Averaging Independent Brownian Motions Changes Their Variance
Summary
The document examines whether the arithmetic average of two independent standard Brownian motions is itself a standard Brownian motion. The average starts at zero, has continuous paths, and its increments remain Gaussian with mean zero. Independence makes the increment variances add, but scaling the sum by one half yields variance one half of the elapsed time, rather than the elapsed time required for standard Brownian motion.
Therefore, the average is not a standard Brownian motion, although rescaling the sum by the square root of one half gives the correct variance. The discussion also notes that the martingale claim depends on the filtration, or information available over time; the combined process is a martingale in its natural filtration. The answers focus on distributional properties and filtration, rather than providing a full formal proof of every Brownian motion axiom, so those details matter when applying the result in stochastic calculus.
Key ideas
- The average of two independent standard Brownian motions has continuous paths and zero-mean Gaussian increments.
- Its increment variance is half the elapsed time, so it is not a standard Brownian motion.
- Multiplying the sum by the square root of one half restores standard Brownian variance.
- Whether the process is a martingale depends on the filtration being considered.
Tags
Full text
# Is the average of independent Brownian Motions still a Brownian Motion?
# Is the average of independent Brownian Motions still a Brownian Motion?
If $W$ and $B$ are independent Brownian Motions (BM thereafter), then the average of $W$ and $B$ is $X_t=\frac{1}{2}(W_t+B_t)$.
Where do I begin to show that indeed it is still a BM?
Also, if both are martingales, then $X_t$ must be a martingale also. How would I prove this considering it has the two random variables?
## Answer by Richi Wa (score 4)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21197
It is nearly a Bronwian motion. Just the variance is not correct:
The question is more tricky than it seems. A Brownian motion has the distribution properties stated below, so does a linear combination of BMs. But after all it is a martingale in a certain filtration (set of information) which has to be defined. $B_t$ is a BM in its own filtration, so is $W_t$. The mean is a Brownian motion in its own filtration and in the filtration generated by $B_t+W_t$.
For the distribution consider that $E[B_t] = E[W_t]=0$ and $Var[B_t] = Var[W_t]=t$. Then $E[X_t]=0$ and $Var[X_t] = 1/2 t$ provided that $(B_t)_{t\ge0}$ and $(W_t)_{t\ge0}$ are independent. The Gaussian law is a known fact.
EDIT: $ VAR[1/2(W_t+B_t)] = 1/4 (VAR[W_t] + VAR[B_t]) = 1/4 (t+t)= 1/2 t$. So the variance is wrong and it is no BM.
## Answer by Neeraj (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21184
Let's $W_t$ and $B_t$ are tow independent Brownian motion, where :
$W_t$ ~ $N(0, t)$, $B_t$ ~ $N(0, t)$ $Cov(W_t,B_t)=0$
We know that sum of two Gaussian random variable is also Gaussian.
$$E(1/2(W_t+B_t)) = 1/2(E(W_t+B_t))=0$$ $$Var(1/2(W_t+B_t))=1/4(var(W_t+B_t))=1/4(var(W_t)+var(B_t))=.5t$$
because $W_t$ and $B_t$ are independent. So:
$X_t$=$1/2(B_t+W_t)$ ~ $N(0, .5t)$
EDIT : $X_t$ has continuous path and $X_t=0$ for $t=0$ but $Var(X_t) \neq t$( a necessary condition for Brownian Motion). Hence $X_t$ is not Brownian Motion.
@Gordon mention rightly $\sqrt{1/2}(Wt+Bt)$ is a BM but not $X_t$.
## Answer by QFi (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/36249
The OP states that $W(t)$ and $B(t)$ are two independent Brownian motions, which is slightly different from Standard Brownian Motion/Wiener Process, even if they have little in common (both are Markov and Martingale processes). The Wiener process is the standard Brownian motion while a general Brownian motion is of a form: $B(t)=\alpha\,W(t)+\beta$.
The definition of the Brownian motion from Stochastic Calculus for Finance II (Shreve, 2004) is:
> Let $(Ω, F, P)$ be a probability space. For each $ω ∈ Ω$, suppose there is a continuous function $W(t)$ of $t ≥ 0$ that satisfies $$W(0) = 0\tag1$$ and that depends on $ω$. Then $W(t)$, $t ≥ 0$, is a Brownian motion if for all $0=t_0 <t_1 <···<t_m$ the increments $W(t_1) = W(t_1)−W(t_0),W(t_2)−W(t_1),...,W(t_m)−W(t_{m−1})$ are independent and each of these increments is normally distributed with $$\mathop{\mathbb{E}}[W(t_{i+1}) − W(t_i)] = 0, \tag2$$ $$Var[W(t_{i+1})−W(t_i)]=t_{i+1}−t_i \tag3$$
So, if $X(t)=\dfrac{W(t)+B(t)}{2}$ is Brownian motion, it must verify the properties $(1)$, $(2)$, and $(3)$. Let's see:
Property $(1)$ $$\begin{align} X(0)&=\dfrac{W(0)+B(0)}{2}\\ &=0 \end{align}$$
Property $(2)$
For $0\leq s\leq t$: $$\begin{align} \mathop{\mathbb{E}}[X(t)-X(s)]&=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\left[\dfrac{W(t)+B(t)}{2}-\dfrac{W(s)+B(s)}{2}\right]\\ &=\dfrac{\mathop{\mathbb{E}}[W(t)-W(s)]+\mathop{\mathbb{E}}[B(t)-B(s)]}{2}\\ &=0 \end{align}$$
Property $(3)$
For $0\leq s\leq t$: $$\begin{align} Var[X(t)-X(s)]&=\mathop{\mathbb{E}}\left[\dfrac{W(t)+B(t)}{2}-\dfrac{W(s)+B(s)}{2}\right]\\ &=Var\left[\dfrac{W(t)-W(s)}{2}\right]+Var\left[\dfrac{B(t)-B(s)}{2}\right]\\ &=\dfrac{1}{4}\,Var[W(t)-W(s)]+\dfrac{1}{4}\,Var[B(t)-B(s)]\\ &=\dfrac{1}{2}\,(t-s)\\ &\neq t-s \end{align}$$
Since $Var[X(t)-X(s)]\neq t-s$, for $0\leq s \leq t$, we conclude that $X(t)$ is not a Brownian motion for $t\geq 0$.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.