Why Brownian Motion Has Quadratic Variation Equal to Time
Summary
The discussion explains why the drift term in a Brownian motion with constant drift and volatility does not contribute to quadratic variation, while the Brownian component contributes volatility squared times elapsed time. It introduces quadratic variation as the limit of summed squared increments over increasingly fine partitions. The drift’s squared increments and its cross-products with Brownian increments vanish in that limit, whereas the accumulated squared Brownian increments converge to time.
The answer offers an informal scaling intuition and points to a probability-limit definition for a more rigorous treatment. It explicitly characterizes the heuristic as non-rigorous and does not provide the detailed proof, instead referring readers to longer lecture notes. Some intermediate calculations are abbreviated, so the exposition is useful as intuition rather than a self-contained proof.
Key ideas
- Quadratic variation is defined through sums of squared process increments over finer partitions.
- For Brownian motion, the accumulated squared increments converge to elapsed time.
- A finite-variation drift contributes no quadratic variation in this model.
- The answer gives an informal argument and directs readers elsewhere for a rigorous proof.
Tags
Full text
# How is the formula of Quadratic Variation of Brownian Motion derived?
# How is the formula of Quadratic Variation of Brownian Motion derived?
This is a follow up on this question on quant SE:
The question mentions for a Brownian motion : $X_t = X_0 + \int_0^t\mu ds + \int_0^t\sigma dW_t $ , the quadratic variation is calculated as
$dX_t dX_t = \sigma^2 dW_t dW_t = \sigma^2 dt $
I cannot understand how is the differential with time ($\mu ds $) eliminated from the equation. When I square the differential form of the equation:
$(dX_t)^2 = (\mu dt + \sigma dW_t)^2 = \mu^2 dtdt + \sigma^2 dW_tdW_t + \mu \sigma dt dW_t$. From here on, I'm finding it difficult to reduce it to above form.
## Answer by Jan Stuller (score 4, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/63885
In all honesty, Quadratic Variation for Stochastic Processes is an advanced topic, and computing it rigorously from first principles is a graduate-level probability question.
### Part 1: Quadratic Variation: Informal "proof"
First, how is Quadratic Variation Defined? For a stochastic process $X_t$, the quadratic variation, denoted $<X_t>$, is defined as (loosely speaking, I provide the rigorous definition at the end):
$$<X_t>=\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}(X_i-X_{i-1})^2\right)$$
So in words, the quadratic variation expresses the sum of square differences, as the mesh-size gets finer and finer. The limit is in the probability sense (see end of this post).
Now, we have:
$$(X_i-X_{i-1})^2=X_i^2-2X_iX_{i-1}+X_{i-1}^2$$
Usually, $X_0:=0$, so ignoring the $X_0$ term, we have:
$dX_i^2=\mu^2di^2+\sigma^2dW_i^2+2\mu di \sigma dW_i$
Notice that as $n \to \infty$, $di \to 0$, so $di^2 \to 0$ even faster. So ignoring the $di^2$ term (and all other $di$-terms of order higher than 1), we can focus on the $dW_i^2$ term. Let's try and compute its expectation & variance:
$$\mathbb{E}[dW_i^2]=\mathbb{E}[W(di)^2]=\mathbb{E}[\left(\sqrt{di}W(1)\right)^2]=di\mathbb{E}[W(1)]=di$$
$$Var\left(dW_i^2\right)=\mathbb{E}[\left(\sqrt{di}W(1)\right)^4]-\mathbb{E}[\left(\sqrt{di}W(1)\right)^2]^2=di^2\mathbb{E}[W(1)^4]-di^2$$
As $n \to \infty$, $di^2 \to 0$ faster than $di \to 0$, so the Variance converges to zero. That is basically what is meant when somebody writes $dW_t^2=dt$
Notice the above is not mathematically rigorous, it's just "hand-waving" to get an intuitive understanding. The rigorous proof is below:
### Quadratic Variation: "Rigorous" proof
Formally, Quadratic Variation for a Wiener process $W_t$ is defined as below:
$\forall \epsilon > 0$:
$$\left<W\right>_t:=\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}\left(W_{t_i}-W_{t_{i-1}}\right)^2-t\right|>\epsilon\right)=0$$
In words: the probability that the Quadratic variation converges to "$t$", goes to $1$, as the mesh size gets infinitely fine.
The proof is pretty technical, the best one I know is in these lecture notes: but the proof stretches over 5 pages (and they prove convergence almost surely, which is a stronger convergence that "in probability", so it implies convergence in probability).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.