Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:29:11.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The martingale comparison method for Markov processes

Part of: Markov processes Distribution theory - Probability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2021

Benedikt Köpfer  and
Ludger Rüschendorf
Benedikt Köpfer*
Affiliation:
University of Freiburg
Ludger Rüschendorf*
Affiliation:
University of Freiburg
*
*Postal address: Department of Mathematical Stochastics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
*Postal address: Department of Mathematical Stochastics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparison results for Markov processes with respect to function-class-induced (integral) stochastic orders have a long history. The most general results so far for this problem have been obtained based on the theory of evolution systems on Banach spaces. In this paper we transfer the martingale comparison method, known for the comparison of semimartingales to Markovian semimartingales, to general Markov processes. The basic step of this martingale approach is the derivation of the supermartingale property of the linking process, giving a link between the processes to be compared. This property is achieved using the characterization of Markov processes by the associated martingale problem in an essential way. As a result, the martingale comparison method gives a comparison result for Markov processes under a general alternative but related set of regularity conditions compared to the evolution system approach.

Keywords

Ordering of Markov processesmartingale comparison methodevolution systems

MSC classification

Primary: 60E15: Inequalities; stochastic orderings
Secondary: 60J25: Continuous-time Markov processes on general state spaces
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 164 - 176
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Applied Probability Trust

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Böttcher, B. (2014). Feller evolution systems: generators and approximation. Stoch. Dynamics 14, 1350025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Casteren, J. A. (2011). Markov Processes, Feller Semigroups and Evolution Equations. World Scientific.Google Scholar
Çinlar, E., Jacod, J., Protter, P. and Sharpe, M. J. (1980). Semimartingales and Markov processes. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitsth. 54, 161–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. T., Fleischmann, K. and Greven, A. (1996). Comparison of interacting diffusions and an application to their ergodic theory. Prob. Theory Relat. Fields 105, 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criens, D. (2017). Monotone and convex stochastic orders for processes with independent increments. Available at arXiv:1606.04993.Google Scholar
Criens, D. (2019). Couplings for processes with independent increments. Statist. Prob. Lett. 146, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daduna, H. and Szekli, R. (2006). Dependence ordering for Markov processes on partially ordered spaces. J. Appl. Prob. 43, 793–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethier, S. N. and Kurtz, T. G. (2005). Markov Processes, Characterization and Convergence. John Wiley.Google Scholar
Gulisashvili, A. and van Casteren, J. A. (2006). Non-Autonomous Kato Classes and Feynman–Kac Propagators. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gushchin, A. A. and Mordecki, E. (2002). Bounds on option prices for semimartingale market models. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 273, 73–113.Google Scholar
Hewitt, E. and Stromberg, K. (1965). Real and Abstract Analysis. Springer.Google Scholar
Jacod, J. and Shiryaev, A. N. (2003). Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köpfer, B. (2019). Comparison of stochastic processes by Markov projection and functional Itô calculus. PhD thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Krasin, V. Y. and Melnikov, A. V. (2009). On comparison theorem and its application to finance. In Optimality and Risk: Modern Trends in Mathematical Finance, eds F. Delbaen et al., pp. 171–181. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, W. A. (1987). Stochastic ordering for Markov processes on partially ordered spaces. Math. Operat. Res. 12, 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüschendorf, L. (2008). On a comparison result for Markov processes. J. Appl. Prob. 45, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüschendorf, L. and Wolf, V. (2011). Comparison of Markov processes via infinitesimal generators. Statist. Decisions 28, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüschendorf, L., Schnurr, A. and Wolf, V. (2016). Comparison of time-inhomogeneous Markov processes. Adv. Appl. Prob. 48, 1015–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar