Let $I(\cdot)$ be an indicator, and $B_{t}$ be an 1-dim standard Brownian motion in a nice filtered probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P, \mathcal{F}_{t})$. We consider a random process $$Y_{t} = I(t\ge 1) B_{t-1}.$$ Obviously, $Y$ is an $\mathcal F_{t}$-adapted process with finite quadratic variation $\langle Y \rangle_{t} = (t-1) I(t\ge 1)$.

[Q1.] Is it a Ito process, i.e. there exists a representation of the form $$Y_{t} = \int_{0}^{t} b_{s}ds + \sigma_{s}d B_{s}, \quad \forall t\ge 0$$ for some $\mathcal F_t$-adapted processes $b$ and $\sigma$?

[Q2.] If No for [Q1.], then is it semi-martingale?

[Q3.] If the answers for the above are both NO, then it gives an example of finite QV which is not semi-martingale. Is there any other such an example which belongs to QV but not in semi-martingale?

  • $\begingroup$ I have not thought of this issue. Just let the filtration be any larger one which runs at least 1-d BM. $\endgroup$ – kenneth May 9 '15 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ If it were an Ito process, wouldn't we have to have $b_s = \sigma_s = 0$ for $0 \le s < 1$? Then it ought to be possible to show that $Y$ is $\sigma(B_t - B_1 : t \ge 1)$-measurable, hence independent of $\sigma(B_t : t \le 1\}$. That is absurd since $Y_{3/2} = B_{1/2}$. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge May 10 '15 at 0:55
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge Probably the original question was not precise. In fact, $b$ and $\sigma$ may not be deterministic, and I modified it now. For instance $\sigma_s = B(1/2)$ for all $s>1/2$, then the process $Y_t$ shall not be $\sigma(B_t-B_1: t\ge 1)$-measurable. $\endgroup$ – kenneth May 10 '15 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ @StephanSturm Yes, I agree. $\endgroup$ – kenneth May 10 '15 at 13:53

Note that for fixed $t_0$, we have by the martingale representation theorem that

$$Y_{t_0} = \int_0^{t_0} I\bigl( s \in [0,t_0-1) \bigr) \, dB_s.$$

In particular that for $t_0\leq 1$ the indicator yields $0$ trivially. However, if we want to consider the process $(Y_t)$, then the integrand $I\bigl( s \in [0,t-1) \bigr)$ is not progressively measurable in the Brownian filtration (i.e. not measurable w.r.t. the $\sigma$-field $\mathcal{B}([0,s]) \otimes \mathcal{F}_s$). Thus it is not an Ito process and also not a semi-martingale as the martingale representation is unique. This answers [Q1] and [Q2].

As for [Q3], one classical example for a process with finite quadratic variation that is not a semimartingale is fractional Brownian motion with Hurst-parameter $h<1/2$. (It has even quadratic variation constant $0$).

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. However, I need one $\sigma$ for all $t\ge 0$, that is, $Y_t = \int_0^t \sigma(s, \omega) d B_s$. However, your representation is $\int_0^t \sigma(s, t, \omega) d B_s$. $\endgroup$ – kenneth May 10 '15 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ I got your point. Uniqueness of MRT actually tells us it's not a semi-martingale, and I agree. However, I do not quite understand, what do you mean by $I(s\in [0,t-1))$ being not progressively measurable? And how progressive measurability plays a role here? $\endgroup$ – kenneth May 10 '15 at 14:00

Let $\sigma_t=I(t\ge 1)$ and $b_t=0$ for all $t$. So $\sigma_t$ and $b_t$ are deterministic and certainly predictable, adapted, and integrable. Then the Ito process $$ \int_0^t b_d\,ds + \sigma_s\,dB_s = \int_0^t I(s\ge 1)\,dB_s = I(t\ge 1)(B_t-B_1) $$ is identically distributed (but not identical) with your process $I(t\ge 1)B_{t-1}$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the question was for identical, not for identical law (that is, the OP really wants to rewrite $Y_t$ itself as a stochastic integral against $B$). Clearly, one must take $b_t=0$ for equality in law (to preserve the martingale property), and I suspect that no $\sigma_t$ will do the job, but at the moment do not see a convincing argument. $\endgroup$ – ofer zeitouni May 9 '15 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ I wants to know if $B(t-1)$ is Ito process or not. I agree that your representation is giving an identical distribution. But I am not sure it is sufficient to answer it is Ito process? $\endgroup$ – kenneth May 10 '15 at 5:35
  • $\begingroup$ @kenneth I guess it's not quite $\endgroup$ – Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen May 10 '15 at 5:54

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.