2

Edit: in the comments, it is pointed out by @Mag that Ito Integral can - in fact - be defined pathwise, rather than an L2 limit. A bit of googling has led me to these Oxford university notes here for example. My question: would it be after all possible to apply Fubini's theorem to Ito Integral, defined pathwise?

Original question: I wonder whether Fubini's theorem is applicable to taking the expectation of Ito integrals. It is a well known fact that Ito integral posesses the "martingale property", i.e. for any deterministic or stochastic process $H(\omega,t)$, we have:

$$\mathbb{E}\left[\int_{h=0}^{h=t}H(\omega,h)dW_h\right]=0$$

From the above, it is obvious that for many types of integrands, Fubini's theorem "doesn't work", for example, we have that $\mathbb{E}[W_t^2]=t$, but:

$$\mathbb{E}\left[\int_{h=0}^{h=t}W_h^2dW_h\right]=0\neq \int_{h=0}^{h=t}\mathbb{E}\left[W_h^2\right]dW_h =\int_{h=0}^{h=t}hdW_h$$

Question: so what is it that makes Fubini's theorem not applicable above? The usual two conditions for being able to apply Fubini are:

  • (i) $\mathbb{E}[|H(\omega,t)|]<\infty$
  • (ii) $H(\omega,t)$ is measurable

In case of $H(\omega,t):=W_t^2$, both conditions are satisfied: (i) clearly, $\mathbb{E}[|W_t^2|]<\infty \forall t \in \mathbb{R}$ and (ii) $W_t$ is adapted and measurable (with respect to the filtration it generates and if the entire probability space is generated by $W_t$, then indeed $W_t$ is "measurable" with respect to $\left(\Omega,\mathbb{P},\mathcal{F}_t\right)$).

Jan Stuller
  • 1,219
  • $\mathbb{E}\left[W_h^2dW_h\right] \neq \mathbb{E}\left[W_h^2\right]dW_h$ , as $dW_h$ is not deterministic ! – bigInner Oct 24 '22 at 21:40

2 Answers2

2

In Fubini's theorem we have two measures and two Lebesgue integrals. Here you have one Lebesgue integral (i.e the expectation) and an Ito integral. The Ito integral is not defined pathwise but as a $L^2$ limit. Also note that $dW_t$ is not a measure.

Also, it's not always true that $$\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0 ^t H_udW_u\right]=0. \tag{1}$$

The equality (1) is true when $\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^t H^2_u du\right]<\infty$

UBM
  • 1,861
  • Ok, so before I accept your answer, just to confirm I understand: Fubini's theorem is completely not applicable to Ito integrals. Correct? – Jan Stuller Jan 07 '21 at 18:10
  • 1
    The Itô integral can be defined pathwise according to Hans Föllmer (Calcul d’Itô sans probabilités, 1981). – mag Jan 07 '21 at 18:15
  • @JanStuller: If we are rigorous, it's not applicable. – UBM Jan 07 '21 at 18:21
  • Any chance you could add an example of a process that would make equality (1) not hold? I.e. a process that is not square integrable and therefore the martingale property of Ito integral would not hold? I can't think of one... – Jan Stuller Jan 07 '21 at 18:33
  • 1
    There is an example here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3972291/if-y-t-int-0t-x-sdw-s-where-int-0t-x-s2ds-infty-a-s-do-we-have-that – UBM Jan 07 '21 at 18:40
  • Nice, thank you! – Jan Stuller Jan 07 '21 at 18:47
  • @Mag: so are you saying that if we can (re)-define an Ito Integral path-wise, Fubini's Theorem could be applicable to Ito integrals also? If you have a link to any resources, could you pls share it here? – Jan Stuller Jan 07 '21 at 21:54
  • 1
    @JanStuller: In which context are you working? Are you working with Ito processes? An Ito process has a clear definition. If you use a new definition of integral, then you can not work with the "common" Ito processes and the standard tools you are used to. You will need to redefine a lot of things since the standard tools won't apply. – UBM Jan 08 '21 at 11:38
  • @mag: and what? If the context is that we are working with Ito processes, how does your comment apply to the question and my answer? – UBM Jan 08 '21 at 11:56
  • If we are working with Ito processes where the stochastic integral is defined as an $L^2$-limit, then this is already established. – UBM Jan 08 '21 at 12:06
  • @UBM: UBM I like your answer, it's clear and a great answer. I just unmarked so it still appears as an "open question" for now in case anybody else wants to comment on how Fubini could be used if Ito is re-defined path-wise. I will accept your answer again, I just wanted to try to get some other responses. – Jan Stuller Jan 08 '21 at 12:20
1

I think the process $X_t:=\int_0^t H_s\mathbb dW_s$ is not a martingale in general. It is under very weak assumptions for $H$ a local martingale and if you have for example $\mathbb E(X_t^2)=\mathbb E(\int_0^t H_s^2\mathbb ds)<\infty$ for all $t\geq 0$ it is also a martingale. Another sufficent condition would be $\forall t\geq0: \mathbb E(\sup_{s\leq t}|X_s|)<\infty$.

The thing I mentioned in the comments to the other answer, that Itô integral is able to be defined pathwise, was just intended as an additional information, that the argument that it is defined as $L^2$-limit, is not a sufficent agrument against it (not saying anything about whether it actually possible or not). But being definied pathwise means still dependent on the path resp. $\omega$. Being definied pathwise or as $L^2$-limit is not the relevant part of your problem.

The main problem why there is definitly no Fubini-Theorem for Itô integrals combinied with integral with the measrue $P$ is, that $\mathbb E(\int_0^t W_s^2\mathbb dW_s)=\int_\Omega\int_0^t W_s^2\mathbb dW_s\mathbb dP$ is simply a real number, whereas $\int_0^t \mathbb E(W_s^2)\mathbb dW_s$ is stochastic process definitly depending on $\omega$.

But I remember an exercise regarding a Fubini-Theorem for Itô integrals with a Lebesgue integral, but it was a bit different to your application: Let $T>0$, $B\subset\mathbb R^n$ bounded and $$H:(\Omega,[0,T],B)\to\mathbb R: (\omega,t,x)\mapsto H(\omega,t,x)$$ a stochastic process not only depending on the time $t$ but also on $x$. Then under appropriate assumptions holds $$\int_0^T\int_BH(\omega,s,x)\mathbb dx\mathbb dW_s=\int_B\int_0^TH(\omega,s,x)\mathbb dW_s\mathbb dx. $$

If you are working with an Itô process $X$ there won't be much changes in the things above. For $\mathrm d X_t=b_t\mathrm dt +\sigma_t\mathrm dW_t$ you can simply replace the differentials as you are used and you are again in the situation above.

I hope this helps you a little bit for your problem.

mag
  • 2,409
  • You say: "The thing I mentioned in the comments to the other answer, that Itô integral is able to be defined pathwise, was just intended as an additional information, that the argument that it is defined as 2-limit, is not a sufficent agrument" Well, It is a sufficient argument if we are working with Ito process where the Ito integral has already being defined as an $L^2-$ limit. – UBM Jan 08 '21 at 13:44
  • Well, as both definitions are equivalent for Itô integral regarding the browian motion, I think there can't be an argument involving the $L^2$-limit. And working with Itô processes doesn't change anything, since they are only a sum of a Itô integral and a Lebesgue integral. So you don't need the $L^2$-limit in this case either. But maybe I'm wrong and you can find the mistake I made in my considerations. – mag Jan 08 '21 at 14:00
  • What do you mean by both definition are equivalent? Equivalent in which sense? – UBM Jan 08 '21 at 14:09
  • In the framework where the pathwise definition is possible (it is not that general as the defintion with the $L^2$-limit, as far as I know) the results are almost sure the same, regardless whether you interpret the Itô integral being definied pathwise or by the $L^2$-limit. – mag Jan 08 '21 at 14:23
  • You say: "The results are almost sure the same" what results? I'm not familiar with the "Hans Föllmer pathwise stochastic integral" but common sense tell me that this definition will come with new rules and new definitions. If we could work with the Ito integral as if it was a pathwise integral, it would me amazingly useful and if would have been used in books that deal only with the Brownian Motion. It would simplify many proofs. However, it is not used, every book that deals with an Ito process works in the proofs with the $L^2$-limit. – UBM Jan 08 '21 at 14:41
  • Anyway I don't time to dig into this new topic. As far as I'm concerned the context of the question was clear. I'll move on. – UBM Jan 08 '21 at 14:43
  • By 'results' I mean you write down the Itô integral symbolically and now you can interpret it as the Itô integral being defined pathwise or by the $L^2$-limit. What I meant is, that it almost sure doesn't matter which one you choose when you now calculate the integrals. An analogy to explain what I mean: Imagine you have the integral (symbolically) $\int_0^1 x ^2 \mathbb dx$. Now you can think that what's wirtten is a Riemann or Lebesgue integral. But it doesn't matter, whether you now use the definion of the Riemann integral or the Lebesgue integral to calculate the value of the integral. – mag Jan 08 '21 at 14:58