, the last bound gives


√
√
W22 (L mn (Amn (G))1/2 − (A(G))1/2 , L∗ mn (A∗mn (G))1/2 − (A(G))1/2 )
J
1 X√
nW22 (µj , µn,j ).
≤ L √
nJ
2 mn

j=1

As noted in the proof of Theorem 4.1, the assumptions imply that
probability. Also, Theorem 4.1 and the delta method yield that
√


mn (Amn (G))1/2 − (A(G))1/2 ⇀

√
nW22 (µj , µn,j ) vanishes in

1
γ,
2(A(G))1/2

with γ the limiting law there, which, combined to the above bound, shows that
√


mn (A∗mn (G))1/2 − (A(G))1/2 ⇀

1
γ
2(A(G))1/2

in probability. A further use of the delta method yields

√
mn A∗mn (G) − A(G) ⇀ γ

in probability. The result follows now from Lemma 1 in Janssen and Pauls (2003).



Proof of Theorem 5.1. We assume for simplicity that p = 1. The general case follows with
straightforward changes. Let us observe that
Z
1X 1
−1 2
1 PJ
(ψj (θj , G−1
Un (θ) =
k=1 ψk (θk , Gn,k )) ,
n,j ) − J
J
0
j=1

with Gn,j the empirical d.f. on the εi,j ’s (which are i.i.d. G). A similar expression, replacing
Gn,j with G is valid for U (θ). Then (5.6) implies that supθ |Un (θ)−U (θ)| → 0, from which (recall
(5.3) it follows that θ̂n → θ ∗ in probability. Note that the second part in Assumption (5.6) is a
technical assumption that ensures that, when considering a Taylor expansion in the integral of
21

′

′

−1
−1
−1
−1
Un (θ), the remainder term in ψj (λ, Hn,j
) − ψj (λ, G−1
j ) for any Hn,j lying between Gn,j and Gj
(obtained through a Taylor expansion) goes uniformly to zero.
From (5.4) we have that Un is a C 2 function whose derivatives can be computed by differentiation under the integral sign. This implies that
Z
2 1
−1
−1
1 PJ
Dψj (θj , G−1
Dj Un (θ) =
k=1 ψk (θk , Gn,k )),
n,j )(ψj (θj , Gn,j ) − J
J 0
Z 1
2
−1
Dp,q Un (θ) = − 2
Dψp (θp , G−1
p 6= q
(7.13)
n,p )Dψq (θq , Gn,q ),
J 0

and
2
J

Z

1

−1
D 2 ψp (θp , G−1
n,p )(ψj (θj , Gn,j ) −
0
Z
2(J − 1) 1
2
+
(Dψp (θp , G−1
n,p )) .
J2
0

Dp,p Un (θ) =

1
J

PJ

−1
k=1 ψk (θk , Gn,k ))

Using also (5.5) we obtain similar expressions for the derivatives of U (θ), replacing everywhere
−1
G−1
n,j with G . We write DUn (θ) = (Dj Un (θ))1≤j≤J , DU (θ) = (Dj U (θ))1≤j≤J for the gradients
and Σn (θ) = [Dp,q Un (θ)]1≤p,q≤J , Σ(θ) = [Dp,q U (θ)]1≤p,q≤J for the Hessians of Un and U . Note
that Σ∗ = Σ(θ ∗ ) is assumed to be invertible.
We write now ρn,j for the quantile process based on the εi,j ’s. Observe that (5.7) ensures
that we can assume, without loss of generality, that there exist independent Brownian bridges,
Bn,j , satisfying (7.3). Now, recalling that ψj (θj∗ , x) = x we see that
√

2
nDj Un (θ ) =
J
∗

Z

1
0

P
ρn,j (t) − J1 Jk=1 ρn,k (t)
−1
∗
dt.
Dψj (θj , Gn,j (t))
g(G−1 (t))

(7.14)

Now, using (5.5) and arguing as in the proof of Theorem 4.1 we conclude that
Z

1
0

Dψj (θj∗ , G−1
n,j (t))

ρn,k (t)
dt −
g (G−1 (t))

Z

1
0

Dψj (θj∗ , G−1 (t))

Bn,k (t)
dt → 0
g (G−1 (t))

in probability and, consequently,
√

2
nDj Un (θ ) −
J
∗

Z

0

1

P
Bn,j (t) − J1 Jk=1 Bn,k (t)
∗
−1
dt
Dψj (θj , G (t))
g (G−1 (t))

→0

(7.15)

in probability.
A further Taylor expansion of Dj Un around θ ∗ shows that for some θ̃jn between θ̂n and θ ∗
we have
2
Dj Un (θ̂n ) = Dj Un (θ ∗ ) + (D1j Un (θ̃jn ), . . . , DJj
Un (θ̃jn )) · (θ̂n − θ ∗ )
and because θ̂n is a zero of DUn , we obtain
−Dj Un (θ ∗ ) = (D1j Un (θ̃jn ), . . . , DJj Un (θ̃jn )) · (θ̂n − θ ∗ ).
Writing Σ̃n for the J ×J matrix whose J-th row equals (D1j Un (θ̃jn ), . . . , DJj Un (θ̃jn )), j = 1, . . . , J,
we can rewrite the last expansion as
√
√
(7.16)
− nDUn (θ ∗ ) = Σ̃n n(θ̂n − θ ∗ ).
22

Now, recalling (7.13), assumptions (5.4) and (5.5) yield that Σ̃n → Σ∗ = Σ(θ ∗ ) in probability.
As a consequence, (7.16) and (7.15) together with Slutsky’s Theorem complete the proof of the
second claim.
Finally, for the proof of the last claim, since DUn (θ̂n ) = 0, a Taylor expansion around θ̂n
shows that
√
1 √
(7.17)
nUn (θ ∗ ) − nUn (θ̂n ) = ( n(θ̂n − θ ∗ ))′ Σ(θ̃n )( n(θ̂n − θ ∗ ))
2
for some θ̃n between θ̂n and θ ∗ . Arguing as above we see that Σ(θ̃n ) → Σ∗ in probability. Hence,
to complete the proof if suffices to show that
2
PJ
k Z
1 X 1 Bn,j (t) − J1 k=1 Bn,k (t)
dt → 0
nUn (θ ) −
J
g(G−1 (t))2
0
∗

j=1

in probability. Since
2
PJ
k Z
1 X 1 ρn,j (t) − J1 k=1 ρn,k (t)
nUn (θ ) =
dt,
J
g(G−1 (t))2
0
∗

j=1

this amounts to proving that
Z

1

0

2
ρn,j (t) − Bn,j (t)
dt → 0
g(G−1 (t))2

in probability. Taking ν ∈ (0, 12 ) in (7.3) we see that
Z

1
1− n
1
n

2
Z 1− 1
n (t(1 − t))2ν
ρn,j (t) − Bn,j (t))
1
dt
≤
O
(1)
→ 0,
P
−1
2
1−2ν
1
g(G (t))
n
g(G−1 (t))2
n

R1
B (t)2
using condition (5.8) and dominated convergence. From (5.8) we also see that 1− 1 g(Gn,j
−1 (t))2 dt →
n
R1
ρn,j (t)2
0 in probability. Condition (5.8) implies also that 1− 1 g(G−1 (t))2 dt → 0 in probability, see
n
Samworth and Johnson (2004). Similar considerations apply to the left tail and complete the
proof.

Proof of Corollary 5.2. Writing L∗ for the conditional law given the Xi,j ’s, we see from
Theorem 3.3 that
√
√
W22 (L( mn (Amn (Θ))1/2 ), L∗ ( mn (A∗mn (Θ))1/2 )

J
mn 1 X
≤L
nW22 (µ, µ̃n,j ),
n J
j=1

where L = supλ,x,j ψj′ (λ, x), µ denotes the law of the errors, εi,j , and µ̃n,j the empirical d.f. on
ε1,j , . . . , εn,j . Note that L < ∞ by (5.6), while nW22 (µ, µ̃n,j ) = OP (1) as in the proof of Theorem
5.1. Hence, we conclude that
mn A∗mn (Θ)

J Z
1 X 1  B̃j 2 1 T −1
⇀
− Y Σ Y
J
g ◦ G−1
2
0
j=1

in probability. The conclusion now follows from Lemma 1 in Janssen and Pauls (2003).

23

If centering were necessary and we had (5.11) rather than the limit in Theorem 5.1 we
could adapt the last argument as follows. If A and B are positive random variables then
E|A−B| ≤ E(A1/2 −B 1/2 )2 +2(EAE(A1/2 −B 1/2 )2 )1/2 . We can apply this bound to (an optimal
coupling of) mn Amn (Θ) and mn A∗mn (Θ). Now if the errors have a log-concave distribution then
nEW22 (µ, µ̃n,j ) = O(log n), see Corollary 6.12 in Bobkov and Ledoux (2014) and we conclude
that
W1 (L(mn Amn (Θ) − cmn ), L∗ (mn A∗mn (Θ) − cmn )) = W1 (L(mn Amn (Θ)), L∗ (mn A∗mn (Θ)))
vanishes in probability if mn = O(nρ ) for some ρ ∈ (0, 1) . As a consequence,
mn A∗mn (Θ) − cmn ⇀

J Z
1 X 1 B̃j2 − E B̃j2 1 T −1
− Y Σ Y
−1 2
J
2
0 (g ◦ G )
j=1

in probability.

7.3

Tables

References
Agueh, M. and Carlier, G. (2011). Barycenters in the Wasserstein space. SIAM J. Math.
Anal., 43, 904–924.
Agulló-Antolı́n, M., Cuesta-Albertos, J.A., Lescornel, H. and Loubes, J.-M. (2015).
A parametric registration model for warped distributions with Wasserstein’s distance. J. Multivariate Anal. 135, 117–130.
Allassonnière, S. and Amit, Y and Trouvé, A.(2007). Towards a coherent statistical framework for dense deformable template estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series
B (Statistical Methodology), 69,1,3–29.
Álvarez-Esteban, P.C., del Barrio, E., Cuesta-Albertos, J.A. and Matrán, C.
(2008). Trimmed comparison of distributions, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 103, 697–704.
Amit, Y., Grenander, U. and Piccioni, M.(1991). Structural Image Restoration through
deformable template. J. Amer. Statist.l Assoc., 86, 376–387.
Bobkov, S. and Ledoux, M. (2014). One-dimensional empirical measures, order statistics and
Kantorovich transport distances. Preprint.
Boissard, E. Le Gouic, T. and Loubes, J.-M. (2015). Distribution’s template estimate with
Wasserstein metrics. Bernoulli, 21, 740–759.
Bolstad, B. M., Irizarry, R. A., Åstrand, M., and Speed, T. P.( 2003). A comparison
of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and
bias. Bioinformatics 19 (2), 185–193.
Chernozhukov, V., Galichon, A., Hallin, M. and Henry, M. (2016). Monge-Kantorovich
Depth, Quantiles, Ranks, and Signs. Ann. Statist., to appear.
Collier, O. and Dalalyan, A.S. (2015). Curve registration by nonparametric goodness-of-fit
testing. J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 162, 20–42.

24

J

2

3

5

10

n

mn = n0,6

mn = n0,7

mn = n0,8

mn = n0,9

mn = n0,95

mn = n

50

0,144

0,079

0,038

0,046

0,041

0,03

100

0,148

0,067

0,07

0,05

0,04

0,033

200

0,129

0,085

0,068

0,043

0,037

0,044

500

0,138

0,089

0,05

0,048

0,035

0,036

1000

0,127

0,086

0,063

0,055

0,039

0,032

2000

0,129

0,104

0,071

0,048

0,043

0,038

5000

0,039

0,042

0,041

0,049

0,043

0,055

50

0,295

0,194

0,115

0,078

0,054

0,034

100

0,273

0,163

0,089

0,053

0,034

0,039

200

0,238

0,15

0,077

0,054

0,047

0,031

500

0,226

0,122

0,07

0,057

0,042

0,029

1000

0,217

0,107

0,092

0,069

0,042

0,035

2000

0,221

0,128

0,077

0,053

0,043

0,035

5000

0,205

0,145

0,082

0,06

0,025

0,047

50

0,659

0,428

0,281

0,129

0,111

0,081

100

0,583

0,337

0,192

0,104

0,083

0,053

200

0,538

0,281

0,159

0,081

0,078

0,029

500

0,449

0,267

0,138

0,063

0,056

0,04

1000

0,415

0,238

0,129

0,064

0,051

0,037

2000

0,354

0,212

0,115

0,06

0,053

0,032

5000

0,322

0,203

0,108

0,057

0,061

0,039

50

0,996

0,971

0,873

0,702

0,553

0,456

100

0,994

0,902

0,708

0,433

0,33

0,226

200

0,958

0,802

0,521

0,247

0,184

0,119

500

0,914

0,663

0,388

0,149

0,093

0,063

1000

0,864

0,532

0,286

0,119

0,084

0,046

2000

0,813

0,473

0,239

0,103

0,063

0,051

5000

0,756

0,449

0,217

0,088

0,061

0,041

Table 1: Simulations under H0

25

J

2

3

5

10

n

mn = n0,6

mn = n0,7

mn = n0,8

mn = n0,9

mn = n0,95

mn = n

50

0,961

0,919

0,897

0,864

0,829

0, 838

100

1

0,998

0,998

0,995

0,994

0,993

200

1

1

1

1

1

1

500

1

1

1

1

1

1

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

0,987

0,971

0,97

0,953

0,939

0,91

100

1

1

0,999

1

0,999

0,999

200

1

1

1

1

1

1

500

1

1

1

1

1

1

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

1

0,996

0,988

0,976

0,971

0,955

100

1

1

1

1

1

1

200

1

1

1

1

1

1

500

1

1

1

1

1

1

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

1

1

1

1

0,996

0,985

100

1

1

1

1

1

1

200

1

1

1

1

1

1

500

1

1

1

1

1

1

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

d

Table 2: Power of the test for γ = ε (1)

26

J

2

3

5

10

n

mn = n0,6

mn = n0,7

mn = n0,8

mn = n0,9

mn = n0,95

mn = n

50

0,426

0,33

0,3

0,241

0,223

0,163

100

0,658

0,534

0,468

0,365

0,361

0,3

200

0,855

0,824

0,751

0,665

0,613

0,602

500

0,998

0,998

0,993

0,982

0,965

0,962

1000

1

1

1

1

0,999

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

0,657

0,533

0,422

0,331

0,282

0,223

100

0,831

0,708

0,586

0,514

0,461

0,377

200

0,946

0,915

0,841

0,778

0,709

0,661

500

1

0,998

0,997

0,994

0,989

0,977

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

0,895

0,741

0,633

0,471

0,394

0,333

100

0,936

0,874

0,728

0,623

0,519

0,443

200

0,994

0,947

0,903

0,847

0,786

0,696

500

1

1

1

0,996

0,992

0,985

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

1

0,997

0,97

0,875

0,79

0,703

100

0,997

0,985

0,949

0,854

0,765

0,643

200

1

0,996

0,968

0,924

0,859

0,789

500

1

1

1

0,996

0,996

0,975

1000

1

1

1

1

1

0,999

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

d

Table 3: Power of the test γ = Laplace (0, 1)

27

I

2

3

5

10

n

mn = n0,6

mn = n0,7

mn = n0,8

mn = n0,9

mn = n0,95

mn = n

50

0,566

0,445

0,429

0,352

0,321

0,307

100

0,775

0,704

0,647

0,576

0,503

0,454

200

0,942

0,927

0,882

0,833

0,771

0,697

500

1

0,997

0,995

0,991

0,989

0,957

1000

1

1

1

1

1

0,986

2000

1

1

1

1

1

0,999

5000

1

1

1

1

1

0,997

50

0,745

0,653

0,546

0,46

0,402

0,349

100

0,881

0,821

0,738

0,65

0,592

0,563

200

0,98

0,958

0,928

0,891

0,873

0,794

500

1

1

0,999

0,997

0,997

0,978

1000

1

1

1

1

1

0,995

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

0,91

0,813

0,682

0,593

0,525

0,45

100

0,972

0,909

0,822

0,751

0,686

0,621

200

0,995

0,984

0,967

0,915

0,887

0,836

500

1

1

1

0,999

0,999

0,995

1000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

1

0,997

0,953

0,894

0,827

0,758

100

0,999

0,993

0,969

0,907

0,862

0,79

200

1

0,998

0,995

0,961

0,941

0,903

500

1

1

1

1

0,998

0,988

1000

1

1

1

1

1

0,998

2000

1

1

1

1

1

0,999

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

d

Table 4: Power of the test γ = T (3)

28

I

2

3

5

10

n

mn = n0,6

mn = n0,7

mn = n0,8

mn = n0,9

mn = n0.95

mn = n

50

0,398

0,353

0,292

0,207

0,182

0,183

100

0,623

0,52

0,429

0,341

0,29

0,228

200

0,826

0,717

0,65

0,589

0,526

0,41

500

0,989

0,978

0,954

0,928

0,878

0,787

1000

1

1

0,999

1

0,984

0,955

2000

1

1

1

1

1

0,985

5000

1

1

1

1

1

0,993

50

0,634

0,495

0,4

0,295

0,263

0,222

100

0,756

0,666

0,56

0,465

0,399

0,336

200

0,914

0,859

0,778

0,663

0,602

0,521

500

0,998

0,989

0,985

0,972

0,928

0,868

1000

1

1

1

1

0,999

0,963

2000

1

1

1

1

1

0,989

5000

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

0,851

0,709

0,583

0,426

0,359

0,316

100

0,919

0,825

0,668

0,546

0,493

0,316

200

0,959

0,908

0,842

0,738

0,684

0,578

500

1

0,997

0,994

0,973

0,934

0,888

1000

1

1

1

1

0,999

0,968

2000

1

1

1

1

1

1

5000

1

1

1

1

1

0,999

50

1

0,986

0,941

0,813

0,774

0,653

100

1

0,988

0,925

0,806

0,738

0,606

200

1

0,991

0,948

0,854

0,813

0,679

500

1

1

0,998

0,985

0,954

0,886

1000

1

1

1

1

0,997

0,949

2000

1

1

1

1

1

0,974

5000

1

1

1

1

1

0,995

d

Table 5: Power of the test γ = T (4)

29

Csörgő, M. (1983). Quantile processes with statistical applications. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, 42. SIAM.
Csörgő, M. and Horváth, L. (1993). Weighted approximations in probability and statistics.
Wiley
Cuturi, M. and Doucet, A.(2014) Fast computation of wasserstein barycenters, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Machine Learning 2014, JMLR W&CP, 32, 1,685–693.
Czado, C. and Munk, A. (1998). Assessing the similarity of distributions–finite sample performance of the empirical Mallows distance. J. Statist. Comput. Simulation, 60, 319–346.
del Barrio, E., Deheuvels, P. and van de Geer, S. (2007). Lectures on Empirical Processes: Theory and Statistical Applications. European Mathematical Society.
del Barrio, E., Giné, E. and Utzet, F. (2005). Asymptotics for L2 functionals of the
empirical quantile process, with applications to tests of fit based on weighted Wasserstein
distances. Bernoulli, 11, 131–189.
Bigot, J. and Klein, T.(2012) Characterization of barycenters in the Wasserstein space by
averaging optimal transport maps Arxiv preprint, Arxiv 1212.2562
Freitag, G. and Munk, A. (2005). On Hadamard differentiability in k-sample semiparametric
models–with applications to the assessment of structural relationships. Journal of Multivariate
Analysis, 94, 123–158.
Gallón, S., Loubes, J.-M. and Maza, E. (2013). Statistical properties of the quantile normalization method for density curve alignment. Mathematical Biosciences, 242, 129–142.
Gamboa, F., Loubes, J.-M. and Maza, E. (2007). Semi-parametric Estimation of Shifts.
Electronic Journal of Statistics, 1, 616–640.
Janssen, A. and Pauls, T. (2003). How do bootstrap and permutation tests work? Ann.
Statist. 31, 768–806.
Le Gouic, T. and Loubes, J-M.(2016). Existence and consistency of Wasserstein barycenters.
Probability Theory and Related Fields ,1–17.
Munk, A. and Czado, C. (1998). Nonparametric validation of similar distributions and assessment of goodness of fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol., 60, 223–241.
Rachev, S.T. (1984). The Monge-Kantorovich problem on mass transfer and its applications
in stochastics. Teor. Veroyatnost. i Primenen. 29, 625–653.
Rajput, B.S. (1972). Gaussian measures on Lp spaces, 1 ≤ p < ∞. J. Multivariate Anal., 2,
382–403.
Ramsay, J. O. and Silverman, B. W.,( 2005). Functional data analysis, 2nd Edition. Springer
Series in Statistics. Springer, New York.
Rippl, T and Munk, A. and Sturm, A.(2015). Limit laws of the empirical Wasserstein distance: Gaussian distributions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.04090.
Samworth, R. and Johnson, O. (2004). Convergence of the empirical process in Mallows
distance, with an application to bootstrap performance. arXiv:math/0406603
30

Sommerfeld, M. and Munk, A. (2016). Samworth, R. and Johnson, O. (2004). Inference
for Empirical Wasserstein Distances on Finite Spaces. arXiv:1610.03287
van der Vaart, A.W. (2000). Asymptotic statistics. Cambridge Univ Press.
van der Vaart, A.W. and Wellner, J.A. (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. Springer.
Villani, C. (2009). Optimal transport: old and new. Springer Verlag.

31

