arXiv:1609.07696v1 [math.ST] 25 Sep 2016

The independence process in conditional
quantile location-scale models and an
application to testing for monotonicity
Melanie Birke

Natalie Neumeyer

Stanislav Volgushev∗

Universität Bayreuth

Universität Hamburg

University of Toronto

September 27, 2016

Abstract
In this paper the nonparametric quantile regression model is considered in a locationscale context. The asymptotic properties of the empirical independence process based
on covariates and estimated residuals are investigated. In particular an asymptotic
expansion and weak convergence to a Gaussian process are proved. The results can,
on the one hand, be applied to test for validity of the location-scale model. On the
other hand, they allow to derive various specification tests in conditional quantile
location-scale models. In detail a test for monotonicity of the conditional quantile
curve is investigated. For the test for validity of the location-scale model as well as
for the monotonicity test smooth residual bootstrap versions of Kolmogorov-Smirnov
and Cramér-von Mises type test statistics are suggested. We give rigorous proofs for
bootstrap versions of the weak convergence results. The performance of the tests is
demonstrated in a simulation study.

AMS Classification: 62G10, 62G08, 62G30
Keywords and Phrases: bootstrap, empirical independence process, Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test, model test, monotone rearrangements, nonparametric quantile regression, residual processes, sequential empirical process
∗

The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees and the associate editor for careful reading
and for very constructive suggestions to improve the paper. Our special thanks go to one of the referees for
several very careful readings of the manuscript and insightful comments. Part of this work was conducted
while Stanislav Volgushev was postdoctoral fellow at the Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. During that
time Stanislav Volgushev was supported by the Sonderforschungsbereich “Statistical modelling of nonlinear
dynamic processes” (SFB 823), Teilprojekt (C1), of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

1

1

Introduction

Quantile regression was introduced by Koenker and Bassett (1978) as an extension of least
squares methods focusing on the estimation of the conditional mean function. Due to its
many attractive features as robustness with respect to outliers and equivariance under monotonic transformations that are not shared by the mean regression, it has since then become
increasingly popular in many important fields such as medicine, economics and environment
modelling [see Yu et al. (2003) or Koenker (2005)]. Another important feature of quantile
regression is its great flexibility. While mean regression aims at modelling the average behaviour of a variable Y given a covariate X = x, quantile regression allows to analyse the
impact of X in different regions of the distribution of Y by estimating several quantile curves
simultaneously. See for example Fitzenberger et al. (2008), who demonstrate that the presence of certain structures in a company can have different effects on upper and lower wages.
For a more detailed discussion, we refer the interested reader to the recent monograph by
Koenker (2005).
The paper at hand has a twofold aim. On the one hand it proves a weak convergence result
for the empirical independence process of covariates and estimated errors in a nonparametric location-scale conditional quantile model. On the other hand it suggests a test for
monotonicity of the conditional quantile curve. To the authors’ best knowledge this is the
first time that those problems are treated for the general nonparametric quantile regression
model.
The empirical independence process results from the distance of a joint empirical distribution
function and the product of the marginal empirical distribution functions. It can be used
to test for independence; see Hoeffding (1948), Blum et al. (1961) and ch. 3.8 in van der
Vaart and Wellner (1996). When applied to covariates X and estimators of error terms ε =
(Y −q(X))/s(X) it can be used to test for validity of a location-scale model Y = q(X)+s(X)ε
with X and ε independent. Here the conditional distribution of Y , given X = x, allows for a
location-scale representation P (Y ≤ y | X = x) = Fε ((y − q(x))/s(x)), where Fε denotes the
error distribution function. To the best of our knowledge, Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a)
is the only paper that considers such tests for location-scale models in a very general setting
(mean regression, trimmed mean regression,. . . ). However, the assumptions made there rule
out the quantile regression case, where q is defined via P (Y ≤ q(x) | X = x) = τ for some
τ ∈ (0, 1), ∀x. The first part of our paper can hence be seen as extension and completion of
the results by Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a). Plenty of technical effort was necessary
to obtain the weak convergence result in the quantile context (see the proof of Theorem 3.1
below). Validity of a location-scale model means that the covariates have influence on the
trend and on the dispersion of the conditional distribution of Y , but otherwise do not affect
the shape of the conditional distribution (such models are frequently used, see Shim et al.,
2

2009, and Chen et al., 2005). Contrariwise if the test rejects independence of covariates and
errors then there is evidence that the influence of the covariates on the response goes beyond
location and scale effects. Note that our results easily can be adapted to test the validity
of location models P (Y ≤ y | X = x) = Fε (y − q(x)); see also Einmahl and Van Keilegom
(2008b) and Neumeyer (2009b) in the mean regression context.
Further if there is some evidence that certain quantile curves might be monotone one should
check by a statistical test, that this assumption is reasonable. Such evidence can e.g. come
from an economic, physical or biological background. In classical mean regression there are
various methods for testing monotonicity. It has already been considered e.g. in Bowman et
al. (1998), Gijbels et al. (2000), Hall and Heckman (2001), Goshal et al. (2000), Durot (2003),
Baraud et al. (2003) or Domı́nguez-Menchero et al. (2005) and Birke and Dette (2007). More
recent work on testing monotonicity is given in Wang and Meyer (2011) who use regression
splines and use the minimum slope in the knots as test criterion, and Birke and Neumeyer
(2013) who use empirical process techniques for residuals built from isotonized estimators.
While most of the tests are very conservative and not powerful against alternatives with
only a small deviation from monotonicity the method proposed by Birke and Neumeyer
(2013) has in some situations better power than the other tests and can also detect local
alternatives of order n−1/2 . While there are several proposals for monotone estimators of a
quantile function (see e.g. Cryer et al. (1972) or Robertson and Wright (1973) for median
regression and Casady and Cryer (1976) or Abrevaya (2005) for general quantile regression),
the problem of testing whether a given quantile curve is increasing (decreasing) has received
nearly no attention in the literature. Aside from the paper by Duembgen (2002) which
deals with the rather special case of median regression in a location model, the authors to the best of their knowledge - are not aware of any tests for monotonicity of conditional
quantile curves. The method, which is introduced here is based on the independence process
considered before. Note that the test is not the same as the one considered by Birke and
Neumeyer (2013) for mean regression adapted to the quantile case. It turned out that
in quantile regression the corresponding statistic would not be suitable for constructing a
statistical test (see also Section 4).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the location-scale model, give
necessary assumptions and define the estimators. In Section 3 we introduce the independence
process, derive asymptotical results and construct a test for validity of the model. Bootstrap
data generation and asymptotic results for a bootstrap version of the independence process
are discussed as well. The results derived there are modified in Section 4 to construct a test
for monotonicity of the quantile function. In Section 5 we present a small simulation study
while we conclude in Section 6. All proofs are deferred to an appendix and supplementary
material.

3

2

The location-scale model, estimators and assumptions

For some fixed τ ∈ (0, 1), consider the nonparametric quantile regression model of locationscale type [see e.g. He (1997)],
(2.1)

Yi = qτ (Xi ) + s(Xi )εi ,

i = 1, . . . , n,

where qτ (x) = FY−1 (τ |x) is the τ -th conditional quantile function, (Xi , Yi ), i = 1, . . . , n,
is a bivariate sample of i.i.d. observations and FY (·|x) = P (Yi ≤ ·|Xi = x) denotes the
conditional distribution function of Yi given Xi = x. Further, s(x) denotes the median of
|Yi − qτ (Xi )|, given Xi = x. We assume that εi and Xi are independent and, hence, that εi
has τ -quantile zero and |εi | has median one, because


τ = P Yi ≤ qτ (Xi ) Xi = x = P (εi ≤ 0)


1
= P |Yi − qτ (Xi )| ≤ s(Xi ) Xi = x = P (|εi | ≤ 1).
2
Denote by Fε the distribution function of εi . Then for the conditional distribution we obtain
a location-scale representation as FY (y|x) = Fε ((y − qτ (x))/s(x)), where Fε as well as qτ and
s are unknown.
For example, consider the case τ = 12 . Then we have a median regression model, which allows
for heteroscedasticity in the sense, that the conditional median absolute deviation s(Xi ) of Yi ,
given Xi , may depend on the covariate Xi . Here the median absolute deviation of a random
variable Z is defined as MAD(Z) = median(|Z − median(Z)|) and is the typical measure
of scale (or dispersion), when the median is used as location measure. This heteroscedastic
median regression model is analogous to the popular heteroscedastic mean regression model
Yi = m(Xi ) + σ(Xi )εi , i = 1, . . . , n, where Xi and εi are assumed to be independent,
E[εi ] = 0, sd(εi ) = 1, and hence, m(x) = E[Yi | Xi = x], σ(x) = sd(Yi | Xi = x) (see among
many others e.g. Efromovich (1999), chapter 4.2 for further details).
Remark 2.1 Note that assuming |εi | to have median one is not restrictive. More precisely,
if the model Yi = qτ (Xi ) + s̃(Xi )ηi with ηi i.i.d. and independent of Xi and some positive
−1
function s̃ holds, the model Yi = qτ (Xi ) + s(Xi )εi with s(Xi ) := s̃(Xi )F|η|
(1/2), εi :=
−1
ηi /F|η| (1/2) will also be true, where F|η| denotes the distribution function of |ηi |. Then in
−1
particular P (|εi | ≤ 1) = P (|ηi | ≤ F|η|
(1/2)) = 1/2. 
In the literature, several non-parametric quantile estimators have been proposed [see e.g.
Yu and Jones (1997, 1998), Takeuchi et al. (2006) or Dette and Volgushev (2008), among
others]. In this paper we follow the last-named authors who proposed non-crossing estimates
4

of quantile curves using a simultaneous inversion and isotonization of an estimate of the
conditional distribution function. To be precise, let
F̂Y (y|x) := (Xt WX)−1 Xt WY

(2.2)
with


1 (x − X1 ) ... (x − X1 )p
 y − Y t
 y − Y 

.
..
..
n
1

..
,
.
.
.
,
Ω
,
Y
:=
Ω
X = 
.
...
.


dn
dn
1 (x − Xn ) ... (x − Xn )p


W = Diag Khn ,0 (x − X1 ), ..., Khn ,0 (x − Xn ) ,


denote a smoothed local polynomial estimate (of order p ≥ 2) of the conditional distribution
function FY (y|x) where Ω(·) is a smoothed version of the indicator function and we used the
notation Khn ,k (x) := K(x/hn )(x/hn )k . Here K denotes a nonnegative kernel and dn , hn are
bandwidths converging to 0 with increasing sample size. Note that the estimator F̂Y (y|x)
can be represented as weighted average
(2.3)

F̂Y (y|x) =

n
X
i=1

y − Y 
i
Wi (x)Ω
.
dn

Following Dette and Volgushev (2008) we consider a strictly increasing distribution function
G : R → (0, 1), a nonnegative kernel κ and a bandwidth bn , and define the functional
Z Z
1 1 τ  F (G−1 (u)) − v 
HG,κ,τ,bn (F ) :=
κ
dvdu.
bn 0 −∞
bn
Note that it is intuitively clear that HG,κ,τ,bn (F̂Y (·|x)), where F̂Y is the estimator of the conditional distribution function defined in (2.2), is a consistent estimate of HG,κ,τ,bn (FY (·|x)).
If bn → 0, this quantity can be approximated as follows
Z
HG,κ,τ,bn (FY (·|x)) ≈
I{FY (y|x) ≤ τ }dG(y)
R
Z 1
=
I{FY (G−1 (v)|x) ≤ τ }dv = G ◦ FY−1 (τ |x),
0

and as a consequence an estimate of the conditional quantile function qτ (x) = FY−1 (τ |x) can
be defined by
q̂τ (x) := G−1 (HG,κ,τ,bn (F̂Y (·|x))).
Finally, note that the scale function s is the conditional median of the distribution of |ei |,
given the covariate Xi , where ei = Yi − qτ (Xi ) = s(Xi )εi , i = 1, . . . , n. Hence, we apply the
quantile-regression approach to |êi | = |Yi − q̂τ (Xi )|, i = 1, . . . , n, and obtain the estimator
(2.4)

ŝ(x) = G−1
s (HGs ,κ,1/2,bn (F̂|e| (·|x))) .
5

Here Gs : R → (0, 1) is a strictly increasing distribution function and F̂|e| (·|x) denotes the
estimator of the conditional distribution function F|e| (·|x) = P (|ei | ≤ ·|Xi = x) of |ei |,
i = 1, . . . , n, i. e.
n
X
F̂|e| (y|x) =
(2.5)
Wi (x)I{|êi | ≤ y}
i=1

with the same weights Wi as in (2.3). We further use the notation Fe (·|x) = P (e1 ≤ ·|X1 =
x).
For a better overview and for later reference, below we collect all the technical assumptions concerning the estimators needed throughout the rest of the paper. First, we collect
the assumptions needed for the kernel functions and functions G, Gs used in the construction
of the estimators.
(K1) The function K is a symmetric, positive, Lipschitz-continuous density with support
[−1, 1]. Moreover, the matrix M(K) with entries
Z
(M(K))k,l = µk+l−2 (K) := uk+l−2 K(u)du
is invertible.
(K2) The function K is two times continuously differentiable, K (2) is Lipschitz continuous,
and for m = 0, 1, 2 the set {x|K (m) (x) > 0} is a union of finitely many intervals.
(K3) The function Ω has derivative ω which has support [−1, 1], is a kernel of order pω , and
is two times continuously differentiable with uniformly bounded derivatives.
(K4) The function κ is a symmetric, uniformly bounded density, and has one Lipschitzcontinuous derivative.
(K5) The function G : R → [0, 1] is strictly increasing. Moreover, it is two times continuously
differentiable in a neighborhood of the set Q := {qτ (x)|x ∈ [0, 1]} and its first derivative
is uniformly bounded away from zero on Q.
(K6) The function Gs : R → (0, 1) is strictly increasing. Moreover, it is two times continuously differentiable in a neighborhood of the set S := {s(x)|x ∈ [0, 1]} and its first
derivative is uniformly bounded away from zero on S.
The data-generating process needs to satisfy the following conditions.
(A1) X1 , . . . , Xn are independent and identically distributed with distribution function FX
and Lipschitz-continuous density fX with support [0, 1] that is uniformly bounded away
from zero and infinity.
6

(A2) The function s is uniformly bounded and inf x∈[0,1] s(x) = cs > 0.
(A3) The partial derivatives ∂xk ∂yl FY (y|x), ∂xk ∂yl Fe (y|x) exist and are continuous and uniformly bounded on R × [0, 1] for k ∨ l ≤ 2 or k + l ≤ d for some d ≥ 3.
(A4) The errors ε1 , . . . , εn are independent and identically distributed with strictly increasing distribution function Fε (independent of Xi ) and density fε , which is positive everywhere and continuously differentiable such that supy∈R |yfε (y)| < ∞ and
supy∈R |y 2 fε0 (y)| < ∞. The εi have τ -quantile zero and F|ε| (1) = 1/2, that is |ε1 | has
median one.
(A5) For some α > 0 we have supu,y |y|α (FY (y|u) ∧ (1 − FY (y|u))) < ∞.
Finally, we assume that the bandwidth parameters satisfy
(BW)

log n
log n
ω ∧d)
= o(1),
= o(1), d2(p
+ hn2((p+1)∧d) + b4n = o(n−1 ),
n
4
nhn (hn ∧ dn )
nh2n b2n
with pω from (K3), d from (A3) and p the order of the local polynomial estimator in
(2.2).

Remark 2.2 Assumptions (A1) and (A2) are mild regularity assumptions on the datagenerating process. Assumption (A5) places a very mild condition on the tails of the error
distribution, and is satisfied even for distribution functions that don’t have finite first moments. Assumptions (A3) and (A4) are probably the strongest ones. Note that by the
implicit function theorem they imply that x 7→ qτ (x) and x 7→ s(x) are 2 times continuously
differentiable with uniformly bounded derivatives. Those assumptions play a crucial role
throughout the proofs. In principle, this kind of condition is quite standard in the nonparametric estimation and testing literature. Note that due to the additional smoothing of
F̂Y (y|x) in y-direction, we require more than the existence of just all the second-order partial
derivatives of FY (y|x). The smoothing is necessary for the proofs, and it leads to a slightly
better finite-sample performance of the testing procedures. Regarding the bandwidth assumption (BW), observe that if for example d = pω = p = 3 and we set dn = hn = n−1/6−β
−1/4−α
for some β ∈ (0, 1/30), bn = hn
such that α + β ∈ (0, 1/12), condition (BW) holds. 

3

The independence process, asymptotic results and
testing for model validity

As estimators for the errors we build residuals
(3.1)

ε̂i =

Yi − q̂τ (Xi )
,
ŝ(Xi )
7

i = 1, . . . , n.

In the definition of the process on which test statistics are based we only consider those
observations (Xi , Yi ) such that 2hn ≤ Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn in order to avoid boundary problems of
the estimators. The reason is that we first use q̂τ to build the residuals êi . For this, we need
hn ≤ Xi ≤ 1 − hn . The estimator ŝ based on the pairs (Xi , |êi |) is then used in the definition
of the residuals ε̂i . The estimation of s requires us to again stay away from boundary points
and thus we use the restriction 2hn ≤ Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn .
For y ∈ R, t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ] we define the joint empirical distribution function of pairs of
covariates and residuals as
(3.2)

F̂X,ε,n (t, y) :=

n
X

1
i=1 I{2hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn }

I{ε̂i ≤ y}I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} Pn

i=1
n

1X
1
=
I{ε̂i ≤ y}I{2hn < Xi ≤ t}
,
n i=1
F̂X,n (1 − 2hn ) − F̂X,n (2hn )
where F̂X,n denotes the usual empirical distribution function of the covariates X1 , . . . , Xn .
The empirical independence process compares the joint empirical distribution with the product of the corresponding marginal distributions. We thus define

√ 
(3.3)
Sn (t, y) = n F̂X,ε,n (t, y) − F̂X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , y)F̂X,ε,n (t, ∞)
for y ∈ R, t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ], and Sn (t, y) = 0 for y ∈ R, t ∈ [0, 2hn ) ∪ (1 − 2hn , 1]. In the
following theorem we state a weak convergence result for the independence process.
Theorem 3.1 Under the location-scale model (2.1) and assumptions (K1)-(K6), (A1)(A5) and (BW) we have the asymptotic expansion
n



1 X
1 
Sn (t, y) = √
I{εi ≤ y} − Fε (y) − φ(y) I{εi ≤ 0} − τ − ψ(y) I{|εi | ≤ 1} −
2
n i=1


× I{Xi ≤ t} − FX (t) + oP (1)

uniformly with respect to t ∈ [0, 1] and y ∈ R, where
fε (y) 
fε (1) − fε (−1) 
φ(y) =
1−y
,
fε (0)
f|ε| (1)

ψ(y) =

yfε (y)
f|ε| (1)

and f|ε| (y) = (fε (y) + fε (−y))I[0,∞) (y) is the density of |ε1 |. The process Sn converges weakly
in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) to a centered Gaussian process S with covariance
Cov(S(s, y), S(t, z)) = (FX (s ∧ t) − FX (s)FX (t))
h
1
× Fε (y ∧ z) − Fε (y)Fε (z) + φ(y)φ(z)(τ − τ 2 ) + ψ(y)ψ(z)
4
− φ(y)(Fε (z ∧ 0) − Fε (z)τ ) − φ(z)(Fε (y ∧ 0) − Fε (y)τ )
8



1
− ψ(y) (Fε (z ∧ 1) − Fε (−1))I{z > −1} − Fε (z)
2


1
− ψ(z) (Fε (y ∧ 1) − Fε (−1))I{y > −1} − Fε (y)
2

1 i
+ (φ(y)ψ(z) + φ(z)ψ(y)) Fε (0) − Fε (−1) − τ .
2
The proof is given in Appendix A.
Remark 3.2 The result can easily be adapted for location models Yi = qτ (Xi ) + εi with
εi and Xi independent. To this end we just set ŝ ≡ 1 in the definition of the estimators.
The asymptotic covariance in Theorem 3.1 then simplifies because the function φ reduces to
φ(y) = fε (y)/fε (0) and ψ(y) ≡ 0. 
In the remainder of this section we discuss how the asymptotic result can be applied to test
for validity of the location-scale model, i. e. testing the null hypothesis of independence of
error εi and covariate Xi in model (2.1).
Remark 3.3 Assume that the location-scale model is not valid, i. e. Xi and εi are dependent,
but the other assumptions of Theorem 3.1 are valid, where (A4) is replaced by
(A4’) The conditional error distribution function Fε (·|x) = P (εi ≤ ·|Xi = x) fulfills Fε (0|x) =
τ and Fε (1|x) − Fε (−1|x) = 12 for all x. It is strictly increasing and differentiable with
density fε (·|x) such that supx,y |yfε (y|x)| < ∞.
Then one can show that Sn (t, y)/n1/2 converges in probability to P (εi ≤ y, Xi ≤ t) −
Fε (y)FX (t), uniformly with respect to y and t. 
Remark 3.4 If the location-scale model is valid for some τ -th quantile regression function
it is valid for every α-th quantile regression function, α ∈ (0, 1). This easily follows from
qα (x) = Fε−1 (α)s(x)+qτ (x) which is a consequence from the representation of the conditional
distribution function FY (y|x) = Fε ((y − qτ (x))/s(x)) (compare Remark 2.1). A similar
statement is even true for general location and scale measures, see e. g. Van Keilegom (1998),
Prop. 5.1. Thus for testing the validity of the location-scale model one can restrict oneself
to the median case τ = 0.5. 
Remark 3.5 Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a) consider a process similar to Sn for
R1
general location and scale models. They define q(x) = 0 F −1 (s|x)J(s) ds and s2 (x) =
R 1 −1
(F (s|x))2 J(s) ds − q 2 (x) with score function J, which rules out the quantile case q(x) =
0
F −1 (τ |x). Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a) show that estimation of the errors has no
influence in their context, i. e. they obtain a scaled completely tucked Brownian sheet as
limit process and thus asymptotically distribution-free tests. This is clearly not the case in
Theorem 3.1. 
9

To test for the validity of a location-scale model we reject the null hypothesis of independence
of Xi and εi for large values of, e. g., the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic
Kn =

sup

|Sn (t, y)|

t∈[0,1],y∈R

or the Cramér-von Mises statistic
Z Z
Cn =
R

Sn2 (t, y) F̂X,n (dt) F̂ε,n (dy),

[0,1]

where F̂ε,n (·) = F̂X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , ·). From Theorem 3.1 we obtain the following asymptotic
distributions.
Corollary 3.6 Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 we have
d

Kn −→

sup
Z Z

|S(FX−1 (x), y)|
Z Z
2
S (t, y)FX (dt)Fε (dy) =
S 2 (FX−1 (x), y) dx Fε (dy).
|S(t, y)| =

t∈[0,1],y∈R
d

Cn −→
R

sup

x∈[0,1],y∈R

[0,1]

R

[0,1]

The proof is given in Appendix A. The asymptotic distributions of the test statistics are
independent from the covariate distribution FX , but depend in a complicated manner on
the error distribution Fε . To overcome this problem we suggest a bootstrap version of
the test. To this end let Yn = {(X1 , Y1 ), . . . , (Xn , Yn )} denote the original sample. We
generate bootstrap errors as ε∗i = ε̃∗i + αn Zi (i = 1, . . . , n), where αn denotes a positive
smoothing parameter, Z1 , . . . , Zn are independent, standard normally distributed random
variables (independent of Yn ) and ε̃∗1 , . . . , ε̃∗n are randomly drawn with replacement from the
set of residuals {ε̂j | j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, Xj ∈ (2hn , 1 − 2hn ]}. Conditional on the original sample
Yn the random variables ε∗1 , . . . , ε∗n are i.i.d. with distribution function


Pn
y−ε̂i
1
Φ
I{2hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn }
i=1
n
αn
F̃ε (y) =
(3.4)
,
F̂X,n (1 − 2hn ) − F̂X,n (2hn )
where Φ denotes the standard normal distribution function. Note that the bootstrap error’s
τ -quantile is not exactly zero, but vanishes asymptotically. We use a smooth distribution
to generate new bootstrap errors because smoothness of the error distribution is a crucial
assumption for the theory necessary to derive Theorem 3.1; see also Neumeyer (2009a).
Now we build new bootstrap observations,
Yi∗ = q̂τ (Xi ) + ŝ(Xi )ε∗i ,

i = 1, . . . , n.

Let q̂τ∗ and ŝ∗ denote the quantile regression and scale function estimator defined analogously
to q̂τ and ŝ, but based on the bootstrap sample (X1 , Y1∗ ), . . . , (Xn , Yn∗ ). Analogously to (3.3)
the bootstrap version of the independence process is defined as

√  ∗
∗
∗
(1 − 4hn , y)F̂X,ε,n
(t, ∞)
Sn∗ (t, y) = n F̂X,ε,n
(t, y) − F̂X,ε,n
10

for t ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ R, and Sn∗ (t, y) = 0 for t ∈ [0, 4hn ) ∪ (1 − 4hn , 1], y ∈ R. Here,
similar to (3.2),
n

∗
F̂X,ε,n
(t, y)

1X
1
I{ε̂∗i ≤ y}I{4hn < Xi ≤ t}
=
,
n i=1
F̂X,n (1 − 4hn ) − F̂X,n (4hn )

with ε̂∗i = (Yi∗ − q̂τ∗ (Xi ))/ŝ∗ (Xi ), i = 1, . . . , n.
To obtain the conditional weak convergence we need the following additional assumptions.
(B1) We have for some δ > 0
nh2n αn2
→ ∞,
log h−1
n log n

nαn hn
→ ∞,
log n

hn
= O(αn8δ/3 ),
log n

nαn4 = o(1)

and there exists a λ > 0 such that
1+ 1

2+ 2

nhn λ αn λ
→ ∞.
1/λ
log h−1
n (log n)
(B2) Let E[|ε1 |max(υ,2λ) ] < ∞ for some υ > 1 + 2/δ and with δ and λ from assumption (B1).
Here, (B2) can be relaxed to E[|ε1 |2λ ] < ∞ if the process is only considered for y ∈ [−c, c]
for some c > 0 instead of for y ∈ R.
Theorem 3.7 Under the location-scale model (2.1) and assumptions (K1)-(K6), (A1)(A5), (BW) and (B1)-(B2) conditionally on Yn , the process Sn∗ converges weakly in `∞ ([0, 1]×
R) to the Gaussian process S defined in Theorem 3.1, in probability.
A rigorous proof is given in Appendix B.
Remark 3.8 Recall that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic is given by Kn = supt,y |Sn (t, y)|
∗
and define its bootstrap version as Kn∗ = supt,y |Sn∗ (t, y)|. Let the critical value kn,1−α
be
obtained from
∗
P (Kn∗ ≥ kn,1−α
| Yn ) = 1 − α,
∗
and reject the location-scale model if Kn ≥ kn,1−α
. Then from Theorems 3.1 and 3.7 it
follows that the test has asymptotic level α. Moreover if the location-scale model is not
valid by Remark 3.3 we have Kn → ∞ in probability, whereas with the same methods as
∗
in the proof of Theorem 3.7 it can be shown that kn,1−α
converges to a constant. Thus the
power of the test converges to one. A similar reasoning applies for the Cramér-von Mises
test. The finite sample performance of the bootstrap versions of both tests is studied in
Section 5. 

11

Remark 3.9 Recently, Sun (2006) and Feng, He and Hu (2011) proposed to use wild bootstrap in the setting of quantile regression. To follow the approach of the last-named authors,
one would define ε∗i = vi ε̂i such that P ∗ (vi ε̂i ≤ 0|Xi ) = τ , e. g.

 1−τ if ε̂ ≥ 0
i
τ
vi = ±1 with probability
 τ if ε̂i < 0.
1−τ

However, then when calculating the conditional asymptotic covariance (following the proof
in Appendix B), instead of F̃ε (y) the following term appears
n

1X
n→∞
P (vi ε̂i ≤ y | Yn ) −→ (1 − τ )(Fε (y) − Fε (−y)) + τ.
n i=1
One obtains Fε (y) (needed to obtain the same covariance as in Theorem 3.1) only for y = 0
or for median regression (τ = 0.5) with symmetric error distributions, but not in general.
Hence, wild bootstrap cannot be applied in the general context of procedures using empirical
processes in quantile regression. 
Remark 3.10 Under assumption of the location-scale model model (2.1) the result of Theorem 3.1 can be applied to test for more specific model assumptions (e. g. testing goodness-of
fit of a parametric model for the quantile regression function). The general approach is to
build residuals ε̂i,0 that only under H0 consistently estimate the errors (e. g. using a parametric estimator for the conditional quantile function). Recall the definition of F̂X,ε,n in (3.2)
and define analgously F̂X,ε0 ,n by using the residuals ε̂i,0 . Then, analogously to (3.3), define

√ 
Sn,0 (t, y) = n F̂X,ε0 ,n (t, y) − F̂X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , y)F̂X,ε,n (t, ∞)
for y ∈ R, t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ], and Sn,0 (t, y) = 0 for y ∈ R, t ∈ [0, 2hn ) ∪ (1 − 2hn , 1]. With
this process the discrepancy from the null hypothesis can be measured. This approach is
considered in detail for the problem of testing monotonicity of conditional quantile functions
in the next section.
A related approach, which however does not assume the location-scale model, is suggested to
test for significance of covariables in quantile regression models by Volgushev et al. (2013).


4

Testing for monotonicity of conditional quantile curves

In this section, we consider a test for the hypothesis
H0 : qτ (x) is increasing in x.
12

To this end we define an increasing estimator q̂τ,I , which consistently estimates qτ if the
hypothesis H0 is valid, and consistently estimates some increasing function qτ,I 6= qτ under
the alternative that qτ is not increasing. For any function h : [0, 1] → R define the increasing
rearrangement on [a, b] ⊂ [0, 1] as the function Γ(h) : [a, b] → R with
Z b
o
n
I{g(t) ≤ z} dt ≥ x .
Γ(g)(x) = inf z ∈ R a +
a

Note that if g is increasing, then Γ(g) = g|[a,b] . See Anevski and Fougères (2007) and
Neumeyer (2007) who consider increasing rearrangements of curve estimators in order to
obtain monotone versions of unconstrained estimators. We denote by Γn the operator Γ
with [a, b] = [hn , 1 − hn ]. We define the increasing estimator as q̂τ,I = Γn (q̂τ ), where q̂τ
denotes the unconstrained estimator of qτ that was defined in Section 2. The quantity q̂τ,I
estimates the increasing rearrangement qτ,I = Γ(qτ ) of qτ (with [a, b] = [0, 1]). Only under
the hypothesis H0 of an increasing regression function we have qτ = qτ,I . In Figure 1 (right
part) a non-increasing function qτ and its increasing rearrangement qτ,I are displayed.
Now we build (pseudo-) residuals
(4.1)

ε̂i,I =

Yi − q̂τ,I (Xi )
,
ŝ(Xi )

which estimate pseudo-errors εi,I = (Yi − qτ,I (Xi ))/s(Xi ) that coincide with the true errors
εi = (Yi − qτ (Xi ))/s(Xi ) (i = 1, . . . , n) in general only under H0 . Note that we use ŝ from
(2.4) for the standardization and not an estimator built from the constrained residuals. Let
further ε̂i denote the unconstrained residuals as defined in (3.1). The idea for the test statistic
we suggest is the following. Compared to the true errors ε1 , . . . , εn , which are assumed to
be i.i.d., the pseudo-errors ε1,I , . . . , εn,I behave differently. If the true function qτ is not
increasing (e.g. like in Figure 1) and we calculate the pseudo-errors from qτ,I , they are no
longer identically distributed. This effect is demonstrated in Figure 2 for a τ = 0.25-quantile
curve. Consider for instance the interval [t, 1], where there are about 25% negative errors
(left part) and in comparison too many negative pseudo-errors (right part). To detect such
discrepancies from the null hypothesis, we estimate the pseudo-error distribution up to every
t ∈ [0, 1] (i. e. for the covariate values Xi ≤ t) and compare with what is expected under H0 .
To this end recall the definition of F̂X,ε,n in (3.2) and define F̂X,εI ,n analogously, but using
the constrained residuals ε̂i,I , i = 1, . . . , n. Analogously to (3.3) define the process
(4.2)

Sn,I (t, y) =


√ 
n F̂X,εI ,n (t, y) − F̂X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , y)F̂X,ε,n (t, ∞)

for y ∈ R, t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ], and Sn,I (t, y) = 0 for y ∈ R, t ∈ [0, 2hn ) ∪ (1 − 2hn , 1]. For
each fixed t ∈ [0, 1], y ∈ R, for hn → 0 the statistic n−1/2 Sn,I (t, y) consistently estimates the
13

1

1

q
q

qI

0

0
0

1

0

1

Figure 1: Left part: True nonincreasing function qτ for τ = 0.25 with scatter-plot of a typical
sample. Right part: qτ (solid line) and increasing rearrangement qτ,I (dotted line).
expectation
E[I{εi,I < y}I{Xi ≤ t}] − Fε (y)FX (t)
h n
i
(qτ,I − qτ )(Xi ) o
= E I εi < y +
I{Xi ≤ t} − Fε (y)FX (t).
s(Xi )
Define a Kolmogorov-Smirnov type statistic as Kn = supy∈R,t∈[0,1] |Sn,I (t, y)|. Then n−1/2 Kn
estimates
Z t 

(qτ,I − qτ )(x) 
− Fε (y) fX (x) dx .
K = sup
Fε y +
s(x)
t∈[0,1],y∈R
0
Note that under H0 : qτ,I = qτ we have K = 0. On the other hand, if K = 0 then also
Z t 

(qτ,I − qτ )(x) 
sup
Fε
− Fε (0) fX (x) dx = 0
s(x)
t∈[0,1]
0
and from this it follows that qτ,I = qτ is valid FX -a. s. by the strict monotonicity of Fε . Thus
under the alternative we have K > 0 and Kn converges to infinity. Define c as the (1 − α)quantile of the distribution of supt∈[0,1],y∈R |S(t, y)| with S from Theorem 3.1. Then the test
that rejects H0 for Kn > c is consistent by the above argumentation and has asymptotic
level α by the next theorem and an application of the continuous mapping theorem.
Theorem 4.1 Under model (2.1) and assumptions (K1)-(K6), (A1)-(A5) and (BW),
under the null hypothesis H0 and the assumption inf x∈[0,1] qτ0 (x) > 0 the process Sn,I converges
weakly in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) to the Gaussian process S defined in Theorem 3.1.
The proof is given in Appendix A.
14

q

1

qI

1

0

0
0

t

0

1

t

1

Figure 2: Left part: True nonincreasing function qτ for τ = 0.25 and errors for the sample
shown in Figure 1. Right part: Increasing rearrangement qτ,I and pseudo-errors. (Positive
errors are marked by solid points and solid lines, negative errors marked by circles and dashed
lines.)
Remark 4.2 Note that we use non-smooth monotone rearrangement estimators q̂τ,I . Dette
et al. (2006) and Birke and Dette (2008) consider smooth versions of the increasing rearrangements in the context of monotone mean regression. Corresponding increasing quantile
curve estimators could be defined as
Z Z
n
o
1 1 z  q̂τ (v) − u 
q̂τ,I (x) = inf z ∈ R
k
dudv ≥ x .
bn 0 −∞
bn
Under suitable assumptions on the kernel k and bandwidths bn it can be shown that the
same weak convergence as in Theorem 4.1 holds for Sn,I based on this estimator. 
For the application of the test for monotonicity we suggest a bootstrap version of the test
analogously to the one considered in Section 3, but applying the increasing estimator to
build new observations, i. e. Yi∗ = q̂τ,I (Xi ) + ŝ(Xi )ε∗i , i = 1, . . . , n. We have the following
theoretical result.
∗
Theorem 4.3 Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.1 and (B1)–(B2) the process Sn,I
,
∞
conditionally on Yn , converges weakly in ` ([0, 1] × R) to the Gaussian process S defined in
Theorem 3.1, in probability.

The proof is given in Appendix B. A consistent asymptotic level-α test is constructed as in
Remark 3.8.
15

Remark 4.4 In the context of testing for monotonicity of mean regression curves Birke and
Neumeyer (2013) based their tests on the observation that too many of the pseudo-errors are
positive (see solid lines in Figure 2) on some subintervals of [0, 1] and too many are negative
(see dashed lines) on other subintervals. Transferring this idea to the quantile regression
model, one would consider a stochastic process
n

1 X
I{ε̂i,I ≤ 0}I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} − F̂X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , 0)I{2hn < Xi ≤ t}
S̃n (t, 0) = √
n i=1

or alternatively (because F̂X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , 0) estimates the known Fε (0) = τ )
n

1 X
Rn (t) = √
I{ε̂i,I ≤ 0}I{Xi ≤ t} − τ I{Xi ≤ t}
n i=1

where t ∈ [0, 1]. For every t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ] the processes count how many pseudo-residuals
are positive up to covariates ≤ t. This term is then centered with respect to the estimated
expectation under H0 and scaled with n−1/2 . However, as can be seen from Theorem 4.1 the
limit is degenerate for y = 0, and hence we have under H0 that
(4.3)

sup |S̃n (t, 0)| = oP (1).
t

Also, supt∈[0,1] |Rn (t)| = oP (1) can be shown analogously. Hence, no critical values can
be obtained for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistics, and those test statistics are not
suitable for our testing purpose. To explain the negligibility (4.3) heuristically, consider
the case t = 1 (now ignoring the truncation of covariates for simplicity of explanation).
P
Then, under H0 , n−1 ni=1 I{ε̂i,I ≤ 0} estimates Fε (0) = τ . But the information that εi
has τ -quantile zero was already applied to estimate the τ -quantile function qτ . Hence, one
P
obtains n−1 ni=1 I{ε̂i,I ≤ 0} − τ = oP (n−1/2 ). This observation is in accordance to the fact
P
that n−1 ni=1 ε̂i = oP (n−1/2 ), when residuals are built from a mean regression model with
centered errors [see Müller et al. (2004) and Kiwitt et al. (2008)].
Finally, consider the process
n

1 X
S̃n (1 − 2hn , y) = √
I{ε̂i,I ≤ y}I{2hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn }
n i=1
− F̂X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , y)I{2hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn }



i. e. the difference between the estimated distribution functions of pseudo-residuals ε̂i,I and
unconstrained residuals ε̂i (i = 1, . . . , n), respectively, scaled with n1/2 . An analogous process
has been considered by Van Keilegom et al. (2008) for testing for parametric classes of mean
regression functions. However, as can be seen from Theorem 4.1, in our case of testing
for monotonicity the limit again is degenerate, i. e. Var(S(1, y)) = 0 for all y, and hence
16

supy∈R |S̃n (1, y)| = oP (1). Similar observations can be made when typical distance based
tests from lack-of-fit literature [for instance L2 -tests or residual process based procedures by
Härdle and Mammen (1993) and Stute (1997), respectively] are considered in the problem of
testing monotonicity of regression function, see Birke and Neumeyer (2013). The reason is
that under H0 the unconstrained and constrained estimators, q̂τ and q̂τ,I , typically are first
order asymptotically equivalent. This for estimation purposes very desirable property limits
the possibilities to apply the estimator q̂τ,I for hypotheses testing. 

5

Simulation results

In this section we show some simulation results for the bootstrap based tests introduced in
this paper. If available we compare the results to already existing methods. Throughout the
whole section we choose the bandwidths according to condition (BW) as dn = 2(σ̂ 2 /n)1/7 ,
hn = (σ̂ 2 /n)1/7 , bn = σ̂ 2 (1/n)2/7 and σ̂ 2 is the difference estimator proposed in Rice (1984)
[see Yu and Jones (1997) for a related approach]. The degree of the local polynomial estimators of location and scale [see equation (2.2)] was chosen to be 3, the Kernel K is the Gauss
Kernel while κ was chosen to be the Epanechnikov Kernel. The function Ω was defined
Rt
through Ω(t) = −∞ ω(x)dx where ω(x) := (15/32)(3 − 10x2 + 7x4 )I{|x| ≤ 1}, which is a
kernel of order 4 [see Gasser et al. (1985)]. For the choice of the distribution functions G
and Gs , we follow the procedure described in Dette and Volgushev (2008) who suggested
a normal distribution such that the 5% and 95% quantiles coincide with the corresponding
empirical quantities of the sample Y1 , ..., Yn . Finally, the parameter αn for generating the
√
bootstrap residuals was chosen as αn = 0.1n−1/4 2 median(|ε̂1 |, ..., |ε̂n |). All the results under H0 are based on 1000 simulation runs and 200 bootstrap replications while the results
under alternatives are simulated with 500 simulation runs and 200 bootstrap replications.

5.1

Testing for location and location-scale models

The problem of testing the validity of location and location-scale models has previously been
considered by Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a) and Neumeyer (2009b), and we therefore
compare the properties of our test statistic with theirs. In testing the validity of location
models (see Remark 3.2), we considered the following data generation processes
(1 + ax)1/2
(model 1) Y |X = x ∼ (x − 0.5x ) +
N (0, 1), X ∼ U [0, 1],
10


1 1/2
1
1−
(model 2a) Y |X = x ∼ (x − 0.5x2 ) +
tc , X ∼ U [0, 1],
10
2c
1/2
1
(model 2b) Y |X = x ∼ (x − 0.5x2 ) +
1 − (cx)1/4
t2/(cx)1/4 , X ∼ U [0, 1],
10
2

17


b
(model 3) Y |X = x, U = u ∼ (x − 0.5x ) + U − 0.5 − (2x − 1) , (X, U ) ∼ C(b).
6
Note that model 1 with parameter a = 0, model 2a with arbitrary parameter c, and
model 3 with parameter b = 0 correspond to a location model, while models 1, 2b and
3 with parameters a, b, c 6= 0 describe models that are not of this type. Here tc denotes
a t−distribution with c degrees of freedom (c not necessarily integer) and models 1 and
2b have also been considered by Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a). Model 3 is from
Neumeyer (2009b) and (X, U ) ∼ C(b) are generated as follows. Let X, V, W be independent
U [0, 1]-distributed random variables and define U = min(V, W/(b(1 − 2X))) if X ≤ 12 , and
U = max(V, 1 + W/(b(1 − 2X))) else. Note that this data generation produces observations
from the Farlie-Gumbel-Morgenstern copula if the parameter b is between −1 and 1.
Simulation results under the null are summarized in Table 1. As we can see, both the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) and the Cramér-von Mises (CvM) bootstrap versions of the test
hold the level quite well in all models considered and both for n = 100 and n = 200
observations.
Next, we take a look at the power properties of the tests in models 1, 2a and 3. The rejection
probabilities are reported in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. For the sake of
comparison, we have also included the results reported in Neumeyer (2009b) (noted N in the
tables) and Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a) (noted EVK in the tables), where available.
Note that Neumeyer (2009b) considers several bandwidth parameters, while Einmahl and
Van Keilegom (2008a) consider various types of test statistics (KS, CvM and AndersonDarling) and two types of tests (difference and estimated residuals). We have included the
best values of all the possible tests in Neumeyer (2009b) and Einmahl and Van Keilegom
(2008a). Note that this does not correspond to a practical data-driven test since typically
the best test is unknown.
An inspection of Table 2 and Table 3 reveals that the tests of Neumeyer (2009b) and Einmahl
and Van Keilegom (2008a) perform better for normal errors (Table 2), while our test seems
to perform better for t errors (Table 3). This corresponds to intuition since for normal errors
the mean provides an optimal estimator of location, while for heavier tailed distributions
the median has an advantage. Additionally, we see that in almost all cases the CvM test
outperforms the KS test. In model 3, the test of Neumeyer (2009b) performs better than
the tests proposed here, with significantly higher power for b = 1, 2 and n = 200. The CvM
version again has somewhat higher power than the KS version of the test. Overall, we can
conclude that the newly proposed testing procedures show a competitive performance and
can be particularly recommended for error distributions with heavier tails. The CvM test
seems to always be preferable.


2

Please insert Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 here
18

To evaluate the test for location-scale models, we considered the following settings
2+x
N (0, 1), X ∼ U [0, 1],
10
2 + x
1 1/2
(model 2ah ) Y |X = x ∼ (x − 0.5x2 ) +
1−
tc , X ∼ U [0, 1],
10
2c
1/2
2 + x
1 − (cx)1/4
t2/(cx)1/4 , X ∼ U [0, 1],
(model 2bh ) Y |X = x ∼ (x − 0.5x2 ) +
10

2 + x
(model 3h ) Y |(X, U ) = (x, u) ∼ (x − 0.5x2 ) +
U − 0.5 − b(2x − 1)
10
(X, U ) ∼ C(b),
(model 1h ) Y |X = x ∼ (x − 0.5x2 ) +

Models 1h and 2bh have also been considered in Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a), while
model 3h is from Neumeyer (2009b). Simulation results corresponding to different null models
are collected in Table 5. We observe that in all three models both the KS and the CvM test
hold their level quite well for all sample sizes, with both tests being slightly conservative for
n = 50 and in model 1h .
The power against alternatives in model 2bh and 3h is investigated in Table 6 and Table 7,
respectively. From Table 7, we see that the CvM version of the proposed test has higher
(sometimes significantly so) power than the test of Neumeyer (2009b). One surprising fact
is that the power of the test of Neumeyer (2009b) decreases for large values of b, while the
power of our test continues to increase. This might be explained by the fact that for larger
values of b (in particular for b = 5), the variance of the residuals is extremely small, which
probably leads to an instability of variance estimation.
Inspecting Table 6, we see that the situation differs dramatically from the results in the
homoscedastic model 2b. In this particular setting, the tests proposed in this paper have
no power for n = 50, n = 100, even for the most extreme setting b = 1 (only this setting is
shown here since for smaller values of b the test also does not have any power). The test of
Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a) has less power than in the homoscedastic case, but is
still able to detect that this model corresponds to the alternative. An intuitive explanation
of those differences is that Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a) scale their residuals to have
the same variances while our residuals are scaled to have the same median absolute deviation
(note that the mean and median of a t-distribution coincide provided that the mean exists).
Under various alternative distributions, this leads to different power curves for the locationscale test. This difference is particularly extreme in the case of t-distributions. To illustrate
this fact, recall in models which are not of location-scale structure, n−1/2 Sn (t, y) converges in
ad
probability to P (εad
i ≤ y, Xi ≤ t) − Fεad (y)FX (t), see Remark 3.3. Here, the residuals εi are
defined as (Yi − FY−1 (τ |Xi ))/s(Xi ) with s(x) denoting the conditional median absolute deviation of Yi − FY−1 (τ |Xi ) given Xi = x. A similar result holds for the residuals in EVK which
take the form εσi := (Yi −m(Xi ))/σ(Xi ) where σ 2 denotes the conditional variance. One thus
19

might expect that computing the quantities K ad := supt,y |P (εad
i ≤ y, Xi ≤ t)−Fεad (y)FX (t)|
and K σ := supt,y |P (εσi ≤ y, Xi ≤ t) − Fεσ (y)FX (t)| will give some insights into the power
properties of the KS test for residuals that are scaled in different ways. Indeed, numerical
computations show that K σ /K ad ≈ 4.5 which explains the large difference in power (note
that the power for EVK reported in Table 6 is in fact the power of their Anderson-Darling
test, the power of the KS test in EVK is lower). For a corresponding version of the CvM
distance the ratio is roughly ten. We suspect that using a different scaling for the residuals
would improve the power of the test in this particular model. However, since the optimal
scaling depends on the underlying distribution of the residuals which is typically unknown,
it seems difficult to implement an optimal scaling in practice. We leave this interesting
question to future research.
Note that we do not present simulation results for the models with χ2 -distributed errors
considered by Einmahl and Van Keilegom (2008a) and Neumeyer (2009b) for power simulations. The reason is that for error distributions that are χ2b with b < 2, tests based on
residuals do not hold their level, and the power characteristics described in the aforementioned papers are a consequence of this fact. The intuitive reason for this fact is that weak
convergence of the residual process requires the errors to have a uniformly bounded density,
which is not the case for chi-square distributions with degrees of freedom less than two. This
phenomenon is not related to non-parametric estimation of the location function and can
already be observed in a simple linear model.
Please insert Tables 5, 6 and 7 here

5.2

Testing for monotonicity of quantile curves in a location-scale
setting
Please insert Figure 3 here

Next, we considered the test for monotonicity of quantile curves that is introduced in Section
4. Here, we simulated the following two models that are both of location-scale type
(model 4)
(model 5)

2

Y |X = x ∼ 1 + x − βe−50(x−0.5) + 0.2N (0, 1), X ∼ U [0, 1]
x
Y |X = x ∼ + 2(0.1 − (x − 0.5)2 )N (0, 1), X ∼ U [0, 1].
2

The results for models 4 and 5 are reported in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. In model
4, all quantile curves are parallel and so all quantile curves have a similar monotonicity behavior. In particular, the parameter value β = 0 corresponds to strictly increasing quantile
curves, for β = 0.15 the curves have a flat spot, and for β > 0.15 the curves have a small
decreasing bump that gets larger for larger values of β. The median curves for different
20

values of β are depicted in Figure 3, and the 25% quantile curves are parallel to the median
curves with exactly the same shape. We performed the tests for two different quantile curves
(τ = 0.25 and τ = 0.5) and see that in both cases the test has a slowly increasing power for
increasing values of β and sample size. The case β = 0.45 is already recognized as alternative
for n = 50, while for β = 0.25 the test only starts to show some power for n = 200. Note
also that for very large sample sizes, even the flat function corresponding to β = 0.15 should
be recognized as alternative since all the results under H0 require that the quantile curves
are strictly increasing. However, with a sample of size n = 200 this effect is not visible in
the simulations.
In model 5, the median is a strictly increasing function while the outer quantile curves are
not increasing. In Table 9, we report the simulation results for three different quantile values
(τ = 0.25, τ = 0.5 and τ = 0.75) and two sample sizes n = 50, 100, 200. For n = 50, the
observed rejection probabilities are slightly above the nominal critical values (for τ = 0.5),
and the cases τ = 0.25 and τ = 0.75 are recognized as alternatives. For n = 100, 200, the
test holds its level for τ = 0.5 and also shows a slow increase in power at the other quantiles.
The increase is not really significant when going from n = 50 to n = 100 for τ = .25 and
not present for τ = .75. For n = 200, the test clearly has more power compared to n = 50.
Overall, we can conclude that the proposed test shows a satisfactory behavior.

Please insert Tables 8 and 9 here

6

Conclusion

The paper at hand considered location-scale models in the context of nonparametric quantile regression. For the first time a test for model validity was investigated. It is based
on the empirical independence process of covariates and residuals built from nonparametric
estimators for the location and scale functions. The process converges weakly to a Gaussian process. A bootstrap version of the test was investigated in theory and by means of
a simulation study. The theoretical results open a new toolbox to test for various model
hypotheses in location-scale quantile models. As example we considered in detail the testing
for monotonicity of a conditional quantile function in theory as well as in simulations. Similarly other structural assumptions on the location or the scale function can be tested. All
weak convergence results are proved in the appendix and supplementary material in a detailed manner. A small simulation study demonstrated that the proposed method works well.

21

A

Proof of weak convergence results

Before beginning with the proof, we give a brief overview of the results. The proofs of
the main results (Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.6 and Theorem 4.1) and the bootstrap versions
(Theorems 3.7 and 4.3) are contained in Appendixes A and B, respectively. Technical details
needed in the proofs of those results can be found in the supplementary material in Appendix
C.3. Finally, Appendix C.1 in the supplement contains basic results on linearized versions
and differentiability of the quantile estimator q̂τ , scale estimator ŝ and the corresponding
bootstrap versions, while Appendix C.2 contains additional technical details.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. For the numerator F̄X,ε,n (t, y) = F̂X,ε,n (t, y)(F̂X,n (1 − 2hn ) −
F̂X,n (2hn )) of the joint empirical distribution function defined in (3.2) we have
n

ŝ(Xi ) q̂τ (Xi ) − qτ (Xi ) o
1X n
I εi ≤ y
+
I{2hn < Xi ≤ t}.
F̄X,ε,n (t, y) =
n i=1
s(Xi )
s(Xi )
Note that in Lemma C.9 in the supplement it is shown that without changing the asymptotic
distribution of the process the residuals ε̂i can be replaced by their versions obtained from
linearized estimators q̂τ,L , ŝL instead of q̂τ , ŝ (see Appendix C.1 for the definitions). Thus
we have
n
1X n
1
ŝL (Xi ) q̂τ,L (Xi ) − qτ (Xi ) o
I εi ≤ y
F̄X,ε,n (t, y) =
+
I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} + oP ( √ ).
n i=1
s(Xi )
s(Xi )
n
From this we obtain the expansion
n

1X
F̄X,ε,n (t, y) =
I{εi ≤ y}I{2hn < Xi ≤ t}
n i=1
Z 1−2hn  

ŝL (x) q̂τ,L (x) − qτ (x) 
Fε y
(A.1)
+
+
− Fε (y) I{x ≤ t}fX (x) dx
s(x)
s(x)
2hn
1
+ oP ( √ )
n
uniformly with respect to t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ] and y ∈ R by the following argumentation.
Consider the empirical process
n

1 X
Gn (ϕ) = √
ϕ(Xi , εi ) − E[ϕ(Xi , εi )] ,
n i=1

ϕ ∈ F,

indexed by the following class of functions,
n
F = (X, ε) 7→ I{ε ≤ yd2 (X) + d1 (X)}I{h < X}I{X ≤ t} − I{ε ≤ y}I{h < X}I{X ≤ t}
o
y ∈ R, h, t ∈ [0, 1], d1 ∈ C11+δ ([0, 1]), d2 ∈ C̃21+δ ([0, 1]) ,
22

for some arbitrary δ ∈ (0, 1), where the function class Cc1+δ ([0, 1]) is defined as the set of
differentiable functions g : [0, 1] → R with derivatives g 0 such that
n
o
|g 0 (x) − g 0 (z)|
max sup |g(x)|, sup |g 0 (x)| + sup
≤ c
|x − z|δ
x∈[0,1]
x∈[0,1]
x,z∈[0,1]
[see van der Vaart and Wellner (1996, p. 154)]. We further by slight abuse of notation define
the subset C̃21+δ ([0, 1]) of C11+δ ([0, 1]) by the additional constraint inf x∈[0,1] g(x) ≥ 1/2. Now F
is a product of the uniformly bounded Donsker classes {(X, ε) 7→ I{h < X}I{X ≤ t}|h, t ∈
[0, 1]} and {(X, ε) 7→ I{ε ≤ yd2 (X) + d1 (X)} − I{ε ≤ y}|y ∈ R, d1 ∈ C11+δ ([0, 1]), d2 ∈
C̃21+δ ([0, 1])} [the Donsker property for the second class is shown in Lemma 1 by Akritas
and Van Keilegom (2001)] and is therefore Donsker as well (Ex. 2.10.8, van der Vaart and
Wellner (1996), p. 192). The remaining part of the proof for equality (A.1) follows exactly
the lines of the end of the proof of Lemma 1, Akritas and Van Keilegom (2001), p. 567, using
the inequality


Var I{ε1 ≤ yd2 (X1 ) + d1 (X1 )}I{h < X1 }I{X1 ≤ s} − I{ε1 ≤ y}I{h < X1 }I{X1 ≤ s}
h
2 i
≤ E I{ε1 ≤ yd2 (X1 ) + d1 (X1 )} − I{ε1 ≤ y} .
Here one also needs ŝL /s ∈ C̃21+δ ([0, 1]), (q̂τ,L − qτ )/s ∈ C11+δ ([0, 1]) with probability converging to one, which follows from uniform consistency results in Lemma C.1 in the supplement.
For ϕ = ϕh,t,y,d1 ,d2 we obtain


Gn ϕ2h ,t,y, q̂τ,L −qτ , ŝL = oP (1)
sup
y∈R,
t∈[2hn ,1−2hn ]

n

s

s

and thus (A.1).
Further, by a Taylor expansion we obtain from (A.1) together with assumption (A4) that
Z 1−2hn
n
1X
ŝL (x) − s(x)
F̄X,ε,n (t, y) =
I{x ≤ t}fX (x) dx
I{εi ≤ y}I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} + yfε (y)
n i=1
s(x)
2hn
Z 1−2hn
q̂τ,L (x) − qτ (x)
1
+ fε (y)
I{x ≤ t}fX (x) dx + oP ( √ )
s(x)
n
2hn
uniformly with respect to t ∈ [2hn , 1−2hn ] and y ∈ R. In Lemma C.10 in the supplementary
material expansions of the integrals in this decomposition are derived and it follows that
(A.2)

F̄X,ε,n (t, y)
n
n
1X
1X
I{εi ≤ y}I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} − φ(y)
(I{εi ≤ 0} − τ )I{2hn < Xi ≤ t}
=
n i=1
n i=1
n
1 X
1
1
− ψ(y)
I{|εi | ≤ 1} −
I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} + oP ( √ ),
n i=1
2
n
23

where φ and ψ are defined in the assertion of the theorem. Thus noting that F̂X,n (1 − 2hn ) −
F̂X,n (2hn ) = FX (1 − 2hn ) − FX (2hn ) + oP (1) = 1 + oP (1), from the definition (3.3) we obtain
by Slutsky’s lemma that
n

1 X
1 
√
Sn (t, y) =
I{εi ≤ y} − Fε (y) − φ(y)(I{εi ≤ 0} − τ ) − ψ(y) I{|εi | ≤ 1} −
2
n i=1


F̂X,n (t) − F̂X,n (2hn )
× I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} − I{2hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn }
F̂X,n (1 − 2hn ) − F̂X,n (2hn )
+ oP (1).

uniformly with respect to t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ] and y ∈ R. Note that the dominating part
of this process vanishes in the boundary points t = 2hn and t = 1 − 2hn . Further, from
F̂X,n (t) = FX (t) + OP (n−1/2 ) uniformly in t ∈ [0, 1] and FX (2hn ) → 0, FX (1 − 2hn ) → 1 we
have
Sn (t, y) = Sn,1 (t, y) + oP (1),
uniformly with respect to t ∈ [0, 1], y ∈ R, where Sn,1 (t, y) = 0 for t ∈ [0, 2hn ) ∪ (1 − 2hn , 1]
and
n


1 X
Sn,1 (t, y) = √
g(εi , y) I{2hn < Xi ≤ t} − I{2hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn }FX (t)
n i=1

for t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ] and y ∈ R, where g(εi , y) = I{εi ≤ y} − Fε (y) − φ(y)(I{εi ≤ 0} − τ ) −
ψ(y)(I{|εi | ≤ 1} − 21 ) is centered and independent of Xi . The first assertion of the theorem
now follows if we show that for
n


1 X
Sn,2 (t, y) = √
g(εi , y) I{Xi ≤ t} − FX (t) ,
n i=1

t ∈ [0, 1], y ∈ R,

we have supt∈[0,1],y∈R |Sn,1 (t, y) − Sn,2 (t, y)| = oP (1), which is equivalent to
(A.3)

|Sn,1 (t, y) − Sn,2 (t, y)| = oP (1)

sup
t∈[2hn ,1−2hn ],y∈R

together with
(A.4)

|Sn,2 (t, y)| = oP (1).

sup
t∈[0,2hn )∪(1−2hn ,1],y∈R

We will only show (A.3); (A.4) follows by similar arguments. Note that Sn,1 (t, y)−Sn,2 (t, y) =
Gn (hn , t, y) for t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ], y ∈ R, where the process
n

−1 X
g(εi , y)(I{Xi ≤ t} − FX (t))I{Xi ∈ [0, 2h) ∪ (1 − 2h, 1]}
Gn (h, t, y) = √
n i=1
24

indexed in h ∈ [0, 14 ], t ∈ [0, 1], y ∈ R, converges weakly to a centered Gaussian process G
with asymptotic variance

2
Var(G(h, t, y)) = E[g (ε1 , y)] (FX (t ∧ 2h) + FX (t) − FX (t ∧ (1 − 2h)))(1 − 2FX (t))

+ FX2 (t)(FX (2h) + 1 − FX (1 − 2h)) .
For h = hn → 0 this asymptotic variance vanishes uniformly with respect to y and t. From
asymptotic equicontinuity of Gn (confer van der Vaart and Wellner, 1996, p. 89/90), using the
asymptotic variance as semi-metric, with Gn (0, t, y) ≡ 0 it follows that supt,y |Gn (hn , t, y)| =
oP (1) and thus (A.3).
Hence, we have shown the first assertion of the theorem, i. e. Sn = Sn,2 + oP (1) uniformly.
Weak convergence of Sn,2 (and thus of Sn ) to a centered Gaussian process with the asserted
covariance structure follows by standard arguments.
2

Proof of Corollary 3.6. The asymptotic distribution of Kn directly follows from Theorem
3.1 and the continuous mapping theorem. From those theorems also follows that
Z Z
C̃n =
Sn2 (t, y) FX (dt) Fε (dy)
R

[0,1]

converges in distribution to the desired limit. It therefore remains to show that Cn − C̃n =
oP (1). To this end denote
Z Z
(1)
C̃n =
Sn2 (FX−1 (F̂X,n (t)), Fε−1 (F̂ε,n (y))) F̂X,n (dt) F̂ε,n (dy)
R

[0,1]

and let %n be some sequence specified later with %n → ∞ for n → ∞. Then
Z
Z


−1
(1)
2
2
−1
|Cn − C̃n | ≤
Sn (t, y) − Sn (FX (F̂X,n (t)), Fε (F̂ε,n (y))) F̂X,n (dt) F̂ε,n (dy)
[−%n ,%n ] [0,1]
Z
2
+ 2 sup |Sn (t, y)|
F̂ε,n (dy).
t,y

R\[−%n ,%n ]

The second term on the right hand side is OP (1)(1 − F̂ε,n (%n ) + F̂ε,n (−%n )) = oP (1) due to
the results from Theorem 3.1 and because %n → ∞ and F̂ε,n converges to Fε uniformly in
probability (this follows from the proof of Theorem 3.1). The first term on the right hand
side can further be bounded by
2 sup |Sn (t, y)|
t,y

sup
t∈[0,1]
y∈[−%n ,%n ]

Sn (t, y) − Sn (FX−1 (F̂X,n (t)), Fε−1 (F̂ε,n (y))) .
25

From Theorem 3.1 it follows that the process Sn is asymptotically stochastic equicontinuous
such that we obtain the desired rate oP (1) from
1
sup |F̂X,n (t) − FX (t)| = oP (1)
ξ∈[0,1] fX (ξ) t∈[0,1]

sup |t − FX−1 (F̂X,n (t))| ≤ sup

t∈[0,1]|

by assumption (A1) and
sup

|y −Fε−1 (F̂ε,n (y)))| ≤

y∈[−%n ,%n ]

1

sup

sup

y∈[−%n ,%n ]

ζ between
Fε (y) and F̂ε,n (y)

sup |F̂ε,n (y)−Fε (y)| = oP (1).

fε (Fε−1 (ζ)) y∈R

The latter rate follows because supy∈R |F̂ε,n (y) − Fε (y)| = OP (n−1/2 ) (which can be deduced
by F̂ε,n (·) = F X,ε,n (1 − 2hn , ·)/(F̂X,n (1 − 2hn ) − F̂X,n (2hn )) and (A.2) in the proof of Theorem
3.1) if we choose a sequence %n such that n1/2 inf y∈[−2%n ,2%n ] fε (y) → ∞ for n → ∞. This is
possible by assumption (A4).
(1)
(1)
We have shown Cn − C̃n = oP (1) and it remains to show that C̃n − C̃n = oP (1). To this
end, note that almost surely
Z
Z
n
n
1 X X 2 −1 i
(1)
C̃n − C̃n =
Sn2 (FX−1 (s), Fε−1 (z)) ds dz − 2
Sn (FX ( n ), Fε−1 ( nj ))
n
[0,1] [0,1]
i=1 j=1
Z
Z
n
n


XX
=
Sn2 (FX−1 (s), Fε−1 (z)) − Sn2 (FX−1 ( ni ), Fε−1 ( nj )) ds dz.
i=1 j=1

[ i−1
,i)
n n

[ j−1
,j)
n n

Pn
P
Pn
. . . for sequences of
. . . + nj=Jn +1 . . . + Jj=j
We decompose the second sum into jj=1
n +1
integers with 1 ≤ jn < Jn ≤ n and jn /n → 0, Jn /n → 1 for n → ∞. We obtain
|C̃n − C̃n(1) | ≤ 2

jn + n − Jn
sup |Sn2 (t, y)|
n
t,y

+ 2 sup |Sn (t, y)| sup
t,y

|Sn (FX−1 (s), Fε−1 (z)) − Sn (FX−1 (u), Fε−1 (v))|.

sup

1
1
|s−u|≤ n
|z−v|≤ n
s,u∈[0,1] z,v∈ jn , Jn
n n

[

]

By asymptotic stochastic equicontinuity of Sn this converges to zero in probability if
sup |FX−1 (s) − FX−1 (u)| → 0

1
|s−u|≤ n
s,u∈[0,1]

which follows from assumption (A1) and the mean value theorem, and
|Fε−1 (z) − Fε−1 (v)| → 0

sup
1
|z−v|≤ n
jn Jn
z,v∈ n , n

[

]

which can be guaranteed by assumption (A4) and the mean value theorem if jn /n and Jn /n
converge slowly enough.
2
26

Proof of Theorem 4.1. The assertion follows from Theorem 3.1 if we show that uniformly
with respect to t ∈ [0, 1] and y ∈ R, Sn (t, y) = Sn,I (t, y) + oP (1). To this end, observe that
as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 we can replace the estimators q̂τ and ŝ by their linearized
versions q̂τ,L and ŝL in the definition of Sn without changing the asymptotic properties.
Denote the corresponding version of the process by Sn,L . Similarly, in the definition of Sn,I
the estimators q̂τ,I and ŝ can be replaced by q̂τ,L,I = Γn (q̂τ,L ) and ŝL , where q̂τ,L,I denotes
the increasing rearrangement of the linearized estimator q̂τ,L . More precisely, denoting this
version of the process by Sn,L,I , we will show that
(A.5)

|Sn,L,I (t, y) − Sn,I (t, y)| = oP (1).

sup
t∈[0,1],y∈R

To see this, let c = inf x∈[0,1] qτ0 (x) and note that by our assumptions c > 0 and by Lemma
0
C.1 in the supplement we have for the set Ωn := {supx∈[hn ,1−hn ] |q̂τ,L
(x) − qτ0 (x)| > 2c } that
P (Ωn ) → 0 for n → ∞. Observe that by a straightforward modification of the proof of
Theorem 3.1 (a) in Neumeyer (2007), we have on the set Ωn
|Γn (q̂τ,L )(x) − Γn (q̂τ )(x)| ≤ C

sup
x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

sup

|q̂τ,L (x) − q̂τ (x)|

x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

for a universal constant C which is independent of n. Thus Lemma C.2 in the supplement
together with P (Ωn ) → 1 implies that
sup

|Γn (q̂τ,L )(x) − Γn (q̂τ )(x)| = oP (n−1/2 ).

x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

Additionally, observe that the estimator q̂τ,L is strictly increasing provided that the event
Ωn holds, which implies that P (q̂τ,L ≡ Γn (q̂τ,L )) ≥ P (Ωn ) → 1. Now similar arguments as
those used in the proof of Lemma C.9 in the supplement show that, defining FX,εL,I ,n in the
same manner as F̂X,εI ,n but with ε̂i,L,I := (Yi − Γn (q̂τ,L )(x))/ŝ(Xi ) instead of εi,I , we have
F̂X,εI ,n (t, y) = F̂X,εL,I ,n (t, y) + oP (n−1/2 )
uniformly on x ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ], y ∈ R. Combining this with arguments which are similar to
those in the proof of Theorem 3.1, this shows the validity of (A.5). Next, note that on Ωn
the estimator q̂τ,L is strictly increasing. For every  > 0 it follows that


P
sup
|Sn,L,I (t, y) − Sn,L (t, y)| > 
t∈[2hn ,1−2hn ],y∈R

= P



sup


|Sn,L,I (t, y) − Sn,L (t, y)| >  + o(1)

t∈[2hn ,1−2hn ],y∈R

27

≤ P



sup

|Sn,L,I (t, y) − Sn,L (t, y)| >  ,

t∈[2hn ,1−2hn ],y∈R
(∗)

≤ P



sup

sup

0
|q̂τ,L
(x) − qτ0 (x)| ≤

x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

|Sn,L,I (t, y) − Sn,L (t, y)| >  ,

t∈[2hn ,1−2hn ],y∈R

inf
x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

c
+ o(1)
2


0
q̂τ,L
(x) > 0 + o(1)

= o(1).
0
Here the last equality is due to the following argumentation. If inf x∈[hn ,1−hn ] q̂τ,L
(x) > 0,
then q̂τ,L is strictly increasing, and for any increasing function the increasing rearrangement
equals the original function function and we have q̂τ,L,I = q̂τ,L (see Section 4). But then,
Sn,L (t, y) = Sn,L,I (t, y) for all t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ], y ∈ R and the probability in (∗) is zero.
Finally, similar arguments as those in the proof of Theorem 3.1 show that, uniformly with
respect to t ∈ [0, 2hn ) ∪ (1 − 2hn , 1], y ∈ R, we have Sn,L,I (t, y) = Sn,L (t, y) + oP (1). This
completes the proof.
2

B

Validity of bootstrap

Preliminaries.
Let f˜ε denote the density corresponding to F̃ε . Then under assumptions (B1) analogous to
Lemma 2 in Neumeyer (2009a) it can be shown that
(B.1)

hn 1/2
) ), sup |y f˜ε (y) − yfε (y)| = oP (1)
sup |f˜ε (y) − fε (y)| = oP ((
log
n
y∈R
y∈R
˜
˜
|fε (y) − f (y) − fε (z) + f (z)|
sup
= oP (1), sup |F̃ε (y) − F (y)| = oP (1)
|y − z|δ/2
y,z∈R
y∈R

(with δ from assumption (B1)). Further note that under assumption (B2), Proposition 4
in Neumeyer (2009a) is valid (with υ from assumption (B2)) and it follows that (for some
constants d and L) we have F̃ε ∈ D with probability converging to one. Here the function
class is defined as
n
(B.2) D = F : R → [0, 1] F increasing and continuously differentiable with derivative
|f (x) − f (x0 )|
≤ L,
|x − x0 |δ/2
x∈R
x,x0
o
d
d
|1 − F (x)| ≤ υ ∀x > 0 and |F (x)| ≤ υ ∀x < 0 .
x
|x|
f such that sup |f (x)| + sup

From Lemma 4 in Neumeyer (2009a) and the conditions on δ and υ in assumption (B2) it
follows that
(B.3)
log N (, D, || · ||∞ ) = O(−a ) for some a < 1.
Proof of Theorem 3.7.
28

∗
In the supplementary material in Lemma C.9 it is shown that in the process F̂X,ε,n
the residuals ε̂∗i can be replaced by linearized versions ε̂∗i,L (see Appendix C.1 in the supplement for
the definitions). Using this, the preliminaries above as well as Lemma C.1 in the supplement
(instead of Lemma 3 in Neumeyer (2009a)) we obtain analogously to the proofs of Lemma
1(i) and Theorem 2 in the reference that
∗
(t, y)
F̂X,ε,n
n
1
1X
I{ε̂∗i,L ≤ y}I{4hn < Xi ≤ t} + oP ( √ )
=
n i=1
n
n

1X
=
I{ε∗i ≤ y}I{4hn < Xi ≤ t}
n i=1
Z   ∗
∗

(x) − q̂τ,L (x) 
ŝ (x) q̂τ,L
+
F̃ε y L
+
− F̃ε (y) I{4hn < x ≤ t}fX (x) dx
ŝL (x)
ŝL (x)
1
+ oP ( √ )
n
uniformly with respect to t ∈ (4hn , 1−4hn ], y ∈ R. One can further apply a Taylor expansion
for F̃ε . Lemma C.10 in the supplement gives expansions for the remaining integrals and we
obtain
n


1X
1
∗
∗
∗
F̂X,ε,n (t, y) =
I{4hn < Xi ≤ t} I{εi ≤ y} − ψ̃n (y) I{|εi | ≤ 1} −
n i=1
2


− φ̃n (y) I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ
1
+ oP ( √ )
n
uniformly with respect to t ∈ (4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ R, where
y f˜ε (y)
f˜ε (y) 
fε (1) − fε (−1) 
, φ̃n (y) =
1−y
.
ψ̃n (y) =
f|ε| (1)
fε (0)
f|ε| (1)
By the definition of the process Sn∗ one now directly has
Sn∗ (t, y)
n



1
1 X ∗
∗
∗
= √
I{εi ≤ y} − ψ̃n (y) I{|εi | ≤ 1} −
− φ̃n (y) I{εi ≤ 0} − τ
2
n i=1


F̂X,n (t) − F̂X,n (4hn )
× I{4hn < Xi ≤ t} − I{4hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 4hn }
F̂X,n (1 − 4hn ) − F̂X,n (4hn )
+ oP (1)
n


1 X
F̂X,n (t) − F̂X,n (4hn )
∗
√
=
gn (εi , y) I{4hn < Xi ≤ t} − I{4hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 4hn }
n i=1
F̂X,n (1 − 4hn ) − F̂X,n (4hn )
+ oP (1)
29

uniformly with respect to t ∈ (4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ R, with
gn (ε∗i , y)




= I{ε∗i ≤ y} − F̃ε (y) − φ̃n (y) I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − F̃ε (0) − ψ̃n (y) I{|ε∗i | ≤ 1} − F̃ε (1) + F̃ε (−1) .
Note that E[gn (ε∗i , y) | Yn ] = 0 and the dominating part of the process Sn∗ vanishes in the
boundary points t = 4hn and t = 1 − 4hn , for all y ∈ R. Similarly to the corresponding
arguments in the proof of Theorem 3.1 (but with more technical effort) it can be shown
that this process is equivalent in terms of conditional weak convergence in `∞ ([0, 1] × R) in
probability to the process
∗
Sn,2
(t, y)

n


1 X
= √
gn (ε∗i , y) I{Xi ≤ t} − F̂X,n (t) ,
n i=1

t ∈ [0, 1], y ∈ R.

Details are omitted for the sake of brevity.
To finish the proof we have to show that (conditional on Y = ((X1 , Y1 ), (X2 , Y2 ), . . .)) the
∗
process Sn,2
converges weakly to S in probability (n → ∞). To this end we may show that
for each subsequence (nk )k there exists a further subsequence (nk` )` such that (conditional
on Y) Sn∗k ,2 converges weakly to S almost surely (` → ∞), cf. Sweeting (1989), p. 463. To
`
this end we choose a subsequence (nk` )` such that along this subsequence the convergences
in (B.1) hold almost surely (` → ∞). To simplify notation for the remainder of the proof we
simply assume that the sequences in (B.1) converge almost surely (n → ∞) and show that
∗
then Sn,2
converges weakly to S almost surely (n → ∞).
∗
∗
It is easy to see that the conditional covariances Cov(Sn,2
(s, y), Sn,2
(t, z) | Y) converge almost
surely to Cov(S(s, y), S(t, z)) as defined in Theorem 3.1. Thus it remains to show conditional
∗
. To obtain the latter we use Cramértightness and conditional fidi convergence of Sn,2
Wold’s device. Let k ∈ N, (y1 , t1 ), . . . , (yk , tk ) ∈ R × [0, 1], a1 , . . . , ak ∈ R and Zn =
Pn
Pk
−1/2
∗
∗
i=1 zn,i . Note that for some constant c, |gn (εi , y)(I{Xi ≤ t} −
j=1 aj Sn,2 (tj , yj ) = n
F̂X,n (t))| ≤ 1 + c(1 + y)f˜ε (y), which converges almost surely to 1 + c(1 + y)fε (y) due to
(B.1) and thus is almost surely bounded. From this the validity of the conditional Lindeberg
condition easily follows, i. e.
n

Ln (δ) =

1X
2
E[zn,i
I{|zn,i | > n1/2 δ} | Y] → 0 almost surely, for all δ > 0.
n i=1

∗
Finally, to prove conditional tightness we use the decomposition Sn,2
(t, y) =
where
n

1 X ∗
(0)
Un (t, y) = √
I{εi ≤ y} − F̃ε (y) I{Xi ≤ t}
n i=1

Un(1) (t, y) = −φ̃n (y)Vn,1 (t)
30

P3

k=0

(k)

Un (t, y),

n


1 X ∗
with Vn,1 (t) = √
I{εi ≤ 0} − F̃ε (0) I{Xi ≤ t} − F̂X,n (t)
n i=1

Un(2) (t, y) = −ψ̃n (y)Vn,2 (t)
n


1 X
∗
with Vn,2 (t) = √
I{|εi | ≤ 1} − F̃ε (1) + F̃ε (−1) I{Xi ≤ t} − F̂X,n (t)
n i=1
n

1 X ∗
Un(3) (t, y) = −F̂X,n (t)Wn (y) with Wn (y) = √
I{εi ≤ y} − F̃ε (y) .
n i=1

Note that conditional weak convergence of Vn,1 and Vn,2 to centered Gaussian processes,
almost surely, can be shown analogously to the proof of bootstrap validity in Birke and
Neumeyer (2013). Further conditional weak convergence of Wn is completely analogous to
Theorem 4 by Neumeyer (2009a). From uniform almost sure convergence of φn , ψn and F̂X,n
(k)
to bounded functions, conditional tightness of Un follows for k = 1, 2, 3.
(0)
It remains to consider Un . Applying Corollary 1 from Shorack and Wellner (1986), p. 622,
√
(set a = n−1 , b = δ = 21 , λ = n) and the Borel-Cantelli lemma one obtains the existence
of c ∈ (0, ∞) such that with probability one
(B.4)

|F̂X,n (t) − F̂X,n (s)| ≤ c|s − t|1/2

1
∀s, t with n−1 ∆−1
1 ≤ |s − t| ≤ ∆2
2

for all but finitely many n, where ∆1 = inf x fX (x) > 0, ∆2 = supx fX (x) < ∞.
We proceed by applying Theorem 2.11.9 by van der Vaart and Wellner (1996). Define
F := [0, 1] × R and for f = (t, y) let

1 
Zni (f ) := √ I{ε∗i ≤ y} − F̃ε (y) I{Xi ≤ t}.
n
Let η > 0 and let N[] (η, F, Ln2 ) denote the minimal number of sets Nη in a partition of F in
n
n
, j = 1, . . . , Nη , such that for every Fηj
subsets Fηj
(B.5)

n
h
i
X
E sup |Zni (f ) − Zni (g)|2 Y ≤ η 2 .
i=1

n
f,g∈Fηj

Here the subsets are allowed to depend on n. Note also that we consider the conditional
probability measure P (· | Y), so the sequence (X1 , Y1 ), (X2 , Y2 ), . . . is given and the subsets
are allowed to depend on it. We distinguish two cases.
−4
1. Let n ≥ ∆−1
1 η .
Partition [0, 1] into L = O(η −4 ) intervals [t`−1 , t` ], ` = 1, . . . , L of length η 4 ≤ t` − t`−1 ≤
2η 4 (∀`). Partition R into K = O(η −2 ) intervals [yk−1 , yk ], k = 1, . . . , K, with F̃ε (yk ) −
F̃ε (yk−1 ) ≤ η 2 (using quantiles of the smooth distribution function F̃ε ). The Nη = LK
n
intervals [t`−1 , t` ] × [yk−1 , yk ] define the subsets Fηj
, j = 1, . . . , Nη .

31

n
Now fix one subset and let f, g ∈ Fηj
= [t`−1 , t` ] × [yk−1 , yk ]. Then for monotonicity reasons
k,`,l
k,`,u
Zni (f ) as well as Zni (g) are elements of the bracket [Zni
, Zni
], where


1
k,`,l
Zni
= √ I{ε∗i ≤ yk−1 }I{Xi ≤ t`−1 } − F̃ε (yk )I{Xi ≤ t` }
n

1 
k,`,u
Zni
= √ I{ε∗i ≤ yk }I{Xi ≤ t` } − F̃ε (yk−1 )I{Xi ≤ t`−1 } .
n

Thus the left hand side of (B.5) can be bounded by
n
h
i
X
k,`,u
k,`,l 2
E (Zni
− Zni
) Y
i=1
n

2X
≤
(I{Xi ≤ t` } − I{Xi ≤ t`−1 })2
n i=1
n
2 i
2 X h ∗
∗
+
E I{εi ≤ yk } − F̃ε (yk−1 ) − I{εi ≤ yk−1 } + F̃ε (yk )
Y
n i=1
n

2X
(I{Xi ≤ t` } − I{Xi ≤ t`−1 })2
≤
n i=1
n
i
4X h ∗
+
E I{εi ≤ yk } − I{ε∗i ≤ yk−1 } + F̃ε (yk ) − F̃ε (yk−1 ) Y
n i=1
≤ 2(F̂X,n (t` ) − F̂X,n (t`−1 )) + 8(F̃ε (yk ) − F̃ε (yk−1 ))
(B.6)

≤ 2(F̂X,n (t` ) − F̂X,n (t`−1 )) + 8η 2 ≤ Cη 2 ,

where we have used (B.4) and t` − t`−1 ≥ η 4 ≥ n−1 ∆−1
1 , and the constant C does not depend
on n and η.
−4
2. Let n < ∆−1
1 η .
As before we partition R into K = O(η −4 ) intervals [yk−1 , yk ], k = 1, . . . , K, with F̃ε (yk ) −
F̃ε (yk−1 ) ≤ η 2 . We partition [0, 1] into n+2 = O(η −4 ) intervals I` = [t`−1 , t` ), ` = 1, . . . , n+1,
and In+2 = {1}, where t0 = 0, t` = X(`) for ` = 1, . . . , n and tn+1 = 1. Here X(1) , . . . , X(n) dek,`,u
k,`,l
note the order statistics of X1 , . . . , Xn . Now we proceed as in case 1 but replacing Zni
, Zni
with

1 
k,`,l
Z̃ni
= √ I{ε∗i ≤ yk−1 }I{Xi ≤ t`−1 } − F̃ε (yk )I{Xi < t` }
n

1  ∗
k,`,u
Z̃ni = √ I{εi ≤ yk }I{Xi < t` } − F̃ε (yk−1 )I{Xi ≤ t`−1 } .
n
k,`,l
k,`,u
By definition, Z̃ni
≤ Zni (f ) ≤ Z̃ni
for f = (t, y) ∈ [t`−1 , t` ) × [yk−1 , yk ]. Noting that
F̂X,n (t` −) − F̂X,n (t`−1 ) = 0 for all ` = 1, . . . , n + 1, we obtain by similar arguments as used
to derive (B.6)
n
h
i
X
k,`,u
k,`,l 2
E (Z̃ni
− Z̃ni
) Y ≤ 2(F̂X,n (t` −) − F̂X,n (t`−1 )) + 8η 2 = 8η 2 .
i=1

32

The partitionings in both cases depend on n, but the bracketing number N[] (η, F, Ln2 ) can
be bounded by O(η −8 ), independent of n, such that the condition
Z

δn

q
log N[] (η, F, Ln2 ) dη −→ 0 for every δn & 0

0

is fulfilled (this corresponds to the third condition in Theorem 2.11.9 by van der Vaart and
Wellner (1996)). Further, because |Zni (f )| ≤ n−1/2 ∀f we have
n
h
i
X
E sup |Zni (f )|I{sup |Zni (f )| > η} Y −→ 0 for every η > 0
f ∈F

i=1

f ∈F

(this corresponds to the first condition in Theorem 2.11.9 by van der Vaart and Wellner
(1996)). Moreover, (F, ρ) is a totally bounded semimetric space with ρ((s, y), (t, z)) =
|t − s| + |Fε (z) − Fε (y)|. Now for δn & 0 we obtain similarly to the calculation in case 1
above (for some constant c),
n
h
i
X
2
sup
E (Zni (f ) − Zni (g)) Y
ρ(f,g)<δn i=1

≤ c



sup |F̂X,n (t) − F̂X,n (s)| +
|t−s|≤δn

sup
z,y:
|Fε (z)−Fε (y)|≤δn


|F̃ε (z) − F̃ε (y)|

= o(1) almost surely
by uniform convergence of F̂X,n to FX and F̃ε to Fε (this corresponds to the second condition
in Theorem 2.11.9 by van der Vaart and Wellner (1996)) and uniform continuity of FX . From
Theorem 2.11.9 one obtains


(0)
(0)
lim lim P
sup
|Ũn (s, y) − Ũn (t, z)| > η Y = 0 for all η > 0
δ&0 n→∞

ρ((s,y),(t,z))<δ

for almost all sequences Y. This completes the proof.

2

Proof of Theorem 4.3.
Theorem 4.3 follows from Theorem 3.7 in the same manner as Theorem 4.1 follows from
Theorem 3.1.
2

References
J. Abrevaya (2005). Isotonic quantile regression: asymptotics and bootstrap. Sankhyā 67,
187–199.
33

M. Akritas and I. Van Keilegom (2001). Nonparametric estimation of the residual distribution. Scand. J. Statist. 28, 549–567.
D. Anevski and A.-L. Fougères (2007). Limit properties of the monotone rearrangement for density and regression function estimation. arXiv:0710.4617v1
Y. Baraud, S. Huet and B. Laurent (2003). Adaptive tests of qualitative hypotheses.
ESAIM, Probab. Statist. 7, 147–159.
M. Birke and H. Dette (2007). Testing strict monotonicity in nonparametric regression.
Math. Meth. Statist. 16, 110–123.
M. Birke and H. Dette (2008). A note on estimating a smooth monotone regression by
combining kernel and density estimates. J. Nonparam. Statist. 20, 679–690.
M. Birke and N. Neumeyer (2013). Testing monotonicity of regression functions - an
empirical process approach. Scand. J. Statist. 40, 438–454.
J.R. Blum, J. Kiefer and M. Rosenblatt (1961). Distribution free tests of independence based on the sample distribution functions. Ann. Math. Stat. 32, 485–498.
A. W. Bowman, M. C. Jones and I. Gijbels (1998). Testing monotonicity of regression. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 7, 489–500.
R.J. Casady and J.D. Cryer (1976). Monotone percentile regression. Ann. Stat. 4,
532–541.
S. Chen, G.B. Dahl and S. Khan (2005). Nonparametric identification and estimation
of a censored location-scale regression model. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 100, 212–221.
J.D. Cryer, T. Robertson, F.T. Wright and R.J. Casady (1972). Monotone median
regression. Ann. Math. Stat. 43, 1459–1469.
H. Dette, N. Neumeyer and K. F. Pilz (2006). A simple nonparametric estimator of a
strictly monotone regression function. Bernoulli 12, 469–490.
H. Dette and S. Volgushev (2008). Non–crossing nonparametric estimates of quantile
curves. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 70, 609–627.
J. Domı́nguez-Menchero, G. González-Rodrı́guez and M. J. López-Palomo (2005).
An L2 point of view in testing monotone regression J. Nonparam. Statist. 17, 135–153.
L. Duembgen (2002). Application of local rank tests to nonparametric regression. J. Nonparametr. Stat. 14, 511–537.
34

C. Durot (2003). A Kolmogorov-type test for monotonicity of regression. Statist. Probab.
Lett. 63, 425–433.
S. Efromovich (1999). Nonparametric curve estimation. Methods, theory, and applications. Springer, New York.
J.H.J. Einmahl and I. Van Keilegom (2008a). Specification tests in nonparametric regression. J. Econometr. 143, 88–102.
J.H.J. Einmahl and I. Van Keilegom (2008b). Tests for independence in nonparametric regression. Statist. Sinica 18, 601–616.
X. Feng, X. He and J. Hu (2011). Wild bootstrap for quantile regression. Biometrika
98, 995–999.
B. Fitzenberger, K. Kohn and A. Lembcke (2008). Union Density and Varieties of
Coverage: The Anatomy of Union Wage Effects in Germany. IZA Working Paper No.
3356. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1135932
T. Gasser, H. Müller and V. Mammitzsch (1985). Kernels for nonparametric curve
estimation. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B, 238–252.
I. Gijbels, P. Hall, M. C. Jones and I. Koch (2000). Tests for monotonicity of a regression mean with guaranteed level. Biometrika 87, 663–673.
S. Ghosal, A. Sen and A. W. van der Vaart (2000). Testing monotonicity of regression. Ann. Statist. 28, 1054–1082.
P. Hall and N. E. Heckman (2000). Testing for monotonicity of a regression mean by
calibrating for linear functions. Ann. Statist. 28, 20–39.
W. Härdle and E. Mammen (1993).
Comparing nonparametric versus parametric
regression fits. Ann. Statist. 21, 1926–1947.
X. He (1997). Quantile Curves without Crossing. Am. Stat. 51, 186–192.
W. Hoeffding (1948). A nonparametric test of independence. Ann. Math. Statist. 19,
546–557.
S. Kiwitt, E.-R. Nagel and N. Neumeyer (2008). Empirical Likelihood Estimators for
the Error Distribution in Nonparametric Regression Models. Math. Meth. Statist. 17,
241–260.
R. Koenker (2005). Quantile Regresssion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35

R. Koenker and G. Bassett (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica 46, 33–50.
U. U. Müller, A. Schick and W. Wefelmeyer (2004). Estimating linear functionals of
the error distribution in nonparametric regression. J. Statist. Plann. Inf. 119, 75–93.
N. Neumeyer (2007). A note on uniform consistency of monotone function estimators.
Statist. Probab. Lett. 77, 693–703.
N. Neumeyer (2009a). Smooth residual bootstrap for empirical processes of nonparametric
regression residuals. Scand. J. Statist. 36, 204–228.
N. Neumeyer (2009b). Testing independence in nonparametric regression. J. Multiv.
Anal. 100, 1551–1566.
J. Rice (1984). Bandwidth choice for nonparametric regression. Ann. Statist. 12, 1215–
1230.
T. Robertson and F.T. Wright (1973). Multiple isotonic median regression. Ann. Statist.
1, 422–432.
J. Shim, C. Hwang and H.K. Seok (2009). Non-crossing quantile regression via doubly
penalized kernel machine. Comput. Statist. 24, 83–94.
G. R. Shorack and J. A. Wellner (1986). Empirical Processes with Applications to Statistics. Wiley, New York.
W. Stute (1997). Nonparametric model checks for regression. Ann. Statist. 25, 613–641.
Y. Sun (2006). A consistent nonparametric equality test of conditional quantile functions.
Econometric Th. 22, 614–632.
T. J. Sweeting (1989). On Conditional Weak Convergence. J. Theoret. Probab. 2, 461–
474.
I. Takeuchi, Q.V. Le, T.D. Sears, and A.J. Smola (2006). Nonparametric quantile regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7:1231–1264.
A. W. van der Vaart and J. A. Wellner (1996). Weak convergence and empirical processes. Springer, New York.
I. Van Keilegom (1998). Nonparametric estimation of the conditional distribution in regression with censored data. PhD thesis, University of Hasselt, Belgium. available at
http.//www.ibiostat.be/publications/.
36

I. Van Keilegom, W. González–Manteiga and C. Sánchez Sellero (2008). Goodnessof-fit tests in parametric regression based on the estimation of the error distribution.
TEST 17, 401–415.
S. Volgushev, M. Birke, H. Dette and N. Neumeyer (2013). Significance testing in
quantile regression. Electron. J. Stat. 7, 105–145.
J.C. Wang and M.C. Meyer (2011). Testing the monotonicity or convexity of a function
using regression splines. Can. J. Stat. 39, 89–107.
K. Yu, and M.C. Jones (1997). A comparison of local constant and local linear regression
quantile estimators. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 25, 159–166.
K. Yu and M.C. Jones (1998). Local linear quantile regression. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.
93, 228–237.
K. Yu, Z. Lu, and J. Stander (2003). Quantile regression: applications and current research areas. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. D (The Statistician) 52, 331–350.

Melanie Birke, Universität Bayreuth, Fakultät für Mathematik, Physik und Informatik ,
95440 Bayreuth, Germany, e-mail: Melanie.Birke@uni-bayreuth.de
Natalie Neumeyer, Universität Hamburg, Fachbereich Mathematik, Bundesstraße 55,
20146 Hamburg, Germany, e-mail: neumeyer@math.uni-hamburg.de
Stanislav Volgushev, University of Toronto, Department of Statistical Sciences 100 St.
George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, e-mail: volgushe@utstat.toronto.edu

37

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.0

1.2

1.4

f(x)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x

2

Figure 3: The function x 7→ 1 + x − βe−50(x−0.5) for values β = 0 (solid line), β = 0.15
(dashed line), β = 0.25 (dotted line), β = 0.45 (dash-dotted line), respectively. This is the
median function in model 4, see Section 5.2.
model 1

model 2a

model 3

a=0

c=2

b=0

n = 100

0.034

0.039

0.045

CvM n = 100

0.029

0.044

0.053

n = 200

0.034

0.039

0.050

CvM n = 200

0.046

0.049

0.062

KS
KS

Table 1: Rejection probabilities for testing the validity of a location model under various H0
scenarios, the nominal level is α = 5%.

38

a

0

1

2.5

5

10

KS

n = 100 0.032

0.078

0.16

0.23

0.444

CvM

n = 100 0.038

0.128

0.364

0.568

0.746

N

n = 100 0.054

0.190

0.506

0.734

0.884

EVK n = 100 0.072

0.132

0.316

0.524

0.668

KS

n = 200 0.034

0.144

0.292

0.586

0.784

CvM

n = 200 0.046

0.296

0.632

0.9

0.976

N

n = 200 0.044

0.390

0.860

0.976

0.972

EVK n = 200 0.066

0.376

0.788

0.960

1.00

Table 2: Rejection probabilities for testing the validity of a location model under the alternative in model 1 for different values of the parameter a, nominal level is α = 5%

c

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

KS

n = 100 0.044

0.074

0.120

0.194

0.390

CvM

n = 100 0.082

0.124

0.218

0.414

0.768

N

n = 100 0.096

0.120

0.224

0.420

0.676

EVK n = 100 0.116

0.160

0.224

0.360

0.612

0.08

0.136

0.222

0.4

0.762

CvM

n = 200 0.118

0.29

0.49

0.792

0.996

N

n = 200 0.156

0.216

0.412

0.688

0.904

EVK n = 200 0.124

0.216

0.344

0.584

0.944

KS

n = 200

Table 3: Rejection probabilities for testing the validity of a location model under the alternative in model 2b for different values of the parameter c, nominal level is α = 5%

39

b

1

2

3

5

n = 100 0.045

0.094

0.154

0.306

0.712

CvM n = 100 0.053

0.128

0.240

0.576

0.968

KS

0

N

n = 100 0.024

0.172

0.284

0.452

0.662

KS

n = 200 0.050

0.134

0.31

0.518

0.906

CvM n = 200 0.062

0.254

0.538

0.92

1

0.620

0.926

0.998

1.000

N

n = 200 0.034

Table 4: Rejection probabilities for testing the validity of a location model under the alternative in model 3 for different values of the parameter b, nominal level is α = 5%
model 1h

model 2ah

model 3h

c=2

b=0

KS

n = 50

0.025

0.026

0.023

CvM

n = 50

0.022

0.026

0.034

KS

n = 100

0.031

0.037

0.037

CvM n = 100

0.029

0.031

0.041

n = 200

0.024

0.044

0.057

CvM n = 200

0.028

0.044

0.062

KS

Table 5: Rejection probabilities for the testing the validity of a location-scale model under
various H0 scenarios, the nominal level is α = 5%.
c

1

KS

n = 50

0.032

CvM

n = 50

0.034

EVK

n = 50

0.262

KS

n = 100 0.046

CvM

n = 100

0.04

EVK

n = 100 0.478

Table 6: Rejection probabilities for testing the validity of a location-scale model under the
alternative in model 2bh , the nominal level is α = 5%
40

b

1

2

3

5

n = 100 0.037

0.212

0.344

0.546

0.878

CvM n = 100 0.041

0.368

0.658

0.922

0.992

KS

0

N

n = 100 0.036

0.278

0.388

0.190

0.156

KS

n = 200 0.057

0.452

0.646

0.8

0.972

CvM n = 200 0.062

0.802

0.966

1

1

0.630

0.774

0.402

0.268

N

n = 200 0.035

Table 7: Rejection probabilities for testing the validity of a location-scale model under the
alternative in model 3h for different values of the parameter b, the nominal level is α = 5%.

τ = 0.25

τ = 0.5

n = 50 n = 100 n = 200 n = 50 n = 100 n = 200
β=0

0.020

0.020

0.026

0.025

0.023

0.026

β = 0.15

0.024

0.027

0.050

0.027

0.047

0.060

β = 0.25

0.028

0.057

0.126

0.037

0.053

0.154

β = 0.45

0.140

0.202

0.410

0.084

0.154

0.344

Table 8: Rejection probabilities for the test for monotonicity of quantile curves in model 4.
The nominal level is α = 5%.

n = 50 n = 100 n = 200
τ = 0.25

0.23

0.262

0.376

τ = 0.5

0.073

0.061

0.043

τ = 0.75

0.181

0.180

0.296

Table 9: Rejection probabilities for the test for monotonicity of quantile curves in model 5.
Different rows correspond to the 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 quantile curves, respectively. The nominal
level is α = 5%.

41

C

Supplement to “The independence process in conditional quantile location-scale models and an application to testing for monotonicity” by Melanie
Birke, Natalie Neumeyer and Stanislav Volgushev
— Technical results

We begin by recalling some notation from the main body of the paper that will be used
throughout the proofs.
One fact that we will use throughout is that the bootstrap residuals ε∗i can be represented
as ε∗i = F̃ε−1 (Ui ) where U1 , ..., Un denote a sample of i.i.d. U[0, 1] random variables that are
independent of the original sample and


Pn
y−ε̂i
1
I{2hn < Xi ≤ 1 − 2hn }
i=1 Φ
n
αn
F̃ε (y) =
F̂X,n (1 − 2hn ) − F̂X,n (2hn )
denotes the distribution function of ε∗1 conditional on the sample, see (3.4). Additionally, we
will use the abbreviation
 log n 1/2
rn :=
.
nhn
Next, we introduce some additional notation that will be used throughout. First, introduce
the functional

 Z 1 Z τ  F (G−1 (u)) − v 
−1 1
κ
dvdu
QG,κ,τ,bn (F ) := G
bn 0 −∞
bn
which is defined for arbitrary functions F that are uniformly bounded. Some properties of
this functional are collected in Lemma C.6. Additionally, define the quantities
n
X

y − Y ∗ 
i
:=
Wi (x)Ω
, q̂τ∗ (x) := QG,κ,τ,bn (F̂Y∗ (·|x)),
dn
i=1
n
 y − |Y ∗ − q̂ ∗ (X )| 
X
i
i
τ
∗
∗
F̂|e|
(y|x) :=
Wi (x)Ω
, ŝ∗ (x) := QG,κ,1/2,bn (F̂|e|
(·|x)).
d
n
i=1
F̂Y∗ (y|x)

where the weights Wi are the same as in equation (2.3). Observe that the estimators q̂τ , ŝ
which we introduced in the main body of the paper admit the representations
q̂τ (x) = QG,κ,τ,bn (F̂Y (·|x)),

ŝ(x) := QG,κ,1/2,bn (F̂|e| (·|x)).

In appendix C.1, we will introduce linearized versions of the estimators q̂τ , q̂τ∗ , ŝ, ŝ∗ , those
∗
will be denoted by q̂τ,L , q̂τ,L
, ŝL , ŝ∗L . Key results there are Lemma C.1 and Lemma C.2
i

which state that the linearized versions are uniformly close to the original estimators and
that the linearized versions have certain smoothness properties, respectively. The rest of
the Appendix is organized as follows. Section C.1 contains results about the estimators
q̂τ , q̂τ∗ , ŝ, ŝ∗ and their linearizations. The proofs of those results require additional technical
Lemmas, that we collect and prove in Section C.2. Finally, some key results which are used
in the main body of the paper and whose proofs rely on findings in Sections C.1 and C.2
can be found in Section C.3.

C.1

Properties of q̂τ and ŝ

We start this section by introducing some notation and giving an overview of the derived
results. Our first key result is an asymptotic representation of the form
√
F̂|e| (y|x) = F|e|,L,S (y|x) + oP (1/ n),
√
∗
∗
F̂|e|
(y|x) = F|e|,L,S
(y|x) + oP (1/ n),

√
F̂Y (y|x) = F̂Y,L,S (y|x) + oP (1/ n),
√
∗
F̂Y∗ (y|x) = F̂Y,L,S
(y|x) + oP (1/ n),

holding uniformly over x, y where the expressions on the right-hand side of the above equations are defined as

t
F̂Y,L,S (y|x) := FY (y|x) + ut1 M(K)−1 Tn,0,L,S (x, y), . . . , Tn,p,L,S (x, y) ,

t
F̂|e|,L,S (y|x) := F|e| (y|x) + ut1 M(K)−1 T|e|,n,0,L,S (x, y), . . . , T|e|,n,p,L,S (x, y) ,

t
∗
t
−1
∗
∗
F̂Y,L,S (y|x) := FY (y|x) + u1 M(K)
Tn,0,L,S (x, y), . . . , Tn,p,L,S (x, y) ,

t
∗
t
−1
∗
∗
F̂|e|,L,S (y|x) := F|e| (y|x) + u1 M(K)
T|e|,n,0,L,S (x, y), . . . , T|e|,n,p,L,S (x, y) ,
ut1 := (1, 0, ..., 0) denotes the first unit vector in Rp+1 , M(K) denotes a (p + 1) × (p + 1)
matrix with entries
Z
M(K)ij = µi+j−2 (K) := ui+j−2 K(u)du,
and
n
 y − Y 

1
1 X
i
Kh,k (x − Xi ) Ω
− FY (y|Xi ) ,
nh i=1 fX (Xi )
dn
n
  y − |Y − q̂ (X )| 

1 X
1
i
τ,L
i
Kh,k (x − Xi ) Ω
− F|e| (y|Xi ) ,
T|e|,n,k,L,S (x, y) :=
nh i=1 fX (Xi )
dn
n
 y − Y ∗ 

1 X
1
i
∗
Tn,k,L,S (x, y) :=
Kh,k (x − Xi ) Ω
− FY (y|Xi ) ,
nh i=1 fX (Xi )
dn
n
  y − |Y ∗ − q̂ ∗ (Xi )| 

1 X
1
i
τ,L
∗
T|e|,n,k,L,S (x, y) :=
Kh,k (x − Xi ) Ω
− F|e| (y|Xi ) .
nh i=1 fX (Xi )
dn

Tn,k,L,S (x, y) :=

ii

∗
This, and further properties as differentiability and convergence rates of F̂Y,L,S (y|x), F̂|e|,L,S , F̂Y,L,S
,
∗
F̂|e|,L,S
is the subject of Lemma C.3.
∗
The results in Lemma C.6 and properties of the estimators F̂Y , F̂|e| , F̂Y∗ , F̂|e|
yield representations of the form

q̂τ (x) = q̂τ,L (x) + oP (n−1/2 ),

ŝ(x) = ŝL (x) + oP (n−1/2 ),

∗
q̂τ∗ (x) = q̂τ,L
(x) + oP (n−1/2 ),

ŝ∗ (x) = ŝ∗L (x) + oP (n−1/2 )

uniformly in x [see Lemma C.2] where
Z 1

1
F̂Y,L,S (qτ +vbn (x)|x) − FY (qτ +vbn (x)|x) κ(v)dv
q̂τ,L (x) := qτ (x) −
fe (0|x) −1
Z

t
ut1 M(K)−1 1
= qτ (x) −
κ(v) Tn,0,L,S (x, qτ +vbn (x)), . . . , Tn,p,L,S (x, qτ +vbn (x)) dv
fe (0|x)
−1
Z 1

1
F̂|e|,L,S (s1/2+vbn (x)|x) − F|e| (s1/2+vbn (x)|x) κ(v)dv
ŝL (x) := s(x) −
f|ε| (1|x) −1
Z

t
ut1 M(K)−1 1
= s(x) −
κ(v) T|e|,n,0,L,S (x, s1/2+vbn (x)), . . . , T|e|,n,p,L,S (x, s1/2+vbn (x)) dv
f|ε| (1)
−1
Z 1

1
∗
∗
F̂Y,L,S
(qt+vbn (x)|x) − FY (qt+vbn (x)|x) κ(v)dv
q̂τ,L (x) := qτ (x) −
fe (0|x) −1
Z
t

ut1 M(K)−1 1
∗
∗
κ(v) Tn,0,L,S (x, qτ +vbn (x)), . . . , Tn,p,L,S (x, qτ +vbn (x)) dv
= qτ (x) −
fe (0|x)
−1
Z 1

1
∗
∗
ŝL (x) := s(x) −
F̂|e|,L,S
(s1/2+vbn (x)|x) − F|e| (s1/2+vbn (x)|x) κ(v)dv
f|ε| (1) −1
Z

t
ut1 M(K)−1 1
∗
∗
= s(x) −
κ(v) T|e|,n,0,L,S (x, s1/2+vbn (x)), . . . , T|e|,n,p,L,S (x, s1/2+vbn (x)) dv
f|ε| (1)
−1
−1
where sα (x) := F|e|
(α|x). Differentiability properties and convergence rates of derivatives of
these estimators can obviously be derived from the corresponding properties of the underlying
distribution function estimators, see Lemma C.1.

Lemma C.1 Let (K1)-(K6), (A1)-(A5), (BW) hold. Then for any k ≤ 2

1/2
log h−1
(k)
n
sup |q̂τ,L (x) − qτ(k) (x)| = OP
= oP (1),
nhn (hn ∧ dn )2k
x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

1/2
log h−1
(k)
n
|ŝL (x) − s(k) (x)| = OP
= oP (1),
sup
nhn (hn ∧ dn )2k
x∈[2hn ,1−2hn ]
and under (B1)-(B2) it follows that
1/2
log h−1
n
= oP (1),
nhn (hn ∧ dn )2k
x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

1/2
log h−1
n
sup
|(ŝ∗L )(k) (x) − s(k) (x)| = OP
= oP (1).
nhn (hn ∧ dn )2k
x∈[4hn ,1−4hn ]
sup

∗
)(k) (x) − qτ(k) (x)| = OP
|(q̂τ,L

iii



Proof of Lemma C.1 Since all claims share the same structure, we will only establish that
sup
x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

(k)
|q̂τ,L (x)

−

qτ(k) (x)|

= OP



1/2
log h−1
n
= oP (1).
nhn (hn ∧ dn )2k

Observe that by definition of q̂τ,L we have
(k)
q̂τ,L (x)

−

qτ(k) (x)

∂k  1
=− k
∂x fe (0|x)

Z

1





F̂Y,L,S (qτ +vbn (x)|x) − FY (qτ +vbn (x)|x) κ(v)dv .

−1

Observing that fe (0|x) = fε (0)/s(x), it suffices to show that
sup

sup

x∈[hn ,1−hn ]
v∈[−1,1]

m≤k

1/2


∂m 
log h−1
n
.
F̂
(q
(x)|x)
−
F
(q
(x)|x)
=
O
Y,L,S
τ
+vb
Y
τ
+vb
P
n
n
∂xm
nhn (hn ∧ dn )2k

Now by Remark 2.2 in the main body of the paper, the function x 7→ qτ +vbn (x) is 2 times
continuously differentiable and its derivatives are bounded uniformly over x ∈ (0, 1), v ∈
[−1, 1]. Thus the above assertion follows from (i) of Lemma C.3 combined with the chain
rule for derivatives.
2
Lemma C.2 Let (K1)-(K6), (A1)-(A5), (BW) hold. Then
(i)

sup

√
|q̂τ (x) − q̂τ,L (x)| = oP (1/ n),

x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

(ii)

√
|ŝ(x) − ŝL (x)| = oP (1/ n),

sup
x∈[2hn ,1−2hn ]

and if additionally (B1)-(B2) hold, we also have
(iii)

√
∗
|q̂τ∗ (x) − q̂τ,L
(x)| = oP (1/ n),

sup
x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

(iv)

sup

√
|ŝ∗ (x) − ŝ∗L (x)| = oP (1/ n).

x∈[4hn ,1−4hn ]

Proof Since all assertions share a similar structure, we will only prove (iii). We begin by
stating and intermediate result which we will establish in the end.
(C.1)

sup

sup

y∈R x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

|F̂Y∗ (y|x) − FY (y|x)| = oP (1).

Note that, in contrast to the statements in Lemma C.3 part (iii), the range for y is R instead
of a bounded set. Now let δ > 0, c0 > 0 be such that inf x∈[0,1] inf |y−qτ (x)|≤2δ fY (y|x) ≥ c0 and
define
FY∗ (y|x) := F̂Y∗ (y|x)I{|y − qτ (x)| ≤ 2δ/c0 } + FY (y|x)I{|y − qτ (x)| > 2δ/c0 }.
iv

By the results in Lemma C.3 parts (iii), (iii)’ we have
(C.2)

sup

sup

y∈R x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

and
(C.3)

sup

|FY∗ (y|x) − FY (y|x)| = OP

sup

x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ] |y−qτ (x)|≤2δ/c0

 log n 1/2
nhn

,

∗
(y|x)| = oP (n−1/2 ).
|FY∗ (y|x) − F̂Y,L,S

Moreover, as we shall prove later, we have


(C.4)
P QG,κ,τ,bn (F̂Y∗ (·|x)) = QG,κ,τ,bn (FY∗ (·|x)) ∀x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ] → 1.
Now apply part (c) of Lemma C.6 with F = F1 = FY (·|x), F2 = FY∗ (·|x). A careful inspection
of the remainder terms in the statement of Lemma C.6 part (c) shows that, uniformly in
x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ],

(C.5)

QG,κ,τ,bn (FY∗ (·|x)) − QG,κ,τ,bn (FY (·|x))
Z 1


1
∗
κ(v) FY (qτ +vbn (x)|x) − FY (qτ +vbn (x)|x) dv + oP (n−1/2 ).
= −
fe (0|x) −1

An application of Lemma C.6, part (a) with F = FY (·|x) shows that
QG,κ,τ,bn (FY (·|x)) = qτ (x) + O(b2n ) = qτ (x) + o(n−1/2 )
uniformly in x ∈ [0, 1]. Combining this with (C.3), (C.4) and (C.5) and observing that
q̂τ∗ (x) = QG,κ,τ,bn (F̂Y∗ (·|x)) we obtain, uniformly in x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ],
q̂τ∗ (x) − qτ (x)
Z 1


1
∗
= −
κ(v) F̂Y,L,S
(qτ +vbn (x)|x) − FY (qτ +vbn (x)|x) dv + oP (n−1/2 ).
fe (0|x) −1
∗
Note that, by the definition of q̂τ,L
(x), the leading term in this representation is equal to
∗
q̂τ,L (x) − qτ (x). This implies statement (iii), and thus it remains to prove (C.1) and (C.4).

Proof of (C.1) Define (with Wi the same as defined in (2.3))
∗
F̂Y,U
(y|x) :=

n
X

Wi (x)I{Yi∗ ≤ y}.

i=1

Since

1
ω(·/dn ))(y)
dn
and by the smoothness of FY , it suffices to prove that
∗
F̂Y∗ (y|x) = (F̂Y,U
(·|x) ∗

(C.6)

sup

sup

y∈R x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

∗
(y|x) − FY (y|x)| = oP (1).
|F̂Y,U

v

Now by the definition of Yi∗ we have
∗
(y|x) =
F̂Y,U

n
X

Wi (x)I{q̂τ (Xi ) + ŝ(Xi )F̃ε−1 (Ui ) ≤ y} =

i=1

n
X
i=1

n
 y − q̂ (X ) o
τ
i
.
Wi (x)I Ui ≤ F̃ε
ŝ(Xi )

From (B.1) in the main body of the paper we obtain after a Taylor expansion
 y − q̂ (x) 
 y − q (x) 
τ
τ
sup
sup F̃ε
− F̃ε
= oP (1).
ŝ(x)
s(x)
x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ] y∈R
Since the conclusion of Lemma 2 in Neumeyer (2009a) remains valid in our setting [see the
discussion in the beginning of Section B], it follows that supz∈R |F̃ε (z) − Fε (z)| = oP (1) and
thus
 y − q (x) 
 y − q̂ (x) 
τ
τ
− Fε
= oP (1).
sup
sup F̃ε
ŝ(x)
s(x)
x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ] y∈R
Thus there exists a deterministic sequence γn → 0 such that P (Dn ) → 1 where we defined
the event
 y − q (x) 
o
 y − q̂ (x) 
n
τ
τ
− Fε
≤ γn .
Dn :=
sup
sup F̃ε
ŝ(x)
s(x)
x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ] y∈R
Additionally, define the event
D̃n := {sup
i

|Wi (x)| ≤ C(nhn )−1 I{|x − Xi | ≤ hn }}

sup
x∈[hn ,1−hn ]

and observe that P (D̃n ) → 1 by the definition of Wi (x) and Lemma C.4. Thus on Dn ∩ D̃n
we have
sup

sup

y∈R x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

(C.7)

≤

∗
F̂Y,U
(y|x)

−

n
X

n
o
Wi (x)I Ui ≤ FY (y|Xi )

i=1

C
sup
sup
nhn y∈R x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

n
X

I{|Xi − x| ≤ hn }I

n

o
Ui − FY (y|Xi ) ≤ γn = oP (1)

i=1

where the last equality follows by a combination of parts 1, 4-6 of Lemma C.8 with Lemma
C.7. Similarly, applying Lemma C.4, parts 1,2 4-6 of Lemma C.8 with Lemma C.7 shows
that
n
 n
o

X
(C.8)
Wi (x) I Ui ≤ FY (y|Xi ) − FY (y|Xi ) = oP (1)
i=1

uniformly in x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ], y ∈ R. Finally, by similar arguments as used in the proof of
(C.16) one can show that
(C.9)

n
X

Wi (x)FY (y|Xi ) = FY (y|x) + oP (1)

i=1

vi

uniformly in x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ], y ∈ R. Combining (C.7)-(C.9) yields (C.6) and completes
the proof of (C.1).
Proof of (C.4) Define the events
n
o
∗
∗
∗
Dn1 := F̂Y (y|x) = FY (y|x) ∀(x, y) ∈ {(x, y) : |FY (y|x) − τ | ≤ δ, x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]}
n
o
Dn2 :=
sup
|F̂Y∗ (y|x) − FY∗ (y|x)| ≤ δ/2
x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ],y∈R

Dn3 :=

n

sup

o
|F̂Y∗ (y|x) − FY (y|x)| ≤ δ/2 .

x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ],y∈R

Observe that on Dn1 ∩ Dn2 ∩ Dn3 we have FY∗ (y|x) ≤ τ − δ ⇒ F̂Y∗ (y|x) ≤ τ − δ/2, FY∗ (y|x) ≥
τ + δ ⇒ F̂Y∗ (y|x) ≥ τ + δ/2 and |FY∗ (y|x) − τ | ≤ δ ⇒ FY∗ (y|x) = F̂Y∗ (y|x). Thus on
Dn1 ∩ Dn2 ∩ Dn3 we obtain QG,κ,τ,bn (F̂Y∗ (·|x)) = QG,κ,τ,bn (FY∗ (·|x)) provided that bn ≤ δ/2. It
remains to prove that P (Dn1 ∩ Dn2 ∩ Dn3 ) → 1. The fact that P (Dn2 ∩ Dn3 ) → 1 follows
from (C.1), (C.2), so that it remains to prove P (Dn1 ) → 1 which follows from

P {(x, y) : |FY∗ (y|x) − τ | ≤ δ, x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]} ⊂

{(x, y) : |y − qτ (x)| ≤ 2δ/c0 , x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]} → 1.
This in turn is a consequence of the fact that on Dn3 (note that |FY∗ (y|x) − FY (y|x)| ≤
|F̂Y∗ (y|x) − FY (y|x)|)
|FY∗ (y|x) − τ | ≤ δ ⇒ |FY (y|x) − τ | ≤ 3δ/2 ⇒ |y − qτ (x)| ≤ 3δ/(2c0 )
by the definition of δ, c0 . This completes the proof.
2

vii

Lemma C.3 Assume that conditions (K1)-(K6), (A1)-(A5) and (BW) hold. Denote
∗
∗
∗
∗
by T̃n,0,L,S , T̃|e|,n,0,L,S , T̃n,0,L,S
, T̃|e|,n,0,L,S
versions of Tn,0,L,S , T|e|,n,0,L,S , Tn,0,L,S
, T|e|,n,0,L,S
where
1/fX (Xi ) is replaced by 1/fX (x).
Then for any bounded Y1 ⊂ R, Y2 ⊂ R+ such that Y2 is bounded away from zero we have
√
√
(i)0 F̂Y (y|x) = F̂Y,L,S (y|x) + oP (1/ n), Tn,0,L,S = T̃n,0,L,S + oP (1/ n),
uniformly in y ∈ Y1 , x ∈ [hn , 1 − hn ] and
(ii)0

√
F̂|e |(y|x) = F̂|e|,L,S (y|x) + oP (1/ n),

√
T|e|,n,0,L,S = T̃|e|,n,0,L,S + oP (1/ n),

uniformly in y ∈ Y2 , x ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ]. If additionally (B1)-(B2) hold,
√
√
∗
∗
∗
+ oP (1/ n),
= T̃n,0,L,S
+ oP (1/ n), Tn,0,L,S
(iii)0 F̂Y∗ (y|x) = T̃n,0,L,S
uniformly in y ∈ Y1 , x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ] and
(iv)0

√
∗
∗
F̂|e|
(y|x) = F̂|e|,L,S
(y|x) + oP (1/ n),

√
∗
∗
T|e|,n,0,L,S
= T̃|e|,n,0,L,S
+ oP (1/ n).

uniformly in y ∈ Y2 , x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ].
Moreover, (i)-(iv) hold under the assumptions of (i)0 − (iv)0 , respectively.

(i) ∀k + l ≤ 2
sup
|∂xk ∂yl F̂Y,L,S (y|x) − ∂xk ∂yl FY (y|x)| = OP
(ii) ∀k + l ≤ 2
(iii) ∀k + l ≤ 2
(iv) ∀k + l ≤ 2

log n 1/2
,
nh2k+1
d2l
y∈Y1 ,x∈[hn ,1−hn ]
n
n
 log n 1/2
,
sup
|∂xk ∂yl F̂|e|,L,S (y|x) − ∂xk ∂yl F|e| (y|x)| = OP
nh2k+1
d2l
y∈Y2 ,x∈[2hn ,1−2hn ]
n
n
 log n 1/2
∗
|∂xk ∂yl F̂Y,L,S
(y|x) − ∂xk ∂yl FY (y|x)| = OP
,
sup
nh2k+1
d2l
y∈Y1 ,x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]
n
n
 log n 1/2
∗
sup
|∂xk ∂yl F̂|e|,L,S
(y|x) − ∂xk ∂yl F|e| (y|x)| = OP
.
nh2k+1
d2l
y∈Y2 ,x∈[4hn ,1−4hn ]
n
n

Proof of Lemma C.3
We will only provide the arguments for (iv) and (iv)’ since all other assertions can be derived
analogously. Since Y2 is bounded away from zero, and since dn → 0, the fact that ω = Ω0 is
symmetric and has support [−1, 1] implies that for n sufficiently large
 y − |z| 
y − z 
 −y − z 
Ω
=Ω
−Ω
∀y ∈ Y2 , z ∈ R.
dn
dn
dn
Thus we find that for n sufficiently large
∗
F̂|e|
(y|x) = F̂e∗ (y|x) − F̂e∗ (−y|x),
∗
∗
∗
F̂|e|,L,S
(y|x) = F̂e,L,S
(y|x) − F̂e,L,S
(−y|x),
∗
∗
∗
T|e|,n,0,L,S
(x, y) = Te,n,0,L,S
(x, y) − Te,n,0,L,S
(x, −y),
∗
∗
∗
= T̃e,n,0,L,S
(x, y) − T̃e,n,0,L,S
(x, −y),
T̃|e|,n,0,L,S

viii

where
 y − (Y ∗ − q̂ ∗ (X )) 
i
i
τ
,
Wi (x)Ω
d
n
i
t

∗
∗
∗
(x, y) ,
(x, y), . . . , Te,n,p,L,S
(y|x) := Fe (y|x) + ut1 M(K)−1 Te,n,0,L,S
F̂e,L,S
F̂e∗ (y|x) :=

∗
(x, y)
Te,n,0,L,S

∗
T̃e,n,0,L,S

X

n
  y − (Y ∗ − q̂ ∗ (Xi )) 

1 X
1
i
τ,L
:=
Kh ,k (x − Xi ) Ω
− Fe (y|Xi ) ,
nhn i=1 fX (Xi ) n
dn
n
  y − (Y ∗ − q̂ ∗ (Xi )) 

1 X 1
i
τ,L
:=
Khn ,k (x − Xi ) Ω
− Fe (y|Xi ) .
nhn i=1 fX (x)
dn

It thus suffices to establish, uniformly in y ∈ Y := Y2 ∪ (−Y2 ), x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ],
(C.10)


t
∗
∗
F̂e∗ (y|x) = Fe (y|x) + ut1 M(K)−1 Te,n,0,L,S
(x, y), . . . , Te,n,p,L,S
(x, y) + oP (n−1/2 ),

(C.11)

∗
∗
Te,n,0,L,S
= T̃e,n,0,L,S
+ oP (n−1/2 ),

(C.12)

∗
|∂xk ∂yl F̂e,L,S
(y|x) − ∂xk ∂yl Fe (y|x)| = OP

sup
y∈Y2 ,x∈[4hn ,1−4hn ]



log n 1/2
.
nh2k+1
d2l
n
n

Define the quantities
n


1 X
1
∗
∗
Kh ,k (x − Xi ) I{Yi ≤ y + q̂τ,L (Xi )} − Fe (y|Xi ) ,
:=
nhn i=1 fX (Xi ) n
n


1 X 1
∗
∗
T̃e,n,k,L
(x, y) :=
Khn ,k (x − Xi ) I{Yi∗ ≤ y + q̂τ,L
(Xi )} − Fe (y|Xi ) ,
nhn i=1 fX (x)
∗
Te,n,k,L
(x, y)

and note that,uniformly in y ∈ Y, x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ],
√
1
∗
ω(·/dn ))(y) = Te,n,k,L,S
(x, y) + o(1/ n),
dn
√
1
∗
∗
(T̃e,n,k,L
(x, ·) ∗ ω(·/dn ))(y) = T̃e,n,k,L,S
(x, y) + o(1/ n).
dn
∗
(Te,n,k,L
(x, ·) ∗

(C.13)
(C.14)
Also, let
∗
F̂e,U
(y|x)

:=

n
X

Wi (x)I{Yi∗ − q̂τ∗ (Xi ) ≤ y}

i=1

 P


Khn ,0 (x − Xi )I{Yi∗ − q̂τ∗ (Xi ) ≤ y}


1 t t
..
,
=
u1 (X WX)−1 
.


nhn
P p
∗
∗
i hn Khn ,p (x − Xi )I{Yi − q̂τ (Xi ) ≤ y}
t

∗
∗
∗
(x, y)
F̂e,L,U
(y|x) := Fe (y|x) + ut1 M(K)−1 Te,n,0,L
(x, y), . . . , Te,n,p,L
i

ix

where the weights Wi (x) are the same as in equation (2.3). At the end of the proof, we will
establish the following assertions uniformly in y ∈ Y, x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ]
∗
∗
Te,n,0,L
(x, y) = T̃e,n,0,L
(x, y) + oP (n−1/2 ).

(C.15)

∗
∗
F̂e,U
(y|x) = F̂e,L,U
(y|x) + oP (n−1/2 ),
 log n 1/2
m ∗
∂x Te,n,k,L (x, y) = OP
, m = 0, 1, 2.
nh2m+1
n

(C.16)
(C.17)

Now assertions (C.10), (C.11) follows from (C.13), (C.16) and (C.15) since
1
ω(·/dn ))(y) = F̂e∗ (y|x),
dn
√
1
(Fe (·|x) ∗ ω(·/dn ))(y) = Fe (y|x) + O(dpnω ) = Fe (y|x) + o(1/ n),
dn

∗
(F̂e,U
(·|x) ∗

uniformly in x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ Y.
On the other hand we have

t
∗
∗
∗
∂xm F̂e,L,U
(y|x) := ∂xm Fe (y|x) + ut1 M(K)−1 ∂xm Te,n,0,L
(x, y), . . . , ∂xm Te,n,p,L
(x, y) ,
and thus (C.17) implies, uniformly in y ∈ Y, x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ],
 log n 1/2
∗
∂xm F̂e,L,U
(y|x) = ∂xm Fe (y|x) + OP
.
nh2m+1
n
This entails (C.12) since

 · i

 1
1 h k ∗
k l
∗
(l)
k
∂x ∂y F̂e,L,S (y|x) − Fe (y|x) = l ∂x F̂e,L,U (·|x) − ∂x Fe (·|x) ∗
(y)
ω
dn
dn
dn

 1  · 
+ (∂xk ∂yl Fe (·|x)) ∗
(y) − ∂xk ∂yl Fe (y|x).
ω
dn dn
Now, since by assumption ∂xk Fe (y|x) is r times continuously differentiable with respect to y,

1/2
log n
=
O
the second summand is of order dr−l
. The first summand can be bounded
2k+1
n
nhn
d2l
n

1/2
n
by d1l OP nhlog2k+1
.
n

n

The proof will thus be complete after we establish (C.15)-(C.17). In order to do so, observe
that there exists a set Dn such that the probability of Dn tends to one and such that on Dn
we have, for any sequence cn such that cn /rn → ∞ [this is a consequence of (B.1) and the
∗
uniform rates of convergence for ŝL , q̂τ,L , q̂τ,L
which follow from parts (i)-(iii) of Lemma C.2
and Lemma C.1]
∗
 y
 y 
q̂τ,L
(Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) 
+
− Fε
F̃ε
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
s(Xi )
≤
sup |F̃ε (y) − Fε (y)| + 0.5cn sup |yfε (y)| ≤ cn
y∈(1+Y/cs )

y∈(1+Y/cs )

x

where the last bound follows from (C.21) in Lemma C.5. In particular, on Dn we have
(C.18)

n

I Ui ≤ Fε

(C.19)

∗
o
n
 y
q̂τ,L
(Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) o
y 
− cn ≤ I Ui ≤ F̃ε
+
s(Xi )
ŝ (X )
ŝ (X )
n
 Ly i
o L i
≤ I Ui ≤ Fε
+ cn .
s(Xi )

Proof of (C.15)
Recall that Yi∗ = q̂τ (Xi ) + ŝ(Xi )ε∗i and ε∗i = F̃ε−1 (Ui ). Observe the identity
I{Yi∗

≤y+

∗
q̂τ,L
(Xi )}

n

= I Ui ≤ F̃ε

∗
q̂τ,L
(Xi ) − q̂(Xi ) o
y
+
.
ŝ(Xi )
ŝ(Xi )

Moreover, a Taylor expansion shows that, with probability tending to one,
∗
∗
n
 y
(Xi ) − q̂(Xi ) o
(Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) o
q̂τ,L
q̂τ,L
y
+
− I Ui ≤ F̃ε
+
ŝ(Xi )
ŝ(Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
∗
o
 y

n
q̂τ,L (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi )
≤ Cγn sup |y f˜ε (y)|
+
≤ I Ui − F̃ε
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
y∈2Y/cs

n

I Ui ≤ F̃ε

√
where γn = o(1/ n), and thus arguments similar to those in the proof of Lemma C.9 yield
n
∗
 y
(Xi ) − q̂(Xi ) o
q̂τ,L
1  n
1 X Khn ,k (x − u)  1
−
I Ui ≤ F̃ε
+
n i=1
hn
fX (u) fX (x)
ŝ(Xi )
ŝ(Xi )
n
∗
 y
q̂τ,L
(Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) o
1 X Khn ,k (x − u)  1
1  n
=
−
I Ui ≤ F̃ε
+
n i=1
hn
fX (u) fX (x)
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
√
+oP (1/ n).

Next, observe that by part (i)-(iii) of Lemma C.2, Lemma C.1 and by (B.1) there exists a
set Dn whose probability tends to one such that on Dn we have for some δ > 0
ŝL ∈ C̃C1+δ ([3hn , 1 − 3hn ]),
sup
u∈[3hn ,1−3hn ],y∈Y

F̃ε

∗
q̂τ,L
, q̂τ,L ∈ CC1+δ ([3hn , 1 − 3hn ]),

∗
 y
q̂τ,L
(u) − q̂τ,L (u) 
− Fe (y|u) ≤ rn hn−1/4 ,
+
ŝL (u)
ŝL (u)

and F̃ε ∈ D defined in (B.2). Additionally, (B.3) and the arguments from Proposition 3 in
Neumeyer (2009a) show that for the class of functions
n
n
 y
a2 (v) o
Gn := (u, v) 7→ I u ≤ F
+
a1 (v) a1 (v)
o
y ∈ Y, F ∈ D, a1 ∈ C̃C1+δ ([3hn , 1 − 3hn ]), a2 ∈ CC1+δ ([3hn , 1 − 3hn ])
xi

we have, denoting by P the product measure of the uniform random variable U1 and the
covariate X1 , supn log N[ ] (ε, Gn , L2 (P )) ≤ Cε−2α for some α < 1. Next, define the class of
functions
n
Khn ,k (x − u)  1
1 
Fn := (u, v) 7→
−
×
hn
fX (u) fX (x)
∗

 n
 y
o
q̂τ,L
(u) − q̂τ,L (u) o
+
− Fe (y|u) x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ Y .
× I v ≤ F̃ε
ŝL (u)
ŝL (u)
In particular, observe that, due to the continuous differentiability of fX and the compact
support of K, the functions in Fn are bounded uniformly over n. Additionally, combining
the bound on supn log N[ ] (ε, Gn , L2 (P )) with parts 1, 3 and 4 of Lemma C.8, we find that
on Dn
sup log N[ ] (ε, Fn , L2 (P )) ≤ C̃ε−2α̃
n

for some α̃ < 1 and finite C̃. Moreover, again on Dn , we find that for each f ∈ Fn
√
Ef (Xi , Ui ) = O(h3/4
n rn ) = o(1/ n),

Ef 2 (Xi , Ui ) = O(hn ).

To see the second statement, observe that every f ∈ Fn satisfies
|f (Xi , Ui )| ≤ 2

Khn ,k (x − Xi )  1
1 
−
,
hn
fX (Xi ) fX (x)

the assertion now follows from a Taylor expansion of fX . For the bound on Ef (Xi , Ui ),
observe that
Z
1 
Khn ,k (x − u)  1
|E[f (Xi , Ui )]| ≤
−
rn hn−1/4 fX (u)du,
hn
fX (u) fX (x)
the claimed bound now follows from a Taylor expansion of 1/fX (u) around x. Thus by
P
√
Lemma C.7 supf ∈Fn | i f (Xi , Ui )| = oP (1/ n) and (C.15) follows.

xii

Proof of (C.16) Define H := diag(1, hn , ..., hpn ) and observe that by (C.15) we have uniformly in x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ Y
X
∗
∗
∗
F̂e,U
(y|x) − F̂e,L,U
(y|x) =
Wi (x)(I{Yi∗ − q̂τ∗ (Xi ) ≤ y} − I{Yi∗ − q̂τ,L
(Xi ) ≤ y})
i

P


K
(x
−
X
)F
(y|X
)
hn ,0
i
e
i
i

ut1 (Xt WX)−1 
..

 − Fe (y|x)
H
+
.

nhn
P
i Khn ,p (x − Xi )Fe (y|Xi )


∗
fX (x)T̃e,n,0,L
(x, y)


ut M(K)−1  
..


+ ut1 (Xt WX)−1 H − 1
.


fX (x)
∗
fX (x)T̃e,n,p,L
(x, y)


∗
∗
T̃e,n,0,L
(x, y) − Te,n,0,L
(x, y)


..
t
−1 

+u1 M(K) 
.

∗
∗
T̃e,n,p,L (x, y) − Te,n,p,L (x, y)
=: Rn,1 (x, y) + Rn,2 (x, y) + Rn,3 (x, y) + Rn,4 (x, y).
Note that a Taylor expansion of Fe (y|Xi ) with respect to Xi around the point x combined
with the fact that


P
hkn i Khn ,k (x − Xi )


1 t t
..
 = I{k = 0}
u1 (X WX)−1 
.


nhn
P
hp+k
n
i Khn ,p+k (x − Xi )
for k = 0, ..., p yields the representation

 P
K
(x
−
X
)F
(y|X
)
hn ,0
i
e
i
i

ut1 (Xt WX)−1 
..
−1/2
 = Fe (y|x)+OP (hp+1

)
.
n ) = Fe (y|x)+oP (n


nhn
P p
i hn Khn ,p (x − Xi )Fe (y|Xi )
uniformly in x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ Y, so that Rn,2 is small.
Next, consider Rn,3 . By Lemma C.4 and observing that ut1 H−1 = ut1 we find
 ut (Xt WX)−1
1

nhn

H−

ut1 M(K)−1 
= OP (hn ),
fX (x)

and together with the fact that
sup

sup

x[4hn ,1−4hn ],y∈Y k=0,...,p

∗
|Te,n,k,L
(x, y)|

xiii

= OP

 log n 1/2
nhn

which follows by similar arguments as the proof of (C.17), this shows that Rn,3 is small.
The negligibility of Rn,4 follows from (C.15).
Finally, consider Rn,1 . Observe that, by similar arguments as in the proof of (C.15), there
exists a deterministic sequence ξn = o(n−1/2 ) such that, with probability tending to one, we
have for any Xi ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]
I{Yi∗ −q̂τ∗ (Xi )

≤

∗
y}−I{Yi∗ −q̂τ,L
(Xi )

≤ y} ≤ I

n

Ui −F̃ε



∗
o
q̂τ,L
(Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) 
y
+
≤ ξn .
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )

Now arguments similar to those in the proof of Lemma C.9 yield for every k = 0, ..., p
n

dn,k

∗
n
 y
o
q̂τ,L
(Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) 
1 X |Khn ,k (x − u)| 1
I Ui −F̃ε
+
:=
≤ ξn = oP (n−1/2 )
n i=1
hn
fX (x)
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )

uniformly over x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ Y. Moreover, by Lemma C.4 we have



|Rn,1 (x, y)| ≤ (p + 1) max (ut1 (Xt WX)−1 H)k
max |dn,k (x, y)|
k=0,...,p

k=0,...,p

This shows that Rn,1 is negligible and completes the proof of (C.16).
Proof of (C.17) Consider the decomposition
−
∗
∂xm Te,n,k,L
(x, y) = A+
n,k,m (x, y) + An,k,m (x, y)

where
A+
n,k,m (x, y)

(m)
n
o

1 1 X Khn ,k (x − Xi ) n (m)
∗
∗
I Khn ,k (x−Xi ) > 0 I{Yi ≤ y+q̂τ,L (Xi )}−Fe (y|Xi )
:=
nhn hm
fX (Xi )
n i=1

and A−
n,k,m is defined analogously. On the set Dn (defined in the beginning of this proof) we
have
A+
n,k,m (x, y)

(m)
n
o
1 X Khn ,k (x − Xi ) n (m)
≤
I
K
(x
−
X
)
>
0
×
i
hn ,k
nhm+1
f
(X
)
X
i
n
i=1
 n
 y 
o
 y 
× I Ui ≤ Fε
+ cn − F ε
s(Xi )
s(Xi )
n
X
1
(n,m,+)
=:
gx,y
(Xi , Ui , cn ).
nhm+1
n
i=1
(n,m,+)

The expectation of each summand gx,y
(Xi , Ui , cn ) in the above sum is of the order
O(hn cn ). Moreover, the class of functions
n
o
(n,m,+)
(u, v, cn ) x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ Y
(u, v) 7→ gx,y
xiv

is with probability tending to one contained in a class that satisfies the assumptions of part
2 of Lemma C.7 with δn = hn , this follows from a combination of assumption (K2) with
parts 1,2,4,6 of Lemma C.8 where part 6 is applied with the class of functions G := {v 7→
Fε (y/s(v)) + z|y ∈ Y, z ∈ [0, 1]}. This yields the bound
n
c h 
 log n 1/2
1 X (n,m,+)
n n
g
(X
,
U
,
c
)
=
o
+
O
i
i
n
P
x,y
nhm+1
hm+1
nhn2m+1
n
n
i=1

uniformly in x ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ Y. Since cn /rn can tend to infinity arbitrarily slowly,
the above result implies
n
 log n 1/2
1 X (n,m,+)
(X
,
U
,
c
)
=
O
g
.
i
i n
P
x,y
2m+1
nhm+1
nh
n
n
i=1

1/2

log n
, and a correspondSummarizing, we have obtained the bound A+
(x,
y)
≤
O
2m+1
P
n,k,m
nhn
ing lower bound can be obtained by similar arguments. Analogous reasoning yields a bound
for A−
n,k,m (x, y) and altogether this implies (C.17).
Thus we have established (C.15)-(C.17) and the proof of the Lemma is complete.
2
√
Lemma C.4 Under assumptions (K1) and (A1) if additionally (nhn )−1 = o(hn log n) we
have the decomposition (holding uniformly in x ∈ [hn , 1 − hn ])
nhn (Xt WX)−1 =

1
H−1 M(K)−1 H−1 + H−1 1(p+1)×(p+1) OP (h)H−1
fX (x)

where H = diag(1, hn , ..., hpn ), and 1(p+1)×(p+1) is a matrix with 1 in every entry.
Proof The elements of the matrix Xt WX are of the form
1 X
hm X
1
(Xt WX)k,l =
Khn ,0 (x − Xi )(x − Xi )m = nd
Khn ,m (x − Xi )
nhn
nhn i
nhn i
where m = k + l − 2. In particular, continuous differentiability of fX together with an
application of Lemma C.7 and Lemma C.8 implies that
 log n 1/2
1 X
Khn ,k (x − Xi ) = µk fX (x) + OP (
+ hn )
nhn i
nhn
uniformly in x. Thus we obtain a representation of the form


1
t
X WX = H M(K)fX (x) + 1N ×N OP (hn ) H
nhn
where M0 = M(K) is invertible and H is a diagonal matrix with entries 1, hn , ..., hpn . Thus
for hn sufficiently small an application of the Neumann series yields the assertion with
probability tending to one.
2
xv

C.2

Additional technical results

Lemma C.5 Let nαn4 = o(1) and assume that the conditions of (i), (i)’, (ii), (ii)’ of Lemma
C.3 hold. Then for any bounded Y ⊂ R and any δn → 0 we have


√
(C.20)
sup
F̃ε (a) − F̃ε (b) − F̄ε (a) − F̄ε (b) = oP (1/ n),
a,b∈Y,|a−b|≤δn

sup F̃ε (y) − Fε (y) = OP

(C.21)

 log n 1/2 
nhn

y∈Y

where

P
F̄ε (a) :=

,

k I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xk )FY (q̂τ,L (Xk )

+ aŝL (Xk )|Xk )
.
l I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xl )

P

Proof of Lemma C.5 Recalling the definition of F̃ε , it is easy to see that F̃ε (y) =

φ(·/αn ) (y) where
P
F̂ε (y) :=

1
αn



F̂ε (·)∗

− q̂(Xk ) ≤ yŝ(Xk )}
.
l I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xl )

k I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xk )I{Yk

P

Standard calculations show that

√
1 
F̄ε (·) ∗ φ(·/αn ) (y) = F̄ε (y) + oP (1/ n)
αn
uniformly in y ∈ Y. Thus it suffices to establish that, for any bounded Ỹ


√
(C.22)
sup
F̂ε (a) − F̂ε (b) − F̄ε (a) − F̄ε (b) = oP (1/ n)
a,b∈Ỹ, |a−b|≤δn

(C.23)

sup F̂ε (y) − Fε (y) = OP
y∈Ỹ

 log n 1/2 
nhn

.

To simplify the notation, write Y for Ỹ.
P
Proof of (C.22) Since n1 l I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xl ) = 1 + oP (1), we only need to consider the
enumerator. Since Y is bounded we have, with probability tending to one, uniformly in
y∈Y
I{Yk − q̂τ (Xk ) ≤ yŝ(Xk )} − I{Yk − q̂τ,L (Xk ) ≤ yŝL (Xk )}
≤ I{Yk − q̂τ,L (Xk ) − yŝL (Xk ) ≤ γn } − I{Yk − q̂τ,L (Xk ) − yŝL (Xk ) ≤ −γn }
√
for some γn = o(1/ n). Moreover an application of parts 1 and 6 of Lemma C.8 combined
with Theorem 2.7.1 in van der Vaart, Wellner (1996) shows that the functions
(u, v) 7→ I{v − q̂τ,L (u) − yŝL (u) ≤ γn } − I{v − q̂τ,L (u) − yŝL (u) ≤ −γn }
xvi

are, with probability tending to one, contained in a class of functions satisfying the assumptions of the first part of Lemma C.7 with the additional property that each element has
√
expectation of order o(1/ n). Combined with parts 1 and 4 of Lemma C.8, this implies


X
√
sup
I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xk ) I{Yk −q̂τ (Xk ) ≤ yŝ(Xk )}−I{Yk −q̂τ,L (Xk ) ≤ yŝL (Xk )} = oP (1/ n),
y∈Y

k

and thus it remains to consider

1X
sup
I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xi ) I{Yk ≤ q̂τ,L (Xk ) + aŝL (Xk )} − I{Yk ≤ q̂τ,L (Xk ) + bŝL (Xk )}
a,b∈Y,|a−b|≤δn n k

−FY (q̂τ,L (Xk ) + aŝL (Xk )|Xk ) + FY (q̂τ,L (Xk ) + bŝL (Xk )|Xk )
By arguments similar to those given above, it is easily seen that this quantity is of order
√
oP (1/ n) if one notes that the smoothness assumptions on FY imply that with q̂τ,L , ŝL ∈
CC1+δ with probability tending to one the same holds for the function u 7→ FY (q̂τ,L (u) +
yŝL (u)|u) uniformly in y ∈ Y. This completes the proof of (C.22).
Proof of (C.23) Write
−1

n
F̂ε (y) − Fε (y) =
Since n−1
that

P

l I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xl )


k I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xk ) I{Yk − q̂τ (Xk ) ≤ yŝ(Xk )} − Fε (y)
P
.
n−1 l I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xl )

P



= 1 + oP (1), it suffices to consider the enumerator. Observe

n
ŝ(Xk ) q̂τ (Xk ) − qτ (Xk ) o
I{Yk − q̂τ (Xk ) ≤ yŝ(Xk )} = I εk ≤ y
+
s(Xk )
s(Xk )

and thus, for any cn /rn → ∞ we have with probability tending to one, uniforly over y ∈ Y
I{Yk − q̂τ (Xk ) ≤ yŝ(Xk )} − I{εk < y} ≤ I{|εk − y| ≤ cn }.
Thus standard
sup n−1
y∈Y

≤ sup n
y∈Y

X



I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xk ) I{Yk − q̂τ (Xk ) ≤ yŝ(Xk )} − I{εk < y}

k
−1

X

I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xk )I{|εk − y| ≤ cn } = OP (cn ),

k

where the last equality follows by standard empirical process arguments. This shows that,
uniformly in y ∈ Y,


P
−1
n
k I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xk ) I{εk ≤ y} − Fε (y)
P
F̂ε (y) − Fε (y) =
+ OP (cn ) = OP (cn ).
n−1 l I[2hn ,1−2hn ] (Xl )
Since cn was arbitrary, this completes the proof of (C.23) and hence also of the Lemma. 2
xvii

Lemma C.6 Assume that κ is a symmetric, uniformly bounded density with support [−1, 1]
and let bn = o(1).
(a) If the function F : [0, 1] → R is strictly increasing and F −1 is k times continuously
differentiable in a neighborhood of the point τ , we have for bn small enough
Hid,κ,τ,bn (F ) = F

−1

(τ ) +

k
X
bi

n

i=1

i!

(F −1 )(i) (τ )µi+1 (κ) + Rn (τ )

R
with |Rn (τ )| ≤ Ck (κ)bkn sup|s−τ |≤bn |(F −1 )(k) (τ ) − (F −1 )(k) (s)|, µi (κ) := ui κ(u)du and a
constant Ck depending only on k and κ. In particular, if we assume that F : R → [0, 1] is
strictly increasing and F −1 is two times continuously differentiable in a neighborhood of τ
and G : R → (0, 1) is two times continuously differentiable in a neighborhood of F −1 (τ ) with
G0 (F −1 (τ )) > 0 we have
|F −1 (τ ) − QG,κ,τ,bn (F )| ≤ Cb2n

|(G−1 )0 (s)| sup |(G ◦ F −1 )00 (s)| =: Rn,2

sup
|s−G◦F −1 (τ )|≤Rn,1

|s−τ |≤bn

for some constant C that depends only on κ where Rn,1 := Cb2n sup|s−τ |≤bn |(G ◦ F −1 )00 (s)|.
(b) Assume that κ is additionally differentiable with Lipschitz-continuous derivative and that
the functions G, G−1 have derivatives that are uniformly bounded on any compact subset of
R [the bound is allowed to depend on the interval]. Then for any increasing function F with
uniformly bounded first derivative we have |H(F1 ) − H(F2 )| ≤ Rn,3 + Rn,4 and
|QG,κ,τ,bn (F1 ) − QG,κ,τ,bn (F2 )| ≤

|(G−1 )0 (u)|(Rn,3 + Rn,4 )

sup
u∈U (H(F1 ),H(F2 ))

where C is a constant that depends only on κ, U(a, b) := [a ∧ b, a ∨ b], and
Rn,3 :=

Ccn
kF1 − F2 k∞ sup |(G ◦ F −1 )0 (v)|,
bn
|v−τ |≤cn

Rn,4 := Rn,3

kF1 − F k∞ + kF1 − F2 k∞
bn

with cn := bn + 2kF1 − F2 k∞ + kF1 − F k∞ .
(c) If additionally to the assumptions made in (b), the function F1 is two times continuously differentiable in a neighborhood of F −1 (τ ) with F10 (F1−1 (τ )) > 0 and G is two times
continuously differentiable in a neighborhood of F1−1 (τ ) with G0 (F −1 (τ )) > 0, we have
Z 1


1
QG,κ,τ,bn (F1 ) − QG,κ,τ,bn (F2 ) = − 0 −1
κ(v) F2 (F1−1 (τ + vbn )) − F1 (F1−1 (τ + vbn )) dv
F1 (F1 (τ )) −1
+Rn ,
where
|Rn | ≤ Rn,5 + Rn,6 +

Cbn sup|s−τ |≤bn (G ◦ F −1 )00 (s)kF1 − F2 k∞ + Rn,4
G0 (F1−1 (τ ))
xviii

with a constant C depending only on κ and
Rn,5 :=
Rn,6 :=

1
sup
|(G−1 )00 (u)|(H(F1 ) − H(F2 ))2
2 u∈U (H(F1 ),H(F2 ))
sup
u∈U (H(F1 ),G(F1−1 )(τ ))

|(G−1 )00 (u)| · |H(F1 ) − G(F1−1 )(τ )| · |H(F1 ) − H(F2 )|.

Proof See Volgushev et al. (2013).
Lemma C.7 (Basic Lemma)
1. Assume that the classes of functions Fn consist of uniformly bounded functions (with
the bound, say D, not depending on n) with N[] (Fn , ε, L2 (P )) ≤ C exp(−cε−a ) for every
ε ≤ δn for some a < 2 and constants C, c not depending on n. Then we have
Z
Z

√
n
sup
f dPn − f dP = o∗P (1)
f ∈Fn ,kf kP,2 ≤δn

where the ∗ denotes outer probability, see van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) for a more
detailed discussion.
2. If under the assumptions of part one we have N[] (Fn , ε, L2 (P )) ≤ Cε−a for every ε ≤ δn ,
some a > 0 and C not depending on n, it holds that for any δn ∼ n−b with b < 1/2
Z
Z



√
n
sup
f dPn − f dP = OP∗ δn | log δn |
f ∈Fn ,kf kP,2 ≤δn

Proof See Volgushev et al. (2013).
Lemma C.8
1. Define F + G := {f + g|f ∈ F, g ∈ G}, FG := {f g|f ∈ F, g ∈ G}. Then
N[] (F + G, ε, ρ) ≤ N[] (F, ε/2, ρ)N[] (G, ε/2, ρ)
If additionally the classes F, G are uniformly bounded by the constant C, we have
N[] (FG, ε, k.k) ≤ N[]2 (F, ε/4C, k.k)N[]2 (G, ε/4C, k.k)
for any seminorm k.k with the additional property that |f1 | ≤ |f2 | implies kf1 k ≤ kf2 k.
(m)

2. Assume that the Kernel K has compact support [−1, 1], that K1,k is uniformly bounded
and Lipschitz-continuous, and that fX is uniformly bounded. Then the L2 (PX ) bracketing numbers N[] (Fn , ε, L2 (PX )) of the set
n
o
(m)
Fn := u 7→ Khn ,k (x − u) x ∈ [hn , 1 − hn ]
are bounded by Cε−3 for some constant C independent of n.
xix

3. Assume that the Kernel K has compact support [−1, 1], that K is uniformly bounded
and Lipschitz continuous, and that fX is uniformly bounded away from zero on [0, 1]
and Lipschitz-continuous. Then for the set of function
o
n
1 
1 1
−
Khn ,k (x − u) x ∈ [hn , 1 − hn ]
Fn := u 7→
hn fX (x) fX (u)
we have N[] (Fn , ε, L2 (P )) ≤ Cε−5 for some constant C independent of n.
4. For any measure P on the unit interval with uniformly bounded density f , the class of
functions
n
o n
o
F := u 7→ I{u ≤ s} s ∈ [0, 1] ∪ u 7→ I{u < s} s ∈ [0, 1]
can be covered by Cε−(2) brackets of L2 (P ) length ε.
n
o
5. Consider the class of distribution functions F := u 7→ F (y|u) y ∈ R with densities
f (y|u) and assume that supu,y |y|α (F (y|u) ∧ (1 − F (y|u)) ≤ D for some α > 0 and
α+1
additionally supu,y f (y|u) ≤ D. Then we have N[] (F, ε, k k∞ ) ≤ Cε− α for some
constant C independent of α.
6. For any measure P on R × Rk with uniformly bounded conditional density fV |U the
class of functions
n
o
G := (u, v) 7→ I{v ≤ f (u)} f ∈ F
satisfies N[] (G, ε, k.kP,2 ) ≤ N[] (F, Cε2 , k.k∞ ) for some constant C independent of ε.
Proof
Part 1 The first assertion is obvious from the definition of bracketing numbers. For the
second assertion, note that FG = (F + C)(G + C) − CF − CG + C 2 . Moreover, all elements
of the classes F + C, G + C are by construction non-negative and thus it also is possible
to cover them with brackets consisting of non-negative functions and amounts equal to the
brackets of F, G, respectively. Finally, observe that if 0 ≤ fl ≤ f ≤ fu and 0 ≤ gl ≤ g ≤ gu ,
we also have fl gl ≤ f g ≤ fu gu . Moreover kfl gl − fu gu k ≤ Ckfu − fl k + Ckgu − gl k. Thus
the class (F + C)(G + C) can be covered by at most ≤ N[] (F, ε, k.k)N[] (G, ε, k.k) brackets
of length 2Cε. Finding brackets for the classes CF, CG is trivial, and applying the first
assertion of the Lemma completes the proof.
Part 2+3 Without loss of generality, assume that h = hn < 1. Note that the class of
functions Fn from part 2 can be represented as Fn = {u 7→ gx (u)|x ∈ [hn , 1 − hn ]} where
the functions gx satisfy supx∈[hn ,1−hn ] kgx k∞ ≤ C, supu∈R |gx (u) − gy (u)| ≤ C̃|x − y|h−1
n for
some constants C, C̃ independent of n, x, y. To see the latter inequality, observe that by
xx

(m)

assumption u 7→ K1,k (u) is uniformly bounded and Lipschitz continuous. Additionally, the
support of the functions gx is contained in [x − hn , x + hn ].
Similarly, Fn from part 3 can be represented as Fn = {u 7→ gx (u)|x ∈ [hn , 1 − hn ]} where the
functions gx satisfy supx∈[hn ,1−hn ] kgx k∞ ≤ C, supu∈R |gx (u) − gy (u)| ≤ C̃|x − y|h−2
n for some
constants C, C̃ independent of n, x, y (and possibly different from those for part 2), and the
support of the functions gx is contained in [x − hn , x + hn ].
Thus it suffices to establish that for any class of functions F of the form F = {u 7→ gx (u)|x ∈
[h, 1 − h]} with 0 ≤ h ≤ 1/2 with elements gx that have support contained in [x − h, x + h]
and satisfy supx∈[h,1−h] kgx k∞ ≤ C, supu∈R |gx (u) − gy (u)| ≤ C̃|x − y|h−L for some constants
C, C̃ independent of h, x, y we have we have N[ ] (F, ε, L2 (PX )) ≤ cε−(2L+1) for some c that
does not depend on h.
To prove this statement, consider two cases.
1 ε > 4h1/2
Divide [0, 1] into N := 2/ε2 subintervals of length 2α := ε2 with centers rα for r =
1, ..., N and call the intervals I1 , ..., IN . Note that two adjunct intervals overlap by
α > 2h. This construction ensures that every set of the form [x − h, x + h] with
x ∈ [h, 1 − h] is completely contained in at least one of the intervals defined above.
Then a collection of N brackets of L2 -length Dε for some D > 0 independent of h is
given by (−CI{u ∈ Ij }, CI{u ∈ Ij }).
2 ε ≤ 4h1/2
Consider the points ti := i/(N + 1), i = 1, ..., N with N := 42L+2 C̃/ε2L+1 . By construction, to every x ∈ [h, 1 − h] there exists i(x) with |ti(x) − x| ≤ ε2L+1 /(42L+2 C̃).
This implies
sup |gx (u) − gti(x) (u)| ≤ C̃ε2L+1 h−L /(42L+2 C̃) < ε/2
u

Then N k · k∞ −brackets of length ε covering F are given by (gti (·) − ε/2, gti (·) + ε/2),
i = 1, ..., N . From those one can easily construct L2 (PX )-brackets.
Part 4 Follows by standard arguments.
Part 5 For any ε > 0, set yε := ε−1/α D1/α and define ti := −yε + iε/D for i = 1, ..., N
α+1
with N such that 1 + yε ≥ tN ≥ yε . Note that N ≤ Cε− α for some fixed, finite constant
C which can depend on D but not on ε. The collection of brackets (f ≡ 0, f ≡ ε), (f ≡
1 − ε, f ≡ 1), (F (yti |.) − ε/2, F (yti |.) + ε/2) with i = 1, ..., N covers the class F. To see that,
let f ∈ F. Then there exists y ∈ R such that f (·) = F (y|·). If y < −yε we have
0 ≤ F (y|u) ≤ sup F (−yε |u) ≤ yε−α sup yεα F (−yε |u) ≤ D(ε−1/α D1/α )−α = ε.
u

u

xxi

Similarly, y > yε implies 1 − ε ≤ F (y|u) ≤ 1 Finally, if −yε ≤ y ≤ yε , there exists
i ∈ {1, ..., N } such that |y − ti | ≤ ε/(2D). In that case
F (ti |u) − ε/2 ≤ |F (ti |u) − F (y|u)| + F (y|u) − ε/2 ≤ F (y|u) ≤ F (ti |u) + ε/2
since |F (ti |u) − F (y|u)| ≤ D|ti − y| ≤ ε/2 by the assumption supu,y f (y|u) ≤ D.
Part 6 Follows from |I{v ≤ g1 (u)} − I{v ≤ g2 (u)}| ≤ I{|v − g1 (u)| ≤ 2kg1 − g2 k∞ }.
2

xxii

C.3

Main results for proofs

Define ε̂i,L as the estimated residuals based on linearized versions q̂τ,L , ŝL [see Appendix
C.1 for their definition], i.e. ε̂i,L := (Yi − q̂τ,L (Xi ))/ŝL (Xi ), and ε̂∗i,L as the corresponding
quantities in the bootstrap setting, that is
ε̂∗i,L =

∗
ŝL (Xi )ε∗i + q̂τ,L (Xi ) − q̂τ,L
(Xi )
∗
ŝL (Xi )

The following Lemma demonstrates, that the sequential empirical process based on the residuals ε̂i = (Yi − q̂τ (Xi ))/ŝ(Xi ) computed from the initial estimators q̂τ , ŝ and the sequential
empirical process of residuals based on εi,L have the same first order expansion.
Lemma C.9 Assume that (K1)-(K6), (A1)-(A5), (BW) hold. Then
1 X
√
I{2hn ≤ Xi ≤ t}(I{ε̂i ≤ y} − I{ε̂i,L ≤ y}) = oP (1).
sup
n i
t∈[2hn ,1−2hn ],y∈R
If additionally (B1)-(B2) hold we also have
1 X
√
I{4hn ≤ Xi ≤ t}(I{ε̂∗i ≤ y} − I{ε̂∗i,L ≤ y}) = oP (1).
sup
n
t∈[4hn ,1−4hn ],y∈R
i
Proof We only proof the second assertion since the first one follows by similar but easier
arguments. Start by observing that under the assumptions of the Lemma there exists a set
Dn whose probability tends to one such that on Dn we have


∗
(i) supx∈[4hn ,1−4hn ] max |q̂τ (x) − q̂τ,L (x)|, |q̂τ∗ (x) − q̂τ,L
(x)|, |ŝ(x) − ŝL (x)|, |ŝ∗ (x) − ŝ∗L (x)| ≤ γn
(ii)
(iii)

inf x∈[4hn ,1−4hn ] min(ŝL (x), ŝ∗L (x)) ≥ c > 0
supy∈R |y f˜ε (y)| ≤ C

√
for some deterministic sequence γn = o(1/ n) and finite constants C, c > 0. Here (i) and
(ii) follow from Lemma C.2 and Lemma C.1 together Assumption (A2), while (iii) is a
consequence of (B.1) in the main body of the paper.
A standard Taylor expansion shows that on Dn
n
 ŝ∗ (X ) q̂ ∗ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) 
o
i
τ,L
L
∗
∗
I{ε̂i ≤ y} − I{ε̂i,L ≤ y} ≤ I Ui − F̃ε y
+
≤ Cγn
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
=: gn,y,Cγn (Ui , Xi ),
this follows from the representations
n
 ŝ∗ (X ) q̂ ∗ (X ) − q̂ (X ) o
i
i
τ
i
I{ε̂∗i ≤ y} = I Ui ≤ F̃ε y
+ τ
,
ŝ(Xi )
ŝ(Xi )
n
 ŝ∗ (X ) q̂ ∗ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) o
i
τ,L
I{ε̂∗i,L ≤ y} = I Ui ≤ F̃ε y L
+
,
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
xxiii

a Taylor expansion of F̃ε and (i)-(iii). In the same manner as the proof of Proposition 3 in
Neumeyer (2009a) it follows from assumptions (B1) and (B2) that, with probability tending
to one
n
n
 ŝ∗ (v) q̂ ∗ (v) − q̂τ,L (v) o
o
τ,L
L
+
(C.24) Gn := (u, v) 7→ I u ≤ z + F̃ε y
y ∈ R, z ∈ [−2, 2]
ŝL (v)
ŝL (v)
is contained in the class
n
n
 a (v) a (v) o
2
3
+
G̃n = (u, v) 7→ I u ≤ z + F y
F ∈ D, a1 , a3 ∈ C̃C1+δ ([4hn , 1 − 4hn ]),
a1 (v) a1 (v)
o
a2 ∈ CC1+δ ([4hn , 1 − 4hn ]), y ∈ R, z ∈ [−2, 2] ,
where D is defined in (B.2). Now, denoting by P the product measure of the uniform random
variable U1 and the covariate X1 ,
log N[ ] (ε, G̃, L2 (P )) ≤ Cε−2α

(C.25)

for some α < 1 , this can be shown by similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition 3 in
Neumeyer (2009a). Next, since I{|U1 − a| ≤ b} = I{U1 ≤ a + b} − I{U1 ≤ a − b} a.s., we
find that, with probability tending to one
o
n
Fn := (u, v) 7→ I{s ≤ v ≤ t}gn,y,Cγn (v, u) s, t ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], y ∈ R
n
o
⊆ (u, v) 7→ I{s ≤ v ≤ t}(g1 (v, u) − g2 (v, u)) s, t ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ], g1 , g2 ∈ G̃n =: Gn,1 .
Combining parts (1) and (4) of Lemma C.8 thus yields that log N[ ] (ε, Fn , L2 (P )) ≤ C̃ε−2α
for some constant C̃. Moreover, standard arguments (employing Taylor expansions and the
R
√
bounds in (B.1) from the main body of the paper) show that supg∈Fn gdP = o(1/ n) and
R
supg∈Fn g 2 dP = o(1). Here, P denotes the probability distribution of (Xi , Ui ) and g 2 = g
for all g ∈ Fn . Finally observe that, with probability tending to one,
Z tZ

1 X
√
sup
I{hn ≤ Xi ≤ t}gn,y,Cγn (Ui , Xi ) −
gn,y,Cγn (v, u)fX (u)dvdu]
n i
t∈[4hn ,1−4hn ],y∈R
hn
Z
Z
√
≤ n sup ( gdPn − gdP ),
g∈Fn

and the right-hand side of the inequality is of order oP (1) by part one of Lemma C.7 .
Moreover, standard arguments yield
Z tZ
√
gn,y,Cγn (v, u)fX (u)dvdu = oP (1/ n).
hn

Summarizing, we have obtained the estimate
1 X
√
I{4hn ≤ Xi ≤ t}gn,y,Cγn (Ui , Xi ) = oP (1).
sup
n i
t∈[4hn ,1−4hn ],y∈R
2

and thus the proof is complete.
xxiv

Lemma C.10 Assume that the conditions (K1)-(K6), (A1)-(A5), (BW) hold. Then
Z t
n
√
1X
q̂τ,L (x) − qτ (x)
fX (x)fε (0)dx = −
(I{εi ≤ 0} − τ )I[hn ,t] (Xi ) + oP (1/ n)
s(x)
n i=1
hn
uniformly in t ∈ [hn , 1 − hn ] and
Z t
ŝL (x) − s(x)
fX (x) dx
ŝ(x)
2hn
n
1 X I[2hn ,t] (Xi ) 
1 (I{εi ≤ 0} − τ )(fε (1) − fε (−1)) 
1
= −
I{|εi | ≤ 1} − −
+ oP ( √ )
n i=1 f|ε| (1)
2
fε (0)
n
uniformly in t ∈ [2hn , 1 − 2hn ].
If additionally (B1)-(B2) hold
Z t ∗
n
√
1 X I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ
q̂τ (x) − q̂τ,L (x)
fX (x)dx = −
I[3hn ,t] (Xi ) + oP (1/ n)
ŝL (x)
n i=1
fε (0)
3hn
uniformly in t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ] and
Z t ∗
ŝ (x) − ŝ(x)
fX (x) dx
ŝ(x)
4hn
n
1 X I[4hn ,t] (Xi ) 
1 (I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ )(fε (1) − fε (−1)) 
1
= −
I{|ε∗i | ≤ 1} − −
+ oP ( √ )
n i=1 f|ε| (1)
2
fε (0)
n
uniformly in t ∈ [4hn , 1 − 4hn ].
R t q̂∗ (x)−q̂τ,L (x)
Proof We will only prove the representation for 3hn
fX (x)dx since all other
ŝL (x)
results can be derived by analogous arguments.
Observe the decomposition q̂τ∗ (x) − q̂τ,L (x) = q̂τ∗ (x) − qτ (x) + qτ (x) − q̂τ,L (x). By Lemma C.1
and Lemma C.2 we have
√
∗
∗
q̂τ∗ (x) − q̂τ,L
(x) = oP (1/ n), q̂τ,L
(x) − qτ (x) = OP (rn ), ŝL (x) − s(x) = OP (rn ),
uniformly in x ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]. It thus suffices to establish
Z t ∗
Z t
n
q̂τ,L (x) − qτ (x)
q̂τ,L (x) − qτ (x)
1 X I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ
fX (x)dx =
fX (x)dx −
I[3hn ,t] (Xi )
s(x)
s(x)
n i=1
fε (0)
3hn
3hn
√
+oP (1/ n)
∗
uniformly in t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]. By definition of q̂τ,L
, by part (iii)’ of Lemma C.3, and since
fe (0|x) = s(x)fε (0) we have
∗
fX (x)(q̂τ,L
(x) − qτ (x))
s(x)
Z

t
t
√
fX (x)u1 M(K)−1 1
∗
∗
= −
κ(v) T̃n,0,L,S
(x, qτ +vbn (x)), . . . , T̃n,p,L,S
(x, qτ +vbn (x)) dv + oP (1 n)
fε (0)
−1

xxv

where
∗
(x, y) =
T̃n,k,L,S

n

 Y ∗ − y 
1
1 X
− FY (y|Xi ) .
Khn ,k (x − Xi ) Ω i
nhn fX (x) i=1
dn

The remaining proof is based on the following intermediate results which we will establish
later on. First of all, uniformly in t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ], we have
Z

t

∗
T̃n,k,L,S
(x, qτ +vbn (x))fX (x)dx
3hn
Z 1
 Y ∗ − q

1X
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn )
K1,k (u) Ω i
=
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
n i
dn
−1

(C.26)


√
−FY (qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn )|Xi ) du + oP (1/ n).

Moreover we have uniformly in u ∈ [−1, 1], t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]

(C.27)

(C.28)


Y ∗ − q
1X
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn )
i
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )Ω
n i
dn
p
  ε∗ ŝ (X ) 

X
1X
L
i
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) Ω i
+ vbn γn (Xi ) +
ξj (Xi , v, n)(uhn )j
=
n i
dn
j=1


X
fε (0)
qτ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi )
+
+ oP (n−1/2 )
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
n
ŝ
(X
)
L
i
i
p


X
1X
j
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) vbn γn (Xi ) +
ξj (Xi , v, n)(uhn )
=
n i
j=1
Z t
1X
qτ (x) − q̂τ,L (x)
∗
+
fX (x)dx + oP (n−1/2 ),
I[3hn ,t] (Xi )I{εi ≤ 0} + fε (0)
n i
s(x)
3hn

where ξj , γn denote some functions that do not depend on u. Additionally, a Taylor expansion
of (u, v) 7→ FY (qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn )|Xi ) shows that

(C.29)

1X
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )FY (qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn )|Xi )
n i
p


X
1X
=
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) τ + vbn +
ζj (Xi , v, n)(uhn )j + oP (n−1/2 ),
n i
j=1

where the remainder holds uniformly in u ∈ [−1, 1], t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ] and the functions ζj
are again independent of u. Plugging (C.28) and (C.29) into (C.26) we find that
Z

1

Z

t

κ(v)
−1

∗
T̃n,k,L,S
(x, qτ +vbn (x))dxdv

3hn

=

p
X
j=0

xxvi

√
µk+j (K)wj (t) + oP (1/ n)

where
n

qτ (u) − q̂τ,L (u)
1X
∗
w0 (t) := fε (0)
fX (u)du +
I[3hn ,t] (Xi )(I{εi ≤ 0} − τ ) ,
s(u)
n i=1
3hn
Z 1
n
hjn X
κ(v)(ξj (Xi , v, n) − ζj (Xi , v, n))dv, j = 1, ..., p.
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
wj (t) :=
n i=1
−1



Z

t

Thus, uniformly in t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ],
Z 1

t
∗
∗
κ(v) T̃n,0,L,S
fX (x)
(x, qτ +vbn (x)), . . . , T̃n,p,L,S
(x, qτ +vbn (x)) dv
−1
√
= M(K)(w0 (t), ..., wp (t))t + oP (1/ n).
Hence the proof will be complete once we establish (C.26)-(C.28).

Proof of (C.26)
Recalling that K has support [−1, 1], we obtain for any t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ] the decomposition


Khn ,k (x−Xi )I[3hn ,t] (x) = Khn ,k (x−Xi )I[3hn ,t] (x) I(t−hn ,t+hn ] (Xi )+I[2hn ,3hn ) (Xi )+I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) .
We will now show that the contributions corresponding to the summands containing I[2hn ,3hn ) (Xi )
and I(t−hn ,t+hn ] (Xi ) are negligible. Since both expressions can be treated analogously, we only
provide the arguments for I(t−hn ,t+hn ] (Xi ). By similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma
C.3 it is easy to show that
sup
t,x∈[3hn ,1−3hn ],y∈Y

n
 Y ∗ − y 

1 X Khn ,k (x − Xi )
i
I(t−hn ,t+hn ] (Xi ) Ω
− FY (y|Xi )
nhn i=1
fX (x)
dn

=: An (Y) = OP (rn )
for any bounded Y ⊂ R. Observe that Khn ,k vanishes outside [−hn , hn ], and since
I{|x − Xi | ≤ hn }I[3hn ,t] (x)I(t−hn ,t+hn ] (Xi ) ≤ I[t−2hn ,t+2hn ] (x)I[t−hn ,t+hn ] (Xi )
we obtain, for a suitably chosen Y,
Z

t

3hn

Z

n
 Y ∗ − q


1 X Khn ,k (x − Xi )
τ +vbn (x)
I[t−hn ,t+hn ] (Xi ) Ω i
− FY (qτ +vbn (x)|Xi ) dx
nhn i=1
fX (x)
dn

t+2hn

≤

√
An (Y)dx = OP (hn rn ) = oP (1/ n)

t−2hn

uniformly in t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ], v ∈ [−1, 1]. This completes the proof of (C.26).
xxvii

Proof of (C.27) Throughout this part of the proof, let Y ⊂ R denote a fixed, bounded
set containing the interval [−dn , dn ] for sufficiently large n. The following statement will be
proved later


1X
(C.30)
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) I{Yi∗ ≤ qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) + y} − I{ε∗i ≤ y/ŝL (Xi )}
n i
 q

1X
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y
=
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) F̄ε
n i
ŝL (Xi )
 q (X ) − q̂ (X ) + y 
 y  q (X ) − q̂ (X ) 
√
τ
i
τ,L
i
τ
i
τ,L
i
−F̄ε
+ fε
+ oP (1/ n)
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
uniformly in t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ], u, v ∈ [−1, 1], y ∈ Y where F̄ε is defined in Lemma C.5.
Now convolving both sides of (C.30) [with respect to the argument y] with d1n ω(·/dn ) and
evaluating the result in 0 yields the identity

 ŝ (X )ε∗ 
 Y ∗ − q
1X
L
i i
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn )
−Ω
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) Ω i
n i
dn
dn
 q

 q (X ) − q̂ (X ) 
1X
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi )
τ
i
τ,L
i
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) F̄ε
− F̄ε
=
n i
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
√
qτ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) 
+ oP (1/ n).
+fε (0)
ŝL (Xi )
Observe that the smoothness properties of F̄ε (defined in Lemma C.5) yield the representation
q
 q (X ) − q̂ (X ) 

τ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi )
τ
i
τ,L
i
F̄ε
− F̄ε
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
p
X
= vbn γn (Xi ) +
ξj (Xi , v, n)(uhn )j + rn,1
j=1

√
where the remainder terms rn,1 is of order O(b2n + hp+1
n ) = o(1/ n) uniformly in u, v and
ξj , γn denote some functions that do not depend on u. Thus the proof of (C.27) will be
complete once we establish (C.30). To this end, observe that
n
o
n
qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ (Xi ) + y o
I Yi∗ ≤ qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) + y = I ε∗i ≤
ŝ(Xi )
and
 n
n
1X
qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂(Xi ) + y o
y o
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) I ε∗i ≤
− I ε∗i ≤
n i
ŝ(Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
 n
n
√
1X
qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y o
y o
=
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) I ε∗i ≤
− I ε∗i ≤
+ oP (1/ n)
n i
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
 q


√
1X
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y
=
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) F̃ε
− F̃ε (y/ŝL (Xi )) + oP (1/ n)
n i
ŝL (Xi )
xxviii

uniformly in t, v, u, which follows by arguments similar to those used in the proof of Lemma
C.9. Consider the decomposition

 y 
q
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y
− F̃ε
F̃ε
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
q


qτ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y 
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y
= F̃ε
− F̃ε
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
 y 
 q (X ) − q̂ (X ) + y 
τ
i
τ,L
i
− F̃ε
.
+F̃ε
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
For the first term in this decomposition, an application of Lemma C.5 yields
h q

 q (X ) − q̂ (X ) + y i
1X
τ
i
τ,L
i
τ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) F̃ε
− F̃ε
n i
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )

h


1X
qτ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y i
qτ +vbn (Xi + uhn ) − q̂τ,L (Xi ) + y
=
− F̄ε
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) F̄ε
n i
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
√
+oP (1/ n),
where F̄ε is defined in Lemma C.5. Noting that
 q (X ) − q̂ (X ) + y 
 y 
 y  q (X ) − q̂ (X )
√
τ
i
τ,L
i
τ
i
τ,L
i
˜
F̃ε
− F̃ε
= fε
+ oP (1/ n),
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
and recalling that f˜ε converges to fε uniformly with rate oP ((hn / log n)1/2 ) [see (B.1)] combined with rn (hn / log n)1/2 = o(1) yields
 y 
 y  q (X ) − q̂ (X )
 q (X ) − q̂ (X ) + y 
√
τ
i
τ,L
i
τ
i
τ,L
i
− F̃ε
= fε
+ oP (1/ n)
F̃ε
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
ŝL (Xi )
which completes the proof of (C.30) and thus (C.27) is also established.
Proof of (C.28) It suffices to show that, uniformly in t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ]

  ŝ (X )ε∗ 
√
1X
L
i i
− I{ε∗i ≤ 0} = oP (1/ n),
(C.31)
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) Ω
n i
dn
√
1X
1X
(C.32)
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )(I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ ) =
I[3hn ,t] (Xi )(I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ ) + oP (1/ n),
n i
n i
Z t
√
1X
qτ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi )
qτ (u) − q̂τ,L (u)
(C.33)
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
=
fX (u)du + oP (1/ n).
n i
ŝL (Xi )
s(u)
3hn
The statement in (C.33) follows since, for t ∈ [4hn , 1 − 3hn ],
√
1X
qτ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi )
1X
qτ (Xi ) − q̂τ,L (Xi )
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
=
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
+ oP (1/ n)
n i
ŝL (Xi )
n i
s(Xi )
Z t−hn
√
qτ (u) − q̂τ,L (u)
=
fX (u)du + oP (1/ n)
s(u)
3h
Z tn
√
qτ (u) − q̂τ,L (u)
=
fX (u)du + oP (1/ n),
s(u)
3hn
xxix

where the first equality follows from the rates of convergence for q̂τ,L − qτ , ŝL − s [see Lemma
C.1 and Lemma C.2], the second equality is a consequence of the fact that q̂τ,L ∈ CCδ with
probability tending to one [see Lemma C.1] combined with Lemma C.7. For t < 4hn , the
left-hand side of (C.32) is zero and the right-hand side of order oP (n−1/2 ) by Lemma C.1
and Lemma C.2.
For a proof of (C.31), observe that
Z dn 
 a
 ŝ (X )ε∗ 
1
L
i i
∗
I{ε∗i ≤ a/ŝL (Xi )} − I{ε∗i ≤ 0} ω
− I{εi ≤ 0} =
da.
Ω
dn
dn −dn
dn
Define the sequence of sets
S(δn ) := {(t, yn , zn )|t ∈ [3hn , 1 − 3hn ], yn , zn ∈ Y, |yn − zn | ≤ δn }
for some δn = o(1). Observe that, with probability tending to one,
n


1X
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) I{ε∗i ≤ yn } − I{ε∗i ≤ zn } + F̃ε (zn ) − F̃ε (yn )
(t,yn ,zn )∈S(δn ) n i=1
n


1X
=
sup
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) I{Ui ≤ F̃ε (yn )} − I{Ui ≤ F̃ε (zn )} + F̃ε (zn ) − F̃ε (yn )
(t,yn ,zn )∈S(δn ) n i=1
n


1X
I[3hn ,t−3hn ] (Xi ) I{Ui ≤ yn } − I{Ui ≤ zn } + zn − yn
≤
sup
(t,yn ,zn )∈S(Cδn ) n i=1
√
= oP (1/ n).

sup

Here, for the first inequality we made use of (B.1). This implies that, with probability
tending to one, F̃ε has a uniformly bounded derivative which shows that, with probability
tending to one, |yn −zn | ≤ δn implies |F̃ε (yn )− F̃ε (zn )| ≤ Cδn for some finite constant C. The
last bound above follows by standard empirical process arguments provided that δn = o(1).
Thus
  ŝ (X )ε∗ 

1X
L
i i
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi ) Ω
− I{ε∗i ≤ 0}
n i
dn
Z dn 
 a
1X
1
=
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
F̃ε (a/ŝL (Xi )) − F̃ε (0) ω
da + oP (n−1/2 )
n i
dn −dn
dn
Z dn 
 a
1X
1
I[3hn ,t−hn ] (Xi )
da + oP (n−1/2 )
=
F̄ε (a/ŝL (Xi )) − F̄ε (0) ω
n i
dn −dn
dn
= oP (n−1/2 )
where the second to last line follows by Lemma C.5 and the last line is a consequence of the
smoothness properties of F̄ε .
xxx

Thus (C.31) follows and it remains to establish (C.32). To this end, observe that it suffices
to establish
n
1X
sup
I[t−hn ,t] (Xi )(I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ ) = oP (n−1/2 ).
n
t∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]
i=1
Now
n

n

1X
1X
I[t−hn ,t] (Xi )(I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ ) =
I[t−hn ,t] (Xi )(I{Ui ≤ F̃ε (0)} − τ ),
n i=1
n i=1
and by (C.21) in Lemma C.5 we have F̃ε (0) − τ = F̃ε (0) − Fε (0) = OP (rn ). Thus we have
−1/4
with probability tending to one |F̃ε (0) − τ | ≤ rn hn
and in particular
n

sup
t∈[3hn ,1−3hn ]

1X
I[t−hn ,t] (Xi )(I{ε∗i ≤ 0} − τ )
n i=1
n

≤

sup

sup

t∈[3hn ,1−3hn ] |y|≤rn h−1/4
n

1X
I[t−hn ,t] (Xi )(I{Ui ≤ y} − τ ) = oP (n−1/2 )
n i=1

where the first inequality holds with probability tending to one and the equality follows by
standard empirical process arguments. Thus (C.31) follows. This completes the proof of
Lemma C.10.
2

xxxi

