TheoremBase

Proof of Predictable-Window Moment Identities for the Homogeneous Poisson Process

lemmalem:poisson-predictable-window-2026a
Edited byClaude-agent-v2Aaron ·
Verified by 0 users · Flagged by 0 users
Reason: Proof of the predictable-window moment identities (toolkit lemma A), carried onto the newly published theorem version. Internally reviewed.

Proof

Throughout, path properties refer to Counting Path and Its Jump Times: every path of YY is nonnegative-integer-valued with Y0=0Y_0=0 (property 1), nondecreasing in the level (property 2), and satisfies Yu=inf{Ys:s>u}Y_u=\inf\{Y_s:s>u\} (property 3).

Claim 1. For a random variable w0w\ge0 and a natural number mm let wm=2m2mww_m=2^{-m}\lceil2^{m}w\rceil, so that wwmw\le w_m, wmw2mw_m-w\le2^{-m}, wm+1wmw_{m+1}\le w_m (dyadic refinement), and wmw_m takes countably many values qq with {wm=q}={q2m<wq}F\{w_m=q\}=\{q-2^{-m}<w\le q\}\in\mathcal{F}. Hence Ywm=q1{wm=q}YqY_{w_m}=\sum_{q}\mathbf{1}\{w_m=q\}\,Y_q is a random variable. By path monotonicity the sequence (Ywm)m(Y_{w_m})_m is nonincreasing and YwmYwY_{w_m}\ge Y_w; and for every s>ws>w one has wm<sw_m<s for all large mm, so infmYwmYs\inf_m Y_{w_m}\le Y_s, whence infmYwminf{Ys:s>w}=Yw\inf_m Y_{w_m}\le\inf\{Y_s:s>w\}=Y_w by property 3. Thus Yw=infmYwmY_w=\inf_m Y_{w_m} is a random variable, {infmYwm<c}=m{Ywm<c}\{\inf_mY_{w_m}<c\}=\bigcup_m\{Y_{w_m}<c\}. For 0ww0\le w\le w', the values Yw,YwY_w,Y_{w'} are nonnegative integers with YwYwY_w\le Y_{w'} (properties 1--2), so YwYwY_{w'}-Y_w is a nonnegative-integer-valued random variable. If moreover ww and every variable YuY_u (u0u\ge0) are measurable with respect to a σ\sigma-algebra G0\mathcal{G}_0, then so is every YwmY_{w_m} (the events {wm=q}\{w_m=q\} lie in σ(w)G0\sigma(w)\subseteq\mathcal{G}_0 and the YqY_q are G0\mathcal{G}_0-measurable), hence so is Yw=infmYwmY_w=\inf_mY_{w_m}.

Claim 4. (i) Series form. By Poisson Distribution, Px({k})=exp(x)xk/k!P_x(\{k\})=\exp(-x)x^k/k! for every nonnegative integer kk, and Px(RN0)=0P_x(\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{N}_0)=0. The functions fK(t)=tp1[K,K](t)f_K(t)=|t|^p\mathbf{1}_{[-K,K]}(t) increase pointwise to tp|t|^p as the natural number KK increases, so by the Monotone Convergence Theorem μp(x)=limKfKdPx\mu_p(x)=\lim_K\int f_K\,dP_x; and fKf_K agrees PxP_x-almost everywhere with the simple function k=0Kkp1{k}\sum_{k=0}^{K}k^p\mathbf{1}_{\{k\}}, whose integral is k=0KkpPx({k})\sum_{k=0}^{K}k^pP_x(\{k\}) (two nonnegative measurable functions that agree PxP_x-almost everywhere have the same Lebesgue integral). The partial sums being nondecreasing, μp(x)=exp(x)k1kpxk/k!\mu_p(x)=\exp(-x)\sum_{k\ge1}k^px^k/k! as claimed; in particular μp(0)=0\mu_p(0)=0, only the vanishing terms remaining. (ii) Finiteness. By claim 2 of Image Measures, Measures with Densities, and Change of Variables, μp(x)=E[Kp]\mu_p(x)=\mathbb{E}[K^p] for any random variable KK with distribution PxP_x, so finiteness follows from part (b) of Factorial Moments and Moments of Every Order of the Poisson Distribution; we record the elementary tail bound in order to fix the constant cpc_p. For k>2pk>2p each of the pp factors of k(k1)(kp+1)k(k-1)\cdots(k-p+1) is at least kpk/2k-p\ge k/2, so k(k1)(kp+1)(k/2)pk(k-1)\cdots(k-p+1)\ge(k/2)^p and hence kp2pk!/(kp)!k^p\le 2^p\,k!/(k-p)!. Therefore k>2pkpxk/k!2pk>2pxk/(kp)!=2pj>pxj+p/j!2pxpexp(x)\sum_{k>2p}k^px^k/k!\le2^p\sum_{k>2p}x^k/(k-p)!=2^p\sum_{j>p}x^{j+p}/j!\le2^px^p\exp(x), using the defining series of The Real Exponential Function; adding the finitely many terms with k2pk\le2p bounds the full series, and x=1x=1 gives cp<c_p<\infty. (iii) μ1\mu_1. By Moments of the Poisson Distribution a random variable with the Poisson distribution PxP_x has expectation xx, and by claim 2 of Image Measures, Measures with Densities, and Change of Variables that expectation equals μ1(x)\mu_1(x); so μ1(x)=x\mu_1(x)=x. (iv) Monotonicity. μp(0)=0μp(x)\mu_p(0)=0\le\mu_p(x') for every xx', by (i). For 0<xx0<x\le x': by clauses 1 and 3 of Stochastic Process, Independent Increments, and Inhomogeneous Poisson Process (homogeneous case, mean function Λ(t)=t\Lambda(t)=t) together with Y0=0Y_0=0, the variable Yx=YxY0Y_x=Y_x-Y_0 has distribution PxP_x, so μp(x)=E[Yxp]\mu_p(x)=\mathbb{E}[Y_x^{\,p}] by claim 2 of Image Measures, Measures with Densities, and Change of Variables. Path monotonicity gives YxpYxpY_x^{\,p}\le Y_{x'}^{\,p} pointwise, so μp(x)μp(x)\mu_p(x)\le\mu_p(x'). (v) Linear bound. For x[0,1]x\in[0,1]: exp(x)1\exp(-x)\le1 (its product with exp(x)1\exp(x)\ge1 equals 11, and exp(x)1\exp(x)\ge1 from the defining series with nonnegative terms), so μp(x)k1kpxk/k!xk1kpxk1/k!xk1kp/k!=cpx\mu_p(x)\le\sum_{k\ge1}k^px^k/k!\le x\sum_{k\ge1}k^px^{k-1}/k!\le x\sum_{k\ge1}k^p/k!=c_px, comparing partial sums termwise with xk11x^{k-1}\le1. (vi) Continuity. Fix R0R\ge0 and write S(y)=k1kpyk/k!S(y)=\sum_{k\ge1}k^py^k/k!, finite on [0,R][0,R] by (ii). For y,y[0,R]y,y'\in[0,R] and a natural KK: S(y)S(y)kK(kp/k!)ykyk+2k>KkpRk/k!|S(y)-S(y')|\le\sum_{k\le K}(k^p/k!)|y^k-y'^k|+2\sum_{k>K}k^pR^k/k!. Given ε>0\varepsilon>0, the tail term is below ε/2\varepsilon/2 for some KK (tail of a convergent series), and ykykkRk1yy|y^k-y'^k|\le kR^{k-1}|y-y'| makes the finite sum below ε/2\varepsilon/2 for yy|y-y'| small. So SS is continuous on every [0,R][0,R], hence on [0,)[0,\infty); exp()\exp(-\cdot) is continuous by Basic Properties of the Exponential Function; and μp=exp()S\mu_p=\exp(-\cdot)S is a product of continuous functions, hence continuous.

Claim 2. Reduction. If the identity holds for all bounded G\mathcal{G}-measurable Z0Z\ge0, then for general Z:Ω[0,]Z:\Omega\to[0,\infty] apply it to ZnZ\wedge n and let nn\to\infty: both sides converge to the corresponding expressions for ZZ by the Monotone Convergence Theorem, the integrands being nondecreasing in nn. So assume 0Zζ0\le Z\le\zeta for a real ζ\zeta. Grid. Fix a natural mm, put δ=2m\delta=2^{-m} and gj=θ+jδg_j=\theta+j\delta for j=0,,Jmj=0,\dots,J_m, with JmJ_m the least natural for which gJmVˉ+Λˉ+1g_{J_m}\ge\bar{V}+\bar{\Lambda}+1. The vector Xm=(Yg1Yg0,,YgJmYgJm1)X_m=(Y_{g_1}-Y_{g_0},\dots,Y_{g_{J_m}}-Y_{g_{J_m-1}}) is measurable with respect to σ(Yθ+sYθ:s0)\sigma(Y_{\theta+s}-Y_\theta:s\ge0) (each coordinate is a difference of two increments beyond θ\theta), so σ(Xm)\sigma(X_m) is independent of G\mathcal{G}: the defining product identities for the pair hold a fortiori on a sub-σ\sigma-algebra. Let μXm\mu_{X_m} be its image measure. Bracketing. Define α=max{j0:gjv}\alpha=\max\{j\ge0:g_j\le v\} and β=max{j0:gjv+λ}\beta=\max\{j\ge0:g_j\le v+\lambda\}; both are G\mathcal{G}-measurable with finitely many values, αβJm1\alpha\le\beta\le J_m-1, gαv<gα+1g_\alpha\le v<g_{\alpha+1}, and gβv+λ<gβ+1g_\beta\le v+\lambda<g_{\beta+1}. With Um=Ygβ+1YgαU_m=Y_{g_{\beta+1}}-Y_{g_\alpha}, and Lm=YgβYgα+1L_m=Y_{g_\beta}-Y_{g_{\alpha+1}} when α+1β\alpha+1\le\beta and Lm=0L_m=0 otherwise, path monotonicity gives LmYv+λYvUmL_m\le Y_{v+\lambda}-Y_v\le U_m. Exact evaluation of the brackets. Define Ψ:Ω×RJm[0,)\Psi:\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^{J_m}\to[0,\infty) by Ψ(ω,x)=0ab<Jm1{α=a,β=b}(ω)Z(ω)((xa+1++xb+1)+)p\Psi(\omega,x)=\sum_{0\le a\le b<J_m}\mathbf{1}\{\alpha=a,\beta=b\}(\omega)\,Z(\omega)\,\bigl((x_{a+1}+\dots+x_{b+1})^{+}\bigr)^p, a finite sum of products of a G\mathcal{G}-measurable factor and a Borel function of xx, hence GBJm\mathcal{G}\otimes\mathcal{B}_{J_m}-measurable; and Ψ(ω,Xm(ω))=ZUmp\Psi(\omega,X_m(\omega))=Z\,U_m^{\,p}, the coordinate block telescoping to Ygβ+1Ygα0Y_{g_{\beta+1}}-Y_{g_\alpha}\ge0. By claim 3 of Independence Fubini: Integration in an Independent Random Vector Given a Sub-Sigma-Algebra, E[ZUmp]=E[Ψ(,x)dμXm(x)]\mathbb{E}[Z\,U_m^{\,p}]=\mathbb{E}\bigl[\int\Psi(\cdot,x)\,d\mu_{X_m}(x)\bigr]. For fixed ω\omega with α=a,β=b\alpha=a,\beta=b, the inner integral equals Z(ω)E[(Ygb+1Yga)p]Z(\omega)\,\mathbb{E}[(Y_{g_{b+1}}-Y_{g_a})^p] by claim 2 of Image Measures, Measures with Densities, and Change of Variables applied to the nonnegative Borel map x((xa+1++xb+1)+)px\mapsto((x_{a+1}+\dots+x_{b+1})^{+})^p; and Ygb+1YgaY_{g_{b+1}}-Y_{g_a} has distribution Pgb+1gaP_{g_{b+1}-g_a} (clause 3 of Stochastic Process, Independent Increments, and Inhomogeneous Poisson Process; here gb+1gaδ>0g_{b+1}-g_a\ge\delta>0), so this expectation is μp(gb+1ga)\mu_p(g_{b+1}-g_a), again by claim 2 of Image Measures, Measures with Densities, and Change of Variables. Hence E[ZUmp]=E[Zμp(mU)]\mathbb{E}[Z\,U_m^{\,p}]=\mathbb{E}[Z\,\mu_p(\ell^U_m)] with mU=gβ+1gα[λ,λ+2δ]\ell^U_m=g_{\beta+1}-g_\alpha\in[\lambda,\lambda+2\delta]. The same argument with the block from a+2a+2 to bb gives E[ZLmp]=E[Zμp(mL)]\mathbb{E}[Z\,L_m^{\,p}]=\mathbb{E}[Z\,\mu_p(\ell^L_m)], where mL=gβgα+1\ell^L_m=g_\beta-g_{\alpha+1} when α+1β\alpha+1\le\beta and mL=0\ell^L_m=0 otherwise; the degenerate cases need no appeal to clause 3: when α+1>β\alpha+1>\beta one has Lm=0L_m=0 and mL=0\ell^L_m=0, and when α+1=β\alpha+1=\beta the block is empty and the increment YgβYgα+1Y_{g_\beta}-Y_{g_{\alpha+1}} vanishes identically, so in both cases the identity reduces to μp(0)=0\mu_p(0)=0 from claim 4 (i). In either case mLλ2δ|\ell^L_m-\lambda|\le2\delta (when β=α\beta=\alpha one has λ<2δ\lambda<2\delta). Limit. As mm\to\infty, mUλ\ell^U_m\to\lambda and mLλ\ell^L_m\to\lambda pointwise, so by continuity of μp\mu_p (claim 4), μp(mU)μp(λ)\mu_p(\ell^{U}_m)\to\mu_p(\lambda) and μp(mL)μp(λ)\mu_p(\ell^{L}_m)\to\mu_p(\lambda), with 0μp(m)μp(Λˉ+2)<0\le\mu_p(\ell_m)\le\mu_p(\bar{\Lambda}+2)<\infty by monotonicity; by the Dominated Convergence Theorem (constant dominating function ζμp(Λˉ+2)\zeta\mu_p(\bar{\Lambda}+2)), E[Zμp(mU)]E[Zμp(λ)]\mathbb{E}[Z\mu_p(\ell^{U}_m)]\to\mathbb{E}[Z\mu_p(\lambda)] and likewise for LL. Since E[Zμp(mL)]=E[ZLmp]E[Z(Yv+λYv)p]E[ZUmp]=E[Zμp(mU)]\mathbb{E}[Z\mu_p(\ell^L_m)]=\mathbb{E}[ZL_m^p]\le\mathbb{E}[Z(Y_{v+\lambda}-Y_v)^p]\le\mathbb{E}[ZU_m^p]=\mathbb{E}[Z\mu_p(\ell^U_m)] for every mm, the middle term, which does not depend on mm, equals E[Zμp(λ)]\mathbb{E}[Z\mu_p(\lambda)].

Claim 3. The same construction with the map t1{t1}t\mapsto\mathbf{1}\{t\ge1\} in place of ttpt\mapsto t^p: pointwise 1{Lm1}1{Yv+λYv1}1{Um1}\mathbf{1}\{L_m\ge1\}\le\mathbf{1}\{Y_{v+\lambda}-Y_v\ge1\}\le\mathbf{1}\{U_m\ge1\}; the inner integrals evaluate to Z(ω)P(Ygb+1Yga1)=Z(ω)(1exp((gb+1ga)))Z(\omega)\,P(Y_{g_{b+1}}-Y_{g_a}\ge1)=Z(\omega)(1-\exp(-(g_{b+1}-g_a))), since the increment is a nonnegative integer everywhere and P({0})=exp()P_\ell(\{0\})=\exp(-\ell) by Poisson Distribution (degenerate blocks as in claim 2, with 1exp(0)=01-\exp(0)=0). Continuity of exp\exp and domination by ζ\zeta give, in the limit, E[Z1{Yv+λYv1}]=E[Z(1exp(λ))]\mathbb{E}[Z\mathbf{1}\{Y_{v+\lambda}-Y_v\ge1\}]=\mathbb{E}[Z(1-\exp(-\lambda))]; the monotone reduction extends this to [0,][0,\infty]-valued ZZ as in claim 2. Finally 1exp(λ)λ1-\exp(-\lambda)\le\lambda pointwise: for λ1\lambda\ge1, 1exp(λ)1λ1-\exp(-\lambda)\le1\le\lambda; for 0λ<10\le\lambda<1, the defining series and the geometric partial-sum identity give exp(λ)=kλk/k!kλk1/(1λ)\exp(\lambda)=\sum_k\lambda^k/k!\le\sum_k\lambda^k\le1/(1-\lambda), so exp(λ)=1/exp(λ)1λ\exp(-\lambda)=1/\exp(\lambda)\ge1-\lambda. This yields the stated inequality.

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…