Formalization of a Brownian motion and of stochastic integrals in Lean

12 Doob-Meyer Theorem

This chapter starts with a short review of the properties of the Doob decomposition of an adapted process indexed on a discrete set, and then follows [ which gives an elementary and short proof of the Doob-Meyer theorem.

12.1 Doob decomposition in discrete time

Definition 12.1
#

Let \(X : \mathbb {N} \to \Omega \to E\) be a process indexed by \(\mathbb {N}\), for \(E\) a Banach space. Let \((\mathcal{F}_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) be a filtration on \(\Omega \). The predictable part of \(X\) is the process \(A : \mathbb {N} \to \Omega \to E\) defined for \(n \ge 0\) by

\[ A_n = \sum _{k=0}^{n-1} \mathbb {E}[X_{k+1}-X_k \mid \mathcal{F}_k]. \]

In what follows, we fix a process \(X : \mathbb {N} \to \Omega \to E\) and a filtration \((\mathcal{F}_n)_{n \in \mathbb {N}}\), and denote by \(A\) the predictable part of \(X\).

Lemma 12.2
#

We have \(A_0 = 0\).

Proof
Lemma 12.3

For any integer \(n \ge 0\), \(A_{n+1} = A_n + \mathbb {E}[X_{n+1} - X_n \mid \mathcal{F}_n]\).

Proof

Let \(n \in \mathbb {N}\). Then

\begin{align*} A_{n+1} & = \sum _{k=0}^n \mathbb {E}[X_{k+1}-X_k \mid \mathcal{F}_k] \\ & = \sum _{k=0}^{n-1} \mathbb {E}[X_{k+1}-X_k \mid \mathcal{F}_k] + \mathbb {E}[X_{n+1}-X_n \mid \mathcal{F}_n] \\ & = A_n + \mathbb {E}[X_{n+1} - X_n \mid \mathcal{F}_n], \end{align*}

which concludes the proof.

Lemma 12.4

The predictable part \(A\) is adapted to the filtration \((\mathcal{F}_{n+1})_{n \in \mathbb {N}}\).

Proof
Definition 12.5
#

Let \(X : \mathbb {N} \to \Omega \to E\) be a process indexed by \(\mathbb {N}\), for \(E\) a Banach space. Let \((\mathcal{F}_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) be a filtration on \(\Omega \) and let \(A\) be the predictable part of \(X\) for that filtration. The martingale part of \(X\) is the process \(M : \mathbb {N} \to \Omega \to E\) defined by \(M_n = X_n - A_n\).

The predictable part of a process is predictable.

Proof

By Lemma 7.46, the process \(A\) is predictable if \(A_0\) is \(\mathcal{F}_0\)-measurable and for all integer \(n\), \(A_{n+1}\) is \(\mathcal{F}_n\)-measurable. As \(A_0 = 0\) from Lemma 12.2, it is \(\mathcal{F}_0\)-measurable. Lemma 12.4 allows to conclude the proof.

Lemma 12.7

Suppose that the filtration is sigma-finite. Then the martingale part of an adapted process \(X\) such that \(X_n\) is integrable for all \(n\) is a martingale.

Proof

The predictable part of a real-valued submartingale is an almost surely nondecreasing process.

Proof

Let \(X\) be a submartingale and let \(A\) be its predictable part. Then for all \(n \geq 0\), from Lemma 7.7 we have that almost surely

\begin{align*} A_{n+1} & = A_n + \mathbb {E}\left[ X_{n+1} - X_n | \mathcal{F}_n \right] \\ & \ge A_n \: . \end{align*}

The first equality comes from Lemma 12.3. As \(\mathbb {N}\) is countable, we deduce that almost surely, for all \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), \(A_{n+1} \ge A_n\). Thus, \((A_n)_{n \in \mathbb {N}}\) is almost surely nondecreasing.

12.2 Komlòs Lemma

Firstly we will need Komlos’ Lemma.

Lemma 12.9
#

Let \((f_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) be a sequence in a vector space \(E\) and \(\phi : E \to \mathbb {R}_+\) be a function such that \(\phi (f_n)\) is a bounded sequence. For \(\delta {\gt} 0\), let \(S_\delta = \{ (f, g) \mid \phi (f)/2 + \phi (g)/2 - \phi ((f+g)/2) \ge \delta \} \). Then there exist \(g_n\in convex(f_n,f_{n+1},\cdots )\) such that for all \(\delta {\gt} 0\), for \(N\) large enough and \(n, m \ge N\), \((g_n, g_m) \notin S_\delta \).

Proof

Let \(B\) be the bound of \((\phi (f_n))_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\). Then for all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) and \(g\in convex(f_n,f_{n+1},\cdots )\) we have \(\phi (g)\le B\) by convexity of \(\phi \). Let \(r_n = \inf (\phi (g) \mid g\in convex(f_n, f_{n+1},\ldots ))\). By construction \((r_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is nondecreasing. Let \(A = \sup _{n \ge 1} r_n\), which is finite (as \(A \le B\)) and for each \(n\) we may pick some \(g_n\in convex(f_n, f_{n+1},\ldots )\) such that \(\phi (g_n) \le A+1/n\) by \(\inf \) and \(\sup \) definitions.

Let \(\varepsilon \in (0, \delta /4)\). By properties of \(\sup \) there exists \(\bar{n}\) such that \(r_{\bar{n}} \ge A-\varepsilon \) and such that \(\frac{1}{\bar{n}} \le \varepsilon \). Let \(m \ge k \ge \bar{n}\). We have \((g_k+g_m)/2 \in convex(f_k,f_{k+1},\ldots )\) and it follows since \((r_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is nondecreasing that \(\phi ((g_k+g_m)/2) \ge A - \varepsilon \). Hence due to the ordering of \(m,k,\bar{n}\),

\begin{align*} \phi (g_k)/2 + \phi (g_m)/2 - \phi ((g_k+g_m)/2) & \le 2(A + \frac{1}{\bar{n}}) - 2(A - \varepsilon ) \\ & \le 4 \varepsilon \\ & {\lt} \delta \: . \end{align*}

Thus, for \(n, m \ge \bar{n}\), \((g_n, g_m) \notin S_\delta \).

Lemma 12.10
#

Let \(H\) be a Hilbert space and \((f_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) a bounded sequence in \(H\). Then there exist functions \(g_n\in convex(f_n,f_{n+1},\cdots )\) such that \((g_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) converges in \(H\).

Proof

Consider \(\phi : H \to \mathbb {R}_+\) defined by \(\phi (f) = \| f\| _2^2\), which is convex. Then Lemma 12.9 applied to \((f_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) and \(\phi \) gives us functions \(g_n\in convex(f_n,f_{n+1},\cdots )\) such that for every \(\delta {\gt}0\) there exists \(N\) such that for \(n,m\geq N\), \((g_n,g_m)\notin S_\delta \). Thus for every \(\delta {\gt}0\) there exists \(N\) such that for \(n,m\geq N\),

\begin{align*} \| g_n\| _2^2/2 + \| g_m\| _2^2/2 - \| (g_n+g_m)/2\| _2^2 & {\lt} \delta \: . \end{align*}

But the left-hand side is equal to \(\| g_n - g_m\| _2^2/4\) by the parallelogram identity, hence \((g_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is a Cauchy sequence in \(H\) and thus converges in \(H\) by completeness.

Lemma 12.11

Let \(X\) be a normed vector space (over \(\mathbb {R}\)). Let \((x_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) be a sequence in \(X\) converging to \(x\) w.r.t. the topology of \(X\). Let \((N_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) be a sequence in \(\mathbb {N}\) such that \(n\leq N_n\) for every \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) (maybe here we could have \(N_n\) increasing WLOG). Let \((a_{n,m})_{n\in \mathbb {N},m\in \left\lbrace n,\cdots ,N_n\right\rbrace }\) be a triangular array in \(\mathbb {R}\) such that \(0\leq a_{n,m}\leq 1\) and \(\sum _{m=n}^{N_n}a_{n,m}=1\). Then \((\sum _{m=n}^{N_n}a_{n,m}x_m)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) converges to \(x\) uniformly w.r.t. the triangular array.

Proof

Let \(\epsilon {\gt}0\). By convergence of \(x_n\) we have \(\exists \bar{n}\) such that \(\forall n\geq \bar{n}\) \(|x_n-x|\leq \epsilon \). By triangular inequality it follows that

\[ |\sum _{m=n}^{N_n}a_{n,m}x_m - x|\leq \sum _{m=n}^{N_n}a_{n,m}|x_m-x|\leq \epsilon . \]
Lemma 12.12

For \(i,n\in \mathbb {N}\) set \(f_{n}^{(i)}:=f_n \mathbb {1}_{(|f_n|\leq i)}\) such that \(f_{n}^{(i)}\in L^2\). There exists the sequence of convex weights \(\lambda _n^{n}, \ldots , \lambda _{N_n}^{n}\) such that the functions \( (\lambda _n^{n} f_n^{(i)} + \ldots +\lambda _{N_n}^{n} f_{N_n}^{(i)})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) converge in \(L^2\) for every \(i\in \mathbb {N}\) uniformly.

Proof

Firstly by lemma 12.10 over \((f_n^{(1)})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) there exist convex weights \(\prescript {1}{}{\lambda }^n_n,\cdots ,\prescript {1}{}{\lambda }^n_{N^1_n}\) such that \(g^1_n=\sum _{m=n}^{N^1_n}\prescript {1}{}{\lambda }^n_mf_m^{(1)}\) converges to some \(g^1\). Secondly apply the lemma to \((\tilde{g}^2_n=\sum _{m=n}^{N^1_n}\prescript {1}{}{\lambda }^n_mf^{(2)}_m)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), there exists convex weights \(\tilde{\lambda }^n_n,\cdots ,\tilde{\lambda }^n_{\tilde{N}_n}\) such that \(g^2_n=\sum _{m=n}^{\tilde{N}_n}\tilde{\lambda }^n_m\tilde{g}_m^{(2)}=\sum _{m=n}^{N^2_n}\prescript {2}{}{\lambda }^n_mf_m^{(2)}\) converges to some \(g^2\). Notice that \(\sum _{m=n}^{N^2_n}\prescript {2}{}{\lambda }^n_mf_m^{(1)}=\sum _{m=n}^{\tilde{N}_n}\tilde{\lambda }^n_m\tilde{g}_m^{(1)}\) and thus this sequence by lemma 12.11 converges still to \(g^1\). By iteration we may define \(\prescript {i}{}{\lambda }^n_n,\cdots ,\prescript {i}{}{\lambda }^n_{N^i_n}\) convex weights such that if used on \((f^j_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) they make the sequence convergent if \(1\leq j\leq i\). At this point consider \(\lambda ^n_m=\prescript {n}{}{\lambda }^n_m\). Since \(\forall m\geq i\) \(\sum _{j=n}^{N^m_n}\prescript {m}{}{\lambda }^n_j f^{(i)}_j\rightarrow g^i\) and even better \(\forall \epsilon {\gt}0\) \(\exists \bar{n}\), \(\forall n\geq \bar{n}\), \(\forall m\geq i\) \(|\sum _{j=n}^{N^m_n}\prescript {m}{}{\lambda }^n_j f^{(i)}_j - g^i|\leq \epsilon \) (this works by lemma 12.11 uniformity of convergence w.r.t. triangular array) this concludes.

Lemma 12.13 Komlòs Lemma

Let \(( f_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) be a uniformly integrable sequence of functions on a probability space \((\Omega , \mathcal{F} , P)\). Then there exist functions \(g_n \in convex( f_n, f_{n+1}, \cdots )\) such that \((g_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) converges in \(L^1 (\Omega )\).

Proof

For \(i,n\in \mathbb {N}\) set \(f_{n}^{(i)}:=f_n \mathbb {1}_{(|f_n|\leq i)}\) such that \(f_{n}^{(i)}\in L^2\). Using 12.12 there exist for every \(n\) convex weights \(\lambda _n^{n}, \ldots , \lambda _{N_n}^{n}\) such that the functions \( \lambda _n^{n} f_n^{(i)} + \ldots +\lambda _{N_n}^{n} f_{N_n}^{(i)}\) converge in \(L^2\) for every \(i\in \mathbb {N}\). By uniform integrability, \(\lim _{i\to \infty }\| f^{(i)}_n- f_n\| _1=0\), uniformly with respect to \(n\). Hence, once again, uniformly with respect to \(n\),

\[ \textstyle \lim _{i\to \infty }\| (\lambda _n^{n} f_n^{(i)} + \ldots +\lambda _{N_n}^{n} f_{N_n}^{(i)})-(\lambda _n^{n} f_n + \ldots +\lambda _{N_n}^{n} f_{N_n})\| _1= 0. \]

Thus \((\lambda _n^{n} f_n + \ldots +\lambda _{N_n}^{n} f_{N_n})_{n\geq 1}\) is a Cauchy sequence in \(L^1\).

Komlòs lemma for nonnegative random variables

Lemma 12.14
#

Let \((f_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) be a sequence of random variables with values in \([0, \infty ]\). Then there exist random variables \(g_n \in convex( f_n, f_{n+1}, \cdots )\) such that \((g_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) converges almost surely to a random variable \(g\).

Proof

Let \(\phi : (\Omega \to [0, \infty ]) \to [0, \infty ]\) be defined by \(\phi (X) = \mathbb {E}[e^{-X}]\). Then \(\phi \) is convex and \(\phi (f_n) \le 1\) for all \(n\). By Lemma 12.9, there exist \(g_n \in convex( f_n, f_{n+1}, \cdots )\) such that for all \(\delta {\gt}0\), for \(N\) large enough and \(n, m \ge N\),

\begin{align*} \mathbb {E}[e^{-g_n}]/2 + \mathbb {E}[e^{-g_m}]/2 - \mathbb {E}[e^{-(g_n + g_m)/2}] {\lt} \delta \: . \end{align*}

For \(\varepsilon {\gt} 0\), let \(B_\varepsilon = \{ (x, y) \in [0, \infty ]^2 \mid \vert x - y \vert \ge \varepsilon \text{ and } \min \{ x, y\} \le 1/\varepsilon \} \). Then for all \(x, y\),

\begin{align*} \left\vert e^{-x} - e^{-y} \right\vert & \le \varepsilon + 2 e^{-1/\varepsilon } + 2 \mathbb {1}_{B_\varepsilon }(x, y) \: . \end{align*}

Hence for any pair of random variables \((X, Y)\) with values in \([0, \infty ]\),

\begin{align*} \mathbb {E}\left[\left\vert e^{-X} - e^{-Y} \right\vert \right] & \le \varepsilon + 2 e^{-1/\varepsilon } + 2 P((X, Y) \in B_\varepsilon ) \: . \end{align*}

On the other hand, for \((x, y) \in B_\varepsilon \), there exists \(\delta _\varepsilon {\gt} 0\) such that

\begin{align*} e^{-x}/2 + e^{-y}/2 - e^{-(x + y)/2} \ge \delta _\varepsilon \: . \end{align*}

Thus,

\begin{align*} P((X, Y) \in B_\varepsilon ) & \le \frac{1}{\delta _\varepsilon } \mathbb {E}\left[ e^{-X}/2 + e^{-Y}/2 - e^{-(X + Y)/2} \right] \: . \end{align*}

For \(n, m \ge N\) large enough so that we can apply the first inequality of this proof with \(\delta = \varepsilon \delta _\varepsilon \), we deduce that

\begin{align*} \mathbb {E}\left[\left\vert e^{-g_n} - e^{-g_m} \right\vert \right] & \le \varepsilon + 2 e^{-1/\varepsilon } + \frac{2}{\delta _\varepsilon } \mathbb {E}\left[ e^{-g_n}/2 + e^{-g_m}/2 - e^{-(g_n + g_m)/2} \right] \\ & \le \varepsilon + 2 e^{-1/\varepsilon } + 2 \varepsilon \: . \end{align*}

As \(\varepsilon \) is arbitrary, we deduce that \((e^{-g_n})_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is a Cauchy sequence in \(L^1\) and thus converges in \(L^1\) to some random variable \(h\). Therefore, it has a subsequence \((e^{-g_{n_k}})_{k\in \mathbb {N}}\) converging almost surely to \(h\). Finally, the subsequence of \(g_n\) converges almost surely to \(g = -\log (h)\).

12.3 Doob-Meyer decomposition

For uniqueness of Doob-Meyer Decomposition we will need theorem 9.29.

We now start the construction for the existence part. Let \(T{\gt}0\) and recall that \(\mathcal{D}_n^T=\left\lbrace \frac{k}{2^n}T \mid k=0,\cdots 2^n\right\rbrace \).

TODO: everywhere below, \(S\) is a cadlag submartingale of class D on \([0,T]\)?

Definition 12.15 A

Define \(A_0=0\) and for \(t\in \mathcal{D}_n^T\) positive,

\begin{align*} A^n_t & =A^n_{t-T2^{-n}} + \mathbb {E}\left[ S_t-S_{t-T2^{-n}}|\mathcal{F}_{t-T2^{-n}}\right] \: . \end{align*}
Definition 12.16 M

For \(t\in \mathcal{D}_n^T\), define \(M^n_t = S_t-A^n_t\) .

\((A^n_t)_{t\in \mathcal{D}_n^T}\) is a predictable process.

Proof

Trivial

\((M^n_t)_{t\in \mathcal{D}_n^T}\) is a martingale.

Proof

Trivial

\((A^n_t)_{t\in \mathcal{D}_n^T}\) is an increasing process.

Proof

\(S\) is a submartingale:

\begin{align*} A^n_{t+T2^{-n}} - A^n_t & = \mathbb {E}\left[ S_{t+T2^{-n}}-S_t|\mathcal{F}_t\right] \ge 0 \: . \end{align*}
Definition 12.20 Hitting time for \(A\)

Let \(c{\gt}0\). Define the hitting time on \(\mathcal{D}^T_n\)

\begin{align*} \tau _n(c) & = \inf \{ t \in \mathcal{D}^T_n \mid A^n_{t + 2^{-n}T} {\gt} c\} \wedge T \: . \end{align*}

\(\tau _n(c)\) is a stopping time.

Proof

Since \(A^n_{t}\) is predictable, \(A^n_{t + 2^{-n}T}\) is adapted. The hitting time of an adapted process is a stopping time (we use the discrete time version of that result here, not the full Début theorem).

Lemma 12.22

\(A^n_{\tau _n(c)} \le c\) and if \(\tau _n(c) {\lt} T\) then \(A^n_{\tau _n(c)+T2^{-n}} {\gt} c\).

Proof
Lemma 12.23

Let \(a, b {\gt} 0\) with \(a \le b\). If \(\tau _n(b) {\lt} T\) then \(A^n_{\tau _n(b)+T2^{-n}} - A^n_{\tau _n(a)} \ge b - a\).

Proof

The sequence \((A^n_T)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly integrable (bounded in \(L^1\) norm).

Proof

WLOG \(S_T=0\) and \(S_t\leq 0\) (else consider \(S_t-\mathbb {E}\left[S_T\vert \mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\)).

We have that \(0=S_T=M^n_T+A^n_T\). Thus

\begin{equation} \label{equation_DM_e1} M^n_T=-A^n_T. \end{equation}
1

Since \(M^n\) is a martingale it follows by optional sampling that for any \((\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in \mathcal{D}_n}\) stopping time \(\tau \)

\begin{equation} \label{equation_DM_e2} S_\tau =M^n_\tau +A^n_\tau = \mathbb {E}[M^n_T\vert \mathcal{F}_\tau ]+A^n_\tau \stackrel{\eqref{equation_DM_e1}}{=} -\mathbb {E}[A^n_T\vert \mathcal{F}_\tau ]+A^n_\tau . \end{equation}
2

Let \(c{\gt}0\). By Lemma 12.21, \(\tau _n(c)\) (Definition 12.20) is a stopping time. By construction \(A^n_{\tau _n(c)}\leq c\). It follows that

\begin{equation} \label{equation_DM_e3} S_{\tau _n(c)}\stackrel{\eqref{equation_DM_e2}}{=}-\mathbb {E}[A^n_T\vert \mathcal{F}_{\tau _n(c)}]+A^n_{\tau _n(c)}\leq -\mathbb {E}[A^n_T\vert \mathcal{F}_{\tau _n(c)}]+c. \end{equation}
3

Since \((A^n_T{\gt}c)=(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)\) we have

\begin{align} \nonumber \int _{(A^n_T{\gt}c)}A^n_TdP& =\int _{(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)}A^n_TdP\stackrel{\mathrm{Tower}}{=}\int _{(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)}\mathbb {E}[A^n_T\vert \mathcal{F}_{\tau _n(c)}]dP\\ & \stackrel{\eqref{equation_DM_e3}}{\leq } cP(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)-\int _{\tau _n(c){\lt}T}S_{\tau _n(c)}dP.\label{equation_DM_e4} \end{align}

Now we notice that \((\tau _n(c){\lt}T)\subseteq (\tau _n(c/2){\lt}T)\), thus

\begin{align} \nonumber \int _{\tau _n(c/2){\lt}T}-S_{\tau _n(c/2)}dP & \stackrel{\eqref{equation_DM_e2}}{=}\int _{(\tau _n(c/2)){\lt}T}\mathbb {E}[A^n_T\vert \mathcal{F}_{\tau _n(c/2)}]-A^n_{\tau _n(c/2)}dP \nonumber \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{Tower}}{=}\int _{(\tau _n(c/2){\lt}T)}A^n_t-A^n_{\tau _n(c/2)}dP\nonumber \\ & \geq \int _{(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)}A^n_t-A^n_{\tau _n(c/2)}dP\nonumber \\ \intertext {(over the event $(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)$ $A^n_T\geq c$ and $A^n_{\tau _n(c/2)}\leq c/2$, thus $A^n_T-A^n_{\tau _n(c/2)}\geq c/2$)} & \geq \frac{c}{2}P(\tau _n(c){\lt}T).\label{equation_DM_e5} \end{align}

It follows

\[ \int _{(A^n_T{\gt}c)}A^n_TdP\stackrel{\eqref{equation_DM_e4}}{\leq }cP(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)-\int _{\tau _n(c){\lt}T}S_{\tau _n(c)}dP\stackrel{\eqref{equation_DM_e5}}{\leq }-2\int _{\tau _n(c/2){\lt}T}S_{\tau _n(c/2)}dP-\int _{\tau _n(c){\lt}T}S_{\tau _n(c)}dP. \]

We may notice that

\[ P(\tau _n(c){\lt}T)=P(A^n_T{\gt}c)\stackrel{Markov}{\leq }\frac{\mathbb {E}[A^n_T]}{c}=-\frac{\mathbb {E}[M^n_T]}{c}\stackrel{mg}{=}-\frac{\mathbb {E}[S_0]}{c} \]

which goes to \(0\) uniformly in \(n\) as \(c\) goes to infinity. This implies that \(\int _{(A^n_T{\gt}c)}A^n_TdP\) is uniformly bounded in \(n\) due to the fact that \(S\) is of class \(D\). And so also the \(L^1\) norm is uniformly bounded.

Lemma 12.25

The sequence \((M^n_T)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly integrable (bounded in \(L^1\) norm).

Proof

\(M^n_T=S_T-A^n_T\), also \(S\) is of class \(D\) and \(A^n_T\) is uniformly integrable.

Lemma 12.26

If \(f_n, f : [0, 1] \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) are increasing functions such that \(f\) is right continuous and \(\lim _n f_n(t) = f (t)\) for \(t \in \mathcal{D}^T\), then \(\limsup _n f_n(t) \leq f (t)\) for all \(t \in [0, T]\).

Proof

Let \(t\in [0,T]\) and \(s\in \mathcal{D}^T\) such that \(t{\lt}s\). We have

\[ \limsup _n f_n(t)\leq \limsup _n f_n(s)=f(s). \]

Since the above is true uniformly in \(s\) in particular since \(f\) is right-continuous

\[ \limsup _n f_n(t)\leq \lim _{\stackrel{s\rightarrow t^+}{s\in \mathcal{D}^T}}f(s)=f(t). \]
Lemma 12.27

If \(f_n, f : [0, 1] \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) are increasing functions such that \(f\) is right continuous and \(\lim _n f_n(t) = f (t)\) for \(t \in \mathcal{D^T}\), if \(f\) is continuous in \(t\in [0,T]\) then \(\lim _n f_n(t) = f (t)\).

Proof

By lemma 12.26 it is enough to show that \(\liminf _n f_n(t)\geq f(t)\). Let \(s\in \mathcal{D}^T\) such that \(t{\gt}s\). We have

\[ \liminf _n f_n(t)\geq \liminf _n f_n(s)=f(s). \]

Since the above is true uniformly in \(s\) in particular since \(f\) is continuous in \(t\)

\[ \liminf _n f_n(t)\geq \lim _{\stackrel{s\rightarrow t^-}{s\in \mathcal{D}^T}}f(s)=f(t). \]

Define \(M^n_t\) on \([0,T]\) using \(M^n_t=\mathbb {E}[M^n_T\vert \mathcal{F}_t]\).

Lemma 12.28

\(M^n_t\) admits a modification which is a cadlag martingale.

Proof

By theorem 11.10

From this point onwards \(M^n_t\) will be redefined as the modification from lemma 12.28.

Lemma 12.29

There are convex weights \(\lambda ^n_n,\cdots ,\lambda ^n_{N_n}\) such that \(\mathcal{M}^n_T\stackrel{L^1}{\rightarrow }M\), where \(\mathcal{M}^n:=\lambda ^n_nM^n+\cdots +\lambda ^n_{N_n}M^{N_n}.\)

Proof

By lemma 12.25 \((M^n_T)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^1\), thus by lemma 12.13 there are convex weights \(\lambda ^n_n,\cdots ,\lambda ^n_{N_n}\) such that \(\mathcal{M}^n_T\stackrel{L^1}{\rightarrow }M\), where \(\mathcal{M}^n:=\lambda ^n_nM^n+\cdots +\lambda ^n_{N_n}M^{N_n}.\)

Lemma 12.30

\(\mathcal{M}^n\) is cadlag.

Proof

By construction and 12.28

Let

\begin{equation} \label{equation_DM_e6} M_t = \mathbb {E}[M\vert \mathcal{F}_t].\end{equation}
5

Lemma 12.31

\(M_t\) admits a martingale cadlag modification.

Proof

By construction \(M_t\) is a martingale and thus by theorem 11.10 admits a cadlag martingale modification (\(M_t\) is a version of \(\mathbb {E}[M\vert \mathcal{F}_t]\) and thus passing to modification does not pose any problem).

From this point onwards \(M^n_t\) will be redefined as the modification from lemma 12.31. Define

  • Extend now \(A^n\) as a left continuous process \(A^n_s:=\sum _{t\in \mathcal{D}^T_n}A^n_t\mathbb {1}_{]t-2^{-n},t]}(s)\)

  • \(\mathcal{A}^n=\lambda ^n_nA^n+\cdots +\lambda ^n_{N_n}A^{N_n}\)

  • \(A_t=S_t-M_t\)

Lemma 12.32

For every \(t\in [0,T]\) we have \(\mathcal{M}^n_t\stackrel{L^1}{\rightarrow }M_t\).

Proof

We may notice that by Jensen’s inequality, the tower lemma and lemma 12.29

\begin{gather} \nonumber \mathbb {E}[|\mathcal{M}^n_t-M_t|]=\mathbb {E}[|\mathbb {E}[\mathcal{M}^n_T-M\vert \mathcal{F}_t]|]\leq \mathbb {E}[|\mathcal{M}^n_T-M|]\rightarrow 0,\\ \Rightarrow \mathcal{M}^n_t\stackrel{L^1}{\rightarrow } M_t,\quad \forall t\in [0,T].\label{equation_DM_e7} \end{gather}
Lemma 12.33

There exists a set \(E\subseteq \Omega \), \(P(E)=0\) and a subsequence \(k_n\) such that \(\lim _n\mathcal{A}^{k_n}_t(\omega )=A_t(\omega )\) for every \(t\in \mathcal{D}^T,\omega \in \Omega \setminus E\).

Proof

By Lemma 12.32

\[ \mathcal{A}^n_t=S_t-\mathcal{M}^n_t\stackrel{L^1}{\rightarrow }S_t-M_t=A_t,\quad \forall t\in \mathcal{D}^T. \]

\(\mathcal{D}^T\) is countable we can arrange the elements as \((t_n)_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\). Given \(t_0\in \mathcal{D}^T\) there exists a subsequence \(k^{0}_n\) for which \(\mathcal{A}^{k^{0}_n}_{t_0}\) converges to \(A_{t_0}\) over the set \(\Omega \setminus E_{0}\) where \(P(E_{0})=0\). Suppose we have a sequence \(k^m_n\) for which \(\mathcal{A}^{k^j_n}_{t_j}\) converges to \(A_{t_j}\) over the set \(\Omega \setminus E_{m}\) where \(P(E_{m})=0\) for each \(j=0,\cdots ,m\). From this subsequence we may extract a new subsequence \(k^{m+1}_n\) for which \(\mathcal{A}^{k^{m+1}_n}_{t_{m+1}}\) converges to \(A_{t_{m+1}}\) over the set \(\Omega \setminus E_{m+1}\) where \(P(E_{m+1})=0\). By construction over this subsequence the convergence for \(t_0,\cdots ,t_m\) still applies. With a diagonal argument we obtain the final result with \(E=\bigcup _n E_n\).

Lemma 12.34

\((A_t)_{t\in [0,T]}\) is an increasing process.

Proof

Since \(\mathcal{A}^n_t\) is increasing on \(\mathcal{D}^T\) by lemma 12.33 also \(A\) is almost surely increasing on \(\mathcal{D}^T\). Since \(S,M\) are cadlag also \(A\) is cadlag (thus right-continuous). It follows that \(A\) must be increasing on \([0,T]\).

Lemma 12.35

Let \(\tau \) be an \((\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in [0,T]}\) stopping time. We have \(\lim _n\mathbb {E}[A^n_\tau ]=\mathbb {E}[A_\tau ]\).

Proof

Let \(\sigma _n:=\inf \left(t\in \mathcal{D}^T_n\vert t{\gt}\tau \right)\). By construction of \(A^n\) we have \(A^n_\tau =A^n_{\sigma _n}\). Also \(\sigma _n\searrow \tau \). Since \(S\) is of class \(D\) and cadlag we have

\begin{align*} \mathbb {E}[A^n_\tau ]& =\mathbb {E}[A^n_{\sigma _n}]=\mathbb {E}[S_{\sigma _n}]-\mathbb {E}[M^n_{\sigma _n}]=\mathbb {E}[S_{\sigma _n}]-\mathbb {E}[M^n_0]=\\ & =\mathbb {E}[S_{\sigma _n}]-\mathbb {E}[S_0]\rightarrow \mathbb {E}[S_\tau ]-\mathbb {E}[M_0]=\mathbb {E}[S_\tau ]-\mathbb {E}[M_\tau ]=\mathbb {E}[A_\tau ]. \end{align*}
Lemma 12.36

Let \(\tau \) be an \((\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in [0,T]}\) stopping time. We have \(\limsup _n \mathcal{A}_\tau ^n = A_\tau \).

Proof

Firstly we notice that \(\liminf _n \mathbb {E}[A_\tau ^n] \leq \limsup _n \mathbb {E} [\mathcal{A}_\tau ^n ] \leq \mathbb {E}[\limsup _n \mathcal{A}_\tau ^n ] \leq \mathbb {E}[ A_\tau ]\), where the first inequality is justified by the definition of limsup and liminf and the fact that

\[ \sup _{k\geq n}\mathbb {E}[\mathcal{A}^k_\tau ]\geq \sum _{m=k}^{N_k}\lambda ^k_m\mathbb {E}[A^m_\tau ]\geq \sum _{m=k}^{N_k}\lambda ^k_m\inf _{j\geq n}\mathbb {E}[A^j_\tau ]=\inf _{k\geq n}\mathbb {E}[A^k_\tau ] \]

the third inequality by 12.26. Let’s prove the second inequality: observe that

\[ \mathcal{A}^n_\tau = A_1+\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -A_1\leq A_1+(\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -A_1)_+, \]

thus it follows that \(\mathcal{A}^n_\tau - (\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -A_1)_+\leq A_1\); since \(A_1\) is an integrable guardian the inverse Fatou Lemma may be applied to show together with limsup properties that

\begin{align*} \limsup _n\mathbb {E}[\mathcal{A}^n_\tau ]+0 & = \limsup _n\mathbb {E}[\mathcal{A}^n_\tau ]+\liminf _n-\mathbb {E}[(\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -A_1)_+] \leq \limsup _n\mathbb {E}[\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -(\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -A_1)_+]\leq \\ & \leq \mathbb {E}[\limsup _n\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -(\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -A_1)_+]\leq \mathbb {E}[\limsup _n\mathcal{A}^n_\tau ]-\mathbb {E}[\liminf _n(\mathcal{A}^n_\tau -A_1)_+]\leq \mathbb {E}[\limsup _n\mathcal{A}^n_\tau ], \end{align*}

where the first equality is justified by the fact that \(\mathcal{A}^n_\tau \leq \mathcal{A}^n_1\rightarrow A_1\) almost surely. Due to lemma 12.35 and 12.26 the first sequence of inequalities is a sequence of equalities, thus we know that \(A_\tau - \limsup _n \mathcal{A}_\tau ^n \) is an a.s. nonnegative function with null expected value, and thus it must be almost everywhere null.

Theorem 12.37

Let \(S = (S_t )_{0\leq t\leq T}\) be a cadlag submartingale of class \(D\). Then, \(S\) can be written in a unique way in the form \(S = M + A\) where \(M\) is a cadlag martingale and \(A\) is a predictable increasing process starting at \(0\).

Proof

By construction \(M\) is a cadlag martingale and \(A_0=0\) and by lemma 12.34 \(A\) is increasing. It suffices to show that \(A\) is predictable. \(A^n,\mathcal{A}^n\) are left continuous and adapted, and thus they are predictable (measurable wrt the predictable sigma algebra (the one generated by left-cont adapted processes)). It is enough to show that \(\omega -a.e.\), \(\forall t\in [0,T]\), \(\limsup _n\mathcal{A}^n_t(\omega )=A_t(\omega )\).

By lemma 12.27 that is true for any continuity point of \(A\). Since \(A\) is increasing it can only have a finite amount of jumps larger than \(1/k\) for any \(k\in \mathbb {N}\). Consider now \(\tau _{q,k}\) the family of stopping times equal to the \(q\)-th time that the process \(A_t\) has a jump higher than \(1/k\). This is a countable family. Given a time \(t\) and a trajectory \(\omega \) there are only two possibilities: either \(A\) is continuous or not at time \(t\) along \(\omega \). If \(A\) is continuous at time \(t\) we have \(\limsup _n\mathcal{A}^n_t(\omega )=A_t(\omega )\), if it jumps there exists \(q(\omega ),k(\omega )\) such that \(t=\tau _{q(\omega ),k(\omega )}(\omega )\). Due to lemma 12.36 we know that \(\limsup _n A^n_{\tau _{q,k}} = A_{\tau _{q,k}}\) for each \(q,k\) almost surely. Thus, since it is an intersection of a countable amount of almost sure events \(\forall \omega \in \Omega '\) with \(P(\Omega ')=1\), for each \(q,k\) \(\limsup _n A^n_{\tau _{q,k}}(\omega ) = A_{\tau _{q,k}}(\omega )\) (\(\omega \) does not depend upon \(q,k\)). Consequently, \(\forall \omega \in \Omega '\) we have \(\limsup _n\mathcal{A}^n_t(\omega )=\limsup _n\mathcal{A}^n_{\tau _{q(\omega ),k(\omega )}}(\omega )=A_{\tau _{q(\omega ),k(\omega )}}(\omega )=A_t(\omega )\)

12.4 Local version of the Doob-Meyer decomposition

An adapted process \(X\) is a cadlag local submartingale iff \(X = M + A\) where \(M\) is a cadlag local martingale and \(A\) is a predictable, cadlag, locally integrable and increasing process starting at \(0\). The processes \(M\) and \(A\) are uniquely determined by \(X\) a.s.

Proof