0
$\begingroup$

Let $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$ be a probability space, $(\mathcal F_t)_{t\ge0}$ be a filtration on $(\Omega,\mathcal A)$, $E$ be a $\mathbb R$-Banach space and $(X_t)_{t\ge0}$ be an $E$-valued process on $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$. Remember that $X$ is called $\mathcal F$-Lévy if

  1. $X$ is $\mathcal F$-adapted;
  2. $X_0=0$;
  3. $X_{s+t}-X_s$ and $\mathcal F_s$ are independent for all $s,t\ge0$;
  4. $X_{s+t}-X_s\sim X_t$ for all $s,t\ge0$.

Assume $X$ is $\mathcal F$-Lévy and let $(Y_t)_{t\ge0}$ be another $E$-valued $\mathcal F$-Lévy process on $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$ (or possibly on another probability space) with $X_t\sim Y_t$ for all $t\ge0$.

Are we able to show that $X$ and $Y$ have the same (finite-dimensional) distribution(s)?

EDIT: To be precise, the question is whether we can show that $$\operatorname P\left[X_{t_1}\in B_1,\ldots,X_{t_k}\in B_k\right]=\operatorname P\left[Y_{t_1}\in B_1,\ldots,Y_{t_k}\in B_k\right]\tag1$$ for all $B_1,\ldots,B_k\in\mathcal B(E)$, $k\in\mathbb N$ and $0\le t_1<\cdots<t_k$ or even $$\operatorname P\left[X\in B\right]=\operatorname P\left[Y\in B\right]\;\;\;\text{for all }B\in\mathcal B\left(E^{[0,\:\infty)}\right)\tag2.$$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ What is the question? You mean whether it is true that $(X_{t_1},\dots,X_{t_n})\sim (Y_{t_1},\dots,Y_{t_n})$ for arbitrary $t_1,\dots,t_n$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$? Or whether $X\sim Y$ as a random variable in the space of functions $[0,T]\to E$? I don't know if it helps but, for example, in general $X_t\sim Y_t$ for all $t$ does not imply that $\int_0^1 X_tdt \sim \int_0^1 Y_tdt$, so no, $X\sim Y$ (as random variables) is not necessarily true if $X_t\sim Y_t$ for all $t$. Not sure if that was your question. As for the former, you may be able to prove it using independent increments. $\endgroup$
    – Martingalo
    Nov 3 '20 at 8:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Martingalo I've edited the question. Is it clear now? And couldn't we infer $(2)$ from $(1)$? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Nov 3 '20 at 8:16
  • $\begingroup$ Aha thanks, exactly, then I think I answered your question below $\endgroup$
    – Martingalo
    Nov 3 '20 at 8:21
1
$\begingroup$

Not sure what the question is, but in general, $X_t \sim Y_t$ for all $t$ does not imply that $X\sim Y$ as random variables in the (inifnite dimensional) space of functions $[0,T]\to E$. For example, $X_t\sim Y_t$ for all $t$ does not necessarily imply that $\int_0^1 X_tdt \sim \int_0^1 Y_tdt$, for the latter to hold you need the stronger condition that $X\sim Y$ as random variables.

This said, if your question is whether $(X_{t_1},\dots,X_{t_n})\sim (Y_{t_1},\dots,Y_{t_n})$ for arbitrary $t_1,\dots,t_n$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$ (equality of finite dimensional distributions) the answer is yes. Let us just look at $n=2$ for the sake of simpler notation: Take $0\leq s\leq t<\infty$ then,

$$\varphi_{(X_t,X_s)}(u,v) = \mathbb{E}[e^{iuX_t + iv X_s }] = \mathbb{E}[e^{iu(X_t-X_s+X_s) + iv X_s }] = \mathbb{E}[e^{iu(X_t-X_s)}] \mathbb{E}[e^{i(u+v)(X_s)}] = \mathbb{E}[e^{iu(X_{t-s})}] \mathbb{E}[e^{i(u+v)(X_s)}] =\varphi_{X_{t-s}}(u) \varphi_{X_{s}}(u+v),$$ where we used first that $X_t-X_s$ is independent of $X_s$ and then that $X_t-X_s\sim X_s$. Now, you can finally use that $X_t\sim Y_t$ and hence $\varphi_{X_t}(u)=\varphi_{Y_t}(u)$ and go backwards. As a result, $$(X_{t_1},\dots,X_{t_n})\sim (Y_{t_1},\dots,Y_{t_n}),$$ which, as said, is a consequence of the independent and stationary increments.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I see a problem in my answer now! I realised that your question regards Banach-valued random variables... in that case the issue is trickier! You can not prove it using characteristic functions... but I assume that the idea is the same, start with Borel sets and I guess that using the same trick you may arrive at the same conclusion. $\endgroup$
    – Martingalo
    Nov 3 '20 at 8:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can still write $\operatorname P\left[X_{t_1}\in B_1,X_{t_2}\in B_2\mid X_{t_1}\right]=1_{B_1}\left(X_{t_1}\right)\left.\operatorname P\left[X_{t_2-t_1}\in B_2-x\right]\right|_{x\:=\:X_{t_1}}$ a.s. for all $t_2>t_1\ge0$ and $B_1,B_2\in\mathcal B(E)$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Nov 3 '20 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ You are right! I was trying to figure out something using indicators as well. Independent increments is stronger than Markov, so there was the trick :) As for (2) I don't think it's true. There are examples where $X_t\sim Y_t$ and $\int_0^1 X_tdt =0$ while $\int_0^1 Y_tdt \neq 0$ but I can't recall one right now. For the latter to also be equal you need $X\sim Y$, so there's the counterexample if you find such a choice of $X$ and $Y$. $\endgroup$
    – Martingalo
    Nov 3 '20 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ We should be able to conclude $(2)$ from $(1)$ using Proposition 3.2 in the book of Kallenberg. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Nov 3 '20 at 10:47
1
$\begingroup$

I think the answer whether $(1)$ holds is rather trivial by observing that $X$ is a time-homogeneous Markov process with transition semigroup $$\kappa_t(x,B):=\operatorname P\left[X_t\in B-x\right]\;\;\;\text{for }(x,B)\in E\times\mathcal B(E)\text{ and }t\ge0.$$ From this we know that, for all $k\in\mathbb N$ and $0\le t_0<\cdots<t_k$, $$\left(X_{t_0},\ldots,X_{t_k}\right)\sim\mathcal L\left(X_{t_0}\right)\otimes\bigotimes_{i=1}^k\kappa_{t_i-t_{i-1}}\tag3.$$ So, unless I'm missing something, it's only the question left whether $(2)$ holds as well. But this should be a general fact for any processes over an arbitrary index set.

$\endgroup$

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.