Probability & Statistics

Brownian Motion and Its Square

Symmetry zeroes E[B_t^3], so cov(B_t, B_t^2) = 0 and the correlation is exactly zero even though B_t^2 is a function of B_t, the standard witness that zero correlation is far weaker than independence.

solvedeasy1 min

Let BtB_t be a standard Brownian motion, so BtB_t is normal with mean 00 and variance tt. What is the correlation between BtB_t and Bt2B_t^2?

Reveal solutionHide solution

#The covariance vanishes

The covariance is the mixed moment minus the product of means,

Cov(Bt,Bt2)=E[BtBt2]E[Bt]E[Bt2]=E[Bt3]0=0,(1)\Cov(B_t, B_t^2) = \E[B_t \cdot B_t^2] - \E[B_t]\,\E[B_t^2] = \E[B_t^3] - 0 = 0, \tag{1}

since every odd moment of a mean-zero normal vanishes by symmetry.

#Dependent yet uncorrelated

The correlation is therefore 00, even though Bt2B_t^2 is a deterministic function of BtB_t. Knowing BtB_t fixes Bt2B_t^2 exactly, but the link is the symmetric parabola, which carries no linear trend, and correlation measures only the linear part of a relationship.

best linear fit
Knowing B_t pins its square exactly, so the two are perfectly dependent. Yet the relation is the symmetric parabola, which has no linear trend, and correlation sees only the linear part, so it reads zero.

#Uncorrelated yet determined

Corr(Bt,Bt2)=0.(2)\Cor(B_t, B_t^2) = 0. \tag{2}

It is a clean reminder that zero correlation is far weaker than independence. Here the two variables are as dependent as possible, one determining the other, yet their correlation is exactly zero.