When Independent Brownian Integrals Are Dependent
Summary
The document explains how Ito integrals against independent Wiener processes can be uncorrelated without being independent. It first notes that zero cross variation gives zero covariance for suitable integrands. When the integrands are deterministic, approximating the integrals by sums of independent normal increments shows that their linear combinations are normal; the resulting pair is jointly normal, so zero covariance implies independence.
Random integrands can produce a different result because each integral may depend on both Brownian paths. The example uses each Brownian motion as the other integral’s integrand. The response states that the resulting variables are uncorrelated, then compares a mixed fourth moment with the product of their second moments to show they are not independent. The example illustrates a general distinction between lack of correlation and independence; it does not provide a full characterization of which random integrands yield dependence.
Key ideas
- Independent driving Brownian motions yield zero covariance between the stated Ito integrals under appropriate integrability conditions.
- Deterministic integrands produce a jointly Gaussian pair, for which zero covariance implies independence.
- Random integrands can couple each integral to both Brownian paths.
- A mismatch between a mixed fourth moment and the product of second moments demonstrates dependence.
Tags
Full text
# Stochastic integrals wrt to independent Wiener processes are uncorrelated, but potentially dependent?
# Stochastic integrals wrt to independent Wiener processes are uncorrelated, but potentially dependent?
In Proof of Proposition 1.2.20 in the following lectures notes
http://math.uni-heidelberg.de/studinfo/reiss/sode-lecture.pdf
I found following quote " stochastic integrals with respect to independent Brownian motions are uncorrelated (attention: they may well be dependent!)."
So I was wondering now when this can occur.
Given two independent Wiener processes $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$. We consider two Ito integrals:
$\int_{0}^{t} F(s)\,dW_{1}(s)$ and $\int_{0}^{t} G(s)\, dW_{2}(s)$.
From general (multi-dimensional) Ito-isometry, the two integrals are uncorrelated. Using approximations of $F$ and $G$ by simple functions, one can show uncorrelation probably pretty straight forward. However, I am wondering when the two integrals can become dependent. My questions therefore are:
- Is there an easy example for this?
- Assuming that $F$ and $G$ are deterministic, does then follow independence? And if so, how does one show this?
## Answer by Gordon (score 1, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/36283
Note that, by Ito's isometry, \begin{align*} E\left(\int_{0}^{t} F(s)\,dW_{1}(s)\int_{0}^{t} G(s)\, dW_{2}(s)\right) &= \int_0^t E\big(F(s) G(s) \big) d\langle W_1, W_2\rangle_t =0. \end{align*} That is, $\int_{0}^{t} F(s)\,dW_{1}(s)$ and $\int_{0}^{t} G(s)\,dW_2(s)$ are uncorrelated.
If $F(s)$ and $G(s)$ are deterministic, then, for any constants $a$ and $b$ \begin{align*} a\int_{0}^{t} F(s)\,dW_{1}(s) + b\int_{0}^{t} G(s)\,dW_2(s) \end{align*} is the limit, in probability, of the sum \begin{align*} \sum_{i=1}^n \Big(aF(t_{i-1}) \big(W_1(t_i)-W_1(t_{i-1})\big) +bG(t_{i-1}) \big(W_2(t_i)-W_2(t_{i-1})\big)\Big),\tag{1} \end{align*} where $0=t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_n = t$ is a partition of $[0, t]$. Note that all terms in $(1)$ are normal and independent, and then their sum is also normal. Since the limit, in probability, of normal random variables is also normal, \begin{align*} a\int_{0}^{t} F(s)\,dW_{1}(s) + b\int_{0}^{t} G(s)\,dW_2(s) \end{align*} is normal. That is, $\int_{0}^{t} F(s)\,dW_{1}(s)$ and $\int_{0}^{t} G(s)\,dW_2(s)$ are jointly normal, and are therefore independent (note that the joint characteristic function is the product of the individual characteristic functions).
However, if $F(s)$ and $G(s)$ are not deterministic, then $\int_{0}^{t} F(s)\,dW_{1}(s)$ and $\int_{0}^{t} G(s)\,dW_2(s)$ are not necessarily independent. For example, consider $X_t=\int_{0}^{t} W_2(s)\,dW_{1}(s)$ and $Y_t=\int_{0}^{t} W_1(s)\,dW_2(s)$. Then $X_t$ and $Y_t$ is uncorrelated, but are not independent.
> $X_t$ and $Y_t$ are uncorrelated but are not independent.
Note that \begin{align*} dX_t^2 = 2X_tdX_t + W_2^2(t) dt, \end{align*} and \begin{align*} dY_t^2 = 2Y_t dY_t + W_1^2(t) dt. \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} X_t^2 Y_t^2 = 2\int_0^t Y_s^2 X_s dX_s+2\int_0^t X_s^2 Y_s dY_s + \int_0^t \left(W_1^2(s)X_s^2 + W_2^2(s) Y_s^2 \right) ds. \end{align*} By symmetry, \begin{align*} E\left( X_t^2 Y_t^2\right) = 2\int_0^t E\left(W_1^2(s)X_s^2\right) ds.\tag{2} \end{align*} Note that \begin{align*} dW_1^2(t) = 2W_1(t) dW_1(t) + dt. \end{align*} Then \begin{align*} W_1^2(t)X_t^2 &= 2\int_0^t X_s W_1(s)^2 dX_s + 2\int_0^t W_1(s) X_s^2 dW_1(s)\\ &\qquad +\int_0^t \left(W_1(s)^2 W_2(s)^2 + X_s^2 + 4X_sW_1(s)W_2(s)\right)ds.\tag{3} \end{align*} Furthermore, note that \begin{align*} W_1(t)W_2(t) = X_t + Y_t. \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} E\left( X_tW_1(t)W_2(t)\right) &= E\left(X_t^2 + X_t Y_t\right)\\ &=\int_0^t s ds=\frac{1}{2}t^2. \end{align*} Therefore, from $(3)$, \begin{align*} E\left(W_1^2(t)X_t^2\right) &=\int_0^t \left(s^2 + \frac{1}{2}s^2 + 2s^2 \right)ds = \frac{7}{6}t^3, \end{align*} and, from $(2)$, \begin{align*} E\left( X_t^2 Y_t^2\right) &= 2\int_0^t E\left(W_1^2(s)X_s^2\right) ds\\ &=\frac{7}{3} \int_0^t s^3ds = \frac{7}{12} t^4. \end{align*} However, \begin{align*} E\left( X_t^2 \right)E\left(Y_t^2\right) = \frac{1}{4}t^4. \end{align*} That is, $X_t$ and $Y_t$ are not 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.