3

Consider a filtered space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\geq 0}, P)$. Let $(M_t)$ be a uniformly integrable (UI) martinagle w.r.t. $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\geq 0}$.

Let $\tau, \nu$ be two stopping times such that $\tau\geq \nu$ for every $\omega\in \Omega$.

Let $\Gamma_C(x):=\max\{\min\{x,C\},-C\}$ be the truncated function ($x$ truncated at $C$).

Show the following process

$$N_t:=\Gamma_C(M_{t\wedge \nu})(M_{t\wedge \tau}-M_{t\wedge \nu})$$

is also a martingale.

Background. I met this prblem when reading the paper On quadratic variation of martingales (page 463, Eq. (3.12)), which a tutorial paper cited by Wikipedia to explain the quadratic variation process. The author first rewrited a process to the form of $N$, then claimed that it is a martingale.

What I think. I know that $M_{t\wedge \tau}-M_{t\wedge \nu}$ is a martinagle, since stopped martingales are martingales. But I can not figure out how the trucation $\Gamma_C(M_{t\wedge \nu})$ preserves the martingale property. Moreover, I feel the expression of $N_t$ is similar to that of a stochastic integral of elementary predictable process, which is a martingale.

UPDATE:

The situation with non-random stopping times is discussed in this post. However, the solution does not apply since we are considering random times here.

1 Answers1

1

After some searching, I figure out the answer to my question. I post it below in case anyone needs it in the future.

In Rogers & Williams, Diffusions, Markov Processes and Martingales (Vol. 2, pg. 10, Lem. 5.3),

Fundermental Lemma. Consider a uniformly integrable (UI) martingale $M$, two stopping times $S,T$ such that $S\geq T$, and a bounded random variable $Z$ measurable to $\mathcal{F}_S$. Let $$H:=Z(M_{t\wedge T}-M_{t\wedge S})$$ be the stochastic integral of $Z$ w.r.t. $M$. Then $Z$ is also a UI martingale.

This lemma is proved using the following theorem:

Theorem (77.6). Let $(M_t)$ be a progressive process such that for any (finite or infinite) stopping time $T$, we have $E(|M_T|)<\infty$ and $E(M_T)=0$. Then $M$ is a UI martingale.

Thus, it can be extended to cases where $Z$ is a random process relying on $t$, as long as the boundedness and measurability conditions hold.

  • There is a nice intuition for the lemma. Before the earlier stopping time, the process is just 0. At the stopping time, we choose some constant, and the process thereafter is that constant times the difference. And we know the difference is a martingale. – Ziv Jul 04 '24 at 03:41