Past exam of the probability, measure and martingales course of the University of Oxford / 2023 / 3

Write $N=a+b+c$ for the conserved total number of tokens. The main case has positive integer initial holdings. If an initial holding is zero, take $\tau =0$; the formulas below still hold when $N>0$. If $N=0$, the stochastic process is constant and $\mathbb{E}[\tau ]=0$.

A discrete-time stopping time for a filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_n)$ is a random variable $\tau$ taking values in $\{0,1,\dots \}\cup \{\infty \}$ such that $\{\tau \le n\}\in {\mathcal{F}}_n$ for every $n$. It means that whether stopping has occurred by time $n$ can be determined from the information available then.

For the first elimination time,Each event in this finite union belongs to ${\mathcal{F}}_j\subseteq {\mathcal{F}}_n$, by the definition of the natural filtration. Therefore $\tau$ is a stopping time. This verification does not require first knowing whether $\tau$ is finite almost surely.

Put $P_n=X_n{Y}_n{Z}_n$. Before $\tau$, all three players are active. Each unordered pair is selected with probability $1/3$, and each direction of transfer then has conditional probability $1/2$. Given the current holdings $(x,y,z)$, a transfer within the first pair has mean productFor transfers within the other two pairs the analogous values are $xyz-y$ and $xyz-x$. Averaging over pairs givesAt and after elimination the product is zero, since an eliminated player never re-enters. In particular the stopped process has incrementThe indicator function is ${\mathcal{F}}_n$-measurable, and the expression in parentheses has zero conditional expectation on its support. The stopped process is adapted and integrable: at fixed $n$, its absolute value is bounded by $N^3+nN/3$. HenceThis is the product martingale for three-player token exchange.

After $\tau$, the token product remains zero, whereas the deterministic term $nN/3$ continues to increase. Combining this with the pre-elimination calculation in part (ii),The stochastic process is adapted and integrable at each fixed time, and the displayed conditional expectation is nonnegative. Thus $(M_n)$ is a submartingale.

For $N>0$ it is neither a martingale nor a supermartingale. If $a,b,c>0$, there is positive probability that the first player transfers a token to the second in each of the next $a$ rounds. Until the last such round all three remain active, so this event has probability $6^{-a}>0$ and entails $\tau \le a$. At time $n=a$ the displayed conditional expectation is therefore strictly positive on an event of positive probability, ruling out both the zero drift required of a martingale and the nonpositive drift required of a supermartingale. If an initial holding is zero, $\tau =0$ and the same conclusion follows immediately. The degenerate case $N=0$ gives a constant martingale.

The bounded-time optional sampling theorem says that for an integrable discrete-time martingale $(U_n)$ and a bounded stopping time $S$, $\mathbb{E}[U_S]=\mathbb{E}[U_0]$. It requires no assumption about an eventual unbounded stopping time.

Apply this theorem with $S=n\wedge \tau$, or simply take the expectation of the stopped martingale in part (ii). For $N>0$ we obtainSince $P_{n\wedge \tau }\ge 0$,The monotone convergence theorem now yields $\mathbb{E}[\tau ]\le 3abc/N<\infty$. In particular $\tau <\infty$ almost surely, which has been established without assuming that optional stopping is valid at $\tau$.

For each sample path with finite $\tau$, $P_{n\wedge \tau }$ eventually equals $P_{\tau }=0$. Also $0\le P_{n\wedge \tau }\le N^3$. The dominated convergence theorem gives $\mathbb{E}[P_{n\wedge \tau }]\to 0$. Taking the limit of a sequence in the earlier identity therefore provesFor example, initial holdings $(1,1,1)$ give expectation one, as the first transfer must eliminate its giver. This computes the first elimination time, rather than the later time when one player owns all tokens.

Assume $X$ is square-integrable. Since $X$ and $Y$ have the same probability distribution, $Y$ is also square-integrable and $\mathbb{E}[Y^2]=\mathbb{E}[X^2]$. The product $XY$ is integrable by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

We use the defining test-function identity for conditional expectation: for bounded $\mathcal{G}$-measurable $H$, $\mathbb{E}[XH]=\mathbb{E}[YH]$. Take $H=Y{1}_{\{|Y|\le m\}}$ and let $m\to \infty$. The dominated convergence theorem, with bounds $|XY|$ and $Y^2$, givesThis is the extension of the conditional expectation pull-out identity to this square-integrable multiplier. ConsequentlyA nonnegative random variable with zero expectation is zero almost surely. HenceGeometrically, this is the equality case in the L2 space orthogonal projection interpretation of conditional expectation.

The function ${\varphi }_a(t)=t\wedge a$ is a concave function, and $X\wedge a$ is integrable since $|X\wedge a|\le |X|+a$. The concave form of the conditional Jensen inequality givesThe random variables $X$ and $Y$ have the same probability distribution, so $\mathbb{E}[X\wedge a]=\mathbb{E}[Y\wedge a]$. Using the law of total expectation, the nonnegative difference between the right and left sides of the inequality has zero expectation. It must vanish almost surely. ThereforeThe equality comes from the distributional assumption as well as the conditional Jensen inequality.

We first establish the lower truncation identity as well. The pair $(-X,-Y)$ has the same hypotheses as $(X,Y)$, because conditional expectation is linear and negation preserves equality of probability distributions. Apply part (ii) to this pair and multiply by $-1$ to getFor every real $t$,Using this identity, part (ii), the lower truncation identity, and linearity of conditional expectation givesIn particular the argument does not assume that a function obtained by scalar clipping is a convex function or a concave function.

Write $C_a(t)=(t\wedge a)\vee (-a)$. The bounded random variables $C_a(X)$ and $C_a(Y)$ have the same probability distribution, and the displayed identity identifies the latter as the conditional expectation of the former. They are square-integrable, so part (i) gives $C_a(X)=C_a(Y)$ almost surely. Take $a=1,2,\dots$ and discard the countable union of exceptional null sets. At every remaining outcome, let $a\to \infty$ to obtainThus conditional expectation preserving a distribution forces equality even when only integrability is assumed.

Let $\mathcal{G}=T^{-1}(\mathcal{F})=\{T^{-1}(A):A\in \mathcal{F}\}$. Inverse images commute with complements and countable unions, so this is a sub-sigma-algebra of $\mathcal{F}$. The random variable $X\circ T$ is $\mathcal{G}$-measurable.

The assumption $\mathbb{P}\circ T^{-1}=\mathbb{P}$ says that $T$ is a measure-preserving transformation. Consequently $X\circ T$ has the same probability distribution as $X$ and is integrable. It also implies $\mathbb{E}[W\circ T]=\mathbb{E}[W]$ for every integrable random variable $W$, first for indicator functions, then for simple functions, and then by positive and negative approximation.

To identify a conditional expectation, take any $A\in \mathcal{F}$. The assumed identity with the bounded random variable $Z=1_A$ givesEvery member of $\mathcal{G}$ has the displayed form $T^{-1}(A)$, so this verifies all defining conditional expectation identities. ThereforeApply part (iii), since this conditional expectation has the same probability distribution as $X$. We concludeThis is invariance from integral duality for a measure-preserving transformation; neither invertibility of $T$ nor a second moment of $X$ is required.