Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Using the Ito's formula I have shown that $X_t$ is a local martingale, because $dX_t=\dots dB_t$, where

$$X_t = (B_t+t)\exp\left(-B_t-\frac{t}{2}\right),$$ $B_t$ - is a standard Brownian motion

I would like to show it is a true martingale, so I am looking at these sets:

$$\mathcal{S}_1:=\{ X^{T_n}_t : n\geq 1\} \text{ or }\mathcal{S}_2:=\{X_T : \text{ T is a bounded stopping time} \}$$ And trying to show that either of them is UI. ($T_n$ are the stopping times reducing $X_t$)

I need some help with this step.


This is a homework exercise, which stipulates the usage of Ito's formula

share|cite|improve this question
Could you please define UI or spell it out ? – Sasha Feb 18 '12 at 17:06
@Sasha: UI normally means uniformly integrable. – Nate Eldredge Feb 18 '12 at 17:49
"Using the Ito's formula I have shown that Xt is a local martingale, because dXt=…dBt, " Can someone please explain this opening phrase to the original question to me further? I can not get my head around why Xt would not indeed be a true martingale if it is written in this form (all Ito integrals are martingales! (?)). – beast Aug 31 '12 at 4:22
up vote 2 down vote accepted

let $f(x,t):= \exp{(-(x+t))}(x+t)$, then we are allowed to apply Itô's formula. We just need to calculate the following derivatives: $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x},\frac{\partial f}{\partial t},\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2}$ since the second component of $f$ is continuous and increasing, thus has finite variation and any continuous function of finite variation has zero quadratic variation (and you have to use Cauchy-Schwarz.)

Here's what I get:

$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = \exp{(-(x+t))}-\exp{(-(x+t))}(t+x)$

$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \exp{(-(x+t))}-\frac{1}{2}\exp{(-(x+t))}(t+x)$

$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2} = -2\exp{(-(x+t))}+\exp{(-(x+t))}(t+x)$


$f(B_s,t)=\int_0^t{[\exp{(-(B_s+s))}-\exp{(-(B_s+s))}(s+B_s)]dB_s}\\ + \int_0^t{[\exp{(-(B_s+s))}-\frac{1}{2}\exp{(-(B_s+s))}(s+B_s)]}ds +\int_0^t{[-\exp{(-(B_s+s))}+\frac{1}{2}\exp{(-(B_s+s))}(s+B_s)]d\langle B_s,B_s\rangle}= \int_0^t{[\exp{(-(B_s+s))}-\exp{(-(B_s+s))}(s+B_s)]dB_s}\\ + \int_0^t{[\exp{(-(B_s+s))}-\frac{1}{2}\exp{(-(B_s+s))}(s+B_s)]}ds +\int_0^t{[-\exp{(-(B_s+s))}+\frac{1}{2}\exp{(-(B_s+s))}(s+B_s)]ds}$

Comparing the $ds$ integral, this leads to:


Now I use the following Theorem, which can be found on this exercise sheet, Exercise 1a):

And apply it to $M_t = B_t$ and $H_s=\exp{(-(B_s+s))}-\exp{(-(B_s+s))}(s+B_s)$



share|cite|improve this answer
The theorem look like Ito's isometry, which holds for all $L^2$-bounded continuous local martingales, in particular $B_t^{T_n}$. So I am not convinced $M_t$=$B_t$ is a valid step. Could you expand here? – Tom Artiom Fiodorov Feb 18 '12 at 20:54
@ Artiom Fiodorov: I'm not quiet sure if I understand your question. Are you thinking the theorem, as stated in the exercise is not correct? Or do you mean that the choice of $ M_t=B_t$ is not valid? For the latter, see for exercise 1c), there we are exactly in this situation. The isometry is not that important for your exercise, the important statement is, I quote:"...then the stochastic integral $\int{HdM}$ is a square integrable MARTINGALE. And this is all you need to show. Sorry if I misunderstood your question. – math Feb 18 '12 at 21:23

It seems to me that it is easy to show directly that $X_t$ is a martingale by verifying that $E[X_t \mid \mathcal{F}_s] = X_s$. (Here I assume that $B_t$ is a Brownian motion with respect to the filtration $\mathcal{F}_t$, and that you are trying to show $X_t$ is a martingale with respect to the same filtration.) One just writes $B_t = B_s + (B_t - B_s)$ and uses independence of increments. It helps to check that, for $N \sim N(0, \sigma^2)$ we have $$E[e^{-N}] = e^{\sigma^2/2}, \quad E[N e^{-N}] = -\sigma^2 e^{\sigma^2/2}.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
This is a perfectly valid solution and deserves a plus, but I will not mark it as accepted as I am specifically asked to use Ito's lemma. – Tom Artiom Fiodorov Feb 18 '12 at 16:09

Your Answer


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.