Holderian weak invariance principle under a Hannan type condition

Abstract

We investigate the invariance principle in H{\"o}lder spaces for strictly stationary martingale difference sequences. In particular, we show that the sufficient condition on the tail in the i.i.d. case does not extend to stationary ergodic martingale differences. We provide a sufficient condition on the conditional variance which guarantee the invariance principle in H{\"o}lder spaces. We then deduce a condition in the spirit of Hannan one.Comment: in Stochastic Processes and their Applications, Elsevier, 2016, 12

Hölderian weak invariance principle under the Maxwell and Woodroofe condition

“…Remark 1.2. If the sequence (f • T j ) j 0 is a martingale difference sequence with respect to the filtration (T −i M), then condition (1.4) is satisfied if and only if the function f belongs to L p , hence we recover the result of [Gir16b]. However, if the sequence (f • T j ) j 0 is independent, (1.4) is stronger than the sufficient condition t p µ {|f | > t} → 0.…”

“…Remark 1.3. In [Gir16b], the conclusion of Theorem 1.1 was obtained for an M-measurable f under the condition…”

Testing mean changes by maximal ratio statistics

“…Nearly non stationary AR(1) case is studied in (Markevičiūtė et al 2012). HFCLT for strictly stationary martingale difference sequences, stationary strong mixing, -mixing, -dependent sequences are investigated by Giraudo (2016Giraudo ( , 2017Giraudo ( , 2018. A general method to prove an HFCLT is provided by Th.…”

Weak invariance principle in some Besov spaces for stationary martingale differences

“…The construction follows the lines of that of Theorem 2.1 in [6]. We define three increasing sequences of positive integers (I l ) l 1 , (J l ) l 1 , (N l ) l 1 and a sequence of real numbers (L l ) l 1 such that ∞ l=1 1 L l < ∞ and L l is a continuity point of the cumulative distribution function of the random variable 2 −1 Y 1/2,1 , which is defined in (5.0.1).…”

“…Note that P (f l = 0) K l /N l , hence by (3.4.4) and the Borel-Cantelli lemma, the function f is well defined almost everywhere. Define A proof can be found in [6] It remains to prove that the sequence (W n (m)) n 1 is not tight in B o p,α . To this aim, we shall check the conditions of Lemma 3.6.…”