Help with SDE - Geometric brownian motion exercise

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem related to stochastic differential equations (SDEs) and geometric Brownian motion, with participants seeking to clarify concepts and approaches to solve the problem. The scope includes theoretical aspects of stochastic calculus, application of Ito's lemma, and distribution derivation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Ito's lemma serves as a counterpart to the chain rule in stochastic calculus, while others clarify that it specifically applies to Wiener processes.
  • There is a discussion about the correct formulation of the distribution of Brownian motion increments, with a correction made regarding the notation used for the normal distribution.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about deriving the distribution for a variable Pρ without solving the SDE or the Fokker-Planck equation, questioning the straightforwardness implied in the problem statement.
  • Another participant mentions that while Ito's lemma is often presented in a simplified form, a more general version exists that applies to semimartingales, which includes additional terms.
  • There is a reference to a standard solution for the geometric Brownian motion, but it is noted that this does not encompass all possible approaches.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of understanding the limitations of Ito's lemma and the implications of applying it without a solid grasp of the underlying concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application and limitations of Ito's lemma, as well as the methods for deriving distributions related to the problem. No consensus is reached on the best approach to solve the problem presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of the application of Ito's lemma, the need for explicit distributions, and the complexity of deriving results without solving the SDE or Fokker-Planck equation.

omega_squared
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

It's been a while since high school, and now I'm faced with a problem I need to solve in a few days (attached). Would someone please help me through that? I would really appreciate support.
 

Attachments

  • sde1ex.png
    sde1ex.png
    31.5 KB · Views: 560
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey omega_squared and welcome to the forums.

We can't give you the complete answers here at PF for the simple reason that the OP doesn't learn if this wasn't the case.

I can give you a few hints though:

For the 4th problem Jensens inequality is way of relating convexity in a statistical sense. The result of this convexity relationship is what you see in terms of E[f(t)] >= f(E[t]) which is used in many financial situations including insurance, and unsurprisingly is something you are working on.

Ito's lemma could be considered as more or less a 'substitution' where the brownian motion is modeled using a standard convention (i.e. B(t+h) - B(t) ~ N(B(t),h) if i recall correctly). If this is the case with your Weiner process then you can use the substitution.

The expectation is ok once you have some kind of explicit distribution (number 3).

The SDE you are quoting looks like a stochastic process with a drift parameter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process#Related_processes

If you have any more questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
 
chiro said:
Ito's lemma could be considered as more or less a 'substitution' where the brownian motion is modeled using a standard convention (i.e. B(t+h) - B(t) ~ N(B(t),h) if i recall correctly). If this is the case with your Weiner process then you can use the substitution.

Not really sure what you mean by this, but Ito's lemma is the stochastic calculus counterpart of the chain rule. Also B(t+h) - B(t) ~ N(B(t),h) doesn't really make sense. Think you meant N(0,h). There is no question about how the Weiner process is modeled though. Weiner process and Brownian motion are the same exact thing and increments over non overlapping time intervals being independent gaussian variables with variance given by the interval length is part of the definition.
 
omega_squared said:
Hi guys,

It's been a while since high school, and now I'm faced with a problem I need to solve in a few days (attached). Would someone please help me through that? I would really appreciate support.

In your class has the distribution for the P already been derived, and now its a question of using this to get the distribution of Pρ? If not I must confess that I don't see a way to derive the distribution for Pρ without solving the SDE or the Fokker-Planck equation for P, and that doesn't seem consistent with the question saying it can be done in a straightforward manner.
 
kai_sikorski said:
Not really sure what you mean by this, but Ito's lemma is the stochastic calculus counterpart of the chain rule. Also B(t+h) - B(t) ~ N(B(t),h) doesn't really make sense. Think you meant N(0,h). There is no question about how the Weiner process is modeled though. Weiner process and Brownian motion are the same exact thing and increments over non overlapping time intervals being independent gaussian variables with variance given by the interval length is part of the definition.

Yeah you're right in terms of the delta. I should have wrote B(t+h) ~ N(B(t),h) which means that B(t+h) - B(t) ~ N(0,h).

You have to remember that Ito's lemma is specific for Weiner processes and not for general distributions: you can't just use things like that for general distributions.

If the Brownian or motion or associated processes were not based on normal distributions, then you would other specific results.
 
chiro said:
You have to remember that Ito's lemma is specific for Weiner processes and not for general distributions: you can't just use things like that for general distributions.

Well Ito's lemma is often written out in it's simplest form which only applies to the Weiner process, but there is a more general formula for any X that is a semimartigale. The formula will include a quadratic covariation term [X,X]. For the Weiner process d[W,W]=dt.
 
kai_sikorski said:
Well Ito's lemma is often written out in it's simplest form which only applies to the Weiner process, but there is a more general formula for any X that is a semimartigale. The formula will include a quadratic covariation term [X,X]. For the Weiner process d[W,W]=dt.

Thankyou for that information: I wasn't aware that a general result existed: I'm doing a financial calculus course starting in a week so I'll have to check it out.

I do think however the OP realizes the limitations of the Ito lemma because it would not be a good thing for them to apply this knowledge without really understanding it.
 
only the standard solution is given by
X(t) = x0 * exp((a-1/2*σ)t + σW(t)).. nothing else :/

kai_sikorski said:
In your class has the distribution for the P already been derived, and now its a question of using this to get the distribution of Pρ? If not I must confess that I don't see a way to derive the distribution for Pρ without solving the SDE or the Fokker-Planck equation for P, and that doesn't seem consistent with the question saying it can be done in a straightforward manner.
 
Okay if you have that, then basically you need to apply this a bunch of time. First to W(t) to get the probability law for P, then to P to get the probability law for Pρ.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K