Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: let @xmath9 be a zero mean process having second moments @xmath10 < \infty$ ] . consider the partial sum @xmath11 and its normalized variance @xmath12 $ ] . a very important issue in probability theory and statistics is whether or not the central limit theorem holds , that is , if we have @xmath13 where @xmath14 denotes the standard normal distribution function . going one step further , we can ask ourselves about the possible rate of convergence in ( [ eqclt ] ) , more precisely , if it holds that @xmath15 where @xmath16 is a probability metric , @xmath17 follows a standard normal distribution and  @xmath18 denotes the probability measure induced by the random variable @xmath19 . the rate @xmath20 can be considered as a measure of reliability for statistical inference based on @xmath21 , and large rates are naturally preferred . the question of rate of convergence has been addressed under numerous different setups with respect to the metric and underlying structure of the sequence @xmath9 in the literature . perhaps one of the most important metrics is the kolmogorov ( uniform ) metric , given as @xmath22 the latter has been studied extensively in the literature under many different notions of ( weak ) dependence for @xmath23 . one general way to measure dependence is in terms of various mixing conditions . in the case of the uniform metric , bolthausen @xcite and rio @xcite showed that it is possible to obtain the rate @xmath24 in ( [ eqcltrateks ] ) , given certain mixing assumptions and a bounded support of the underlying sequence @xmath9 ; see also @xcite , among others , for related results and extensions . under the notion of @xmath25-mixing , tikhomirov @xcite obtained @xmath26 , provided that @xmath27 < \infty$ ] and the mixing coefficient decays exponentially fast ; see also @xcite . martingales constitute another important class for the study of ( [ eqcltrateks ] ) . some relevant contributions in this context are , for instance , brown and heyde @xcite , bolthausen @xcite and more recently dedecker et al . @xcite . in the special case of functionals of gaussian or poissonian sequences , deep results have been obtained by noudin and peccati et al . ; see , for instance , @xcite and @xcite . another stream of significant works focuses on stationary ( causal ) bernoulli - shift processes , given as @xmath28 the study of ( [ eqcltrateks ] ) given the structure in ( [ eqstructurecondition ] ) has a long history , and dates back to kac @xcite and postnikov @xcite . ibragimov @xcite established a rate of convergence , @xmath29 , subject to an exponentially fast decaying weak dependence coefficient . using the technique of tikhomirov @xcite , gtze and hipp obtained edgeworth expansions for processes of type ( [ eqstructurecondition ] ) in a series of works ; cf . @xcite ; see also heinrich @xcite and lahiri @xcite . this approach , however , requires the validity of a number of technical conditions . this includes in particular a conditional crmer - like condition subject to an exponential decay , which is somewhat difficult to verify . in contrast , it turns out that a berry  esseen theorem only requires a simple , yet fairly general dependence condition where no exponential decay is required . indeed , we will see that many popular examples from the literature are within our framework . unlike previous results in the literature , we also obtain optimal rates for @xmath30 given ( infinite ) weak dependence , which to the best of our knowledge is new ( excluding special cases as linear processes ) . the proofs are based on an @xmath31-dependent approximation ( @xmath32 ) , which is quite common in the literature . the substantial difference here is the subsequent treatment of the @xmath31-dependent sequence . to motivate one of the main ideas of the proofs , let us assume @xmath33 for a moment . given a weakly , @xmath31-dependent sequence @xmath34 , one may show via classic arguments that @xmath35,\end{aligned}\ ] ] provided that @xmath36 < \infty$ ] and @xmath37 . note , however , since @xmath38 is weakly dependent , one finds that @xmath39 \bigr| \leq\frac { c}{\sqrt{m}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence if one succeeds in replacing @xmath36 $ ] in ( [ eqboundmom2.9ex ] ) with ( [ eqboundmom3ex ] ) , one obtains the optimal rate @xmath24 . a similar reasoning applies to @xmath40 . unfortunately though , setting this idea to work leads to rather intricate problems , and a technique like that of tikhomirov @xcite is not fruitful , inevitably leading to a suboptimal rate . our approach is based on coupling and conditioning arguments and ideal ( zolotarev ) metrics . interestingly , there is a connection to more recent results of dedecker et al . @xcite , who consider different ( smoother ) probability metrics . we will see that at least some of the problems we encounter may be redirected to these results after some preparation . throughout this paper , we will use the following notation : for a random variable @xmath19 and @xmath41 , we denote with @xmath42^{1/p}$ ] the @xmath43 norm . let @xmath44 be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with values in a measurable space @xmath45 . denote the corresponding @xmath46-algebra with @xmath47 . given a real - valued stationary sequence @xmath48 , we always assume that @xmath38 is adapted to @xmath49 for each @xmath50 . hence we implicitly assume that @xmath51 can be written as in ( [ eqstructurecondition ] ) . for convenience , we write @xmath52 with @xmath53 . the class of processes that fits into this framework is large and contains a variety of functionals of linear and nonlinear processes including arma , garch and related processes ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , but also examples from dynamic system theory . some popular examples are given below in section  [ secex ] . a nice feature of the representation given in ( [ eqstructurecondition ] ) is that it allows us to give simple , yet very efficient and general dependence conditions . following wu @xcite , let @xmath54 be an independent copy of @xmath55 on the same probability space , and define the `` filter '' @xmath56 as @xmath57 we put @xmath58 and @xmath59 , and in particular we set @xmath60 . as a dependence measure , we then consider the quantity @xmath61 , @xmath41 . dependence conditions of this type are quite general and easy to verify in many cases ; cf . @xcite and the examples below . observe that if the function @xmath62 does not depend on @xmath63 , we obtain the simpler version @xmath64 note that it is actually not trivial to construct a stationary process @xmath9 that can only be represented as @xmath65 ; that is , a function @xmath66 independent of @xmath63 such that @xmath67 for all @xmath68 does not exist . we refer to corollary  2.3 in feldman and rudolph @xcite for such an example . we will derive all of our results under the following assumptions . [ assmaindependence ] let @xmath69 be stationary such that for some @xmath70 :    @xmath71 , @xmath72 = 0 $ ] ,    @xmath73 ,    @xmath74 , where @xmath75 $ ] .    in the sequel , @xmath76 denotes a varying absolute constant , depending only on @xmath77 , @xmath78 and @xmath79 . the following theorem is one of the main results of this paper . [ thmberry ] grant assumption  [ assmaindependence ] for some @xmath1 $ ] , and let @xmath80 . then @xmath81 and hence we may select @xmath82 . theorem  [ thmberry ] provides optimal convergence rates under mild conditions . in particular , it seems that this is the first time optimal rates are shown to hold under general infinite weak dependence conditions if @xmath83 . examples to demonstrate the versatility of the result are given in section  [ secex ] . in particular , we consider functions of the dynamical system @xmath84 in example  [ exnumber ] , a problem which has been studied in the literature for decades . combining theorem  [ thmberry ] with results of dedecker and rio @xcite , we also obtain optimal results for the @xmath85-norm for martingale differences . [ thmlp ] grant assumption  [ assmaindependence ] for some @xmath3 , and let @xmath80 . if @xmath69 is a martingale difference sequence , then for any @xmath6 we have @xmath86    note that in the case @xmath87 , the results of dedecker and rio @xcite are more general . the nonuniform analogue to theorems [ thmberry ] and [ thmlp ] is given below . here , we obtain optimality up to logarithmic factors . [ thmnonunif ] grant assumption  [ assmaindependence ] for some @xmath8 . then for any @xmath88 , @xmath89 where @xmath90 .    as a particular application of theorem  [ thmnonunif ] , consider @xmath91 where the function @xmath92 satisfies @xmath93 for some @xmath94 , and the derivative @xmath95 exists for @xmath96 . if @xmath97 , property ( [ eqgconditforapprox ] ) implies the identity @xmath98 = \int_{0}^{\infty } f'(x ) p \bigl(|s_n|\big/\sqrt{n s_n^2 } \geq x \bigr ) \,dx,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and we thus obtain the following corollary . [ corgconvergence ] grant assumption  [ assmaindependence ] for some @xmath8 . if ( [ eqgconditforapprox ] ) holds , then @xmath99 - \int_{\mathbb{r}}f \bigl(|x| \bigr)\,d \phi(x ) \biggr| \leq { b}n^{-(p \wedge 3)/2 + 1 } ( \log n ) ^{p/2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    as a special case , consider @xmath100 , @xmath101 . we may then use corollary  [ corgconvergence ] to obtain rates of convergence for moments . [ cormomconvergence ] grant assumption  [ assmaindependence ] for some @xmath8 . then for any @xmath102 , we have @xmath103    in the special case of i.i.d . sequences and @xmath104 , sharp results in this context have been obtained in hall @xcite . it seems that related results for dependent sequences are unknown . all examples considered here are time - homogenous bernoulli - shift processes ; that is , @xmath62 does not depend on @xmath63 , and hence equality ( [ eqhomodepcondi ] ) holds . let @xmath105 , and suppose that the sequence @xmath106 satisfies @xmath107 . if @xmath108 , then one may show that the linear process @xmath109 let @xmath110 be a measurable function such that @xmath111 = 0 $ ] , where @xmath112 . if @xmath110 is hlder continuous with regularity @xmath113 , that is , @xmath114 hence if @xmath115 and @xmath74 , then assumption  [ assmaindependence ] holds . [ exnumber ] consider the measure preserving transformation @xmath84 on the probability space @xmath116,\mathcal{b},\bolds{\lambda } ) $ ] , with borel @xmath46-algebra @xmath117 and lebesgue measure @xmath118 . let @xmath119 $ ] . then @xmath120 , where @xmath121 are bernoulli random variables . the flow @xmath122 can then be written as @xmath123 ; see @xcite . the study about the behavior of @xmath124 for appropriate functions @xmath110 has a very long history and dates back to kac @xcite . since then , numerous contributions have been made ; see , for instance , @xcite , to name a few . here , we consider the following class of functions . let @xmath110 be a function defined on the unit interval @xmath125 $ ] , such that @xmath126 \label{eqibracondi } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & & \int_0 ^ 1 t^{-1 } \bigl| \log(t)\bigr|^2 w_p ( f , t ) \ , dt < \infty,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath127 denotes the @xmath128 , \bolds{\lambda } ) $ ] modulos of continuity of @xmath129,\break\bolds{\lambda } ) $ ] . this setup is a little more general than in @xcite . for @xmath130 , let @xmath131 ; that is , @xmath132 is the one - periodic extension to the positive real line . one then often finds the equivalent formulation @xmath133 in the literature . consider now the partial sum @xmath134 . ibragimov @xcite showed that @xmath135 by alternative methods , le borgne and pne @xcite , extending rio @xcite , managed to remove the logarithmic factor if @xmath136 . a priori , the sequence @xmath137 does not directly fit into our framework , which , however , can be achieved by a simple time flip . define the function @xmath138 for @xmath139 , and let @xmath140 . then we may write @xmath141 note that we have to perform this time flip for every @xmath142 , which , however , has no impact on the applicability of our results . using the same arguments as in @xcite , we find that ( [ eqibracondi ] ) implies that for @xmath1 $ ] @xmath143 if @xmath74 , we see that assumption  [ assmaindependence ] holds . in particular , an application of theorem  [ thmberry ] gives the rate @xmath82 , thereby removing the unnecessary @xmath144 factor in ( [ eqexnumber1 ] ) for the whole range @xmath1 $ ] . [ exmdep ] @xmath145consider the zero mean @xmath31-dependent process @xmath146 , where @xmath147 and @xmath110 is a measurable function and @xmath148 is i.i.d . and takes values in @xmath149 . @xmath31 may depend on @xmath150 such that @xmath151 , but we demand in addition that @xmath152\big/ ( n m ) > 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in this context , it is useful to work with the transformed block - variables @xmath153 and write @xmath154 where @xmath155 ; hence @xmath9 is a two - dependent sequence . this representation ensures that assumption  [ assmaindependence](i ) and ( ii ) hold for @xmath156 , independently of the value of @xmath31 . the drawback of this block - structure is that we loose a factor @xmath31 , since we have @xmath157 where we assume that @xmath158 for simplicity . however , this loss is known in the literature : theorem  [ thmberry ] now yields the commonly observed rate @xmath159 in the context of @xmath31-dependent sequences satisfying ( [ eqmdepexvarcondi ] ) ; see , for instance , theorem  2.6 in @xcite . in the latter , the rate @xmath159 is not immediately obvious , but follows from elementary computations using ( [ eqmdepexvarcondi ] ) .    iterated random functions ( cf . @xcite ) are an important class of processes . many nonlinear models like arch , bilinear and threshold autoregressive models fit into this framework . let @xmath105 and @xmath160 be defined via the recursion @xmath161 commonly referred to as _ iterated random functions _ ; see , for instance , @xcite . let @xmath162 be the lipschitz coefficient . if @xmath163 and @xmath164 for some @xmath165 , then @xmath38 can be represented as @xmath166 for some measurable function @xmath66 . in addition , we have @xmath167 see @xcite . hence if @xmath168 = 0 $ ] and @xmath169 , assumption  [ assmaindependence ] holds . as an example , consider the _ stochastic recursion _ @xmath170 where @xmath171 is an i.i.d . sequence . let @xmath172 . if we have , for some @xmath70 , @xmath173 = 0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] then @xmath174 , and assumption  [ assmaindependence ] holds if @xmath74 . in particular , if @xmath175 are independent , then one readily verifies that @xmath176}{1 - \mathbb{e}[a_0 ] } \biggr),\end{aligned}\ ] ] which is strictly positive since @xmath177 | < 1 $ ] by jensen s inequality . hence if ( [ stocheqcondi ] ) holds for @xmath178 , then assumption  [ assmaindependence ] holds for @xmath77 . analogue conditions can be derived for higher order recursions . [ exgarch ] let @xmath105 . another very prominent stochastic recursion is the @xmath179 sequence , given through the relations @xmath180 with @xmath181 . we assume that @xmath182 for some @xmath70 . an important quantity is @xmath183 where we replace possible undefined @xmath184 with zero . if @xmath185 , then @xmath9 is stationary ; cf . in particular , it was shown in @xcite that @xmath9 may be represented as @xmath186 using this representation and the fact that @xmath187 for @xmath188 , @xmath41 , one can follow the proof of theorem  4.2 in @xcite to show that @xmath189 since @xmath190 = \mathbb{e } [ \epsilon _ k ] = 0 $ ] , assumption  [ assmaindependence ] holds if @xmath74 . we remark that previous results on @xmath191 , in the case of garch(@xmath192 sequences , either require heavy additional assumptions or have suboptimal rates ; cf . @xcite .    in the study of nonlinear processes , volterra processes are of fundamental importance . following berkes et al . @xcite , we consider @xmath193 where @xmath105 and @xmath194 for @xmath70 , and @xmath195 are called the @xmath63th volterra kernel . let @xmath196 then there exists a constant @xmath197 such that @xmath198 thus if @xmath199 and @xmath200 , then assumption  [ assmaindependence ] holds . the main approach consists of an @xmath31-dependent approximation where @xmath201 , followed by characteristic functions and esseen s inequality . however , here the trouble starts , since we can not factor the characteristic function as in the classic proof , due to the @xmath31-dependence . tikhomirov @xcite uses a chaining - type argument , which is also fruitful for edgeworth expansions ; cf . however , since this approach inevitably leads to a loss in the rate , this is not an option for berry  esseen - type results . in order to circumvent this problem , we first work under an appropriately chosen conditional probability measure @xmath202 . unfortunately though , this leads to rather intricate problems , since all involved quantities of interest are then random . we first consider the case of a weakly @xmath31-dependent sequence @xmath9 , where @xmath32 as @xmath150 increases . note that this is different from example  [ exmdep ] . for the general case , we then construct a suitable @xmath31-dependent approximating sequence such that the error of approximation is negligible , which is carried out in section  [ secproofofmaintheorem ] . the overall proof of theorem  [ thmberry ] is lengthy . important technical auxiliary results are therefore established separately in section  [ secmainlemmas ] . minor additionally required results are collected in section  [ secauxresults ] . the proofs of theorems  [ thmlp ] and [ thmnonunif ] are given in sections  [ secprooflp ] and [ secthmproofnonunif ] . to simplify the notation in the proofs , we restrict ourselves to the case of homogeneous bernoulli shifts , that is , where @xmath203 , and the function @xmath66 does not depend on @xmath63 . this requires substantially fewer indices and notation throughout the proofs , and , in particular , ( [ eqhomodepcondi ] ) holds . the more general nonhomogenous ( but still stationary ) case follows from straightforward ( notational ) adaptations . this is because the key ingredient we require for the proof is the bernoulli - shift structure ( [ eqstructurecondition ] ) in connection with the summability condition , assumption  [ assmaindependence](ii ) . whether or not @xmath66 depends on @xmath63 is of no relevance in this context .      in order to deal with @xmath31-dependent sequences , we require some additional notation and definitions . throughout the remainder of this section , we let @xmath204 and measurable functions @xmath205 , where @xmath206 as @xmath150 increases . we work under the following conditions :    [ assdependence ] let @xmath207 be such that for some @xmath208 , uniformly in @xmath31 :    @xmath71 , @xmath72 = 0 $ ] ,    @xmath209 ,    @xmath210 ,    where @xmath211 = \sum_{k = -m}^{m}\mathbb{e } [ x_0x_k ] $ ] . observe that this setup is fundamentally different from that considered in example  [ exmdep ] . in particular , here we have that @xmath212 \thicksim n $ ] . define the following @xmath46-algebra : @xmath213 where we recall that @xmath214 and @xmath215 are mutually independent , identically distributed random sequences . we write @xmath216 for the conditional law and @xmath217 $ ] ( or @xmath218 $ ] ) for the conditional expectation with respect to @xmath219 ( or some other filtration  @xmath220 ) . we introduce @xmath221 \quad \mbox{and}\quad   s_{|m}^{(2 ) } = \sum_{k = 1}^n \mathbb{e } [ x_k|\mathbb{f } _ m ] , \end{aligned}\ ] ] hence @xmath222 to avoid any notational problems , we put @xmath223 for @xmath224 . let @xmath225 , where @xmath226 are chosen such that @xmath227 and @xmath228 is an absolute constant , independent of @xmath229 . for @xmath230 , we construct the block random variables @xmath231 \quad \mbox{and}\quad r_j = \sum_{k = ( 2j-1)m + 1}^{2jm } x_k - \mathbb{e } [ x_k|\mathbb{f}_m ] , \end{aligned}\ ] ] and put @xmath232 , hence @xmath233 . note that by construction of the blocks , @xmath234 , @xmath235 are independent random variables under the conditional probability measure @xmath236 , and are identically distributed at least for @xmath237 under @xmath238 . we also put @xmath239 $ ] and @xmath240 $ ] for @xmath241 . note that @xmath242 , @xmath243 is a sequence of independent random variables . the following partial and conditional variances are relevant for the proofs : @xmath244\quad \mbox{and}\quad \sigma_j^2 = \mathbb{e } \bigl[\sigma_{j|m}^2 \bigr ] , \\ \sigma_{|m}^2 & = & \frac{1}{n}\mathbb{e } \bigl[\bigl(s_{|m}^{(1)}\bigr)^2 | \mathbb{f}_m \bigr ] = \frac{1}{n + m'/2 m } \sum _ { j = 1}^n \sigma_{j|m}^2 , \\ \overline{\sigma}_m^2 & = & \mathbb{e } \bigl [ \sigma_{|m}^2 \bigr ] = \frac { 1}{n + m'/2 m } \sum _ { j = 1}^n \sigma_j^2 , \\ \widehat{\sigma}_m^2 & = & \frac{1}{2m}\sum _ { k = 1}^m\sum_{l = 1}^m \mathbb{e } [ x_kx_l ] .\end{aligned}\ ] ] as we shall see below , these quantities are all closely connected . note that @xmath245 for @xmath246 , but @xmath247 in general . moreover , we have the equation @xmath248 yields that under assumption  [ assdependence ] we have @xmath249 . moreover , lemma  [ lemsigexpansion ] gives @xmath250 for @xmath251 . we conclude that @xmath252 the same is true for @xmath253 , since @xmath254 . summarizing , we see that we do not have any degeneracy problems for the partial variances @xmath255 , @xmath230 under assumption  [ assdependence ] . for the second part @xmath256 , we introduce @xmath257 . one then readily derives via conditioning arguments that @xmath258    we are now ready to give the main result of this section . [ thmmdependent ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] , and let @xmath1 $ ] . assume in addition that @xmath259 for @xmath260 . then @xmath261 where @xmath262 depends on @xmath263 , @xmath77 , @xmath264 and @xmath265 . the proof of theorem  [ thmmdependent ] is based on the following decomposition . let @xmath266 be independent unit gaussian random variables . then @xmath267 where @xmath268 are defined as @xmath269 \bigr| , \\ \mathbf{b } & = & \sup_{x \in\mathbb{r } } \bigl|\mathbb{e } \bigl[p_{|\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl(z_1 \sigma_{|m } \leq x - s_{|m}^{(2)}/ \sqrt{n } \bigr ) - p_{|\mathbb{f } _ m } \bigl(z_1 \overline{\sigma}_{m } \leq x - s_{|m}^{(2)}/\sqrt { n } \bigr ) \bigr ] \bigr| , \\ \mathbf{c } & = & \sup_{x \in\mathbb{r } } \bigl|p \bigl(s_{|m}^{(2)}/ \sqrt{n } \leq x - z_1 \overline{\sigma}_{m } \bigr ) - p ( z_2 { \overline { \varsigma}}_{m } \leq x - z_1 \overline{\sigma}_{m } ) \bigr|.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we will treat the three parts separately , and show that @xmath270 , which proves theorem  [ thmmdependent ] . as a brief overview , the proof consists of the following steps :    apply esseen s smoothing inequality , and factor the resulting characteristic function into a ( conditional ) product of characteristic functions @xmath271 under the conditional probability measure @xmath202 ;    use ideal metrics to control the distance between @xmath272 and corresponding gaussian versions under @xmath202 ;    based on renyi s representation , control the ( conditional ) characteristic functions @xmath271 under @xmath238 ;    replace conditional variances under the overall probability measure @xmath238 . one of the main difficulties arises from working under the conditional measure  @xmath202 . for the proof , we require some additional notation . in analogy to the filter @xmath56 , we denote with @xmath273 , @xmath274 we put @xmath275 and @xmath276 , and in particular , we have @xmath277 . similarly , let @xmath278 be independent copies of @xmath214 and @xmath215 . for @xmath279 , we then introduce the quantities @xmath280 in analogy to @xmath281 . this means that we replace every @xmath282 with @xmath283 at all corresponding places . for @xmath284 , we also introduce the @xmath46-algebras @xmath285 \\[-8pt ] \nonumber \mathcal { e}_k^ * & = & \sigma \bigl(\epsilon_j , 1 \leq j \leq k \mbox { and } \epsilon_i ' , i \leq0 \bigr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] similarly , we introduce filtrations @xmath286 and @xmath287 .    throughout the proofs , we make the following conventions :    we do not distinguish between @xmath288 and @xmath289 since the difference @xmath290 is not of any particular relevance for the proofs . we use @xmath288 for both expressions . the abbreviations @xmath291 for expressions ( possible with some additional indices ) vary from proof to proof . we use @xmath292 , @xmath293 , ( @xmath294 ) to denote ( two - sided ) inequalities involving a multiplicative constant . if there is no confusion , we put @xmath295 for @xmath235 to lighten the notation , particularly in part @xmath296 . we write [ as in ( [ defnsnm ] ) ] @xmath297 if we make definitions on the fly . the proof of part @xmath298 is divided into four major steps . some more technical arguments are deferred to sections  [ seczolo ] and  [ secboundcondichar ] .    for @xmath299 , put @xmath300 , and denote with @xmath301 its complement . since @xmath302 , we obtain that @xmath303 \bigr| \\ & \leq & \mathbb{e } \bigl[\sup_{y \in \mathbb{r } } \bigl|p_{|\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl(s_{|m}^{(1)}/\sqrt{n } \leq y \bigr ) - p_{|\mathbb{f } _ m } ( z_1 \sigma_{|m } \leq y ) \bigr|\mathbh{1}(\mathcal { b}_{n } ) \bigr ] + 2p \bigl(\mathcal{b}_{n}^{c } \bigr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] corollary  [ corsigreplaceissmall ] yields that @xmath304 since @xmath305 , and it thus suffices to treat @xmath306    berry  esseen inequality . denote with @xmath307 the smoothed version of @xmath308 ( cf . @xcite ) as in the classical approach . since @xmath309 on the set @xmath310 by construction , the smoothing inequality ( cf . @xcite , lemma  1 , xvi.3 ) is applicable , and it thus suffices to treat @xmath307 . let @xmath311 $ ] , and put @xmath312 , where @xmath313 will be specified later . due to the independence of @xmath314 under @xmath315 and since @xmath316 , it follows that @xmath317   \leq\int_{-t}^{t}\mathbb{e } \biggl [ \biggl|\prod _ { j = 1}^n \varphi_j ( \xi/ \sqrt{n } ) - \prod_{j = 1}^n e^{-\sigma_{j|m}^2 \xi^2/2n } \biggr| \biggr ] \big/|\xi| \,d \xi.\end{aligned}\ ] ] put @xmath318 . then @xmath319 , where we use the convention that @xmath320 if @xmath321 or . hence we have @xmath322 note that both @xmath323 and @xmath324 are two - dependent sequences . since @xmath325 , @xmath326 , it then follows by the triangle inequality , stationarity and `` leave one out '' that @xmath327    we proceed by obtaining upper bounds for @xmath328 and @xmath329 .    bounding @xmath330 , @xmath331 . let @xmath332 , @xmath331 be two zero mean standard gaussian random variables . then @xmath333 \bigr\|_1 \\ & & { } + \bigl\|\mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[\sin(ty_i ) - \sin(t\sigma _ { i|m}z_i ) \bigr ] \bigr\|_1.\end{aligned}\ ] ] due to the very nice analytical properties of @xmath334 , one may reformulate the above in terms of ideal - metrics ; cf . @xcite and section  [ seczolo ] . this indeed leads to the desired bound @xmath335 the precise derivation is carried out in section  [ seczolo ] via lemmas  [ lemtrunccharcosandsin ] and [ lemapproxchar ] , and corollary  [ corzolo ] . whether @xmath336 or @xmath337 makes no difference . bounding @xmath338 , we require good enough estimates for @xmath339 where @xmath340 . as already mentioned , we can not directly follow the classical approach . instead , we use a refined version based on a conditioning argument . to this end , let us first deal with @xmath341 . put @xmath342 we first consider the case @xmath343 . introduce @xmath344 \bigr ) + r_1\quad\mbox{and } \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \label{eqthmauxcharequationbound2.89 } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber   v_{1}^{(l)}(m )   & = &   \mathit{iv}_1^{(l)}(m ) - \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal { g}_1^{(l ) } } \bigl[\mathit{iv}_1^{(l)}(m ) \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] then since @xmath345 , we have @xmath346 \bigr| \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] clearly , this is also valid for @xmath341 , @xmath241 , with corresponding @xmath347 and @xmath348 , @xmath349 , defined analogously to ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound2.89 ] ) . let @xmath350,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath351 , and hence @xmath352 denotes the set of all even numbers between @xmath353 and @xmath354 . then @xmath355 \bigr| \bigr ] = \prod _ { j \in\mathcal{j } } \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl [ \bigl|\varphi _ j^{(l)}(x ) \bigr| \bigr],\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath356 . note that @xmath357 is a sequence of i.i.d . random variables , particularly with respect to @xmath202 . hence by independence and jensen s inequality , it follows from the above that @xmath358 \bigr\|_1 \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \label{eqthmauxcharequationbound2.905 } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber   & \leq & \prod _ { j \in \mathcal{j } } \bigl\|\varphi_j^{(l)}(x ) \bigr\|_1 = \biggl\|\prod_{j \in\mathcal{j } } \bigl| \varphi_j^{(l)}(x ) \bigr| \biggr\|_1.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we thus see that it suffices to deal with @xmath359 . the classical argument uses the estimate @xmath360 for the characteristic function @xmath361 . since in our case @xmath362 is random , we can not use this estimate . instead , we will use lemma  [ lemgeneralvarphibound ] , which provides a similar result . in order to apply it , set @xmath363 , @xmath364 for the applicability of lemma  [ lemgeneralvarphibound ] , we need to verify that :    @xmath365 = 0 $ ] ;    there exists a @xmath366 such that @xmath367 \leq u^- ) < 1/7 $ ] , uniformly for @xmath368 ;    @xmath369 uniformly for @xmath368 and some @xmath370 . now ( i ) is true by construction . claim ( ii ) is dealt with via lemma  [ lemauxhsigcomp ] , which yields that @xmath371 \leq\widehat { \sigma } _ { m - l}^2 \bigr ) \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{m - l}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath372 for large enough @xmath373 ( say @xmath374 ) by lemma  [ lemsigexpressionsrelations ] , we may set @xmath375 . for showing ( iii ) , it suffices to treat the case @xmath343 . note that ( for @xmath376 ) @xmath377 = \mathbb { e}_{\mathcal{e}_l } \bigl[x_k - x_k^{(k - l , * ) } \bigr]\quad \mbox{and } \quad \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb { f}_m } [ x_k ] = \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[x_k - x_{k}^ * \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] by stationarity and the triangle and jensen inequalities , we then have that @xmath378 \biggr\|_p \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \label{eqthmauxcharequationbound4 } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & & { } + 2 \biggl\|\sum_{k = l+1}^m \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[x_k - x_k^ * \bigr ] \biggr\|_p + 2 \|r_1 \|_p.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using jensen s inequality and arguing similar to lemma  [ lemboundr1 ] , it follows that @xmath379 \biggr\|_p & \leq & \sum_{k = l+1}^m \bigl\|x_k - x_k^{(k - l , * ) } \bigr\|_p \\ & \leq & \sum_{k = 1}^\infty k \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_p < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] similarly , using also lemma  [ lemboundr1 ] to control @xmath380 , we obtain that @xmath381 \biggr\|_p + \|r_1 \|_p < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] by lemma  [ lemwuoriginal ] , we have @xmath382 , and hence ( iii ) follows . we can thus apply lemma  [ lemgeneralvarphibound ] with @xmath383 and @xmath384 , which yields @xmath385 where @xmath356 . it is important to emphasize that both @xmath386 do not depend on @xmath387 and are strictly positive . moreover , we find from ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound2.92 ] ) that @xmath388 can be chosen freely , as long as @xmath373 is larger than @xmath389 , which will be important in the next step . bounding and integrating @xmath390 . we first treat @xmath391 . recall that @xmath318 , hence @xmath392 by ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound1 ] ) , ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound2.905 ] ) and ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound6 ] ) , it then follows for @xmath393 that @xmath394 to make use of this bound , we need to appropriately select @xmath395 . recall that @xmath396 , @xmath397 by assumption . choosing @xmath398 and @xmath399 , we obtain from the above that @xmath400 in order to treat @xmath401 , let @xmath402 , and @xmath403 . denote with @xmath404 its complement . then by corollary  [ corsigreplaceissmall ] ( straightforward adaption is necessary ) and ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound1 ] ) , it follows that @xmath405 similarly , using @xmath406 one obtains @xmath407 hence employing ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound9 ] ) and ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound10 ] ) yields @xmath408 \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & \lesssim &   n^{-p/2 + 1 } + n^{-p/2 + 1 } n^{-p/2 } n^{p+1 } + n^{-p/2 } n^2 \log t \\ \nonumber & \lesssim &   n^{-p/2 + 1},\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath396 , @xmath397 by assumption . similarly , one obtains the same bound for @xmath329 . this completes the proof of part @xmath296 . let @xmath410.\end{aligned}\ ] ] recall that @xmath411 and @xmath412 by corollary  [ corsigreplaceissmall ] . using properties of the gaussian distribution , it follows that @xmath413 \bigr| + \sup _ { x\in\mathbb{r } } \bigl|\mathbb{e } \bigl[\delta^{(2)}(x ) \mathbh{1}\bigl ( \mathcal{b}_{n}^c\bigr ) \bigr ] \bigr| \\ & \lesssim & \mathbb{e } \bigl [ \bigl|1/\sigma_{|m } - 1/\overline { \sigma}_{m } \bigr|\mathbh{1 } ( \mathcal{b}_n ) \bigr ] + n^{-p/2 + 1}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using @xmath414 , hlders inequality and lemma  [ lemsigexpansion ] , we obtain that @xmath415 \lesssim \bigl\| \sigma_{|m}^2 - \overline { \sigma}_{m}^2 \bigr\|_{p/2 } \lesssim n^{-p/2 + 1}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence we conclude that @xmath416 . due to the independence of @xmath418 , we may rewrite @xmath419 as @xmath420 where @xmath421 denotes the c.d.f . of a standard normal distribution . this induces a `` natural '' smoothing . the claim now follows by repeating the same arguments as in part @xmath296 . note however , that the present situation is much easier to handle , due to the already smoothed version , and since @xmath422 , @xmath423 is a sequence of independent random variables . alternatively , one may also directly appeal to the results in @xcite . the proof of theorem  [ thmberry ] mainly consists of constructing a good @xmath31-dependent approximation and then verifying the conditions of theorem  [ thmmdependent ] . to this end , set @xmath424 for some @xmath425 , and note that @xmath426 for @xmath1 $ ] . let @xmath427 , and define the approximating sequence as @xmath428\quad \mbox{and } \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \\[-8pt ] \nonumber x_k^{(>m ) } & = & x_k - x_k^{(\leq m ) } = x_k - \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k | \mathcal{e}_k^{m } \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] we also introduce the corresponding partial sums as @xmath429 further , let @xmath430 and @xmath431 . we require the following auxiliary result ( lemma  5.1 in @xcite ) . [ lemsiegidecomposition ] for every @xmath432 , every @xmath433 and every @xmath434 , the following estimate holds : @xmath435 where : @xmath436    proof of theorem  [ thmberry ] as a preparatory result , note that @xmath437.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using the same arguments as in lemma  [ lemsigexpressionsrelations ] , it follows that @xmath438 . by the properties of gaussian distribution , @xmath439 and we may thus safely interchange @xmath440 and @xmath79 . we first deal with @xmath441 . for @xmath442 , denote with @xmath443 the projection operator @xmath444 - \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k^{(>m ) } |\mathcal { e}_{j-1 } \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] proceeding as in the proof of lemma  3.1 in @xcite , it follows that for @xmath284 , @xmath445 an application of theorem  1 in @xcite now yields that @xmath446 for some absolute constant @xmath447 that only depends on @xmath77 . by ( [ eqthmgen4 ] ) , it follows that the above is of magnitude @xmath448 setting @xmath449 , we obtain the bound @xmath450 . we thus conclude from the markov inequality that @xmath451 hence @xmath452 note that a much sharper bound can be obtained via moderate deviation arguments ( cf . @xcite ) , but the current one is sufficient for our needs , and its deviation requires fewer computations . next , we deal with @xmath453 . the aim is to apply theorem  [ thmmdependent ] to obtain the result . in order to do so , we need to verify assumption  [ assdependence](i)(iii ) for @xmath454 . note first that @xmath455 = \mathbb{e }   [ x_k ] = 0 $ ] . moreover , jensen s inequality gives @xmath456 \bigr\|_p \leq \|x_k \|_p < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence assumption  [ assdependence](i ) is valid . note that we may assume @xmath457 , since otherwise @xmath458 , and assumption  [ assdependence](ii ) is trivially true . put @xmath459 since @xmath460 ' = \mathbb { e } [ x_k ' |\mathcal{e}_k^{(m,\prime ) } ] $ ] , it follows that @xmath461 - \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal { e}_k^{m } } [ x_k ] \\ & = & \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{e}_k^{(m,\prime ) } } \bigl[x_k ' - x_k \bigr ] + \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{e}_k^{(m,\prime ) } } [ x_k ] - \mathbb { e}_{\mathcal { e}_k^{m } } [ x_k ] \\ & = & \nonumber \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal { e}_k^{(m,\prime ) } } \bigl[x_k ' - x_k \bigr ] + \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal { e}_k^{m } } \bigl[x_k ' \bigr ] - \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{e}_k^{m } } [ x_k ] \\ & = & \mathbb{e } _ { \mathcal{e}_k^{(m,\prime ) } } \bigl[x_k ' - x_k \bigr ] + \mathbb { e}_{\mathcal { e}_k^{m } } \bigl[x_k ' - x_k \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence by jensen s inequality @xmath462 , which gives the claim . we have @xmath463 \bigr\|_p \leq \bigl\|x_k - x_k^{(m , * ) } \bigr\|_p \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \label{eqthmgen7 } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & \leq &   m^{-2}\sum_{l = m}^{\infty}l^2 \bigl\| x_l - x_l ' \bigr\|_p \lesssim m^{-2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] by the cauchy  schwarz , triangle and jensen inequalities , we have @xmath464 - \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k^{(\leq m ) } x_0^{(\leq m ) } \bigr ] \bigr| \\ & & \qquad\leq \|x_0 \|_2 \bigl\|x_k^ { ( > m ) } \bigr\|_2 + \|x_k \|_2 \bigl\|x_0^ { ( > m ) } \bigr\|_2 + \bigl\|x_0^ { ( > m ) } \bigr\|_2 \bigl\|x_k^ { ( > m ) } \bigr\|_2.\end{aligned}\ ] ] by ( [ eqthmgen7 ] ) , this is of the magnitude @xmath465 . we thus conclude that @xmath466 - \sum_{k = 0}^m \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k^{(\leq m ) } x_0^{(\leq m ) } \bigr ] \biggr| \lesssim m^{-1}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    on the other hand , we have @xmath467 \biggr| \leq\sum_{k > m } \|x_0 \|_2 \bigl\|x_k^ * - x_k \bigr\|_2 \leq\frac { 1}{m}\sum_{k > m}k^2 \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_2 \|x_0 \|_2 \lesssim\frac{1}{m}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this yields @xmath468 - s^2 \biggr| \lesssim \frac{1}{m},\end{aligned}\ ] ] which gives ( iii ) for large enough @xmath31 . since @xmath469 , we see that we may apply theorem  [ thmmdependent ] which yields @xmath470 next , we deal with @xmath471 . properties of the gaussian distribution function give @xmath472 however , by the cauchy  schwarz inequality and ( [ eqthmgen6 ] ) , it follows that @xmath473 and we thus conclude that @xmath474 finally , setting @xmath475 , standard arguments involving the gaussian distribution function yield that @xmath476 piecing together ( [ eqthmgena1 ] ) , ( [ eqthmgena2 ] ) , ( [ eqthmgena3 ] ) and ( [ eqthmgena0 ] ) , lemma  [ lemsiegidecomposition ] yields @xmath477 which completes the proof .      recall that @xmath478 we first consider the case @xmath479 . using theorem  [ thmberry ] , we have @xmath480 in order to bound @xmath481 , we apply @xcite , theorem  3.2 , which will give us the bound @xmath482 to this end , we need to verify that @xmath483 |\mathcal{e}_0 \bigr ] \bigr ) \bigr\|_1 \\ \label{eqriol1 } & & \qquad{}+ \frac{1}{k}\sum _ { i = 1}^k \bigl\|x_{-i } x_0 \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k^2 - \mathbb { e}\bigl[x_k^2 \bigr ] | \mathcal{e}_0 \bigr ] \bigr\|_1 \biggr)<\infty\quad\mbox{and } \\ \nonumber & & \sum_{k > 0 } \frac{1}{k } \sum _ { i = \lfloor k/2 \rfloor}^k \bigl\||x_0| \vee1 \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_i x_k^2 - \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_i x_k^2\bigr ] | \mathcal{e}_0 \bigr ] \bigr\|_1 < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] applying the hlder , jensen and triangle inequalities , we get @xmath484 |\mathcal { e}_0 \bigr ] \bigr ) \bigr\|_1 & \leq &   \bigl\|x_0 ^ 2 \vee1 \bigr\|_2 \bigl\|x_k - x_k^ * \bigr\|_4 \bigl\|x_k + x_k^ * \bigr\|_4 \\ & \lesssim   & k \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_4.\end{aligned}\ ] ] similarly , with @xmath485 , we obtain that @xmath486 | \mathcal { e}_0 \bigr ] \bigr\|_1 & \lesssim &   \|x_{-i } \|_4 \bigl\| \mathbb{e } [ x_{0}|\mathcal{e}_{-i } ] \bigr\|_4 k \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_4 \\ & \lesssim &   \bigl\|x_i - x_i^ * \bigr\|_4 k \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_4 \\ & \lesssim &   i \bigl\|x_i - x_i ' \bigr\|_4 k \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_4.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the same manner , we get that @xmath487 | \mathcal{e}_0 \bigr ] \bigr\|_1 & \lesssim &   \bigl\|x_i - x_i^ * \bigr\| _ 4 + \bigl\|x_k - x_k^ * \bigr\|_4 \\ & \lesssim &   i \bigl\|x_i - x_i ' \bigr\|_4 + k \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_4.\end{aligned}\ ] ] combining all three bounds , the validity of ( [ eqriol1 ] ) follows , and hence ( [ eqthmlpboundrio3 ] ) . for  ( [ eqthmlpboundrio2 ] ) , we thus obtain @xmath488 which completes the proof for @xmath489 . for @xmath87 , we may directly refer to @xcite , theorem  3.2 , using the above bounds .      for the proof , we require the following result ; cf . @xcite , lemma  5.4 . [ lemosipov ] let @xmath490 be a real - valued random variable . put @xmath491 and assume that @xmath492 for @xmath101 and @xmath493 . then @xmath494 for all @xmath495 , where @xmath496 is a positive constant depending only on @xmath497 , and @xmath498 \biggr|.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    consider first the case where @xmath499 , for @xmath500 large enough ( see below ) . then by the markov inequality and lemma [ lemwuoriginal ] , it follows that @xmath501 combining theorem  [ thmberry ] with ( [ eq_truncated_be ] ) and lemma [ lemosipov ] , we see that it suffices to consider @xmath502 with @xmath503 . using again theorem  [ thmberry ] together with ( [ eq_truncated_be ] ) , standard tail bounds for the gaussian distribution and elementary computations give @xmath504 according to a fuk  nagaev - type inequality for dependent sequences in @xcite , theorem  2 , if it holds that @xmath505 then for large enough @xmath228 and @xmath506 we get @xmath507 and hence , @xmath508 however , setting @xmath509 , an application of the cauchy  schwarz inequality yields @xmath510   & & \qquad\leq \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty } a_k^2 \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty } a_k^{-2 } k^{({p - 2})/({p+1 } ) } \bigl\|x_k - x_k'\bigr\| _ p^{{2p}/({p+1 } ) } \\[-2pt ] & & \qquad\lesssim   \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty } k^{2 } \bigl\|x_k - x_k'\bigr\|_p < \infty\end{aligned}\ ] ] by assumption  [ assmaindependence ] . hence ( [ eqthmnonunif3 ] ) holds , and thus ( [ eqthmnonunif4 ] ) and ( [ eqthmnonunif5 ] ) . to complete the proof , it remains to treat the case @xmath511 . but in this case , we may directly appeal to ( [ eqthmnonunif4 ] ) which gives the result . suppose we have a sequence of random variables @xmath512 and a sequence of filtrations @xmath513 , such that both @xmath514 \}_{1 \leq j \leq j}$ ] and @xmath515 \}_{1 \leq j \leq j}$ ] are independent sequences . note that this does not necessarily mean that @xmath516 is independent , and indeed this is not the case when we apply lemma  [ lemgeneralvarphibound ] in step  4 of the proof of part @xmath296 . introduce the conditional characteristic function @xmath517.\end{aligned}\ ] ] given the above conditions , we have the following result . [ lemgeneralvarphibound ] let @xmath8 , and assume that :    @xmath365 = 0 $ ] uniformly for @xmath518 ,    there exists a @xmath366 such that @xmath519 \leq u^- ) < 1/7 $ ] uniformly for @xmath520 ,    @xmath521 \leq c_1 < \infty$ ] uniformly for @xmath518 . then there exist constants @xmath522 , only depending on @xmath523 and @xmath77 , such that @xmath524 \lesssim e^{-c_{\varphi,1}x^2 j } + e^{-\sqrt{j/4}\log 8/7}\qquad \mbox{for $ x^2 \leq c_{\varphi,2}$.}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    let @xmath525.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using a taylor expansion and writing @xmath526 , we obtain that @xmath527 = 1 - \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal { h}_j } \bigl[h_j^2 \bigr ] x^2/2 + x^2/2\int_0 ^ 1(1-s)i(s , x)\,ds.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using the lipschitz property of @xmath528 and @xmath529 , it follows that @xmath530,\qquad h > 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath531 we have from the markov inequality @xmath532 & \leq & 2 \int_h^{\infty } x p_{\mathcal{h}_j } \bigl(|h_j| \geq x \bigr)\,dx + h^2 p_{\mathcal{h}_j}\bigl(|h_j| \geq h\bigr ) \\ & \leq & 2 h^{-p + 2}\int_0^{\infty } x^{p-1 } p_{\mathcal{h}_j } \bigl(|h_j| \geq x \bigr)\,dx+h^2 p_{\mathcal{h}_j}\bigl(|h_j| \geq h\bigr ) \\ & \leq &   \frac{2+p}{p } h^{-p+2 } \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{h}_j } \bigl[|h_j|^p \bigr ] < h^{-p+2 } \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{h}_j } \bigl[|h_j|^p \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] we thus conclude from ( [ eqlemgeneralvarphibound1 ] ) that @xmath533|xh| + 4 h^{-p+2 } \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{h}_j } \bigl[|h_j|^p \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] this gives us @xmath534 - 1 + \mathbb{e } _ { \mathcal{h}_j } \bigl[h_j^2 \bigr ] x^2/2 \bigr| \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \label{eqlemgeneralvarphibound2 } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & & \qquad\leq\mathbb { e}_{\mathcal { h}_j } \bigl[h_j^2 \bigr]h|x|^3 + 2h^{-p+2}x^2 \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal { h}_j } \bigl[|h_j|^p \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] let @xmath535 , and put @xmath536 $ ] and @xmath537 $ ] . consider @xmath538 where @xmath539 denotes the @xmath540th largest random variable for @xmath541 . let @xmath542 , @xmath518 denote i.i.d . unit exponential random variables , and denote with @xmath543 the @xmath540th largest . further , denote with @xmath544 the c.d.f . of @xmath545 , @xmath518 , and with @xmath546 . using the transformation @xmath547 , we thus obtain @xmath548\\[-8pt]\nonumber & & \qquad \stackrel{d}{= } \bigl\{e_j \leq -\log\bigl(1 - f_{\rho_j}(x_j)\bigr )   : 1 \leq j \leq j \bigr\ } , \qquad x_j \in \mathbb{r},\end{aligned}\ ] ] which is the well - known renyi representation ; cf . @xcite . in particular , by the construction of @xmath549 it follows that @xmath550 for @xmath551 . let @xmath552 and @xmath553 . we wish to find a @xmath554 such that @xmath555 . this is implied by @xmath556 . we will now construct such an @xmath554 . since @xmath557 = \int_0^{\infty } \bigl(1 - f_{\rho_j}(x ) \bigr)\,dx \geq c_2 p \bigl(\rho _ j^{\mathcal{h } } \geq c_2\bigr)\qquad \mbox{for $ c_2 > 0$},\end{aligned}\ ] ] it follows that @xmath558 . hence choosing @xmath559 , we obtain @xmath560 and hence @xmath561 , which leads to @xmath562 . thus by known properties of exponential order statistics ( cf . @xcite ) , we have @xmath563 e^{-u_{\mathcal{h}}^+(j ) } \geq1 - \mathcal { o } \bigl(e^{-\sqrt{j/2}\log2 } \bigr),\end{aligned}\ ] ] for sufficiently large @xmath564 . we thus conclude that @xmath565 let us denote this set with @xmath566 , and put @xmath567 . note that the index set @xmath568 has at least cardinality @xmath569 given event @xmath570 . for the sake of simplicity , let us assume that @xmath571 , which , as is clear from the arguments below , has no impact on our results . let us introduce @xmath572 the order statistics of @xmath573 within the index set @xmath568 . this means that @xmath574 is not necessarily the smallest value of @xmath575 , @xmath541 . more generally , it holds that @xmath576 now , similar to as before , let @xmath577 be the c.d.f . of @xmath578 , @xmath518 , and put @xmath579 , @xmath580 and @xmath581 for some @xmath582 . we search for a @xmath583 such that @xmath584 , which is true if @xmath585 . however , this is precisely what we demanded in the assumptions . then proceeding as before , we have @xmath586 e^{-u_{\mathcal{h}}^-(j ) } \\ & \geq & 1 - \mathcal{o } \bigl(e^{-\sqrt{j/4}\log8/7 } \bigr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] we thus conclude from ( [ eqlemboundchar6.5 ] ) and the construction of @xmath587 that @xmath588 \label{eqlemboundchar7 } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & \geq & 1 - \mathcal { o } \bigl(e^{-\sqrt{j/4}\log8/7 } \bigr).\end{aligned}\ ] ] put @xmath589 . combining ( [ eqlemboundchar6 ] ) and ( [ eqlemboundchar7 ] ) we obtain @xmath590 we denote this set with @xmath591 . also note that by the ( conditional ) lyapunov inequality , we have @xmath592 note that @xmath593 on the event @xmath594 , and , by the above , we get @xmath595 using ( [ eqlemgeneralvarphibound2 ] ) , this implies that for every @xmath596 , we have @xmath597 - 1 + \mathbb{e } _ { |\mathcal{h}_j } \bigl[h_j^2 \bigr ] x^2/2 \bigr| \leq\bigl(u^+\bigr)^{p/2 } h|x|^3 + 2h^{-p+2 } u^+ x^2.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence , if @xmath598 and @xmath599 , we conclude from the above and the triangle inequality that for @xmath600 , @xmath601 \label{eqlemboundchar9 } \\[-8pt ] \eqntext{\mbox{for $ \bigl(u^+\bigr)^{p/2 } x^2/2 < 1$,}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath602 . since @xmath603 and @xmath604 , there exist absolute constants @xmath605 , chosen sufficiently small , such that @xmath606 next , observe that @xmath607 & = & \mathbb{e } \biggl [ \biggl|\prod _ { j = 1}^{j}\varphi _ j^{\mathcal{h } } ( x ) \biggr| \bigl(\mathbh{1}(\mathcal{a } ) + \mathbh{1}\bigl(\mathcal { a}^c \bigr ) \bigr ) \biggr ] \\[-3pt ] \label{eqlemboundchar9.1 } & \leq &   p \bigl(\mathcal{a}^c \bigr ) + \mathbb{e } \biggl [ \biggl|\prod_{j \in\mathcal{i}}\varphi_j^{\mathcal{h}}(x ) \biggr|\mathbh { 1}(\mathcal { a } ) \biggr ] \\[-3pt ] \nonumber & \leq &   p \bigl(\mathcal{a}^c \bigr ) + \mathbb{e } \biggl [ \biggl|\prod _ { j \in\mathcal{i}_{\mathcal{a}}}\varphi_j^{\mathcal { h}}(x ) \biggr| \mathbh{1}(\mathcal{a } ) \biggr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] moreover , using ( [ eqlemboundchar9 ] ) and ( [ eqlemboundchar9.2 ] ) and since @xmath608 on @xmath609 , it follows that @xmath610 & \leq & \mathbb{e } \biggl [ \biggl|\prod_{j \in\mathcal{i}_{\mathcal{a } } } \bigl(1 - u(x ) \bigr ) \biggr|\mathbh{1}(\mathcal{a } ) \biggr ] \\ & \leq & \mathbb{e } \biggl[\prod_{j \in\mathcal { i}_{\mathcal{a}}}e^{- u(x ) } \mathbh{1}(\mathcal{a } ) \biggr]\leq e^{-u(x ) j/8 } \leq e^{-c_{\varphi,1}jx^2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence we conclude from the above and ( [ eqlemboundchar8 ] ) that @xmath611 \lesssim e^{-c_{\varphi,1}x^2 j } + e^{-\sqrt { j/4}\log8/7}\qquad \mbox{for $ x^2 \leq c_{\varphi,2}$,}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which yields the claim .    [ lemsigexpressionsrelations ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] . then @xmath612 | < \infty$ ] and @xmath613 . moreover , we have @xmath614 as @xmath615 .    since @xmath616 = \mathbb { e } [ x_k - x_k^ * |\mathcal{e}_0 ] $ ] , the cauchy  schwarz and jensen inequalities imply @xmath617 \bigr| & \leq &   \|x_0 \|_2 \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty } \bigl\|\mathbb{e } [ x_k |\mathcal{e}_0 ] \bigr\|_2 \leq \|x_0 \|_2\sum_{k = 0}^{\infty } \bigl\|x_k - x_k^ * \bigr\|_2 \\ & \leq &   \|x_0 \| _ 2\sum_{k = 1}^{\infty}k^2 \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_2 < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the decomposition @xmath618 now follows from ( [ decompsigma ] ) . claim @xmath619 as @xmath615 readily follows from the previous computations . [ lemsigexpansion ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] . then :    @xmath620 for @xmath230 ,    @xmath621 for @xmath230 ,    @xmath622 . we first show ( i ) . without loss of generality , we may assume @xmath343 , since @xmath623 . to lighten the notation , we use @xmath624 . we will first establish that @xmath625 . we have that @xmath626 \bigr ) + r_1 \biggr)^2 \biggr ] - 2 m \widehat{\sigma}_m^2.\end{aligned}\ ] ] by squaring out the first expression , we obtain a sum of square terms and a sum of mixed terms . let us first treat the mixed terms , which are @xmath627 + { \mathbb{e}}_{{\mathbb{f}}_m}[x_k]\bigl(x_l - x_l^{(**)}\bigr)\bigr ] \\[-2pt ] & & \quad{}+ 2 \sum_{k = 1}^m \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[r_1 x_k^ { ( * * ) } + r_1 \bigl(x_k - x_k^{(**)}\bigr ) + r_1 \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m}[x_k ] \bigr ] \\[-2pt ] & & \qquad=   i_m + \mathit{ii}_m + \mathit{iii}_m + \mathit{iv}_m + v_m + \mathit{vi}_m.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we will handle all these terms separately . we have @xmath628 & = & \sum_{l = 1}^m \sum _ { k = l}^m \mathbb { e}_{\mathbb{f } _ m } \bigl [ \bigl(x_l - x_l^{(**)}\bigr)\mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k^ { ( * * ) } |\sigma \bigl(\mathbb{f}_m , \mathcal{e}_l,\mathcal{e}_l^ { ( * * ) } \bigr ) \bigr ] \bigr ] \\[-2pt ] & & { } + \sum_{l = 1}^m \sum _ { k = 1}^{l-1}\mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[x_k^{(**)}\bigl(x_l - x_l^{(**)}\bigr ) \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath629 \stackrel{d } { = } \mathbb{e } [ x_k |\mathcal{e}_l ] = \mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k - x_k^{(k - l , * ) } |\mathcal { e}_l \bigr],\end{aligned}\ ] ] the cauchy  schwarz ( with respect to @xmath630 ) and jensen inequalities thus yield @xmath631    since @xmath632 = \mathbb { e}[x_k ] = 0 $ ] ( @xmath457 ) it follows that @xmath633 . it follows via the jensen and triangle inequalities that @xmath634 \bigr\|_p & = & \bigl\|\mathbb{e } \bigl[x_l - x_l^ { ( * * ) }    \nonumber \\[-10pt ] \label{eqlemsigexpansion3}\\[-10pt ] \nonumber   & \leq &   \bigl\|x_l - x_l^{(**)}\bigr\|_p \leq\sum _ { j = l}^{\infty } \bigl\|x_j - x_j ' \bigr\|_p.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the cauchy  schwarz ( with respect to @xmath630 ) and jensen inequalities then give @xmath635    note that @xmath636 and @xmath637 are independent for @xmath638 and @xmath639 . hence since @xmath640 = 0 $ ] , we have @xmath641 & = & \sum _ { k = 1}^m\sum_{l = m+1}^{2 m } \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[x_k^{(**)}x_l \bigr ] \\[-3pt ] & = & \sum_{k = 1}^m\sum _ { l = m+1}^{2 m } \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[x_k^{(**)}\bigl(x_l - x_l^{(l - k , * ) } + x_l^{(l - k,*)}\bigr ) \bigr ] \\[-3pt ] & = & \sum_{k = 1}^m\sum _ { l = m+1}^{2 m } \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[x_k^{(**)}\bigl(x_l - x_l^{(l - k,*)}\bigr ) \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] the cauchy  schwarz ( with respect to @xmath630 ) and jensen inequalitities then yield @xmath642 & \leq & 2\sum_{k = 1}^m\sum _ { l = m+1}^{2 m } \sum_{j = l - k}^{\infty } \bigl\|x_j - x_j ' \bigr\|_{p } \|x_1 \|_{p } \\[-3pt ] & \leq & 2\sum_{k = 1}^m\sum _ { j = m - k}^{\infty } ( j - m+k ) \bigl\|x_j - x_j ' \bigr\| _ { p } \|x_1 \|_{p } \\[-3pt ] & \leq & 2 \sum_{j = 1}^{\infty } j^2 \bigl\|x_j - x_j ' \bigr\|_{p } \|x_1 \|_{p } < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the cauchy  schwarz ( with respect to @xmath643 ) and jensen inequalities yield @xmath644 & \leq & \sum_{l = 1}^{\infty } l^2 \bigl\|x_l - x_l ' \bigr\|_p \|r_1 \|_p < \infty,\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath645 by lemma  [ lemboundr1 ] .    proceeding as above and using ( [ eqlemsigexpansion3 ] ) , we get @xmath646 . it thus remains to deal with the squared terms , which are @xmath647\mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f } _ m}[x_l ] \bigr ] + \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[r_1 ^ 2 \bigr ] \\ & & \qquad= 2m\widehat { \sigma}_m^2 + \mathit{vii}_m + \mathit{viii}_m + \mathit{ix}_m.\end{aligned}\ ] ] however , using the results from the previous computations and lemma  [ lemboundr1 ] , one readily deduces that @xmath648 piecing everything together , we have established that @xmath649 . however , from the above arguments one readily deduces that @xmath650 , and hence ( i ) and ( ii ) follow . we now treat ( iii ) . since @xmath651 is an independent sequence under @xmath202 , we have @xmath652 let @xmath653 and @xmath654 such that @xmath655 . then @xmath656 note that @xmath657 is a sequence of independent random variables , and the same is true for @xmath658 . then by lemma  [ lemwuoriginal ] , it follows that @xmath659$,}\end{aligned}\ ] ] which by ( i ) is of the magnitude @xmath660 . hence we conclude from ( [ eqlemsigexpansion6 ] ) that @xmath661    [ corsigreplaceissmall ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] . let @xmath662 . then @xmath663    by markov s inequality , lemma  [ lemsigexpressionsrelations ] and lemma  [ lemsigexpansion ] , it follows that for large enough @xmath31 @xmath664 since @xmath210 by assumption  [ assdependence](iii ) .      the aim of this section is to give a proof for the inequality @xmath665 in corollary  [ corzolo ] . we will achieve this by employing ideal metrics . let @xmath666 . then we can represent @xmath667 as @xmath668 , where @xmath669 = \mathfrak{m}$ ] denotes the integer part , and @xmath670 . let @xmath671 be the class of all real - valued functions @xmath110 , such that the @xmath672th derivative exists and satisfies @xmath673 note that since @xmath674 are bounded in absolute value and are lipschitz continuous , it follows that up to some finite constant @xmath675 we have @xmath676 for any @xmath666 . as already mentioned in step  2 of the proof of part @xmath296 , we will make use of some special ideal - metrics @xmath677 ( zolotarev metric ) . for two probability measures @xmath678 , the metric @xmath677 is defined as @xmath679 the metric @xmath680 has the nice property of homogeneity . for random variables @xmath681 , induced probability measures @xmath682 and constant @xmath425 , this means that @xmath683 . we require some further notation . for @xmath684 , put @xmath685 note that @xmath686 is independent of @xmath219 , and hence @xmath687 $ ] . let @xmath688 be a sequence of zero mean , standard i.i.d . gaussian random variables . in addition , let @xmath689/\widehat { \sigma}_m^2 = \sigma_{j|m}^2/ \widehat { \sigma}_m^2 \qquad \mbox{for $ 1 \leq j \leq n-1$},\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath690 for @xmath691 . as first step toward ( [ eqphiboundcor ] ) , we have the following result .    [ lemtrunccharcosandsin ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] . then for @xmath692 , it  holds that @xmath693 \bigr\|_1 \lesssim m^{-p/2 + 1}|x|^p \qquad\mbox{if $ p \in(2,3]$},\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath235 .    to lighten the notation , we use @xmath694 and @xmath695 in the following . using taylor expansion , we have @xmath696 note @xmath697 = 0 $ ] and @xmath698 = \eta_{j|m}\mathbb{e } [ s_{j } ] = 0 $ ] . moreover , since @xmath699 $ ] by construction , we obtain from ( [ eqlemtrunccharcosandsin2 ] ) that @xmath700 \\ & & \qquad= x^2\int_0 ^ 1(1-t ) \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } \bigl[y_j^2 \bigl(f''(txy_j)-f''(0 ) \bigr)\\ & & \qquad\qquad{}\hspace*{68pt}- ( s_{j}\eta_{j|m})^2 \bigl(f''(txs_{j}\eta_{j|m})-f''(0 ) \bigr ) \bigr]/2 \,dt \\ & & \qquad\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{= } x^2i_m(x).\end{aligned}\ ] ] we have @xmath701 where we recall that @xmath702 and @xmath703 are independent . using the jensen , triangle and hlder inequalities and @xmath704 , it follows that @xmath705 \bigr\|_1 \\   & & \qquad\leq   2 \bigl\| \bigl(y_j^2 - ( s_{j}\eta_{j|m})^2 \bigr ) |txy_j    \\ & & \qquad\leq   2 \bigl\|y_j^2 - ( s_{j } \eta_{j|m})^2 \bigr\| _ { p/2 } \bigl\||txy_j|^{p-2 } \bigr\|_{p/(p-2)}\\ & & \qquad \lesssim2 \bigl\| |txy_j|^{p-2 } \bigr\|_{p/(p-2 ) } \\ & & \qquad\quad{}\times\bigl ( \|y_j - s_{j } \|_p \|y_j + s_{j } \|_{p } + \bigl\|s_j^2 \bigr\|_{p/2 } \bigl\|\sigma_{j|m}^2 - \widehat{\sigma } _ m^{2 } \bigr\|_{p/2 } \bigr),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we used that @xmath706 for large enough @xmath31 . by lemmas  [ lemboundr1 ] and  [ lemsigexpansion ] , this is of magnitude @xmath707 . hence by adding and subtracting @xmath708 and using similar arguments as before , we obtain from the above @xmath709 \bigr\|_1 \ , dt \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \label{eqlemtrunccharcosandsin3 } \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & & \qquad \lesssim    m^{-1/2}|x|^p + |x|^p \bigl\|s_{j}^2 \bigr\|_{p/2 } \bigl\|\eta _ { j|m}^2 \bigr\|_{p/2 } \bigl\||s_{j } - y_j|^{p-2 } \bigr\|_{p/(p-2 ) } \\ \nonumber & & \qquad\lesssim    m^{-1/2}|x|^p + m^{-(p-2)/2}|x|^p \lesssim m^{-p/2 + 1}|x|^p,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we use that @xmath702 and @xmath710 are independent . this gives the desired result . as next step toward ( [ eqphiboundcor ] ) , we have the following .    [ lemapproxchar ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] . then for @xmath692 , it holds that @xmath711 \bigr\|_1 \lesssim|x|^p m^{-p/2 + 1}\qquad \mbox{if $ p \in(2,3]$},\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath235 .    to increase the readability , we use the abbreviations @xmath712 and @xmath713 in the following . the main objective is to transfer the problem to the setup in @xcite and apply the corresponding results . to this end , we first perform some necessary preparatory computations . we have that @xmath714 \bigr\|_p \leq\sum _ { k > l } \bigl\|x_k - x_k^ * \bigr\|_p \leq\sum_{k > l}k \bigl\| x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_p \to 0\end{aligned}\ ] ] as @xmath715 , hence it follows that @xmath716\qquad \mbox{converges in $ \|\cdot \|_p$}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] next , note that @xmath717.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using exactly the same arguments as in the proof of lemma  [ lemsigexpansion ] ( the present situation is much simpler ) , we get that @xmath718 - 2m\widehat{\sigma}^2 \biggr\|_{p/2 } < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we thus obtain that @xmath719 - 2m\widehat{\sigma}^2 \biggr\|_{p/2 } \lesssim\sum _ { m = 1}^{\infty } m^{-3/2 } < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we will now treat the cases @xmath83 and @xmath33 separately . since @xmath720 , the homogeneity of order @xmath77 implies that @xmath721 \bigr\|_1   & \leq &   2 \bigl\|\zeta_{p } ( p_{xs_{j}\eta_{j|m}|\mathbb{f}_m } , p_{xz_{j}\widehat{\sigma}\eta_{j|m}|\mathbb{f}_m } ) \bigr\| _ 1 \\ & = & 2 \bigl\||x|^p|\eta_{j|m}|^p\zeta_{p } ( p_{s_{j}|\mathbb{f}_m } , p_{z_{j}\widehat{\sigma}|\mathbb{f}_m } ) \bigr\|_1.\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath722 are independent of @xmath219 , we have @xmath723 . hence @xmath724 \bigr\|_1 \leq2 \bigl\||x|^p|\eta_{j|m}|^p \bigr\|_1 \zeta_{p } ( p_{s_{j } } , p_{z_{j}\widehat{\sigma } } ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ] by lemma  [ lemsigexpansion ] , we have @xmath725 . note that @xmath726 = \mathbb { e } [ z_j ] = 0 $ ] and @xmath727 . hence due to ( [ eqlemapproxchar1 ] ) and ( [ eqlemapproxchar2 ] ) , we may apply theorem  3.1(1 ) in @xcite , which gives us @xmath728 . hence @xmath729 \bigr\|_1 \lesssim |x|^p m^{-p/2 + 1}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we may proceed as in the previous case , with the exception that here we need to apply theorem  3.2 in @xcite . we may do so due to ( [ eqlemapproxchar1 ] ) and ( [ eqlemapproxchar2 ] ) . hence we obtain @xmath730 \bigr\|_1 \lesssim |x|^3 m^{-1/2}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    using lemmas  [ lemtrunccharcosandsin ] and  [ lemapproxchar ] , the triangle inequality gives the following corollary , which proves ( [ eqphiboundcor ] ) . we will frequently use the following lemma , which is essentially a restatement of theorem  1 in @xcite , adapted to our setting . [ lemwuoriginal ] put @xmath732 , @xmath733 . if @xmath734 , then @xmath735 for the sake of completeness , we sate this result in the general , nontime - homogenous but stationary bernoulli - shift context . recall that @xmath736 s_{j|m}^ { ( * * ) } & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}\sum _ { k = ( 2j-2)m + 1}^{(2j-1)m } x_k^{((2j - 2)m , * * ) } .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    [ lemboundr1 ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] . then :    @xmath737 for @xmath235 ,    @xmath738 for @xmath235 .    without loss of generally , we assume that @xmath343 since @xmath623 . ( i ) we have the decomposition @xmath739 \bigr\|_p + \|r_j \|_p.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we will deal with all three terms separately . the triangle inequality gives @xmath740 next , note that @xmath741 = \mathbb{e } [ x_k ] = 0 $ ] for @xmath638 . hence it follows via the jensen and triangle inequalities that @xmath742 \biggr\|_p & = & \biggl\|\sum _ { k = 1}^m\mathbb{e } \bigl[x_k - x_k^ { ( * * ) } |\mathbb { f}_m \bigr ] \biggr\|_p \\ & \leq & \sum_{k = 1}^m \bigl\|x_k - x_k^ { ( * * ) } \bigr\|_p \leq\sum _ { k = 1}^{\infty}k \bigl\|x_k - x_k ' \bigr\|_p < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] similarly , since @xmath743 \stackrel{d}{= } \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb{f}_m } [ x_k^{(k - m , * ) } - x_k ] $ ] for @xmath744 , we have @xmath745 \biggr\|_p & = & \biggl\|\sum _ { k = m+1}^{2 m } \mathbb{e}_{\mathbb { f}_m } \bigl[x_k^{(k - m , * ) } - x_k \bigr ] \biggr\|_p \\ & \leq & \sum_{k = m+1}^{2 m } \bigl\| x_k^{(k - m , * ) } - x_k \bigr\|_p \leq\sum _ { k = 1}^{\infty}k \bigl\|x_k ' - x_k \bigr\|_p < \infty.\end{aligned}\ ] ] combining all three bounds gives ( i ) . this implies that for ( ii ) , it suffices to show that @xmath746 . using the above bounds and lemma  [ lemwuoriginal ] , we get @xmath747 \bigr\|_p \lesssim\sqrt{m}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    [ lemauxhsigcomp ] grant assumption  [ assdependence ] , and let @xmath748 and @xmath749 , @xmath750 be as in ( [ eqthmauxcharequationbound2.91 ] ) . then @xmath751 \leq\widehat { \sigma } _ { m - l}^2 \bigr ) < 1/7.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    since @xmath623 , it suffices to treat the case @xmath343 . recall that @xmath752 and @xmath753 - r_1 + \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{g}_1^{(l ) } } [ r_1 ] , \\ 2(m - l ) \widehat{\sigma}_{m - l}^2 & = & \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{e}_l } \biggl [ \biggl(\sum_{k = l+1}^m x_k^{(k - l , * ) } \biggr)^2 \biggr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] let @xmath754 + ( r_1 - \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{e}_l}[r_1])\mathbh{1}(k = l+1)$ ] . using @xmath755 and applying the cauchy  schwarz and jensen inequalities then yields @xmath756 - 2\widehat { \sigma}_{m - l}^2 \bigr\|_1 \\ & & \qquad = \biggl\|\mathbb{e}_{\mathcal{e}_l } \biggl [ \biggl(\sum_{k = l+1}^m x_k - x_k^{(k - l , * ) } - i_k^{(l ) } \biggr ) \biggl(\sum_{k = l+1}^m x_k + x_k^{(k - l , * ) } - i_k^{(l ) } \biggr ) \biggr ] \biggr\|_1 \\ & & \qquad\leq \biggl\|\sum_{k = l+1}^m x_k - x_k^{(k - l , * ) } - i_k^{(l ) } \biggr\|_2 \biggl\|\sum _ { k = l+1}^m x_k + x_k^{(k - l , * ) } - i_k^{(l ) } \biggr\|_2 \\ & & \qquad\stackrel{\mathrm{def } } { = }   i_1(l , m ) \mathit{ii}_2(l , m).\end{aligned}\ ] ] by lemma  [ lemboundr1 ] and the arguments therein , it follows that @xmath757 , uniformly for @xmath758 . similarly , one obtains that @xmath759 . hence @xmath760 - 2 \widehat { \sigma } _ { m - l}^2 \bigr\|_1 \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{m - l}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we then have that @xmath761 \leq\widehat { \sigma } _ { m - l}^2 \bigr ) & \leq &   p \bigl ( \bigl| \mathbb{e}_{\mathcal { h}_j } \bigl[h_j^2 \bigr ] - 2 \widehat{\sigma}_{m - l}^2 \bigr| > \widehat{\sigma } _ { m - l}^2 \bigr ) \\ & \leq & \widehat{\sigma}_{m - l}^{-2 } \bigl\|\mathbb{e } _ { \mathcal{h}_j } \bigl[h_j^2 \bigr ] - 2\widehat { \sigma}_{m - l}^2 \bigr\|_1 \lesssim\frac{1}{\sqrt{m - l}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] by markov s inequality . hence the claim follows if @xmath762 is large enough . note that more detailed computations , as in lemma  [ lemsigexpansion ] , would give a more precise result . however , the current version is sufficient for our needs . i would like to thank the associate editor and the anonymous reviewer for a careful reading of the manuscript and the comments and remarks that helped to improve and clarify the presentation . i also thank istvan berkes and wei biao wu for stimulating discussions .
Abstract:

Answer: let @xmath0 be a stationary sequence . given @xmath1 $ ] moments and a mild weak dependence condition , we show a berry  esseen theorem with optimal rate @xmath2 . for @xmath3 , we also show a convergence rate of @xmath4 in @xmath5-norm , where @xmath6 . up to @xmath7 factors , we also obtain nonuniform rates for any @xmath8 . this leads to new optimal results for many linear and nonlinear processes from the time series literature , but also includes examples from dynamical system theory . the proofs are based on a hybrid method of characteristic functions , coupling and conditioning arguments and ideal metrics .