Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $(X_k)_{k=0,1,..., n}$ be a discrete martingale defined on some probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$. I would like to know whether there exists a (continuous) martingale $(\tilde{X}_t)_{0\le t\le n}$ defined on some probability space such that $(X_0, X_1,\dots, X_n)$ and $(\tilde{X}_0, \tilde{X}_1,\dots, \tilde{X}_n)$ have the same law? Thanks a lot for the reply!

share|improve this question
I changed your title to one that's more descriptive. Feel free to edit if you don't like it. –  Nate Eldredge Mar 6 '14 at 13:58
It is quite more reasonable for this title, thx –  CodeGolf Mar 6 '14 at 15:04
Isn't this equivalent to: given a random variable $Z$ with $\mathbb E[Z]=0$, does there exist a continuous martingale $X=(X_t:t \geq 0)$ such that $X_1$ has law $Z$? –  Bati Mar 6 '14 at 15:07

2 Answers 2

Martingales on the Brownian filtration are continuous, so we construct one with the same law on discrete times as $X$. We construct this process in a similar way to how one might simulate $X$, given its conditional distributions and a sequence of normals.

For simplicity, assume $X_0$ is constant. Let $(W_t)_{t\ge 0}$ be a Brownian motion on $(C[0,\infty), \mathcal{W}, \mathbb{Q})$, with natural filtration $(\mathcal{W}_t)_{t\ge 0}$. For $i=1,\cdots, n$, let $$N_i = W_i - W_{i-1}.$$

Claim: For $k=0,\cdots,n$, there is a $\sigma(N_1,\cdots,N_k)$-measurable random variable $Y_k$ such that $(X_0,\cdots, X_n)$ has the same law as $(Y_0,\cdots, Y_n)$.

$Y$ has the same law as $X$, so it is a martingale (on its natural filtration). Also it is (we may check) a discrete-time martingale on the Brownian filtration, $$Y_k = \mathbb{E}[Y_n|\mathcal{W}_k],$$ so we may extend the definition of $Y_k$ to all $k$ in $[0,n]$. $Y$, being a martingale on the Brownian filtration, is continuous.

Proof of claim: Without loss of generality, assume $X_k$ is the $k$th coordinate map on a probability space $(\mathbb{R}^n, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^n), \mathbb{P})$. Let $\phi$ be the CDF of a standard normal random variable. For $i=0,\cdots,N-1$, let $\mathcal{G}_i =\sigma(X_1,\cdots, X_{i})$, and let $Q_i:\Omega\times \mathcal{F}\to[0,1]$ be the regular conditional probability of $\mathbb{P}$ with respect to $\mathcal{G}_{i-1}$. Let $$F_{X_i|X_0,\cdots, X_i}(x| x_0, \cdots, x_{i-1}) = Q((x_0,\cdots, x_i,0,\cdots,0), \{X_i\le x_i\}).$$

For $G \in\mathcal{G}$, $\omega\mapsto Q(\omega,G)$ is $\mathcal{G}$-measurable, so $Q$ only depends on the first $i$ components of $\omega$. Denote $F_{X_i|X_0,\cdots, X_{i-1}}$ by $F_i$. Let $$G_i(y| x_0, \cdots, x_{i-1}) = \inf\{x:F_i(x| x_0,\cdots, x_{i-1})\ge y\}$$ Let $Y_0$ equal the constant $X_0$ and $$Y_i = G_i(\phi(N_i)| Y_0,\cdots, Y_{i-1})$$

$X_0$ has the same law as $Y_0$. Suppose $(X_0, \cdots,X_{i-1})$ has the same law as $(Y_0, \cdots,Y_{i-1})$. Fix $x_0, \cdots, x_i$. $$ \begin{align}\{Y_i\le x_i\} &= \{G_i(\phi(N_i), Y_0,\cdots, Y_{i-1}) \le x_i\}\\ &= \{F_i(x_i| Y_0,\cdots, Y_{i-1})\ge \phi(N_i)\}\\ &= \{Q((Y_0,\cdots,Y_{i-1}, x_i, 0,\cdots, 0), \{X_i\le x_i\})\ge \phi(N_i)\} \end{align} $$ Similarly, $$ \begin{align}\mathbb{Q}[Y_0\le x_0, \cdots, Y_i\le x_i] &= \mathbb{Q}[Y_0\le x_0,\cdots,Y_{i-1}\le x_{i-1}, Q((Y_0,\cdots,Y_{i-1}), \{X_i\le x_i\})\ge \phi(N_i)]\\ &= \mathbb{E}[Q((Y_0,\cdots, Y_{i-1}),\{X_i\le x_i\})\mathbf{1}_{Y_0\le x_0}\cdots\mathbf{1}_{Y_{i-1}\le x_{i-1}}]\\ &= \mathbb{E}[Q((X_0,\cdots, X_{i-1}),\{X_i\le x_i\})\mathbf{1}_{X_0\le x_0}\cdots\mathbf{1}_{X_{i-1}\le x_{i-1}}]\\ &= \mathbb{P}[X_0\le x_0, \cdots, X_i\le x_i] \end{align} $$

share|improve this answer
Thx a lot for your help –  CodeGolf Mar 7 '14 at 20:27
@CodeGolf You're welcome. Did a particular question motivate this problem? –  Ben Mar 7 '14 at 20:42
@CodeGolf If you are satisfied with an answer to a question you wrote, you can click on the little check mark underneath the up- and down-votes, to "accept" it.... –  UwF Apr 13 '14 at 13:53

Let $(W_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be a Brownian motion. By the Skorokhod embedding theorem there exist a stopping time $T$ such that $W_T \,{\buildrel d \over =}\ X_1-X_0$, see e.g. "The Skorokhod embedding problem and its offspring", Obłój, (link) (Actually, we may choose $T$ in such a way, that $W^T = (W_{T \wedge t})$ is a uniformly integrable martingale). Denote $\phi(t) = \frac{t}{1-t}$ and define for $t \in [0;1)$

$$ \tilde{X} _t = W^T_{\phi (t)} = W _{\phi (t)}I_{\{\phi (t) \leq T \}}+ W _{T}I_{\{\phi (t) > T \}}, $$

and let $\tilde{X} _1 - \tilde{X}_0 = W _{T}$. Then $(\tilde{X} _t)_{0\leq t\leq1}$ is a continuous uniformly integrable martingale with respect to the filtration $(\tilde{\mathscr{F}} _t)_{0\leq t\leq1}$, where $\tilde{\mathscr{F}} _t = \mathscr{F} _{ \phi (t)} \vee \sigma (X_0)$, $\mathscr{F} _{ t}$ is the completion of $\mathscr{F} _{ t+}^W$.

Taking n independent Brownian motions, we may extend $\tilde{X}$ to $[0;n]$, and $\tilde{X}$ will even be uniformly integrable.

EDIT: Apparently, this construction is not correct. We also need to ensure that $(X_0,X_1-X_0) \,{\buildrel d \over =}\, (\tilde{X}_0,W _{T})$, which is possible. But then $\tilde{X} _t = \tilde{X} _0+ W^T_{\phi (t)}$, need not be a martingale, because $\tilde{X} _0$ and $W$ are not independent, $\sigma (\tilde{X}_0)$ may contain some information about the "future".

Let $Q(x,A)$ be a transition probability kernel such that $Q(X_0,A)$ is a version of $ P\{X_1 - X_0 \in A | X_0 \} $, and let $B$ be a Brownian motion, independent of $\tilde{X} _0$. For each $x\in R$, define a stopping time $T_x$ in such a way, that $B_{T_x}$ has distribution $Q(x,\cdot)$. Then, if we could provide measurability of $T_x$ by $x$, or alternatively if we could show, that $T_{X_0}$ is a random variable, then the process

$$\tilde{X} _t =\tilde{X} _0 + B _{\phi (t)}I_{\{\phi (t) \leq T_{X_0} \}}+ B _{T_{X_0}}I_{\{\phi (t) > T_{X_0} \}}, t\in [0;1), \tilde{X} _1 = B _{T_{X_0}} $$

would have desired properties. So, this should do for some particular cases, e.g. when $P\{ X_0 \in C \} =1$ for some countable set $C$. But I don't see how to extend this approach to the general case.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.