A Sharp Signal-to-Noise Threshold for Quasi-Maximum Likelihood Breakpoint Estimation

Let 0.30 \in (0, 1). We assume that there is a latent two-sided p-dimensional sequence Z= (z_{s})_{s \in \mathbb{Z}}, fixed and independent of n, which is in the first regime for s \leq 0 and in the second regime for s \geq 1. For a sample of size n, the observed data X= (x_t)_{1 \leq t \leq n} \in \mathbb R^{p\times n} is the length-n window of Z that straddles the origin at the fraction 0.30,

i.e. the window -\lfloor0.30 n\rfloor+1 \leq s \leq \lceil(1-0.30)n\rceil re-indexed to start at t=1.

If a priori knowledge is not available, one data-driven choice of the signal separation space is as follows (see for example [Bai2003, BaiHanShi2020, DuanBaiHan2023]): The signal separation space is spanned by the left leading singular basis vectors obtained by the singular value decomposition of the data matrix X. Equivalently this corresponds to choosing the leading eigenspace of the empirical covariance matrix \frac{1}{n} X X^{\top}. We use this approach when studying breakpoint detection in factor models (see Section ? below for more details). A possible problem is that PCA/SVD signal spaces can fail to separate regimes when the directions that change across regimes are not aligned with the leading principal components (see [AueRiceSonmez2018]). Concretely, in the retained signal coordinates y_t=U_q^{\top}x_t the detector observes only the compressed regime moment U_q^{\top}\Sigma\,U_q of each regime second moment \Sigma. Writing D=\Sigma_1-\Sigma_2 for the difference between the two regimes, the break is visible in the signal time series if and only if U_q^{\top} D\, U_q\neq 0. Choosing the leading-q eigenspace as signal separation space therefore hides the break exactly when D is supported on directions orthogonal to that eigenspace — typically trailing, low-variance directions that PCA discards — whereas a change in the variance along a retained leading direction leaves U_q^{\top} D\, U_q\neq 0 and remains visible.

We want to point out that we do not make structural assumptions on how the data matrix is generated (e.g. via a factor model), or require that the data follows a strong law of large numbers.

The empirical signal second moment matrices will be the pivotal tool to detect the breakpoint. The quantity \Delta_{\text{within}} measures the worst-case fluctuation of the empirical signal second moment matrix within a regime; it therefore measures the noise. The quantity \Delta_{\text{between}} measures the minimal difference between signal second moment matrices of different regimes. It therefore measures the strength of the regime separation signal.

A dominant breakpoint need not exist: for scalar data taking the second-moment levels a\to b\to a on three equal segments, every \xi\in(0,1) has level-a blocks on both sides, so \Delta_{\mathrm{between}}(\xi)=0 for all \xi, although the data has two genuine breaks, neither of which is dominant.

• (A1) (A1) Bounded operator norm. We assume that M<\infty.

• (A2) (A2) SLLN in each regime. We assume that there are positive semidefinite matrices \Sigma_{\leq} \neq \Sigma_{>} \in \mathbb{R}^{q \times q} such that for all 0 \leq a_1 < b_1 \leq 0.30 and 0.30 \leq a_2 < b_2 \leq 1 it holds

  \lim_{n \to \infty} \widehat \Sigma_{a_1: b_1} = \Sigma_{\leq} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \lim_{n \to \infty} \widehat \Sigma_{a_2: b_2} = \Sigma_{>}.

• (A3) (A3) Weak signal-separation condition. For \varepsilon \geq 0

  \Delta_{\text{between}} > \frac{M+\varepsilon}{m+\varepsilon} \Delta_{\text{within}}.

• (A4) (A4) A posteriori strong signal-separation condition. For \varepsilon \geq 0

  \Delta_{\text{between}} > \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{0.30 (1- 0.30)}}\frac{ M+\varepsilon}{m+\varepsilon} \Delta_{\text{within}}.

• (A5) (A5) A priori strong signal-separation condition. For 0 \leq \delta \leq 0.30 \leq 1- \delta and \varepsilon \geq 0

  \Delta_{\text{between}} > \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\delta (1- \delta)}}\frac{ M+\varepsilon}{m+\varepsilon} \Delta_{\text{within}}.

• (PD) (PD) Positive definiteness. We assume that m>0.

The second moment bound of Assumption ? is standard and does not rule out the analysis of heavy-tailed data (x_t) as it applies to the signal time series (y_t). A nonlinear mapping x_t \mapsto y_t can ensure Assumption ?, for example by enforcing a uniform bound on \sup_{t}|y_t| via truncation.

Throughout the manuscript we work with the empirical second moment matrices

i.e. uncentered averages of y_t y_t^{\top}. The framework extends naturally to the centered covariance matrices

which differ from the second moments by a rank-one correction. Using the same argument, i.e. quantifying the Jensen gap, naturally gives the correct definition of signal \Delta_{\rm between} and noise \Delta_{\rm within}, leading to variants of the main results Theorem 21, Theorem 23, and Corollary 32. We chose to work with the second moments throughout because they have clean additivity on macroscopic intervals (cf. (?) in the proof of Theorem 23), which simplifies the calculations.

Building upon Remark 7, the ratio \frac{\Delta_{\text{between}}}{\Delta_{\text{within}}} can be interpreted as the signal-to-noise ratio, and therefore the Assumptions (A2)–(A5) quantify different signal-to-noise ratios. We observe that Assumption (A2) implies

having the interpretation that the signal-to-noise ratio is infinite. We immediately see that (A2) implies (A3), (A4), and (A5) for all choices of \delta>0 and \varepsilon>0. Moreover, under (A2) every block in \mathcal I_{0.30}^{\rm br} and \mathcal I_{0.30}^{\rm cut} converges to the corresponding regime matrix, and therefore

In particular, (A2) implies (A1). Additionally, we see that if 0.30 \in [\delta, 1 - \delta] then \delta(1-\delta) \leq 0.30(1-0.30), and hence the condition (A5) implies (A4). Finally, since 2\sqrt{0.30(1-0.30)} \leq 1, the prefactor in (A4) is at least one, so (A4) implies (A3). Altogether we obtain the implication chain

where the first implication holds for 0.30 \in [\delta, 1-\delta].

The \varepsilon-regularization + \varepsilon I_q in the definition of the QML-objective function J_{n} allows eigenvalues of the signal second moment matrix to take on the value 0. For example, this allows one to model the situation where a signal completely vanishes in the other regime. The main financial application is the rank collapse in a crisis regime, where at the breakpoint all assets are strongly correlated and the cross-sectional correlations are negligible in comparison.

Adding the \varepsilon-regularization + \varepsilon I_q in the definition of the QML-objective function J_{n} gives one additional degree of freedom to choose from. By choosing \varepsilon appropriately, one can weaken the signal-separation conditions. In particular (A3) can be weakened to

• (A3*) We assume that

  \begin{aligned} \Delta_{\text{between}} > \Delta_{\text{within}} . \end{aligned}

Then (A3*) implies (A3) for

Thus (A3*) is the best condition obtained by optimizing the sufficient local condition (A3) over the ridge parameter.

The assumption (A4) can be weakened to:

• (A4*) We assume that

  \begin{aligned} \Delta_{\text{between}} > \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{0.30 (1- 0.30)}} \Delta_{\text{within}}. \end{aligned}

Then (A4*) implies (A4) for

In contrast to the preceding local condition, the ridge-optimized global threshold in (A4*) is shown to be sharp in Proposition 24 and Remark 25. We want to point out that in the special case 0.30 = 0.5 the right-hand side of Assumption ? equals 1. The assumption (A5) can be weakened similarly.

The third reason is specific to the breakpoint problem. For \varepsilon=0 the minimization of J_n has to be restricted to a trimmed grid \mathcal D_n(\delta): a block second moment built from fewer than q samples is rank-deficient, so J_n=-\infty on the short endpoint windows, and, more generally, the empirical block second moments near the endpoints need not remain uniformly positive definite, so that no uniform control of J_n is available there. For \varepsilon>0 the ridge bounds the spectrum of the regularized block second moments from below by \varepsilon, uniformly over all windows, which removes these endpoint boundary layers (see Lemma 38 and Lemma 39 below). As a consequence, the QML criterion can be minimized over the full grid \mathcal D_n (see Theorem 21, Theorem 23, and Corollary 32 below).

The name QML estimator comes from the fact that J_n is the profile log-likelihood of the following Gaussian block model of a regime change (for simplicity, \varepsilon=0). For a candidate breakpoint 1\leq t<n, assume the data Y:=(y(s))_{1\leq s\leq n}, written in signal coordinates, is generated with unknown covariance matrices \Sigma_{\leq t}, \Sigma_{>t} as

The Gaussian log-likelihood \ell(Y\mid t,\Sigma_{\leq t},\Sigma_{>t}) is maximized uniquely at \Sigma_{\leq t}=\widehat\Sigma_{0:\frac tn} and \Sigma_{>t}=\widehat\Sigma_{\frac tn:1}, and a standard trace computation (the quadratic terms evaluate to tq and (n-t)q at the maximizer) gives

Minimizing the QML objective over t is therefore maximizing the profile likelihood over the candidate breakpoint.

Under stronger, quantitative assumptions the breakpoint can be located much more precisely: for pervasive factor models with i.i.d. factors and bounded higher moments, [DuanBaiHan2023] estimate the break index up to a bounded error, i.e. |\hat0.30_n-0.30|=O_p(1/n); see also the classical change-point rates in [Hinkley1970, Bai1997]. Theorem 21 only concludes \hat0.30_n\to0.30. This is not a shortcoming of the method but the exact price of the qualitative Assumption ?, which demands convergence of the block second moments without quantifying its speed. The following example shows that under our assumptions no rate of convergence can hold.

Let q=1 and let the data take just two values: fix 0<a\neq b, a null sequence \delta_n\downarrow0, and set

so the jump sits at 0.30+\delta_n, slightly to the right of 0.30. Every fixed macroscopic interval contained in (0,0.30) or in (0.30,1) eventually contains no jump, so Assumption ? holds with breakpoint 0.30, \Sigma_\leq=a, \Sigma_>=b, and moreover \Delta_{\mathrm{within}}=0 and \Delta_{\mathrm{between}}=|a-b|>0: all assumptions hold with constants independent of the sequence \delta_n. On the other hand, at every finite n the data are exactly two-level with jump at 0.30+\delta_n, and an elementary computation shows that J_n is minimized at this jump up to O(1/n), i.e. \hat0.30_n=0.30+\delta_n+O(1/n). Since \delta_n may tend to zero arbitrarily slowly, no rate for |\hat0.30_n-0.30| can be deduced: consistency is the exact conclusion, and Theorem 21 is sharp in this sense. As the example satisfies even Assumption ?, the same applies a fortiori to Theorem 23.

The example also shows where a rate must come from: the estimation error \delta_n is exactly the speed at which the block second moments in Assumption ? converge. Quantifying that speed — which is what the stochastic assumptions of [DuanBaiHan2023] do — is precisely what recovers a rate. In short: rates are the price of unquantified hypotheses, and the example shows the price is unavoidable.

In the situation of Proposition 24 there are two structural changes, at 0.30 and at \nu_\star=\tfrac12. The designation of 0.30 as the genuine break is not a convention: according to the signal-to-noise criterion \Delta_{\mathrm{between}}(\nu)/\Delta_{\mathrm{within}}(\nu)>1 at a candidate \nu (the candidate-level form of (A3^\ast) in Remark 17; the display \eqref{eq:Delta-within}–\eqref{eq:Delta-between} defines the \nu-dependent quantities), equations (24) and (24) give

Nevertheless, under the insufficient global SNR in (24), the QML objective has its unique global minimum at the non-dominant change \nu_\star for every \varepsilon>0. Although (A3*) holds and a sufficiently large ridge therefore makes 0.30 a local minimum, that local condition cannot force global recovery.

More precisely, fix 0.30\in(0,\tfrac12) and write c_0.30:=\{2\sqrt{0.30(1-0.30)}\}^{-1}. For every s\in(1,c_0.30), choosing r=sK in Proposition 24 produces a scalar deterministic array with \Delta_{\mathrm{between}}(0.30)/\Delta_{\mathrm{within}}(0.30)=s whose QML objective is minimized at \nu_\star for every ridge parameter. Conversely, (A4*) and Remark 17 provide a ridge for which Theorem 23 guarantees global recovery whenever the ratio exceeds c_0.30. Hence the threshold

is exact for a uniform ridge-optimized global-recovery guarantee.

The estimate (?) also reveals a structural bias of the QML criterion toward a balanced split at the center \nu=\tfrac12. Indeed, the geometric factor \tfrac{1}{2\sqrt{0.30(1-0.30)}} entering (A4) and (A4^\ast), viewed as a function of the break fraction 0.30, is minimized at 0.30=\tfrac12, where it equals 1, and grows without bound as 0.30\to0 or 0.30\to1. Hence a central breakpoint is the easiest to recover: a signal-to-noise ratio \Delta_{\text{between}}/\Delta_{\text{within}} only slightly above 1 already certifies it as the global minimizer. An off-center breakpoint, by contrast, must clear the higher bar \tfrac{1}{2\sqrt{0.30(1-0.30)}}>1. Proposition 24 shows that this geometric bar is sharp for ridge-optimized global recovery at every off-center break fraction (see also Remark 25).

For a candidate \nu>0.30, the best choice of \varepsilon >0 is the one that maximizes T_+(\nu) in equation (?); for \nu<0.30, the left-hand analogue applies. The parameter \varepsilon influences the size of (M+\varepsilon)^{-2} and (m+\varepsilon)^{-2}. Let us first consider the two extremes. Choosing \varepsilon \ll 1 very small: If m is small or zero, then (m+\varepsilon)^{-2} is very large and the negative noise contribution gets amplified, potentially flattening or even moving the minimum away from 0.30. Choosing \varepsilon \gg 1 very large: If \varepsilon dominates M and m then for a minimum of \liminf_n J_n one only needs a stronger signal than noise, i.e. \Delta_{\text{between}} > \Delta_{\text{within}}. The problem is that the contrast of the cusp scales like \frac{1}{\varepsilon}, making the objective function nearly flat around 0.30 and therefore the QML estimator sensitive to noise. The best performance is expected at an intermediate “sweet spot” where \varepsilon is large enough to remove the small-eigenvalue bottleneck, but still small enough that between-regime separation produces a visibly stronger contrast than within-regime heterogeneity.

In addition to the model of Definition 28, we assume:

• (F1) Pervasive loadings. The combined normalized loading Gram matrix converges to a positive-semidefinite limit \Sigma_\Lambda \succeq 0, i.e.

  \lim_{p \to \infty}\tfrac1p[\,\Lambda_{\le}\ \Lambda_{>}\,]^{\top}[\,\Lambda_{\le}\ \Lambda_{>}\,] = \Sigma_\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{(q_\le+q_>) \times (q_\le+q_>)}.

  We define q:=\operatorname{rank}(\Sigma_\Lambda) \leq q_\le+q_> as the pervasive rank. We have a strict inequality exactly when the two regimes share at least one pervasive direction, i.e. a factor unchanged across the breakpoint.

• (F2) Factor SLLN. There exist positive definite matrices \Sigma_{F_{\le}} \succ 0 and \Sigma_{F_{>}} \succ 0 such that for every macroscopic interval I(a,b) contained in the first regime and I(c,d) contained in the second regime

  \begin{aligned} \lim_{n \to \infty} \tfrac1{|I(a,b)|}\sum_{t\in I(a,b)} f_tf_t^{\top} = \Sigma_{F_{\le}} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \lim_{n \to \infty} \tfrac1{|I(c,d)|}\sum_{t\in I(c,d)} f_tf_t^{\top} = \Sigma_{F_{>}}. \end{aligned}

• (F3) Regime change in the leading part. For \bullet\in\{\le,>\} write \Sigma_\bullet^{\rm sig}:=\Lambda_\bullet\Sigma_{F_\bullet}\Lambda_\bullet^{\top}. We assume that the two regimes stay asymptotically separated on the pervasive scale, i.e. 

  \begin{aligned} \liminf_{n\to\infty}\ \frac{1}{p_n}\bigl\| \Sigma_\le^{\rm sig}-\Sigma_>^{\rm sig} \bigr\|_F>0 . \end{aligned}

• (F4) Negligible error on the pervasive scale. For every fixed macroscopic interval I(a,b), 0 \leq a < b \leq 1,

  \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{p_n} \bigl\| E_{a:b}\bigr\| = 0.

To illustrate pervasive scaling in financial factor models, let us consider the simplest model, where there is only a single market factor with loading vector \Lambda=(1,\dots,1)^{\top}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{p\times1}. This means that assets move as the market factor plus some idiosyncratic noise. Then

and the covariance contribution \Lambda\Lambda^{\top} is the all-ones matrix, which has a single non-zero eigenvalue equal to p. Thus a pervasive factor contributes an eigenvalue of order p. It is important that all pervasive factors are caught when choosing the dimension q, as we need in the proof of Proposition 31 that the associated q-eigengap is also of order p.

Assumption (F4) makes the error budget vanish at the pervasive scale, and Proposition 31 accordingly lands in the infinite signal-to-noise regime \Delta_{\mathrm{within}}=0 of the abstract framework. Nothing in the proof is tied to this extreme case: all estimates are quantitative, and a sufficiently small non-vanishing error budget yields a positive \Delta_{\mathrm{within}} and a reduced \Delta_{\mathrm{between}} that still satisfy the finite signal-to-noise condition (A4), so Theorem 23 continues to give consistency; we do not track the explicit constants.

In practice the pervasive rank q is unknown and is estimated from the data, for example by thresholding the singular values of the data matrix. The message is: overestimation is harmless, underestimation is not. If the estimated rank eventually stabilizes at a value \ge q, the projected series still contains the consistent q-dimensional pervasive component, while the extra directions contribute only o(1) to the normalized block second moments, by (F4) and the Davis–Kahan estimate; the proof of Proposition 31 goes through unchanged and the regularized QML breakpoint estimator (any \varepsilon>0) remains consistent. If the rank is underestimated, the projection can collapse the two regimes onto each other, and the break may become undetectable.