How can I show that the stochastic integral of a jump process w.r.t. Brownian motion is a local martingale by...












1














Suppose that $Y$ is a pure jump process with $N_t$ jumps in $(0,t]$ and $E[N_t]<infty$. Denote the jump times by $T_i$. Let $W$ be a Brownian motion. If $T_0=0$, then
begin{equation}
M_t=int_0^t Y_s,dW_s=sum_{i=0}^{N_t-1} Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})+Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_t}}).
end{equation}
The process $M$ is continuous. I want to show that $M$ is a local martingale by using the sequence $tau_n=inf{t: |M_t|>n}$. That is, I have to show that ${M_{tau_nwedge t}}$ is a martingale. I have read that one can use the above sequence of stopping times for continuous local martingales. But why or how?






brownian-motion martingales stochastic-integrals stochastic-analysis local-martingales







share|cite|improve this question





























    1














    Suppose that $Y$ is a pure jump process with $N_t$ jumps in $(0,t]$ and $E[N_t]<infty$. Denote the jump times by $T_i$. Let $W$ be a Brownian motion. If $T_0=0$, then
    begin{equation}
    M_t=int_0^t Y_s,dW_s=sum_{i=0}^{N_t-1} Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})+Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_t}}).
    end{equation}
    The process $M$ is continuous. I want to show that $M$ is a local martingale by using the sequence $tau_n=inf{t: |M_t|>n}$. That is, I have to show that ${M_{tau_nwedge t}}$ is a martingale. I have read that one can use the above sequence of stopping times for continuous local martingales. But why or how?






    brownian-motion martingales stochastic-integrals stochastic-analysis local-martingales







    share|cite|improve this question



























      1












      1








      1


      1





      Suppose that $Y$ is a pure jump process with $N_t$ jumps in $(0,t]$ and $E[N_t]<infty$. Denote the jump times by $T_i$. Let $W$ be a Brownian motion. If $T_0=0$, then
      begin{equation}
      M_t=int_0^t Y_s,dW_s=sum_{i=0}^{N_t-1} Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})+Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_t}}).
      end{equation}
      The process $M$ is continuous. I want to show that $M$ is a local martingale by using the sequence $tau_n=inf{t: |M_t|>n}$. That is, I have to show that ${M_{tau_nwedge t}}$ is a martingale. I have read that one can use the above sequence of stopping times for continuous local martingales. But why or how?






      brownian-motion martingales stochastic-integrals stochastic-analysis local-martingales







      share|cite|improve this question















      Suppose that $Y$ is a pure jump process with $N_t$ jumps in $(0,t]$ and $E[N_t]<infty$. Denote the jump times by $T_i$. Let $W$ be a Brownian motion. If $T_0=0$, then
      begin{equation}
      M_t=int_0^t Y_s,dW_s=sum_{i=0}^{N_t-1} Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})+Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_t}}).
      end{equation}
      The process $M$ is continuous. I want to show that $M$ is a local martingale by using the sequence $tau_n=inf{t: |M_t|>n}$. That is, I have to show that ${M_{tau_nwedge t}}$ is a martingale. I have read that one can use the above sequence of stopping times for continuous local martingales. But why or how?






      brownian-motion martingales stochastic-integrals stochastic-analysis local-martingales




      brownian-motion martingales stochastic-integrals stochastic-analysis local-martingales






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 14 at 10:10

























      asked Nov 13 at 16:48









      Sofia

      83




      83






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          I guess you could use the sequence $tau_n=inf{t,:, N_t=n}$ and then Corollary 6.14 (or 7.14 depending on the edition, it is called "martingale transforms") from Kallenberg's Foundations of Modern Probability yields the result.



          The corollary states that $Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_i}})$ and
          $$sum_{i=0}^{n}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          are martingales for all (fixed / deterministic) $nin mathbb N$.



          But in your case, you need that
          $$sum_{i=0}^{N_{t-1}}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          is a local martingale for random $N_{t-1}$. This is why you need to stop the process.
          With the stopping time suggested above, you obtain
          $$M_t^{T^n}=sum_{i=0}^{n-1}Y_{T_i}(W^{T_{i+1}}_t-W^{T_i}_t)$$
          which is a martingale.



          Of course, you could also use the well known fact, that a stochastic integral with respect to continuous local martingale is always a local martingale. Then you still need to show, that stopping at $tau_n=inf{t,;,|M_t|>n}$ yields a uniformly integrable martingale. Because of the continuity of the process $M_t$, you get that $M_t^{tau_n}$ is bounded by $n$ and any bounded local martingale is a uniformaly integrable martingale. Hence the result follows.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • This would imply that $M$ is even a martingale, not just a local martingale, which makes me sceptical about this answer.
            – Sofia
            Nov 26 at 18:05










          • You need to stop the process $M$ in order to make the sum consist of a fix number of summands. Without stopping the number of summands is random and thus you can't apply the corollary from Kallenberg. Thus you have only shown that $M$ is a local martingale. I don't know whether $M$ might even be a martingale. I can imagine that you need more information about the distribution of $N$ to determine whether it is only a local martingale or even a true martingale.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 26 at 18:45










          • Then I didn't understand how you would use the corollary. Could you please explain that a bit more precisely?
            – Sofia
            Nov 27 at 9:37










          • I edited my answer above.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 27 at 10:08











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2996976%2fhow-can-i-show-that-the-stochastic-integral-of-a-jump-process-w-r-t-brownian-mo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0














          I guess you could use the sequence $tau_n=inf{t,:, N_t=n}$ and then Corollary 6.14 (or 7.14 depending on the edition, it is called "martingale transforms") from Kallenberg's Foundations of Modern Probability yields the result.



          The corollary states that $Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_i}})$ and
          $$sum_{i=0}^{n}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          are martingales for all (fixed / deterministic) $nin mathbb N$.



          But in your case, you need that
          $$sum_{i=0}^{N_{t-1}}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          is a local martingale for random $N_{t-1}$. This is why you need to stop the process.
          With the stopping time suggested above, you obtain
          $$M_t^{T^n}=sum_{i=0}^{n-1}Y_{T_i}(W^{T_{i+1}}_t-W^{T_i}_t)$$
          which is a martingale.



          Of course, you could also use the well known fact, that a stochastic integral with respect to continuous local martingale is always a local martingale. Then you still need to show, that stopping at $tau_n=inf{t,;,|M_t|>n}$ yields a uniformly integrable martingale. Because of the continuity of the process $M_t$, you get that $M_t^{tau_n}$ is bounded by $n$ and any bounded local martingale is a uniformaly integrable martingale. Hence the result follows.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • This would imply that $M$ is even a martingale, not just a local martingale, which makes me sceptical about this answer.
            – Sofia
            Nov 26 at 18:05










          • You need to stop the process $M$ in order to make the sum consist of a fix number of summands. Without stopping the number of summands is random and thus you can't apply the corollary from Kallenberg. Thus you have only shown that $M$ is a local martingale. I don't know whether $M$ might even be a martingale. I can imagine that you need more information about the distribution of $N$ to determine whether it is only a local martingale or even a true martingale.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 26 at 18:45










          • Then I didn't understand how you would use the corollary. Could you please explain that a bit more precisely?
            – Sofia
            Nov 27 at 9:37










          • I edited my answer above.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 27 at 10:08
















          0














          I guess you could use the sequence $tau_n=inf{t,:, N_t=n}$ and then Corollary 6.14 (or 7.14 depending on the edition, it is called "martingale transforms") from Kallenberg's Foundations of Modern Probability yields the result.



          The corollary states that $Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_i}})$ and
          $$sum_{i=0}^{n}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          are martingales for all (fixed / deterministic) $nin mathbb N$.



          But in your case, you need that
          $$sum_{i=0}^{N_{t-1}}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          is a local martingale for random $N_{t-1}$. This is why you need to stop the process.
          With the stopping time suggested above, you obtain
          $$M_t^{T^n}=sum_{i=0}^{n-1}Y_{T_i}(W^{T_{i+1}}_t-W^{T_i}_t)$$
          which is a martingale.



          Of course, you could also use the well known fact, that a stochastic integral with respect to continuous local martingale is always a local martingale. Then you still need to show, that stopping at $tau_n=inf{t,;,|M_t|>n}$ yields a uniformly integrable martingale. Because of the continuity of the process $M_t$, you get that $M_t^{tau_n}$ is bounded by $n$ and any bounded local martingale is a uniformaly integrable martingale. Hence the result follows.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • This would imply that $M$ is even a martingale, not just a local martingale, which makes me sceptical about this answer.
            – Sofia
            Nov 26 at 18:05










          • You need to stop the process $M$ in order to make the sum consist of a fix number of summands. Without stopping the number of summands is random and thus you can't apply the corollary from Kallenberg. Thus you have only shown that $M$ is a local martingale. I don't know whether $M$ might even be a martingale. I can imagine that you need more information about the distribution of $N$ to determine whether it is only a local martingale or even a true martingale.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 26 at 18:45










          • Then I didn't understand how you would use the corollary. Could you please explain that a bit more precisely?
            – Sofia
            Nov 27 at 9:37










          • I edited my answer above.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 27 at 10:08














          0












          0








          0






          I guess you could use the sequence $tau_n=inf{t,:, N_t=n}$ and then Corollary 6.14 (or 7.14 depending on the edition, it is called "martingale transforms") from Kallenberg's Foundations of Modern Probability yields the result.



          The corollary states that $Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_i}})$ and
          $$sum_{i=0}^{n}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          are martingales for all (fixed / deterministic) $nin mathbb N$.



          But in your case, you need that
          $$sum_{i=0}^{N_{t-1}}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          is a local martingale for random $N_{t-1}$. This is why you need to stop the process.
          With the stopping time suggested above, you obtain
          $$M_t^{T^n}=sum_{i=0}^{n-1}Y_{T_i}(W^{T_{i+1}}_t-W^{T_i}_t)$$
          which is a martingale.



          Of course, you could also use the well known fact, that a stochastic integral with respect to continuous local martingale is always a local martingale. Then you still need to show, that stopping at $tau_n=inf{t,;,|M_t|>n}$ yields a uniformly integrable martingale. Because of the continuity of the process $M_t$, you get that $M_t^{tau_n}$ is bounded by $n$ and any bounded local martingale is a uniformaly integrable martingale. Hence the result follows.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          I guess you could use the sequence $tau_n=inf{t,:, N_t=n}$ and then Corollary 6.14 (or 7.14 depending on the edition, it is called "martingale transforms") from Kallenberg's Foundations of Modern Probability yields the result.



          The corollary states that $Y_t(W_t-W_{T_{N_i}})$ and
          $$sum_{i=0}^{n}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          are martingales for all (fixed / deterministic) $nin mathbb N$.



          But in your case, you need that
          $$sum_{i=0}^{N_{t-1}}Y_{T_i}(W_{T_{i+1}}-W_{T_i})$$
          is a local martingale for random $N_{t-1}$. This is why you need to stop the process.
          With the stopping time suggested above, you obtain
          $$M_t^{T^n}=sum_{i=0}^{n-1}Y_{T_i}(W^{T_{i+1}}_t-W^{T_i}_t)$$
          which is a martingale.



          Of course, you could also use the well known fact, that a stochastic integral with respect to continuous local martingale is always a local martingale. Then you still need to show, that stopping at $tau_n=inf{t,;,|M_t|>n}$ yields a uniformly integrable martingale. Because of the continuity of the process $M_t$, you get that $M_t^{tau_n}$ is bounded by $n$ and any bounded local martingale is a uniformaly integrable martingale. Hence the result follows.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Nov 27 at 10:08

























          answered Nov 14 at 11:10









          Agnetha Timara

          986




          986












          • This would imply that $M$ is even a martingale, not just a local martingale, which makes me sceptical about this answer.
            – Sofia
            Nov 26 at 18:05










          • You need to stop the process $M$ in order to make the sum consist of a fix number of summands. Without stopping the number of summands is random and thus you can't apply the corollary from Kallenberg. Thus you have only shown that $M$ is a local martingale. I don't know whether $M$ might even be a martingale. I can imagine that you need more information about the distribution of $N$ to determine whether it is only a local martingale or even a true martingale.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 26 at 18:45










          • Then I didn't understand how you would use the corollary. Could you please explain that a bit more precisely?
            – Sofia
            Nov 27 at 9:37










          • I edited my answer above.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 27 at 10:08


















          • This would imply that $M$ is even a martingale, not just a local martingale, which makes me sceptical about this answer.
            – Sofia
            Nov 26 at 18:05










          • You need to stop the process $M$ in order to make the sum consist of a fix number of summands. Without stopping the number of summands is random and thus you can't apply the corollary from Kallenberg. Thus you have only shown that $M$ is a local martingale. I don't know whether $M$ might even be a martingale. I can imagine that you need more information about the distribution of $N$ to determine whether it is only a local martingale or even a true martingale.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 26 at 18:45










          • Then I didn't understand how you would use the corollary. Could you please explain that a bit more precisely?
            – Sofia
            Nov 27 at 9:37










          • I edited my answer above.
            – Agnetha Timara
            Nov 27 at 10:08
















          This would imply that $M$ is even a martingale, not just a local martingale, which makes me sceptical about this answer.
          – Sofia
          Nov 26 at 18:05




          This would imply that $M$ is even a martingale, not just a local martingale, which makes me sceptical about this answer.
          – Sofia
          Nov 26 at 18:05












          You need to stop the process $M$ in order to make the sum consist of a fix number of summands. Without stopping the number of summands is random and thus you can't apply the corollary from Kallenberg. Thus you have only shown that $M$ is a local martingale. I don't know whether $M$ might even be a martingale. I can imagine that you need more information about the distribution of $N$ to determine whether it is only a local martingale or even a true martingale.
          – Agnetha Timara
          Nov 26 at 18:45




          You need to stop the process $M$ in order to make the sum consist of a fix number of summands. Without stopping the number of summands is random and thus you can't apply the corollary from Kallenberg. Thus you have only shown that $M$ is a local martingale. I don't know whether $M$ might even be a martingale. I can imagine that you need more information about the distribution of $N$ to determine whether it is only a local martingale or even a true martingale.
          – Agnetha Timara
          Nov 26 at 18:45












          Then I didn't understand how you would use the corollary. Could you please explain that a bit more precisely?
          – Sofia
          Nov 27 at 9:37




          Then I didn't understand how you would use the corollary. Could you please explain that a bit more precisely?
          – Sofia
          Nov 27 at 9:37












          I edited my answer above.
          – Agnetha Timara
          Nov 27 at 10:08




          I edited my answer above.
          – Agnetha Timara
          Nov 27 at 10:08


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2996976%2fhow-can-i-show-that-the-stochastic-integral-of-a-jump-process-w-r-t-brownian-mo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Bundesstraße 106

          Image
          Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück
          Read more

          Verónica Boquete

          Image
          Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl
          Read more

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

          Image
          Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich
          Read more