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

A while ago, I came across the following problem, which I was not able to resolve one way or the other.

Let $f,g\colon\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$ be continuous functions such that $f(t,x)$ and $g(t,x)$ are Lipschitz continuous with respect to $x$ and increasing in $t$. Is it necessarily true that the partial derivative $f_x=\partial f/\partial x$ exists almost everywhere with respect to the measure $\iint\cdot\,d_tg(t,x)dx$?

The notation $\int\cdot\,d_tg(t,x)$ refers to the Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral with respect to $g(t,x)$, for each fixed $x$. At first sight, this looks like a basic real-analysis problem for which it should be possible to either prove true or construct a simple counterexample. However, after playing around with this for a while, I was none the wiser.

The reason for the interest in this question comes from attempts to construct a particular decomposition of stochastic processes. Supposing that $X$ is a continuous martingale, it can be useful to decompose $f(t,X_t)$ into a martingale term and a 'drift' component, $$ \begin{align} f(t,X_t)=\int_0^tf_x(s,X_s)\,dX_s+A_t.&&{\rm(1)} \end{align} $$ For this expression to be well-defined, it is necessary that $f_x$ exists outside of a null set. That is, $\int1_{\{f_x(s,X_s)\rm\ doesn't\ exist\}}dX_s$ should be zero. However, letting $g(t,x)=\mathbb{E}[\vert X_t-x\vert]$, it can be shown that the expected value of the square of this integral is $\iint1_{\{f_x\rm\ doesn't\ exist\}}d_tg(t,x)dx$. So a positive answer to my question would mean that decomposition (1) is well-defined. Furthermore, it can then be shown that $A$ has zero quadratic variation, so that $f(t,X_t)$ is what is sometimes referred to as a Dirichlet process (although this term does also have a completely different meaning). Decomposition (1) was used to prove some results about the distribution of martingales, but I also published it as a stand-alone paper (here). However, not knowing an answer to the question above, this did require imposing the annoying additional condition that the left and right hand derivatives of $f(t,x)$ with respect to $x$ exist everywhere.

Some further points are in order.

  • Lebesgue's differentiation theorem tells us that the partial derivative $f_x$ exists almost everywhere with respect to the Lebesgue measure. That does not help here though, because $\iint\cdot d_tg(t,x)dx$ need not be absolutely continuous. In fact, even restricting to the case where $g(t,x)$ is convex in $x$, it is possible to construct nontrivial examples where $\iint\cdot d_tg(t,x)dx$ is supported on the graph $\{(t,\gamma(t))\colon t\in\mathbb{R}\}$ of a (discontinuous) function $\gamma\colon\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$.
  • If the left and right hand partial derivatives of $f(t,x)$ with respect to $x$ exist everywhere, then the question has a positive answer.
  • If the left and right hand partial derivatives of $g(t,x)$ with respect to $x$ exist everywhere, then $f_x$ exists in a weak sense. Given any bounded measurable $\theta\colon\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$ with compact support,$$\iint h^{-1}(f(t,x+h)-f(t,x))\theta d_tgdx\to\iint f_x\theta d_tgdx$$as $h\to0$.
  • Rather than monotonicity in $t$, I am really interested in the weaker condition that $\iint\cdot\vert d_tf(t,x)\vert dx$ is locally finite ($\int\cdot\vert d_tf(t,x)\vert$ is the variation of $\int\cdot d_tf(t,x)$), and similarly for $g$. If I find a positive answer to this, then I think I would update my papers on arXiv to reflect this.
share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.