The question is quite simple actually. I am trying to understand the differences between the angle bracket $\left<X,Y\right>$ of two processes with jumps $X,Y$, and the sharp bracket of $[X,Y]$.

I am aware that they are equivalent in the continuous case, but not for jump processes. The literature does not seem to be too explicit on this, so I was hoping that somebody can provide some additional information.

Thank you

  • $\begingroup$ "The literature does not seem to be too explicit on this" ?? Which textbook are you following? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Aug 19, 2014 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ applebaum, 2003, Lévy processes and stochastic calculus $\endgroup$
    – Alfie
    Aug 19, 2014 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ And they nowhere define these two types of brackets? $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Aug 19, 2014 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ it's just not very clear since he does not really explicitly differentiate both, he goes on about inner products of processes/functions, meyer angle brackets and commutator brackets but to me is all very unclear. $\endgroup$
    – Alfie
    Aug 19, 2014 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps check Bertoin's book? (I am not sure, if this fails (and @saz does not answer you here), ping me and I might have a look at the matter.) $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Aug 19, 2014 at 11:58

1 Answer 1


Let $(X_t,\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be an (càdlàg) $L^2$-martingale, i.e. a martingale which satisfies

$$\sup_{t < \infty} \mathbb{E}(X_t^2)<\infty.$$

Then it follows from the Doob-Meyer decomposition that there exists a unique increasing previsible process $(A_t)_{t \geq 0}$ such that $A_0=0$ and

$$(X_t^2-A_t,\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \geq 0} \,\, \text{is a martingale}. \tag{1}$$

The process $A_t:= \langle X \rangle_t$ is called angle bracket or previsible quadratic variation. If $(X_t)_t$ and $(Y_t)_t$ are two martingales, then the covariation is defined via polarization, i.e.

$$\langle X,Y \rangle_t := \frac{1}{4} \big( \langle X+Y \rangle_t - \langle X-Y \rangle_t \big). \tag{2}$$

This definition implies that $(X_t Y_t - \langle X,Y \rangle_t,\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a martingale. In particular, the notion of predictable quadratic variation is restricted to martingales whereas the sharp bracket is defined for semimartingales: For a semimartingale $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$, we set

$$[X]_t := X_t^2-X_0^2 - 2 \int_0^t X_{s-} \, dX_s. \tag{3}$$

The covariation $[X,Y]_t$ is again defined via polarization. Another characterization of the sharp bracket is the following:

$$[X,Y]_t = \text{ucp}-\lim_{k \to \infty} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (X_{t_{j+1}^k \wedge t}-X_{t_j^k \wedge t}) \cdot (Y_{t_{j+1}^k \wedge t}-Y_{t_j^k \wedge t})$$

where the partitions $\pi_k = \{0=t_0^k < \ldots < t_n^k<\infty\}$ satisfy $|\pi_k| \to 0$ (Here ucp denotes the uniform [with respect to $t$] limit in probability.) See e.g. Protter [2] for a proof.

If $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a martingale, then

$$X_t^2 - [X]_t = 2 \int_0^t X_{s-} \, dX_s$$

is a martingale, i.e. $(1)$ is satisfied. It is important to note that this does not imply $[X]_t = \langle X \rangle_t$; in fact, the process $[X]_t$ is in general not previsible. One (important) exception are martingales with continuous sample paths. In fact, for continuous martingales $(X_t)_t$ it holds that $[X]=\langle X \rangle$. On the other hand, any $L^2$-martingale $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ admits a decomposition of the form

$$X_t = X_t^c+X_t^d$$

where $(X_t^c)_{t \geq 0}$ is a continuous martingale and $(X_t^d)_{t \geq 0}$ a pure-jump martingale. One can show that

$$[X]_t = [X^c]_t + [X^d]_t = \langle X^c \rangle_t+ \sum_{s \leq t} (\Delta X_s)^2. \tag{4}$$

There are several books which introduce both notions of quadratic variation, but there are only few containing a proof of the (very important) equality $(4)$. One of them is the monograph 1 by Jacod and Shiryaev.

Let me finish this answer with some basic examples:

Example 1: Brownian motion

If $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a Brownian motion, then $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a martingale and it is not difficult to see that $\langle X \rangle_t = t$. Since Brownian motion is continuous, we get $[X]_t = t$.

Example 2: Subordinate Brownian motion

Let $(B_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be a Brownian motion and $f:[0,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$ an increasing càdlàg function. Then $X_t := B_{f(t)}$ is called a (particular case of a) subordinate Brownian motion. Using $(1)$ and the independence and stationarity of the increments, it is not difficult to see that $\langle X \rangle_t = f(t)$. A direct (lenghty) calculation reveals that $$[X]_t = f(t) - \sum_{s \leq t} \Delta f(s) + \sum_{s \leq t} |\Delta X_s|^2.$$ If we choose $f(t) = t$ we recover Example 1.

Example 3: Poisson process

Let $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be a compensated Poisson process with intensity $\lambda>0$. Using the independence and stationarity of the increments, we see that $\langle X \rangle_t = \lambda t$. In particular, $\langle X \rangle_t$ is deterministic. On the other hand, it follows from $(4)$ that $$[X]_t = \sum_{s \leq t} |\Delta X_s|^2.$$ This is one of the easiest examples showing that both notions of quadratic variation are (in general) totally different.

Example 4: Square integrable martingales

Let $(M_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be an $L^2$-martingale and $f$ a "nice" function such that the stochastic integral $X_t := \int_0^t f(s) \, dM_s$ is well-defined. Then $$\langle X \rangle_t = \int_0^t f(s)^2 \, d\langle M \rangle_s.$$ A similar result can be obtained for stochastic integrals with respect to Poisson random measures.


  • (1) Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes - J. Jacod, A. Shiryaev [Angle Bracket, Sharp Bracket]. This book contains all mentioned results (and proofs thereof).
  • (2) Stochastic Integration and Differential Equations - P. Protter [Sharp Bracket]
  • (3) Continuous Martingales and Brownian Motion - D. Revuz, M. Yor [Angle Bracket]
  • (4) Stochastic Differential Equations and Diffusion Processes - N. Ikeda, S.Watanabe [Angle Bracket]
  • (5) Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus - I. Karatzas, S. Shreve [Angle Bracket]
  • $\begingroup$ Dutifully upvoted. (If you add a reference, I might even (try to) upvote a second time...) $\endgroup$
    – Did
    Aug 20, 2014 at 16:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Did Thanks - you might try your luck ;). (What about "lecture notes"? :)) $\endgroup$
    – saz
    Aug 20, 2014 at 17:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ilya Thanks a lot for your genereous bounty. $\endgroup$
    – saz
    Oct 6, 2015 at 13:17

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.