Skip to content
All library documents

Why Brownian Motion and a Shared Gaussian Scaling Have Different Integral Variances

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Alicia

Summary

The document compares time integrals of a bounded function applied to Brownian motion and to a process formed by multiplying one standard normal variable by the square root of time. At each fixed time, both processes have the same marginal normal distribution, so integrating their pointwise expectations gives equal means for the two integrals.

Their variances can differ because the processes have different dependence across time. Brownian motion has independent increments, while every value of the scaled Gaussian process is driven by the same random variable. The response derives second-moment expressions using these distinct joint structures and offers a sine-function simulation as an illustration. The simulation is evidence for the example, not a general proof; the derivation also assumes an everywhere-convergent Taylor expansion for the chosen bounded function, which does not cover every bounded continuous function.

Key ideas

  • Brownian motion and the scaled single-Gaussian process have matching normal marginals at each time.
  • Equal marginal distributions imply equal expectations for the time integrals of a bounded function.
  • The processes have different temporal dependence, which can produce different integral variances.
  • The sine simulation illustrates the variance difference but does not establish it for all functions.

Tags

Full text
# Difference between $W_t$ and $X_t= \sqrt{t}Z$


# Difference between $W_t$ and $X_t= \sqrt{t}Z$












$W_t$ is a brownian motion and $X_t:= \sqrt{t}Z$, where: $Z\sim N(0,1)$.

How to show that for a bounded continuous $f$ process, $$U_t = \int_0^t (f(W_s))ds$$ and $$V_t = \int_0^t (f(X_s))ds$$ have the same expectation but not the same variance in general?

## Answer by oliversm (score 8)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/53575

## The means are equal

Suppose $f$ is analytic so that we can give it a Taylor series that works everywhere such that $f(x) = \sum a_n x^n$, and then let us let this be bounded too. To show that the expectations are the same consider taking the expectation of $U_t$ \begin{equation} \mathbb{E}(U_t) = \mathbb{E}\left(\int_0^t f(W_s) \,\mathrm{d}s\right)\\ \end{equation} as $f$ if bounded we can use Fubini's theorem to move the expectation inside the integral, giving \begin{align} \mathbb{E}(U_t) & = \int_0^t \mathbb{E}\left(f(W_s)\right) \,\mathrm{d}s\\ & = \int_0^t \sum_n a_n \mathbb{E}\left(W_s^n\right) \,\mathrm{d}s \\ & = \int_0^t \sum_n a_n s^{n/2} M_n \,\mathrm{d}s \end{align} where $M_n$ denotes the $n$-th moment of a standard Gaussian distribution. Identically we could do this for the expectation of $V_t$ and see that the two are equal, and hence that $U_t$ has the same expectation of $V_t$.

## The variances are not equal

For the variance of $U_t$ we need to evaluate the expected value of \begin{align} U_t^2 = \left(\int_0^t f(W_s) \,\mathrm{d}s \right)^2 &= \int_0^t \int_0^t f(W_s) f(W_u) \,\mathrm{d}u \,\mathrm{d}s \\ &= 2 \int_0^t \int_0^s f(W_s) f(W_u) \,\mathrm{d}u \,\mathrm{d}s. \end{align}

Taking the expectation and putting this inside the integral again gives \begin{equation} \mathbb{E}\left(U_t^2\right) = 2 \int_0^t \int_0^s \sum_{n, m, k} a_n a_m \binom{n}{k} \mathbb{E}(W_s^n W_u^m) \,\mathrm{d}u \,\mathrm{d}s. \end{equation} Within the integrand $u \leq s$ and so expand $W_s = W_u + (W_s - W_u)$ where as $W$ is a Weiner process the increment $W_s - W_u$ is independent to the value of $W_u$ and has variance $s - u$. This then simplifies to give \begin{equation} \mathbb{E}\left(U_t^2\right) = 2 \int_0^t \int_0^s \sum_{n, m, k} a_n a_m \binom{n}{k} u^{\frac{n + m}{2}}(s - u)^{\frac{n-k}{2}}M_{n+m}M_{n-k} \,\mathrm{d}u \,\mathrm{d}s. \end{equation}

An identical process can be applied for $V_t$ but instead of expanding $W_s$ we just use $X_t = \sqrt{t}Z$ and obtain \begin{equation} \mathbb{E}\left(V_t^2\right) = 2 \int_0^t \int_0^s \sum_{n, m, k} a_n a_m \binom{n}{k} s^{\frac{n}{2}}u^{\frac{m}{2}}M_{n+m} \,\mathrm{d}u \,\mathrm{d}s. \end{equation}

The second expression is more easily integrated out than the first, but both are doable and I think they evaluate to different quantities.

## A numeric demonstration

Take $f \equiv \sin$ and you can simulate this, as the example python code does, the key result is then:

```
Variable = U,   Mean = 0.00206326180593 +/- 0.00228420660865,   Standard deviation = 0.228420660865 
Variable = V,   Mean = -0.0177668651186 +/- 0.0380135632954,    Standard deviation = 3.80135632954
```

We see this confirms that the means are the same but variances differ.

## Python code

```
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import norm

f = np.sin

M = 10000
T = 2*np.pi
dt = T/M
N = 10000
mean_u, mean_v = 0, 0
var_u, var_v = 0, 0
for _ in range(N):
    w = np.cumsum(np.concatenate([[0], norm.rvs(scale=dt, size=M)]))
    z = norm.rvs()
    t = np.cumsum([0] + [dt]*M)
    x = np.sqrt(t) * z
    u = np.sum(f(w))*dt
    v = np.sum(f(x))*dt
    mean_u += u
    mean_v += v
    var_u += u ** 2
    var_v += v ** 2
mean_u /= N
mean_v /= N
var_u /= N
var_v /= N
var_u -= mean_u ** 2
var_v -= mean_v ** 2
std_u = np.sqrt(var_u)
std_v = np.sqrt(var_v)
std_error_u = np.sqrt(var_u / N)
std_error_v = np.sqrt(var_v / N)

for n, m, s, se in [["U", mean_u, std_u, std_error_u], ["V", mean_v, std_v, std_error_v]]:
    print("Variable = {},\tMean = {} +/- {},\tStandard deviation = {} ".format(n, m, se, s))
```

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.