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

I am trying to prove that a certain sequence of Markov chains $x^N_k$ converges towards a diffusion process. The invariant measure of $x^N$ is $\pi^N$ and the Markov chain $x^N$ is started in stationarity $x^N_0 \sim \pi^N$. It is also assumed that $\pi^N$ converges (in laws) to a limiting probability distribution $\pi$.

The idea of the diffusion approximation is then pretty simple, and runs roughly as follows: we can write $$x^N_{k+1}-x^N_k = \mu(x^N_k) \Delta_N + m^N_k \sqrt{\Delta_N} $$ where $\Delta_N$ is a time step that goes to zero as $N \to \infty$ and $\mu(\cdot)$ is a deterministic function and $m^N_k$ is a martingale difference with respect to the natural filtration generated by $x^N$. It happens that a martingale central limit theorem applies in this case and that it can be shown that $$W^N(t) = \sqrt{\Delta_N} \sum_{k < [\frac{t}{\Delta_N}]} m^N_k$$ converges in laws to a Brownian motion $W$. This is why the sequence of rescaled Markov chain $U^N(t) = x^N(t/\Delta_N)$ should converge in laws to the diffusion $$dU_t = \mu(U_t) \ dt + dW_t, \quad U_0 \sim \pi,$$ where $W$ is independent from the initial position $U_0$.

If we can show that the couple $(x^N_0, W^N)$ converges in laws to $(U_0,W)$ where $U_0$ is independent from $W$, a continuous mapping argument gives the conclusion.

Question: in short, it is assumed that $x^N_0 \sim \pi^N$ converges in law to $U_0 \sim \pi$ and it can be shown that $W^N \to W$. This seems always true that $W$ is independent from $U_0$, is it ? How can one ensure that $W$ is adapted to a filtration $\mathcal{F}_t$ with $U_0 \in \mathcal{F}_0$ ?

Rephrasing: consider a sequence of martingales $M^N$, not starting from $0$, adapted to the filtrations $\mathcal{F}^N$. Let us also assume that the distribution $\pi^N$ of $M^N_0$ converges in law to a distribution $\pi$. If a martingale invariance principle applies to the sequence of martingales $X^N_k = M^N_k - M^N_0$, is it true that the original sequence $M^N$ also converges in laws to a modified "Brownian motion" $W$ with $W_0 \sim \pi$ ?

Ps: the whole point of this pedestrian approach is to avoid the usual generator-based theorems that ensure that a diffusion approximation is valid.re

share|improve this question
    
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why you should need or expect $W$ to be adapted to a filtration of the sort you describe. I think you're already done. –  Steve Huntsman May 9 '10 at 3:20
    
First, I would like to be sure that I can chose the Brownian motion W independently from the initial data U_0. Second, I need to prove that the couple (x^N_0, W^N) does converge, which is not clear to me. I need that because we can write U^N=I(x^N_0,W^N) where I is a continuous function: in order to apply the continuous mapping theorem, I need to show that the sequence (x^N_0,W^N) does converge in laws. –  Alekk May 9 '10 at 11:04
add comment

1 Answer

Check out the book by Ethier & Kurtz on Markov processes. As far as I remember, the chapter on diffusion approximations should have everything you might need.

share|improve this answer
    
Ethier and Kurtz would be perfect if I was working in R^d, but I am actually working with Hilbert space valued Markov chains. The whole story should not change much, but I do not know the proof of E&K enough (based on generators of diffusion etc..) to see if this is a straightforward generalization or not. By the way, if there is a good reference for SPDE approximations of Markov chains, that would be very helpful. Thank you. –  Alekk May 10 '10 at 20:11
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.