I often see in stochastic calculus books the terms 'adapted process' and 'progressively measurable process'. I know there is a small difference between them (every progressively measurable process is adapted but the converse is not necessarily true) but I can't get it from the mathematical definitions.

The definition of progressively measurable process is the following: A stochastic process $X$ defined on a filtered probability space $(\Omega ,{\mathcal F},{({{\mathcal F}_t})_{t \ge 0}},P)$ is progressively measurable with respect to ${({{\mathcal F}_t})_{t \ge 0}}$, if the function $X(s,\omega):[0,t]\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is $\cal{B}([0,t]) \times \cal{F}_t$ measurable for every $t\ge 0$.

The definition of adapted process: A stochastic process $X$ on $(\Omega ,{{\mathcal F}},{({{\mathcal F}_t})_{t \ge 0}},P)$ is adapted to the filtration ${({{\mathcal F}_t})_{t \ge 0}}$ (or ${\mathcal F}_t$-adapted) if $X(t)\in {\mathcal F}_t$ for each $t \ge 0$.

Can someone explain me the difference in simple words? I think I understand the definition of the adapted process quite well but I'm probably confused of the role of the Borel sigma algebra in the definition of the progressively measurable process.

  • $\begingroup$ I think I got the point but still I'm not 100% sure. As continuous functions are Borel-measurable could a process that is adapted but not progressively measurable be e.g. $X(t) = {{\bf{1}}_{\{ \sin (t) \le \cos (t)\} }}$ ? I also assume that continuous stochastic processes involving Wiener process $W(t)$ are always progressively measurable (and by definition also adapted). Am I correct? $\endgroup$ – Fragile Jul 20 '14 at 19:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the process has continuous sample paths (actually just left continuous or right continuous is enough), then adapted and progressively measurable are the same thing. See Proposition 4.8 in Revuz & Yor. $\endgroup$ – Martin Hairer Jul 20 '14 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ OK, thanks! I mostly deal with Cadlag & Browninan processes in finance and so all of them should be progressively measurable. $\endgroup$ – Fragile Jul 20 '14 at 19:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinHairer do you know an example of adapted measurable process which is not progressively measurable? The hypothesis of adapted excludes the example of Stephan Sturm Since adapted means that $X: [0, \infty) \times \Omega \to E$ is $\mathcal{B}[0,\infty] \otimes \mathcal{F}_\infty$ measurable $\endgroup$ – Conrado Costa Aug 25 '15 at 1:25

@Conrado Augusto: You may find an example of a measurable, adapted but not progressively measurable process in these lecture notes of Michael Scheutzow (Example 1.38):

Now we provide an example of an adapted and measurable process which is not progressive.

Example 1.38. Let $(\Omega, \mathcal F ) = ([0, 1], \mathcal L)$, where $\mathcal L$ denotes the $\sigma$-algebra of Lebesgue sets in [0, 1] which – by definition – is the completion of $\mathcal B[0,1]$ with respect to Lebesgue measure. Let $\mathcal L_0$ be the $\sigma$-algebra on $[0,1] $ containing all sets in $\mathcal L$ which have Lebesgue measure $0$ or $1$. Define $\mathcal F_t :=\mathcal L_0$ for all $t\ge0$. Define the set $A\subset[0,\infty)\times\Omega$ by $A=\{(x,x)\mid x\in[0,1/2]\}$. Then $A \in \mathcal B[0,\infty )\otimes \mathcal F_t$ but for each $t > 0$, $A\cap ([0,t]\times\Omega ) \not\in \mathcal B[0,t]\otimes \mathcal F_t$ (otherwise the projection of the intersection onto $\Omega$ would be in $\mathcal F_t$ by Theorem 1.36 which is however not the case). Therefore the indicator of $A$ is measurable and (check!) adapted but not progressive.

  • $\begingroup$ Please concider addign at least a good part of the answer from the link to your answer so your answer here won't become invalid in case the url to your destination changes. $\endgroup$ – yukashima huksay Jun 22 '18 at 18:07

Theorem T46 in Meyer's book "Probability and Potentials" says: For any $(X_t)$ a measurable real-valued process adapted to the family of $\sigma$-fields $(\mathcal{F}_t)$, there exists a modification of the process $(X_t)$ progressively measurable with respect to the same family $(\mathcal{F}_t)$.

In the above example, you can easily see this is true. Change $A$ to a modification $\bar{A}=\{(x,0),x\in[0,\frac{1}{2}]\}$.

There are important relations between them: (Continuous+adapted)$\rightarrow$(mean-square continuous+adapted)$\rightarrow$predictable$\rightarrow$optional$\rightarrow$progressive$\rightarrow$adapted.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The theorem in Meyer is true, but Meyer's proof is incorrect. $\endgroup$ – iglick Apr 16 '18 at 6:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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