3
$\begingroup$

I have two $E$-valued processes, $X$ and $Y$, defined on the same probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_t)_t, P)$. Both $X$ and $Y$ have the Markov property. Under what conditions on $E$ (if any required) is the vector-valued process $(X,Y)$ also Markov?

Since the latter requires bounded and measurable functions in two arguments, I thought maybe some kind of approximation argument can be used (approximating a function with two arguments by two functions with a single argument). That would probably require some kind of regularity on the functions involved. So another argument to drop the regularity assumption would be needed. I don't know how to make this concrete.

The reason why I wanted to know whether this is true is because while showing that $(B_t,M_t)$ (Brownian motion and its running maximum) is Markov, I argued that since $M_t - B_t$ and $B_t$ are Markov, so is $(B_t,M_t-B_t)$. Then I argued since $(B_t,M_t)$ is a linear transformation of $(B_t,M_t-B_t)$, it is Markov as well. My second question is under which conditions, if at all, this argument is valid?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

1. To show that the process $X=(B,M)$, defined, for every nonnegative $t$, by $$X_t=(B_t,M_t)$$ is a Markov process, the simplest approach is to note that, for every fixed $t$ and every $s>t$, $$X_s=(B_t+\beta_{s-t},\max\{M_t,B_t+\mu_{s-t}\})\tag{$\ast$}$$ where, for every nonnegative $u$, one considers $$\beta_u=B_{t+u}-B_t\qquad\mu_u=\max\{\beta_v;v\leqslant u\}$$ The process $\beta=(\beta_u)_{u\geqslant0}$ is a Brownian motion independent of $\mathcal F^X_t=\sigma(X_r;r\leqslant t)$. Thus, $(\ast)$ shows that the process $(X_s)_{s\geqslant t}$ is a functional of $(X_t,\beta)$, where $\beta$ is independent of $\mathcal F^X_t$, and this implies that $X$ is indeed a Markov process.

2. The second question in your post is whether $A(Z)$ is a Markov process when $Z$ is a Markov process and $A$ is a linear transformation.

If $A$ is invertible, this is direct since then, the filtrations $(\mathcal F^Z_t)_{t\geqslant0}$ and $(\mathcal F^{A(Z)}_t)_{t\geqslant0}$ coincide. If $A$ is not invertible, the answer is no in general, since then $A(Z)$ is the observation process of a hidden Markov chain whose state process is $Z$, and the state processes of hidden Markov chains are well known to be non Markov in general.

In your case, $Z=(B,M-B)$ and $A(b,v)=(b,b+v)$ hence $A$ is invertible. Thus, knowing that $(B,M-B)$ is Markov would indeed imply that $(B,M)$ is.

3. ...But the way to prove that $(B,M-B)$ is a Markov process, that you suggest, is flawed. To wit, it is not true that for every Markov processes $U$ and $V$, the process $(U,V)$ is Markov as well. That is, unless some supplementary condition holds, for example that $U$ and $V$ are independent.

Roughly speaking, the trouble here comes from the fact that the Markovianity of $(U,V)$ requests some properties of conditional distributions conditioned on $\mathcal F^{(U,V)}_t$, while the hypothesis involve conditional distributions conditioned on $\mathcal F^U_t$ and $\mathcal F^V_t$ only.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Very educational and helpful explanation as usual, especially #3. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Olorun Mar 27 '18 at 5:53

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.