arxiv: v1 [math.st] 5 Oct 2009

Transcription

1 Nonparametric estimation of an extreme-value copula in arbitrary dimensions arxiv: v1 [math.st] 5 Oct 2009 Gordon Gudendorf 1, Johan Segers 1, Institut de Statistique, Université catholique de Louvain, Voie du Roman Pays 20, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Abstract Inference on an extreme-value copula usually proceeds via its Pickands dependence function, hich is a convex function on the unit simplex satisfying certain inequality constraints. In the setting of an iid random sample from a multivariate distribution ith knon margins and unknon extreme-value copula, an extension of the Capéraà Fougères Genest estimator as introduced by D. Zhang, M. T. Wells and L. Peng [Journal of Multivariate Analysis 99 (2008) ]. The joint asymptotic distribution of the estimator as a random function on the simplex as not provided. Moreover, implementation of the estimator requires the choice of a number of eight functions on the simplex, the issue of their optimal selection being left unresolved. A ne, simplified representation of the CFG-estimator combined ith standard empirical process theory provides the means to uncover its asymptotic distribution in the space of continuous, real-valued functions on the simplex. Moreover, the ordinary least-squares estimator of the intercept in a certain linear regression model provides an adaptive version of the CFG-estimator hose asymptotic behavior is the same as if the variance-minimizing eight functions ere used. As illustrated in a simulation study, the gain in efficiency can be quite sizeable. Key ords: empirical process, linear regression, minimum-variance estimator, multivariate extreme-value distribution, ordinary least squares, Pickands dependence function, unit simplex 2010 MSC: 60F17, 62G32, 62H20 Corresponding author addresses: gordon.gudendorf@uclouvain.be (Gordon Gudendorf), johan.segers@uclouvain.be (Johan Segers) 1 Research supported by IAP research netork grant nr. P6/03 of the Belgian government (Belgian Science Policy) and by contract nr. 07/12/002 of the Projet d Actions de Recherche Concertées of the Communauté française de Belgique, granted by the Académie universitaire Louvain. Preprint submitted to Elsevier January 25, 2018

2 1. Introduction Let X i = (X i1,...,x ip ), i {1,...,n}, be iid random vectors from a p-variate, continuous distribution function F ith multivariate extreme-value copula C: for u (0,1] p \{(1,...,1)}, denoting the margins of F by F 1,...,F p, C(u) = P ( F 1 (X i1 ) u 1,...,F p (X ip ) u p ) = exp{ y A(y/ y )} here y j = logu j and y = y y p. (1.1) The function A, hose domain is p = { [0,1] p : p = 1}, is called the Pickands dependence function of C, after Pickands (1981). Multivariate extreme-value copulas arise as the limits of copulas of vectors of component-ise maxima of independent random samples (Deheuvels, 1984; Galambos, 1987). As a consequence, they coincide ith the class of copulas of multivariate extreme-value or max-stable distributions. Therefore, they provide models for dependence beteen extreme values that allo extrapolation beyond the support of the sample. It is then of interest to estimate the Pickands dependence function A. A necessary condition for C in (1.1) to be a copula is that A is convex and satisfies max( 1,..., p ) A() 1 for all p ; in the bivariate case, this is also sufficient. In general, A should admit an integral representation in terms of a spectral measure. Some other properties of Pickands dependence functions are studied in Obretenov (1991) and Falk and Reiss (2008). The upshot of all this is that the class of Pickands dependence functions is infinite-dimensional. This arrants the use of nonparametric methods. Whereas most papers hitherto concentrated on the bivariate case, a nonparametric estimator for general multivariate Pickands dependence functions as introduced in Zhang et al. (2008). This estimator is in fact a multivariate generalization of the one by Capéraà Fougères Genest (Capéraà et al., 1997). The estimator as shon to be uniformly consistent and pointise asymptotically normal. Hoever, the joint asymptotic distribution of the estimator as a random function on p as not provided. Moreover, implementation of the estimator requires the choice of p eight functions λ j on p, the issue of their optimal selection being left unresolved. Using a simplified representation of the above-mentioned estimator, e are able to uncover its asymptotic distribution in the space C( p ) of continuous, real-valued functions on p. Moreover, e give explicit expressions for the eight functions λ j that minimize the pointise asymptotic variance of the estimator. These optimal eight functions depend on the unknon distribution. We sho that the CFG-estimator ith estimated variance-minimizing eight functions can be implemented as the intercept estimator in a certain linear regression model via ordinary least squares. The OLS-estimator is data-adaptive in the sense that the asymptotic distribution is the same as if the optimal eight functions ere used. In a simulation study, the gain in efficiency is shon to be quite sizeable. As in Zhang et al. (2008), the setting here is that of a random sample from a distribution hose margins are knon and hose copula is an extreme-value 2

3 copula. It ould be orthhile to extend this to the case of unknon margins (Guillotte and Perron, 2008; Genest and Segers, 2009) and the case that the copula of F is merely in the domain of attraction of an extreme-value copula (Capéraà and Fougères, 2000; Einmahl and Segers, 2009). The outline of our paper is as follos. The CFG-estimator is introduced in the next section, including its simplified representation and asymptotic distribution. The variance-minimizing eight functions are computed in Section 3 together ith an adaptive estimator based on ordinary least squares in a linear regression frameork. Section 4 reports on a simulation study. The proofs of the results in Sections 2 and 3 are deferred to Appendices A and B, respectively. 2. CFG-estimator and variants Let X i = (X i1,...,x ip ), i {1,...,n}, be iid random vectors from a p-variate, continuous distribution function F ith multivariate extreme-value copula C and Pickands dependence function A as in (1.1). Let F 1,...,F p be the marginal distribution functions of F. Put Y i = (Y i1,...,y ip ) here Y ij = logf j (X ij ) (2.1) for i {1,...,n} and j {1,...,p}. The marginal distributions of the random variables Y ij are standard exponential. The random vectors Y 1,...,Y p are iid ith common joint survivor function P(Y i1 > y 1,...,Y ip > y p ) = C(e y1,...,e yp ) = exp{ y A(y/ y )}, for y [0, ) p \{(0,...,0)}, here y = y y p. Put ξ i () = p Y ij j, p, i {1,...,n}, (2.2) ith denoting minimum and ith the obvious convention for division by zero; in particular, ξ i (e j ) = Y ij for the p standard unit vectors e 1,...,e p in R p. For p and x > 0, e have P ( ξ i () > x ) = P(Y i1 > 1 x,...,y ip > p x) = exp{ xa()}. (2.3) Hencetherandomvariablesξ 1 (),...,ξ n ()constituteanindependentrandom sample from the exponential distribution ith mean 1/A(). It follos that the distribution of logξ i () is Gumbel ith location parameter loga(), hence E[ logξ i ()] = loga()+γ, (2.4) the Euler Mascheroni constant γ = Γ (1) = being the mean of the standard Gumbel distribution. This suggests the naive estimator logân() = 1 n n logξ i () γ, p. (2.5) i=1 3

4 The naive estimator is itself not a valid Pickands dependence function. For instance,itdoesnotverifythevertexconstraintsa(e j ) = 1forallj {1,...,p}. A simple ay to at least remedy this defect is by putting logâcfg n () = logân() λ j () logân(e j ), p, (2.6) here λ 1,...,λ p : p R are continuous functions verifying λ j (e k ) = δ jk for all j,k {1,...,p}. Continuity of the functions λ j is assumed merely to ensure that the resulting estimator is a continuous function of as ell. The superscript CFG refers to the bivarate estimator by Capéraà Fougères Genest in Capéraà et al.(1997), generalized to the multivariate case in Zhang et al. (2008). Actually, the original definition in Zhang et al. (2008) is logâzwp n () = λ j () 1 j 0 n 1 n i=1 1{Z ij() z} z dz, (2.7) z(1 z) here, ith Y ij as in (2.1), Z ij () = Y ik k:k j k Y ij 1 j +, Y p. ik k:k j k Moreover, in (2.7), the eight functions λ j are supposed to be nonnegative and to satisfy the additional constraint λ j () = 1, p. (2.8) Hoever, if (2.8) holds, then actually the to estimators coincide, that is, Â ZWP n () = ÂCFG n (), p. (2.9) The proof of (2.9) is essentially the same as the one in Segers (2007) for the bivariate case, the key being that the integrals in (2.7) can be solved: 1 j 0 1{Z ij () z} z z(1 z) dz = log[1 {(1 j ) Z ij ()}]+log(1 j ) log{(1 j ) Z ij ()} = logy ij logξ i (). In our representation (2.6), hoever, there is no reason hatsoever to restrict the eight functions to satisfy (2.8). The asymptotics of the naive estimator and the CFG-estimator follo from standard empirical process theory as presented for instance in van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) andvan der Vaart (1998). Let C( p ) denote the Banachspace ofcontinuousfunctions from p intorequipped ith the supremumnorm. Convergence in distribution is denoted by the arro. 4

5 Proposition 2.1 (Naive estimator). Let X i = (X i1,...,x ip ), i {1,...,n}, be iid random variables from a p-variate, continuous distribution function F ith multivariate extreme-value copula C and Pickands dependence function A. The naive estimator Ân in (2.5) satisfies sup p Ân() A() 0, n, almost surely, (2.10) and in C( p ), n( Â n A) Aζ, n, (2.11) here ζ is a centered Gaussian process ith covariance function cov ( ζ(v),ζ() ) = cov ( logξ i (v), logξ i () ), v, p, (2.12) ith ξ i ( ) as in (2.2). Theorem 2.2 (CFG-estimator). If, in addition to the assumptions in Proposition 2.1, the functions λ 1,...,λ p : p R are continuous, then sup p ÂCFG n () A() 0, n, almost surely, (2.13) and in C( p ), n( Â CFG n A) Aη, n, (2.14) here η is a centered Gaussian process defined by η() = ζ() ith ζ as in Proposition 2.1. λ j ()ζ(e j ), p, (2.15) Remark 2.3 (Covariance function). The covariance function (2.12) can be expressed in terms of A as follos. An application of the identity log(x) = 0 {1(s x) 1(s 1)}s 1 ds for x (0, ) yields, by Fubini s theorem, cov ( logξ i (v), logξ i () ) ( = P ( ξ i (v) s, ξ i () t ) P ( ξ i (v) s ) P ( ξ i () t )) ds s = [exp{ l(( 1 s) (v 1 t),...,( p s) (v p t))} exp{ sa(v)}exp{ ta()}] ds s here l(y) = y A(y/ y ) and y = y y p. Replacing A by any estimator of it results in an estimator of the covariance function. Hoever, a more practical ay to estimate this function is by the sample covariance of the pairs ( logξ i (v), logξ i ()); see also (the proof of) Theorem 3.2. dt t dt t. 5

6 Remark 2.4 (Shape constraints). A further enhancement to the CFG-estimator is to replace it by the convex minorant of the function min[max{âcfg n (), 1,..., p },1], p, as in Deheuvels (1991) and Jiménez et al. (2001) for the bivariate case. Although the resulting estimator ould be a convex function respecting the bounds max( 1,..., p ) A() 1, in case p 3 this ould still not guarantee it to be a genuine Pickands dependence function. Still other ays to impose(some of) the shape restrictions are spline smoothing under constraints (Hall and Tajvidi, 2000), orthogonal projection (Fils-Villetard et al., 2008), or Bayesian nonparametrics (Guillotte and Perron, 2008). Remark 2.5 (Pickands estimator). A different ay to exploit the exponentiality of the random variables ξ i () in (2.3) ould be via the Pickands estimator 1 Â P n () = 1 n n ξ i () as in Pickands (1981). To impose the vertex constraints A(e j ) = 1, the techniquesofdeheuvels(1991)orhall and Tajvidi(2000)canbeused,seeZhang et al. (2008, p. 578). In the bivariate case hoever, it is knon that the resulting estimators are outperformed by the CFG-estimator ÂCFG n (Segers, 2007; Genest and Segers,2009). ThisisconfirmedinthesimulationstudyinZhang et al. (2008, Section 3), asellasbyouronsimulationsinsection 4. Forthis reason, e restrict attention here to the family of CFG-estimators. i=1 3. The OLS-estimator The question remains hich eight functions λ j to choose in the CFGestimator (2.6). In Zhang et al. (2008), the choice λ j () = j as recommended as a pragmatic one. The option of using variance-minimizing functions λ j as mentioned but not carried out. By casting the estimation problem in a linear regression frameork, e ill obtain an estimator ith the same asymptotic performance as the CFG-estimator ith those optimal eights. In this section, e define the estimator and prove its consistency and asymptotic normality, both in the functional sense. In the next section, the gain in efficiency is assessed by means of simulations. In vie of Theorem 2.2, for each p e have n (ÂCFG n () A() ) A()η(), n, here η() is a zero-mean normal random variable. We ill look for those λ j () that minimise the variance of η(). Let ζ be the Gaussian process on C( p ) in Proposition 2.1. For ease of notation, put λ() = ( λ 1 (),...,λ p () ), ζ(e) = ( ζ(e1 ),...,ζ(e p ) ), 6

7 the symbol denoting matrix transposition. Then varη() = var ( ζ() λ() ζ(e) ) Note that = varζ() 2λ() E[ζ(e)ζ()]+λ() E[ζ(e)ζ(e) ]λ(). Σ = E[ζ(e)ζ(e) ] (3.1) is the covariance matrix of ( logξ(e 1 ),..., logξ(e p )). Provided this matrix is non-singular, var η() attains a unique global minimum for λ() equal to λ opt () = Σ 1 E[ζ(e)ζ()]. (3.2) With this choice of the eight functions, the variance of is equal to η opt () = ζ() λ opt () ζ(e) (3.3) varη opt () = varζ() E[ζ()ζ(e) ]Σ 1 E[ζ(e)ζ()]. (3.4) This variance is minimal over all possible choices of eight functions λ j. The optimal eight functions λ opt j in (3.2) depend on the unknon Pickands dependence function A. Fortunately, replacing these eight functions by uniformly consistent estimators ˆλ n,j is just as good asymptotically. For such estimated eight functions, define the adaptive CFG-estimator by logâcfg n,ad() = logân() ˆλ n,j () logân(e j ), (3.5) Proposition 3.1 (Adaptive CFG-estimator). Assume that, in addition to the assumptions in Proposition 2.1, the matrix Σ in (3.1) is non-singular and ˆλ n,j are random elements in C( p ) such that, for every j {1,...,p}, sup ˆλ n,j () λ opt j () 0, n, almost surely, p ith λ opt j as in (3.2). Then the adaptive CFG-estimator in (3.5) satisfies sup ÂCFG n,ad p and in C( p ), () A() 0, n, almost surely, (3.6) n( Â CFG n,ad A) Aη opt, n, (3.7) here η opt is the zero-mean Gaussian process defined in (3.3). 7

8 Finally e propose a particularly convenient ay to implement the adaptive CFG-estimator in (3.5). For p, let ˆβ n () = (ˆβ n,0 (),..., ˆβ n,p ()) be the minimizer in (b 0,...,b p ) of n ( ( logξi () γ ) b 0 i=1 ( b j logξi (e j ) γ )) 2. (3.8) In ords, ˆβn () is the ordinary least-squares (OLS) estimator of the vector of regression coefficients in a linear regression of the dependent variable logξ i () γ upon the explanatory variables logξ i (e j ) γ, j {1,...,p}. Define the OLS-estimator of A via the estimated intercept by Since the residuals logâols n () = ˆβ n,0 (), p. ˆǫ n,i () = ( logξ i () γ ) ˆβ n,0 () verify n i=1ˆǫ n,i() = 0, e have logâols n () = ˆβ n,0 () = logân() ˆβ n,j () ( logξ i (e j ) γ ) ˆβ n,p () logân(e j ), (3.9) that is, the OLS-estimator is equal to the adaptive CFG-estimator ith estimated eights ˆλ n,j () = ˆβ n,j (). The variance of the (logarithm of the) OLSestimator can be estimated by the sample variance of the residuals, properly corrected for the loss in number of degrees of freedom, ˆσ 2 n,ols() = 1 n p 1 n ˆǫ 2 n,i(), p. (3.10) i=1 Theorem 3.2 (OLS-estimator). Assume that, in addition to the assumptions in Proposition 2.1, the matrix Σ in (3.1) is non-singular. Then, ith probability tending to one, the minimizer ˆβ n () of (3.8) is uniquely defined and for j {1,...,p}, sup ˆβ n,j () λ opt j () 0, n, almost surely. (3.11) p As a consequence, the OLS-estimator in (3.9) is uniformly consistent, sup p ÂOLS n () A() 0, n, almost surely, (3.12) and in C( p ), n( Â OLS n A) Aη opt, n, (3.13) 8

9 here η opt is the zero-mean Gaussian process defined in (3.3). In addition, the variance estimator in (3.10) satisfies sup ˆσ n,ols 2 () varη opt() 0, n, almost surely. p Remark 3.3 (Non-singularity assumption). In the bivariate case, the assumption that the covariance matrix Σ in (3.1) is non-singular is equivalent to the assumption that the copula C is not the comonotone copula (Segers, 2007). We conjecture that in the general multivariate case, a necessary and sufficient condition for Σ to be non-singular is that none of the bivariate margins of C is equal to the comonotone copula. 4. Simulations In order to investigate the finite-sample properties of the estimators discussed in the previous sections, e generated pseudo-random samples from trivariate extreme-value copulas of logistic type as presented in Tan (1990): A() = (θ r r 1 +φ r r 2) 1/r +(θ r r 2 +φ r r 3) 1/r +(θ r r 3 +φ r r 1) 1/r +ψ( r 1 + r 2 + r 3) 1/r +1 θ φ ψ, p, (4.1) for (r,θ,φ,ψ) [1, ) [0,1] 3. To facilitate comparisons, e opted for the same parameter values as chosen in Zhang et al. (2008): a symmetric case, (r,θ,φ,ψ) = (3,0,0,1), and an asymmetric one, (r,θ,φ,ψ) = (6,0.6,0.3,0). For each case samples ere generated of size n {50,100,200} using the simulation algorithms in Stephenson (2003) and implemented in the R-package evd (Stephenson, 2002). Four estimators ere compared: the CFG-estimator ÂCFG n ith eight functions λ j () = j (as recommended in Zhang et al., 2008), the OLS-estimator in (3.9), and the enhanced versions of the original Pickands estimator due to Deheuvels (1991) and Hall and Tajvidi (2000) as presented in Zhang et al. (2008). To visualize the performances of the estimators, e plotted their biases and mean squarederrorsalongthe line { p : 1 = 2 }; see Figures1and 2 for the symmetric and asymmetric logistic dependence functions respectively. In accordance to the theory, the OLS-estimator is in virtually all cases considered more efficient than the CFG-estimator. Moreover, our simulations confirm the findings in Zhang et al. (2008) that the CFG-estimator is typically more efficient than the ones of Deheuvels and Hall Tajvidi. Note that the finite-sample bias of the OLS-estimator is somehat larger than for the other estimators. Hoever, thanks to its minimum-variance property it ends up as an overall inner in terms of mean squared error. Â OLS n 9

10 Symmetric, n=50 Symmetric, n=50 Bias MSE Symmetric, n=100 Symmetric, n=100 Bias MSE 0e+00 2e 04 4e 04 6e 04 8e 04 Symmetric, n=200 Symmetric, n=200 Bias 1e 03 5e 04 0e+00 5e 04 1e 03 MSE 0e+00 1e 04 2e 04 3e 04 4e 04 Figure1: Biases(left)and meansquarederrors(right)ofâols n ()(solid), ÂCFG n ()(dashed), Â HT n () (dash-dotted) and ÂD n () (dotted) along the line 1 = 2 for samples of size n {50, 100, 200} from the trivariate extreme-value copula C ith symmetric logistic dependence function A() = (1 r +r 2 +r 3 )1/r at r = 3. 10

11 Asymmetric, n=50 Asymmetric, n=50 Bias MSE Asymmetric, n=100 Asymmetric, n=100 Bias MSE Asymmetric, n=200 Asymmetric, n=200 Bias MSE Figure2: Biases(left)and meansquarederrors(right)ofâols n ()(solid), ÂCFG n ()(dashed), Â HT n () (dash-dotted) and ÂD n() (dotted) along the line 1 = 2 for samples of size n {50, 100, 200} from the trivariate extreme-value copula C ith asymmetric logistic dependence function A in (4.1) for (r,θ,φ,ψ) = (6,0.6,0.3,0). 11

12 Appendix A. Proofs for Section 2 Proof of Proposition 2.1. For p, define f : (0, ) p R by We can rite ( p f (y) = log y j j logân() = 1 n ) γ, y (0, ) p. (A.1) n f (Y i ). Consider the function class F = {f : p }. We ill sho that F is P- Donsker and therefore also P-Glivenko Cantelli, here P denotes the common probability distribution on (0, ) p of the random vectors Y i. According to Theorem in van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) and the proof thereof, e need to verify that F is a pointise separable Vapnik Cervonenkis-class (VCclass) that admits an envelope function ith a finite second moment under P. Pointise separability follos from the fact that the map f (y) is continuousin p foreachy (0, ) p. TheVC-propertycanbeestablished by repeated applications of Lemmas and , items (i) and (viii), in van der Vaart and Wellner (1996). Finally, the readily established bound p log { y j p } max log y j,log(p)+ logy j (A.2) j yields an envelope function of F all of hose moments are finite under P. Observe that the distribution of p Y ij is Exponential ith mean equal to {pa(1/p,...,1/p)} 1 [1/p,1]. From the fact that F is P-Glivenko Cantelli it follos that sup logân() loga() p = sup 1 n f (Y i ) E[f (Y )] n 0, n, almost surely. p i=1 (Here, e dropped a subscript i for convenience.) Continuity of the map exp : C( p ) C( p ) : f exp(f) yields uniform consistency as in (2.10). Moreover, the P-Donsker property entails n(log  CFG n loga) ζ, n, (A.3) in the space l ( p ) of bounded functions from p into R equipped ith the topology of uniform convergence, here e identified F ith p. The process ζ is zero-mean Gaussian ith covariance function given in (2.12). The sample paths of the limit process ζ are continuous ith respect to the standard deviation (semi-)metric ρ on p defined by i=1 ρ(v,) = [var{f v (Y ) f (Y )}] 1/2, v, p. 12

13 If lim n v n = v in p according to the Euclidean metric, then by continuity of f (y) in and by uniform integrability, also lim n ρ(v n,v) = 0. (Uniform integrability is checked by using the bound in (A.2).) It follos that the trajectories of ζ are also continuous ith respect to the Euclidean metric on p, that is, ζ actually takes its values in C( p ). As the trajectories of the left-hand side in (A.3) are continuous too, the convergence in (A.3) takes place not only l ( p ) but also in C( p ). The convergence in (2.11) follos from the Hadamard-differentiability of the map exp : C( p ) C( p ) : f expf and the functional delta-method (van der Vaart and Wellner, 1996, Section 3.9). Proof of Theorem 2.2. Uniform consistency of ÂCFG n in (2.13) follos from uniform consistency of Ân in (2.10) and the fact that the functions λ j are continuous, hence bounded. To sho (2.14), define L : C( p ) C( p ) by Lf() = f() λ j ()f(e j ) for f C( p ) and p. The operator L is linear and bounded. We have logâcfg n = L(logÂn). Moreover, as A(e j ) = 1 for all j {1,...,p}, also L(logA) = loga. We find n(log  CFG n loga) = L ( n(logân loga) ) Lζ = η, n. The eak convergence in(2.14) follos from the functional delta-method(van der Vaart and Wellner, 1996, Section 3.9). The representation η = Lζ coincides ith (2.15). Appendix B. Proofs for Section 3 Proof of Proposition 3.1. If the optimal eight functions λ opt j ere knon, e could consider the optimal CFG-estimator logâcfg n,opt() = logân() λ opt j () logân(e j ), p. By Theorem 2.2, the optimal CFG-estimator is uniformly consistent (2.13) and is asymptotically normal in the sense of (2.14) ith η = η opt. No logâcfg n,opt () logâcfg n,ad () ˆλ n,j () λ opt j () logân(e j ). By uniform consistency of ˆλ n,j and asymptotic normality of n logân(e j ), e obtain, as n, sup p logâcfg n,opt() logâcfg n,ad() 0, sup n log  CFG n,opt() logâcfg n,ad() 0. p almost surely, 13

14 As a consequence, the adaptive CFG-estimator is uniformly consistent (3.6) and asymptotically normal (3.7). Proof of Theorem 3.2. In analogy to the linear regression frameork, define the n (p+1) matrix X = 1 logξ 1(e 1 ) γ... logξ 1 (e p ) γ logξ n (e 1 ) γ... logξ n (e p ) γ and the n 1 vector Y () = ( logξ 1 () γ,..., logξ n () γ ), p. (No confusion should arise beteen this Y () and the random vectors Y i in (2.1).) Provided the matrix X X is non-singular, the OLS-estimator ˆβ n () is given by ˆβ n () = (X X) 1 X Y (). Recall the functions f in (A.1). For v, p, define g v, : (0, ) p R by g v, (y) = f v (y)f (y), y (0, ) p. By (A.2) and by Example in van der Vaart and Wellner (1996), the function class {g v, : v, p } is P-Donsker and thus P-Glivenko Cantelli, here P is the common distribution on (0, ) p of the random vectors Y i. It follos that, almost surely as n, ( ) n X X, (B.1) 0 Σ ( ) sup 1 loga() n X Y () 0, (B.2) E[ζ(e)ζ()] p As Σ is non-singular, e have ( ) 1 ( ) = 0 Σ 0 Σ 1, hile 1 n X X is ith probability tending to one a non-singular matrix too. We find, almost surely and uniformly in p, ( ) ˆβ n () = n X X n X Y () ( )( ) 1 0 loga() 0 Σ 1 = E[ζ(e)ζ()] ( ) loga() λ opt, n. () Equation (3.11) follos. Proposition 3.1 and equation (3.9) then yield equations (3.12) and (3.13). 14

15 Finally, for the estimation of the variance, note that it does not matter asymptotically if e divide by n or by n p 1. Elementary calculations yield 1 n n ˆǫ 2 n,i() = 1 ( Y () Xˆβn () ) ( Y () Xˆβn () ) n i=1 = 1 ( ) ( ) n Y 1 () Y () n X Y () n X X n X Y (). The Glivenko Cantelli property yields, almost surely and uniformly in p, 1 n Y () Y () = 1 n n ( logξi () γ ) 2 i=1 E [( logξ i () γ ) 2] = varζ()+ ( loga() ) 2, n. Incombinationith (B.1)and(B.2), eobtainthat n 1 n almost surely and uniformly in p to i=1ˆǫ2 n,i () converges varζ()+ ( loga() ) ( ) ( )( ) 2 loga() 1 0 loga() E[ζ(e)ζ()] 0 Σ 1 E[ζ(e)ζ()] hich by (3.4) is equal to varη opt (). = varζ() E[ζ(e) ζ()]σ 1 E[ζ(e)ζ()], References J. Pickands, Multivariate extreme value distributions, in: Proceedings of the 43rd session of the International Statistical Institute, Vol. 2 (Buenos Aires, 1981), vol. 49, , , ith a discussion, P. Deheuvels, Probabilistic aspects of multivariate extremes, in: J. Tiago de Oliveira (Ed.), Statistical extremes and applications, Reidel, , J. Galambos, The asymptotic theory of extreme order statistics, Krieger, Melbourne, Florida, 2nd edn., A. Obretenov, On the dependence function of Sibuya in multivariate extreme value theory, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 36 (1) (1991) M. Falk, R. Reiss, On Pickands coordinates in arbitrary dimensions, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 92 (2) (2008) D. Zhang, M. T. Wells, L. Peng, Nonparametric estimation of the dependence function for a multivariate extreme value distribution, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 99 (4) (2008) P. Capéraà, A.-L. Fougères, C. Genest, A nonparametric estimation procedure for bivariate extreme value copulas, Biometrika 84 (1997)

16 S. Guillotte, F. Perron, A Bayesian estimator for the dependence function of a bivariate extreme-value distribution, The Canadian Journal of Statistics 36 (3) (2008) C. Genest, J. Segers, Rank-based inference for bivariate extreme-value copulas, Annals of Statistics 37 (5B) (2009) P. Capéraà, A.-L. Fougères, Estimation of a bivariate extreme value distribution, Extremes 3 (2000) J. H. J. Einmahl, J. Segers, Maximum empirical likelihood estimation of the spectral measure of an extreme-value distribution, The Annals of Statistics 37 (5B) (2009) J. Segers, Non-parametric inference for bivariate extreme-value copulas, in: M. Ahsanulah, S. Kirmani (Eds.), Extreme Value Distributions, chap. 9, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., , older version available as CentER DP , Tilburg University, A. W. van der Vaart, J. A. Wellner, Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes, Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, Springer, Ne York, A. W. van der Vaart, Asymptotic statistics, vol. 3 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, P. Deheuvels, On the limiting behavior of the Pickands estimator for bivariate extreme-value distributions, Statistics & Probability Letters 12 (5) (1991) J. R. Jiménez, E. Villa-Diharce, M. Flores, Nonparametric estimation of the dependence function in bivariate extreme value distributions, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 76 (2) (2001) P. Hall, N. Tajvidi, Distribution and dependence-function estimation for bivariate extreme-value distributions, Bernoulli 6 (5) (2000) A. Fils-Villetard, A. Guillou, J. Segers, Projection estimators of Pickands dependence functions, The Canadian Journal of Statistics 36 (3) (2008) J. Tan, Modelling Multivariate Extreme Vlaue Distributions, Biometrika 77 (2) (1990) A. G. Stephenson, Simulating multivariate extrme value analysis of logistic type, Extremes 6 (2003) A. G. Stephenson, evd: Extreme Value Distributions, R Nes 2(2) (2002) June, URL 16