Skip to content
All library documents

Why Independent Increments Make a Process a Martingale

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Michaël

Summary

The document explains a step in proving that an integrable stochastic process with centered, independent increments is a martingale. For times s before t, the increment from s to t is independent of information available through time s, so conditioning that increment on the past leaves its expectation unchanged. The process value at s is already known at time s, and the centered increment has expectation zero; together these facts give the martingale conditional-expectation property.

The responses describe this using the basic rule that conditioning an integrable random variable on an independent information set does not change its expectation. The explanation presumes the filtration represents the process’s history, or otherwise that the future increment is independent of the whole filtration at s. Independence from the single value at s alone would not suffice for an arbitrary filtration. The document offers intuition rather than a detailed formal treatment of filtration assumptions.

Key ideas

  • A martingale has conditional expected future value equal to its current value.
  • Independent increments make the increment after time s independent of the process history through s, under the stated filtration assumptions.
  • Conditioning an integrable random variable on independent information leaves its expectation unchanged.
  • Centered increments have zero expectation, which completes the martingale argument.

Tags

Full text
# Conditional expectation of increments of stochastic process


# Conditional expectation of increments of stochastic process












I have come across the following result in my book on stochastic finance and I have trouble understanding the proof.

On a filtered probability space with filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \in \mathbb{R}^+}$, any integrable stochastic process $(X_t)_{t \in \mathbb{R}^+}$ with centred and independent increments is a martingale.

The proof goes as follows.

For $0 \leq s \leq t$, we have \begin{align} E[X_t \vert \mathcal{F}_s] &= E[X_t - X_s + X_s \vert \mathcal{F}_s]\\ &= E[X_t - X_s \vert \mathcal{F}_s] + E[X_s \vert \mathcal{F}_s]\\ &= E[X_t - X_s] + X_s\\ &= X_s \text{.} \end{align}

In the third equality, I don't understand why $E[X_t - X_s \vert \mathcal{F}_s] = E[X_t - X_s]$. The only explanation I can find is that it has to do with the fact that the increments are independent but I don't see how it is related exactly. I had come to understand that $E[Y_t] = E[Y_t \vert \mathcal{F}_0]$ for any stochastic process $(Y_t)_{t \in \mathbb{R}^+}$, but here it is $E[X_t - X_s] = E[X_t - X_s \vert \mathcal{F}_s]$ (so conditional on $\mathcal{F}_s$ instead of $\mathcal{F}_0$).

## Answer by Quasar (score 2, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/77220

Since the process has independent increments, the increment $X_t - X_s$ is independent of $X_s - X_0$. So, your estimate of $X_t - X_s$, based on information learned by observing the process upto time $s$, $\mathbb{E}[X_t - X_s|\mathcal{F}_s]$, is as good as having no information at all aka $\mathbb{E}[X_t - X_s]$. This is a well-known property of conditional expectation.

If $X$ is independent of $\mathcal{F}_t$, symbolically written as $X \perp \mathcal{F_t}$, then $\mathbb{E}[X|\mathcal{F_t}] = \mathbb{E}[X]$.

## Answer by THATS MY QUANT MY QUANTITATIVE (score 0)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/77222

Generally, this proof is learned in the context of Brownian motion, but it works the same with processes that have independent increments.

$\mathcal{F}_s$ is called the filtration and contains all the information of the events up to time $s$. And so if you are computing a probability or expectation that is independent of the past, you "remove" the past (the conditional).

It's the same idea as, if $A$ and $B$ are independent then $P(A|B) = P(A)$ and $E(A|\sigma(B)) = E(A)$.

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.