Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2018 / iii / Paper 201 (Advanced Probability)

For a discrete-time martingale $(M_n)$ and real $a<b$, let $U_N[a,b]$ be the upcrossing count: buy on the first observation at or below $a$, sell on the next observation at or above $b$, and repeat up to time $N$, counting only completed pairs. Writing $z^{-}=max(-z,0)$, the Doob upcrossing inequality isThis convention permits the first purchase at time zero. Equivalently, the right side is $\mathbb{E}(M_N-a{)}^{+}-\mathbb{E}(M_0-a)$, because the martingale has constant expected value.

For completeness, let $H_k\in \{0,1\}$ indicate whether the trading rule holds one unit during $(k-1,k]$. This is a predictable process, so the martingale transform $G_N={\sum }_{k=1}^N{H}_k(M_k-M_{k-1})$ has zero expected value. Every completed trade gains at least $b-a$, and an unfinished trade loses at most $(M_N-a{)}^{-}$. Thus $G_N\ge (b-a)U_N[a,b]-(M_N-a{)}^{-}$, giving the inequality.

The martingale convergence theorem says that if a discrete-time martingale $(M_n)$ satisfies $C={\sup }_n\mathbb{E}|M_n|<\infty$, then there is an integrable random variable $M_{\infty }$ such thatThe hypothesis does not by itself ensure convergence in L1.

For each pair of rational numbers $a<b$, the Doob upcrossing inequality gives $\mathbb{E}{U}_N[a,b]\le (C+|a|)/(b-a)$. The monotone convergence theorem therefore gives a finite expected value for $U_{\infty }[a,b]={\lim }_N{U}_N[a,b]$, so this upcrossing count is finite almost surely. There are only countably many such pairs, hence all their upcrossing counts are simultaneously finite outside one event of probability zero.

If ${\mathrm{liminf}}_n{M}_n<{\mathrm{limsup}}_n{M}_n$, the density of the rational numbers supplies $a<b$ strictly between them, forcing infinitely many upcrossings. Consequently $M_n$ has a limit in the extended real numbers almost surely. By the Fatou lemma,A limit of either $+\infty$ or $-\infty$ would make this lower limit infinite, so the limit is finite almost surely, and the same inequality proves its integrability.

Set $M_n={\sum }_{j=0}^n{X}_j$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_n=\sigma (X_0,\dots ,X_n)$. The independence and zero expected values give $\mathbb{E}[M_{n+1}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]=M_n$, so $(M_n)$ is a martingale. The variance additivity for independent random variables givesThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality implies ${\sup }_n\mathbb{E}|M_n|\le \sqrt{V}$. Applying the martingale convergence theorem from (b),In fact the L2 martingale convergence theorem also gives convergence in L2. Independently, for $n>m$ the same variance additivity for independent random variables yields $\mathbb{E}|M_n-M_m{|}^2={\sum }_{j=m+1}^n\mathbb{E}[X_j^2]\to 0$, confirming that the partial sums form a Cauchy sequence in $L^2$.

Let ${\xi }_1,{\xi }_2,\dots$ be independent and identically distributed random variables with the fair Bernoulli distribution, and putRelative to ${\mathcal{F}}_n=\sigma ({\xi }_1,\dots ,{\xi }_n)$, this fair-coin doubling martingale satisfies $\mathbb{E}[M_{n+1}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]=M_n$: while alive it doubles with probability $1/2$ and becomes zero otherwise. Its expected value is $\mathbb{E}{M}_n=2^n{2}^{-n}=1$.

The probability of an infinite run of ones is ${\lim }_n{2}^{-n}=0$, so $M_n$ is eventually zero almost surely. However,Thus the martingale lacks convergence in L1 to its limit from almost sure convergence. Nor can it have convergence in L1 to any other limit: convergence in L1 implies convergence in probability, whose limit is unique up to almost sure equality.

A sequence of integrable random variables $(X_n)$ has uniform integrability exactly whenThe uniformly integrable martingale convergence theorem states that a uniformly integrable discrete-time martingale $(M_n)$ has an integrable random variable $M_{\infty }$ withIndeed, uniform integrability implies ${\sup }_n\mathbb{E}|M_n|<\infty$, so the martingale convergence theorem gives almost sure convergence. The combination of uniform integrability and almost sure convergence gives convergence in L1. For $m\ge n$, the martingale identity $\mathbb{E}[M_m\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]=M_n$ passes to the limit by the L1 contraction of conditional expectation.

Conversely, uniform integrability of conditional expectations shows that a martingale of the form $M_n=\mathbb{E}[Y\mid {\mathcal{F}}_n]$ for one integrable random variable $Y$ is uniformly integrable.

The original PDF has $\mathbb{E}|X_T|<\infty$ and $\mathbb{E}[|X_n|1_{\{T>n\}}]\to 0$. The TeX transcription drops the expected value and absolute value in the first condition, and the absolute value in the second. The proof uses the PDF's conditions.

Because the stopping time $T$ is finite almost surely, $X_{n\wedge T}\to X_T$ almost surely. More strongly,The first term tends to zero by hypothesis; the second does so by the dominated convergence theorem. Thus there is convergence in L1.

Here is the needed L1 convergence implies uniform integrability argument. For any integrable random variables $Z,Y$ and $K>0$, splitting according to $|Y|>K/2$ givesTake $Z=X_{n\wedge T}$ and $Y=X_T$. For large $n$, the first term is uniformly small by convergence in L1, and the second is small for large $K$ by integrability. The finitely many remaining $n$ are handled individually by integrability. Hence the stopped process is uniformly integrable. This proves the stopped-martingale uniform integrability criterion; the martingale assumption is not needed for this particular implication.

Pointwise, an integer-valued nonnegative random variable has the representationwhen $T=k$, exactly the terms $n=0,\dots ,k-1$ equal one. Applying the Tonelli theorem, or the monotone convergence theorem to the finite sums of indicator random variables, gives the tail-sum formula for expectationBoth sides may be infinite; no integrability assumption is necessary.

Write $\Delta X_{n+1}=X_{n+1}-X_n$ and $Y={\sum }_{n\ge 0}|\Delta X_{n+1}|1_{\{T>n\}}$. Since $T$ is a stopping time, $\{T>n\}\in {\mathcal{F}}_n$. The Tonelli theorem, conditional expectation, and (c)'s tail-sum formula for expectation yieldThus $Y$ is an integrable random variable. Since $X_0=0$, telescoping gives $|X_T|\le Y$ and $|X_n|1_{\{T>n\}}\le Y{1}_{\{T>n\}}$. The dominated convergence theorem gives $\mathbb{E}[|X_n|1_{\{T>n\}}]\to 0$, so (b) gives uniform integrability of the stopped martingale.

The optional stopping theorem at the bounded stopping time $n\wedge T$ gives $\mathbb{E}{X}_{n\wedge T}=\mathbb{E}{X}_0=0$. Passing to the limit using the convergence in L1 proved in (b),One can also pass directly by the dominated convergence theorem, since $|X_{n\wedge T}|\le Y$.

The tail sigma-algebra isIts events depend only on arbitrarily late coordinates. The Kolmogorov zero-one law states that for a sequence of independent random variables, every tail event has probability zero or one:Identical probability distributions and integrability are not required for the Kolmogorov zero-one law.

Let ${\mathcal{G}}_n=\sigma (S_n,S_{n+1},\dots )$. Since $X_{n+j}=S_{n+j}-S_{n+j-1}$,Permuting $X_1,\dots ,X_n$ preserves their joint probability distribution and leaves every generator of ${\mathcal{G}}_n$ unchanged. Therefore, for each bounded ${\mathcal{G}}_n$-measurable $H$,This is the symmetry of exchangeable random variables. By the defining identity of conditional expectation, all $\mathbb{E}[X_j\mid {\mathcal{G}}_n]$ are equal almost surely. Summing these conditional expectations and using that $S_n$ is ${\mathcal{G}}_n$-measurable givesHence the conditional expectation of a summand given future partial sums isThe integrability of each $X_j$ justifies every conditional expectation above.

The sigma-algebras ${\mathcal{G}}_n=\sigma (S_n,S_{n+1},\dots )$ decrease with $n$, and (b) gives $S_n/n=\mathbb{E}[X_1\mid {\mathcal{G}}_n]$. The permitted reverse martingale convergence theorem therefore gives an integrable random variable $L$ such that $S_n/n\to L$ almost surely and with convergence in L1. In particular,It remains to prove that $L$ is constant. We must not assume that ${\bigcap }_n{\mathcal{G}}_n$ is the tail sigma-algebra of the $X_j$; instead use tail measurability of limits of sample averages directly. Define the random variable valued in the extended real numbers $L^{\ast }={\mathrm{limsup}}_n{S}_n/n$. For every fixed $N$,because $S_N/n\to 0$ pointwise. Thus $L^{\ast }$ is measurable with respect to $\sigma (X_{N+1},X_{N+2},\dots )$ for every $N$, and hence to the tail sigma-algebra. Also $L^{\ast }=L$ almost surely.

By the Kolmogorov zero-one law, each tail event $\{L^{\ast }\le q\}$, for a rational number $q$, has probability zero or one. Since $L^{\ast }$ is finite almost surely, its distribution function can only be that of a constant $c$: taking $c=\inf \{q\in \mathbb{Q}:\mathbb{P}(L^{\ast }\le q)=1\}$ and using the density of the rational numbers gives $L^{\ast }=c$ almost surely. Its expected value identifies $c=m$. This proves the strong law of large numbers:

Split the adjacent products into two subsequences:Within each subsequence the pairs use disjoint coordinates, so each subsequence consists of independent and identically distributed random variables. The two subsequences need not be independent of each other. By independence within a pair,Apply the strong law of large numbers from (c) separately to obtain $k^{-1}{\sum }_{j=1}^k{Y}_j\to m^2$ and $k^{-1}{\sum }_{j=1}^k{Z}_j\to m^2$ simultaneously almost surely. Sinceand both prefactors tend to $1/2$, the strong law for adjacent products gives

A standard one-dimensional Brownian motion is a real-valued stochastic process $(B_t{)}_{t\ge 0}$ satisfying $B_0=0$ almost surely, having continuous paths almost surely, and having independent increments withHere $N(0,t-s)$ is the normal distribution with zero expected value and variance $t-s$. Thus the increments are also stationary increments.

If Brownian motion is defined relative to a specified filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_t)$, additionally require that it is an adapted process and that $B_t-B_s$ is independent of ${\mathcal{F}}_s$. For its natural filtration, this follows from independent increments. These are the defining properties of standard Brownian motion.

For any finite list $t_1,\dots ,t_k\in [0,1]$, the random vector $(U_{t_1},\dots ,U_{t_k},B_1)$ has a multivariate normal distribution, since it is a linear image of a vector of Brownian motion coordinates. The Brownian covariance kernel and linearity of covariance giveThe independence of uncorrelated jointly normal variables implies that $(U_{t_1},\dots ,U_{t_k})$ is independent of $B_1$. Extending from finite-coordinate cylinder events by independence extended from generating pi-systems provesThus the Brownian bridge is independent of its endpoint. Its covariance kernel is $\mathrm{Cov}(U_s,U_t)=\min (s,t)-st$, confirming that $U$ is the standard Brownian bridge. This is the Brownian bridge independence from its endpoint property.

Put $D_t=B_t-B_t^{\prime }$. By independence of the two Brownian motions, $D_t/\sqrt{2}$ is a standard Brownian motion: its independent increments have the normal distribution with variance equal to elapsed time. The stopping time $\tau$ is the first time $D$ hits $-1$ or $3$.

To justify finiteness without presupposing the desired hitting probability, each unit-time increment of $D$ has the normal distribution $N(0,2)$. An increment of absolute value greater than $4$ forces exit from $[-1,3]$ if the path was inside at its start. These independent increments give $\mathbb{P}(\tau >n)\le (1-p{)}^n$, where $p=\mathbb{P}(|N(0,2)|>4)>0$. Hence $\tau <\infty$ almost surely.

The stopped martingale $D_{t\wedge \tau }$ lies in $[-1,3]$. The optional stopping theorem at $t\wedge \tau$ gives $\mathbb{E}{D}_{t\wedge \tau }=0$, and the bounded convergence theorem gives $\mathbb{E}{D}_{\tau }=0$. Writing $q=\mathbb{P}(D_{\tau }=-1)$, path continuity gives $0=-q+3(1-q)$. Therefore, as in Brownian exit from an interval,

Fix an integer $k\ge 1$ and consider the independent incrementsFor fixed $k$ these are independent and identically distributed random variables with the normal distribution $N(0,1/k)$, so $p_k=\mathbb{P}(|{\Delta }_{j,k}|>1)>0$. The second Borel-Cantelli lemma gives $|{\Delta }_{j,k}|>1$ for infinitely many $j$, almost surely. Intersecting these probability-one events over the countably many $k$ preserves probability one.

On any path in this intersection, uniform continuity on $[0,\infty )$ would give some $\delta >0$ such that $|B_t-B_s|<1$ whenever $|t-s|<\delta$. Choosing $k$ with $1/k<\delta$ contradicts the existence of an increment $|{\Delta }_{j,k}|>1$. Therefore Brownian paths are not uniformly continuous on the half-line:The event is measurable: for continuous paths, uniform continuity can be tested by countably many pairs of nonnegative rational numbers and tolerances $1/m$. Brownian motion has uniform continuity on every compact time interval, but almost surely fails it on the whole half-line.

For a stopping time $T$ of a Brownian filtration, define the reflected stochastic processThe Brownian reflection at a stopping time form of the Brownian reflection principle states that $\hat{B}$ is again standard Brownian motion. If $T=\infty$, leave the path unchanged; the second branch is used only when $T<t$.

For an almost surely finite $T$, the Strong Markov property says that $(B_{T+s}-B_T{)}_{s\ge 0}$ is a fresh Brownian motion independent of ${\mathcal{F}}_T$. Its negative has the same probability distribution, so reflecting the future preserves the full path probability distribution. Allowing $T=\infty$ follows by applying this argument to $T\wedge n$ and restricting to each fixed finite time interval.

For $a>0$, the Brownian reflection principle at the first-passage time of $a$ gives the Brownian running maximum identitywhere $\Phi$ is the distribution function of the standard normal distribution. Indeed, reflection pairs paths that have reached $a$ and end below $a$ with paths ending above $a$; $B_t$ has no atom at $a$.

As $t\to \infty$, this probability tends to one. The events $\{S_n\ge a\}$ increase with integer $n$, so with probability one the path reaches $a$ in finite time. Taking a countable intersection over positive integer $a$ givesHere $S_{\infty }={\sup }_{s\ge 0}{B}_s$. This also proves that every positive-level Brownian first-passage time is finite almost surely.

Let $T_y=\inf \{s\ge 0:B_s=y\}$. Reflect at this stopping time, using the Brownian reflection principle from (a). Path continuity gives $\{S_t\ge y\}=\{T_y\le t\}$, and on this event the reflected endpoint is ${\hat{B}}_t=2y-B_t$. ConsequentlySince $x\le y$, an endpoint ${\hat{B}}_t\ge 2y-x\ge y$ forces the reflected path to have hit $y$ by time $t$. Reflection preserves the first hit of $y$, so the condition $T_y\le t$ is redundant on the right. As $\hat{B}$ has the same probability distribution as $B$, the joint distribution of Brownian motion and its running maximum satisfiesThis argument includes $x=y$; at positive $t$ the boundary endpoint has zero probability under the normal distribution. At $t=0$ both sides vanish because $y>0$.

Taking $x=y=a$ in (c) and using that $B_t$ has no atom at $a$ givesThis is the distribution function of the Brownian first-passage time; (b) ensures that it is a proper probability distribution. Comparing these distribution functions gives the Brownian scaling identity $T_{ca}\stackrel{d}{=}{c}^2{T}_a$ for $c>0$.

For an integer $n\ge 1$, set $T_0=0$ and successively hit the levels $a,2a,\dots ,na$. The Strong Markov property at these finite stopping times and spatial translation imply thatare independent random variables, each with the probability distribution of $T_a$. Thus, for independent copies $T_a^{(j)}$,ThereforeThe paper's definition is the strictly stable distribution convention, with no centering term, a special case of a stable distribution.

The Lévy continuity theorem states that if characteristic functions ${\phi }_n$ of probability distributions ${\mu }_n$ converge pointwise on $\mathbb{R}$ to $\phi$, and $\phi$ is continuous at zero, then $\phi$ is the characteristic function of a unique probability distribution $\mu$ andHere the arrow denotes weak convergence of probability measures, equivalently convergence in distribution of associated random variables. Conversely, weak convergence of probability measures implies pointwise convergence of their characteristic functions to the characteristic function of the limit. The continuity-at-zero condition is essential to ensure that the pointwise limit is a characteristic function.

Write $A_n=n^{-1}{\sum }_{j=1}^n{X}_j$ and $\phi (t)=\mathbb{E}{e}^{it{X}_1}$. The given two-sided limit $|f(u)|/u\to 0$ implies $|f(u)|/|u|\to 0$, so $f(u)=o(|u|)$. For each fixed real $t$, independence and the characteristic function of a sum of independent variables giveSet $z_n=iat/n+f(t/n)$. For $t\ne 0$, $n{z}_n\to iat$ and $z_n=O(n^{-1})$. The local Taylor expansion of the complex logarithm at $1$ givesThus $\mathbb{E}{e}^{it{A}_n}\to e^{iat}$; at $t=0$ the identity is immediate. The limit is continuous at zero and is the characteristic function of the constant random variable $a$. The Lévy continuity theorem proves the weak law from a characteristic-function expansion:No integrability hypothesis has been used. The conclusion is also convergence in probability by (d)'s convergence in distribution to a constant implies convergence in probability. If the word “constant” were to allow complex $a$, the characteristic function symmetry $\phi (-t)=\overline{\phi (t)}$ forces $a=\overline{a}$, so it is necessarily real.

Suppose $X_n\to X$ with convergence in probability. For real $t$ and $\delta >0$, the elementary inequality $|e^{iu}-e^{iv}|\le \min (2,|u-v|)$ givesFirst let $n\to \infty$, then let $\delta \downarrow 0$. The characteristic functions converge pointwise to that of $X$, which is continuous at zero. The Lévy continuity theorem gives convergence in probability implies convergence in distribution.

For the converse, let $Z$ have the fair Bernoulli distribution, put $X=Z$, and set $X_n=1-Z$ for every $n$. All $X_n$ have the same probability distribution as $X$, so $X_n\stackrel{d}{\to }X$. But $|X_n-X|=1$ always, henceThere is no convergence in probability to $X$. In this example $X_n$ does have convergence in probability to $1-Z$: the counterexample concerns the converse with the specified limit $X$, as usual. If one interprets the question as denying convergence in probability to any limit, take $X_n=Z$ for even $n$ and $X_n=1-Z$ for odd $n$. Its probability distribution is still constant, while the two subsequences have distinct limits from almost sure convergence, ruling out any common limit in probability by uniqueness of a limit in probability.

Let $F_n$ be the distribution function of $X_n$. The limiting constant zero has distribution function $F(x)=0$ for $x<0$ and $F(x)=1$ for $x\ge 0$. For every $\epsilon >0$, both $-\epsilon$ and $\epsilon$ are continuity points of $F$. Thus convergence in distribution implies $F_n(-\epsilon )\to 0$ and $F_n(\epsilon )\to 1$. ThereforeThis provesThe same proof after subtracting a fixed real $c$ proves convergence in distribution to a constant implies convergence in probability. A deterministic limit fixes the coupling automatically; the counterexample in (c) exploits a nonconstant limit whose probability distribution alone does not fix that coupling.