24

Why is $dB^2=dt$? Every online source I've come across lists this as an exercise or just states it, but why isn't this ever explicitly proved? I know that $dB=\sqrt{dt}Z$, but I don't know what squaring a Gaussian random variable means.

Davide Giraudo
  • 166,561
  • 68
  • 244
  • 378
j.diddland
  • 241
  • 2
  • 4
  • 2
    What do you mean by *every book*? Could you list a couple? – cardinal Nov 14 '11 at 02:58
  • My mistake. I meant every online source I've come across from googling. This was stated in a Mathematical Finance class without justification, and I've been spending hours trying to figure out how this comes about. – j.diddland Nov 14 '11 at 06:13
  • 1
    Sorry. The point of my question, which may not have been clear, was to get a feel for the level at which you were expecting an answer. What textbook does the course use? Do you know about *quadratic variation*? At the level of say, S. Shreve, *Stochastic Calculus for Finance* or, maybe, Karatzas & Shreve, *Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus*? Or, maybe, the course is more at the level of J. C. Hull, *Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives*? Providing this kind of info will help me or someone else provide an answer at the appropriate level. Cheers. :) – cardinal Nov 14 '11 at 09:43
  • I think the answer to my bounty clarification request is that a simple calculation shows that the standard deviation of $dB^2$ is actually of the order of $dt^{3/2}$, while its expectation is of the order of $dt$. So the randomness can be ignored. – max Sep 26 '13 at 06:24

4 Answers4

25

$$dB_t^2 = dt, \qquad (dt)^2 = 0, \qquad dB_t \, dt = 0 \tag{1}$$ are basically rules to simplify the calculation of the quadratic (co)variation of Itô processes - and nothing more:

Let $(B_t)_{t \geq 0}$ a one-dimensional Brownian motion and $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ an Itô process, i.e.

$$dX_s = \sigma(s) \, dB_s + b(s) \, ds$$

Then, by Itô's formula,

$$f(X_t)-f(X_0) = \int_0^t f'(X_s) \, dX_s + \int_0^t f''(X_s) \, \sigma^2(s) \, ds. \tag{2}$$

The point is: If we simply apply the rules in $(1)$, we obtain

$$dX_s^2 = (\sigma(s) \, dB_s + b(s) \, ds)^2 = \sigma^2(s) \underbrace{dB_s^2}_{ds} + 2b(s) \sigma(s) \underbrace{ds B_s}_{0} + b^2(s) \, \underbrace{ds^2}_{0} \\ = \sigma^2(s) \, ds.$$

Therefore, we can rewrite $(2)$ in the following way:

$$f(X_t)-f(X_0) = \int_0^t f'(X_s) \, dX_s + \int_0^t f''(X_s) \, dX_s^2$$

i.e. Itô's formula justifies the calculation rules in $(1)$.


The (mathematical) reason why this works fine can be seen while proving Itô's formula. Actually, one can show that

$$\sum_{j=1}^n g(B_{t_{j-1}}) \cdot (B_{t_j}-B_{t_{j-1}})^2 \tag{3}$$

converges to

$$\int_0^t g(B_s) \, ds$$

as the mesh size $|\Pi|$ of the partition $\Pi=\{0=t_0<\ldots<t_n=t\}$ tends to $0$. This convergence is based on the fact that $B_t^2-t$ is a martingale. On the other hand, comparing $(3)$ with the definition of Riemann-Stieltjes integrals, it's natural to define

$$\int_0^t g(B_s) \, dB_s^2 := \lim_{|\Pi| \to 0}\sum_{j=1}^n g(B_{t_{j-1}}) \cdot (B_{t_j}-B_{t_{j-1}})^2.$$

Consequently,

$$\int_0^t g(B_s) \, dB_s^2 = \int_0^t g(B_s) \, ds.$$

A similar reasoning applies to Itô processes. Note that these integrals, i.e. integrals of the form

$$\int_0^t g(X_s) \, dX_s^2,$$

are exactly the integrals appearing in Itô's formula $(2)$ ($g \hat{=} f''$).

saz
  • 116,740
  • 12
  • 140
  • 230
  • 3
    In simple words, does it make sense to say that $$dB_t^2$$ is non-stochastic? If so, is there any intuitive reason for that, which can be explained without strict definitions? – max Sep 30 '13 at 00:37
  • 1
    @max First of all, we have to **define** $dB_t^2$ to give integrals of the form $$\int_0^s f(s) \, dB_s^2$$ a meaning. Actually, one can use semimartingale theory to do so, but that's a different matter. As I tried to explain, (the proof of) Itô's formula motivates to **define** $$\int_0^t f(X_s) \, dB_s^2 := \int_0^t f(X_s) \, ds$$ where $X$ is an Itô process - for this particular class of integrals! – saz Sep 30 '13 at 06:32
  • 2
    The only heuristical explanation I know is the following: By scaling property, $B_t \sim \sqrt{t} B_1$. Thus (heuristically!) $$dB_t^2 = B_1^2 \, dt$$ Since $\mathbb{E}B_1^2 = 1$, we have $dB_t^2 = dt$. This might give you some intuition why this works, but as @Did mentioned several times the formula is based on a much deeper result. – saz Sep 30 '13 at 06:35
3

For convenience we will informally regard Brownian motion as a random walk over infinitesimal time intervals of length $\Delta t$, whose increments $$ \Delta B_{t}:=B_{t+\Delta t}-B_{t} \simeq \mathcal{N}(0, \Delta t) $$ over the time interval $[t, t+\Delta t]$ will be approximated by the Bernoulli random variable $$ \Delta B_{t}=\pm \sqrt{\Delta t} $$ with equal probabilities $(1 / 2,1 / 2)$.

The choice of the square root in $(4.2)$ is in fact not fortuitous. Indeed, any choice of $\pm(\Delta t)^{\alpha}$ with a power $\alpha>1 / 2$ would lead to explosion of the process as $d t$ tends to zero, whereas a power $\alpha \in(0,1 / 2)$ would lead to a vanishing process.

Note that we have $$ \mathbb{E}\left[\Delta B_{t}\right]=\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\Delta t}-\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\Delta t}=0 $$ and $$ \operatorname{Var}\left[\Delta B_{t}\right]=\mathbb{E}\left[\left(\Delta B_{t}\right)^{2}\right]=\frac{1}{2} \Delta t+\frac{1}{2} \Delta t=\Delta t $$ According to this representation, the paths of Brownian motion are not differentiable, although they are continuous by Property 2, as we have $$ \frac{d B_{t}}{d t} \simeq \frac{\pm \sqrt{d t}}{d t}=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{d t}} \simeq \pm \infty $$ After splitting the interval $[0, T]$ into $N$ intervals


Notes from: https://personal.ntu.edu.sg/nprivault/MA5182/brownian-motion-stochastic-calculus.pdf

zeh
  • 125
  • 6
Red Stone
  • 31
  • 1
0

For independent random variables, the variance of the sum equals the sum of the variances. So $\mathbb{E}((\Delta B)^2)=\Delta t$, i.e. if you increment $t$ a little bit, then the variance of the value of $B$ before that increment plus the variance of the increment equals the variance of the value of $B$ after the increment.

Or you could say $$ \frac{\mathbb{E}((\Delta B)^2)}{\Delta t} = 1. $$ That much follows easily from the first things you hear about the Wiener process. I could then say "take limits", but that might be sarcastic, so instead I'll say that for a fully rigorous answer, I'd have to do somewhat more work.

Michael Hardy
  • 1
  • 31
  • 294
  • 591
  • Sorry but the nonrigorous shorthand $dB_t^2=dt$ refers to a much deeper result than the (true) fact that $B_{t+s}-B_t$ is centered with variance $s$, which your answer reduces to. As such, one may find said answer rather misleading. Or, since the question is badly formulated and the OP never answered @cardinal's fully justified demand for background, one can also consider all this rather moot... – Did Dec 11 '12 at 06:13
  • @Did : Your clarification about the "deeper result" is precisely what I was hoping to see in one of the answers... Could someone possibly provide such an answer at the most intuitive / least rigorous level that you feel is possible? Thx.. – max Sep 22 '13 at 09:01
  • 1
    @max I have trouble understanding the combo "bounty+comments" to revive this old question. Why not ask a carefully worded new question explaining unambiguously the points you want to see dealt with and addressing the concerns user cardinal voiced Nov 14 '11 at 9:43? By the way, the bounty mention that "The current answer(s) ... require revision given recent changes" is odd since the question underwent zero "recent changes". – Did Sep 22 '13 at 09:11
  • @Did : sorry I thought if I asked a new question, mods would close it as a duplicate. My questions on stackoverflow were closed a few times as duplicates, even when I tried to explain why (in my opinion) they weren't... As to the wording of the bounty, there were only a few options, and none of them fit the situation. I figured I could loosely interpret "recent changes" to mean "comments added recently" (by you). – max Sep 22 '13 at 09:14
  • @max I was not aware of the restricted choice of options one is given when offering a bounty, sorry about that. // Yeah, *dup or not dup, that is the question*... :-) In the case at hand, as I said, to reformulate carefully the question, adding the information cardinal asked for and the reference you put in the bounty, would make for a new question significantly different from (and better than) the present one. At least, **I** would be ready to argue it is... (Unrelated: "Recently" = 10 months ago?) – Did Sep 22 '13 at 09:20
  • @Did : probably too late to re-do this as a new question at this point - only would cause more confusion. Unless moderators agree and help. – max Sep 22 '13 at 09:45
-2

Obviously $dB_t^2 \neq dt$, since $dB_t \sim \mathcal{N} (0, dt)$ is a random variable, while $dt$ is deterministic.

As Michael Hardy said, they really meant to say $\mathbb{E} \left[ dB_t^2 \right] = dt$. To convince yourself, compute $$ \mathbb{E} \left[ dB_t^n \right] = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi dt}} \exp\left(-\frac{x^2}{2 dt}\right) x^n dx \, .$$

wsw
  • 336
  • 1
  • 10
  • Sorry but the nonrigorous shorthand $dB_t^2=dt$ refers to a much deeper result than the (true) fact that $B_{t+s}-B_t$ is centered with variance $s$, which your answer reduces to. As such, one may find said answer rather misleading. Or, since the question is badly formulated and the OP never answered @cardinal's fully justified demand for background, one can also consider all this rather moot... – Did Dec 11 '12 at 06:13
  • Certainly not. First, because neither $E(dB_t^4)$ nor $dt^2$ are well defined objects. Second, and even more importantly, because what the shorthand $dB_t^2=dt$ refers to is the whole class of Doob's semimartingale decompositions which Itô's formula provides (for example, to stay at the level of a toy example, the fact that $t\mapsto B_t^2-t$ is a martingale, which is not reducible to the fact that $E(B_t^2)=t$). – Did Dec 11 '12 at 06:44
  • I am aware of a fairly rigorous analysis that shows a term containing $dB_t^2$ in Ito's lemma, for example, converges to one that contains $dt$ almost surely, using the Borel-Cantelli lemma. See pages 4 to 6 in the lecture http://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/goodman/teaching/StochCalc2012/notes/Week6.pdf . – wsw Dec 11 '12 at 06:47
  • 2
    ...Where the author takes care to repeat regularly that the derivation is "informal". – Did Aug 13 '14 at 09:11