Asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood and cross validation estimators for transformed Gaussian processes (Q2180085)

In the increasing-domain asymptotic framework, this paper analyses the robustness of the Maximumum Likelihood (ML) and Cross Validation (CV) estimators for covariance function of a stochastic process, defined for Gaussian processes when a non-linear transformation of those processes that alter the supposed normality is assumed. It shows that in those cases such estimators have good asymptotic properties without the need to estimate the transformation of the Gaussian process. The CV estimator was defined and studied for the Gaussian case in a previous paper whose author is co-author of the present paper. Let's see briefly its definition. \((\Omega,F,P)\) is a probability space, and \(Z:\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}\) is a stationary Gaussian process with a \(k_{Z}\) covariance function that satisfies the following conditions: \begin{itemize} \item[i)] \(k_{Z}\) is subexponential and asymptotically positive, i.e. there are two positive real constants, \(C_{\mathrm{inf}}\) and \(C_{\sup}\) such that \[ |k_{Z}(s)|\leq C_{\sup}\cdot\exp(-C_{\mathrm{inf}}\|s\|),\quad s\in\mathbb{R}^{d}. \] \item[ii)] If \((x_{i})_{i\geq 1}\) is a sequence in \(\mathbb{R}^{d}\) such that \[ \mathrm{inf}(|x_{i}-x_{j}|/i\neq j)>0 \] then \[ \mathrm{inf}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}(\lambda_{n}(\Sigma_{n}))>0 \] where \(\Sigma_{n}\) is the covariance matrix of \(Z_1,\dots,Z_{n}\) and \(\lambda_1(\Sigma_{n})\geq\cdots\geq\lambda_{n}(\Sigma_{n})\) are the eigenvalues of \(\Sigma_{n}\). \end{itemize} Let \(F:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}\) be a continuously differentiable non-constant, non-decreasing, and subexponential function, i.e. there is a constant \(C>0\) such that for each \(t\in\mathbb{R}\) \[ \max(|F(t)|,|DF(t)|)\leq C\cdot \exp(C\cdot |t|), \] where \(DF\) is the derivative of \(F\). It is assumed that the observed process \(Y:\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}\) is defined by \[ Y(\omega,s)=F(Z(\omega,s)). \] It is further assumed that \[ E(Y_{s})=0\text{ for all }s\in\mathbb{R}^{d}, \] and that the covariance function of \(Y\) is \[ k_{Y,(\Sigma_0,\Psi_0)}=\Sigma_0^2\cdot c_{Y,\Psi_0} \] where \(c_{Y,\Psi_0}\) is the correlation function of \(Y\), with \(\Sigma_0^2\) and \(\Psi_0\) unknown parameters such that \((\Sigma_0^2,\Psi_0)\in[C_{\mathrm{inf}},C_{\sup}]\times S\), \(-\infty<C_{\mathrm{inf}}<C_{\sup}<+\infty\) and \(S\) a compact set of \(\mathbb{R}^{p-1}\) (\(p\geq 2\)). Either \(\Sigma^2\in[C_{\mathrm{inf}},C_{\sup}]\) for \(\Psi\in S\) and each \(i=1,\dots,n\) be \(Y_{i,\Psi}\) the best linear predictor of \(Y_{i}\) based on \((Y_1,\dots,Y_{i-1},Y_{i+1},\dots,Y_{n})\) (if the true parameter is supposed to be \((\Sigma^2,\Psi)\)), it is defined a cross-validation estimator of \(\Psi\) by \[ \mathrm{CV}_\Psi(Y_1,\dots,Y_{i-1})=(1/n)\sum_{i=1}^n(Y_{i}-Y_{i,\Psi})^2. \] It can be seen that this estimator does not depend on \(\Sigma^2\in[C_{\mathrm{inf}},C_{\sup}]\). It is mentioned in this paper that the proposed CV estimator is for the \(\Psi_0\) parameter and not for \(\Sigma_0\), and references are made to other papers by different authors where CV-like estimators are studied for both parameters but with fixed domain when asymptotic behavior is analyzed. Under the Gaussian model \(\Psi_{\mathrm{ML}}\) is more accurate than \(\Psi_{\mathrm{CV}}\), say the authors based on simulations. The opposite result is observed under the transformed model. Therefore, the authors suggest that a combination of both estimators could lead to new accurate estimators in both models. Therefore, a central limit theorem of the joint asymptotic behavior of both estimators is shown in the paper. The authors explicitly warn that their results on the covariance estimator both the ML and the VC assume a known constant mean. However, they caution that no results are known for the case of unknown constant mean under the transformed Gaussian model and state that it would be useful to address this issue in the future. This paper stands out for its didactic. Through several notes, the authors comment on the main results. These help to understand and possibly extend such results.