A new quantitative central limit theorem on the
Wiener space with applications to Gaussian processes

arXiv:1610.01456v1 [math.PR] 5 Oct 2016

Tobias Fissler∗

Christoph Thäle†

Abstract
Quantitative limit theorems for non-linear functionals on the Wiener space are considered.
Given the possibly infinite sequence of kernels of the chaos decomposition of such a functional, an
estimate for different probability distances between the functional and a Gaussian random variable in terms of contraction norms of these kernels is derived. The applicability of this result is
demonstrated by means of the Breuer-Major theorem, unfolding thereby a new connection between
the Hermite rank of the considered function and a chaotic gap. Especially, power variations of the
fractional Brownian motion and processes belonging to the Cauchy class are studied.
Keywords. Breuer-Major theorem, central limit theorem, chaos decomposition, chaotic gap, fractional Brownian motion, Gaussian process, Hermite rank, Malliavin-Stein method, power variation,
Wiener space
MSC. Primary 60F05, 60G15; Secondary 60G22, 60H05, 60H07.

1

Introduction

Central limit theorems for non-linear functionals of Gaussian random processes (or measures) have
triggered an enormous development in probability theory and mathematical statistics during the last
decade. A cornerstone in this new area is the so-called fourth moment theorem of Nualart and Peccati.
It says that a sequence Iq (f (n) ) of Gaussian multiple stochastic integrals of a fixed order q ≥ 2 satisfying
the normalization condition E[Iq (f (n) )2 ] = 1 for all n ≥ 1 converges in distribution, as n → ∞, to a
standard Gaussian random variable Z if and only if the sequence E[Iq (f (n) )4 ] of their fourth moments
converges to 3, the fourth moment of Z. This qualitative limit theorem has been extended by Nourdin
and Peccati in [7] to a quantitative statement in that the distance between the laws of Iq (f (n) ) and Z is
measured in a suitable probability metric. For example, the total variation distance dT V (Iq (f (n) ), Z)
between Iq (f (n) ) and the Gaussian variable Z can be bounded from above by
q
(1)
dT V (Iq (f (n) ), Z) ≤ C E[Iq (f (n) )] − 3
with a constant C ∈ (0, ∞) only depending on q. More recently, Nourdin and Peccati [9] derived
the optimal rate of convergence, removing thereby the square-root in (1). We emphasize that the
proof of the estimate (1) is based on a combination of Stein’s method for normal approximation with
the Malliavin calculus of variations on the Wiener space. For further information and background
material, we refer the reader to the monograph [8].
While the Malliavin-Stein approach provides useful estimates in case of a sequence of random elements
living inside a fixed Wiener chaos or inside a finite sum of Wiener chaoses, the bounds become less
tractable in cases in which the functionals belong to an infinite sum of Wiener chaoses, that is, if the
functional F has the representation
(2)

F =

∞
X

Iq (fq )

q=0

∗
University of Bern, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial
Science, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland. E-mail: tobias.fissler@stat.unibe.ch
†
Ruhr University Bochum, Faculty of Mathematics, D-44780 Bochum, Germany. E-mail: christoph.thaele@rub.de

1

with infinitely many of the functions fq (called kernels in the sequel) being non-zero. On the other
hand, functionals of this type often appear in concrete applications. Distinguished examples are the
number of zeros of a random trigonometric polynomial [1], the power and the bi-power variation
of a Gaussian random process [2], the Euler characteristic of a Gaussian excursion set [4] or the
statistics appearing around the Breuer-Major theorem [3, 10], to name just a few. One way to obtain
quantitative central limit theorems in these cases is to apply the so-called second-order Poincaré
inequality developed by Nourdin, Peccati and Reinert [11]. This method has the advantage that it
is not necessary to specify the chaos decomposition of F as at (2) explicitly, that is, to compute
the functions fq there explicitly. On the other hand, a major drawback of this approach is that it
typically leads to a suboptimal rate of convergence. Moreover, in many situations the kernels fq are
in fact explicitly known and for this reason it is natural to ask for a purely analytical upper bound
on the probability distance between F and Z in terms of the sequence of kernels fq . The main goal of
the present paper is to provide such an estimate (also for probability metrics different from the total
variation distance) and to demonstrate its applicability by means of representative examples related
to the classical Breuer-Major theorem. More precisely, we shall look at random variables of the form
n

1 X
{g(Xk ) − E[g(Xk )]} ,
Fn = √
n
k=1

where X = (Xk )k∈Z is a stationary Gaussian process and g : R → R is a suitable function. For example,
X could be obtained from the increments of a fractional Brownian motion and g(x) = |x|p − E|X1 |p ,
p > 0, in which case Fn becomes a so-called power variation of the fractional Brownian motion. In this
context, our quantitative central limit theorem for Fn unfolds a new and unexpected feature, namely
that the rates of convergence are influenced by the interplay of the Hermite rank of the function g and
what we call the chaotic gap of Fn (in addition to the asymptotic behavior of the covariance function
of X, of course). We would like to emphasize that in the context of power variations of a fractional
Brownian motion we will show that the rate of convergence in the central limit theorem is universal,
that is, independent of the parameter p, and coincides with the known rate for the quadratic variation,
where p = 2. The same phenomenon also applies to processes that belong to the Cauchy class.
Our text is structured as follows. In Section 2, we summarize some basic elements of Gaussian analysis
and, in particular, recall the definitions of the four basic operators from Malliavin calculus that are
crucial for our theory. Our main result, Theorem 3.1, is presented in Section 3. Our applications to
Gaussian random processes are the content of Section 4. Finally, in Section 5 we present a multivariate
exteions of our main result. The Appendix gathers some technical lemmas.

2
2.1

Elements of Gaussian analysis
Wiener chaos, chaos decomposition and multiplication formula

We let H be a real separable Hilbert space with inner product h · , · iH and norm k · kH . Moreover, for
integers q ≥ 1 we denote by H⊗q the qth tensor power and by H⊙q the qth symmetric tensor power
of H. The space H⊗q is supplied with the canonical
√ scalar product h · , · iH⊗q and the canonical norm
k · kH⊗q , while H⊙q is equipped with the norm q!k · kH⊗q .
An isonormal Gaussian process W = {W (h) : h ∈ H} over H is a family of Gaussian random variables
defined on a common probability space (Ω, F, P) and indexed by the elements of H such that
E[W (h)] = 0

and

E[W (h)W (h′ )] = hh, h′ iH ,

h, h′ ∈ H .

In what follows we will implicitly assume that the σ-field F is generated by W , that is, F = σ(W ).
Let us write L2 (Ω) for the space of square-integrable functions over Ω. For integers q ≥ 1 we denote
by Cq the qth Wiener chaos over H. That is, Cq is the closed linear subspace of L2 (Ω) generated by
random variables of the form Hq (W (h)). Here, Hq is the qth Hermite polynomial and h ∈ H satisfies
2

khkH = 1. Recall that H0 ≡ 0 and that
(3)
(4)

dq
Hq (x) = (−1)q exp(x2 /2) q exp(−x2 /2),
dx
(
p
p! (E[XY ]) : p = q
E[Hq (X)Hp (Y )] =
0
: otherwise ,

q ≥ 1,

for jointly Gaussian X, Y and integers p, q ≥ 1. For convenience, we also define C0 := R. The
mapping h⊗q 7→ Hq (W (h)) can be extended to a linear isometry, denoted by Iq , from H⊙q to the qth
Wiener chaos Cq , see Chapter 2 in [8]. We put Iq (h) := Iq (h̃) for general h ∈ H⊗q where h̃ ∈ H⊙q is
the canonical symmetrization of h, and we use the convention that I0 : R → R is the identity map.
In particular, if H = L2 (A) with a σ-finite non-atomic measure space (A, A, µ), then Iq possesses an
interpretation as a multiple stochastic integral of order q with respect to the Gaussian random measure
on A with control measure µ. We refer to Chapter 2.7 in [8] for further details and explanations.
According to Theorem 2.2.4 in [8], every F ∈ L2 (Ω) admits a chaotic decomposition. In particular,
this means that
∞
X
Iq (hq )
F =
q=0

R

with h0 = E[F ] := F dP and uniquely determined elements hq ∈ H⊙q , q ≥ 1, that are called the
kernels of the chaotic decomposition. We also mention that, for q ≥ 1, E[Iq (hq )] = 0 and that
(
p!hhp , hq iH⊗q : p = q
(5)
E[Ip (hp )Iq (hq )] =
0
: otherwise
for hp ∈ H⊙p , hq ∈ H⊙q , p, q ≥ 1, which implies that the variance of F satisfies
(6)

var(F ) := E[F 2 ] − (E[F ])2 =

More generally, the covariance of F =
(7)

P∞

q=0 Iq (hq )

∞
X
q=1

q!khq k2H⊗q .

∈ L2 (Ω) and G =

cov(F, G) := E[F G] − E[F ]E[G] =

∞
X
q=1

P∞

′
q=0 Iq (hq )

∈ L2 (Ω) is given by

q!hhq , h′q iH⊗q .

Another crucial fact is that the product of two multiple stochastic integrals can be expressed as a linear
combination of multiple stochastic integrals. More generally, let p, q ≥ 1 be integers and h ∈ H⊙p ,
h′ ∈ H⊙q . Then one has the multiplication formula
min(p,q)   
X
q
p
′
e r h′ ) ,
(8)
Iq (h)Ip (h ) =
r!
Ip+q−2r (h⊗
r
r
r=0

e r h′ := h^
where h⊗
⊗r h′ stands for the canonical symmetrization of the contraction h⊗r h′ ∈ H⊗p+q−2r .
Note that for h = h1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ hp ∈ H⊗p and h′ = h′1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ h′q ∈ H⊗q the contraction can be defined as
(9)

h ⊗r h′ := hh1 , h′1 iH · · · hhr , h′r iH [hr+1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ hp ⊗ h′r+1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ h′q ] .

By linearity, the contraction operation can be extended to any h ∈ H⊗p and h′ ∈ H⊗q . In the case
that H = L2 (A) with a σ-finite non-atomic measure space (A, A, µ), we have that H⊗q = L2 (Aq ) :=
L2 (Aq , A⊗q , µ⊗q ) and that H⊙q coincides with the space L2sym (Aq ) of µ⊗q -almost everywhere symmetric
functions on Aq . Moreover,
Z
f (x1 , . . . , xr , y1 , . . . , yp−r )
(f ⊗r g)(y1 , . . . , yp+q−2r ) :=
Ar

× g(x1 , . . . , xr , yp−r+1 , . . . , yp+q−2r ) µ⊗r (d(x1 , . . . , xr ))

with f ∈ L2sym (Ap ), g ∈ L2sym (Aq ) and y1 , . . . , yp+q−2r ∈ A.
3

Convention. Through our paper, we will adopt the following convention that whenever the Hilbert
space H coincides with an L2 (A)-space we write f instead of h for an element of L2 (A) to underline
that we are dealing with functions. Furthermore, we use the shorthand notation k · kq for k · kH⊗q for
all integers q ≥ 1.

2.2

Malliavin operators

In this section, we recall the definition of the four basic operators from Malliavin calculus and summarize those properties which are needed later. For that purpose and to simplify our presentation
we assume from now on that H = L2 (A) with a σ-finite non-atomic measure space (A, A, µ). Note
that because of isomorphy of Hilbert spaces, this is no restriction of generality. For further details we
direct the reader to the monographs [6, 8, 12].
Malliavin derivative.
(10)

Suppose that F ∈ L2 (Ω) has a chaos decomposition
F =

∞
X

fq ∈ L2sym (Aq ) ,

Iq (fq ),

q=0

and suppose that

∞
P

q=1

q q!kfq k2q < ∞. In this case we say that F belongs to the domain of D, formally

we indicate this by writing F ∈ dom(D). For F ∈ dom(D) and x ∈ A we define the Malliavin
derivative of F in direction x as
(11)

Dx F :=

∞
X
q=1

qIq−1 (fq (x, · )) ,

where fq (x, · ) ∈ L2sym (Aq−1 ) stands for the function fq with one of its variables fixed to be x (which
one is irrelevant, since the functions fq are symmetric).
We further define for all integers k ≥ 1 the iterated Malliavin derivative D k F as
Dxk1 ,...,xk F

:=

∞
X
q=k

q(q − 1) · · · (q − k + 1) Iq−k (fq (x1 , . . . , xk , · )) ,

x1 , . . . , xk ∈ A ,

P
P∞
2
whenever F ∈ dom(D k ), that is, if F = ∞
q=0 Iq (fq ) satisfies
q=k q(q − 1) · · · (q − k + 1)kfq kq < ∞.
Finally, we introduce the subspace D1,4 of dom(D) containing all F ∈ L4 (Ω) such that
Z
2
4
|Dx F |2 µ(dx) < ∞ ,
EkDF k1 = E
A

see Chapter 2.3 in [8] for a formal construction. Moreover, we recall that the Malliavin derivative
can be used to compute the kernels fq in the chaotic decomposition of a given functional F . Namely,
assuming that F ∈ dom(D q ) for some q ≥ 1, Stroock’s formula [8, Corollary 2.7.8] says that
(12)

fq =

1
E[D q F ] .
q!

Divergence. We write L2 (A × Ω) := L2 (A × Ω, A ⊗ F, µ ⊗ P) for the space of square-integrable
random processes u = (ux )x∈A on A. Fix such a process u ∈ L2 (A × Ω) and suppose that it satisfies
Z
E (Dx F ) ux µ(dx) ≤ c E[F 2 ]
A

for all F ∈ dom(D) and some constant c > 0 that is allowed to depend on u. We denote the class of
such processes by dom(δ) and define for u ∈ dom(δ) the divergence δ(u) of u by the duality relation
Z
F ∈ dom(D) .
E[F δ(u)] = E (Dx F ) ux µ(dx) ,
A

4

That is, δ is the operator which is adjoint to the Malliavin derivative D.
The divergence can also be defined in terms of chaotic decompositions. Suppose that u ∈ dom(δ) such
that ux ∈ L2 (A × Ω) for all x ∈ A. Then there are kernels fq ∈ L2 (Aq+1 ), q ≥ 0, such that
ux =

∞
X
q=0

Iq (fq (x, · )) ,

x ∈ A,

and fq (x, · ) ∈ L2sym (Aq ). Moreover, u ∈ dom(δ) if and only if
δ(u) is given by
δ(u) =

∞
X

∞
P

(q + 1)!kf˜q k2 < ∞ and in this case

q=0

Iq+1 (f˜q ) ,

q=0

where
f˜q (x1 , . . . , xq+1 ) :=

X
1
f (xπ(1) , . . . , xπ(q+1) )
(q + 1)! π

denotes the canonical symmetrization of fq ∈ L2 (Aq+1 ) with the sum running over all permutations
π of {1, . . . , q + 1}.
Ornstein-Uhlenbeck generator and its pseudo-inverse.
functional with chaos decomposition as at (10) and define
LF := −

∞
X

Let F ∈ L2 (Ω) be a square integrable

qIq (fq ) ,

q=0

whenever the series converges in L2 (Ω). The domain dom(L) of L is the set of those F ∈ L2 (Ω) for
∞
P
which
q 2 q!kfq k2q < ∞. The operator L is called the generator of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup
q=1

associated with the Gaussian random measure on A having control measure µ. By L−1 we denote its
pseudo-inverse acting on centred F ∈ L2 (Ω) as follows:
(13)

L−1 F := −

∞
X
1
q=1

q

Iq (fq ) .

For non-centred F ∈ L2 (Ω) we put L−1 F := L−1 (F − E[F ]). Clearly, for centred F ∈ dom(L) one has
that LL−1 F = L−1 LF = F . Moreover, the operators D, δ and L are related by
δ(DF ) = −LF ,

F ∈ dom(L) .

In fact, according to [12, Proposition 1.4.8], F ∈ dom(L) is equivalent to F ∈ dom(D) and DF ∈
dom(δ).

3

A quantitative central limit theorem

Let W be an isonormal Gaussian process defined on a probability space (Ω, F, P) and over a Hilbert
space H as in the previous section. Further, let F ∈ L2 (Ω). Then, as we have seen above, F admits
the chaos decomposition
(14)

F =

∞
X
q=0

with h0 = E[F ] and kernels hq ∈ H⊙q , q ≥ 1.
5

Iq (hq )

Our aim is to measure the distance between F and a centred Gaussian random variable with the
same variance as F . We do this in terms of different probability metrics. To define them, recall that a
collection Φ of measurable functions ϕ : R → R is said to be separating if for any two random variables
Y and Y ′ , E[ϕ(Y )] = E[ϕ(Y ′ )] for all ϕ ∈ Φ with E[ϕ(Y )], E[ϕ(Y ′ )] < ∞ implies that Y and Y ′ are
identically distributed. For such a class of functions Φ we define the probability metric dΦ by putting
dΦ (Y, Y ′ ) := sup E[ϕ(Y )] − E[ϕ(Y ′ )] ,
ϕ∈Φ

where Y and Y ′ are random variables satisfying E[ϕ(Y )], E[ϕ(Y ′ )] < ∞ for all ϕ ∈ Φ. Examples for
such probability metrics are
• the total variation distance dT V := dΦT V , where ΦT V = {1B : B ⊂ R a Borel set},
• the Kolmogorov distance dK := dΦK , where ΦK = {1(−∞,x] : x ∈ R},
• the Wasserstein distance dW := dΦW , where ΦW is the class of Lipschitz functions ϕ : R → R
with kϕkLip ≤ 1, where kϕkLip := sup{|ϕ(x) − ϕ(y)|/|x − y| : x, y ∈ R, x 6= y},
• the bounded Wasserstein distance dbW := dΦbW , in which case ΦbW is the class of functions
ϕ : R → R with kϕkLip + khk∞ ≤ 1, where kϕk∞ := sup{|ϕ(x)| : x ∈ R}.

If F is as above and such that E[F ] = 0, and Z ∼ N (0, σ 2 ) with σ 2 := E[F 2 ] denotes a Gaussian
random variable, the main result of the seminal paper [7] (see also Chapter 5 in [8]) provides an
upper bound for dΦ (F, Z) by combining Stein’s method for normal approximation with the Malliavin
formalism as introduced in Section 2. Here, dΦ ∈ {dT V , dK , dW , dbW } is one of the four probability
distances introduced above. We use this bound to provide an estimate for dΦ (F, Z) in terms of the
kernels hq appearing in the chaotic representation (14) of F .
Theorem 3.1. Let F ∈ L2 (Ω) be centred and such that E[F 2 ] = σ 2 > 0 and F ∈ D1,4 . Let Z ∼
N (0, σ 2 ) be a centred Gaussian random variable with variance σ 2 and denote by hq ∈ H⊙q , q ≥ 0, the
kernels in the chaotic decomposition (14) of F . Then,


p−1
∞
p − 1 2p
cX X
(2(p − r))! khp ⊗r hp kH⊗2(p−r)
(r − 1)!
p
dbW (F, Z) ≤ dW (F, Z) ≤
r−1
σ
p=1 r=1
(15)



min(p,q)
∞
X
p−1 q−1 p
c X
p
(r − 1)!
(p + q − 2r)! khp ⊗r hq kH⊗p+q−2r
+
σ p,q=1
r−1 r−1
p6=q

r=1

p
with c = 2/π. In addition, if F has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure on R, then
the same bound also holds with c = 2/σ in case of the total variation distance and c = 1/σ for the
Kolmogorov distance.
Remark 3.2. The combination of Stein’s method with techniques from Malliavin calculus has also
been applied to functionals of Poisson random measures. In this context, a limit theorem that has
the same spirit as our Theorem 3.1 was derived in [5] and, in fact, it was this paper that inspired
us to consider a similar question for Gaussian functionals. Also our proof follows the principal idea
developed in [5]. However, since such functionals are much easier from a combinatorial point of view,
Theorem 3.1 has a much more neat form compared to its Poissonian analogue in [5].
Remark 3.3. By applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have for hp ∈ H⊙p , hq ∈ H⊙q , p, q ≥ 1,
the estimate
q
khp ⊗r hq kH⊗p+q−2r ≤ khp ⊗p−r hp kH⊗2r khq ⊗q−r hq kH⊗2r
(16)

1
(17)
≤ khp ⊗p−r hp kH⊗2r + khq ⊗q−r hq kH⊗2r
2

1
= khp ⊗r hp kH⊗2(p−r) + khq ⊗r hq kH⊗2(q−r) ,
2
6

see also [8, Equation (6.2.4)]. Hence, the right hand side of (15) can in principle be expressed solely
in terms of the contraction norms khp ⊗r hp kH⊗2(p−r) , p ≥ 1, r = 1, . . . , p. However, in the course of
such an approach, the term khp ⊗p hp kH⊗0 = khp k2H⊗p , p ≥ 1, shows up, which in turn is not present
in (15). This term stems from the contraction norm khp ⊗p hq kH⊗q−p , p < q, and it is precisely this
term that forces us to deal with the chaotic gap arising in the context of Theorem 4.1 below.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. To simplify our presentation it is no loss of generality to assume that H = L2 (A)
for some σ-finite non-atomic measure space (A, A, µ). In this case, we shall write k · kq instead of
k · kH⊗q for integers q ≥ 1. Moreover, in order to underline that the elements of the Hilbert space we
are dealing with are functions, we use the symbols f and g instead of h and h′ and denote the kernels
of the chaotic decomposition of F by fq ∈ L2sym (Aq ), q ≥ 0, building thereby on the notation aleady
introduced in the previous section.
We prove the result only for the unit variance case σ 2 = 1, the general result then follows by a scaling
argument exactly as in the proof of Theorem 5.1.3 in [8]. In this set-up, the same result provides an
upper bound for dW (F, Z), dbW (F, Z), dK (F, Z) and dT V (F, Z)R in terms of the Malliavin operators D
and L−1 . Formally, due to the fact that F ∈ D1,4 implies that A (Dx F )(−Dx L−1 F ) µ(dx) ∈ L2 (Ω) as
shown in Proposition 5.1.1 in [8], one has that
s
Z
2 i
h
(18)
dΦ (F, Z) ≤ cΦ E 1 − (Dx F )(−Dx L−1 F ) µ(dx
A

with

(19)

cΦ =

q
2


 π
1


2

: Φ = ΦW or Φ = ΦbW
: Φ = ΦK
: Φ = ΦT V ,

where we implicitly used the assumption that F has a density in case of the Kolmogorov and the total
variation distance, see [8]. Let us abbreviate the term under the above square-root by T (F ). Using
the variance representation (6) and the definitions (11) and (13) of D and L−1 , respectively, T (F ) can
be re-written as
 Z X
∞
∞
∞
2 
X
X
n!kfn k2n
.
Iq−1 (fq (x, · )) µ(dx) −
pIp−1 (fp (x, · ))
T (F ) = E
A p=1

Thus, applying the inequality
ated from above by
∞
X

p E

p,q=1

p

 Z

var(X + Y ) ≤

A

=

p

var

Z

A

p,q=1

p

var(X) +

p
p
var(Y ) yields that T (F ) can be estim-

Ip−1 (fp (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq (x, · )) µ(dx)
−E

∞
X

n=1

q=1

Z

A

2 
Ip−1 (fp (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq (x, · )) µ(dx)

!
 1/2
,
Ip−1 (fp (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq (x, · )) µ(dx)

!1/2

where we used the Itô isometry (5) to get an alternative expression for the term
we compute the variance, using that

Z
Ip−1 (fp (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq (x, · )) µ(dx) = T1 (F ) − T2 (F )2
var
A

7

∞
P

n=1

n!kfn k2n . Next,

with T1 (F ) and T2 (F ) given by
Z Z


E Ip−1 (fp (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq (x, · ))Ip−1 (fp (y, · ))Iq−1 (fq (y, · )) µ(dy)µ(dx)
T1 (F ) :=
A

A

and

T2 (F ) := E

Z

A

Ip−1 (fp (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq (x, · )) µ(dx) .

To compute T1 (F ) we use twice the multiplication formula (8) together with the stochastic Fubini
theorem [13, Theorem 5.13.1] and the isometry property (5). We obtain that





Z Z " min(p−1,q−1)
min(p−1,q−1)
X
X
p−1 q−1 p−1 q−1
E
r!s!
T1 (F ) =
r
r
s
s
A A
r=0
s=0
#
× Ip+q−2(r+1) (fp (x, · ) ⊗r fq (x, · ))Ip+q−2(s+1) (fp (y, · ) ⊗s fq (y, · )) µ(dy)µ(dx)

min(p−1,q−1) min(p−1,q−1)

=

X

X

r=0

s=0






p−1 q−1 p−1 q−1
r!s!
r
r
s
s



× E Ip+q−2(r+1) (fp ⊗r+1 fq )Ip+q−2(s+1) (fp ⊗s+1 fq )

2 

min(p,q)
X
q−1 2
2 p−1
e r fq k2p+q−2r .
=
((r − 1)!)
(p + q − 2r)! kfp ⊗
r
−
1
r
−
1
r=1

On the other hand, we have

T2 (F ) = 1(p = q)

Z

A

(p − 1)!kfp (x, · )k2p−1 µ(dx) = 1(p = q) (p − 1)!kfp k2p ,

which is just the square root of the last summand in the expression for T1 (F ) for p = q. Consequently,
combining the expressions for T1 (F ) and T2 (F ) yields
T1 (F ) − T2 (F )2


4
p−1
X
2 p−1
e r fp k22(p−r)
((r − 1)!)
(2(p − r))!kfp ⊗
= 1(p = q)
r
−
1
r=1


 

p−1 2 q−1 2
e r fq k2p+q−2r .
((r − 1)!)
(p + q − 2r)! kfp ⊗
+ 1(p 6= q)
r−1
r−1
r=1
√
√
√
Together with the elementary inequality a + b ≤ a + b, valid for all a, b ≥ 0, and the fact that,
by Jensen’s inequality, ke
g kp ≤ kgkp for all g ∈ L2 (Ap ), p ≥ 1, this implies that
min(p,q)

X

2



p−1
∞
X
X
p − 1 2p
e r fp k2(p−r)
(r − 1)!
(2(p − r))! kfp ⊗
p
dΦ (F, Z) ≤ cΦ
r−1
p=1

r=1

+ cΦ

∞
X




p−1 q−1 p
e r fq kp+q−2r
(p + q − 2r)! kfp ⊗
(r − 1)!
r−1 r−1

min(p,q)

p

X
r=1

p,q=1
p6=q



p−1
∞
X
X
p − 1 2p
(r − 1)!
≤ cΦ
p
(2(p − r))! kfp ⊗r fp k2(p−r)
r−1
p=1 r=1
+ cΦ

∞
X

p,q=1
p6=q




p−1 q−1 p
(r − 1)!
(p + q − 2r)! kfp ⊗r fq kp+q−2r .
r−1 r−1

min(p,q)

p

X
r=1

The proof is thus complete.
8

R
Remark 3.4. It appears that the formula for the scalar product A (Dx F )(−Dx L−1 F ) µ(dx) has
already been computed in Equation (6.3.2) in [8]. However, it has not been used in [8] to derive a
quantitative central limit theorem.
Note that the assumption F ∈ D1,4 in Theorem 3.1 justifies the inequality at (18), but does not
necessarily imply that the sums on the right hand side of (15) converge. For this to hold, extra
assumptions are needed. However, it turns out that they are not too restrictive in the applications we
have in mind, see Theorem 4.1.
Let us briefly consider two special cases, namely that F belongs to a single Wiener chaos or to a
finite sum of Wiener chaoses. Here, the result reduces to Proposition 3.2 or Proposition 3.7 in [7],
respectively. Note that in these cases [8, Theorem 2.10.1] ensures that the functional F has a density
with respect to the Lebesgue measure on R. Moreover, one easily verifies that F ∈ D1,4 . For simplicity
we decided to restrict to the unit variance case only, which is, as explained above, no restriction of
generality.
Corollary 3.5. Let Z be a centred Gaussian random variable with unit variance and let dΦ be one of
the probability metrics dT V , dK , dW or dbW .
(a) If F = Iq (h) for some integer q ≥ 2 and an element h ∈ H⊙q such that E[F 2 ] = 1. Then there
is a constant c1 ∈ (0, ∞) only depending on q and the choice of the probability metric such that
dΦ (F, Z) ≤ c1

max

r=1,...,q−1

kh ⊗r hkH⊗2(q−r) .

(b) If F = Iq1 (h1 ) + . . . + Iqn (hn ) for integers n, q1 , . . . , qn ≥ 1 and elements hi ∈ H⊙qi , i = 1, . . . , n,
such that E[F 2 ] = 1. Then there are constants c1 , c2 ∈ (0, ∞) only depending on q1 , . . . , qn and
on the choice of the probability metric such that
dΦ (F, Z) ≤ c1

4
4.1

max

r=1,...,qi −1
i=1,...,n

khi ⊗r hi k + c2

max

r=1,...,min(qi ,qj )
1≤i<j≤n

khi ⊗r hj k .

Application to Gaussian processes
The Breuer-Major Theorem

Let (an )n∈N , (bn )n∈N be two positive sequences. Then we write an . bn if an /bn is bounded, and
an ∼ bn whenever an . bn and bn . an .
Consider a one-dimensional centred and stationary Gaussian process X = (Xk )k∈Z with unit variance
and a covariance function
(20)

ρ(j) = E[X1 X1+j ] ,

j ∈ Z.

In what follows we will assume that
|ρ(j)| ∼ |j|−α

(21)

for some α > 0. Recall that the Cauchy-Schwarz implies that |ρ(j)| ≤ ρ(0) = 1 for all j ∈ Z. For
technical reasons, we assume that for any n ≥ 1 the vector (X1 , . . . , Xn ) is jointly Gaussian with
a non-degenerate covariance matrix. As an example, one can think of X being obtained from the
increments of a fractional Brownian motion B H = (BtH )t∈R with Hurst parameter H ∈ (0, 1), that is,
H − B H for all k ∈ Z. In that case
Xk = Bk+1
k
ρ(j) =


1
|j + 1|2H + |j − 1|2H − 2|j|2H
2

and thus (21) is satisfied with α = 2 − 2H, see Chapter 7.4 in [8].
9

Let g : R → R be a non-constant measurable function with E|g(X1 )|2 < ∞ and consider the partial
sum
n

1 X
Fn = √
{g(Xk ) − E[g(Xk )]} ,
n

(22)

n ∈ N.

k=1

We will assume that g has Hermite rank equal to m ∈ N. That is, for each polynomial p : R → R with
degree ∈ {1, . . . , m − 1} one has that E[(g(X1 ) − E[g(X1 )])p(X1 )] = 0 and E[g(X1 )Hm (X1 )] 6= 0, where
Hm is the mth Hermite polynomial. The Hermite rank can also be described in a different manner.
Namely, due to the moment condition E|g(X1 )|2 < ∞, g has the following Hermite expansion:
g(x) − E[g(X1 )] =

(23)

∞
X

cq Hq (x)

with

q=1

cq =

1
E[g(X1 )Hq (X1 )] .
q!

For g to have Hermite rank m means that cq = 0 for all q ∈ {1, . . . , m − 1} and that cm 6= 0. (The
existence of such an m is implied by the fact that g is non-constant.)
It turns out that the rates in Theorem 4.1 below do not only depend on α and the Hermite rank m,
but also on a quantity γ ∈ N ∪ {∞} that we call the chaotic gap of g. Roughly speaking, it is the
minimal distance between two active chaoses a functional lives in. More precisely, if cq = 0 for all
q 6= m, we set γ = ∞. If there is a p ≥ 1 such that cp 6= 0 and cp+1 6= 0, we set γ = 1. Otherwise,
γ ≥ 2 and it is uniquely characterized by the following two conditions:
(i) for all q ≥ 1: if cq 6= 0 then cq+1 = · · · = cq+γ−1 = 0,
(ii) there exists p ≥ 1 such that cp 6= 0 and cp+γ 6= 0.
Of course, if g = Hq for some q ≥ 1, then m = q and γ = ∞. Also if g is a linear combination of
Hermite polynomials, one can directly determine the rank and the chaotic gap. More general examples
involve even and odd functions, both having a chaotic gap of γ = 2, and the exponential function
having a chaotic gap of γ = 1. Another interesting example is the indicator function g = 1[0,∞) , which
satisfies m = 1 and γ = 2.
Using the parameters α, γ and m we can now formulate our quantitative central limit theorem for the
random variables Fn defined at (22).
Theorem 4.1. Let g : R → R be a measurable and non-constant function. Suppose that E|g(X1 )|2 <
∞, E|g((2 + ε)X1 )|2 < ∞ for some ε > 0, that g has Hermite rank equal to m ≥ 2, that ρ(0) = 1 and
that |ρ(j)| ∼ |j|−α for some α > 1/m. Further, denote by γ ∈ N ∪ {∞} the chaotic gap of g and let
Z be a standard Gaussian variable. Then the following assertions are true for each of the probability
metrics dΦ ∈ {dW , dbW } and also for dT V and dK in the case that Fn has a density with respect to the
Lebesgue measure on R.
(a) If m = 2 and γ = 1 it holds that

(24)

dΦ

F
p n
,Z
var(Fn )

(b) If m = 2 and γ ≥ 2 it holds that
(25)

dΦ

p

Fn
var(Fn )

,Z

!

!


−1/2

n

1
−α/2
× n
.
var(Fn ) 

n1−2α
1
.
×
var(Fn )

10

( −1/2
n

n1−2α

: α > 1



: α > 43



:α∈

:α∈

:α∈

2
,1
3 i
1 2
2, 3 .

1 3
2, 4

.

(c) If m ≥ 3 and γ = 1 it holds that
(26)

dΦ



n−1/2

!


1
F
−α/2
p n
,Z .
× n

var(F
)
var(Fn )
n


n1−mα

(d) If m ≥ 3 and γ ≥ 2 it holds that
(27)

dΦ

F
p n
,Z
var(Fn )

Moreover, as n → ∞, one has that
2

!



n−1/2


1
−α
.
× n
var(Fn ) 

n1−mα

var(Fn ) → σ := var(g(X1 )) + 2

∞
X
k=1

: α > 1



: α > 21



:α∈

:α∈

:α∈
:α∈

1
1 ,1
 m− 2
1
1
m , m− 1
2

i

.

1
,1
 m−1 2 
1
1
m , m−1 .

cov[g(X1 ), g(X1+k )] ∈ [0, ∞) .

Remark 4.2. In Theorem 4.1 we have excluded some boundary cases, for example in part (b) the
case that α = 3/4. It is possible to fill these gaps and to derive rates of convergence, which involve
logarithmic terms. For sake of simplicity we have excluded them from our discussion.
Let us briefly comment on the assumptions made in Theorem 4.1. At first, one might wonder whether
the condition E|g((2+ε)X1 )|2 < ∞ for some ε > 0 is already implied by the condition that E|g(X1 )|2 <
∞. Whilst this is true for many choices of g such as g(x) = |x|p , this is not generally the case as the
following example shows. Due to our assumptions, X1 ∼ N (0, 1) has a standard Gaussian distribution
and we observe that
(
Z ∞
√ 1
 aX 2 
: a < 21
1
2
1
(a−
)x
1−2a
e 2 dx =
M (a) := E e 1 = √
2π −∞
∞
: a ≥ 12 .

√
2
Thus, taking g(x) := ex /8 we conclude that E|g(X1 )|2 = M (1/4) = 2, while E|g((2 + ε)X1 )|2 =
M (1 + ε + ε2 /4) = ∞ for all ε > 0. Moreover, the motivation to impose the moment condition
E|g((2 + ε)X1 )|2 < ∞ for some ε > 0 is to ensure the convergence of the corresponding sums in (15),
thus also implying that hDFn , −DLFn iH ∈ L2 (Ω) such that one can formally apply Theorem 3.1. As
a consequence and in contrast to Section 6 in [11], we do not need moment assumptions involving
derivatives of g such as E|g′ (X1 )|4 < ∞, which would in turn imply that Fn ∈ D1,4 . Hence, we
can dispense with additional smoothness or regularity assumptions on g and are able to handle even
non-continuous choices of g.
Theorem 4.1 also raises the question under which conditions the partial sums Fn have a density with
respect to the Lebesgue measure on the real line. To give an answer to this question which goes
beyond the (somehow restrictive) conditions of the transformation theorem for densities, we introduce
the notion of a 0-measure-preserving map. A measurable function f : R → R is called 0-measurepreserving if for all Lebesgue null sets B ⊂ R also the preimage f −1 (B) ⊂ R is a Lebesgue null set.
Using the technical assumption that (X1 , . . . , Xn ) is jointly Gaussian with a non-degenerate covariance
matrix, it turns out that Fn has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure on R if and only if
g is 0-measure-preserving. An argument is given in the Appendix. Examples of functions g where Fn
has no density are given by locally constant functions, including, for example, the case of indicator
functions. In turn, the power function g(x) = |x|p is 0-measure-preserving such that the functionals
considered in Subsection 4.2 below possess a density for any choice of p > 0.
Some parts of the proof that involve convolutions of sequences with finite support and require an
application of Young’s inequality are inspired by [3]. We write ℓp (Z) for the space of sequences
11


P
p 1/p < ∞ if p ∈ [1, ∞) and kuk ∞
u = (uk )k∈Z such that kukℓp (Z) :=
ℓ (Z) := supk∈Z |uk | < ∞
k∈Z |uk |
if p = ∞. Now, recall that the convolution of two sequences u, v on Z with finite support is defined as
X
(u ∗ v)(k) :=
u(j)v(k − j) ,
k ∈ Z,
j∈Z

and that u ∗ v has again a finite support. Due to Young’s inequality, it holds that for 1 ≤ p, q, r ≤ ∞
with 1/p + 1/q = 1 + 1/r,
ku ∗ vkℓr (Z) ≤ kukℓp (Z) kvkℓq (Z)

(28)

for sequences u and v with finite support.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. It is no loss of generality to assume that E[g(X1 )] = 0. Then, since g is assumed
to have Hermite rank equal to m, we have the unique Hermite expansion
(29)

g(x) =

∞
X

cq Hq (x)

with

cq =

q=m

1
E[g(X1 )Hq (X1 )] ,
q!

P
where the sum converges in the L2 -sense, meaning that E|g(X1 ) − nq=m cq Hq (X1 )|2 → 0, as n → ∞.
Moreover due to our assumption that E|g((2 + ε)X1 )|2 < ∞ and thanks to (4), we have that
∞
X

(30)

q=m

q! c2q (2 + ε)2q < ∞ ,

see e.g. [8, Proposition 1.4.2].
The next is to observe that one can consider the Gaussian process X = (Xk )k∈Z as a subset of an
isonormal Gaussian process {W (h) : h ∈ H}, say, where H is a real separable Hilbert space with
scalar product h · , · iH . This means that for every k ∈ Z there exists an element hk ∈ H such that
Xk = W (hk ) and, consequently,
hhk , hℓ iH = ρ(k − ℓ)

(31)

for all

k, ℓ ∈ Z ,

see [8, Proposition 7.2.3] for details. Using P
that for h ∈ H, Iq (h⊗q ) = Hq (W (h)) (Hq is again the qth
⊗q
Hermite polynomial), we see that g(Xk ) = ∞
q=m cq Iq (hk ) and hence
(32)

Fn =

∞
X

n

Iq (fq,n )

with

fq,n

q=m

cq X ⊗q
=√
hk ∈ H⊙q .
n
k=1

For p, q ≥ m and r = 1, . . . , min(p, q) we compute
kfq,n k2H⊗q

n
c2q X
=
ρq (k − ℓ) ,
n

fp,n ⊗r fq,n =
kfp,n ⊗r fq,n k2H⊗p+q−2r =
Since

P

q
k∈Z |ρ(k)|

k,ℓ=1
n
cp cq X

n

c2p c2q
n2

ρr (k − ℓ) [h⊗p−r
⊗ hℓ⊗q−r ] ,
k

k,ℓ=1
n
X

i,j,k,ℓ=1

ρr (i − j)ρr (k − ℓ) ρp−r (i − k)ρq−r (j − ℓ) .

< ∞ for all q ≥ m, one has by dominated convergence that

kfq,n k2H⊗q = c2q

n−1
X

k=−(n−1)

X
X
n − |k| q
|ρ(k)|m < ∞ ,
ρq (k) ≤ c2q
ρ (k) → c2q
n
k∈Z

12

k∈Z

as n → ∞. With respect to the summability condition (30) and the variance representation (6), this
implies that, as n → ∞,
(33)

∞
X

σn2 := var(Fn ) =

q=m

q!kfq,n k2 → σ 2 :=

∞
X

q=m

q! c2q

X
k∈Z

ρq (k) ∈ [0, ∞) .

In view of our main bound (15) we need to compute the asymptotic order of the quantity
(34)

1
An (p, q, r) := 2
n

n
X

i,j,k,ℓ=1

|ρ(i − j)|r |ρ(k − ℓ)|r |ρ(i − k)|p−r |ρ(j − ℓ)|q−r ,

p, q ≥ m

for r = 1, . . . , min(p, q) if p 6= q and for r = 1, . . . , q − 1 if p = q. We assume without loss of generality
that p ≤ q and distinguish two cases. First, let r = 1, . . . , p − 1. Then
An (p, q, r) ≤ An (p, p, r) = An (p, p, p − r) ≤ An (m, m, min(r, p − r, m − 1)) .
Second, assume that m ≤ r = p < q such that there exists some integer t ≥ 1 with p + t = q. Note
that we only have to consider those cases where t is greater than or equal to the chaotic gap γ. Then
An (p, q, p) ≤ An (m, m + t, m) ≤ An (m, m + γ, m) .
By index shifting, one obtains
An (p, q, r) =

1
n2

n−1
X

i,j,k,ℓ=0

|ρ(|i − j|)|r |ρ(|k − ℓ|)|r |ρ(|i − k|)|p−r |ρ(|j − ℓ|)|q−r

n−1 n−1−ℓ n−1−j n−1−ℓ
1 X X X X
= 2
|ρ(|i|)|r |ρ(|k|)|r |ρ(|i + j − k|)|p−r |ρ(|j|)|q−r
n
ℓ=0 j=−l

≤

1 X
n

i=−j

n−1−j
X

k=−ℓ

X

|j|≤n−1 i=−j |k|≤n−1

|ρ(|i|)|r |ρ(|k|)|r |ρ(|k − (i + j)|)|p−r |ρ(|j|)|q−r .

This means that in the second case we get

(35)

!2
X
1 X
|ρ(j)|γ
An (p, p + t, p) ≤ An (m, m + γ, m) ≤
|ρ(k)|m
n
k∈Z
|j|≤n−1
(
n−1
: α > γ1
.
n−αγ : α < γ1 .

Now, let us come back to the first case and let r = 1, . . . , m − 1. For any integer s ≥ 1 introduce the
truncated sequence
ρs,n (k) = |ρ(k)|s 1(|k| ≤ n − 1) .

(36)

Then, using again a careful index shifting, we see that
An (m, m, r) =

1
n2

n−1
X

i,j,k,ℓ=0

ρr,n (|i − j|)ρr,n (|k − ℓ|)ρm−r,n (|i − k|)ρm−r,n (|j − ℓ|)

n−1
1 X
(ρr,n ∗ ρm−r,n )(|i − j|)2
n2
i,j=0
1 X
(ρr,n ∗ ρm−r,n )(j)2
≤
n

≤

|j|≤n−1

≤

1
kρr,n ∗ ρm−r,n k2ℓ2 (Z) .
n

13

Now, we apply Young’s inequality (28) to derive a rate for kρr,n ∗ ρm−r,n k2ℓ2 (Z) . For m = 2 it holds
that

3 (
X
1
: α > 43
|ρ(k)|4/3  .
kρ1,n ∗ ρ1,n k2ℓ2 (Z) ≤ kρ1,n k4ℓ4/3 (Z) = 
n3−4α : α < 43
|k|≤n−1
and if m > 2 we find that

kρr,n ∗ ρm−r,n k2ℓ2 (Z) ≤ kρr,n k2ℓ2 (Z) kρm−r,n k2ℓ1 (Z) .
Moreover,
(37)

kρr,n k2ℓ2 (Z)

(38)

kρm−r,n k2ℓ1 (Z)

(
1
1
: α > 2r
=
|ρ(k)|2r .
1
n1−2rα : α < 2r
,
|k|≤n−1

2 (
X
1
|ρ(k)|m−r  .
=
n2−2(m−r)α
|k|≤n−1
X

:α>
:α<

1
m−r
1
m−r

.

Consequently, by changing the roles of ρr,n and ρm−r,n , one has the estimate
kρr,n ∗ ρm−r,n k2ℓ2 (Z) ≤

max

r=1,...,[(m−1)/2]




1
. n1−2α


n3−2mα

In summary, we arrive at the bounds

(
n−1
An (2, 2, 1) .
n2−4α

(39)


−1


n
An (m, m, r) . n−2α


n2−2mα

(40)

kρr,n k2ℓ2 (Z) kρm−r,n k2ℓ1 (Z)

: α > 12

:α∈

:α<

1
1
m−1 , 2
1
m−1 .

:α>
:α<

3
4
3
4



,

: α > 21

:α∈

:α<

1
1
m−1 , 2
1
m−1 .



Now, one can plug-in the estimates into the right hand side of (15) and obtain by defining An :=
1/2
maxr=1,...,[(m−1)/2] An (m, m, r) + An (m, m + γ, m)
that


p−1
∞
X
X
p − 1 2p
(r − 1)!
p
(2(p − r))!
r−1
p=m r=1
+

∞
X

p,q=m
p6=q

An
≤ 2
σn
(41)

X
∞

+

p=m

∞
X

p,q=m
p6=q

fp,n
σn

⊗r

fp,n
σn

2(p−r)




p−1 q−1 p
(p + q − 2r)!
(r − 1)!
r−1 r−1

min(p,q)

p

X
r=1

c2p p



p−1
X
p − 1 2p
(2(p − r))!
(r − 1)!
r−1
r=1
X
r=1

⊗r

fq,n
σn





p−1 q−1 p
(p + q − 2r)! .
(r − 1)!
r−1 r−1

min(p,q)

|cp ||cq | p

fp,n
σn

14

p+q−2r

The claim follows upon proving that the two sums in the brackets converge. Put
(42)

B1 (p) :=



p−1
X
p − 1 2p
(2(p − r))! ,
(r − 1)!
r−1
r=1

note that due to (30), the first sum converges provided that B1 (p) . (p − 1)! 4p . (p − 1)! (2 + ε)2p .
However, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, Vandermonde’s identity for binomial coefficients and
Stirling’s formula, we see that
 !1/2
p−1 
X
p−1 2



p−1 
X
B1 (p)
p − 1 2(p − r) 1/2
=
≤
(p − 1)! r=1 r − 1
p−r

r=1

r−1

!

1/2 X
p−1   1/2
2(p − 1)
2r
=
−1
p−1
r
r=1


p−1
2(p − 1)
4
≤ (p − 1)1/2
∼ √ .
p−1
π


!1/2
p−1 
X
2(p − r)
r=1

p−r

To show that the sum in (41) converges, it is sufficient to prove that
(43)

∞
X




p−1 q−1 p
(p + q − 2r)! < ∞ ,
(r − 1)!
r−1 r−1

min(p,q)

(c2p

p,q=m
p6=q

+

c2q ) p

X
r=1

thanks to the inequality ab ≤ a2 + b2 , valid for all a, b ∈ R. To this end, observe that for p ≥ m + 1,
again by Stirling’s formula,



p−1 q−1 p
(p + q − 2r)!
(r − 1)!
r−1 r−1
q=m r=1
q
p−1 X
X

≤ (p − 1)!
≤ (p − 1)!



q 
p−1 X
X
q − 1 2(p − r) 1/2

q=m r=1

r−1


p−1 
X
2(q − 1) 1/2

p−r

1/2

q
q−1


3/2 2(p − 1)
≤ (p − 1)! (p − 1)
p−1
p−1
4
∼ (p − 1)! (p − 1) √
π
2p−2
(2 + ε)
√
. (p − 1)!
,
π
q=m



2(p − 1)
p−1

1/2

for any ε > 0, which implies (43) in view of (30). Thus, one can formally apply Theorem 3.1 such
that there is a constant C ∈ (0, ∞) only depending on the class Φ and g (or more specifically on the
sequence (cq )q∈N ) such that


An
Fn
,Z ≤ C 2 .
dΦ
σn
σn
The proof is complete.
P
Remark 4.3. If c2q 6= 0 for some q ≥ 1, it follows immediately that kf2q,n k2 → c22q k∈Z ρ2q (k) > 0,
as n → ∞, and hence σ 2 > 0. As a consequence, we see that in this situation, the variance of Fn has
no influence on the rates in Theorem 4.1.
15

Remark 4.4. The chaotic gap γ of the function g is visible in Theorem 4.1 only in the case γ = 1.
As our proof shows, this is just a coincidence, since for γ = 2 the terms involving the chaotic gap are
of the same size as the other leading terms and for γ > 2 become even subdominant in our situation.
Consequently, for γ ≥ 2 one gets exactly the same rates as for γ = ∞, and the rates in Theorem 4.1
coincide with the rates given in [3, Proposition 2.15].
Let us finally in this section consider the set-up of Theorem 4.1 in the special case that g has Hermite
rank m = 1 (which has been excluded in
pthe statement). Clearly, if g is linear (so m = 1 and γ = ∞),
Fn is already centred Gaussian and Fn / var(Fn ) coincides in distribution with the standard Gaussian
random variable Z. However, an inspection of the proof of Theorem 4.1 shows that for non-linear g
with m = 1 and arbitrary chaotic gap 1 ≤ γ < ∞ the leading term in (15) is kf1,n ⊗1 f1+γ,n k, which
finally yields a rate of convergence of order n−1/2 as long as α > 1 = 1/m.

4.2

Power variations of the fractional Brownian motion and processes from the
Cauchy class

We build on the example we have seen in the previous section and let again X = (Xk )k∈Z be a onedimensional centred and stationary Gaussian process with unit variance and with covariance function
ρ such that the assumption (21) is satisfied. Moreover, we assume again that for any n ≥ 1 the vector
(X1 , . . . , Xn ) is jointly Gaussian with a non-degenerate covariance matrix. As function g we take now
(44)

g(x) := |x|p − µp ,

p > 0,

where

µp = E|X1 |p .

In this situation, our random variable Fn defined by (22) becomes a so-called (centred) power variation
of the Gaussian process X. The asymptotic behaviour of these functionals has attracted considerable
interest in probability theory and mathematical statistics, see [2, 3], for example, as well as the
references cited therein.
Now, we notice that unless in the special case p = 2 of the quadratic variation, the Hermite expansion
of the function g at (44) is not finite. Moreover, since g is an even function it holds that the Hermite
rank of g is m = 2 and, if p 6= 2, that the chaotic gap is γ = 2. Consequently, part (b) of Theorem 4.1
applies. (Note also that E|g(X1 )|2 = µ2p < ∞ and E|g((2 + ε)X1 )|2 < ∞.)
Instead of repeating the bounds, let us consider a more concrete situation. We assume that the
Gaussian process X = (Xk )k∈Z is obtained from the increments of a fractional Brownian motion
B H = (BtH )t∈R with Hurst parameter H ∈ (0, 1). Let us recall that this means that B H is a centred
Gaussian process in continuous time with covariance function given by
E[BsH BtH ] =


1
|s|2H + |t|2H − |s − t|2H ,
2

s, t ∈ R ,

H − B H for all k ∈ Z. Then X has covariance function
and that Xk = Bk+1
k

ρ(j) =


1
|j + 1|2H + |j − 1|2H − 2|j|2H
2

and (21) is satisfied with α = 2 − 2H. Moreover, since (X1 , . . . , Xn ) possesses a non-degenerate
covariance function,
n
1 X
Fn = √
{|Xk |p − µp }
n
k=1

has a density and moreover, it is known that var(Fn ) converges, as n → ∞, to a positive and finite
constant; see Remark 4.3. Thus, the following result is a direct consequence of Theorem 4.1.
Corollary 4.5. Let dΦ be one of the probability distances dT V , dK , dW or dbW . Then
! (

n−1/2 : H ∈ 0, 85
Fn

.
dΦ p
n4H−3 : H ∈ 85 , 34 .
var(Fn )
16

To the best of our knowledge, the previous corollary is the only known result showing that for general
power variations with p > 0 the speed of convergence in the central limit theorem is universal. By this
we mean that the rate we obtain for general p > 0 coincides with the known rate for the quadratic
variation functional, where p = 2. This should also be compared with the discussion in Remark 4.4
and especially with the result in [3, Proposition 2.15].
Remark 4.6. We emphasize that for H > 3/4 the fluctuations of Fn are no more Gaussian, while for
the boundary case H = 3/4 one can derive a logarithmic rate of convergence. However and as already
discussed in Remark 4.2, we will not pursue this direction in the present paper.
Another flexible and prominent class of random processes X = (Xk )k∈Z to which our theory applies are
the members of the so-called Cauchy class. These processes are centred Gaussian and their covariance
function is given by
ρ(j) = (1 + |j|β )−α/β ,
j ∈ Z,
where the parameters α and β have to satisfy α > 0 and β ∈ (0, 2], see [2]. It is clear that these
processes satisfy the assumptions made in the previous secion and that Theorem 4.1 can be applied.
This shows that, if α > 1/2, the normalized power variations Fn with parameter p > 0 satisfy the
quantitative central limit theorem
! (
n−1/2 : α > 43
Fn

.
dΦ p
n1−2α : α ∈ 12 , 34 ,
var(Fn )
where dΦ can be any of the probability distances dT V , dK , dW or dbW , adding thereby to the limit
theorems developed in [2]. Again, the rate of convergence is universal and does not depend on the
choice of the power p.

4.3

Functionals of Gaussian subordinated processes in continuous time revisited

Finally, we apply our methods to functionals of Gaussian subordinated processes in continuous time.
More precisely, we revisit the example from Section 6 in [11] and show that the rate of convergence
there can be improved by our methods, confirming thereby the conjecture made in Remark 6.2 in
[11]. That is, we consider a centred Gaussian process X = (Xt )t∈R in continuous time with stationary
increments. For example, X could be a (two-sided) fractional Brownian motion. The covariance
function of X is defined by ρ(u − v) := E[(Xu+1 − Xu )(Xv+1 − Xv )], u, v ∈ R. It is clear that X might
be considered as a suitable isonormal Gaussian process, see Example 2.1.5 in [8].
Let g : R → R be a non-constant and measurable function and fix two real numbers a < b. For any
T > 0 define the functional
Z bT
1
{g(Xu+1 − Xu ) − E[g(Z)]} du ,
(45)
FT = √
T aT
where Z ∼ N (0, 1) denotes a standard Gaussian random variable. To present the next result, we adopt
the .-notation for sequences to the continuous case. In particular, we shall write a(T ) . b(T ) for
two functions a, b : (0, ∞) → R if the quotient a(T )/b(T ) stays bounded for all T . For simplicity, we
restrict ourself to the case of the Wasserstein distance and do not investigate under which conditions
the functionals FT posess a density.
R
Proposition 4.7. Assume that ρ(0) = 1 and that R |ρ(u)| du < ∞. Further, suppose that g : R → R
is a non constant and measurable function, for which E|g(X1 )|2 < ∞ and E|g((2 + ε)X1 )|2 < ∞ for
some ε > 0. Then, as T → ∞, one has that
!
T −1/2
FT
,Z .
,
(46)
dW p
var(FT )
var(FT )
17

Moreover, if g is symmetric, then
dW

p

FT
var(FT )

,Z

!

. T −1/2 .

Proof. The proof is almost literally the same as that for Theorem 4.1: the sums there have to be
replaced by integrals and estimated using the integrability assumption of the covariance function,
which corresponds to the case α > 1 in the proof of Theorem 4.1. All combinatorial considerations
remain unchanged. We also remark that according to Proposition 6.3 in [11] the symmetry of the
function g implies the asymptotic variance σ 2 := var(FT ) exists in (0, ∞), see also Remark 4.3. This
leads to the second bound. We leave the details to the reader.
We would like to emphasize that the central limit theorem for FT in [11], which is based on an
application of the second-order Poincaré inequality on the Wiener space, only works under considerably
stronger smoothness assumptions on the function g. In particular, g has to be twice continuously
differentiable. In this sense, Proposition 4.7 improves and extends the result of Section 6 in [11].

5

A multivariate extension

The purpose of this final section is to provide a multivariate extension of Theorem 3.1. To this end, we
measure the distance between two d-dimensional (d ≥ 2) random vectors X and Y by the multivariate
Wasserstein distance
dmW (X, Y) := sup E[ϕ(X)] − E[ϕ(Y)] ,
where the supremum is running over all Lipschitz functions ϕ : Rd → R with Lipschitz constant less
than or equal to 1. The following result can be seen as the natural multi-dimensional generalization
of Theorem 3.1.

Theorem 5.1. Fix d ≥ 2 and let C = (Cij )di,j=1 be a positive definite d × d matrix. Suppose that
F = (F1 , . . . , Fd ) is a centred d-dimensional random vector with covariance matrix C, and such that
Fi ∈ L2 (Ω) and Fi ∈ D1,4 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , d}. Further, let Z ∼ N (0, C) be a centred Gaussian
random vector with covariance matrix C and denote for each i ∈ {1, . . . , d} and q ≥ 0 by hq,i ∈ H⊙q
the kernels of the chaotic decomposition of Fi . Then


p−1
∞
d X
X
X
p − 1 2p
(2(p − r))! khp,i ⊗r hp,j kH⊗2(p−r)
(r − 1)!
p
dmW (F, Z) ≤ c
r−1
i,j=1 p=1

+c

d
X

i,j=1

where c =

∞
X

p,q=1
p6=q

r=1




p−1 q−1 p
(p + q − 2r)! khp,i ⊗r hq,j kH⊗p+q−2r ,
(r − 1)!
r−1 r−1

min(p,q)

p

X
r=1

√
1/2
d kC −1 kop kCkop and k · kop indicates the operator norm of the argument matrix.

Proof. As in the proof of Theorem 3.1 we assume without loss of generality that H = L2 (A) for
some σ-finite non-atomic measure space (A, A, µ), write k · kq instead of k · kH⊗q and fq,i for hq,i ,
i ∈ {1, . . . , d}.
From Theorem 6.1.1 in [8] we have that
X
Z
d
2 i 12
h
√
−1
−1
1/2
dmW (F, Z) ≤ d kC kop kCkop
E Cij − (Dx Fi )(−Dx L Fj ) µ(dx)
.
A

i,j=1

The covariance representation (7) as well as the definitions (11) and (13) of D and L−1 , respectively,
imply that the expectation is bounded by
∞
∞
∞
2 i
h Z X
X
X
n!hfn,i , fn,j in
Iq−1 (fq,j (x, · )) µ(dx) −
E
pIp−1 (fi,p (x, · ))
A p=1

n=1

q=1

18

and hence
d
∞
 h Z
X
X
Ip−1 (fp,i (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq,j (x, · )) µ(dx)
p E
dmW (F, Z) ≤ c
A

i,j=1 p,q=1

−E

Z

A

2 i1/2
Ip−1 (fp,i (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq,j (x, · )) µ(dx)

∞
d
 Z
1/2
X
X
p var
Ip−1 (fp,i (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq,j (x, · )) µ(dx)
=c
A

i,j=1 p,q=1

The variance in the last expression equals T1 (F, G) − T2 (F, G)2 with
Z Z
E[Ip−1 (fp,i (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq,j (x, · ))
T1 (F, G) =
A

A

× Ip−1 (fp,i (y, · ))Iq−1 (fq,j (y, · ))] µ(dy)µ(dx)

and

Z

T2 (F, G) = E

A

Ip−1 (fp,i (x, · ))Iq−1 (fq,j (x, · )) µ(dx) .

Arguing as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we see that
min(p,q)

T1 (F, G) =

X
r=1

2

((r − 1)!)



p−1
r−1

2 

q−1
r−1

we well as

2

e r fq,j k2p+q−2r
(p + q − 2r)!kfp,i ⊗

T2 (F, G) = 1(p = q)(p − 1)!hfp,i , fp,j ip .
As a consequence, we find that
T1 (F, G) − T2 (F, G)2
= 1(p = q)

p−1
X
r=1

2

((r − 1)!)



min(p,q)

+ 1(p 6= q)

X
r=1


p−1 4
e r fp,j k22(p−r)
(2(p − r))!kfp,i ⊗
r−1
2

((r − 1)!)

and finally



 

p−1 2 q−1 2
e r fq,j k2p+q−2r
(p + q − 2r)!kfp,i ⊗
r−1
r−1



p−1
∞
d X
X
X
p − 1 2p
(r − 1)!
p
dmW (F, Z) ≤ c
(2(p − r))!kfp,i ⊗r fp,j k2(p−r)
r−1
i,j=1 p=1

+c

∞
d
X
X

i,j=1

p,q=1
p6=q

r=1




p−1 q−1 p
(p + q − 2r)!kfp,i ⊗r fq,j kp+q−2r .
(r − 1)!
r−1 r−1

min(p,q)

p

X
r=1

This completes the proof.

6

Appendix

Let B̄(Rn ) be the completion of the Borel σ-field B(Rn ) with respect to the n-dimensional Lebesgue
measure λn : B̄(Rn ) → [0, ∞]. We call a B̄(R)-measurable function f : Rn → Rn 0-measure-preserving
if λn (B) = 0 for all B ∈ B̄(Rn ) implies that λn (f −1 (B)) = 0.
19

Lemma 6.1. Let g : R → R be a B̄(R)-measurable function. For fixed n ≥ 1 define the measurable
function gn : Rn → Rn by applying g to each coordinate, that is, gn (x1 , . . . , xn ) := (g(x1 ), . . . , g(xn )),
(x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Rn . Then g is 0-measure-preserving if and only if gn is 0-measure-preserving.
Proof. If n = 1, then there is nothing to show. So, we let n > 1 and assume that g is 0-measurepreserving. Now, the assertion follows by induction on n. For this reason, it is sufficient to restrict to
the case that n = 2. For any B ∈ B̄(R2 ) and any x ∈ R we write Bx := {y ∈ R : (x, y) ∈ B}, which is
an element of B̄(R).
Choose a B ∈ B̄(R2 ) with λ2 (B) = 0. Then
Z
2
λ1 (Bx ) λ1 (dx) = 0 .
λ (B) =
R

As a consequence, the set N := {x ∈ R : λ1 (Bx ) > 0} satisfies λ1 (N ) = 0. Now, let A := g2−1 (B).
Then, for each y ∈ R, one has that
Ay = {z ∈ R : (y, z) ∈ A} = {z ∈ R : (g(y), g(z)) ∈ B}
= {z ∈ R : g(z) ∈ Bg(y) } = g −1 (Bg(y) ) .

Due to our assumptions on g it holds that {y ∈ R : λ1 (Ay ) > 0} = {y ∈ R : λ1 (Bg(y) ) > 0} = g −1 (N ),
which is a set of Lebesgue measure 0. Now, the claim follows upon observing that
Z
Z
1
1
2
λ1 (Ay ) λ1 (dy) = 0 .
λ (Ay ) λ (dy) =
λ (A) =
R

g −1 (N )

On the other hand, if gn is 0-measure-preserving, then g is also 0-measure-preserving by considering
sets of the form B1 × · · · × Bn for Bi ∈ B̄(R) where λ1 (B1 ) = · · · = λ1 (Bn ) = 0.
Lemma 6.2. Let µ be a measure on B̄(Rn ), which is equivalent to the Lebesgue measure λn and let
f : Rn → Rn be measurable function. Then µ ◦ f −1 is absolutely continuous with respect to λn if and
only if f is 0-measure-preserving.
Proof. The proof is standard.
Lemma 6.3. If a random vector (X1 , . . . , Xn ) has a density with respect to λn for some n ∈ N, then
also X1 + · · · + Xn has a density with respect to λ1 .
Proof. The claim follows by means of the transformation theorem.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Johanna F. Ziegel and Anja Mühlemann for inspiring discussions. TF acknowledges funding by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) via grant 152609.

References
[1] J.-M. Azaı̈s, F. Dalmao, and J. R. León, CLT for the zeros of classical random trigonometric
polynomials, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist., 52 (2016), pp. 804–820.
[2] O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen, J. M. Corcuera, and M. Podolskij, Power variation for
Gaussian processes with stationary increments, Stochastic Process. Appl., 119 (2009), pp. 1845–
1865.
[3] H. Biermé, A. Bonami, and J. R. León, Central limit theorems and quadratic variations in
terms of spectral density, Electron. J. Probab., 16 (2011), pp. 362–395.
20

[4] A. Estrade and J. Leon, A central limit theorem for the Euler characteristic of a Gaussian
excursion set, to appear in Ann. Probab., (2016+).
[5] D. Hug, G. Last, and M. Schulte, Second-order properties and central limit theorems for
geometric functionals of Boolean models, Ann. Appl. Probab., 26 (2016), pp. 73–135.
[6] S. Janson, Gaussian Hilbert Spaces, vol. 129 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
[7] I. Nourdin and G. Peccati, Stein’s method on Wiener chaos, Probab. Theory Related Fields,
145 (2009), pp. 75–118.
[8] I. Nourdin and G. Peccati, Normal Approximations with Malliavin Calculus - From Stein’s
Method to Universality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, new. ed., 2012.
[9] I. Nourdin and G. Peccati, The optimal fourth moment theorem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
143 (2015), pp. 3123–3133.
[10] I. Nourdin, G. Peccati, and M. Podolskij, Quantitative Breuer-Major theorems, Stochastic
Process. Appl., 121 (2011), pp. 793–812.
[11] I. Nourdin, G. Peccati, and G. Reinert, Second order Poincaré inequalities and CLTs on
Wiener space, J. Funct. Anal., 257 (2009), pp. 593–609.
[12] D. Nualart, The Malliavin Calculus and Related Topics, Probability and its Applications (New
York), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second ed., 2006.
[13] G. Peccati and M. S. Taqqu, Wiener Chaos: Moments, Cumulants and Diagrams, vol. 1 of
Bocconi & Springer Series, Springer, Milan; Bocconi University Press, Milan, 2011.

21

