maximum likelihood estimation is a common , well - studied and powerful technique for statistical estimation . in the context of a statistical model with an unknown parameter ,
the maximum likelihood estimate of the unknown parameter is , by definition , any parameter value under which the observed data is most likely ; such parameter values are said to maximize the likelihood function with respect to the observed data .
in classical statistical models , one typically thinks of the unknown parameter as a real number or possibly a finite dimensional vector of real numbers .
here we consider maximum likelihood estimation for statistical models in which each parameter value corresponds to a stochastic system observed with noise .
hidden markov models ( hmms ) provide a natural setting in which to study both stochastic systems with observational noise and maximum likelihood estimation . in this setting , one has a parametrized family of stochastic processes that are assumed to be markov , and one attempts to perform inference about the underlying parameters from noisy observations of the process .
there has been a substantial amount of work on statistical inference for hmms , and we do not attempt a complete survey of that area here . in the 1960s ,
baum and petrie @xcite studied consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for finite state hmms . since that time
, several other authors have shown that maximum likelihood estimation is consistent for hmms under increasingly general conditions @xcite , culminating with the work of douc et al .
@xcite , which currently provides the most general conditions on hmms under which maximum likelihood estimation has been shown to be consistent .
we focus here on the consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for parametrized families of deterministic systems observed with noise .
inference methods for deterministic systems from noisy observations are of interest in a variety of scientific areas ; for a few examples , see @xcite .
for the purpose of this article , the terms deterministic system and dynamical system refer to a map @xmath0 .
the set @xmath1 is referred to as the state space , and the transformation @xmath2 governs the evolution of states over one ( discrete ) time increment .
our main interest here lies in families of dynamical systems observed with noise .
more precisely , we consider a state space @xmath1 and a parameter space @xmath3 , and to each @xmath4 in @xmath3 , we associate a dynamical system @xmath5 .
note that the state space @xmath1 does not depend on @xmath4 .
for each @xmath4 in @xmath3 , we assume that the system is started at equilibrium from a @xmath6-invariant measure @xmath7 .
see section  [ sectionassumptions ] for precise definitions .
we are particularly interested in situations in which the family of dynamical systems is observed via noisy measurements ( or observations ) .
we consider a general observation model specified by a family of probability densities @xmath8 , where @xmath9 prescribes the distribution of an observation given that the state of the dynamical system is @xmath10 and the state of nature is  @xmath4 . under some additional conditions ( see section  [ generaltheorem ] ) , our first main result states that maximum likelihood estimation is a consistent method of estimation of the parameter  @xmath4 .    we have chosen to state the conditions of our main consistency result in terms of statistical properties of the family of dynamical systems and the observations .
however , these particular statistical properties have not been directly studied in the dynamical systems literature . in the interest of applying our general result to specific systems
, we also establish several connections between well - studied properties of dynamical systems and the statistical properties relevant to maximum likelihood estimation .
finally , we apply these results to some examples , including shifts of finite type with gibbs measures and axiom  a attractors with srb ( sinai  ruelle
bowen ) measures .
it is widely accepted in the field of ergodic theory and dynamical systems that these classes of systems have `` good '' statistical properties , and our results may be viewed as a precise confirmation of this view .      there has been a substantial amount of work on statistical inference for hmms , and a complete survey of that area is beyond the scope of this work .
the asymptotic consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for hmms has been studied at least since the work of baum and petrie @xcite under the assumption that both the hidden state space @xmath1 and the observation space @xmath11 are finite sets .
leroux extended this result to the setting where @xmath11 is a general space and @xmath1 is a finite set @xcite .
several other authors have shown that maximum likelihood estimation is consistent for hmms under increasingly general conditions , culminating with the work of douc et al .
@xcite , which currently provides the most general conditions for hmms under which maximum likelihood estimation has been shown to be consistent .
let us now discuss the results of douc et al .
@xcite in greater detail .
consider parametrized families of hmms in which both the hidden state space @xmath1 and the observation space @xmath11 are complete , separable metric spaces .
the main result of @xcite shows that under several conditions , maximum likelihood estimation is a consistent method of estimation of the unknown parameter .
these conditions involve some requirements on the transition kernel of the hidden markov chain , as well as basic integrability conditions on the observations .
the proof of that result relies on information - theoretic arguments , in combination with the application of some mixing conditions that follow from the assumptions on the transition kernel . to prove our consistency result
, we take a similar information - theoretic approach , but instead of placing explicit restrictions on the transition kernel , we identify and study mixing conditions suitable for dynamical systems .
see remarks [ comparisonrmk ] and [ stochasticremark ] for further discussion of our results in the context of hmms .
other directions of study regarding inference for hmms include the behavior of mle for misspecified hmms @xcite , asymptotic normality for parameter estimates @xcite , the dynamics of bayesian updating @xcite and starting the hidden process away from equilibrium @xcite .
extending these results to dynamical systems is of potential interest .
the topic of statistical inference for dynamical systems has been widely studied in a variety of fields .
early interest from the statistical point of view is reflected in the following surveys @xcite .
for a recent review of this area with many references , see @xcite
. there has been significant methodological work in the area of statistical inference for dynamical systems ( for a few recent examples , see @xcite ) , but in this section we attempt to describe some of the more theoretical work in this area . the relevant theoretical work to date falls ( very ) roughly into three classes :    * state estimation ( also known as denoising or filtering ) for dynamical systems with observational noise ; * prediction for dynamical systems with observational noise ; * system reconstruction from dynamical systems without noise .
let us now mention some representative works from these lines of research .    in the setting of dynamical systems with observational noise
, lalley introduced several ideas regarding state estimation in @xcite .
these ideas were subsequently generalized and developed in @xcite .
key results from this line of study include both positive and negative results on the consistency of denoising a dynamical system under additive observational noise . in short
, the magnitude of the support of the noise seems to determine whether consistent denoising is possible . in related work
, judd @xcite demonstrated that mle can fail ( in a particular sense ) in state estimation when noise is large .
it is perhaps interesting to note that there are examples of axiom  a systems with gaussian observational noise for which state estimation can not be consistent ( by results of @xcite ) and yet mle provides consistent parameter estimation ( by theorem  [ axiomathm ] ) .
steinwart and anghel considered the problem of consistency in prediction accuracy for dynamical systems with observational noise @xcite .
they were able to show that support vector machines are consistent in terms of prediction accuracy under some conditions on the decay of correlations of the dynamical system .
the work of adams and nobel uses ideas from regression to study reconstruction of measure - preserving dynamical systems @xcite without noise .
these results show that certain types of inference are possible under fairly mild ergodicity assumptions .
a sample result from this line of work is that a measure - preserving transformation may be consistently reconstructed from a typical trajectory observed without noise , assuming that the transformation preserves a measure that is absolutely continuous ( with radon  nikodym derivative bounded away from @xmath12 and infinity ) with respect to a known reference measure .      in section  [ sectionassumptions ] , we give some necessary background on dynamical systems observed with noise . section  [ generaltheorem ] contains a statement and discussion of our main result ( theorem  [ mainthm ] ) , which asserts that under some general statistical conditions , maximum likelihood parameter estimation is consistent for of dynamical systems observed with noise . the purpose of section  [ sectionverification ] is to establish connections between well - studied properties of dynamical systems and the ( statistical ) conditions appearing in theorem  [ mainthm ] .
section  [ sectionexamples ] gives several examples of widely studied families of dynamical systems to which we apply theorem  [ mainthm ] and therefore establish consistency of maximum likelihood estimation .
the proofs of our main results appear in section  [ sectionproofs ] , and we conclude with some final remarks in section  [ sectionconclusion ] .
recall that our primary objects of study are parametrized families of dynamical systems . in this section
we introduce these objects in some detail .
first let us recall some terminology regarding dynamical systems and ergodic theory .
we use @xmath1 to denote a state space , which we assume to be a complete separable metric space endowed with its borel @xmath13-algebra @xmath14 .
then a measurable dynamical system on @xmath1 is defined by a measurable map @xmath0 , which governs the evolution of states over one ( discrete ) time increment . for a probability measure @xmath15 on the measurable space @xmath16
, we say that @xmath2 preserves @xmath15 ( or @xmath15 is @xmath2-invariant ) if @xmath17 for each set @xmath18 in @xmath14 .
we refer to the quadruple @xmath19 as a measure - preserving system . to generate a trajectory @xmath20 from such a measure - preserving system
, one chooses @xmath21 according to @xmath15 and sets @xmath22 for @xmath23 . note that @xmath20 is then a stationary @xmath1-valued stochastic process .
finally , the measure - preserving system @xmath24 is said to be ergodic if @xmath25 implies @xmath26 . see the books @xcite for an introduction to measure - preserving systems and ergodic theory .
let us now introduce the setting of parametrized families of dynamical systems .
we denote the parameter space by @xmath3 , which is assumed to be a compact metric space endowed with its borel @xmath13-algebra .
fix a state space @xmath1 and its borel @xmath13-algebra @xmath14 as above .
to each parameter @xmath4 in @xmath3 , we associate a measurable transformation @xmath5 , which prescribes the dynamics corresponding to the parameter @xmath4 . finally , we need to specify some initial conditions . in this article , we consider the case that the system is started from equilibrium .
more precisely , we associate to each @xmath4 in @xmath3 a @xmath6-invariant borel probability measure @xmath7 on @xmath27 . thus , to each @xmath4 in @xmath3 , we associate a measure - preserving system @xmath28 , and we refer to the collection @xmath29 as a parametrized family of dynamical systems . for ease of notation , we will refer to @xmath30 as a family of dynamical systems on @xmath27 , instead of referring to the family of quadruples @xmath31 .
we would like to study the situation that such a family of dynamical systems is observed via noisy measurements . here
we describe the specifics of our observation model .
we suppose that we have a complete , separable metric space @xmath11 , endowed with its @xmath13-algebra @xmath32 , which serves as our observation space .
we also assume that we have a family of borel probability densities @xmath33 with respect to a fixed reference measure @xmath34 on @xmath11 .
the density @xmath35 prescribes the distribution of our observation given that the state of the dynamical system is @xmath10 and the state of nature is @xmath36 .
finally , we assume that the noise involved in successive observations is conditionally independent given @xmath4 and the underlying trajectory of the dynamical system .
thus our full model consists of a parametrized family of dynamical systems @xmath37 on a measurable space @xmath27 with corresponding observation densities @xmath38 .    in general , we would like to estimate the parameter @xmath4 from our observations .
maximum likelihood estimation provides a basic method for performing such estimation .
our first main result states that maximum likelihood estimation is a consistent estimator of @xmath4 under some general conditions on the family of systems and the noise . in order to state these results
precisely , we now introduce the likelihood for our model . for the sake of notation
, it will be convenient to denote finite sequences @xmath39 with the notation @xmath40 .
as we have assumed that our observations are conditionally independent given @xmath4 and a trajectory @xmath20 , we have that for @xmath41 and @xmath42 , the likelihood of observing @xmath43 given @xmath4 and @xmath20 is @xmath44 since @xmath45 given @xmath4 and @xmath21 , the conditional likelihood of @xmath43 given @xmath4 and @xmath46 is @xmath47 since our model also assumes that @xmath21 is distributed according to @xmath48 , we have that for @xmath49 and @xmath50 , the marginal likelihood of observing @xmath43 given @xmath4 is @xmath51 we denote by @xmath52 the product measure on @xmath53 with marginals equal to @xmath34 .
let @xmath54 be the probability measure on @xmath55 such that for borel sets @xmath56 and @xmath57 , it holds that @xmath58 which is well defined by kolmogorov s consistency theorem .
let @xmath59 denote expectation with respect to @xmath54 , and let @xmath60 be the marginal of @xmath54 on @xmath61 .    before we define consistency ,
let us first consider the issue of identifiability .
our notion of identifiability is captured by the following equivalence relation .
define an equivalence relation on @xmath3 as follows : let @xmath62 if @xmath63 .
denote by @xmath64 $ ] the equivalence class of @xmath4 with respect to this equivalence relation .    in a strong theoretical sense , if @xmath65 is in @xmath66 $ ] , then the systems corresponding to the parameter values @xmath65 and @xmath4 can not be distinguished from each other based on observations of the system .
now we fix a distinguished element @xmath67 in @xmath3 . here and in the rest of the paper
, we assume that @xmath67 is the `` true '' parameter ; that is , the data are generated from the measure @xmath68 .
hence , one may think of @xmath69 $ ] as the set of parameters that can not be distinguished from the true parameter .
an approximate maximum likelihood estimator ( mle ) is a sequence of measurable functions @xmath70 such that @xmath71 where @xmath72 denotes a process that tends to zero @xmath73-a.s . as @xmath74 tends to infinity
several notions in this article , including the definition of approximate mle above , involve taking suprema over @xmath4 in @xmath75 .
in many situations of interest to us , @xmath1 and @xmath3 are compact , and all relevant functions are continuous in these arguments . in such cases , we have sufficient regularity to guarantee that suprema over @xmath4 in @xmath3 are measurable .
however , in the general situation , such suprema are not guaranteed to be measurable , and one must take some care .
as all our measurable spaces are polish ( complete , separable metric spaces ) ; such functions are always universally measurable @xcite , proposition  7.47 .
similarly , a  borel - measurable ( approximate ) maximum likelihood estimator need not exist , but the polish assumption ensures the existence of universally measurable maximum likelihood estimators @xcite , proposition  7.50 .
thus all probabilities and expectations may be unambiguously extended to such quantities .    in this work
, we do not consider specific schemes for constructing an approximate mle .
based on the existing results regarding denoising and system reconstruction ( e.g. , @xcite , which are briefly discussed in section  [ sectionpriorwork ] ) , explicit construction of an approximate mle may be possible under suitable conditions .
although the description and study of such constructive methods could be interesting , it is outside of the scope of this work .    in principle
, one could consider inference based on the conditional likelihood @xmath76 in place of the marginal likelihood @xmath77 .
however , we do not pursue this direction in this work .
for nonlinear dynamical systems , even the conditional likelihood @xmath76 may depend very sensitively on @xmath78 ; see  @xcite , for example .
thus optimizing over @xmath78 is essentially no more `` tractable '' than marginalizing the likelihood via an invariant measure .
[ comparisonrmk ] the framework of this paper may be translated into the language of markov chains as follows . for each @xmath49
, we define a ( degenerate ) markov transition kernel @xmath79 as follows : @xmath80 in other words , for each @xmath49 , @xmath81 , and borel set @xmath56 , the probability that @xmath82 conditioned on @xmath83 is @xmath84 where @xmath85 is defined to be a point mass at @xmath10 .    in all previous work on consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for hmms ( including @xcite ) , there have been significant assumptions placed on the markovian structure of the hidden chain . for example
, the central hypothesis appearing in @xcite requires that there is a @xmath13-finite measure @xmath86 on @xmath1 such that for some @xmath87 , the @xmath88-step transition kernel @xmath89 is absolutely continuous with respect to @xmath86 with bounded radon  nikodym derivative .
if @xmath1 is uncountable , then the degeneracy of @xmath79 , which arises directly from the fact that we are considering deterministic systems , makes the existence of such a dominating measure impossible . in short ,
it is precisely the determinism in our hidden processes that prevents previous theorems for hmms from applying to dynamical systems .
nonetheless , there is a special case of systems that we consider in section  [ sectiongibbs ] that overlaps with the systems considered in the hmm literature .
if @xmath1 is a shift of finite type , @xmath6 is the shift map @xmath90 for all @xmath4 , @xmath7 is a ( @xmath91-step ) markov measure for all @xmath4 , and @xmath35 depends only @xmath4 and the zero coordinate @xmath78 , then both the present work and the results in @xcite apply to this setting and guarantee consistency of any approximate mle under additional assumptions on the noise .
in this section , we show that under suitable conditions , any approximate mle is consistent for families of dynamical systems observed with noise . to make this statement precise ,
we make the following definition of consistency .
an approximate mle @xmath92 is consistent at @xmath67 if @xmath93 converges to @xmath69 $ ] , @xmath94-a.s . as @xmath74 tends to infinity .    for the sake of notation , define the function @xmath95 , where @xmath96 also , for @xmath97 , let @xmath98 .
consider the following conditions on a family of dynamical systems observed with noise :    _ ergodicity_. the system @xmath99 on @xmath100 is ergodic .
_ logarithmic integrability at _ @xmath67 .
it holds that @xmath101 < \infty\ ] ] and @xmath102 < \infty.\ ] ]    _ logarithmic integrability away from @xmath67 .
_ for each @xmath103 $ ] , there exists a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 such that @xmath105 < \infty.\ ] ]    _ upper semi - continuity of the likelihood_. for each @xmath103 $ ] and @xmath106 , the function @xmath107 is upper semi - continuous at @xmath65 , @xmath94-a.s .    _
mixing condition_. there exists @xmath108 such that for each @xmath109 , there exists a measurable function @xmath110 such that if @xmath111 and @xmath112 , then @xmath113 furthermore , for each @xmath103 $ ] , there exists a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 such that @xmath114 < \infty.\ ] ]    _ exponential identifiability_. for each @xmath115 $ ] , there exists a sequence of measurable sets @xmath116 such that @xmath117    the following theorem is our main general result .
[ mainthm ] suppose that @xmath30 is a parametrized family of dynamical systems on @xmath27 with corresponding observation densities @xmath118 .
if conditions hold , then any approximate mle is consistent at @xmath67 .
the proof of theorem  [ mainthm ] is given in section  [ sectionproofs ] .
in the following remark , we discuss conditions ( s1)(s6 ) .
[ conditionsrmk ] conditions ( s1)(s3 ) involve basic irreducibility and integrability conditions , and similar conditions have appeared in previous work on consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for hmms ; see , for example , .
taken together , conditions ( s1 ) and ( s2 ) ensure the almost sure existence and finiteness of the entropy rate for the process @xmath119 , @xmath120 condition ( s3 ) serves as a basic integrability condition in the proof of theorem  [ mainthm ] , in which one must essentially show that for @xmath115 $ ] , @xmath121 conditions ( s4)(s6 ) are more interesting from the point of view of dynamical systems , and we discuss them in greater detail below .    the upper semi - continuity of the likelihood ( s4 ) is closely related to the continuity of the map @xmath122 . in general , the continuous dependence of @xmath7 on @xmath4 places nontrivial restrictions on a family of dynamical systems .
this property ( continuity of @xmath122 ) is often called `` statistical stability '' in the dynamical systems and ergodic theory literature , and it has been studied for some families of systems ; for example , see @xcite and references therein . in section  [ statstability ] ,
we show how statistical stability of the family of dynamical systems may be used to establish the upper semi - continuity of the likelihood ( s4 ) .
the mixing condition ( s5 ) involves control of the correlations of the observation densities along trajectories of the underlying dynamical system .
although the general topic of decay of correlations has been widely studied in dynamical systems ( see @xcite for an overview ) , condition ( s5 ) is not implied by the particular decay of correlations properties that are typically studied for dynamical systems .
nonetheless , we show in section  [ sectionsubadd ] how some well - studied mixing properties of dynamical systems imply the mixing condition ( s5 ) .
finally , condition ( s6 ) involves the exponential identifiability of the true parameter @xmath67 .
we show in section  [ sectionidentifiability ] how large deviations for a family of dynamical systems may be used to establish exponential identifiability ( s6 ) .
large deviations estimates for dynamical systems have been studied in @xcite , and our main goal in section  [ sectionidentifiability ] is to connect such results to exponential identifiability ( s6 ) .    [ stochasticremark ] suppose one has a family of bi - variate stochastic processes @xmath123 , where @xmath124 is interpreted as a hidden process and @xmath125 as an observation process . if the observations have conditional densities with respect to a common measure given @xmath124 and @xmath4 , then it makes sense to ask whether maximum likelihood estimation is a consistent method of inference for the parameter @xmath4 .
it is well known that the setting of stationary stochastic processes may be translated into the deterministic setting of dynamical systems , which may be carried out as follows .
let @xmath126 be a family of stationary stochastic processes on a measurable space @xmath27 .
consider the product space @xmath127 with corresponding @xmath13-algebra @xmath128 .
each process @xmath124 corresponds to a probability measure @xmath48 on @xmath129 with the property that @xmath7 is invariant under the left - shift map @xmath130 given by @xmath131 . with this translation , theorem  [ mainthm ] shows that maximum likelihood estimation is consistent for families of hidden stochastic processes @xmath124 observed with noise , whenever the corresponding family of dynamical systems @xmath132 on @xmath133 with observation densities satisfy conditions ( s1)(s6 ) .    with the above translation , theorem  [ mainthm ] applies to some families of processes allowing infinite - range dependence in both the hidden process @xmath124 and the observation process @xmath125 . from this point of view
, theorem  [ mainthm ] highlights the fact that maximum likelihood estimation is consistent for dependent processes observed with noise as long as they satisfy some general conditions : ergodicity , logarithmic integrability of observations , continuous dependence on the parameters and some mixing of the observation process .
it is interesting to note that the existing work on consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for hmms @xcite makes assumptions of precisely this sort in the specific context of markov chains .
in our main consistency result ( theorem  [ mainthm ] ) , we establish the consistency of any approximate mle under conditions ( s1)(s6 ) . we have chosen to formulate our result in these terms because they reflect general statistical properties of dynamical systems observed with noise that are relevant to parameter inference .
however , these conditions have not been explicitly studied in the dynamical systems literature , despite the fact that much effort has been devoted to understanding certain statistical aspects of dynamical systems . in this section ,
we make connections between the general statistical conditions appearing in theorem  [ mainthm ] and some well - studied properties of dynamical systems .
section  [ statstability ] shows how the notion of statistical stability may be used to verify the upper semi - continuity of the likelihood ( s4 ) .
section  [ sectionsubadd ] connects well - known mixing properties of some measure - preserving dynamical systems to the mixing property ( s5 ) . in section  [ sectionidentifiability ] ,
we show how large deviations for dynamical systems may be used to deduce the exponential identifiability condition  ( s6 ) .
proofs of statements in this section , as well as additional discussion , appear in supplementary appendix  a @xcite .      as discussed in remark  [ conditionsrmk ] , the upper semi - continuity condition ( s4 ) places nontrivial restrictions on the family of dynamical systems under consideration . in this section ,
we establish sufficient conditions for ( s4 ) to hold .
the continuous dependence of @xmath7 on @xmath4 is a property called statistical stability in the dynamical systems literature @xcite .
let us state this property precisely .
let @xmath134 denote the space of borel probability measures on @xmath1 .
endow @xmath134 with the topology of weak convergence : @xmath135 converges to @xmath15 if @xmath136 converges to @xmath137 as @xmath74 tends to infinity , for each continuous , bounded function @xmath138 . the family of dynamical systems @xmath139 on @xmath27 is said to have statistical stability if the map @xmath122 is continuous with respect to the weak topology on @xmath134 .
the following proposition shows that under some continuity and compactness assumptions , statistical stability of the family of dynamical systems implies upper semi - continuity of the likelihood ( s4 ) .
[ usclemma2 ] suppose that @xmath1 and @xmath3 are compact , and the maps @xmath140 and @xmath141 are continuous . if the family @xmath30 has statistical stability , then upper semi - continuity of the likelihood holds .
the proof of proposition  [ usclemma2 ] appears in supplementary appendix a.1 @xcite .      in this section
, we focus on mixing condition ( s5 ) .
recall that ( s5 ) involves a nontrivial restriction on the correlations of the observation densities @xmath142 along trajectories of the underlying dynamical system .
although mixing conditions have been widely studied in the dynamics literature , the particular type of condition appearing in ( s5 ) appears not to have been investigated .
nonetheless , we show that a well - studied mixing property for dynamical systems implies the statistical mixing property ( s5 ) .    in order to study mixing for dynamical systems ,
one typically places restrictions on the type of events or observations that one considers ( by considering certain functionals of the process ) .
for example , in some situations a substantial amount work has been devoted to finding particular partitions of state space with respect to which the system possess good mixing properties ; an example of such partitions are the well - known markov partitions @xcite .
if a system has good mixing properties with respect to a particular partition , and if that partition possesses certain ( topological ) regularity properties , then it is often possible to show that the system also has good mixing properties for related function classes , such as lipschitz or hlder continuous observables . for variations of this approach to mixing in dynamical systems ,
see the vast literature on decay of correlations ; for an introduction , see the survey @xcite .    in this section ,
we follow the above approach to study mixing condition ( s5 ) for dynamical systems observed with noise . first , we define a mixing property for families of dynamical systems with respect to a partition ( m1 ) .
second , we define a regularity property for partitions ( m2 ) .
third , we define a topological regularity property for a family of observation densities ( m3 ) . finally , in the main result of this section ( proposition  [ subaddpropmain ] ) , we show how these three properties together imply the mixing condition ( s5 ) .
here and in the rest of this section , we consider only invertible transformations .
it is certainly possible to modify the definitions slightly to handle the noninvertible case , but we omit such modifications .
we will have need to consider finite partitions of @xmath1 .
the join of two partitions @xmath143 and @xmath144 is defined to be the common refinement of @xmath143 and @xmath144 , and it is denoted @xmath145 . note that for any measurable transformation @xmath0 , if @xmath146 is a partition , then so is @xmath147 . for a fixed partition @xmath146 and @xmath148 , let @xmath149 .
notice that @xmath150 depends on @xmath4 through @xmath6 , although we suppress this dependence in our notation .
now consider the following alternative conditions , which may be used in place of condition ( s5 ) :    _ mixing condition with respect to the partition _
@xmath146 .
there exists @xmath151 and @xmath108 such that for all @xmath49 , @xmath152 , @xmath153 and @xmath154 , it holds that @xmath155 furthermore , for each @xmath103 $ ] there exists a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 such that @xmath156    _ regularity of the partition _
there exists @xmath157 such that for all @xmath49 and @xmath152 , if @xmath158 and @xmath159 , then @xmath160    _ regularity of observations_. there exists a function @xmath161 such that for @xmath162 and @xmath163 , @xmath164 furthermore , for each @xmath103 $ ] , there exists a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 such that @xmath165 < \infty.\ ] ]    let us now state the main proposition of this section , whose proof is deferred to supplementary appendix  a.2 @xcite .
[ subaddpropmain ] suppose @xmath30 is a family of dynamical systems on @xmath27 with corresponding observation densities @xmath118 . if there exists a partition @xmath146 of @xmath1 such that conditions and are satisfied , and if the observation regularity condition is satisfied , then mixing property holds .
in this section , we study exponential identifiability condition ( s6 ) .
we show how large deviations for dynamical systems may be used in combination with some regularity of the observation densities to establish exponential identifiability ( s6 ) .
let @xmath166 and @xmath167 be metric spaces with metrics @xmath168 and @xmath169 , respectively . recall that a function @xmath170 is said to be hlder continuous if there exist @xmath171 and @xmath172 such that for each @xmath173 in @xmath166 , it holds that @xmath174 if @xmath175 is a dynamical system on @xmath27 such that @xmath176 is hlder continuous , then we refer to @xmath175 as a hlder continuous dynamical system . for many dynamical systems ,
the class of hlder continuous functions @xmath177 provides a natural class of observables whose statistical properties are fairly well understood and satisfy some large deviations estimates @xcite .
consider the following conditions , which we later show are sufficient to guarantee exponential identifiability ( s6 ) :    _ large deviations .
_ for each @xmath115 $ ] , for each hlder continuous function @xmath177 , and for each @xmath178 , it holds that @xmath179    _ regularity of observations .
_ [ holdercontinuitycondition ] there exists @xmath171 and @xmath161 such that for each @xmath10 and @xmath180 in @xmath1 , it holds that @xmath181 furthermore , for @xmath49 and @xmath172 , it holds that @xmath182    the following proposition relates large deviations for dynamical systems to the exponential identifiability condition ( s6 ) .
[ identifiabilityfromlargedeviations ] suppose that @xmath30 is a family of hlder continuous dynamical systems on the @xmath27 with corresponding observation densities @xmath183 .
further suppose that the large deviations property and the observation regularity property are satisfied
. then the exponential identifiability condition holds .
the proof of proposition  [ identifiabilityfromlargedeviations ] appears in supplementary appendix  a.3  @xcite .
in this section we present some classical families of dynamical systems for which maximum likelihood estimation is consistent .
we begin in section  [ sectiongibbs ] by considering symbolic dynamical systems called shifts of finite type .
the state space for such systems consists of ( bi-)infinite sequences of symbols from a finite set , and the transformation on the state space is always given by the `` left - shift '' map , which just shifts each point one coordinate to the left .
such systems are considered models of `` chaotic '' dynamical systems that may be defined by a finite amount of combinatorial information . in this
setting gibbs measures form a natural class of invariant measures , which have been studied due to their connections to statistical physics .
these measures play a central role in a topic called the _ thermodynamic formalism _ , which is well described in the books @xcite .
note that @xmath184th order finite state markov chains form a special case of gibbs measures .
the main result of this section is theorem  [ gibbsfamiliesthm ] , which states that under sufficient regularity conditions , any approximate maximum likelihood estimator is consistent for families of gibbs measures on a shift of finite type .
the crucial assumptions for this theorem involve continuous dependence of the gibbs measures on @xmath4 and sufficiently regular dependence of @xmath185 on @xmath10 . additional proofs and discussion for this section appear in the supplementary appendix  b @xcite .    having established consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for families of gibbs measures on a shift of finite type ,
we deduce in section  [ sectionfactors ] that maximum likelihood estimation is consistent for families of axiom  a attractors observed with noise .
axiom  a systems are well studied differentiable dynamical systems on manifolds that , like shifts of finite type , exhibit `` chaotic '' behavior ; for a thorough treatment of axiom  a systems , see the book @xcite . in related statistical work , lalley  @xcite considered the problem of denoising the trajectories of axiom  a systems . for these systems , there is a natural class of measures , known as srb ( sinai  ruelle
bowen ) measures .
see the article @xcite for an introduction to these measures with discussion of their interpretation and importance . with the construction of markov partitions @xcite , one may view an axiom  a attractor with its srb measure as a factor of a shift of finite type with a gibbs measure . using this natural factor structure
, we establish the consistency of any approximate maximum likelihood estimator for axiom  a systems .
proofs and discussion of these topics appear in the supplementary appendix  c @xcite .      in this section
, we consider the setting of symbolic dynamics , shifts of finite type and gibbs measures .
we prove that any approximate maximum likelihood estimator is consistent for these systems ( theorem  [ gibbsfamiliesthm ] ) under some general assumptions on the observations .
finally , we consider two examples of observations in greater detail . in the first example , we consider `` discrete '' observations , corresponding to a `` noisy channel . '' in the second example , we consider making real - valued observations with gaussian observational noise .
for a brief introduction to shifts of finite type and gibbs measures that contains everything needed in this work , see the supplementary appendix  b @xcite . for a complete introduction to shifts of finite type and gibbs measures ,
see @xcite .
let us now consider some families of measure - preserving systems on sfts .
let @xmath186 be an alphabet , and let @xmath187 be a binary matrix with dimensions @xmath188 .
let @xmath189 be the associated sft , and let @xmath14 be the borel @xmath13-algebra on @xmath1 .
for @xmath190 , let @xmath191 be a continuous map , and let @xmath48 be the gibbs measure associated to the potential function @xmath192 . in this setting , we refer to @xmath193 as a continuously parametrized family of gibbs measures on @xmath194 .
[ gibbsfamiliesthm ] suppose @xmath189 is a mixing shift of finite type and @xmath195 is a continuously parametrized family of gibbs measures on @xmath27 . if the family of observation densities @xmath118 satisfies the integrability conditions and   and the regularity conditions and , then any approximate maximum likelihood estimator is consistent .
the proof of theorem  [ gibbsfamiliesthm ] is based on an appeal to theorem  [ mainthm ] . however , in order to verify the hypotheses of theorem  [ mainthm ] , we combine the results of section  [ sectionverification ] with some well - known properties of gibbs measures .
this proof appears in the supplementary appendix  b @xcite .
[ onesidedrmk ] there is an analogous theory of `` one - sided '' symbolic dynamics and gibbs measures , in which @xmath196 is replaced by @xmath197 and appropriate modifications are made in the definitions .
the two - sided case deals with invertible dynamical systems , whereas the one - sided case handles noninvertible systems .
we have stated theorem  [ gibbsfamiliesthm ] in the invertible setting , although it applies as well in the noninvertible setting , with the obvious modifications .    in this example
, we consider families of dynamical systems @xmath198 on @xmath27 , where @xmath1 is a mixing shift of finite type , @xmath199 , and @xmath7 is a continuous family of gibbs measures on @xmath1 ( as in theorem  [ gibbsfamiliesthm ] ) . here
we consider the particular observation model in which our observations of @xmath1 are passed through a discrete , memoryless , noisy channel .
suppose that @xmath11 is a finite set , @xmath34 is counting measure on @xmath11 and for each symbol @xmath200 in @xmath186 and parameter @xmath4 in @xmath3 , we have a probability distribution @xmath201 on @xmath11 .
we consider the case that our observation densities @xmath142 satisfy @xmath202 .
this situation is covered by theorem  [ gibbsfamiliesthm ] , since the following conditions may be easily verified : observation integrability ( s2 ) and ( s3 ) and observation regularity ( m3 ) and ( l2 ) .
[ gibbsexample ] in this example , we once again consider families of dynamical systems @xmath203 on @xmath27 , such that @xmath204 is a mixing shift of finite type , @xmath199 and @xmath48 is a continuous family of gibbs measures on @xmath1 ( as in theorem  [ gibbsfamiliesthm ] ) .
here we consider the particular observation model in which we make real - valued , parameter - dependent measurements of the system , which are corrupted by gaussian noise with parameter - dependent variance .
more precisely , let us assume that @xmath205 , and there exists a lipschitz continuous @xmath206 and continuous @xmath207 such that @xmath208    we now proceed to verify conditions ( s2 ) , ( s3 ) , ( m3 ) and ( l2 ) .
first , by compactness and continuity , there exist @xmath209 such that for @xmath4 in @xmath3 , @xmath210 in @xmath211 and @xmath10 in @xmath1 , it holds that @xmath212 from ( [ noiseinteqn ] ) , one easily obtains the observation integrability conditions ( s2 ) and  ( s3 ) .
furthermore , there exists @xmath213 such that for @xmath163 , it holds that @xmath214 \biggr ) \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & & \qquad = \exp\biggl ( -\frac{1}{2 s(\theta)^2 } \bigl [ \bigl(\varphi_{\theta } ( x ) - \varphi_{\theta}(z)\bigr )
\bigl(\varphi_{\theta}(x ) + \varphi_{\theta}(z)\bigr ) + 2 y \bigl(\varphi_{\theta}(z ) - \varphi_{\theta}(x)\bigr)\bigr ] \biggr ) \\ & & \qquad \leq\exp\bigl ( \bigl(c_4 + c_5|y|\bigr)\bigl|\varphi_{\theta}(x)- \varphi_{\theta } ( z)\bigr| \bigr ) . \nonumber \ ] ] let @xmath215 be lipschitz continuous with constant @xmath216 , and let @xmath217 . with this choice of @xmath218 and ( [ noiseregeqn ] ) , one may easily verify the observation regularity conditions ( m3 ) and ( l2 ) .
similar calculations to those in example  [ gibbsexample ] imply that any approximate maximum likelihood estimator is also consistent if the observational noise is `` double - exponential '' [ i.e. , @xmath219 .
indeed , these calculations should hold for most members of the exponential family , although we do not pursue them here .      in this section ,
we show how the previous results may be applied to some smooth ( differentiable ) families of dynamical systems .
these results follow easily from the results in section  [ sectiongibbs ] , using the work of bowen and others ( see @xcite and references therein ) in constructing markov partitions for these systems . with markov partitions , axiom  a systems may be viewed as factors of the shifts of finite type with gibbs measures . for
a brief introduction of axiom  a systems that contains the details necessary for this work , see the supplementary appendix  c @xcite .
the basic fact that allows us to transfer our results from shifts of finite type to axiom  a systems is that consistency of maximum likelihood estimation is preserved under taking appropriate factors .
let us now make this statement precisely .
suppose that @xmath37 is a family of dynamical systems on @xmath194 with observation densities @xmath220 .
further , suppose that there are continuous maps @xmath221 and @xmath222 such that :    for each @xmath4 , we have that @xmath223 ;    for each @xmath4 , there is a unique probability measure @xmath224 on @xmath225 such that @xmath226 ;    for each @xmath4 , the map @xmath227 is injective @xmath224-a.s .
for @xmath10 in @xmath225 and @xmath4 in @xmath3 , define @xmath228 .
then @xmath229 is a family of dynamical systems on @xmath230 with observation densities @xmath231 .
in this situation , we say that @xmath232 is an isomorphic factor of @xmath233 , and @xmath234 is the factor map .
the following proposition addresses the consistency of maximum likelihood estimation for isomorphic factors .
its proof is straightforward and omitted .
[ factorprop ] suppose that @xmath235 is an isomorphic factor of @xmath236 .
then maximum likelihood estimation is consistent for @xmath237 if and only if maximum likelihood estimation is consistent for @xmath238 .
for the sake of brevity , we defer precise definitions for axiom  a systems to supplementary appendix  c @xcite .
we consider families of axiom  a systems as follows .
suppose that @xmath239 is a parametrized family of diffeomorphisms such that :    @xmath240 is hlder continuous ;    there exists @xmath171 such that for each @xmath4 , the map @xmath192 is @xmath241 ;    for each @xmath4 , @xmath242 is an axiom  a attractor and the restriction @xmath243 is topologically mixing ;    for each @xmath4 , the measure @xmath7 is the unique srb measure corresponding to @xmath192 @xcite , theorem  4.1 .
if these conditions are satisfied , then we say that @xmath244 is a parametrized family of axiom  a systems on @xmath27 .
[ axiomathm ] suppose that @xmath245 is a parametrized family of axiom  a systems on @xmath27 .
further , suppose that @xmath118 is a family of observations densities satisfying the following conditions : observation integrability and and observation regularity and .
then maximum likelihood estimation is consistent .
the proof of theorem  [ axiomathm ] appears in the supplementary appendix c @xcite .
propositions [ ergprop][strictineqprop ] are used in the proof of theorem  [ mainthm ] , which is given at the end of the present section .
[ ergprop ] suppose that condition ( ergodicity ) holds
. then the process @xmath246 is ergodic under @xmath68 .
let @xmath247 be arbitrary , and let @xmath186 and @xmath248 be borel subsets of @xmath249 . to obtain the ergodicity of @xmath250 , it suffices to show that ( see @xcite ) @xmath251 for @xmath81 , define @xmath252 and define @xmath253 similarly . for @xmath254 , by the conditional independence of @xmath255 and @xmath256 given @xmath67 and @xmath257
, we have that @xmath258 where we have used fubini s theorem . since @xmath259 is fixed , we have that @xmath260 since @xmath99 is ergodic
, an alternative characterization of ergodicity ( see @xcite ) gives that @xmath261 thus we have verified equation ( [ eqn : ergver ] ) , and the proof is complete .    for the following propositions , recall our notation that @xmath262    [ gsmb ] suppose that conditions and hold .
then there exists @xmath263 such that @xmath264 moreover , the following equality holds @xmath94-a.s . :
@xmath120    the proposition is a direct application of barron s generalized shannon
breiman theorem @xcite . here
we simply check that the hypotheses of that theorem hold in our setting .
since condition ( s1 ) ( ergodicity ) holds , proposition  [ ergprop ] gives @xmath246 is stationary and ergodic under @xmath73 . by definition
, @xmath265 has density @xmath266 with respect to the @xmath13-finite measure @xmath267 .
the measure @xmath52 is a product of the measure @xmath34 taken @xmath268 times . as such
, the sequence @xmath269 clearly satisfies barron s condition that this sequence is `` markov with stationary transitions . ''
define @xmath270 .
let us show that for @xmath271 , we have that @xmath272 which clearly implies that @xmath273 .
once ( [ finiteentropy ] ) is established , we will have verified all of the hypotheses of barron s generalized shannon  mcmillan  breiman theorem , and
the proof of the proposition will be complete .
observe that the first part of the integrability condition ( s2 ) gives that @xmath274 \leq(n+1 ) \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \log^+ \gamma_{\theta_0}(y_0 ) \bigr ] < \infty.\ ] ] then the second part of the integrability condition ( s2 ) implies that @xmath275 & = & \e_{\theta _ 0 } \biggl [ \log\frac { p_{\theta_0}(y_0^n ) } { \prod_{k=0}^n \int g_{\theta_0}(y_k \mid x ) \,d\mu_{\theta_0}(x ) } \biggr ] \nonumber\\ & & { } + \e_{\theta_0 } \biggl [ \sum_{k=0}^n \log\int g_{\theta _
0}(y_k \mid x ) \,d\mu_{\theta_0}(x ) \biggr ] \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & \geq&-(n+1 ) \e_{\theta_0 } \biggl [ \biggl| \log\int g_{\theta_0}(y_0 \mid x )
\,d\mu_{\theta_0}(x ) \biggr| \biggr ] \\ & > & -\infty , \nonumber \ ] ] where we have used that relative entropy is nonnegative . by ( [ eqn : pospartfinite ] ) and ( [ eqn : negpartfinite ] ) , we conclude that ( [ finiteentropy ] ) holds , which completes the proof .
the following proposition is used in the proof of theorem  [ mainthm ] to given an almost sure bound for the normalized log - likelihoods in terms of quantities involving only expectations .
[ basicestimate ] suppose that conditions , and hold .
let @xmath276 be as in condition .
then for @xmath103 $ ] , there exists a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 such that for each @xmath277 , the following inequality holds @xmath94-a.s . : @xmath278    informally , in the proof of proposition  [ basicestimate ] , we use the mixing property from condition ( s5 ) to parse a sequence of observations into alternating sequences of `` large blocks '' and `` small blocks , '' and then the ergodicity and integrability conditions finish the proof . more specifically , we break up the sequence of observations @xmath265 into alternating blocks of length @xmath259 and @xmath276 , where @xmath276 is given by condition  ( s5 )
.    let @xmath103 $ ] .
fix a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 so that the conclusions of both condition ( s3 ) and condition ( s5 ) hold .
let @xmath247 be arbitrary , and let @xmath276 be as in condition ( s5 ) .
we consider sequences of observations of length @xmath74 , where @xmath74 is a large integer .
these sequences of observations will be parsed into alternating blocks of lengths @xmath259 and @xmath276 , respectively , starting from an offset of size @xmath279 and possibly ending with a remainder sequence . for the sake of notation
, we use interval notation to denote intervals of integers . for @xmath280 and @xmath279 in @xmath281 ,
let @xmath282 and @xmath283 be defined by the condition @xmath284 .
then we partition @xmath285 $ ] as follows : @xmath286.\end{aligned}\ ] ] given a sequence @xmath265 of observations , we define the following subsequences of @xmath265 according to the above partitions of @xmath285 $ ] : @xmath287 for a sequence @xmath288 in @xmath289 , define @xmath290 then for @xmath4 in @xmath104 , it follows from condition ( s5 ) that @xmath291 taking the logarithm of both sides and averaging over @xmath279 in @xmath292 , we obtain @xmath293\nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{1}{m+\ell } \sum_{s=0}^{m+\ell-1 } \sum _ { j=1}^k \log\gamma_{\theta } \bigl(v_s(j)\bigr ) \\ & & { } + \frac{1}{m+\ell } \sum_{s=0}^{m+\ell-1 } \bigl [ \log\gamma_{\theta } ( b_s ) + \log\gamma_{\theta}(e_s ) \bigr ] . \nonumber \ ] ] let us now take the supremum over @xmath4 in @xmath104 in ( [ eqn : threepieces ] ) and evaluate the limits of the three terms on the right - hand side as @xmath74 tends to infinity .
let @xmath294 and @xmath295 be defined by @xmath296 with this notation , we have that @xmath297 \\ & & \qquad = \frac{1}{n } \sum_{i=0}^n \bigl [ \xi_1\bigl(y_i^{i+m}\bigr ) + \xi _
2\bigl(y_i^{i+m}\bigr ) \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath246 is ergodic ( by proposition  [ ergprop ] ) , it follows from birkhoff s ergodic theorem and conditions ( s3 ) and ( s5 ) that the following limit exists @xmath298-a.s . :
@xmath299 \nonumber\\ & & \qquad = \lim_n \frac{1}{n } \sum _ { i=0}^n \bigl [ \xi_1 \bigl(y_i^{i+m}\bigr ) + \xi_2 \bigl(y_i^{i+m}\bigr ) \bigr ] \nonumber \\ & & \qquad= \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \xi_1\bigl(y_0^m \bigr ) \bigr ] + \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \xi_2\bigl(y_0^m \bigr ) \bigr ] \\ & & \qquad = \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in u } \log p_{\theta } \bigl(y_0^m\bigr ) \bigr]\nonumber\\ & & \qquad\quad { } + \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup _ { \theta\in u } \log c_{m}\bigl(\theta , y_0^m \bigr ) \bigr ] .
\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ]    similarly , using birkhoff s ergodic theorem and condition ( s3 ) , we have that the following holds @xmath94-a.s . :
\nonumber \ ] ] finally , birkhoff s ergodic theorem and condition ( s3 ) again imply that the following limit holds @xmath298-a.s .
: @xmath301 = 0,\ ] ] where we have used that @xmath302 .    combining the inequalities in ( [ eqn : threepieces])([term3 ] )
, we obtain that @xmath303 \\ & & { } + \frac{1}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in u } \log c_{m}\bigl(\theta , y_0^m\bigr ) \bigr ] \\ & & { } + \frac{\ell}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in
u } \log^+ \gamma_{\theta}(y_0 ) \bigr],\end{aligned}\ ] ] as desired .
the following proposition is a direct application of lemma  10 in @xcite to the present setting , and we omit the proof .    [ identifiabilityprop ] suppose that the following conditions hold : ergodicity  , logarithmic integrability at @xmath67 and exponential identifiability .
then for @xmath115 $ ] , it holds that @xmath304 < h ( \theta_0).\ ] ]    the following proposition provides an essential estimate in the proof of theorem  [ mainthm ] .
[ strictineqprop ] suppose that conditions hold , and let @xmath276 be as in  .
then for @xmath305 $ ] , there exists @xmath247 and a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath306 such that @xmath307 \\ & & { } + \frac{\ell}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in u } \log^+ \gamma_{\theta}(y_0 ) \bigr ] \\ & & { } + \frac{1}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in
u } \log c_{m}\bigl(\theta',y_0^{m}\bigr ) \bigr].\end{aligned}\ ] ]    suppose @xmath103 $ ] . by proposition  [ identifiabilityprop ]
, there exists @xmath308 such that @xmath309 < h(\theta_0)-\varepsilon.\ ] ] by conditions ( s3 ) ( logarithmic integrability away from @xmath67 ) and ( s5 ) ( mixing ) , there exists a neighborhood @xmath310 of @xmath65 and @xmath311 such that for @xmath312 , we have that @xmath313 \nonumber \\[-8pt ] \\[-8pt ] \nonumber & & { } + \frac{1}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in u ' } \log c_{m}\bigl(\theta , y_0^{m}\bigr ) \bigr ] . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] fix @xmath312 such that @xmath314 < \limsup_n \frac{1}{n } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \log p_{\theta ' } \bigl(y_0^{n}\bigr ) \bigr ] + \varepsilon/4.\ ] ] for @xmath315 , let @xmath316 denote the ball of radius @xmath317 about @xmath65 in @xmath3 . for @xmath317 such that @xmath318 , we have that @xmath319 the sum above is integrable with respect to @xmath94 and does not depend on @xmath317
. then ( the reverse ) fatou s lemma implies that @xmath320 \leq\e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \limsup_{\eta\to0 } \sup _ { \theta\in b(\theta',\eta ) } \log p_{\theta } \bigl(y_0^{m } \bigr ) \bigr].\ ] ] by condition ( s4 ) [ upper semi - continuity of @xmath321 , we see that @xmath322 \leq\e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \log p_{\theta ' } \bigl(y_0^{m}\bigr ) \bigr].\ ] ] now by an appropriate choice of @xmath315 , we have shown that there exists a neighborhood @xmath323 of @xmath65 such that @xmath324 < \frac{1}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \log p_{\theta ' } \bigl(y_0^{m}\bigr ) \bigr ] + \varepsilon/4.\ ] ] combining estimates ( [ eqn : estimate1])([eqn : estimate4 ] ) , we obtain the desired inequality .
proof of theorem  [ mainthm ] let @xmath325 be defined as in proposition  [ gsmb ] .
we prove the theorem by showing the following statement : for each closed set @xmath326 in @xmath3 such that @xmath327 = \varnothing$ ] , it holds that @xmath328    let @xmath326 be a closed subset of @xmath3 such that @xmath327 = \varnothing$ ] . since @xmath3 is compact , @xmath326 is compact .
suppose that for each @xmath329 , there exists a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 such that @xmath330 then by compactness , we would conclude that ( [ suffineq1 ] ) holds and thus complete the proof of the theorem .
let @xmath65 be in @xmath326 .
let us now show that there exists a neighborhood @xmath104 of @xmath65 such that ( [ suffineq2 ] ) holds .
since @xmath65 is in @xmath326 , we have that @xmath103 $ ] .
let @xmath331 be as in ( s5 ) .
by proposition  [ strictineqprop ] , there exists @xmath277 and a neighborhood @xmath310 of @xmath65 such that @xmath332 \nonumber\\ & & { } + \frac{\ell}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in u ' } \log^+ \gamma_{\theta}(y_0 ) \bigr ] \\ & & { } + \frac{1}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in u ' } \log c_{m}\bigl(\theta , y_0^{m}\bigr ) \bigr ] . \nonumber \ ] ] by proposition  [ basicestimate ] , there exists a neighborhood @xmath333 of @xmath65 such that @xmath334\nonumber \\ & & { } + \frac{\ell}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in u } \log^+ \gamma_{\theta}(y_0 ) \bigr ] \\ & & { } + \frac{1}{m+\ell } \e_{\theta_0 } \bigl [ \sup_{\theta\in
u } \log c_{m}\bigl(\theta',y_0^{m}\bigr ) \bigr ] . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] combining ( [ eqn : mainproofest1 ] ) and ( [ eqn : mainproofest2 ] ) , we obtain ( [ suffineq2 ] ) , which completes the proof of the theorem .
in this paper , we demonstrate how the properties of a family of dynamical systems affect the asymptotic consistency of maximum likelihood parameter estimation .
we have exhibited a collection of general statistical conditions on families of dynamical systems observed with noise , and we have shown that under these general conditions , maximum likelihood estimation is a consistent method of parameter estimation .
furthermore , we have shown that these general conditions are indeed satisfied by some classes of well - studied families of dynamical systems .
as mentioned in the , our results can be considered as a theoretical validation of the notion from dynamical systems that these classes of systems have `` good '' statistical properties .
however , there remain interesting families of systems to which our results do not apply , including some classes of systems that are also believed to have `` good '' statistical properties . in particular , the class of systems modeled by young towers with exponential tail @xcite has exponential decay of correlations and certain large deviations estimates @xcite .
these families include a positive measure set of maps from the quadratic family [ @xmath335 and the hnon family , as well as certain billiards and many other systems of physical and mathematical interest @xcite . in short ,
the setting of systems modeled by young towers with exponential tail provides a very attractive setting in which to consider consistency of maximum likelihood estimation .
unfortunately , our proof does not apply to systems in this setting in general , mainly due to the presence of the mixing condition ( s5 ) , which is not satisfied by these systems in general .
a natural next step might be to obtain rates of convergence and derive central limit theorems for maximum likelihood estimation .
to this end , it might be possible to build off of analogous results for hmms @xcite .
we leave these questions for future work .


rare b  decays induced by the flavor  changing neutral current ( fcnc ) @xmath1 have received a lot of theoretical interest @xcite .
these transitions provide an important consistency check of the standard model ( sm ) at loop level , since fcnc transitions are forbidden in the sm at tree level .
these decays induced by the fcnc are very sensitive to the new physics beyond the sm .
new physics appear in rare decays through the wilson coefficients which can take values different from their sm counterpart or through the new operator structures in an effective hamiltonian .    among the hadronic , leptonic and semileptonic
decays , the last decay channels are very significant , since they are theoretically , more or less , clean , and they have relatively larger branching ratio .
the semileptonic decay channels is described by the @xmath1 transition and they contain many observables like forward  backward asymmetry @xmath2 , lepton polarization asymmetries , etc .
existence of these observables is very useful and serve as a testing ground for the standard model ( sm ) and for looking new physics beyond th sm . for this reason ,
many processes , like @xmath3 @xcite , @xmath4 @xcite , @xmath5 @xcite and @xmath6 @xcite@xcite have been studied comprehensively .    recently , belle and babar collaborations announced the following results for the branching ratios of the @xmath6 and @xmath5 decays : ( b k^^+ ^- ) = \ {    lc ( 11.5^+2.6_-2.4 0.8 0.2 ) 10 ^ -7 & @xcite  , +   + ( 0.88^+0.33_-0.29 ) 10 ^ -6 & @xcite  ,    .
( b k ^+ ^- ) = \ {    lc ( 4.8^+1.0_-0.9 0.3 0.1 ) 10 ^ -7 & @xcite  , +   + ( 0.65^+0.14_-0.13 0.04 ) 10 ^ -6 & @xcite  .    . another exclusive decay which is described at inclusive level by the @xmath7 transition is the baryonic @xmath0 decay .
unlike mesonic decays , the baryonic decays could maintain the helicity structure of the effective hamiltonian for the @xmath8 transition @xcite .
many experimentally measurable quantities such as branching ratio @xcite , @xmath9 polarization and single lepton polarization have already been studied in @xcite and @xcite , respectively .
analysis of such quantities can be useful for more precise determination of the sm parameters and looking for new physics beyond the sm .
it has been pointed out in @xcite that some of single lepton polarization asymmetries may be too small to be observed and hence may not provide sufficient number of observables in checking the structure of effective hamiltonian . in need of more observables ,
london _ et al _
@xcite take into account polarizations of both leptons , which are simultaneously measured , and construct maximum number of independent observables .
it should be noted that the forward  backward asymmetries due to the double  lepton polarizations in the @xmath0 decay , are investigated in @xcite .    in the present work
we analyze the possibility of searching for new physics in the baryonic @xmath0 decay by studying the double  lepton polarization asymmetries , using a general form of the effective hamiltonian , including all possible forms of interactions .
note that the dependence of polarized forward
backward asymmetry to the new wilson coefficients for the meson@xmath10meson transition has been investigated in @xcite and @xcite . in the same manner
, an analogous analysis can be carried out to investigate the sensitivity of the double  lepton polarization asymmetries to the new wilson coefficients , in the case of baryon@xmath10baryon transition .
the paper is organized as follows . in section 2 , using the general , model independent form of the effective hamiltonian , the matrix element for the @xmath0 is obtained . in section 3
we calculate the double  lepton polarization asymmetries .
section 4 is devoted to the numerical analysis , discussions and conclusions .
in this section we derive the matrix element for the @xmath11 decay using the general , model independent form of the effective hamiltonian . at quark level ,
the matrix element of the @xmath0 decay is described by the @xmath7 transition .
the effective hamiltonian for the @xmath7 transition can be written in terms of twelve model independent four  fermi interactions as @xcite : [ e6601 ] m v_tbv_ts^\ { c_sl |s_r i _
b_l |^+ c_br |s_l i _ b_r |^+ c_ll^tot |s_l _ b_l |_l ^_l + c_lr^tot |s_l _ b_l |_r ^_r + c_rl |s_r _ b_r |_l ^_l + c_rr |s_r _ b_r |_r ^_r + c_lrlr |s_l b_r |_l _ r + c_rllr
|s_r b_l |_l _ r + c_lrrl |s_l b_r |_r _
l + c_rlrl |s_r b_l |_r _
l + c_t |s _ b |^
+ i c_te _ |s ^ b |^ }  , where @xmath12 is the momentum transfer and @xmath13 are the coefficients of the four  fermi interactions , @xmath14 and @xmath15 . the terms with coefficients @xmath16 and @xmath17 describe the penguin contributions , which correspond to @xmath18 and @xmath19 in the sm , respectively .
the next four terms in eq .
( [ e6601 ] ) with coefficients @xmath20 and @xmath21 describe vector type interactions , two ( @xmath22 and @xmath23 ) of which contain sm contributions in the form @xmath24 and @xmath24 , respectively . thus , @xmath22 and @xmath23 can be written as [ e6602 ] c_ll^tot c_9^eff- c_10 + c_ll  , + c_lr^tot c_9^eff+ c_10 + c_lr  , where @xmath25 and @xmath26 describe the contributions of new physics . additionally , eq . ( [ e6601 ] )
contains four scalar type interactions ( @xmath27 and @xmath28 ) , and two tensor type interactions ( @xmath29 and @xmath30 ) .
the amplitude of the exclusive @xmath31 decay is obtained by calculating the matrix element of @xmath32 for the @xmath33 transition between initial and final baryon states @xmath34 .
it follows from eq .
( [ e6601 ] ) that the matrix elements & & |s _ ( 1 _ 5 ) b _ b  , + & & |s _ ( 1 _ 5 ) b _ b  , + & & |s ( 1 _ 5 ) b _ b  .are needed in order to calculate the @xmath31 decay amplitude .
these matrix elements parametrized in terms of the form factors are as follows ( see @xcite ) [ e6603 ] |s _ b _ b |u_u__b  , + [ e6604 ] |s _ _ 5 b _
b |u_u__b  , + [ e6605 ] |s _ b _ b |u_u__b  , + [ e6606 ] |s _ _ 5 b _ b |u__5 u__b  , where @xmath35 and @xmath36 .
the form factors of the magnetic dipole operators are defined as [ e6607 ]        using the identity _ _ 5 = - _
^  , and eq .
( [ e6605 ] ) , the last expression in eq .
( [ e6607 ] ) can be written as |s i _ _ 5 q^b _
b |u_u__b  . multiplying ( [ e6605 ] ) and ( [ e6606 ] ) by @xmath37 and comparing with ( [ e6607 ] )
, one can easily obtain the following relations between the form factors [ e6608 ] f_2^t f_t + f_t^s q^2  , f_1^t q^2   = - f_3^t  , + g_2^t g_t + g_t^s q^2  , + g_1^t q^2 = g_3^t  .    the matrix element of the scalar @xmath38 and pseudoscalar @xmath39 operators can be obtained from ( [ e6603 ] ) and ( [ e6604 ] ) by multiplying both sides to @xmath40 and using equation of motion . neglecting the mass of the strange quark , we get [ e6609 ] |s b _ b |u_u__b  , + [ e6610 ] |s _ 5 b _
b |u_u__b  .    using these definitions of the form factors , for the matrix element of the @xmath31 we get @xcite [ e6611 ] + i _ q^+q _ ] u__b +    4 c_t |^ |u_u__b + 4 c_te ^ | _
i |u_u__b }  , where the explicit forms of the functions @xmath41 and @xmath42 @xmath43 and @xmath44 can be written as @xcite    [ e6612 ] a_1 f_1^t - g_1^t c_sl + f_1^t+g_1^t c_br + f_1-g_1 c_ll^tot + c_lr^tot + f_1+g_1 c_rl + c_rr  , + a_2 a_1 1 2  , + a_3 a_1 1 3  , + b_1 a_1 g_1 - g_1 ;  g_1^t - g_1^t  , + b_2 b_1 1 2  , + b_3 b_1 1 3  , + d_1 c_rr - c_rl f_1+g_1 + c_lr^tot - c_ll^tot f_1-g_1  , + d_2 d_1 1 2  , + d_3 d_1 1 3  , + e_1 d_1 g_1 - g_1  , + e_2 e_1 1 2  , + e_3 e_1 1 3  , + n_1 ( f_1 m__b - m_+ f_3 q^2 ) ( c_lrlr + c_rllr + c_lrrl + c_rlrl )  , + n_2 n_1 c_lrrl - c_lrrl ;  c_rlrl - c_rlrl  , + h_1 ( g_1 m__b + m_- g_3 q^2 ) ( c_lrlr - c_rllr + c_lrrl - c_rlrl )  , + h_2 h_1 c_lrrl - c_lrrl ;  c_rlrl - c_rlrl  .    from these expressions
it follows that @xmath45 decay is described in terms of many form factors .
it is shown in @xcite that hqet reduces the number of independent form factors to two ( @xmath46 and @xmath47 ) irrelevant of the dirac structure of the corresponding operators , i.e. , [ e6613 ] ( p _ ) |s b ( p__b ) = |u_u__b  , where @xmath48 is an arbitrary dirac structure and @xmath49 is the four  velocity of @xmath50 . comparing the general form of the form factors given in eqs .
( [ e6603])([e6610 ] ) with ( [ e6613 ] ) , one can easily obtain the following relations among them ( see also @xcite ) [ e6614 ] g_1 f_1 = f_2^t= g_2^t = f_1 + f_2  , + g_2 f_2 = g_3 = f_3 = g_t^v = f_t^v =  , + g_t^s f_t^s = 0  , + g_1^t f_1^t = q^2  , + g_3^t m__b + m _  , + f_3^t - m__b - m _  , where @xmath51 .    from eq .
( [ e6611 ] ) , we get for the unpolarized decay width [ e6615 ] _ 0 = v_tb v_ts^^2 ^1/2(1 , _ , ) v  , where @xmath52 is the triangle function , @xmath53 and @xmath54 is the lepton velocity , with @xmath55 .
the explicit expressions for @xmath56 and @xmath57 can be found in @xcite . in the next section , we present the expressions for the double  lepton polarization asymmetries .
in the present section we calculate the double  lepton polarization asymmetries , i.e. , when polarizations of both leptons are considered . in order to calculate the double lepton polarization asymmetries ,
we define the following orthogonal unit vectors @xmath58 in the rest frame of @xmath59 ( @xmath60 or @xmath61 , stand for longitudinal , transversal or normal polarizations , respectively .
[ e6616 ] s^-_l 0,_l^-= 0 ,  , + s^-_n 0,_n^-= 0 ,  , + s^-_t 0,_t^-= 0,_n^- _
l^-  , + s^+_l 0,_l^+= 0 ,  , + s^+_n 0,_n^+= 0 ,  , + s^+_t 0,_t^+= 0,_n^+ _ l^+  , where @xmath62 and @xmath63 are the three  momenta of the leptons @xmath64 and @xmath9 baryon in the center of mass frame ( cm ) of @xmath65 system , respectively . transformation of unit vectors from the rest frame of the leptons to cm frame of leptons can be accomplished by the lorentz boost . boosting of the longitudinal unit vectors @xmath66 yields [ e6617 ] s^_l _ cm  ,  , where @xmath67 , @xmath68 and @xmath69 are the energy and mass of leptons in the cm frame , respectively . the remaining two unit vectors @xmath70 , @xmath71 are unchanged under lorentz boost .
having obtained the above
expressions , we now define the double  polarization asymmetries as follows @xcite :    [ e6618 ] p_ij(q^2 )  , where , the first subindex @xmath72 represents lepton and the second one antilepton . using this definition of @xmath73 , nine double
lepton polarization asymmetries are calculated .
their expressions are    [ e6619 ] p_ll \ { 32 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + ) ( a_1+b_1 ) c_t^f_t^s + 12 ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2+_- ) \ { _ ( d_1-e_1 ) h_2^ + 8 m__b^2 _ ( a_2+b_2 ) c_t f_t^v + 32 m__b f_t f_t^v } + 12 _ ( 1- ) ( 1 + 2+_- ) ( d_1+e_1 ) f_2^ + 32 m__b^3 _ ( a_2+b_2 ) c_t^f_t^s + 3 ( 1 + 2+_- ) + 12 m__b ( 1-_+ ) + 3 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) + 12 m__b ( 1-_- ) + 24 ( 1+v^2 ) ( a_1 b_1^+ d_1 e_1^+ m__b^2 a_2 b_2^ ) + 48 m__b^2 _ ^2 ( 1+_- ) d_3 e_3^ + 16 m__b + 2 ( 1+v^2 ) ( a_1 ^2 + b_1 ^2 ) + 2 ( d_1 ^2 + e_1 ^2 ) + 2 m__b^2 ( 1+v^2 ) ( a_2 ^2 + b_2 ^2 ) + 64 m__b^3 + 4 m__b^2 v^2 ( d_2 ^2 + e_2 ^2 ) + 24 m__b ( 1-_- ) v^2 ( d_1 e_2^+ d_2 e_1^ ) + 24 m__b ( 1-_+ ) v^2 ( d_1 d_2^+ e_1 e_2^ ) + 48 m__b^2 ( v^2 d_2 e_2^+ 2 _ ^2 d_3 e_3^ ) + 128 m__b^2 f_t f_t^s + 32 m__b _ \ { ( c_t - 2 c_te ) - 6 ( c_t+2 c_te ) } a_2^f_t + 32 m__b _ \ { ( c_t + 2 c_te ) - 6 ( c_t-2 c_te ) } b_2^f_t + 96 _ a_1^f_t + 96 _ b_1^f_t + 128 c_t ^2 f_t ^2 + 512 c_te ^2 f_t ^2 }  , +   + [ e6620 ] p_ln \ { 4 _ ( 1- _ ) ( a_1^d_1 + b_1^e_1 ) + 32 m__b^2 _ ^2 ( 1- ) ( 1 + 2+_- ) ( d_1^+ e_1^ ) c_t f_t^s + 16 _ ( f_2 c_t^f_t^- 2 h_2 c_te^f_t^ ) + 4 m__b _ ( a_1^e_3 - a_2^e_1 + b_1^d_3 -b_2^d_1 ) + ( 1 + ) \{(a_1^+b_1^ ) f_2 - 16 m__b _
c_t^f_t^v } + 32 m__b _
^2 + ( 1- ) ( a_1-b_1 ) h_2^ +   + 4 m__b _
( a_1^d_3 + a_2^d_1 + b_1^e_3 + b_2^e_1 ) + 16 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) \ { c_t^f_t^s } + m__b ^2 + v^2 \{(d_1 + e_1 ) f_1 ^ - ( d_1 - e_1 ) h_1 ^ - } + 8 v^2 \{(a_1 - b_1 ) c_t^f_t^+ 2 ( a_1 + b_1 ) c_te^f_t^ + } + 8 m__b ( 1 - _ ) v^2 + m__b ^2 v^2 + 8 m__b^2 ^2 ( 1 - ) v^2 + 16 m__b }  , +   + [ e6621 ] p_nl - \ { 4 _ ( 1- _ ) ( a_1^d_1 + b_1^e_1 ) + 32 m__b^2 _ ^2 ( 1- ) ( 1 + 2+_- ) ( d_1^+ e_1^ ) c_t f_t^s + 16 _ ( f_2 c_t^f_t^- 2 h_2 c_te^f_t^ ) + 4 m__b _ ( a_1^e_3 - a_2^e_1 + b_1^d_3 -b_2^d_1 ) + ( 1 + ) \{(a_1^+b_1^ ) f_2 - 16 m__b _ c_t^f_t^v }
+ 32 m__b _
^2 + ( 1- ) ( a_1-b_1 ) h_2^ +   + 4 m__b _
( a_1^d_3 + a_2^d_1 + b_1^e_3 + b_2^e_1 ) + 4 m__b _
( a_1^d_3 + a_2^d_1 + b_1^e_3 + b_2^e_1 ) + m__b ^2 + v^2 \{(d_1 + e_1 ) f_1 ^ - ( d_1 - e_1 ) h_1^ + } + 8 v^2 \{(a_1 - b_1 ) c_t^f_t^+ 2 ( a_1 + b_1 ) c_te^f_t^ + } + 8 m__b ( 1 - _ ) v^2 + m__b ^2 v^2 + 8 m__b^2 ^2 ( 1 - ) v^2 + 16 m__b }  , +   + [ e6622 ] p_lt \ { 4 _ ( 1- _ ) + 4 _ ( a_1 d_1 ^ - b_1 e_1^+ 4 f_1^c_t f_t ) + 4 _ \ { 8 h_1 c_te^f_t^- m__b } + ( 1 - ) + ( 1 + ) + 8 \ { ( c_t + 2 c_te ) f_t + ( c_t - 2 c_te ) f_t } + 4 m__b ( 1- _ ) \ { 2 + m__b _ ( a_2 d_2 ^ - b_2 e_2^ ) } + 4 m__b _
+ m__b ^2 \ { 8 f_t^v + ( a_2-b_2 ) h_1^ + ( a_2 + b_2 ) f_1 ^ - ( d_2-e_2 ) h_2 ^ - ( d_2+e_2 ) f_2 ^ - 4 m__b _
( d_2 d_3^+ e_2 e_3^ ) } + 8 m__b^2 ^2 ( 1- ) f_t^v + 16 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) f_1^c_t f_t^s }  , +   + [ e6623 ] p_tl \ { 4 _ ( 1- _ ) + 4 _ ( a_1 d_1 ^ - b_1 e_1^+ 4 f_1^c_t f_t ) + 4 _ \ { 8 h_1 c_te^f_t^- m__b } + ( 1 - ) + ( 1 + ) + 8 \ { ( c_t + 2 c_te ) f_t + ( c_t - 2 c_te ) f_t } + 4 m__b ( 1- _ ) \ { 2 - m__b _ ( a_2 d_2 ^ - b_2 e_2^ ) } + 4 m__b _
+ m__b ^2 \ { 8 f_t^v - ( a_2-b_2 ) h_1^ + ( a_2 + b_2 ) f_1 ^ - ( d_2-e_2 ) h_2 ^ - ( d_2+e_2 ) f_2 ^ - 4 m__b _
( d_2 d_3^+ e_2 e_3^ ) } + 8 m__b^2 ^2 ( 1- ) f_t^v + 16 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) f_1^c_t f_t^s }  , +   + [ e6624 ] p_nt \ { 4 ( a_1 d_1^+b_1 e_1^ ) + 32 m__b _ + 32 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + ) + 6 _ ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) ( d_1-e_1 ) h_1^ + 6 _ ( 1- ) ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) ( d_1+e_1 ) f_1^ + 32 m__b^3
_ f_t^s + 4 m__b^2 ( a_2^d_2 + b_2^e_2 ) + 256 m__b^2 \ { - m__b ( 1 + ) } c_t c_te^ + 3 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) + 96 m__b ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) \ { 8 c_t c_te^ + m__b _ ( a_2+b_2 ) c_te^f_t^v } + ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) \ { 128 m__b^4 f_t^s ^2 c_t c_te^ + 3 f_1^ } + 32 m__b +   + 1536 f_t ^2 c_t c_te^ + 48 _ \ { ( 1- _ ) + } b_1^f_t + 16 m__b _ \ { 2(1-_)^2 ( c_t-2 c_te ) + - ^2 ( c_t-2 c_te ) } a_2^f_t + 16m__b _ \ { 2(1-_)^2 ( c_t+2 c_te ) + - ^2 ( c_t+2 c_te ) } b_2^f_t + 48 _ \ { ( 1- _ ) + } a_1^f_t }  , +   + [ e6625 ] p_tn - \ { 4 ( a_1 d_1^+b_1 e_1^ ) + 32 m__b _ + 32 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + ) + 6 _ ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) ( d_1-e_1 ) h_1^ + 6 _ ( 1- ) ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) ( d_1+e_1 ) f_1^ + 32 m__b^3
_ f_t^s + 4 m__b^2 ( a_2^d_2 + b_2^e_2 ) + 256 m__b^2 \ { - m__b ( 1 + ) } c_t c_te^ + 3 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) + 96 m__b ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) \ { 8 c_t c_te^ + m__b _ ( a_2+b_2 ) c_te^f_t^v } + ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) \ { 128 m__b^4 f_t^s ^2 c_t c_te^ + 3 f_1^ } + 32 m__b +   + 1536 f_t ^2 c_t c_te^ + 48 _ \ { ( 1- _ ) + } b_1^f_t + 16 m__b _ \ { 2(1-_)^2 ( c_t-2 c_te ) + - ^2 ( c_t-2 c_te ) } a_2^f_t + 16 m__b _ \ { 2(1-_)^2 ( c_t+2 c_te ) + - ^2 ( c_t+2 c_te ) } b_2^f_t + 48 _ \ { ( 1- _ ) + } a_1^f_t }  , +   + [ e6626 ] p_nn \ { 96 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + ) ( a_1+b_1 ) c_t^f_t^s + 96 _ ^2 ( a_1 b_1^+ d_1 e_1^ ) + 48 m__b _ ^2 ( 1-_+ ) ( a_1 a_2^+ b_1 b_2^ ) + 96 m__b _ ( 1 + ) ^2 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) ( a_1 + b_1 ) c_t^f_t^v + 12 _ ( 1 - ) ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) ( d_1 + e_1 ) f_2^ + 96 m__b^3 _ ^2 ( a_2 + b_2 ) c_t^f_t^s + 12 _ ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) + 3 ^2 ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) + 24 m__b _
^2 + 48 m__b _ ^2 ( 1-_- ) ( a_1 b_2^+ a_2 b_1 ^+ d_1 e_3^+ d_3 e_1^ ) + 4 [ + 2 _ ^2 ( 1 + _ ^2 - 2 _ + _ + - 2 ^2 ) ] ( a_1 ^2 + b_1 ^2 - d_1 ^2 - e_1 ^2 ) + 3 ^2 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) + 96 m__b^2 _ ^2 ^2 ( a_2 b_2^+ d_3 e_3^ ) + 64 m__b^2 ^2 \{2 f_t f_t^s - m__b } + 4 m__b^2 ^2 v^2 ( d_2 ^2 + e_2 ^2 ) + 4 m__b^2 \ { - 2 _ ^2 [ 2 ( 1 + _
^2 ) - ( 1 + ) - _ ( 4 + ) ] } ( a_2 ^2 + b_2 ^2 ) + 96 m__b _ ^2 + 96 _ + 96 _ + 768 \ { c_t ^2 + 4 c_te ^2 } f_t ^2 + 96 m__b _ ^2 a_2 f_t^ + 3 ^2 v^2 + 384 m__b ^2 ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) ( c_t ^2 - 4 v^2 c_te ^2 ) f_t f_t^v + 64 m__b^2 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) \ { c_t ^2 - 4 v^2 ( 1 + 2 + _ + 2 ) c_te ^2 } f_t^v ^2 }  , +   + [ e6627 ] p_tt \ { 32 m__b^2 _ ( 1 + ) ( a_1+b_1 ) c_t^f_t^s + 96 _ ^2 ( a_1 b_1^+ d_1 e_1^ ) + 48 m__b _ ^2 ( 1-_+ ) ( d_1 d_3^+ e_1 e_3^ ) + 12 _ ( 1 - ) ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) ( d_1 + e_1 ) f_2^ + 32 m__b^3 _ ^2 ( a_2 + b_2 ) c_t^f_t^s + 96 m__b^2 _ ^2 ^2 ( a_2 b_2^+ d_3
e_3^ ) + 12 _ ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) + 3 ^2 ( 1 + 2 + _ - ) + 24 m__b _ ^2 + 48 m__b _ ^2 ( 1-_- ) ( a_1 b_2^+ a_2 b_1 ^+ d_1 e_3^+ d_3 e_1^ ) + 4 [ - 2 _ ^2 ( 1 + _ ^2 - 2 _ + _ + - 2 ^2 ) ] ( a_1 ^2 + b_1 ^2 ) + 4 m__b^2 \ { ^2 + _ ^2 [ 4 ( 1- _ ) ^2 - 2 ( 1 + _ ) - 2 ^2 ) ] } ( a_2 ^2 + b_2 ^2 ) + 4 \ { - 2 _ ^2 [ 5 ( 1- _ ) ^2 - 7 ( 1 + _ ) + 2 ^2 ) ] } ( d_1 ^2 + e_1 ^2 ) + 32 m__b _ + 3 ^2 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) + 64 m__b^2 ^2 \{2 f_t f_t^s - m__b } + 32 m__b _ \ { [ 4 ( 1-_)^2 - 5 ( 1+_)+^2 ] a_2^(c_t-2 c_te ) f_t - 6 a_2^(c_t+2 c_te ) f_t } + 32 m__b _ \ { [ 4 ( 1-_)^2 - 5 ( 1+_)+^2 ] b_2^(c_t+2 c_te ) f_t - 6 b_2^(c_t-2 c_te ) f_t } + 256 \ { - 3 ^2 + _ ^2 } c_t ^2 f_t ^2 + 1024 \{3 ^2 + _ ^2 } c_te ^2 f_t ^2 + 96 _
a_1 f_t^ + 96 _
b_1 f_t^ + 4 m__b^2 ^2 v^2 ( d_2 ^2 + e_2 ^2 ) + 3 ^2 v^2 + 384 m__b ^2 ( 1 + ) ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) ( c_t ^2 - 4 v^2 c_te ^2 ) f_t f_t^v + 64 m__b^2 ( 1 - 2 + _ - ) \ { c_t ^2 + 4 v^2 ( 1 + 2 + _ + 2 ) c_te ^2 } f_t^v ^2 }  .
we start this section by presenting the numerical results for all possible double  lepton polarization asymmetries .
the values of the input parameters we use in out calculations are : @xmath74 , @xmath75 , @xmath76 .
@xmath77 . for the wilson
coefficients we use their sm values which are given as : @xmath78 , @xmath79 and @xmath80 .
the magnitude of @xmath81 is quite well constrained from @xmath82 decay , and hence well established .
moreover , we will fix the values of the wilson coefficients , i.e. , @xmath17 and @xmath16 are both related to @xmath81 as follows : @xmath83 and @xmath84 .
as far as the wilson coefficient @xmath85 is considered , we take into account only the short distance contributions , and we neglect the long distance contributions , coming from the production of @xmath86 pair at intermediate states .
it is well known that the form factors are the main and the most important input parameters necessary in the numerical calculations .
the calculation of the form factors of @xmath87 transition does not exist at present .
but , we can use the results from qcd sum rules in corporation with hqet @xcite .
we noted earlier that , hqet allows us to establish relations among the form factors and reduces the number of independent form factors into two . in @xcite , the @xmath88 dependence of these form factors
are given as follows f ( ) =  .
the values of the parameters @xmath89 and @xmath90 are given in table 1 .
@xmath91    in further numerical analysis , the values of the new wilson coefficients which describe new physics beyond the sm , are needed . in numerical calculations
we will vary all new wilson coefficients in the range @xmath92 .
the experimental results on the branching ratio of the @xmath6 decay @xcite and the bound on the branching ratio of @xmath93 @xcite suggest that this is the right order of magnitude for the vector and scalar interaction coefficients . here , we emphasize that the existing experimental results on the @xmath6 and @xmath5 decays put stronger restrictions on some of the new wilson coefficients .
for example , @xmath94 , @xmath95 , @xmath96 and @xmath97 , and all of the remaining wilson coefficients vary in the region @xmath92 .
it follows from the explicit expressions of the double  lepton polarization asymmetries that they depend on @xmath88 and the new wilson coefficients . for this reason
there may appear difficulties in studying the dependencies of the physical properties on both parameters at the same time .
hence , it is necessary to eliminate the dependence of @xmath73 on one of these parameters . here in the present work ,
we eliminate @xmath88 dependence of @xmath73 by performing integration over @xmath88 in the kinematically allowed region .
the averaging of @xmath73 over @xmath88 is defined as [ e6628 ] p_ij =    in figs .
( 1)(5 ) we present the correlation of the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetries on the branching ratio for the @xmath98 decay . from these figures
we obtain the following results .
* there exist regions of the new wilson coefficients where @xmath99 departs considerably from the sm result when @xmath100 is close to the sm prediction . *
@xmath101 and @xmath102 are both very sensitive to the existence of the tensor and scalar interactions .
we observe that @xmath103 exceeds the sm prediction 3 times and @xmath102 2 times , respectively .
more essential than that , @xmath101 as well as @xmath102 both change their signs when wilson coefficients vary in the allowed region .
such behaviors can serve as a good test for establishing new physics beyond the sm . * @xmath104 and @xmath105 are quite sensitive to the existence of the vector interactions , especially to @xmath26 . in the presence of this coefficient ,
the values of @xmath104 and @xmath105 can both exceed the sm result 34 times , and both changes their sign when @xmath26 varies in the allowed region .
therefore , determination of the sign and magnitude of @xmath104 and @xmath106 can give unambiguous information about the existence of the new vector type interaction .
we do not present the correlation of and @xmath107 , @xmath108 , @xmath109 and @xmath110 on the branching ratio , since their values are quite small .    in figs .
( 6)(12 ) the correlation of @xmath111 on branching ratio for the @xmath112 decay are presented .
similar to the @xmath113 decay , we observe that several of the double  lepton polarization asymmetries are very sensitive to the existence of new physics and the presence of the new wilson coefficients can produce results that depart considerably from the sm prediction .
more precisely , we can briefly comment on the results as follows :    * all @xmath111 are very sensitive to the existence of tensor interactions with coefficients @xmath29 and @xmath30 .
* the situation for the @xmath112 decay is slightly different from the @xmath113 decay , for which a considerable dependence on the existence of the scalar type interaction is observed , especially for the coefficients @xmath114 and @xmath115 .
* @xmath116 , @xmath101 , @xmath102 and @xmath105 exhibit strong dependence on vector interaction with coefficients @xmath26 , while @xmath107 and @xmath108 do so on the vector interaction with coefficient @xmath25 .
* @xmath116 and @xmath104 change sign when the new wilson coefficients vary in the allowed region . for this reason ,
measurement of magnitude and sign of the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry can be a very useful tool in establishing new physics beyond the sm .
the following question we would like to discuss is the possibility of the existence of such a region of the new wilson coefficients for which the branching ratio coincides with sm result , while the double  lepton polarizations do not , similar to the @xmath117 decay .    from the relevant figures we see that , the @xmath118 decay is far more informative on this issue .
there exist regions of the new wilson coefficients @xmath26 , @xmath29 and @xmath30 , where double  lepton polarization asymmetries differ from the sm result , but branching ratio coincides with that of the sm .    at the end of this section ,
let us discuss the problem of measurement of the lepton polarization asymmetries in experiments .
experimentally , to measure an asymmetry @xmath119 of the decay with the branching ratio @xmath120 at @xmath121 level , the required number of events ( i.e. , the number of @xmath122 pair ) are given by the expression n =  , where @xmath123 and @xmath124 are the efficiencies of the leptons .
typical values of the efficiencies of the @xmath125leptons range from @xmath126 to @xmath127 for their various decay modes ( see for example @xcite and references therein ) , and the error in @xmath125lepton polarization is estimated to be about @xmath128 @xcite . as a result , the error in measurement of the @xmath125lepton asymmetries is of the order of @xmath129 , and the error in obtaining the number of events is about @xmath126 .    from the expression for @xmath61
we see that , in order to observe the lepton polarization asymmetries in @xmath113 and @xmath112 decays at @xmath130 level , the minimum number of required events are ( for the efficiency of @xmath125lepton we take @xmath131 ) :    * for the @xmath113 decay n = \ { + ll 2.0 10 ^ 6 & ( p_ll )  , + 2.0 10 ^ 8 & ( p_lt = p_tl , p_nn , p_tt )  , + .
* for @xmath112 decay n = \ { + ll ( 4.0 2 ) 10 ^ 9 & ( p_lt , p_nn )  , + ( 1.0 0.5 ) 10 ^ 9 & ( p_tt )  , + ( 2.0 1.0 ) 10 ^ 11 & ( p_ln , p_nl )  , + ( 9.0 4.5 ) 10 ^ 8 & ( p_tl )  .
the number of @xmath122 pairs , that are produced at b  factories and lhc are about @xmath132 and @xmath133 , respectively . as a result of a comparison of these numbers and @xmath61 ,
we conclude that , only @xmath134 in the @xmath135 decay and @xmath136 , @xmath137 and @xmath138 in the @xmath112 decay , can be detectable at lhc .    in summary , we present the most general analysis of the double  lepton polarization asymmetries in the @xmath139 decay using the most general , model independent form of the effective hamiltonian .
the correlation of the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetries on the branching ratio have been studied .
our results show that the study of double  lepton polarization asymmetries can serve as good test for establishing new physics beyond the sm .
moreover , we observe that there exist regions of the new wilson coefficients for which double  lepton polarization asymmetries depart considerably from the sm , while the branching ratio coincides with that of the sm predictions
.    99    a. ali , prep : hep  ph/0312303 ( 2003 ) .
s. r. choudhury and n. gaur , phys .
d * 66 * , 094015 ( 2002 ) ; t. m. aliev , m. savci , phys .
d * 60 * , 014005 ( 1999 ) .
s. rai choudhury , n. gaur and n. mahajan , phys .
d * 66 * , 054003 ( 2002 ) ; s. r. choudhury and n. gaur , prep : hep  ph/0205076 ( 2002 ) ; e. o. iltan and g. turan , phys
d * 61 * , 034010 ( 2000 ) .
s. r. choudhury , a. s. cornell , n. gaur and g. c. joshi , phys .
d * 69 * , 054018 ( 2004 ) ; t. m. aliev , v. bashiry and m. savci , eur .
j. * 35 * , 197 ( 2004 ) ; t. m. aliev , m. k. akmak , a. zpineci and m. savci , phys .
d * 64 * , 055007 ( 2001 ) .
f. krger and l. m. sehgal , phys .
b * 380 * , 199 ( 1996 ) ; j. l. hewett , phys .
d * 53 * , 4964 ( 1996 ) .
s. fukae , c. s. kim , t. morozumi and t. yoshikawa , phys .
d * 59 * , 074013 ( 1999 ) .
s. rai choudhury , a. gupta and n. gaur , phys . rev .
d * 60 * , 115004 ( 1999 ) ; s. fukae , c. s. kim and t. yoshikawa , phys .
d * 61 * , 074015 ( 2000 ) ; d. guetta and e. nardi , phys .
d * 58 * , 012001 ( 1998 ) ; a. s. cornell , n. gaur , prep : hep  ph/0408164 ( 2004 ) .
a. ali , p. ball , l. t. handoko and g. hiller , phys .
d * 61 * , 074024 ( 2000 ) .
t. m. aliev , m. k. akmak and m. savci , nucl .
b * 607 * , 305 ( 2001 ) ; t. m. aliev and m. savci , phys .
b * 481 * , 275 ( 2000 ) .
g. burdman , phys .
d * 52 * , 6400 ( 1995 ) ,    t. m. aliev , v. bashiry , m. savci , jhep * 0405 * , 037 ( 2004 ) .
t. m. aliev , a. zpineci , m. savci , c. yce , phys .
d * 66 * , 115006 ( 2002 ) ; t. m. aliev , a. zpineci , m. savci , phys .
b * 511 * , 49 ( 2001 ) ; t. m. aliev , a. zpineci , m. savci , nucl .
b * 585 * , 275 ( 2000 ) ; t. m. aliev , c. s. kim , y. g. kim , phys .
d * 62 * , 014026 ( 2000 ) ; t. m. aliev , e. o. iltan , n. k. pak , phys .
b * 451 * , 175 ( 1999 ) ; t. m. aliev , c. s. kim , m. savci , phys .
b * 441 * , 410 ( 1998 ) .
a. ishikawa _ et .
al _ , belle collaboration , phys .
* 91 * , 261601 ( 2003 ) .
b. aubert _ et .
al _ , babar collaboration , phys .
lett . * 91 * , 221802 ( 2003 ) .
t. mannel and s. recksiegel , j. phys .
g * 24 * , 979 ( 1998 ) .
t. m. aliev , a. zpineci and m. savci , phys .
d * 65 * , 115002 ( 2002 ) ; + t. m. aliev , m. savci , j. phys .
g * 26 * , 997 ( 2000 ) .
t. m. aliev , a. zpineci and m. savci , nucl .
b * 649 * , 1681 ( 2003 ) .
t. m. aliev , a. zpineci and m. savci , phys .
d * 67 * , 035007 ( 2003 ) .
w. bensalem , d. london , n. sinha and r. sinha , phys .
d * 67 * , 034007 ( 2003 ) .
t. m. aliev , v. bashiry and m. savci , prep : hep  ph/0407217 ( 2004 ) .
c. h. chen and c. q. geng , phys .
d * 64 * , 074001 ( 2001 ) .
t. mannel , w. roberts and z. ryzak , nucl .
b * 355 * , 38 ( 1991 ) .    c. s. huang , h. g. yan , phys .
d * 59 * , 114022 ( 1999 ) .
m. c. chang _
_ , belle collaboration , phys .
d * 68 * , 111101 ( 2003 ) .
g. abbiendi _ et .
al _ , opal collaboration , phys .
b * 492 * , 23 ( 2000 ) .
a. rouge , workshop on @xmath125physics , orcay , france ( 1990 ) .
* fig . ( 1 ) * parametric plot of the correlation between the averaged double  lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath140 and the branching ratio for the @xmath117 decay , when both leptons are longitudinally polarized . +   + * fig .
( 2 ) * the same as in fig . ( 1 ) , but for the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath141 .
+   + * fig .
( 3 ) * the same as in fig . ( 1 ) , but for the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath142 .
+   + * fig .
( 4 ) * the same as in fig . ( 1 ) , but for the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath143 .
+   + * fig .
( 5 ) * the same as in fig . ( 1 ) , but for the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath144 .
+   + * fig .
( 6 ) * the same as in fig .
( 1 ) , but for the @xmath145 decay . +   + * fig .
( 7 ) * the same as in fig .
( 6 ) , but for the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath146 .
+   + * fig .
( 8) * the same as in fig . ( 6 ) , but for the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath147 .
+   + * fig .
( 9 ) * the same as in fig .
( 2 ) , but for the @xmath145 decay . +   + * fig .
( 10 ) * the same as in fig .
( 3 ) , but for the @xmath145 decay .
+   + * fig .
( 11 ) * the same as in fig .
( 4 ) , but for the @xmath145 decay .
+   + * fig .
( 12 ) * the same as in fig .
( 10 ) , but for the averaged double
lepton polarization asymmetry @xmath144 .