Skip to content
All library documents

Independence of Disjoint Brownian Stochastic Integrals

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Sanjay

Summary

The document explains why the stochastic integral of a deterministic function over an earlier time interval is independent of its integral over a later, disjoint interval. Its central argument is to approximate each integral by finite sums of deterministic coefficients multiplied by Brownian increments. Brownian increments on disjoint intervals are independent, so the corresponding sums are independent; passing to the limit in the appropriate sense extends the result to the integrals.

It also relates this argument to the suggested moment-generating-function approach: the two integrals are jointly Gaussian, and their covariance is zero because their integration intervals do not overlap. For jointly Gaussian variables, zero covariance implies independence, so their joint moment-generating function factors into the product of the marginal functions. One response in the source contains incorrect covariance expressions and an invalid moment-generating-function line, so those calculations should not be followed. The independent-increments and approximation argument gives the relevant result, subject to the usual integrability conditions on the deterministic integrand.

Key ideas

  • A deterministic Brownian stochastic integral over an interval can be approximated by sums of Brownian increments.
  • Brownian increments on disjoint time intervals are independent.
  • The integrals over the earlier and later intervals are jointly Gaussian and have zero covariance.
  • For jointly Gaussian variables, zero covariance implies independence.
  • The approximation requires suitable integrability of the deterministic function.

Tags

Full text
# How to prove that $X_s=\int^s_0 f(u)dW_u$ is independant from $X_t-X_s$


# How to prove that $X_s=\int^s_0 f(u)dW_u$ is independant from $X_t-X_s$












I am asked to prove that $X_s$ and $X_t-X_s$ are independant for $s<t$ then $$X_t=\int^t_0f(u)dW_u$$ for a deterministic function $f$ and brownian motion $W_t$. For the proof I am giving a hint to compute $E[\exp(a_1X_s+a_2(X_t-X_s))]$

How can prove independence using the hint?

So far I have done following:

I find $X_s \sim N(0,\int^s_0f^2(u) du)$ and $X_t - X_s\sim N(0,\int^t_sf^2(u) du)$

$$E[\exp(a_1X_s+a_2(X_t-X_s))] =\exp(\frac{1}{2}a^2_1\int^s_0f^2(u) du+\frac{1}{2}a^2_2\int^t_sf^2(u) du)$$

How Can I prove independence from here?

## Answer by Vim (score 2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/44349

I'll only answer the question in your title. One way to see it is by discretising the integrals.

From your title, let's define $$I(a,b):=\int_a^b f(u)dW_u$$ Discretising: $$I(a,b)=\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}f(a + i\frac{b-a}{n})(W(a + (i+1)\frac{b-a}{n}) - W(a + i\frac{b-a}{n}))$$ in $L^2$.

Now simply note that any increment $\Delta W$ in $[t, s]$ is independent of any increment in $[0,s]$. Therefore $I(s,t)$ must be independent of $I(0,s)$.

## Answer by phantagarow (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/44341

We have that

$$ X_{t} - X_{s} = \int_{s}^{t}f(u)dW_{u} $$ Thus, if $f$ was a simple function, then $X_{t} - X_{s}$ would be a linear combination of $W_{k}$'s where $k \in [s,t] $ which is independent of $W_{s}$ by definition of the Wiener process. A fortiori, $X_{t} - X_{s}$ would be independent of $X_{s}$ which is a linear combination of $W_{k}$'s where $k \in [0,s] $. Now use that fact that $f$ can be written as a limit of simple functions.

## Answer by David Hughes (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/44363

What follows is not rigorous, but hopefully has the main idea. First, you probably want to justify $$X_t-X_s \sim N\left(0, \int_s^t f(u)^2 du \right), $$ which can be done by approximating $f$ by a simple function $g = a_1 1_{(s,t_1)} + a_21_{(t_1,t_2)} + \ldots + a_n1_{(t_{n-1},t)}$ and then using $$\int_s^t g(u)dW_u = a_1(W_{t_1} - W_s) + a_2 (W_{t_2}-W_{t_1}) + \ldots a_n (W_{t}-W_{t_{n-1}}) \sim N(0, a_1^2t_1 + a_2^2 (t_2-t_1)+\ldots a_n^2(t_n-t_{n-1})) = N\left(0, \int_s^t g(u)^2 du \right)$$ for $W_{t_i}-W_{t_{i-1}} \sim N(0,t_i-t_{i-1})$ all independent. The trick then is to show that $X_s$ and $X_t-X_s$ are uncorrelated in order to help us take the expectation $\mathbb{E}[\exp(a_1X_s + a_2 (X_t-X_s))]$. Now, $$\mathbb{E}[(X_t-X_s)^2] = \mathbb{E}[X_t^2] - 2\mathbb{E}[X_tX_s] + \mathbb{E}[X_s^2],$$ hence, $$\mathbb{E}[X_sX_t] = \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbb{E}[X_t^2] + \mathbb{E}[X_s^2] - \mathbb{E}[(X_t-X_s)^2] \right) = \frac{1}{2} \left( \int_0^t f(u)du + \int_0^s f(u)du - \int_s^t f(u) du \right) = \int_0^sf(u)du = \mathbb{E}[X_s^2]$$ and so $\mathbb{E}[X_s(X_t-X_s)]=0,$ hence $X_s$ and $X_t-X_s$ are uncorrelated.

Now, since two uncorrelated normally distributed random variables $Y_1 \sim N(0,\sigma_1^2)$ and $Y_2 \sim N(0,\sigma_2^2)$ satisfy $\mathbb{E}[\exp(a_1Y_1 + a_2 Y_2)] = \exp(\frac{a_1}{2} Y_1 + \frac{a_2}{2} Y_2) = \mathbb{E}[\exp(a_1Y_1)]\mathbb{E}[\exp(a_2Y_2)]$, we have

$$\mathbb{E}[a_1X_s + a_2(X_t-X_s)] = \mathbb{E}[\exp(a_1X_s)] \mathbb{E}[\exp(a_2(X_t-X_s))]$$

for all $a_1$, $a_2$. Taking $n$ derivatives with respect to $a_1$ and $m$ derivatives with respect to $a_2$, and then setting $a_1=0=a_2$, we get

$$\mathbb{E}[X_s^n(X_t-X_s)^m] = \mathbb{E}[X_s^n]\mathbb{E}[(X_t-X_s)^m].$$

Using this, we now know that for any polynomial functions $p$ and $q$, we have $\mathbb{E}[p(X_s)q(X_t-X_s)] = \mathbb{E}[p(X_s)]\mathbb{E}[q(X_t-X_s)].$ Since polynomial functions are weakly dense, the probability distribution function $\rho_{X_s,X_t-X_s}$ of $X_s$ and $X_t-X_s$ is the product of the probability density functions $\rho_{X_s}$ of $X_s$ and $\rho_{X_t-X_s}$ of $X_t-X_s$. Hence, $X_s$ and $X_t-X_s$ are independent.

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.