Asymptotic properties of the realized skewness and related statistics
Yuta Koikea,b,c,d , Zhi Liue
a

arXiv:1612.08526v2 [math.ST] 19 Jan 2018

b

Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo, Japan
Department of Business Administration, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan
c
The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 10-3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8562, Japan
d
CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency
e
Department of Mathematics, University of Macau

Abstract
The recent empirical works have pointed out that the realized skewness, which is the sample
skewness of intraday high-frequency returns of a financial asset, serves as forecasting future returns
in the cross-section. Theoretically, the realized skewness is interpreted as the sample skewness of
returns of a discretely observed semimartingale in a fixed interval. The aim of this paper is to
investigate the asymptotic property of the realized skewness in such a framework. We also develop
an estimation theory for the limiting characteristic of the realized skewness in a situation where
measurement errors are present and sampling times are stochastic.

AMS 2000 subject classifications: Primary 62M10; secondary 62G05
Keywords: High-frequency data; Itô semimartingale; Jumps; Microstructure noise; Realized
skewness; Stochastic sampling.

Email addresses: kyuta@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Yuta Koike), liuzhi@umac.mo (Zhi Liu)
Preprint submitted to Elsevier

January 22, 2018

1. Introduction
In the past decades, with widely available high frequency financial data, statistical inference for
stochastic processes has significantly been developed. Among others, inference for the quadratic
variation of a semimartingale using high frequency data is particularly of interest in the literature,
due to its important applications in finance, namely, measuring the fluctuation of security markets;
see Jacod and Protter (1998), Jacod (2008), Andersen et al. (2005), Bandi and Russell (2006) and
references therein.
In practice, the quadratic variation of a semimartingale is important in finance because it can
be considered as a realized measure of the variance of short period returns. Besides, higher moments rather than the variance, in particular the third moment and the fourth moment which
appear in measuring the skewness and kurtosis of assets, have attracted vast attention in finance, see Bakshi et al. (2003), Friend and Westerfield (1980), Martellini and Ziemann (2009),
Harvey and Siddique (1999, 2000), Mitton and Vorkink (2007), Kozhan et al. (2013), among others. By using high frequency data, the efficiency of estimating the quadratic variation has substantially improved. Thus, a natural question is whether we can achieve some improvements by using
high frequency data in the inferences for higher order realized moments. In the empirical aspect,
recently Amaya et al. (2015) have showed strong evidence that the sample skewness of intraday
high-frequency returns, which is called the realized skewness in the paper1 , serves as predicting
future equity returns in the cross-section. More precisely, they have found that if a stock’s realized
skewness averaged over a week is relatively higher (resp. lower) than other stocks’ ones (e.g. more
than the 90% quantile (resp. less than the 10% quantile) of all stocks’ ones), then the stock’s return
in the next week tends to be negative (resp. positive). They have also confirmed that this empirical
finding is robust across various implementations. The asymptotic property of the realized skewness
is briefly discussed in Amaya et al. (2015) as well. The aim of this paper is to investigate this point
more deeply. Specifically, suppose that the dynamics of the log price process of an asset is modeled
⌊T /∆n ⌋

by an Itô semimartingale X = (Xt )t≥0 and we have discrete observation data {Xi∆n }i=0

on the

interval [0, T ], where ∆n is a positive number tending to 0 as n → ∞. Then the realized skewness
1

Neuberger (2012) uses the term realized skewness for a different concept.

2

is given by
P⌊T /∆ ⌋
⌊T /∆n ⌋ i=1 n (∆ni X)3
RDSkew = n
.
P⌊T /∆n ⌋ n 2 o3/2
(∆i X)
i=1

Amaya et al. (2015) have pointed out that
⌊T /∆n ⌋

X
i=1

(∆ni X)2

P

→ [X, X]T

⌊T /∆n ⌋

X

and

i=1

(∆ni X)3 →P

X

(∆Xs )3 ,

0≤s≤T

where ∆ni X = Xi∆n − X(i−1)∆n , →P denotes convergence in probability, [X, X] denotes the
quadratic variation process of X and ∆Xs = Xs − Xs− . Hence the appropriately scaled realized
skewness, RDSkew/⌊T /∆n ⌋, is a consistent estimator for the following quantity:
P
3
0≤s≤T (∆Xs )
.
([X, X]T )3/2
In this paper we aim at deriving the asymptotic distribution of the estimation error
P
3
1
0≤s≤T (∆Xs )
RDSkew −
.
⌊T /∆n ⌋
([X, X]T )3/2

(1)

(2)

We shall remark that the asymptotic property of the statistic of the form
⌊T /∆n ⌋

X

g(∆ni X),

(3)

i=1

where g is a function on R satisfying some smoothness condition, is well-studied in the literature.
To our knowledge, the most general condition to derive the asymptotic distribution of the above
statistic is given by Theorem 5.1.2 from Jacod and Protter (2012), which requires that g is of class
C 2 and satisfies g(0) = 0, g ′ (0) = 0 and g ′′ (x) = o(|x|) as x → 0. Unfortunately, this condition
is not satisfied by the cubic function g(x) = x3 , so this theorem is not applicable to deriving the
asymptotic distribution of (2). Kinnebrock and Podolskij (2008) proved the result for g(x) = x3
when X is continuous. One aim of this paper is to fill in this gap.
Another important issue in high-frequency financial econometrics is to take account of microstructure noise and randomness of observation times: At ultra high-frequencies asset prices are
usually modeled as discrete observations of a semimartingale with observation noise, which is referred to as microstructure noise, because such data typically exhibit several empirical properties
which are inconsistent with the semimartingale assumption. In addition, “raw” high-frequency

3

financial data are usually recorded at certain event times such as transaction times or order arrival times, which would be random and depend on observed values. See Chapters 7 and 9 of
Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2014) and references therein for more details on this topic. This paper
also deals with this issue. Namely, we construct a consistent estimator for quantity (1) and develop an associated asymptotic distribution theory when microstructure noise is present and the
sampling scheme is stochastic. To accomplish this, we study the asymptotic property of the “preaveraged” version of the statistic (3) with the cubic function g(x) = x3 . Here, “pre-averaging” is
a de-noising scheme which enables us to systematically adapt functionals of semimartingale increments (such as (3)) to the case that microstructure noise is present. The method was originally
introduced in Podolskij and Vetter (2009) and subsequently generalized in Jacod et al. (2009), and
many theoretical results on it are now available in the literature. In particular, under mild regularity assumptions, Theorem 16.3.1 of Jacod and Protter (2012) provides the asymptotic distribution
of the pre-averaged version of the statistic (3) (in the equidistant case) when g is a linear combination of positively homogeneous C 2 functions with degree (strictly) bigger than 3. Here, a function
f : R → R is said to be positively homogeneous with degree w ≥ 0 if f (αx) = αw f (x) for any
α ≥ 0 and any x ∈ R. Hence, the condition on the function g again rules out the cubic function.
We thus need to perform an additional analysis to cover the cubic function. We will also show
that the randomness of observation times has no essential impact on the asymptotic distribution
of the pre-averaged version of the statistic (3) with the cubic function g(x) = x3 . This kind of
phenomenon has already been observed in Koike (2016, 2017) for the pre-averaged version of the
realized volatility. It contrasts the non-noisy case because the randomness of observation times can
cause non-trivial modification of the asymptotic distribution of the realized volatility as illustrated
in Fukasawa (2010), Li et al. (2014), Bibinger and Vetter (2015) and Vetter and Zwingmann (2017)
for example.
The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 investigates the asymptotic
property of statistic (3) and derives the asymptotic distribution of the realized skewness. Section
3 develops an estimation theory in a situation with microstructure noise and stochastic sampling
times. Section 4 is devoted to the proofs.

4

2. The asymptotic distribution of the realized skewness
On a filtered probability space B = (Ω, F, (Ft )t≥0 , P ), we consider a stochastic process (Xt )t≥0
of the form
Xt = X0 +

Rt

0 bs ds

+

Rt
0

σs dBs +

RtR
0

− ν)(ds, dz) +

|δ(s,z)|≤1 δ(s, z)(µ

RtR
0

|δ(s,z)|>1 δ(s, z)µ(ds, dz),

where the drift process b is (Ft )-progressively measurable, the spot volatility process σ is (Ft )adapted and càdlàg, B is a standard Brownian motion, µ is a Poisson random measure on R+ × E
with predictable compensator ν(dt, dz) = dtλ(dz) and λ being a σ-finite measure on a Polish space
(E, E), and δ is a predictable function on Ω × R+ × E.
We impose the following standard structural assumption:
[H] There are a sequence (τk ) of stopping times increasing to infinity and a sequence (γk ) of
R
deterministic nonnegative measurable functions on E such that γk (z)2 λ(dz) < ∞ and
|δ(ω, t, z)| ∧ 1 ≤ γk (z) for all k and all (ω, t, z) with t ≤ τk (ω).

⌊T /∆n ⌋

Let us assume that we observe the process X at equidistant discrete points {i∆n }i=0

for

some T > 0, where ∆n is a sequence of positive numbers tending to zero as n → ∞. We develop a
central limit theorem for the non-normalized increments of X
VTn (X, g) :=

⌊t/∆n ⌋

X

g(∆ni X)

i=1

for a function g : R → R satisfying some smoothness condition. If g is continuous and satisfies
g(x) = o(x2 ) as x → 0, it is known that
VTn (X, g) →P

X

g(∆Xs )

0≤s≤T

as n → ∞; see e.g. Theorem 3.3.1 from Jacod and Protter (2012). If further g is of class C 2 and
satisfies g(0) = g′ (0) = 0 and g′′ (x) = o(|x|) as x → 0, a central limit theorem for VTn (X, g) is
also known under Assumption [H] (see Theorem 5.1.2 of Jacod and Protter (2012)). This condition
is, however, not sufficient to allow the cubic function g(x) = x3 , which is crucial for deriving the
asymptotic distribution of the realized skewness. Motivated by this reason, in the following we
relax this condition to incorporate such a function.
We will use the notion of stable convergence denoted by →S . Here we briefly describe it before
5

the main theorems. Let (X , A, P) be a probability space and assume that we have a random
element Zn taking values in a Polish space S and defined on an extension (Xn , An , Pn ) of (X , A, P)
for each n ∈ N ∪ {∞}. In this setup the sequence Zn is said to converge stably in law to Z∞ if
En [U f (Zn )] → E∞ [U f (Z∞ )] for any A-measurable bounded random variable U and any bounded
continuous function f on S. The most important property of this notion is the following: For
each n ∈ N, let Vn be a real-valued variable on (Xn , An , Pn ), and suppose that the sequence Vn
converges in probability to a variable V on (X , A, P). Then we have (Zn , Vn ) →ds (Z∞ , V ) for
the product topology on the space S × R, provided that Zn →S Z. We refer to Section 2.2.1 of
Jacod and Protter (2012) for more detailed discussions.
We need some ingredients to describe the limiting random variables appearing in the central limit
theorems below. Consider an auxiliary space (Ω′ , F ′ , P ′ ) supporting a standard normal variable U 0 ,
two sequences (Uq )q≥1 , (Uq′ )q≥1 of standard normal variables, and a sequence (κq )q≥1 of variables
uniformly distributed on (0, 1), all of these being mutually independent. Then we introduce the
e F,
e Pe) of (Ω, F, P ) by putting Ω
e = Ω × Ω′ , Fe = F ⊗ F ′ and Pe = P × P ′ . Now let
extension (Ω,

(Tq )q≥1 be a sequence of stopping times exhausting the jumps of X. Namely, {s ≥ 0 : ∆Xs (ω) 6=

0} = {Tq (ω) : q ≥ 1, Tq (ω) < ∞} for almost all ω and Tq 6= Tq′ if q 6= q ′ and Tq < ∞. It is
well-known that such a sequence always exists as long as X is càdlàg and adapted; see Proposition
I-1.32 of Jacod and Shiryaev (2003). For any C 1 function g : R → R such that g′ (x) = o(|x|) as
x → 0, we define the random variable V T (X, g) by
V T (X, g) =
where Rq =

√

κq σTq − Uq +

p

X

g′ (∆XTq )Rq ,

q:Tq ≤T

1 − κq σTq Uq′ . From Proposition 5.1.1 of Jacod and Protter (2012) the

variable V T (X, g) is well-defined and its F-conditional law does not depend on the choice of the
exhausting sequence (Tq ). For any integer r ≥ 2 we also define the random variable ZT (X, r) by
ZT (X, r) = V T (X, gr ), where the function gr is defined by gr (x) = xr .
In order to derive the asymptotic distribution of the realized skewness we also need to consider
P⌊T /∆ ⌋
the realized volatility of X, i.e. RVnT (X) = i=1 n (∆ni X)2 . Under Assumption [H], the following

central limit theorem for RVnT (X) is known (e.g. Theorem 5.4.2 of Jacod and Protter (2012)):
√

p
1
(RVnT (X) − [X, X]T ) →S 2IQT U 0 + ZT (X, 2)
∆n
6

as n → ∞, where IQT :=

RT
0

σs4 ds is the so-called integrated quarticity. Here our aim is to develop

a joint central limit theorem for the bivariate variables (RVnT (X), VTn (X, g)). In the following the
variables ZT (X, 2) and V T (X, g) are defined with respect to the same auxiliary sequence Rq .
Theorem 1. Let g be a real-valued C 2 function on R satisfying g(0) = g ′ (0) = 0 and g ′′ (x) = O(|x|)
as x → 0. Under Assumption [H], the random variables


X
1  n
√
RVT (X) − [X, X]T , VTn (X, g) − VTn (X c , g) −
g(∆Xs )
∆n
0≤s≤T
converge stably in law to

p
( 2IQT U 0 + ZT (X, 2), V T (X, g))

as n → ∞, where X c denotes the continuous martingale part of X, i.e. Xtc =
We prove this result in Section 4.1.

Rt
0

σs dBs .

Remark 1. (i) If in addition g ′′ (x) = o(|x|) as x → 0, it can easily be seen that VTn (X c , g) =
√
oP ( ∆n ) as n → ∞, hence the theorem is a special case of Theorem 5.5.1 from Jacod and Protter
√
(2012) once we note that [X, X]⌊T /∆n ⌋∆n − [X, X]T = oP ( ∆n ) under the assumptions of the
theorem.
√
(ii) If the probability limit VT (X c , g) := P - lim VTn (X c , g)/ ∆n exists, by using the properties of
P
1
stable convergence we can deduce a central limit theorem for √∆
(VTn (X, g) − 0≤s≤T g(∆Xs )) (in
n

this case VT

(X c , g)

appears as the F-conditional mean of the limiting variable).

(iii) If g is positively homogeneous, i.e. there exists a constant w such that g(αx) = αw g(x) for any
√
α ≥ 0 and any x ∈ R, the probability limit of VTn (X c , g)/ ∆n can be derived from e.g. Theorem
3.4.1 of Jacod and Protter (2012). In the following we give two examples of such a case as corollaries.
√
(iv) In general, the variables VTn (X c , g)/ ∆n may not converge in probability (even in law, indeed);
see the next proposition (we prove it in Section 4.2).
Proposition 1. For every a ∈ R, define the function ga : R → R by ga (x) = |x|3 sin(2a log |x|).
(a) For all a ∈ R, ga is a C 2 function and satisfies ga (0) = ga′ (0) = 0 and ga′′ (x) = O(|x|) as
x → 0.
7

(b) Suppose that σs = 1 for all s ∈ [0, T ]. There is a real number a 6= 0 such that the variables
√
VTn (X c , ga )/ ∆n do not converge in law with ∆n = exp(−nπ/a).
If we assume g(x) = |x|3 , we obtain a generalization of case 2 from Section 1.4.2 of Jacod and Protter
(2012) (p.20 of that book) where X is assumed to be a scaled Brownian motion with a linear drift
plus a compound Poisson process to a situation where X is a more general Itô semimartingale:
Corollary 1. Under Assumption [H],


√ Z T
⌊T /∆n ⌋
X
X
X
1 
n
3
3
S 2 2
√
|∆i X| −
|∆Xs |
→ √
|σs |3 ds + 3
sign(∆XTq )(∆XTq )2 Rq
π 0
∆n
i=1
0≤s≤T
q:T ≤T
q

as n → ∞, where sign(x) = 1 if x ≥ 0; otherwise sign(x) = −1.

If we consider g(x) = x3 , the following joint central limit theorem for the realized volatility and
the cubic power variation is obtained:
Corollary 2. Under Assumption [H], the variables


⌊T /∆n ⌋
X
X
1  n
√
RVT (X) − [X, X]T ,
(∆ni X)3 −
(∆Xs )3 
∆n
i=1
0≤s≤T
converge stably in law to

p


2IQT U 0 + ZT (X, 2), ZT (X, 3)

as n → ∞.
We can use Corollary 2 to derive the asymptotic distribution of the realized skewness: Combining Corollary 2 with the delta method for stable convergence (Proposition 2(ii) of Podolskij and Vetter
(2010)), we obtain the following result:
Theorem 2. Under Assumption [H], the variables
1
√
∆n

1
RDSkew −
⌊T /∆n ⌋

P

3
0≤s≤T (∆Xs )
([X, X]T )3/2

!

converge stably in law to
3/2

GT :=

[X, X]T ZT (X, 3) −

3
2

p

[X, X]T

P

3
0≤s≤T (∆Xs )
[X, X]3T

as n → ∞.
8

√

2IQT U 0 + ZT (X, 2)

3. Microstructure noise and stochastic sampling
It is widely recognized that modeling raw high-frequency financial data as direct observations
of an Itô semimartingale X is unrealistic. One common approach to deal with this issue is to
assume that we observe the process X with some measurement errors (referred to as microstructure
noise) rather than X itself; see Chapter 7 of Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2014) and references therein.
Also, raw high-frequency financial data are typically recorded at stochastic sampling times, so the
assumption that we observe data at equidistant sampling times is not applicable. Motivated by
these reasons, in this section we consider an observed model which takes account of microstructure
noise and stochastic sampling times, and develop an asymptotic theory for estimating (1) under
such a situation.
Let us introduce the precise mathematical description of our model. We denote by tn0 , tn1 , . . .
the observation times which are assumed to be (Ft )-stopping times and satisfy tni ↑ ∞ as i → ∞.
We also assume that
rn (t) := sup(tni ∧ t − tni−1 ∧ t) →P 0
i≥0

as n → ∞ for any t ∈ R+ , with setting tn−1 = 0 for notational convenience.
The observed process Y is contaminated by some noise:
Yt = Xt + ǫt .
The noise process ǫ implicitly depends on n ∈ N and is defined on a very good filtered extension
Bn = (Ωn , F n , (Ftn )t≥0 , Pn ) of B (see page 36 of Jacod and Protter (2012) for the definition of
very good filtered extensions). ǫ is an (Ftn )-optional process and, conditionally on F, the sequence
n
(ǫtni )∞
(ω, du) for each
i=0 is independent and the (conditional) distribution of ǫti is given by Qtn
i (ω)

i = 0, 1, . . . , where for each t ≥ 0 Qt (ω, du) denotes a transition probability from (Ω, Ft ) to R. We
assume that the Qt (ω, du)’s satisfy the following condition:
R





uQt (ω, du) = 0 for every t ≥ 0,

the process (Qt (·, A))t≥0


is (Ft )-progressively measurable for any Borel set A of R. 

A concrete construction of such a noise process can be found in Section 2 of Koike (2016).

9

(4)

3.1. Construction of estimators
As was pointed out by Liu et al. (2014), the realized skewness RDSkew is no longer a consistent
estimator for (1) in the presence of microstructure noise even after appropriate scaling. Hence we
modify the realized skewness by the pre-averaging procedure, which is a general scheme to remove the
effects of microstructure noise from observation data; see Podolskij and Vetter (2009) and Chapter
16 of Jacod and Protter (2012) for example.
First, we choose a sequence kn of positive integers and a number θ ∈ (0, ∞) such that kn =

−1/2

−1/4

) as n → ∞. We also choose a continuous function g : [0, 1] → R which is piecewise
R1
C 1 with a piecewise Lipschitz derivative g ′ and satisfies g(0) = g(1) = 0 and 0 g(x)3 dx 6= 0. After

θ∆n

+o(∆n

that, for any process V we define the variables
Vi =

kX
n −1

g

p=1



p
kn




Vtni+p − Vtni+p−1 ,

i = 0, 1, . . . .

In the following we develop a central limit theorem for the Pre-averaged Realized Volatility
PRVnT

1
=
ψ2 kn

NTn −kn +1

X

Yi

i=0

2

n

NT
ψ1 X
−
(Ytni − Ytni−1 )2 ,
2ψ2 kn
i=1

and the Pre-averaged realized Cubic power Variation
PCVnT

1
=
ψ3 kn

where NTn = max{i : tni ≤ T } and
ψ1 =

Z

1

g′ (x)2 dx,

ψ2 =

0

Z

NTn −kn +1

X

Yi

i=0

1

g(x)2 dx,

3

,

ψ3 =

Z

1

g(x)3 dx.

0

0

For the equidistant sampling case tni = i∆n , it is known that
PRVnT →P [X, X]T ,

PCVnT →P

X

(∆Xs )3

0≤s≤T

as n → ∞ from Theorems 16.2.1 and 16.6.1 of Jacod and Protter (2012). Therefore, we may expect
that
PCVnT
(PRVnT )3/2
is a consistent estimator for (1). Our aim is to derive the asymptotic distribution of the above

10

statistic.
3.2. Asymptotic results
3.2.1. Notation
ucp

We write X n −−→ X for processes X n and X to express shortly that sup0≤t≤T |Xtn − Xt | →p 0.
̟ denotes some (fixed) positive constant. We denote by (Gt ) the smallest filtration containing (Ft )
such that G0 contains the σ-field generated by µ, i.e. the σ-field generated by all the variables µ(A),
where A ranges all measurable subsets of R+ × E.
For any real-valued bounded measurable functions u, v on [0, 1], we define the function φu,v on
[0, 1] by
φu,v (y) =

Z

y

1

u(x − y)v(x)dx.

Then we put
Φ22 =

Z

1

2

φg,g (y) dy,

Φ12 =

Z

1

φg,g (y)φg′ ,g′ (y)dy,

1

φg′ ,g′ (y)2 dy

0

0

0

Φ11 =

Z

and
Φ3+ =
Φ′3+ =

Z

Z

Φ23+ =
Φ′23+

=

1
0
1
0

Z

Z

2

φg,g2 (y) dy,

Φ3− =

φg′ ,g2 (y)2 dy,

Φ′3− =

1

φg′ ,g (y)φg′ ,g2 (y)dy,

We define the process α by α(ω)t =
3.2.2. Assumptions

φg2 ,g (y)dy,

R

Z

1

φg2 ,g′ (y)2 dy,
0
Z 1
Φ23− =
φg,g (y)φg2 ,g (y)dy,
0
Z 1
′
φg,g′ (y)φg2 ,g′ (y)dy.
Φ23− =

φg,g (y)φg,g2 (y)dy,

0

1

0

1

0

Z

0

u2 Qt (ω, du).

We enumerate the assumptions which are imposed to derive our limit theorem.
[A1] It holds that
rn (t) = op (∆ξn )

(5)

as n → ∞ (note that tn−1 = 0 by convention) for every t > 0 and every ξ ∈ (0, 1). Moreover,
for each n we have a (Gt )-progressively measurable positive-valued process Gnt and a random
11

subset N n of Z+ satisfying the following conditions:
(i) {(ω, p) ∈ Ω × Z+ : p ∈ N n (ω)} is a measurable set of Ω × Z+ . Moreover, there is a
constant κ ∈ (0, 12 ) such that #(N n ∩ {p : tnp ≤ t}) = Op (nκ ) as n → ∞ for every t > 0.
n
n
] = Gntnp for every n and every p ∈ Z+ \ N n .
(ii) E[∆−1
n (tp+1 − tp ) Gtn
p

(iii) There is a càdlàg (Ft )-adapted positive valued process G such that
ucp

n
(iii-a) ∆−̟
−→ 0,
n (G − G) −

(iii-b) Gt− > 0 for every t > 0,
(iii-c) G is an Itô semimartingale of the form
Gt = G0 +

Rt
0

bbs ds +

Rt
0

σ
bs dWs +

Rt
0

cs +
σ
bs′ dW

RtR
0

b
|δ(s,z)|≤1}

+

RtR
0

b z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz)
δ(s,

b
|δ(s,z)|>1

b z)µ(ds, dz),
δ(s,

where bbs is a locally bounded and (Ft )-progressively measurable real-valued process,

cs is an (Ft )-standard Wiener process
σ
bs and σ
bs′ are càdlàg (Ft )-adapted processes, W
independent of W , and δb is an (Ft )-predictable real-valued function on Ω × R+ × E

such that there is a sequence (b
ρj ) of (Ft )-stopping times increasing to infinity and, for
R
each j, a deterministic non-negative function b
γj on E satisfying b
γj (z)2 ∧ 1λ(dz) <

b t, z)| ≤ γ
∞ and |δ(ω,
bj (z) for all (ω, t, z) with t ≤ ρbj (ω).
h
i
n
n
Furthermore, maxp=0,1,...,NTn E ∆−1
is tight as n → ∞ for every t > 0.
n (tp+1 − tp )|Ftn
p
[A2] The volatility process σ is an Itô semimartingale of the form
σt = σ0 +

Rt

Rt
e
es dWs
0 bs ds + 0 σ

+

Rt
0

fs +
σ
es′ dW

RtR
0

e
|δ(s,z)|≤1}

+

RtR
0

e z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz)
δ(s,

e
|δ(s,z)|>1

e z)µ(ds, dz)
δ(s,

where ebs is a locally bounded and (Ft )-progressively measurable process, σ
es and σ
es′ are càdlàg

fs is an (Ft )-standard Wiener process independent of W , and δe is
(Ft )-adapted processes, W
an (Ft )-predictable function on Ω × R+ × E.

Moreover, for each j there is an (Ft )-stopping time ρj , a bounded (Ft )-progressively measurable process bs , a deterministic non-negative function γj on E, and a constant Λj such that
ρj ↑ ∞ as j → ∞ and, for each j,
(i) b(ω)s = b(j)(ω)s if s < ρj (ω),
12



(ii) E |b(j)t1 − b(j)t2 |2 |Ft1 ∧t2 ≤ Λj E [|t1 − t2 |̟ |Ft1 ∧t2 ] for any (Ft )-stopping times t1 and

t2 bounded by j,
R
e t, z)| ≤ γj (z) for all (ω, t, z) with t ≤
(iii)
γj (z)2 ∧ 1 λ(dz) < ∞ and |δ(ω, t, z)| ∨ |δ(ω,

ρj (ω),


(iv) E |δ(t1 ∧ ρj , z) − δ(t2 ∧ ρj , z)|2 |Ft1 ∧t2 ≤ Λj γj (z)2 E [|t1 − t2 |̟ |Ft1 ∧t2 ] for any (Ft )-stopping
times t1 and t2 bounded by j.

[A3] Qt ’s satisfy (4) and there is a sequence (ρ′j )j≥1 of (Ft )-stopping times increasing to infinity
such that
sup
ω∈Ω,t<ρ′j (ω)

Z

u6 Qt (ω, du) < ∞.

Moreover, for each j there is a bounded càdlàg (Ft )-adapted process α(j)t and a constant Λ′j
such that
(i) α(j)(ω)t = α(ω)t if t < ρ′j (ω),


(ii) E |α(j)t1 − α(j)t2 |2 |Ft1 ∧t2 ≤ Λ′j E [|t1 − t2 |̟ |Ft1 ∧t2 ] for any (Ft )-stopping times t1 and
t2 bounded by j.

[A4] A regular conditional probability of P given H exists for any sub-σ-field H of F.
Remark 2. Assumptions [A1]–[A4] are almost identical to the ones imposed to prove a central
limit theorem for PRVnT in Koike (2016). A few differences appear in [A1] and [A3]: We add an
additional (mild) assumption on the tightness of random variables
max

h
i
−1 n
n
n .
E
∆
(t
−
t
)|F
t
n
p+1
p
p
n

p=0,1,...,NT

to [A1] (note that this assumption automatically follows from [A1](ii)–(iii) if N n = ∅). In the
meantime, [A3] requires the finiteness of the sixth moment of the noise process.
Remark 3. Since Assumption [A1] contains some non-standard aspects compared with common
ones used in the literature, we briefly make some comments on it (see Remark 3.2 of Koike (2016)
for more details).
1. A typical example satisfying this assumption is the restricted discretization scheme introduced

13

in Chapter 14 of Jacod and Protter (2012), where the tnp ’s are modeled as
tnp = tnp−1 + θtnnp−1 εnp ,

p = 1, 2, . . . ,

with θ n being a càdlàg (Ft )-adapted process, (εnp )p≥1 being a sequence of i.i.d. positive variables independent of b, σ, δ, W , µ, and such that E[εnp ] = 1 and E[(εnp )r ] < ∞ for every
r > 0, and tn0 = 0. An appropriate construction of the filtration (Ft ) allows us to assume the
independence between ǫnp and Ftnp−1 for all n, p. In this case we have [A1](i)–(ii) by setting
n
N n = ∅ and Gn = ∆−1
n θ . Then, [A1](iii) corresponds to (a weaker version of) Assumption

(E) of Jacod and Protter (2012), and (5) follows from Lemma 14.1.5 of Jacod and Protter
(2012) (note that the last condition on tightness is automatically satisfied once [A1](iii) holds
true since N n = ∅).
2. The main reason why we introduce an involved assumption compared with the standard ones
is that our assumption does not rule out the dependence between εnp ’s and X (see Example
4.1 of Koike (2016) for instance). However, we remark that [A1] rules out some kind of
dependence between the observation times and the jumps of the observed process because
we take the conditional expectation given Gtnp ’s instead of Ftnp ’s in [A1](ii). In fact, our
assumption does not allow the case that tnp ’s are given by hitting times of a pure-jump Lévy
process whose jump measure is µ (note that in this case the Lévy process must have infinite
activity jumps due to (5)). We however note that our assumption does not exclude such a
dependence completely; see Example 4.2 of Koike (2016) for instance.
3. The set N n can be interpreted as a set of exceptional indices p for which the equation
n
n
] = Gntnp does not hold true. This additional complexity is useful to
E[∆−1
n (tp+1 − tp ) Gtn
p

ensure the stability of Assumption [A1] under the localization used in the proof (see Lemma
6.1 of Koike (2016)). Non-empty N n also excludes some trivial exceptions of [A1] with
N n = ∅, such as tn0 = log n/n and tnp = tnp−1 + ∆n for p ≥ 1.
3.2.3. Results
Theorem 3. Suppose that [A1]–[A4] are satisfied. Then



∆−1/4
PCVnT −
(PRVnT −[X, X]T ) , ∆−1/4
n
n
14

X

0≤s≤T

∗

1/2

(∆Xs )3  →S ΓT ζ

as n → ∞, where ζ is a bivariate standard normal variable which is defined on an extension of B
and independent of F, and ΓT is the R2 ⊗ R2 -valued variable given by


11
12
c
 ΓT + ΓT ΓT 
ΓT = 

12
22
ΓT
ΓT
with

ΓcT
11

ΓT


Z T
4
Φ11 α2s
Φ12 2
4
= 2
σ αs + 3
ds,
Φ22 θσs Gs + 2
θ s
θ Gs
ψ2 0


 Φ12
4 X
2
(αs + αs− ) ,
(∆Xs )2 Φ22 θ σs2 Gs + σs−
Gs− +
= 2
θ
ψ2
0≤s≤T

12

ΓT

X



6
2
=
(∆Xs )3 θ Φ23+ σs2 Gs + Φ23− σs−
Gs− + θ −1 Φ′23+ αs + Φ′23− αs− ,
ψ2 ψ3
0≤s≤T

22
ΓT




9 X
2
(∆Xs )4 θ Φ3+ σs2 Gs + Φ3− σs−
Gs− + θ −1 Φ′3+ αs + Φ′3− αs− .
= 2
ψ3
0≤s≤T

A proof of the above result is given in Section 4.3. Combining the above result with the delta
method for stable convergence, we obtain the asymptotic distribution of PCVnT / (PRVnT )3/2 as
follows:
Theorem 4. Under the assumptions of Theorem 3, we have
!
P
q
3
n
(∆X
)
PCV
s
11
12
22
0≤s≤T
S
T
d21,T (ΓcT + ΓT ) + 2d1,T d2,T ΓT + d22,T ΓT × ζ
→
−
∆n−1/4
3/2
n 3/2
([X, X]T )
(PRVT )
as n → ∞, where ζ is a standard normal variable which is defined on an extension of B and
independent of F, and
d1,T

P
3 0≤s≤T (∆Xs )3
,
=−
2 ([X, X]T )5/2

d2,T =

1
.
([X, X]T )3/2
−1/4

Remark 4. The stable convergence result on the first component ∆n

(PRVnT −[X, X]T ) in The-

orem 3 is a special case of Theorem 3.1 from Koike (2016). In contrast, the stable convergence
result on the second component


PCVnT −
∆−1/4
n

X

0≤s≤T



(∆Xs )3 

in Theorem 3 is new even in the equidistant sampling case tni = i∆n . As is remarked in the
Introduction, Theorem 16.3.1 of Jacod and Protter (2012) deals with the asymptotic distribution

15

of the statistic
1
kn

NTn −kn +1

X

f (Y i )

i=0

in the equidistant sampling case for a C 2 function f : R → R which is a linear combinations
of positively homogeneous functions with degree (strictly) bigger than 3. Since the cubic function
f (x) = x3 does not have this property, Theorem 16.3.1 of Jacod and Protter (2012) is not applicable
to deriving the asymptotic distribution of PCVnT .
Remark 5. The main difference between the asymptotic distributions given in Theorems 1–2 and
Theorems 3–4 is that the former ones are in general not F-conditionally Gaussian due to the
additional randomness caused by the uniform variables Uq , Uq′ , while the latter ones are always Fconditionally Gaussian. This is a byproduct of the pre-averaging procedure and commonly observed
in the literature of pre-averaging estimators for functionals of jumps.
−1/4

Remark 6. If X is continuous, Theorem 3 implies ∆n
−1/4

need a larger scaling factor than ∆n

PCVnT →P 0 as n → ∞, hence we will

to obtain a non-degenerate asymptotic distribution of PCVnT .

To the best of our knowledge, nothing is known about the non-trivial asymptotic distribution of
PCVnT even in the equidistant sampling setting. An analogy to the non-noisy case suggests that the
−1/2

proper scaling factor is ∆n

−1/2

and ∆n

PCVnT would converge stably in law to a mixed normal

distribution with a non-zero conditional mean (cf. Example 6 of Kinnebrock and Podolskij (2008)
for the equidistant sampling setting and Theorem 2 of Li et al. (2014) for an irregular sampling
setting).
Remark 7. We note that the main reason why the asymptotic distribution of the realized skewness
√
PNTn c
(Xtn − Xtcn )3 →P 0 as
obtained in the previous section is centered is because we have ∆n i=1
i

n → ∞ as long as

tni

i−1

= i∆n . This is in general not true when we consider more general sampling

schemes as (tni ) such that they depend on the process X c . In particular, Assumption [A1] does not
√
PNTn c
rule out situations where the variables ∆n i=1
(Xtn − Xtcn )3 converge in probability to some
i

i−1

non-zero random variable as n → ∞; see e.g. Example 3.2 from Koike (2017) and Example 5 from
Li et al. (2014). In such a situation we conjecture that the asymptotic distribution of the realized
skewness estimator would be no longer centered. In contrast, Theorem 4 tells us that the estimator

16

PCVnT / (PRVnT )3/2 is asymptotically centered even under [A1]. This is another byproduct of the
pre-averaging procedure.
Remark 8. In the absence of noise the simultaneous presence of jumps and the randomness of
observation times typically adds more complexity to the asymptotic distribution of statistics of
the form (3) more complex, as seen in Bibinger and Vetter (2015), Vetter and Zwingmann (2017)
and Martin and Vetter (2016). In this sense the result of Theorem 3 again contrasts with nonnoisy cases because the estimators PRVnT and PCVnT are asymptotically mixed normal even with
stochastic sampling times. This is also a byproduct of the pre-averaging procedure.

4. Proofs
4.1. Proof of Theorem 1
First of all, a standard localization procedure, described in detail in Lemma 4.49 of Jacod and Protter
(2012), for instance, allows us to assume that there are a positive constant A and a nonnegative
deterministic measurable function γ on E such that
|b(ω)t | ≤ A,

|σ(ω)t | ≤ A,
|X(ω)t | ≤ A,
R
|δ(ω, t, z)| ≤ γ(z) ≤ A,
γ(z)2 λ(dz) ≤ A.



|X c (ω)t | ≤ A, 



(6)

The strategy of the proof is the same as the one used in the proof of Theorem 5.1.2 from
Jacod and Protter (2012), and we divide the proof into several steps. For the part corresponding
to Steps 1–3 of Jacod and Protter (2012)’s proof, we can adopt almost the same argument as the
original one, hence it is just briefly sketched in Step 2. In the remainder steps we will need an
argument which is somewhat different from theirs.
Throughout the discussions, for random variables X and Y which may depend on the parameters
n, m, i, X . Y means that there exists a (non-random) constant K > 0 independent of n, m, i such
that X ≤ KY a.s.
Step 1) We begin with introducing some notations. For each m ∈ N, set Am = {z : γ(z) > 1/m}.
Noting that ν(Am ) < ∞, we denote by (S(m, j))j≥1 the successive jump times of the Poisson
process (µ((0, t] × (Am \ Am−1 )))t≥0 . Let (Sp )p≥1 be a reordering of the double sequence (S(m, j)),
and we denote by Pm the set of all indices p such that Sp = S(m′ , j) for some j ≥ 1 and some
17

m′ ≤ m. In the light of Proposition 5.1.1 from Jacod and Protter (2012), we may assume that
(Sp ) = (Tq ) without loss of generality.
Set
b(m)t = bt −

R

Am ∩{z:|δ(t,z)|≤1} δ(t, z)λ(dz),

RtR

C(m)t = X0 +

Rt
0

b(m)s ds + Xtc ,

δ(s, z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz),
R
tR
X ′ (m)t = Xt − X(m)t = 0 Am δ(s, z)µ(ds, dz),
Rt
RtR
X ′′ (m)t = X(m)t − Xtc = X0 + 0 b(m)s ds + 0 Ac δ(s, z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz),
m
RtR
Y (m)t = Xt − 0 Ac δ(s, z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz) = C(m)t + X ′ (m)t ,
X(m)t = C(m)t +

0

Acm

m

and denote by Ωn (T, m) the set of all ω such that each interval [0, T ] ∩ ((i − 1)∆n , i∆n ] contains
at most one jump of X ′ (m)(ω). Note that the notations here are consistent with those from
Eq.(5.1.10) of Jacod and Protter (2012). Since X ′ (m) has finitely many jumps on [0, T ], it holds
that P (Ωn (T, m)) → 1 as n → ∞. We also set inp = ⌈Sp /∆n ⌉ so that Sp is in ((inp − 1)∆n , inp ∆n ].
Here, for a real number x, ⌈x⌉ denotes the minimum integer l satisfying l ≥ x. Then we define


p
1 
1  n
ζpn = √
∆inp X − ∆XSp ,
g(∆ninp X) − g(∆XSp ) − g( ∆n R(n, p))
∆n
∆n
P
and YTn (m) = p∈Pm :Sp ≤∆n ⌊T /∆n ⌋ ζpn . Moreover, for any semimartingale S, we set
R(n, p) = √



X
1
n
VTn (S, g) −
V T (S, g) = √
g(∆Ss ) ,
∆n
0≤s≤T

n

Z T (S) = √


1
RVnT (S) − [S, S]⌊T /∆n ⌋∆n .
∆n

Step 2) First we fix m. With p fixed, the sequence R(n, p) is tight due to Proposition 4.4.10 of
√
√
Jacod and Protter (2012). Therefore, we have g( ∆n R(n, p))/ ∆n →P 0 as n → ∞ because
g(x) = O(x2 ) as x → 0. On the other hand, repeated applications of the fundamental theorem of
calculus yield
g(∆nip X)

Z
p
− g(∆XSp ) = g (∆XSp ) ∆n R(n, p) +
′

0

√

∆n R(n,p) Z u

g′′ (∆XSp + v)dvdu.

0

Since X is bounded and g ′′ is continuous, we have
1
√
∆n

Z

0

√

∆n R(n,p) Z u
0

g′′ (∆XSp + v)dvdu →P 0

as n → ∞. Consequently, we conclude that ζpn − g′ (∆XSp )R(n, p) →P 0 as n → ∞. On the other
hand, an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 5.4.10 from Jacod and Protter (2012) implies

18

√



n
that Z T (C(m)), (R(n, p))p≥1 →S
2IQT U 0 , (Rp )p≥1 as n → ∞. Hence it holds that


p


 

n
Z T (C(m)), ∆XSp R(n, p) p≥1 , ζpn p≥1 →S
2IQT U 0 , ∆XSp Rp p≥1 , (ζp )p≥1

as n → ∞, where ζp = g ′ (∆XSp )Rp . Since the set {Sp : p ∈ Pm } ∩ [0, T ] is finite, it follows that
p


n
Z T (C(m)), ZTn (m), Y n (m)T →S
2IQT U 0 , ZT (X ′ (m), 2), V T (X ′ (m), g)

as n → ∞, where ZTn (m)T = 2

P

p∈Pm :Sp ≤∆n ⌊T /∆n ⌋ ∆XSp R(n, p).

Furthermore, the same argu-

ment as the last part of the proof of Lemma 5.4.10 from Jacod and Protter (2012) implies that
n

n

Z T (C(m)) + ZTn (m)T − Z T (Y (m)) →P 0 as n → ∞. Consequently, we conclude that

as n → ∞.

p

n
Z T (Y (m)), YTn (m) →S ( 2IQT U 0 + ZT (X ′ (m), 2), V T (X ′ (m), g))

Next we vary m. We can prove
V T (X ′ (m), g) →P V T (X, g)
as m → ∞ by the same argument as the proof of Eq.(5.1.16) from Jacod and Protter (2012) and


n
n

limm→∞ lim supn→∞ P Z T (Y (m)) − Z T (X) > η → 0, 
ZT (X ′ (m)) →P ZT (X)

as

m→∞




for any η > 0 by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 5.4.12 from Jacod and Protter (2012)
where our Y (m) is denoted by X(m).
√
Now, noting that [X, X]⌊T /∆n ⌋∆n − [X, X]T = oP ( ∆n ) and the decomposition
n

n

V T (X, g) = V T (X(m), g) + YTn (m)
holding on the set Ωn (T, m) as well as limn→∞ P (Ωn (T, m)) = 1 for every m ∈ N, the proof of the
theorem is completed once we show that



1
n
n
c
lim lim sup P Ωn (T, m) ∩ V T (X(m), g) − √ VT (X , g) > η
=0
m→∞ n→∞
∆n

(7)

for any η > 0.
Step 3) We begin by showing three inequalities used in the proof. The first and the second ones

19

are elementary: if ρ ∈ (0, 2], the Lyapunov and Doob inequalities as well as (6) yield
"
ρ#
Z
Z t
≤ (4∆n γ m )ρ/2 ,
δ(s, z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz)
E
sup
(i−1)∆n ≤t≤i∆n

where γ m :=

R

Acm

Acm

(i−1)∆n

γ(z)2 λ(dz). Therefore, noting that

exists a positive constant Kρ such that

R

Am ∩{z||δ(t,z)|≤1} δ(t, z)ν(dz)

≤ Am, there

n
i
h
o
ρ
≤ Kρ (m∆n )ρ + (∆n γ m )ρ/2
E sup(i−1)∆n ≤t≤i∆n X ′′ (m)t − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n

(8)

for every i, n, m. On the other hand, for every ρ ≥ 1 there exists a constant Kρ′ such that
h
ρi
ρ/2
c
≤ Kρ′ ∆n
E sup(i−1)∆n ≤t≤i∆n Xtc − X(i−1)∆
n
for every i, n, due to the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality and (6).
Now we prove the third one. By using integration by parts repeatedly we obtain
R i∆n
2
c
)(X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )dX ′′ (m)s
(Xsc − X(i−1)∆
∆ni X c ∆ni X ′′ (m) = 2 (i−1)∆
n
n
R
R i∆n
2
c
c
+ (i−1)∆
c (Xs − X(i−1)∆ )δ(s, z) µ(ds, dz)
n
n Am
R i∆n
(X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )2 dXsc
+ (i−1)∆
n
=: 2Ini + IIni + IIIni .

First consider Ini . We decompose it as
Ini =

R i∆n

c
(i−1)∆n (Xs

+

R i∆n

(i−1)∆n

R

c
)(X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )b(m)s ds
− X(i−1)∆
n

c
Acm (Xs

c
)(X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )δ(s, z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz)
− X(i−1)∆
n

n,2
=: In,1
i + Ii .

The Schwarz inequality and (8)–(9) yield
E

h

In,1
i

i

≤ Cm

Z

i∆n

(i−1)∆n

E

h

i
c
′′
′′
ds
(Xsc − X(i−1)∆
)(X
(m)
−
X
(m)
)
s
(i−1)∆
n
n



p
m∆n + γ m ∆n .
. m∆3/2
n

On the other hand, since integration by parts implies that
c
(Xsc − X(i−1)∆
)(X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )
n

20

(9)

=

Z

s

(i−1)∆n

c
)dX ′′ (m)u +
(Xuc − X(i−1)∆
n

Z

s

(i−1)∆n

(X ′′ (m)u − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )dXuc ,

the Doob inequality, (6) and (8)–(9) imply that
"
E

sup

(i−1)∆n ≤s≤i∆n

c
(Xsc − X(i−1)∆
)(X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )
n

2

#


. ∆2n m2 ∆n + γ m ,

hence the Lyapunov and Doob inequalities yield
(

 )1/2
Z i∆n
h
i
2
n,2
c
E Ii
≤ 4γ m
)(X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n ) ds
E (Xsc − X(i−1)∆
n
(i−1)∆n

 p

m
γ
∆
+
γ
. ∆3/2
n
m
m .
n
3/2

Consequently, it holds that E [|Ini |] . ∆n
is the compensator of µ, we have
"Z
E [|IIni |]

i∆n

≤E

(i−1)∆n

Z

Acm

m2 ∆ n + m

Xsc

−

p


γ m ∆n + γ m . On the other hand, since ν

c
X(i−1)∆
n

2

#

δ(s, z) ν(ds, dz) . ∆3/2
n γm

by (6) and (9), whereas the Davis inequality, (6) and (8) imply that
n
o1/2 
R i∆n
n
′′
′′
4
2
E [|IIIi |]. E
(i−1)∆n (X (m)s − X (m)(i−1)∆n ) σs ds

i
h

1/2
m2 ∆ n + γ m .
. ∆n E sup(i−1)∆n ≤s≤i∆n (X ′′ (m)s − X ′′ (m)(i−1)∆n )2 . ∆3/2
n

After all, there exists a positive constant K ′′ such that
E
for every i, n, m.

h



p
2 i
≤ K ′′ ∆n3/2 m2 ∆n + m γ m ∆n + γ m
∆ni X c ∆ni X ′′ (m)

(10)

Step 4) Setting k(x, y) = g(x + y) − g(x) − g(y), we have
n

V T (X(m), g) −

√ 1 V n (X c , g)
∆n T

=

√1
∆n

P⌊T /∆n ⌋
i=1

n

k(∆ni X c , ∆ni X ′′ (m)) + V T (X ′′ (m), g)

because X(m) = X c + X ′′ (m). Therefore, the proof is completed once we verify the following
equations for any η > 0:

 1
lim lim sup P Ωn (T, m) ∩ √
m→∞ n→∞
 ∆n


lim lim sup P Ωn (T, m) ∩

m→∞ n→∞



⌊T /∆n ⌋

X
i=1

n



k(∆ni X c , ∆ni X ′′ (m)) > η  = 0,


V T (X ′′ (m), g) > η
21



= 0.

(11)
(12)

This step is devoted to the proof of (11). First, since g(0) = g′ (0) = 0 and g ′′ (x) = O(|x|) as x → 0,
there exists a positive constant α such that
|x| ≤ 6A ⇒ |g(x)| ≤ α|x|3 ,

|g ′ (x)| ≤ α|x|2 ,

|g′′ (x)| ≤ α|x|.

(13)

Next, using the fundamental theorem of calculus repeatedly, we have
k(x, y) =

Z

0

y

Z

x

g′′ (v + u)dvdu,

0

hence (13) yields

|x| + |y| ≤ 6A ⇒ |k(x, y)| ≤ α |x|2 |y| + |x||y|2 .

(14)

Let us recall Since |∆ni X c | ≤ 2A and |∆ni X(m)| ≤ |∆ni X| + |∆ni X ′ (m)| ≤ 3A on Ωn (T, m) due to
(6), we obtain




⌊T /∆n ⌋

X

1
k(∆ni X c , ∆ni X ′′ (m)) 1Ωn (T,m) 
∆n i=1
o



n
p
p
m2 ∆ n + m γ m ∆ n + γ m
∆n m∆n + γ m ∆n + ∆3/2
.∆−3/2
n
n
E √

by (14), the Schwarz inequality and (8)–(10). Therefore, noting that γ m → 0 as m → ∞ because
of (6) and the dominated convergence theorem and that ∆X(m)s = ∆X ′′ (m)s as well as ∆Xsc = 0
for all s ≥ 0, (11) has been shown.
Step 5) Now we prove (12) and complete the proof of the theorem. First, set φ(x, y) = k(x, y) −
g′ (x)y. If |y| > |x|, (13) and (14) yield
|x| ≤ 5A, |y| ≤ A ⇒ |φ(x, y)| ≤ 3α|x||y|2 ,

(15)

whereas repeated applications of the fundamental theorem of calculus imply that φ(x, y) =
v)dvdu − g(y), hence, if |y| ≤ |x|, by (13) we have

RyRu
0

0

g′′ (x+

|x| ≤ 5A, |y| ≤ A ⇒ |φ(x, y)| ≤ α(|x| + |y|)|y|2 + α|y|3 ≤ 3α|x||y|2 ,
and thus (15) holds true.
Next, for any i, an application of Itô’s formula to the process Ξ(m, i)t =

22

Rt
0

1{s>(i−1)∆n } dX ′′ (m)s

and the function g yields
g(Ξ(m, i)t ) =

Rt

(i−1)∆n

+

P

g′ (Ξ(m, i)s− )dX ′′ (m)s

(i−1)∆n <s≤t {φ(Ξ(m, i)s− , ∆X(m)s )

P

for any t > (i − 1)∆n . Therefore, noting that

(i−1)∆n <s≤t g(∆X(m)s )

tion, for any t > (i − 1)∆n we have
g(Ξ(m, i)t ) −
Z

t

X

′′

g (Ξ(m, i)s− )dX (m)s +
(i−1)∆n
Z t

=

a(n, m, i)u du +

(i−1)∆n

is well-defined by assump-

g(∆X(m)s )

(i−1)∆n <s≤t

′

+ g(∆X(m)s )}

Z

t

Z

t
(i−1)∆n

(i−1)∆n

Z

Acm

Z

Acm

φ(Ξ(m, i)s− , δ(s, z))µ(ds, dz)

k(Ξ(m, i)s− , δ(s, z))(µ − ν)(ds, dz)

=: A(n, m, i)t + M (n, m, i)t ,

(16)

where a(n, m, i)u = g ′ (Ξ(m, i)u )b(m)u +

R

Acm

φ(Ξ(m, i)u , δ(u, z))λ(dz). Note that A(n, m, i) and

M (n, m, i) are well-defined due to (6) and (14)–(15).
Let us set T (n, m, i) = inf{s > (i − 1)∆n : |Ξ(m, i)s | > 5A}. On the set Ωn (T, m) we have
|Ξ(m, i)s | ≤ 5A for all s ≤ T and i ≤ ⌊T /∆n ⌋ due to the decomposition X ′′ (m) = X − X c − X ′ (m)
and (6), hence T (n, m, i) > i∆n . Thus, in view of (16), we have

 n
P Ωn (T, m) ∩ V T (X ′′ (m), g) > η



⌊T /∆n ⌋
X
1
η
1
≤ P √
|A(n, m, i)(i∆n )∧T (n,m,i) | >  + P  √
2
∆n i=1
∆n

⌊T /∆n ⌋

X

M (n, m, i)(i∆n )∧T (n,m,i) >

i=1

η
.
2

(17)

Therefore, in order to prove (12) it suffices to show that
1
limm→∞ lim supn→∞ √∆
E
n

limm→∞ lim supn→∞

1
∆n E

hP

hP

i

⌊T /∆n ⌋
|A(n, m, i)(i∆n )∧T (n,m,i) |
i=1

⌊T /∆n ⌋
hM (n, m, i)i(i∆n )∧T (n,m,i)
i=1

i



= 0, 


= 0, 

(18)

where we apply the Lenglart inequality to derive the convergence of the second term in the right side
of (17) from the second convergence of (18) (for this application we need to introduce the stopping
time T (n, m, i), which enables us to drop the indicator 1Ωn (T,m) ). Recall that |b(m)| ≤ (1+m)A and

23



|δ(s, z)| ≤ γ(z) ≤ A due to (6), so we have for (i − 1)∆n ≤ u < T (n, m, i) (then |Ξ(m, i)u | ≤ 5A):
|a(n, m, i)u | . m|Ξ(m, i)u |2 + γ m |Ξ(m, i)u |,
R
2
2
Ac k(Ξ(m, i)u , δ(u, z)) λ(dz) . γ m |Ξ(m, i)u |
m

by (6), (13)–(14) and (15). Combining these estimates with (8) as well as the fact that γ m → 0 as
m → ∞, we conclude that (18) holds true.



4.2. Proof of Proposition 1
We can easily check that ga is a C 2 function and we have
ga′ (x) = x|x| {3 sin(2a log |x|) + 2a cos(2a log |x|)}
and

ga′′ (x) = |x| 6 sin(2a log |x|) + 10a cos(2a log |x|) − 4a2 sin(2a log |x|)

for any x ∈ R. Hence claim (a) holds true.

Next we prove claim (b). In the following we denote by N the standard normal density. First
we show that there is a real number a such that
Z

∞
0

x3 sin(2a log x)N(x)dx 6= 0.

(19)

In fact, substituting y = log x, we have
Z

∞

3

x sin(2a log x)N(x)dx =

0

Z

∞

e4y N(ey ) sin(2ay)dy.

−∞

Since the function R ∋ y 7→ e4y N(ey ) ∈ R is square integrable and not even, the imaginary part of
its Fourier transform is not identical to zero. Hence (19) holds true for some a ∈ R.
√
Now we show that the variables VTn (X c , ga )/ ∆n do not converge in law with ∆n = exp(−nπ/a)
if a satisfies (19) (note that such an a must not be zero). To obtain a contradiction, suppose that
√
the variables VTn (X c , ga )/ ∆n converge in law to some random variable Z as n → ∞. Since we
have

⌊T /∆n ⌋
⌊T /∆n ⌋


1 X
1
1 X
n c
n
c
Var [ga (∆i X )] ≤
E (∆ni X c )6 = O(∆n )
Var √ VT (X , ga ) =
∆n
∆n
∆n
i=1
i=1


24

and
⌊T /∆n ⌋
X


1
1
n
c
√ |E[VT (X , ga )]| ≤ √
E |∆ni X c |3 = O(1),
∆n
∆n i=1

we obtain

sup E
n∈N

"

1
√ VTn (X c , ga )
∆n

2

#

< ∞.

√
Therefore, the variables VTn (X c , ga )/ ∆n are uniformly integrable, and thus Theorem 3.5 of Billingsley
(1999) implies that Z is integrable and


1
n
c
E √ VT (X , ga ) → E[Z]
∆n

(20)

as n → ∞. In the meantime, we have

Z ∞
⌊T /∆n ⌋
X
p
2T
1
1
n
c
E [ga (∆ni X c )] = 3/2
E √ VT (X , ga ) = √
ga ( ∆n x)N(x)dx + O(∆n )
∆n
∆n i=1
0
∆n
Z ∞


p
x3 sin 2a log( ∆n x) N(x)dx + O(∆n )
= 2T


0

as n → ∞. Hence, in view of (20), the sequence
cn :=

Z

∞

0



p
x3 sin 2a log( ∆n x) N(x)dx,

n = 1, 2, . . .

converges as n → ∞. Using the identity


p
sin 2a log( ∆n x) = sin(a log ∆n ) cos (2a log x) + cos(a log ∆n ) sin (2a log x) ,
we can rewrite cn as
cn = sin(a log ∆n )

Z

∞

3

x cos (2a log x) N(x)dx + cos(a log ∆n )

0

Z

∞

x3 sin (2a log x) N(x)dx.

0

Since ∆n = exp(−nπ/a), we obtain
n

cn = (−1)

Z

∞

x3 sin (2a log x) N(x)dx.

0

Therefore, the sequence cn does not converge due to (19), a contradiction.

25



4.3. Proof of Theorem 3
4.3.1. Localization
As in Section 4.1, a standard localization argument allows us to replace the assumptions [A2]–
[A3] by the following strengthened versions:
[SA2] We have [A2], and the processes Xt , bt , σt , ebt and σ
et are bounded. Moreover, there are a
R
constant Λ and a non-negative bounded function γ on E such that γ(z)2 λ(dz) < ∞ and
e t, z)| ≤ γ(z) and
|δ(ω, t, z)| ∨ |δ(ω,



E |bt1 − bt2 |2 |Ft1 ∧t2 ≤ ΛE [|t1 − t2 |̟ |Ft1 ∧t2 ] ,


E |δ(t1 , z) − δ(t2 , z)|2 |Ft1 ∧t2 ≤ Λγ(z)2 E [|t1 − t2 |̟ |Ft1 ∧t2 ]

for any bounded (Ft )-stopping times t1 and t2 .
[SA3] The process

R

u6 Qt (dz) is bounded and there is a constant Λ′ such that


E |αt1 − αt2 |2 |Ft1 ∧t2 ≤ Λ′ E [|t1 − t2 |̟ |Ft1 ∧t2 ]

for any bounded (Ft )-stopping times t1 and t2 . Moreover, αt is càdlàg.
In the following we fix a constant ξ ∈ (0, 1) such that
ξ>

2+̟
11
∨
,
12 2(1 + ̟)

(21)

and we set r̄n = ∆ξn . By a similar argument to Section 6.1.1 of Koike (2016), we can further replace
the assumption [A1] by the following strengthened version:
[SA1] We have [A1], and for every n it holds that
sup(tni − tni−1 ) ≤ r̄n .

(22)

i≥0

4.3.2. Notation and estimates
We use the same notation as in Section 4.1 with the following change for the definition of the
set Ωn (T, m): For m, n ∈ N, we denote by Ωn (T, m) the set on which kn − 1 ≤ NSnp − ≤ NTn − kn
for all p ∈ Pm such that Sp ≤ T and |Sp1 − Sp2 | > kn r̄n for any p1 , p2 ∈ Pm such that p1 6= p2
and Sp1 , Sp2 < ∞. We have limn P (Ωn (T, m)) = 1. We additionally define the processes B(m)
26

and Z(m) by B(m)t =

Rt
0

b(m)s ds and Z(m)t =

RtR
0

Acm

δ(s, z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz), respectively. We also

define the R2 ⊗ R2 -valued variable Γ(m)T by


 Φ

X
4
12
2
2
2
11
(αs + αs− ) ,
(∆XSp ) Φ22 θ σSp GSp + σs− GSp − +
Γ(m)T = 2
θ
ψ2
p∈Pm ,Sp ≤T

n 
X
o
6
(∆XSp )3 θ Φ23+ σS2 p GSp + Φ23− σS2 p − GSp − + θ −1 Φ′23+ αSp + Φ′23− αSp − ,
Γ(m)12
T =
ψ2 ψ3
p∈Pm ,Sp ≤T

n 
X
o
9
(∆XSp )4 θ Φ3+ σS2 p GSp + Φ3− σS2 p − GSp − + θ −1 Φ′3+ αSp + Φ′3− αSp − .
Γ(m)22
T = 2
ψ3
p∈Pm ,Sp ≤T

n
− gpn for p = 0, 1, . . . , kn − 1. We
We set gpn = g(p/kn ) for p = 0, 1, . . . , kn and ∆(g)np = gp+1

also set Ii = [tni−1 , tni ) and I i = [tni−1 , tni+kn −1 ) for i = 0, 1, . . . .
Pkn −1 n
gp 1Ii+p (s). For any semimartingale
For every i ≥ 0 we define the process g ni by gni (s) = p=1
Rt
V , we define the process V i,t by V i,t = 0 g ni (s−)dVs . Note that V i = V i,tni+k −1 .
n

Recall that, for random variables X and Y which may depend on the parameters n, m, i, X . Y

means that there exists a (non-random) constant K > 0 independent of n, m, i such that X ≤ KY
a.s. In addition, if K possibly depends on m, we write X .m Y instead.
[SA2] and (22) yield
"

#

i
h
E sup X ′ (m)i,s |Ftni−1 . mE |I i ||Ftni−1 . mkn r̄n

(23)

B(m)i . m I i . mkn r̄n .

(24)

s∈I i

and

Here, | · | denotes the Lebesgue measure. The BDG inequality, [SA2] and (22) yield
#
"
h
i
c r
for any r > 0
E sup X i,s |Ftni−1 . E |I i |r/2 |Ftni−1 . (kn r̄n )r/2

(25)

s∈I i

and
"

where γ m =

R

#

h
i
E sup Z(m)i,s |Ftni−1 . γ m E |I i ||Ftni−1 . γ m kn r̄n ,
Acm

2

s∈I i

(26)

γ(z)2 λ(dz). Note that γ m → 0 as m → ∞ by the dominated convergence theorem.

The BDG inequality and [SA3] yield
i
h
E [|ǫi |r |F] + E |ǫi |r |Ftnni−1 ≤ Kr kn−r/2
27

for any r ∈ [2, 6].

(27)

Finally, Lemma 6.1 of Koike (2017) implies that
NTn = Op (∆−1
n )

(28)

as n → ∞ for every t > 0.
4.3.3. Main body
−1/4

For each m ∈ N, we consider the following decomposition of ∆n


∆n−1/4 PCVnT −
=

X

0≤s≤T

n −k +1 
n
−1/4 NT X

∆n

ψ3 kn



(∆Xs )3 

X(m)i + ǫi

i=0

n −k +1
n
−1/4 NT X


∆n
+3
ψ3 kn
+3

−1/4

∆n
ψ3 kn

3


 1
3 

− X(m)i
+ ∆−1/4
n
 ψ3 kn



PCVnT −

P


3 :
(∆X
)
s
0≤s≤T

NTn −kn +1 

X

X(m)i

i=0

n

3

−

X

(∆X(m)s )3

0≤s≤T

−kn +1 
−1/4 NT X

2
∆n
′
X(m)i + ǫi X (m)i + 3
C(m)i + ǫi X ′ (m)i
ψ3 kn
i=0
i=0


n
n −k +1
NT −kn +1
N
n
TX
 1



2
3
X
X
′
3
′ (m)
−
(∆X
(m)
)
Z(m)i X ′ (m)i + ∆−1/4
X
s
n
i
 ψ3 kn


2

i=0

i=0

0≤s≤T

=: In (m) + IIn (m) + IIIn (m) + IVn (m) + Vn (m) + VIn (m).
Since we have



lim lim sup Pn ∆n−1/4 |(PRVnT −[X, X]T ) − (PRV(m)nT − [Y (m), Y (m)]T )| > η = 0

m→∞ n→∞

for any η > 0 by Proposition 6.3 from Koike (2016), where
PRV(m)nT

1
=
ψ2 kn

NTn −kn +1 

X

Y (m)i + ǫi

i=0

2

n

NT
ψ1 X
(Ytni − Ytni−1 )2 ,
−
2ψ2 kn
i=1

and we obviously have Γ(m)T →P ΓT as m → ∞, the proof is completed once we show the following
convergences for any η > 0 due to Proposition 2.2.4 of Jacod and Protter (2012):
lim lim sup Pn (|In (m)| > η) = 0,

(29)

lim lim sup Pn (|IIn (m)| > η) = 0,

(30)

m→∞ n→∞

m→∞ n→∞

IIIn (m) →P 0
for any m ∈ N,

∗
1/2
n
∆−1/4
(PRV(m)
−
[Y
(m),
Y
(m)]
)
,
IV
(m)
→S Γ(m)T ζ,
T
n
n
T
28

(31)
(32)





lim lim sup Pn (|Vn (m)| > η) = 0,

(33)

m→∞ n→∞

VIn (m) →P 0

for any m ∈ N,

(34)

where ζ is a bivariate standard normal variable which is defined on an extension of B and independent of F, and




Γ(m)T = 

ΓcT

+

Γ(m)11
T

Γ(m)12
T

Γ(m)12
T
Γ(m)22
T

Proof of (34). On the set Ωn (T, m) we have
−1/4

∆n
VIn (m) =
ψ3
Since

1
kn

Pkn −1
i=1

X

p∈Pm :Sp ≤T

(

kn −1
1 X
(gin )3
kn
i=1

!




.

− ψ3

)

∆XSp

3

.

(gin )3 = ψ3 + O(kn−1 ) by the Lipschitz continuity of g and limn P (Ωn (T, m)) = 1,

we obtain the desired result.
Proof of (29). We decompose the target quantity as
n −k +1 
n
−1/4 NT X

∆n
In (m) =
ψ3 kn



3 Z(m)i

i=0

2


3
2 

3 
ǫi +
X(m)i + ǫi − X(m)i − 3 Z(m)i ǫi

(2)
=: I(1)
n (m) + In (m).

It suffices to prove
lim lim sup Pn

m→∞ n→∞




In(l) (m) > η = 0

(35)

for l = 1, 2. First, by (27) and (26) we have

 n
 n

NT +1 
NT +1
i
h
2
X
X
1
γ
Z(m)i  . m E 
I i  . γ m,
E
E I(1)
n (m) .
kn
kn
i=0

i=0

where we use the following inequality to obtain the final upper bound:
NTn +1

X
i=0

Ii =

NTn +1 kn −1

X X
i=0

p=0

|Ii+p | =

n −k +1
n
kX
n −1 NT X

p=0

i=0

≤ kn T + kn (kn − 1)r̄n . kn .
Hence (35) holds true for l = 1.

29

NTn +1

|Ii+p | +

X

kX
n −1

i=NTn −kn +2 p=0

|Ii+p |

Next we consider the case l = 2, and we start with some preliminary results. First we note that
sup

NTn −kn +1<i≤NTn +1

p
V i = Op ( kn r̄n )

(36)

Pkn −1
∆(g)np (Vtni+p − Vtni ), and
for V ∈ {X(m), Z(m)}. In fact, summation by parts yields V i = − p=0
√
sup|h|≤h0 |Vt+h − Vt | = Op ( h0 ) as h0 ↓ 0 by [SA2] and the Doob inequality, hence (36) holds ture
n by
by (22). Next, for any K > 0 we define the (Ft )-stopping time RK
n
RK
= inf{s : n−1 Nsn > K}.

(37)

Since ∆Nsn ≤ 1 for every s, it holds that
n
Ns∧R
n ≤ Kn + 1

(38)

K

for all s ≥ 0. Moreover, by (28) we also have
n
lim sup lim sup P (RK
≤ t) = 0.
K→∞

(39)

n→∞

Now we turn to the proof of (35) for the case l = 2. For each m, set
−1/4 
3
2 

3 
∆n
n
ζ(m)i =
X(m)i + ǫi − X(m)i − 3 Z(m)i ǫi ,
ψ3 kn
(2)

Then, by (27) and (36) we have In (m) =

PNTn +1
i=0

Markov inequality and (39) it is enough to prove
K > 0 and m ∈ N.

c

Since integration by parts yields X i Z(m)i =
"


E

c

2

X i Z(m)i |Ftni−1 . E

c

ζ(m)ni + op (1) as n → ∞. Therefore, by the

PNTn∧RnK +1
i=0

R

ζ(m)ni = op (1) as n → ∞ for any fixed

c

I i X i,s− dZ(m)i,s +

sup X i,s−

s∈I i

i = 0, 1, . . . .

2

R

+ sup Z(m)i,s−
s∈I i

c

Z(m)i,s− dX i,s , we have
#
!

Ii

2

Ii

. (kn r̄n )2

(40)

by [SA2], (22) and (25)–(26). Moreover, we can rewrite ζ(m)ni as
ζ(m)ni

−1/4

∆n
=
ψ3 kn



 
2
2
3
3 C(m)i + 2C(m)i Z(m)i ǫi + 3X(m)i (ǫi ) + (ǫi ) .

Hence, using the relation C(m)t = X0 + B(m)t + Xtc and estimates (24)–(27) and (40), we obtain

30

E[|ζ(m)ni |2 |Ftnn ] .m r̄n2 . Therefore, noting that ζ(m)ni is Ftnn
i−1

i+kn −1




E
Hence it holds that
we can decompose
NTn∧Rn +1
K
X

i=0

NTn∧Rn +1

X

K

i=0

i=0

K

2




2
ζ(m)ni − E[ζ(m)ni |Ftnni−1 ]  .m ∆−1
n kn r̄n = o(1).

PNTn∧RnK +1

i=0
PNTn∧Rn +1

-measurable, we have

ζ(m)ni =

PNTn∧RnK +1
i=0

E[ζ(m)ni |Ftnn ]
i−1

E[ζ(m)ni |Ftnni−1 ] =

−1/4
∆n

i−1

as

NTn∧Rn +1

ψ3 kn

E[ζ(m)ni |Ftnn ]+op (1). Now, since E[ǫi |F] = 0,

K
X

i=0

n

o
3E[X(m)i (ǫi )2 |Ftnni−1 ] + E[(ǫi )3 |Ftnni−1 ]

=: A1,n + A2,n
(we drop the index m because we fix it here). First we consider A1,n . We can rewrite it as
A1,n =

−1/4
3∆n

NTn∧Rn +1
K
X

ψ3 kn

i=0

kX
n −1
p=0

(∆(g)np )2 E[X(m)i αtni+p |Ftnni−1 ].

Since we have E[X(m)i αtni−1 |Ftni−1 ] = E[B(m)i αtni−1 |Ftni−1 ], it holds that
E[X(m)i αtni+p |Ftni−1 ] ≤ E

h

i
h
i
X(m)i (αtni+p − αtni−1 ) |Ftni−1 + E B(m)i αtni−1 |Ftni−1

.m (kn r̄n )(1+̟)/2 + kn r̄n

by the Schwarz inequality, [SA3] and (24)–(26). Therefore, we obtain A1,n = Op



∧1)(ξ− 21 )
− 1 +( 1+̟
2
∆n 4

op (1) by (21) after distinguishing the cases ̟ ≥ 1 and ̟ < 1. Next, let us consider A2,n . For any
nonnegative integers p, q, r, E[ǫtni+p ǫtni+q ǫtni+r |Ftnn ] does not vanish only if p = q = r, hence we have
i−1

A2,n =

−1/4
∆n

ψ3 kn

NTn∧Rn +1
K
X

i=0

kX
n −1
p=0

Consequently, we conclude that

−2
kn−1 · ∆−1
(∆(g)np )3 E[(ǫtni+p )3 |Ftnni−1 ] = Op (∆−1/4
n
n kn ) = op (1).

PNTn∧RnK +1
i=0

ζ(m)ni = op (1) and the proof is completed.

Proof of (32). The proof is analogous to that of Proposition 6.2 of Koike (2016), which is based
on Propositions 6.4–6.7 of that paper. So we omit it.
Recall that, for a locally square-integrable martingale M such that M0 = 0, hM i denotes the
predictable quadratic variation of M , i.e. the predictable increasing process such that M 2 − hM i is
31



=

a local martingale (such a process always exists and is unique; see e.g. Theorem 4.2 from Chapter
I of Jacod and Shiryaev (2003)). The next inequality plays a key role in the remaining proof:
Lemma 1. We have
E





sup |Mt | |Fτ1 ≤ 3E

τ1 ≤t≤τ2

hp

hM iτ2 |Fτ1

i

for any stopping time τ1 , τ2 such that τ1 ≤ τ2 and for any locally square-integrable martingale M
such that M0 = 0.
Proof. This result is a direct consequence of Theorem 5 from Chapter 1, Section 9 of Liptser and Shiryaev
(1989).
Proof of (31). Set L(m) = X c + Z(m). Then we have
n −k +1 
n
−1/4 NT X


∆n
|IIIn (m)| ≤ 3
ψ3 kn

L(m)i

i=0

2


2 
+ B(m)i + ǫi
X ′ (m)i

(2)
=: III(1)
n + IIIn ,
(l)

so it suffices to prove IIIn →P 0 as n → ∞ for l = 1, 2 (note that we drop the index m because it
is fixed in this part). First, (24), (27) and (23) yield
 n

NT +1
−1/4
h
i
X
∆
n
E III(2)
E
.m
X ′ (m)i  .m ∆−1/4
kn−1 = o(1),
n
n
kn2
i=0

(2)

hence we have IIIn →P 0 as n → ∞.
(1)

To prove IIIn →P 0 as n → ∞, it suffices to show that there is a constant K (which may
depend on m) such that


2
′
n
E
L(m)i X (m)i |Fti−1 ≤ K(kn r̄n )2

(41)

for any i, n because of the Lenglart inequality, (28) and the fact that ξ > 7/8. To prove (41), we

2
consider the following decomposition of L(m)i X ′ (m)i , which is obtained by applying integration
by parts repeatedly (note that [L(m), X ′ (m)] ≡ 0 by construction):


L(m)i

2

Z 
Z
2
L(m)i,s− dX ′ (m)i,s + 2
X ′ (m)i,s− L(m)i,s− dL(m)i,s
Ii
Ii
Z
+
X ′ (m)i,s− d[L(m)i,· ]s

X ′ (m)i =

Ii

32

n,2
n,3
=: An,1
i + 2Ai + Ai .

Then, it is enough to show that
E

h

i
2
n
An,l
|F
ti−1 .m (kn r̄n )
i

(42)

for every l = 1, 2, 3. First, we have
E

h

i

An,1
|Ftni−1 .m
i
.m

"


2
E sup L(m)i,s |I i | Ftni−1
s∈I i

"

#

#

2
kn r̄n E sup L(m)i,s |Ftni−1 .m (kn r̄n )2
s∈I i

by [SA2], (22) and (25)–(26), so (42) holds true for l = 1. Next, Lemma 1 and (22) yield
#
"Z
1/2
h
i
2
|Ftni−1
X ′ (m)i,s− L(m)i,s− dhL(m)i,· is
E An,2
|Ftni−1 ≤ 3E
i
"

Ii

. E sup X ′ (m)i,s L(m)i,s
.

p

s∈I i

"

kn r̄n E sup

#
q
|I i ||Ftni−1

X ′ (m)i,s L(m)i,s

s∈I i

#

|Ftni−1 .

Now, integration by parts, Lemma 1, [SA2], (22), (23) and (25)–(26) imply that
"
#
E sup X ′ (m)i,s L(m)i,s |Ftni−1
s∈I i

"

.m E sup
s∈I i

X ′ (m)

i,s

q

#

"

#

I i |Ftni−1 + E sup L(m)i,s I i |Ftni−1 .m (kn r̄n )3/2 .
s∈I i

Consequently, (42) holds true for l = 2. Finally, by [SA2], (22) and (23) we have
#
"
h
i
E An,3
|Ftni−1 .m E sup X ′ (m)i,s |I i ||Ftni−1 . (kn r̄n )2 ,
i
s∈I i

hence (42) holds true for l = 3. This completes the proof.
RtR
Proof of (33). Define the processes B ′ (m) and Z ′ (m) by B ′ (m)t = 0 Am δ(s, z)dsλ(dz) and
RtR
Z ′ (m)t = X ′ (m)t − B ′ (m)t = 0 Am δ(s, z)(µ − ν)(ds, dz). Since we have
n −k +1 
n
−1/4 NT X

∆n
|Vn (m)| ≤ 3
ψ3 kn

i=0


2

2 
′
′
+
Z(m)i B (m)i
Z(m)i Z (m)i

(2)
=: V(1)
n (m) + Vn (m),

33

it suffices to prove


lim lim sup Pn Vn(l) (m) > η = 0

(43)

m→∞ n→∞

for l = 1, 2.
We have
E





2
h
i
|Ftni−1 .m (kn r̄n )2 E Z(m)i |Ftni−1 .m (kn r̄n )5/2
Z(m)i B ′ (m)i

by [SA2], (22) and (26). Therefore, (43) holds true for l = 1 by the Lenglart inequality, (28) and
the fact that ξ > 4/5.
Now we prove (43) for l = 2. We start with introducing a further localization procedure for the
n
observation times. For each K ∈ N, we define the sequence (tni (K))∞
i=−1 inductively by t−1 (K) = 0

and
tni (K) =



 tn ,
i

h
i
n
if maxj=1,...,i E ∆−1
|I
|
F
≤ K and ∆n Ntnn
j
t
n
j−1

i−1


 tn (K) + ∆n , otherwise.
i−1

≤ K,

By construction tni (K) is an (Ft )-stopping time for every i. Moreover, by [A1] and (28) we have
supn P (tni 6= tni (K) for some i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , NTn }) → 0 as K → ∞. Consequently, it suffices to show
that


n
n
n
(m)
>
η,
t
=
t
(K)
for
any
i
∈
{0,
1,
.
.
.
,
N
}
=0
lim lim sup Pn V(2)
n
i
i
T

m→∞ n→∞

(44)

for any fixed K ∈ N.

Pkn −1 n
Set Iei = [tni−1 (K), tni (K)) and define the process gein by e
gin (s) =
p=1 gp 1Iei+p (s). For any
Rt n
semimartingale V , we define the process Vei,t by Vei,t = 0 e
gi (s−)dVs . Then, to prove (44) it is

enough to show that

lim lim sup E
m

n



e n +1
−1/4 NX
T
∆
n


kn

i=0

^ n
Z(m)
i,t

i+kn −1


^
′
(K) Z (m)i,tn

i+kn −1 (K)

2



 = 0,

(45)

e n = max{i : tn (K) ≤ T }. Note that N
e n ≤ (K + T )∆−1
where N
n by construction.
i
T
T

Set Iei+ = [tni−1 (K), tni+kn −1 (K)). To prove (45), we consider the following decomposition, which

is obtained by applying integration by parts repeatedly (note that [Z(m), Z ′ (m)] ≡ 0 by construc-

34

tion):
^ n
Z(m)
i,t

i+kn −1 (K)



′ (m) n
^
Z
i,t

i+kn −1 (K)

2

Z

=

Z

+



Iei+

Iei+

′ (m)
^
Z
i,s−

2

^ +2
dZ(m)
i,s

Z

Iei+

′
′
^
^
^
Z(m)
i,s− Z (m)i,s− dZ (m)i,s

^
^
′
Z(m)
i,s− d[Z (m)i,· ]s

n,2
n,3
=: A(m)n,1
i + 2A(m)i + A(m)i .

Then, it is enough to show that




e n +1
−1/4 NX
T

∆n
lim lim sup E 
m
kn
n

=0
A(m)n,l
i

i=0

(46)

for every l = 1, 2, 3. First, we consider the case l = 1. Lemma 1 and [SA2] yield


2 q

h
i p
′ (m)
^
|Iei+ ||Ftni−1 (K) 
E A(m)n,1
|Ftni−1 (K) . γ m E  sup Z
i,s
i
s∈Iei+

v
u
u kX
n −1 


h
2
p
u

^
′ (m)
ei+p | − E |Iei+p | F K
t
. γ m E  sup Z
|
I
T
i,s


i+p−1

s∈Iei+

p=1

v
u n −1 h


2 ukX
p
^
′

E |Iei+p | FT K
+ γ m E sup Z (m)i,s t


i+p−1

s∈Iei+

p=1


p 
n,2
.
=: γ m B(m)n,1
+
B(m)
i
i

i

i




|Ftni−1 (K) 


|Ftni−1 (K) 

It suffices to prove


e n +1
−1/4 NX
T
p

∆n
lim lim sup E 
m
kn
n

i=0



=0
γ m B(m)n,j
i

(47)

for j = 1, 2. By the Hölder and BDG inequalities and (22), we have
 
1/p


2p

2 1/4
′ (m)
^
 sup Z
n (K) 
|F
E
B(m)n,1
.
(k
r̄
)
n
t
n
i,s
i
i−1


s∈Ie+
i

for any p ∈ (1, 2]. Therefore, the Novikov inequality (Theorem 1 of Novikov (1975)) implies that
B(m)n,1
. (kn r̄n2 )1/4 (kn r̄n )1/p
i
for any p ∈ (1, 2]. Now, we can take p ∈ (1,

ξ− 21
7
−ξ
8 2

) because ξ >

35

11
12 ,

hence the above inequality yields

(47) for j = 1. On the other hand, the construction of (tni (K)) and the Doob inequality imply that


2
h
i

p
p
3/2
+
^
′ (m)
e


n
n
sup
∆
E
|F
∆
E
I
,
|F
Z
.
B(m)n,2
.
k
k
n n
n n
ti−1 (K)
ti−1 (K) . (kn ∆n )
i
i,s
i
s∈Iei+

hence (47) also holds true for j = 2.

Next consider the case l = 2. Lemma 1, [SA2] and the Schwarz inequality yield


r
h
i
′
^
^ Z
E A(m)n,2
|Ftni−1 (K) . E  sup Z(m)
Iei+ |Ftni−1 (K) 
i,s (m)i,s
i
s∈Iei+

v 

u
u
h
i
2
u
′
^
^ Z
 E Ie+ |Ftn (K) .
. tE  sup Z(m)
(K)
i,s (m)i,s |Ftn
i
i−1
i−1
s∈Iei+

Noting [Z(m), Z ′ (m)] ≡ 0 by construction, we obtain the following identity for s ∈ Iei+ by applying

integration by parts:

^
′
^ Z
Z(m)
i,s (m)i,s =

Z

s
tn
i−1 (K)

^
^
′
Z(m)
i,u− dZ (m)i,u +

Therefore, the Doob inequality yields


2



Z

s

tn
i−1 (K)

^
′ (m)
^
Z
i,u− dZ(m)i,u .

2

2





^
′
^ Z
^
′ (m)  Ie+ |F n
^ + γ sup Z
 . E  sup Z(m)

E  sup Z(m)
ti−1 (K) .
m
i,s (m)i,s |Ftn
i,s
i
i,s
i−1 (K)
s∈Iei+

s∈Iei+

s∈Iei+

Hence, by an analogous argument to the proof of the case l = 1 we obtain


2

^
′
^ Z
 . γ m (kn ∆n )2 .
E  sup Z(m)
i,s (m)i,s |Ftn
i−1 (K)
s∈Iei+

Consequently, we conclude that
E

h

i p
n
γ m (kn ∆n )3/2 ,
A(m)n,2
|F
ti−1 (K) .
i

and thus we obtain (46) for l = 2.
Finally consider the case l = 3. Since [SA2] yields


h
i
^
e+
,
E A(m)n,3
|Ftni−1 (K) . E  sup Z(m)
i
i,s Ii |Ftn
i−1 (K)
s∈Iei+

we can again apply an analogous argument to the proof of the case l = 1, and thus (46) holds true
for l = 3. This completes the proof.

36

Proof of (30). We decompose the target quantity as
IIn (m)
n −k +1
n
−1/4 NT X


3

∆n
=
ψ3 kn

n −k +1
n
−1/4 NT X


n −k +1
n
−1/4 NT X

2

3∆n
+
ψ3 kn

3∆n
C(m)i
C(m)i Z(m)i +
ψ3 kn
i=0
i=0


n −k +1
n

 1 NT X
3

X
−1/4
(∆X(m)s )3
Z(m)i −
+ ∆n

 ψ3 kn
i=0

i=0


2
C(m)i Z(m)i

0≤s≤T

(2)
(3)
(4)
=: II(1)
n (m) + IIn (m) + IIn (m) + IIn (m).

It suffices to prove
lim lim sup Pn

m→∞ n→∞




IIn(l) (m) > η = 0

(48)

for every l = 1, 2, 3, 4.
(1)

Since Proposition 4.1 of Koike (2017) yields IIn (m) →P 0 as n → ∞ for every m, (48) holds
true for l = 1. Moreover, we can prove (48) for l = 2, 3 analogously to the proof of (33). So it
remains to prove (48) for l = 4. Applying integration by parts repeatedly, we can decompose the
target quantity as
n −k +1
Z
n
−1/4 NT X

3∆n
II(4)
n (m) =
ψ3 kn

i=0


 1
+ ∆−1/4
n
 ψ3 kn

NTn −kn +1 Z

−1/4

2
3∆n
Z(m)i,s− dZ(m)i,s +
ψ3 kn
Ii
NTn −kn +1 h

X
i=0

i
Z(m)i,· , [Z(m)i,· ] n

X
i=0

ti+kn −1

−

X

Ii

Z(m)i,s− d[Z(m)i,· ]s

(∆X(m)s )3

0≤s≤T

(2)
(3)
=: A(1)
n (m) + An (m) + An (m),





hence it is enough to prove
lim lim sup Pn

m→∞ n→∞




An(l) (m) > η = 0

(49)

for every l = 1, 2, 3. For l = 1, 2, (49) can be shown analogously to the proof of (43) for l = 2.
P n −1 n 2 P
2
On the other hand, since we have [Z(m)i,· ]s = kp=1
(gp )
tn
<u≤s (∆X(m)u ) for s ∈ I i and
i+p−1

∆Z(m) = ∆X(m), we obtain



NTn
(p−1)∧(NTn −kn +1)
 1 X
X
n
−1/4

(gp−i
)3 
A(3)
n (m) = ∆n
 ψ3 kn
p=1

i=(p−kn +1)+

37

X

n
tn
p−1 <s≤tp

(∆X(m)s )3 −

X

0≤s≤T

(∆X(m)s )3





.

Now, since we have
(3)

P

3
(t−h)+ <s≤t |∆X(m)s |

= Op (h) as h ↓ 0 by [SA2], we can deduce that

An (m) → 0 as n → ∞ for every m, so (49) holds true for l = 3.
References
References
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y., Jacod, J., 2014. High-frequency financial econometrics. Princeton University Press.
Amaya, D., Christoffersen, P., Jacobs, K., Vasquez, A., 2015. Does realized skewness predict the
cross-section of equity returns? Journal of Financial Economics 118, 135–167.
Andersen, T.G., Bollerslev, T., Meddahi, N., 2005. Correcting the errors: Volatility forecast evaluation using high-frequency data and realized volatilities. Econometrica 73, 279–296.
Bakshi, G., Kapadia, N., Madan, D., 2003. Stock return characteristics, skew laws, and the differential pricing of individual equity options. Review of Financial Studies 16, 101–143.
Bandi, F.M., Russell, J.R., 2006. Separating microstructure noise from volatility. Journal of
Financial Economics 79, 655–692.
Bibinger, M., Vetter, M., 2015. Estimating the quadratic covariation of an asynchronously observed
semimartingale with jumps. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 67, 707–743.
Billingsley, P., 1999. Convergence of probability meausres. Wiley. second edition.
Friend, I., Westerfield, R., 1980. Co-skewness and capital asset pricing. The Journal of Finance 35,
897–913.
Fukasawa, M., 2010. Realized volatility with stochastic sampling. Stochastic Processes and their
Applications 120, 829–852.
Harvey, C.R., Siddique, A., 1999. Autoregressive conditional skewness. Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis 34, 465–487.
Harvey, C.R., Siddique, A., 2000. Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests. The Journal of
Finance 55, 1263–1295.
38

Jacod, J., 2008. Asymptotic properties of realized power variations and related functionals of
semimartingales. Stochastic Processes and their Applications 118, 517–559.
Jacod, J., Li, Y., Mykland, P.A., Podolskij, M., Vetter, M., 2009. Microstructure noise in the
continuous case: the pre-averaging approach. Stochastic Processes and their Applications 119,
2249–2276.
Jacod, J., Protter, P., 1998. Asymptotic error distributions for the Euler method for stochastic
differential equations. Annals of Probability 26, 267–307.
Jacod, J., Protter, P., 2012. Discretization of Processes. Springer.
Jacod, J., Shiryaev, A.N., 2003. Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes. Springer.
Kinnebrock, S., Podolskij, M., 2008. A note on the central limit theorem for bipower variation of
general functions. Stochastic Processes and their Applications 118, 1056–1070.
Koike, Y., 2016. Quadratic covariation estimation of an irregularly observed semimartingale with
jumps and noise. Bernoulli 22, 1894–1936.
Koike, Y., 2017. Time endogeneity and an optimal weight function in pre-averaging covariance
estimation. Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes 20, 15–56.
Kozhan, R., Neuberger, A., Schneider, P., 2013. The skew risk premium in the equity index market.
Review of Financial Studies 26, 2174–2203.
Li, Y., Mykland, P.A., Renault, E., Zhang, L., Zheng, X., 2014. Realized volatility when sampling
times are possibly endogenous. Econometric Theory 30, 580–605.
Liptser, R.S., Shiryaev, A.N., 1989. Theory of martingales. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Liu, Z., Wang, K., Liu, J., 2014. Realized skewness at high frequency and the link to a conditional
market premium. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2224216.
Martellini, L., Ziemann, V., 2009. Improved estimaties of higher-order comoments and implications
for portfolio selection. Review of Financial Studies 23 (4), 1465–1502.

39

Martin, O., Vetter, M., 2016. Testing for simultaneous jumps in case of asynchronous observations.
Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07246.
Mitton, T., Vorkink, K., 2007. Equilibrium underdiversification and the preference for skewness.
Review of Financial Studies 20 (4), 1255–1288.
Neuberger, A., 2012. Realized skewness. Review of Financial Studies 25, 3423–3455.
Novikov, A., 1975. On discontinuous martingales. Theory of Probability and Its Applications 20,
11–26.
Podolskij, M., Vetter, M., 2009. Estimation of volatility functionals in the simultaneous presence
of microstructure noise and jumps. Bernoulli 15, 634–658.
Podolskij, M., Vetter, M., 2010. Understanding limit theorems for semimartingales: a short survey.
Statistica Neerlandica 64, 329–351.
Vetter, M., Zwingmann, T., 2017. A note on central limit theorems for quadratic variation in case
of endogenous observation times. Electronic Journal of Statistics 11, 963–980.

40

