Testing for Change in Stochastic Volatility with Long
arXiv:1706.06351v1 [math.ST] 20 Jun 2017

Range Dependence
Annika Betken∗

Rafal Kulik

Faculty of Mathematics

Department of Mathematics

Ruhr-Universität Bochum

and Statistics

annika.betken@rub.de

University of Ottawa
rkulik@uottawa.ca

June 21, 2017

∗

Research supported by the German National Academic Foundation and Collaborative Research Center

SFB 823 Statistical modelling of nonlinear dynamic processes.

1

Abstract
In this paper, change-point problems for long memory stochastic volatility models are considered. A general testing problem which includes various alternative
hypotheses is discussed. Under the hypothesis of stationarity the limiting behavior
of CUSUM- and Wilcoxon-type test statistics is derived. In this context, a limit theorem for the two-parameter empirical process of long memory stochastic volatility
time series is proved. In particular, it is shown that the asymptotic distribution of
CUSUM test statistics may not be affected by long memory, unlike Wilcoxon test
statistics which are typically influenced by long range dependence. To avoid the
estimation of nuisance parameters in applications, the usage of self-normalized test
statistics is proposed. The theoretical results are accompanied by simulation studies
which characterize the finite sample behavior of the considered testing procedures
when testing for changes in mean, in variance, and in the tail index.

Keywords: long memory stochastic volatility; change point tests; empirical process limit
theorem; self-normalization

2

1

Introduction

One of the most often observed phenomena in ﬁnancial data is the fact that the logreturns of stock-market prices appear to be uncorrelated, whereas the absolute log-returns
or squared log-returns tend to be correlated or even exhibit long range dependence. Another characteristic of ﬁnancial time series is the existence of heavy tails in the sense that
the marginal tail distribution behaves like a regularly varying function. Both of these features of empirical data can be covered by the so-called long memory stochastic volatility
model (LMSV, in short), with its original version introduced in Breidt et al. (1998). For
this we assume that the data generating process {Xj , j ≥ 1} satisﬁes
Xj = σ(Yj )εj ,

j≥1,

(1)

where
• {εj , j ≥ 1} is an i.i.d. sequence with mean zero;
• {Yj , j ≥ 1} is a stationary, long range dependent (LRD) Gaussian process;
• σ(·) is a non-negative measurable function, not equal to 0.
Note that within this model long memory results from the subordinated Gaussian sequence
{Yj , j ≥ 1} only. More precisely, we assume that {Yj , j ≥ 1} admits a linear representation
with respect to an i.i.d. Gaussian sequence {ηj , j ≥ 0} with E(η1 ) = 0, Var(η1 ) = 1, i.e.
∞
X

ck ηj−k , j ≥ 1 ,

(2)

γY (k) = Cov(Yj , Yj+k ) = k −D Lγ (k),

(3)

Yj =

k=1

with

P∞

2
k=1 ck

= 1 and

3

where D ∈ (0, 1) and Lγ is slowly varying at inﬁnity. Also, we assume that
• {(εj , ηj ), j ≥ 1} is a sequence of i.i.d. vectors.
The above set of assumptions we will call collectively LMSV model.
The tail behavior of the sequence {Xj , j ≥ 1} can be related to the tail behavior of
{εj , j ≥ 1} or {σ(Yj ), j ≥ 1} or both. Here, we will speciﬁcally assume that
• the random variables {εj , j ≥ 1} have a marginal distribution with regularly varying
right tail, i.e. F̄ε (x) := P (ε1 > x) = x−α L(x) for some α > 0 and a slowly varying
function L, such that the following tail balance condition holds:
P (ε1 > x)
P (ε1 < −x)
= p = 1 − lim
x→∞ P (|ε1 | > x)
x→∞ P (|ε1 | > x)
lim

for some p ∈ (0, 1];


• we have E σ α+δ (Y1 ) < ∞ for some δ > 0.

Under these conditions, it follows by Breiman’s Lemma (see (Resnick, 2007, Proposition
7.5)) that
P (X1 > x) ∼ E[σ α (Y1 )]P (ε1 > x),

(4)

i.e. the process {Xj , j ≥ 1} inherits the tail behavior from {εj , j ≥ 1}.
We would like to point out here that in the literature the usage of the term LMSV
often presupposes that the sequences {Yj , j ≥ 1} and {εj , j ≥ 1} are independent. In this
paper, we will consider a more general model: instead of claiming mutual independence
of {Yj , j ≥ 1} and {εj , j ≥ 1}, we only assume that {(ηj , εj ), j ≥ 1} is a sequence of
independent random vectors. Especially, this implies that for a ﬁxed index j the random
variables εj and Yj are independent, while Yj may depend on {εi , i < j}. In many cases,
this version of the LMSV model is referred to as LMSV with leverage.
4

1.1

Change-point detection under long memory

One of the problems related to ﬁnancial data is to detect structural changes in a time
series {Xj , j ≥ 1}. Although the problem has been extensively studied for independent
random variables (see an excellent book Csörgö and Horvath (1997)) or in case of weakly
dependent data, the issue has not been fully resolved for time series with long memory.
The researchers focused rather on justifying that the observed long range dependence is
real or that it is due to changes in weakly dependent sequences (so-called spurious long
memory); see e.g. Berkes et al. (2006) and Section 7.9.1 of Beran et al. (2013) for further
references on the latter issue.
As for the testing changes in long memory sequences, one of the ﬁrst paper seems to
be Horváth and Kokoszka (1997), where the authors showed that long range dependence
aﬀects the asymptotic behavior of the CUSUM statistics for changes in the mean. For the
general testing problem with a change in the marginal distribution under the alternative
hypothesis, the paper Giraitis et al. (1996) considers Kolmogorov - Smirnov type changepoint tests and change-point estimators for long memory moving average processes. For
changes in the mean of long range dependent time series Horváth and Kokoszka (1997)
and Betken (2016a) consider estimators for the change-point location based on CUSUM
and Wilcoxon statistics. Under the assumption of converging change-point alternatives in
LRD time series, the asymptotic behavior of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Cramér-von Mises
type test statistics has also been investigated by Tewes (2015). Likewise, in Dehling et al.
(2013) the authors show that the Wilcoxon test is always aﬀected by long memory. In
fact, in the case of Gaussian long memory data, the asymptotic relative eﬃciency of the
Wilcoxon test and the CUSUM test is 1.
In case of long range dependence, the normalization and the limiting distribution of
test statistics typically depend on unknown multiplicative factors or parameters related to
the dependence structure of the data generating processes. To bypass estimation of these
5

quantities, the concept of self-normalization has recently been applied to several testing procedures in change-point analysis: Shao and Zhang (2010) deﬁne a self-normalized
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic that serves to identify changes in the mean of short
range dependent time series. Shao (2011) adopted the same approach to deﬁne an alternative normalization for the CUSUM test; Betken (2016b) considers a self-normalized version
of the Wilcoxon change-point test proposed by Dehling et al. (2013).
The main message from the above discussion is that long memory typically aﬀects the
limiting behaviour of diﬀerent statistics used in change-point testing. We refer also to
Section 7.9 of Beran et al. (2013) for further results on change-point detection for long
memory processes.

1.2

Change-point detection for LMSV

In this paper, we study CUSUM and Wilcoxon tests for the LMSV model and discuss
particular cases of testing for changes in the mean, in the variance and in the tail index.
Although the variance and the tail index can be regarded as the mean of transformed
random variables, we observe diﬀerent eﬀects for each of the three quantities. In particular,
the main ﬁndings of our paper are as follows:
A-1: CUSUM tests for a change in the mean in LMSV time series are typically not aﬀected
by long memory (see Corollary 3.2 and Example 4.1). This is diﬀerent than the
ﬁndings in Horváth and Kokoszka (1997) for subordinated Gaussian processes;
A-2: Wilcoxon tests for a change in the mean of LMSV models are typically aﬀected by
long memory (see Corollary 3.4 and Example 4.1). This is in line with the ﬁndings
for subordinated Gaussian processes; cf. Dehling et al. (2013).
B: CUSUM and Wilcoxon tests for a change in the variance of LMSV models are typically aﬀected by long memory; see Section 4.2.
6

C: CUSUM and Wilcoxon tests for a change in the tail index of LMSV models are
typically aﬀected by long memory; see Section 4.3
The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2 we collect some results on subordinated
Gaussian processes. In Section 3 we discuss the change-point problem. In particular, we
consider CUSUM and Wilcoxon test. The asymptotic behavior of the former is a direct
consequence of the existing results, while the latter requires a new theorem (see Theorem
3.3) on the limiting behavior of empirical processes based on LMSV data. Section 4 is
devoted to examples in case of testing for changes in the mean, in the variance and in
the tail. Since the test statistics and/or limiting distributions involve unknown quantities,
self-normalization is considered in Section 5. In fact, in Section S2 we perform simulation
studies and indicate that self-normalization provides robustness.

2
2.1

Preliminaries
Some properties of subordinated Gaussian sequences

The main tool for studying the asymptotic behavior of subordinated Gaussian sequences is
the Hermite expansion. For a stationary, long range dependent Gaussian process {Yj , j ≥
1} and a measurable function g such that E (g 2 (Y1 )) < ∞ the corresponding Hermite
expansion is deﬁned by
∞
X
Jq (g)
Hq (Y1 ) ,
g(Y1) − E (g(Y1)) =
q!
q=m

where Hq is the q-th Hermite polynomial,
Jq (g) = E (g(Y1)Hq (Y1 ))

7

and
m = inf {q ≥ 1 | Jq (g) 6= 0} .
The integer m is called the Hermite rank of g and we refer to Jq (g) as the q-th Hermite
coeﬃcient of g.

We will also consider the Hermite expansion of the function class 1{g(Y1 )≤x} − Fg(Y1 ) (x), x ∈ R

where Fg(Y1 ) denotes the distribution function of g(Y1). For ﬁxed x, we have
∞
X
Jq (g; x)
Hq (Y1 )
1{g(Y1 )≤x} − Fg(Y1 ) (x) =
q!
q=m

with Jq (g; x) = E 1{g(Y1 )≤x} Hq (Y1 )



. The Hermite rank corresponding to this function

class is deﬁned by m = inf x m(x), where m(x) denotes the Hermite rank of 1{g(Y1 )≤x} −
Fg(Y1 ) (x). We refer to Beran et al. (2013) for further details.
The asymptotic behavior of partial sums of subordinated Gaussian sequences is characterized in Taqqu (1979). Due to the functional non-central limit theorem in that paper,
⌊nt⌋
1 X

dn,m

j=1

g(Yj ) ⇒

Jm (g)
Zm (t), 0 ≤ t ≤ 1,
m!

where Zm (t), 0 ≤ t ≤ 1, is an m-th order Hermite process,
!
n
X
d2n,m = Var
Hm (Yj ) ∼ cm n2−mD Lm (n), cm =
j=1

(5)

2m!
,
(1 − Dm)(2 − Dm)

and the convergence holds in D([0, 1]), the space of functions that are right-continuous with
left limits. In fact, the limiting behavior in (5) is the same as that of the corresponding
partial sums based on {Hm (Yj ), j ≥ 1}:
Jm (g)

⌊nt⌋
1 X

dn,m

j=1

Hm (Yj ) ⇒

Jm (g)
Zm (t), 0 ≤ t ≤ 1 .
m!

(6)

Moreover, the functional central limit theorem for the empirical processes was established

8

,

in Dehling and Taqqu (1989). Speciﬁcally,


⌊nt⌋


X

P
−1
sup sup dn,m ⌊nt⌋ G⌊nt⌋ (x) − E G⌊nt⌋ (x) − Jm (g; x)
Hm (Yj ) −→ 0 , (7)


−∞≤x≤∞ 0≤t≤1
j=1

where Gl (x) =

1
l

Pl

j=1

1{g(Yj )≤x} is the empirical distribution function of the sequence

P

{g(Yj ), j ≥ 1} and “−→” denotes convergence in probability. Thus, the empirical process
d−1
n,m ⌊nt⌋ G⌊nt⌋ (x) − E G⌊nt⌋ (x)



, x ∈ [−∞, ∞] , t ∈ [0, 1] ,

converges in D([−∞, ∞] × [0, 1]) to Jm (g; x)Zm(t).
We refer the reader to Dehling and Taqqu (1989), Taqqu (1979) and Beran et al. (2013)
for more details.

3

Change-point problem

Given the observations X1 , . . . , Xn and a function ψ, we deﬁne ξj = ψ(Xj ), j = 1, . . . , n,
and we consider the testing problem:
H0 : E(ξ1 ) = · · · = E(ξn ) ,
H1 : ∃ k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1} such that E(ξ1 ) = · · · = E(ξk ) 6= E(ξk+1) = · · · = E(ξn ) .
We choose ψ according to the speciﬁc change-point problem considered. Possible choices
include:
• ψ(x) = x in order to detect changes in the mean of the observations X1 , . . . , Xn
(change in location);
• ψ(x) = x2 in order to detect changes in the variance of the observations X1 , . . . , Xn
(change in volatility);

9

• ψ(x) = log(x2 ) or ψ(x) = log(|x|) in order to detect changes in the index α of
heavy-tailed observations (change in the tail index).
It is obvious that ψ(x) = x and ψ(x) = x2 lead to testing for a change in the mean and
a change in the variance, respectively. The choice ψ(x) = log(|x|) requires an additional
comment. We note that (4) describes only the asymptotic tail behavior of X1 . For the
purpose of this paper, we shall pretend that P (|X1 | > x) = cα x−α , x > c, for some c > 0.
Then the maximum likelihood estimator of (1/α), the reciprocal of the tail index, is
n

1X
log (|Xj |/c) .
n j=1

(8)

This estimator is used in the CUSUM test statistic. To resolve the problem of change-points
in the tail index in full generality, we need to employ a completely diﬀerent technique, based
on the so-called tail empirical processes (see Kulik and Soulier (2011)). This will be done
in a subsequent paper.
In any case, the following test statistics may be applied in order to decide on the
change-point problem (H0 , H1 ):
• The CUSUM test rejects the hypothesis for large values of the test statistic Cn =
sup Cn (λ), where
0≤λ≤1

Cn (λ) =

⌊nλ⌋

X
j=1

n

ψ(Xj ) −

⌊nλ⌋ X
ψ(Xj ) .
n j=1

(9)

• The Wilcoxon test rejects the hypothesis for large values of the test statistic Wn =
sup Wn (λ), where
0≤λ≤1

Wn (λ) =

⌊nλ⌋

X

n
X

i=1 j=⌊nλ⌋+1

10



1
1{ψ(Xi )≤ψ(Xj )} −
.
2

(10)

The goal of this paper is to obtain limiting distributions for the CUSUM and the Wilcoxon
test statistic in case of time series that follow the LMSV model.

3.1

CUSUM Test for LMSV

In order to determine the asymptotic behavior of the CUSUM test statistic computed with
respect to the observations ψ(X1 ), . . . , ψ(Xn ), we have to consider the partial sum process
P⌊nt⌋
j=1 (ψ(Xj ) − E (ψ(Xj ))).
For the observations X1 , . . . , Xn that satisfy the LMSV model, the asymptotic behavior

of the partial sum process is described by Theorem 4.10 in Beran et al. (2013) and hence is
stated without proof. In order to formulate the result, we introduce the following notation:
Fj = σ (εj , εj−1, . . . , ηj , ηj−1 , . . .) ,
i.e. Fj denotes the σ-ﬁeld generated by the random variables εj , εj−1, . . . , ηj , ηj−1 , . . .. Due
to this construction, εj is independent of Fj−1 and Yj is Fj−1-measurable.
Theorem 3.1. Assume that {Xj , j ≥ 1} follows the LMSV model. Furthermore, assume
that E(ψ 2 (X1 )) < ∞. Define the function Ψ by Ψ(y) = E (ψ(σ(y)ε1)). Denote by m the
Hermite rank of Ψ and by Jm (Ψ) the corresponding Hermite coefficient.
1. If E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) 6= 0 and mD < 1, then
⌊nt⌋
1 X

dn,m

j=1

(ψ(Xj ) − E(ψ(Xj ))) ⇒

Jm (Ψ)
Zm (t) , t ∈ [0, 1] ,
m!

in D([0, 1]).
2. If E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) = 0, then
⌊nt⌋

1 X
√
ψ(Xj ) ⇒ σB(t) , t ∈ [0, 1] ,
n j=1
11

in D([0, 1]), where B denotes a Brownian motion process and σ 2 = E(ψ 2 (X1 )).
As an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1, we obtain the asymptotic distribution
of the CUSUM statistic.
Corollary 3.2. Assume that the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 hold.
1. If E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) 6= 0 and mD < 1, then
1

sup Cn (λ) ⇒

dn,m 0≤λ≤1

|Jm (Ψ)|
sup |Zm (t) − tZm (1)| .
m! 0≤t≤1

(11)

2. If E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) = 0
1
√ sup Cn (λ) ⇒ σ sup |B(t) − tB(1)| ,
n 0≤λ≤1
0≤t≤1
where B denotes a Brownian motion process and σ 2 = E(ψ 2 (X1 )).
It is important to note that the Hermite rank of Ψ does not necessarily correspond to
the Hermite rank of σ; see Section 4.

3.2

Wilcoxon test for LMSV

For subordinated Gaussian time series {g(Yj ), j ≥ 1}, where {Yj , j ≥ 1} is a stationary
Gaussian LRD process and g is a measurable function, the asymptotic distribution of the
Wilcoxon test statistic Wn is derived from the limiting behavior of the two-parameter
empirical process
⌊nt⌋
X
j=1


1{g(Yj )≤x} − Fg(Y1 ) (x) , x ∈ [−∞, ∞] , t ∈ [0, 1] ,

where Fg(Y1 ) denotes the distribution function of g(Y1); see Dehling et al. (2013).
In order to determine the asymptotic distribution of the Wilcoxon test statistic for the
LMSV model, we need to establish an analogous result for the stochastic volatility process
12

{Xj , j ≥ 1}, i.e. our preliminary goal is to prove a limit theorem for the two-parameter
empirical process
Gn (x, t) =

⌊nt⌋
X
j=1


1{ψ(Xj )≤x} − Fψ(X1 ) (x) ,

where now Fψ(X1 ) denotes the distribution function of ψ(X1 ) with X1 = σ(Y1 )ε1 . To state
the weak convergence, we introduce the following notation:
Ψx (y) = P (ψ(yε1) ≤ x) .
Theorem 3.3. Assume that {Xj , j ≥ 1} follows the LMSV model. Moreover, assume that
Z

d
P (ψ(uε1 ) ≤ x) du < ∞ .
du

(12)


Let m denote the Hermite rank of the class 1{σ(Y1 )≤x} − Fσ(Y1 ) (x), x ∈ R . If mD < 1,

then

1
dn,m

Gn (x, t) ⇒

Jm (Ψx ◦ σ)
Zm (t) , x ∈ [−∞, ∞] , t ∈ [0, 1] ,
m!

(13)

in D ([−∞, ∞] × [0, 1]) .
The proof of this theorem is given in Section 3.3. At this moment, we derive the
asymptotic distribution of the Wilcoxon statistics.
Corollary 3.4. Under the conditions of Theorem 3.3
1
sup Wn (λ) ⇒
ndn,m λ∈[0,1]

Z

Jm (Ψx ◦ σ)dFψ(X1 ) (x)

1
sup |Zm (λ) − λZm (1)| .
m! λ∈[0,1]

Proof of Corollary 3.4. According to Dehling et al. (2013), the asymptotic distribution of
the Wilcoxon test statistic can be derived directly from the limit of the two-parameter
empirical process if the sequence {Xj , j ≥ 1} is ergodic. Ergodicity is obvious, since Xj
can be represented as a measurable function of the i.i.d. vectors {(ηj , εj ), j ≥ 1}.
13

3.3

Proof of Theorem 3.3

To prove Theorem 3.3, we consider the following decomposition:
Gn (x, t)
=

⌊nt⌋
X
j=1

1{ψ(Xj )≤x} − E 1{ψ(Xj )≤x} | Fj−1



+

⌊nt⌋
X
j=1



E 1{ψ(Xj )≤x} | Fj−1 − Fψ(X1 ) (x)

=: Mn (x, t) + Rn (x, t).
It will be shown that n−1/2 Mn (x, t) = OP (1) uniformly in x, t, while d−1
n,m Rn (x, t) converges
in distribution to the limit process in formula (13). Theorem 3.3 then follows because
√
n = o(dn,m ).
Martingale part. For ﬁxed x, the following lemma characterizes the asymptotic behavior of the martingale part Mn (x, t). We write
Mn (t) := Mn (x, t) =

⌊nt⌋
X

ζj (x)

j=1


with ζj (x) = 1{ψ(Xj )≤x} − E 1{ψ(Xj )≤x} | Fj−1 .

Lemma 3.5. Under the conditions of Theorem 3.3, we have for every x,
1
√ Mn (t) ⇒ β(x)B(t) , t ∈ [0, 1] ,
n

in D([0, 1]), where B denotes a Brownian motion process and β 2 (x) = E(ζ12(x)).
Proof. Deﬁne
1

ζnj = n− 2 ζj (x) = Xnj (x) − E(Xnj (x) | Fj−1)
1

with Xnj (x) = n− 2 1{ψ(Xj )≤x} . In order to show convergence in D([0, 1]), we apply the
functional martingale central limit theorem as stated in Theorem 18.2 of Billingsley (1999).

14

Therefore, we have to show that
⌊nt⌋
X
j=1


2
E ζnj
| Fj−1 ⇒ β(x)t

for every t and that
lim

n→∞

⌊nt⌋
X
j=1


2
1{|ζnj |≥ǫ} = 0
E ζnj

for every t and ǫ > 0 (Lindeberg condition). In order to show that the Lindeberg condition
holds, it suﬃces to show that
lim

n→∞

⌊nt⌋
X
j=1



2
E Xnj (x)1{|Xnj (x)|≥ ǫ } = 0
2

(14)

due to Lemma 3.3 in Dvoretzky (1972). As the indicator function is bounded, the above
summands vanish for suﬃciently large n and hence (14) follows.

Furthermore, the random variable E ζj2 (x) | Fj−1 can be considered as a measurable

function of the random variable Yj and therefore as a function of ηj−1 , ηj−2 , . . .. As a result,

E ζj2(x) | Fj−1 is an ergodic sequence and it follows by the ergodic theorem that
⌊nt⌋

⌊nt⌋

 ⌊nt⌋ 1 X
 P
1X
E ζj2 (x) | Fj−1 =
E ζj2 (x) | Fj−1 −→ t E(ζ12 (x))
n j=1
n ⌊nt⌋ j=1

for every t.
The next lemma establishes uniform boundedness of the two-parameter process.
Lemma 3.6. Under the conditions of Theorem 3.3, we have
1
√ Mn (x, t) = OP (1)
n
in D([−∞, ∞] × [0, 1]).
The (technical) proof of this lemma can be found in Section S1 of the supplementary
15

material.
Long memory part. Finally, we prove weak convergence of the long memory part
Rn (x, t).
Lemma 3.7. Under the conditions of Theorem 3.3,
1
dn,m

Rn (x, t) ⇒

Jm (Ψx ◦ σ)
Zm (t)
m!

in D ([−∞, ∞] × [0, 1]) .
Proof. Note that


E 1{ψ(Xj )≤x} | Fj−1 = E 1{ψ(σ(Yj )εj )≤x} | Fj−1 = Ψx (σ(Yj ))
because Yj is Fj−1-measurable and εj is independent of Fj−1 . Furthermore, E (Ψx (σ(Yj ))) =
Fψ(X1 ) (x), where Fψ(X1 ) denotes the distribution function of ψ(X1 ) = ψ(σ(Y1 )ε1 ). Hence,
Rn (x, t) = ⌊nt⌋
where Gl (u) =

1
l

Pl

j=1 1{σ(Yj )≤u}

Z


Ψx (u)d G⌊nt⌋ − E G⌊nt⌋ (u),

is the empirical distribution function of the sequence

{σ(Yj ), j ≥ 1}. We have
d−1
n,m Rn (x, t)

 )
(Z
⌊nt⌋


 Jm (σ; u) X
d
P (ψ(uε1) ≤ x) d−1
⌊nt⌋
G
(u)
−
E
G
(u)
−
H
(Y
)
du
=−
⌊nt⌋
⌊nt⌋
m
j
n,m


du
m!
j=1
(Z
)
⌊nt⌋
X
d
−1 Jm (σ; u)
−
P (ψ(uε1) ≤ x) dn,m
Hm (Yj )du =: I1 (x, t) + I2 (x, t),
du
m!
j=1

where m denotes the Hermite rank of the class 1{σ(Y1 )≤x} − Fσ(Y1 ) (x), x ∈ R and

Jm (σ; y) = E 1{σ(Y1 )≤y} Hm (Y1 ) .
16

Using the reduction principle (7) with g = σ and the integrability condition (12), we conclude that the ﬁrst summand converges to 0 in probability, uniformly in x, t. Furthermore,
)
(Z
⌊nt⌋
X
J
(σ;
u)
d
m
P (ψ(uε1) ≤ x)
du .
I2 (x, t) = −d−1
Hm (Yj )
n,m
du
m!
j=1
Denoting by ϕ the standard normal density, integration by parts yields
Z

d
P (ψ(uε1) ≤ x) Jm (σ; u)du = −Jm (Ψx ◦ σ) .
du

The proof is concluded by (6).

4
4.1

Examples
Change in the mean

To test for a change in the mean, we choose ψ(x) = x.
CUSUM: Recall that the function Ψ in Theorem 3.1 is deﬁned as Ψ(y) = E (ψ(σ(y)ε1)).
In this case, E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) = 0. Therefore, the CUSUM statistic converges to a Brownian
bridge. Hence, long memory in LMSV does not inﬂuence the asymptotic behavior of the
CUSUM statistic when testing for a change in the mean.
Wilcoxon: Recall that Ψx (y) = P (ψ(yε1 ) ≤ x). Using integration by parts and noting
that (d/dz)ϕ(z) = −zϕ(z), we conclude
J1 (Ψx ◦ σ) =

Z

d
x
dz



1
σ(z)



fε



x
σ(z)



ϕ(z)dz,

where fε is the density of ε1 (if it exists). Here, diﬀerent scenarios are possible: if σ(y) = y 2 ,
then the integrand is antisymmetric in z for any choice of fε . Hence, J1 (Ψx ◦ σ) = 0 and
some calculations show that the Hermite rank of Ψx ◦ σ is 2. If σ(y) = exp(y) and ε1 is

17

Pareto distributed, i.e. for some α, c > 0 fε (x) =
α −α

J1 (ψx ◦ σ) = αc x

Z

αcα
1
,
xα+1 {x≥c}

then, as a result,

exp(zα)1{log( x )≥z } ϕ(z)dz.
c

Hence, J1 (Ψx ◦ σ) 6= 0. In any case, long memory in LMSV inﬂuences the asymptotic
behavior of the Wilcoxon statistic.

4.2

Change in the variance

To test for a change in the variance, we choose ψ(x) = x2 .
CUSUM: Recall again that the function Ψ in Theorem 3.1 is deﬁned as Ψ(y) = E (ψ(σ(y)ε1)).
Then E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) 6= 0 and hence long memory aﬀects the limiting behavior of the
CUSUM statistic. Moreover,
Jm (Ψ) =

E(ε21 )

Z


σ 2 (z)Hm (z)ϕ(z)dz = E ε21 Jm (σ 2 ),

i.e. the Hermite rank of Ψ equals the Hermite rank of σ 2 . If mD < 1, then the limiting
behavior of the CUSUM statistic is described by (11). Hence, long memory in LMSV
inﬂuences the asymptotic behavior of the CUSUM statistic when testing for a change in
the variance.
Wilcoxon: Recall again that Ψx (y) = P (ψ(yε1) ≤ x). For x ≥ 0, we have

  √ 
 √ 
Z 
√ d 1
x
x
fε
+ fε −
ϕ(z)dz.
J1 (Ψx ◦ σ) =
x
dz σ(z)
σ(z)
σ(z)

If σ(y) = exp(y), then we can conclude by the same argument as in the case of testing
for a change in the mean that J1 (Ψx ◦ σ) 6= 0. Hence, long memory in LMSV time series
inﬂuences the asymptotic behavior of the Wilcoxon statistic when testing for a change in
the variance.

18

4.3

Change in the tail index

To test for a change in the tail index, we choose ψ(x) = log(x2 ).
CUSUM: In this case, E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) 6= 0 and hence long memory aﬀects the limiting
distribution of the CUSUM statistic. Moreover,
Jm (Ψ) = 2

Z

log(σ(z))Hm (z)ϕ(z)dz = 2Jm (log ◦σ),

so that the Hermite rank of Ψ equals the Hermite rank of h = log ◦σ.
We note further that if ψ(x) = log(x2 ), we have
⌊nt⌋
1 X

dn,m
=

j=1



log Xj2 − E log Xj2

√

⌊nt⌋
2 X

dn,m

⌊nt⌋



n 1 X
√
(log σ(Yj ) − E log σ(Yj )) +
log ε2j − E log ε2j .
dn,m n j=1
j=1

The ﬁrst summand converges to 2(Jm (log ◦σ)/m!)Zm (t) as a consequence of the functional
non-central limit theorem discussed in Section 2.1. The second term is oP (1) uniformly in
t by Donsker’s theorem, if Var(log ε21 ) < ∞. As a result, this observation is consistent with
Corollary 3.2.
Wilcoxon: Due to monotonicity of the logarithm, choosing ψ(x) = log(x2 ) yields the same
test statistic as if testing for a change in variance, i.e. if we choose ψ(x) = x2 . Moreover,
the Wilcoxon test statistic is robust, i.e. it is designed to reduce the eﬀect of heavy tails,
so that it does not seem advisable to apply Wilcoxon-like tests when testing for a change
in the tail index.

5

Self-normalization

An application of the CUSUM test presupposes knowledge of the normalizing sequence
dn,m (if E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) 6= 0) and of the coeﬃcients Jm (Ψ) or σ that appear in the limit of
19

the test statistic. Usually, these quantities are unknown. In order to avoid estimation of the
normalization and the unknown coeﬃcients in the limit, we consider the self-normalized
CUSUM test statistic with respect to the observations ξj = ψ(Xj ), j = 1, . . . , n. For
0 < τ1 < τ2 < 1 it is deﬁned by
Tn (τ1 , τ2 ) =

sup
k∈{⌊nτ1 ⌋,...,⌊nτ2 ⌋}

|Gn (k)| ,

where
P
− nk nj=1 ξj
Gn (k) = n
o 21
Pk
Pn
1
1
2
2
t=1 St (1, k) + n
t=k+1 St (k + 1, n)
n
Pk

j=1 ξj

with St (j, k) =

Pt

h=j


ξh − ξ¯j,k ,

ξ¯j,k =

1
k−j+1

Pk

t=j

ξt . The self-normalized CUSUM

test rejects the hypothesis for large values of the test statistic Tn (τ1 , τ2 ). Note that the
proportion of the data that is included in the calculation of the supremum is restricted by
τ1 and τ2 . A common choice is τ1 = 1 − τ2 = 0.15; see Andrews (1993).
In order to detect changes in the mean of (possibly) long range dependent time series, a similar test statistic has been proposed in Shao (2011). For long memory stochastic volatility sequences the limit of the test statistic can be derived in the same way as
in Shao (2011). Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 (and if E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) 6= 0 and
mD < 1), an application of the continuous mapping theorem to the partial sum process
P⌊nt⌋
D
1
j=1 (ψ(Xj ) − E ψ(Xj )) yields Tn (τ1 , τ2 ) −→ T (m, τ1 , τ2 ), where
dn,m
T (m, τ1 , τ2 ) = sup n
t∈[τ1 ,τ2 ] R t
0

with

|Zm (t) − tZm (1)|
o 12
R1
2
2
Vm (r; 0, t)dr + t Vm (r; t, 1)dr

Vm (r; r1 , r2 ) = Zm (r) − Zm (r1 ) −
for r ∈ [r1 , r2 ], 0 < r1 < r2 < 1.
20

r − r1
{Zm (r2 ) − Zm (r1 )}
r2 − r1

(15)

If E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) = 0, it follows by an application of the continuous mapping theorem to
P⌊nt⌋
D
ψ(Xj ) that Tn (τ1 , τ2 ) −→ T (1, τ1 , τ2 ), where T (1, τ1 , τ2 )
the partial sum process √1n j=1

corresponds to (15) with Z1 denoting a fractional Brownian motion process with Hurst

parameter 1/2, i.e. under these assumptions Z1 denotes a Brownian motion. Note that
in this case the limit does not depend on any unknown parameters. The factor σ that
appeared in the limit of the partial sum process is canceled out by self-normalization.
As an alternative to the self-normalized CUSUM test, Betken (2016b) proposes to use
a self-normalized Wilcoxon test for the detection of changes in the mean of long range
dependent time series. For the deﬁnition of the corresponding test statistic, we consider
P
the ranks deﬁned by Ri := rank(Xi ) = nj=1 1{Xj ≤Xi } for i = 1, . . . , n. The self-normalized

two-sample Wilcoxon test statistic is then deﬁned by
Gn (k) := 
where St (j, k) :=

Pt

h=j

Pk

i=1

1
n

Pk

t=1

Rh − R̄j,k

Ri −

St2 (1, k) +



1
n

k
n

Pn

Pn

i=1

t=k+1

with R̄j,k :=

Ri

St2 (k + 1, n)

1
k−j+1

Pk

t=j

1/2 ,

Rt . The self-normalized

Wilcoxon change-point test rejects the hypothesis for large values of maxk∈{⌊nτ1 ⌋,...,⌊nτ2 ⌋} |Gn (k)|,
where 0 < τ1 < τ2 < 1.
Under the hypothesis of stationarity, the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic
is derived in Betken (2016b) for long range dependent subordinated Gaussian processes.
Basically, the asymptotics of the test statistic follow from an application of the continuous
mapping theorem to the process


⌊nt⌋
n
1 X X
1
, t ∈ [0, 1] .
1{ψ(Xi )≤ψ(Xj )} −
ndn,m i=1
2
j=⌊nt⌋+1

Theorem 3.3 implies that the above process converges in distribution to the following limit:
Z

R

Jm (Ψx ◦ σ)dFψ(X1 ) (x)

1
(Zm (t) − λZm (1)) , t ∈ [0, 1] .
m!

21

Under the LMSV model, the limit of the test statistic can therefore be derived by the same
argument that proves Theorem 1 in Betken (2016b). As a result, Tn (τ1 , τ2 ) converges in
distribution to T (m, τ1 , τ2 ), i.e. the self-normalized Wilcoxon test statistic and the selfnormalized CUSUM test statistic converge to the same limit.

6

Simulations

For all simulations we make the following speciﬁcations:
Xj = σ(Yj )εj ,

j≥1,

(16)

where
• {εj , j ≥ 1} is an i.i.d. sequence;
• {Yj , j ≥ 1} is a fractional Gaussian noise sequence generated by the function fgnSim
(fArma package in R) with the Hurst parameter H (note that H and the memory
parameter D are linked by H = 1 − D/2);
• σ(y) = exp(y).
In the following, we give an overview over the main simulation results for the three
testing situations described in Section 4. For all scenarios, we computed the rejection rates
of the diﬀerent tests under the hypothesis and diﬀerent change point alternatives.

6.1

Change in the mean

We investigate the ﬁnite sample performance of the CUSUM and Wilcoxon change-point
tests for detecting changes in the mean of LMSV time series {Xj , j ≥ 1}, i.e. we choose
ψ(x) = x for the test statistics described in Section 3 and Section 5.
We consider two diﬀerent scenarios:
22

1. {εj , j ≥ 1} are standard normal generated by the function rnorm in R;
2. {εj , j ≥ 1} follow a Pareto distribution, centered to mean zero, i.e. εj = ε̃j − E ε̃j ,
where {ε̃j , j ≥ 1} are Pareto distributed with parameter α generated by the function
rgpd (fExtremes package in R);
In order to compare the ﬁnite sample behavior of the change-point tests, we computed
the empirical size and the empirical power of the testing procedures. To determine the
ﬁnite sample performance under the alternative, we simulated time series with a changepoint of height h after a proportion τ of the data, i.e. we consider random variables Xj ,
j = 1, . . . , n with expected value µj , j = 1 . . . , n such that µj = 0 for j = 1, . . . , ⌊nτ ⌋
while µj = h for j = ⌊nτ ⌋ + 1, . . . , n. The calculations are based on 5, 000 realizations
of time series with sample sizes 500, 1, 000 and 2, 000. The simulation results for τ = 0.5
are reported in Tables 5 and 7; additional simulation results for τ = 0.25 can be found in
Section S2 of the supplementary material. The frequency of a type 1 error, i.e. the rejection
rate under the hypothesis, corresponds to the values in the columns that are superscribed
by “h = 0”.
Recall that the function Ψ in Theorem 3.1 is deﬁned as Ψ(y) = E (ψ(σ(y)ε1)). Since
ψ(x) = x, it follows that E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) = 0. Due to Theorem 3.1,
⌊nt⌋

1 X
√
ψ(Xj ) ⇒ σB(t) ,
n j=1
where σ 2 = E(ψ 2 (X1 )) = E(ε21 exp(2Y1 )) = Var(ε1 ) E(exp(2Y1 )). Hence, we expect long
memory in the data not to inﬂuence the asymptotic behavior of the CUSUM statistic.
If {εj , j ≥ 1} are standard normal, it can be shown that
Z

J1 (Ψx ◦ σ)dFX1 (x) = 0 .

Therefore, the Wilcoxon test statistic converges to 0 in probability.
23

If {εj , j ≥ 1} are centered two-sided Pareto distributed with parameter α, it follows by
some basic calculations that
Z
1 µ
hα (x, u)du1{x>0} −
hα (x, u)du1{x<0} ,
x 1
µ
Z ∞
Z µ
J1 (Ψx ◦ σ) = −
hα (x, u)du1{x>0} +
hα (x, u)du1{x<0} ,

1
fX (x) =
x

Z

∞

µ

1

where µ is the expected value of ε̃1 , i.e. µ :=
hα (x, u) = αu

−α−1

ϕ



α
,
α−1

and




1
2
2
log (u − µ) − log(x ) 1{u>1} .
2

As a result, we have
Z

J1 (Ψx ◦ σ)dFψ(X1 ) (x) =

Z

∞

0

1
x

(Z

µ

hα (x, u)du

1

2

−

Z

∞

hα (x, u)du

µ

2 )

dx.

Since our theoretical results do not provide a non-degenerate asymptotic distribution
for the Wilcoxon test statistics, we only consider CUSUM and self-normalized CUSUM
test for the ﬁrst scenario (when the εj , j ≥ 1, are standard normally distributed).
CUSUM
H
0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

n
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

h=0
0.046
0.045
0.043
0.064
0.056
0.050
0.074
0.074
0.072
0.095
0.101
0.101

h = 0.5
0.384
0.728
0.958
0.392
0.736
0.964
0.369
0.734
0.966
0.311
0.739
0.979

h=1
0.958
1.000
1.000
0.962
0.999
1.000
0.969
1.000
1.000
0.977
0.998
1.000

self-norm. CUSUM
h=2
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

h=0
0.043
0.047
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.046
0.039
0.044
0.048
0.045
0.045
0.043

h = 0.5
0.372
0.627
0.856
0.395
0.629
0.869
0.462
0.670
0.851
0.583
0.736
0.860

h=1
0.853
0.975
0.998
0.858
0.974
0.997
0.860
0.963
0.996
0.875
0.946
0.987

h=2
0.998
1.000
1.000
0.995
1.000
1.000
0.993
0.999
1.000
0.980
0.996
1.000

Table 1: Rejection rates of the CUSUM tests for LMSV time series (standard normal εj , j ≥ 1)
of length n with Hurst parameter H and a shift in the mean of height h after a proportion
τ = 0.5. The calculations are based on 5,000 simulation runs.

Note that in this case the size of the non-self-normalized CUSUM change point test
24

tends to increase when the value of the Hurst parameter increases. Aside from that, the
simulation results conﬁrm the theoretical inference that long memory does not inﬂuence
the asymptotic behavior of the CUSUM statistics when testing for a change in the mean
in this situation.
A comparison of the ﬁnite sample behavior of both CUSUM tests shows that:
• The self-normalized test has better size properties than the non-self-normalized test.
• The empirical power of the non-self-normalized CUSUM test exceeds the empirical
power of the self-normalized CUSUM test for most parameter combinations that have
been considered.
Therefore, it is not possible to deﬁnitely conclude that one of the tests outreaches the
other.
For the second scenario (when the εj , j ≥ 1, are centered Pareto distributed), we
considered all four testing procedures: CUSUM and self-normalized CUSUM; Wilcoxon
and self-normalized Wilcoxon. In this case, it is notable that for all four testing procedures,
heavier tails, i.e. a decrease of the tail parameter, go along with an decrease of rejections.
A change in the Hurst parameter seems to have a remarkable eﬀect on the ﬁnite sample
performance of the Wilcoxon test only: An increase of dependence goes along with a
decrease of rejections.

25

non-self-normalized

CUSUM

H

n

h=0

α = 2.5
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α=4
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α = 2.5
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α=4
h = 0.5

h=1

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.035
0.034
0.034
0.035
0.037
0.039
0.045
0.041
0.042
0.057
0.059
0.064

0.048
0.085
0.288
0.050
0.087
0.285
0.055
0.108
0.280
0.069
0.111
0.238

0.213
0.745
0.986
0.209
0.752
0.983
0.207
0.757
0.983
0.191
0.783
0.984

0.047
0.051
0.048
0.053
0.058
0.051
0.073
0.066
0.066
0.080
0.090
0.092

0.866
0.993
1.000
0.864
0.994
1.000
0.879
0.994
1.000
0.901
0.992
1.000

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

0.628
0.578
0.524
0.331
0.270
0.207
0.191
0.144
0.108
0.188
0.139
0.108

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.974
0.994
1.000
0.863
0.888
0.917

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.984
0.990
0.996

0.802
0.751
0.713
0.475
0.384
0.300
0.273
0.187
0.132
0.232
0.165
0.121

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.995
0.996
0.998

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.046
0.049
0.053
0.051
0.050
0.049
0.045
0.042
0.050
0.044
0.051
0.041

0.384
0.564
0.744
0.401
0.565
0.744
0.424
0.589
0.761
0.527
0.650
0.781

0.801
0.909
0.962
0.801
0.904
0.966
0.804
0.905
0.959
0.815
0.898
0.954

0.042
0.044
0.026
0.042
0.046
0.042
0.044
0.040
0.052
0.041
0.042
0.048

0.904
0.973
0.993
0.902
0.972
0.994
0.899
0.966
0.994
0.893
0.959
0.989

0.990
0.998
1.000
0.989
0.998
0.999
0.990
0.997
0.999
0.982
0.997
0.999

0.032
0.032
0.034
0.029
0.032
0.037
0.031
0.033
0.034
0.031
0.039
0.049

0.994
1.000
1.000
0.950
0.993
1.000
0.776
0.896
0.963
0.622
0.708
0.779

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.977
0.995
0.999
0.890
0.936
0.960

0.030
0.030
0.028
0.021
0.027
0.030
0.021
0.024
0.023
0.020
0.034
0.039

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.987
0.998
1.000
0.912
0.956
0.976

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.999
1.000
1.000
0.990
0.996
0.998

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

26

self-normalized

Wilcoxon

0.7

0.8

0.9

Table 2: Rejection rates of CUSUM and Wilcoxon tests for LMSV time series (Pareto distributed εj , j ≥ 1) of length n with Hurst
parameter H, tail index α and a shift in the mean of height h after a proportion τ = 0.5. The calculations are based on 5,000
simulation runs.

A comparison of the ﬁnite sample performance of the testing procedures shows that:
• In most cases the size of the CUSUM test does not deviate much from the level of
signiﬁcance whereas the Wilcoxon change-point test suﬀers from size distortions: the
empirical size of the Wilcoxon test is considerably higher than the level of signiﬁcance.
• The self-normalized change-point tests have considerably better size properties than
the non-self-normalized tests. The self-normalized Wilcoxon test is rather conservative while the rejection rates of the self-normalized CUSUM test are close to the level
of signiﬁcance.
• The power of the self-normalized Wilcoxon test is higher than the power of the selfnormalized CUSUM test for almost every combination of parameters.
All in all, our simulation results give rise to choosing the self-normalized Wilcoxon test
over the other testing procedures when testing for a change in the mean.

6.2

Change in the variance

We will now investigate the ﬁnite sample performance of the CUSUM and Wilcoxon changepoint tests for detecting changes in the variance of LMSV time series {Xj , j ≥ 1}, i.e. we
choose ψ(x) = x2 for the test statistics described in Section 3 and Section 5.
For this purpose, we simulate observations X1 , . . . , Xn which satisfy (16) with {εj , j ≥
1} that follow a two-sided Pareto distribution, centered to mean zero, i.e. εj = ε̃j − E ε̃0 ,
where {ε̃j , j ≥ 1} are Pareto distributed with parameter α > 4. Since Var(ε1 ) = Var(ε̃1 ) =
1
α
,
α−2 (α−1)2

we have
Var(X1 ) = E(exp(2Y1 )) Var(ε1 ) = exp(2)

α
1
.
α − 2 (α − 1)2

Since E(ψ(X1 ) | F0 ) 6= 0, the limits of the CUSUM statistics depend on the Hurst parameter
H.
27

For the determination of the critical values of the non-self-normalized CUSUM test,
note that
α
J1 (Ψ) = E (exp(2Y1 )Y1 ) Var (ε1 ) = 2 exp(2)
α−2



1
α−1

2

.

In order to apply the Wilcoxon test, we have to compute the value of the multiplicative
R
α
factor J1 (Ψx ◦ σ)dFψ(X1 ) (x) . For notational convenience deﬁne µ := α−1
. For x > 0, it
follows by some calculations that

J1 (Ψx ◦ σ) = −

∞

Z

αu

−α−1

1


1
1
2
log( (u − µ) ) du.
ϕ
2
x


Furthermore, it follows that the density function of ψ(X1 ) is given by
Z

∞

∞

1
2x

1
fψ(X) (x) =
1{x>0}
2x

αu

−α−1

1


1
1
2
log( (u − µ) ) du.
ϕ
2
x


We conclude that
Z

R

J1 (Ψx ◦ σ)dFψ(X) (x) =

Z

0

Z

∞

1

αu

−α−1

ϕ



 
1
1
2
log( (u − µ) ) du dx.
2
x

Therefore, the critical values for the Wilcoxon change-point test are based on an approximation of the above expression by numerical integration. In order to determine the ﬁnite
sample performance of the testing procedures under the hypothesis, we simulate observations X1 , . . . , Xn with variance ω 2. For the computation of the empirical power, we added
a change-point of height h2 after τ percent of the data, i.e. we multiply X⌊nτ ⌋+1 , . . . , Xn by
h such that Var(Xj ) = ω 2 for j = 1, . . . , ⌊nτ ⌋ while Var(Xj ) = h2 ω 2 for j = ⌊nτ ⌋+1, . . . , n.
We computed the rejection rates of the testing procedures on the basis of 5, 000 realizations
of time series with sample sizes 500, 1, 000 and 2, 000. The simulation results for τ = 0.5
are reported in Table 9; additional simulation results for τ = 0.25 can be found in Section
S2 of the supplementary material. The frequency of a type 1 error corresponds to the
values in the columns that are superscribed by “h = 1”.
28

non-self-normalized

CUSUM

H

n

h=1

α = 4.5
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α=6
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α = 4.5
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α=6
h = 0.5

h=2

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.464
0.589
0.708
0.330
0.374
0.431
0.235
0.258
0.275
0.179
0.184
0.191

0.377
0.565
0.774
0.252
0.313
0.416
0.170
0.196
0.226
0.127
0.137
0.135

0.954
0.992
0.999
0.821
0.932
0.984
0.623
0.733
0.838
0.440
0.487
0.542

0.467
0.596
0.694
0.330
0.404
0.443
0.244
0.256
0.271
0.170
0.177
0.191

0.417
0.594
0.814
0.252
0.333
0.436
0.166
0.199
0.230
0.132
0.140
0.148

0.967
0.996
0.999
0.839
0.946
0.987
0.651
0.757
0.848
0.445
0.506
0.540

0.119
0.112
0.108
0.078
0.066
0.060
0.074
0.067
0.060
0.088
0.078
0.072

0.988
1.000
1.000
0.808
0.934
0.992
0.529
0.605
0.741
0.410
0.442
0.466

0.990
1.000
1.000
0.808
0.937
0.992
0.525
0.615
0.738
0.419
0.440
0.467

0.130
0.118
0.104
0.078
0.068
0.061
0.074
0.067
0.059
0.088
0.079
0.065

0.990
1.000
1.000
0.806
0.936
0.990
0.515
0.624
0.746
0.404
0.452
0.468

0.990
1.000
1.000
0.809
0.935
0.991
0.528
0.631
0.734
0.406
0.424
0.473

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.035
0.033
0.033
0.022
0.022
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.019
0.019
0.020

0.145
0.206
0.277
0.090
0.125
0.165
0.045
0.063
0.073
0.044
0.053
0.066

0.152
0.193
0.270
0.090
0.121
0.168
0.046
0.064
0.086
0.037
0.052
0.065

0.038
0.035
0.034
0.024
0.025
0.021
0.019
0.016
0.017
0.023
0.021
0.023

0.158
0.227
0.324
0.100
0.130
0.196
0.053
0.062
0.099
0.047
0.064
0.076

0.164
0.221
0.318
0.093
0.135
0.193
0.054
0.070
0.083
0.040
0.058
0.074

0.040
0.043
0.044
0.046
0.044
0.049
0.038
0.049
0.047
0.048
0.053
0.056

0.816
0.965
0.998
0.524
0.701
0.859
0.270
0.357
0.439
0.200
0.228
0.263

0.831
0.963
0.998
0.530
0.695
0.863
0.274
0.361
0.443
0.205
0.224
0.248

0.041
0.047
0.042
0.048
0.046
0.050
0.042
0.045
0.046
0.049
0.050
0.047

0.823
0.962
0.996
0.534
0.698
0.854
0.270
0.350
0.454
0.195
0.246
0.248

0.816
0.960
0.996
0.521
0.699
0.863
0.278
0.361
0.454
0.198
0.228
0.264

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

29

self-normalized

Wilcoxon

0.7

0.8

0.9

Table 3: Rejection rates of the CUSUM and Wilcoxon tests for LMSV time series of length n with Hurst parameter H, tail index
α and a shift in the variance of height h2 after a proportion τ = 0.5. The calculations are based on 5,000 simulation runs.

In general, the ﬁnite sample behavior of the testing procedures does not seem to be
strongly inﬂuenced by the tail parameter. An increase of dependence, i.e. increasing values
of H, are usually followed by a decrease of the rejection rates though.
We make the following observations with respect to the behavior of the diﬀerent testing
procedures:
• The CUSUM test suﬀers from severe size distortions. It rejects the hypothesis too
frequently for every combination of the considered parameters α and H. In particular, the number of rejections increases as the number of observations increases.
Apparently, unrealistically large sample sizes are required for the asymptotics to apply. The same observation has been made in De Pooter and Van Dijk (2004), where
the CUSUM statistic is used to test for breaks in the variance of GARCH(1, 1) time
series.
• The self-normalized CUSUM test tends to be undersized.
• The Wilcoxon test rejects the hypothesis too often. Yet, the rejection rates seem to
converge to the level of signiﬁcance.
• The empirical size of the self-normalized Wilcoxon test is close to the level of significance.
• The power of both Wilcoxon-based testing procedures does not depend on α. Contrary to the behavior of the CUSUM test, the increase and decrease of the variance
are almost equally well detected by both Wilcoxon tests.
• The power of the Wilcoxon test exceeds the power of the self-normalized Wilcoxon
test for every parameter combination that has been considered.
All in all, the simulation results show that both CUSUM tests are outperformed by the
Wilcoxon-based testing procedures: Although the CUSUM test has high size distortions,
30

its power can only compete with the power of the Wilcoxon test if the shift height is
relatively high. Even though the self-normalized CUSUM test does not suﬀer from severe
size distortions, its power cannot compete with the power of any other test. Obviously,
CUSUM-based tests are highly unreliable when testing for a change in the variance.

6.3

Change in the tail

We will now investigate the ﬁnite sample performance of the CUSUM change-point tests
for detecting changes in the tail parameter α of LMSV time series {Xj , j ≥ 1}, i.e. we
choose ψ(x) = log(|x|) for the test statistics described in Section 3 and Section 5. In this
case, the Hermite rank of Ψ(y) = E (ψ(σ(y)ε1)) equals m = 1 and Jm (Ψ) = 1 such that
the limit of the CUSUM test statistic does not depend on α.
We simulate observations X1 , . . . , Xn which satisfy (16) for {εj , j ≥ 1} that follow a
(non-centered) Pareto distribution with parameter α. For the computation of the empirical
power, we consider LMSV time series with a change-point of height h after a proportion
τ of the data, i.e. we consider Pareto distributed random variables εj , j = 1, . . . , n with
parameters αj , j = 1, . . . , n such that αj = α for j = 1, . . . , ⌊nτ ⌋ while αj = α + h for
j = ⌊nτ ⌋+ 1, . . . , n. We computed the rejection rates of the testing procedures on the basis
of 5, 000 realizations of time series with sample sizes 500, 1, 000 and 2, 000. The simulation
results for τ = 0.5 are reported in Table 10; additional simulation results for τ = 0.25 can
be found in Section S2 of the supplementary material. The frequency of a type 1 error, i.e.
the rejection rate under the hypothesis, corresponds to the values in the columns that are
superscribed by “h = 0”.

31

CUSUM

self-norm. CUSUM

H

n

h=0

α = 0.5
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

h=0

α=1
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

h=0

α = 0.5
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

h=0

α=1
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.457
0.419
0.388
0.213
0.177
0.141
0.131
0.107
0.087
0.087
0.075
0.061

0.971
0.997
1.000
0.794
0.916
0.982
0.509
0.611
0.709
0.339
0.360
0.391

1.000
1.000
1.000
0.976
0.998
1.000
0.812
0.902
0.957
0.611
0.656
0.716

0.139
0.121
0.113
0.084
0.071
0.071
0.064
0.064
0.054
0.056
0.054
0.051

0.312
0.446
0.628
0.161
0.188
0.241
0.107
0.109
0.123
0.070
0.068
0.071

0.597
0.812
0.953
0.296
0.402
0.531
0.164
0.192
0.227
0.106
0.121
0.127

0.035
0.033
0.038
0.026
0.038
0.040
0.028
0.034
0.040
0.030
0.038
0.046

0.603
0.843
0.974
0.364
0.551
0.750
0.195
0.296
0.383
0.135
0.181
0.216

0.907
0.989
1.000
0.692
0.869
0.969
0.414
0.539
0.671
0.288
0.350
0.410

0.040
0.045
0.045
0.041
0.043
0.047
0.041
0.047
0.046
0.047
0.050
0.052

0.137
0.227
0.363
0.085
0.120
0.157
0.057
0.065
0.082
0.059
0.059
0.060

0.318
0.517
0.732
0.167
0.248
0.344
0.091
0.106
0.135
0.083
0.092
0.085

0.7

0.8

0.9

Table 4: Rejection rates of the CUSUM tests for LMSV time series of length n with Hurst parameter H and a change in the tail index α
of height h after a proportion τ = 0.5. The calculations are based on 5,000 simulation runs.

32

The ﬁnite sample performance of the testing procedures is aﬀected by a change of the
tail parameter in the following way: lighter tails, i.e. an increase in the value of the tail
parameter, go along with a decrease in power, but an empirical size which is closer to the
level of signiﬁcance. An increase of dependence, i.e. an increase of the Hurst parameter,
results in a decrease of rejection rates.
We make the following observations with respect to the behavior of the testing procedures:
• The non-self-normalized test suﬀers from size distortions in so far as the rejection
rates under the hypothesis are considerably higher than the nominal level (especially
for small values of α and H).
• All in all, the self-normalized test tends to be slightly undersized.
• The non-self-normalized test has considerably better power than the self-normalized
test for every parameter combination that has been considered.
Due to the heavy size distortions of the non-self-normalized CUSUM test, it seems advisable to choose the self-normalized test over the non-self-normalized test in the case
of heavy tails characterized by small values of α. However, for relatively light tails, the
discrepancy between the test performances under the alternative suggests to choose the
non-self-normalized test over the self-normalized CUSUM test.
In all three test situations that have been considered, we observe that under the hypothesis the rejection rates of the self-normalized tests yield better approximations of the
nominal level than the non-self-normalized tests. On the other hand, considering selfnormalized tests instead of applying a deterministic normalization leads to a loss of power.
In the context of change-point tests, the so-called “better size, less power” phenomenon
has also been observed by Shao (2011), Shao and Zhang (2010) and Betken (2016b). Moreover, it is consistent with observations made in Lobato (2001) and Sun et al. (2008). For a
33

comparison of the testing procedures, it is important to note that the ﬁnite sample results
are based on simulations which were executed under the assumption that the normalization
of the non-self-normalized tests and the multiplicative quantities that appear in the limits
of the corresponding test statistics are known. In particular, normalization and limit of
the non-self-normalized statistics usually depend on H, m, the slowly-varying function Lγ
that characterizes the autocovariances of the Gaussian random variables Yj , j ≥ 1, the
distribution of εj , j ≥ 1, (or at least the tail parameter α), and the function σ. For all
practical purposes these quantities are unknown, and for this reason have to be estimated.
In contrast, the self-normalized test statistic can be computed from the given data while
its limit depends on the parameters m and H only. For an adequate comparison of the
testing procedures this has to be taken into consideration.
Moreover, the simulation results show that the choice of the change-point test depends
on the particular test situation that is considered. In general, an application of Wilcoxontype tests reduces the inﬂuence of heavy tails in data generating processes on test decisions.
In fact, we have seen that Wilcoxon-based testing procedures yield better results than
CUSUM tests when testing for changes in mean and variance.

Supplementary Material
This section contains supplementary material. In Section S1 the proof of Lemma 3.6 is
presented; Section S2 comprises the full set of simulation results, i.e. in addition to the
results presented in the main document, the simulation tables in Section S2 contain the
empirical power of the testing procedures for changes located after a proportion τ = 0.25
of the data.

34

S1

Proof of Lemma 3.6

Assume that {Xj , j ≥ 1} follows the LMSV model. Deﬁne
Mn (x, t) :=

⌊nt⌋
X

1{ψ(Xj )≤x} − E 1{ψ(Xj )≤x} | Fj−1

j=1



.

Lemma 3.6 states that
1
√ Mn (x, t) = OP (1)
n
in D([−∞, ∞] × [0, 1])
Proof of Lemma 3.6. In order to prove Lemma 3.6 we have to verify tightness in D([−∞, ∞]×
[0, 1]). For this we quote Theorem 3.1 in Ivanoﬀ (1983).
Theorem S1.1. Let (Xn , Fn , Pn ) be a sequence of probability spaces such that Xn is a
random element of D ([0, 1] × [0, 1]) for each n, and the process Xn (x, t) is adapted to a
complete, right continuous filtration Fn (x, t) ⊆ Fn . If Xn (x, t) is tight for each (x, t) ∈
[0, 1] ×[0, 1] and if for all δn ց 0 and each canonical 1-stopping time Sn and each canonical
2-stopping time Tn
P

(S1.1)

P

(S1.2)

sup |Xn (Sn + δn , t) − Xn (Sn , t)| −→ 0, as n → ∞,

0≤t≤1

sup |Xn (x, Tn + δn ) − Xn (x, Tn )| −→ 0, as n → ∞,

0≤x≤1

then Xn is tight in D ([0, 1] × [0, 1]).
In the following we will show that the conditions of the theorem hold for Xn (x, t) :=
n−1/2 Mn ◦ H, where H : [0, 1] × [0, 1] −→ [−∞, ∞] × [0, 1] with H(x, t) = (h(x), t) for some
increasing isomorphism h : [0, 1] −→ [−∞, ∞]. Then, Lemma 3.6 immediately follows
from an application of Theorem S1.1. Indeed, due to Lemma 3.5, n−1/2 Mn ◦ H(x, t) is
tight for each (x, t) ∈ [0, 1] × [0, 1].
35

Recall that Fj = σ (εj , εj−1, . . . , ηj , ηj−1 , . . .). Deﬁne
Fn (x, t) := F⌊nt⌋
for all x ∈ [0, 1]. Then, Xn (x, t) is adapted to Fn (x, t). Moreover, the corresponding
ﬁltration is right-continuous.
Let Tn denote a canonical 2-stopping time for Xn (x, t). In particular, we require
{Tn ≤ t} to be measurable with respect to Fn (1, t) = F⌊nt⌋ . Deﬁne τn := ⌊nTn ⌋.
Note that
1
1
1
√ Mn (y, Tn + δn ) − √ Mn (y, Tn ) = √
n
n
n

τn +⌊nδn ⌋

X

ζj (y)

j=τn +1

with

ζj (y) = 1{ψ(Xj )≤y} − E 1{ψ(Xj )≤y} | Fj−1 .
For 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 deﬁne
1
M̃n (x) := √
n

τn +⌊nδn ⌋

X

ζj (h(x)).

j=τn +1

In order to show (S1.2), we have to prove that
P

sup M̃n (x) −→ 0, as n → ∞.

0≤x≤1

Prior to the proof, we establish the following result:
h
i
Lemma S1.2. We have E M̃n (x) = 0 for all x ∈ R. For x < y



2 
Var M̃n (y) − M̃n (x) = E M̃n (y) − M̃n (x)

⌊nδn ⌋
i
1 Xh
Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (y) − Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (x) ,
≤
n j=1

36

(S1.3)



where Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (x) := P ψ̃(Xj+τn ) ≤ x and ψ̃ := h−1 ◦ ψ.
Proof. Deﬁne

αj (y, x) := 1{h(x)<ψ(Xj )≤h(y)} − E 1{h(x)<ψ(Xj )≤h(y)} | Fj−1 .
Then
1
M̃n (y) − M̃n (x) = √
n

τn +⌊nδn ⌋

X

αj (y, x).

j=τn +1

Since {τn = k} is measurable with respect to Fj for all j ≥ k, it follows that


τn +⌊nδn ⌋
n ⌊nδ
n⌋
X
X
X



E
αj (y, x) =
E αj+k (y, x)1{τn =k}
j=τn +1

=

n ⌊nδ
n⌋
X
X
k=1 j=1

k=1 j=1




E 1{x<ψ̃(Xj+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} − E 1{x<ψ̃(Xj+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} | Fj+k−1

= 0,
where ψ̃ := h−1 ◦ ψ. Furthermore,

2 
τn +⌊nδn ⌋
n ⌋ ⌊nδn ⌋
n ⌊nδ
X
X
X
X

E 
E αi+k (y, x)αj+k (y, x)1{τn =k} .
αj (y, x)  =
j=τn +1

k=1 i=1

j=1

For i < j

αi+k (y, x)αj+k (y, x)1{τn =k}
= 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{x<ψ̃(Xj+k )≤y} 1{τn =k}




+ E 1{x<ψ̃(Xj+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} | Fi+k−1 | Fj+k−1


− E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{x<ψ̃(Xj+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} | Fj+k−1


− 1{x<ψ̃(Xj+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} | Fi+k−1 .

37

(S1.4)

As a result,

E αi+k (y, x)αj+k (y, x)1{τn =k} = 0.
Moreover, we have

n
X
k=1

=

2
E αi+k
(y, x)1{τn =k}

n
X
k=1

E







1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} − E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} | Fi+k−1

2

1{τn =k}




n


X
E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} − 21{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} | Fi+k−1
=
k=1





+ E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} | Fi+k−1 | Fi+k−1

n n 
o



X
E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} − E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} | Fi+k−1
=

≤

k=1
n
X
k=1

n
h
h
i X
E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+k )≤y} 1{τn =k} =
E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+τ

n )≤y

k=1

h
= E 1{x<ψ̃(Xi+τ

n )≤y

} 1{τn =k}

i

i

} = Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (y) − Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (x).

It follows that



2 
τn +⌊nδn ⌋
τn +⌊nδn ⌋
⌊nδn ⌋ h
i
X
X
X
Var 
αj (y, x) = E 
αj (y, x)  ≤
Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (y) − Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (x) .
j=τn +1

j=τn +1

j=1

Due to Lemma S1.2 E(M̃n (x)) = 0 and
⌊nδn ⌋
1 X
Var(M̃n (x)) ≤
(x) ≤ δn −→ 0.
F
n i=1 ψ̃(Xi+τn )

Hence, M̃n (x) converges to 0 in probability. This implies ﬁdi-convergence of M̃n as a
process with values in D [0, 1].
38

Proving (S1.2). In order to establish (S1.2), it remains to show tightness of M̃n . For this,
we adopt the argument that proves Theorem 15.6 in Billingsley (1968). For any function
′′

v in D[0, 1] deﬁne the modulus ωv (δ) by

′′

ωv (δ) = sup min {|v(x) − v(x1 )|, |v(x2 ) − v(x)|} ,
where the supremum extends over x1 , x, and x2 satisfying
x1 ≤ x ≤ x2 , x2 − x1 ≤ δ.
Under the assumption of ﬁdi-convergence it suﬃces to show that for each positive ε and
η, there exists a δ, 0 < δ < 1, and an integer n0 such that
 ′′

P ωM̃n (δ) ≥ ε ≤ η, n ≥ n0 ,
(see Theorem 15.4 in Billingsley (1968)).
Deﬁne
′′

Mm :=
where Si = M̃n (τ +

i
δ).
m

max

0≤i≤j≤k≤m

min {|Sj − Si |, |Sk − Sj |} ,

Following the proof of Theorem 12.5 in Billingsley (1968), there

exists an n0 ∈ N such that
 ′′
 K
P Mm ≥ λ ≤ 2 (u1 + . . . + um )
λ

(S1.5)

holds for all positive λ, some constant K and n ≥ n0 , if
P ({|Sj − Si | ≥ λ, |Sk − Sj | ≥ λ}) ≤

εn X
ul , 0 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ k ≤ m,
λ2 i<l≤k

for some sequence εn , n ∈ N, converging to 0. For x1 ≤ x ≤ x2 it follows by the Cauchy Schwarz inequality for expected values and Lemma S1.2 that
39

h

i

E M̃n (x2 ) − M̃n (x) M̃n (x) − M̃n (x1 )


τn +⌊nδn ⌋
τn +⌊nδn ⌋
X
X
1
1
αj (x2 , x) √
αj (x, x1 ) 
= E √
n j=τ +1
n j=τ +1
n
n
v


2 
2 
u
τn +⌊nδn ⌋
τn +⌊nδn ⌋
u
X
X
u1
1
αj (x2 , x)  E 
αj (x, x1 ) 
≤ t E 
n
n
j=τn +1
j=τn +1
v
v
u n⌋
u⌊nδn ⌋
u⌊nδ

X
X
1u
Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (x) − Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (x1 ) t
Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (x2 ) − Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (x)
≤ t
n i=1
i=1
⌊nδn ⌋

1 X
≤
Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (x2 ) − Fψ̃(Xi+τn ) (x1 ) .
n i=1

(S1.6)

The Markov inequality yields
P (|Sj − Si | ≥ λ, |Sk − Sj | ≥ λ) ≤ P |Sj − Si | |Sk − Sj | ≥ λ2
≤

1
E |Sj − Si | |Sk − Sj | .
λ2



Therefore, it follows by (S1.6) that for some γ ∈ (0, 1)
P (|Sj − Si | ≥ λ, |Sk − Sj | ≥ λ) ≤

δnγ X
ul ,
λ2 i<l≤k

where




⌊nδn ⌋ 
l−1
l
δn−γ X
ul :=
δ
.
Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) τ + δ − Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) τ +
n j=1
m
m
As a result, we get
n⌋ 

 ′′
 K δ −γ ⌊nδ
X
n
Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (τ + δ) − Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (τ ) .
P Mm ≥ ε ≤ 2
ε n j=1

40

(S1.7)

Deﬁne
n

′′

o

ω (M̃n , [τ, τ + δ]) := sup min |M̃n (x) − M̃n (x1 )|, |M̃n (x2 ) − M̃n (x)| ,
where the supremum extends over x1 , x, x2 satisfying τ ≤ x1 ≤ x ≤ x2 ≤ τ + δ. Letting
m −→ ∞ in (S1.7) yields
⌊nδn ⌋

K δn−γ X 
P ω (M̃n , [τ, τ + δ]) ≥ ε ≤ 2
Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (τ + δ) − Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (τ )
ε n j=1





′′

due to right-continuity of M̃n . Suppose that δ =

1
u

(S1.8)

for some integer u and assume that

′′

(S1.9)

′′

(S1.10)

ω (M̃n , [2iδ, (2i + 2)δ]) ≤ ε, 0 ≤ i ≤ u − 1,
ω (M̃n , [(2i + 1)δ, (2i + 3)δ]) ≤ ε, 0 ≤ i ≤ u − 2.

If x1 ≤ x ≤ x2 and x2 − x1 ≤ δ, then x1 and x2 both lie in one of the 2u − 1 intervals
[2iδ, (2i + 2)δ], 0 ≤ i ≤ u − 1, [(2i + 1)δ, (2i + 3)δ], 0 ≤ i ≤ u − 2, so that
min

n

M̃n (x) − M̃n (x1 ) , M̃n (x2 ) − M̃n (x)

o

≤ ε.

′′

Thus, (S1.9) and (S1.10) together imply ωM̃n (δ) ≤ ε. It now follows by (S1.8) that
 K

′′
(δ)
≥
ε
≤ 2 (Σ′ + Σ′′ ) ,
P ωM̃
n
ε
where each of Σ′ and Σ′′ is a sum of the form
⌊nδn ⌋
r

X
δn−γ X 
Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (xk ) − Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (xk−1 )
n j=1
k=1
⌊nδn ⌋

δn−γ X 
=
Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (xr ) − Fψ̃(Xj+τn ) (x0 )
n j=1

≤ δn1−γ

41

with 0 ≤ x1 ≤ . . . ≤ xr ≤ 1 and xk − xk−1 ≤ 2δ. Hence, we may conclude that
P



′′
(δ)
ωM̃
n



≥ε ≤

2K 1−γ
δ .
ε2 n

Since the right-hand side of the above inequality converges to 0, (S1.2) has been proved.
Proving (S1.1). It remains to show (S1.1). For this, let Sn denote a canonical 1-stopping
time for Xn (x, t). Note that
sup |Xn (Sn + δn , t) − Xn (Sn , t)| = sup |Mn∗ (t)|

0≤t≤1

0≤t≤1

with
Mn∗ (t)

⌊nt⌋


1 X
1{h(Sn )<ψ(Xj )≤h(Sn +δn )} − E 1{h(Sn )<ψ(Xj )≤h(Sn +δn )} | Fj−1
:= √
n j=1
⌊nt⌋



1 X
√
1
− E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } | Fj−1 ,
=
n j=1 {0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn }
where ψ̃ := h−1 ◦ ψ.
Prior to the proof of (S1.1), we establish the following result:
Lemma S1.3. We have E(Mn∗ (t)) = 0 for all t ∈ [0, 1]. For s < t


Var(Mn∗ (t) − Mn∗ (s)) = E (Mn∗ (t) − Mn∗ (s))2
1
≤
n

⌊nt⌋


X
Fψ̃(Xi )−Sn (δn ) − Fψ̃(Xi )−Sn (0) ,

i=⌊ns⌋+1



where Fψ̃(Xi )−Sn (x) := P ψ̃(Xi ) − Sn ≤ x .
Proof. Note that
Mn∗ (t)

−

Mn∗ (s)

1
=√
n

42

⌊nt⌋
X

j=⌊ns⌋+1

αj (δn , 0),

where




αj (y, x) := 1{x<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤y} − E 1{x<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤y} | Fj−1 .

(S1.11)

Obviously,


E

⌊nt⌋
X

j=⌊ns⌋+1

Furthermore,


Var 

⌊nt⌋
X

j=⌊ns⌋+1





αj (δn , 0) = 0.



αj (δn , 0) = E 

⌊nt⌋
X

j=⌊ns⌋+1

=

⌊nt⌋

X

⌊nt⌋
X

2 

αj (δn , 0) 
E (αi (δn , 0)αj (δn , 0)) .

i=⌊ns⌋+1 j=⌊ns⌋+1

The canonical 1-stopping time Sn takes on only countably many values si , i ∈ N; see
Ivanoﬀ (1983). Note that for i < j
αi (δn , 0)αj (δn , 0) =

∞
X
k=1

=

∞
X

αi (δn , 0)αj (δn , 0)1{Sn =sk }


1{Sn =sk } 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−sk ≤δn } 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−sk ≤δn }




+ E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−sk ≤δn } E 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−sk ≤δn } | Fi−1 | Fj−1


− E 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−sk ≤δn } 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−sk ≤δn } | Fj−1


− 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−sk ≤δn } E 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−sk ≤δn } | Fi−1
k=1

= 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−Sn ≤δn } 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn }




+ E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } E 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−Sn ≤δn } | Fi−1 | Fj−1


− E 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−Sn ≤δn } 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } | Fj−1


− 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } E 1{0<ψ̃(Xi )−Sn ≤δn } | Fi−1 .
43

As a result, E (αi (δn , 0)αj (δn , 0)) = 0. Moreover,

E αj2 (δn , 0)





= E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } − 2 E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } | Fj−1
 



+ E E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } | Fj−1 | Fj−1





= E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } − E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } | Fj−1


≤ E 1{0<ψ̃(Xj )−Sn ≤δn } = Fψ̃(Xj )−Sn (δn ) − Fψ̃(Xj )−Sn (0).
As a result,


Var 

⌊nt⌋
X

j=⌊ns⌋+1



αj (δn , 0) =
≤

⌊nt⌋
X

E αj2 (δn , 0)

j=⌊ns⌋+1
⌊nt⌋
X





Fψ̃(Xj )−Sn (δn ) − Fψ̃(Xj )−Sn (0) .

j=⌊ns⌋+1

Lemma S1.3 yields E(Mn∗ (t)) = 0 and
Var Mn∗ (t)

≤ tE



sup
0≤x≤1

F⌊nt⌋ (δn + x) − F⌊nt⌋ (x)





,

(S1.12)

where F⌊nt⌋ denotes the empirical distribution function of ψ̃(Xi ), i ≥ 1, i.e.
⌊nt⌋

1 X
F⌊nt⌋ (x) :=
.
1
⌊nt⌋ i=1 {ψ̃(Xi )≤x}

Note that sup0≤x≤1 F⌊nt⌋ (δn + x) − F⌊nt⌋ (x) converges to 0 almost surely due to the
Glivenko-Cantelli theorem for stationary, ergodic sequences and since Fψ̃(X1 ) is a con-

tinuous distribution function. It follows that its expected value converges to 0, as well.
Therefore, the right-hand side of (S1.12) converges to 0. Thus, Mn∗ (t) converges to 0 in
probability. This implies ﬁdi-convergence of Mn∗ as a process with values in D [0, 1]. Again,

44

we make use of Theorem 15.4 in Billingsley (1968), i.e. we verify that for each positive ε
and η, there exists a δ, 0 < δ < 1, and an integer n0 such that
 ′′

P ωMn∗ (δ) ≥ ε ≤ η, n ≥ n0 .
Deﬁne
′′

Mm :=
where Si = Mn∗ (τ +

max

min {|Sj − Si |, |Sk − Sj |} ,

Mn∗ (t1 )|

1
=√
n

0≤i≤j≤k≤m

i
δ).
m

For t1 ≤ t ≤ t2 we have
|Mn∗ (t)

−

|Mn∗ (t2 )

−

Mn∗ (t)|

1
=√
n

⌊nt⌋
X

αj (δn , 0) ,

j=⌊nt1 ⌋+1
⌊nt2 ⌋

X

αj (δn , 0) .

j=⌊nt⌋+1

The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields
E |Mn∗ (t) − Mn∗ (t1 )| |Mn∗ (t2 ) − Mn∗ (t)|
v  
2   
2 
u
⌊nt⌋
⌊nt2 ⌋
u
X
X
u
1
1
αj (δn , 0)  E  
αj (δn , 0) 
≤ tE  
n
n
j=⌊nt1 ⌋+1

1
≤
n

⌊nt2 ⌋

X

i=⌊nt1 ⌋+1



j=⌊nt⌋+1


Fψ̃(Xi )−Sn (δn ) − Fψ̃(Xi )−Sn (0) .

By the same argument as in the proof of (S1.2) it follows that
 ′′
 K γ −1
P Mm ≥ ε ≤ 2 n
ε n

⌊n(τ +δ)⌋

X

j=⌊nτ ⌋+1



Fψ̃(Xj )−Sn (δn ) − Fψ̃(Xj )−Sn (0)



(S1.13)

for any sequence γn , n ∈ N, converging to 0. Taking the right-continuity of Mn∗ into

45

consideration, we may, as before, conclude that
n

P

′′
ωM
∗ (δ)
n


2K −1 1 X 
(δn ) − Fψ̃(Xj )−Sn (0)
F
≥ ε ≤ 2 γn
ε
n j=1 ψ̃(Xj )−Sn


2K −1
≤ 2 γn E sup (Fn (δn + x) − Fn (x)) .
ε
0≤x≤1


If we choose γn , n ∈ N, such that
γn−1

E



sup (Fn (δn + x) − Fn (x))

0≤x≤1



converges to 0, the right-hand side of the above inequality vanishes as n tends to ∞ due to
the choice of γn . This concludes the proof of (S1.1) as well as the proof of Lemma 3.6.

S2

Simulations

We computed the empirical size and the empirical power of the testing procedures on the
basis of simulated time series according to the corresponding speciﬁcations in Section 6 of
the main document. In addition to the simulation results referred to in the main document,
the simulation tables contain the empirical power of the testing procedures when the change
point is located closer to the testing region (τ = 0.25). The rejection rates are reported in
Tables 5 to 10.

46

CUSUM

τ = 0.25

H
0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

47

τ = 0.5

0.7

0.8

0.9

n
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

h=0
0.046
0.045
0.043
0.064
0.056
0.050
0.074
0.074
0.072
0.095
0.101
0.101

self-norm. CUSUM

h = 0.5
0.214
0.452
0.816
0.222
0.461
0.815
0.204
0.435
0.814
0.190
0.370
0.847

h=1
0.803
0.987
1.000
0.792
0.989
1.000
0.822
0.987
1.000
0.849
0.991
1.000

h=2
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

0.384
0.728
0.958
0.392
0.736
0.964
0.369
0.734
0.966
0.311
0.739
0.979

0.958
1.000
1.000
0.962
0.999
1.000
0.969
1.000
1.000
0.977
0.998
1.000

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

h=0
0.043
0.047
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.046
0.039
0.044
0.048
0.045
0.045
0.043

h = 0.5
0.201
0.352
0.575
0.223
0.361
0.583
0.264
0.403
0.621
0.391
0.550
0.694

h=1
0.597
0.818
0.957
0.594
0.823
0.960
0.643
0.827
0.948
0.720
0.858
0.931

h=2
0.951
0.996
1.000
0.951
0.993
1.000
0.944
0.989
0.999
0.939
0.976
0.997

0.372
0.627
0.856
0.395
0.629
0.869
0.462
0.670
0.851
0.583
0.736
0.860

0.853
0.975
0.998
0.858
0.974
0.997
0.860
0.963
0.996
0.875
0.946
0.987

0.998
1.000
1.000
0.995
1.000
1.000
0.993
0.999
1.000
0.980
0.996
1.000

Table 5: Rejection rates of the CUSUM tests for LMSV time series (standard normal εj , j ≥ 1) of
length n with Hurst parameter H and a shift in the mean of height h after a proportion τ . The
calculations are based on 5,000 simulation runs.

τ = 0.25

CUSUM

H

n

h=0

α = 2.5
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α=4
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α = 2.5
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α=4
h = 0.5

h=1

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.035
0.034
0.034
0.035
0.037
0.039
0.045
0.041
0.042
0.057
0.059
0.064

0.081
0.239
0.638
0.092
0.239
0.648
0.096
0.224
0.637
0.100
0.207
0.635

0.625
0.969
1.000
0.621
0.961
0.999
0.622
0.966
0.999
0.627
0.973
1.000

0.047
0.051
0.048
0.053
0.058
0.051
0.073
0.066
0.066
0.080
0.090
0.092

0.986
1.000
1.000
0.986
1.000
1.000
0.984
1.000
1.000
0.986
1.000
1.000

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

0.628
0.578
0.524
0.331
0.270
0.207
0.191
0.144
0.108
0.188
0.139
0.108

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.987
0.997
1.000
0.919
0.929
0.954

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.993
0.995
0.997

0.802
0.751
0.713
0.475
0.384
0.300
0.273
0.187
0.132
0.232
0.165
0.121

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.994
0.999
0.999

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

0.048
0.085
0.288
0.050
0.087
0.285
0.055
0.108
0.280
0.069
0.111
0.238

0.213
0.745
0.986
0.209
0.752
0.983
0.207
0.757
0.983
0.191
0.783
0.984

0.866
0.993
1.000
0.864
0.994
1.000
0.879
0.994
1.000
0.901
0.992
1.000

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.974
0.994
1.000
0.863
0.888
0.917

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.984
0.990
0.996

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.995
0.996
0.998

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.7

48

τ = 0.5

Wilcoxon

0.8

0.9

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

Table 6: Rejection rates of the CUSUM and Wilcoxon test for LMSV time series (Pareto distributed εj , j ≥ 1) of length n with
Hurst parameter H, tail index α and a shift in the mean of height h after a proportion τ . The calculations are based on 5,000
simulation runs.

τ = 0.25

self-norm. CUSUM

H

n

h=0

α = 2.5
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α=4
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α = 2.5
h = 0.5

h=1

h=0

α=4
h = 0.5

h=1

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.046
0.049
0.053
0.051
0.050
0.049
0.045
0.042
0.050
0.044
0.051
0.041

0.181
0.290
0.458
0.204
0.295
0.455
0.226
0.338
0.498
0.329
0.446
0.585

0.539
0.722
0.875
0.552
0.727
0.868
0.580
0.736
0.881
0.645
0.761
0.869

0.042
0.044
0.026
0.042
0.046
0.042
0.044
0.040
0.052
0.041
0.042
0.048

0.688
0.862
0.967
0.697
0.866
0.966
0.720
0.870
0.960
0.760
0.871
0.949

0.958
0.990
0.999
0.954
0.990
0.998
0.951
0.989
0.998
0.947
0.980
0.996

0.032
0.032
0.034
0.029
0.032
0.037
0.031
0.033
0.034
0.031
0.039
0.049

0.879
0.973
0.999
0.680
0.856
0.948
0.424
0.559
0.673
0.309
0.369
0.422

0.991
1.000
1.000
0.938
0.988
0.999
0.772
0.862
0.938
0.582
0.650
0.719

0.030
0.030
0.028
0.021
0.027
0.030
0.021
0.024
0.023
0.020
0.034
0.039

0.995
1.000
1.000
0.960
0.993
0.999
0.815
0.915
0.958
0.640
0.734
0.791

1.000
1.000
1.000
0.997
1.000
1.000
0.964
0.984
0.998
0.861
0.912
0.947

0.384
0.564
0.744
0.401
0.565
0.744
0.424
0.589
0.761
0.527
0.650
0.781

0.801
0.909
0.962
0.801
0.904
0.966
0.804
0.905
0.959
0.815
0.898
0.954

0.904
0.973
0.993
0.902
0.972
0.994
0.899
0.966
0.994
0.893
0.959
0.989

0.990
0.998
1.000
0.989
0.998
0.999
0.990
0.997
0.999
0.982
0.997
0.999

0.994
1.000
1.000
0.950
0.993
1.000
0.776
0.896
0.963
0.622
0.708
0.779

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.977
0.995
0.999
0.890
0.936
0.960

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.987
0.998
1.000
0.912
0.956
0.976

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.999
1.000
1.000
0.990
0.996
0.998

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.7

49

τ = 0.5

self-norm. Wilcoxon

0.8

0.9

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

Table 7: Rejection rates of the self-normalized CUSUM and the self-normalized Wilcoxon test for LMSV time series (Pareto
distributed εj , j ≥ 1) of length n with Hurst parameter H, tail index α and a shift in the mean of height h after a proportion τ .
The calculations are based on 5,000 simulation runs.

τ = 0.25

CUSUM

H

n

h=1

α = 4.5
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α=6
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α = 4.5
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α=6
h = 0.5

h=2

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.464
0.589
0.708
0.330
0.374
0.431
0.235
0.258
0.275
0.179
0.184
0.191

0.252
0.383
0.529
0.164
0.197
0.263
0.116
0.131
0.139
0.088
0.100
0.101

0.963
0.995
1.000
0.852
0.937
0.983
0.670
0.770
0.837
0.470
0.513
0.564

0.467
0.596
0.694
0.330
0.404
0.443
0.244
0.256
0.271
0.170
0.177
0.191

0.270
0.385
0.574
0.174
0.207
0.273
0.111
0.132
0.137
0.084
0.097
0.099

0.978
0.997
1.000
0.882
0.961
0.991
0.686
0.786
0.861
0.486
0.523
0.566

0.119
0.112
0.108
0.078
0.066
0.060
0.074
0.067
0.060
0.088
0.078
0.072

0.925
0.994
1.000
0.584
0.781
0.932
0.314
0.398
0.502
0.251
0.267
0.283

0.937
0.995
1.000
0.587
0.784
0.929
0.328
0.386
0.499
0.254
0.277
0.283

0.130
0.118
0.104
0.078
0.068
0.061
0.074
0.067
0.059
0.088
0.079
0.065

0.929
0.995
1.000
0.606
0.781
0.934
0.332
0.398
0.505
0.252
0.272
0.279

0.929
0.996
1.000
0.591
0.780
0.936
0.319
0.382
0.501
0.262
0.272
0.277

0.377
0.565
0.774
0.252
0.313
0.416
0.170
0.196
0.226
0.127
0.137
0.135

0.954
0.992
0.999
0.821
0.932
0.984
0.623
0.733
0.838
0.440
0.487
0.542

0.417
0.594
0.814
0.252
0.333
0.436
0.166
0.199
0.230
0.132
0.140
0.148

0.967
0.996
0.999
0.839
0.946
0.987
0.651
0.757
0.848
0.445
0.506
0.540

0.988
1.000
1.000
0.808
0.934
0.992
0.529
0.605
0.741
0.410
0.442
0.466

0.990
1.000
1.000
0.808
0.937
0.992
0.525
0.615
0.738
0.419
0.440
0.467

0.990
1.000
1.000
0.806
0.936
0.990
0.515
0.624
0.746
0.404
0.452
0.468

0.990
1.000
1.000
0.809
0.935
0.991
0.528
0.631
0.734
0.406
0.424
0.473

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.7

50

τ = 0.5

Wilcoxon

0.8

0.9

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

Table 8: Rejection rates of the CUSUM and Wilcoxon test for LMSV time series of length n with Hurst parameter H, tail index
α and a shift in the variance of height h2 after a proportion τ . The calculations are based on 5,000 simulation runs.

τ = 0.25

self-norm. CUSUM

H

n

h=1

α = 4.5
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α=6
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α = 4.5
h = 0.5

h=2

h=1

α=6
h = 0.5

h=2

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.035
0.033
0.033
0.022
0.022
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.019
0.019
0.020

0.229
0.291
0.383
0.146
0.192
0.263
0.086
0.107
0.140
0.079
0.099
0.123

0.040
0.043
0.048
0.022
0.023
0.030
0.013
0.017
0.014
0.018
0.015
0.020

0.038
0.035
0.034
0.024
0.025
0.021
0.019
0.016
0.017
0.023
0.021
0.023

0.237
0.317
0.423
0.161
0.225
0.296
0.098
0.128
0.171
0.088
0.112
0.133

0.043
0.050
0.060
0.025
0.027
0.034
0.015
0.017
0.016
0.021
0.020
0.023

0.040
0.043
0.044
0.046
0.044
0.049
0.038
0.049
0.047
0.048
0.053
0.056

0.518
0.736
0.901
0.252
0.380
0.526
0.120
0.159
0.198
0.100
0.109
0.118

0.495
0.739
0.897
0.248
0.381
0.528
0.119
0.155
0.192
0.101
0.107
0.114

0.041
0.047
0.042
0.048
0.046
0.050
0.042
0.045
0.046
0.049
0.050
0.047

0.511
0.731
0.908
0.263
0.380
0.531
0.136
0.165
0.197
0.097
0.110
0.104

0.494
0.745
0.905
0.259
0.378
0.536
0.127
0.156
0.198
0.096
0.105
0.123

0.145
0.206
0.277
0.090
0.125
0.165
0.045
0.063
0.073
0.044
0.053
0.066

0.152
0.193
0.270
0.090
0.121
0.168
0.046
0.064
0.086
0.037
0.052
0.065

0.158
0.227
0.324
0.100
0.130
0.196
0.053
0.062
0.099
0.047
0.064
0.076

0.164
0.221
0.318
0.093
0.135
0.193
0.054
0.070
0.083
0.040
0.058
0.074

0.816
0.965
0.998
0.524
0.701
0.859
0.270
0.357
0.439
0.200
0.228
0.263

0.831
0.963
0.998
0.530
0.695
0.863
0.274
0.361
0.443
0.205
0.224
0.248

0.823
0.962
0.996
0.534
0.698
0.854
0.270
0.350
0.454
0.195
0.246
0.248

0.816
0.960
0.996
0.521
0.699
0.863
0.278
0.361
0.454
0.198
0.228
0.264

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.7

51

τ = 0.5

self-norm. Wilcoxon

0.8

0.9

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

Table 9: Rejection rates of the self-normalized CUSUM and the self-normalized Wilcoxon test for LMSV time series of length n
with Hurst parameter H, tail index α and a shift in the variance of height h2 after a proportion τ . The calculations are based on
5,000 simulation runs.

τ = 0.25

CUSUM

H

n

h=0

α = 0.5
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

h=0

α=1
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

h=0

α = 0.5
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

h=0

α=1
h = 0.25

h = 0.5

0.6

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

0.457
0.419
0.388
0.213
0.177
0.141
0.131
0.107
0.087
0.087
0.075
0.061

0.884
0.982
0.999
0.601
0.761
0.907
0.329
0.379
0.491
0.201
0.216
0.221

0.994
1.000
1.000
0.879
0.977
0.998
0.590
0.716
0.836
0.376
0.425
0.480

0.139
0.121
0.113
0.084
0.071
0.071
0.064
0.064
0.054
0.056
0.054
0.051

0.215
0.298
0.436
0.108
0.134
0.151
0.081
0.081
0.083
0.058
0.068
0.061

0.393
0.588
0.825
0.184
0.249
0.350
0.105
0.115
0.138
0.079
0.080
0.074

0.035
0.033
0.038
0.026
0.038
0.040
0.028
0.034
0.040
0.030
0.038
0.046

0.373
0.596
0.819
0.189
0.294
0.452
0.092
0.130
0.177
0.073
0.083
0.101

0.725
0.912
0.985
0.435
0.596
0.774
0.194
0.276
0.350
0.133
0.157
0.189

0.040
0.045
0.045
0.041
0.043
0.047
0.041
0.047
0.046
0.047
0.050
0.052

0.087
0.124
0.206
0.065
0.079
0.098
0.046
0.053
0.050
0.044
0.055
0.055

0.181
0.277
0.453
0.100
0.137
0.191
0.056
0.064
0.078
0.058
0.060
0.058

0.971
0.997
1.000
0.794
0.916
0.982
0.509
0.611
0.709
0.339
0.360
0.391

1.000
1.000
1.000
0.976
0.998
1.000
0.812
0.902
0.957
0.611
0.656
0.716

0.312
0.446
0.628
0.161
0.188
0.241
0.107
0.109
0.123
0.070
0.068
0.071

0.597
0.812
0.953
0.296
0.402
0.531
0.164
0.192
0.227
0.106
0.121
0.127

0.603
0.843
0.974
0.364
0.551
0.750
0.195
0.296
0.383
0.135
0.181
0.216

0.907
0.989
1.000
0.692
0.869
0.969
0.414
0.539
0.671
0.288
0.350
0.410

0.137
0.227
0.363
0.085
0.120
0.157
0.057
0.065
0.082
0.059
0.059
0.060

0.318
0.517
0.732
0.167
0.248
0.344
0.091
0.106
0.135
0.083
0.092
0.085

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.7

52

τ = 0.5

self-norm. CUSUM

0.8

0.9

500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000
500
1000
2000

Table 10: Rejection rates of the CUSUM tests for LMSV time series of length n with Hurst parameter H and a change in the tail index α of
height h after a proportion τ . The calculations are based on 5,000 simulation runs.

References
Andrews, D. W. K. (1993). Tests for parameter instability and structural change with unknown
change point. Econometrica, 61:821–856.
Beran, J., Feng, Y., Ghosh, S., and Kulik, R. (2013). Long memory processes. Springer.
Berkes, I., Horváth, L., Kokoszka, P., and Shao, Q.-M. (2006). On discriminating between longrange dependence and changes in mean. Annals of Statistics, 34(3):1140–1165.
Betken, A. (2016a). Change point estimation based on Wilcoxon tests in the presence of longrange dependence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.08261.
Betken, A. (2016b). Testing for change-points in long-range dependent time series by means of a
self-normalized Wilcoxon test. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 20(6):785–809.
Billingsley, P. (1968). Convergence of Probability Measures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of Probability Measures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Breidt, F. J., Crato, N., and de Lima, P. (1998). The detection and estimation of long memory
in stochastic volatility. Journal of Econometrics, 83(1-2):325–348.
Csörgö, M. and Horvath, L. (1997). Limit Theorems in Change-Point Analysis. Wiley, New York.
De Pooter, M. and Van Dijk, D. (2004). Testing for changes in volatility in heteroskedastic time
series – a further examination. Technical report.
Dehling, H., Rooch, A., and Taqqu, M. S. (2013). Non-Parametric Change-Point Tests for LongRange Dependent Data. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 40(1):153—173.
Dehling, H. and Taqqu, M. (1989). The empirical process of some long-range dependent sequences
with an application to U -statistics. The Annals of Statistics, 17(4):1767—1783.
Dvoretzky, A. (1972). Asymptotic normality for sums of dependent random variables. Proceedings
of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 2:513–535.
Giraitis, L., Leipus, R., and Surgailis, D. (1996). The change-point problem for dependent
observations. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 53:297 – 310.
Horváth, L. and Kokoszka, P. (1997). The effect of long-range dependence on change-point
estimators. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 64(1):57–81.
Ivanoff, G. (1983). Stopping times and tightness in two dimensions. Technical Report Series of
the Laboratory for Research in Statistics and Probability, 1:46–65.
Kulik, R. and Soulier, P. (2011). The tail empirical process for long memory stochastic volatility
sequences. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 121(1):109 – 134.
Lobato, I. N. (2001). Testing that a dependent process is uncorrelated. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 96:1066–1076.

53

Resnick, S. I. (2007). Heavy-tail phenomena. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial
Engineering. Springer, New York. Probabilistic and statistical modeling.
Shao, X. (2011). A simple test of changes in mean in the possible presence of long-range dependence. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 32:598 – 606.
Shao, X. and Zhang, X. (2010). Testing for change points in time series. Journal of The American
Statistical Association, 105:1228 – 1240.
Sun, Y., Phillips, P. C. B., and Jin, S. (2008). Optimal bandwidth selection in heteroskedasticity
autocorrelation robust testing. Econometrica, 76:175–194.
Taqqu, M. S. (1979). Convergence of integrated processes of arbitrary Hermite rank. Zeitschrift
für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 50(1):53–83.
Tewes, J. (2015). Change-point tests under local alternatives for long-range dependent processes.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.07296.

54

