Gaussian approximation of maxima of Wiener functionals and its

arXiv:1709.00353v3 [math.ST] 28 Sep 2017

application to high-frequency data
Yuta Koike ∗†‡
September 29, 2017

Abstract
This paper establishes an upper bound for the Kolmogorov distance between the maximum of a highdimensional vector of smooth Wiener functionals and the maximum of a Gaussian random vector. As a special
case, we show that the maximum of multiple Wiener-Itô integrals with common orders is well-approximated
by its Gaussian analog in terms of the Kolmogorov distance if their covariance matrices are close to each other
and the maximum of the fourth cumulants of the multiple Wiener-Itô integrals is close to zero. This may be
viewed as a new kind of fourth moment phenomenon, which has attracted considerable attention in the recent
studies of probability. This type of Gaussian approximation result has many potential applications to statistics.
To illustrate this point, we present two statistical applications in high-frequency financial econometrics: One is
the hypothesis testing problem for the absence of lead-lag effects and the other is the construction of uniform
confidence bands for spot volatility.
Keywords: Bootstrap; Fourth moment phenomenon; Malliavin calculus; Maximum; Stein’s method; Uniform
confidence bands.

1

Introduction
This study is originally motivated by the problem of testing whether there exists a (possibly) time-lagged

correlation between two Brownian motions based on their high-frequency observation data. Roughly speaking, the
setting considered here is described as follows. We discretely observe the following two continuous-time processes
on the interval [0, T ]:
Xt1 = x10 + σ1 Bt1 ,

2
Xt2 = x20 + σ2 Bt−ϑ
,

t ∈ [0, T ],

(1.1)

where x10 , x20 ∈ R, σ1 , σ2 > 0, Bt = (Bt1 , Bt2 ) (t ∈ R) is a bivariate two-sided Brownian motion with correlation

ρ ∈ (−1, 1) and ϑ ∈ R. For each ν = 1, 2, the process X ν is observed at the time points 0 ≤ tν0 < tν1 < · · · <
1
and
tνnν ≤ T , hence the observation times are possibly non-synchronous. Based on the observation data (Xt11 )ni=0
2
(Xt22 )nj=0
, we aim at solving the following statistical hypothesis testing problem:

i

j

H0 : ρ = 0
∗

vs

H1 : ρ 6= 0.

(1.2)

Department of Business Administration, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Marunouchi Eiraku Bldg.

18F, 1-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005 Japan
†
CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency
‡
The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 10-3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8562, Japan

1

Model (1.1) was introduced in Hoffmann et al. [25] (as a more general one) to model lead-lag effects in highfrequency financial data (see also [47]). In [25] the problem of estimating the time-lag parameter ϑ is considered.
To estimate ϑ, Hoffmann et al. [25] have introduced the following contrast function:
Un (θ) =

X
(Xt11 − Xt11 )(Xt22 − Xt22 )1{(t1i−1 ,t1i ]∩(t2j−1 −θ,t2j −θ]6=∅} .
i,j

i

i−1

j

j−1

Un (θ) could be considered as the (sample) cross-covariance function between the returns of X 1 and X 2 at the lag
θ computed by Hayashi and Yoshida [22]’s method. Hoffmann et al. [25] have shown that
ϑbn = arg max |Un (θ)|
θ∈Gn

is a consistent estimator for ϑ under some regularity conditions while one appropriately takes the finite set Gn as

long as ρ 6= 0. The condition ρ 6= 0 is necessary because it is clearly impossible to identify the parameter ϑ if ρ = 0.

Therefore, unless we can believe ρ 6= 0 due to some external information, we need to reject the null hypothesis in
the above testing problem before we carry out estimation of ϑ. A natural approach to solve testing problem (1.2)

is to reject the null hypothesis if the value of maxθ∈Gn |Un (θ)| is too large. To implement this idea precisely, we
need to derive or approximate the distribution of maxθ∈Gn |Un (θ)| under the null hypothesis H0 . One main purpose

of this paper is to give an answer to this problem. More generally, we consider the problem of approximating the
distributions of maximum-type statistics appearing in high-frequency financial econometrics. Indeed, we encounter
such statistics in many problems of high-frequency financial econometrics, e.g. construction of uniform confidence
bands for spot volatility and other time-varying characteristics, family-wise error rate control for testing at many
time points (cf. [3, 15]), change point analysis of volatility (cf. [5]), testing the absence of jumps (cf. [34, 46]) and

so on.
From a mathematical point of view, this paper is built on two recent studies developed in different areas.
The first one is the seminal work of Chernozhukov, Chetverikov and Kato [9, 11, 13, 14] which we call the
Chernozhukov-Chetverikov-Kato theory, or the CCK theory for short. One main conclusion from the CCK theory is a bound for the Kolmogorov distance between the distributions of the maximum of a (high-dimensional)
random vector and that of a Gaussian vector, which has an apparent connection to our purpose. However, their
result is not directly applicable to our problem because their target random vector is a sum of independent random
vectors [9, 11, 14] or Gaussian [13, 14]. In fact, one of our main target random vectors, (Un (θ))θ∈Gn , is a sum of
dependent random vectors even under the null hypothesis where the dependence is caused by the non-synchronicity
of the observation times. Although there are several extensions of the CCK theory to a sum of dependent random
vectors (see e.g. [7, 8, 12, 51, 52]), it still seems difficult to apply such a result to our problem because the nonsynchronicity cause a quite complex, “non-stationary”, dependence structure. In this aspect this paper aims at
extending the CCK theory suitably to our purpose, and our results indeed generalize several results of [13]. In
particular, our results do not require that the target random vector should be written as a sum of random vectors and
give a simpler bound than those of the preceding studies listed above.
It turns out that in the CCK theory the independence/Gaussianity assumption on the target vector is crucial
for the application of Stein’s method.1 In other words, we can naturally extend the CCK theory to a case without
independence as long as Stein’s method is effectively applicable. This viewpoint leads us to using another important
1

The independence assumption also plays a role in deriving maximal moment inequalities, but this issue may be considered separately.

2

theory for this work, Malliavin calculus, in our problem. In fact, starting from the seminal work of Nourdin and
Peccati [39], the recent studies show that “Stein’s method and Malliavin calculus fit together admirably well” (page
3 of Nourdin [38]). This paper shows that this statement continues to hold true in the application to the CCK
theory. Our application of Malliavin calculus is based on a multivariate extension of the ideas from [39], which is
established in [43] (see also [40]). We refer to the monograph [41] for more information about this subject.
After developing the main Gaussian approximation results, we turn to the original problem of statistical applications in high-frequency data. In this paper we demonstrate two applications: One is testing the absence of
lead-lag effects and the other is constructing uniform confidence bands for spot volatility. We have already explained the background of the former problem in the above, so we briefly discuss the latter one. Estimation of
spot volatility is one of major topics in high-frequency financial econometrics (see Chapter 8 of [1] and references
therein). There are quite a few articles concerning construction of pointwise confidence bands for spot volatility;
see e.g. [2, 32, 35, 37]. In contrast, only a few results are available on the behavior of uniform errors in spot volatility estimation: Kristensen [32] and Kanaya and Kristensen [28] give uniform convergence rates for kernel-type spot
volatility estimators, while Fan and Wang [20] consider a Gumbel approximation for the distribution of uniform errors of kernel-type spot volatility estimators. This paper contributes this relatively undeveloped areas by providing
a new approach to construct uniform confidence bands for spot volatility in the spirit of the CCK theory: Construction of uniform confidence bands is a typical application of the CCK theory, cf. [10, 29, 30]. In both applications
Gaussian approximations themselves are still statistically infeasible because the covariance structures of objective
statistics are unknown. For this reason we also develop wild (or multiplier) bootstrap procedures to approximate
the quantiles of error distributions of objective statistics, which is the approach taken in the CCK theory. Gaussian
approximation results serve as validating such bootstrap procedures.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall some basic notions in Malliavin
calculus for Gaussian processes. Section 3 presents the main Gaussian approximation results obtained in this study.
In Section 4 we derive Gaussian approximation results for maxima of random symmetric quadratic forms as an
application of the main results. We present two statistical applications of our results in high-frequency financial
econometrics in Section 5. We especially propose a testing procedure for (1.2). The finite sample performance of
this testing procedure is illustrated in Section 6. All the proofs are collected in Section 7, while we put several
technical tools used in the proofs on the Appendix.
Notation
Throughout the paper, C = (C(i, j))1≤i,j≤d denotes a d × d nonnegative definite symmetric matrix, and Z =

(Z1 , . . . , Zd )⊤ denotes a d-dimensional centered Gaussian random vector with covariance matrix C. For a vector

x = (x1 , . . . , xd )⊤ ∈ Rd , we write x∨ = max1≤j≤d xj . For any ε > 0 and any subset A of R, we write
Aε = {x ∈ R : |x − y| ≤ ε for some y ∈ A}. For a real-valued function f defined on an interval I ⊂ R and η > 0,

we write kf k∞ = sup{|f (x)| : x ∈ I} and w(f ; η) = sup{|f (s) − f (t)| : s, t ∈ I, |s − t| ≤ η}. For a random
variable ξ and p ≥ 1, we write kξkp = {E[|ξ|p ]}1/p .

2

Basic elements of Gaussian analysis and Malliavin calculus
In this section we briefly overview the basic elements of Gaussian analysis and Malliavin calculus for Gaussian

processes. We refer to [27, 41, 44] for a detailed description of these subjects.
Throughout the paper, H denotes a real separable Hilbert space. The inner product and the norm of H are
3

denoted by h·, ·iH and k · kH , respectively. We assume that an isonormal Gaussian process W = (W (h))h∈H over

H defined on a probability space (Ω, F, P ) is given. Namely, W is a centered Gaussian family of random variables
such that E[W (h)W (g)] = hh, giH for any h, g ∈ H.

We denote by L2 (W ) the space L2 (Ω, σ(W ), P ) for short. For every non-negative integer q, we denote by

Hq the closed subspace of L2 (W ) spanned by the set {Heq (W (h)) : h ∈ H, khkH = 1}, where Heq (x) =
(−1)q ex

2 /2

dq
−x2 /2 )
dxq (e

is the qth Hermite polynomial. The space Hq is called the qth Wiener chaos of W . It is

well-known that the spaces Hq and Hr are orthogonal whenever q 6= r (cf. Lemma 1.1.1 of [44]). Moreover, the

space L2 (W ) possesses the following orthogonal decomposition: L2 (W ) = ⊕∞
q=0 Hq (cf. Theorem 1.1.1 of [44]).

This decomposition is called the Wiener-Itô chaos decomposition of L2 (W ). We denote by Jq the orthogonal
P
projection of L2 (W ) onto Hq for each q. Therefore, every F ∈ L2 (W ) has the decomposition F = ∞
q=0 Jq F ,
which is called the Wiener-Itô chaos decomposition of F .

A closed subspace H of L2 (Ω, F, P ) is called a Gaussian Hilbert space if all the elements of H are centered

Gaussian variables. We can easily check that {W (h) : h ∈ H} is a Gaussian Hilbert space. Given a Gaussian
Hilbert space H and an integer q ≥ 0, we set

Pq (H) = {ϕ(ξ1 , . . . , ξm ) : ϕ is a polynomial of degree ≤ q; ξ1 , . . . , ξm ∈ H; m ∈ N}
and denote by P q (H) the closure of Pq (H) in L2 (Ω, F, P ). If H = {W (h) : h ∈ H}, P q (H) coincides with the

space ⊕qp=0 Hp (cf. page 6 of [44]). The importance of the Gaussian Hilbert space in this paper is illuminated by
Proposition A.1.

For a non-negative integer q, H ⊗q and H ⊙q denote the qth tensor power and qth symmetric tensor power,
respectively (see Appendix E of [27] for details). The qth multiple Wiener-Itô integral Iq : H ⊙q → Hq is defined
√
as the unique linear isometry between H ⊙q (equipped with the scaled norm q!k · kH ⊗q ) and Hq (equipped with

the norm of L2 (W )) such that Iq (h⊗q ) = Heq (W (h)) for all h ∈ H with khkH = 1.

Let p, q be positive integers. For f ∈ H ⊙p , g ∈ H ⊙q and r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , p ∧ q}, f ⊗r g denotes the rth
e r g. See Appendix B of [41] for more details
contraction of f and g. The symmetrization of f ⊗r g is denoted by f ⊗

on these concepts.

A random variable F is said to be smooth if it can be written as

F = f (W (h1 ), . . . , W (hm )),

(2.1)

where h1 , . . . , hm ∈ H and f : Rm → R is a C ∞ function such that f and all of its partial derivatives have at most
polynomial growth. We denote by S the set of all smooth random variables. For a smooth random variable F of

the form (2.1), we define the Malliavin derivative of F as the H-valued random variable defined by
m
X
∂f
(W (h1 ), . . . , W (hm ))hi .
DF =
∂xi
i=1

Let us denote by L2 (Ω; H) the set of all H-valued random variables Y such that E[kY k2H ] < ∞. We regard

L2 (Ω; H) as the Hilbert space equipped with the inner product defined by hY, ZiL2 (Ω;H) = E[hY, ZiH ]. Then, it
is well-known that the Malliavin derivative operator D on S ⊂ L2 (W ) into L2 (Ω; H) is closable (cf. Proposition

1.2.1 of [44]). Therefore, there is a unique closed operator on D1,2 ⊂ L2 (W ) into L2 (Ω; H) whose graph is equal to
the closure of the graph of D in the product space L2 (W ) × L2 (Ω; H). This unique closed operator is also denoted
4

by D. Consequently, D1,2 is the closure of the space S with respect to the norm kF k1,2 :=

q

E[F 2 ] + E[kDF k2H ].

Malliavin derivatives enjoy the following chain rule (cf. Proposition 1.2.3 of [44]): Let F1 , . . . , Fm ∈ D1,2 and let

ϕ : Rm → R be a C 1 function with bounded partial derivatives. Then ϕ(F1 , . . . , Fm ) ∈ D1,2 and we have
m
X
∂ϕ
Dϕ(F1 , . . . , Fm ) =
(F1 , . . . , Fm )DFi .
∂xi

(2.2)

i=1

We also note that, for any integer q ≥ 1 and f ∈ H ⊙q , Iq (f ) ∈ D1,2 and DIq (f ) = qIq−1 (f ) (cf. Proposition 2.7.4

of [41]).

We denote by δ the divergence operator, which is the adjoint of the operator D on D1,2 ⊂ L2 (W ) into

L2 (Ω; H). The domain of δ is denoted by Dom(δ). Therefore, for any F ∈ D1,2 and any u ∈ Dom(δ) we
have

E[F δ(u)] = E[hDF, uiH ].
We also set

(2.3)



∞


X
Dom(L) = F ∈ L2 (W ) :
q 2 E[kJq F k2 ] < ∞ .


q=1

Then the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator L : Dom(L) → L2 (W ) is defined by
LF = −

∞
X

qJq F,

q=1

F ∈ Dom(L),

where the convergence of the series is considered in L2 (W ). It is well-known that F ∈ L2 (W ) belongs to Dom(L)
if and only if F ∈ D1,2 and DF ∈ Dom(δ), and this case we have LF = −δDF (cf. Proposition 1.4.3 of [44]).
Finally, the pseudo inverse of L, denoted by L−1 , is the operator on L2 (W ) into Dom(L) defined by
L

−1

F =−

∞
X
1
q=1

q

Jq F,

F ∈ L2 (W ).

It holds that LL−1 F = F − E[F ] for all F ∈ L2 (W ) (cf. Proposition 2.8.11 of [41]).
3

Main results
Throughout this section, F = (F1 , . . . , Fd )⊤ denotes a d-dimensional random vector such that Fj ∈ D1,2 and

E[Fj ] = 0 for all j = 1, . . . , d. For each β > 0, we define the function Φβ : Rd → R by


d
X
eβxj 
Φβ (x) = β −1 log 
(x = (x1 , . . . , xd )⊤ ∈ Rd ).
j=1

Eq.(1) from [13] states that

0 ≤ Φβ (x) − x∨ ≤ β −1 log d
for any x ∈ Rd .

We first give a generalization of Theorem 1 from [13] as follows:

5

(3.1)

Proposition 3.1. Let g : R → R be a C 2 function with bounded first and second derivatives. Then, for any β > 0

we have

|E [g (Φβ (F ))] − E [g (Φβ (Z))]| ≤ (kg′′ k∞ /2 + βkg ′ k∞ )∆,
where
∆=E



max |C(i, j) − hDFi , −DL

1≤i,j≤d

−1


Fj iH | .

In particular, it holds that
|E [g (F∨ )] − E [g (Z∨ )]| ≤ (kg ′′ k∞ /2 + βkg ′ k∞ )∆ + 2β −1 kg′ k∞ log d.
Remark 3.1. We can indeed derive Theorem 1 of [13] from Proposition 3.1 in the following way. Suppose that
the law of F is the d-dimensional normal distribution with mean 0 and covariance matrix Σ = (Σ(i, j))1≤i,j≤d .
Without loss of generality, we may assume that F is expressed as F = Σ1/2 G with G being a d-dimensional
standard Gaussian vector. Then we can define the isonormal Gaussian process W over H := Rd by W (h) = h⊤ G,
P
h ∈ H (cf. Example 2.1.3 of [41]), and we have Fi = dj=1 γij W (ej ) for every i = 1, . . . , d, where γij denotes

the (i, j)-th component of the matrix Σ1/2 and (e1 , . . . , ed ) denotes the canonical basis of Rd . In this case it holds
that
hDFi , −DL−1 Fj iH =

d
X

k,l=1

γik γjl hek , el iH =

d
X

γik γjk = Σ(i, j),

k=1

hence we obtain the conclusion of Theorem 1 from [13].
Combining Proposition 3.1 with several technical tools developed in the CCK theory, we obtain the following
main result of this paper, which can be considered as a generalization of Theorem 2 from [13]:
Theorem 3.1. (a) Suppose that d ≥ 2 and there are constants σ, σ > 0 such that σ 2 ≤ C(j, j) ≤ σ 2 for all
p
j = 1, . . . , d. Set ad = E[max1≤j≤d (Zj / C(j, j))]. Then

sup |P (F∨ ≤ x) − P (Z∨ ≤ x)| ≤ C∆1/3 1 ∨ a2d ∨ log(1/∆)

1/3

(log d)1/3 ,

(3.2)

x∈R

where C > 0 depends only on σ and σ (the right side is understood to be 0 if ∆ = 0).
(b) Suppose that d ≥ 2 and there is a constant b > 0 such that C(j, j) ≥ b for all j = 1, . . . , d. Then
sup |P (F∨ ≤ x) − P (Z∨ ≤ x)| ≤ C ′ ∆1/3 (log d)2/3 ,

(3.3)

x∈R

where C ′ > 0 depends only on b.
Since we have max1≤j≤d |xj | = max{max1≤j≤d xj , max1≤j≤d (−xj )} for any real numbers x1 , . . . , xd , we

obtain the following result as a direct consequence of Theorem 3.1:

Corollary 3.1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.1(b), we have




sup P max |Fj | ≤ x − P max |Zj | ≤ x ≤ C ′ ∆1/3 (log d)2/3 ,
x∈R

1≤j≤d

1≤j≤d

where C ′ > 0 depends only on b.

6

In order to make Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.1 useful, we need a reasonable bound for the quantity ∆. When
the random vector F consists of multiple Wiener-Itô integrals with common order, we have the following useful
bound for ∆:
Lemma 3.1. Let q ≥ 2 be an integer and suppose that Fj = Iq (fj ) for some fj ∈ H ⊙q for j = 1, . . . , d. Then we

have

q

∆ ≤ max |C(i, j) − E[Fi Fj ]| + Cq logq−1 2d2 − 1 + eq−2 max E[Fk4 ] − 3E[Fk2 ]2 ,
1≤i,j≤d

1≤k≤d

where Cq > 0 depends only on q.

Remark 3.2. Lemma 3.1 implies that, in order to bound the Kolmogorov distance between F∨ and Z∨ , we only

need to control the convergence rate of the covariance matrix of F to that of Z and the fourth cumulants of the components of F , as long as F consists of multiple Wiener-Itô integrals with common order. This can be considered as
a type of fourth moment phenomenon, which was first discovered by [45] while they derived central limit theorems
for sequences of multiple Wiener-Itô integrals. For more information about the fourth moment phenomenon, we
refer to [41] and references therein.
4

Gaussian approximation of maxima of random symmetric quadratic forms
In this section we focus on the problem of approximating the distribution of maxima of symmetric quadratic

forms. The next result can be easily derived from the results in the previous section:
Theorem 4.1. For each n ∈ N, let ξ n be an Nn -dimensional centered Gaussian vector with covariance matrix
Σn = (Σn (k, l))1≤k,l≤Nn and dn ≥ 2 be an integer. Also, for each k = 1, . . . , dn , let An,k be an Nn × Nn

symmetric matrix and Zn = (Zn,1 , . . . , Zn,dn )⊤ be an dn -dimensional centered Gaussian vector with covariance
⊤
matrix Cn = (Cn (k, l))1≤k,l≤dn . Set Fn,k := ξ ⊤
n An,k ξ n − E[ξ n An,k ξ n ] and suppose that the following conditions

are satisfied:

(i) There is a constant b > 0 such that Cn (k, k) ≥ b for every n and every k = 1, . . . , dn .

4 ] − 3E[F 2 ]2 ) log 6 d → 0 as n → ∞.
(ii) max1≤k≤dn (E[Fn,k
n
n,k

(iii) max1≤k,l≤dn |Cn (k, l) − E[Fn,k Fn,l ]| log2 dn → 0 as n → ∞.
Then we have
sup P
x∈R











max Fn,k ≤ x − P

1≤k≤dn

max Zn,k ≤ x

1≤k≤dn



→0

and
sup P
x∈R



max |Fn,k | ≤ x − P

1≤k≤dn

max |Zn,k | ≤ x

1≤k≤dn



→0

as n → ∞.
In the next section we will apply Theorem 4.1 to derive a Gaussian approximation of the null distribution of
the test statistic for the absence of lead-lag effects. In order to implement the test in practice, we need to compute
quantiles of the null distribution, but it is not easy to directly compute those of the derived Gaussian analog of the
test statistic because its covariance structure contains unknown quantities for statisticians. For this reason we will
apply a wild bootstrap procedure to approximately compute quantiles of the null distribution. Theorem 4.1 is still
7

applicable for ensuring the validity of such a procedure as long as Gaussian wild bootstrapping is considered, but
it turns out that a wild bootstrap procedure based on another distribution performs much better in finite samples.
For this reason we partially generalize Theorem 4.1 to a non-Gaussian case.
For every n ∈ N, let Nn ≥ 1 and dn ≥ 2 be integers and let Γn,k = (γn,k (i, j))1≤i,j≤Nn be an Nn × Nn

symmetric matrix for each k = 1, . . . , dn . We assume that γn,k (i, i) = 0 for all i = 1, . . . , Nn , k = 1, . . . , dn and
n ∈ N. Given a sequence ξ = (ξi )∞
i=1 of random variables, we set
Qn,k (ξ) :=

Nn
X

γn,k (i, j)ξi ξj ,

k = 1, . . . , dn

i,j=1

for every n ∈ N.

2
Let Y = (Yi )∞
i=1 be a sequence of independent variables such that E[Yi ] = 0 and E[Yi ] = 1 for every i. Also,

let G = (Gi )∞
i=1 be a sequence of independent standard Gaussian variables. For every i ∈ N, we define the random
(i)

variables (Wj )∞
j=1 by

(i)

Wj

=

(

Yj
Gj

if j ≤ i,

if j > i.

Theorem 4.2. For each n ∈ N, let Zn = (Zn,1 , . . . , Zn,dn )⊤ be a dn -dimensional centered Gaussian vector with
covariance matrix Cn = (Cn (k, l))1≤k,l≤dn , and set

3
Nn
Nn
X
X
(i) 
E  max
Rn,1 =
γn,k (i, j)Wj
(E[|Yi |3 ] + E[|Gi |3 ]),
1≤k≤dn

i=1

max |Cn (k, l) − E[Qn,k (G)Qn,l (G)]| ,
q
= max
E[Qn,k (G)4 ] − 3E[Qn,k (G)2 ]2 .

Rn,2 =

Rn,3

j=1

1≤k,l≤dn

1≤k≤dn

Suppose that there is a constant b > 0 such that Cn (k, k) ≥ b for every n and every k = 1, . . . , dn . Then we have




sup P
max |Zn,k | ≤ x → 0
max |Qn,k (Y )| ≤ x − P
1≤k≤dn

1≤k≤dn

x∈R

7
2

as n → ∞, provided that Rn,1 log dn ∨ Rn,2 log2 dn ∨ Rn,3 log3 dn → 0.
(i)

Remark 4.1. The variables Wj

are related to the so-called Lindeberg method. In fact, our proof of Theorem 4.2

is based on the generalized Lindeberg method developed in [36, 42] (see also Chapter 11 of [41]).
Remark 4.2. Analogous quantities to Rn,2 and Rn,3 from Theorem 4.2 have already appeared in Theorem 4.1 and
it is usually not difficult to bound them. On the other hand, as long as the third moments of Yi ’s are uniformly
bounded, the quantity Rn,1 is bounded by the third moment of the maximum of a sum of (high-dimensional)
independent random vectors, so we have many inequalities which can be used to bound it (see e.g. Chapter 14
of [6]). Here we give an example of such inequalities, which only requires the uniform boundedness of the p-th
moments of Yi ’s for some p ≥ 3.
Lemma 4.1. Suppose that supi∈N kYi kp < ∞ for some p ≥ 3. Then


3/2
3
Nn
Nn
Nn
Nn
X
X
X
X
(i) 
3/2
E  max
γn,k (i, j)Wj
≤ 2d3/p
sup kYi k3p
max 
γn,k (i, j)2 
n (p − 1)
i=1

1≤k≤dn

i∈N

j=1

8

i=1

1≤k≤dn

j=1

for every n.
5
5.1

Application to high-frequency data
Testing the absence of lead-lag effects
We turn to the problem of testing the absence of lead-lag effects which is mentioned at the beginning of the

Introduction. Here we consider a more general setting than the one described in the Introduction by allowing
(deterministic) time-varying volatilities as well as the presence of multiple lead-lag times under the alternative.
P
Let ρ1 , . . . , ρM be real numbers satisfying the condition M
m=1 |ρm | < 1. Also, let θ1 , . . . , θM be mutually

different numbers. Then, by Proposition 2 from [21] there is a bivariate Gaussian process Bt = (Bt1 , Bt2 ) (t ∈ R)

with stationary increments such that both B 1 and B 2 are standard Brownian motions as well as B 1 and B 2 have
the cross spectral density given by
s(λ) =

M
X

ρm e−

√

−1θm λ

λ ∈ R.

,

m=1

This means that we have
E

Z

∞
−∞

f (t)dBt1

 Z

∞
−∞

g(t)dBt2



=

M
X

ρm

Z

∞

f (t)g(t + θm )dt

−∞

m=1

for any f, g ∈ L2 (R).

For each ν = 1, 2, we consider the process X ν = (Xtν )t≥0 given by
Xtν

=

X0ν

+

Z

t
0

σν (s)dBsν ,

t ≥ 0,

(5.1)

where σν ∈ L2 (0, ∞) is nonnegative-valued and deterministic. We observe the process X ν on the interval [0, T ] at

the deterministic sampling times 0 ≤ tν0 < tν1 < · · · < tνnν ≤ T , which implicitly depend on the parameter n ∈ N
such that

rn := max

max

(tνi − tνi−1 ) → 0

ν=1,2 i=0,1,...,nν +1

as n → ∞, where we set tν−1 := 0 and tνnν +1 := T for each ν = 1, 2.
Remark 5.1. It is not difficult to extend the following discussion to the case that the volatilities σ1 , σ2 and the
1
2
sampling times (t1i )ni=0
, (t2j )nj=0
are random but independent of the process B, but we focus on the deterministic

case for the simplicity of notation. Extension to a situation where the volatilities depend on B is non-trivial and we
leave it to future research.
Our aim is to construct a testing procedure for the following statistical hypothesis testing problem based on
2
1
:
discrete observation data (Xt11 )ni=0
and (Xt22 )ni=0
i

i

H0 : ρm = 0 for all m = 1, . . . , M

vs

H1 : ρm 6= 0 for some m = 1, . . . , M.

(5.2)

ν
We introduce some notation. For each ν = 1, 2, we associate the observation times (tνi )ni=0
with the collection

of intervals Πνn = {(tνi−1 , tνi ] : i = 1, . . . , nν }. We will systematically employ the notation I (resp. J) for an

element of Π1n (resp. Π2n ). For an interval S ⊂ [0, ∞), we set S = sup S, S = inf S and |S| = S − S. In addition,
9

we set V (S) = VS − VS for a a stochastic process (Vt )t≥0 , and Sθ = S + θ for a real number θ. We define the

Hoffmann-Rosenbaum-Yoshida cross-covariance estimator by
X
X 1 (I)X 2 (J)K(I, J−θ ),
Un (θ) =
I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n

where we set K(I, J) = 1{I∩J6=∅} for two intervals I and J. Now our test statistic is given by
√
Tn = n max |Un (θ)|,
θ∈Gn

where Gn is a finite subset of R.

To establish the asymptotic property of our test statistic Tn , we first investigate the asymptotic property of the

following quantity:
Fn (θ) =

√

n(Un (θ) − E[Un (θ)]).

We impose the following conditions:
[A1] supt∈[0,T ] (σ1 (t) + σ2 (t)) < ∞.

[A2] There are positive constants v, v such that v ≤ Vn (θ) ≤ v for all n ∈ N and θ ∈ Gn , where

 Z
Z
X
2
2
Vn (θ) = n
σ2 (t) dt K(I, J−θ ).
σ1 (t) dt
I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n

[A3] Σ(θm ) > 0 for all m = 1, . . . , M , where
( R T −θ
Σ(θ) =

R0T +θ
0

J

I

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θ)dt if θ ≥ 0,
σ1 (t − θ)σ2 (t)dt if θ < 0.

[A4] The grid Gn satisfies the following conditions:

(i) There is a constant γ > 0 such that #Gn = O(nγ ) as n → ∞.

(ii) There is a sequence (υn )n∈N of positive numbers such that
[
{θ1 , . . . , θM } ⊂
[θ − υn , θ + υn ]
θ∈Gn

and limn→∞ υn min{n1 , n2 } = 0.
Remark 5.2. Assumption [A1] is standard in the literature and satisfied when σ1 and σ2 are càdlàg, for example.
√
[A2] roughly says that the scaling factor n is appropriate (the quantity Vn (θ) is related to the variance of Un (θ)).
P
[A2] holds true e.g. when 0 < inf t∈[0,T ] σν (t) ≤ supt∈[0,T ] σν (t) < ∞ for every ν = 1, 2, n I∈Π1n |I|2 +
P
n J∈Π2n |J|2 = O(1) as n → ∞ and there is a constant c > 0 such that n(|I| ∧ |J|) ≥ c for every n and all

I ∈ Π1n , J ∈ Π2n . [A3] ensures that max1≤m≤M |E[Un (θm )]| does not vanish under H1 . [A4] ensures that Gn is
sufficiently fine to capture the cross-covariance at the lag θm for every m. Note that [A4] is also assumed in [25]
(see Assumption B3 of [25]).

Proposition 5.1. For each n ∈ N, let (Zn (θ))θ∈Gn be a family of centered Gaussian variables such that E[Zn (θ)Zn (θ ′ )] =
E[Fn (θ)Fn (θ ′ )] for all θ, θ ′ ∈ Gn . Under assumptions [A1]–[A2], we have




sup P max |Fn (θ)| ≤ x − P max |Zn (θ)| ≤ x → 0
x∈R

θ∈Gn

θ∈Gn

as n → ∞, provided that nrn2 log6 (#Gn ) → 0.
10

The above proposition suggests that the null distribution of our test statistic Tn could be approximated by that
of maxθ∈Gn |Zn (θ)| for sufficiently large n. However, it is not easy to evaluate the distribution of maxθ∈Gn |Zn (θ)|
directly, so we rely on a (wild) bootstrap procedure to construct critical regions for our test. The above Gaussian
approximation result plays a role in validating the bootstrap procedure.
Let (wI1 )I∈Π1n and (wJ2 )J∈Π2n be mutually independent sequence of i.i.d. random variables which are independent of the processes X 1 and X 2 . Then we set
Un∗ (θ) =

X

I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n



wI1 X 1 (I) wJ2 X 2 (J) K(I, J−θ ).

Given a significance level α, we denote by qn∗ (1 − α) the 100(1 − α)% quantile of the bootstrapped test statistic
√
Tn∗ = n maxθ∈Gn |Un∗ (θ)|, conditionally on X 1 and X 2 :


qn∗ (1 − α) = inf z ∈ R : P Tn∗ ≤ z|F X ≥ 1 − α ,

where F X is the σ-field generated by the processes X 1 and X 2 .

Remark 5.3. We generate the bootstrap observations under the null hypothesis H0 . This is a typical approach in
the bootstrap test literature (see e.g. [4]). Moreover, as discussed in Section 4 of [18] as well as Section 2 of [17],
this approach often serves as refining the performance of the test.
Proposition 5.2. Suppose that [A1]–[A4] are satisfied. Suppose also that E[wI1 ] = E[wJ2 ] = 0, E[(wI1 )2 ] =
E[(wJ2 )2 ] = 1 for all I, J and supI E[|wI1 |p ] + supJ E[|wJ2 |p ] < ∞ for some p ≥ 4γ ∨ 3. Suppose further that
n1+η rn2 → 0 as n → ∞ for some η > 0. Then the following statements hold true for all α ∈ (0, 1):
(a) Under H0 , we have P (Tn ≥ qn∗ (1 − α)) → α as n → ∞.

(b) Under H1 , we have P (Tn ≥ qn∗ (1 − α)) → 1 as n → ∞.

By Proposition 5.2, given a significance level α ∈ (0, 1), we obtain a consistent and asymptotically level α test

for (5.2) by rejecting the null hypothesis if Tn ≥ qn∗ (1 − α). Of course, in the practical implementation we replace

qn∗ (1 − α) by a simulated one. For example, given observation data, we generate i.i.d. copies Tn∗ (1), . . . , Tn∗ (R)

of Tn∗ (conditionally on the observation data) with some sufficiently large integer R. Then we replace the function

P
∗
P Tn∗ ≤ z|F X of z by its empirical counterpart R1 R
r=1 1{Tn∗ (r)≤z} and compute qn (1−α) accordingly. Note that
P
this is equivalent to computing the bootstrap p-value p̂∗ = R1 R
r=1 1{Tn∗ (r)>Tn } and rejecting the null hypothesis
if p̂∗ ≤ α.

Remark 5.4. The proposed test is evidently invariant under multiplying a constant. In particular, the factor

√

n

can be dropped when we implement the test in practice.
Remark 5.5 (Choice of the multiplier variables). Choice of the distribution of the multiplier variables (wI1 )I∈Π1n
and (wJ2 )J∈Π2n are important for the finite sample property of the test. In our situation it turns out that choosing Rademacher variables induces a quite good finite sample performance of our testing procedure. Namely, the
proposed test performs very well in finite samples when the distributions of wI1 and wJ2 are chosen according to
1
P (wI1 = 1) = P (wI1 = −1) = P (wJ2 = 1) = P (wJ2 = −1) = .
2

11

This is presumably because the above choice makes the unconditional distribution of the bootstrapped test statistics
of Tn∗ coincide with the distribution of Tn . This can be shown in the same way as in the proof of Theorem 1 from
[17]. For this reason we recommend that we should use Rademacher variables as the multiplier variables for the
above testing procedure (and we do so in the simulation study of Section 6).
5.2

Uniform confidence bands for spot volatility
To illustrate another potential application of our main results, we present an application of our result to con-

structing uniform confidence bands for spot volatility. This section is only for an illustration purpose, so we do
neither pursue the generality of the theory nor discuss practical problems on implementation such as the choice of
a bandwidth and a kernel function. We refer to Section 6 of [32] for a discussion on the latter issue.
Let us consider the stochastic process X = (Xt )t∈[0,T ] defined by
Xt = X0 +

Z

t

t ∈ [0, T ],

σ(s)dBs ,

0

where B = (Bt )t∈[0,T ] is a standard Brownian motion and σ ∈ L2 (0, T ) is deterministic. The aim of this section

is to construct uniform confidence bands for the spot volatility σ 2 based on the high-frequency observation data
{Xti }ni=0 , where ti = T i/n, i = 0, 1, . . . , n.

Specifically, we consider the following kernel-type estimator for σ 2 (cf. [20, 32]):
σ
bn2 (t)

:=

n
X
i=1

Kh (ti−1 − t)(Xti − Xti−1 )2 ,

t ∈ [0, T ],

where h := hn > 0 is a bandwidth parameter, Kh (x) = K(x/h)/h for x ∈ R and K : R → R is a kernel

function. We first derive a Gaussian approximation result for the supremum of the Studentization of σ
bn2 (t). Let us
p
set sn (t) = Var[b
σn2 (t)] for t ∈ [0, T ]. We define the Gaussian analog of the Studentization of σ
bn2 (t) as follows.

For each n ∈ N, let (zin )ni=1 be a sequence of independent centered Gaussian variables such that Var[zin ] =

Var[(Xti − Xti−1 )2 ], i = 1, . . . , n, and we set

n

1 X
Zn (t) =
Kh (ti−1 − t)zin ,
sn (t)
i=1

t ∈ [0, T ].

We impose the following conditions:
[B1] σ 2 is γ-Hölder continuous for some γ ∈ (0, 1]. Moreover, σ 2 (t) > 0 for all t ∈ [0, T ].

[B2] The kernel function K : R → R is Lipschitz continuous and compactly supported as well as satisfies
R∞
−∞ K(t)dt = 1.

Proposition 5.3. Suppose that [B1]–[B2] are satisfied. Suppose also that the bandwidth parameter h satisfies

nh1+2γ log n → 0 and log6 n/nh → 0 as n → ∞. Let an be a sequence of positive numbers such that an → 0
and an /h → ∞ as n → ∞. Then we have
sup P
x∈R

as n → ∞.

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

σ
bn2 (t) − σ 2 (t)
≤x
sn (t)

!

12

−P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| ≤ x

!

→0

Remark 5.6. We introduce the parameters an in Proposition 5.3 to avoid boundary effects. See Section 4 of [32]
for more details about this topic.
Next we develop a bootstrap procedure to construct uniform confidence intervals for σ 2 . We only focus on the
Gaussian wild bootstrap procedure. For each t ∈ [0, T ], we define the estimator for s2n (t) by
n

b
s2n (t)

2X
:=
Kh (ti−1 − t)2 (Xti − Xti−1 )4 .
3
i=1

Let (ξi∗ )∞
i=1 be a sequence of i.i.d. Gaussian variables with mean 0 and variance 2/3, which is independent of the
process X. We define the bootstrapped statistics by
n

Zn∗ (t) =

1 X
Kh (ti−1 − t)(Xti − Xti−1 )2 ξi∗ ,
b
sn (t)

t ∈ [0, T ].

i=1

Let us denote by F X the σ-field generated by the process X.

Proposition 5.4. Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition 5.3 are satisfied. Let α ∈ (0, 1) and set
(
!
)
qn∗ (1 − α) = inf

z∈R:P

Then we have
P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

as n → ∞, provided that log12 n/nh → 0.

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn∗ (t)| ≤ z F X

≥ 1−α .

!
σ
bn2 (t) − σ 2 (t)
∗
≤ qn (1 − α) → 1 − α
b
sn (t)

Proposition 5.4 implies that asymptotically uniformly valid 100(1 − α)% confidence bands for σ 2 (t), t ∈

[an , T − an ] is given by


6


σ
bn2 (t) − b
sn (t) · qn∗ (1 − α), σ
bn2 (t) + b
sn (t) · qn∗ (1 − α) ,

t ∈ [an , T − an ].

Numerical illustration

In this section we illustrate the finite sample performance of the testing procedure for the absence of lead-lag
effects, which is proposed in Section 5.1.2 The setting of our numerical experiments is basically adopted from
Section 5 of [25]. Specifically, we simulate model (1.1) with T = 1, ϑ = 0.1, x10 = x20 = 0, σ1 = σ2 = 1. We vary
the correlation parameter as ρ ∈ {0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75} to examine the size and the power of the testing procedure. We

consider both synchronous and non-synchronous sampling scenarios. For the synchronous sampling scenario t1i =
−3
−3
−3
t2i = ihn , i = 0, 1, . . . , ⌊T h−1
n ⌋, we examine three kinds of sampling frequencies: hn ∈ {10 , 3 · 10 , 6 · 10 }.

Also, in these scenarios we set Gn = {khn : k ∈ Z, |khn | ≤ 0.3} as the search grid. On the other hand, for the non-

synchronous sampling scenario, we first simulate the processes on the equidistant times i·10−3 , i = 0, 1, . . . , 1, 000,

then we randomly pick 300 sampling times for X 1 . We do so for X 2 independently of the sampling for X 1 . In
this scenario we set Gn = {k · 10−3 : k ∈ Z, |k| ≤ 300} as the search grid. For the testing procedure, we use
Rademacher variables as the multiplier variables and 999 bootstrap replications to construct the critical regions.
We run 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations in each experiment.
2

The proposed testing procedure is implemented in the R package yuima as the function llag.test since version 1.7.2.

13

Table 1 reports the rejection rates of the proposed test in each experiment. For the case ρ = 0, the numbers
should be close to the corresponding significance levels, and this is true for all the experiments. Turning to the
power performance, we find that in the low correlation case ρ = 0.25 the power of the test is rather weak except for
the most frequent sampling scenario. This is reasonable in view of the simulation results reported in [25], which
indicate that the contrast function Un (θ) becomes flat in that case. For the moderate and the high correlation cases
ρ = 0.5 and ρ = 0.75, the power of the test is satisfactory.
Table 1: Rejection rates of the proposed test
ρ=0

ρ = 0.25

ρ = 0.50

ρ = 0.75

Synchronous sampling scenario
hn = 10−3
α = 0.01

0.011

1.000

1.000

1.000

α = 0.05

0.050

1.000

1.000

1.000

α = 0.10

0.100

1.000

1.000

1.000

α = 0.01

0.010

0.139

0.977

1.000

α = 0.05

0.051

0.281

0.993

1.000

α = 0.10

0.101

0.382

0.997

1.000

α = 0.01

0.011

0.041

0.634

0.997

α = 0.05

0.050

0.131

0.802

1.000

α = 0.10

0.099

0.214

0.867

1.000

hn = 3 · 10−3

hn = 6 · 10−3

Non-synchronous sampling scenario
α = 0.01

0.010

0.056

0.753

1.000

α = 0.05

0.051

0.152

0.879

1.000

α = 0.10

0.099

0.235

0.919

1.000

Note. α denotes the significance level.

7
7.1

Proofs
Proof of Proposition 3.1
The proof of Proposition 3.1 relies on the following integration by parts formula established by Nourdin and

Peccati:
Lemma 7.1 (Nordin-Peccati’s formula). Let G ∈ L2 (W ) and ψ : Rd → R be a C 1 function with bounded partial
derivatives. Then we have

Cov[ψ(F ), G] =

d
X
i=1




∂ψ
−1
E
(F )hDFi , −DL GiH .
∂xi

This lemma is a straightforward extension of Theorem 2.9.1 from [41], so we omit its proof.

14

Proof of Proposition 3.1. The latter claim immediately follows from the former and (3.1). To prove the former
claim, we may assume that F and Z are independent without loss of generality. Let us set ϕ := g ◦ Φβ and define
√
√
the function Ψ : [0, 1] → R by Ψ(t) = E[ϕ( tF + 1 − tZ)], t ∈ [0, 1]. We can easily check that Ψ is continuous
on [0, 1] and differentiable on (0, 1), and we have




d
√
Zj
Fj
∂ϕ √
1X
Ψ (t) =
E
( tF + 1 − tZ) √ − √
2
∂xj
1−t
t
j=1
′

for every t ∈ (0, 1). Now, by Lemma A.1 we have
d
X

i,j=1

∂2ϕ
(x) ≤ kg ′′ k∞ + 2βkg ′ k∞
∂xi xj

for any x ∈ Rd . In particular, ∂ 2 ϕ/∂xi ∂xj is bounded for all i, j = 1, . . . , d. Therefore, noting that the independence between Z and F , Stein’s identity (e.g. Lemma 2 of [13]) implies that

 2


d
d
X
X
√
√
∂ϕ √
∂ ϕ √
Zj
E
( tF + 1 − tZ) √
( tF + 1 − tZ)C(i, j) .
E
=
∂xj
∂xi ∂xj
1−t
j=1

i,j=1

Moreover, Nourdin-Peccati’s formula (Lemma 7.1) yields

 2


d
d
X
X
√
√
Fj
∂ϕ √
∂ ϕ √
−1
E
( tF + 1 − tZ) √ =
( tF + 1 − tZ)hDFi , −DL Fj iH .
E
∂xj
∂xi ∂xj
t
j=1

i,j=1

Hence we conclude that

 2
d
√
∂ ϕ √
1 X
−1
E
( tF + 1 − tZ)(hDFi , −DL Fj iH − C(i, j))
Ψ (t) =
2
∂xi ∂xj
′

i,j=1

for every t ∈ (0, 1). Consequently, we obtain
|E [ϕ (F )] − E [ϕ (Z)]| ≤

Z

1
0

|Ψ′ (t)|dt ≤ (kg ′′ k∞ /2 + βkg ′ k∞ )∆,

which completes the proof.
7.2

Proof of Theorem 3.1

Lemma 7.2. There is a universal constant C > 0 such that
P (F∨ ∈ A) ≤ P (Z∨ ∈ A5ε ) + Cε−2 (log d)∆
for any Borel set A of R and any ε > 0.
Proof. Let us set β = ε−1 log d (hence β −1 log d = ε). From (3.1) we have
P (F∨ ∈ A) ≤ P (Φβ (F ) ∈ Aε ) = E[1Aε (Φβ (F ))].
Next, by Lemma A.2 there is a C ∞ function g : R → R and a universal constant K > 0 such that kg′ k∞ ≤

ε−1 , kg′′ k∞ ≤ Kε−2 , kg′′′ k∞ ≤ Kε−3 and 1Aε (x) ≤ g(x) ≤ 1A4ε (x) for any x ∈ R. Then we obtain

E[1Aε (Φβ (F ))] ≤ E[g(Φβ (F ))]. Now, by Proposition 3.1 we have

|E[g(Φβ (F ))] − E[g(Φβ (Z))]| ≤ C1 (ε−2 + ε−2 log d)∆ ≤ C2 ε−2 (log d)∆,
15

where C1 , C2 > 0 denote universal constants. Moreover, we also have
E[g(Φβ (Z))] ≤ E[1A4ε (Φβ (Z))] ≤ E[1A5ε (Z∨ )] = P (Z∨ ∈ A5ε ).
This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. If ∆ ≥ 1, (3.2)–(3.3) hold true by taking C = C ′ = 2 (note that d ≥ 2). Therefore, it

suffices to consider the case of ∆ < 1.

By Lemmas 7.2 and A.3 there is a universal constant C0 > 0 such that
sup |P (F∨ ≤ x) − P (Z∨ ≤ x)| ≤ sup P (|Z∨ − x| ≤ 5ε) + C0 ε−2 (log d)∆.
x∈R

x∈R

Now, under the assumptions of claim (a), Lemma A.4 yields
q
p
sup P (|Z∨ − x| ≤ 5ε) ≤ C1 ε{ad + 1 ∨ log(σ/ε)} ≤ C2 ε 1 ∨ a2d ∨ log(1/ε),
x∈R

where C1 , C2 > 0 depend only on σ and σ, while we have

p
sup P (|Z∨ − x| ≤ 5ε) ≤ C1 ε log d,
x∈R

where C3 > 0 depends only on b, under the assumptions of claim (b) due to Lemma A.5. Consequently, if ∆ = 0,
letting ε tend to 0, we obtain the desired results. Otherwise, take
ε = ∆1/3 (1 ∨ ad ∨ log1/2 (1/∆))−1/3 (2 log d)1/3
for claim (a). Then the same argument as the one in the proof of Theorem 2 from [13] yields (3.2). For claim (b),
taking ε = ∆1/3 (log d)1/6 , we obtain (3.3).
7.3

Proof of Lemma 3.1
By the triangular inequality it suffices to prove


q

E max |∆i,j | ≤ Cq logq−1 2d2 − 1 + eq−2 max E[Fk4 ] − 3E[Fk2 ]2 ,
1≤i,j≤d

1≤k≤d

where ∆i,j = E[Fi Fj ] − hDFi , −DL−1 Fj iH . From the proof of Lemma 6.2.1 from [41] we deduce that


q
X
q−1 2
2
e r fj ).
I2q−2r (fi ⊗
(r − 1)!
hDFi , DFj iH = q
r−1
r=1

Since −L−1 Fj = q −1 Fj , we obtain

∆i,j



q−1
X
q−1 2
e r fj ).
I2q−2r (fi ⊗
(r − 1)!
= −q
r−1

(7.1)

r=1

In particular, by Proposition A.1 there is a constant Kq > 0 which only depends on q such that ∆i,j is a sub(2q − 2)th chaos random variable relative to the scale Kq k∆i,j k2 . Therefore, by Proposition A.2 we have



E max |∆i,j | ≤ Mq logq−1 2d2 − 1 + eq−2 max k∆i,j k2 .
1≤i,j≤d

1≤k≤d

Therefore, the proof is completed once we show that
( q−1  )
X 2r

max E[∆2i,j ] ≤
max E[Fk4 ] − 3E[Fk2 ]2 ,
1≤i,j≤d
1≤k≤d
r
r=1

which follows from the equation ∆i,j = E[Fi Fj ] − q −1 hDFi , DFj iH and Eq.(6.2.6) of [41].
16



7.4

Proof of Theorem 4.1
1/2

Without loss of generality we may assume that ξ n can be written as ξ n = Σn η n , where η n is an Nn dimensional standard normal variable. Set Hn = RNn and set Wn (h) = h⊤ η n for h ∈ Hn . Then, Wn =

(Wn (h))h∈Hn is an isonormal Gaussian process over Hn and we have η n = (Wn (e1 ), . . . , Wn (eNn ))⊤ , where
(e1 , . . . , eNn ) is the canonical basis of Hn .
1/2

1/2

Now let us denote by γn,k (i, j) the (i, j)-th component of the Nn × Nn matrix Σn An.k Σn . Then by the

product formula for multiple Wiener-Itô integrals (e.g. Theorem 2.7.10 of [41]) we can rewrite Fn,k as
Nn
X

Fn,k =

i,j=1

γn,k (i, j)I2Wn (ei ⊗ ej ) = I2Wn (fn,k ),

where I2Wn (·) denotes the double Wiener-Itô integral with respect to Wn and
N
X

fn,k =

i,j=1

γn,k (i, j)ei ⊗ ej .

Therefore, by applying Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.1 and Lemma 3.1, we obtain the desired result.



Proof of Theorem 4.2

7.5

We first derive some non-asymptotic results. For each k = 1, . . . , d, let Γk = (γk (i, j))1≤i,j≤N be an N × N

symmetric matrix such that γk (i, i) = 0 for every i = 1, . . . , N . Given a sequence ξ = (ξi )∞
i=1 of random variables,
we set
Qk (ξ) =

N
X

γk (i, j)ξi ξj ,

k = 1, . . . , d

i,j=1

and Q(ξ) = (Q1 (ξ), . . . , Qd

(ξ))⊤ .

R1 =

N
X
i=1

Also, we set


E  max

1≤k≤d

N
X

(i)

γk (i, j)Wj

j=1

3

 (E[|Yi |3 ] + E[|Gi |3 ]),

R2 = max |C(k, l) − E[Qk (G)Ql (G)]| ,
1≤k,l≤d
p
R3 = max E[Qk (G)4 ] − 3E[Qk (G)2 ]2 .
1≤k≤d

Lemma 7.3. Let g : R → R be a C 3 function with bounded derivatives up to the third order. For any β > 0 we

have

|E [g (Φβ (Q(Y )))] − E [g (Φβ (Q(G)))]| ≤


4
kg ′′′ k∞ + 6kg′′ k∞ β + 6kg ′ k∞ β 2 R1 .
3

Proof. The proof is based on the generalized Lindeberg method developed in [36, 42]. We start with introducing
some notation following the proof of Proposition 11.4.2 from [41]. For p = 1, . . . , d and i = 1, . . . , N , we define
the variables Up,i and Vp,i by
Up,i =

N
X

(i)

(i)

γp (j, k)Wj Wk ,

Vp,i = 2

N
X
j=1

j,k=1
j6=i,k6=i

17

(i)

γp (i, j)Wj

and set Ui = (Up,i )dp=1 , Vi = (Vp,i )dp=1 . By construction both Yi and Gi are independent of (Ui , Vi ) (note that
γp (i, i) = 0 for every p), and we have
Up,i + Yi Vp,i = Qp (W (i) ),

Up,i + Gi Vp,i = Qp (W (i−1) ).

Set h = g ◦ Φβ . Noting that E[Yi ] = E[Gi ] = 0 and E[Yi2 ] = E[G2i ] = 1 as well as the independence between

Yi , Gi and (Ui , Vi ), the Taylor theorem yields
E[h(Ui + ξi Vi )] =

 2

d
1 X
∂ h
E
(Ui )Vp,i Vqi
2
∂xp ∂xq
p,q=1



Z 1
d
∂3h
1 X
3
2
(Ui + tξi Vi )Vp,i Vq,i Vr,i ξi dt
(1 − t) E
+
2 p,q,r=1 0
∂xp ∂xq ∂xr
when ξi = Yi or ξi = Gi . This implies that
E[h(Q(W (i) ))] − E[h(Q(W (i−1) ))]


Z
d
3h
X
∂
1 1
(1 − t)2 E 
(Ui + tYi Vi ) max |Vp,i Vq,i Vr,i ||Yi |3  dt
≤
1≤p,q,r≤d
2 0
∂x
∂x
∂x
p
q
r
p,q,r=1


Z
d
3h
X
∂
1 1
(Ui + tGi Vi ) max |Vp,i Vq,i Vr,i ||Gi |3  dt.
(1 − t)2 E 
+
1≤p,q,r≤d
2 0
∂xp ∂xq ∂xr
p,q,r=1

Therefore, by Lemma A.1 we obtain

E[h(Q(W (i) ))] − E[h(Q(W (i−1) ))]




1
′′′
′′
′
2
3
3
kg k∞ + 6kg k∞ β + 6kg k∞ β E
max |Vp,i Vq,i Vr,i |(|Yi | + |Gi | )
≤
1≤p,q,r≤d
6



1
′′′
′′
′
2
3
≤
kg k∞ + 6kg k∞ β + 6kg k∞ β E max |Vp,i | (E[|Yi |3 ] + E[|Gi |3 ]),
1≤p≤d
6

where we use the independence between Yi , Gi and Vi as well as the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means
to obtain the last inequality. Now, using the identity
E[h(Q(Y )] − E[h(Q(G)] =

N 

X
E[h(W (i) )] − E[h(W (i−1) )] ,
i=1

we obtain the desired result.
Lemma 7.4. For any ε > 0 and any Borel set A of R, we have

P (Q∨ (Y ) ∈ A) ≤ P (Z∨ ∈ A5ε ) + C ε−3 (log2 d)R1 + ε−2 (log d)R2 + ε−2 (log2 d)R3 ,

where C > 0 is a universal constant.

Proof. Let us set β = ε−1 log d (hence β −1 log d = ε). From (3.1) we have
P (Q∨ (Y ) ∈ A) ≤ P (Φβ (Q(Y )) ∈ Aε ) = E[1Aε (Φβ (Q(Y )))].
18

Next, by Lemma A.2 there is a C ∞ function g : R → R and a universal constant K > 0 such that kg′ k∞ ≤

ε−1 , kg′′ k∞ ≤ Kε−2 , kg ′′′ k∞ ≤ Kε−3 and 1Aε (t) ≤ g(t) ≤ 1A4ε (t) for any t ∈ R. Then we obtain

E[1Aε (Φβ (Q(Y )))] ≤ E[g(Φβ (Q(Y )))]. Now, by Lemma 7.3 we have


|E[g(Φβ (Q(Y )))] − E[g(Φβ (Q(G)))]| ≤ C1 ε−3 + ε−3 log d + ε−3 log2 d R1 ≤ C2 ε−3 (log2 d)R1 ,

where C1 , C2 > 0 denote universal constants. Moreover, as in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we can apply Proposition
3.1 as well as Lemma 3.1 to Q(G) and thus obtain
|E[g(Φβ (Q(G)))] − E[g(Φβ (Z))]| ≤ C3 ε−2 (log d){R2 + (log d)R3 }.
with some universal constant C3 > 0. Since we have
E[g(Φβ (Z∨ ))] ≤ E[1A4ε (Φβ (Z))] ≤ E[1A5ε (Z∨ )] = P (Z∨ ∈ A5ε ),
the proof is completed.
Proof of Theorem 4.2. By Lemmas 7.4, A.3 and A.5, we obtain
sup |P (Q∨ (Y ) ≤ x) − P (Z∨ ≤ x)|
x∈R
n p
o
≤ C ε log dn + ε−3 (log2 dn )Rn,1 + ε−2 (log dn )Rn,2 + ε−2 (log2 dn )Rn,3

1/4
1/3
1/3 √
where C > 0 depends only on b. Therefore, taking ε = Rn,1 (log dn )3/8 ∨ Rn,2 (log dn )1/6 ∨ Rn,3 log dn , we

obtain the desired result.
7.6

Proof of Lemma 4.1
For the proof of the lemma, it is convenient to introduce the notion of the hypercontractivity of a random

variable. Let us recall that a random variable Y is said to be (p, q, η)-hypercontractive for 1 ≤ p ≤ q < ∞ and
0 < η < 1 if

ka + ηY kq ≤ ka + Y kp
for all a ∈ R. We refer to [31], [33] and [36] for more details on this notion. We note that, if Y is (p, q, η)-

hypercontractive and E[Y ] = 0, then Y is (p, q, η ′ )-hypercontractive for all η ′ ∈ (0, η) (this follows from Lemma
1.1 of [31]). Lemma 4.1 is obtained as a special case of the following result:

Lemma 7.5. Suppose that there are numbers p ∈ [3, ∞) and η ∈ (0, 1) such that Yi is (2, p, η)-hypercontractive

for all i = 1, . . . , N . Then we have
3/2


3
N
N
N
N
X
X
X
X
(i) 
γk (i, j)2  .
max 
γk (i, j)Wj
≤ d3/p η −3
E  max
i=1

1≤k≤d

i=1

j=1

1≤k≤d

j=1

Proof. First we note that η ≤ (p − 1)−1/2 (see page 333 of [36]). Then, since Gi is (2, p, (p − 1)−1/2 )(i)

hypercontractive for all i by Corollary 3.4.1 of [33], Wj

is (2, p, η)-hypercontractive for all i, j. Therefore,

the desired inequality follows from the Lyapunov inequality and Remark 3.3.1 of [33].
√
Proof of Lemma 4.1. By Proposition 3.16 from [36], Yi is (2, p, (2 p − 1kYi kp )−1 )-hypercontractive for all i =

1, . . . , N . Hence the desired result immediately follows from the above lemma.
19

7.7

Proof of Proposition 5.1
In the following subsections, for (possibly random) sequences (xn ) and (yn ), xn . yn means that there exists a

(non-random) constant C ∈ [0, ∞), which depends only on the model parameters such as σ1 , σ2 and the constants
appearing in assumptions, such that xn ≤ Cyn a.s. for large n.

Lemma 7.6. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.1, we have


!2 
M



X
|ρm |
1−
v ≤ E[Fn (θ)2 ] ≤ 1 +




M
X

m=1

m=1

for every n ∈ N and every θ ∈ Gn .

!2 

v
|ρm |


Proof. The Isserlis formula (cf. Theorem 1.28 from [27]) yields
X


′
E[Fn (θ)2 ] = n
)
Cov X 1 (I)X 2 (J), X 1 (I ′ )X 2 (J ′ ) K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ
I,I ′ ∈Π1n ,J,J ′ ∈Π2n

X

=n

I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n

+n
Now let us set I(S) =
X

n

I,I ′ ∈Π1n ,J,J ′ ∈Π2n

=n

X

≤n

X

m,m′

×
≤n
=n

X

m,m′

X

m,m′

≤n
=n

X

m,m′

|ρm ρm′ |

m

I∈Π1n :I∩S6=∅ I

X

|ρm′ ρm |
|ρm′ ρm |
!2

|ρm |


 

′
E X 1 (I)X 2 (J ′ ) E X 1 (I ′ )X 2 (J) K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ
).

for every interval S. Then we have

′
)
K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ

X

I,J,I ′ ,J ′

′
I∩J−θ
m

|ρm′ ρm |

X

I,I ′ ∈Π1n ,J,J ′ ∈Π2n

S

I,J,I ′ ,J ′

sZ

X


 

′
)
E X 1 (I)X 2 (J ′ ) E X 1 (I ′ )X 2 (J) K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ

ρm ρm′

m,m′


 

E X 1 (I)2 E X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )

σ1

I,J,I ′ ,J ′

X

I,J,J ′

X
I,J

X
I,J

′
I∩J−θ
m

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm )dt

Z

I ′ ∩J−θ

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm′ )dt

m′

′
K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ
)

(t)2 dt

X

Z

Z

′
I∩J−θ
m

σ2 (t + θm

′
)
K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ

K(I, J−θ )

Z

K(I, J−θ )

Z

K(I, J−θ )

Z

′
I∩J−θ
m

Z

Z

I ′ ∩J

′
I∩J−θ
m

σ1 (t)2 dt

2

σ1 (t) dt

Z

Z

σ1

(t)2 dt

−θm′

σ1 (t)2 dt

Z

′ )∩J
I ′ (J−θ
−θm′

I ′ ∩J

Z

I ′ ∩J

σ2 (t + θm′ )2 dt
−θm′

σ2 (t + θm′ )2 dt
−θ ′
m

σ2 (t + θm′ )2 dt

σ2 (t + θm′ )2 dt

J−θ

I
2

σ1 (t) dt
I

)2 dt

Z

m′

2

σ2 (t) dt =
J

X
m

!2

|ρm |

Vn (θ),

hence we obtain the desired result.
Lemma 7.7. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.1, there is a constant C > 0 such that
E[Fn (θ)4 ] − 3E[Fn (θ)2 ]2 ≤ Cnrn2
20

for every n ∈ N and every θ ∈ Gn .
Proof. First we apply the so-called reduction procedures used in [23, 24] to every realization of (I)I∈Π1n and
(J−θ )J∈Π2n (see also the proof of Lemma 2 from [16]). We define a new partition Π̃1n as follows: I ∈ Π̃1n if and
only if either I ∈ Π1n and it has non-empty intersection with two distinct intervals from {J−θ : J ∈ Π2n } or there
is J ∈ Π2n such that I is the union of all intervals from Π1n included in J−θ . We also define a new partition Π̃2n

as follows: J ∈ Π̃2n if and only if either J ∈ Π2n and J−θ has non-empty intersection with two distinct intervals

′ is included in I.
from Π1n or there is I ∈ Π1n such that J is the union of all intervals from J ′ ∈ Π2n such that J−θ

Due to bilinearity Fn (θ) is invariant under this procedure. rN is also unchanged by this application because of its
definition. Moreover, by construction we have
X
K(I, J−θ ) ≤ 3,
max
J∈Π̃2n

max
I∈Π̃1n

I∈Π̃1n

X

K(I, J−θ ) ≤ 3.

J∈Π̃2n

Consequently, for the proof we may replace (Π1n , Π2n ) by (Π̃1n , Π̃2n ). This allows us to assume that
X
X
max
K(I, J−θ ) ≤ 3,
max
K(I, J−θ ) ≤ 3
J∈Π2n

I∈Π1n

I∈Π1n

(7.2)

J∈Π2n

throughout the proof without loss of generality.
We turn to the main body of the proof. Let Σn be the covariance matrix of (X 1 (I))I∈Π1n , X 2 (J))J∈Π2n )⊤ . Set
1/2

1/2

Γn (θ) = Σn An (θ)Σn , where
An (θ) =

0

Kn (θ)

Kn (θ)⊤

0

!

,

√
Kn (θ) = ( nK(I, J−θ )/2)I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n .

From Eq.(11) of [16] we have
E[Fn (θ)4 ] − 3E[Fn (θ)2 ]2 = 23 3! tr(Γn (θ)4 ) ≤ 48kΓn (θ)k2sp kΓn (θ)k2F = 24kΓn (θ)k2sp E[Fn (θ)2 ].
Now, Lemma 7.6 yields



E[Fn (θ)2 ] ≤ 1 +


X
m

!2 

v.
|ρm |


√
On the other hand, by Example 5.6.5 and Theorem 5.6.9 of [26] as well as (7.2), we have kAn (θ)ksp ≤ 3 n/2.

Therefore, Corollary 4.5.11 (the Ostorowski theorem), Example 5.6.5 and Theorem 5.6.9 of [26] imply that


 2 2
 1 2
3√
3√
nkΣn ksp ≤
n max max E X (I) , max E X (J)
kΓn (θ)ksp ≤
2
2
I∈Π1n
J∈Π2n
X


√
3
n max
E X 1 (I)X 2 (J)
+
2
I∈Π1n
J∈Π2n
X
 1

√
√
E X (I)X 2 (J) .
. nrn + n max
I∈Π1n

Since we have
X

J∈Π2n

J∈Π2n

Z
X X

E X (I)X (J) ≤
|ρm |


1

2

J∈Π2n m

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm )dt . rn ,
I∩J−θm

we obtain the desired result.
Proof of Proposition 5.1. The result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.1 and Lemmas 7.6–7.7.
21

7.8

Proof of Proposition 5.2
Throughout this subsection, we set
Z ∞
Z
1
f (t)dBt +
H=

∞

−∞

−∞


: f, g ∈ L (R) .

g(t)dBt2

2

H is obviously a Gaussian Hilbert space. Also, for each ν = 1, 2 we define the process v ν = (vtν )t≥0 by vtν =
Rt
2
0 σν (s) ds, t ≥ 0.

Lemma 7.8. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.2(a), we have

sup P Tn∗ ≤ x|F X − P (Z∨ ≤ x) →p 0
x∈R

as n → ∞.

Proof. Define the n1 × n2 matrix Ξn (θ) by Ξn (θ) = ( 12 X 1 (I)K(I, J−θ )X 2 (J))I,J , and set
!
O
Ξ
(θ)
n
e n (θ) =
Ξ
.
Ξn (θ)⊤
O

e n (θ)w, where w = ((w1 )I∈Π1 , (w2 )J∈Π2 )⊤ . Therefore, by
Then we can rewrite Un∗ (θ) as Un∗ (θ) = w⊤ Ξ
I
J
n
n

∗ log7/2 (#G ) ∨ R∗ log7/2 (#G ) ∨ R∗ log2 (#G ) ∨
Theorem 4.2 and Lemma 4.1, it suffices to prove Rn,1
n
n
n
n,2
n,3

∗ log 3 (#G ) →p 0, where
Rn,4
n
∗
Rn,1

3/p

= (#Gn )

X
I

∗
Rn,2

3/p

= (#Gn )

X
J

∗
Rn,3
∗
Rn,4

Here, Q∗n (θ) =

√

max
θ∈Gn

max
θ∈Gn

X
J

X
I

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

!3/2

X (I) X (J) K(I, J−θ )

!3/2

X (I) X (J) K(I, J−θ )

,

,

√
E[Un (θ)Un (θ ′ )] − E[Un∗ (θ)Un∗ (θ ′ )|F X ] ,
= n max
θ,θ ′ ∈Gn
q
= max E[Q∗n (θ)4 |F X ] − 3E[Q∗n (θ)2 |F X ]2 .
1≤k≤d

e n (θ)G and G = ((G1 )I∈Π1 , (G2 )J∈Π2 )⊤ with (G1 )I∈Π1 and (G2 )J∈Π2 being mutually
nG⊤ Ξ
I
J
I
J
n
n
n
n

independent sequence of i.i.d. standard Gaussian variables independent of F X .

∗ and R∗ . Noting that the inequalities
First we consider Rn,1
n,2
!
X
X
′
v 1 (I ′ )K(I ′ , J−θ ) ≤ 3 sup σ1 (t)2 rn ,
)≤3
v 2 (J ′ )K(I, J−θ
0≤t≤T

I′

J′

sup σ2 (t)2

0≤t≤T

!

rn ,

which hold for every n and all I ∈ Π1n , J ∈ Π2n and θ ∈ Gn , by the triangular inequality we have
X
J

Since

P

J

X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )

2

≤

X
J

kX 2 (J)2 k2 K(I, J−θ ) ≤

√ X 2
3
v (J)K(I, J−θ ) . rn .
J

X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ ) ∈ P 2 (H), the Schwarz inequality and Proposition A.2 yield
v 
u
!3 
u
X
Xp
u
∗
X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ ) 
E [X 1 (I)4 ]tE max
E[Rn,1
] ≤ (#Gn )3/p
θ∈Gn

I

22

J

(7.3)

. (#Gn )3/p · {rn log(#Gn )}3/2 .
∗ log7/2 (#G ) → 0 by the Markov inequality due to 2γ/p ≤ 1/2. We can prove
Therefore, we obtain Rn,1
n

∗ log 7/2 (#G ) → 0 in a similar manner.
Rn,2
n
∗ . Since we have
Next we consider Rn,3

E[Un (θ)Un (θ ′ )] − E[Un∗ (θ)Un∗ (θ ′ )|F X ]
X
=
{E[X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 ] − X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 }K(I, J−θ )K(I, J−θ′ ) ∈ P 4 (H)
I,J

and
E[|E[Un (θ)Un (θ ′ )] − E[Un∗ (θ)Un∗ (θ ′ )|F X ]|2 ]
X
=
{E[X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 X 1 (I ′ )2 X 2 (J ′ )2 ] − E[X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 ]E[X 1 (I ′ )2 X 2 (J ′ )2 ]}
I,J,I ′ ,J ′

.

′
′
)K(I ′ , J−θ
× K(I, J−θ )K(I, J−θ′ )K(I ′ , J−θ
′)

X

′
′
)K(I, J−θ
v 1 (I)2 v 2 (J)v 2 (J ′ )K(I, J−θ )K(I, J−θ′ )K(I, J−θ
′)

I,J,J ′

X

+

I,J,I ′

v 1 (I)v 1 (I ′ )v 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )K(I, J−θ′ )K(I ′ , J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ′ )

. n−1 rn2

∗ ] = O(√nr log 2 (#G )). Hence we obtain
by the hypothesis H0 and (7.3), Proposition A.2 yields E[Rn,3
n
n
∗ log 2 (#G ) →p 0 due to the Markov inequality.
Rn,3
n

∗ log4 (G ) →p 0. From Eq.(11) of [16] we have
Finally we prove Rn,4
n

e n (θ)4 ) = 96n2 kΞn (θ)Ξn (θ)⊤ k2F
E[Q∗n (θ)4 |F X ] − 3E[Q∗n (θ)2 |F X ]2 = 48n2 tr(Ξ
!2
X X
X 1 (I)X 1 (I ′ )X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ )
. n2
I,I ′

= n2

J

X

I,I ′ ,J,J ′

′
′
X 1 (I)2 X 1 (I ′ )2 X 2 (J)2 X 2 (J ′ )2 K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ )K(I, J−θ
)K(I ′ , J−θ
).

In particular, we obtain E[Q∗n (θ)4 |F X ]−3E[Q∗n (θ)2 |F X ]2 ∈ P 8 (H). Moreover, the triangular and the generalized

Hölder inequalities as well as (7.3) yield
X

n2

I,I ′ ,J,J ′

.n

2

X

′
′
X 1 (I)2 X 1 (I ′ )2 X 2 (J)2 X 2 (J ′ )2 K(I, J−θ )K(I ′ , J−θ )K(I, J−θ
)K(I ′ , J−θ
)
2
1

I,I ′ ,J,J ′

. n2 rn2

X
I,J

1

′

2

2

′

v (I)v (I )v (J)v (J )K(I, J−θ )K(I

′

′
′
)
)K(I ′ , J−θ
, J−θ )K(I, J−θ

v 1 (I)v 2 (J)K(I, J−θ ) ≤ nrn2 v.

∗ ] .
Therefore, Proposition A.2 implies that E[Rn,4

√

nrn log2 (#Gn ), hence the desired result follows from the

Markov inequality. Thus we complete the proof.
23

√
Lemma 7.9. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.2(b), we have Tn / n →p max1≤m≤M |ρm |Σ(θm ) as n →

∞.

P
Proof. We first note that υn = o(rn ) as n → ∞. In fact, we have T ≤
I |I| + 2rn ≤ (n1 + 2)rn and
P
−1
T ≤ J |J|+2rn ≤ (n2 +2)rn , hence it holds that T −2rn ≤ υn min{n1 , n2 }·υn rn . Since υn min{n1 , n2 } → 0

by [A4], we necessarily have υn−1 rn → ∞. Therefore, without loss of generality we may assume that υn ≤ rn .
First we show that

lim sup max |E[Un (θ)]| ≤ max |ρm |Σ(θm ).

(7.4)

I ∩ J−θ 6= ∅, I ∩ J−θ′ 6= ∅ ⇒ |θ ′ − θ| ≤ 2rn

(7.5)

1≤m≤M

n→∞ θ∈Gn

Noting that

for any I ∈ Π1n , J ∈ Π2n and θ, θ ′ ∈ Gn , we have
X

|E[Un (θ)]| =

I,J

K(I, J−θ )

≤ max |ρm |
1≤m≤M

M
X

ρm

m=1

XZ
I,J

Z

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm )dt
I∩J−θm

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm )dt

I∩J−θm

for any θ ∈ Gn and sufficiently large n. This yields (7.4).
Next we prove

lim inf max |E[Un (θ)]| ≥ max |ρm |Σ(θm ).
n→∞ θ∈Gn

(7.6)

1≤m≤M

Let m∗ be an integer such that |ρm∗ |Σ(θm∗ ) = max1≤m≤M |ρm |Σ(θm ). By assumption [A4], for each n ∈ N
there is a number ϑn ∈ Gn such that |ϑn − θm∗ | ≤ υn . Now noting (7.5), we have
Z
X
σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt
E[Un (ϑn )] =
K(I, J−ϑn )ρm∗
I∩J−θm∗

I,J

for sufficiently large n. Let us denote by ⊖ the symmetric difference between two sets. Then we have
X
I,J

≤
≤

K(I, J−ϑn )ρm∗

X
I,J

K(I, J−ϑn )

XZ
J

Z

(Z

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt −

I∩J−θm∗

Z

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt

I∩J−ϑn

1I (t)σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt
J−θm∗ ⊖J−ϑn

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt . n2 υn .

J−θm∗ ⊖J−ϑn

Noting that K(I, J−θ ) = K(Iθ , J), an analogous argument yields
X
I,J

)

K(I, J−ϑn )ρm∗

(Z

I∩J−θm∗

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt −

Z

I∩J−ϑn

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt

)

. n1 υn .

Therefore, by assumption [A4] we obtain
E[Un (ϑn )] =

X
I,J

K(I, J−ϑn )ρm∗

Z

σ1 (t)σ2 (t + θm∗ )dt + o(1) = ρm∗ Σ(θm∗ ) + o(1).

I∩J−ϑn

24

Hence we conclude that
lim inf max |E[Un (θ)]| ≥ lim inf |E[Un (ϑn )]| = ρm∗ Σ(θm∗ ) = max |ρm |Σ(θm ),
n→∞

n→∞ θ∈Gn

1≤m≤M

which yields (7.6).
From (7.4)–(7.6) we deduce that maxθ∈Gn |E[Un (θ)]| → max1≤m≤M |ρm |Σ(θm ). Since we have
1
T
√n − max |E[Un (θ)]| ≤ √ max |Fn (θ)|,
n θ∈Gn
n θ∈Gn
√
the proof of the lemma is completed once we show that maxθ∈Gn |Fn (θ)| = op ( n). By Proposition A.2 and
p
the Markov inequality, we have maxθ∈Gn |Zn (θ)| = Op ( log(#Gn )). Hence the desired result follows from
Proposition 5.1.

√
Lemma 7.10. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.2(b), we have Tn∗ = op ( n) as n → ∞.
√
Proof. First, by Proposition 3.16 from [36] wI1 (resp. wJ2 ) is (2, p, (2 p − 1(E[|wI1 |p ])1/p )−1 )-hypercontractive
√
(resp. (2, p, (2 p − 1(E[|wJ2 |p ])1/p )−1 )-hypercontractive) for all I ∈ Π1n (resp. J ∈ Π2n ). Since we have
X
E[|Un∗ (θ)|2 |F X ] =
X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ ),
I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n

by Theorem 6.5.2 from [33] it holds that
E[|Un∗ (θ)|p |F X ] .
Therefore, we obtain
E[Tn∗ |F X ] ≤

.
Next, since we have

√





p/2

X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )
.

2

X

I∈Π1n ,J∈Πn

1/p

 
1/p

X
√
≤ n
E[|Un∗ (θ)|p |F X ]
n E max |Un∗ (θ)|p |F X


θ∈Gn
θ∈Gn

√

n(#Gn )1/p max
θ∈Gn

X

I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n





X

1/2

X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )
.

2

I∈Π1n ,J∈Πn

X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ ) ∈ P 4 (H)

and
X

I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n

X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )

.

X

I∈Π1n ,J∈Π2n

2

v 1 (I)v 2 (J)K(I, J−θ ) ≤ v/n,

by the triangular and the Schwarz inequalities, Proposition A.2 yields

1/2 



X
 log(#Gn )

√
X 1 (I)2 X 2 (J)2 K(I, J−θ )
.
E max
.

θ∈Gn 
n
1
2
I∈Πn ,J∈Πn :I≤T

√
Consequently, we conclude that E[Tn∗ ] = O((#Gn )1/p log(#Gn )) = o( n) as n → ∞. Hence we obtain the

desired result by the Markov inequality.

25

Proof of Proposition 5.2. (a) We follow Step 3 in the proof of Theorem 2 from [30]. First, by Proposition 5.1,
Lemma 7.8 and Theorem 9.2.2 of [19] there is a sequence εn of positive numbers tending to 0 such that


c
P (En ) ≤ εn ,
sup P (Tn ≤ x) − P sup |Zn (θ)| ≤ x ≤ εn
x∈R

for all n ∈ N, where

θ∈Gn






∗
X
En = sup P max |Zn (θ)| ≤ x − P Tn ≤ x|F
≤ εn .
θ∈Gn

x∈R

Next, let us denote by qnZ the quantile function of maxθ∈Gn |Zn (θ)|. Note that maxθ∈Gn |Zn (θ)| has the density
because of Lemmas 7.6 and A.5. Therefore, on En we have



∗
Z
X
Z
P Tn ≤ qn (1 − α + εn )|F
≥ P max |Zn (θ)| ≤ qn (1 − α + εn ) − εn = 1 − α,
θ∈Gn

hence on En it holds that qn∗ (1 − α) ≤ qnZ (1 − α + εn ). Therefore, we obtain


P (Tn < qn∗ (1 − α)) ≤ P Tn < qnZ (1 − α + εn ) + P (Enc )


≤ P max |Zn (θ)| < qnZ (1 − α + εn ) + 2εn = 1 − α + 3εn .
θ∈Gn

On the other hand, for any ω ∈ En and any z ∈ R such that P (Tn∗ ≤ z|F X )(ω) ≥ 1 − α, we have




X
Z
∗
P max |Zn (θ)| ≤ qn (1 − α − εn ) = 1 − α − εn ≤ P (Tn ≤ z|F )(ω) − εn ≤ P max |Zn (θ)| ≤ z ,
θ∈Gn

θ∈Gn

hence it holds that qnZ (1 − α − εn ) ≤ z. This implies that qn∗ (1 − α) ≥ qnZ (1 − α − εn ) on En . Therefore, we obtain

P (Tn < qn∗ (1 − α)) ≥ P Tn < qnZ (1 − α − εn ) − P (Enc )


Z
≥ P max |Zn (θ)| < qn (1 − α − εn ) − 2εn = 1 − α − 3εn .
θ∈Gn

Consequently, we obtain P (Tn < qn∗ (1 − α)) → 1 − α as n → ∞.
(b) By the definition of qn∗ (1 − α) we have


P (Tn < qn∗ (1 − α)) ≤ P P (Tn∗ ≤ Tn |F X ) < 1 − α ≤ α−1 P (Tn∗ > Tn ).

√
Since Lemmas 7.9–7.10 yield (Tn∗ − Tn )/ n →p − max1≤m≤M |ρm |Σ(θm ), we have


∗
lim sup P (Tn > Tn ) ≤ P − max |ρm |Σ(θm ) ≥ 0 = 0
1≤m≤M

n→∞

under H1 , hence we obtain P (Tn < qn∗ (1 − α)) → 0. This implies the desired result.
7.9

Proof of Proposition 5.3

Lemma 7.11. Suppose that the function Ψ : R → R is Lipschitz continuous and compactly supported. Under the
assumptions of Proposition 5.3, we have

n

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

as n → ∞.

1X
Ψh (ti−1 − t) −
n
i=1

26

Z

∞

−∞

Ψ(s)ds = O((nh)−1 )

Proof. Noting that

R∞

−∞ Ψ(s)ds

=

R∞

−∞ Ψh (s

− t)ds, we can decompose the target quantity as

Z ∞
n
1X
Ψh (s)ds
Ψh (ti−1 − t) −
−∞
t∈[an ,T −an ] n i=1
( n Z
Z
X ti
|Ψh (ti−1 − t) − Ψh (s − t)|ds +
≤
sup
sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

i=1

0

−∞

ti−1

|Ψh (s − t)|ds +

Z

∞
T

|Ψh (s − t)|ds

)

=: In + IIn + IIIn .

Since Ψ is Lipschitz continuous and compactly supported, we have In = O((nh)−1 ) as n → ∞. Moreover, since
an /h → ∞ as n → ∞, IIn = IIIn = 0 for sufficiently large n. This completes the proof.

σn2 (t)] − σ 2 (t) = O((nh)−1 )+
Lemma 7.12. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.3, we have supt∈[an ,T −an ] E[b
O(hγ ) as n → ∞.

Proof. We decompose E[b
σn2 (t)] − σ 2 (t) as
E[b
σn2 (t)] − σ 2 (t)
=

n
X
i=1

Kh (ti−1 − t)

Z

ti
ti−1

{σ 2 (s) − σ 2 (t)}ds + σ 2 (t)

(

=: In (t) + IIn (t).

n

1X
Kh (ti−1 − t) −
n
i=1

Z

∞
−∞

Kh (s − t)ds

)

Since K is compactly supported and σ is γ-Hölder continuous, we have supt∈[an ,T −an ] |In (t)| = O(hγ ) as n → ∞.
On the other hand, Lemma 7.11 yields supt∈[an ,T −an ] |IIn (t)| = O((nh)−1 ). This completes the proof.
Lemma 7.13. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.3, there are constants C1 , C2 > 0 such that
C
C
√ 1 ≤ sn (t) ≤ √ 2
nh
nh
for any n ∈ N and t ∈ [an , T − an ].
Proof. A simple computation shows that


n
1 X
4
Kh (ti−1 − t)2 ≤ s2n (t) ≤ 2
2 inf σ (t)
n2
t∈[0,T ]
i=1

!

sup σ 4 (t)
t∈[0,T ]

n
1 X
Kh (ti−1 − t)2
n2
i=1

for all t ∈ [0, T ] and n ∈ N. Now, Lemma 7.11 yields


Z ∞
n
1 X
ti−1 − t 2
K
K(s)2 ds + O((nh)−1 )
=
nh
h
−∞
i=1
R∞
uniformly in t ∈ [an , T − an ] as n → ∞. Since 0 < −∞ K(s)2 ds < ∞, we obtain the desired result.
Let us set

Fn (t) =

σ
bn2 (t) − E[b
σn2 (t)]
,
sn (t)

t ∈ [0, T ].

Lemma 7.14. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.3, there is a constant C > 0 such that
E[|Fn (s) − Fn (t)|2 ] ≤ C
for any n ∈ N and s, t ∈ [0, T ].
27

(s − t)2
h2

Proof. For any s, t ∈ [0, T ] we have

 2


Var σ
bn (s)sn (t) − σ
bn2 (t)sn (s)
σ
bn2 (s) σ
bn2 (t)
−
=
E[|Fn (s) − Fn (t)| ] = Var
sn (s)
sn (t)
s2n (s)s2n (t)
 2 


Var σ
bn (s) (sn (t) − sn (s))2 + sn (s)2 Var σ
bn2 (s) − σ
bn2 (t)
≤2
sn (s)2 sn (t)2
 2

 2

Var σ
bn (s) − σ
bn2 (t)
(sn (t) − sn (s))2 + Var σ
bn (s) − σ
bn2 (t)
≤4
,
=2
sn (t)2
sn (t)2
p
p
where we use the inequality | Var[Y1 ] − Var[Y2 ]|2 ≤ Var[Y1 − Y2 ] holding for any random variables Y1 , Y2 .


2

Now, since K is Lipschitz continuous and compactly supported, it holds that
Var



σ
bn2 (s) −



σ
bn2 (t)

=

n
X
i=1

|Kh (ti−1 − s) − Kh (ti−1 − t)|2 Var[(Xti − Xti−1 )2 ]

. nh ·

(s − t)2 1
(s − t)2
·
=
.
h4
n2
nh3

Now the desired result follows from Lemma 7.13.
Lemma 7.15. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.3, it holds that
"
#

√
p


log n
−1
E sup |Zn (t)| = O( log n),
E w(Zn ; n ) = O
nh
t∈[0,T ]
as n → ∞. Moreover, there is a constant C0 > 0 such that
sup P

sup

x∈R

t∈[an ,T −an ]

!

(7.7)

p
≤ C0 ε log n

|Zn (t)| − x ≤ ε

for any ε > 0 and any n ∈ N.

p
Proof. Define the semi-metric dn on [0, T ] by dn (s, t) = E[|Zn (s) − Zn (t)|2 ], s, t ∈ [0, T ]. Note that we have
p
dn (s, t) ≤ 2 and dn (s, t) = E[|Fn (s) − Fn (t)|2 ] for all s, t ∈ [0, T ] by the definition of Zn . Therefore, the
Dudley maximal inequality (cf. Corollary 2.2.8 of [48]) and Lemma 7.14 imply that
"
#
Z 2p
Z 2p
p
log(N ([0, T ], dn , η))dη . 1 +
log(ηh)−1 dη . log n
E sup |Zn (t)| . 1 +
0

t∈[0,T ]

and


E w(Zn ; n

−1

"


) ≤E
.

Z

0

sup

√
s,t∈[0,T ]:dn (s,t)≤ C/nh
√
C/nh p

#

|Zn (s) − Zn (t)|

log(N ([0, T ], dn , η))dη .

0

√

Z

0

C/nh p

log(ηh)−1 dη

.

where C denotes the constant appearing in Lemma 7.14. Hence we obtain (7.7).
Next, Lemma A.6 yields
sup P
x∈R

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

!

|Zn (t)| − x ≤ ε

for any ε > 0. Hence the latter claim follows from (7.7).
28

≤ 4ε E

"

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

#

!

|Zn (t)| + 1

√

log n
,
nh

Let us set
zn (t) =

σ
bn2 (t) − σ 2 (t)
,
sn (t)

t ∈ [0, T ].

Lemma 7.16. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.3, there is a constant c1 > 0 such that
P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

!

|zn (t)| ∈ A

≤P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| ∈ Avn +7M ε

!

c1
+ (M ε)−2 √ log2 n
nh

+ P (w(Fn ; n−1 ) > M ε) + P (wn (Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε)
for any M, ε > 0, any Borel set A of R and any n ∈ N, where
 2 
E σ
bn (t) − σ 2 (t)
.
vn =
sup
sn (t)
t∈[an ,T −an ]
Proof. First, by definition we have
P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

!
σ
bn2 (t) − σ 2 (t)
∈A ≤P
sn (t)

vn

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Fn (t)| ∈ A

!

.

Next, let us set snj = an + j/n for j = 1, . . . , N := ⌊(T − 2an )n⌋. By definition it holds that
max |Fn (snj )| ≤

sup

1≤j≤N

t∈[an ,T −an ]

max |Zn (snj )| ≤

1≤j≤N

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Fn (t)| ≤ max |Fn (snj )| + w(Fn ; n−1 ),
1≤j≤N

|Zn (t)| ≤ max |Zn (snj )| + w(Zn ; n−1 ).
1≤j≤N

In particular, we have
P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

vn

|Fn (t)| ∈ A

!

≤P



max

1≤j≤N

|Fn (snj )|

vn +M ε

∈A



+ P (w(Fn ; n−1 ) > M ε).

Let us denote by κ4 (Y ) the fourth cumulant of a random variable Y if it exists. Then we have
n

nh 1
1
1 X
Kh (ti−1 − t)4 κ4 ((Xti − Xti−1 )2 ) . (nh)2 · 4 · 4 =
,
κ4 (Fn (t)) = 4
sn (t)
h n
nh
i=1

hence Lemmas 3.1 and 7.2 imply that there is a constant c0 > 0 such that




c0
n
vn +M ε
n
vn +6M ε
P max |Fn (sj )| ∈ A
≤ P max |Zn (sj )| ∈ A
+ (M ε)−2 √ log2 N.
1≤j≤N
1≤j≤N
nh
Since we have log N . log n and
P



max

1≤j≤N

|Zn (snj )|

vn +6M ε

∈A



≤P

vn +7M ε

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| ∈ A

!

+ P (w(Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε),

we obtain the desired result.
Proof of Proposition 5.3. Lemmas 7.16 and A.3 imply that there is a constant c1 > 0 such that
!
!
σ
bn2 (t) − σ 2 (t)
≤x −P
sup
|Zn (t)| ≤ x
sup
sup P
sn (t)
x∈R
t∈[an ,T −an ]
t∈[an ,T −an ]
29

≤ sup P

sup

x∈R

t∈[an ,T −an ]

!

|Zn (t)| − x ≤ vn + 7M ε

c1
+ (M ε)−2 √ log2 n
nh

+ P (w(Fn ; n−1 ) > M ε) + P (w(Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε)
for any M, ε > 0, any Borel set A of R and any n ∈ N.
1

Let us set ε = (nh)− 4 log n. Then we have

1
c1
lim sup(M ε)−2 √ log2 n . 2 .
M
n→∞
nh
Moreover, by Lemmas 7.12–7.13 and the assumptions of the proposition, we have vn = o((log n)−1/2 ). Since
log6 n/nh → 0 by assumption, Lemma 7.15 and the Markov inequality yield
!
lim sup P

n→∞ x∈R

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| − x ≤ vn + 7M ε

= lim P (w(Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε) = 0.
n→∞

We also have limn→∞ P (w(Fn ; n−1 ) > M ε) = 0. In fact, by Proposition A.1 there is a universal constant c2 > 0
such that the process (Fn (t))t∈[0,T ] is a sub-2nd-Gaussian chaos process with respect to the semi-metric dn defined
p
by dn (s, t) = c2 E[|Fn (s) − Fn (t)|2 ], s, t ∈ [0, T ]. Hence Proposition A.3 and Lemma 7.14 imply that
"
#
E[w(Fn ; n−1 )] ≤ E
.

Z

sup

√
s,t∈[0,T ]:dn (s,t)≤c2 C/nh
√
c2 C/nh

|Fn (s) − Fn (t)|

log(N ([0, T ], dn , η))dη .
0

Z

√
c2 C/nh

log(ηh)−1 dη .

0

log n
,
nh

where C denotes the constant appearing in Lemma 7.14. Hence the desired result follows from the Markov inequality. Overall, we conclude that
lim sup sup P
n→∞ x∈R

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

σ
bn2 (t) − σ 2 (t)
≤x
sn (t)

!

−P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| ≤ x

!

Letting M tend to infinity, we obtain the desired result.
7.10

Proof of Proposition 5.4

Throughout this subsection, we set
H=

Z

0

T


f (t)dBt : f ∈ L (0, T ) .
2

H is obviously a Gaussian Hilbert space.
Lemma 7.17. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.3, there is a constant C > 0 such that
#
"
√
log n
nh {bsn (t) − sn (t)} ≤ C
E sup
(nh)1/4
t∈[0,T ]
for all n ∈ N.

30

.

1
.
M2

Proof. Set Yn (t) = nh{b
s2n (t) − s2n (t)}, t ∈ [0, T ]. For each t ∈ [0, T ], we have


n
X
2 2
4
2
Kh (ti−1 − t)
Yn (t) = nh
(Xti − Xti−1 ) − Var[(Xti − Xti−1 ) ] ∈ P 4 (H),
3
i=1

hence by Proposition A.1 there is a universal constant c0 > 0 such that the process Yn = (Yn (t))t∈[0,T ] is a sub-4thp
Gaussian chaos process with respect to the semi-metric d′n on [0, T ] defined by d′n (s, t) = c0 E[|Yn (t) − Yn (s)|2 ],
s, t ∈ [0, T ]. Note that Var[(Xti − Xti−1 )2 ] = 23 E[(Xti − Xti−1 )4 ] for every i. Then, for any t ∈ [0, T ] we have


n
X
1
nh 1
2
4
4
2
2
,
Kh (ti−1 − t) Var (Xti − Xti−1 ) . (nh)2 · 4 · 4 =
E[Yn (t) ] = (nh)
3
h n
nh
i=1

√
hence there is a constant c1 > 0 such that d′n (s, t) ≤ c1 / nh for any n ∈ N and s, t ∈ [0, T ]. Moreover, for any

s, t ∈ [0, T ] we also have
d′n (s, t)2

2

= (nh)

n
X

i=1

. (nh)2 ·

2 2

2

Kh (ti−1 − s) − Kh (ti−1 − t)



2
Var (Xti − Xti−1 )4
3



(s − t)2
nh (s − t)2 1
·
·
=
.
h4
h2
n4
nh3

√
Therefore, there is a constant c2 > 0 such that N ([0, T ], d′n , r) ≤ 1 ∨ c2 (r nh3/2 )−1 for all r > 0. Hence,
Proposition A.3 yields

"

#

Z c1 /√nh
√
1
log2 n
E sup |Yn (t)| . √
+
.
log2 (r nh3/2 )dr . √
nh
nh
t∈[0,T ]
0
p
√
√
Since | x − y| ≤ |x − y| for any x, y ≥ 0, we complete the proof.
Let us set

zbn (t) =

σ
bn2 (t) − σ 2 (t)
,
b
sn (t)

t ∈ [0, T ].

Lemma 7.18. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.4, we have
!
sup P
x∈R

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

|b
zn (t)| ≤ x

−P

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| ≤ x

!

→0

as n → ∞.
sn (t)−1| = Op (log n/(nhn )1/4 ). Next, Lemma
Proof. First, by Lemmas 7.13 and 7.17 we have supt∈[0,T ] |sn (t)/b
√
7.15 and Proposition 5.3 yield supt∈[an ,T −an ] |zn (t)| = Op ( log n). Hence we obtain
!
log3/2 n
sup
|b
zn (t) − zn (t)| = Op
.
(nhn )1/4
t∈[an ,T −an ]


zn (t) − zn (t)| > vn′ = 0 and
Therefore, setting vn′ = log2 n/(nhn )1/4 , we obtain limn→∞ P supt∈[an ,T −an ] |b
P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

!

|b
zn (t)| ∈ A

≤P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

′
vn

|zn (t)| ∈ A

!

+P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|b
zn (t) − zn (t)| > vn′

!

for any Borel set A of R. Now, noting that vn′ = o((log n)−1/2 ) by assumption, an analogous argument to the proof
of Proposition 5.3 yields the desired result.
31

Let us set

n

Zen∗ (t) =

1 X
Kh (ti−1 − t)(Xti − Xti−1 )2 ξi∗ ,
sn (t)

t ∈ [0, T ].

i=1

Lemma 7.19. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.4, it holds that
w(Zen∗ ; n−1 ) = Op

sup Zen∗ (t) = Op (log3/2 n),

t∈[0,T ]

as n → ∞.

log3/2 n
nh

!

Proof. Set rn = max1≤i≤n (Xti − Xti−1 )2 . By Lemma 7.13 and [B2] there is a constant c0 > 0 such that
h
i
E Zen∗ (t)2 |F X =

n

2 X
nh
Kh (ti−1 − t)2 (Xti − Xti−1 )4 ≤ c0 rn2 nh · 2 = c0 n2 rn2
2
3sn (t)
h
i=1

for any t ∈ [0, T ] and n ∈ N. Moreover, from the proof of Lemma 7.14 there is a constant c1 > 0 such that

|sn (s) − sn (t)|2 ≤ c1 (s − t)2 /(nh3 ) for all n ∈ N and s, t ∈ [0, T ]. Therefore, by Lemma 7.13 and [B2] there is a
constant c2 > 0 such that

n

2X
E[|Zen∗ (s) − Zen∗ (t)|2 |F X ] =
3
i=1

≤ c2 rn2



Kh (ti−1 − s) Kh (ti−1 − t)
−
sn (s)
sn (t)

2

(Xti − Xti−1 )4

2
2
nh
2 (s − t)
2n
·
(nh)
·
=
c
r
(s − t)2
2
n
h2
nh3
h2

for any s, t ∈ [0, T ] and n ∈ N. Therefore, the Dudley maximal inequality yields
#
"


Z 2√c0 nrn s 
p
√
n
∗
X
en (t)| F
log 1 ∨ c2 rn
.1+
E sup |Z
dη . nrn log n
ηh
t∈[0,T ]
0
and

i

h

E w(Zen∗ ; n−1 ) F X .

Z

0

s
√
2 c2 rn /h




√
n
rn p
log 1 ∨ c2 rn
log n
dη .
ηh
h

for any n ∈ N. Since E[rn ] = O(log n/n), we obtain the desired results by the Markov inequality.
Lemma 7.20. Under the assumptions of Proposition 5.4, we have
!
sup P
x∈R

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn∗ (t)|

≤ x|F

X

−P

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| ≤ x

!

→p 0

as n → ∞.
Proof. Let M, ε be positive numbers and A be a Borel set of R. Also, set vn = log5/2 n/(nh)1/4 . We have
!
P

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

≤P

|Zn∗ (t)| ∈ A|F X

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zen∗ (t)|

M vn

∈A

|F

X

!

+P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

32

|Zn∗ (t)

−

e∗ (t)|
Z
n

> M vn |F

X

!

.

Define the sequence (snj )N
j=1 as in the proof of Lemma 7.16. By definition we have
max |Zen∗ (snj )| ≤

1≤j≤N

max |Zn (snj )| ≤

1≤j≤N

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

e∗ (sn )| + w(Ze∗ ; n−1 ),
|Zen∗ (t)| ≤ max |Z
n j
n
1≤j≤N

|Zn (t)| ≤ max |Zn (snj )| + w(Zn ; n−1 ).
1≤j≤N

In particular, we have
P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

e∗ (t)| ∈ AM vn |F X
|Z
n

!

≤P



max |Zen∗ (snj )| ∈ AM (vn +ε) |F X

1≤j≤N



+ P (w(Zen∗ ; η) > M ε|F X ).

Next, Lemma 7.2 implies that there is a constant c1 > 0 such that


∗ n
M (vn +ε)
X
e
P max |Zn (sj )| ∈ A
|F
1≤j≤N


≤ P max |Zn (snj )| ∈ AM (vn +6ε) + c1 (M ε)−2 (log N ) max |∆jk | ,
1≤j≤N

1≤j,k≤N

where ∆jk = E[Zen∗ (snj )Zen∗ (snk )|F X ] − E[Zn (snj )Zn (snk )]. Since we have
!


P max |Zn (snj )| ∈ AM (vn +6ε) ≤ P
sup
|Zn (t)| ∈ AM (vn +7ε) + P (w(Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε),
1≤j≤N

t∈[an ,T −an ]

we conclude that
P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

≤P

|Zn∗ (t)| ∈ A|F X

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

+P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

!

|Zn (t)| ∈ AM (vn +7ε)

E sup P

sup

x∈R

t∈[an ,T −an ]

sup

x∈R

+P

+ c1 (M ε)−2 (log N ) max |∆jk |
1≤j,k≤N

|Zn∗ (t) − Zen∗ (t)| > M vn |F X

Therefore, by Lemma A.3 we obtain
"
≤ sup P

!

t∈[an ,T −an ]

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn∗ (t)| ≤ x|F X

!

!

+ P ∗ (w(Zen∗ ; n−1 ) > M ε) + P (w(Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε).

−P

sup
t∈[an ,T −an ]

!

|Zn (t)| − x ≤ M (vn + 7ε)

|Zn∗ (t) − Zen∗ (t)| > M vn

!

|Zn (t)| ≤ x
−2

+ c1 (M ε)

!#

(log N )E




max |∆jk |

1≤j,k≤N

+ P (w(Zen∗ ; n−1 ) > M ε) + P (wn (Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε).

√
Now let us set ε = (nh)−1/4 log3/2 n. Then ε log n → 0, hence Lemma 7.15 yields
!
lim sup P

n→∞ x∈R

sup

t∈[an ,T −an ]

|Zn (t)| − x ≤ M (vn + 7ε)

= lim P (wn (Zn ; n−1 ) > M ε) = 0.
n→∞

Moreover, Lemma 7.19 yields limn→∞ P (w(Zen∗ ; n−1 ) > M ε) = 0. Furthermore, since supt∈[an ,T −an ] |Zn∗ (t) −
Zen∗ (t)| = O(vn ) by Lemmas 7.17-7.19, we have
!
∗
∗
en (t)| > M vn = 0.
lim lim sup P
sup
|Zn (t) − Z
M →∞ n→∞

t∈[an ,T −an ]

33

Consequently, the proof is completed once we show that
−2

lim sup ε
n→∞

(log N )E




max |∆jk | < ∞.

1≤j,k≤N

Since we have
n

∆jk =

X

2
Kh (ti−1 − snj )Kh (ti−1 − snk ) (Xti − Xti−1 )4 − E[(Xti − Xti−1 )4 ] ,
n
n
3sn (sj )sn (sk )
i=1

′
by Proposition
q A.1 there is a universal constant C > 0 such that ∆jk is a sub-4th chaos random variable with
respect to C ′ E[∆2jk ] for all j, k. By Lemma 7.13 and [B2] we have

 
E ∆2ij =

n

X


4
Kh (ti−1 − snj )2 Kh (ti−1 − snk )2 Var (Xti − Xti−1 )4
n
n
2
2
9sn (sj )sn (sk )
i=1

nh 1
. (nh)2 · 4 · 4 = (nh)−1 ,
h n

hence Proposition A.2 implies that E [max1≤j,k≤N |∆jk |] .

2
log
√ n.
nh

This yields the desired result.

Proof of Proposition 5.4. Note that Lemma 7.15 implies that supt∈[an ,T −an ] |Zn (t)| has the density. Hence the

desired result follows from an analogous argument to the proof of Proposition 5.2(a) using Lemma 7.18 and Lemma

7.20 instead of Proposition 5.1 and Lemma 7.8, respectively.
A

Appendix

A.1 Technical tools from the Chernozhukov-Chetverikov-Kato theory
This subsection collects the technical results of the Chernozhukov-Chetverikov-Kato theory, which are used in
this paper. The first result is a corollary of Lemmas 3–4 of [13] and Lemma 4.3 of [11]:
Lemma A.1. Let g : R → R be a C 2 function. Then we have
d
X
∂ 2 (g ◦ Φβ )
(x) ≤ kg′′ k∞ + 2βkg ′ k∞
∂xi ∂xj

i,j=1

for all x ∈ Rd . Moreover, if g is a C 3 function, we also have
d
X

i,j,k=1

∂ 3 (g ◦ Φβ )
(x) ≤ kg ′′′ k∞ + 6βkg ′′ k∞ + 6β 2 kg′ k∞
∂xi ∂xj ∂xk

for all x ∈ Rd .
Proof. The first inequality is a direct consequence of Lemmas 3–4 from [13]. The second inequality is Eq.(19) in
Lemma 4.3 of [11].
The next result is taken from Lemma 5.1 of [14]:
Lemma A.2 ([14], Lemma 5.1). For any ε > 0 and any Borel set A of R, there is a C ∞ function g : R → R
satisfying the following conditions:

(i) There is a universal constant K > 0 such that kg′ k∞ ≤ ε−1 , kg ′′ k∞ ≤ Kε−2 and kg′′′ k∞ ≤ Kε−3 .
34

(ii) 1A (x) ≤ g(x) ≤ 1A3ε (x) for all x ∈ R.
The third result is a corollary of Lemma 4.1 from [11] and Lemma 2.1 from [14]:
Lemma A.3. Let V, W be random variables. Suppose that there are constants r1 , r2 > 0 such that
P (V ∈ A) ≤ P (W ∈ Ar1 ) + r2
for any Borel set A of R. Then we have
sup |P (V ≤ x) − P (W ≤ x)| ≤ sup P (|W − x| ≤ r1 ) + r2 .
x∈R

x∈R

Proof. By extending the probability space (Ω, F, P ) if necessary, we may assume that there is a uniform random

variable on (0, 1) independent of V without loss of generality. Then, by Lemma 4.1 from [11] there is a random
variable W ′ whose distribution is the same as that of W such that P (|V − W ′ | > r1 ) ≤ r2 . Therefore, the desired
result follows from Lemma 2.1 of [13].

The fourth result is a so-called anti-concentration inequality for maxima of Gaussian variables, which is taken
from Theorem 3 of [13]:
Lemma A.4 ([13], Theorem 3). Let X = (X1 , . . . , Xd )⊤ be a d-dimensional centered Gaussian random vector
with σj2 := E[Xj2 ] > 0 for j = 1, . . . , d. Suppose that there are two constants σ, σ > 0 such that σ ≤ σj ≤ σ for
all j = 1, . . . , d. Then, there is a constant C > 0 which only depends on σ and σ such that
sup P (|X∨ − x| ≤ ε) ≤ Cε{ad +
x∈R

for any ε > 0, where ad = E[max1≤j≤d (Xj /σj )].

p

1 ∨ log(σ/ε)}

The fifth result is another anti-concentration inequality for maxima of Gaussian variables, which is taken from
Lemma 4.3 of [14]:
Lemma A.5 ([14], Lemma 4.3). Let X = (X1 , . . . , Xd )⊤ be a (possibly uncentered) d-dimensional Gaussian
random vector such that Var[Xj ] > 0 for all j = 1, . . . , d. Then for every ε > 0,
sup P (|X∨ − x| ≤ ε) ≤
x∈R

where σ = min1≤j≤d

p


2 p
ε
2 log d + 2 ,
σ

Var[Xj ].

The last result is an anti-concentration inequality for supremum of a Gaussian process taken from Corollary 2.1
of [10]:
Lemma A.6 ([10], Corollary 2.1). Let X = (Xt )t∈T be a separable Gaussian process indexed by a semimetric space T such that E[Xt ] = 0 and E[Xt2 ] = 1 for all t ∈ T. Assume that supt∈T Xt < ∞ a.s. Then
E[supt∈T |Xt |] < ∞ and

sup P
x∈R




 


sup |Xt | − x ≤ ε ≤ 4ε E sup |Xt | + 1
t∈T

t∈T

for all ε ≥ 0.
35

A.2 Sub-Gaussian chaos property
This subsection presents the notion of sub-Gaussian chaos property of random variables and stochastic processes, which is introduced in [49, 50] and serves as deriving maximal inequalities used in this paper.
Definition A.1 ([50], Definition 4.1; [49], Definition 2.1). Let q be a positive integer. A (possibly uncentered)
random variable Y is said to have the sub-qth-Gaussian chaos property (or is a sub-qth chaos random variable, or
is a sub-Gaussian chaos random variable of order q, etc.) relative to the scale M ≥ 0 if
"
 !#

|Y | 2/q
≤ 2.
E exp
M
Here, when M = 0, for x ≥ 0, x/M is understood to be 0 if x = 0 and ∞ otherwise. Hence, Y is a sub-qth chaos

random variable relative to the scale 0 if and only if Y = 0 a.s.

Note that, unlike [49, 50], we also allow sub-Gaussian chaos random variables to be uncentered. The following
result is a useful criteria for the sub-Gaussian chaos property.
Lemma A.7. For any positive integer q and constant C > 0, there is a positive number M (which depends only on
q and C) such that any random variable Y satisfying kY kp ≤ Cpq/2 kY k2 for any positive integer p is a sub-qth

chaos random variable relative to the scale M kY k2 .

Proof. For any M > 0 we have
"
"

2/q !# X
2k/q #
∞
∞
X
|Y |
|Y |
1
(2k/q)k
E exp
.
E
=
≤1+
C 2k/q
M kY k2
k!
M kY k2
k!M 2k/q
k=0

k=1

Set ak (M ) = C 2k/q (2k/q)k /k!M 2k/q . Then we have


C 2/q
ak+1 (M )
= 2/q
ak (M )
M

2k + 2
2k

k

C 2/q
2k + 2
2
→ 2/q · e ·
q(k + 1)
q
M

as k → ∞. Therefore, for sufficiently large M we have limk→∞ ak+1 (M )/ak (M ) < 1, hence we obtain
P∞
k=1 ak (M ) < ∞ by the d’Alembert ratio test. Since ak (M ) is a decreasing function of M > 0 for all k ∈ N,
P
the dominated convergence theorem yields ∞
k=1 ak (M ) → 0 as M → ∞. Therefore, there is a constant M > 0
P∞
which depends only on C and q such that k=1 ak (M ) ≤ 1. For this M the claim of the lemma holds true.
Combining Lemma A.7 with Theorem 5.11 and Remark 5.11 from [27], we obtain the following result.

Proposition A.1. For any positive integer q, there is a constant M > 0 which depends only on q such that, for any
Gaussian Hilbert space H, Y is a sub-qth chaos random variable relative to the scale M kY k2 for all Y ∈ P̄q (H).
The next result presents maximal moment inequalities obtained from the sub-Gaussian chaos property.
Proposition A.2. For each k = 1, . . . , d, let Yk be a sub-qth chaos random variable relative to the scale Mk ≥ 0.

Then we have

E



p

max |Yk |

1≤k≤d



≤



max Mkp
1≤k≤d



for any p > 0 such that pq ≥ 2.
36



logpq/2 2d − 1 + epq/2−1

Proof. By Lemma 14.7 from [6] we have
E



p

Since we have
"
E exp

max |Yk |

1≤k≤d

max

1≤k≤d





|Yk |
Mk

≤



max Mkp
1≤k≤d

2/q !#

=E



"

log

pq/2

max exp

1≤k≤d

"

E exp



|Yk |
Mk

max

1≤k≤d

2/q !#



|Yk |
Mk

≤

2/q !#

d
X
k=1

pq/2−1

−1+e

"

E exp



|Yk |
Mk

!

2/q !#

.

≤ 2d,

we obtain the desired result.
To conclude this subsection, we present an estimate for the modulus of continuity for sub-Gaussian chaos
processes, which is established in [49]. In the following, (T, d) denotes a semi-metric space.
Definition A.2 ([50], Definition 4.3; [49], Definition 2.3). Let q be a positive integer. A centered real-valued
process X = (Xt )t∈T is said to be a sub-qth-Gaussian chaos process with respect to d if the random variable
X(t) − X(s) has the sub-qth-Gaussian chaos property relative to the scale d(s, t) for any s, t ∈ T.
Definition A.3. Let r be a positive number. An r-covering number of T with respect to d, which is denoted by
N (T, d, r), is the smallest positive integer N such that there are points t1 , . . . , tN ∈ T satisfying for any t ∈ T

there is an index i ∈ {1, . . . , N } with d(t, ti ) < r (we set N (T, d, r) = ∞ if there is no such an N ).

Proposition A.3 ([49], Proposition 5.2). Let q be a positive integer. There is a number Cq > 0 which depends only
on q such that
E

"

sup

s,t∈T:d(s,t)≤η

#

|Xs − Xt | ≤ Cq

Z

η

logq/2 N (T, d, r)dr

0

for any η > 0 and any separable centered sub-qth-Gaussian chaos process X = (Xt )t∈T with respect to d.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Kengo Kato and Daisuke Kurisu for their helpful comments. This work was supported by
JST CREST and JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) Grant Number JP16K17105.
References
[1] Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and Jacod, J. (2014). High-frequency financial econometrics. Princeton University Press.
[2] Alvarez, A., Panloup, F., Pontier, M. and Savy, N. (2012). Estimation of the instantaneous volatility. Stat. Inference
Stoch. Process. 15, 27–59.
[3] Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T. and Dobrev, D. (2007). No-arbitrage semi-martingale restrictions for continuous-time
volatility models subject to leverage effects, jumps and i.i.d. noise: Theory and testable distributional implications. J.
Econometrics 138, 125–180.
[4] Bennedsen, M., Hounyo, U., Lunde, A. and Pakkanen, M. S. (2016). The local fractional bootstrap. Working paper.
Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.00868.
[5] Bibinger, M., Jirak, M. and Vetter, M. (2017). Nonparametric change-point analysis of volatility. Ann. Statist. 45,
1542–1578.
[6] Bühlmann, P. and van de Geer, S. (2011). Statistics for high-dimensional data. Springer.
[7] Chang, J., Qiu, Y., Yao, Q. and Zou, T. (2017). On the statistical inference for large precision matrices with dependent
data. Working paper. Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06663.

37

[8] Chen, X. (2017). Gaussian and bootstrap approximations for high-dimensional U-statistics and their applications. Ann.
Statist. (forthcoming). Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00032.
[9] Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D. and Kato, K. (2013). Gaussian approximations and multiplier bootstrap for maxima
of sums of high-dimensional random vectors. Ann. Statist. 41, 2786–2819.
[10] Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D. and Kato, K. (2014). Anti-concentration and honest, adaptive confidence bands. Ann.
Statist. 42, 1787–1818.
[11] Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D. and Kato, K. (2014). Gaussian approximation of suprema of empirical processes.
Ann. Statist. 42, 1564–1597.
[12] Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D. and Kato, K. (2014). Testing many moment inequalities. Working paper. Available
at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7614v4.
[13] Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D. and Kato, K. (2015). Comparison and anti-concentration bounds for maxima of
Gaussian random vectors. Probab. Theory Related Fields 162, 47–70.
[14] Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D. and Kato, K. (2016). Empirical and multiplier bootstraps for suprema of empirical
processes of increasing complexity, and related Gaussian couplings. Stochastic Process. Appl. 126, 3632–3651.
[15] Christensen, K., Oomen, R. and Renò, R. (2016). The drift burst hypothesis. Working paper. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2842535.
[16] Dalalyan, A. and Yoshida, N. (2011). Second-order asymptotic expansion for a non-synchronous covariation estimator.
Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 47, 748–789.
[17] Davidson, R. and Flachaire, E. (2008). The wild bootstrap, tamed at last. J. Econometrics 146, 162–169.
[18] Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J. G. (1999). The size distortion of bootstrap tests. Econometric Theory 15, 361–376.
[19] Dudley, R. M. (2002). Real analysis and probability. Cambridge University Press.
[20] Fan, J. and Wang, Y. (2008). Spot volatility estimation for high-frequency data. Stat. Interface 1, 279–288.
[21] Hayashi, T. and Koike, Y. (2016). Wavelet-based methods for high-frequency lead-lag analysis. Working paper. Available
at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01232.
[22] Hayashi, T. and Yoshida, N. (2005). On covariance estimation of non-synchronously observed diffusion processes.
Bernoulli 11, 359–379.
[23] Hayashi, T. and Yoshida, N. (2008). Asymptotic normality of a covariance estimator for nonsynchronously observed
diffusion processes. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. 60, 357–396.
[24] Hayashi, T. and Yoshida, N. (2011). Nonsynchronous covariation process and limit theorems. Stochastic Process. Appl.
121, 2416–2454.
[25] Hoffmann, M., Rosenbaum, M. and Yoshida, N. (2013). Estimation of the lead-lag parameter from non-synchronous
data. Bernoulli 19, 426–461.
[26] Horn, R. A. and Johnson, C. R. (2013). Matrix analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn.
[27] Janson, S. (1997). Gaussian Hilbert space. Cambridge University Press.
[28] Kanaya, S. and Kristensen, D. (2016). Estimation of stochastic volatility models by nonparametric filtering. Econometric
Theory 32, 861–916.
[29] Kato, K. and Kurisu, D. (2017). Bootstrap confidence bands for spectral estimation of Lévy densities under highfrequency observations. Working paper. Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00586.
[30] Kato, K. and Sasaki, Y. (2016). Uniform confidence bands in deconvolution with unknown error distribution. Working
paper. Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02251.

38

[31] Krakowiak, W. and Szulga, J. (1988). Hypercontraction principle and random multilinear forms. Probab. Theory Related
Fields 77, 325–342.
[32] Kristensen, D. (2010). Nonparametric filtering of the realized spot volatility: A kernel-based approach. Econometric
Theory 26, 60–93.
[33] Kwapień, S. and Woyczyński, W. A. (1992). Random series and stochastic integrals: Single and multiple. Birkhäuser.
[34] Lee, S. S. and Mykland, P. A. (2008). Jumps in financial markets: A new nonparametric test and jump dynamics. The
Review of Financial Studies 21, 2535–2563.
[35] Mancino, M. E. and Recchioni, M. C. (2015). Fourier spot volatility estimator: Asymptotic normality and efficiency
with liquid and illiquid high-frequency data. PLoS ONE 10, 1–33.
[36] Mossel, E., O’Donnell, R. and Oleszkiewicz, K. (2010). Noise stability of functions with low influences: Invariance and
optimality. Ann. Math. 171, 295–341.
[37] Mykland, P. A. and Zhang, L. (2008). Inference for volatility-type objects and implications for hedging. Stat. Interface
1, 255–278.
[38] Nourdin, I. (2013). Lectures on Gaussian approximations with Malliavin calculus. In C. Donati-Martin, A. Lejay and
A. Rouault, eds., Séminaire de probabilitiés XLV, vol. 2078 of Lecture Notes in Math. Springer, pp. 3–89.
[39] Nourdin, I. and Peccati, G. (2009). Stein’s method on Wiener chaos. Probab. Theory Related Fields 145, 75–118.
[40] Nourdin, I. and Peccati, G. (2010). Stein’s method meets Malliavin calculus: a short survey with new estimates. In
J. Duan, S. Luo and C. Wang, eds., Recent development in stochastic dynamics and stochastic analysis, chap. 14. World
Scientific, pp. 207–236.
[41] Nourdin, I. and Peccati, G. (2012). Normal approximations with Malliavin calculus: From Stein’s method to universality.
Cambridge University Press.
[42] Nourdin, I., Peccati, G. and Reinert, G. (2010). Invariance principles for homogeneous sums: Universality of Gaussian
Wiener chaos. Ann. Probab. 38, 1947–1985.
[43] Nourdin, I., Peccati, G. and Réveillac, A. (2010). Multivariate normal approximation using Stein’s method and Malliavin
calculus. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 46, 45–58.
[44] Nualart, D. (2006). The Malliavin calculus and related topics. Springer, 2nd edn.
[45] Nualart, D. and Peccati, G. (2005). Central limit theorems for sequences of multiple stochastic integrals. Ann. Probab.
33, 177–193.
[46] Palmes, C. and Woerner, J. H. C. (2016). A mathematical analysis of the Gumbel test for jumps in stochastic volatility
models. Stoch. Anal. Appl. 34, 852–881.
[47] Robert, C. Y. and Rosenbaum, M. (2010). On the limiting spectral distribution of the covariance matrices of time-lagged
processes. J. Multivariate Anal. 101, 2434–2451.
[48] van der Vaart, A. W. and Wellner, J. A. (1996). Weak convergence and empirical processes. Springer.
[49] Viens, F. G. and Vizcarra, A. B. (2007). Supremum concentration inequality and modulus of continuity for sub-nth
chaos processes. J. Funct. Anal. 248, 1–26.
[50] Vizcarra, A. B. and Viens, F. G. (2007). Some applications of the Malliavin calculus to sub-Gaussian and non-subGaussian random fields. In R. C. Dalang, F. Russo and M. Dozzi, eds., Seminar on stochastic analysis, random fields
and applications V. Progress in probability, vol. 59. Birkhäuser Basel, pp. 363–395.
[51] Zhang, D. and Wu, W. B. (2015). Gaussian approximation for high dimensional time series. Ann. Statist. (forthcoming).
Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07036.
[52] Zhang, X. and Cheng, G. (2017). Gaussian approximation for high dimensional vector under physical dependence.
Bernoulli (forthcoming) .

39

