Let $(X,\mathcal{X},\mu)$ and $(Y,\mathcal{Y},\nu)$ be probability spaces, $\mathcal{X}_{0}\subset\mathcal{X}$ a (sub)sigma field and assume that $f=f(x,y)\in L^{1}_{\mu\otimes \nu}$ where $(X\times Y,\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y},\mu\otimes\nu)$ is the product space.

By Fubini's theorem, the function $Y\to\mathbb{R}$ $$y\mapsto\int_{Y}|f(x,y)|d\mu(x) $$ is ($\nu$-a.e) well defined, $\mathcal{Y}-$measurable and $\nu-$integrable. In particular the function $F(x,y)$ given by $$F(x,y)=E[f(\cdot,y)|\mathcal{X}_{0}](x)$$ is well defined for $\nu-$a.e. $y$ where $E[\,\cdot\,|\mathcal{X}_{0}]$ denotes a version (depending on $y$) of the conditional expectation with respect to $\mathcal{X}_{0}$.

My question has several versions:

  1. (General version): is it possible in general to choose for (a.e) every $y$ a version $E[f(\cdot,y)|\mathcal{X}_{0}]$ in such a way that $F$ is $\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}-$measurable?
  2. (Particular version): Assume that $E[\,\cdot\,|\mathcal{X}_{0}]$ admits a regular version. This is: there exists a family of measures $\{\mu_{x}\}_{x\in X}$ such that for every $g\in L^{1}_{\mu}$ $$x\mapsto \int_{X}g(z)d\mu_{x}(z)$$ defines a version of $E[g|\mathcal{X}_{0}]$. Does the choice of this version give $\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$- measurability for $F$?
  3. (Another particular version) If not covered by the answers to 1. and 2. What happens when $Y$ is the interval $[0,1]$ with Lebesgue measure?

1 Answer 1


Here is a partial answer, valid in the case in which $\mathcal{X}_{0}$ is countably generated.

Let $\{X_{n}\}_{n\geq 1}$ be a (countable) family of $\mathcal{X}_{0}-$sets generating $\mathcal{X}_{0}$ that includes $\emptyset, X$ and is a $\pi-$system, and fix any version $E[f(\cdot,\cdot)|\mathcal{X}_{0}\times \mathcal{Y}]$ of the conditional expectation of $f$ given $\mathcal{X}_{0}\times\mathcal{Y}$.

Notice the following: given any $Y'\in\mathcal{Y}$ and any $n\geq 1$


by Fubini's theorem and the definition of conditional expectation. Therefore, there exists a set $Y_{n}$ with $\nu(Y_{n})=1$ with the following property: for all $y\in Y_{n}$. $$ \int_{X_{n}}E[f(\cdot,\cdot)|\mathcal{X}_{0}\times\mathcal{Y}](x,y)d\mu(x)=\int_{X_{n}}f(x,y)d\mu(x)\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\mbox{ (1)}$$

Let $Y_{0}':=\bigcap_{n\geq 1}Y_{n}$. Then (1) holds for all $y\in Y_{0}'$ and every $n\geq 1$.

Now consider the family $\mathcal{X}_{0}'$ of $\mathcal{X}_{0}$-sets $X'$ such that (1) holds for all $y\in Y_{0}'$ with $X'$ in place of $X_{n}$. It is not hard to see that this family is a $\lambda$-system (use the fact $X\in \mathcal{X}_{0}'$), and since it includes $\{X_{n}\}_{n\geq 0}$, $\mathcal{X}_{0}'=\mathcal{X}_{0}$ by Dynkin's $\pi-\lambda$ theorem.

Now let $Y_{0}'':=\{y\in Y: E[f|\mathcal{X}_{0}\times\mathcal{Y}](\cdot,y) \,\,\,\,\mbox{is ($\mathcal{X}_{0}$-measurable and) $\mu-$integrable}\}$ and let $Y_{0}=Y_{0}'\cap Y_{0}''$. We have just proved that for all $y\in Y_{0}$, $E[f|\mathcal{X}_{0}\times\mathcal{Y}](\cdot,y)$ is a version of $E[f(\cdot,y)|\mathcal{X}_{0}]$, which clearly implies the desired conclusion.

  • $\begingroup$ I got this idea just a little time after posing the question, which I have been thinking of for a couple of days (I ignored even this case before). Now, is this a well-known/trivial fact? the question has been voted down and I wonder if that is the reason. On the other side, I have not found entries on books or in the web about this. I would appreciate any observation about the proof (does it have any minor/essential mistake? Can it be simplified?) $\endgroup$
    – David
    Apr 20, 2015 at 1:55
  • $\begingroup$ It is worth to comment the following: if the argument for the answer is correct then the function $F$ thus defined is not only $\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$ measurable, but it is indeed measurable with repect to $\mathcal{X}_{0}\times\mathcal{Y}$. This generalizes the following elementary observation: if $\mathcal{X}_{0}=\{\emptyset, X\}$ then $F$ can be chosen constant in $x$, whereas for $\mathcal{X}_{0}=\mathcal{X}$, $F=f$. We ''gain'' $\mathcal{X}-$measurability as we decrease $\mathcal{X}_{0}$ from $\mathcal{X}$ to the trivial sigma-field. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Apr 20, 2015 at 2:19

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.