4

In Ito's calculus one often comes $dW^2=dt$. How does this come about? What is it's relation to the Milstein method?

Richi Wa
  • 13,670
  • 5
  • 38
  • 88
Borun Chowdhury
  • 422
  • 3
  • 10

2 Answers2

4

In general $dX^2$ is an ad-hoc or heuristic form of $d\langle X, X\rangle_t$, where $\langle X, X\rangle_t$ is the quadratic variation, which is defined by \begin{align*} \langle X, X\rangle_t = \lim_{\pi\rightarrow 0} \sum_{i=1}^n (X_{t_i}-X_{t_{i-1}})^2. \end{align*} Here, $0=t_0 < \cdots < t_n = t$, and $\pi = \max\{ t_i-t_{i-1}, i=1,\ldots, n\}$.

For a Brownian motion $\{W_t, t \ge 0\}$, it can be shown that $\langle W, W\rangle_t = t$. Therefore \begin{align*} dW^2 = d\langle W, W\rangle_t = dt. \end{align*}

Gordon
  • 21,114
  • 1
  • 35
  • 80
  • How would you should $\langle W, W \rangle_t=t$? My first guess would be to treat each term in the summation as an independent $\chi^2$ distribution and then show that in the limit that $dt \to 0$ the standard deviation squeezes to 0 proportional to $dt$ for the biggest term in the summation. If so then this is the method I write in my answer. Is there an alternate way to show this? – Borun Chowdhury May 24 '16 at 15:46
  • @BorunChowdhury: Check Section 3.4.2, in particular Theorem 3.4.3, of the book https://www.amazon.ca/Stochastic-Calculus-Finance-II-Continuous-Time/dp/0387401016. – Gordon May 24 '16 at 16:04
  • 2
    @Borun Chowdhury. In your answer you are not computing the same quantity. Above is quadratic variation of a stochastic process over a finite horizon $[0,t]$. You sort of compute qv over a single time step only. You could apply your reasoning + CLT to derive a similar result but it will presumably amount to assuming a uniform partition of $[0,t]$ while the true result holds for any kind of partition as long as the limit is taken according to what is mentioned in Gordon's answer. – Quantuple May 24 '16 at 16:58
  • @Quantuple I checked theorem 3.4.3 in the book Gordon mentioned and it is indeed doing what I am doing. In fact I think my proof is a bit shorter because I use the fact that each increment is normally distributed and hence its square is a chi-squared distribution and therefore I directly know the mean and variance. – Borun Chowdhury May 25 '16 at 08:51
  • @BorunChowdhury My point was that you prove that $d\langle W,W \rangle_t = dt$ (for which simply noticing the chi-square distribution will do the trick) but not that $\langle W, W \rangle_t = t$ (for which you need to make sure that when adding each individual chi-square increments over $[0,t]$ and taking the limit, you fall back what on what you need. For a general partition of $[0,t]$ the increments, although independent, won't be identically distributed, hence you cannot use CLT). Anyway, a proof can be found here pp 156-157: http://efinance.org.cn/cn/FEshuo/stochastic.pdf – Quantuple May 25 '16 at 09:15
  • @Quantuple I don't need the CLT for what I am doing. I am saying that the proof requires the max of all the increments $t_{i+1}-t_i$ go to zero in the limit. In that case each of them goes to zero. Thus the proof in the book seems to be constructed by ensuring each increment has $\Delta W^2 \to \Delta t$.

    Incidentally one does not need identical distributions for the CLT. One does not even need independent although the lack of independence slows down the convergence.

    – Borun Chowdhury May 25 '16 at 10:08
  • @BorunChowdhury Although you do not need the CLT (I was just stating this since many books rely on this proof, and I meant the most common form of the CLT which assumes iid random variables, there are indeed variants), the proof does not require "the max of all increments to go to zero in the limit", but rather consists in noticing that the variance of the sum of the individual increments is proportional to $\max(t_{i+1}-t_i)$, hence does tend towards 0 when taking the limit. – Quantuple May 25 '16 at 10:17
  • @BorunChowdhury: Please check formula (3.4.10) in Shreve's book. – Gordon May 25 '16 at 12:37
  • 1
    Yes Gordon I do see your point now. I think Shreve is saying that interpreting $dW^2= dt$ outside an integral doesn't make sense as the distribution of $dW^2/dt$ does not depend on the size of $dt$. The convergence can only be understood with the summation/integration and this is written informally as $dW^2= dt$. Very nice. Thanks! – Borun Chowdhury May 25 '16 at 13:17
2

I don't think just knowing $dW_t\,dW_t=dt$ is enough.We assume $$d{{X}_{t}}=\mu (t,{{X}_{t}})dt+\sigma (t,{{X}_{t}})d{{W}_{t}}\,\,\,\,\,(1)$$ The idea behind the Milstein scheme is that the accuracy of the discretization can be increased by expanding the coefficients$\mu =\mu (t,{{X}_{t}})$ and $\sigma =\sigma (t,{{X}_{t}})$ via Ito’s lemma. This is sensible since the coefficients are also functions of $X_t$. Indeed, we can apply Ito’s Lemma to the functions $\mu_t$ and $\sigma_t$ as we would for any differentiable function of $X_t$. By Ito’s lemma, then, the coefficients follow the SDEs \begin{align} & d\mu =({{\mu }_{t}}+\mu {{\mu }_{x}}+\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }^{2}}{{\mu }_{xx}})dt+{{\mu }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{t}} \\ & d\sigma =({{\sigma }_{t}}+\mu {{\sigma }_{x}}+\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }^{2}}{{\sigma }_{xx}})dt+{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{t}} \\ \end{align} then \begin{align} & \mu (s,{{X}_{s}})=\mu (t,{{X}_{t}})+\int_{t}^{s}{({{\mu }_{u}}+\mu {{\mu }_{x}}+\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }^{2}}{{\mu }_{xx}})du}+\int_{t}^{s}{{{\mu }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{u}}} \\ & \sigma (s,{{X}_{s}})=\sigma (t,{{X}_{t}})+\int_{t}^{s}{({{\sigma }_{u}}+\mu {{\sigma }_{x}}+\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }^{2}}{{\sigma }_{xx}})du}+\int_{t}^{s}{{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{u}}} \\ \end{align} Substitute for $\mu_t$ and $\sigma_t$ inside the integrals of Equation (1), we have \begin{align} {{X}_{t+\Delta t}}={{X}_{t}}+\int_{t}^{t+\Delta t}{[\mu (t,{{X}_{t}})+\int_{t}^{s}{({{\mu }_{u}}+\mu {{\mu }_{x}}+\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }^{2}}{{\mu }_{xx}})du}+\int_{t}^{s}{{{\mu }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{u}}}]}\,ds \\ +\int_{t}^{t+\Delta t}{[\sigma (t,{{X}_{t}})+\int_{t}^{s}{({{\sigma }_{u}}+\mu {{\sigma }_{x}}+\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }^{2}}{{\sigma }_{xx}})du}+\int_{t}^{s}{{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{u}}}]\,d{{W}_{s}}} \\ \end{align} The differentials higher than order one are $dsdu=\mathcal O(dt^2)$ and $dsdW_u=\mathcal O(dt^{\frac{3}{2}})$ are ignored. The term involving $dW_u dW_s$ is retained since it is $\mathcal O(dt)$, of order one. This implies that $${{X}_{t+\Delta t}}={{X}_{t}}+\mu (t,{{X}_{t}})\Delta t+\sigma (t,{{X}_{t}})({{W}_{t+\Delta t}}-{{W}_{t}})+\int_{t}^{t+\Delta t}{\int_{t}^{s}{{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{u}}}}d{{W}_{s}}\,\,(2)$$ Apply Euler discretization to the last term in (2) to obtain \begin{align} & \int_{t}^{t+\Delta t}{\int_{t}^{s}{{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma d{{W}_{u}}}}d{{W}_{s}}\approx {{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma \int_{t}^{t+\Delta t}{\int_{t}^{s}{d{{W}_{u}}}}d{{W}_{s}}={{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma \int_{t}^{t+\Delta t}{({{W}_{s}}-{{W}_{t}})}d{{W}_{s}} \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad ={{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma \int_{t}^{t+\Delta t}{{{W}_{s}}\,}d{{W}_{s}}-{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma ({{W}_{t+\Delta t}}{{W}_{t}}-{{W}_{t}}^{2}) \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad =\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma (W_{t+\Delta t}^{2}-W_{t}^{2}-\Delta t)-{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma ({{W}_{t+\Delta t}}{{W}_{t}}-{{W}_{t}}^{2}) \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad =\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma [{{({{W}_{t+\Delta t}}-{{W}_{t}})}^{2}}-\Delta t]\,\,\,(3)\\ \end{align} we know ${{W}_{t+\Delta t}}-{{W}_{t}}\overset{d}{\mathop{=}}\,\sqrt{\Delta t}Z$, by substitute (3) in (2) we have $${{\widehat{X}}_{t+\Delta t}}={{\widehat{X}}_{t}}+\mu \,\Delta t+\sigma \sqrt{\Delta t}Z+\frac{1}{2}{{\sigma }_{x}}\sigma \Delta t\,({{Z}^{2}}-1)$$ as a result $$S_{t+\Delta t}=S_t+a(t,S_t)\Delta t+b(t,S_t)\sqrt{\Delta t}\,Z+\frac{1}{2}b(t,S_t)\frac{\partial b(t,S_t)}{\partial S}\Delta t(Z^2-1)$$

  • I am not saying knowing $dW^2= dt$ is enough. I apologise if I gave that impression. I am saying that the additional term in the Milstein method involves a $(\Delta W^2- \Delta t)$ and while the mean of this term is zero so it may look odd on first sight, its variance is $2 \Delta t$. Anyway, I like your detailed answer. My comment about the Milstein method was about a confusion I had related what I say in this comment. – Borun Chowdhury May 25 '16 at 09:02