Skip to content
All library documents

Equivalent Measure Changes and Brownian Martingale Representation

Article Quant Q&A · Author: fwd_T

Summary

The document asks whether an equivalent probability measure change on a Brownian filtered space must have a density process expressible as a stochastic exponential, and whether this implies a corresponding Brownian drift adjustment. Its proposed argument starts with the terminal Radon–Nikodym density and takes conditional expectations to form a density martingale. If the filtration is generated by Brownian motion and the required martingale representation conditions hold, that martingale can be represented as a stochastic integral with respect to Brownian motion; applying Itô’s formula to its logarithm yields the exponential form.

The argument relies on significant assumptions: Brownian martingale representation requires suitable filtration conditions, and the density process must remain strictly positive. Equivalence of terminal measures supports positivity, but the post also contains notation and derivation errors in its displayed exponential. Its conclusion should therefore be read with the representation and integrability assumptions made explicit, rather than as a claim about arbitrary filtered spaces.

Key ideas

  • An equivalent measure change gives a strictly positive terminal Radon–Nikodym density.
  • Conditional expectations of that density form a martingale under the original measure.
  • Brownian martingale representation can express the density martingale as a stochastic integral when the filtration permits it.
  • Applying Itô’s formula to the logarithm leads to a stochastic exponential representation.
  • The representation and drift-change conclusions depend on filtration and integrability assumptions.

Tags

Full text
# Are all change of measure operations between equivalent probability measures Doléans-Dade exponentials?


# Are all change of measure operations between equivalent probability measures Doléans-Dade exponentials?












Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P})$ be a filtered probability space, where $\mathbb{F}=\left(\mathcal{F}\right)_{t\in[0;T]}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}_T$. Let $(W_t)_{t\in[0;T]}$ be a Brownian motion with respect to $\mathbb{F}$, in the given probability space.

We have the following theorem (Stochastic Calculus for Finance II, Continuous Time Models, p 212):

Theorem 5.2.3 Let $\left(\Theta_t\right)_{t\in[0;T]}$ be an $\mathbb{F}$-adapted process. Define: $$ Z_t=e^{-\int_0^t\Theta_udu-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\Theta^2_udW_u} >0, Z:=Z_T $$ $$ \widetilde{W}_t=W_t+\int_0^t\Theta_udu $$ and assume that (this is somehow weaker than Novikov condition): $$ \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}\left[\int_0^T\Theta^2_uZ^2_udu\right]<+\infty. $$

THEN

- $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[Z]=1$. (This, along with the fact that $Z:=Z_T\geq 0$ ensure that $Z$ can be a Radon-Nikodym derivative)

- Under the probability measure defined by $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}(A)=\int_{A}Z(\omega)d\mathbb{P}(\omega), (\forall)A\in\mathcal{F}$, $\left(\widetilde{W}_t\right)_{t\in[0;T]}$ is a standard Brownian motion with respect to filtration $\mathbb{F}$.

QUESTION: With the notation above, knowing only the fact that that $\left(W_t\right)_{t\in[0;T]}$ is a Brownian motion in $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ generating filtration $\mathbb{F}=(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in[0;T]}$, that $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{F}, \widetilde{\mathbb{P}})$ is another probability space and that $\mathbb{P}\approx \widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$, does this necessarily imply that the Radon-Nikodym derivative process $\frac{d\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}}{d\mathbb{P}}|_{t}$ must of the form: $$ Z_t=e^{-\int_0^t\Theta_udu-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\Theta^2_udW_u} >0, Z:=Z_T $$ where $\left(\Theta_t\right)_{t\in[0;T]}$ is some $\mathbb{F}$-adapted process? If this is true, and $\left(\widetilde{W}_t\right)_{t\in[0;T]}$ is a Brownian motion in $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{F}, \widetilde{\mathbb{P}})$, does the above necessarily imply that $\widetilde{W}_t=W_t+\int_0^t\Theta_udu$?

## Answer by fwd_T (score 6, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/53270

The answer is yes.

Proof:

Theorem (Radon-Nikodym) Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ be a measurable space. Let $\mathbb{P}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$ be two $\sigma$-finite measures. Let $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$ be absolutely continuous w.r.t. $\mathbb{P}$ (i.e. $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}\ll\mathbb{P}$). THEN: $(\exists)$ measurable function $f:\Omega\to[0;+\infty)$ such that: $$ \widetilde{\mathbb{P}}(A)=\int_A f(\omega)d\mathbb{P}(\omega), (\forall)A\in\mathcal{F}. $$ $f$ is unique up to indistinguishability, i.e. if there is another $g$ with the same properties as above, then $f=g, \mathbb{P}-a.s.$ (or $\mathbb{P}$-a.e.).

Note that if $\mathbb{P}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$ are equivalent measures (denoted by $\mathbb{P}\approx\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$), then $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}\ll\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{P}\ll\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$.

Let now $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{F}, \mathbb{P})$ be a filtered probability space, where $\mathbb{F}=(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\geq0}$ is the filtration. We use the Radon-Nikodym theorem to prove the next proposition:

Proposition. Let $\mathbb{P}\approx\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$ be two equivalent probability measures on $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}_T)$, a measurable space from the notation above. THEN, $(\exists)$ a strictly positive $(\mathbb{P}, \mathbb{F})$-martingale $(L_t)_{t\geq 0}$ such that $$ \widetilde{\mathbb{P}}(A)=\int_A L_t(\omega)d\mathbb{P}(\omega), (\forall) A\in\mathcal{F}_t, (\forall) t\leq T $$ with the properties that:

- $\mathbb{E}_{\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}}[X]=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[L_tX]$, for all $\mathcal{F}_t$-measurable, non-negative, random variables $X$, when $t\leq T$.

- $L_0 = 1$

- $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[L_t]=1, (\forall) t\leq T$.

Proof: We know from the Radon-Nikodym theorem above that since $\mathbb{P}\approx\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$ on $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}_T)$, then there must exist a non-negative, $\mathcal{F}_T$-measurable random variable $Z$ with the property that $$ \widetilde{\mathbb{P}}(A)=\int_AZ(\omega)d\mathbb{P}(\omega), (\forall)A\in\mathcal{F}_T $$ Since we have already assumed that $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}$ is a probability measure, we have that: $$ \widetilde{\mathbb{P}}(\Omega)=1=\int_{\Omega}Z(\omega)d\mathbb{P}(\omega)=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[Z]. $$ Since we now know that $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[Z]=1$, we can apply (Steve Shreve, Stochastic Calculus for Finance II - Continuous Models, p. 33, Theorem 1.6.1) to reach the conclusion that for any wandom variable $X$ that is a non-negative and $\mathcal{F}_T$-measurable we have: $$ \mathbb{E}_{\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}}[X]=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[ZX]. $$ In particular, for $X=1$ this leads to: $$ \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[Z]=1. $$ Let us define $L_t=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[Z|\mathcal{F}_t]$. Clearly, $(L_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a $(\mathbb{P}, \mathbb{F})$-martingale because for all $s\leq t$: $$ \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[L_t|\mathcal{F}_s]=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[Z|\mathcal{F}_t]|\mathcal{F}_s]= \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[L_t|\mathcal{F}_s]=L_s, $$ where the first equality is from the definition of $L_t$, the second inequality is due to the tower law, and the third equality is due to the definition of $L_s$. Taking expectation in the above we get the property that $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[L_t]=1, (\forall)t\leq T$. If we take $\mathcal{F}_0=\{\emptyset, \Omega\}$, as is usual, then $L_0$ is deterministic and $L_0=1$. This proves items (2.) and (3.) of the proposition.

We can then use (Steve Shreve, Stochastic Calculus for Finance II - Continuous Models, p. 211, Lemma 5.2.1) to prove item (1.) of the proposition, namely that: $$ \mathbb{E}_{\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}}[X]=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}}[L_tX],\text{ for all } \mathcal{F}_t\text{-measurable, non-negative, random variables }X,\text{ when }t\leq T. $$ In the above, let us substitute $1_A$ for $X$ and T for t. This proves immediately the rest of the proposition. Note that from this answer, $L_t$ is $\mathbb{P}$-a.s. non-negative.

Also note that we can take $Z$ to be strictly positive since the two measures are equivalent. Therefore, we can also take a version of $L_t$ that is strictly positive and this changes nothing. We will consider in what follows that we use such $L_t$.$$\Box $$

We have constructed above the Radom-Nikodym derivative process $(L_t)_{t\geq 0}$ , which is a $(\mathbb{P}, \mathbb{F})$-martingale. Because $\mathbb{F}$ is generated by $(W_t)_{t\in[0;T]}$ we can apply the martingale representation theorem $\Rightarrow (\exists) (\psi_t)_{t\geq 0}$ an $\mathbb{F}$-measurable process s.t.: $$ L_t=1+\int_0^t \psi_udW_u. $$ or, alternatively, that: $$ dL_t=\psi_tdW_t, L_0=1. $$ Since the Radon-Nikodym derivarive process is strictly positive, using Ito lemma we get: $$ d\log(L_t)=\frac{1}{L_t}dL_t-\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{L^2_t}d\langle L \rangle_t=\frac{\psi_t}{L_t}dW_t-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\psi^2_t}{L^2_t}dt $$ Since $L_t$ is strictly positive, we can simplify things a bit by introducing $$ \Theta_t=-\frac{\psi_t}{L_t}. $$ This is also an $\mathbb{F}$-adapted process. With this notation, by integrating the result of the application of the Ito lemma and exponentiating we get: $$ L_t=e^{-\int_0^t\Theta_udu-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\Theta^2_u dWu}. $$

The result also rests on the uniqueness (up to indistinguishability) of the Radon-Nikodym derivative (in the R-N theorem).

So yes, all changes of measure must be of this form.

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.