Let $T > 0$. Let $(\Omega, \mathscr F, \{\mathscr F_t\}_{t \in [0,T]}, \mathbb P)$ be a filtered probability space where $\mathscr F_t = \sigma(W_u, u \in [0,t])$ where $W_t$ is standard Brownian motion.

Let the stochastic process $X=(X_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ solve the SDE

$$dX_t = \beta(t,X_t)dt + \sigma(t, X_t)dW_t$$

with initial condition $X_t = x$ where $x \in \mathbb R$

Prove that

$$E[g(X_T)|\mathscr F_t] = E[g(X_T)|X_t]$$

where $g$ is a Borel-measurable function and $E[|g(X_T)||X_t=x] < \infty$

What I tried: $\forall t \in [0,T]$.

$$X_t = X_0 + \int_0^t \beta du + \int_0^t \sigma dW_t$$

Choose $t=T$ to get:

$$X_T = X_0 + \int_0^T \beta du + \int_0^T \sigma dW_t$$

$$\to X_T = X_t + \int_t^T \beta du + \int_t^T \sigma dW_t$$

Define another Borel-measurable function $h(x,y)$ s.t.

$$h(X_t, W_t) := g(X_t + \int_t^T \beta du + \int_t^T \sigma dW_t)$$

$$\to g(X_T) = h(X_t, W_t)$$

$\because X_t \in m\mathscr F_t$ and $W_t$ is independent of $\mathscr F_t$, we have

$$E[h(X_t, W_t)|\mathscr F_t] = E[h(x, W_t)]|_{x=X_t} \tag{*}$$

Also, $\because X_t \in m\mathscr F_t$, $W_t$ is independent of $X_t$.


$\because X_t \in mX_t$ and $W_t$ is independent of $X_t$, we have

$$E[h(X_t, W_t)|X_t] = E[h(x, W_t)]|_{x=X_t} \tag{**}$$

Combining $(*)$ and $(**)$ gives us what we want. QED

Is that right? Any other assumptions to make such as continuity, integrability or boundedness?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The proof is pretty technical. But, if you really want to know, please consult Section 6 in Chapter 5 of the book Stochastic Integration and Differential Equations, the second edition, by P.E. Protter. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Dec 14 '15 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Gordon You mean mine is wrong? :( $\endgroup$ – BCLC Dec 31 '15 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand why you can have $ g(X_T) = h(X_t, W_t)$, and why $W_t$ is independent of $\mathscr F_t$. The book above is a good source for this problem. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Dec 31 '15 at 15:48

This is a corollary of Feynman-Kac theorem. For self-containedness, I re-produce the proof as follows.

Assume that there exists a $C^{1,2}$-function $F=F(t,x)$ defined on $[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}$ that satisfies the PDE on the interior $$ F_{t}+\beta F_{x}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}F_{xx}=0, $$ and the boundary condition: $F(T,x)=g(x)$. Consider the process $\left(F(t,X_{t})\right)_{t}$. By Ito's lemma, \begin{eqnarray*} & & dF(t,X_{t})\\ & = & F_{t}dt+F_{x}dX_{t}+\frac{1}{2}F_{xx}dX_{t}dX_{t}\\ & = & \left\{ F_{t}+\beta F_{x}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}F_{xx}\right\} dt+\sigma F_{x}dW_{t}\\ & = & \sigma F_{x}dW_{t}. \end{eqnarray*} (In the above, $\beta$, $\sigma$, and all partial derivatives of $F$ are evaluated at $(t,X_{t})$ (i.e., $\beta$ denotes $\beta(t,X_{t})$, etc...)) By assuming enough boundedness about the process $\left(\sigma(t,X_{t})F_{x}(t,X_{t})\right)_{t}$, $\left(F(t,X_{t})\right)_t$ is a martingale (rather than just a local martingale). Therefore, \begin{eqnarray*} F(t,X_{t}) & = & E\left[F(T,X_{T})\mid\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\\ & = & E\left[g(X_{T})\mid\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\mbox{ a.s.} \end{eqnarray*} Observe that the left hand side is $\sigma(X_{t})$-measurable, so does the right hand side, the result follows. For clarity, I work out the details as follows: Clearly $\sigma(X_{t})\subseteq\mathcal{F}_{t}$. Therefore, by tower property of conditional expectation, we have \begin{eqnarray*} & & E\left[g(X_{T})\mid X_{t}\right]\\ & = & E\left[E\left[g(X_{T})\mid\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]\mid X_{t}\right]\\ & = & E\left[F(t,X_{t})\mid X_{t}\right]\\ & = & F(t,X_{t})\\ & = & E\left[g(X_{T})\mid\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]. \end{eqnarray*}

Remarks: I do not have enough knowledge about PDE, so I am not sure that the function $F$ defined in above really exists.

  • $\begingroup$ When are you using the Feyman-Kac theorem @Danny Pak-Keung Chan? The final steps for proving the equality are based on measurability arguments, but once you have proved $F(t,X_t)=E[g(X_T)|\mathcal{F}_t]$, couldn't you simply invoke Feyman-Kac theorem to state that $F(t,X_t)=E[g(X_T)|X_t]$ given all the conditions are fulfilled? Or are you explicitly avoiding Feyman-Kac to ensure self-containdness of the proof? $\endgroup$ – Daneel Olivaw Jun 16 '17 at 9:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, I reproduced the proof of Feynman-Kac Theorem. However, for self-containedness, I included everything. Please bear in mind that my proof is still not completely rigorous (notice the wording "assume", which I don't know how to justify). $\endgroup$ – Danny Pak-Keung Chan Jun 16 '17 at 13:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.