The Shark Fin Function – Asymptotic Behavior of the Filtered
Derivative for Point Processes in Case of Change Points

arXiv:1409.1025v3 [math.ST] 17 May 2016

Michael Messer, Gaby Schneider
Institute of Mathematics
Johann Wolfgang Goethe University
Robert-Mayer-Str. 10
60325 Frankfurt (Main), Germany
corresponding author: Michael Messer, messer@math.uni-frankfurt.de
Abstract
A multiple filter test (MFT) for the analysis and detection of rate change points in
point processes on the line has been proposed recently. The underlying statistical test
investigates the null hypothesis of constant rate. For that purpose, multiple filtered
derivative processes are observed simultaneously. Under the null hypothesis, each process
G asymptotically takes the form
G ∼ L,
while L is a zero-mean Gaussian process with unit variance. This result is used to derive
a rejection threshold for statistical hypothesis testing.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the behavior of G under the alternative hypothesis
of rate changes and potential simultaneous variance changes. We derive the approximation
G ∼ ∆ · (Λ + L) ,
with deterministic functions ∆ and Λ. The function Λ accounts for the systematic deviation of G in the neighborhood of a change point. When only the rate changes, Λ is
hat shaped. When also the variance changes, Λ takes the form of a shark’s fin. In addition, the parameter estimates required in practical application are not consistent in the
neighborhood of a change point. Therefore, we derive the factor ∆ termed here the distortion function. It accounts for the lack in consistency and describes the local parameter
estimating process relative to the true scaling of the filtered derivative process.

Keywords:
point processes; renewal processes; change point detection; non-stationary rate; alternative;
filtered derivative

1

Introduction

The statistical theory of change point detection aims at the detection of structural breaks
(so called change points) in time series. For an overview of the topic see the textbooks of
1

Brodsky and Darkhovsky (1993); Basseville and Nikiforov (1993); Csörgő and Horváth (1997)
or the review article of Aue and Horváth (2013). We focus here on renewal processes on
the positive line (e.g., Gut and Steinebach (2002, 2009); Timmermann (2014)). In applications such as neuronal spike trains, structural breaks can occur on different time scales.
Interesting multi scale methods have been proposed by Frick et al. (2014); Fryzlewicz (2014);
Matteson and James (2014). Particularly for the scenario of point processes a multiple filter
test (MFT) has been proposed recently (Messer et al., 2014), extending results of Steinebach and Eastwood
(1995). The underlying statistical test investigates the null hypothesis of constant rate.
Here we investigate the respective filtered derivative process under the alternative of
change points in the rate, assuming that also the variance may change simultaneously. We
derive the approximation
G ∼ ∆ · (Λ + L) ,
where the notation ’·’ denotes pointwise multiplication. The function Λ accounts for the
systematic deviation of G in the neighborhood of a change point (section 2). Interestingly,
in contrast to similar approaches (Bertrand, 2000) this function takes the form of a shark’s
fin here because both the rate and the variance can change. Thus, we term Λ the shark fin
function. The height of the shark’s fin is proportional to a scaled rate difference and grows with
the bandwidth of G. In practical application, the estimators of the point process parameters
are not consistent in the neighborhood of a change point. In section 3, we therefore derive
the function ∆ termed here the distortion function. It accounts for the lack in consistency
and describes the local parameter estimating process relative to the true scaling of the filtered
derivative process.
Note that for convenience all results in the present article are shown here for processes
with independent and identically distributed life times but extend directly to a larger class of
renewal processes with a certain degree of variability in the variance (renewal processes with
varying variance, RPVVs, compare Messer (2014)) using the same proofs.

2
2.1

The Filtered Derivative Process
Notation and behavior under the null hypothesis

The main goal of the MFT proposed in Messer et al. (2014) is to test the null hypothesis H0
of constant rate against the alternative that a process is a piecewise renewal process with a
non-empty set of change points C = {c1 , . . . , ck }, and to estimate the change points in case of
rejection of the null hypothesis. In this paper we study the behavior of the filtered derivative
process under the alternative. To that end, we first define the filtered derivative process and
recall a convergence result under H0 , which can be used for the statistical test.
Throughout the article we use the following notation: We write a point process Φ on the
positive line as an increasing sequence of events 0 < S1 < S2 < S3 < · · · , or alternatively, by
its life times ξj := Sj − Sj−1 , j = 2, 3, . . ., setting ξ1 = S1 , or by the counting process (Nt )t≥0 ,
where
Nt = max{j ≥ 1 | Sj ≤ t},

t ≥ 0,

(1)

with the convention max ∅ := 0. The process Φ is called a renewal process with square
integrable life times (RP) if the associated life times {ξj }j≥1 build a sequence of positive,
2

independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and square-integrable random variables with
σ 2 := Var(ξ1 ) > 0. For an RP Φ with µ := E[ξ1 ] and σ 2 = Var[ξ1 ] we write Φ = Φ(µ, σ 2 ).
The inverse mean µ−1 is termed the rate of Φ.
For T > 0 let (Φ(n) )n≥1 := Φ|(0,nT ] , where Φ|(a,b] denotes the restriction of Φ to the interval
(a, b]. The value n is required for asymptotic statements throughout this work, which are
deduced by letting n → ∞. Here, the total time nT and the location of the change point
(n)
nc grow linearly in n. Let (Nt )t≥0 denote the counting process corresponding to Φ(n) . For
T > 0 let h ∈ (0, T /2] denote a window size and τh := [h, T − h] an analysis region.
Definition
2.1. Let Φ(µ, σ 2 ) be an RP. For t ∈ τh the filtered derivative process D (n) :=


(n)
Dt
is defined as
t∈τh

(n)

(n)

where st

(n)

Dt

:= Dh,t :=

:= sh,t :=

p
2nhσ 2 /µ3 .

(n)

(n)

Thus, Dt


 

(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Nn(t+h) − Nnt − Nnt − Nn(t−h)
(n)

st

(n)

,

(2)

(n)

compares the number of events in a left window, Nnt −Nn(t−h) , to the number
(n)

(n)

of events in a right window, Nn(t+h) − Nnt (Figure 1). The process D (n) can indicate changes
in the rate because its expectation asymptotically vanishes under the null hypothesis, while
systematic deviations from zero are expected when a rate change occurs. More precisely,
under the null hypothesis the following weak process convergence result for D (n) was shown
in Steinebach and Eastwood (1995) and Messer et al. (2014) for renewal processes and certain
generalizations with respect to variability in the variance. Let D[h, T − h] denote the set of
all càdlàg (continue à droite, limite à gauche) functions on [h, T − h]. Further, let dSK denote
the Skorokhod metric on D[h, T − h].
The following result describes the limit behavior of D when no change in the rate occurs.
Proposition 2.2. Let Φ(µ, σ 2 ) be an RP such that Φ(n) = Φ|(0,nT ] . Let (Wt )t≥0 be a standard
Brownian motion. Then it holds in (D[h, T − h], dSK ) as n → ∞




(Wt+h − Wt ) − (Wt − Wt−h )
d
(n)
√
.
(3)
Dt
−→
t∈τh
2h
t∈τh
d

The expression −→ denotes convergence in distribution. Proposition 2.2 is a special case
of Proposition 2.5 (section 2.2), which describes the behavior of D (n) in the presence of a
(n)
change point. In case of a change point in the rate, Dt systematically deviates from zero in
the neighborhood of the change point. Therefore, we introduce an additional centering term
in the following subsection in order to obtain convergence in case of a change point.

2.2

The filtered derivative in case of a change point

In order to investigate the behavior of Dt under the alternative of change points, we note that
a change point at c can only affect Dt within the h-neighborhood of c, i.e., for t ∈ (c− h, c− h).
Therefore, investigating one change point extends directly to an arbitrary number of change
points with distances at least 2h. We thus focus here on the behavior in case of one change
point, using the following point process model. The process Φ(n) starts as the RP Φ1 (µ1 , σ12 )
and jumps into Φ2 (µ2 , σ22 ) at the change point nc.
3

Construction 2.3. Let c ∈ (0, T ) and n = 1, 2, . . . Let Φ1 (µ1 , σ12 ) and Φ2 (µ2 , σ22 ) be two
independent RPs and set
Φ(n) := Φ(n) (c) := Φ1 |(0,nc] ∪ Φ2 |(nc,nT ] .

The resulting sequence of interest is given as Φ(n) n≥1 (cmp. Figure 1).

Φ

Φ1(µ1, σ21)

(n)

Φ2
Φ1

(4)

Φ2(µ2, σ22)

n(t−h)

nt

n(t+h)

(

|

]

|| | || | || | | || ||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| || |||| | ||||||||| | |||||||| | || |||| ||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| || ||| | |||||||||| | ||||| |||||||||| | |||||||| ||| || | ||||||| ||
| || | | | | || |

0

| ||

| | | | | | ||| | | | | | | | ||| || | | | | | | | | || || | || | |||| | | |

nh

nc

n(T − h)

nT

Figure 1: A point process with a change point at nc according to Construction 2.3. Before
nc, Φ(n) equals Φ1 (µ1 , σ22 ) and after nc, it derives from a second RP Φ2 (µ2 , σ22 ). The windows
required for the filtered derivative process at time nt are given by the intervals (n(t − h), nt]
and (nt, n(t + h)].
Thus, a change in the rate occurs if and only if µ1 6= µ2 . In this case of one change
point, D will systematically deviate from zero in the h-neighborhood of c (cmp. Bertrand,
2000). Therefore, we require an additional centering term mt for process convergence, and an
extension of the scaling process st as follows


(n)
Definition 2.4. Let the rescaled filtered derivative process Γ(n) := Γt
be defined as
t∈τh

(n)

Γt

(n)

:= Γh,t :=

i
h
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(Nn(t+h) − Nnt ) − (Nnt − Nn(t−h) ) − mt
(n)

st



(n)
while for t ∈ τh the expectation function m(n) := mt
(n)

t∈τh

,

(5)

is zero for |t − c| > h and equals

(n)

:= mh,t (c) := n (1/µ2 − 1/µ1 ) (h − |t − c|) for |t − c| ≤ h (see Figure 2 A, C). (6)


(n)
The variance (s(n) )2 := (st )2
is given by 2nhσ12 /µ31 for t < c − h, by 2nhσ22 /µ32 for
mt

t∈τh

t > c + h, and by a linear interpolation (see Figure 2 B, D)


(n)
(n)
(st )2 := (sh,t )2 := n (t + h − c)σ22 /µ32 + (c − (t − h))σ12 /µ31 ,

for |t − c| ≤ h.

(7)

Intuitively, the linear interpolation results from the linear shift of the window across time:
Assume for example a rate increase (Figure 2 A). If the window is shifted to the right in the
interval (c − h, c), only its right half is expected to contain more events. The fraction of the
right half for which this is the case increases linearly up to time c. Analogously, the decrease
is linear in the interval (c, c − h). For the variance a similar argument holds due to additivity
of the variances under independence of the life times.
Similar to the process D (n) , also the process Γ(n) can be shown to converge weakly in
Skorokhod topology to a limit process L in the general setting of a change point, as stated in
the following proposition.
4

(1 µ2 − 1 µ1)nh

A

2nh(σ22 µ32)

Φ1

mt

Φ2

s2t

B

0

2nh(σ21

µ31)

2nh(σ21

µ31)

c−h c c+h
mt

Φ1

Φ2

c−h c c+h

0

C

Φ1

Φ2

s2t

D

(1 µ2 − 1 µ1)nh

2nh(σ22

c−h c c+h

Φ1

Φ2

µ32)

c−h c c+h

Figure 2: Representation of the expectation function mt (A, C) and the variance function
s2t (B, D) in case of a change point at c, according to Definition 2.4. The expectation mt
vanishes outside [c − h, c + h] and takes its extreme, mc = (1/µ2 − 1/µ1 )nh, at c. The function
mt is non-negative if the rate increases (A) and non-positive if the rate decreases (C). The
variance function s2t equals 2nh(σ12 /µ31 ) for t < c − h and 2nh(σ22 /µ32 ) for t > c + h and is
linearly interpolated in [c − h, c + h] (B, D). Superscipts (n) are omitted here for convenience
in the notation of m and s.
Proposition 2.5. Let Φ1 (µ1 , σ12 ) and Φ2 (µ2 , σ22 ) be independent RPs with µ1 6= µ2 . Let the
sequence (Φ(n) )n≥1 result from Φ1 and Φ2 according to Construction 2.3, and let Γ(n) be the
associated rescaled filtered derivative process. Let (Wt )t≥0 be a standard Brownian motion,
and the limit process L := (Lt )t∈τh be given as

Lt := Lh,t (c) :=

 (W −W )−(W −W )
t
t
t+h
t−h
√

,

2h





 √σ2 /µ3 (Wt+h −Wc )+√σ2 /µ3 [(Wc −Wt )−(Wt −Wt−h )]

2
2
1
1
,
(1)
st




√ 2 3
√ 2 3


σ1 /µ1 (Wc −Wt−h )
c )]−

 σ2 /µ2 [(Wt+h −Wt )−(Wt −W
,
(1)

st

if |t − c| > h,
if c − h ≤ t ≤ c,

(8)

if c < t ≤ c + h.

Then it holds in (D[h, T − h], dSK ) as n → ∞

d

Γ(n) −→ L.
Elementary calculations show that the marginals Lt are standard normally distributed.
Note that Proposition 2.2 describes the special case where µ1 = µ2 and σ12 = σ22 , because for
(n)
(n)
all t ∈ τh , we obtain mt = 0, st = (2nhσ12 /µ31 )1/2 , Lt = [(Wt+h −Wt )−(Wt −Wt−h )]/(2h)1/2
(n)
and Γt equal to the left hand side in equation (3). The idea of the proof of Proposition 2.5 is
similar, but it relies on joint process convergence of the rescaled counting processes associated
with Φ1 and Φ2 , see Appendix A.1.

2.3

The Shark Fin Function

Proposition 2.5 states that asymptotically the following equality in distribution holds
D (n) ∼ Λ(n) + L,

with
5

Λ(n) := m(n) /s(n) .

(9)

In order to understand the process D (n) we investigate Λ(n) . In case of a rate change the
expectation function m(n) has the shape of a hat (Figure 2 A). If the variance changes additionally, the function Λ(n) resembles a shark’s fin and is therefore termed here the shark fin
function.
We show examples of such shark fin functions in Figure 3 and give a proof in Lemma
2.6. Equation (12) states that the shark fin function takes its largest deviation from zero
at time c. If m(n) ≥ 0 and s(n) increasing, the shark is heading west (Figure 3 A, equation
(10)), whereas in case of (11), the shark is heading east (Figure 3 B). For m(n) ≤ 0 analogous
relations hold, the shark is heading in the same directions, but turned upside down (Figure
3 C and D). Note also that if the standard deviation s(n) is constant over time, the shark fin
function Λ(n) has a hat shape, i.e., is piecewise linear.

A

B

mt ≥ 0 and st increasing

Λc

Λc

Λt

Λt
0

0
h

C

c−h

c

c+h

T−h

h

D

mt ≤ 0 and st increasing

0

c−h

c

c+h

T−h

mt ≤ 0 and st decreasing

0

Λt

Λt
Λc

Λc
h

A
B
C
D

mt ≥ 0 and st decreasing

(p1 , λ1 )
(1, 1)
(1/20, 1/20)
(20, 400)
(1, 20)

c−h

c

c+h

(p2 , λ2 )
(1, 20)
(20, 400)
(1/20, 1/20)
(1, 1)

T−h

h

µ−1
1
1
1
20
20

(n)
mt

µ−1
2
20
20
1
1

≥0
≥0
≤0
≤0

c−h

σ12 /µ31
1
20
1
20

c

c+h

σ22 /µ32
20
1
20
1

T−h
(n)

st
increasing
decreasing
increasing
decreasing

Figure 3: Analysis of the shark fin function Λt (solid), for the case of a change point at c.
The dotted line marks the scaled hat function mt /sc . The shape of the shark fin function
depends on the structure of the expectation function mt and the standard deviation function
st . For mt ≥ 0 and s2t increasing, the shark is going west (A). For mt ≥ 0 and s2t decreasing,
the shark is heading east (B). For mt ≤ 0, the shark is swimming upside down and is oriented
towards the same directions (C and D). The expectation and standard deviation functions
refer to point processes whose life times before the change point are i.i.d. Γ(p1 , λ1 ) distributed
and those after the change point are i.i.d. Γ(p2 , λ2 ) distributed. The parameters are given in
the upper table. Further parameters are T = 1000, c = 500, h = 150 and n = 1. Superscripts
(n) are omitted for convenience.

Lemma 2.6. For c ∈ (0, T ) and t ∈ τh let m(n) and s(n) be as in Definition 2.4 and Λ(n) =
m(n) /s(n) . Then Λ(n) is a continuous function with Λ(n) = 0 for t ∈
/ (c − h, c + h]. If µ1 = µ2
it also is Λ(n) = 0 for t ∈ (c − h, c + h]. If µ1 6= µ2 we separate four cases for t ∈ (c − h, c + h]:
6

For m(n) ≥ 0 and s(n) increasing (Figure 3 A),
(
concave and strictly increasing for t ∈ [c − h, c],
(n)
is
Λt
convex and strictly decreasing for t ∈ (c, c + h].
For m(n) ≥ 0 and s(n) decreasing (Figure 3 B),
(
convex and strictly increasing for t ∈ [c − h, c],
(n)
is
Λt
concave and strictly decreasing for t ∈ (c, c + h].

(10)

(11)

For m(n) ≤ 0, expressions (10) and (11) hold true, but with ’convex’ and ’concave’ as well as
’increasing’ and ’decreasing’ exchanged.
(n)
(n)
Further, because mt is of order nh and st is of order (nh)1/2 for |t − c| < h, we find that
(n)
Λt is of order (nh)1/2 for |t − c| < h.
Proof of Lemma 2.6: Continuity is clear because both the numerator and the denominator are continuous. For t ∈
/ (c − h, c + h] it is m(n) = 0 such that Λ(n) = 0. The same
holds for t ∈ (c − h, c + h] when µ1 = µ2 . For t ∈ (c − h, c + h] with µ1 6= µ2 we deduce the
case m(n) ≥ 0 and s(n) increasing. For t ∈ (c − h, c] both functions m(n) and s(n) are strictly
increasing in t. While mt is of order t, st is of order t1/2 , see equations (6) and (7). Thus,
the shark fin function Λ(n) is strictly increasing and of order t1/2 , and therefore describes a
concave function for t ∈ (c − h, c]. For t ∈ (c, c + h], m(n) is strictly decreasing and of order t,
so that Λ(n) is strictly decreasing of order t1/2 , which describes a convex function. The other
cases follow by similar arguments.
✷
(n)

Note that, if µ1 6= µ2 because Λt

is defined for t ∈ τh we find
(n)

arg max Λt
t

=c

(12)
(n)

(n)

for c ∈ τh , arg max |Λt | = h if c ∈ (0, h) and arg max |Λt | = T − h if c ∈ (T − h, T ). Note
further that Lemma 2.6 can be generalized to multiple change points with distance at least
2h, in which case Λ(n) describes multiple, successive shark fin functions.
Detection Probability in Change Point Estimation The fact that Λ(n) takes its maximal deviation from zero at the change point c can be used for change point estimation and
for a rough evaluation of the detection probability of a change point. In practice, the null
hypothesis of constant rate is rejected if the filtered derivative D (1) exceeds a threshold Q,
which can be derived by Monte Carlo simulation, compare e.g. Messer et al. (2014). If the
null hypothesis is rejected, an estimate of a change point c is given as ĉ := arg maxt∈τh |D (1) |.
For multiple change points, successive argmax-type estimation methods are applied (cmp.
Carlstein, 1988; Dümbgen, 1991; Antoch and Hušková, 1994; Antoch et al., 1997; Bertrand,
2000; Bertrand et al., 2011; Messer et al., 2014; Kirch and Muhsal, 2014).
The construction D (n) = Λ(n) + Γ(n) gives a simple bound for the detection probability
of a change point c ∈ τh . According to Proposition 2.5 and equations (6) and (7), we find
asymptotically


1/µ2 − 1/µ1
1/2
(n)
(n)
(nh) , 1 .
(13)
Dc ∼ Λc + Lc ∼ N
(σ22 /µ32 + σ12 /µ31 )1/2
7

(n)

−1
For rate increases µ−1
2 > µ1 , we find mc > 0 and Dc > 0, such that P (maxt∈τh |Dt | >
(n)
Q) ≥ P (Dc > Q). Analogous results apply for rate decreases. This implies asymptotically




|1/µ2 − 1/µ1 |
(n)
1/2
P max |Dt | > Q ≥ 1 − F Q − 2 3
(nh)
,
(14)
t∈τh
(σ2 /µ2 + σ12 /µ31 )1/2

where F denotes the distribution function of the standard normal distribution.
Note that the right hand side of equation (13) implies that the height of the shark is
proportional to the scaled rate differences and grows with the bandwidth of D.

3

The Distortion – Estimation of Process Parameters

The definition of the filtered derivative process D (n) as in equation (2) relies on the assumption that the theoretical standard deviation s(n) is known. However, s(n) depends on the
point process parameters µ1 , µ2 , σ12 and σ22 , which typically need to be estimated in practical application. Note that the filtered derivative is a local statistic, such that s(n) itself is
also a time dependent function in case of rate changes, see definition (7). We discuss the
behavior of the filtered derivative process when replacing s(n) by a time dependent estimator
ŝ(n) proposed in Messer et al. (2014). There, consistency was shown under H0 . Here, we
deduce the asymptotics of the process ŝ(n) under HA . The estimator is not consistent, but
deviates from the true scaling s(n) in the h-neighborhood of a change point. However, both
functionals ŝ(n) and s(n) are of the same magnitude and their asymptotic relation is termed
here the distortion ∆. The latter can be interpreted as the amount of error that results from
a bias in the parameter estimation close to a change point. For a similar phenomenon in the
setting of sequences of random variables compare Kirch and Muhsal (2014).
For all t ∈ τh , the estimator ŝ(n) is given by
 2




2 (nh, nt) 
σ̂ri (nh, nt) σ̂le
(n) 2
(n) 2
+
nh,
(15)
ŝt
:= ŝh,t :=
µ̂3ri (nh, nt) µ̂3le (nh, nt)
2 (nh, nt) (or µ̂ (nh, nt) and σ̂ 2 (nh, nt)) denote the empirical mean
where µ̂ri (nh, nt) and σ̂ri
le
le
and variance of all life times whose corresponding point events lie in the right window (nt, n(t+
h)] (or the left window (n(t − h), nt], respectively). If no life times can be found in the
respective intervals, the estimators are set to zero.
(n)
(n)
Replacing st with this estimator ŝt , we study the convergence of a new process defined
as
(n)

(n)
Gt

:=

(n)

(n)

(n)

(Nn(t+h) − Nnt ) − (Nnt − Nn(t−h) )
(n)

ŝt

.

(16)

Under the null hypothesis of no change point (i.e., µ1 = µ2 ), the following convergence result
is provided in Messer et al. (2014).
Proposition 3.1. Let Φ1 (µ1 , σ12 ) be an RP, such that Φ(n) = Φ1 |(0,nT ] . Then, we have in
(D[h, T − h], dSK ) as n → ∞


(Wt+h − Wt ) − (Wt − Wt−h )
(n) d
√
.
(17)
G −→
2h
t∈τh
8

The proof relies on the strong consistency of the estimator ŝ(n) under the null hypothesis,
i.e., that it holds uniformly almost surely s(n) /ŝ(n) → 1 as n → ∞.
In the general case of a change point the relation s(n) /ŝ(n) does not converge to unity, but
to a deterministic function ∆ := s(1) /ŝ(1) . For all t ∈ τh let s̃(n) be
 2




2 (h, t) 
σri (h, t) σle
(n) 2
(n) 2
s̃t
:= s̃h,t :=
nh,
(18)
+
µ3ri (h, t) µ3le (h, t)

with µri (h, t) = µ1 for t ≤ c − h, µri (h, t) = µ2 for t > c, and

µri (h, t) = hµ1 µ2 /((c − t)µ2 + (t + h − c)µ1 ) for

t ∈ (c − h, c],

(19)

2 (h, t) = σ 2 for t ≤ c − h, σ 2 (h, t) = σ 2 for t > c
and analogously for µle . For σri we set σri
2
1
ri
and
µ1 µ2 (t + h − c)(c − t)[(σ1 − σ2 )2 + (µ1 + µ2 )2 ] + [(t + h − c)µ1 σ2 + (c − t)µ2 σ1 ]2
2
σri
(h, t) =
[(c − t)µ2 + (t + h − c)µ1 ]2
(20)
2
for t ∈ (c − h, c], and analogously for σle . Let dk·k denote the supremum norm. The following
Lemma states that ∆ describes the asymptotic error induced by the estimator ŝ(n) .

Lemma 3.2. Let µ1 , µ2 , σ12 , σ22 > 0. Let Φ1 (µ1 , σ12 ) and Φ2 (µ2 , σ22 ) be independent RPs and
c ∈ (0, T ), so that the sequence (Φ(n) )n≥1 results from Φ1 and Φ2 according to Construction
2.3. Let s(n) , ŝ(n) and s̃(n) as defined in (7), (15) and (18). Then we have in (D[h, T −h], dk·k )
almost surely as n → ∞
!
!
(1)
(n)
st
st
(21)
−→
= (∆t )t∈τh .
(n)
(1)
ŝt
s̃
t
t∈τh
t∈τh
The proof is given in Appendix A.2. Note that this Lemma states that the estimator ŝ(n)
asymptotically equals s̃(n) almost surely in (D[h, T − h], dk·k ). The distortion ∆ is continuous
and depends on the process parameters µ1 , µ2 , σ12 and σ22 (see Figure 4 A,D for examples).
Considering the distortion term for applications in which the process parameters need to
be estimated, we find the following convergence of the filtered derivative process G(n) .
Proposition 3.3. Let µ1 , µ2 , σ12 , σ22 > 0. Let Φ1 (µ1 , σ12 ) and Φ2 (µ2 , σ22 ) be independent RPs
and c ∈ (0, T ) be a change point, so that the sequence (Φ(n) )n≥1 results from Φ1 and Φ2
according to Construction 2.3. Then, for G(n) , ∆, Λ(n) and L as defined in (16), (9), (21)
and (8), we have in (D[h, T − h], dSK ) as n → ∞
d

G(n) − ∆Λ(n) −→ ∆L.
Proof of Proposition 3.3: Since ∆Λ(n) = m(n) /ŝ(n) , the claim follows directly from
!
(n)
(n)
m
ŝt
(n)
(n)
t
Γt = Gt − (n)
(n)
ŝt
st
and due to the weak convergence Γ(n) → L as stated in Proposition 2.5 and the almost sure
convergence s(n) /ŝ(n) → ∆ as in Lemma 3.2 by applying Slutsky’s theorem.
✷
(n)

As a corollary we note that if µ1 = µ2 , even if σ12 6= σ22 , we find that Λt
which can be obtained by elementary calculations.
9

= 0 and ∆ = 1,

Corollary 3.4. Let c ∈ (0, T ) and n = 1, 2, . . . Let Φ1 (µ, σ12 ) and Φ2 (µ, σ22 ) be two independent
RPs with σ12 6= σ22 and set Φ(n) := Φ(n) (c) := Φ1 |(0,nc] ∪ Φ2 |(nc,nT ] . Then, for G(n) and L as
defined in (16) and (8), we have in (D[h, T − h], dSK ) as n → ∞
d

G(n) −→ L.

A
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00

∆t

h
Λc

D
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85

c−h

c

c+h

T−h

B

h
Λc

∆tΛt

∆t

c

c+h

T−h

c

c+h

T−h

c

c+h

T−h

E
∆tΛt

Λt

Λt

0

0
h

Λc

c−h

c−h

c

c+h

T−h

C

h
Λc

∆tΛt

c−h

F
∆tΛt

Gt

Gt

0

0
h

c−h

c

c+h

T−h

h

c−h

Figure 4: Two examples of the function Gt and its connection to the shark fin function Λt
and the distortion ∆t . The underlying point process on [0, 1000] starts in a process with
i.i.d. Γ(p1 , λ1 )-distributed life times and jumps into a process with i.i.d. Γ(p2 , λ2 )-distributed
life times at time c = 500. Panels A,D: The distortion ∆t . B,E: The distorted shark fin function ∆t Λt (solid), the undistorted shark fin function Λt (dotted, thick) and the hat function
(dotted, thin). C,F: The process Gt (solid) that fluctuates around the distorted shark fin
function (dotted). For panels A-C, (p1 , λ1 ) = (1, 5), (p2 , λ2 ) = (1/4, 5), resulting in (µ1 , σ12 ) =
(1/5, 1/25) and (µ2 , σ22 ) = (1/20, 1/100). For panels D-F, (p1 , λ1 ) = (2, 10), (p2 , λ2 ) = (2, 20),
resulting in (µ1 , σ12 ) = (1/5, 1/50) and (µ2 , σ22 ) = (1/20, 1/200). The window size was h = 150.
Note that the impact of the distortion function may theoretically become arbitrarily large
for extreme parameter constellations (up to 20% of the shark fin function in Figures 4 A,D).
However, because the estimators are derived locally and separately in each window half, the
estimation at the change point c is consistent and the distortion is unity. As a consequence,
the estimation error caused by inconsistent parameter estimation in practical application is
typically small because the shark fin function takes its largest deviation at c.
10

4

Summary

We extend a convergence result of a filtered derivative process described by Steinebach and Eastwood
(1995) and Messer et al. (2014) that can be used for change point analysis in point processes.
Usually, for purposes of statistical hypothesis testing, the behavior of the filtered derivative
process G is analyzed under the null hypothesis. In the present setting it converges weakly
to a zero-mean, unit variance Gaussian process L (equation (8), upper case), i.e.,
G(n) ∼ L.
Zero expectation results from a constant rate. Since the parameter estimators are consistent
under the null hypothesis, no additional term is required to describe the limit behavior of
G(n) .
The main purpose of this paper was to describe the behavior of G(n) under the alternative of
one change point. Proposition 3.3 states that we can approximate (roughly)


G(n) ∼ ∆ · Λ(n) + L .
(22)

The systematic term Λ(n) describes the expectation of the filtered derivative, which systematically deviates from zero in the neighborhood of a change point. Interestingly, this deviation
does not simply take the form of a hat, but of a shark’s fin. This is caused by the assumption
that both the rate and the variance may change at a change point. In practice, this shape
is distorted further when the process parameters need to be estimated. The distortion function ∆ accounts for the lack in consistency in estimation of point process parameters in the
neighborhood of a change point.
In summary, the first part in (22), ∆Λ(n) describes the deterministic, distorted shark
fin function (Figure 4). The second part, ∆L, describes a random fluctuation with zero
expectation and variance given as the squared distortion. As a consequence of the local
nature of G(n) , this result applies automatically to multiple change points separated by at
least 2h. Our results also suggest that in practical application the shape of the potentially
distorted shark’s fin typically neither affects the detection and estimation of change points,
nor the lower bound of the detection probability.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
within the framework of the e:Med research and funding concept (grant number: 01ZX1404B)
and by the Priority Program 1665 of the DFG. We thank Brooks Ferebee for helpful comments
on the manuscript.

References
Antoch, J. and Hušková, M. (1994). Procedures for the detection of multiple changes in series
of independent observations. In Asymptotic statistics (Prague, 1993), Contrib. Statist.,
pages 3–20. Physica, Heidelberg.
Antoch, J., Hušková, M., and Prášková, Z. (1997). Effect of dependence on statistics for
determination of change. J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 60(2):291–310.
11

Aue, A. and Horváth, L. (2013). Structural breaks in time series. J. Time Series Anal.,
34(1):1–16.
Basseville, M. and Nikiforov, I. V. (1993). Detection of abrupt changes: theory and application.
Prentice Hall Information and System Sciences Series. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Bertrand, P. (2000). A local method for estimating change points: the “hat-function”. Statistics, 34(3):215–235.
Bertrand, P. R., Fhima, M., and Guillin, A. (2011). Off-line detection of multiple change
points by the filtered derivative with p-value method. Sequential Anal., 30(2):172–207.
Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of probability measures. Wiley Series in Probability and
Statistics: Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, second edition.
A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
Brodsky, B. E. and Darkhovsky, B. S. (1993). Nonparametric methods in change-point problems, volume 243 of Mathematics and its Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group,
Dordrecht.
Carlstein, E. (1988). Nonparametric change-point estimation. Ann. Statist., 16(1):188–197.
Csörgő, M. and Horváth, L. (1997). Limit theorems in change-point analysis. Wiley Series in
Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester. With a foreword by David
Kendall.
Dümbgen, L. (1991). The asymptotic behavior of some nonparametric change-point estimators. Ann. Statist., 19(3):1471–1495.
Frick, K., Munk, A., and Sieling, H. (2014). Multiscale change point inference. J. R. Stat. Soc.
Ser. B. Stat. Methodol., 76(3):495–580. With 32 discussions by 47 authors and a rejoinder
by the authors.
Fryzlewicz, P. (2014). Wild binary segmentation for multiple change-point detection. Ann.
Statist., 42(6):2243–2281.
Gut, A. and Steinebach, J. (2002). Truncated sequential change-point detection based on
renewal counting processes. Scand. J. Statist., 29(4):693–719.
Gut, A. and Steinebach, J. (2009). Truncated sequential change-point detection based on
renewal counting processes. II. J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 139(6):1921–1936.
Kirch, C. and Muhsal, B. (2014). A MOSUM procedure for the estimation of multiple random
change points. Preprint.
Matteson, D. S. and James, N. A. (2014). A nonparametric approach for multiple change
point analysis of multivariate data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 109(505):334–345.
Messer, M. (2014). A multiple filter test for the detection of rate changes in renewal processes
with varying variance. PhD thesis, Frankfurt, Goethe University, Diss., 2014.
12

Messer, M., Kirchner, M., Schiemann, J., Roeper, J., Neininger, R., and Schneider, G. (2014).
A multiple filter test for the detection of rate changes in renewal processes with varying
variance. Ann. Appl. Stat., 8(4):2027–2067.
Steinebach, J. and Eastwood, V. R. (1995). On extreme value asymptotics for increments of
renewal processes. J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 45(1-2):301–312. Extreme value theory and
applications (Villeneuve d’Ascq, 1992).
Timmermann, H. C. (2014). Monitoring procedures for detecting gradual changes. Dissertation. urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-56965.

A

Appendix

Unless otherwise specified, we use the following notation (compare Construction 2.3): Let
(n)
T > 0, h ∈ (0, T /2], t ∈ τh and c ∈ (0, T ). Further, let {ξ1,j }j≥1 , {ξ2,j }j≥1 and {ξj }j≥1
denote the sequences of life times that correspond to Φ1 , Φ2 and to the compound process
(n)
Φ(n) , respectively. Analogously, let (N1,t )t≥0 , (N2,t )t≥0 and (Nt )t≥0 denote the associated
counting processes (see equation (1)). Further, let (W1,t )t≥0 and (W2,t )t≥0 be independent
standard Brownian motions.

A.1

Proof of Proposition 2.5

Outline: We show the joint convergence in distribution of the rescaled counting processes
(N1,t )t and (N2,t )t to a function of (W1,t )t and (W2,t )t (compare 24). Then, at time t both
processes refer to the information of the entire time interval (0, t]. In a second step, the
processes are continuously mapped to the scenario of the two windows (t − h, t] and (t, t + h]
which refers to the filtered derivative process (Γt )t .
Proof of Proposition 2.5:
(n)
For i = 1, 2 let the rescaled random walk (Xi,t )t≥0 and the rescaled counting process
(n)

(Zi,t )t≥0 concerning Φi be given as
(n)
Xi,t

[nt]
1 X
(ξi,j − µi ) and
:= √
σi n

(n)

Zi,t :=

j=1

Ni,nt − nt/µi
q
,
nσi2 /µ3i

(23)

for t ≥ 0. According to Donsker’s theorem (in the case of RPVVs apply Messer et al. (2014,
Proposition A.8.)), we find in (D[0, ∞), dSK ) as n → ∞ that
d

(n)

(Xi,t )t≥0 −→ (Wi,t )t≥0

for

i = 1, 2,

(n)

implying weak convergence of (Zi,t )t≥0 , i.e., it holds in (D[0, ∞), dSK ) as n → ∞ that
(n)

d

(Zi,t )t≥0 −→ (Wi,t )t≥0 for i = 1, 2, as stated in Billingsley (1999, Theorem 14.6.).
We use a different scaling and set
Ni,nt − nt/µi
(n)
Zei,t :=
,
(n)
st
13

t ≥ 0,

(n)

where st , t ∈ [0, ∞) is given in Definition 2.4. Then for i = 1, 2, we find in (D[0, ∞), dSK )
for n → ∞

q
2 /µ3


σ
i
i
d
(n)
Wi,t 
−→ 
Zei,t
(1)
t≥0
st
t≥0



q
√ q
(n)
(1)
n σi2 /µ3i /st
σi2 /µ3i /st
=
is continuous in t and does not depend on n.
because
t

t

(n)
(n)
Let now (Ze1,t )t≥0 and (Ze2,t )t≥0 denote the processes derived from Φ1 and Φ2 , respectively.
Due to independence of Φ1 and Φ2 , we obtain joint convergence in (D[0, ∞) × D[0, ∞), dSK ⊗
dSK ) for n → ∞
 p
!
! 
p



 
2
3
2
3
σ1 /µ1
σ2 /µ2
d
(n)
(n)
.
Ze1,t
, Ze2,t
W1,t
W2,t
−→ 
(24)
,
(1)
(1)
t≥0
t≥0
st
s
t
t≥0
t≥0

We consider the continuous map ϕ : (D[0, ∞) × D[0, ∞), dSK ⊗ dSK ) → (D[h, T − h], dSK )
given by
((f (t))t≥0 , (g(t))t≥0 )


(f (t + h) − f (t)) − (f (t) − f (t − h))1[h,c−h) (t)
ϕ  +(g(t + h) − g(c)) + (f (c) − f (t)) − (f (t) − f (t − h))1[c−h,c) (t) 

.
7−→ 
 +(g(t + h) − g(t)) − (g(t) − g(c)) − (f (c) − f (t − h))1[c,c+h)(t) 
+(g(t + h) − g(t)) − (g(t) − g(t − h))1[c+h,T −h] (t)
t∈τ


h

The continuous mapping theorem applied to (24) with map ϕ yields in (D[h, T − h], dSK ) for
n→∞
 p
!
! 
p



 
2
3
2
3
σ1 /µ1
σ2 /µ2
d
(n)
(n)
.
,
W1,t
W2,t
Ze1,t
ϕ
, Ze2,t
−→ ϕ 
(1)
(1)
t≥0
t≥0
st
st
t≥0
t≥0
Thus, it remains to be shown that





 
(n)
e(n)
e(n)
Z
Γt
=ϕ
,
Z
,
1,t
2,t
t∈τh
t≥0
t≥0
 p
!
! 
p
2
3
2
3
σ1 /µ1
σ2 /µ2
,
,
W1,t
W2,t
(Lt )t∈τh ∼ ϕ 
(1)
(1)
st
s
t
t≥0
t≥0

(25)
(26)

where ∼ denotes equality in distribution. In order to show (25) and (26) we differentiate the
four cases t ∈ [h, c − h), t ∈ [c − h, c), t ∈ [c, c + h) and t ∈ [c + h, T − h].
Derivation of (25):
Case t < c − h :



 
(N1,n(t+h) − N1,nt ) − (N1,nt − N1,n(t−h) )
(n)
(n)
e
e
Z1,t
ϕ
, Z2,t
=
(n)
t≥0
t≥0
st
t
(n)

=

(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

[(Nn(t+h) − Nnt ) − (Nnt − Nn(t−h) )] − mt
(n)
st

14

(n)

= Γt .

For t ≥ c + h we obtain analogous results by exchanging subscripts. For t ∈ [c − h, c) we
obtain



 
(n)
(n)
e
e
Z1,t
ϕ
, Z2,t
t≥0
t≥0
t


(t+h)−c
(N2,n(t+h) − N2,nc ) + (N1,nc − N1,nt ) − (N1,nt − N1,n(t−h) ) − n (t+h)−c
−
µ2
µ1
=
(n)
st
(n)

=

(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

[(Nn(t+h) − Nnt ) − (Nnt − Nn(t−h) )] − mt
(n)
st

(n)

= Γt .

Analogously, we obtain c ≤ t < c + h, which proves (25).
Derivation of (26):
For t < c − h we obtain
 p
!
! 
p
2 /µ3
2 /µ3
σ
σ
1
2
1
2
 = (W1,t+h − W1,t )√− (W1,t − W1,t−h ) = Lt .
W1,t
W2,t
ϕ
,
(1)
(1)
2h
st
st
t≥0
t≥0
t
(27)
The same holds for t ≥ c + h with the subscript exchanged. In the case c − h ≤ t < c we
obtain
 p
!
! 
p
2 /µ3
2 /µ3
σ
σ
1
1
2
2

,
W1,t
W2,t
ϕ
(1)
(1)
st
s
t
t≥0
t≥0
t
p
p
2
2
3
3
σ2 /µ2 (W2,t+h − W2,c ) + σ1 /µ1 [(W1,c − W1,t ) − (W1,t − W1,t−h )]
= Lt .
(28)
=
(1)
st
Analogously, we obtain for c ≤ t < c + h
 p
!
! 
p
2
3
2
3
σ1 /µ1
σ2 /µ2

ϕ
,
W1,t
W2,t
(1)
(1)
st
st
t≥0
t≥0
t
p
p
2
3
σ2 /µ2 [(W2,t+h − W2,t ) − (W2,t − W2,c )] + σ12 /µ31 (W1,c − W1,t−h )
= Lt .
=
(1)
st

(29)

Now let (Wt )t≥0 be a standard Brownian motion, i.e., (Wt )t≥0 ∼ (W1,t )t≥0 ∼ (W2,t )t≥0 . The
process defined in (27), (28) and (29) has continuous sample paths and is given as a function
of increments of disjoint intervals of the processes (W1,t )t≥0 and (W2,t )t≥0 . Therefore, we
can omit the subscripts one and two in (27), (28) and (29) and obtain a process that has
continuous sample paths and the same distribution as the former one. By omitting the subscripts, we obtain the limit process L as defined in equation (8), which completes the proof
of Proposition 2.5.
✷

A.2

Proof of Lemma 3.2
(n)

(n)

The Proof of Lemma 3.2 works as follows: The uniform convergence (st /ŝt )t∈τh → (∆)t∈τh
(n) (n)
a.s. is equivalent to the uniform convergence (s̃t /ŝt )t∈τh → (1)t∈τh a.s. as n → ∞. The
15

(n)

(n)

2 and σ̂ 2 as given in (15). We
terms s̃t and ŝt are functions of the estimators µ̂le , µ̂ri , σ̂le
ri
2 and σ 2 defined in (19)
show the uniform a.s. convergence to their counterparts µle , µri , σle
ri
and (20). More precisely, we show the uniform a.s. convergence of (µ̂le )t∈τh to (µle )t∈τh and
2)
2
(µ̂ri )t∈τh to (µri )t∈τh in Lemma A.2, and the uniform a.s. convergence of (σ̂le
t∈τh to (σle )t∈τh
2
2
and (σ̂ri )t∈τh to (σri )t∈τh in Lemma A.3. Thus, the assertion of the Proposition holds true by
the structure of the estimator ŝ2 in (15) and the function s̃2 in (18) and because convergence
of sums and products of càdlàg-valued functions in supremum norm is preserved when the
limits are constant.
✷

For completeness of the proof, we show the consistency of the estimators µ̂le and µ̂ri in
2 and σ̂ 2 in Lemma A.3. For that we first show a
Lemma A.2 and the consistency of σ̂le
ri
functional version of the SLLN in the following Lemma.
(n)

Lemma A.1. For the counting process Nt
(D[h, T − h], dk·k ) as n → ∞ almost surely


Nn(t+h) − Nnt



(n)
Nnt





(n)

(n)

nh

−





(n)
Nn(t−h)


nh

that corresponds to the process Φ(n) , it holds in

−→

1
µri (h, t)

t∈τh





−→

1
µle (h, t)

t∈τh





,

(30)

.

(31)

t∈τh

t∈τh

Proof: Outline: We show the convergence of the right window half as stated in (30). The
statement for the left window half follows analogously.
First, we show that for all t ≥ 0 and all h > 0 it holds almost surely as n → ∞
(n)

(n)

Nn(t+h) − Nnt
nh

−→

1
.
µri (h, t)

(32)

Then, by a discretization argument this result is extended to hold true in (D[h, T − h], dk · k ),
as stated in (30).
Derivation of (32):
In order to show the convergence in (32), we distinguish between three cases. First assume
t ≤ c − h. Here, for all n = 1, 2, . . ., the corresponding window (nt, n(t + h)] lies left of the
(n)
change point nc. Thus, the counting process Nt completely refers to the first RP Φ1 (µ1 , σ12 ),
(n)
i.e., Nnt = N1,nt , while (N1,t )t≥0 denotes the counting process associated with Φ1 . Then, it
can be shown that it holds almost surely for n → ∞
(n)

(n)

Nn(t+h) − Nnt
nh

=

N1,n(t+h) − N1,nt
1
1
−→
,
=
nh
µ1
µri (h, t)

(33)

compare e.g., Messer et al. (2014). An analogous statement holds for t > c.
For t ∈ (c − h, c], the right window half refers partially to Φ1 and Φ2 . The section
(nt, nc] refers to Φ1 and the section (nc, n(t + h)] corresponds to Φ2 . Thus, we decompose
16

(n)

(n)

Nn(t+h) − Nnt = (N2,n(t+h) − N2,nc ) + (N1,nc − N1,nt ). We obtain almost surely for n → ∞
(n)

(n)

Nn(t+h) − Nnt

(N2,n(t+h) − N2,nc ) + (N1,nc − N1,nt )
nh
t + h − c N2,n(t+h) − N2,nc c − t N1,nc − N1,nt
+
=
h
n(t + h − c)
h
n(c − t)
t+h−c 1
c−t 1
1
−→
+
=
.
h
µ2
h µ1
µri (h, t)

=

nh

(34)

In total, the convergences (33) - (34) yield (32).
Derivation of (30):
In order to show that also convergence in (D[h, T − h], dk·k ) holds, we even show the convergence in (30) on [0, T − h]. It is sufficient to show that almost surely
(n)

(n)

lim

sup

Nn(t+h) − Nnt

n→∞ t∈[0,T −h]

nh/µri (h, t)

(n)

≤1

and

lim

(n)

Nn(t+h) − Nnt

inf

n→∞ t∈[0,T −h]

≥ 1.

nh/µri (h, t)

(35)

We show the left inequality of (35). The right one follows analogously. We use a discretization argument. For x ∈ R let |⌈x⌉| := ⌈x⌉ + 1. For ε > 0 with T /ε ∈ N we decompose
the time interval (0, nT ] into equidistant sections of length nε (Figure 5). Then we observe
a set Sε := {(knε, knε + n|⌈h/ε⌉|ε] : k = 0, 1, . . . , T /ε − |⌈h/ε⌉|} of finitely many windows of
size n|⌈h/ε⌉|ε. The windows of Sε are slightly larger than nh and for every t ∈ (0, T − h] we
find an element of Sε that overlaps the window (nh, n(t + h)] (blue window in Figure 5). We
bound
sup
t∈[0,T −h]

nh/µri (h, t)

(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

Nn(t+h) − Nnt

≤

max

Nknε+n|⌈h/ε⌉|ε − Nknε

k=0,1,...,T /ε−|⌈h/ε⌉|

nh/µri (h, kε)

.

(36)

Now we make use of the fact that the convergence in (30) holds true for a finite number of
windows. By letting n → ∞ the right hand side of (36) converges to 1 + δε , with
δε ≤

max(µ1 , µ2 ) |⌈h/ε⌉|ε − h
.
min(µ1 , µ2 )
h

The expression δε > 0 accounts for the additional portion that results from the enlarged
windows. Then, by letting ε ↓ 0 the summand δε vanishes, which yields the first inequality
in (35). Analogously, for the lower bound of (35) we find finitely many smaller windows of
length n(⌊h/ε⌋ − 1)ε, such that every window (nh, n(t + h)]) contains such a smaller window
(red window in Figure 5). Then, the limit of the infimum can be bounded from below by
1 − δε′ with δε′ > 0 and such that δε′ → 0 as ε ↓ 0. Here, δε′ refers to the portion that is not
covered by choosing the finitely many windows to be slightly smaller than the true window
size nh.
✷
Next, we show the uniform a.s. convergences (µ̂ri (nh, nt))t∈τh → (µri (h, t))t∈τh and
(µ̂le (nh, nt))t∈τh → (µle (h, t))t∈τh as n → ∞. The estimators are given as
(n)

µ̂ri = µ̂ri (nh, nt) =

Nn(t+h)

1
(n)
Nn(t+h)

−

(n)
Nnt

−1

X

(n)

i=Nnt +2

17

(n)

ξi ,

(n)

(n)

if Nn(t+h) − Nnt > 1,

nt
(
| | | | | | | || | || |

n(t+h)
]
||||| | || || | || ||||| | || | ||| | | | | | || | || || ||| | | | || | | | | || | | || | | | |

(
0

nε

(

]

2nε

3nε

| || || ||

|

]
4nε

5nε

nT

Figure 5: Schematic representation of the discretization of the time horizon (0, nT ] into
equidistant sections of length nε. All windows of length nh (black) are contained in one of
finitely many windows of length n(⌈h/ε⌉+1)ε (blue) and contain one of finitely many windows
of length n(⌊h/ε⌋ − 1)ε (red). By letting ε ↓ 0, the size of the finitely many blue and red
windows gets arbitrarily close to the true window size nh.
and µ̂ri = 0 otherwise and µ̂le is given analogously.
Lemma A.2. For the estimators µ̂ri (nh, nt) and µ̂le (nh, nt) as given in (15), it holds in
(D[h, T − h], dk·k ) as n → ∞ almost surely
(µ̂ri (nh, nt))t∈τh −→ (µri (h, t))t∈τh ,

(37)

(µ̂le (nh, nt))t∈τh −→ (µle (h, t))t∈τh .

(38)

Proof: We show the convergence of the right window half as stated in (37). The assertion
for the left window half follows analogously. We proceed as in the proof Lemma A.1. First,
we show that for all t ≥ 0 and h > 0, it holds almost surely as n → ∞
(n)

1
nh

Nn(t+h)

X

(n)

ξi

(n)
i=Nnt +2

−→ 1,

(39)

i.e., the sum of the life times in the window half asymptotically equals the window length.
Then, this result is extended to (D[h, T − h], dk · k ) to conclude the convergence in (37).
Derivation of (39):
Assertion (37) has been shown in Messer et al. (2014) to hold for the individual processes
Φj (µj , σj2 ). Therefore, as we show (37) for the right window half, convergence (39) holds true
for t ∈ (0, c − h] and t ≥ c. For t ∈ (c − h, c], the right window half contains parts of Φ1 and
of Φ2 . We therefore decompose (nt, n(t + h)] = (nt, nc] ∪ (nc, n(t + h)]. The section (nt, nc]
refers to Φ1 and the section (nc, n(t + h)] corresponds to Φ2 . The life time at the change point
c results from Φ1 and Φ2 , and we therefore bound
X

i=N1,nt +2

(n)

Nn(t+h)

N2,n(t+h)

N1,nc

ξ1,i +

X

i=N2,nc +2

ξ2,i ≤

X

(n)
i=Nnt +2

N2,n(t+h)

N1,nc +1
(n)
ξi

≤

X

i=N1,nt +2

ξ1,i +

X

ξ2,i ,

(40)

i=N2,nc +1

which allows to use the properties of the individual processes. For the right hand side in (40)
18

it holds as n → ∞
(n)

1
nh

Nn(t+h)

X

(n)



≤

ξi

(n)

i=Nnt +2

−→



N1,nc +1

X

1
c−t
h n(c − t)

i=N1,nt +2



ξ1,i  + 

1
t+h−c
h
n(t + h − c)

N2,n(t+h)

X

i=N2,nc +1

(c − t) t + h − c
+
= 1.
h
h



ξ2,i 

Analogously we obtain the lower bound, such that assertion (39) holds true.
Derivation of (37):
In order to show convergence (39) in (D[h, T − h], dk · k ) we even prove it on the interval
[0, T − h]. For that, we show that almost surely
(n)

lim

sup

n→∞ t∈[0,T −h]

1
nh

(n)

Nn(t+h)

X

(n)

ξi

(n)
i=Nnt +2

≤ 1

and

lim

inf

n→∞ t∈[0,T −h]

1
nh

Nn(t+h)

X

(n)

ξi

(n)
i=Nnt +2

≥ 1.

(41)

We show here the left inequality of (41). We use the same discretization argument as in the
proof of Lemma A.1 and decompose the interval (0, nT ] into equidistant sections of length nε
(Figure 5). Then we bound
(n)

1
nh
t∈[0,T −h]

(n)

Nn(t+h)

sup

X

(n)

ξi

(n)

i=Nnt +2

≤

1
k=0,1,...,T /ε−|⌈h/ε⌉| nh
max

Nknε+n|⌈h/ε⌉|ε

X

(n)

ξi

(n)

i=Nknε
(n)

|⌈h/ε⌉|ε − h
1
≤
+
max
h
k=0,1,...,T /ε−|⌈h/ε⌉| nh

Nknε+nh

X

(n)

ξi .

(n)

i=Nknε

The first summand tends to zero as ε ↓ 0 and is independent of n. Further, for every ε > 0,
the second summand converges to unity almost surely as n → ∞, according to equation (39).
Thus, the first inequality in (41) holds. The second inequality in (41) can be shown similarly.
Thus, convergence (39) holds in (D[h, T − h], dk · k ), and together with Lemma A.1 the assertion (37) holds true by Slutsky’s Theorem.
✷
2 (nh, nt))
To finish the proof of Lemma 3.2, we need to show the uniform a.s. convergences (σ̂ri
t∈τh →
2
2
2
and (σ̂ri (nh, nt))t∈τh → (σri (h, t))t∈τh as n → ∞. The estimator σ̂ri is given as

2 (h, t))
(σri
t∈τh

(n)

2
σ̂ri
(nh, nt) =

Nn(t+h)

1
(n)
Nn(t+h)

(n)
− Nnt

−2

X

(n)

i=Nnt +2


2
(n)
ξi − µ̂(nh, nt) ,

if

(n)

(n)

Nn(t+h) − Nnt > 2,

2 = 0 otherwise. Similarly σ̂ 2 is given.
and σ̂ri
le
2 (nh, nt) and σ̂ 2 (nh, nt) as given in (15) it holds in
Lemma A.3. For the estimators σ̂ri
le
(D[h, T − h], dk·k ) as n → ∞ almost surely
2
2
(σ̂ri
(nh, nt))t∈τh −→ (σri
(h, t))t∈τh ,
2
(σ̂le
(nh, nt))t∈τh

−→

19

2
(σle
(h, t))t∈τh .

(42)
(43)

Proof: Again we show the convergence of the right window half as given in (42), while
the statement for the left window half follows analogously.
First, we show that for all t ≥ 0 and h > 0, it holds almost surely as n → ∞

(n)

µri (h, t)
nh

Nn(t+h)

X

(n)
i=Nnt +2


2
(n)
2
ξi − µ̂ri (nh, nt) −→ σri
(h, t).

(44)

Then, this result is extended to (D[h, T − h], dk · k ) which yields (42).
Derivation of (44):
In the following, let µ̂j,ri (nh, nt) denote the estimator that corresponds to Φj (µj , σj2 ). As
before, µ̂ri (nh, nt) denotes the estimator that refers to the compound process Φ(n) .
Note that (44) was shown in Messer et al. (2014) to hold for the individual processes
Φj (µj , σj2 ). Therefore, as we show (42) for the right window, (44) holds for t ∈ (0, c − h] and
t ≥ c. For the remaining case t ∈ (c − h, c], we recall that the right window half partially
corresponds to Φ1 and Φ2 . Again, we decompose (nt, n(t+h)] = (nt, nc]∪(nc, n(t+h)], where
the sections (nt, nc] and (nc, n(t + h)] refer to Φ1 and Φ2 , respectively. We decompose

(n)

Nn(t+h)

µri (h, t)
nh

X

(n)

i=Nnt +2




2
(n)
ξi − µ̂ri (nh, nt)



(n)

µ1
 (c − t)µri (h, t)
=
hµ1
n(c − t)


N1,nc

X
(n)

i=N1,nt +2


(ξ1,i − µ̂ri (nh, nt))2 
(n)

µ2
 (t + h − c)µri (h, t)
+
hµ2
n(t + h − c)

N2,n(t+h)

X
(n)

i=N2,nc +2




(ξ2,i − µ̂ri (nh, nt))2  + oa.s. (1)

The term oa.s. (1) accounts for the summand that corresponds to the single life time ξ

(45)

(n)
(n)

Nnc +1

that overlaps the change point and that is not respected in the first two terms of (45). By
(n)
Borel-Cantelli Lemma, the sequence {(ξ (n) − µ̂ri (nh, nt))2 /nh}n=1,2,... can be shown to
Nnc +1

vanish almost surely for n → ∞ and is therefore abbreviated with oa.s. (1). For the first
20

summand, we find almost surely as n → ∞
(n)

µ1
n(c − t)

N1,nc

X
(n)

(ξ1,i − µ̂ri (nh, nt))2

i=N1,nt +2
(n)

=

µ1
n(c − t)

N1,nc

X
(n)

([ξ1,i − µ̂1,ri (n(c − t), nt)] + [µ̂1,ri (n(c − t), nt) − µ̂ri (nh, nt)])2

i=N1,nt +2
(n)

µ1
=
n(c − t)

N1,nc

X

(n)
i=N1,nt +2

[ξ1,i − µ̂1,ri (n(c − t), nt)]2



+ 2[µ̂1,ri (n(c − t), nt) − µ̂ri (nh, nt)] 

(46)
(n)

µ1
n(c − t)

N1,nc

X
(n)




[ξ1,i − µ̂1,ri (n(c − t), nt)]

i=N1,nt +2



µ1
(n)
(n)
N1,nc − N1,nt − 1 [µ̂1,ri (n(c − t), nt) − µ̂ri (nh, nt)]2
n(c − t)
2
−→ σ1 + (µ1 − µri (h, t))2 .
+

The first summand in (46) shows the a.s. convergence to σ12 because it refers only to Φ1 .
The second summand in (46) vanishes a.s. since the left term converges a.s. according to
Lemma A.2 and the right term tends to zero a.s. according to Lemmas A.1 and A.2. The
third summand in (46) tends to (µ1 − µri (h, t))2 a.s., since the term in the squared brackets
converges to (µ1 − µri (h, t))2 a.s. according to Lemma A.2, while the scaled counting process
converges to unity a.s. due to Lemma A.1.
An analogous result can be obtained for the second summand of (45) which yields almost
surely for n → ∞
(n)

µri (h, t)
nh

Nn(t+h)

X

(n)

i=Nnt +2




2
(c − t)µri (h, t) 2
(n)
2
ξi − µ̂ri (nh, nt) −→
[σ1 + (µ1 − µri (h, t)) ]
hµ1
+




(t + h − c)µri (h, t) 2
2
[σ2 + (µ2 − µri (h, t)) ] ,
hµ2

2 (h, t). The convergence in (44) can be conand elementary calculations yield equality to σri
cluded using an analogous discretization argument as in the proofs of Lemmas A.2 and A.1,
such that the assertion (42) can be concluded.
✷

21

