Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Brackets of a compensated simple counting process

Statement

Under the finite-horizon contract of Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract, the optional quadratic variation of M=N−A is [M]t=Nt, its continuous predictable bracket is ⟨M⟩t=At, its self-cross predictable bracket is ⟨M,M⟩t=At, and Mt2−At is a martingale on [0,T].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A simple unit-jump counting process N, a continuous predictable increasing compensator A with A0=0 and EAT<∞, and the model contract that M=N−A is a square-integrable martingale.

[F1]

The finite-horizon objects, unit jumps, integrability and martingale contract are exactly those of the counting-process model. (Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract)

[F2]

Optional brackets are jump-square sums. A scalar predictable bracket candidate is a continuous predictable increasing process B with B0=0, EBT<∞, and M2−B a martingale; a cross-bracket candidate is continuous predictable of finite variation, starts at zero, has integrable total variation, and makes [M,M′]−B a martingale. (Optional and predictable brackets for counting-process martingales) Candidates are unique up to indistinguishability in these classes by Uniqueness of continuous predictable brackets.

[F3]

A bounded predictable step integral against a square-integrable martingale is a square-integrable martingale. (Elementary predictable counting-process integrals are martingales)

[F4]

For a finite-variation càdlàg path, squared partition increments converge to its jump-square sum, and the finite-partition square identity holds. (Finite-variation integration by parts for counting-process martingales)

[F5]

Bounded stopping preserves a càdlàg square-integrable martingale. (Bounded stopping preserves càdlàg square-integrable martingales)

[F6]

The sampled discrete-time martingale satisfies Doob's L2 maximal inequality. (Doob Lp maximal inequality)

[F7]

Dominated convergence passes limits through event integrals. (Dominated convergence)

[F8]

Increasing nonnegative integrals converge to the integral of the limit. (Monotone convergence for the integral)

[A1]

AC is inherited through conditional expectation and the sampled Doob inequality. (The Axiom of Choice)

Proof

1.1F1F2

Since A is continuous, ΔMs=ΔNs; each jump of N is zero or one, so the jump-square definition gives [M]t=∑0<s≤t(ΔNs)2=Nt, using N0=0.

1.2F1F5givenconstruct

Let S=N+A and τn=inf⁡{t:St≥n}∧T for integers n≥1. The adapted nondecreasing càdlàg process S satisfies {τn≤t}={St≥n} for t<T, so τn is bounded stopping; at the first crossing, continuity of A and unit jumps of N give Sτn≤n+1, hence ∣Mt∧τn∣≤n+1. By [F5], Mτn is a square-integrable martingale.

2.1A1F1step 1.1

The variables MT and AT are integrable, so NT=MT+AT is integrable; since M is a martingale starting at zero, ENT=EAT<∞. The pathwise total variation of M is at most NT+AT, hence is integrable.

2.2A1F1F3F4step 1.1given

Choose nested deterministic partitions πm={0=t0m<⋯<tqmm=T} with mesh tending to zero. The coefficients Hjn,m=Mtjm∧τn are Ftjm-measurable and bounded by n+1, so [F3] makes the step integral against Mτn a martingale. The partition identity [F4] gives (Mt∧τn)2−∑j(Mt∧tj+1m∧τn−Mt∧tjm∧τn)2=2It(Hn,m). The stopped process has the same unit jumps as Nτn, so the squared-increment sum converges to [Mτn]t=Nt∧τn by [F4] and step 1.1. Also Var⁡(Mτn)T≤NT∧τn+AT∧τn≤n+1, so the terms are bounded by a deterministic constant depending only on n; dominated convergence in the martingale event identities proves (Mt∧τn)2−Nt∧τn is a martingale.

3.1A1F1F6F7F8step 2.1step 2.2

Since ST=NT+AT<∞ a.s., τn=T eventually on each path. On nested deterministic grids, [F6] gives Emax⁡u∈πm∣Mu∣2≤4E∣MT∣2; right continuity identifies the increasing grid limit with sup⁡u≤T∣Mu∣, and [F8] gives Esup⁡u≤T∣Mu∣2<∞. Thus R=sup⁡u≤T∣Mu∣2+NT is integrable and dominates every stopped value ∣(Mt∧τn)2−Nt∧τn∣. For B∈Fs, [F7] and the event identities from step 2.2 let n→∞, proving M2−N is a martingale.

4.1A1F1F2step 1.1step 3.1algebra∎

Since N−A=M is a martingale, M2−A=(M2−N)+M is a martingale by step 3.1 and linearity, so [F2] and [F1] make A a scalar bracket candidate; uniqueness gives ⟨M⟩=A. Also [M,M]=[M]=N, so [M,M]−A=N−A=M is a martingale, making A a cross-bracket candidate too; uniqueness gives ⟨M,M⟩=A.

Source notes

Tian states [M]=N and ⟨M⟩=A for a continuous compensator, but omits the bracket proof. Bass supplies the jump-square and product-formula framework; Andersen–Borgan–Gill–Keiding define the counting-process compensator under an explicit filtration. The stopped-grid and finite-variation arguments above complete the local proof without assuming a general compensator-existence theorem.

Depends on

Used by

Cited to discharge well-definedness by Optional and predictable brackets for counting-process martingales.

Dependency tree · two levels

49 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources