Power variations and testing for co-jumps: the small noise
approach∗
Daisuke Kurisu†

arXiv:1605.02621v3 [math.ST] 20 Jun 2016

Abstract
In this paper we study the effects of noise on bipower variation (BPV), realized volatility
(RV) and testing for co-jumps in high-frequency data under the small noise framework.
We first establish asymptotic properties of BPV in this framework. In the presence of
the small noise, RV is asymptotically biased and the additional asymptotic conditional
variance term appears in its limit distribution. We also propose consistent estimator for
the asymptotic conditional variances of RV. Second, we derive the asymptotic distribution
of the test statistic proposed in Jacod and Todorov (2009) under the presence of small
noise for testing the presence of co-jumps in a two dimensional Itô semimartingale. In
contrast to the setting in Jacod and Todorov (2009), we show that the additional conditional
asymptotic variance terms appear, and propose consistent estimator for the asymptotic
conditional variances in order to make the test feasible. Simulation experiments show that
our asymptotic results give reasonable approximations in the finite sample cases.

Key Words: High-Frequency Financial Data, Market Microstructure Noise, Small Noise Asymptotics, Bipower Variation, Realized Volatility, Co-jump test.

1

Introduction

Recently, a considerable interest has been paid on estimation and testing for underlying continuous time stochastic processes based on high-frequency financial data. In the analysis of
high-frequency data, it is important to take into account the influence of market microstructure noise. The market microstructure noise captures a variety of frictions inherent in trading
processes such as bid-ask bounce and discreteness of price changes (Aı̈t-Sahalia and Yu, 2009).
There are a large number of papers on the high-frequency data analysis in the presence of noise.
For example, Zhang, Mykland and Aı̈t-Sahalia (2005), Bandi and Russel (2006) and Bibinger and
Reiss (2014) investigate the case when the log-price follows a diffusion process observed with an
additive noise. They assume that the size of noise dose not depend on the observation frequency.
To be precise, they assume that observed log-prices are of the form
(m)

Ytn
i

(1)

(m)

(m)

= Xtn + vi
i

,

i = 1, . . . , n,

m = 1, . . . , d,

(1)

(d)

where (Xt = (Xt , . . . , Xt )> )0≤t≤1 is the underlying d-dimensional continuous time log-price
(1)
(d)
process and vi = (vi , . . . , vi )> are d-dimensional i.i.d. random noise vectors of which each
component has mean 0 and constant variance independent of the process (Xt )0≤t≤1 . Zhang,
∗ This

version: June 21, 2016.
student, Graduate School of Economics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
113-0033, Japan. E-mail: dkurisu.mathstat@gmail.com
† Graduate

1

Mykland and Aı̈t-Sahalia (2005) and Bandi and Russel (2006) study the one dimensional (d = 1)
case, and Bibinger and Reiss (2014) study the multi-dimensional case. Intuitively, the assumption of the constant noise variance means that the noise is dominant to the log-price when the
observation frequency increases. In this paper, we instead assume that the effect of noise depends
on the frequency of the observation, and the observed log-prices are of the form
(m)

Ytn
i

(m)

(m)

= Xtn + n,m vi
i

,

i = 1, . . . , n,

m = 1, . . . , d,

(2)

where n = (n,1 , . . . , n,d )> is a d-dimensional nonstochastic sequence satisfying n,m ↓ 0 as
n → ∞ for each m. We call this assumption small noise. Under the small noise assumption,
the noise is vanishing as the observation frequency increases. Hence the small noise assumption
is interpreted as an intermediate assumption between the no noise assumption and the constant
noise variance assumption. Related literature that considers small noise includes Gloter and
Jacod (2001a,b), Barndorff-Nielsen, et al. (2008), Li, Xie and Zheng (2014), Li, Zhang and Li
(2015) and among others. Hansen and Lunde (2006) give an empirical evidence that the market
microstructure noise is small.
The first purpose of the paper is to investigate the effect of small noise on bipower variation
(BPV) proposed in Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2004, 2006) and the estimation of the
integrated volatility. We establish the asymptotic properties of BPV when the latent process
(Xt )0≤t≤1 is a one dimensional Itô semimaringale. We also propose procedures to estimate
integrated volatility using realized volatility (RV) and the asymptotic conditional variances which
appear in the limit distribution of RV under the small noise assumption. In contrast to the no
noise model, RV is asymptotically biased and an additional asymptotic conditional variance term
appears in its limit distribution (see also Bandi and Russel (2006), Hansen and Lunde (2006),
Li, Zhang and Li (2015), Kunitomo and Kurisu (2015) and amang others). In the recent related
literature, Li, Zhang and Li (2015) proposed the unified approach for estimating the integrated
volatility of a diffusion process when both small noise and asymptotically vanishing rounding
error are present. In this paper, we only consider the additive noise but we assume that the logprice process (Xt )0≤t≤1 is a d-dimensional Itô semimartingale which includes a diffusion process
as a special case.
The second purpose of this paper is to propose a procedure to test the existence of cojumps in two log-prices when the small noise exists. Examining whether two asset prices have
contemporaneous jumps (co-jumps) or not is one of the effective approaches toward distinguishing
between systematic and idiosyncratic jumps of asset prices and also important in option pricing
and risk management. From the empirical side, Gilder, Shackleton and Taylor (2014) investigate
co-jumps and give a strong evidence for the presence of co-jumps. Bollerslev, Todorov and
Li (2013) provide another empirical evidence for the dependence in the extreme tails of the
distribution governing jumps of two stock prices. In spite of the importance of this problem,
a testing procedure for co-jumps is not sufficiently studied. Jacod and Todorov (2009) is the
seminal paper in this literature and other important contributions include Mancini and Gobbi
(2012) and Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015). Mancini and Gobbi (2012) study the no noise
model. Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015) is a recent important contribution to co-jump test
for the model (1). Their co-jump test is based on the wild bootstrap-type approach and for
testing the null hypothesis that observed two log-prices have no co-jumps. On the other hand, a
grate variety of testing methods for detecting the presence of jumps in the one dimensional case
have been developed. See, for example, Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006), Fan and Wang
(2007), Jiang and Oomen (2008), Bollerslev, Law and Tauchen (2008), Jacod (2008), Mancini
(2009), and Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2009) for the no noise model, and Aı̈t-Sahalia, Jacod and Li
(2012) and Li (2013) for the model (1) with, conditionally on X, mutually independent noise.

2

Our idea of estimating integrated volatility and the asymptotic conditional variance of RV is
based on the SIML method developed in Kunitomo and Sato (2013) for correcting the bias of RV
and the truncation method developed in Mancini (2009). For a construction of a co-jump test,
we assume that the process (Xt )0≤t≤1 in the model (2) is a two dimensional Itô semimartingale
and investigate the asymptotic properties of the test statistic proposed in Jacod and Todorov
(2009). We show that, because of the presence of the small noise, the asymptotic distribution
of the test statistic is different from their result. In fact, the additional asymptotic conditional
variance appears in its limit distribution. We develop a fully data-driven procedure to estimate
the asymptotic variance of the test statistics based on similar technique used in the estimation
of integrated volatility and the asymptotic variance of RV.
The numerical experiments show that our proposed method gives a good approximation of
the limit distribution of RV and reasonable result for the estimation of integrated volatility. Our
proposed testing procedure of co-jumps also improves the empirical size in the presence of noise
compared with the test in Jacod and Todorov (2009).
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the theoretical settings of the
underlying Itô semimartingale and market microstructure noise. In Section 3 we investigate the
effects of noise on the asymptotic properties of BPV, and give some comments on the stable
limit theorems of RV. We also propose an estimation method of the integrated volatility in the
small noise framework. In Section 4 we study statistics related to the detection of co-jumps in
the two dimensional setting when the noise satisfy the small noise assumption. Then we propose
a testing procedure for the presence of co-jumps. In Section 5 we give estimation methods of
asymptotic conditional variances which appear in the limit theorems of RV and co-jump test
statistic studied in the previous sections. We report some simulation results in Section 6 and we
give some concluding remarks in Section 7. Proofs are collected in Appendix A.

2

Setting

We consider a continuous-time financial market in a fixed terminal time T . We set T = 1
without loss of generality. The underlying log-price is a d-dimensional Itô semimartingale. We
observe the log-price process in high-frequency contaminated by the market microstructure noise.
(0)
Let the first filtered probability space be (Ω(0) , F (0) , (Ft )t≥0 , P (0) ) on which the d-dimensional
Itô semimartingale (Xt )0≤t≤1 is defined, and let the second filtered probability space be
(1)
(Ω(1) , F (1) , (Ft )t≥0 , P (1) ) on which the market microstructure noise terms vtni are defined for
the discrete time points 0 ≤ tn1 < · · · < tnn ≤ 1. Then we consider the filtered probability space
T
(0)
(1)
(Ω, F, (Ft )t≥0 , P ) , where Ω = Ω(0) × Ω(1) , F = F (0) ⊗ F (1) and Ft = s>t Fs ⊗ Fs for
0 ≤ t ≤ s ≤ 1.
We consider the following model for the observed log-price at tni ∈ [0, 1] as
(m)

Ytn
i

(1)

(m)

(m)

= Xtn + n,m vi
i

i = 1, · · · , n,

(d)

m = 1, . . . , d,

where vn = (vn , . . . , vn )> are d-dimensional i.i.d. random noise and noise coefficient n =
(1,n , . . . , d,n )> is a sequence of d-dimensional vector which depends on sample size n and for
each m, m,n → 0. We assume that these terms satisfy Assumptions 2 and 3 described below.

3

Moreover, let X = (Xt )0≤t≤1 be an Itô semimartingale of the form
Z t
Z t
Z Z
Xt = X0 +
bs ds +
σs dWs +
κ ◦ δ(s, x)(µ − ν)(ds, dx)
0
0
s Rd
Z Z
+
κ0 ◦ δ(s, x)µ(ds, dx) ,
s

(3)

Rd

where (Ws ) is a d0 -dimensional standard Brownian motion, (bs ) is a d-dimensional adapted
process, σs is a (d × d0 )-(instantaneous) predictable volatility process and we define the process
c = σσ > . Furthermore, δ(ω, s, x) is a predictable function on Ω × R+ × Rd , κ : Rd → Rd is a
continuous truncation function with compact support and κ0 (x) = x − κ(x), µ(·) is a Poisson
random measure on R+ × Rd and ν(ds, dz) = ds ⊗ λ(dz) is a predictable compensator or intensity
measure of µ. We partially follow the notation used in Jacod and Protter (2012). We assume
that the observed times 0 = tn0 < tn1 < · · · < tnn = 1 are such that tni − tni−1 = 1/n = ∆n . When
d = 2 (bivariate case), let
(1)

(2)

∆Xt = Xt − Xt− , τ = inf{t : ∆Xt ∆Xt 6= 0},
e = {(ω, t, x) : δ 1 (ω, t, x)δ 2 (ω, t, x) 6= 0},
Γ
and for i = 1, 2, define
0

i

(R

δt (ω) =

(κi ◦ δ1Γe )(ω, t, x)λ(dx) if the integral makes sence,
+∞
otherwise.
Rd

We also make the following assumptions.
Assumption 1.

(a) The path t 7→ bt (ω) is locally bounded.

(b) The process σ is continuous.
(c) We have supω,x ||δ(ω, t, x)||/γ(x) is locally bounded for a deterministic nonnegative function
R
satisfying Rd (γ(x)h ∧ 1)λ(dx) < ∞. for some h ∈ (0, 2).
0

(d) For each ω, and i = 1, 2, the path t 7→ δti (ω) is locally bounded on the interval [0, τ (ω)).
R t+u
(e) We have t ||σs ||ds > 0 a.s. for all t, u > 0.
If X does not have the last two terms of the right hand side of (3) (these are jump parts of
X), then we say that X is continuous. Otherwise, we say that X is discontinuous. For the noise
term, we assume the following conditions.
Assumption 2. There exist some q ≥ 0 and ζm > 0, 1 ≤ m ≤ d such that


n2m,n = ζm n−2q + O n−(1+2q) .
Assumption 3. {vi }∞
i=1 is a sequence of i.i.d. d-dimensional standard normal random variables.
When q = 0, Assumption 2 coincides with the small noise assumption in Kunitomo and
Kurisu (2015). If the noise coefficient does not depend on the sampling scheme, that is, for each
(m)
component there exist some positive constants m such that Var(m,n v1 ) = 2m in the model
(2), then the effect of noise is asymptotically dominant. This case corresponds to the assumption
that the variance of noise is constant. Assumption 2 means that the effect of noise depends on a
sample number n. Hence the effect of noise gets smaller if the observation frequency increases.
4

3

The Effects of Small Noise on BPV and RV

In this section, we assume that the process (Xt )0≤t≤1 is one dimensional (d = 1), and give
the asymptotic properties of BPV and give some remarks on the problem of an estimation of
integrated volatility and the asymptotic conditional variance of RV under the presence of small
noise.

3.1

Asymptotic Properties of BPV and RV

Bipower variation (BPV) and realized volatility (RV) are often used for estimating integrated
volatility. We give some results on asymptotic properties of BPV and RV. Let ∆ni X = Xi∆n −
X(i−1)∆n and define the following statistics:
Vep(n) (X) =

n
X

|∆ni X|p ,

i=1
(n)
Ver,s
(X) =

n−1
X

|∆ni X|r |∆ni+1 X|s .

i=1
(n)
(n)
According to the above definition, Ve2 (X) is the realized volatility (RV(X)) and Ve1,1 (X) is
the bipower variation (BPV(X)). First we give asymptotic properties of above statistics. The
following result describes the effect of small noise.

Proposition 1. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied. Let r, s and k be positive integers,
then
(n)
(n)
Ve2r (Y ) − Ve2r (X) = OP (n1−(r+q) ),
(n)
(n)
Ver,s
(Y ) − Ver,s
(X) = OP (n1−(r+s)/2−q ).

In the following results, we freely use the stable convergence arguments and F (0) -conditionally
Gaussianity, which have been developed and explained by Jacod (2008) and Jacod and Protter
L−s
(2012), and use the notation −→ as stable convergence in law. For the general reference on stable
convergence, we also refer to Häusler and Luschgy (2015). The following proposition describes
the case when the effect of noise does not matter asymptotic properties of BPV. The result
follows immediately from Proposition 1.
Proposition 2. Suppose Assumptions 1,2 and 3 are satisfied. Let X be continuous, and r and s
be positive integers such that (r+s)/2 is integral. If q > 0, then we have the following convergence
in probability:
Z 1
P
(n)
n(r+s)/2−1 Ver,s
(Y ) −→ mr ms
σur+s du,
0

and if q > 1/2, then we have the following stable convergence in law:


Z 1
√
L−s
(n)
n n(r+s)/2−1 Ver,s
(Y ) − mr ms
σur+s du −→ U,
0

where mr = 2r/2 Γ((r + 1)2−1 )/Γ(2−1 ) for r > 0 and U is F (0) -conditionally Gaussian with mean
R 1 2(r+s)
0 and F (0) -conditional variance E[U 2 |F (0) ] = (m2r m2s + 2mr ms mr+s − 3m2r m2s ) 0 σu
du.
5

From the remark of Theorem 2.5 in Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2006), if X is continuous, then


Z 1
√
L−s e
n BPV(X) − m21
σs2 ds −→ U
,
0

e has the same distribution as U in Proposition 2 (replacing r, s = 1). The latter part of
where U
(n)
(n)
Proposition 2 implies that if q > 1/2, we can replace Ve1,1 (X) as Ve1,1 (Y ). In such a case we can
use BPV as the consistent estimator of integrated volatility.
Next we consider the asymptotic properties of RV. When the underlying process X is continuous, the RV(X) is often used for estimating integrated volatility in the no noise case. In
this case, to construct a confidence interval of integrated volatility or construct a jump test proposed in Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006) for example, we must consistently estimate the
asymptotic conditional variance of the limit distribution of RV and jump test statistics. In
R 1 place
of BPV, multipower variation (MPV) is often used for estimating volatility functionals 0 σsp ds
for p ≥ 1 which appear in the limit distribution of RV. When log-price X is contaminated by
small noise, by the similar argument in Proposition 1, it is possible to obtain the asymptotic
property for the special case of MPV:
∆−1
n

n−3
X

|∆ni+3 Y ||∆ni+2 Y ||∆ni+1 Y ||∆ni Y |

i=1

= ∆−1
n

n−3
X

|∆ni+3 X||∆ni+2 X||∆ni+1 X||∆ni X| + OP (n−q ).

i=1

Therefore, when the asymptotic order of noise is sufficiently higher (q > 0), MPV is a consistent
R1
estimator of 0 σs4 ds. In this case, we can use the same procedure as that of the no noise case.
If small nose satisfy the condition q = 0 in Assumption 2, the effect of noise cannot be
ignored. From the first part of Proposition 1, if q = 0 and r = 1, then RV(Y ) − RV(X) = OP (1).
Kunitomo and Kurisu (2015) proved that RV is asymptotically biased and derived the following
two stable convergence results under Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 with q = 0 in Assumption 2. If X
is continuous, then
Z 1
P
RV(Y ) −→
σs2 ds + 2ζ1 ≡ U0,1 ,
(4)
√

0
L−s

n(RV(Y ) − U0,1 ) −→ U1 + U2 + U3 ,

where Uj for j = 1, 2, 3 are F (0) -conditionally mutually independent Gaussian random variables
R1
R1
with mean 0 and F (0) -conditional variances E(U12 |F (0) ) = 2 0 σs4 ds, E(U22 |F (0) ) = 8ζ1 0 σs2 ds
and E(U32 |F (0) ) = 12ζ12 .
If X is the Itô semimartingale of the form (3), then
Z 1
X
P
RV(Y ) −→
σs2 ds +
(∆Xs )2 + 2ζ1 ≡ U0,2 ,
(5)
0

√

0≤s≤1
L−s

n(RV(Y ) − U0,2 ) −→ U1 + U2 ,

where Uj for j = 1, 2 are F (0) -conditionally mutually independent Gaussian random variables
R1
P
with mean 0 and F (0) -conditional variances E(U12 |F (0) ) = 2 0 σs4 ds + 4 0≤s≤1 σs2 (∆Xs )2 and
hR
i
P
1
E(U22 |F (0) ) = 8ζ1 0 σs2 ds + 0≤s≤1 (∆Xs )2 .
6

To construct a feasible procedure to estimate RV, we need to estimate the noise parameter
ζ1 and the asymptotic conditional variance of its limit distribution. In Section 5, we construct
estimators of the asymptotic conditional variances of RV.

3.2

Estimation of Integrated Volatility under Small Noise

In the model (1) with constant noise variance, it is well known that the variance of noise
Pn
P
can be estimated by (2n)−1 i=1 (∆ni Y )2 −→ Var(v1 ). However, under the small noise assumption, for example q = 0, this estimation does not work. In fact for the small noise case,
Pn
P
(2n)−1 i=1 (∆ni Y )2 −→ 0 regardless of the value of ζ1 . Thus we must consider another procedure for estimating ζ1 . The separated information maximum likelihood (SIML) method investigated in Kunitomo and Sato (2013) can be used to estimate ζ1 . The SIML estimator is a
consistent estimator of quadratic variation [X, X] of the process X under both models (1) and
(2). Therefore, under Assumptions 1, 2 and 3, we have
P

[
[X,
X]SIML −→ [X, X],

(6)

[
where [X,
X]SIML is the SIML estimator discussed in Section 5. From (4), (5) and (6), we obtain
!
n
X
1
P
n
2
[
(∆ Y ) − [X,
X]SIML −→ ζ1 .
(7)
ζb1 =
2 i=1 i
We consider two types of the truncated version RV:
TRVC =

n
X
(∆ni Y )2 1{|∆ni Y |≤α∆θn } ,

TRVJ =

i=1

n
X
(∆ni Y )2 1{|∆ni Y |>α∆θn } ,
i=1

where α > 0 and θ ∈ (0, 1/2). When X have jumps, we can estimate the jump part of quadratic
variation by TRVJ when Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied:
X
P
TRVJ −→
(∆Xs )2 .
0≤s≤1

Then, integrated volatility (IV) can be estimated consistently:
Proposition 3. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied. Then
Z 1
P
\
c = [X,
IV
X]SIML − TRVJ −→
σs2 ds.
0

c is robust to jumps and small noise. In particular, if q = 0 in
Proposition 3 implies that IV
\
c = [X,
Assumption 2, then we can rewrite IV
X]SIML − TRVJ = TRVC − 2ζb1 . Therefore, from
the remark in Section 3.1 and (7), we can estimate integrated volatility by the bias correction of
RV.
In this section we considered only one dimensional case, however, an extension to the mulR 1 (p,q)
(p,q)
tivariate case is straightforward for the estimation of the covolatility, 0 cs ds where cs
is
the (p, q) component of the volatility process cs defined in Section 2.

7

4

Co-jump test under small noise

One of the interesting problems in high-frequency financial econometrics is whether two asset
prices have co-jumps or not. To the best of our knowledge, none of the existing literature
has so far proposed a co-jump test in the small noise framework. In this section, we consider
(1)
(2)
two dimensional case (Xt = (Xt , Xt )> )0≤t≤1 and propose a testing procedure to detect the
existence of co-jumps for discretely observed processes contaminated by small noise. For this
purpose, we study the asymptotic property of the following test statistic proposed in Jacod and
Todorov (2009):
[n/k]

(n)

S2,2,2 (Y )

T (n) =

(n)
S1,2,2 (Y

(l)

,

)

(n)

Sk,r,s (Y ) =

X

(∆ni Y (k,1) )r (∆ni Y (k,2) )s ,

i=1

(l)

where , ∆ni Y (k,l) = Yik∆n − Y(i−1)k∆n for k ≥ 2, l = 1, 2, and [x] is the integer part of x ∈ R. To
describe our result, we first decompose the sample space Ω into three disjoint sets
Ω(j) = {ω : on [0, 1] the process ∆Xs(1) ∆Xs(2) is not identically 0},
Ω(d) = {ω : on [0, 1] the processes ∆Xs(1) and ∆Xs(2) are not identically 0,
but the process ∆Xs(1) ∆Xs(2) is },
Ω(c) = {ω : on [0, 1] X (1) and X (2) is continuous}.
We test the null hypothesis H0 that observed two log-prices have co-jumps, that is, we are on
Ω(j) against the alternative hypothesis H1 that observed two log-prices have no co-jumps but
each log-price have jumps, that is, we are on Ω(d) .
We first provide the asymptotic property of T (n) under the null hypothesis. For this purpose,
(n)
we consider the asymptotic property of Sk,2,2 . Evaluating the discretization error of the process,
(j)
in restriction to the set Ω , for k = 1, 2, we have
√
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
Sk,2,2 (Y ) = Sk,2,2 (X) + 2Rk,2,1 (X) + 2Rk,1,2 (X) + oP (1/ n),
(8)
where
[n/k]
(n)

Rk,r,s (X) = r∧s,n

(k,r∧s)

X

(∆ni X (k,1) )r (∆ni X (k,2) )s (∆vi

),

(9)

i=1
(k,l)

∆vi

=

ki
X

(l)

(l)

(l)

(l)

(vj − vj−1 ) = vki − vk(i−1) .

(10)

j=k(i−1)+1
(n)

(n)

(n)

Then it suffices to evaluate the three terms Sk,2,2 (X), Rk,2,1 (X) and Rk,1,2 (X). We also have,
in restriction to the set Ω(j) ,
X
P
(n)
Sk,2,2 (X) →
(∆Xs(1) )2 (∆Xs(2) )2 ≡ S0 ,
0≤s≤1

√
(n)
(n)
and Rk,2,1 (X) = Rk,1,2 (X) = OP (1/ n). Finally we obtain the joint stable convergence of these
three terms:
√
L−s
(1,2)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(1,2)
(1,2)
n(Sk,2,2 (X) − S0 , Rk,2,1 (X), Rk,1,2 (X)) −→ (U1,k , U2 , U3 ),
8

(1,2)

(1,2)

where U1,k , Ul
for l = 2, 3 are F (0) -conditionally mutually independent Gaussian random
variables with mean 0 and the following variances:
(1,2)

E[(U1,k )2 |F (0) ] = kF2,2 ,
X
(1,2)
E[(U2 )2 |F (0) ] = 8ζ2
(∆Xs(1) )4 (∆Xs(2) )2 ,
0≤s≤1
(1,2)
E[(U3 )2 |F (0) ]

X

= 8ζ1

(∆Xs(1) )2 (∆Xs(2) )4 ,

0≤s≤1

and where
Fr,s =

X

(r2 c(1,1)
(∆Xs(1) )2(r−1) (∆Xu(2) )2s + 2rsc(1,2)
(∆Xu(1) )2r−1 (∆Xu(2) )2s−1
u
u

0≤u≤1

+ s2 c(2,2)
(∆Xu(1) )2r (∆Xu(2) )2(s−1) ).
u
See the proof of Theorem 1 in Appendix A for details. Therefore, we obtain the following theorem
which plays an important role in the construction of our co-jump test.
Theorem 1. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied with q = 0 in Assumption 2. Let
P
(2)
(1)
S0 = 0≤s≤1 (∆Xs )2 (∆Xs )2 and k = 1 or 2. Then, in restriction to Ω(j) , we have
√

L−s e (1,2)
(n)
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
n(Sk,2,2 (Y ) − S0 ) −→ U
= U1,k + U2
+ U3 .

Now we propose a co-jump test for two-dimensional high-frequency data under the presence
P
of small noise. From Theorem 1, we have T (n) → 1 under the null hypothesis. Since
(n)

T

(n)

−1=

(n)

S2,2,2 (Y ) − S1,2,2 (Y )
(n)

,

S1,2,2 (Y )
(n)

(n)

we must have the asymptotic distribution of S2,2,2 (Y )−S1,2,2 (Y ). Considering the decomposition
(n)

of Sk,2,2 in (8), the asymptotic distribution can be derived from the joint limit distribution
(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

of (S (n) , R1 , R2 ), where S (n) = S2,2,2 (Y ) − S1,2,2 (Y ), R1
(n)

R2

(n)

(n)

(n)

= R2,2,1 (X) − R1,2,1 (X) and

(n)

= R2,1,2 (X) − R1,1,2 (X). In restriction to the set Ω(j) , we have
√

(n)

(n)

L−s

(1,2)

(1,2)

n(S (n) , R1 , R2 ) −→ (U1,1 , U2

(1,2)

, U3

).

See the proof of Theorem 2 in Appendix A for details. Hence we obtain the asymptotic property
of the test statistics under the null hypothesis.
Theorem 2. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied with q = 0 in Assumption 2. Then
under the null hypothesis H0 , we have
√

(1,2)

L−s

n(T (n) − 1) −→ U =

U1,1

(1,2)

+ U2

(1,2)

+ U3

(1,2) 2
)

,

(U0

P
(1)
(2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
where U0
= 0≤s≤1 (∆Xs )2 (∆Xs )2 , and U1,1 , Ul
for l = 2, 3 are F (0) -conditionally
mutually independent Gaussian random variables appearing in Theorem 1.
9

We notice that in contrast to Theorem 4.1 in Jacod and Todorov (2009), additional asymptotic
variance terms appear in the limit distribution of the test statistics that must be estimated for
the construction of a co-jump test under the small noise assumption. If ζ1 = ζ2 = 0 (no noise
case), the result in Theorem 2 corresponds to their result. Hence, Theorem 2 includes their result
as a special case. We propose methods to estimate the asymptotic variance of the test statistic
in Section 5.
Next we consider the asymptotic property of the test statistic under the alternative hypothesis
H1 . In restriction to the set Ω(d) , because of the presence of small noise, we have
(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

Sk,2,2 (Y ) = Sk,2,2 (X) + 2Rk,2,1 (X) + 2Rk,1,2 (X) + oP (1/n).
(n)
(n)
e(n) , R
e(n) ), where
It is possible to obtain a joint limit theorem of n × (S2,2,2 (X), S1,2,2 (X), R
1
2
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
e
e
R1 = R2,2,1 (X) + R2,1,2 (X) and R2 = R1,2,1 (X) + R1,1,2 (X) in restriction to the set Ω(d) .
This yields
L−s
T (n) −→ Φ,

where Φ is a random variable which is almost surely different from 1. The detailed description
of Φ and proof is given in Appendix A. Then we obtain the following proposition.
Proposition 4. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied with q = 0 in Assumption 2.
Then the test statistic T (n) has asymptotic size α under the null hypothesis H0 and is consistent
under the alternative hypothesis H1 , that is,


√
(n)
n(T
− 1)
q
≥ q1−α/2 H0  −→ α, if P(Ω(j) ) > 0,
P
(j)
V1,2


√
(n)
n(T
−
1)
q
P
≥ q1−α/2 H1  −→ 1, if P(Ω(d) ) > 0,
(j)
V1,2
(j)

where V1,2 is the asymptotic conditional variance of the random variable given in Theorem 2,
P(·|H0 ) and P(·|H1 ) are conditional probabilities with respect to the sets Ω(j) and Ω(d) , and qα
be the α-quantile of standard normal distribution.
(j)

Proposition 4 implies that if we have a consistent estimator of V1,2 , then we can carry out the
co-jump test. The procedures to estimate the asymptotic variance of test satistics are discussed
in Section 5.

5

Consistent estimation of the asymptotic conditional variances

In this section, we first construct an estimator of the noise parameter ζm . Then we propose estimation procedures of the asymptotic conditional variance of RV and the co-jump test
statistics.

5.1

Estimation of the noise variances

The most important characteristic of the SIML is its simplicity compared with the preaveraging method in Jacod et al. (2009) and the spectral method in Bibinger and Winkelmann
10

(2015) for estimating the quadratic variation consistently, and have asymptotic robustness for
the rounding-error (Kunitomo and Sato, 2010, 2011). It is also quite easy to deal with the
multivariate high-frequency data in this approach as demonstrated in Kunitomo and Sato (2011).
>
Let Wn = (Y∆>n , Y2∆
, . . . , Y1> )> be a n × d matrix where Yj∆n is the jth observation of the
n
process Y and Cn be n × n matrix,




1
0 ···
0 0
1 0 ···
0 0
 −1 1
 1 1
0 ··· 0 
0 ··· 0 




−1



1 · · · 0  , Cn =  0 −1 1 · · · 0 
Cn =  1 1
.
 0 · · · −1 1 0 
 1 ···
1
1 0 
0 ···
0 −1 1
1 ···
1
1 1
−1 >
We consider the spectral decomposition of C−1
n (Cn ) , that is,
−1 >
>
C−1
n (Cn ) = Pn Dn Pn = 2In − 2An ,

where Dn is a diagonal matrix with the kth element

 

2k − 1
dk = 2 1 − cos π
,
2n + 1

k = 1, . . . , n,

and
s
Pn = (pjk ),

pjk =

We transform Wn to Zn by

2
cos
n + (1/2)

1
 1
1
0
An = 
2
 0
0





2π
2n + 1

1
0
1
···
···



1
j−
,
2

0 0
··· 0 

··· 0 
.
0 1 
1 0

k−

···
1
0
1
0

1
2

1 ≤ j, k ≤ n,

Zn = ∆−1/2
Pn C−1
n
n (Wn − W 0 ),

where W 0 = (Y0> , . . . , Y0> )> . The SIML estimator of the quadratic variation [X, X] is defined
by
[
[X,
X]SIML =

mn
1 X
Zn> Zn ,
mn

mn = np ,

0<p<

k=1

1
.
2

(11)

From the straightforward extension of Theorem 1 of Kunitomo and Sato (2013), we obtain
Z 1
X
P
[
[X, X]SIML −→ [X, X] =
cs ds +
(∆Xs )(∆Xs )> .
(12)
0

0≤s≤1

From (4), (5) and (12), we obtain the next proposition.
Proposition 5. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 with q = 0 in Assumption 2 are satisfied. Then

1
P
(m,m)
[
RV(Y (m) ) − [X,
X]SIML −→ ζm ,
2
(m,m)

m = 1, . . . , d,

[
where [X,
X]SIML is the (m, m) component of the SIML estimator.
11

The SIML estimator can be regarded as a modification of the standard maximum likelihood
(ML) method under the Gaussian process and an extension for the multivariate case of the ML
estimation of the univariate diffusion process with market microstrucure noise by Gloter and
Jacod (2001b) (see Kunitomo and Sato (2013)). In stead of the SIML estimator, we can also use
the quasi maximum likelihood estimator studied in Xiu (2010) for the noise robust estimation of
quadratic variation.

5.2

Estimation of the asymptotic conditional variances of RV and the
test statistic

We propose procedures to estimate the the asymptotic conditional variances of co-jump test
statistics studied in Section 4, and RV when the process (Xt )0≤t≤1 has continuous path or
discontinuous path. We introduce some notations. For l, m, p, q = 1, . . . , d,
X
(l,m)
Dp,q
c(p,q)
(r, s) =
(∆Xu(l) )r (∆Xu(m) )s , r, s ≥ 1,
u
0≤u≤1

J

(l,m)

(r, s) =

X

(∆Xu(l) )r (∆Xu(m) )s ,

r, s ≥ 2,

0≤u≤1

A

(l,m)

Z
(r) =

1

(c(l,m)
)r ds,
s

r ≥ 1.

0

To estimate the asymptotic conditional variance of the co-jump test statistic, we consider
following statistics. For l, m, p, q = 1, . . . , d and r, s ≥ 2,
(l,m)
b p,q
D
(r, s) =

n
X

(∆ni Y (l) )r (∆ni Y (m) )s

i=1



q
X 
1
(∆ni Y (p) )(∆ni Y (q) )1{||∆nj Y ||≤α∆θn } − 2δpq ζbp ζbq  ,
×
2kn ∆n


j∈In (i)

Jb(l,m) (r, s) =

n
X

(∆ni Y (l) )r (∆ni Y (m) )s ,

i=1
(l,m)
b (l,m) (2(r − 1), 2s) + 2rsD
b (l,m) (2r − 1, 2s − 1) + s2 D
b m,m
Fb(l,m) (r, s) = r2 D
(2r, 2(s − 1)),
l,l
l,m

where In (i) = {j ∈ N : j 6= i, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, |i − j| ≤ kn }, kn → ∞, kn ∆n → 0 as n → ∞, α > 0 and
θ ∈ (0, 1/2).
Although we can construct the consistent estimators of the asymptotic variances based on the
truncated functionals (see also Mancini (2009) and Jacod and Todorov (2009)) for the no noise
case, the truncation method gives us biased estimators since we now assume the presence of the
small noise. In fact, since the size of noise gets smaller as the observation frequency increases,
truncation is not sufficient to distinguish the continuous part of process X with the noise. To be
precise, from the similar argument of Theorem 9.3.2 in Jacod and Protter (2012), we have
X
1
(∆nj Y (p) )(∆nj Y (q) )1{||∆nj Y ||≤α∆θn }
2kn ∆n
j∈In (i)

−

X
1
P
(∆nj C (p) + p,n ∆j v (p) )(∆nj C (q) + q,n ∆j v (q) ) −→ 0,
2kn ∆n
j∈In (i)

12

Rt

σs dWs and ∆nj C (p) is the pth component of Cj∆n − C(j−1)∆n .
q
Since E[∆ni C (p) j,n ∆i v (q) ] = 0 and p,n q,n E[∆i v (p) ∆i v (q) ] = 2δpq ζbp ζbq ∆n + o(∆n ) for all
1 ≤ p, q ≤ d, #In (i) = 2kn where δpq is a Dirac’s delta function, it follows that
X
1
(p,q) P
∆nj C (p) ∆nj C (q) − ci∆n −→ 0.
2kn ∆n
where Ct =

0

j∈In (i)

Therefore, we obtain
X
1
2kn ∆n

(p,q)

(∆nj Y (p) )(∆nj Y (q) )1{||∆nj Y ||≤α∆θn } − [ci∆n + 2δpq

q

P
ζbp ζbq ] −→ 0.

j∈In (i)

(l,m)
b p,q
Then, for D
(r, s),


q
X 
1
(∆ni Y (p) )(∆ni Y (q) )1{||∆nj Y ||≤α∆θn } − 2δpq ζbp ζbq
2kn ∆n
j∈In (i)

(p,q)

is an estimator of the spot volatility ci∆n . By the simple extension of Theorem 2 in Kunitomo and Kurisu (2015), it can be obtained that (∆ni Y (l) )r (∆ni Y (m) )s is an unbiased estimator
(l)
(m)
of (∆Xi∆n )r (∆Xi∆n )s . Hence, for estimating the asymptotic conditional variance of RV, we
consider following statistics:
q
n−k
Xn
1
(l,m)
b
ci
=
(∆ni Y (l) )(∆ni Y (m) )1{||∆ni Y ||≤α∆θn } − 2δlm ζbl ζbm ,
2kn ∆n
i=kn +1

b(l,m) (r) = ∆n
A

n−k
n +1
X

(l,m) r

(b
ci

) ,

i=1
(l,m)
b p,q
D
(1, 1) =

n
X

(p,q)

b
ci

(∆ni Y (l) )(∆ni Y (m) )1{||∆ni Y ||>α∆θn } .

i=1

Then we obtain the next result.
Proposition 6. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied with q = 0 in Assumption 2.
Then, for l, m, p, q = 1, . . . , d and r, s ≥ 1, we have
P
(l,m)
(l,m)
b p,q
D
(r, s) −→ Dp,q
(r, s),

P
Jb(l,m) (r, s) −→ J (l,m) (r, s),

P
Fb(l,m) (r, s) −→ F (l,m) (r, s),

P
b(l,m) (r) −→
A
A(l,m) (r).

From Propositions 5 and 6, we can construct the consistent estimator of the asymptotic
variance of co-jump test statistics
Fb(1,2) (2, 2) + 8(ζb2 Jb(1,2) (2, 4) + ζb1 Jb(1,2) (4, 2))
(j)
Vb1,2 =
,
n × Jb(1,2) (2, 2)
and for consistent estimators of the asymptotic variances of RV,
b(1,1) (4) + 8ζb1 A
b(1,1) (2) + 12ζb1 2 )/n,
Vb (c) = (2A
b (j)

V

b(1,1)

= (2A

(4) +

b (1,1) (1, 1)
4D
1,1

+

if X is continuous,

[
8ζb1 [X,
X]SIML
(1,1) )/n,

if X is an Itô semimartingale of the form (3).

Therefore, we obtain the next two central limit theorems.
13

Corollary 1. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied with q = 0 in Assumption 2. Then
we have the following convergence in law:
(i) If X is continuous, then
(c)

L

(Vb (c) )−1/2 (RV(Y ) − U0 ) −→ N(0, 1),
(c)

where U0

=

R1
0

σs2 ds + 2ζ1 .

(ii) If X is the Itô semimartingale of the form (3), then
(j)

L

(Vb (j) )−1/2 (RV(Y ) − U0 ) −→ N(0, 1),
(j)

where U0

=

R1
0

σs2 ds +

P

0≤s≤1 (∆Xs )

2

+ 2ζ1 .

Corollary 2. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied with q = 0 in Assumption 2. Then,
under the null hypothesis H0 , we have
L

(j)

(Vb1,2 )−1/2 (T (n) − 1) −→ N(0, 1).

6

Numerical Experiments

In this section, we report several results of numerical experiment. We simulate a data generating process according to the procedure in Cont and Tankov (2004). First we consider the
estimation of integrated volatility. We used following data generating processes:
dXt = σt dWt + dJtcp ,

(13)

dJtβ ,

(14)

dXt = σt dWt +

where W is a standard Brownian motion. Jtcp is a compound Poisson process in t ∈ [0, 1] where
the intensity of the Poisson process is λ = 10 and the jump size is a uniform distribution on
[−0.3, −0.05] ∪ [0.05, 0.3]. Jtβ is a β-stable process with β = 1.5. We also set the truncate level
α∆θn as α = 2 and θ = 0.48. These values are also used in the simulation of the co-jump test.
As a stochastic volatility model, we use
dσt2 = α(β − σt2 )dt + σt2 dWtσ ,
where α = 5,
have adopted
these cases as
use this value

(15)

β = 0.2 and ρ = E[dWt dWtσ ] = −0.5. For the market microstructure noise, we
the three types of Gaussian noise N(0, ζ∆n ) with ζ = 0, 10−4 and 10−2 (we call
(i), (ii) and (iii)). To estimate ζ, we used SIML with p = 0.49 in (11) and we also
in the following simulations. We also consider following cases:

• CJ1: 1/∆n = 20, 000, X follows the process (13).
• CJ2: 1/∆n = 30, 000, X follows the process (13).
• SJ1: 1/∆n = 20, 000, X follows the process (14).
• SJ2: 1/∆n = 30, 000, X follows the process (14).

14

CJ and SJ correspond to a finite activity jump case and an infinite activity jump case respectively. We present the root mean square errors (RMSE) for each case in Table 1. Compared
with CJ, the RMSEs in SJ tends to be large. This is because of the difficulty in a finite sample
case to distinguish infinite activity jumps and the other part of the observed process.
Next we check the performance of the proposed feasible CLT of RV. We use following data
generating processes:
dXt = σt dWt ,

for continuous case,

dXt = σt dWt + dJtcp ,

for jump case,

(16)

where the process (16) and σ are the same processes as (15) and (13). Figures 1 and 2 give
the standardized empirical densities when the small noise is N(0, 10−2 ∆n ). The simulation size
is N = 1, 000 and the number of the observations is n = 20, 000. The red line is the density
of standard normal distribution. The left figure corresponds to the bias-variance corrected case
implied by the Corollary 1 and the right figure corresponds to the no correction case. We found
that contamination of small noise still has the significant effect on the distribution of the limiting
random variables when ζm 6= 0 in the continuous case. We can see this in Figure 1. However we
have a good approximation for the finite sample distribution of statistics if we correct the effect
of noise by using the small noise asymptotics.
Finally we give simulation results of the co-jump test. We simulate a two dimensional Itô
semimaritingale by the following model:
(1)

= σt dWt

(1)

(1)

+ Zt dNt

(1)

(1)

+ Zt dNt ,

(2)

= σt dWt

(2)

(2)

+ Zt dNt

(2)

(2)

+ Zt dNt ,

dXt
dXt

(3)

(3)

(4)

(3)

where W = (W (1) , W (2) ) is a two dimensional Brownian motion and N (j) for j = 1, 2, 3 are
Poisson processes with intensities λj which are mutually independent and also independent of W .
Z = (Z (1) , Z (2) , Z (3) , Z (4) ) is the vector of jump sizes, cross-sectionally and serially independently
distributed with laws FZ (j) . In this simulation, we set λ1 = λ2 = 5 and λ3 = 10, and jump size
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
distributions are Zt , Zt ∼ N(0, 5−2 ), Zt , Zt ∼ N(0, 10−2 ). For the volatility process σ, we
set
(j)

(j)

(j)

(j)

d(σt )2 = αj (βj − (σt )2 )dt + (σt )2 dWtσ ,

j = 1, 2,
(j)

(j)

where σ (1) and σ (2) are independent and α1 = α2 = 5, β1 = 0.2, β2 = 0.15, E[dWtσ dWt ] =
ρj dt, ρ1 = −0.5 and ρ2 = −0.4. For the market microstructure noise, we use the four types
of Gaussian noise for each component with mean 0 and the same variance 1,n = 2,n = ζ/n
where ζ = 10−4 , 10−2 , 10−1 and 1(we call these cases as I, II, III and IV). We consider the 5%
significant level for following cases:
• C1 : 1/∆n = 20, 000, co-jump.
• C2 : 1/∆n = 30, 000, co-jump.
• D1 : 1/∆n = 20, 000, no co-jump.
• D2 : 1/∆n = 30, 000, no co-jump.
In Figure 4, we plot the empirical distribution obtained from Corollary 2 in the case C1-IV. It
is interesting to see that our proposed testing procedure gives a good approximation of the limit
15

distribution of test statistics even in large noise case (ζ = 1). In Table 2 we also give the empirical
size and power of the proposed co-jump test and the test proposed in Jacod and Todorov (2009)
(we call this JT test). We find that JT test is sensitive to the small noise. Theorem 2 implies
that in the presence of small noise, the critical value of the test is larger than that of no noise
case. Hence the critical value of JT test is small compared with that of the proposed test and
the empirical size of JT test tends to be larger than the significant level. In particular, when the
effect of noise is large (C1-III, C1-IV, C2-III and C2-IV), we can see the size distortion of the
JT test. On the other hand, the empirical size of the proposed test is close to 0.05. This result
shows that we need to correct the asymptotic variance of JT test in the presence of small noise.
Additionally, the empirical power of our proposed test is very close to 1 in each case.

7

Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we developed the small noise asymptotic analysis when the size of the market
microstructure noise depends on the frequency of the observation. By using this approach, we
can identify the effects of jumps and noise in high-frequency data analysis. We investigated the
asymptotic properties of BPV and RV in one dimensional case in the presence of small noise.
We proposed methods to estimate integrated volatility and the asymptotic conditional variance
of RV. As a result, feasible central limit theorems of RV is established under the small noise
assumption when the latent process X is an Itô semimartingale. Our method gives a good
approximation of the limiting distributions of the sequence of random variables.
We also proposed a testing procedure of the presence of co-jumps when the two dimensional
latent process is observed with small noise for testing the null hypothesis that the observed two
latent processes have co-jumps. Our proposed co-jump test is an extension the co-jump test
in Jacod and Todorov (2009) for the noisy observation setting. Estimators of the asymptotic
conditional variance of the test statistics can be constructed in a simple way. We found that the
empirical size of the proposed test works well in finite sample. In particular, proposed co-jump
test has a good performance even when the effect of noise is large.

A
A.1

Proofs
Proofs for Section 3

Throughout Appendix, K denotes a generic constant which may change from line to line. We
use the techniques developed in Jacod and Protter (2012). We can replace Assumption 1 to the
local boundedness assumption below and such a replacement can be established by the localizing
procedure provided in Jacod and Protter (2012).
Assumption 4. We have Assumption 1 and there are a constant A and a nonnegative function
Γ on Rd for all (ω, t, x) ∈ Ω × R+ × Rd such that
max{||bt (ω)||, ||σt (ω)||, ||Xt (ω)||, ||Γ(x)||} ≤ A.
Under Assumption 4, we can obtain following inequalities for Itô semimartingale. First we
consider the decomposition of X,
Xt = X0 + Bt + Ct + Jt ,

16

where
Z t
Z
Bt =
bs +


κ ◦ δ(s, x)λ(dx) ds,

Rd

0
t

Z

Z
σs dWs ,

Ct =

t

δ(s, x)(µ − ν)(ds, dx).

Jt =
0

0

For all p ≥ 1, s, t ≥ 0, we obtain the following inequalities:
E( sup ||Bs+u − Bs ||p |Fs(0) ) ≤ Ktp ,

(17)

E( sup ||Cs+u − Cs ||p |Fs(0) ) ≤ Ktp/2 ,

(18)

0≤u≤t

0≤u≤t

p

E( sup ||Js+u − Js ||p |Fs(0) ) ≤ Kt h ∧1 .

(19)

0≤u≤t

See Section 2.1.5 of Jacod and Protter (2012) for details of the derivation of these inequalities.
Proof of Proposition 1. First, we have
(n)
(n)
Ve2r (Y ) − Ve2r (X) =

n X
2r  
X
2r
i=1 p=1

p

(∆ni X)2r−p (n ∆vi )p .

By using the inequalities of Itô semimartingale, it follows that


( 1 +q)p
(r− p )
E |(∆ni X)2r−p (n ∆vi )p | ≤ K∆n2
× ∆n 2 = K∆q+r
n ,

i = 1, . . . , n.

(n)
(n)
Therefore, we obtain Ve2r (Y ) − Ve2r (X) = OP (∆nq+r−1 ). Second, we have
(n)
(n)
Ver,s
(Y ) − Ver,s
(X) =

n−1
X


|∆ni X + n ∆vi |r |∆ni+1 X + n ∆vi+1 |s − |∆ni X|r |∆ni+1 X|s .

i=1

√
By using the inequalities (17), (18) and (19) repeatedly, we have E[|∆ni X/ ∆n |p ] ≤ K for p ≥ 1.
Then, we have
h
 i
E |∆n(r+s)/2 |∆ni X + n ∆vi |r |∆ni+1 X + n ∆vi+1 |s − |∆ni X|r |∆n+ X|s |
 n

r
s
r
∆ni+1 X
∆ni+1 X s
∆i X
∆n X
n ∆vi
n ∆vi+1
√
√
√
=E
+ √
+ √
− √i
∆n
∆n
∆n
∆n
∆n
∆n
≤ Kn ∆−1/2
= O(∆qn ),
n

i = 1, . . . , n.

q−(r+s)/2+1
(n)
(n)
).
Therefore, we obtain Ver,s (Y ) − Ver,s (X) = OP (∆n

Proof of Proposition 2. By Proposition 1,
Z 1


(r+s)/2−1 e (n)
(n)
(n)
n
Vr,s (Y ) − mr ms
σsr+s ds = n(r+s)/2−1 Ver,s
(Y ) − Ver,s
(X)
0


Z 1
(r+s)/2−1 e (n)
r+s
+ n
Vr,s (X) − mr ms
σs ds
0



1
= OP n−q + OP √
.
n
17

R1
(n)
Therefore, if q > 0, then n(r+s)/2−1 Ver,s (Y ) converges in probability to mr ms 0 σsr+s ds. If
q > 1/2, then from Theorem 2.3 of Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2006), the first part of above
decomposition converges in probability to 0, and the second part converges stably to U defined
in Proposition 2. Then we obtain the desired result.

A.2

Proofs for Section 4
(n)

Proof of Theorem 1. We decompose Sk,2,2 (Y ) as follows:
2
X

(n)

Sk,2,2 (Y ) = U1,n +

U2,j,n +

j=1

3
X

U3,j,n +

j=1

3
X

U4,j,n ,

(20)

j=1

where
[n/k]

U1,n =

X

(∆ni X (k,1) )2 (∆ni X (k,2) )2 ,

(n)

U2,1,n = 2Rk,2,1 (X),

(n)

U2,2,n = 2Rk,1,2 (X),

i=1
[n/k]

U3,1,n = 22,n

X

[n/k]
(k,2) 2

(∆ni X (k,1) )2 (∆vi

) ,

U3,2,n = 41,n 2,n

i=1

X

(k,1)

(∆ni X (k,1) )(∆ni X (k,2) )(∆vi

[n/k]
(k,1) 2

(∆ni X (k,2) )2 (∆vi

) ,

U4,1,n = 21,n 22,n

i=1

X

X

) ,

[n/k]
(k,1) 2

(∆ni X (k,2) )(∆vi

(k,2)

) (∆vi

),

U4,3,n = 21,n 22,n

i=1
(n)

(k,2) 2

)(∆vi

i=1
[n/k]

U4,2,n = 221,n 2,n

(k,1)

(∆ni X (k,1) )(∆vi
X

(k,1) 2

(∆vi

(k,2) 2

) (∆vi

) ,

i=1
(n)

(k,1)

(k,2)

and where Rk,1,1 (X), Rk,1,2 (X), ∆vi
and ∆vi
are defined in (9) and (10). For the proof
of Theorem 1, we first prove the stable convergence of U1,n , U2,1,n and U2,2,n . Then we prove
P3
P3
the joint convergence of these terms. Finally, we will prove that j=1 U3,j,n and j=1 U4,j,n in
(n)

the decomposition of Sk,2,2 (Y ) in (20) is asymptotically negligible.
Evaluation of U1,n : By Theorem 3.3.1 and Proposition 15.3.2 in Jacod and Protter (2012),
P P
(1) 2
(2) 2
0≤u≤1 (∆Xu ) (∆Xu ) ≡ U0 , and

we have U1,n −→

√

L−s

n(U1,n − U0 ) −→ N(0, kF2,2 ).

(1)

(2)

Evaluation of U2,1,n and U2,2,n : Let (Zp ) and (Zp ) be the mutually independent sequences of i.i.d. standard normal random variables defined on the second filtered probability
(1)
space (Ω(1) , F (1) , (Ft )t≥0 , P (1) ), and (τp ) be the co-jump times of the first and second compo-

18

(k,2)

)(∆vi

i=1

[n/k]

U3,3,n = 21,n

X

),

(1)

(2)

nent of the process (Xt = (Xt , Xt ))0≤t≤1 . We will prove the following result:
√
√
L−s
(1,2)
(1,2)
( nU2,1,n , nU2,2,n ) −→ (U2 , U3 ),
∞
X
p
(1,2)
U2
= 8ζ2
(∆Xτ(1)
)2 (∆Xτ(2)
)Zp(2) 1{τp ≤1} ,
p
p
p=1
(1,2)

U3

=

p

∞
X
8ζ1
(∆Xτ(1)
)(∆Xτ(2)
)2 Zp(1) 1{τp ≤1} .
p
p
p=1

For the first step of the proof, we prove our result in a simple case when the process X has at
most finite jumps in the interval [0, 1]. Then we prove the general case when X may have infinite
jumps in the interval [0, 1].
(Step1) : In this step, we introduce some notations. Let (Tp ) be the reordering of the double
sequence (T (m, j) : m, j ≥ 1). A random variable T (m, j) is the successive jump time of the
Poisson process 1Am \Am−1 ?µ where Am = {z : Γ(z) > 1/m}. Let Pm denote the set of all indices
p such that Tp = T (m0 , j) for some j ≥ i and some m0 ≤ m. For (i − 1)k∆n < Tp ≤ ik∆n , we
define following random variables:
1
(m)
(m)
(X
− X(i−1)k∆n ),
k∆n Tp −
1
(k,m)
(m)
(m)
W+
(n, p) = √
(X
− XTp ),
k∆n ik∆n
(k,m)

W−

(n, p) = √

(k,m)

W (k,m) (n, p) = W−

(k,m)

(n, p) + W+

We also set following stochastic processes:
Z
b(m)t = bt −

(n, p).

δ(t, z)λ(z),

Am ∩{z:||δ(t,z)||≤1}
Z t
Z t

X(m)t = X0 +

b(m)s ds +
0

0

σs dWs + (δ1Acm ) ? (µ − ν)t ,

X 0 (m) = X − X(m) = (δ1Am ) ? µ.
Let Ωn (m) denote the set of all ω such that each interval [0, 1] ∩ ((i − 1)k∆n , ik∆n ] contains
at most one jump of X 0 (m), and that ||X(m)(ω)t+s − X 0 (m)(ω)t || ≤ 2/m for all t ∈ [0, 1] and
s ∈ [0, ∆n ]. Moreover, let

2 

p
p
(1)
(2)
ηpn,k = ∆XTp + k∆n W (k,1) (n, p)
∆XTp + k∆n W (k,2) (n, p) ,
p
(k,2)
ηepn,k = ζ2 ηpn,k (∆vi
),
X
Yn (m) =
ηepn,k .
p∈Pm :Tp k∆n [1/k∆n ]

By the above notations, on the set Ωn (m), we have
√
√ (n)
√ (n)
nU2,1,n = 2 nR2,2,1 (X(m)) + 2 nR2,2,1 (X 0 (m)).

(21)

(Step 2) : In this step, we will prove the stable convergence of U2,1,n and U2,2,n . A Taylor
(1)

(2)

P

expansion of f (x1 , x2 ) = x21 x2 yields ηpn,k − (∆XTp )2 (∆XTp ) → 0. By Proposition 4.4.10 in
19

Jacod and Protter (2012), we have



L−s
(1)
(2)
ηpn,k p≥1 −→ (∆XTp )2 (∆XTp )

.

(22)

p≥1

(k,2)

The sequence (∆vi
) for k = 1, 2 consists of correlated Gaussian random variables with mean
0 and has the covariance structure


if i = j
2
(k,2)
(k,2)
Cov(∆vi
, ∆vj ) = −1 if |i − j| = 1 .


0
if |i − j| > 1
3/2

Using the inequalities (17), (18) and (19), if |i − j| ≥ 1, then we have E[|ξin ξjn |] ≤ K∆n
(k,2)

where ξin = (∆ni X (k,1) )2 (∆ni X (k,2) )(∆v1 ). Therefore, the correlation between ξin and ξjn
when |i − j| = 1 is asymptotically negligible. Since the set {Tp : p ∈ Pm } ∩ [0, 1] is finite, it
follows that
X
√ (n)
L−s p
(1)
(2)
(∆XTp )2 (∆XTp )Zp(2) ≡ R2,2,1 (X 0 (m)),
(23)
2 nR2,2,1 (X 0 (m)) −→ 8ζ2
p∈Pm :Tp ≤1
(2)

where (Zp ) is the sequence of i.i.d. standard normal random variables introduced before (Step
1).
(Step 3) : We will prove the joint stable convergence of (U1,n − U0 , U2,1,n , U2,2,n ) in this
step. From a slight modification of the proof of Theorem 5.1.2 in Jacod and Protter (2012), it is
possible to prove
P

(1,2)

R2,2,1 (X 0 (m)) → U2

,

(24)

o

n√
(n)
= 0,
lim lim sup P Ωn (m) ∩ | nR2,2,1 (X(m))| > η

m→∞ n→∞

for all η > 0.

(25)

Combining these with (21) and (23), and by Proposition 2.2.4 in Jacod and Protter (2012), we
√
√
L−s
L−s
(2,1)
(1,2)
obtain nU2,1,n −→ U2 . We also have nU2,2,n −→ U3
in the same way. Since U1,n ,
(0)
U2,1,n and U2,2,n are F -conditionally mutually independent by the definition of small noise,
we obtain the joint convergence
√
L−s
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
n(U1,n − U0 , U2,1,n , U2,2,n ) −→ (U1,k , U2 , U3 ).
Therefore, we also obtain

√

L−s

(1,2)

(1,2)

n(U1,n + U2,1,n + U2,2,n − U0 ) −→ U1,k + U2

(1,2)

+ U3

.

P3
Evaluation of the remaining terms : We shall prove that the remaining terms j=1 U3,j,n
P3
(n)
and j=1 U4,j,n in the decomposition of Sk,2,2 in (20) are asymptotically negligible. Let ξin =
P[n/k]
(k,2) 2
22,n (∆ni X (k,1) )2 (∆vi
) . Then U3,1,n = i=1 ξin . Using the inequalities (17), (18) and (19),
we have
h
i
(k,2) 2
E[|ξin |] = 22,n E (∆vi
) E[(∆ni X (k,1) )2 ] ≤ K∆2n .
Therefore, we obtain U3,1,n = OP (1/n). Similarly, we have U3,2,n = U3,3,n = U4,1,n = U4,2,n =
P[n/k]
√
(k,1) 2
(k,2) 2 P
OP (1/n). Since n−1 i=1 (∆vi
) (∆vi
) → 4ζ1 ζ2 , we have U4,3,n = OP (1/n n). Conse√
L−s
(n)
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
quently, we obtain n(Sk,2,2 (Y ) − U0 ) −→ U1,k + U2
+ U3 .
20

Proof of Theorem 2. We first prove a technical tool for the proof of Theorem 2. The result of
Theorem 2 follows immediately from the following proposition.
Proposition 7. Suppose Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied with q = 0 in Assumption 2. Let
X
S0 =
(∆Xs(1) )2 (∆Xs(2) )2 ,
0≤s≤1

W

(n)

=

√

(n)

(n)

n[(S2,2,2 (Y ) − S0 ) − (S1,2,2 (Y ) − S0 )].

Then, in restriction to the set Ω(j) , we have
L−s

(1,2)

W (n) −→ U (1,2) = U1,1

(1,2)

+ U2

(1,2)

+ U3

.

Proof of Proposition 7. By using the inequalities (17), (18) and (19), we have
[n/2]

X

(∆ni Y (2,1) )2 (∆ni Y (2,2) )2

i=1
[n/2]

=

X

√
(n)
(n)
(∆ni X (2,1) )2 (∆ni X (2,2) )2 + 2R2,1,2 (X) + 2R2,2,1 (X) + OP (1/ n),

i=1
(n)

where Rk,r,s, (X) are definded in (9). We decompose W (n) into three leading terms:
W (n) =

√

√
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
n(S2,2,2 (X) − S1,2,2 (X)) + 2 n(R2,1,2 (X) − R1,1,2 (X))
√
(n)
(n)
+ 2 n(R2,2,1 (X) − R1,2,1 (X)) + oP (1)

= In,1 + IIn,2 + IIIn,3 + oP (1),
(1)

(2)

Because of the independence of the noise vi and vi , the three terms In,1 , IIn,1 and IIIn,1
are asymptotically mutually independent. Therefore, it suffices to evaluate each term. We can
rewrite IIn,2 by using the estimation inequalities (17), (18) and (19),


2i
2i
X
X
X
p [n/2]
√
(1)
(1)
∆vl − ∆vj  + OP (1/ n)
(∆nj X (1) )(∆nj X (2) )2 
IIn,2 = 2 ζ1
i=1 j=2(i−1)+1

l=2(i−1)+1

√
e n,2 + OP (1/ n).
= II
By the application of Proposition 15.3.2 in Jacod and Protter (2012) to In,1 and the similar
argument of the evaluation of U2,1,n in the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain that W (n) converge
(1,2)
(1,2)
(1,2)
stably to U1
+ U2
+ U3 .
Finally, we prove the stable convergence of T (n) . From the definition of T (n) , we have
(n)

T

(n)

−1=

(n)

S2,2,2 (Y ) − S1,2,2 (Y )
(n)

S1,2,2 (Y )
Then by Proposition 7, we obtain the desired result.
21

.

Proof of Proposition 4. Since the asymptotic size of the test statistic T (n) follows from Theorem
2, we prove the consistency of the test here. To describe the limit variable of T (n) under the
alternative hypothesis H1 , we introduce some notations. We use some notations in Jacod and
Todorov (2009).
• a sequence (κp ) of uniform variables on [0, 1].
• a sequence (Lp ) of uniform variables on {0, 1}, that is, P(Lp = 0) = P(Lp = 1) = 1/2.
ep ), (U
ep0 ) of two-dimensional N(0, I2 ) variables.
• four sequences (Up ), (Up0 ), (U

 

00
0
2 −1
ep , Z
ep00 ) of two-dimensional N
• two sequences (Z p , Z p ), (Z
,
variables.
0
−1 2
(1)

The variables introduced above are defined on (Ω(1) , F (1) , (Ft )t≥0 , P (1) ). Then we define two
dimensional variables:
p

√
κq Up + 1 − κp Up0 ,
Rp = σTp

p
p
ep + 1 − Lp U
e0 ,
Rp0 = σTp
Lq U
p
Rp00 = Rp + Rp0 .
We also define following variables:

X 
(1) 00
(2) 00
e 00 =
D
(∆XTp Rp (2) )2 + (∆XTp Rp (1) )2 ,
p:Tp ≤1

e=
D

X 


(1)
(2)
(∆XTp Rp(2) )2 + (∆XTp Rp(1) )2 ,

p:Tp ≤1

L00 =

X p

(1)

00

ep00 +
ζ2 (∆XTp )2 Rp (2) Z

p


00
00
(2)
ζ1 (∆XTp )2 Rp (1) Z p ,

p:Tp ≤1

L=

X p

(1)

ζ2 (∆XTp )2 Rp(2) Zep +

p


(2)
ζ1 (∆XTp )2 Rp(1) Z p ,

p:Tp ≤1

Z
H=

1




c(1,1)
c(2,2)
+ 2(c(1,2)
)2 ds.
s
s
s

0

By using (17), (18) and (19), in restriction to the set Ω(d) , we have
(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

Sk,2,2 (Y ) = Sk,2,2 (X) + 2Rk,2,1 (X) + 2Rk,1,2 (X) + oP (1/n),
(n)

where Rk,r,s (X) is defined in (9). Moreover, from similar argument of the proof of Theorem 3.1
in Jacod and Todorov (2009), in restriction to the set Ω(d) , it is possible to have
(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

L−s

e 00 + 2H, D
e + H, L00 , L).
n × (S2,2,2 (X), S1,2,2 (X), R2,2,1 (X) + R2,1,2 (X), R1,2,1 (X) + R1,1,2 (X)) −→ (D
Therefore, we obtain
L−s

T (n) −→ Φ =

e 00 + 2H + 2L00
D
.
e + H + 2L
D

e 00 , D,
e L00 , L) admits a density conditionally on F and on being in Ω(d) , T (n) 6= 1 a.s. on
Since (D
(d)
Ω .
22

A.3

Proofs for Section 5

Proof of Proposition 5. For the consistency of the SIML, see the proof of Theorem 1 in Kunitomo
and Sato (2013).
(l,m)

b p,q (1, 1) and A
b(l,m) (r). The
Proof of Proposition 6. We only give the proof of a consistency of D
proofs of consistency of the other estimators are similar. Under the assumptions of Proposition
6, for any η > 0, α > 0, θ ∈ (0, 1/2), we have


P sup 1{|j,n ∆v(j) |>α∆θ } > η
n
X

≤P

!
1{|j,n ∆v(j) |>α∆θ } > η

≤

P



≤P

n

i

i=1
n
X

n

i

1≤i≤n

!
n n
o
[
(j)
θ
j,n |∆vi | > α∆n
i=1

(j)
j,n |∆vi |

>

α∆θn

i=1



n
X

 

 
α∆θn
α∆θn
(j)
(j)
, P j,n vi < −
≤4
max P j,n vi >
2
2
i=1

= o(1).
P

Then sup1≤i≤n 1{||∆ni Y ||>α∆θn } − 1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn /2} → 0. Therefore, we obtain
n
X

(∆ni Y (1) )(∆ni Y (2) )1{||∆ni Y ||>α∆θn } −

i=1

n
X

P

(∆ni Y (1) )(∆ni Y (2) )1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn /2} → 0.

i=1

Moreover, for η > 0,
P

n
X
(1)
(2)
1,n 2,n
(∆ni X (1) )(∆ni X (2) )(∆vi )(∆vi )1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn } > η

!

i=1

!2 
n
X
(1,n 2,n )
(1)
(2)
≤
E
(∆ni X (1) )(∆ni X (2) )1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn } (∆vi )(∆vi ) 
η2
i=1
!
n−1
n
n
(1,n 2,n )2 X 1,n X 2,n X 3,n
,
Ai
Ai +
≤
Ai +
η2
i=1
i=2
i=1
2



where
h
i
(2) 2
(1) 2
n (1) 2
n (2) 2
A1,n
=
E
(∆
X
)
(∆
X
)
(∆v
)
(∆v
)
,
i
i
i
i
i
h
i
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
A2,n
= E (∆ni X (1) )(∆ni−1 X (1) )(∆ni X (2) )(∆ni−1 X (2) )(∆vi )(∆vi−1 )(∆vi )(∆vi−1 ) ,
i
h
i
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
A3,n
= E (∆ni+1 X (1) )(∆ni X (1) )(∆ni+1 X (2) )(∆ni X (2) )(∆vi+1 )(∆vi )(∆vi+1 )(∆vi ) .
i
Now we evaluate the last three terms in the above inequality. By Hölder’s inequality and the
inequalities of Itô semimartingale, we have A1,n
= A2,n
= A3,n
= O(n−2 ). Therefore,
i
i
i
1,n 2,n

n
X

P

(∆ni X (1) )(∆ni X (2) )(∆i v (1) )(∆i v (2) )1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn } −→ 0.

i=1

23

From the similar argument, for 1 ≤ l, m ≤ 2, we have
2m,n

n
X

P

(∆ni X (l) )2 (∆i v (m) )2 1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn } −→ 0,

i=1

m,n

n
X

P

(∆ni X (l) )2 (∆ni X (m) )(∆i v (m) )1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn } −→ 0,

i=1

l,n 2m,n

n
X

P

(∆ni X (l) )(∆i v (l) )(∆i v (m) )2 1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn } −→ 0.

i=1

Hence we have
n
n
X
X
P
(∆ni Y (1) )(∆ni Y (2) )1{||∆ni Y ||>α∆θn } −
(∆ni X (1) )(∆ni X (2) )1{||∆ni X||>α∆θn /2} → 0.
i=1

i=1

P P
(1)
(2)
Then i=1 (∆ni Y (1) )(∆ni Y (2) )1{||∆ni Y ||>α∆θn } → 0≤s≤1 (∆Xs )(∆Xs ). Therefore, from Theorem 9.4.1 and Theorem 9.5.1 in Jacod and Protter (2012), we have

Pn

n
X

(1,2)

b
ci

P

(1,2)

(∆ni Y (1) )(∆ni Y (2) )1{||∆ni Y ||>α∆θn } → D1,2 (1, 1),

i=1

∆n

n−k
n +1
X

(1,2) r P

(b
ci

) → A(1,2) (r).

i=1

Therefore we obtain the desired results.
Proofs of Corollaries 1 and 2. The result immediately follows from the remarks in Section 3,
Theorem 2, Propositions 5 and 6.

B

Figures and tables

Figure 1: Empirical distributions of RV when dXt = σt dWt , ζ = 10−2 . The left figure corresponds to the bias-variance corrected case implied by Corollary 1(i). The right figure corresponds
to the no correction case (statistics are standardized as ζ1 = 0 in Corollary 1(i)). The red line is
the density of a standard normal distribution.

24

Figure 2: Empirical distributions of RV when dXt = σt dWt + dJtcp , ζ = 10−2 . We plot the left
and right figures in the same way as Figure 2.

Figure 3: Empirical distribution of the co-jump test implied by Corollary 2 in C1-IV. The red
line is the density of a standard normal distribution.
Case
RMSE
Case
RMSE

CJ1-(i)
2.137
SJ1-(i)
11.45

CJ1-(ii)
2.192
SJ1-(ii)
11.47

CJ1-(iii)
2.349
SJ1-(iii)
11.40

CJ2-(i)
1.701
SJ2-(i)
9.501

CJ2-(ii)
1.735
SJ2-(ii)
9.496

CJ2-(iii)
1.878
SJ2-(iii)
9.470

c Values are reported as multiples of 10−3 .
Table 1: RMSEs of IV.
Case
Size
Case
Power

C1-I
0.068
0.082
D1-I
0.989
0.986

C1-II
0.064
0.078
D1-II
0.992
0.994

C1-III
0.065
0.139
D1-III
0.990
0.989

C1-IV
0.071
0.253
D1-IV
0.982
0.985

C2-I
0.058
0.069
D2-I
0.995
0.987

C2-II
0.053
0.070
D2-II
0.996
0.984

C2-III
0.052
0.128
D2-III
0.995
0.986

C2-IV
0.046
0.237
D2-IV
0.988
0.990

Table 2: Empirical size and power of the co-jump test (5% significant level) are reported for the
proposed test (top), and the test proposed in Jacod and Todorov (2009) (bottom).

25

Acknowlegement
The author would like to thank Professor Naoto Kunitomo and Associate Professor Kengo
Kato for their suggestions and encouragements, as well as Professor Yasuhiro Omori for his
constructive comments.

References
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and J. Jacod (2009), Testing for jumps in a discretely observed process. Ann.
Statist. 37-1, 184-222.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y., J. Jacod and J. Li (2012), Testing for jumps in noisy high-frequency data.
J.Econometrics 168-2, 207-222.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and J. Yu (2009), High-frequency market microstructure noise estimated and
liquidity measures. Ann. Appl. Statist. 3-1, 422-457.
Bandi, F. M. and J. R. Russel (2006), Separating microstructure noise from volatility. J. Financial
Econometrics 79-3, 655-692.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., S. E. Graversen, J. Jacod, M. Podolskij and N. Shephard (2006), A
central limit theorem for realised power and bipower variations of continuous semimartingales. in: From Stochastic Analysis to Mathematical Finance, Festschrift for Albert Shiryaev,
Springer, 2006.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E. and N. Shephard (2004), Power and bipower variation with stochastic
volatility and jumps. J. Financial Econometrics 2-1, 1-48.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E. and N. Shephard (2006), Economatrics of testing for jumps on financial
econometrics using bipower variation. J. Econometrics 4-1, 1-30.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., P. R. Hansen, A. Lunde and N. Shephard (2008), Designing realized
kernels to measure the ex post variation of equity prices in the presence of noise. Econometrica,
76, 1481-1536.
Bibinger, M. and M. Reiss (2014), Spectral estimation of covolatility from noisy observations
using local weights. Scand. J. Statist. 41, 23-50.
Bibinger, M. and L. Winkelmann (2015), Econometrics of co-jumps in high-frequency data with
noise. J. Econometrics 184-2, 361-378.
Bollerslev, T., T. H. Law, G. Tauchen (2008), Risk, jumps, and diversification. J. Econometrics
144-1, 234-256.
Bollerslev. T., V. Todorov and S. Z. Li (2013), Jump tails, extreme dependencies, and the
distribution of stock returns. J. Econometrics 172-2, 307-324.
Cont, R. and P. Tankov (2004), Financial Modeling with Jump Process, Chapman & Hall.
Fan, J. and Y. Wang (2007), Multi-scale jump and volatility analysis for high-frequency data.
J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 102-480, 1349-1362.
Glider, D., M. B. Shackleton and S. J. Taylor (2014), Cojumps in stock prices: Empirical evidence. J. Banking. Finance 40, 443-459.
26

Gloter, A. and J. Jacod (2001a), Diffusions with measurement errors. I-Local asymptotic normality. ESAIM: Probability and Statistics 5, 225-242.
Gloter, A. and J. Jacod (2001b), Diffusions with measurement errors. II-Optimal estimators.
ESAIM: Probability and Statistics 5, 243-260.
Hansen, P. R. and A. Lunde (2006), Realized variance and market microstructure noise. J.
Business. Econ. Statist. 24-2, 127-161.
Häusler, E. and H. Luschgy (2015), Stable Convergence and Stable Limit Theorems. Springer.
Jacod, J. (2008), Asymptotic properties of realized power variations and related functionals of
semimartingales. Stochastic Process. Appl. 118-4, 517-559.
Jacod, J., Y. Li, P. A. Mykland, A. Podolskij and M. Vetter (2009), Microstructure noise in the
continuous case: the preaveraging approach. Stochastic Process. Appl. 119-7, 2249-2276.
Jacod, J. and P. Protter, (2012), Discretization of Processes, Springer.
Jacod, J. and V. Todorov (2009), Testing for common arrivals of jumps for discretely observed
multidimensional processes. Ann. Statist. 37-4, 1792-1838.
Jiang, G. J. and R. C. A. Oomen (2008), Testing for jumps when asset prices are observed with
noise-a ”swap variance” approach. J. Econometrics 144-2, 352-370.
Kunitomo, N. and D. Kurisu (2015), On effects of jump and noise in high-frequency financial
econometrics. Discussion Paper, CIRJE-F-996, University of Tokyo.
Kunitomo, N. and S. Sato (2010), Robustness of the separating information maximum likelihood
method estimation of realized volatility with micro-market noise. CIRJE Discussion Paper
F-733, University of Tokyo.
Kunitomo, N. and S. Sato (2011), The SIML estimation of realized volatility of Nikkei-225 futures
and hedging coefficient with micro-market noise. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation,
81-7, 1272-1289.
Kunitomo, N. and S. Sato (2013), Separating information maximum likelihood estimation of the
integrated volatility and covariance with micro-market noise. The North Amer. J. Economics.
Finance 26, 282-309.
Li, J. (2013), Robust estimation and inference for jumps in noisy high-frequency data: A localto-continuity theory for the pre-averaging method. Econometrica 81-4, 1673-1693.
Li, Y., S. Xie and X. Zheng (2014), Efficient estimation of integrated volatility incorporating
trading information. working paper.
Li, Y., Z. Zhang and Y. Li (2015), A unified approach to volatility estimation in the presence of
both rounding and random market microstructure noise. working paper.
Mancini, C. (2009), Non-parametric threshold estimation for models with stochastic diffusion
coefficient and jumps. Scand. J. Statist. 36-2, 270-296.
Mancini, C. and F. Gobbi (2012), Identifying the Brownian covariation from the co-jumps given
discrete observations. Econometric Theory 28-2, 249-273.

27

Xiu, D. (2010), Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation of volatility with high frequency data. J.
Econometrics 159, 235-250.
Zhang, L., P. A. Mykland and Y. Aı̈t-Sahalia (2005), A tale of two time series: determining
integrated volatility with noisy high-frequency data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 100-472, 13941411.

28

