• $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$ be a complete probability space
  • $T>0$
  • $I:=(0,T]$
  • $(\mathcal F_t)_{t\in\overline I}$ be a complate and right-continuous filtration on $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$
  • $M$ be a real-valued continuous square-integrable $\mathcal F$-martingale on $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$
  • $\mu_M$ denote the Doléans measure corresponding to $M$
  • $d\in\mathbb N$
  • $\Lambda\subseteq\mathbb R^d$ be open

Now, let $F:\Omega\times\overline I\times\Lambda\to\mathbb R$ with $$F_t\in C^1(\Lambda)\;\;\;\text{almost surely for all }t\in\overline I\tag1$$ and $$F(x)\in\mathcal L^2(\mu_M)\;\;\;\text{for all }x\in\Lambda\tag2.$$ Moreover, let $i\in\left\{1,\ldots,d\right\}$ and assume that $$\int\sup_{x\in K}\left|\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i}(x)\right|^2\:{\rm d}\mu_M<\infty\;\;\;\text{for all compact }K\subseteq\Lambda\tag3.$$

Let $$N(x):=F(x)\cdot M$$ denote the Itō integral process of $F(x)$ with respect to $M$ for $x\in M$. Are we able to conclude that $N$ is partially differentiable with respect to the $i$th-variable?

For the sake of simplicity, assume $\Lambda=\mathbb R^d$. Let $x\in\Lambda$ and $$G(h):=\frac{N(x+he_i)-N(x)}h\;\;\;\text{for }h\in\mathbb R\setminus\left\{0\right\}.$$ Clearly, $$G(h)=\frac{F(x+he_i)-F(x)}h\cdot M\;\;\;\text{almost surely for all }h\in\mathbb R\setminus\left\{0\right\}\tag4$$ and $$\frac{F_t(x+he_i)-F_t(x)}h\xrightarrow{h\to0}\frac{\partial F_t}{\partial x_i}(x)\;\;\;\text{almost surely for all }t\in\overline I\tag5$$ From $(3)$ and $(5)$, we should be able to conclude that the convergence in $(5)$ holds in $L^2(\mu_M)$ by applying Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem. This should yield that the corresponding Itō integral processes converge in the space of square-integrable martingales.

Am I missing something?

  • $\begingroup$ 1. Wouldn't it be more natural to assume that $\sup_{x \in K} |\partial_{x_i} F(x)|$ is square-integrable with respect to $\mu_M$...? If this is not true, the stochastic integral $(\partial_{x_i} F(x) \bullet M)$ might not even be well-defined? 2. If I understand you correctly, then the bound in (3) may depend on $\omega \in \Omega$, yes? $\endgroup$ – saz Aug 1 '18 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ @saz 1. There was indeed a square missing. 3. No, the integral is with respect to the Doléans measure $\mu_M$ which is a measure on the predictable $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega\times\overline I$. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Aug 3 '18 at 20:51
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the clarification. $\endgroup$ – saz Aug 4 '18 at 5:07

By the definition of the Doléans measure, we have

$$\begin{align*} \left\| G(h)- (\partial_{x_i} F(x)) \bullet M \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{P})}^2 &= \left\| \left( \frac{F(x+h e_i)-F(x)}{h}- \partial_{x_i} F(x) \right) \bullet M \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{P})}^2 \\ &= \int \left| \frac{F(x+h e_i)-F(x)}{h}- \partial_{x_i} F(x) \right|^2 \, d\mu_M. \tag{6} \end{align*}$$


$$\frac{F_t(x+h e_i)-F_t(x)}{h}- \partial_{x_i} F_t(x) \xrightarrow[]{h \to 0} 0 \quad \text{a.s.}$$

and, by the mean value theorem,

$$\begin{align*} \left| \frac{F_t(x+h e_i)-F_t(x)}{h}- \partial_{x_i} F_t(x) \right|^2 &\leq \left( \left|\frac{F_t(x+h e_i)-F_t(x)}{h} \right| + |\partial_{x_i} F_t(x)| \right)^2 \\ &\leq 4 \sup_{y \in B(x,1)}|\partial_{x_i} F_t(y)|^2 \in L^1(\mu_M) \end{align*}$$

for any $h \in (0,1)$, it follows from the dominated convergence theorem that the right-hand side of $(6)$ converges to $0$ as $h \to 0$, and therefore $N(x) = F(x) \bullet M$ is partially differentiable (in the $L^2(\mathbb{P})$-sense) and

$$\partial_{x_i} N(x) = (\partial_{x_i} F(x)) \bullet M$$


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.