FINAL EDIT: There is one main question left: According to the answer, we have choosen $\theta=1$ , where we could choose $0<\theta<\infty$ as we like. His this sufficient, if we regarde the convergence to $\theta$ as a finite positive random variable?

This post seems long, but its almost everything proofed except the last step. The unknown part is marked especially.


Given a Levy-Process $U_{t}$ with with $E(U_t)=0$ (then $U_t$ is a martingale). Let $U_t$ have finite variance and $Var(X_1)=\sigma^{2}$ and the limit theorem holds: \begin{align} F_t:=\sqrt{t}\left(\frac{U_t}{t}-E(U_1) \right)=\frac{U_t}{\sqrt{t}}\xrightarrow{d}\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})\quad as \,\,t\rightarrow \infty.\tag1 \end{align} Let $K_t$ a non-decreasing positive ($K_{t}>0$ a.s.) process with cadlag-paths with the property that $K_{t}\rightarrow \infty$ almost sureley, as $t\rightarrow \infty$.

I want to show that \begin{align} F_{K_t}:=\frac{U_{K_t}}{\sqrt{K_{t}}} \xrightarrow{d}\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})\quad as \,\,t\rightarrow \infty. \tag2 \end{align} For this one requires a positive non-random cadlag-function $a(t)$ with $a(t)\rightarrow \infty$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$ such that \begin{align} \frac{K_{t}}{a(t)}\rightarrow \theta\quad P\, a.s. \tag3 \end{align} holds. Where $\theta$ is a positive finite random-variable. Then the convergence in distribution of $F_{t}\xrightarrow{d} \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})$ implies the convergence in distribution of $F_{K_t}\xrightarrow{d} \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})$.

The suggestion how it has to be proofed is given in the post below: Here he takes $\theta=1$. So that we have $K_{t}\in ((1-\epsilon)a(t),(1+\epsilon)a(t))$ a.s. as $t\rightarrow \infty$.

Is this legit, concerning that we have generally $\theta$ a positive ($\theta>0$) finite random variable? For small $m$ we have $$ P(U_{K_t}<x\sqrt{K_t})\leq P\left(K_{t}\notin ((1-\epsilon) a(t),(1+\epsilon) a(t))\right)+P\left(U_{a_t}<x\sqrt{(1+\epsilon)a(t)}+m\cdot \sqrt{\epsilon a(t))}\right)+ P\left(\sup_{s\in ((1-\epsilon)a(t),(1+\epsilon)a(t))}|U_{s}-U_{a(t)}|>m\cdot \sqrt{\epsilon a(t))}\right) $$ The first term converges to 0 due to (3). The second term converges to $\Phi(x+m)$ (Why?) by the central limit theorem (1).

Due to the martingale maximale inequality the third term is bounded by $$\frac{1}{(m\cdot \sqrt{\epsilon a(t))})^{2}}$$ and tends to zero as $a(t)\rightarrow \infty$.

Why should this proof (2)? So far we have only that the distribution $P(U_{K_{t}}/\sqrt{K_t}\leq x)$ is bounded by $\Phi(x+m)$ then. A lower bound converging to $\Phi(x)$ is necessary i guess?


$$ P(U_{K_t}<x\sqrt{K_t})\geq P(U_{K_t}<x\sqrt{K_t},|U_{a(t)}-U_{K_t}|<m\sqrt{\epsilon a(t)},K_{t}\in ((1-\epsilon)a(t),(1+\epsilon)a(t))\\ \geq P(U_{a(t)}<x\sqrt{(1-\epsilon)a(t)}-m\sqrt{\epsilon a(t)}) \\ \rightarrow \Phi(x-m) $$

And we have it sandwiched, converging to $\Phi(x)$ right?

Btw: How to come to this inequality is due to $$ P(U_{k_t}<x \sqrt{K_t})\\ \leq P[U_{k_t}<x \sqrt{K_t},K_{t}\in((1-\epsilon) a(t),(1+\epsilon) a(t))]+P[U_{K_t}<x\sqrt{K_t},K_{t}\notin ((1-\epsilon) a(t),(1+\epsilon) a(t))] \\ \leq P[K_{t}\notin ((1-\epsilon) a(t),(1+\epsilon) a(t))]+ P[U_{k_t}<x \sqrt{K_t},K_{t}\in((1-\epsilon) a(t),(1+\epsilon) a(t))] \\ \leq P[K_{t}\notin ((1-\epsilon) a(t),(1+\epsilon) a(t))] \\ +P(U_{K_{t}}<x\sqrt{(1+ \epsilon)a(t)},|U_{K_t}-U_{a(t)}|\leq m\sqrt{\epsilon a(t)},|U_{K_t}-U_{a(t)}|> m\sqrt{\epsilon a(t)}] \\ \leq P[U_{a(t)}<x\sqrt{(1+\epsilon)a(t)}+m \sqrt{\epsilon a(t)}] + P\left(\sup_{s\in ((1-\epsilon)a(t),(1+\epsilon)a(t))}|U_{s}-U_{a(t)}|>m\cdot \sqrt{\epsilon a(t))}\right)+P\left(K_{t}\notin ((1-\epsilon) a(t),(1+\epsilon) a(t))\right) $$


For square integrable Levy processes this should be easy because you can control the difference between $U_{K_t}$ and $U_{a(t)} $ with the martingale maximal inequality. Subtract out the mean and so suppose one has a square integrable independent increments process. Then e.g. $$P(U_{K_t} < x \sqrt{K_t }) \le I_t+J_t+L_t$$ with $$I_t=P\left(K_t \notin ((1-\epsilon)a(t) , (1+\epsilon a(t))\right)$$ $$J_t= P\left(U_{a(t)} < x\sqrt{(1 + \epsilon) a(t)} + m \sqrt{\epsilon a(t)} \right)$$ and $$L_t= P\left(\sup_{s \in ((1-\epsilon)a(t) , (1+\epsilon a(t))} |U_s - U_{a(t)}| > m\sqrt{\epsilon a(t)} \right) $$ $m$ should be small. Use convergence is probability on $I_t$, CLT on $J_t$, and maximal inequality on $L_t$ (which will tell you that the sup can't be worse than $\frac 1 {(m \sqrt{\epsilon a(t)})^2}$). Don't take every term literally as I am tex-ing on the fly, but that is the idea.

The assumption that $\frac{K_t}{a(t)}$ converges to a constant shows that $I_t$ is small. $J_t$ converges to $\Phi(x+m)$ by the CLT applied to $U_t$ or $U_{a(t)}$ as you prefer, and $L_t$ is used as mentioned above. Btw, I call this Anscombe's theorem.

  • $\begingroup$ Hey thanks for the answer. I guess your suggestion tends to the right direction. But it's a bit blurry for me. Could you be a little bit more precisely? And why follows from this inequality $P(U_{K_{t}}<x\sqrt{K_{t}})$ the desired result? And where we use the Assumption that $K_{t}/a_{t}\rightarrow \theta$ a.s.? Thanks so far. I really appreciate your help. Best regards $\endgroup$ – GuildY123 Mar 7 '16 at 16:59
  • $\begingroup$ Have edited to address yr questions. It won't let me fix those tex mistakes but I think its readable. $\endgroup$ – user83457 Mar 8 '16 at 11:24
  • $\begingroup$ you showed this for $\theta=1$ however we have convergence to a positive finite random variable. What is left to proof there? $\endgroup$ – GuildY123 Jun 2 '16 at 9:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.