1
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have two Markov processes $P_1(t)$ and $P_2(t)$ and a function $f(t):=f(P_1(t),P_2(t))$.

What is a compact way to express that the expected change of $f(t)$ between a reference time $t_0$ and a stopping time $\tau$ is negative if the state at time $t_0$ is known and $P_1(t_0) > 0$?

The option I consider is

$$ {E}[f(\tau)-f(t_0)|P_1(t_0)>0, P_2(t_0)] < 0 $$

My question is whether $P_2(t_0)$ is necessary and why. It seems that the result is independent of its value.

Also as written expression ${E}[f(\tau)-f(t_0)|P_1(t_0)>0, P_2(t_0)]$ is a random variable, but I think it expresses what I want to claim, as for any evaluation of the variables, subject to $P_1(t_0) > 0$, the expression will be negative. Is it really semantically equivalent to what I want to say though?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ You could say $$ E[f(\tau) - f(t_0)|P_1(t_0),P_2(t_0)] < 0 \quad \mbox{whenever $P_1(t_0)>0$}$$ or $$E[f(\tau)-f(t_0)|P_1(t_0)=i_1, P_2(t_0)=i_2] <0 \quad \mbox{whenever $i_1>0$} $$ $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 19, 2019 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Michael I agree that these are also viable options. I would just like to know if I can use some simpler expressions. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 19, 2019 at 5:27

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

For state spaces $S_1, S_2$ and all $(i_1,i_2) \in S_1 \times S_2$ you can define: $$ D_{t_0,\tau}(i_1,i_2) := E[f(\tau)-f(t_0)|(P_1(t_0),P_2(t_0))=(i_1,i_2)]$$ Then, I think you are trying to express the drift condition: $$ D_{t_0,\tau}(i_1, i_2) < 0 \quad \forall (i_1,i_2) \in S_1 \times S_2 \mbox{ such that $i_1>0$} \quad (Eq. 1)$$ Notice that this conditions on the full $(i_1,i_2)$ state at time $t_0$ and hence leaves no ambiguity.

In particular, notice that (Eq. 1) does not require knowledge of what happened in the system before time $t_0$. Notice that (Eq. 1) is not the same as: $$ E[f(\tau)-f(t_0)|P_1(t_0)>0, P_2(t_0)]<0 \quad (Eq. 2)$$ That is, (Eq. 2) does not imply (Eq. 1). The (Eq. 2) is awkward because it depends on the history of the system before time $t_0$ (that history affects the conditional distribution of $P_1(t_0)$ given $P_1(t_0)>0, P_2(t_0)$). It makes me wonder under what distributional assumptions on the history before time $t_0$ is the equation (2) supposed to hold? Equation (1) is much stronger (it implies equation (2)). If your system has the strong property of equation (1), then I encourage you to say it.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.