A note on central limit theorems for quadratic variation
in case of endogenous observation times
Mathias Vetter∗

Tobias Zwingmann†

arXiv:1605.07056v1 [math.ST] 23 May 2016

April 16, 2018

Abstract
This paper is concerned with a central limit theorem for quadratic variation
when observations come as exit times from a regular grid. We discuss the special
case of a semimartingale with deterministic characteristics and finite activity
jumps in detail and illustrate technical issues in more general situations.

Keywords and Phrases: High-frequency observations; irregular data; quadratic variation; realized variance; stable convergence
AMS Subject Classification: 60F05, 60G51, 62M09

1

Introduction

High-frequency statistics has attracted a lot of attention in recent years. Given observations of a semimartingale X, one is often interested in estimation of its quadratic
variation (or parts thereof, such as integrated volatility) and with associated central
limit theorems.
A natural way is to work in a setting where observations come at regular times,
that is we have data Xj/n , j = 0, . . . , n, over the interval [0, 1], say. The most general
paper on asymptotics in this setting is Jacod (2008) where various (stable) central
limit theorems for functionals of discretely observed Itō semimartingales are stated,
including those for realized variance RV (X, X)nt with
RV (X, Y )nt =

bntc
X

(Xj/n − X(j−1)/n )(Yj/n − Y(j−1)/n )

j=1

for arbitrary processes X and Y ; see also Jacod and Protter (1998) for earlier results
on related statistics in the case of Lévy processes. Suppose, X is defined on the
filtered probability space (Ω, F, (Ft )t≥0 , P) and can be decomposed as
Z t
Z t
Z tZ
Xt = X0 +
as ds +
σs dWs +
κ(δ(s, x))(µ − ν)(ds, dx)
(1.1)
0
0
0
R
Z tZ
κ̄(δ(s, x))µ(ds, dx),
+
0
∗

R

Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Mathematisches Seminar, Ludewig-Meyn-Str. 4, 24118
Kiel, Germany. E-mail: vetter@math.uni-kiel.de
†
Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Hans-Meerwein-Str.,
35043 Marburg, Germany. E-mail: zwingmann@mathematik.uni-marburg.de

1

where a, σ and δ are adapted processes and a truncation function κ, κ̄(x) = x−κ(x),
separates large from compensated small jumps. The compensating intensity measure
ν of the Poisson random measure µ admits the form ν(ds, dx) = ds ⊗ λ(dx) for a
σ-finite measure λ. In this case, the quadratic variation process becomes
Z t
X
∆Xs2 ,
∆Xs = Xs − Xs−
[X, X]t =
σs dWs +
0

0≤s≤t

Under essentially no extra conditions, Theorem 2.11 in Jacod (2008) gives the Fstable central limit theorem
Ztn (X) =

√

n (RV (X, X)nt − [X, X]t )

L−(s)

−→ Zt ,

(1.2)

pointwise in t, where the limiting process Zt = Ut + Vt consists of two parts: The
first one,
√ Z t 2
σs dWs0 ,
Ut = 2
0

is due to the continuous martingale part of X only. Here, W 0 denotes an independent
Brownian motion defined on an extension (Ω0 , F 0 , (Ft0 )t≥0 , P0 ) of the original space.
The process Vt takes a more complicated form and comes from both the continuous
and the jump part of X. It is given by
X
p

Vt = 2
∆XSp κp σSp − Rp + 1 − κp σSp Rp0 ,
Sp ≤t

where the sequence (Sp )p denotes an enumeration of the jump times of X, and where
the Rp and Rp0 are standard normal and the κp are uniform random variables on
[0, 1], all defined on the same extension as W 0 and all mutually independent. In the
case of a continuous σ, the limit obviously reduces to
X
Vt = 2
∆XSp σSp Rp .
(1.3)
Sp ≤t

For details on stable convergence we refer to Section VIII.5 of Jacod and Shiryaev
(2003).
Over the last decade, a lot of work has been connected with extensions of (1.2)
whenever the ideal setting of observations of X at equidistant times is not realistic.
Typically, the focus has been on a version of X with continuous paths, which means
that (1.1) reduces to
Z t
Z t
Xt = X0 +
as ds +
σs dWs .
(1.4)
0

0

Regarding non-equidistant observations, authors have typically worked in settings
where observations times come either in a deterministic way or are (essentially)
independent of X. In this case, one still has stable convergence of the standardized
realized variance to a limiting process Ut0 , but it differs from Ut by an extra factor
which accounts for the variability of time. See for example Hayashi et al. (2011),
Mykland and Zhang (2012) or Koike (2014). A similar result can be obtained if
jumps are present, but in this case with a different process Vt0 as well. See Bibinger
and Vetter (2015).
2

Even though important from a practical point a view, the situation with endogenous observation times has found much less attention. This is certainly the case
because the proofs of the corresponding results become much more complicated
then. For model (1.4), central limit theorems are provided in Fukasawa (2010) and
Li et al. (2014), once certain extra conditions are satisfied which might be difficult
to check in practice. As a specific example, hitting times of a grid are discussed in
Fukasawa and Rosenbaum (2012).
However, to the best of our knowledge no results exist in the general model (1.1)
involving jumps. The aim of this work therefore is to shed some light on this
issue. In particular, we will prove a result similar to (1.2), but only in the less
general case of a continuous Itō semimartingales plus finite activity jumps with
deterministic characteristics, observed at hitting times of a regular grid. This is a
bit unsatisfactory from a practical point of view, but we will discuss the reasons for
this slight limitation and possible guidelines for future research in order to solve the
problem in a general framework.
This work is organised as follows: Section 2 gives a short review on the case of
deterministic observation times, and we give a heuristic explanation why the limiting
process Zt is of the form as stated in (1.2). Section 3 contains the main theorem of
this work, as well as a comparison with the standard result and remarks on further
extensions of the model. All proofs are gathered in Section 4.

2

The standard case: Deterministic observations

Let us shortly sketch the strategy which leads to the main result (1.2) from Jacod
(2008). The key idea is to decompose X for each integer q as
Xt = Ct + N (q)t + X(q)t ,

(2.1)

where
Z tZ
δ(s, x)1{γ(x)>1/q} µ(ds, dx)

N (q)t =
0

denotes the large jumps of X,
t

Z
Ct =

σs dWs
0

corresponds to the continuous martingale part of X, and the remainder X(q)t involving drift and small jumps is defined implicitly. One uses here the mild assumption
that the process |δ(s, x)|, which is responsible for the jump sizes, is bounded by some
deterministic function γ(x).
Using (2.1) and the binomial theorem one obtains
√
√
Ztn (X) = n (RV (C, C)nt − [C, C]t ) + n (RV (N (q), N (q))nt − [N (q), N (q)]t )
√
+ n (RV (X(q), X(q))nt − [X(q), X(q)]t )
√
√
√
+ 2 nRV (C, N (q))nt + 2 nRV (C, X(q))nt + 2 nRV (N (q), X(q))nt
for each integer q. A huge part of the proof of (1.2) deals with negligibility of
most terms in the decomposition above. This is the case for all terms involving the
3

remainder X(q) which can be shown to converge to zero in probability if we first let
n → ∞ and then q → ∞. The proof relies heavily on martingale techniques when
dealing with the compensated small jumps of X. See for example Appendix B in
Bibinger and Vetter (2015). Moreover, since N (q) is a finite activity jump process,
for any fixed q we have
√
n (RV (N (q), N (q))nt − [N (q), N (q)]t ) = 0
identically, with a probability converging to one, as well. This explains why only
two processes appear in the limit in (1.2). In case of continuous paths, the relevant
√
term is n (RV (C, C)nt − [C, C]t ), for which the proof of stable convergence to Ut is
very well understood by now. The main condition, due to conditional Gaussianity,
is the convergence of the empirical conditional variance
bntc


2n X 
E (Cj/n − C(j−1)/n )4 |F(j−1)/n
3
j=1

bntc



2n X 4
P
σ(j−1)/n E (Wj/n − W(j−1)/n )4 + oP (1) −→ 2
=
3
j=1

Z

t

σs4 ds,

(2.2)

0

which determines the distribution of the limiting Brownian martingale.
Let us therefore focus on the mixed part. Since N (q)t is a finite activity jump
process, we can write

√
√ X
2 nRV (C, N (q))nt = 2 n
∆N (q)Sp Ci+ (Sp )/n − Ci− (Sp )/n ,
Sp ≤t

where i+ (s) and i− (s) denote the index of the first observation past or equal to s and
the last observation prior to s, respectively. Even though the process looks already
like Vt , there are several steps necessary in order to get to the final result. First,
one uses a similar discretization argument as for the conditional variance in order
to write



Ci+ (Sp )/n − Ci− (Sp )/n = σi− (Sp )/n WSp − Wi− (Sp )/n + σSp Wi+ (Sp )/n − WSp ,
up to an error of size oP (n−1/2 ). Second, for each p we have the equality
!
r
r


i+ (Sp )
i− (Sp )
Sp −
Rp ,
− Sp Rp0
(2.3)
WSp − W i− (Sp ) , W i+ (Sp ) − WSp =
n
n
n
n
in distribution. Third, the stable convergence
n (Sp − (i− (Sp ))/n)

L−(s)

−→ κp

(2.4)

follows, since the jump times of N (q) are uniformly distributed over [0,1]; see the
proof of Lemma 6.2 in Jacod and Protter (1998). All of these steps can be shown
to hold jointly for 1 ≤ p ≤ k, for an arbitrary integer k. This is sufficient to prove
X
p

√
L−(s)
2 nRV (C, N (q))nt −→ 2
∆N (q)Sp κp σSp − Rp + 1 − κp σSp Rp0
Sp ≤t

for any fixed q. Letting q → ∞, stable convergence to Vt follows. Finally, some more
technicalities are needed in order to prove the joint stable convergence of the two
sequences leading to Ut and Vt .
4

3

The endogenous case: Exit times from a regular grid

What makes an extension of (1.2) to random observation times τjn difficult in general,
is in particular the equality in distribution stated in (2.3). As long as the times
are exogenous, i.e. independent of X, or satisfy some predictability condition, this
equality still holds because at least the local behaviour of W is independent of the
observation times. The central limit theorem for
X
2
n ) ,
(Xτjn − Xτj−1
τ0n = 0,
RV (X, X)nt =
0<τjn ≤t

then looks similar to (1.2), with some minor modifications because one has to find
suitable conditions under which a result like (2.4) holds. See e.g. Bibinger and Vetter
(2015) for details.
In the purely endogenous case, however, the observation times depend strongly on
the process X (and in particular on the process W ), and therefore one cannot expect
a version of (2.3) to remain valid. For this reason, we will work in a specific setting,
which makes a computation of the distribution of increments of the Brownian part
between successive observations possible. Suppose therefore in the following that we
observe
Z t
Z t
Xt =
as ds +
σs dWs + Jt ,
(3.1)
0

0

where as and σs are deterministic continuous processes, Wt is a standard Brownian
motion and Jt is a finite activity jump process with a deterministic compensator.
We also assume that the function σ is positive everywhere. Observations are coming
as exit times from a regular grid. That is, for a given constant c > 0 and a sequence
n → 0, which governs the asymptotics, we observe X at the stopping times τ0n = 0
and
n
τjn = inf[t > τj−1
: Xt ∈
/ AXτ n ],
j−1

where either
Ay = [y − cn , y + cn ]
if y = kcn for some k ∈ Z or
Ay = [b(cn )−1 yccn , (b(cn )−1 yc + 1)cn ]
if no such k exists. A sketch of this observation scheme can be found in Figure 1.
Roughly speaking, data is collected whenever the unit of the price is changing,
e.g. from one cent to another. No stopping, however, takes place at the previously
reached barrier, which is necessary because Brownian motion hits it infinitely often
after starting from there. This scheme is a particular case of the setting in Fukasawa
and Rosenbaum (2012), who derived a central limit theorem for realized variance of
a continuous semimartingale. Note that in their setting observations came at hitting
times (not necessarily of a regular grid), which is essentially similar to exit times for
processes with continuous paths.
In order to state the stable central limit theorem, we again assume the process X
to live on the filtered probability space (Ω, F, (Ft )t≥0 , P), and we consider a second

5

n
Figure 1: The observation scheme used: The first observations τjn to τj+2
are due to

movements of the underlying Brownian motion only; the jump at Sp is big enough to cause
n
n
n
the observation τj+3
. Remark that between τj+2
and τj+3
the path hits (k + 2)n c several
times without generating an observation. Last, the jump at Sp+1 is too small for the path
to exit the interval [(k + 5)n c, (k + 3)n c].

probability space (Ω0 , F 0 , (Ft0 )t≥0 , P0 ) which supports a Brownian motion W 0 and a
sequence (ηp )p≥1 of random variables with density
Z ∞
∞
X
(y+2+4m)2
(y−4m)2
1
2z
√
h(y) =
)dz1[−1,1] (y).
(3.2)
(e− 2z − e−
2πz m=−∞
0
All of these are mutually independent and independent of W 0 as well. Limiting varie of the two afore-mentioned
e F,
e (Fet )t≥0 , P)
ables are then defined on the product (Ω,
probability spaces.
Finally, we denote with S1 , S2 , . . . a specific sequence of stopping times exhausting
the jumps of X, namely we order the sequence in chronological order. This is
possible, as there are only finitely many jumps almost surely. In principle, other
enumerations were possible as well, but this choice facilitates some parts of the
proof.
Theorem 3.1. Suppose that X is given by (3.1) and is observed at the random
instants coming from the sampling scheme described above. Then, as n → ∞, we
have the F-stable convergence
en (X) = −1 (RV (X, X)n − [X, X]t )
Z
t
n
t

L−(s)

et = U
et + Vet ,
−→ Z

pointwise in t, where
r
et =
U

2
c
3

Z

t

σs dWs0

0

and
Vet = 2

X

∆XSp cηp ,

Sp ≤t

with the Brownian motion W 0 and the sequence (ηp )p≥1 as above.
6

Remark 3.2.
(i) In contrast to (1.3), the distribution of Vet does not involve
a factor σSp . Intuitively, when finding analogues of (2.3) and (2.4) we are
concerned with the distribution of the random variables


W
−
W
−1
σ
−
−
S
p
n
τn (Sp ) ,
τn (Sp )
where it is sufficient to take Sp as the right end point because a jump of X
causes an exit from the current interval with probability converging to one.
(Here and below, τn− (t) is the last observation prior to t.) After rescaling, each
distribution essentially equals the one of a Brownian motion σW (starting in
zero and with σ = στn− (Sp ) ) at time t, when it is known to not having left the
interval [−c, c] by that time. This additional knowledge makes the distribution
independent of σ. See Lemma 4.2 for details.
(ii) A similar effect is known from Fukasawa and Rosenbaum (2012), from which
we borrow the stable convergence of the continuous martingale part. Whereas
in the case of exogeneous observation times σ enters to second order in the
conditional standard deviation, as seen e.g. from (2.2), it only contributes to
e . The missing order is
first order to the (conditional) standard deviation of U
due to a factor c in our situation, which enters likewise in the mixed term.
(iii) We believe that a generalization to the case of random characteristics and
irregular grids holds as well, but in this situation the proof becomes even more
involved. If the grid takes the form
Gn = {n pi |i ∈ Z},
e , which changes according to the results in
we conjecture that apart from U
Fukasawa and Rosenbaum (2012) under their assumptions, the second summand becomes
X
Vet = 2
∆XSp ηp (XSp − )
Sp ≤t

where the distribution of ηp (x) is a suitably weighted mixture of the limiting
distribution of two independent Brownian motions starting at the grid points
right above and right below x, respectively, and which are known to not having
caused another observation.
(iv) Using our strategy of proof it is extremely difficult to prove (a version of)
Lemma 4.2 and, thus, Theorem 3.1 when one works with infinitely many jumps
within X. In our setting, as two jumps are usually far apart, the key steps in
the proof regard the exact distribution of exit times of Brownian motion and
a result by Freedman (1983) who derives an explicit formula for


P Wz ≤ x, inf Wu > −c, sup Wu < −c .
(3.3)
0≤u≤z

0≤u≤z

In the general case, one has to account for exit times of jump processes as well,
and very little is known even for Lévy processes. (Asymptotics are provided
in Rosenbaum and Tankov (2011), however.) Also, to the best of the authors’
knowledge, a generalization of (3.3) does not even exist in the literature for
Brownian motions with a constant drift, let alone for more general processes
involving jumps.
7

4

Appendix: Proof of Theorem 3.1

We start with the proof of Theorem 3.1 when Xt = σWt + Jt with a constant σ > 0.
As above, we set Ct = σWt , and we denote with S1 , S2 , . . . the sequence of jump
times in chronological order. For convenience, S0 = 0. We write


n
Utn = −1
RV
(C,
C)
−
[C,
C]
−
n
t
τn (t) .
Furthermore, we set


α(n, p) = σ−1
W
−
W
−
Sp
n
τn (Sp )
for each p. The main part of the proof is Theorem 3.1 is contained in the following
lemma.
Lemma 4.1. As n → ∞, we have the F-stable convergence
L−(s)

(Utn , (α(n, p))p≥1 ) −→ (U t , (ηp )p≥1 ),
with U t =

p
2/3cσWt0 and the sequence ηp as before.

Proof. Using the standard metric on an infinite Cartesian product, it is enough
to prove the result for 1 ≤ p ≤ k and some k. Without loss of generality, we assume
k ≤ Γ where Γ is the random, almost surely finite number of jumps over [0, t]. Thus,
we show
L−(s)

(Utn , α(n, p)1≤p≤k )) −→ (U t , (ηp )1≤p≤k ),
which formally means that we have to prove
k
k
Y
Y



n
e
E Ψg(Ut )
hp (α(n, p)) → E Ψg(U t )
hp (ηp )]
p=1

p=1

for any bounded Ψ ∈ F and for all bounded Lipschitz functions g, h1 , . . . , hk .
First, the idea is to separate Utn from the other variables. To this end, we need
some technical definitions. Fix some integer ` and set Sp`− = (Sp − 1/`)+ and
Sp`+ = Sp + 1/`. Then B` = ∪Γp=1 [Sp`− , Sp`+ ] denotes the union of all those intervals
around the jump times, and we use Λn (`, t) to define the set of indices j such that
n , τ n ] ∩ B = ∅. The increments over all such j then cover
τjn ≤ t and [τj−1
`
j


Dn (`, t) = [0, t]\ ∪Γp=1 [τn− (Sp`− ), τn+ (Sp`+ )] .
Finally, we define
U (`)nt = −1
n

X




2
2 n
n
n ) − σ (τ
(Cτjn − Cτj−1
j − τj−1 ) ,

j∈Λn (`,t)

which is the same quantity as Utn , but only involves intervals which are far from the
jump times. We will see that U (`)nt and Utn obey the same asymptotic law.
It is helpful to introduce the sets
Ωn = {ω ∈ Ω : inf{|∆JSp |; 1 ≤ p ≤ Γ} > 2n c}
8

and

Ω(`) =

2
ω ∈ Ω : inf{|Sp − Sp−1 |; 1 ≤ p ≤ Γ} >
`


.

On the set Ωn every jump of X leads to an exit from the current interval, thus causes
an observation. Obviously, Ωn → Ω as n → ∞, because there are only finitely many
jumps almost surely. Therefore, it is equally well possible to prove
k
k
Y
Y



n
e
E Ψg(Ut )
hp (α(n, p))1Ωn → E Ψg(U t )
hp (ηp )].
p=1

p=1

Let us further remark that on Ω(`) any two jumps are further than 2/` apart, and
thus B` becomes a disjoint union.
We are now interested in showing
k
Y


sup E Ψ(g(Utn ) − g(U (`)nt )
hp (α(n, p))1Ωn → 0

n∈N

(4.1)

p=1

as ` → ∞, and because of Ω(`) → Ω we may assume to live on Ω(`) as well. Let (Ft00 )t
denote the filtration which is the smallest one containing (Ft )t and such that the
jump measure µ of J is F000 -measurable. Note that W remains a standard Brownian
motion with respect to this filtration. We discuss





E |Utn − U (`)nt |2 1Ωn 1Ω(`) = E 1Ωn 1Ω(`) E |Utn − U (`)nt |2 |F000
first. On the set Ωn ∩Ω(`) all jump times are observation times, and conditionally on
F000 these are known. Therefore, by successive conditioning and using the BurkholderDavis-Gundy inequality,


1Ωn ∩Ω(`) E |Utn − U (`)nt |2 |F000
 2 00 
 X
2
2 n
n
n ) − σ (τ
|F0
(Cτjn − Cτj−1
=1Ωn ∩Ω(`) −2
j − τj−1 )
n E
j ∈Λ
/ n (`,t)

2 00 
2
2 n
n
n ) − σ (τ
(Cτjn − Cτj−1
j − τj−1 ) |F0

X


=1Ωn ∩Ω(`) −2
n E

j ∈Λ
/ n (`,t)

X


≤K1Ωn ∩Ω(`) −2
n E

4
00
n ) |F
(Cτjn − Cτj−1
0



j ∈Λ
/ n (`,t)

≤K1Ωn ∩Ω(`) −2
n

Γ
X

E
p=1

X


4
00
n ) |F
(Cτjn − Cτj−1
0 .

j:τn− (Sp`− )<τjn ≤τn+ (Sp`+ )

Here and below, K denotes an unspecified constant. Note that on Ω(`) all observations after Sp`− and until Sp`+ are due to exits of the Brownian motion from the
respective interval. The final observation τn+ (Sp`+ ), for example, might be due to the
next jump Sp+1 , however, but apart from these two additional increments – which,
as can be seen from (4.5) and (4.8) later, do not alter the asymptotic behaviour –
we are in the same situation as in Fukasawa and Rosenbaum (2012). The proof of
their Proposition 4.3 then gives
−2
n

Γ
X

E
p=1

X

 P 2 2 2Γ
4
00
n ) |F
(Cτjn − Cτj−1
,
0 −→ σ c
`

j:τn− (Sp`− )<τjn ≤τn+ (Sp`+ )

9

which basically equals the variance of realized variance when computed over intervals
outside of Λn (`, t) only. Then, it it easy to deduce
k
 E[Γ] 1/2
Y


n
n
,
sup E Ψ(g(Ut ) − g(U (`)t )
hp (α(n, p))1Ωn 1Ω(`) ≤ K
`
n∈N
p=1

because the random variables inside the expectation are uniformly bounded by a
constant, thus in L2 , and because it suffices to bound |Utn − U (`)nt |, due to the
Lipschitz property of g. Since E[Γ] < ∞, we obtain (4.1) as requested. Also, since
B` decreases to a discrete set we have
r
Z t
2
P
U (`)t :=
(4.2)
cσ
1B`c (s)dWs0 −→ U t ,
3
0
as ` → ∞.
Combining (4.1) and (4.2) it is certainly enough to show
k
k
Y
Y



n
e
E 1Ωn ∩Ω(`) Ψg(U (`)t )
hp (α(n, p)) → E 1Ω(`) Ψg(U (`)t )
hp (ηp )]
p=1

(4.3)

p=1

for any fixed integer `. Let us introduce

\ 
Ωn (`) =
{τn+ (Sp ) < Sp`+ } ∩ {τn− (Sp ) > Sp`− } ∩ Ωn .
1≤p≤Γ

Obviously,
P Ωn (`)

c



Γ


X
≤E
1{τn+ (Sp )≥Sp + 1 } + 1{τn− (Sp )≤Sp − 1 } 1Ωn + o(1),
`

p=1

(4.4)

`


and we work conditionally on F000 again. We bound P {τn+ (Sp ) ≥ Sp + 1` } ∩ Ωn F000
by distinguishing the two cases that the next observation is due to a jump (which has
to be the next one after Sp since we are on Ωn ) or to an exit of the Brownian motion.
In both situations, it is obvious that no exit of σWt from the interval [−n c, n c] has
taken place over (Sp , Sp + 1/`). Using Theorem 2.49 in Mörters and Peres (2010),
this exit time T (starting at x) satisfies
Ex [T ] =

(n c)2 − x2
≤ K2n .
σ2

Therefore,


1
1
+
00
P {τn (Sp ) ≥ Sp + } ∩ Ωn F0 ≤ 2
sup
Px (T > ) ≤ K2n `.
`
`
x∈[−n c,n c]

(4.5)

(4.6)

A similar argument, which will be encountered in the proof of Lemma 4.2 in detail
(see (4.8)), can be used to discuss the second indicator in (4.4). Thus, for any fixed
`,
P (Ωn (`)c ) ≤ E[Γ]K2n ` + o(1) = o(1).
Note that on Ω(`)∩Ωn (`) all jump times and the previous and the following observan , τ n ]∩B = ∅
tions are located in the interior of B` . Therefore, all intervals with [τj−1
`
j
10

are equal in distribution to lengths of intervals of exit times of σWt from the regular
grid. We define
Z
t

1B` (s)dWs ,

W (`)t =
0

and let (F 00 `t )t denote the smallest filtration containing (F 00 t )t such that W (`)t is
F 00 `0 -measurable. We introduce with Q = Qω a regular version of the conditional
probability with respect to F 00 `0 .
We are now in the position to use the stable convergence stated in Fukasawa and
Rosenbaum (2012), in particular Theorem 2.4 and Proposition 3.1 therein. This is
n ∧t−τ n ∧t| → 0 holds in probability,
possible, as for any t the convergence supi∈N |τi+1
i
with a similar proof as in their paper. From the fact that Dn (`, t) shrinks to [0, t]\B`
(using e.g. (4.6) again) we obtain
e e [Ψg(U (`)t )] + oP (1),
1Ω(`)∩Ωn (`) EQω [Ψg(U (`)nt )] = 1Ω(`)∩Ωn (`) E
Qω
e denotes the corresponding probability measure on the product space. Thus,
where Q
k
Y


n
E 1Ωn ∩Ω(`) Ψg(U (`)t )
hp (α(n, p))
p=1
k
Y


n
=E 1Ω(`)∩Ωn (`) Ψg(U (`)t )
hp (α(n, p)) + oP (1)
p=1


=E 1Ω(`)∩Ωn (`)

k
Y


hp (α(n, p))EQ· [Ψg(U (`)nt )] + oP (1)

p=1
k
Y


e e [Ψg(U (`)t )] + oP (1).
=E 1Ω(`)∩Ωn (`)
hp (α(n, p))E
Q·
p=1

e e [Ψg(U (`)t )] is another bounded F-measurable random variable, it is
e =E
Since Ψ
Q·
certainly enough to prove
k
k
Y
Y



e 1Ω(`) Ξ
E 1Ωn (`)∩Ω(`) Ξ
hp (α(n, p)) → E
hp (ηp )]
p=1

(4.7)

p=1

for all bounded F-measurable Ξ in order to establish (4.3).
On the set Ωn , the random variables α(n, p) only depend on the jump times Sp ,
1 ≤ p ≤ k, and the Brownian motion over the intervals between those times, as all
jumps automatically lead to an observation. By conditioning, it is then sufficient to
show (4.7) for
k
Y
Ξ=
ϕp ({Wu : u ∈ (Sp−1 , Sp ]})%p (Sp ),
p=1

where {Wu : u ∈ (Sp−1 , Sp ]} denotes the Brownian motion between the successive
jump times and any ϕp and %p are bounded. Also, a similar argument as the one
leading to (4.1) shows that it is sufficient to work with
Ξ=

k
Y

ϕp ({Wu : u ∈ (Sp−1 , Sp − 1/m]})%p (Sp ),

p=1

11

for any fixed integer m larger than `. (Note that Sp − 1/m > Sp−1 always, since we
are on Ω(`).) Let us first discuss the asymptotics of


E hk (α(n, k))ϕk ({Wu : u ∈ (Sk−1 , Sk − 1/m]})%k (Sk )|FS00k −1/m


=ϕk ({Wu : u ∈ (Sk−1 , Sk − 1/m]})%k (Sk )E hk (α(n, k))|FS00k −1/m .
As in (4.6), we have
P(τn− (Sk ) ≤ Sk − 1/m) → 0.
On the complement the conditional expectation simplifies, as α(n, k) is independent
of W until Sk − 1/m then. We obtain


E hk (α(n, k))|FS00k −1/m = E[hk (α(n, k))|F000 ] + oP (1).
The idea is to finally use Lemma 4.2 below, which proves
e k (ηk )].
E[hk (α(n, k))|F000 ] → E[h
One then obtains (4.7) via successive conditioning.
Lemma 4.2. Let t > 0 be arbitrary and let τn− (t) be the last hitting time of the grid
{n kc | k ∈ Z} by σW prior to t. Then, as n → ∞ we have the weak convergence


L
σ−1
W
−
W
−
t
n
τn (t) −→ cη
where η has the density h from (3.2).
Proof. Before we begin with the proof, note from self-similarity of Brownian
−
−2
− −2
−
motion that −2
n (t − τn (t)) is equal in distribution to n t − υn (n t), where υn (s)
denotes the last hitting time of the grid {kc | k ∈ Z} by σWt . This distribution
is called Gn in the following. Also, after a shift to zero, A1.3.0.2 in Borodin and
Salminen (2002) shows that the distribution of each hitting time of the grid {kc | k ∈
Z} by σWt equals S with
Z
P(S ≤ z) =
0

z

∞
X

2
(2k + 1)c − ((2k+1)c)
2σ 2 u
(−1)k √
e
du = F (z).
2 u3/2
2πσ
k=−∞

Theorem 1.18 in Mitov and Omey (2014) then proves
Z
σ2 z
Gn (z) → G(z) = 2
(1 − F (u))du
c 0

(4.8)

pointwise in z, where we have used that c2 /σ 2 is the expected waiting time until the
next hit; recall (4.5).
By conditioning on t − τn− (t) we then obtain


P σ−1
(W
−
W
)
≤
x
−
t
n
τn (t)
Z ∞ 

−1
−
2
=
P σn (Wt − Wτn− (t) ) ≤ x|t − τn (t) = n z dGn (z).
0

Of course, we are not in the setting of stopping times here, as t − τn− (t) = 2n z states
both that t − 2n z was a hitting time and that no further hitting time has taken
12

place between t − 2n z and t. However, since we work with a regular grid we can at
least assume that the place of the last hit was at zero and, using stationarity of the
increments of Brownian motion, we can set t − 2n z = 0. Overall, we obtain


−
2
P σ−1
(W
−
W
)
≤
x|t
−
τ
(t)
=

z
−
t
n
n
n
τn (t)
!
=P σW2n z ≤ n x|

inf

0≤u≤2n z

σWu > −n c,

sup

σWu < n c

0≤u≤2n z



=P σWz ≤ x| inf σWu > −c, sup σWu < c
0≤u≤z

0≤u≤z


P σWz ≤ x, inf 0≤u≤z σWu > −c, sup0≤u≤z σWu < c

=
,
P inf 0≤u≤z σWu > −c, sup0≤u≤z σWu < c
where we have used self-similarity of the Brownian motion again. While the denominator can be written as P(S > z) with S as before, we use Theorem 33 in Freedman
(1983) to obtain


−
2
(t)
=

z
P σ−1
(W
−
W
)
≤
x|t
−
τ
−
t
n
n
n
τn (t)
Rx
=

√ 1
−c 2πσ 2 z

−
m=−∞ (e

P∞

(y−4mc)2
2σ 2 z

− e−

(y+2c+4mc)2
2σ 2 z

)dy

1 − F (z)

for x ∈ [−c, c], and it vanishes otherwise. Overall, using dominated convergence,
Fubini’s theorem and a change of variables,


P σ−1
n (Wt − Wτn− (t) ) ≤ x
Z ∞ 

−
2
=
P σ−1
(W
−
W
)
≤
x|t
−
τ
(t)
=

z
dGn (z)
−
t
n
n
n
τn (t)
0

Z

Rx

√ 1
−c 2πσ 2 z

∞

→

−
m=−∞ (e

P∞

x

Z

=
−c

Z

− e−

(y+2c+4mc)2
2σ 2 z

∞

√

1

∞
X

2πc2 u m=−∞
1 y 
h
dy.
c c

(e−

y
( c −4m)2
2u

)dy
dG(z)1[−c,c] (x)

1 − F (z)

0

Z

(y−4mc)2
2σ 2 z

− e−

y
( c +2+4m)2
2u

)dudy1[−c,c] (x)

0

x

=
−∞

This proves the result. Note finally that h is easily seen to be a density, as

Z 1
Z ∞ 
h(y)dy =
P
inf Wu > −1, sup Wu < 1 dz = 1
−1

from

R∞
0

0

0≤u≤z

0≤u≤z

P(X > z)dz = E[X] for any positive random variable and (4.5).

Let us now finish the proof of Theorem 3.1 when Xt = σWt + Jt . From (4.5) we
obtain


−1
[X,
X]
−
[X,
X]
−
t
n
τn (t) = OP (n ) = oP (1),

13

because t − τn− (t) is smaller in distribution than T . As before, we then have the key
decomposition


−1
RV (X, X)nt − [X, X]τn− (t)
n


n
=Utn + −1
RV (J, J)nt − [J, J]τn− (t) + 2−1
(4.9)
n
n RV (C, J)t ,
and for simplicitly we can assume to be on Ωn at the cost of additional smaller order
terms only. On this set every jump causes an observation and the second term in
(4.9) vanishes identically. The third term simplifies as well, as we end up with
n
Zetn (X) = −1
n (RV (X, X)t − [X, X]t )


X
= Utn + 2−1
∆JSp σ WSp − Wτn− (Sp ) + oP (1).
n
Sp ≤t

et for a constant σ.
The result then follows from Lemma 4.1, as U t equals U
Finally, let us explain why it is sufficient to discuss the simple case
X̂t = σWt + Jt
only. To this end, let
Z
Xt =

t

Z
bs ds +

0

t

σs dWs + Jt
0

as above. Following Theorem IV.4.32 in Jacod and Shiryaev (2003), there exists an
equivalent probability measure Q such that the continuous martingale part remains
the same and the jump process is still of finite activity under Q, but the drift
vanishes. Note further that the F-conditional distribution of the limiting process
et = U
et + Vet only depends on the quadratic variation process [X, X] up to time
Z
t which remains unchanged under a change of measure using Theorem III.3.13 in
Jacod and Shiryaev (2003). Thus, if we can show F-stable convergence under Q, we
directly get
 dP

EP [Y g(Zetn (X))] = EQ Y
g Zetn (X)
dQ



 dP
et ) = EP Y g(Z
et )
g(Z
→ EQ Y
dQ
for any bounded, F-measurable Y and any bounded and continuous function g, as
EQ [dP/dQ|Ft ] is locally bounded due to Proposition III.3.5 in Jacod and Shiryaev
(2003) and thus can be assumed to be bounded as well.
Suppose therefore that
Z t
Xt =
σs dWs + Jt .
0

Using a time change, we can write X = X̂[X c ,X c ] with X̂t = Ĉt + Jˆt , where Ĉ is a
standard Brownian motion and Jˆ is a finite activity jump process with jump times
Ŝp = [X c , X c ]−1 (Sp ) and the same jump sizes. We then know from the preceding
results that

 L−(s) r 2 Z t
X
−1
n
n RV (X̂, X̂)t − [X̂, X̂]t
−→
c
dWs0 + 2
∆X̂Ŝp cηp .
3 0
Ŝp ≤t

14

The general claim then follows from
RV (X̂, X̂)n[X c ,X c ]t − [X̂, X̂][X c ,X c ]t = RV (X, X)nt − [X, X]t
using the fact that the exit times commute with the specific choice of the time
change, as well as from
Z t
Z t
Z [X c ,X c ]t
0
σs dWs0
=
dW[X
dWs0 =
c ,X c ]
s
0

0

0

and
X

∆X̂Ŝp cηp =

X

∆XSp cηp .

Sp ≤t

Ŝp ≤[X c ,X c ]t

References
Bibinger, M. and M. Vetter (2015). Estimating the quadratic covariation of an asynchronously observed semimartingale with jumps. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. 67 (4),
707–743.
Borodin, A. N. and P. Salminen (2002). Handbook of Brownian motion—facts and
formulae (Second ed.). Probability and its Applications. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
Freedman, D. (1983). Brownian motion and diffusion (Second ed.). Springer-Verlag,
New York-Berlin.
Fukasawa, M. (2010). Realized volatility with stochastic sampling. Stochastic Process. Appl. 120 (6), 829–852.
Fukasawa, M. and M. Rosenbaum (2012). Central limit theorems for realized volatility under hitting times of an irregular grid. Stochastic Process. Appl. 122 (12),
3901–3920.
Hayashi, T., J. Jacod, and N. Yoshida (2011). Irregular sampling and central limit
theorems for power variations: the continuous case. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré
Probab. Stat. 47 (4), 1197–1218.
Jacod, J. (2008). Asymptotic properties of realized power variations and related
functionals of semimartingales. Stochastic Process. Appl. 118 (4), 517–559.
Jacod, J. and P. Protter (1998). Asymptotic error distributions for the Euler method
for stochastic differential equations. Ann. Probab. 26 (1), 267–307.
Jacod, J. and A. N. Shiryaev (2003). Limit theorems for stochastic processes (Second
ed.), Volume 288 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Koike, Y. (2014). An estimator for the cumulative co-volatility of asynchronously
observed semimartingales with jumps. Scand. J. Stat. 41 (2), 460–481.
Li, Y., P. A. Mykland, E. Renault, L. Zhang, and X. Zheng (2014). Realized volatility
when sampling times are possibly endogenous. Econometric Theory 30 (3), 580–
605.
15

Mitov, K. V. and E. Omey (2014). Renewal processes. Springer Briefs in Statistics.
Springer, Cham.
Mörters, P. and Y. Peres (2010). Brownian motion. Cambridge Series in Statistical
and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. With
an appendix by Oded Schramm and Wendelin Werner.
Mykland, P. A. and L. Zhang (2012). The econometrics of high-frequency data. In
Statistical methods for stochastic differential equations, Volume 124 of Monogr.
Statist. Appl. Probab., pp. 109–190. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Rosenbaum, M. and P. Tankov (2011). Asymptotic results for time-changed Lévy
processes sampled at hitting times. Stochastic Process. Appl. 121 (7), 1607–1632.

16

