How Can You Prove a Process is Markov?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vale
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Process
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on how to mathematically prove that a given process, specifically a mean reverting Brownian bridge and a mean reverting proportional volatility process, is Markovian. The inquiry involves understanding the independence of transition probabilities from past realizations and how to derive these from the process dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks help in proving that their process is Markovian, emphasizing the need for mathematical proof and the role of transition probabilities.
  • Another participant questions whether the proof should be empirical or mathematical, indicating a potential difference in approach.
  • A participant suggests that the independence of the Wiener process (W(t)) from the past could be leveraged to show that the process P(t) is also independent of past values.
  • There is a clarification regarding the alternating intervals of the two equations, raising the question of whether they hold simultaneously.
  • A mathematical formulation is provided to illustrate how to express P(t+1) in terms of P(t) and other variables, along with premises regarding expectations and independence of increments of the Wiener process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the method of proof or the implications of the alternating intervals in the equations. Multiple approaches and interpretations are presented, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex mathematical dynamics and assumptions about independence that may not be fully resolved. The dependence on specific definitions and the nature of the bootstrap procedure are also noted but not clarified.

vale
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
This is my first time here, so... Hi everybody!

I've very little time to figure out the following problem ... and I am wandering if some of you can give me any help or just suggest me any good reading material...

The question is how you can prove a process [tex]P_t[/tex], given the dynamics, is Markov.
In short my process is on alternate intervals, a mean reverting brownian bridge [tex]dP_t = \frac{\alpha}{G-t}(Q-P_t)dt + \sigma dW_t[/tex], and a mean reverting proportional volatility process : [tex]dP_t = K(\theta -P_t)dt + \nu dW_t[/tex]. The length of the intervals and their occurrence is determined by an exogenous bootstrap procedure, which I believe, doesn't give any problems, being a resampling procedure with replacement, it doesn't generate any dependence with the past history...

How should I procede on your opinion? Any hints ?

Thank you very much in advance,
Vale
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could this be of any help? When you say prove, do you mean empirically or mathematically?
 
Thank you for the reference and the reply!

Actually I meant a mathematical proof...
I think I should show somehow the transition probabilities are independent from the past realizations... but I don't Know how to retrieve them from the dynamic... :rolleyes:

Many thanks...
Vale
 
I guess I'd argue W(t) is independent of the past. Then equate Eq. (1) to Eq. (2) and solve for P(t). It'll be a function of t, W(t) and some constants. Since W is independent of the past, so's P(t).

{P.S. Oh, whoops! You said "on alternating intervals." Does that mean the two Eq's do not hold simultaneously?}

{P.P.S. In that case:

P(t+1) = P(t) + dP(t) = P(t) + a(dt) P(t) + b dW(t) = [a(dt)+1] P(t) + b dW(t).

Et+1[P(t+1)|P(t),P(t-1)...,P(0)] = (a+1) Et+1[P(t)|P(t),P(t-1)...,P(0)] + b Et+1[dW(t)|P(t),P(t-1)...,P(0)] = (a+1) P(t) + b Et+1[dW(t)]. QED

The last step is based on two premises: (i) E[X|X,Y,Z,...] = X, and (ii) dW(t) is independent of past history so E[dW(t)|P(t),P(t-1)...,P(0)] = E[dW(t)].}
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K