2
$\begingroup$

I need an help with the following exercise. I would like to know if what I've done is correct.

Let $(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be the process define as $$X_t=e^{\lambda t} X_0-\sigma \Big(\lambda \int_0^t e^{-\lambda(t-s)} \,W_s ds +W_t\Big),$$ where $(W_t)$ is the Wiener process, $\sigma, \lambda$ are positive constants and $X_0\sim N(\mu,\gamma^2)$ is independent from $(W_t)$.

We want to prove that it is a gaussian process, i.e. all marginal distributions are gaussian measures.

Now consider a one-dimensional marginal, $\mu_t$, for a fixed $t\geq 0$, which is defined as $\mu_t(I)=\mathbb P(X_t\in I) \quad \forall I\in \mathcal B(\mathbb R)$: we want to show that it is gaussian.

So let us write the integral in the definition of $X_t$ in the following way: $$\int_0^t e^{-\lambda(t-s)} \,W_s ds=\int_0^t W_s\, df(s),$$ where $f(s)=\frac{1}{\lambda}e^{-\lambda(t-s)}$ and the last integral is the Stieltjes integral. We have that, integrating by parts, $$\int_0^t W_s\, df(s)=W_t-\int_0^t f(s) dW_s=W_t-\frac{1}{\lambda}\int_0^t e^{-\lambda(t-s)} dW_s.$$

Denote with $\Pi=\{0=t_0>t_1<\dots<t_n=t\}$ any partition of the interval $[0,t]$ and let $|\Pi|=\max |t_{i+1}-t_i|$. Then $$\int_0^t e^{-\lambda(t-s)} dW_s:=\lim_{|\Pi|\to 0} \sum_{k=0 }^{n-1} f(t_k)(W_{t_{k+1}}-W_{t_{k}}).$$

Thus $$X_t=e^{\lambda t} X_0-\sigma \Big((\lambda+1)W_t- \int_0^t e^{-\lambda(t-s)} dW_s\Big)= \\ \qquad \,=e^{\lambda t} X_0-\sigma \lim_{|\Pi|\to 0} \sum_{k=0 }^{n-1} (\lambda+1+f(t_k))(W_{t_{k+1}}-W_{t_{k}}).$$

Now, using the fact that increments of Wiener process are independent, one can show that $$ \lim_{|\Pi|\to 0} \sum_{k=0 }^{n-1} (\lambda+1+f(t_k))(W_{t_{k+1}}-W_{t_{k}})\sim N\Big(0,\int_0^t (\lambda+1+f(s))^2 ds \Big).$$

So $X_t$ is gaussian and then $\mu_t$ is a gaussian measure. Is it correct up to now?

Now, my problem is: how can I prove that also the $n$-dimensional marginal distributions are gaussian? If I know that $(X_t)_t$ are independent, then we are done. But are they independent?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ More simply: this depends linearly (but affinely would be enough) of the jointly gaussian process $(X_0,(W_t))$ hence you can apply the result in your notes. $\endgroup$ – Did Feb 11 '15 at 18:55
2
$\begingroup$

As you observed**, Integration by parts justifies

$$ X_t = e^{\lambda t} X_0-\sigma \Big(W_t-\int\limits_{0}^{t} e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\mathrm dW_s +W_t\Big) = e^{\lambda t} X_0-\sigma \Big(2W_t-\int\limits_{0}^{t} e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\mathrm dW_s\Big) = e^{\lambda t} X_0-\sigma \Big(2\int\limits_{0}^{t}\mathrm dW_s-\int\limits_{0}^{t} e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\mathrm dW_s\Big) = e^{\lambda t} X_0-\sigma \Big(\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left(2 - e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\right)\mathrm dW_s\Big). $$

Now, $X_0$ is independent of $(W_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$. Therefore, $e^{\lambda t} X_0$ is independent of $\sigma \Big(\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left(2 - e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\right)\mathrm dW_s\Big)$. Furthermore, their respective distributions are univariate gaussian:

$$ e^{\lambda t} X_0\sim\mathcal{N}\left(\mu e^{\lambda t}, \gamma^2e^{2\lambda t}\right),\\\sigma \Big(\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left(2 - e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\right)\mathrm dW_s\Big)\sim\mathcal{N}\left(0 , \sigma^2\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left(2 - e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\right)^2\mathrm ds\right). $$

As independent univariate gaussians, any linear combination of these is also univariate gaussian. This immediately means that $X_t$ is the univariate gaussian given by their difference.


This also has implications for the finite dimensional distributions of the $(X_t)_{t\geqslant 0}$ process. Consider any finite collection of distinct times $0< t_1 < \ldots < t_n$ and arbitrary real numbers $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$. We have:

$$ \alpha_1 X_{t_1} + \ldots + \alpha_n X_{t_n} = X_{0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\alpha_ie^{\lambda t_i} - \\\sigma\Bigg(\int\limits_{0}^{t_1}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_if(t_i , s)\mathrm dW_s + \int\limits_{t_1}^{t_2}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\alpha_if(t_i , s)\mathrm dW_s + \ldots + \int\limits_{t_{n-1}}^{t_n}\alpha_nf(t_n , s)\mathrm dW_s\Bigg) $$ where, for notational convenience, we used $f(t_i,s) := 2-e^{-\lambda(t_i-s) }$.

Look carefully now: each term $\int\limits_{t_j}^{t_{j-1}}\sum\limits_{i=j}^{n}\alpha_if(t_i , s)\mathrm dW_s$ above is a univariate gaussian independent of the other similar terms and $X_0$. Consequently, $\alpha_1 X_{t_1} + \ldots + \alpha_n X_{t_n}$ is a univariate gaussian, as it is a linear combination of independent univariate gaussians. So, each finite-dimensional distribution $\left(X_{t_1} \ldots, X_{t_n}\right)$ is multivariate gaussian, by definition. We are done.

** p.s. I think you have a "$\lambda$" in your final gaussian variance term that should not be there, since earlier on in your argument you intended to use $$\mathrm d\left(e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\right) = \lambda e^{-\lambda(t-s)}\mathrm ds.$$ Also, there is a "$+$" in your final gaussian variance term that should be a "$-$".

$\endgroup$

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.