THE NONPARAMETRIC LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY
OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS
SVEN WANG
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

arXiv:1802.02009v1 [math.ST] 6 Feb 2018

FEBRUARY 7, 2018
Abstract. Consider a scalar reﬂected diﬀusion (Xt )t≥0 , where the unknown drift
function b is modelled nonparametrically. We show that in the low frequency sampling case, when the sample consists of (X0 , X∆ , ..., Xn∆ ) for some ﬁxed sampling
distance ∆ > 0, the model satisﬁes the local asymptotic normality (LAN) property,
assuming that b satisﬁes some mild regularity assumptions. This is established by
using the connections of diﬀusion processes to elliptic and parabolic PDEs. The
key tools will be regularity estimates from the theory of parabolic PDEs as well
as a detailed analysis of the spectral properties of the elliptic diﬀerential operator
related to (Xt )t≥0 .
MSC 2000 subject classification: 62M99
Keywords: Nonparametric diﬀusion model, LAN property, parabolic PDE

1. Introduction
Consider a scalar diffusion process, described by a stochastic differential equation
√
dXt = b(Xt )dt + 2dWt ,
t ≥ 0,
where (Wt )t≥0 is a standard Brownian motion and b is the unknown drift function
of the process that is to be estimated. We investigate the so-called low frequency
observation scheme, where the sample consists of states
(1.1)

X (n) = (X0 , X∆ ..., Xn∆ )

of a realisation of the diffusion process, where ∆ > 0 is a fixed time difference
between measurements. To ensure ergodicity and to limit technical difficulties, we
follow [12] and [22] and consider a version of the model where the diffusion takes
values on [0, 1] with reflection at the boundary points {0, 1}, see Section 2 for the
precise definition.
The nonparametric estimation of the coefficients of a diffusion process has attracted a great deal of attention in the past. For the low-frequency sampling scheme
(1.1), Gobet, Hoffmann and Reiss [12] determined the minimax rate of estimation for
both the drift and diffusion coefficient and also devised a spectral estimation method
that achieves this rate. Thereafter, Nickl and Söhl [22] proved that a Bayesian posterior distribution contracts at the minimax rate, giving a frequentist justification
for the use of Bayesian methods. In other sampling schemes, various methods have
been studied, see e.g. [15] for a frequentist approach, [23, 25] for MCMC methodology for the computation of the Bayesian posterior, as well as [13, 16, 27] for recent
results on the posterior consistency and contraction rates in the Bayesian setting.
1

2

SVEN WANG

However, often one desires a more detailed understanding of the performance of
both frequentist and Bayesian methods, e.g. by proving a nonparametric Bernsteinvon Mises theorem (BvM), which would give a frequentist justification for the use
of Bayesian credible sets as confidence sets (see [10], Chapter 7.3). Nonparametric
BvMs have been explored by Castillo and Nickl [5, 6] and have recently been proven
for a number of statistical inverse problems by Nickl [20], Nickl and Söhl [21] and
Monard et al. [19], the former two being non-linear inverse problems.
To prove a nonparametric BvM, a key step lies in understanding the local information geometry of the parameter space, which in terms of semiparametric efficiency
theory (see e.g. [26], Chapter 25) involves finding the LAN expansion and the corresponding (Fisher) information operator. This in turn determines the Cramér-Rao
lower bound for estimating a certain class of functionals of the parameter of interest.
While in the Gaussian white noise model with direct observations, the LAN expansion of the log-likelihood ratio process is exact and given by the Cameron-Martin
theorem [5], in inverse problems proving the LAN property is often not straightforward.
In a parametric model for multidimensional diffusions that are sampled at high
frequency, where the sample consists of states
X (n) = (X0 , X∆n ..., Xn∆n )
with asymptotics such that ∆n → 0 and n∆n → ∞, the LAN property was shown
by Gobet [11] by use of Malliavin calculus.
The main contribution of this paper is to prove that also with low frequency
observations, the reflected diffusion model satisfies the LAN property under mild
regularity assumptions on the drift b, . If the transition densities of the Markov
chain (Xi∆ )i∈N are denoted by p∆,b , then the log-likelihood of the sample (1.1) is
approximately equal to
n
X
(n)
ℓb (X ) ≈
log p∆,b(X(i−1)∆ , Xi∆ ),
i=1

from which it can be seen that two ingredients are needed to show the LAN expansion:
• The first is a result on the differentiability of the log-transition densities b 7→
log p∆,b (x, y), which will guarantee
that we can form the second-order Taylor
√
expansion (in ‘directions’ h/ n, see Section 2.3 for the precise statement)
of the log-likelihood with sufficiently good control over the remainder term.
This is established in Theorem 2.1, where we importantly also obtain an
explicit form for the first derivative Ab , the ‘score operator’.
• The second main ingredient consists of two well known limit theorems, one
being the central limit theorem for martingale difference sequences proven
by Billingsley [3] and the other being the ergodic theorem, ensuring the right
limits for the first and second order terms in the Taylor expansion.
In view of this, the main work done in this paper lies in establishing the regularity
needed for the transition densities p∆,b (x, y) (Theorem 2.1 below). As there is no
explicit formula for p∆,b(x, y) in terms of b, our approach relies on analytic techniques from the theory of parabolic PDE and spectral theory, using the fact that
the transition densities of a diffusion process can naturally be viewed as the fundamental solution to a parabolic PDE related to the process. The main difficulty in
the proofs lies in the singular behaviour of pt,b (x, y) when t = 0 and x = y, which
is why standard PDE results cannot be applied directly, but only in a regularised

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

3

setting. Thus the arguments below will first be carried out for any fixed regularisation parameter δ > 0 (Section 3), where the analysis needs to be done carefully in
order to ensure that the estimates obtained are uniform in δ > 0. In a second step
(Section 4), we show that the results are still valid in the limit δ > 0. In Section
5, we derive the needed spectral properties of the differential operator Lb and the
transition semigroup (Pt,b )t≥0 needed throughout the proofs.
We remark that the use of more probabilistic proof techniques like in [11] would
have been conceivable here, too. However, we found the PDE approach employed
here to be more naturally suited to dealing with boundary conditions, and it avoids
dealing with pathwise properties of the diffusions by working with the transitions
densities directly, which are ultimately the objects of interest for analysing the
likelihood.
In order to prove a nonparametric Bernstein-von Mises theorem similar to [19, 20,
21], a number of additional highly non-trivial obstacles need to be overcome. One of
the main challenges lies in understanding key properties of the ‘information operator’
Ib = A∗b Ab (the analogue of the Fisher information in parametric models), where Ab is
defined as below in (2.6), and inverting Ib on a suitable subspace F ⊆ Ran(Ib ) ⊆ L2 .
2. Main results
2.1. A reflected diffusion model. We shall work with boundary reflected diffusions on the interval [0, 1], following the approach of [12]. Consider the stochastic
process (Xt )t≥0 , whose evolution is described by the Skorohod type stochastic differential equation (SDE)
√
(2.1)
dXt = b(Xt )dt + 2dWt + dKt (X),
Xt ∈ [0, 1] ∀t ≥ 0.
Here (Wt )t≥0 is a standard Brownian motion, (Kt (X))t≥0 is a non-anticipative finite
variation process that only changes when Xt ∈ {0, 1} and
b : [0, 1] → R

is the unknown drift function. We note that K(X), which accounts for the reflecting
boundary behaviour, is part of a solution to (2.1) and is in fact given by the difference
of the local times of X at 0 and 1. For a construction of the reflected diffusion
process, see [7], Chapter 2.
We assume throughout that b lies in some Sobolev ball

b ∈ Θ := f ∈ H 1 kf kH 1 < K ,

where K is some fixed constant and H s = H s ([0, 1]) denotes the usual Sobolev space
for any non-negative integers s ≥ 0. This assumption implies that b is bounded and
continuous on [0, 1], whence there exists a weak solution (Xt )t≥0 to (2.1), see [24].
The process (Xt )t≥0 forms an ergodic Markov process, whose Lebesgue transition
densities we shall denote by
pt,b (·, ·) : [0, 1]2 → R,

(2.2)

t > 0.

Moreover, we shall denote both the invariant measure as well as its Lebesgue density
by µb = µ. The semigroup corresponding to the reflected diffusion (2.1) will be
denoted by (Pt,b )t≥0 , and its action is given by
Z 1
(2.3)
Pt,b f (x) = Ex [f (Xt )] =
pt,b (x, z)f (z)dz
0

2

for all t > 0 and f ∈ L ([0, 1]).

4

SVEN WANG

We assume throughout that X0 ∼ µb . For some ∆ > 0, our sample consists
of measurements X (n) = (X0 , X∆ ..., Xn∆ ), where n tends to infinity while ∆ stays
unchanged. We shall assume ∆ as fixed throughout the whole paper. If Pb denotes
the law of the Markov chain (Xi∆ )i≥0 on [0, 1]N which is determined by X0 ∼ µb and
the transition densities (2.2), then the log-likelihood of the observation X (n) under
Pb is given by
(2.4)

log dPb (X (n) ) = log µb (X0 ) +

n
X

log p∆,b(X(i−1)∆ , Xi∆ ).

i=1

2.2. Differentiability of the transition densities. In order to prove the LAN
property, we need to differentiate the log-likelihood (2.4) at any parameter b ∈
Θ, which involves differentiating maps of the form b 7→ p∆,b (x, y). The following
theorem shows that that in fact, for any x, y ∈ [0, 1], these maps are infinitely
differentiable in all ‘directions’ h ∈ H01 (and in fact, Fréchet differentiable), where
H01 := {f ∈ H 1 |f (0) = f (1) = 0}.
The boundary condition h(0) = h(1) = 0 on the perturbation will be needed later
for technical reasons, see Lemma 3.7.
Let b ∈ H 1 be a drift function, suppose h ∈ H01 is a ‘direction’ in which we would
like to differentiate the transition density map, and let x, y ∈ [0, 1]. For notational
convenience, let us define
Φb,h,x,y = Φ : R → R,

Φ(η) = p∆,b+ηh (x, y).

Theorem 2.1. For all b ∈ Θ, h ∈ H01 and x, y ∈ [0, 1], Φ is a smooth (in fact, real
analytic) function on R, and we have
Z ∆
′
(2.5)
Φ (0) =
P∆−s,b[h∂1 ps,b (·, y)](x)ds.
0

Moreover, for each integer k ≥ 1, we have the following bound on the k-th derivative
of Φ at 0:
sup

sup

sup

b∈Θ h∈H01 ,khkH 1 ≤1 x,y∈[0,1]

Φ(k) (0) < ∞.

Heuristically, the right hand side of (2.5) has the form of a solution to an inhomogeneous parabolic PDE (cf. Proposition 3.1), and this PDE perspective will be
key to our proofs in Section 3. However, one has to be careful with such an interpretation, as the singular ‘inhomogeneous term’ h∂1 pb,t (·, y) does not fall within
the scope of classical PDE theory. Therefore, the above intuition needs to be made
rigorous via a regularisation argument, see Section 3.
2.3. LAN expansion. By Lemma 5.3, for each b ∈ Θ, p∆,b (·, ·) is bounded and
bounded below. Therefore, by Theorem 2.1 and the chain rule, the score operator
must be defined as follows:
Ab :
(2.6)

H01([0, 1]) → L2 ([0, 1] × [0, 1]),

Ab h(x, y) =

Φ′ (0)
p∆,b (x, y)

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

5

For any f, g ∈ L2 ([0, 1]×[0, 1]), we also define the corresponding ‘LAN inner product’
and ‘LAN norm’:
Z 1Z 1
hf, giL2(Pb µb ) :=
f (x, y)g(x, y)µb(x)p∆,b (x, y)dxdy,
0

0

hf, giLAN := hAb f, Ab giL2 (Pb µb )
kf k2LAN := hf, f iLAN .

Here is our main result.
Theorem 2.2. For any b ∈ Θ and h ∈ H 1 , we have that
(2.7)

log

n
dPb+h/√n (n)
1 X
1
(X ) = √
Ab h(X(i−1)∆ , Xi∆ ) − khk2LAN + oPb (1)
dPb
2
n i=1

as n → ∞ and
(2.8)

n

1 X
n→∞ d
√
Ab h(X(i−1)∆ , Xi∆ ) −−−→ N(0, khk2LAN ).
n i=1

Note that due to the nature of the non-i.i.d. Markov chain data at hand, Ab
necessarily needs to map into a function space of two variables, as the overall loglikelihood cannot be formed as a sum of functions of single states of the chain, but
only of increments of the chain.
3. Local approximation of the regularized transition densities
In this section, we study the differentiability properties of the transition densities
pt,b (x, y) as a function of the drift b. For technical reasons, we will first do this
in a regularised setting, where we denote the regularisation parameter by δ > 0
throughout. In Section 3.2, we define the ‘candidate’ approximation terms implicitly
as solutions to certain parabolic PDEs. Subsequently, we show in Section 3.3 that
the resulting remainder terms Rkδ , k = 0, 1, 2... are of a small enough order, such
that the ‘candidate’ approximations indeed are the derivatives of the map Φ from
Theorem 2.1.
3.1. Preliminaries and notation. Before we move on to the proofs, we introduce
some notation and important classical results which will be used throughout.
3.1.1. Some function spaces. For any integer s ≥ 0, we denote the usual Sobolev
spaces of s-times weakly differentiable functions on (0, 1) by H s = H s ((0, 1)). We
equip them with the inner product
(s)

(s)

hg1 , g2 iH s = hg1 , g2 iL2 + hg1 , g2 iL2 .

We will also use the fractional Sobolev spaces H s for s > 21 , which are obtained as
interpolation spaces between integer values of s, see [17]. Note that by the standard
Sobolev embedding, for s > 21 , any function f ∈ H s is α-Hölder continuous for
some α > 0 and thus can be extended uniquely to a continuous function on the
closed interval [0, 1], such that we don’t need to distinguish between the spaces
H s ((0, 1)) ∼
= H s ([0, 1]). We shall only need fractional Sobolev spaces when applying
the following standard interpolation equalities and embeddings (see [17], p.44-45).
For all s1 , s2 ≥ 0 and θ ∈ (0, 1), we have
(3.1)

1−θ
kf kH θs1 +(1−θ)s2 ≤ C(θ, s1 , s2 )kf kθH s1 kf kH
s2

6

SVEN WANG

and for each ǫ > 0, we have the continuous embedding
(3.2)

H 1/2+ǫ ⊆ C([0, 1]),

kf kL∞ ≤ C(ǫ)kf kH 1/2+ǫ ,

where C([0, 1]) denotes the space of continuous functions on [0, 1]. Occasionally, it
will be convenient to equip H s with the inner product
(s)

(s)

hg1 , g2 iH s (µ) = hg1, g2 iL2 (µ) + hg1 , g2 iL2 (µ) ,

defined by the invariant measure µ. By (3.6), this inner product induces a norm
which is equivalent to the one induced by the standard inner product on H s .
For any positive number T > 0, any Banach space (X, k · k) and any integer
k ≥ 0, we denote by C k ([0, T ], X) the k-times continuously differentiable functions
from [0, T ] to X, equipped with the norm
kf kC k ([0,T ],X) =

k
X

sup kf (i) (t)k.

i=1 t∈[0,T ]

If α > 0 with α 6∈ N, we denote the space of α-Hölder continuous functions from
[0, T ] to X by C α ([0, T ], X) and equip it with the usual Hölder norm
kf kC α ([0,T ],X) = kf kC ⌊α⌋([0,T ],X) +

f ⌊α⌋ (t) − f ⌊α⌋ (s)

sup
s,t∈[0,T ],s6=t

|t − s|α−⌊α⌋

.

3.1.2. The differential operator Lb . For any drift function b ∈ H 1 , we define the
differential operator
Lb f (x) = f ′′ (x) + b(x)f ′ (x)
for f ∈ D,

D := f ∈ H 2 f ′ (0) = f ′ (1) = 0 .

It is well-known that Lb is the infinitesimal generator of the semigroup (Pt,b )t≥0
defined in (2.3), so that we get by the usual functional calculus that Pt,b = etLb
for all t ≥ 0 (with the convention e0 = Id). The fact that the domain D of Lb
is equipped with Neumann boundary conditions corresponds to the diffusion being
reflected at the boundary, see [14] for a detailed discussion. We equip D with the
graph norm

1/2
2
2
kf kLb := kLb f kL2 (µb ) + kf kL2 (µb )
,
which by Lemma 5.2 is equivalent to the H 2 -norm on D. Moreover, for h ∈ H 1 , we
define the first order differential operator
(3.3)

Lh f (x) = h(x)f ′ (x),

f ∈ H 1.

The operator Lb has a purely discrete spectrum Spec(Lb ) ⊆ (−∞, 0] (see [9],
Theorem 7.2.2). We will denote by (uj,b)j≥0 the L2 (µ)-normalized orthogonal basis of L2 (µ), consisting of the eigenfunctions uj,b ∈ D of Lb , ordered such that the
corresponding eigenvalues (λj,b )j≥0 are non-increasing. When there is no ambiguity, we will often write (λj,b, uj,b) = (λj , uj ). We will use throughout the spectral
decomposition
X
(3.4)
pt,b (x, y) =
eλj t uj (x)uj (y)µ(y), x, y ∈ [0, 1] and t > 0
j≥0

for the Lebesgue transition densities, see [1], p. 101. We also recall the representation formula

Rx
exp 0 b(y)dy
(3.5)
µb (x) = R 1
Ru
 , x ∈ [0, 1]
exp
b(y)dy
du
0
0

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

7

for the invariant measure, see [2], Chapter 4. This immediately yields that there
exist constants 0 < C < C ′ < ∞ such that for all b ∈ Θ and all x ∈ [0, 1],
C ≤ µb (x) ≤ C ′ .

(3.6)

3.1.3. A key PDE result. For any f ∈ C([0, T ], L2 ) and u0 ∈ D, consider the inhomogeneous parabolic equation
(
u′ (t) = Lb u(t) + f (t)
for all t ∈ [0, T ],
(3.7)
u(0) = u0 .
We shall say that a function u : [0, T ] → L2 is a solution to this equation if u ∈
C 1 ([0, T ], L2 )∩C([0, T ], D) and (3.7) holds. The following Proposition regarding the
existence, uniqueness and regularity properties of solutions to (3.7) will play a key
role for the proofs in the rest of Section 3. To state the result, we need the following
interpolation space between L2 (µb ) and D:
(3.8)

o
n
D(α) := f ∈ L2 t 7→ ω(t) := t−α kPt,b f − f kL2 (µb ) is bounded on t ∈ [0, 1] ,

kf kD(α) :=kf kL2 (µb ) + sup ω(t).
t∈[0,1]

Proposition 3.1. Suppose 0 < α < 1, f ∈ C α ([0, T ], L2 ) and u0 ∈ D. Then there
exists a unique solution to (3.7) and u is given by the Bochner integral
Z t
(3.9)
u(t) = Pt,b u0 +
Pt−s f (s)ds for all t ∈ [0, T ].
0

Moreover, if f (0) + Lb u0 ∈ D(α), then in fact u belongs to C 1+α ([0, T ], L2 ) ∩
C α ([0, T ], D), and we have the norm estimate

kukC 1+α([0,T ],L2 ) + kLb ukC α([0,T ],D) ≤ C kf kC α ([0,T ],L2 ) + ku0 kLb + kf (0) + Lb u0 kD(α)
for some constant C which is independent of f , u0 and u.

Proof. This is a special case of Theorem 4.3.1 (iii) in [18] with X = L2 (µb ) and
A = Lb , where we note that the integral formula (3.9) is given by Proposition 4.1.2
in the same reference. We also note that D(α) coincides with the space DA (α, ∞)
from [18] with equivalent norms, see Proposition 2.2.4 in [18]. It therefore suffices to
verify that the general theory for parabolic PDEs developed in [18] actually applies
to our particular case. For that, we need to check that (Pt,b )t≥0 is an analytic
semigroup of operators on L2 in the sense of [18], p.34, which requires the following.
(1) The resolvent set ρ(Lb ) of the infinitesimal generator Lb contains a sector
S ⊆ C of the form
ρ(Lb ) ⊇ Sθ,ω := {λ ∈ C : λ 6= ω, | arg(λ − ω)| < θ}
for some θ > π/2, ω ∈ R.
(2) There exists some constant M > 0 such that the resolvent estimate
kR(λ, Lb)kL2 →L2 ≤

M
|λ − ω|

holds for all λ ∈ Sθ,ω .
As Lb has a discrete spectrum which is contained in the non-positive half line, both
of the above properties are easily checked.


8

SVEN WANG

In order to streamline some of the proofs, we will occasionally use the symbols
., &, ≃ to denote one- or two-sided inequalities up to multiplicative constants that
are ‘universal’ in the context where the symbols appear. We also use the standard
OP , oP , O, o notation to estimate the order of magnitude of sequences of random
variables and real numbers, respectively.
3.2. Recursive definition. In order to make use of Proposition 3.1, we will view
the transition densities pt,b (x, y) as functions of the two variables (t, x) ∈ (0, T ]×[0, 1]
with y ∈ [0, 1] fixed, where T is an arbitrary constant T > ∆ > 0, In other words,
we ‘augment’ the function in the time domain from t = ∆ to t ∈ [0, T ]. Moreover,
it will frequently be useful to view real-valued functions f : [0, T ] × [0, 1] → R as
L2 -valued maps f : [0, T ] → L2 ([0, 1]), and in slight abuse of notation, we will switch
between these two perspectives without further comment.
Due to the singular behaviour of pt,b (x, y) for (t, x) → (0, y), a regularisation
is needed in order to apply Proposition 3.1. To this end, let (Pt,0 )t≥0 denote the
transition semigroup for b = 0, which corresponds to reflected Brownian motion
started at some point y ∈ [0, 1]. For any regularisation parameter δ > 0, we then
define the regularized transition densities by
uδd : [0, T ] × [0, 1] → R,

uδd (t, x) := Pδ,0(pt,d (x, ·))(y)

for all d ∈ H 1 . It is easily checked that

uδd (t) = Pt,d ϕδ

for all t ≥ 0,

where for convenience we introduce the notation ϕδ (x) = pδ,0 (y, x). This is crucial
in view of the following Lemma, which gives a PDE interpretation to uδd .
Lemma 3.2. Let d ∈ H 1 . Then uδd ∈ C 3/2 ([0, T ], L2 ) ∩ C 1/2 ([0, T ], D) and uδd is the
unique solution to the initial value problem
(
(∂t − Ld )u(t) = 0 for all t ∈ [0, T ],
(3.10)
u(0) = ϕδ .
Proof. We just need to check that Proposition 3.1 applies with α = 1/2. For this,
we need that ϕδ ∈ D and that Ld ϕδ ∈ D(1/2). Using the spectral decomposition
(3.4) and the fact that µb = Leb([0, 1]) for b = 0, we see by differentiating under the
sum that ϕδ ∈ D. This is possible by Lemma 5.1 and the dominated convergence
theorem. The same argument yields that ϕδ ∈ H 3 . Thus, as d ∈ H 1 , we have that
Ld ϕδ ∈ H 1 , which is a subset of D(1/2) by Lemma 5.5.

Next, let
R0δ [h] = R0δ = uδb+h − uδb
denote the difference of the regularized transition densities at b + h and b. The
notation R0δ is supposed to indicate that this is the remainder of the ‘0-th order
approximation’ at b. As uδb is the ‘0-th order approximating term’, we will also write
v0δ = uδb .
Lemma 3.2 yields that R0δ ∈ C 3/2 ([0, T ], L2 ) ∩ C 1/2 ([0, T ], D) and allows us to
interpret R0δ [h] from a PDE perspective as the solution to
(
(∂t − Ld )R0δ (t) = Lh uδb+h (t), t ∈ [0, T ]
(3.11)
R0δ (0) = 0,

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

9

where Lh is defined in (3.3). We would like to generalize this to k ≥ 1 in order to
obtain higher order approximations Rkδ and vkδ .
Definition 3.3. For k ≥ 1, we inductively define Rkδ : [0, T ] → L2 ([0, 1]) via Proposition 3.1 as the unique solution to the PDE
(
δ
(∂t − Lb ) Rkδ (t) = Lh Rk−1
[h], t ∈ [0, T ]
(3.12)
u(0) = 0.
Moreover, the we define the k-th order approximation term vkδ by
δ
vkδ [h] := Rk−1
[h] − Rkδ [h].

Note that this definition is actually admissible, as it is easily checked by induction
δ
(using Proposition 3.1) that for each k ≥ 0, Lh Rk−1
[h] ∈ C 1/2 ([0, T ], H 1), and in
δ
particular Lh Rk−1
[h](0) ∈ H 1 ⊆ D(1/2).
We will eventually deduce that vkδ [h] define the correct coefficients for the (Taylor) polynomial approximations of the function Φ from Theorem 2.1. For that, we
crucially need to check that for each k ∈ N ∪ {0} and δ > 0, vkδ is homogeneous of
degree k in h, that is, for all h ∈ H 1 and η ∈ R,
vkδ [ηh] = η k vkδ [h].

(3.13)

To see this, we first note that for each k ∈ N ∪ {0},
(3.14)

δ
δ
δ
(∂t − Lb ) vk+1
= (∂t − Lb ) (Rkδ − Rk+1
) = Lh (Rkδ − Rk+1
) = Lh vkδ .

Let S = (∂t − Lb )−1 denote the linear solution operator that maps any function
f ∈ C 1/2 ([0, T ], L2 ) to the solution of the parabolic problem
(
(∂t − Lb ) u(t) = f (t), t ∈ [0, T ],
u(0) = 0.
We show (3.13) by induction. For k = 0, we have that
v0δ [ηh] = uδb = v0δ [h]
for all η ∈ R. If (3.13) holds for some k ≥ 0, then we have by (3.14) that
δ
vk+1
[ηh] = S(Lηh vkδ [ηh]) = η k+1 S(Lh vkδ [h]),

which proves the claim.
3.3. Regularity estimates. In this section, we derive regularity estimates for the
remainders Rkδ [h], k ≥ 0 defined above, which will justify why indeed the vkδ are
the right approximating terms. This will be based on both the general PDE results
summarized in Propsition 3.1 as well as the detailed spectral analysis of the operators
Lb and (Pt,b )t≥0 done in Section 5.
The main goal of this section is to prove the following Lemma, which can be
viewed as a regularised version of Theorem 2.1.
Lemma 3.4. For each ǫ > 0, there exists a constant C such that for all b ∈ Θ,
h ∈ H01 with khkH 1 ≤ 1, y ∈ [0, 1], k ∈ N ∪ {0} and δ > 0,
k+1/2−ǫ

kRkδ (∆)kL∞ ≤ C k khkH 1

.

10

SVEN WANG

Crucially, the estimate in the above theorem is uniform in δ > 0 such that it can
be preserved in the limit δ → 0. The estimate will be obtained by interpolating
between an L2 -estimate and an H 1 -estimate, which we prove separately:
kRkδ (∆)kL2 ≤ C k khkk+1
L∞ ,

kRkδ (∆)kH 1 ≤ C k khkkH 1 .

Throughout this section, when we write that an estimate is ‘uniform’ without further
comment, we mean that the constants involved are independent of δ > 0, b ∈ Θ,
h ∈ H01 with khkH 1 ≤ 1 and y ∈ [0, 1]. Accordingly, we use the symbols ., & to
indicate that an estimate holds up to a constant which is uniform in this sense.
3.3.1. The L2 -estimate. In order to prove estimates that are uniform in δ > 0, we
need to introduce a second ‘regularisation’ by integrating Rkδ in time. For all integers
k ≥ 0, we define
Z t
δ
2
δ
Qk [h] : [0, T ] → L , Qk [h](t) =
Rkδ [h](s)ds.
0

2

Here is the L -estimate.
Lemma 3.5. For each b ∈ Θ and h ∈ H01 , Qδ0 is the unique solution to the PDE
(
Rt
(∂t − Lb ) Qδ0 (t) = Lh 0 uδb+h (s)ds, t ∈ [0, T ]
(3.15)
Qδ0 (0) = 0
and for k ≥ 1, Qδk [h] is the unique solution to the PDE
(
(∂t − Lb ) Qδk (t) = Lh Qδk−1 (t), t ∈ [0, T ]
(3.16)
Qδk (0) = 0.
For all α < 1/4, there exists a constant C such that for all b ∈ Θ, h ∈ H01 with
khkH 1 ≤ 1, y ∈ [0, 1], k ∈ N ∪ {0} and δ > 0,
(3.17)

kQk kC 1+α ([0,T ],L2 ) + kQk kC α ([0,T ],D) ≤ C k khkk+1
L∞ .

In particular, we have that
(3.18)

kRkδ kC α ([0,T ],L2 ) ≤ C k khkk+1
L∞ .

Proof. Step 1: We first show the PDE (3.15) for Qδ0 . Using Riemann sums to approximate the integrals below, the closedness of the operators Lb and Lh as well as
(3.11), we obtain that
Z t
δ
δ
(∂t − Lb ) Q0 = R0 (t) −
Lb R0δ (s)ds
0
Z t
δ
δ
= R0 (t) − R0 (0) −
Lb R0δ (s)ds
0
(3.19)
Z t
=
(∂t − Lb ) R0δ (s)ds
0
Z t
= Lh
uδb+h (s)ds.
0

Qδ0

1

Moreover, we clearly have
∈ C ([0, T ], L2([0, 1])) ∩ C([0, T ], D), such that Qδ0 is
the unique solution given by Proposition 3.1.

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

11

Step 2: We show (3.17) for k = 0. To that end, let α < 1/4, δ > 0, b ∈ Θ,
khk ∈ H01 with khkH 1 ≤ 1. For notational convenience, let us write
Z t
′
δ
f (t) =
ub+h (s)ds .
0

In view of (3.15) and Proposition 3.1, and noting that hf (0) = 0, it suffices to show
that kf kC α([0,T ],L2 ) ≤ C for some uniform constant C. For all t < t′ ∈ [0, T ], we have
by the definition of uδb+h that
Z t′ Z 1
′
ps,b+h (x, z)ϕδ (z)dzds
[f (t ) − f (t)] (x) =∂x
t
0
!
Z
Z ′
1

t

=∂x

ps,b+h (x, z)ds ϕδ (z)dz,

0

t

where we have used Fubini’s theorem, which is justified by the heat kernel estimate
in Lemma 5.5.
For convenience, let us for now write µ for µb+h and (λj , uj )k≥0 for the eigenpairs
of Lb+h . Using the spectral decomposition (3.4) with b + h in place of b and Fubini’s
theorem, we obtain by integrating each summand separately that
Z 1
′
′
[f (t ) − f (t)] (x) = (t − t )∂x
ϕδ (z)µ(z)dz
0
Z 1X
1 t′ λj
(e − etλj )uj (x)uj (z)ϕδ (z)µ(z)dz
+ ∂x
(3.20)
λ
0 j≥1 j
X 1 ′
(et λj − etλj )uj (x)huj , ϕδ iL2 (µ) .
= ∂x
λ
j≥1 j
Here the use of Fubini’s theorem was justified, as Lemma 5.1 yields that
Z

0

1

Z

t

∞
t′ X

esλj uj (x)uj (z)µ(z)ϕδ (z) dz

j=0

≤

∞
X
j=0

kuj kL∞ kuj µϕδ kL1

. kµϕδ kL2
.C+

∞
X
j=1

Z

t′

esλj ds

t

(t′ − t)ku0 kL∞

∞
X
1 t′ λj
+
(e − etλj )|λj |1/4+ǫ
|λ
|
j
j=1

!

3

j − 2 −2ǫ < ∞.

Here we have used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and kuj kL2 (µ) = 1 in the second
last inequality.
From Lemma 5.6 and (3.20), it follows that

(3.21)
f (t′ ) − f (t) = ∂x L−1
b+h (Pt′ ,b+h ϕδ − Pt,b+h ϕδ ) .

Moreover, using the norm estimate from Lemma 5.6, the density of C ∞ ([0, 1]) in
H 1 ([0, 1]), the self-adjointness of Pt,b+h with respect to h·, ·iL2(µ) and finally Lemma

12

SVEN WANG

5.5, we obtain that
kf (t′ ) − f (t)kL2 ≤ kL−1
b+h (Pt′ ,b+h ϕδ − Pt,b+h ϕδ ) kH 1
. kPt,b+h (Pt′ −t,b+h − Id)ϕδ kH −1
sup

.

φ∈C ∞ ([0,1]),kφkH 1 ≤1

=

sup
φ∈C ∞ ([0,1]),kφkH 1 ≤1

.

sup kPt,b+h ϕδ kL1
t>0

.

sup
φ∈C ∞ ([0,1]),kφkH 1 ≤1

h(Pt′ −t,b+h − Id)Pt,b+h ϕδ , φiL2(µ)

!

hPt,b+h ϕδ , (Pt′ −t,b+h − Id)φiL2 (µ)

!

sup
φ∈C ∞ ([0,1]),kφkH 1 ≤1

k(Pt′ −t,b+h − Id)φkL∞

!

k(Pt′ −t,b+h − Id)φkL∞

. (t′ − t)α .

Step 3: The case k ≥ 1. We first note that for each k ≥ 1, (3.16) is proven by the
same argument as in Step 1. The regularity estimate is obtained by induction. We
have already proven the base case k = 0, so let us assume that the estimate holds
for some k ≥ 0. By the induction hypothesis, we then have that
kLh Qk kC α ([0,T ],L2) ≤ khk∞ kQk kC α ([0,T ],D) ≤ C k · Ckhkk+1
L∞ .
The claim then follows from Proposition 3.1, and (3.18) follows upon differentiating
in t.


3.3.2. The H 1 estimate. For the H 1 estimate in Lemma 3.8, we will write Rkδ (t) in
the integral form given by (3.9) and decompose the time integral over t ∈ [0, ∆]
into two integrals, one for times close to 0 and one for times bounded away from 0.
Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.7 allow to control the second and first parts of the integral
respectively.
Lemma 3.6. Let T > 0. Then there exists a constant C such that for all b ∈ Θ,
h ∈ H01 with khkH 1 ≤ 1, integers k ≥ 0 and t1 , t2 ∈ (0, T ] with t1 ≤ t2 , we have
Z

t2

t1

Pt2 −t Lh Rkδ (t)dt

H1

≤ CkhkL∞ sup kRkδ (t)kH 1 .
t∈[t1 ,t2 ]

We note that it is not clear a priori that the right hand side is finite, but this will
follow iteratively from the arguments below.

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

13

Proof. By Lemma 5.2, we can estimate the (−Lb )1/2 -graph norm instead of the
H 1 -norm. To that end, we use Lemma 5.1 to estimate
Z t2
2
δ
1/2
Pt2 −t Lh Rk (t)dt
(−Lb )
t1

=

j=1

≤c

(3.22)

L2 (µb )

∞ Z t2
X

≤c
≤c

∞
X
j=1

′′

λj (t2 −t)

|λj | e

t1

∞ Z
X
j=1

1
2

t2

−c′ j 2 (t2 −t)

je

t1

2

huj , hRkδ (t)′ iL2 (µ) dt

2

khRkδ (t)′ kL2 (µb ) dt

jkhkL∞ sup kRkδ (t)kH 1

khk2L∞

t∈[t1 ,t2 ]

sup
t∈[t1 ,t2 ]

kRkδ (t)kH 1

!2

Z

t2

−c′ j 2 (t2 −t)

e

!2

dt

t1

∞
X
1
.
j2
j=1

To obtain the estimate for the usual L2 (µb )-norm, we note that
(
Z t2
T for j = 0
′ 2
e−c j (t2 −t) dt ≤
1
for j ≥ 1.
t1
c′ j 2
Using this and otherwise similar calculations as in (3.22), we obtain that
!2
Z
2
t2

t1

Pt2 −t Lh Rkδ (t)dt

≤ ckhk2L∞

L2 (µb )

sup kRkδ (t)kH 1

.

t∈[t1 ,t2 ]

Combined with (3.22), this proves the claim.



Lemma 3.7. Let 0 < η < T < ∞. Then there exists a constant C such that for all
b ∈ Θ, h ∈ H01 with khkH 1 ≤ 1, integers k ≥ 0k ≥ 0 and t ∈ [0, T − η],
Z t
≤ CkhkH 1 sup kRkδ (s)kL2 .
PT −t Lh Rkδ (t)dt
0

s∈[0,t]

H1

Proof. Using Lemma 5.4 and the boundary condition h(0) = h(1) = 0 to integrate
by parts, we obtain
Z t
Z t
δ
≤c
Lh Rkδ (t) H −1 dt
PT −t Lh Rk (t)dt
0

0

H1

=c

Z

0

t

sup
ψ∈C ∞ ,kψkH 1 ≤1

−

≤ c′ khkH 1 sup Rkδ (s)
s∈[0,t]

Z

(ψh)′ Rkδ (t) dt

L2

.


Lemma 3.8. Let k ≥ 0 be an integer and ∆ > 0. Then there exists a constant C
such that for all b, h, k, δ as above,
kRkδ (∆)kH 1 ≤ C k khkkL∞ .

14

SVEN WANG

Proof. For k = 0, this is clear from 5.3. Let k ≥ 1. We first split Rkδ (∆) into two
terms:
Z ∆
Z ∆/2
δ
δ
δ
+
P∆−t Lh Rk−1
(t)dt
P∆−t Lh Rk−1 (t)dt
kRk (∆)kH 1 ≤
=: I + II.
0

∆/2

H1

H1

By Lemma 3.7 and Lemma 3.5, we can estimate the first term by
δ
I ≤ ckhkH 1 Rk−1

C([0,∆/2],L2 )

≤ c · c′k khkH 1 khkkL∞

for some universal constant c′ . For the second term, we apply Lemma 3.6 to obtain
II ≤ ckhkL∞

sup
t∈[∆/2,∆]

δ
kRk−1
(t)kH 1 .

Iterating this argument k − 1 more times by splitting kRjδ (t)kH 1 , j = 1, ..., k − 1 in
the same way and estimating the two terms analogously yields the estimate
!
II ≤ c′k

khkkL∞ khkH 1 + khkkL∞

sup

t∈[∆/2k ,∆]

kR0δ (t)kH 1

≤ c′′k khkkL∞ ,

where the constants can be chosen independently of k. Taking C large enough
establishes the claim.

4. Proofs of Main Theorems
4.1. Differentiability of transition densities. We first take the limit δ → 0 in
Lemma 3.5 to obtain Theorem 2.1.
Proof. As in the statement of Theorem 2.1, let us fix b ∈ Θ, h ∈ H01 with khkH 1 ≤ 1
and x, y ∈ [0, 1]. Recall the notation Φ(η) := p∆,b+ηh (x, y) for η ∈ R. Let δ > 0 be
a regularisation parameter. For notational convenience, we shall define
Φδ (η) := uδb+ηh (∆, x) for all η ∈ R,

aδk := vkδ [h](∆, x) for all k = 0, 1, 2, ...,

pδk (η)

:=

k
X

aδi η i

i=0

for all η ∈ R and k = 0, 1, 2, ...

Then Lemma 3.5 implies that there is a constant C such that for all δ > 0 and
η ∈ R,
Φδ (η) − pδk (η) = Rkδ [h](∆, x) ≤ C k |η|k+1/4 .

(4.1)

 1 1
, 2C . We
This yields that for all δ > 0, Φδ is given by a power series on η ∈ − 2C
would like to show the same for Φ. The rest of the proof is divided into three steps.
Step 1: Convergence of Φδ (η). Note that by the definition of uδb+ηh , we have for
any η ∈ R that
Φδ (η) − Φ(η) = |[Pδ,0 p∆,b+ηh (x, ·)] (y) − p∆,b+ηh (x, y)| .

Note that for all B > 0, we have
M :=

sup
x∈[0,1],kdkH 1 ≤B

kp∆,d(x, ·)kH 1 < ∞

by Lemma 5.3. Thus, by choosing B large enough and using Lemma 5.5, we obtain
that there exists M > 0 such that we have the uniform estimate
|p∆,d (x, y) − Pδ,0 p∆,d (x, ·)(y)|
≤

sup

x∈[0,1],kdkH 1 ≤B

kPδ,0 p∆,d (x, ·) − p∆,d (x, ·)kL∞ ≤ CMδ α → 0

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

15

for any α < 1/4.
Step 2: Convergence of aδk . Let δn > 0 be a sequence tending to 0 as n → ∞, and
fix some η 6= 0. Using (4.1), it is easily seen inductively that for all k = 0, 1, 2, ...,
the sequence (aδkn )n is bounded. Therefore, by a diagonal argument there exists a
δn l→∞
subsequence (δnl )l∈N such that for all k, ak l −−−→ ak for some ak ∈ R. Defining the
polynomials
pk (η) :=

k
X

ai η i

for all η ∈ R and k = 0, 1, 2, ...,

i=0

we see that the estimate (4.1) still holds with Φ and pk in place of Φδ and pδk . Thus
1
1
, 2C
.
Φ is given by the above power series on η ∈ − 2C
′
Step 3: Integral formula for Φ (0). It remains to show the integral formula (2.5).
By the above, we already know that for some constants a0 and a1 , we have that
|Φ(η) − a0 − ηa1 | ≤ C|η|5/4 ,

and it is clear that we must have a0 = Φ(0) and a1 = Φ′ (0) = limδ→0 aδ1 . Moreover,
we know that for all δ > 0,
Z ∆


δ
δ
a1 = v1 [h](∆, x) =
P∆−s,b Lh uδb (s) (x)ds.
0

Therefore, we only need to show that the following expression converges to 0 as
δ → 0:
Z ∆
Z ∆
[P∆−s,bLh Ps,b ϕδ ] (x)ds −
[P∆−s,bLh ps,b (·, y)](x)ds
0
0
Z 1

Z ∆Z 1
=
p∆−s,b (x, z)h(z)∂z
ps,b (z, u)ϕδ (u)du − ps,b(z, y) dzds
0

=−
+

Z

Z

0
∆/2

0
∆

∆/2

0

Z

Z

0
1

0

1

Z

∂z [p∆−s,b (x, z)h(z)]
Z
p∆−s,b(x, z)h(z)∂z

0

+ boundary terms
= I + II + boundary terms.

1



ps,b(z, u)ϕδ (u)du − ps,b (z, y) dzds

1
ps,b(z, u)ϕδ (u)du − ps,b (z, y) dzds
0

For the term I, similarly as above, we have by Lemma 5.3 that for each fixed
s ∈ [0, ∆2 ]
sup kps,b(z, ·)kH 1 < ∞,
z∈[0,1]

whence
sup
z∈[0,1]

Z

0

1

ps,b(z, u)ϕδ (u)du − ps,b (z, y)
δ→0

≤ sup kPδ,0 ps,b(z, ·) − ps,b(z, ·)k∞ −−→ 0,
z∈[0,1]

which shows that the ds-integrand in I tends to 0 pointwise. Moreover, by the heat
kernel estimate in Lemma 5.5, the ds-integrand is bounded uniformly in δ by the
integrable function
2C
2C
√ kp∆−s,b(x, z)h(z)kH 1 (dz) ≤ √ khkH 1
sup
kp∆−s,b(·, z)kH 1 ,
s
s
z∈[0,1],s∈[∆/2,∆]

16

SVEN WANG

where C is the constant from the first part of Lemma 5.5. It follows by the dominated
δ→0
convergence theorem that |I| −−→ 0 uniformly for x, y ∈ [0, 1] and b ∈ Θ. 

For II, we argue similarly. By Lemma 5.3, we have that for each fixed s ∈ ∆2 , ∆ ,
sup k∂z ps,b(z, ·)kH 2 < ∞,

z∈[0,1]

whence Lemma 5.5 yields that
Z 1

∂z
ps,b(z, u)ϕδ (u)du − ps,b (z, y)
0
Z 1
=
∂z ps,b(z, u)ϕδ (u)du − ∂z ps,b (z, y)
0

δ→0

≤ kPδ,0 [∂z ps,b(z, ·)] − ∂z ps,b (z, ·)kL∞ −−→ 0.
Moreover, the ds-integrand is pointwise bounded by the integrable function (cf.
Lemma 5.3)
√

C
sup
khkL∞
2 k∂z ps,b(z, ·)kL∞ ,
∆−s
s∈[ ∆ ,∆],z∈[0,1]
2

δ→0

which implies by the DCT that |II| −−→ 0. The boundary terms can be treated
analogously.

4.2. Proof of the LAN expansion. In order to show Theorem 2.2, we first state
a CLT for martingale difference sequences which is due to Brown [4], building on
ideas from Billingsley and Lévy. Suppose (Ω, F , (Fn )n≥0 , P) is a filtered probability
space, and let Mn be a (Fn )n≥0 -martingale with increments Yn := Mn − Mn−1 . Let
σn2

=E



Yn2

Vn2



Fn−1 ,

Then we have the following.

=

n
X

σi2 ,

s2n = E[Vn2 ].

i=1

Proposition 4.1 (cf. [4]). Let Mn be a (Fn )n≥0 -martingale. Suppose that
n→∞

Vn2 s−2
−−→ 1
n −
in probability and that for all ǫ > 0,
(4.2)
in probability. Then
as n → ∞.

n
 n→∞
1 X  2
E Yi 1|Mi |≥ǫsn −−−→ 0
2
sn i=1

Mn d
− N (0, 1)
→
sn

We now show the main result. We will repeatedly use the fact that the Markov
chain (Xn∆ )n≥0 , originating from the diffusion (2.1) started in the invariant measure
X0 ∼ µb , is stationary and geometrically ergodic (due to the spectral gap of its
generator Lb ).
Proof of Theorem 2.2. Fix b ∈ Θ and h ∈ H 1 . For notational simplicity, let us write
f (η, x, y) = log p∆,b+ηh (x, y),

g(η, x, y) = p∆,b+ηh (x, y)

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

17

Due to Theorem 2.1, we know that f is smooth in η on a neighbourhood of 0 and
that the second order Taylor approximation satisfies
(4.3) Rf (η) := sup |f (η, x, y)−f (0, x, y)−η∂η f (0, x, y)−
x,y∈[0,1]

η2 2
∂ f (0, x, y)| ≤ Cη 9/4
2 η

where we have set ǫ = 1/4 for simplicity.
Thus by (2.4), Taylor-expanding the
√
log-likelihood ratio in direction h/ n gives that
log

(4.4)

dPnb+h/√n
dPnb

(X0 , ..., Xn∆ )

n


1 X
√
= log µb+ n−1 h (X0 ) − log µb (X0 ) + √
∂η f (0, X(i−1)∆ , Xi∆ )
n i=1
n

1X1 2
∂ f (0, X(i−1)∆ , Xi∆ ) + Dn
+
n i=1 2 η

:=An + Bn + Cn + Dn .

We proceed ‘backwards’ and begin by treating the remainder term Dn of the
 Taylor

approximations, for which we immediately see from (4.3) that |Dn | ≤ n·Rf √1n →
0 as n → ∞, whence Dn = oPb (1).
For Cn , observe that by Theorem 2.1, ∂η2 f (0, ·, ·) is a bounded function, such that
the almost sure ergodic theorem yields that,
n→∞ 1
Cn −−−→ E[∂η2 f (0, X0, X∆ )]
2

a.s.,

where E denotes the expected value with respect to Pb . Next, we note
∂s2 f (0, X0, X∆ ) =

∂s2 g(0, X0, X∆ ) ∂s g(0, X0, X∆ )2
−
=: I + II.
g(0, X0, X∆ )
g(0, X0, X∆ )2

Using the dominated convergence theorem (DCT) to interchange differentiation and
integration, which is possible by Theorem 2.1, and Fubini’s theorem, we see that
Z 1Z 1
Z 1
2
E[I] =
∂η g(0, x, y)µb(x)dxdy =
(∂η2 1)dµb(x) = 0,
0

0

0

whence
E[∂η2 f (0, X0, X∆ )] = −hAb h, Ab hiL2 (Pb µb ) = −khk2LAN .
We next treat Bn . Let (Fn )n≥0 denote the natural filtration of the process
(X∆n )n≥0 . In view of Proposition 4.1, let us write
Yn = ∂η f (0, X(n−1)∆ , Xn∆ ),
n

X
√
Yn ,
Mn = nBn =


σn2 = E Yn2 X(n−1)∆ ,

i=1
n
X

Vn2 =

i=1

σi2 ,

s2n = E[Vn2 ].

18

SVEN WANG

By the DCT and the Markov property, we then obtain that for all n ≥ 1,
Z
E[Yn |Fn−1 ] =
∂η f (0, X(n−1)∆ , y)p∆,b(X(n−1)∆ , y)dy
[0,1]
Z
=
∂η g(0, X(n−1)∆ , y)dy
[0,1]
Z

= ∂η
g(η, X(n−1)∆ , y)dy
= 0.
[0,1]

η=0

This shows that Mn is indeed a (stationary) martingale. Moreover, we have that
σn2 = σ̃ 2 (X(n−1)∆ ) for some bounded measurable function σ̃ 2 : [0, 1] → [0, ∞) and
by the stationarity of (Xi∆ )i≥0 , we have s2n = nE[σ̃ 2 (X0 )] = nkhk2LAN , whence
the ergodic theorem yields that Vn2 s−2
n → 1 a.s. Lastly, as the Yi ’s are bounded
d
random variables, condition (4.2) is fulfilled. Thus Proposition 4.1 yields that Bn −
→
N (0, khk2LAN ).
Finally, we observe that the term An in (4.4) from the invariant measure is of
order oPb (1), as it can be bounded uniformly using (3.5):
|log µb+h/√n (X0 ) − log µb (X0 )|
. kµb+h/√n − µb kL∞
R

R

√

·
·
e 0 b(y)dy
e 0 (b+h/ n)(y)dy
− R1 Rx
. R 1 Rx
√
0 (b+h/ n)(y)dy dx
e 0 b(y)dy dx
e
0
0

L∞

n→∞

−−−→ 0.



5. Spectral analysis of Lb and (Pt,b )t≥0
In this section, we prove or state properties regarding the differential operator Lb ,
the transition semigroup (Pt,b )t≥0 and related differential equations. Together with
Proposition 3.1, these results form the main analytical tools for the proofs in Section
3. Although some parts in this section can be obtained using well-known more
general theory, in our particular case they can be proven more or less elementarily
by use of the spectral analysis of Lb done in Section 5.1.
5.1. Bounds on eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the generator Lb . The
following Lemma summarizes some properties of uj and λj needed in the main proofs.
We note that the estimates on kuj kH α in Lemma 5.1 below form an improvement
on the bound from [12], Lemma 6.6, and should be of the “right order” in the sense
that “two derivatives of uj correspond to one order of growth in λj ”, in view of the
eigenvalue equation Lb uj = λj uj .

Lemma 5.1. Suppose s ∈ N \ {0} and b ∈ H s .
(1) For all j ≥ 0, we have uj ∈ H s+2 .
(2) For all B > 0, there exist constants C, C ′ > 0 such that for all kbkH s ≤ B
and j ≥ 0,
λj ∈ [−Cj 2 , −C ′ j 2 ].
In particular, we have u0 = 1, λ0 = 0.
(3) For all 0 ≤ α ≤ s + 2 and all B > 0, there exists a constant C such that for
all kbkH s ≤ B and j ≥ 1,
α

kuj kH α ≤ C|λj | 2 .

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

19

In particular, we have kuj kL∞ . |λj |1/4+ǫ for all ǫ > 0.
Proof. (1) Recall that the domain of Lb is

D = H 2 ∩ {f ′ (0) = f ′ (1) = 0}.

(5.1)

We know that uj ∈ D, whence

u′′j = λuj − bu′j ∈ H 1

because H 1 is a multiplication algebra. Differentiating this equation s − 1 times and
(s+1)
∈ H 1.
bootstrapping yields that uj
(2) To show the quadratic bound on the eigenvalues, we adapt the arguments of
Chapter 4 from [9]. We know that the standard Laplacian L0 = ∆ with domain
D is a nonpositive self-adjoint operator with spectrum {−j 2 π 2 |j = 0, 1, 2, ...}. The
quadratic form associated with −L0 is
Q0 (f ) = hf ′ , f ′iL2

1

for all f ∈ Dom((−L0 ) 2 ) = H 1 .

The fact that this is the domain of the quadratic form is shown in Chapter 7 of [9].
Using the formula (3.5), it is easily checked that Lb (with the same domain D)
is self-adjoint with respect to the L2 (µb)-inner product, and that the associated
quadratic form Qb is given by
Qb (f ) = h−Lb f, f iL2 (µb )
Z
Z
Z
′2
′
′
=
f µb dx +
f f µbdx −
f ′ f bµb dx
[0,1]
′
′

[0,1]

[0,1]

= hf , f iL2 (µb )

for f ∈ D. Here we have used the Neumann boundary conditions to integrate by
parts. For any finite-dimensional subspace L ⊆ D, define
(5.2)

λ(0) (L) :=

inf

f ∈L,kf kL2 ≤1

−Q0 (f ),

λ(b) (L) :=

inf

f ∈L,kf kL2 (µ ) ≤1
b

−Qb (f ).

Then by Theorem 4.5.3 of [9], the eigenvalues of L0 and Lb are given by

(0)
−j 2 π 2 = λj = sup λ(0) (L)|L ⊆ D, dim L ≤ j
and
(5.3)

(b)
λj = sup λ(b) (L)|L ⊆ D, dim L ≤ j

respectively. As the invariant measure is bounded below and above uniformly for
kbkH 1 ≤ B by (3.6), this yields the existence of the desired constants C, C ′ .
(3) We prove the statement by induction. For any integer k ≤ 1 and f ∈ H k , let
(k)
f denote the k-th weak derivative of f . Iterating the equation Lb uj = λj uj , we
get
λ2j uj = L2b uj = (u′′j + bu′j )′′ + b(u′′j + bu′j )′
(4)

′′′
′′ ′
2 ′′
= uj + b′′ u′j + 2b′ u′′j + bu′′′
j + buj + bb uj + b uj .

Note that on all but the first summand, the sum of the numbers of derivatives on
each factor of the summand is at most 3. This generalizes to n ≥ 3, in that there
exist polynomials Pn,j such that
(5.4)

(2n)

λnj uj = Lnb uj = uj

+

2n−1
X

(m)

Pn,m(b, b′ , ..., b(2n−2) )uj .

m=1

One easily checks the following properties by induction:
(1) For each n ≥ 1 and m ≤ 2n − 1, Pn,m has at most degree at most n.

20

SVEN WANG

(2) The ‘total number of derivatives’ in each monomial of Pn,m is at most 2n −
m − 1.
(3) Pn,2n−1 = nb for all n ≥ 1.
(4) The only summand in the sum with factor b(2n−2) is u′j b(2n−2) .
Moreover, for the odd order derivatives, we get that
!′
2n−1
X
(m)
u(2n+1) = Lnb uj −
Pn,m (b, b′ , ..., b(2n−2) )uj
m=1

(5.5)

= λnj u′j +

2n
X

(m)

P̃n,m (b, b′ , ..., b(2n−1) )uj

m=1

with P̃n,2n = nb and with the only summand containing the factor b(2n−1) being
u′j b(2n−1) .
We can now carry out the induction argument, which consists of the base case
and two induction steps.
Base Case α ≤ 2: To show the statement for all α ≤ 2, it suffices to prove the
case α = 2, as the case α ∈ (0, 2) then follows from kuj kL2 (µ) = 1 and the Sobolev
interpolation inequality (3.1). We also note that the estimate for kuj kL∞ then follows
by the Sobolev embedding (3.2).
We begin by arguing as in Lemma 6.6 in [12]: From (3.5), we see that b = µ′ /µ.
This yields that for all j ≥ 0, we have
1
Lb uj = λj uj = (µu′j )′ .
µ
Using u′j (0) = 0, this yields upon integration that for all x ∈ [0, 1],
Z x
′
uj (x)µb (x) = λj
µ(y)uj (y)dy
0

−1

ku′j kL∞

≤ |λj |kµkL2 kµ kL∞ . Thus it follows by (3.6) that there exists
and therefore
a constant C such that for all j ≥ 0 and b with kbkH s ≤ B, we have
ku′′j kL2 = kλj uj − bu′j kL2 ≤ |λj | + C|λj |kbkL∞ ,

proving the case α = 2.
2n → 2n + 1: Assume that the estimate holds for all α ≤ 2n, where n ≥ 1 is some
integer. Then we have by (5.5) and the induction hypothesis that
(2n+1)

kuj

(2n)

kL2 ≤ |λj |n ku′j kL2 + nkbkL∞ kuj
+c

2n−1
X
m=1

. |λj |

n+ 12
1

kL2 + kb(2n−1) kL2 ku′j kL∞

(m)

kbknH 2n−1 kuj kL2
1

1

+ nB|λj |n + B|λj | 4 +ǫ + B 2n−1 |λj |n− 2

. |λj |n+ 2 .

Again, the non-integer values α ∈ (2n, 2n + 1) follow by interpolation.
2n − 1 → 2n: Similarly as above, by (5.4) and the induction hypothesis we get
that
(2n)

kuj

(2n−1)

kL2 ≤ |λj |n + nkbkL∞ kuj
. |λj |n ,

and interpolating completes the proof.

kL2 + ckbknH 2n−2 |λj |2n−2


LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

21

5.2. Characterisation of Sobolev norms in terms of (λj , uj ). The following is
a crucial Lemma, which allows us to use the graph norms of the non-negative selfadjoint operators (−Lb )θ , θ ∈ {0, 12 , 1}, instead of the standard Sobolev norms, on
the respective domains. For any linear operator T on some Banach space (X, k · kX ),
we denote the graph norm of T by
1

kxkT := (kxk2X + kT xk2X ) 2 .

Lemma 5.2. (1) Let θ ∈ [0, 1]. For all f ∈ L2 , we have that f ∈ Dom (−Lb )θ if
and only if
∞
X
(1 + |λj |2θ )|hf, uj iL2 (µb ) |2 < ∞
j=0

and that

θ

(−Lb ) =

∞
X
j=1


1/2

|λj |θ hf, uj iL2 (µb ) uj .

Moreover, we have Dom (−Lb )
= H 1.
(2) For all k ∈ {0, 1, 2}, there exists a constant C > 0 such that for all f ∈
Dom (−Lb )k/2 ,
C −1 kf kH k ≤ kf k(−Lb)k/2 ≤ Ckf kH k .

(3) There exists a constant C > 0 such that for all f ∈ L2 ,
C −1 kf kH −1 ≤ (1 + |λj |)−1/2 hf, uj iL2 (µ)

ℓ2

≤ Ckf kH −1

Proof. (1) Let ℓ2 = ℓ2 (N∪{0}) denote the usual space of square-summable sequences.
We first show the statement for θ = 1. Define the dense linear subspace
D :=

∞
[

n=0

span {uj : j = 0, ..., n} ⊆ L2 (µb ).

Then by Lemma 1.2.2 in [9], we know that Lb restricted to the domain D, which
2
we shall denote by LD
b , is an essentially self-adjoint operator on L (µb ). Also, it is
elementary to see that under the unitary operator

U : L2 (µb ) → ℓ2 , f 7→ hf, uj iL2 (µb ) j≥0 ,

D
LD
:
b is unitarily equivalent to the essentially self-adjoint multiplication operator M
2
(aj )j 7→ (λj aj )j on ℓ with domain

U(D) = {a ∈ ℓ2 : aj = 0 for all j large enough}.
Therefore, the unique self-adjoint extentions of both operators (cf. [9], Theorem
1.2.7), which we denote by Lb and M, are also unitarily equivalent. We conclude
that for all f ∈ L2 (µb ), f ∈ D iff
∞
X
j=0

(1 + λ2j )|hf, uj iL2 (µb ) |2 < ∞

(The above condition defines the domain of the self-adjoint extension of M D , see
[9], Theorem 1.3.1). Moreover, we have the norm equality
kf k2Lb = k(1 + M)Uf k2ℓ2 .

22

SVEN WANG

Next, let θ ∈ [0, 1]. As −Lb is a self-adjoint non-negative operator, we know that

the fractional power (−Lb )θ is unitarily equivalent to multiplication with |λj |θ j

with f ∈ Dom (−Lb )θ iff
)
(
∞
X
(1 + |λj |2θ )|hf, uj iL2 (µ) |2 < ∞ .
Uf ∈ Dom(M θ ) = f ∈ L2
j=0

(2) For k = 0,
that the equality
 there1 is nothing to prove. For k = 1, we first note
1/2
1
Dom (−Lb )
= H is shown in [9], Chapter 7. For all f ∈ H , we have
1/2

1/2

kf k2L1/2 = kf k2L2 (µb ) + hLb f, Lb f iL2 (µb ) = kf k2H 1 (µb ) .
b

As µb is bounded below and above, the statement follows for k = 1.
Finally, let k = 2. It is clear that kf k2Lb ≤ C0 kf k2H 2 for some constant C0 . If thus
suffices to show that for some constant C1 , we have C1 kf k2Lb ≥ kf k2H 2 . For this, we
estimate using Cauchy’s inequality with ǫ,
1
kLb f k2L2 = kf ′′ k2L2 + 2hf ′′ , bf ′ iL2 + kbf ′ k2L2 ≥ kf ′′ k2L2 − ckf ′ k2L2 ,
2
which yields that
kf ′′ k2L2 ≤ 2kLb f k2L2 + 2ckf ′k2L2

≤ 2kLb f k2L2 + c′ kf kL2 kf ′′ kL2 )
1
≤ 2kLb f k2L2 + c′′ kf k2L2 + kf ′′ kL2 ,
2

by integration by parts and Cauchy’s inequality with ǫ. This proves that kf k2H 2 ≤
C1 kf k2Lb , establishing the claim for k = 2.
(3) For any f ∈ L2 and any test function ψ ∈ H 1 , let us denote the coefficients
of their expansion in the eigenbasis of Lb by fj and ψj , j ≥ 0 respectively. Then we
have that
kf kH −1 ≃

sup
ψ∈H 1 ,kψk(−L

=

sup
ψ∈H 1 ,kψk(−L

≤
.

b

≤1
)1/2





b

≤1
)1/2

hf, ψiL2 (µb )
∞
X

fj ψj

j=0

fj (1 + |λj |)−1/2
fj (1 + |λj |)−1/2





j ℓ2



ψj (1 + |λj |)1/2



j ℓ2

j ℓ2

by part (2) of this lemma, proving the second inequality in the statement. For the
first inequality, we note that using the ‘test function’


−1/2
ψ = fj (1 + |λj |)

∞
−1 X

j ℓ2
j=0

in the above display gives that

P∞

j=0 fj ψj =

fj (1 + |λj |)−1 uj ∈ H 1


fj (1 + |λj |)−1/2

j ℓ2

.



LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

23

5.3. Estimates on pt,b (·, ·) and Pt,b . We collect some useful properties of the transition operators Pt,b and the transition densities pt,b (·, ·). Although many of the
results below are well-known, in our particular (simple) case, most of them can be
proven more elementarily using the previous two Lemmata 5.1 and 5.2.
We first prove some estimates on the Lebesgue transition densities pt,b (·, ·), as
defined in (2.2).
Lemma 5.3. Let s ∈ N \ {0}, t > 0 and B > 0. Then we have the following.
(1) There exist constants 0 < C < C ′ < ∞ such that for all b ∈ H 1 with
kbkH 1 ≤ B and all x, y ∈ [0, 1],
C ≤ pt,b (x, y) ≤ C ′ .

(5.6)

(2) For each n ≤ s + 2, m ≤ s and n′ , m′ ≤ s + 1,
sup

sup k∂xn ∂ym pt,b (·, y)kL2 < ∞

y∈[0,1] kbkH s ≤B

(5.7)

sup

′

′

sup k∂xn ∂ym pt,b (x, ·)kL2 < ∞.

x∈[0,1] kbkH s ≤B

Proof. For (1), see [22], Proposition 9.
For (2), we show the first part of the statement, the second can be proved analogously. Let n ≤ s + 2, m ≤ s. From the formula (3.5) for µb , one easily sees
that
sup kµb kH s+1 < ∞.
kbkH s ≤B

Using that H is a multiplication algebra for k > 21 , the spectral decomposition
(3.4) and Lemma 5.1, we have
k

k∂xn ∂ym pt,b (·, y)kL2

≤
≤

∞
X

j=0
∞
X

(n)

etλj kuj kL2 | (uj µb )(m) (y)|

j=0
∞
X

≤c

≤c′
≤c

(n)

etλj kuj kL2 k(uj µb )(m) kL∞
etλj kuj kH s+2 kuj kH s+1 kµb kH s+1

j=0
∞
X

e−c

′′ j 2

|λj |

s+2 s+1
+ 2
2

j=0
∞
X
−c′′ j 2 2s+3
′′′

e

j=0

j

< ∞,

where the constants appearing above can be chosen uniformly in kbkH s ≤ B by
Lemma 5.1.

Next, here are some well-known basic properties of the semigroup (Pt,b )t≥0 ;
Lemma 5.4. (1) For all p ∈ [1, ∞], we have that kPt,b f kLp ≤ kf kLp .
(2) Let t0 > 0, s ∈ N \ {0} and B > 0. Then there exists a constant C such that for
all t ≥ t0 , b ∈ H s with kbkH s ≤ B and f ∈ L2 , we have Pt,b f ∈ H s+2 with the norm
estimate
kPt,b f kH s+2 ≤ Ckf kH −1 .

24

SVEN WANG

Proof. (1) For the L1 -norm, we use Fubini’s theorem to see
Z Z
Z Z
Z
pt,b (x, z)f (z)dz dx ≤
pt,b (x, z)dx|f (z)|dz = |f (z)|dz.
For the L∞ -norm, we observe that for all x ∈ [0, 1]
Z
|Pt,b f (x)| ≤ kf kL∞ pt,b (x, z)dz = kf kL∞ .

The case p ∈ (1, ∞) follows by the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem.
(2) By Lemma 5.1, uk ∈ H s+2 for all k ≥ 0. Therefore, by the spectral decomposition, Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2 and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we
obtain
∞
X
hf, uj iL2 (µb )
. kf kH −1 .
eλj t kuj kH s+2 (1 + |λj |)1/2
kPt,b f kH s+2 .
1/2
(1
+
|λ
|)
j
j=0


We also need some estimates on Pt,b and pt,b (·, ·) which hold in the limit t → 0.
Lemma 5.5. (1) For all B > 0, there exists a constant C such that for all t > 0
and b ∈ H 1 with kbkH 1 ≤ B,
1

kpt,b (·, ·)k∞ ≤ Ct− 2 .

(2) For every B > 0 and ǫ > 0 there exists a constant C such that for all b ∈ H 1
with kbkH 1 ≤ B, all f ∈ H 1 and all t ≥ 0,
kPt,b f − f kL2 ≤ Ct1/2 kf kH 1

kPt,b f − f kL∞ ≤ Ct1/4−ǫ kf kH 1 .

and

In particular, we have that H 1 ⊆ D(1/2), where D(1/2) was defined in (3.8)

Proof. (1) For any fixed b ∈ H 1 , this is the well-known heat kernel estimate, given
for example in Theorem 2.4.4. in [8]. By tracking the constants in the considerations
preceding this theorem, the uniform estimate is obtained.
(2) We note that the second estimate follows from the first and the Sobolev
interpolation inequality,
whence it suffices to show the first estimate. Let f ∈ H 1 =

1/2
Dom (−Lb )
. By the 1/2-Hölder continuity of x 7→ ex on (−∞, 0] and Lemma
5.2, it follows that for all t ≥ 0,
∞
X
2
2
eλj t − 1 |hf, uj iL2 (µb ) |2
kPt,b f − f kL2 (µb ) =

(5.8)

j=1
∞
X

≤ ct

j=1

|λj ||hf, uj iL2 (µb ) |2

≤ c′ tkf k2H 1 .



5.4. Basic norm estimates for the one-dimensional Neumann problem.
Finally, we show some basic properties of the (elliptic) ODE
(5.9)

Lb u = f

on [0,1]

with Neumann boundary conditions, which are needed in the proof of Lemma 3.5.
While being aware that the existence, uniqueness and regularity theory for solutions
to the Neumann problem exists in much greater generality in the literature, in our

LAN EXPANSION FOR DISCRETELY OBSERVED DIFFUSIONS

25

particular case the needed results follow straightforwardly from the spectral analysis
of Lemmata 5.1 and 5.2.
We denote the L2 (µb )- orthogonal complement of the constant one-function (the
first eigenfunction of Lb ) by


Z
⊥
2
f dµ = 0 .
u0 = f ∈ L

⊥
Lemma 5.6. For every f ∈ u⊥
0 , there exists a unique function u ∈ D ∩ u0 such
−1
that Lb u = f , and we write u = Lb f . Moreover, for every B > 0 there exists a
constant C > 0 such that for all b ∈ H 1 with kbkH 1 ≤ B and all f ∈ u⊥
0,

for s ∈ {0, 1, 2}.

kukH s ≤ Ckf kH s−2

Proof. It follows immediately from the spectral representation (see Lemma 5.2) that
−1
2
⊥
Lb is a one-to-one map from D ∩ u⊥
0 to L ∩ u0 , and that Lb is unitarily equivalent
to multiplication by λ−1
j 1j≥1 j≥0 in the spectral domain. By the equivalence of the
graph norm of Lb and the H 2 -norm on D, we have that
L−1
b f

H2

≃ Lb L−1
b f

2
L2

+ kf k2L2 ≤ 2kf k2L2 ,

proving the case s = 2.
The case s = 0 is obtained by a duality argument: Noting that via the spectral
2
interpretation above, L−1
b naturally extends to a self-adjoint operator on all of L (µb )
2
(also note that L−1
b is self-adjoint on all of L (µb ), not just D), we have
Z 1
Z 1
−1
−1
sup
f L−1
kLb f kL2 (µb ) =
sup
Lb f φdµ =
b φdµ . kf kH −2
φ∈Cc∞ ,kφkL2 ≤1

0

φ∈Cc∞ ,kφkL2 ≤1

0

by the previous case s = 2.
Finally, for s = 1, we use Lemma 5.2 again to see that
∞
∞
X
X
1
2
2
−1
(1+|λj |)|hf, uj iL2 (µb ) | .
(1+|λj |)−1 |hf, uj iL2 (µb ) |2 . kf k2H −1 .
Lb f H 1 ≃
2
λ
j=1
j=1 j


Acknowledgement
I am very grateful to Richard Nickl for suggesting to pursue this project and for
sharing with me some of the important ideas in this paper, including the one of applying perturbation theory and a PDE approach in this context. He made numerous
fundamental remarks and repeatedly proofread the manuscript. Moreover, I would
like to thank the Cantab Capital Institute for the Mathematics of Information for
funding my PhD and therefore making possible this research.
References
[1] D. Bakry, I. Gentil, and M. Ledoux. Analysis and Geometry of Markov Diffusion Operators.
Springer, 2013.
[2] R. Bass. Diffusions and Elliptic Operators. Springer, 1998.
[3] P. Billingsley. The Lindeberg-Lévy Theorem for martingales. Proceedings of the American
Mathematical Society, 12:788–792, 1961.
[4] B. Brown. Martingale Central Limit Theorems. Ann. Math. Statist., 42:59–66, 1971.
[5] I. Castillo and R. Nickl. Nonparametric Bernstein-von Mises theorems in Gaussian White
Noise. Annals of Statistics, 41:1999–2028, 2013.
[6] I. Castillo and R. Nickl. On the Bernstein - von Mises phenomenon for nonparametric Bayes
procedures. Annals of Statistics, 42:1941–1969, 2014.

26

SVEN WANG

[7] J. Chorowski. Statistics for diffusion processes with low and high-frequency observations. PhD
Thesis, 2016.
[8] E. B. Davies. Heat Kernels and Spectral Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[9] E. B. Davies. Spectral Theory and Differential Operators. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[10] E. Giné and R. Nickl. Mathematical Foundations of Infinite-Dimensional statistical models.
Cambridge University Press, 2016.
[11] E. Gobet. LAN property for ergodic diﬀusions with discrete observations. Annales de l’Institut
Henri Poincaré B, 38:711–737, 2002.
[12] E. Gobet, M. Hoﬀmann, and M. Reiß. Nonparametric estimation of scalar diﬀusions based on
low frequency data. Annals of Statistics, 32, 2004.
[13] S. Gugushvili and P. Spreij. Nonparametric Bayesian drift estimation for multidimensional
stochastic diﬀerential equations. Lith. Math. J., 54:127–141, 2014.
[14] L. P. Hansen, J. A. Scheinkman, and N. Touzi. Spectral methods for identifying scalar diﬀusions. Journal of Econometrics, 86:1–32, 1998.
[15] M. Hoﬀmann, A. Munk, and J. Schmidt-Hieber. Adaptive wavelet estimation of the diﬀusion
coeﬃcient under additive error measurements. Annals of the Institute H. Poincaré, 48:1186–
1216, 2012.
[16] J. Koskela, D. Spano, and P. A. Jenkins. Consistency of Bayesian nonparametric inference for
discretely observed jump diﬀusions. arXiv preprint, 2015.
[17] J. Lions and E. Magenes. Non-Homogeneous Boundary Value Problems and Applications, Vol.
1. Springer, 1972.
[18] A. Lunardi. Analytic Semigroups and Optimal Regularity for Parabolic Problems. Birkhäuser,
1995.
[19] F. Monard, R. Nickl, and G. Paternain. Eﬃcient nonparametric Bayesian inference for X-ray
transforms. arXiv preprint, 2017.
[20] R. Nickl. Bernstein - von Mises theorems for statistical inverse problems I: Schrödinger equation. arXiv preprint, 2017.
[21] R. Nickl and J. Söhl. Bernstein - von Mises theorems for statistical inverse problems II:
compound Poisson processes. arXiv preprint, 2017.
[22] R. Nickl and J. Söhl. Nonparametric Bayesian posterior contraction rates for discretely observed scalar diﬀusions. Annals of Statistics, 45:1664–1693, 2017.
[23] O. Papaspiliopoulos, Y. Pokern, G. O. Roberts, and A. M. Stuart. Nonparametric estimation
of diﬀusions: a diﬀerential equations approach. Biometrika, 99:511–531, 2012.
[24] A. Rozkosz and L. Slomiński. On stability and existence of solutions of SDEs with reﬂection
at the boundary. Stochastic processes and their applications, 68:285–302, 1997.
[25] F. van der Meulen, M. Schauer, and H. van Zanten. Reversible jump MCMC for nonparametric
drift estimation for diﬀusion processes. Comput. Statist. Data Anal., 71:615–632, 2014.
[26] A. W. van der Vaart. Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[27] J. van Waaij and H. van Zanten. Gaussian process methods for one-dimensional diﬀusions:
Optimal rates and adaptation. Electron. J. Stat., 10:628–645, 2013.

