Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Universal approximation on non-geometric rough paths and applications to financial derivatives pricing

Fred Espen Benth and Fabian A. Harang and Fride Straum
Abstract.

We present a novel perspective on the universal approximation theorem for rough path functionals, introducing a polynomial-based approximation class. We extend universal approximation to non-geometric rough paths within the tensor algebra. This development addresses critical needs in finance, where no-arbitrage conditions necessitate Itô integration. Furthermore, our findings motivate a hypothesis for payoff functionals in financial markets, allowing straightforward analysis of signature payoffs proposed in [Arr18].

Key words and phrases:
Signature payoff, derivatives pricing, path dependence, rough paths, signatures, model free finance, universal approximation
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
60L10; 60L90; 60H05;91G20; 91G60
We acknowledge the support from the Center for Advanced Study (CAS) in Oslo, Norway, which funded and hosted our research project "Signatures for Images" during the 2023/24 academic year

1. Introduction

Financial derivatives allow firms to hedge exposure to diverse financial risks, such as price, currency, or interest rate fluctuations. In commodity markets, participants contend with uncertainties stemming from production volumes, demand variability, and transportation logistics. To address these challenges, a variety of financial derivatives are traded, designed to mitigate risk and stabilize revenues. These instruments often involve complex transactions with multivariate payoffs that replicate potential future cash flows. For example, power producers manage both price and volume risks, while renewable energy producers face weather-driven uncertainties, such as wind or cloud cover. Retailers, on the other hand, contend with temperature-sensitive demand variations. Multivariate derivatives, such as spread and quanto options, are particularly attractive for managing such intertwined risks, although their pricing remains a significant challenge due to the lack of closed-form solutions.

Pricing these products typically relies on numerical approximations of theoretical prices using techniques like Monte Carlo simulations or numerical solutions of partial differential equations. However, the inherent complexity and high dimensionality of such problems demand novel mathematical tools to improve efficiency and accuracy.

In recent years, insights from the theory of rough paths, introduced by Lyons [Lyo98], have emerged as a powerful framework for understanding stochastic processes and their functionals. A central concept in this theory is the signature, a collection of iterated integrals that captures the fundamental characteristics of a path. Initially studied by Chen [Che54] from an algebraic topology perspective, the signature framework has since evolved into a dynamic field of research, offering new methodologies for modelling and computation in various domains. More precisely, for a smooth path X:[0,T]d:𝑋0𝑇superscript𝑑X:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_X : [ 0 , italic_T ] → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we define dXt=ddtXtdsubscript𝑋𝑡dd𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}X_{t}=\frac{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}t% }X_{t}roman_d italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG roman_d end_ARG start_ARG roman_d italic_t end_ARG italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and for st𝑠𝑡s\leq titalic_s ≤ italic_t

𝐗s,tn:=s<r1<<rn<ti=1ndXri(d)n.assignsubscriptsuperscript𝐗𝑛𝑠𝑡subscript𝑠subscript𝑟1subscript𝑟𝑛𝑡superscriptsubscripttensor-product𝑖1𝑛dsubscript𝑋subscript𝑟𝑖superscriptsuperscript𝑑tensor-productabsent𝑛\mathbf{X}^{n}_{s,t}:=\int_{s<r_{1}<\dots<r_{n}<t}\bigotimes_{i=1}^{n}\mathop{% }\!\mathrm{d}X_{r_{i}}\in(\mathbb{R}^{d})^{\otimes n}.bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⨂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (1.1)

For p𝑝p\in\mathbb{N}italic_p ∈ blackboard_N, we define the p𝑝pitalic_p-truncated signature 𝐗psuperscript𝐗absent𝑝\mathbf{X}^{\leq p}bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by

𝐗s,tp=(1,𝐗s,t1,,𝐗s,tp){𝟏}i=1p(d)i=Tp(d)subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑝𝑠𝑡1subscriptsuperscript𝐗1𝑠𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝐗𝑝𝑠𝑡tensor-product1superscriptsubscripttensor-product𝑖1𝑝superscriptsuperscript𝑑tensor-productabsent𝑖superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\mathbf{X}^{\leq p}_{s,t}=\left(1,\mathbf{X}^{1}_{s,t},\ldots,\mathbf{X}^{p}_{% s,t}\right)\in\{\mathbf{1}\}\otimes\bigotimes_{i=1}^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})^{% \otimes i}=T^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 1 , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ { bold_1 } ⊗ ⨂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

and the signature 𝐗superscript𝐗absent\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as the limit when p𝑝p\rightarrow\inftyitalic_p → ∞. The space Tp(d)superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑T^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is known as the truncated tensor algebra, and we call T((d))𝑇superscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) given formally as T(d)superscript𝑇superscript𝑑T^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), the (extended) tensor algebra. A more detailed introduction will be provided in Section 2. Beyond smooth paths, the theory extends to stochastic paths, where probabilistic tools enable the construction of these integrals under frameworks like Itô or Stratonovich integration (see e.g. [FV10]).

In many ways, the iterated integral signature can be seen as an infinite-dimensional extension of polynomials. In fact, it shares many of the key features of polynomials, but related to one-parameter functions. Some key properties are

  1. (i)

    Chen’s relation holds, i.e., the signature is a multiplicative functional. More specifically, for any u[s,t]𝑢𝑠𝑡u\in[s,t]italic_u ∈ [ italic_s , italic_t ] then 𝐗s,u𝐗u,t=𝐗s,ttensor-productsubscript𝐗𝑠𝑢subscript𝐗𝑢𝑡subscript𝐗𝑠𝑡\mathbf{X}_{s,u}\otimes\mathbf{X}_{u,t}=\mathbf{X}_{s,t}bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The tensor product is understood in the tensor algebra T((d))𝑇superscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), which is defined in Section 2. This not only provides computational efficiency but also serves as a fundamental building block in rough integration theory.

  2. (ii)

    The signature uniquely characterizes the path up to tree-like equivalence [HL10].

  3. (iii)

    It is re-parametrization invariant; for a monotone increasing function ϕ:[0,T][0,T]:italic-ϕ0𝑇0𝑇\phi:[0,T]\rightarrow[0,T]italic_ϕ : [ 0 , italic_T ] → [ 0 , italic_T ] with ϕ(0)=0italic-ϕ00\phi(0)=0italic_ϕ ( 0 ) = 0 and ϕ(T)=Titalic-ϕ𝑇𝑇\phi(T)=Titalic_ϕ ( italic_T ) = italic_T, and define X¯t=Xϕ(t)subscript¯𝑋𝑡subscript𝑋italic-ϕ𝑡\bar{X}_{t}=X_{\phi(t)}over¯ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ ( italic_t ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then 𝐗¯0,T=𝐗0,Tsubscriptsuperscript¯𝐗absent0𝑇subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent0𝑇\bar{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{0,T}=\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{0,T}over¯ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [FV10].

  4. (iv)

    The signature is invariant to translation; Yt=Xt+asubscript𝑌𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡𝑎Y_{t}=X_{t}+aitalic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a for some ad𝑎superscript𝑑a\in\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_a ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then 𝐘=𝐗𝐘𝐗\mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{X}bold_Y = bold_X.

  5. (v)

    It is associated with a rich algebraic structure (see e.g. [FV10] for an introduction).

  6. (vi)

    The signature is tightly connected to stochastic integration theory, and naturally encode information about stochastic integration choices, enriching the understanding of stochastic integration theory beyond the classical martingale theory [FH14].

  7. (vii)

    The signature characterizes the law of stochastic processes [CO22].

Importantly, the signature serves as a universal approximation basis for continuous functionals on path space, akin to how polynomials approximate real-valued functions. This universal approximation property allows any continuous functional on the space of Lipschitz paths to be approximated arbitrarily well by a linear functional of the signature [CPSF23]. The universal approximation property is proven through the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, and thus requires a feature set that forms a sub-algebra of the continous functionals on path-space.

The signature framework extends to stochastic functional approximation. A key challenge lies in encoding the choice of stochastic integration—such as Itô or Stratonovich—into the functional representation. While the universal approximation property has been extended to geometric rough paths, which naturally align with Stratonovich integration, this leaves a significant gap for Itô-based financial functionals, which are most prevalent in practice.

This article addresses the challenges of applying signature-based universal approximation to non-geometric rough paths, with a focus on practical implementation in financial markets. By bridging the gap between non-geometric rough paths and universal approximation, we investigate the framework for efficient pricing in the Itô setting for complex financial derivatives, providing several examples throughout the text. The remainder of the paper develops the theoretical foundations and explores applications in detail.

1.1. Main ideas and contribution

In this article we present a universal approximation result for functionals of non-geometric rough paths. The main challenge with non-geometric rough paths and by extension the non-geometric signature, is that the multiplication of two elements in the non-geometric signature does not yield another element contained in the same signature. This implies that just considering the linear span of signature elements as the subset of continuous linear functionals to use for functional approximation is not sufficiently rich to become an algebra; a strict requirement of the Stone-Weierstrass theorem. To overcome this challenge, we enrich the feature set, the linear span of our signature terms, by polynomials of the signature terms. This becomes a very large class of features that we use for universal approximation, but provides the sufficient set which guarantees universal approximation in the non-geometric setting. When applying this theorem to geometric rough paths, the approximation can be written as a linear functional acting on the signature through the shuffle product.

In finance the universal approximation theorem with signatures has been successfully used in the context of pricing complex financial derivatives, see [Arr18, LNPA20, LNPA19]. Such derivatives typically have a payoff of functional form, in practice often a so-called \sayAsian structure. There the payoff depends not on the price at a given time, but on the average price over a time period, thus introducing an integral abXrdrsuperscriptsubscript𝑎𝑏subscript𝑋𝑟differential-d𝑟\int_{a}^{b}X_{r}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}r∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d italic_r with the price being tXtmaps-to𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡t\mapsto X_{t}italic_t ↦ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For even more complicated structures, one can encounter derivatives in energy markets, where the payoff is given as an integral over the product of two stochastic processes, abXrYrdrsuperscriptsubscript𝑎𝑏subscript𝑋𝑟subscript𝑌𝑟differential-d𝑟\int_{a}^{b}X_{r}Y_{r}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}r∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d italic_r, for example representing electricity price and temperature. In even more complicated models, one could imagine compositions of a finite number of such structures. The point is that payoff functionals, mapping paths to prices XF(X)maps-to𝑋𝐹𝑋X\mapsto F(X)italic_X ↦ italic_F ( italic_X ), are typically given in a very specific form of (lower-ordered) signature functionals. In the examples above, the payoff functional can be seen as continuous function f𝑓fitalic_f acting on a finite number of terms in the signature of the price signals, enriched with a time component.

This motivates a working hypothesis of the paper; we consider functionals that we assume to be given as continuous functions acting on terms from the signature. While being a relevant hypothesis in many practical applications, one can resort to classical function approximation techniques to approximate the continuous function of interest. Approximating this function through some polynomial can under various assumptions yield convergence rates for the approximation, providing theoretical guarantees important for practical implementation. This simplifies the derivatives pricing problem from [Arr18] where machine learning techniques are suggested to find the functional approximation, resulting in an approximation which is difficult to analyze from a practical perspective. In contrast, we believe that our approach, mixing the new universal approximation method, with the hypothesis suited for payoff functionals provides a simple way of using signature features for practical pricing problems arising in financial markets.

Throughout the article, we illustrate our results and contributions through examples, with an emphasis on derivatives pricing in energy markets where there exists many complex derivatives structures. We emphasise deriving rather explicit conditions ensuring convergence rates for the approximations that we introduce.

1.2. Organization of the paper

In Section 2 we provide a basic introduction of the signature and building the algebraic foundation for our analysis. As this article is targeting an audience in financial mathematics, we have chosen to provide a detailed introduction to the algebraic side. In Section 3 we recall the state of the art in universal approximation, and propose the new universal approximation for non-geometric rough paths. In Section 4 we discuss stochastic price paths and the computation of signature correlators. Section 5 combines our considerations and provides some approximation results for financial derivatives. This is highlighted with a discussion on the applications in energy markets. At last we provide a conclusion with an outlook to future developments in Section 6.

1.3. Notation

For a complete metric space (E,dE)𝐸subscript𝑑𝐸(E,d_{E})( italic_E , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we denote by C([0,T];E)𝐶0𝑇𝐸C([0,T];E)italic_C ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_E ) the space of continuous paths X:[0,T]E:𝑋0𝑇𝐸X:[0,T]\rightarrow Eitalic_X : [ 0 , italic_T ] → italic_E with the uniform topology. The set of continuous paths with finite p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 variation from [0,T]0𝑇[0,T][ 0 , italic_T ] into E𝐸Eitalic_E is denoted by Vp([0,T];E)superscript𝑉𝑝0𝑇𝐸V^{p}([0,T];E)italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_E ), and is equipped with the norm

Xp,[0,T]:=(supP𝒟tkPdE(Xtk,Xtk+1)p)1p,assignsubscriptnorm𝑋𝑝0𝑇superscriptsubscriptsupremum𝑃𝒟subscriptsubscript𝑡𝑘𝑃subscript𝑑𝐸superscriptsubscript𝑋subscript𝑡𝑘subscript𝑋subscript𝑡𝑘1𝑝1𝑝\|X\|_{p,[0,T]}:=\left(\sup_{P\in\mathcal{D}}\sum_{t_{k}\in P}d_{E}(X_{t_{k}},% X_{t_{k+1}})^{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ( roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ∈ caligraphic_D end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is the collection of all partitions over [0,T]0𝑇[0,T][ 0 , italic_T ]. The subset of continuous paths with finite p𝑝pitalic_p-variation is denoted by Vcp([0,T];E)subscriptsuperscript𝑉𝑝𝑐0𝑇𝐸V^{p}_{c}([0,T];E)italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_E ). Whenever the interval [0,T]0𝑇[0,T][ 0 , italic_T ] under consideration is otherwise clear, we simply write Xp=Xp,[0,T]subscriptnorm𝑋𝑝subscriptnorm𝑋𝑝0𝑇\|X\|_{p}=\|X\|_{p,[0,T]}∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Recall that when x{0}𝑥0x\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}italic_x ∈ blackboard_N ∖ { 0 }, the gamma function ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ satisfies Γ(x+1)=x!Γ𝑥1𝑥\Gamma(x+1)=x!roman_Γ ( italic_x + 1 ) = italic_x !, and by slightly abuse of notation we will write x!:=Γ(x+1)assign𝑥Γ𝑥1x!:=\Gamma(x+1)italic_x ! := roman_Γ ( italic_x + 1 ) for x>0𝑥0x>0italic_x > 0. Throughout the article, we will occasionally consider Hilbert spaces, denoted by H𝐻Hitalic_H, and where the inner product is then given by ,Hsubscript𝐻\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{H}⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the associated norm is denoted by ||H|\cdot|_{H}| ⋅ | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If the space H𝐻Hitalic_H under consideration is clear, we dismiss the index and simply write ,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ and |||\cdot|| ⋅ | for the inner product and norm. For a path X:[0,T]d:𝑋0𝑇superscript𝑑X:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_X : [ 0 , italic_T ] → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we define the time-enhanced path X^:[0,T]d+1:^𝑋0𝑇superscript𝑑1\hat{X}:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d+1}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG : [ 0 , italic_T ] → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where X^t=(t,Xt)subscript^𝑋𝑡𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡\hat{X}_{t}=(t,X_{t})over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). This notation will be used consistently throughout the article. Frequently, we resort to the notation T={(s,t)[0,T]20stT}subscript𝑇conditional-set𝑠𝑡superscript0𝑇20𝑠𝑡𝑇\triangle_{T}=\{(s,t)\in[0,T]^{2}\mid 0\leq s\leq t\leq T\}△ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ( italic_s , italic_t ) ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∣ 0 ≤ italic_s ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T }.

2. Basics of words and signatures

In this section, we will provide a fundamental overview of the conventions and concepts related to weighted words, denoted by π𝜋\piitalic_π, and signatures, represented by 𝐗superscript𝐗absent\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, along with their pairing π,𝐗𝜋superscript𝐗absent\langle\pi,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_π , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩.

2.1. Words

Given that we are working with dsuperscript𝑑\mathbb{R}^{d}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-valued paths X:[0,T]d:𝑋0𝑇superscript𝑑X:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_X : [ 0 , italic_T ] → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the alphabet of our consideration is 𝒜={1,,d}𝒜1𝑑\mathcal{A}=\{1,\dots,d\}caligraphic_A = { 1 , … , italic_d }. Throughout this article, 𝒜𝒜\mathcal{A}caligraphic_A will denote the set {1,,d}1𝑑\{1,\dots,d\}{ 1 , … , italic_d } unless otherwise stated.

Definition 2.1.

A word of length n𝑛n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N is a sequence w=𝐢1𝐢n𝑤subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛w=\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n}italic_w = bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where 𝐢j𝒜subscript𝐢𝑗𝒜\mathbf{i}_{j}\in\mathcal{A}bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A for every j=1,,n𝑗1𝑛j=1,\dots,nitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_n. We denote by 𝒲nsubscript𝒲𝑛\mathcal{W}_{n}caligraphic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the set of all words of length n𝑛n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N. For n=0𝑛0n=0italic_n = 0 we have that 𝒲0={}subscript𝒲0\mathcal{W}_{0}=\{\emptyset\}caligraphic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ∅ } where \emptyset is the empty word. We further let 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W denote the set of all words.

The algebra 𝒜delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleblackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ is introduced as T(vect(𝒜))𝑇subscriptvect𝒜T(\text{vect}_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathcal{A}))italic_T ( vect start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_A ) ), representing the vector space generated by 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W.

Definition 2.2.

The algebra of all non-commutative polynomials in 𝒜𝒜\mathcal{A}caligraphic_A is defined to be

𝒜={π=w𝒲αwwαw,αw0 for a finite number of w𝒲}.delimited-⟨⟩𝒜conditional-set𝜋subscript𝑤𝒲subscript𝛼𝑤𝑤formulae-sequencesubscript𝛼𝑤subscript𝛼𝑤0 for a finite number of 𝑤𝒲\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangle=\left\{\pi=\sum_{w\in\mathcal{W}}\alpha_{w% }w\mid\alpha_{w}\in\mathbb{R},\;\alpha_{w}\neq 0\text{ for a finite number of % }w\in\mathcal{W}\right\}.blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ = { italic_π = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∣ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ 0 for a finite number of italic_w ∈ caligraphic_W } .

We refer to π𝒜𝜋delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\pi\in\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleitalic_π ∈ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ as a weighted word.

𝒜delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleblackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ forms an algebra with respect to concatenation which is for w=𝐢1𝐢n𝑤subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛w=\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n}italic_w = bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and w=𝐣1𝐣msuperscript𝑤subscript𝐣1subscript𝐣𝑚w^{\prime}=\mathbf{j}_{1}\dots\mathbf{j}_{m}italic_w start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = bold_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given by ww=ww=𝐢1𝐢n𝐣1𝐣m.𝑤superscript𝑤𝑤superscript𝑤subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛subscript𝐣1subscript𝐣𝑚w\cdot w^{\prime}=ww^{\prime}=\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n}\mathbf{j}_{1}% \dots\mathbf{j}_{m}.italic_w ⋅ italic_w start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_w italic_w start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Example 2.3.

Suppose we work with an alphabet given by 𝒜={𝐚,𝐛,𝐜}𝒜𝐚𝐛𝐜\mathcal{A}=\{\mathbf{a,b,c}\}caligraphic_A = { bold_a , bold_b , bold_c }. Then we have that

𝒲={,𝐚,𝐛,𝐜,𝐚𝐚,𝐚𝐛,𝐚𝐜,},𝒲𝐚𝐛𝐜𝐚𝐚𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐜\mathcal{W}=\{\emptyset,\mathbf{a,b,c,aa,ab,ac},\dots\},caligraphic_W = { ∅ , bold_a , bold_b , bold_c , bold_aa , bold_ab , bold_ac , … } ,

where 𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚\mathbf{ab}\neq\mathbf{ba}bold_ab ≠ bold_ba. As an example, one element π𝒜𝜋delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\pi\in\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleitalic_π ∈ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ is

π=+2𝐚+3𝐚𝐛++100𝐚𝐛𝐜𝐛𝐚𝐜.𝜋2𝐚3𝐚𝐛100𝐚𝐛𝐜𝐛𝐚𝐜\pi=\emptyset+2\mathbf{a}+\sqrt{3}\mathbf{ab}+\cdots+100\mathbf{abcbac}.italic_π = ∅ + 2 bold_a + square-root start_ARG 3 end_ARG bold_ab + ⋯ + 100 bold_abcbac .

Moreover, the concatenation of the weighted words (3𝐚𝐛+𝐚)3𝐚𝐛𝐚(3\mathbf{ab+a})( 3 bold_ab + bold_a ) and (𝐛+𝐜)𝐛𝐜(\mathbf{b+c})( bold_b + bold_c ) is

(3𝐚𝐛+𝐚)(𝐛+𝐜)=3𝐚𝐛𝐛+3𝐚𝐛𝐜+𝐚𝐛+𝐚𝐜.3𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐜3𝐚𝐛𝐛3𝐚𝐛𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐜(3\mathbf{ab+a})\cdot(\mathbf{b+c})=3\mathbf{abb}+3\mathbf{abc+ab+ac}.( 3 bold_ab + bold_a ) ⋅ ( bold_b + bold_c ) = 3 bold_abb + 3 bold_abc + bold_ab + bold_ac .

Note that we use alphabets consisting of the natural numbers up to dimensions d𝑑ditalic_d in this paper. However, to separate clearly between the weights awsubscript𝑎𝑤a_{w}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the words w𝑤witalic_w, we used letters for the alphabet in this example.

Remark 2.4.

In the next Subsection, we will introduce the concept of signatures. However, it is worth noting that the signature 𝐗superscript𝐗absent\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of a path X:[0,T]d:𝑋0𝑇superscript𝑑X:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_X : [ 0 , italic_T ] → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can also be defined recursively through the projections of words. Since the path is dsuperscript𝑑\mathbb{R}^{d}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-valued, let 𝒲𝒲\mathcal{W}caligraphic_W denote the collection of words formed from the alphabet 𝒜={1,,d}𝒜1𝑑\mathcal{A}=\{1,\dots,d\}caligraphic_A = { 1 , … , italic_d }. We can regard the signature 𝐗superscript𝐗absent\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as an element of C(T)𝒲𝐶superscriptsubscript𝑇𝒲C(\triangle_{T})^{\mathcal{W}}italic_C ( △ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_W end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. To formalize this, we define it recursively using the projections w,𝐗𝑤superscript𝐗absent\langle w,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_w , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ for w𝒲𝑤𝒲w\in\mathcal{W}italic_w ∈ caligraphic_W, as follows:

First, for the empty word, we set ,𝐗s,t:=1assignsubscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑠𝑡1\langle\emptyset,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\rangle:=1⟨ ∅ , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ := 1. For any non-empty word w=𝐢1𝐢n𝒲{}𝑤subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛𝒲w=\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n}\in\mathcal{W}\setminus\{\emptyset\}italic_w = bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_W ∖ { ∅ }, we define the projection as:

w,𝐗s,t:=st𝐢1𝐢n1,𝐗s,r𝑑Xrin.assign𝑤subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑠𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛1subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑠𝑟differential-dsubscriptsuperscript𝑋subscript𝑖𝑛𝑟\langle w,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\rangle:=\int_{s}^{t}\langle\mathbf{i}_% {1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n-1},\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{s,r}\rangle\,dX^{i_{n}}_{r}.⟨ italic_w , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ italic_d italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

2.2. Signatures

In this Subsection, we introduce the basic concepts of signatures. We begin by presenting key algebras and a Hilbert space that plays a central role in the theory of signatures. Next, we define what a signature is, and finally, we demonstrate how to pair a weighted word with a signature. Let us start with the setup. Let H𝐻Hitalic_H denote a general 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F-Hilbert space, where the field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F is either \mathbb{R}blackboard_R or \mathbb{C}blackboard_C. We need to introduce a triplet of spaces T(H)(H)T((H))𝑇𝐻𝐻𝑇𝐻T(H)\subset\mathcal{F}(H)\subset T((H))italic_T ( italic_H ) ⊂ caligraphic_F ( italic_H ) ⊂ italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ). First of all, by convention we let H0=𝔽.superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent0𝔽H^{\otimes 0}=\mathbb{F}.italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = blackboard_F .

Definition 2.5.

For a Hilbert space H𝐻Hitalic_H we call

T((H))=n=0Hn={x=(x0,x1,,xn,)xnHn,forn=0,1,2,}.𝑇𝐻superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑛0superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛conditional-set𝑥subscript𝑥0subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑛formulae-sequencesubscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛for𝑛012T((H))=\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}H^{\otimes n}=\{x=(x_{0},x_{1},\dots,x_{n},\dots)% \mid x_{n}\in H^{\otimes n},\,\text{for}\,n=0,1,2,...\}.italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ) = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … ) ∣ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , for italic_n = 0 , 1 , 2 , … } .

the extended tensor algebra.

As we will see later, any well-defined signature naturally belongs to the extended tensor algebra T((H))𝑇𝐻T((H))italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ). Another space closely linked to the theory of words and signatures is the tensor algebra, which we introduce next:

Definition 2.6.

The tensor algebra is given by the algebraic direct sum

T(H)=n=0Hn={xT((H))xN such that xn=0nN}.𝑇𝐻superscriptsubscriptdirect-sum𝑛0superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛conditional-set𝑥𝑇𝐻for-all𝑥𝑁 such that subscript𝑥𝑛0for-all𝑛𝑁T(H)=\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty}H^{\otimes n}=\{x\in T((H))\mid\,\forall\;x\;% \exists\;N\in\mathbb{N}\text{ such that }x_{n}=0\;\forall n\geq N\}.italic_T ( italic_H ) = ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_x ∈ italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ) ∣ ∀ italic_x ∃ italic_N ∈ blackboard_N such that italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ∀ italic_n ≥ italic_N } .

We equip T((H))𝑇𝐻T((H))italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ) with a sum +++, scalar multiplication, and a product tensor-product\otimes. These operations are defined as follows: For elements x=(x0,x1,,xn,)𝑥subscript𝑥0subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑛x=(x_{0},x_{1},\dots,x_{n},\dots)italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … ) and y=(y0,y1,,yn,)𝑦subscript𝑦0subscript𝑦1subscript𝑦𝑛y=(y_{0},y_{1},\dots,y_{n},\dots)italic_y = ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … ) in T((H))𝑇𝐻T((H))italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ), we define the the sum of x𝑥xitalic_x and y𝑦yitalic_y element-wise, i.e.,

x+y=(x0+y0,x1+y1,,xn+yn,).𝑥𝑦subscript𝑥0subscript𝑦0subscript𝑥1subscript𝑦1subscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑦𝑛x+y=(x_{0}+y_{0},x_{1}+y_{1},\dots,x_{n}+y_{n},\dots).italic_x + italic_y = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … ) .

Scalar multiplication is also defined element-wise as

λx=(λx0,λx1,),λ.formulae-sequence𝜆𝑥𝜆subscript𝑥0𝜆subscript𝑥1𝜆\lambda x=(\lambda x_{0},\lambda x_{1},\dots),\quad\lambda\in\mathbb{R}.italic_λ italic_x = ( italic_λ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … ) , italic_λ ∈ blackboard_R .

Lastly, the product of x𝑥xitalic_x and y𝑦yitalic_y is given by

xy=(z0,z1,,zn,)wherezn=k=0nxkynk.formulae-sequencetensor-product𝑥𝑦subscript𝑧0subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧𝑛wheresubscript𝑧𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑘0𝑛tensor-productsubscript𝑥𝑘subscript𝑦𝑛𝑘x\otimes y=(z_{0},z_{1},\dots,z_{n},\dots)\quad\mathrm{where}\quad z_{n}=\sum_% {k=0}^{n}x_{k}\otimes y_{n-k}.italic_x ⊗ italic_y = ( italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … ) roman_where italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

These operations turn the tensor algebra T(H)𝑇𝐻T(H)italic_T ( italic_H ) into an algebra. Moreover, we denote by

TN(H)={xT(H)xn=0nN}superscript𝑇𝑁𝐻conditional-set𝑥𝑇𝐻subscript𝑥𝑛0for-all𝑛𝑁T^{N}(H)=\{x\in T(H)\mid x_{n}=0\;\forall n\geq N\}italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_H ) = { italic_x ∈ italic_T ( italic_H ) ∣ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ∀ italic_n ≥ italic_N }

the N𝑁Nitalic_N-truncated tensor algebra.

Remark 2.7.

We present next two useful facts about the tensor algebra and the extended tensor algebra when H=d𝐻superscript𝑑H=\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_H = blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. First, we have the isomorphisms

T(d)T((d))𝒜,similar-to-or-equals𝑇superscript𝑑𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑similar-to-or-equalsdelimited-⟨⟩𝒜T(\mathbb{R}^{d})\simeq T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})\simeq\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal% {A}\rangle,italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≃ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≃ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ ,

see e.g. [Lan02]. Thus, every word π𝒜𝜋delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\pi\in\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleitalic_π ∈ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ can be viewed as an element in T(d).𝑇superscript𝑑T(\mathbb{R}^{d}).italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) . Secondly, we have a dual pairing between T(d)𝑇superscript𝑑T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and T((d))𝑇superscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), see e.g. [LCL07], because of the fact that

T((d))T((d))similar-to-or-equals𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})\simeq T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))^{*}italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≃ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

where T((d))𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))^{*}italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the algebraic dual of T((d))𝑇superscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Hence for πT(d)𝜋𝑇superscript𝑑\pi\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_π ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and xT((d))𝑥𝑇superscript𝑑x\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_x ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) we denote by π,x𝜋𝑥\langle\pi,x\rangle⟨ italic_π , italic_x ⟩ the algebraic dual pairing between π𝜋\piitalic_π and x𝑥xitalic_x.

Putting these two facts together, we find that

𝒜T((d))similar-to-or-equalsdelimited-⟨⟩𝒜𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangle\simeq T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))^{*}blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ ≃ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

and therefore every weighted word π𝒜𝜋delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\pi\in\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleitalic_π ∈ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ can be viewed as a linear functional on the extended tensor algebra, T((d))𝑇superscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ).

Now we want to introduce a Hilbert space for which a big class of signatures belongs to, called the full Fock space. For x=x1xn𝑥tensor-productsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑛x=x_{1}\otimes\dots\otimes x_{n}italic_x = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, y=y1ynHn𝑦tensor-productsubscript𝑦1subscript𝑦𝑛superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛y=y_{1}\otimes\dots\otimes y_{n}\in H^{\otimes n}italic_y = italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we consider an inner product on Hnsuperscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛H^{\otimes n}italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by

x,yn=i=1nxi,yiH.subscript𝑥𝑦𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑦𝑖𝐻\langle x,y\rangle_{n}=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\langle x_{i},y_{i}\rangle_{H}.⟨ italic_x , italic_y ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Hence, the norm on Hnsuperscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛H^{\otimes n}italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT becomes |x|n2=i=1n|xi|H2superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑛2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖2𝐻|x|_{n}^{2}=\prod_{i=1}^{n}|x_{i}|^{2}_{H}| italic_x | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then for x=(xn),y=(yn)n=0Hn,formulae-sequence𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛𝑦subscript𝑦𝑛superscriptsubscriptdirect-sum𝑛0superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛x=(x_{n}),y=(y_{n})\in\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty}H^{\otimes n},italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_y = ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , where H0=𝔽,superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent0𝔽H^{\otimes 0}=\mathbb{F},italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = blackboard_F , we can define an inner product by

x,y(H)=n=0xn,ynn,subscript𝑥𝑦𝐻superscriptsubscript𝑛0subscriptsubscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑦𝑛𝑛\langle x,y\rangle_{\mathcal{F}(H)}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\langle x_{n},y_{n}% \rangle_{n},⟨ italic_x , italic_y ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_F ( italic_H ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

and hence a norm

x(H)2=n=0|xn|n2.superscriptsubscriptnorm𝑥𝐻2superscriptsubscript𝑛0superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑥𝑛𝑛2\|x\|_{\mathcal{F}(H)}^{2}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|x_{n}|_{n}^{2}.∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_F ( italic_H ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The full Fock space over H𝐻Hitalic_H is the Hilbert space given by the topological direct sum, ^^direct-sum\widehat{\bigoplus}over^ start_ARG ⨁ end_ARG,

(H):=^n=0Hn={x=(xn)xnHn,n,x(H)2<}.assign𝐻superscriptsubscript^direct-sum𝑛0superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛conditional-set𝑥subscript𝑥𝑛formulae-sequencesubscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛formulae-sequence𝑛superscriptsubscriptnorm𝑥𝐻2\mathcal{F}(H):=\widehat{\bigoplus}_{n=0}^{\infty}H^{\otimes n}=\left\{x=(x_{n% })\mid x_{n}\in H^{\otimes n},\,n\in\mathbb{N},\,\|x\|_{\mathcal{F}(H)}^{2}<% \infty\right\}.caligraphic_F ( italic_H ) := over^ start_ARG ⨁ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_x = ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∣ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n ∈ blackboard_N , ∥ italic_x ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_F ( italic_H ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞ } .

Moreover, T(H)𝑇𝐻T(H)italic_T ( italic_H ) is a dense subspace in (H)𝐻\mathcal{F}(H)caligraphic_F ( italic_H ).

Example 2.8.

Recall that for 𝒜={1,,d}𝒜1𝑑\mathcal{A}=\{1,\dots,d\}caligraphic_A = { 1 , … , italic_d } we have that 𝒜T(d)similar-to-or-equalsdelimited-⟨⟩𝒜𝑇superscript𝑑\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangle\simeq T(\mathbb{R}^{d})blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ ≃ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and therefore any π𝒜𝜋delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\pi\in\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleitalic_π ∈ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ can be recognized as an element eπT(d)subscript𝑒𝜋𝑇superscript𝑑e_{\pi}\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Moreover, since T(d)𝑇superscript𝑑T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is a (dense) subspace of (d)superscript𝑑\mathcal{F}(\mathbb{R}^{d})caligraphic_F ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), we can compute the Fock norm of a weighted word π𝒜.𝜋delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\pi\in\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangle.italic_π ∈ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ . For example, let d=2𝑑2d=2italic_d = 2 so that 𝒜={1,2}𝒜12\mathcal{A}=\{1,2\}caligraphic_A = { 1 , 2 } and consider the weighted word

π=2+3𝟏+𝟏𝟐.𝜋23112\pi=2\emptyset+3\cdot\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{12}.italic_π = 2 ∅ + 3 ⋅ bold_1 + bold_12 .

Then

eπ=2e+3e1+e1e2=(2e,3e1,e1e2)subscript𝑒𝜋2subscript𝑒3subscript𝑒1tensor-productsubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒22subscript𝑒3subscript𝑒1tensor-productsubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2e_{\pi}=2e_{\emptyset}+3e_{1}+e_{1}\otimes e_{2}=(2e_{\emptyset},3e_{1},e_{1}% \otimes e_{2})italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 3 italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 2 italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

where e=1subscript𝑒1e_{\emptyset}=1italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 is the basis vector in the field \mathbb{R}blackboard_R while e1,e22subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2superscript2e_{1},e_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^{2}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are the basis vectors in 2superscript2\mathbb{R}^{2}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Hence, we get that

π(d)2:=eπ(d)2=22|e|2+32|e1|2+|e1|2|e2|2=4+9+1=14.assignsubscriptsuperscriptnorm𝜋2superscript𝑑subscriptsuperscriptnormsubscript𝑒𝜋2superscript𝑑superscript22superscriptsubscript𝑒2superscript32superscriptsubscript𝑒12superscriptsubscript𝑒12superscriptsubscript𝑒2249114\|\pi\|^{2}_{\mathcal{F}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}:=\|e_{\pi}\|^{2}_{\mathcal{F}(% \mathbb{R}^{d})}=2^{2}|e_{\emptyset}|^{2}+3^{2}|e_{1}|^{2}+|e_{1}|^{2}|e_{2}|^% {2}=4+9+1=14.∥ italic_π ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_F ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∥ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_F ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 4 + 9 + 1 = 14 .

Next we recall the definition of a multiplicative functional, a fundamental object in the theory of rough paths [LCL07]:

Definition 2.9.

A multiplicative functional of degree N𝑁N\in\mathbb{N}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N is a continuous map

T(s,t)𝐗s,t=(1,Xs,t1,,Xs,tN)TN(H)containssubscript𝑇𝑠𝑡maps-tosubscript𝐗𝑠𝑡1subscriptsuperscript𝑋1𝑠𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑁𝑠𝑡superscript𝑇𝑁𝐻\triangle_{T}\ni(s,t)\mapsto\mathbf{X}_{s,t}=(1,X^{1}_{s,t},\dots,X^{N}_{s,t})% \in T^{N}(H)△ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∋ ( italic_s , italic_t ) ↦ bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 1 , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_H )

satisfying Chen’s identity:

𝐗s,t=𝐗s,u𝐗u,t 0sutT.formulae-sequencesubscript𝐗𝑠𝑡tensor-productsubscript𝐗𝑠𝑢subscript𝐗𝑢𝑡for-all 0𝑠𝑢𝑡𝑇\mathbf{X}_{s,t}=\mathbf{X}_{s,u}\otimes\mathbf{X}_{u,t}\quad\forall\;0\leq s% \leq u\leq t\leq T.bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∀ 0 ≤ italic_s ≤ italic_u ≤ italic_t ≤ italic_T .

For p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1, a multiplicative functional 𝐗=(1,X1,,XN)𝐗1superscript𝑋1superscript𝑋𝑁\mathbf{X}=(1,X^{1},\dots,X^{N})bold_X = ( 1 , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of degree N𝑁N\in\mathbb{N}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N is said to have finite p𝑝pitalic_p-variation if

𝐗p,[0,T]:=max0iNsupP𝒟tkP|Xtk,tk+1i|ip/i<assignsubscriptnorm𝐗𝑝0𝑇subscript0𝑖𝑁subscriptsupremum𝑃𝒟subscriptsubscript𝑡𝑘𝑃superscriptsubscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝑡𝑘subscript𝑡𝑘1𝑖𝑝𝑖\|\mathbf{X}\|_{p,[0,T]}:=\max_{0\leq i\leq N}\sup_{P\in\mathcal{D}}\sum_{t_{k% }\in P}|X^{i}_{t_{k},t_{k+1}}|_{i}^{p/i}<\infty∥ bold_X ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P ∈ caligraphic_D end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p / italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < ∞

and 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is the collection of all finite partitions over [0,T]0𝑇[0,T][ 0 , italic_T ].

Definition 2.10.

Let p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 and let 𝐗s,t=(1,Xs,t1,,Xs,tp)subscript𝐗𝑠𝑡1subscriptsuperscript𝑋1𝑠𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑝𝑠𝑡\mathbf{X}_{s,t}=(1,X^{1}_{s,t},\dots,X^{\lfloor p\rfloor}_{s,t})bold_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 1 , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) be a multiplicative functional of degree p𝑝\lfloor p\rfloor\in\mathbb{N}⌊ italic_p ⌋ ∈ blackboard_N. We call 𝐗𝐗\mathbf{X}bold_X a p𝑝pitalic_p-rough path if Xisuperscript𝑋𝑖X^{i}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of finite p𝑝pitalic_p-variation for all i=1,,p.𝑖1𝑝i=1,\dots,\lfloor p\rfloor.italic_i = 1 , … , ⌊ italic_p ⌋ .

Theorem 2.11.

[Lyons’ extension theorem [LCL07]] Let 𝐗𝐗\mathbf{X}bold_X be a p-rough path. Then for any np+1𝑛𝑝1n\geq\lfloor p\rfloor+1italic_n ≥ ⌊ italic_p ⌋ + 1 there exists a unique continuous map

Xn:THn:superscript𝑋𝑛subscript𝑇superscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑛X^{n}:\triangle_{T}\rightarrow H^{\otimes n}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : △ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

such that

𝐗=(1,X1,,Xp,,Xn,):TT((H)):superscript𝐗absent1superscript𝑋1superscript𝑋𝑝superscript𝑋𝑛subscript𝑇𝑇𝐻\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}=(1,X^{1},\dots,X^{\lfloor p\rfloor},\dots,X^{n},\dots)% :\triangle_{T}\rightarrow T((H))bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( 1 , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … ) : △ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_T ( ( italic_H ) )

is a multiplicative functional with finite p𝑝pitalic_p-variation. We call 𝐗superscript𝐗absent\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the signature of 𝐗𝐗\mathbf{X}bold_X. Moreover, for any norm ||k|\cdot|_{k}| ⋅ | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on Hksuperscript𝐻tensor-productabsent𝑘H^{\otimes k}italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we have that

|Xs,tk|k𝐗p,[s,t]kβ(p)(k/p)!subscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑘𝑠𝑡𝑘superscriptsubscriptnorm𝐗𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑘𝛽𝑝𝑘𝑝|X^{k}_{s,t}|_{k}\leq\frac{\|\mathbf{X}\|_{p,[s,t]}^{k}}{\beta(p)(k/p)!}| italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG ∥ bold_X ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , [ italic_s , italic_t ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_β ( italic_p ) ( italic_k / italic_p ) ! end_ARG

where β(p)𝛽𝑝\beta(p)italic_β ( italic_p ) is a constant only dependent of p𝑝pitalic_p.

Definition 2.12 (Geometric rough paths, [LCL07]).

A geometric p𝑝pitalic_p-rough path is a p𝑝pitalic_p-rough path that can be expressed as a limit of 1111-rough paths in the p𝑝pitalic_p-variation distance. The space of geometric p𝑝pitalic_p-rough paths in H𝐻Hitalic_H is denoted by Gp(H)superscript𝐺𝑝𝐻G^{p}(H)italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_H ).

We now present a useful theorem: the signature of a p𝑝pitalic_p-rough path is an element of the Fock space, instead of the entire extended tensor algebra, T((H))𝑇𝐻T((H))italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ). To this end, let

Eα,β(z)=n=0zn(αn+β)!,α,β,(α),(β)>0,zformulae-sequencesubscript𝐸𝛼𝛽𝑧superscriptsubscript𝑛0superscript𝑧𝑛𝛼𝑛𝛽𝛼formulae-sequence𝛽𝛼formulae-sequence𝛽0𝑧E_{\alpha,\beta}(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^{n}}{(\alpha n+\beta)!},\quad% \alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C},\;\mathfrak{R}(\alpha),\mathfrak{R}(\beta)>0,\;z\in% \mathbb{C}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_α italic_n + italic_β ) ! end_ARG , italic_α , italic_β ∈ blackboard_C , fraktur_R ( italic_α ) , fraktur_R ( italic_β ) > 0 , italic_z ∈ blackboard_C

be the Mittag-Leffler function.

Corollary 2.13.

For p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 let 𝐗psuperscript𝐗absent𝑝\mathbf{X}^{\leq p}bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a p𝑝pitalic_p-rough path. We have that 𝐗s,t(H)subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑠𝑡𝐻\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\in\mathcal{F}(H)bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_F ( italic_H ) for any (s,t)T𝑠𝑡subscript𝑇(s,t)\in\triangle_{T}( italic_s , italic_t ) ∈ △ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

From Lyons’ extension theorem 2.11, we have that 𝐗s,tT((H))subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑠𝑡𝑇𝐻\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\in T((H))bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( ( italic_H ) ), and, moreover,

𝐗s,t(H)=n=0|Xs,tn|nn=0𝐗p,[s,t]nβ(p)(n/p)!E1/p,0(𝐗p,[s,t])β(p)<.subscriptnormsubscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑠𝑡𝐻superscriptsubscript𝑛0subscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑛0superscriptsubscriptnorm𝐗𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑛𝛽𝑝𝑛𝑝subscript𝐸1𝑝0subscriptnorm𝐗𝑝𝑠𝑡𝛽𝑝\displaystyle\|\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\|_{\mathcal{F}(H)}=\sum_{n=0}^{% \infty}|X^{n}_{s,t}|_{n}\leq\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\|\mathbf{X}\|_{p,[s,t]}^% {n}}{\beta(p)(n/p)!}\leq\frac{E_{1/p,0}(\|\mathbf{X}\|_{p,[s,t]})}{\beta(p)}<\infty.∥ bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_F ( italic_H ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∥ bold_X ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , [ italic_s , italic_t ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_β ( italic_p ) ( italic_n / italic_p ) ! end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 / italic_p , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∥ bold_X ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , [ italic_s , italic_t ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_β ( italic_p ) end_ARG < ∞ .

The result follows. ∎

We wish to utilize the dual pairing in Remark 2.7 between weighted words π𝒜𝜋delimited-⟨⟩𝒜\pi\in\mathbb{R}\langle\mathcal{A}\rangleitalic_π ∈ blackboard_R ⟨ caligraphic_A ⟩ and signatures 𝐗s,tT((d))subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑠𝑡𝑇superscript𝑑\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Hence, from now on we consider the case when H=d𝐻superscript𝑑H=\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_H = blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Given an dsuperscript𝑑\mathbb{R}^{d}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-valued path 𝐗𝐗\mathbf{X}bold_X for which the signature 𝐗T:=𝐗0,TT((d))assignsubscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent0𝑇𝑇superscript𝑑\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}:=\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{0,T}\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d% }))bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) is well-defined, and a word w=𝐢1𝐢n𝒲n𝑤subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛subscript𝒲𝑛w=\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n}\in\mathcal{W}_{n}italic_w = bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we can identify w𝑤witalic_w as an element ewT(d)T((d))subscript𝑒𝑤𝑇superscript𝑑similar-to-or-equals𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑e_{w}\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})\simeq T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))^{*}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≃ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and we have the following relation with the signature

w,𝐗T:=ew,𝐗T=0<ui<<un<TdXu1i1dXunin.assign𝑤subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇subscript𝑒𝑤subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇0subscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑢𝑛𝑇𝑑superscriptsubscript𝑋subscript𝑢1subscript𝑖1𝑑superscriptsubscript𝑋subscript𝑢𝑛subscript𝑖𝑛\langle w,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle:=\langle e_{w},\mathbf{X}^{\leq% \infty}_{T}\rangle=\underset{0<u_{i}<\dots<u_{n}<T}{\int\dots\int}dX_{u_{1}}^{% i_{1}}\dots dX_{u_{n}}^{i_{n}}.⟨ italic_w , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ := ⟨ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = start_UNDERACCENT 0 < italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_T end_UNDERACCENT start_ARG ∫ … ∫ end_ARG italic_d italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_d italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (2.1)

Here and in the sequel of this paper we shall use the generic notation π𝜋\piitalic_π to signify a (finite) linear combination of elements ewsubscript𝑒𝑤e_{w}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, or, after identification, a finite linear combination of words (as in the Example 2.8 above). Indeed, if π=w𝒲aww𝜋subscript𝑤𝒲subscript𝑎𝑤𝑤\pi=\sum_{w\in\mathcal{W}}a_{w}witalic_π = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w for w𝒲𝑤𝒲w\in\mathcal{W}italic_w ∈ caligraphic_W and aw{0}subscript𝑎𝑤0a_{w}\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R ∖ { 0 } for finitely many w𝒲𝑤𝒲w\in\mathcal{W}italic_w ∈ caligraphic_W, then,

π,𝐗T=w𝒲aww,𝐗T,𝜋subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇subscript𝑤𝒲subscript𝑎𝑤𝑤subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇\langle\pi,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle=\sum_{w\in\mathcal{W}}a_{w}% \langle w,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle,⟨ italic_π , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ∈ caligraphic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_w , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ,

with w,𝐗T𝑤subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇\langle w,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle⟨ italic_w , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ given as in (2.1).

The shuffle product is turning T(d)𝑇superscript𝑑T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) into an algebra, and is very convenient and useful in operating with products of signatures. Indeed, the shuffle product is the key operation in the rough path theory that linearises nonlinear functionals, at least approximately, as can be seen in the Universal Approximation Theorem (as we recall for the convenience of the reader in Proposition 3.1). We define the shuffle product \shuffle\shuffle\shuffle next: The shuffle product between two words gives a word which is constructed by taking a linear combination of all the different ways to combine two words while preserving their own orders. As an example, if we shuffle together the words 𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐛\mathbf{ab}bold_ab and 𝐜𝐜\mathbf{c}bold_c, we get

𝐚𝐛\shuffle𝐜=𝐚𝐛𝐜+𝐚𝐜𝐛+𝐜𝐚𝐛.𝐚𝐛\shuffle𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐜𝐚𝐜𝐛𝐜𝐚𝐛\mathbf{ab}\shuffle\mathbf{c=abc+acb+cab}.bold_ab bold_c = bold_abc + bold_acb + bold_cab .

Note that 𝐛𝐚𝐜,𝐛𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐛𝐜𝐚\mathbf{bac},\mathbf{bca}bold_bac , bold_bca and 𝐜𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐛𝐚\mathbf{cba}bold_cba is not in the sum on the right hand side since it violates the order of 𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐛\mathbf{ab}bold_ab.

Below follows an important Lemma for products of signatures and the shuffle product:

Lemma 2.14 (Shuffle property, [LCL07]).

Let π,πT(d)𝜋superscript𝜋𝑇superscript𝑑\pi,\pi^{\prime}\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_π , italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and let 𝐗𝐗\mathbf{X}bold_X be a geometric rough path, according to Definition 2.12. Then the following identity holds

π,𝐗Tπ,𝐗T=π\shuffleπ,𝐗T.𝜋subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇𝜋\shufflesuperscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇\langle\pi,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle\langle\pi^{\prime},\mathbf{X}^{% \leq\infty}_{T}\rangle=\langle\pi\shuffle\pi^{\prime},\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_% {T}\rangle.⟨ italic_π , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = ⟨ italic_π italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ .

Interestingly, one can link shuffle product monomials to monomials of the signatures: given πT(d)𝜋𝑇superscript𝑑\pi\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_π ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we define πnT(d)subscript𝜋𝑛𝑇superscript𝑑\pi_{n}\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for every n𝑛n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N by

π0=π,π1=π,π2=π1\shuffleπ1,πn=πn1\shuffleπ1=π1\shuffle\shuffleπ1n-times.formulae-sequencesubscript𝜋0subscript𝜋formulae-sequencesubscript𝜋1𝜋formulae-sequencesubscript𝜋2subscript𝜋1\shufflesubscript𝜋1subscript𝜋𝑛subscript𝜋𝑛1\shufflesubscript𝜋1superscriptsubscript𝜋1\shuffle\shufflesubscript𝜋1n-times\pi_{0}=\pi_{\emptyset},\quad\pi_{1}=\pi,\quad\pi_{2}=\pi_{1}\shuffle\pi_{1},% \quad\pi_{n}=\pi_{n-1}\shuffle\pi_{1}=\overbrace{\pi_{1}\shuffle\dots\shuffle% \pi_{1}}^{\text{n-times}}.italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π , italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over⏞ start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT n-times end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Then by the shuffle property we have that

πn,𝐗T=πn1,𝐗Tπ1,𝐗T=π,𝐗Tn.subscript𝜋𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇subscript𝜋𝑛1subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇subscript𝜋1subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇𝑛\langle\pi_{n},\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle=\langle\pi_{n-1},\mathbf{X}^% {\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle\langle\pi_{1},\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle=% \langle\pi,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle^{n}.⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = ⟨ italic_π , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

This gives a convenient link between monomials of signatures and monomials of words.

3. Functional approximation with signatures

With the goal of approximating complex pricing functionals from financial markets, we recall here some basic properties of universality of the signature. In addition, we provide a new statement of the universal approximation property for functionals acting on general rough paths (not restricted to geometric rough paths).

3.1. Universal approximation for geometric rough paths

The functional approximation setup outlined in [LNPA20], based on ideas also formulated in [Arr18], is strongly based on the universal approximation property of the signature. This property is a consequence of the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, using the fact that the linear span of signatures of geometric rough paths forms an algebra, and that when lifting the underlying path X𝑋Xitalic_X to its time extension X^t=(t,Xt)subscript^𝑋𝑡𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡\hat{X}_{t}=(t,X_{t})over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), the signature 𝐗^superscript^𝐗absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT uniquely determines the path, and thus separates points. The universal approximation theorem relied upon in [Arr18, LNPA20] is based on Lipschitz-paths. The following universal approximation theorem is based on the recently proposed extension by Cuchiero et.al. in [CPSF23] to the setting of Gp(d)superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )-valued paths.

Proposition 3.1 (Universal approximation).

For p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 let 𝒦V^cp([0,T];Gp(d))𝒦superscriptsubscript^𝑉𝑐𝑝0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑\mathcal{K}\subset\hat{V}_{c}^{p}([0,T];G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))caligraphic_K ⊂ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) be a compact subset which is finite in the p𝑝pitalic_p-variation norm. Suppose F𝐹Fitalic_F is a functional on V^cp([0,T];Gp(d))superscriptsubscript^𝑉𝑐𝑝0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}_{c}^{p}([0,T];G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Let 𝐗^p𝒦superscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝒦\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\lfloor p\rfloor}\in\mathcal{K}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_K be a p𝑝pitalic_p-rough path defined according to Definition 2.10 over the extended path X^t=(t,Xt)subscript^𝑋𝑡𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡\hat{X}_{t}=(t,X_{t})over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for some X:[0,T]d:𝑋0𝑇superscript𝑑X:[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}italic_X : [ 0 , italic_T ] → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then for each ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 there exists a linear functional πT(d)𝜋𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\pi\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*}italic_π ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that

max𝐗^pK|F(𝐗^p)[0,T]π,𝐗^[0,T]|<ϵ.subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝐾𝐹subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝0𝑇𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent0𝑇italic-ϵ\max_{\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\in K}|F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})_{[0,T]}-% \langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{[0,T]}\rangle|<\epsilon.roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ | < italic_ϵ .

The universal approximation applied to Gp(d)superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) valued paths allows us, in particular, to consider functionals of truly rough signals X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG, that only have finite p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 variation, as long as we have constructed the rough path of 𝐗^psuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG. For instance, we can consider functionals of paths of the Brownian motion. However, in its current form, it is only formulated for Stratonovich lifts of the iterated integral, excluding the more natural choice of rough paths lift for financial applications, namely the Itô lift. One might try to work around this problem by identifying the Itô-Stratonovich correction term and implementing this in the functional and signature. However, under the working hypothesis that will be used in the remainder of the text, we can circumvent this challenge completely.

3.2. General universal approximation on rough paths

The universal approximation theorem in Proposition 3.1 heavily relies upon the geometric structure of the rough paths, on which the functionals F𝐹Fitalic_F act on. The reason is that when applying the Stone-Weierstrass theorem to check for denseness of the linear span of signature terms in the space V^p([0,T];Gp(d))superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), one relies upon being able to multiply two signature terms π1,𝐗^subscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absent\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ and π2,𝐗^subscript𝜋2superscript^𝐗absent\langle\pi_{2},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ to obtain a new signature term π,𝐗^𝜋superscript^𝐗absent\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩. When 𝐗^superscript^𝐗absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is geometric (i.e. takes values in Gp(d)superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )) it follows from Lemma 2.14 that this holds with π=π1\shuffleπ2𝜋subscript𝜋1\shufflesubscript𝜋2\pi=\pi_{1}\shuffle\pi_{2}italic_π = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. However, this is a restrictive class of signatures; in the semi-martingale setting it corresponds to Stratonovich lifts of the rough path. In financial applications, one typically work with functions that acts on non-geometric rough paths, such that Itô lifts of semi-martingales. Thus extending the universal approximation property to any rough path provides practical consequences for several applications.

It turns out that a simple mixing of ideas from the Stone-Weierstrass theorem over polynomials, with the classical signature universal approximation allows one to obtain such a new generalized universal approximation. To this end we will need a so-called separation of points property of the sub-algebra of continuous functionals that we will consider as a the basis for functional approximation. We therefore recall the following technical lemma from [Bre11, Cor. 4.24].

Lemma 3.2.

Let ΩdΩsuperscript𝑑\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be open, and suppose uLloc1(Ω)𝑢subscriptsuperscript𝐿1𝑙𝑜𝑐Ωu\in L^{1}_{loc}(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_o italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) is such that

Ωu(z)f(z)dz=0,fCc(Ω).formulae-sequencesubscriptΩ𝑢𝑧𝑓𝑧differential-d𝑧0for-all𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝑐Ω\int_{\Omega}u(z)f(z)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}z=0,\quad\forall f\in C^{\infty}_{c}% (\Omega).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ( italic_z ) italic_f ( italic_z ) roman_d italic_z = 0 , ∀ italic_f ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) .

Then u0𝑢0u\equiv 0italic_u ≡ 0 a.e on ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω.

With this lemma at hand we are now ready to prove a generalized version of polynomial universal approximation over rough paths with values in the tensor algebra T((d))𝑇superscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ).

Theorem 3.3 (Generalized universal approximation).

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a continuous functional on a compact set 𝒦V^p([0,T];Tp(d))𝒦superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\mathcal{K}\subset\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))caligraphic_K ⊂ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Then for any ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 there exists finite set 𝒩n𝒩superscript𝑛\mathcal{N}\subset\mathbb{N}^{n}caligraphic_N ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and a polynomial f¯:n:¯𝑓superscript𝑛\bar{f}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R given by

f¯𝒩(x)=m𝒩αmxm,subscript¯𝑓𝒩𝑥subscript𝑚𝒩subscript𝛼𝑚superscript𝑥𝑚\bar{f}_{\mathcal{N}}(x)=\sum_{m\in\mathcal{N}}\alpha_{m}x^{m},over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (3.1)

and a sequence of linear operators {πi}i=1nT(d)superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛𝑇superscript𝑑\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\subset T(\mathbb{R}^{d}){ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) with the property that for all 𝐗^p𝒦superscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝒦\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\in\mathcal{K}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_K then

|F(𝐗^p)f¯𝒩(π1,𝐗^,,πn,𝐗^)|<ϵ.𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript¯𝑓𝒩subscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absentitalic-ϵ\left|F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})-\bar{f}_{\mathcal{N}}\left(\langle\pi_{1},% \hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{% \leq\infty}\rangle\right)\right|<\epsilon.| italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) | < italic_ϵ .
Proof.

Let p:=V^p([0,T];Tp(d))assignsuperscript𝑝superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\mathcal{E}^{p}:=\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Define for n𝑛n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N and p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1,

𝒜n,p=span{𝐗^pi=1nπi,𝐗^mi|mn,{πi}i=1nT((d)),𝐗^pp}.subscript𝒜𝑛𝑝spanconditional-setmaps-tosuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝑚𝑖formulae-sequence𝑚superscript𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑superscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscript𝑝\mathcal{A}_{n,p}=\mathrm{span}\{\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\mapsto\prod_{i=1}^{% n}\langle\pi_{i},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{m_{i}}\,|\,\,m\in% \mathbb{N}^{n},\,\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\subset T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*}),\,\hat{% \mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\in\mathcal{E}^{p}\}.caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_span { over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↦ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , { italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } . (3.2)

Furthermore, let 𝒜p=n=1𝒜n,psubscript𝒜𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑛1subscript𝒜𝑛𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}=\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{A}_{n,p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Clearly, 𝒜pC(p;)subscript𝒜𝑝𝐶superscript𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}\subset C(\mathcal{E}^{p};\mathbb{R})caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_C ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_R ). With the goal of applying Stone-Weierstrass theorem to prove denseness of 𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in C(p;)𝐶superscript𝑝C(\mathcal{E}^{p};\mathbb{R})italic_C ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_R ) we check that the following holds:

  • i)

    The set 𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT forms a sub-algebra. Indeed; addition holds. Furthermore, for two elements A=i=1nπi,𝐗^mi𝒜n,p𝐴superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝑚𝑖subscript𝒜𝑛𝑝A=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\langle\pi_{i},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{m_{i}}% \in\mathcal{A}_{n,p}italic_A = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and B=i=1kπi,𝐘^mi𝒜k,p𝐵superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐘absentsubscript𝑚𝑖subscript𝒜𝑘𝑝B=\prod_{i=1}^{k}\langle\pi^{\prime}_{i},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^% {m_{i}}\in\mathcal{A}_{k,p}italic_B = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT then we can choose {πi~}~subscript𝜋𝑖\{\tilde{\pi_{i}}\}{ over~ start_ARG italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG } such that

    AB=i=1nj=1kπi,𝐗^miπi,𝐘^mi=i=1n+kπ~i,(𝐗^,𝐘^)m~i𝒜k+n,p.𝐴𝐵superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝑚𝑖superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐘absentsubscriptsuperscript𝑚𝑖superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛𝑘superscriptsubscript~𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐗^𝐘absentsubscript~𝑚𝑖subscript𝒜𝑘𝑛𝑝AB=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\prod_{j=1}^{k}\langle\pi_{i},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}% \rangle^{m_{i}}\langle\pi^{\prime}_{i},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{m% ^{\prime}_{i}}=\prod_{i=1}^{n+k}\langle\tilde{\pi}_{i},(\hat{\mathbf{X}},\hat{% \mathbf{Y}})^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{\tilde{m}_{i}}\in\mathcal{A}_{k+n,p}.italic_A italic_B = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ over~ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_n , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

    where (𝐗^,𝐘^)superscript^𝐗^𝐘absent(\hat{\mathbf{X}},\hat{\mathbf{Y}})^{\leq\infty}( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the signature of (𝐗^,𝐘^)p,^𝐗^𝐘superscript𝑝(\hat{\mathbf{X}},\hat{\mathbf{Y}})\in\mathcal{E}^{p},( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG ) ∈ caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , π~i=πisubscript~𝜋𝑖subscript𝜋𝑖\tilde{\pi}_{i}=\pi_{i}over~ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for i{1,,n}𝑖1𝑛i\in\{1,...,n\}italic_i ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n } and π~i=πinsubscript~𝜋𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝜋𝑖𝑛\tilde{\pi}_{i}=\pi^{\prime}_{i-n}over~ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for i=n+1,,n+k𝑖𝑛1𝑛𝑘i=n+1,...,n+kitalic_i = italic_n + 1 , … , italic_n + italic_k, and mi~~subscript𝑚𝑖\tilde{m_{i}}over~ start_ARG italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG is the concatenation of misubscript𝑚𝑖m_{i}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and misuperscriptsubscript𝑚𝑖m_{i}^{\prime}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

  • ii)

    𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT separates points. Since 𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is created over the time-extended paths (t,Xt)𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡(t,X_{t})( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and (t,Yt)𝑡subscript𝑌𝑡(t,Y_{t})( italic_t , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), then the following two integral functionals exists in 𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT:

    IXn=0Tsn(XsjX0j)ds=w1,𝐗^,subscriptsuperscript𝐼𝑛𝑋superscriptsubscript0𝑇superscript𝑠𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑋𝑠𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝑗differential-d𝑠subscript𝑤1superscript^𝐗absent\displaystyle I^{n}_{X}=\int_{0}^{T}s^{n}(X_{s}^{j}-X_{0}^{j})\mathop{}\!% \mathrm{d}s=\langle w_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,italic_I start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_d italic_s = ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ,
    IYn=0Tsn(YsjY0j)ds=w1,𝐘^,subscriptsuperscript𝐼𝑛𝑌superscriptsubscript0𝑇superscript𝑠𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑌𝑠𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝑗differential-d𝑠subscript𝑤1superscript^𝐘absent\displaystyle I^{n}_{Y}=\int_{0}^{T}s^{n}(Y_{s}^{j}-Y_{0}^{j})\mathop{}\!% \mathrm{d}s=\langle w_{1},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,italic_I start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_d italic_s = ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ,

    where we recall that X^t=(t,Xt)d+1subscript^𝑋𝑡𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡superscript𝑑1\hat{X}_{t}=(t,X_{t})\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the time component corresponds to the first component in the d+1𝑑1d+1italic_d + 1 dimensional vector, and then

    w1=𝟏𝟏ntimes𝐣.subscript𝑤1subscript11𝑛times𝐣w_{1}=\underbrace{{\bf 1\ldots 1}}_{n-\text{times}}\,\mathrm{\bf j}.italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = under⏟ start_ARG bold_1 … bold_1 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - times end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_j .

    Suppose now that IXn=IYnsuperscriptsubscript𝐼𝑋𝑛superscriptsubscript𝐼𝑌𝑛I_{X}^{n}=I_{Y}^{n}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all n𝑛nitalic_n. Then since polynomials are dense in C([0,T];)𝐶0𝑇C([0,T];\mathbb{R})italic_C ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; blackboard_R ) it follows by Lemma 3.2 that X=Y𝑋𝑌X=Yitalic_X = italic_Y. As a consequence it implies that 𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT separate points.

  • iii)

    the constant function 1111 is in 𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, since by choosing π=T((d))𝜋𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\pi=\emptyset\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})italic_π = ∅ ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we get that ,𝐗=1superscript𝐗absent1\langle\emptyset,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}\rangle=1⟨ ∅ , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = 1 and therefore in particular ,𝐗^p=1superscript^𝐗absent𝑝1\langle\emptyset,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\rangle=1⟨ ∅ , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = 1.

From these three properties it follows by the Stone-Weierstrass theorem that 𝒜psubscript𝒜𝑝\mathcal{A}_{p}caligraphic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is dense in C(p;)𝐶subscript𝑝C(\mathcal{E}_{p};\mathbb{R})italic_C ( caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; blackboard_R ), which concludes the proof. ∎

3.3. Signature associated to price paths

As discussed in the introduction, even the most complex financial derivatives typically have a simple functional structure. By this we mean that the path dependent nature of the functional either comes through an averaging over the price path (like in Asian style derivatives), or products of price paths (quanto-style options), in addition to basket of different assets etc. with these structures. It is therefore natural to assume that for this purpose, given a price path X𝑋Xitalic_X, and the extended signature 𝐗^superscript^𝐗absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the payoff functional F(X^)𝐹^𝑋F(\hat{X})italic_F ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ) can be written as a function f:n:𝑓superscript𝑛f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R, and n𝑛nitalic_n different weighted words π𝜋\piitalic_π, such that

F(𝐗^p)=f(π1,𝐗^),,πn,𝐗^).F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})=f(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty})% \rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle).italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) .

This will therefore be the main working hypothesis of the subsequent sections, and we will illustrate several numerical and analytic advantages of using this specific structure. We will also give examples to show exactly how this hypothesis applies for various exotic derivatives. As a first simple example, we have the following:

Example 3.4.

Asian options are contracts that pays the holder an amount of money according to the average price over a period of time. If X𝑋Xitalic_X is the price process, the holder receives f(0TXs𝑑s)𝑓superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑋𝑠differential-d𝑠f(\int_{0}^{T}X_{s}ds)italic_f ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s ) at time T𝑇Titalic_T. Considering the time-enhanced price path X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG defined by X^t=(t,Xt)subscript^𝑋𝑡𝑡subscript𝑋𝑡\hat{X}_{t}=(t,X_{t})over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we see (recall Example 2.8 with d=2𝑑2d=2italic_d = 2 and 𝒜={𝟏,𝟐}𝒜12\mathcal{A}=\{\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2}\}caligraphic_A = { bold_1 , bold_2 }) that 0TXt𝑑t=0T0t𝑑Xr𝑑t=w,𝐗^0,Tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑋𝑡differential-d𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑡differential-dsubscript𝑋𝑟differential-d𝑡𝑤subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent0𝑇\int_{0}^{T}X_{t}dt=\int_{0}^{T}\int_{0}^{t}dX_{r}dt=\langle w,\hat{\mathbf{X}% }^{\leq\infty}_{0,T}\rangle∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_t = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_t = ⟨ italic_w , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ for w=𝟐𝟏𝑤21w=\mathbf{2}\mathbf{1}italic_w = bold_21. Another example is a spread option between two assets with price dynamics X1subscript𝑋1X_{1}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and X2subscript𝑋2X_{2}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively, paying the holder max(X1,TcX2,T,0)subscript𝑋1𝑇𝑐subscript𝑋2𝑇0\max(X_{1,T}-cX_{2,T},0)roman_max ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ) at time T𝑇Titalic_T, for a conversion constant c𝑐citalic_c (here, c𝑐citalic_c may convert the currency of the second asset into the currency of the first, say). With X^=(t,X1,X2)^𝑋𝑡subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2\hat{X}=(t,X_{1},X_{2})over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG = ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we can (still following the notation in Example 2.8, now with d=3𝑑3d=3italic_d = 3) express the payoff as

f(w1,𝐗^0,T,w2,𝐗^0,T)=max(w1,𝐗^0,Tcw2,𝐗^0,T,0)𝑓subscript𝑤1superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absentsubscript𝑤2superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absentsubscript𝑤1superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absent𝑐subscript𝑤2superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absent0f(\langle w_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\langle w_{2},\hat{% \mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle)=\max(\langle w_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{0,% T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle-c\langle w_{2},\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}% \rangle,0)italic_f ( ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) = roman_max ( ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ - italic_c ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , 0 )

with w1=𝟐subscript𝑤12w_{1}=\mathbf{2}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_2 and w2=𝟑subscript𝑤23w_{2}=\mathbf{3}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_3, or, more simple,

f(π,𝐗^0,T)=max(π,𝐗^0,T,0)𝑓𝜋superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absent𝜋superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absent0f(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle)=\max(\langle\pi,\hat{% \mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,0)italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) = roman_max ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , 0 )

with the weighted word π=w1cw2𝜋subscript𝑤1𝑐subscript𝑤2\pi=w_{1}-cw_{2}italic_π = italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Yet another example from energy finance is so-called quanto-options (see e.g. [BLM15]), where the holder receives a payment at exercise time T𝑇Titalic_T according to a product of two payoffs on the average of the spot energy price and temperature, say. Denoting X1subscript𝑋1X_{1}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the energy spot price, X2subscript𝑋2X_{2}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the temperature process, and X^t=(t,X1,t,X2,t)subscript^𝑋𝑡𝑡subscript𝑋1𝑡subscript𝑋2𝑡\hat{X}_{t}=(t,X_{1,t},X_{2,t})over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we have a payoff

f(w1,𝐗^0,T,w2,𝐗^0,T)=g(w1,𝐗^0,T)h(w2,𝐗^0,T)𝑓subscript𝑤1superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absentsubscript𝑤2superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absent𝑔subscript𝑤1superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absentsubscript𝑤2superscriptsubscript^𝐗0𝑇absentf(\langle w_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\langle w_{2},\hat{% \mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle)=g(\langle w_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^% {\leq\infty}\rangle)h(\langle w_{2},\hat{\mathbf{X}}_{0,T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle)italic_f ( ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) = italic_g ( ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) italic_h ( ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ )

where w1=𝟐𝟏subscript𝑤121w_{1}=\mathbf{2}\mathbf{1}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_21 and w2=𝟑𝟏subscript𝑤231w_{2}=\mathbf{3}\mathbf{1}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_31, and g,h𝑔g,hitalic_g , italic_h are the payoff functions written on the average of the spot energy price and temperature, resp.

Let us precise the hypothesis we work under in the remainder of this paper.

Hypothesis 3.5.

Let p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1 and assume that for a given continuous functional F𝐹Fitalic_F acting on V^p([0,T];Tp(d))superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), there exists a collection of linear operators {πi}i=1nT(d)superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛𝑇superscript𝑑\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d}){ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and a function f:n:𝑓superscript𝑛f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R such that for any 𝐗^pV^p([0,T];Tp(d))superscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\in\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^% {d}))over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )

F(𝐗^p)=f(π1,𝐗^),,πn,𝐗^).F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})=f(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty})% \rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle).italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) . (3.3)
Remark 3.6.

Define g:V^pn:𝑔superscript^𝑉𝑝superscript𝑛g:\hat{V}^{p}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_g : over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to be the signature functional

g(𝐗^p)=(π1,𝐗^p,,πn,𝐗^p),𝑔superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absent𝑝g(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})=(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\rangle,% ...,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\rangle),italic_g ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) ,

and define G:=g(V^p)nassign𝐺𝑔superscript^𝑉𝑝superscript𝑛G:=g(\hat{V}^{p})\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_G := italic_g ( over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Under the assumption that F𝐹Fitalic_F is a continuous functional in Hypothesis 3.5, it follows that also f:G:𝑓𝐺f:G\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : italic_G → blackboard_R must be continuous. Indeed, we know that 𝐗^p𝐗maps-tosuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscript𝐗absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\mapsto\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↦ bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a continuous mapping according to Lyons’ Extension theorem 2.11. The right hand side of (3.3) can be written as a composition between f𝑓fitalic_f and a continuous functional g𝑔gitalic_g with image G𝐺Gitalic_G. Since by assumption, F𝐹Fitalic_F is continuous, and we know that g𝑔gitalic_g is continuous, thus it follows that also f𝑓fitalic_f must be continuous. Of course, the converse would also be true; suppose we start out with a continuous function f𝑓fitalic_f, then also F=fg𝐹𝑓𝑔F=f\circ gitalic_F = italic_f ∘ italic_g is a continuous functional, by composition of two continuous maps.

The main advantage of invoking Hypothesis 3.5 is that analytic functions are dense in the space of continuous functions. Thus, if Hypothesis 3.5 holds for a continuous function f𝑓fitalic_f, then we may approximate the functional 𝐗^pF(𝐗^p)maps-tosuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\mapsto F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↦ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) by a (multivariate) polynomial in a finite number of signature coefficients. More precisely, if Hypothesis 3.5 holds, there exists an analytic function f¯f¯𝑓𝑓\bar{f}\equiv fover¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ≡ italic_f such that for an𝑎superscript𝑛a\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_a ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, f¯:n:¯𝑓superscript𝑛\bar{f}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R and

f¯(x)=mnαm(xa)m¯𝑓𝑥subscript𝑚superscript𝑛subscript𝛼𝑚superscript𝑥𝑎𝑚\bar{f}(x)=\sum_{m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}}\alpha_{m}(x-a)^{m}over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x - italic_a ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

where for a multi-index mn𝑚superscript𝑛m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and xn𝑥superscript𝑛x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we write xm=x1m1xnmnsuperscript𝑥𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑥1subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑛subscript𝑚𝑛x^{m}=x_{1}^{m_{1}}\dots x_{n}^{m_{n}}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The coefficients αmsubscript𝛼𝑚\alpha_{m}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are real numbers labeled by the multi-index mn𝑚superscript𝑛m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This leads to the following simplified version of the universal approximation theorem, being a consequence of the Stone-Weierstrass theorem and Hypothesis 3.5.

Theorem 3.7.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a continuous functional on V^p([0,T];Tp(d))superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), and suppose Hypothesis 3.5 holds with a sequence {πi}i=1nsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}{ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a continuous function f𝑓fitalic_f. Then for any ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 there exists a finite set 𝒩n𝒩superscript𝑛\mathcal{N}\subset\mathbb{N}^{n}caligraphic_N ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT a hypercube 𝒦ϵnsubscript𝒦italic-ϵsuperscript𝑛\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and a polynomial f¯:n:¯𝑓superscript𝑛\bar{f}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R given by

f¯𝒩(x)=m𝒩αmxm,subscript¯𝑓𝒩𝑥subscript𝑚𝒩subscript𝛼𝑚superscript𝑥𝑚\bar{f}_{\mathcal{N}}(x)=\sum_{m\in\mathcal{N}}\alpha_{m}x^{m},over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

with the property that

|F(𝐗^p)f¯𝒩(π1,𝐗^,,πn,𝐗^)|<ϵ,𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript¯𝑓𝒩subscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absentitalic-ϵ\left|F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})-\bar{f}_{\mathcal{N}}\left(\langle\pi_{1},% \hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{% \leq\infty}\rangle\right)\right|<\epsilon,| italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) | < italic_ϵ , (3.4)

for all 𝐗^pV^p([0,T];Tp(d))superscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\in\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^% {d}))over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) such that (π1,𝐗^,,πn,𝐗^)𝒦ϵsubscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝒦italic-ϵ\left(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n% },\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\right)\in\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) ∈ caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Furthermore, let K>0𝐾0K>0italic_K > 0 be the constant from Theorem 2.11 such that for πiT((d))subscript𝜋𝑖𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\pi_{i}\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the form πi=j=1Nκijewijsubscript𝜋𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁subscript𝜅𝑖𝑗subscript𝑒subscript𝑤𝑖𝑗\pi_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\kappa_{ij}e_{w_{ij}}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with {κij}j=1Nsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜅𝑖𝑗𝑗1𝑁\{\kappa_{ij}\}_{j=1}^{N}\subset\mathbb{R}{ italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_R,

|πi,𝐗^|j=1N|κij|K|wij|(|wij|/p)!,subscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐗absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁subscript𝜅𝑖𝑗superscript𝐾subscript𝑤𝑖𝑗subscript𝑤𝑖𝑗𝑝|\langle\pi_{i},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle|\leq\sum_{j=1}^{N}|\kappa% _{ij}|\frac{K^{|w_{ij}|}}{(|w_{ij}|/p)!},| ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | divide start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( | italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | / italic_p ) ! end_ARG ,

where |wi|=|ewi|subscript𝑤𝑖subscript𝑒subscript𝑤𝑖|w_{i}|=|e_{w_{i}}|| italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |. Suppose the coefficients {αm}m𝒩subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑚𝑚𝒩\{\alpha_{m}\}_{m\in\mathcal{N}}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies for some C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0

|αm|C|m|m!i=1n(j=1Ni|κij|(|wij|/p)!K|wij|)mi,subscript𝛼𝑚superscript𝐶𝑚𝑚superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑁𝑖subscript𝜅𝑖𝑗subscript𝑤𝑖𝑗𝑝superscript𝐾subscript𝑤𝑖𝑗subscript𝑚𝑖|\alpha_{m}|\leq\frac{C^{|m|}}{m!}\prod_{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N_{i}}|% \kappa_{ij}|\frac{(|w_{ij}|/p)!}{K^{|w_{ij}|}}\right)^{m_{i}},| italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_m | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_m ! end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | divide start_ARG ( | italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | / italic_p ) ! end_ARG start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (3.5)

where m!=m1!m2!mn!𝑚subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑚𝑛m!=m_{1}!m_{2}!\ldots m_{n}!italic_m ! = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! … italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT !. Then we have that

|F(𝐗^p)f¯𝒩(π1,𝐗^,,πn,𝐗^)|exp(C)C|𝒩|+1(n1)!(|𝒩|n1)!.𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript¯𝑓𝒩subscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absent𝐶superscript𝐶𝒩1𝑛1𝒩𝑛1\left|F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})-\bar{f}_{\mathcal{N}}\left(\langle\pi_{1},% \hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{% \leq\infty}\rangle\right)\right|\leq\frac{\exp(C)C^{|\mathcal{N}|+1}}{(n-1)!(|% \mathcal{N}|-n-1)!}.| italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) | ≤ divide start_ARG roman_exp ( italic_C ) italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | caligraphic_N | + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_n - 1 ) ! ( | caligraphic_N | - italic_n - 1 ) ! end_ARG . (3.6)
Proof.

This is a simple consequence of the Stone-Weierstrass approximation theorem for continuous functions, using that there always exists a compact subset 𝒦ϵnsubscript𝒦italic-ϵsuperscript𝑛\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that

(π1,𝐗^,,πn,𝐗^)𝒦ϵ.subscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝒦italic-ϵ\left(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n% },\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\right)\in\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}.( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) ∈ caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Restricting the domain of f𝑓fitalic_f to 𝒦ϵsubscript𝒦italic-ϵ\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we are done showing (3.4). For the convergence rate (3.6), define the remainder term

R:=mn𝒩αm(π1,𝐗^,,πn,𝐗^)massign𝑅subscript𝑚superscript𝑛𝒩subscript𝛼𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absent𝑚R:=\sum_{m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}\setminus\mathcal{N}}\alpha_{m}\left(\langle\pi_{1}% ,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{% \leq\infty}\rangle\right)^{m}italic_R := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

Invoking the bound on the signature decay and the assumption on |αm|subscript𝛼𝑚|\alpha_{m}|| italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |, we see that

|R|mn𝒩|am|i=1n(j=1N|κij|K|wij|(|wij|/p)!)mimd𝒩C|m|m!.𝑅subscript𝑚superscript𝑛𝒩subscript𝑎𝑚superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑁subscript𝜅𝑖𝑗superscript𝐾subscript𝑤𝑖𝑗subscript𝑤𝑖𝑗𝑝subscript𝑚𝑖subscript𝑚superscript𝑑𝒩superscript𝐶𝑚𝑚|R|\leq\sum_{m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}\setminus\mathcal{N}}|a_{m}|\prod_{i=1}^{n}% \left(\sum_{j=1}^{N}|\kappa_{ij}|\frac{K^{|w_{ij}|}}{(|w_{ij}|/p)!}\right)^{m_% {i}}\leq\sum_{m\in\mathbb{N}^{d}\setminus\mathcal{N}}\frac{C^{|m|}}{m!}.| italic_R | ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | divide start_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( | italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | / italic_p ) ! end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_m | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_m ! end_ARG .

The right hand side of this inequality corresponds to the remainder term of a multivariate Taylor approximation of the function exp(Ci=1nxi)𝐶superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑥𝑖\exp(C\prod_{i=1}^{n}x_{i})roman_exp ( italic_C ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) around 00 up to order m𝒩𝑚𝒩m\in\mathcal{N}italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N. Thus from the multivariate Taylor theorem, it follows that

|R|exp(C)C|𝒩|+1|𝒩|!|m|=|𝒩|+11𝑅𝐶superscript𝐶𝒩1𝒩subscript𝑚𝒩11|R|\leq\frac{\exp(C)C^{|\mathcal{N}|+1}}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{|m|=|\mathcal{N}% |+1}1| italic_R | ≤ divide start_ARG roman_exp ( italic_C ) italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | caligraphic_N | + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | caligraphic_N | ! end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_m | = | caligraphic_N | + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1

By an elementary combinatorial argument (using the so-called "stars and bars"-argument) we see that |m|=|𝒩|+11=(|𝒩|n1)subscript𝑚𝒩11binomial𝒩𝑛1\sum_{|m|=|\mathcal{N}|+1}1=\binom{|\mathcal{N}|}{n-1}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_m | = | caligraphic_N | + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 = ( FRACOP start_ARG | caligraphic_N | end_ARG start_ARG italic_n - 1 end_ARG ). This concludes the proof.

Remark 3.8.

While Hypothesis 3.5 is certainly limiting the class of functionals F𝐹Fitalic_F that we can analyze, universal approximation becomes easier. In addition, the assumption that F𝐹Fitalic_F only acts on compact subsets of p𝑝pitalic_p-variation paths with values in the space of geometric rough paths, i.e. V^cp([0,T];Gp(d))subscriptsuperscript^𝑉𝑝𝑐0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}_{c}([0,T];G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), is dropped, allowing for an easier verification of universality. For later probabilistic arguments related to financial prices as expected functionals, this point will simplify computations and discussions.

Furthermore, the classical assumption that the approximation holds over compact subsets 𝒦V^p([0,T];Tp(d))𝒦superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\mathcal{K}\subset\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))caligraphic_K ⊂ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), as seen in Theorem 3.3, the compactness statement in Theorem 3.7 significantly simplifies this. Indeed, describing compact subsets of V^p([0,T];Tp(d))superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) can be a challenging task, as illustrated in e.g. [Gul24]. In Theorem 3.7 one essentially only need to choose a bound M>0𝑀0M>0italic_M > 0, and one can consider any 𝐗^psuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\inover^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ such that V^p([0,T];Tp(d))superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) such that

|πi,𝐗^|M,i=1,,n.formulae-sequencesubscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐗absent𝑀for-all𝑖1𝑛|\langle\pi_{i},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle|\leq M,\quad\forall\,\,i=% 1,\ldots,n.| ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | ≤ italic_M , ∀ italic_i = 1 , … , italic_n .

The compact subsets of an infinite dimensional space is therefore replaced by a (something that may be interpreted as) bounded subsets. This can also make probabilistic statements easier, as will be illustrated in subsequent sections.

Remark 3.9.

It is important to note that in Theorem 3.7 the statement allows for any functional acting on the space of p𝑝pitalic_p-variation paths with values in the truncated tensor algebra. This is a significant difference with the classical universal approximation theorem for signatures stated in Proposition 3.1, as the space of geometric rough paths limits the possible structure of the F𝐹Fitalic_F under consideration. In particular, a canonical asset pricing model would be constructed from semi-martingales and Itô processes. To preserve a martingale property of the derivative prices, one then use the Itô integral for computing derivatives prices, an integration choice which in the sense of signatures is not geometric. In contrast, under Hypothesis 3.5 one can easily work with functionals that structurally contain Itô integration, and still obtain a direct and descriptive approximation of the functional in terms of the signature associated to the price path.

Remark 3.10.

Computationally, Hypothesis 3.5, given a specific F𝐹Fitalic_F, one only requires the computation of n𝑛nitalic_n terms from the signature, and not the full signature, and with these n𝑛nitalic_n terms one can achieve as high accuracy as desired for functional approximation. This is in stark contrast to the much more general Universal approximation theorem in Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 3.3, where the accuracy of the approximation is dictated by number of signature terms included. Invoking Hypothesis 3.5 therefore has the potential to reduce computational time significantly.

Remark 3.11.

The condition assumed on the coefficients {αm}subscript𝛼𝑚\{\alpha_{m}\}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } in (3.5) yields the bounds in (3.6). Different assumptions on {αm}subscript𝛼𝑚\{\alpha_{m}\}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } will yield different convergence rates. While the condition in (3.5) is seemingly abstract, it can be verified to be weaker than the conditions satisfied by the coefficients in a Taylor expansion. On the other hand, the condition is not satisfied by a much "slower" convergent polynomial series, such as the Bernoulli polynomials. A more clear illustration of this condition will be given by the subsequent examples.

A restriction of the functional approximation in Theorem 3.7 to the case of functionals on geometric rough paths can readily be seen as a special case of the classical universal approximation theorem presented in Proposition 3.1. Indeed, we have the following corollary:

Corollary 3.12.

Let F𝐹Fitalic_F be a continuous functional on the space of p𝑝pitalic_p-variation (extended) geometric rough paths, V^p([0,T];Gp(d))superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), and suppose Hypothesis 3.5 holds with a sequence {πi}i=1nsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}{ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a continuous function f𝑓fitalic_f. Then for any ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 there exists finite set 𝒩n𝒩superscript𝑛\mathcal{N}\subset\mathbb{N}^{n}caligraphic_N ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a compact 𝒦V^p([0,T];Gp(d))𝒦superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑝superscript𝑑\mathcal{K}\subset\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];G^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))caligraphic_K ⊂ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), such that

|F(𝐗^p)m𝒩αmϕm,𝐗^|<ϵ,𝐗^p𝒦.formulae-sequence𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript𝑚𝒩subscript𝛼𝑚subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑚superscript^𝐗absentitalic-ϵfor-allsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝒦\left|F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})-\sum_{m\in\mathcal{N}}\alpha_{m}\langle\phi% _{m},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\right|<\epsilon,\quad\forall\hat{% \mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\in\mathcal{K}.| italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ | < italic_ϵ , ∀ over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_K .
Proof.

Since now 𝐗^superscript^𝐗absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a geometric rough path, it follows from Lemma 2.14 that for mn𝑚superscript𝑛m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT there exists a linear functional ϕmT((d))subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑚𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\phi_{m}\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that

(π1,𝐗^,,πn,𝐗^)m=ϕm,𝐗^.superscriptsubscript𝜋1superscript^𝐗absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript^𝐗absent𝑚subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑚superscript^𝐗absent\left(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n% },\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\right)^{m}=\langle\phi_{m},\hat{\mathbf% {X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle.( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ .

Thus, inserting this into the polynomial, the result follows. ∎

Remark 3.13.

Note that the linear functionals ϕmsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑚\phi_{m}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT quickly become very large sums of words, even when the πisubscript𝜋𝑖\pi_{i}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s consist of elementary words. As an example, for some single letter a{1,,d}𝑎1𝑑a\in\{1,\ldots,d\}italic_a ∈ { 1 , … , italic_d }, consider the product a,𝐗^ksuperscript𝑎superscript^𝐗absent𝑘\langle a,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{k}⟨ italic_a , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some potentially large k𝑘k\in\mathbb{N}italic_k ∈ blackboard_N. Then doing the k𝑘kitalic_kth power of the shuffle product of a𝑎aitalic_a, yields the word aa𝑎𝑎a\ldots aitalic_a … italic_a (a𝑎aitalic_a repeated k𝑘kitalic_k times), and we get the weight k!𝑘k!italic_k ! in front, i.e.,

a,𝐗^k=k!aa,𝐗^.superscript𝑎superscript^𝐗absent𝑘𝑘𝑎𝑎superscript^𝐗absent\langle a,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{k}=k!\langle a\ldots a,\hat{% \mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle.⟨ italic_a , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_k ! ⟨ italic_a … italic_a , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ .

See, e.g., [BB02] and the references therein for a longer exposition of the shuffle product and algebras. It becomes quickly expensive to compute higher order signature terms. However, as long as Hypothesis 3.5 is in place, signature computations can be made much more efficient if what one really needs is only to compute the power of the number a,𝐗^𝑎superscript^𝐗absent\langle a,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_a , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩. When computing expected values, this is often the situation.

3.4. Examples of functions

We will in this Subsection consider a few examples of functions that can be approximated, and investigate their convergence properties. As already discussed, most examples of financial payoff functionals only considers the simpler case when Hypothesis 3.5 holds. That is, for each specific payoff functional F(𝐗^p)𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) there exists a finite number of linear operators πiT(d)subscript𝜋𝑖𝑇superscript𝑑\pi_{i}\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for i=1,,n𝑖1𝑛i=1,\ldots,nitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_n such that

F(𝐗^p)T=f(π1,𝐗^T,,πn,𝐗^T).𝐹subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝑇𝑓subscript𝜋1subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇subscript𝜋𝑛subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})_{T}=f(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty% }_{T}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle).italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) .

From both the Universal approximation theorem in Proposition 3.1 or from Theorem 3.7 we know there exists an associated approximation in terms of the signature of the (rough path lifted) price path (either as a linear combination of signature terms, or as a polynomial of a finite number of signature terms). However, while there is no standard way of finding and describing the linear functional π𝜋\piitalic_π in Proposition 3.1, there is much theory available to compute potential sequences of {αm}m𝒩subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑚𝑚𝒩\{\alpha_{m}\}_{m\in\mathcal{N}}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to obtain a good approximation in Theorem 3.7.

We provide now three elementary examples of such approximation choices.

Example 3.14 (Taylor polynomials).

Suppose the payoff functional F𝐹Fitalic_F can be identified through hypothesis 3.5 with an infinitely continuously differentiable function fC()𝑓superscript𝐶f\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})italic_f ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R ). Then an elementary Taylor expansion of f(π,𝐗)𝑓𝜋superscript𝐗absentf(\langle\pi,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}\rangle)italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) around 00 yields

F(𝐗^p)T=f(π,𝐗^T)=n=0f(n)(0)n!π,𝐗^Tn,𝐹subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝑇𝑓𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑛0superscript𝑓𝑛0𝑛superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇𝑛F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})_{T}=f(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T% }\rangle)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{f^{(n)}(0)}{n!}\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^% {\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle^{n},italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where f(n)superscript𝑓𝑛f^{(n)}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the n𝑛nitalic_n’th derivative of f𝑓fitalic_f. Moreover, under less restrictive regularity assumptions, we can truncate this sum at any level k𝑘k\in\mathbb{N}italic_k ∈ blackboard_N and explicitly determine the error we make by the formula

f(π,𝐗^T)=n=0kf(n)(0)n!π,𝐗^Tn+Rk(π,𝐗^T)𝑓𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑛0𝑘superscript𝑓𝑛0𝑛superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇𝑛subscript𝑅𝑘𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇f(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle)=\sum_{n=0}^{k}\frac{f^{% (n)}(0)}{n!}\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle^{n}+R_{k}(% \langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle)italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ )

where there exists some b𝑏bitalic_b between 00 and π,𝐗T𝜋subscriptsuperscript𝐗absent𝑇\langle\pi,\mathbf{X}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle⟨ italic_π , bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ such that

Rk(x)=f(k+1)(b)(k+1)!π,𝐗^Tk+1.subscript𝑅𝑘𝑥superscript𝑓𝑘1𝑏𝑘1superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇𝑘1R_{k}(x)=\frac{f^{(k+1)}(b)}{(k+1)!}\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{% T}\rangle^{k+1}.italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = divide start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_b ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_k + 1 ) ! end_ARG ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

This yields an analytic expression for the remainder term in Theorem 3.7 when f𝑓fitalic_f is sufficiently regular.

Example 3.15 (Hermite polynomials).

Let πT(d)𝜋𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\pi\in T(\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*}italic_π ∈ italic_T ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and K>0𝐾0K>0italic_K > 0 and suppose we have an option that pays

F(𝐗^p)=f(π,𝐗^p)=max(π,𝐗^K,0).𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝑓𝜋superscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝜋superscript^𝐗absent𝐾0F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})=f(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\rangle)=% \max(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle-K,0).italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) = roman_max ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ - italic_K , 0 ) .

The function max(xK,0)𝑥𝐾0\max(x-K,0)roman_max ( italic_x - italic_K , 0 ) can be approximated by Hermite polynomials. More precisely, for n0𝑛subscript0n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the n𝑛nitalic_n’th Hermite polynomial is given by

ξn(x)=(1)n1w(x)dndxnw(x)wherew(x)=12πex22,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜉𝑛𝑥superscript1𝑛1𝑤𝑥superscript𝑑𝑛𝑑superscript𝑥𝑛𝑤𝑥where𝑤𝑥12𝜋superscript𝑒superscript𝑥22\xi_{n}(x)=(-1)^{n}\frac{1}{w(x)}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}w(x)\quad\mathrm{where}% \quad w(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{\frac{-x^{2}}{2}},italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_w ( italic_x ) end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_d italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_w ( italic_x ) roman_where italic_w ( italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

is the density of the standard normal distribution 𝒩(0,1)𝒩01\mathcal{N}(0,1)caligraphic_N ( 0 , 1 ). Note that ξ0=1subscript𝜉01\xi_{0}=1italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1. Moreover, for the Hilbert space L2(,w(x)dx)=:Lw2L^{2}(\mathbb{R},w(x)dx)=:L^{2}_{w}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R , italic_w ( italic_x ) italic_d italic_x ) = : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with inner product

g,hLw2:=g(x)h(x)w(x)𝑑xassignsubscript𝑔subscriptsuperscript𝐿2𝑤superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑥𝑥𝑤𝑥differential-d𝑥\langle g,h\rangle_{L^{2}_{w}}:=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}g(x)h(x)w(x)dx⟨ italic_g , italic_h ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g ( italic_x ) italic_h ( italic_x ) italic_w ( italic_x ) italic_d italic_x

we obtain an orthonormal basis {en}n=0superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑛𝑛0\{e_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT given by

en(x)=ξn(x)n!.subscript𝑒𝑛𝑥subscript𝜉𝑛𝑥𝑛e_{n}(x)=\frac{\xi_{n}(x)}{\sqrt{n!}}.italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = divide start_ARG italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG end_ARG .

In particular, any function gLw2𝑔subscriptsuperscript𝐿2𝑤g\in L^{2}_{w}italic_g ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be written as

g(x)=n=0αnen(x),whereαn=g,enLw2.formulae-sequence𝑔𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑛0subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑒𝑛𝑥wheresubscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑔subscript𝑒𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐿2𝑤g(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\alpha_{n}e_{n}(x),\quad\mathrm{where}\quad\alpha_{n}=% \langle g,e_{n}\rangle_{L^{2}_{w}}.italic_g ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , roman_where italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_g , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

As argued in [Ben21], the function f(x)=max(xK,0)𝑓𝑥𝑥𝐾0f(x)=\max(x-K,0)italic_f ( italic_x ) = roman_max ( italic_x - italic_K , 0 ) for some constant K𝐾K\in\mathbb{R}italic_K ∈ blackboard_R, belongs to Lw2.superscriptsubscript𝐿𝑤2L_{w}^{2}.italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . From this Hermite polynomial expansion, we have an exact formula for F(𝐗^p)𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) given by

F(𝐗^p)=n=0f,enLw2en(π,𝐗^).𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑛0subscript𝑓subscript𝑒𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐿2𝑤subscript𝑒𝑛𝜋superscript^𝐗absentF(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\langle f,e_{n}\rangle_{L^{2}_% {w}}e_{n}(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle).italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_f , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) .

Moreover, we can truncate this sum at any desired level N𝑁Nitalic_N to reach a suitable approximation by

FN(𝐗^p):=n=0Nf,enen(π,𝐗^).assignsubscript𝐹𝑁superscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑛0𝑁𝑓subscript𝑒𝑛subscript𝑒𝑛𝜋superscript^𝐗absentF_{N}(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}):=\sum_{n=0}^{N}\langle f,e_{n}\rangle e_{n}(% \langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle).italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_f , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) .
Example 3.16 (Bernstein approximation).

The standard choice of approximation of a continuous function by a polynomial is arguably the Bernstein polynomial. Any continuous function f:[0,1]:𝑓01f:[0,1]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : [ 0 , 1 ] → blackboard_R can be approximated arbitrarily well as follows

Bn(f)(x)=k=1nf(kn)bk,n(x),𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒bk,n(x)=(nk)xk(1x)nk,formulae-sequencesubscript𝐵𝑛𝑓𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑘1𝑛𝑓𝑘𝑛subscript𝑏𝑘𝑛𝑥𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒subscript𝑏𝑘𝑛𝑥binomial𝑛𝑘superscript𝑥𝑘superscript1𝑥𝑛𝑘B_{n}(f)(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{n}f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)b_{k,n}(x),\quad\mathrm{{% \it where}}\quad b_{k,n}(x)={n\choose k}x^{k}(1-x)^{n-k},italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_where italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = ( binomial start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

and limnBn(f)=fsubscript𝑛subscript𝐵𝑛𝑓𝑓\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}B_{n}(f)=froman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) = italic_f. Again, if an option pays F(𝐗^p)𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and it satisfies Hypothesis 3.5 with a continuous function f:[0,1]:𝑓01f:[0,1]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : [ 0 , 1 ] → blackboard_R and a π(d)𝜋superscript𝑑\pi\in\mathcal{F}(\mathbb{R}^{d})italic_π ∈ caligraphic_F ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that π,𝐗^T[0,1]𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇01\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle\in[0,1]⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] and

F(𝐗^p)T=f(π,𝐗^T),𝐹subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝑇𝑓𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})_{T}=f(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T% }\rangle),italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) ,

we have the Bernstein approximation

F(𝐗^p)𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝\displaystyle F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) k=1nf(kn)bk,n(π,𝐗^T).absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑘1𝑛𝑓𝑘𝑛subscript𝑏𝑘𝑛𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐗absent𝑇\displaystyle\approx\sum_{k=1}^{n}f\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)b_{k,n}(\langle\pi,% \hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle).≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( divide start_ARG italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) .

4. Stochastic market prices - lifting to rough paths

While the methodologies for numerical approximation of complex derivative payoffs we propose here will be in the spirit of model free finance, we will also connect the results to classical pricing when the underlying stock is assumed to be a semi-martingale. More specifically, we consider the case of an Itô process of the form

dYt=μtdt+σtdBt,Y0=yd.formulae-sequencedsubscript𝑌𝑡subscript𝜇𝑡d𝑡subscript𝜎𝑡dsubscript𝐵𝑡subscript𝑌0𝑦superscript𝑑\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y_{t}=\mu_{t}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}t+\sigma_{t}\mathop{}\!% \mathrm{d}B_{t},\quad Y_{0}=y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}.roman_d italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d italic_t + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_y ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (4.1)

Here μ𝜇\muitalic_μ and σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ are square integrable processes and adapted to the filtration {t}t[0,T]subscriptsubscript𝑡𝑡0𝑇\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}_{t\in[0,T]}{ caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT generated by the Brownian motion {Bt}t[0,T]subscriptsubscript𝐵𝑡𝑡0𝑇\{B_{t}\}_{t\in[0,T]}{ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The process Y𝑌Yitalic_Y may be used to model the log-price dynamics of an asset price, or the absolute price, the volatility or any other relevant stochastic asset dynamic.

In light of the theory for rough paths and signatures presented briefly in the beginning of Section 2, it is only natural to ask whether the signature can be constructed above the stochastic process {Y}t[0,T]subscript𝑌𝑡0𝑇\{Y\}_{t\in[0,T]}{ italic_Y } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. More precisely, one wants to make sure that for almost all ωΩ𝜔Ω\omega\in\Omegaitalic_ω ∈ roman_Ω, the following map exists

Y(ω)𝐘(ω)=(1,Y(ω),(YdY)(ω),)T((d)).maps-to𝑌𝜔superscript𝐘absent𝜔1𝑌𝜔tensor-product𝑌differential-d𝑌𝜔𝑇superscript𝑑Y(\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}(\omega)=\left(1,Y(\omega),\left(\int Y% \otimes\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y\right)(\omega),\ldots\right)\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d% })).italic_Y ( italic_ω ) ↦ bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = ( 1 , italic_Y ( italic_ω ) , ( ∫ italic_Y ⊗ roman_d italic_Y ) ( italic_ω ) , … ) ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) .

Since B𝐵Bitalic_B is a Brownian motion, the regularity of Y𝑌Yitalic_Y will be of finite p𝑝pitalic_p-variation for p2𝑝2p\geq 2italic_p ≥ 2. There is therefore no canonical construction of the iterated integral Y(ω)dY(ω)𝑌𝜔differential-d𝑌𝜔\int Y(\omega)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y(\omega)∫ italic_Y ( italic_ω ) roman_d italic_Y ( italic_ω ). However, since Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a semi-martingale, we can use this probabilistic structure to construct the iterated integrals YdY𝑌differential-d𝑌\int Y\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y∫ italic_Y roman_d italic_Y as random variables in L2(Ω)superscript𝐿2ΩL^{2}(\Omega)italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ). As is well-known, there exist different choices of constructing this integral as a random variable, with Itô or Stratonovich integration as the most commonly used. It is up to the application at hand which integral to use for the specific task. Typically, in financial models, Itô integration is selected as this preserves adaptedness and a martingale structure, necessary for arbitrage-free pricing. Given the choice of integration, using the Burkholder-Gundy-Davis inequality, one can then apply Kolmogorov’s continuity theorem to identify a subset ΩΩsuperscriptΩΩ\Omega^{*}\subset\Omegaroman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ roman_Ω of full measure such that for each ωΩ𝜔superscriptΩ\omega\in\Omega^{*}italic_ω ∈ roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT there exists a realization of the iterated integral (YdY)(ω)tensor-product𝑌differential-d𝑌𝜔\left(\int Y\otimes\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y\right)(\omega)( ∫ italic_Y ⊗ roman_d italic_Y ) ( italic_ω ), see e.g. [FH14, Section 3]. Moreover, one can verify that this object satisfies Chen’s relation

Ys,u(ω)Yu,t(ω)=(stYs,rdYr)(ω)(suYs,rdYr)(ω)(utYu,rdYr)(ω).tensor-productsubscript𝑌𝑠𝑢𝜔subscript𝑌𝑢𝑡𝜔superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡tensor-productsubscript𝑌𝑠𝑟differential-dsubscript𝑌𝑟𝜔superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑢tensor-productsubscript𝑌𝑠𝑟differential-dsubscript𝑌𝑟𝜔superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑡tensor-productsubscript𝑌𝑢𝑟differential-dsubscript𝑌𝑟𝜔Y_{s,u}(\omega)\otimes Y_{u,t}(\omega)=\left(\int_{s}^{t}Y_{s,r}\otimes\mathop% {}\!\mathrm{d}Y_{r}\right)(\omega)\\ -\left(\int_{s}^{u}Y_{s,r}\otimes\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y_{r}\right)(\omega)-% \left(\int_{u}^{t}Y_{u,r}\otimes\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y_{r}\right)(\omega).start_ROW start_CELL italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ⊗ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ roman_d italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_ω ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ roman_d italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_ω ) - ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ roman_d italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_ω ) . end_CELL end_ROW

We can therefore conclude that (Y(ω),(YdY)(ω))𝑌𝜔tensor-product𝑌differential-d𝑌𝜔\left(Y(\omega),\left(\int Y\otimes\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}Y\right)(\omega)\right)( italic_Y ( italic_ω ) , ( ∫ italic_Y ⊗ roman_d italic_Y ) ( italic_ω ) ) is a 2222-rough path according to Definition 2.10. By applying Theorem 2.11 we know that also the signature 𝐘(ω)superscript𝐘absent𝜔\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}(\omega)bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) exists.

For practical financial purposes, we are interested in computing the expected value of multivariate monomials of signature functionals, as will be seen as a crucial component of the pricing approximation. More precisely, the price ptsubscript𝑝𝑡p_{t}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at time t0𝑡0t\geq 0italic_t ≥ 0 of a contingent claim on a financial asset with payoff at some future time Tt𝑇𝑡T\geq titalic_T ≥ italic_t can be written as

p=𝔼[F(Y^)].𝑝𝔼delimited-[]𝐹^𝑌p=\mathbb{E}[F(\hat{Y})].italic_p = blackboard_E [ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG ) ] .

where F𝐹Fitalic_F is a pay-off functional, possibly dependent on the whole price path Y𝑌Yitalic_Y. As previously described, a pay-off functional F𝐹Fitalic_F is a functional on the rough paths lift 𝐘psuperscript𝐘absent𝑝\mathbf{Y}^{\leq p}bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to show the dependence on the chosen rough paths lift, i.e. stochastic integration choice. In the next section we will show how this price, given as the conditional expectation, can be approximated by a sum of different correlators of signature terms of the form

𝔼[i=1nπi,𝐘^mi],for{πi}i=1nT((d)),mn.formulae-sequence𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖superscript^𝐘absentsubscript𝑚𝑖forsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑𝑚superscript𝑛\mathbb{E}[\prod_{i=1}^{n}\langle\pi_{i},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^% {m_{i}}],\quad\mathrm{for}\quad\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*}% ),\quad m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}.blackboard_E [ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , roman_for { italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

This is in contrast to the functional approximation considered in [LNPA20] where one computes the complete expected signature 𝔼[𝐘^]𝔼delimited-[]superscript^𝐘absent\mathbb{E}[\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}]blackboard_E [ over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ], or dynamically as 𝔼[𝐘^|t]𝔼delimited-[]conditionalsuperscript^𝐘absentsubscript𝑡\mathbb{E}[\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\,|\,\mathcal{F}_{t}]blackboard_E [ over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], and then consider π,𝔼[𝐘^]𝜋𝔼delimited-[]superscript^𝐘absent\langle\pi,\mathbb{E}[\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}]\rangle⟨ italic_π , blackboard_E [ over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ⟩. In the setting of an Itô process Y𝑌Yitalic_Y, the latter methodology requires one to solve a (very) high dimensional Kolmogorov equation as described on [LN15]. However, since Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is an Itô process, then one can show that tπ,𝐘^tmaps-to𝑡𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑡t\mapsto\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{t}\rangleitalic_t ↦ ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ is a real valued Itô process, as proven in the proposition below. Thus computing 𝔼[f(π,𝐘^)]𝔼delimited-[]𝑓𝜋superscript^𝐘absent\mathbb{E}[f(\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle)]blackboard_E [ italic_f ( ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) ] can be done by standard use of a (low) dimensional Kolmogorov equation, and then one must do this computation for f(x)=xn𝑓𝑥superscript𝑥𝑛f(x)=x^{n}italic_f ( italic_x ) = italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and several different n𝑛nitalic_n. Indeed, we provide a simple proof of this claim:

Proposition 4.1.

Suppose Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is an Itô process of the form (4.1) where μL2(Ω×[0,T])𝜇superscript𝐿2Ω0𝑇\mu\in L^{2}(\Omega\times[0,T])italic_μ ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω × [ 0 , italic_T ] ) and σL(Ω×[0,T])𝜎superscript𝐿Ω0𝑇\sigma\in L^{\infty}(\Omega\times[0,T])italic_σ ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω × [ 0 , italic_T ] ) are adapted to the filtration generated by the Brownian motion. Consider the Itô lift Y𝐘maps-to𝑌superscript𝐘absentY\mapsto\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}italic_Y ↦ bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then for any πT((d))𝜋𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\pi\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})italic_π ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the process tπ,𝐘maps-to𝑡𝜋superscript𝐘absentt\mapsto\langle\pi,\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangleitalic_t ↦ ⟨ italic_π , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ is an Itô process.

Proof.

Let π=w𝜋𝑤\pi=witalic_π = italic_w be a single word of length n𝑛nitalic_n, given of the form w=𝐢1𝐢n𝑤subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛w=\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n}italic_w = bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for 𝐢j{1,,d}subscript𝐢𝑗1𝑑\mathbf{i}_{j}\in\{1,\ldots,d\}bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ { 1 , … , italic_d } for all j=1,,n𝑗1𝑛j=1,\ldots,nitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_n. If n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1, it follows that t𝐢1,𝐘maps-to𝑡subscript𝐢1superscript𝐘absentt\mapsto\langle\mathbf{i}_{1},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangleitalic_t ↦ ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ is an Itô process by by definition. When n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2, assume that for all words w𝑤witalic_w of length n1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1, w,𝐘𝑤superscript𝐘absent\langle w,\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_w , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ is a square integrable and adapted. We then use the recursive definition of the signature in 2.4 to see that

𝐢1𝐢n,𝐘s,t=st𝐢1𝐢n1,𝐘s,rμrindr+j=1dst𝐢1𝐢n1,𝐘s,rσrin,jdBrj.subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐘absent𝑠𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛1subscriptsuperscript𝐘absent𝑠𝑟superscriptsubscript𝜇𝑟subscript𝑖𝑛differential-d𝑟superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑑superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡subscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛1subscriptsuperscript𝐘absent𝑠𝑟superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑟subscript𝑖𝑛𝑗differential-dsubscriptsuperscript𝐵𝑗𝑟\langle\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\rangle=% \int_{s}^{t}\langle\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n-1},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}% _{s,r}\rangle\mu_{r}^{i_{n}}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}r\\ +\sum_{j=1}^{d}\int_{s}^{t}\langle\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n-1},\mathbf{% Y}^{\leq\infty}_{s,r}\rangle\sigma_{r}^{i_{n},j}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}B^{j}_{r}.start_ROW start_CELL ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_r end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW

To see that this process is an Ito process we must verify that it is square integrable. Using that σL(Ω×[0,T])𝜎superscript𝐿Ω0𝑇\sigma\in L^{\infty}(\Omega\times[0,T])italic_σ ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω × [ 0 , italic_T ] ), then by Hölder’s inequality we have that for all [s,t][0,T]𝑠𝑡0𝑇[s,t]\subset[0,T][ italic_s , italic_t ] ⊂ [ 0 , italic_T ]

𝐢1𝐢n1,𝐘s,σin,jL2(Ω×[s,t])subscriptnormsubscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛1subscriptsuperscript𝐘absent𝑠superscriptsubscript𝜎subscript𝑖𝑛𝑗superscript𝐿2Ω𝑠𝑡\displaystyle\|\langle\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n-1},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq% \infty}_{s,\cdot}\rangle\sigma_{\cdot}^{i_{n},j}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega\times[s,t])}∥ ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , ⋅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω × [ italic_s , italic_t ] ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
σin,jL(Ω×[s,t])𝐢1𝐢n1,𝐘s,L2(Ω×[s,t]).absentsubscriptnormsuperscript𝜎subscript𝑖𝑛𝑗superscript𝐿Ω𝑠𝑡subscriptnormsubscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛1subscriptsuperscript𝐘absent𝑠superscript𝐿2Ω𝑠𝑡\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\leq\|\sigma^{i_{n},j}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega\times[s,t% ])}\|\langle\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n-1},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}_{s,% \cdot}\rangle\|_{L^{2}(\Omega\times[s,t])}.≤ ∥ italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω × [ italic_s , italic_t ] ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , ⋅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω × [ italic_s , italic_t ] ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

By the inductive hypothesis, 𝐢1𝐢n1,𝐘s,L2(Ω×[0,T])<subscriptnormsubscript𝐢1subscript𝐢𝑛1subscriptsuperscript𝐘absent𝑠superscript𝐿2Ω0𝑇\|\langle\mathbf{i}_{1}\dots\mathbf{i}_{n-1},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}_{s,\cdot}% \rangle\|_{L^{2}(\Omega\times[0,T])}<\infty∥ ⟨ bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … bold_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , ⋅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω × [ 0 , italic_T ] ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ∞ and so the product of the two is square integrable. Adaptedness follows immediately by the inductive hypothesis. ∎

For certain choices of πT((d))𝜋𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\pi\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})italic_π ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and assumptions of the underlying stochastic process Y𝑌Yitalic_Y, we can compute explicit expressions for the signature moments of the form 𝔼[π,𝐘n]𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝜋superscript𝐘absent𝑛\mathbb{E}[\langle\pi,\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{n}]blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_π , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] for n𝑛n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N. We illustrate this through some common choices in the following examples.

Example 4.2.

Let {(Bt1,Bt2)}t[0,T]subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐵𝑡1subscriptsuperscript𝐵2𝑡𝑡0𝑇\{(B_{t}^{1},B^{2}_{t})\}_{t\in[0,T]}{ ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a two dimensional Brownian motion with independent components, and consider the path Y^t=(t,Bt1,Bt2)subscript^𝑌𝑡𝑡superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑡1superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑡2\hat{Y}_{t}=(t,B_{t}^{1},B_{t}^{2})over^ start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and the word π=𝟐𝟏𝟑𝟏𝜋2131\pi=\mathbf{21}-\mathbf{31}italic_π = bold_21 - bold_31. Recall that this choice of π𝜋\piitalic_π relates to the spread options case considered in Example 3.4. We are interested in computing the n𝑛nitalic_n-th moment of π,𝐘^𝜋superscript^𝐘absent\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩. We first see that π,𝐘^s,t=stBr1Br2dr𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑠𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑡superscriptsubscript𝐵𝑟1subscriptsuperscript𝐵2𝑟d𝑟\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\rangle=\int_{s}^{t}B_{r}^{1}-B^% {2}_{r}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}r⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d italic_r. Note that since (Bt1,Bt2)subscriptsuperscript𝐵1𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝐵2𝑡(B^{1}_{t},B^{2}_{t})( italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a normally distributed random variable, their difference B¯r:=Br1Br2𝒩(0,2r)assignsubscript¯𝐵𝑟subscriptsuperscript𝐵1𝑟subscriptsuperscript𝐵2𝑟similar-to𝒩02𝑟\bar{B}_{r}:=B^{1}_{r}-B^{2}_{r}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,2r)over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N ( 0 , 2 italic_r ). A simple argument based on the Itô formula for tB¯t𝑡subscript¯𝐵𝑡t\bar{B}_{t}italic_t over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT shows that

0tB¯rdr=0t(tr)dB¯r=0t(tr)2𝑑Br,superscriptsubscript0𝑡subscript¯𝐵𝑟differential-d𝑟superscriptsubscript0𝑡𝑡𝑟differential-dsubscript¯𝐵𝑟superscriptsubscript0𝑡𝑡𝑟2differential-dsubscript𝐵𝑟\int_{0}^{t}\bar{B}_{r}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}r=\int_{0}^{t}(t-r)\mathop{}\!% \mathrm{d}\bar{B}_{r}=\int_{0}^{t}(t-r)\sqrt{2}dB_{r},∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d italic_r = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_r ) roman_d over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_r ) square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_d italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where Brsubscript𝐵𝑟B_{r}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a standard Brownian motion. Thus, using the Itô isometry, we see that

𝔼[π,𝐘^s,t2]=𝔼[(0tB¯rdr)2]=23t3.𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑠𝑡2𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscriptsubscript0𝑡subscript¯𝐵𝑟differential-d𝑟223superscript𝑡3\mathbb{E}[\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\rangle^{2}]=\mathbb{% E}\left[\left(\int_{0}^{t}\bar{B}_{r}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}r\right)^{2}\right]=% \frac{2}{3}t^{3}.blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = blackboard_E [ ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_d italic_r ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

By Gaussianity, it furthermore follows that,

𝔼[π,𝐘^s,tn]=(23t3)n2(n1)!!forevenn,𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑠𝑡𝑛superscript23superscript𝑡3𝑛2double-factorial𝑛1foreven𝑛\mathbb{E}[\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\rangle^{n}]=\left(% \frac{2}{3}t^{3}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}(n-1)!!\quad\mathrm{for\,\,even\,\,}n,blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = ( divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n - 1 ) !! roman_for roman_even italic_n , (4.2)

and 𝔼[π,𝐘^s,tn]=0𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝜋subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑠𝑡𝑛0\mathbb{E}[\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{s,t}\rangle^{n}]=0blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = 0 for odd n𝑛nitalic_n. Here, m!!=m(m2)(m4)31double-factorial𝑚𝑚𝑚2𝑚431m!!=m(m-2)(m-4)\dots 3\cdot 1italic_m !! = italic_m ( italic_m - 2 ) ( italic_m - 4 ) … 3 ⋅ 1 for m𝑚m\in\mathbb{N}italic_m ∈ blackboard_N being an odd number.

The above example shows that the moments of words applied to signatures are very easy to calculate when the path is the time-extended Brownian motion. [CSF21, Section 4.5] derive an explicit formula for the expected signature of the time-extended path of a d𝑑ditalic_d-dimensional Brownian motion. According to formula (4.18) in [CSF21], one has

w,𝔼[𝐘0,tN]=(t/2)n/2(n/2)!k=0n/21𝟏in2k=in2k1𝑤𝔼delimited-[]subscriptsuperscript𝐘absent𝑁0𝑡superscript𝑡2𝑛2𝑛2superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑘0𝑛21subscript1subscript𝑖𝑛2𝑘subscript𝑖𝑛2𝑘1\langle w,\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{Y}^{\leq N}_{0,t}]\rangle=\frac{(t/2)^{n/2}}{(n/2% )!}\prod_{k=0}^{n/2-1}\mathbf{1}_{i_{n-2k}=i_{n-2k-1}}⟨ italic_w , blackboard_E [ bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ⟩ = divide start_ARG ( italic_t / 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_n / 2 ) ! end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (4.3)

for words w=ei1..einw=e_{i_{1}}\otimes..\otimes e_{i_{n}}italic_w = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ . . ⊗ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where {i1,,in}{1,,d}nsubscript𝑖1subscript𝑖𝑛superscript1𝑑𝑛\{i_{1},\ldots,i_{n}\}\in\{1,\ldots,d\}^{n}{ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ∈ { 1 , … , italic_d } start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, even n𝑛n\in\mathbb{N}italic_n ∈ blackboard_N with nN𝑛𝑁n\leq Nitalic_n ≤ italic_N and eisubscript𝑒𝑖e_{i}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the i𝑖iitalic_ith unit vector in dsuperscript𝑑\mathbb{R}^{d}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The tensor products are here interpreted as the non-symmetric ones and the iterated integrals in the signature are interpreted in the Stratonovich-sense. We recall that in a financial setting however, we are mostly interested in martingale structures, typically guaranteed with the Itô lift, and must there also compute certain Itô-Stratonovich corrections that we do not consider further here. When n𝑛nitalic_n is odd, the expected signature is zero. An extension of (4.3) to correlated Brownian motions are found in [CGSF23, Thm. A.1]. Equation (4.3) is of similar complexity as (4.2) in the example above. However, we see that to compute the expected signature, we need to find the whole representation of the expected signature (up to depth N𝑁Nitalic_N) before applying it to words, whereas in our approach, we first identify the different terms in the signature which we need according to the words we are given, and then compute the expected moments in question. The words in the former approach might be very long as we have converted the moments into linear representations, and thus N𝑁Nitalic_N becomes big.

Towards signature approximations of complex derivative prices, we will need to investigate correlators of functionals of the signature. More precisely, given a multi-index mn𝑚superscript𝑛m\in\mathbb{N}^{n}italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and n𝑛nitalic_n weighted words {πi}i=1nT((d))superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*}){ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we are interested in computing the correlator

ρm=𝔼[(π1,𝐘,,πn,𝐘)m],subscript𝜌𝑚𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝜋1superscript𝐘absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript𝐘absent𝑚\rho_{m}=\mathbb{E}\left[\left(\langle\pi_{1},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,% \ldots,\langle\pi_{n},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\right)^{m}\right],italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E [ ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , (4.4)

where we recall that for a vector xn𝑥superscript𝑛x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we define xm=xm1xmnsuperscript𝑥𝑚superscript𝑥subscript𝑚1superscript𝑥subscript𝑚𝑛x^{m}=x^{m_{1}}\dots x^{m_{n}}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Correlators appear in statistical turbulence theory as interesting objects to study, see [BNBV18]. We also mention [BL21] for correlators applied to financial derivatives pricing along with polynomial processes. Computing these correlators for some arbitrary sequence {πi}i=1nsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜋𝑖𝑖1𝑛\{\pi_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}{ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be challenging, and if n𝑛nitalic_n and d𝑑ditalic_d gets large, might even become unfeasible. However, for certain linear functionals πisubscript𝜋𝑖\pi_{i}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, typically given as short words or even single letters, the computation may be analytically tractable by invoking stochastic structures, even for large n𝑛nitalic_n.

In contrast, the signature methodologies presented in [LNPA19, LNPA20] would require one to compute the expected signature term ϕ,𝔼[𝐘]italic-ϕ𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐘absent\langle\phi,\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}]\rangle⟨ italic_ϕ , blackboard_E [ bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ⟩ for some ϕT((d))italic-ϕ𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\phi\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})italic_ϕ ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) which potentially becomes a very long sum of very large words. Indeed, given that 𝐘superscript𝐘absent\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a geometric signature, as already discussed in Remark 3.13, using the shuffle product from Lemma 2.14, it is possible to find a ϕT((d))italic-ϕ𝑇superscriptsuperscript𝑑\phi\in T((\mathbb{R}^{d})^{*})italic_ϕ ∈ italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that

(π1,𝐘,,πn,𝐘)m=ϕ,𝐘.superscriptsubscript𝜋1superscript𝐘absentsubscript𝜋𝑛superscript𝐘absent𝑚italic-ϕsuperscript𝐘absent\left(\langle\pi_{1},\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\pi_{n},% \mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\right)^{m}=\langle\phi,\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle.( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_ϕ , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ .

Computationally, it will be more expensive to compute the right hand side than the left hand side, since one would need to compute the complete signature up to a very high degree (i.e. the length of the longest single word in ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ). Furthermore, we have that the correlator ρm=𝔼[ϕ,𝐘]subscript𝜌𝑚𝔼delimited-[]italic-ϕsuperscript𝐘absent\rho_{m}=\mathbb{E}[\langle\phi,\mathbf{Y}^{\leq\infty}\rangle]italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_ϕ , bold_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ], and thus computing these expected signature terms will be challenging. Even in the setting where the underlying path solves an Itô SDE, one is required to solve a Fokker-Planck equation with values in the tensor algebra T((d))𝑇superscript𝑑T((\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_T ( ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), which is numerically very challenging (see e.g. [LN15]).

5. Approximation of exotic derivatives

We are now ready to present the core results of this article, namely, an approximation formula for exotic, path dependent, financial derivatives. To this end, we begin with an assumption on the probability spaces we work with for the admissible price paths.

Hypothesis 5.1 (Market prices and probability measures).

We consider a complete stochastic basis (Ω,,{t}t[0,T],)Ωsubscriptsubscript𝑡𝑡0𝑇(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}_{t\in[0,T]},\mathbb{P})( roman_Ω , caligraphic_F , { caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , blackboard_P ) supporting market prices as measurable maps from ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω to V^cp([0,T];Tp(d))subscriptsuperscript^𝑉𝑝𝑐0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\hat{V}^{p}_{c}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), with the property that for any ϵ~>0~italic-ϵ0\tilde{\epsilon}>0over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG > 0 there exists a compact subset 𝒦ϵV^cp([0,T];Tp(d))subscript𝒦italic-ϵsubscriptsuperscript^𝑉𝑝𝑐0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}\subset\hat{V}^{p}_{c}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(% \mathbb{R}^{d}))caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) such that

(𝐗^p𝒦ϵ)1ϵ~.superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript𝒦italic-ϵ1~italic-ϵ\mathbb{P}(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p}\in\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon})\geq 1-\tilde{% \epsilon}.blackboard_P ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ 1 - over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG .
Remark 5.2.

Let E𝐸Eitalic_E be a separable and complete metric space. Then every Borel probability measure μ𝜇\muitalic_μ on E𝐸Eitalic_E is tight; that is, for every ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0, there exists a compact set 𝒦ϵEsubscript𝒦italic-ϵ𝐸\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}\subseteq Ecaligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_E such that μ(𝒦ϵ)>1ϵ𝜇subscript𝒦italic-ϵ1italic-ϵ\mu(\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon})>1-\epsilonitalic_μ ( caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) > 1 - italic_ϵ, see [Lin86]. Consequently, if E:=V^p([0,T];Tp(d))assign𝐸superscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑E:=\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_E := over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) were separable, the hypothesis above would be unnecessary.

However, as shown in [FV10, Sec. 8], the space Vcp([0,T],GN(d))superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑐𝑝0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑁superscript𝑑V_{c}^{p}([0,T],G^{N}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) is in general not separable. In contrast, the closure of smooth paths with values in the N𝑁Nitalic_N-step free Lie group dsuperscript𝑑\mathbb{R}^{d}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in p𝑝pitalic_p-variation norm, denoted by C([0,T],GN(d))¯psuperscript¯superscript𝐶0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑁superscript𝑑𝑝\overline{C^{\infty}([0,T],G^{N}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))}^{p}over¯ start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, is separable. Note also that we have the inclusion of spaces

1q<pVcq([0,T],GN(d))C([0,T],GN(d))¯pVcp([0,T],GN(d))subscript1𝑞𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑐𝑞0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑁superscript𝑑superscript¯superscript𝐶0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑁superscript𝑑𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑐𝑝0𝑇superscript𝐺𝑁superscript𝑑\bigcup_{1\leq q<p}V_{c}^{q}([0,T],G^{N}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))\subseteq\overline{C^% {\infty}([0,T],G^{N}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))}^{p}\subseteq V_{c}^{p}([0,T],G^{N}(% \mathbb{R}^{d}))⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_q < italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) ⊆ over¯ start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊆ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) )

Since E𝐸Eitalic_E is not separable, we must explicitly assume that all distributions 𝕏^psubscriptsuperscript^𝕏absent𝑝\mathbb{P}_{\hat{\mathbb{X}}^{\leq p}}blackboard_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG blackboard_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on E𝐸Eitalic_E are tight, or equivalently, that they are Radon measures (finite tight Borel measures). In the non-separable setting of E𝐸Eitalic_E, Radon measures - characterized by their separable image - are the "right" type of measures to consider. For further details, see [Lin86] or [Bil68].

The above market prices and probability measures provides a broad framework for pricing. In the following we will not deal with the problem of risk neutral prices, and rather refer the reader to [Arr18, LNPA20] for a discussion on this point. For the purpose here, the reader may assume that the probability measure \mathbb{P}blackboard_P chosen is a risk neutral measure in the context of the given pricing problem.

Theorem 5.3.

Let (Ω,,{t}t[0,T],)Ωsubscriptsubscript𝑡𝑡0𝑇(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}_{t\in[0,T]},\mathbb{P})( roman_Ω , caligraphic_F , { caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , blackboard_P ) be a filtered probability space satisfying Hypothesis 5.1, and suppose the price of a financial derivative, denoted by p𝑝pitalic_p, can be represented by an adapted payoff functional F𝐹Fitalic_F acting on the set of random price paths Lk(Ω;V^p([0,T];Tp(d)))superscript𝐿𝑘Ωsuperscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑L^{k}(\Omega;\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d})))italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ; over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) ) for some sufficiently large k𝑘kitalic_k (see Remark 5.4), and is given by

p=𝔼[F(𝐗^p)].𝑝𝔼delimited-[]𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝p=\mathbb{E}[F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})].italic_p = blackboard_E [ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] . (5.1)

Furthermore, suppose for all t[0,T]𝑡0𝑇t\in[0,T]italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ], 𝔼[|F(𝐗^p)|q]=M<𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝑞𝑀\mathbb{E}[|F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})|^{q}]=M<\inftyblackboard_E [ | italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_M < ∞ for some q1𝑞1q\geq 1italic_q ≥ 1. Then for any ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 there exists a finite set 𝒩d𝒩superscript𝑑\mathcal{N}\subset\mathbb{N}^{d}caligraphic_N ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a sequence of numbers {αm}m𝒩subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑚𝑚𝒩\{\alpha_{m}\}_{m\in\mathcal{N}}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

|pm𝒩αmρm|<ϵ,a.s.formulae-sequence𝑝subscript𝑚𝒩subscript𝛼𝑚subscript𝜌𝑚italic-ϵ𝑎𝑠\left|p-\sum_{m\in\mathcal{N}}\alpha_{m}\rho_{m}\right|<\epsilon,\quad\mathbb{% P}-a.s.| italic_p - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | < italic_ϵ , blackboard_P - italic_a . italic_s .

Where ρmsubscript𝜌𝑚\rho_{m}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the signature correlator from (4.4) for the stochastic process 𝐗^superscript^𝐗absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Remark 5.4.

Here we consider payoff functionals as functionals acting on random variables with finite k𝑘kitalic_k-moments. The requirement on k𝑘kitalic_k will depend on the approximation accuracy that is desired, since finiteness of the correlators ρmsubscript𝜌𝑚\rho_{m}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is only guaranteed from the moments of the price paths.

Proof.

We begin to observe that for some suffieciently large compact subset 𝒦ϵ~V^p([0,T];Tp(d))subscript𝒦~italic-ϵsuperscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\mathcal{K}_{\tilde{\epsilon}}\subset\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(% \mathbb{R}^{d}))caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) we have

|𝔼[F(𝐗^p)]|𝔼delimited-[]𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝\displaystyle|\mathbb{E}[F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})]|| blackboard_E [ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] | =|𝔼[F(𝐗^p)𝟏𝒦ϵ~|]|+𝔼[|F(𝐗^p)𝟏𝒦ϵ~c|]\displaystyle=|\mathbb{E}[F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{K}_% {\tilde{\epsilon}}}|]|+\mathbb{E}[|F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})\mathbf{1}_{% \mathcal{K}_{\tilde{\epsilon}}^{c}}|]= | blackboard_E [ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ] | + blackboard_E [ | italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ]
M1qϵ~q1q+𝔼[F(𝐗^p)𝟏𝒦ϵ~].absentsuperscript𝑀1𝑞superscript~italic-ϵ𝑞1𝑞𝔼delimited-[]𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝subscript1subscript𝒦~italic-ϵ\displaystyle\leq M^{\frac{1}{q}}\tilde{\epsilon}^{\frac{q-1}{q}}+\mathbb{E}[F% (\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{K}_{\tilde{\epsilon}}}].≤ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q - 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + blackboard_E [ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] .

In the last inequality we have applied Hölders inequality to the product 𝟏𝒦ϵ~F(𝐗^p)subscript1subscript𝒦~italic-ϵ𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{K}_{\tilde{\epsilon}}}F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), invoking the bound on the q𝑞qitalic_q-moment of F(𝐗^p)𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as well as Hypothesis 5.1 on the probability measure to get that (𝔼[|𝟏𝒦ϵ~|qq1])q1qϵ~q1qsuperscript𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript1subscript𝒦~italic-ϵ𝑞𝑞1𝑞1𝑞superscript~italic-ϵ𝑞1𝑞(\mathbb{E}[|\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{K}_{\tilde{\epsilon}}}|^{\frac{q}{q-1}}])^{% \frac{q-1}{q}}\leq\tilde{\epsilon}^{\frac{q-1}{q}}( blackboard_E [ | bold_1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_ARG italic_q - 1 end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q - 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_q - 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_q end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Now, apply Theorem 3.3 to the payoff functional F(𝐗p)𝐹superscript𝐗absent𝑝F(\mathbf{X}^{\leq p})italic_F ( bold_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and the expectation acting on the corresponding signature polynomial from Theorem 3.3 then yields the correlators from (4.4) applied to the signature 𝐗^superscript^𝐗absent\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Since ϵ~~italic-ϵ\tilde{\epsilon}over~ start_ARG italic_ϵ end_ARG can be chosen arbitrarily small by assumption (just choose 𝒦ϵsubscript𝒦italic-ϵ\mathcal{K}_{\epsilon}caligraphic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϵ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT larger), and likewise for the universal approximation, the proof is complete. ∎

The next corollary enables further simplifications for pricing approximation by invoking Hypothesis 3.5 on the payoff functional.

Corollary 5.5.

Suppose the price of a financial derivative, denoted by p𝑝pitalic_p, can be represented by a payoff functional F𝐹Fitalic_F acting on the set of admissible price paths V^p([0,T];Tp(d))absentsuperscript^𝑉𝑝0𝑇superscript𝑇𝑝superscript𝑑\in\hat{V}^{p}([0,T];T^{\lfloor p\rfloor}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))∈ over^ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( [ 0 , italic_T ] ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌊ italic_p ⌋ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ), and is given by (5.1). Furthermore, suppose that for F𝐹Fitalic_F Hypothesis 3.5 holds for some function f:n:𝑓superscript𝑛f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_f : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R. Then for any ϵ>0italic-ϵ0\epsilon>0italic_ϵ > 0 there exists a finite set 𝒩d𝒩superscript𝑑\mathcal{N}\subset\mathbb{N}^{d}caligraphic_N ⊂ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a sequence of numbers {αm}m𝒩subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑚𝑚𝒩\{\alpha_{m}\}_{m\in\mathcal{N}}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

|pm𝒩αmρm|<ϵ,𝑝subscript𝑚𝒩subscript𝛼𝑚subscript𝜌𝑚italic-ϵ\left|p-\sum_{m\in\mathcal{N}}\alpha_{m}\rho_{m}\right|<\epsilon,| italic_p - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ caligraphic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | < italic_ϵ ,
Proof.

This follows from the universal approximation in Theorem 3.7, together with a similar probabilistic analysis as in the proof of Theorem 5.3. ∎

We illustrate the above corollary by considering a specific choice of functional, common in financial practice, namely the max function acting on the signature; the functionals for certain Asian options.

Example 5.6 (Simple Asian option).

We will in this example consider a very basic Asian option, and show how moments of the signature can be used to approximate this price. Of course, there are well known formulas and approximations (see e.g. [GY93]) for the price of an Asian option in the Itô setting, but we believe that this is instructive. In incomplete markets, one could also imagine that X𝑋Xitalic_X is not an Itô process, and therefore the following expansion could still be an interesting pricing technique.

Let us consider the standard Asian call option payoff function

F(𝐗^p)=f(𝟐𝟏,𝐗^)=max(0,0tXs𝑑sK)𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝𝑓21superscript^𝐗absent0superscriptsubscript0𝑡subscript𝑋𝑠differential-d𝑠𝐾F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})=f(\langle\mathbf{21},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty% }\rangle)=\max\left(0,\int_{0}^{t}X_{s}ds-K\right)italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_f ( ⟨ bold_21 , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) = roman_max ( 0 , ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s - italic_K )

A smooth approximation for the max-function is given by f¯(x)=xσ(Nx)=x1+eNx¯𝑓𝑥𝑥𝜎𝑁𝑥𝑥1superscript𝑒𝑁𝑥\bar{f}(x)=x\sigma(Nx)=\frac{x}{1+e^{-Nx}}over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) = italic_x italic_σ ( italic_N italic_x ) = divide start_ARG italic_x end_ARG start_ARG 1 + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, where σ(x)=11+ex𝜎𝑥11superscript𝑒𝑥\sigma(x)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-x}}italic_σ ( italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is the well-known sigmoid function and for some large enough N𝑁N\in\mathbb{N}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N. The figure below shows how this function, f¯¯𝑓\bar{f}over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG, resembles the max-function.

Figure 5.1. Plot of f¯(x)=x1+eNx¯𝑓𝑥𝑥1superscript𝑒𝑁𝑥\bar{f}(x)=\frac{x}{1+e^{-Nx}}over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) = divide start_ARG italic_x end_ARG start_ARG 1 + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
Refer to caption

We have a Maclaurin series for the Sigmoid function σ(Nx)=11+eNx𝜎𝑁𝑥11superscript𝑒𝑁𝑥\sigma(Nx)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-Nx}}italic_σ ( italic_N italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, and then multiplying by x𝑥xitalic_x we get :

f¯(x)=n=0(1)nEn(0)(2n)!Nnxn+1,¯𝑓𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑛0superscript1𝑛subscript𝐸𝑛02𝑛superscript𝑁𝑛superscript𝑥𝑛1\bar{f}(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}E_{n}(0)}{(2n)!}N^{n}x^{n+1},over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_x ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_n ) ! end_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (5.2)

where En(x)subscript𝐸𝑛𝑥E_{n}(x)italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) is the Euler polynomial. Truncating this approximation at level M𝑀Mitalic_M, one get a price approximation for

p=𝔼[F(𝐗^p)]n=0M(1)nEn(0)(2n)!Nn𝔼[𝟐𝟏,𝐗^n+1].𝑝𝔼delimited-[]𝐹superscript^𝐗absent𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑛0𝑀superscript1𝑛subscript𝐸𝑛02𝑛superscript𝑁𝑛𝔼delimited-[]superscript21superscript^𝐗absent𝑛1p=\mathbb{E}[F(\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq p})]\approx\sum_{n=0}^{M}\frac{(-1)^{n}E% _{n}(0)}{(2n)!}N^{n}\mathbb{E}\left[\langle\mathbf{21},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq% \infty}\rangle^{n+1}\right].italic_p = blackboard_E [ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] ≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_n ) ! end_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ ⟨ bold_21 , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

Providing further theoretical convergence rates can be done under certain assumptions on the moments 𝔼[𝟐𝟏,𝐗^n]𝔼delimited-[]superscript21superscript^𝐗absent𝑛\mathbb{E}[\langle\mathbf{21},\hat{\mathbf{X}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{n}]blackboard_E [ ⟨ bold_21 , over^ start_ARG bold_X end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ], but will not be further dealt with here. However, we believe that the example highlights how moments of signatures can be used in derivative price approximation.

5.1. Pricing exotic derivatives in electricity markets

We consider here some cases of interest in pricing and valuation in electricity markets.

The so-called quality factor is used to assess the profitability of renewable power production such as solar or wind. It measures the income relative to a plant with fixed base load price producing the same volume. The quality factor is defined as

Q=0TVsPs𝑑s0TVs𝑑s1T0TPs𝑑s.𝑄superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑉𝑠subscript𝑃𝑠differential-d𝑠superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑉𝑠differential-d𝑠1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑃𝑠differential-d𝑠Q=\frac{\int_{0}^{T}V_{s}P_{s}\,ds}{\int_{0}^{T}V_{s}\,ds\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{% T}P_{s}\,ds}\,.italic_Q = divide start_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s end_ARG start_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s end_ARG . (5.3)

Here, Vtsubscript𝑉𝑡V_{t}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the volume power produced at time t𝑡titalic_t and Ptsubscript𝑃𝑡P_{t}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the spot power price. A natural question is to ask what is the expected quality factor, i.e., 𝔼[Q]𝔼delimited-[]𝑄\mathbb{E}[Q]blackboard_E [ italic_Q ]. The expectation is either under the risk-adjusted probability or the market probability.

The volume produced Vtsubscript𝑉𝑡V_{t}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is given by the installed capacity c𝑐citalic_c (measured in megawatt (MW)) times the capacity factor Ctsubscript𝐶𝑡C_{t}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The process (Ct)subscript𝐶𝑡(C_{t})( italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) takes values between 0 and 1, measuring the amount of production from solar or wind in a power plant of capacity 1 MW. We also introduce a maximal power price for the market, denoted Psubscript𝑃P_{\infty}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which can be an upper limit we believe never will be exceeded in practice. Hence, with Vt=cCtsubscript𝑉𝑡𝑐subscript𝐶𝑡V_{t}=cC_{t}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_c italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and St=Pt/Psubscript𝑆𝑡subscript𝑃𝑡subscript𝑃S_{t}=P_{t}/P_{\infty}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we get

Q𝑄\displaystyle Qitalic_Q =1T0TCsSs𝑑s1T0TCs𝑑s1T0TSs𝑑sabsent1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠differential-d𝑠1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠\displaystyle=\frac{\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}S_{s}\,ds}{\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}% ^{T}C_{s}\,ds\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}S_{s}\,ds}= divide start_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s end_ARG start_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s end_ARG
=1T0TCsSs𝑑s11+(1T0TCs𝑑s1)11+(1T0TSs𝑑s1).absent1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠111𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠differential-d𝑠1111𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠1\displaystyle=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}S_{s}\,ds\frac{1}{1+(\frac{1}{T}\int% _{0}^{T}C_{s}\,ds-1)}\frac{1}{1+(\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}S_{s}\,ds-1)}\,.= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 + ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s - 1 ) end_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 + ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s - 1 ) end_ARG .

But since Cs,Ss(0,1)subscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝑆𝑠01C_{s},S_{s}\in(0,1)italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ( 0 , 1 ), we have that (1/T)0TCs𝑑s1(1,0)1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠differential-d𝑠110(1/T)\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}\,ds-1\in(-1,0)( 1 / italic_T ) ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s - 1 ∈ ( - 1 , 0 ) and similarly (1/T)0TSs𝑑s1(1,0)1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠110(1/T)\int_{0}^{T}S_{s}\,ds-1\in(-1,0)( 1 / italic_T ) ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s - 1 ∈ ( - 1 , 0 ), which yields that

Q𝑄\displaystyle Qitalic_Q =1T0TCsSs𝑑sm=0(1)m(1T0TCs1ds)mabsent1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠superscriptsubscript𝑚0superscript1𝑚superscript1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠1𝑑𝑠𝑚\displaystyle=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}S_{s}\,ds\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{m}% \left(\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}-1\,ds\right)^{m}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 italic_d italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
×n=0(1)n(1T0TSs1ds)n.\displaystyle\qquad\times\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}\left(\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^% {T}S_{s}-1\,ds\right)^{n}\,.× ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 italic_d italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Introduce the time-enhanced process Y𝑌Yitalic_Y where Yt=(t,Ct,St)subscript𝑌𝑡𝑡subscript𝐶𝑡subscript𝑆𝑡Y_{t}=(t,C_{t},S_{t})italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Since CsSs=𝟐,𝐘^s𝟑,𝐘^ssubscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝑆𝑠2superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑠absent3superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑠absentC_{s}S_{s}=\langle\mathbf{2},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{s}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\langle% \mathbf{3},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{s}^{\leq\infty}\rangleitalic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ bold_2 , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ bold_3 , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩, it follows from the shuffle property in Lemma 2.14 that

0TCsSs𝑑s=0TC0,sS0,s𝑑s+C00TSs𝑑s+S00TCs𝑑s=π1,𝐘^T,superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶0𝑠subscript𝑆0𝑠differential-d𝑠subscript𝐶0superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑆𝑠differential-d𝑠subscript𝑆0superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠differential-d𝑠subscript𝜋1superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}S_{s}\,ds=\int_{0}^{T}C_{0,s}S_{0,s}\,ds+C_{0}\int_{0}^{T}S_{% s}\,ds+S_{0}\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}\,ds=\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq% \infty}\rangle\,,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s + italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s = ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ,

where

π1=(𝟐\shuffle𝟑)𝟏+S0𝟑𝟏+C0𝟐𝟏,subscript𝜋12\shuffle31subscript𝑆031subscript𝐶021\pi_{1}=(\mathbf{2}\shuffle\mathbf{3})\mathbf{1}+S_{0}\mathbf{3}\mathbf{1}+C_{% 0}\mathbf{2}\mathbf{1},italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( bold_2 bold_3 ) bold_1 + italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_31 + italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_21 ,

as long as Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a geometric rough path. Moreover, we notice that 0TCs1ds=π2,𝐘^Tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝐶𝑠1𝑑𝑠subscript𝜋2superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent\int_{0}^{T}C_{s}-1\,ds=\langle\pi_{2},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 italic_d italic_s = ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ and 0TSs1ds=π3,𝐘^Tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑆𝑠1𝑑𝑠subscript𝜋3superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent\int_{0}^{T}S_{s}-1\,ds=\langle\pi_{3},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 italic_d italic_s = ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ with π2=𝟐𝟏+(C01)𝟏subscript𝜋221subscript𝐶011\pi_{2}=\mathbf{2}\mathbf{1}+(C_{0}-1)\mathbf{1}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_21 + ( italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) bold_1 and π3=𝟑𝟏+(S01)𝟏subscript𝜋331subscript𝑆011\pi_{3}=\mathbf{3}\mathbf{1}+(S_{0}-1)\mathbf{1}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_31 + ( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) bold_1, resp. Hence, after truncation, we compute an approximation of the expected value of the quality factor by

𝔼[Q]1Tm=0Mn=0N(T)(n+m)𝔼[π1,𝐘^Tπ2,𝐘^Tmπ3,𝐘^Tn]𝔼delimited-[]𝑄1𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑚0𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑛0𝑁superscript𝑇𝑛𝑚𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝜋1superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absentsuperscriptsubscript𝜋2superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent𝑚superscriptsubscript𝜋3superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent𝑛\mathbb{E}[Q]\approx\frac{1}{T}\sum_{m=0}^{M}\sum_{n=0}^{N}(-T)^{-(n+m)}% \mathbb{E}\left[\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle\langle% \pi_{2},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{m}\langle\pi_{3},\hat{% \mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{n}\right]blackboard_E [ italic_Q ] ≈ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_T ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_n + italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] (5.4)

We can simulate the functionals inside the above expectation given stochastic models of C𝐶Citalic_C and S𝑆Sitalic_S. Notice that we only need to have available simulations of the three functionals in order to compute the expectations by Monte Carlo for any orders of m𝑚mitalic_m and n𝑛nitalic_n. If we appeal to Lemma 2.14 we can use the shuffle property to re-state the signature functionals inside the expectation to π,𝐘^T𝜋superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩, however, π𝜋\piitalic_π will depend on m𝑚mitalic_m and n𝑛nitalic_n and therefore we would need to consider higher and higher signatures in the calculation. This shows the power in our approach.

Remark 5.7.

In the above discussion of the computation of the expected quality factor, we have to assume Y𝑌Yitalic_Y being a geometric rough path in order to re-express a product between the capacity factor and price processes CsPssubscript𝐶𝑠subscript𝑃𝑠C_{s}P_{s}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a functional on the signature. The capacity factor process is derived from wind speeds or solar irradiation, where empirical studies indicate that higher-order continuous time autoregressive (CAR) processes are suitable (see e.g. [BvB09] for wind and [LGB23] for solar). The CAR-processes are of order 2 or higher, implying that the paths are continuously differentiable and thus of finite 1-variation. On the other hand, different studies point to power spot prices being sums of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes (see [LS02]), or even fractional models with Hurst parameters less than 0.5 (see [Ben17]), and therefore may have regularity at most as Brownian motion. We notice however, that power spot prices (which is what the process P𝑃Pitalic_P models) are by definition only available on a discrete time grid (typically of hourly granularity), and hence we can in principle imagine paths which are of high regularity when considering continuous-time paths.

Recall Example 3.4. Quanto options are options with a product payoff on two underlying assets, typically being a call or put on price and a volume variable. The volume variable is indicating production indirectly, for example through temperature (which controls the demand for power) or wind speed (which controls the amount of renewable wind power that can be generated). Let now Vtsubscript𝑉𝑡V_{t}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the volume-variable (temperature, wind…). In power, a typical option is a call on average volume over a period, and a put on the price average over the same period.111This gives an insurance against too low prices when renewable power production is high.,

max(1T0TVs𝑑sK,0)max(L1T0TPs𝑑s,0)1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑉𝑠differential-d𝑠𝐾0𝐿1𝑇superscriptsubscript0𝑇subscript𝑃𝑠differential-d𝑠0\max\left(\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}V_{s}\,ds-K,0\right)\max\left(L-\frac{1}{T}% \int_{0}^{T}P_{s}\,ds,0\right)roman_max ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s - italic_K , 0 ) roman_max ( italic_L - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_T end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s , 0 )

In general, this can be expressed as

F(Y)T=fK(w2,𝐘^T)fL(w3,𝐘^T)𝐹subscript𝑌𝑇subscript𝑓𝐾subscript𝑤2subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑇subscript𝑓𝐿subscript𝑤3subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑇F(Y)_{T}=f_{-K}(\langle w_{2},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle)f_{L}(% \langle w_{3},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle)italic_F ( italic_Y ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_K end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ )

where fa(x)=max(0,x+a)subscript𝑓𝑎𝑥0𝑥𝑎f_{a}(x)=\max(0,x+a)italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = roman_max ( 0 , italic_x + italic_a ) for some a𝑎a\in\mathbb{R}italic_a ∈ blackboard_R, with words w2=𝟐𝟏+V0𝟏subscript𝑤221subscript𝑉01w_{2}=\mathbf{2}\mathbf{1}+V_{0}\mathbf{1}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = bold_21 + italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_1 and w3=𝟑𝟏P0𝟏subscript𝑤331subscript𝑃01w_{3}=-\mathbf{3}\mathbf{1}-P_{0}\mathbf{1}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - bold_31 - italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_1. Here, the time-enhanced process is Yt=(t,Vt,Pt)subscript𝑌𝑡𝑡subscript𝑉𝑡subscript𝑃𝑡Y_{t}=(t,V_{t},P_{t})italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_t , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). If we have power series expansions of f𝑓fitalic_f and g𝑔gitalic_g available, we can find an approximation of the price expressed by the risk-adjusted expectation by computing terms of the kind

𝔼[w2,𝐘^Tmw3,𝐘^Tn].𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑤2superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑤3superscriptsubscript^𝐘𝑇absent𝑛\mathbb{E}\left[\langle w_{2},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{m}% \langle w_{3},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}_{T}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{n}\right]\,.blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

These expected values are simplified versions of the expectation for the quality factor in (5.4) discussed above. The payoff of quanto options motivates studying the following general structure: let h:d:superscript𝑑h:\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}italic_h : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R be some measurable function, and consider the payoff

F(Y)T=h(π1,𝐘^T,,πd,𝐘^T)𝐹subscript𝑌𝑇subscript𝜋1subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑇subscript𝜋𝑑subscriptsuperscript^𝐘absent𝑇F(Y)_{T}=h(\langle\pi_{1},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle,\ldots,% \langle\pi_{d},\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}_{T}\rangle)italic_F ( italic_Y ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_h ( ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , … , ⟨ italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ )

for words π1,,πdsubscript𝜋1subscript𝜋𝑑\pi_{1},\ldots,\pi_{d}italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_π start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and path Y𝑌Yitalic_Y. Indeed, the quality factor is itself an example of a specification of an hhitalic_h. The time-enhanced price path may also consist of more variables that V𝑉Vitalic_V and P𝑃Pitalic_P. For example, one could have an option settled on temperature, wind and price.

Example 5.8.

In this example we will illustrate how specific structural assumptions on the driving underlying price processes can be used to make price approximations expcicit by leveraging moment computations. Consider two correlated Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes

Yt1subscriptsuperscript𝑌1𝑡\displaystyle Y^{1}_{t}italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =a1Yt1dt+σ1dBt1absentsubscript𝑎1subscriptsuperscript𝑌1𝑡𝑑𝑡subscript𝜎1𝑑subscriptsuperscript𝐵1𝑡\displaystyle=-a_{1}Y^{1}_{t}dt+\sigma_{1}dB^{1}_{t}= - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_t + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Yt2subscriptsuperscript𝑌2𝑡\displaystyle Y^{2}_{t}italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =a2Yt2dt+σ2(ρdBt1+1ρ2dBt2)absentsubscript𝑎2subscriptsuperscript𝑌2𝑡𝑑𝑡subscript𝜎2𝜌dsuperscriptsubscript𝐵𝑡11superscript𝜌2dsubscriptsuperscript𝐵2𝑡\displaystyle=-a_{2}Y^{2}_{t}dt+\sigma_{2}(\rho\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}B_{t}^{1}+% \sqrt{1-\rho^{2}}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}B^{2}_{t})= - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_t + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ρ roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + square-root start_ARG 1 - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

for two independent Brownian motions B1superscript𝐵1B^{1}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and B2superscript𝐵2B^{2}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and ρ(1,1)𝜌11\rho\in(-1,1)italic_ρ ∈ ( - 1 , 1 ) is the correlation coefficient. Solving explicitly, we see that the difference Y¯t=Yt1Yt2subscript¯𝑌𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌1𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌2𝑡\bar{Y}_{t}=Y^{1}_{t}-Y^{2}_{t}over¯ start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is given by

Y¯t=ea1tY01ea2tY02+0tσ1ea1(ts)ρσ2ea2(ts)dBs10tea2(ts)σ21ρ2dBs2.subscript¯𝑌𝑡superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌10superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌20superscriptsubscript0𝑡subscript𝜎1superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡𝑠𝜌subscript𝜎2superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑠dsubscriptsuperscript𝐵1𝑠superscriptsubscript0𝑡superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑠subscript𝜎21superscript𝜌2differential-dsuperscriptsubscript𝐵𝑠2\bar{Y}_{t}=e^{-a_{1}t}Y^{1}_{0}-e^{-a_{2}t}Y^{2}_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}\sigma_{1}e^% {-a_{1}(t-s)}-\rho\sigma_{2}e^{-a_{2}(t-s)}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}B^{1}_{s}\\ -\int_{0}^{t}e^{-a_{2}(t-s)}\sigma_{2}\sqrt{1-\rho^{2}}\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}B_% {s}^{2}.start_ROW start_CELL over¯ start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_s ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_s ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_s ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 1 - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW (5.5)

We then see that Y¯¯𝑌\bar{Y}over¯ start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG is normally distributed with mean ea1tY01ea2tY02superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌10superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌20e^{-a_{1}t}Y^{1}_{0}-e^{-a_{2}t}Y^{2}_{0}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and second moment given by

𝔼[Y¯t2]=0tσ12e2a1(ts)+σ22e2a2(ts)2σ1ρσ2e(a1+a2)(ts)ds.𝔼delimited-[]subscriptsuperscript¯𝑌2𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑡superscriptsubscript𝜎12superscript𝑒2subscript𝑎1𝑡𝑠superscriptsubscript𝜎22superscript𝑒2subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑠2subscript𝜎1𝜌subscript𝜎2superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑠d𝑠\mathbb{E}[\bar{Y}^{2}_{t}]=\int_{0}^{t}\sigma_{1}^{2}e^{-2a_{1}(t-s)}+\sigma_% {2}^{2}e^{-2a_{2}(t-s)}-2\sigma_{1}\rho\sigma_{2}e^{-(a_{1}+a_{2})(t-s)}% \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}s.start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_s ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_s ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_t - italic_s ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_s . end_CELL end_ROW (5.6)

Now, just as in Example 4.2, we again consider the pairing π,𝐘^=0tY¯sds=:Zt,\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle=\int_{0}^{t}\bar{Y}_{s}ds=:Z_{% t},⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_s = : italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , where π=𝟐𝟏𝟑𝟏.𝜋2131\pi=\mathbf{21}-\mathbf{31}.italic_π = bold_21 - bold_31 . A simple use of Fubini yields that

Zt=Y01a1(1ea1t)Y02a2(1ea2t)+0tσ1a1(1ea1(tu))dBu10tρσ2a2(1ea2(tu))dBu10tσ21ρ2a2(1ea2(tu))dBu2.subscript𝑍𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌10subscript𝑎11superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌20subscript𝑎21superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑡subscript𝜎1subscript𝑎11superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡𝑢differential-dsubscriptsuperscript𝐵1𝑢superscriptsubscript0𝑡𝜌subscript𝜎2subscript𝑎21superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑢differential-dsubscriptsuperscript𝐵1𝑢superscriptsubscript0𝑡subscript𝜎21superscript𝜌2subscript𝑎21superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑢differential-dsubscriptsuperscript𝐵2𝑢Z_{t}=\frac{Y^{1}_{0}}{a_{1}}(1-e^{-a_{1}t})-\frac{Y^{2}_{0}}{a_{2}}(1-e^{-a_{% 2}t})+\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\sigma_{1}}{a_{1}}\left(1-e^{-a_{1}(t-u)}\right)\,% \mathrm{d}B^{1}_{u}\\ -\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\rho\sigma_{2}}{a_{2}}\left(1-e^{-a_{2}(t-u)}\right)\,% \mathrm{d}B^{1}_{u}-\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\sigma_{2}\sqrt{1-\rho^{2}}}{a_{2}}\left% (1-e^{-a_{2}(t-u)}\right)\,\mathrm{d}B^{2}_{u}.start_ROW start_CELL italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_u ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_ρ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_u ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 1 - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_u ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_d italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . end_CELL end_ROW (5.7)

Using Itô-isometry, we get the mean and second moment of Zt=π,𝐘^subscript𝑍𝑡𝜋superscript^𝐘absentZ_{t}=\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangleitalic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ is given by

μZ:=𝔼[Zt]assignsubscript𝜇𝑍𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑍𝑡\displaystyle\mu_{Z}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_{t}]italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] =Y01a1(1ea1t)Y02a2(1ea2t).absentsubscriptsuperscript𝑌10subscript𝑎11superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌20subscript𝑎21superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡\displaystyle=\frac{Y^{1}_{0}}{a_{1}}(1-e^{-a_{1}t})-\frac{Y^{2}_{0}}{a_{2}}(1% -e^{-a_{2}t}).= divide start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
σZ2:=𝔼[Zt2]assignsubscriptsuperscript𝜎2𝑍𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑍𝑡2\displaystyle\sigma^{2}_{Z}:=\mathbb{E}[Z_{t}^{2}]italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] =(Y01a1(1ea1t)Y02a2(1ea2t))2absentsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑌10subscript𝑎11superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑌20subscript𝑎21superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡2\displaystyle=\left(\frac{Y^{1}_{0}}{a_{1}}(1-e^{-a_{1}t})-\frac{Y^{2}_{0}}{a_% {2}}(1-e^{-a_{2}t})\right)^{2}= ( divide start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+0t(σ1a1(1ea1(tu)))2dusuperscriptsubscript0𝑡superscriptsubscript𝜎1subscript𝑎11superscript𝑒subscript𝑎1𝑡𝑢2differential-d𝑢\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{t}\left(\frac{\sigma_{1}}{a_{1}}(1-e^{-a_{1}(t-u)})% \right)^{2}\,\mathrm{d}u+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_u ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_u
+0t(ρσ2a2(1ea2(tu)))2dusuperscriptsubscript0𝑡superscript𝜌subscript𝜎2subscript𝑎21superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑢2differential-d𝑢\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{t}\left(\frac{\rho\sigma_{2}}{a_{2}}(1-e^{-a_{2}(t-u)}% )\right)^{2}\,\mathrm{d}u+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_ρ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_u ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_u
+0t(σ21ρ2a2(1ea2(tu)))2du.superscriptsubscript0𝑡superscriptsubscript𝜎21superscript𝜌2subscript𝑎21superscript𝑒subscript𝑎2𝑡𝑢2differential-d𝑢\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{t}\left(\frac{\sigma_{2}\sqrt{1-\rho^{2}}}{a_{2}}(1-e^% {-a_{2}(t-u)})\right)^{2}\,\mathrm{d}u.+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 1 - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t - italic_u ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_d italic_u .

Moreover, since Zt=π,𝐘^subscript𝑍𝑡𝜋superscript^𝐘absentZ_{t}=\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangleitalic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ is Gaussian, the higher order moments become

𝔼[π,𝐘^n]=𝔼[Ztn]=σZn(i2)nU(p2,12,12(μZσZ)2),𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝜋superscript^𝐘absent𝑛𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑍𝑡𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑍𝑛superscript𝑖2𝑛𝑈𝑝21212superscriptsubscript𝜇𝑍subscript𝜎𝑍2\mathbb{E}[\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{n}]=\mathbb{E}[Z_{% t}^{n}]=\sigma_{Z}^{n}(-i\sqrt{2})^{n}U\left(-\frac{p}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1% }{2}\left(\frac{\mu_{Z}}{\sigma_{Z}}\right)^{2}\right),blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = blackboard_E [ italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_i square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U ( - divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where U𝑈Uitalic_U is the confluent hyper-geometric function. Now, the correlator is given by ρn=𝔼[π,𝐘^n]subscript𝜌𝑛𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝜋superscript^𝐘absent𝑛\rho_{n}=\mathbb{E}\left[\langle\pi,\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq\infty}\rangle^{n}\right]italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E [ ⟨ italic_π , over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ], hence from Corollary 5.5, we know there exist an N𝑁N\in\mathbb{N}italic_N ∈ blackboard_N and {αn}n=0Nsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝛼𝑛𝑛0𝑁\{\alpha_{n}\}_{n=0}^{N}\subset\mathbb{R}{ italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_R such that

p:=𝔼[F(𝐘^p)]n=0Nαnρn=n=1NαnσZn(i2)nU(p2,12,12(μZσZ)2).assign𝑝𝔼delimited-[]𝐹superscript^𝐘absent𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑛0𝑁subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝜌𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑛1𝑁subscript𝛼𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜎𝑍𝑛superscript𝑖2𝑛𝑈𝑝21212superscriptsubscript𝜇𝑍subscript𝜎𝑍2p:=\mathbb{E}\left[F(\hat{\mathbf{Y}}^{\leq p})\right]\approx\sum_{n=0}^{N}% \alpha_{n}\rho_{n}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\alpha_{n}\sigma_{Z}^{n}(-i\sqrt{2})^{n}U% \left(-\frac{p}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mu_{Z}}{\sigma_{Z}}% \right)^{2}\right).italic_p := blackboard_E [ italic_F ( over^ start_ARG bold_Y end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ] ≈ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_i square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U ( - divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Consider the setting where the expected functional is an Asian option, such as analyzed in 5.6. One can then use the coefficients found there to get an explicit formula for the approximation of an Asian spread option, in the case when the underlying processes are assumed to be given by Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes.

6. Conclusion

In this work, we develop a new type of universal approximation theorem for non-geometric rough paths, addressing the practical challenges of financial applications that naturally involve Itô integration. The results presented provide a robust framework for advancing derivatives pricing methodologies in financial markets, ensuring both computational efficiency and theoretical rigor. By introducing a polynomial-based approximation framework, we demonstrated how complex payoff functionals for financial derivatives can be efficiently represented and approximated using signature terms. This approach bridges the gap between rough path theory and the practical requirements of financial markets, providing a robust tool for pricing exotic derivatives and path-dependent contracts.

Our results highlight the versatility of signatures in capturing the intricacies of stochastic paths while enabling computational efficiency and how this can be used in finance. The proposed framework not only broadens the scope of universal approximation beyond geometric rough paths but also lays a foundation for further exploration of functional approximation in stochastic finance. Specifically, it builds further on the research developed in [LNPA19, LNPA20, Arr18], and provides a new perspective in the Itô setting The methodology for universal approximation here seems also promising in the context of the Volterra signature induced from the analysis in [HT21], and this is currently something we are working on. Several new applications of this method seems promising.

References

  • [Arr18] Imanol Perez Arribas. Derivatives pricing using signature payoffs, 2018.
  • [BB02] Douglas Bowman and David M. Bradley. The algebra and combinatorics of shuffles and multiple zeta values. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 97(1):43–61, 2002.
  • [Ben17] Mikkel Bennedsen. A rough multi-factor model of electricity spot prices. Energy Economics, 63:301–313, 2017.
  • [Ben21] Fred Espen Benth. Pricing of commodity and energy derivatives for polynomial processes. Mathematics, 9(2), 2021.
  • [Bil68] Patrick Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York-London-Sydney, 1968.
  • [BL21] Fred Espen Benth and Silvia Lavagnini. Correlators of polynomial processes. SIAM Journal of Financial Mathematics, 12(4):1374–1415, 2021.
  • [BLM15] Fred Espen Benth, Nina Lange, and Tor Aage Myklebust. Pricing and hedging quanto options in energy markets. Journal of Energy Markets, 8(1):1–35, 2015.
  • [BNBV18] Ole E. Barndorff-Nielsen, Fred Espen Benth, and Almut Veraart. Ambit Stochastics, volume 88 of Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer Nature, Cham, 2018.
  • [Bre11] Haim Brezis. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Universitext. Springer, New York, 2011.
  • [BvB09] Fred Espen Benth and Jurate Šaltytė Benth. Dynamic pricing of wind futures. Energy Economics, 31(1):16–24, 2009.
  • [CGSF23] Christa Cuchiero, Guido Gazzani, and Sara Svaluto-Ferro. Signature-based models: theory and calibration. SIAM Journal of Financial Mathematics, 14(3), 2023.
  • [Che54] Kuo-Tsai Chen. Iterated integrals and exponential homomorphisms. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, s3-4(1):502–512, 1954.
  • [CO22] Ilya Chevyrev and Harald Oberhauser. Signature moments to characterize laws of stochastic processes. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(176):1–42, 2022.
  • [CPSF23] Christa Cuchiero, Francesca Primavera, and Sara Svaluto-Ferro. Universal approximation theorems for continuous functions of càdlàg paths and Lévy-type signature models, 2023.
  • [CSF21] Christa Cuchiero and Sara Svaluto-Ferro. Infinite-dimensional polynomial processes. Finance & Stochastics, 25:383–426, 2021.
  • [FH14] Peter K. Friz and Martin Hairer. A Course on Rough Paths. Universitext. Springer, Cham, 2014.
  • [FV10] Peter K. Friz and Nicolas B. Victoir. Multidimensional Stochastic Processes as Rough Paths: Theory and Applications. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  • [Gul24] Jacek Gulgowski. Compactness in the spaces of functions of bounded variation. Zeitschrift für Analysis und ihre Anwendungen, 42, 01 2024.
  • [GY93] Helyette Geman and Marc Yor. Bessel processes, asian options, and perpetuities. Mathematical Finance, 3:349–375, 1993.
  • [HL10] Ben Hambly and Terry Lyons. Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group. Annals of Mathematics, 171(1):109–167, 2010.
  • [HT21] Fabian A. Harang and Samy Tindel. Volterra equations driven by rough signals. Stochastic Process. Appl., 142:34–78, 2021.
  • [Lan02] Serge Lang. Algebra, volume 211 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, third edition, 2002.
  • [LCL07] Terry J. Lyons, Michael Caruana, and Thierry Lévy. Differential Equations Driven by Rough Paths, volume 1908 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2007.
  • [LGB23] Karl Larsson, Rikard Green, and Fred Espen Benth. A stochastic time-series model for solar irradiation. Energy Economics, 117, 2023.
  • [Lin86] Werner Linde. Probability in Banach spaces—stable and infinitely divisible distributions. A Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, second edition, 1986.
  • [LN15] Terry Lyons and Hao Ni. Expected signature of a Brownian motion up to the first exit time from a bounded domain. The Annals of Probability, 43(5):2729–2762, 2015.
  • [LNPA19] Terry Lyons, Sina Nejad, and Imanol Perez Arribas. Numerical method for model-free pricing of exotic derivatives in discrete time using rough path signatures. Applied Mathematical Finance, 26(6):583–597, 2019.
  • [LNPA20] Terry Lyons, Sina Nejad, and Imanol Perez Arribas. Non-parametric pricing and hedging of exotic derivatives. Applied Mathematical Finance, 27(6):457–494, 2020.
  • [LS02] Julio J. Lucia and Eduardo S. Schwartz. Electricity prices and power derivatives: Evidence from the nordic power exchange. Review of Derivatives Research, 5(1):5–50, 2002.
  • [Lyo98] T. Lyons. Differential equations driven by rough signals. Revista Matemática Iberoamericana, pages 215–310, 1998.