the purpose of this paper is to develop analytic expressions for option - pricing of markets with fluctuating volatilities of a given distribution .
there are several good reasons for considering the statistical properties of volatilities .
for instance , a number of important models of price changes include explicitly their time - dependence , for example the heston model  @xcite , or the famous arch  @xcite , garch  @xcite , and multiscale garch  @xcite models .
changes in the daily volatility are qualitatively well explained by models relating volatility to the amount of information arriving in the market at a given time  @xcite .
there is also considerable practical interest in volatility distributions since they provide traders with an essential quantitative information on the riskiness of an asset  @xcite .
as such it provides a key input in portfolio construction .
unlike returns which are correlated only on very short time scales  @xcite of a few minutes and can roughly be approximated by markovian process , the volatility changes exhibit memory with time correlations up to many years  @xcite . in ref .
@xcite it was shown that the standard & poor 500 ( hereafter s&p 500 ) volatility data can be fitted quite well by a log - normal distribution .
this result appears to be at odds with the fact that the log - normal shape of the distribution typically signalizes a multiplicative nature  @xcite of an underlying stochastic process .
this is rather surprising in view of efficient market theories  @xcite which assume that the price changes are caused by incoming new information about an asset .
such information - induced price changes are additive and should not give rise to multiplicative process .
we cure this contradiction by observing that the same volatility data can be fitted equally well by a chi distribution  @xcite . in appendix
a we show that corresponding sample paths follow the additive rather than multiplicative it stochastic process . with the help of it s lemma
one may show ( cf .
appendix  a ) that the variance @xmath2 follows the it s stochastic equation @xmath3 \d v(t ) \ = \
\gamma(t)[\nu(t ) - \mu(t ) v(t ) - a(v(t ) , \mu(t ) , \nu(t ) ) ] \d t \
\sqrt{2 \gamma(t ) v(t ) } \ ; \ ! \d w(t)\ , .
\label{in.2 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath4 is a wiener process . here
@xmath5 and @xmath6 are arbitrary non - singular positive real functions on @xmath7 .
function @xmath8 is non - singular in all its arguments and it tends to zero at large @xmath9 s . from the corresponding fokker - planck equation
one may determine the time - dependent distribution of @xmath10 which reads @xmath11 f_{\mu(t),\nu(t)}(v ) ~= ~ \frac{1}{\gamma(\nu(t ) ) } ~[\mu(t)]^{\nu(t ) } v^{\nu(t ) -1 } e^{-\mu(t ) v}\ , , \;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{with}\;\;\;\;\ ; \int_0^{\infty } \d v \
f_{\mu,\nu}(v )   ~= ~1.\label{gammad } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the distribution @xmath12 is the normalized gamma probability density  @xcite , whose profile is shown in fig .
it has an average @xmath13 , a variance @xmath14 , a skewness @xmath15 , and an excess kurtosis @xmath16 ( see , e.g. , refs.@xcite )
. the gamma distribution ( [ gammad ] ) will play a key role in the following reasonings .
the chi distribution @xmath17 is related with the gamma distribution through the relation @xmath11 \rho(\sigma , t ) \
= \ 2 \sigma f_{\mu(t),\nu(t)}(\sigma^2)\ , .
\label{chi } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] often is the functional form ( [ chi ] ) itself called a gamma distribution . to avoid potential ambiguities
, we shall confine in the following to the name chi distribution .
the derivation of @xmath17 from the underlying additive process , rather than a multiplicative process , shows that the chi distribution is well compatible with efficient markets .
the gamma distributions for fluctuations of @xmath10 allow us to generate an entirely new class of option pricing formulas .
for this we use the well - known fact of non - equilibrium statistical physics  @xcite , that the density matrix of a system with fluctuating temperature can be written as a density matrix for the system with fixed temperature averaged with respect to a temperature distribution function .
path integrals conveniently facilitate this task  @xcite . with the help of the so - called schwinger trick
we show that if the distribution of the inverse - temperatures of the log - returns is of the gamma type , the distribution in momentum space is of the tsallis type . to put this observation into a relevant context , we recall that tsallis distributions in momentum space enjoy a key role in statistical physics as being optimal in an information theoretical sense : given prior information only on the covariance matrix and a so - called escort parameter
, they contain the least possible assumptions , i.e. , they are the most likely unbiased representation of the provided data .
some background material on this subject is reviewed in appendix  c. the observed connection with tsallis distribution in momentum space can be fruitfully used to address the issue of the time - compounded density function for stock fluctuations with chi distributed volatility .
the markovian property of the market prices then simply translates to product of distributions in momentum space . at the level of the distributions of log - returns ,
this automatically gives rise to the correct chapman - kolmogorov equation for markovian processes .
the time - compounded distribution function constructed by convolution of integrals represents the desired measure of stock fluctuations at given time @xmath9 .
it should be emphasized that since the distribution of log - returns is related to the tsallis distribution in momentum space by a fourier transform , the log - return data do not inherit the heavy tails of the tsallis distribution in momentum space . in this respect
our approach is quite different from data analysis based on a tsallis distribution of log - returns , such as the so - called  non - extensive thermostatic " @xcite .
the formal advantage of our model lies in its optimal use of the mathematical machinery of the black - scholes theory .
in particular , one still has the option pricing formula that is linear in the spot probability of the strike - price payment .
put and call options still obey the put - call parity relation , and the @xmath1-hedge still coincides with the spot probability that multiplies the asset price in the black - scholes formula . on the other hand ,
the desired features such as peaked middles of financial asset fluctuations and semi - fat tails are present for sufficiently long times .
the latter ensures that ensuing option prices can differ noticeably from the black - scholes curves for rather long expiration dates ( days or even moths ) despite the validity of central limit theorem ( clt ) .
one may thus expect our formulation to be useful , e.g. , for short or mid - term maturity options (  mesoscopic " time lags ) .
the paper is organized as follows . in section  [ sec2a ]
we fit the high - frequency data set of the volatility fluctuations in the s&p 500 index from 1985 to 2007 to a chi distribution .
we also show that this fit holds well for different time averaging windows . in section  [ sec3 ]
we represent the distribution of log - returns as a superposition of gaussian distributions with the above volatility behavior and find that the associated distribution in momentum space is of the tsallis type . by assuming further that the compounded stock fluctuations over longer times are markovian we obtain in section  [ opf ] the corresponding natural martingale measure . with it
we derive an option - pricing formula as a superposition of black - scholes expressions .
the departure from black - scholes results is expressed as a sum of two qualitatively different expansions : expansion in powers of the excess curtosis and expansion in momenta of moneyness .
the former represents the expansion in market characteristics while the latter is an expansion based on contract characteristics . in section  [ sec8 ]
we determine the crossover time below which our option prices differs from black - scholes .
comparisons with observed log - returns are presented in section  [ sec6b ] .
there we show that for the dow jones euro stoxx 50 data the amount of the residual risk in the @xmath1-hedge portfolio is very small and that the crossover time is roughly @xmath18 months .
section  [ sec7 ] , finally , is devoted to conclusions . for reader
s convenience we also include three appendices . in appendix  a we solve and discuss the fokker - planck equations that are associated with stochastic equations for the volatility and variance presented in introduction . in appendix
b we deal with some mathematical manipulations needed in section  [ opf ] . in appendix
c we present some basics for rnyi and thc statistics to better understand some remarks in the main body of the paper .
our work is motivated by data sets on volatility distributions extracted from the s&p 500 stock market index .
we briefly remind the reader the procedure for obtaining these numbers .
a detailed description can be found in ref.@xcite and citations therein .
it is well known that the autocorrelation function of stock market returns decays exponentially with a short characteristic time  typically few trading minutes ( e.g. , @xmath19 min . for s&p 500 index ) .
hence the log - returns @xmath20 are basically uncorrelated random variables , nevertheless , they are not independent since higher - order correlations reveal a richer structure . in fact , empirical analysis of financial data confirms  @xcite that the autocorrelation function of non - linear functions of @xmath20 , such as @xmath21 or @xmath22 , has much longer decorrelation time ( memory ) spanning up to several years ( few months for s&p 500 index ) .
these observations imply that a realistic model for the return - generating processes should account for a non - linear dependence in the returns .
the latter can be most naturally achieved via some additional memory - bearing stochastic process .
most simply , this subsidiary process involves directly the volatility .
one may bypass a construction of the volatility model by trying to define a  judicious " volatility estimator directly from financial time series .
difficulty resides , however , in the fact that although the volatility is supposed to be a measure of the magnitude of market fluctuations , it is not immediately clear how such a measure should be quantified . among many definitions present in the literature
@xcite we focuss here on the estimator proposed in ref.@xcite .
there one defines the volatility @xmath23 , at a given time @xmath24 as the arithmetic average of the absolute value of the log - returns @xmath11 r(t_n ) \
\equiv \ \ln \frac{s(t_n + \delta t ) } { s(t_n)}\ \cong \ \frac{s(t_n +
\delta t ) - s(t_n)}{s(t_n ) }   \ , , \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] over some time window of the length @xmath25 ( @xmath26 , @xmath27 is the sampling interval ) , i.e. , @xmath11 \sigma_t(t_{\eta } ) \ \equiv \
\frac{1}{n } \sum_{m = \eta}^{n-1 + \eta } |r(t_m)|\ , , \;\;\;\;\ ; ( t_{\eta } = \eta \delta t , \ ; t_m = m\delta t ) \ , .
\label{ii.5 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] because ( [ ii.5 ] ) is basically a forward - time mean value of absolute returns , it may indeed serve as a good measure of market fluctuations .
with this @xmath28 we can construct the corresponding volatility probability density function according to a relative frequency prescription : @xmath11
\rho_t(\sigma ) \delta \sigma \ = \ \frac{\mbox{\ # $ \sigma_t(t ) \in [ \sigma , \sigma + \delta \sigma]$}}{n}\ , .
\\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the limit of the very large time window @xmath29 , one might expect @xmath30 to approach a gaussian distribution , since the clt holds also for correlated time series  @xcite , although with an often slower convergence than for independent processes  @xcite .
there is , however , a logical caveat in the definition ( [ ii.5 ] ) .
the observed volatility fluctuations have a spuriously superposed pattern caused by intra - day fluctuations .
this is because over the day , the market activity is large at the beginning and at the end , but exhibits a broad minimum around a noon  @xcite . since the volatility is supposed to measure the magnitude of the market activity , this intra - day pattern should be removed in order to avoid false correlations .
this can be remedied by considering the normalized returns  @xcite @xmath31 r_{\rm{nor}}(t_n )   \equiv   \frac{\ln [ s(t_n + \delta t ) /s(t_n)]}{\langle |\ln [ s(t_n + \delta t ) /s(t_n)]|
\rangle } \cong   \frac{s(t_n + \delta t ) - s(t_n)}{s(t_n)}\bigg/\!\left\langle \left| \frac{s(t_n + \delta t ) - s(t_n)}{s(t_n)}\right| \right\rangle \ ! .
\label{ii.7 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath32 is the average over the whole sequence of trading days , i.e. , @xmath11 \langle |\ln [ s(t_n + \delta t ) /s(t_n)]|
\frac{1}{n_{\rm{td}}}\sum_{j=1}^{n_{\rm{td } } } |\ln [ s_j(t_n + \delta t ) /s_j(t_n)]|\
, , \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath33 denoting the spot price of the index at the time @xmath34 on the @xmath35th trading day , and @xmath36 denotes the total number of trading days .
so in ( [ ii.7 ] ) each spot return is divided by its natural  spot return scale " .
the corresponding normalized volatility is then defined as @xmath11 \sigma_{t\rm{nor}}(t_{\eta } ) \
\frac{1}{n } \sum_{m = \eta}^{n-1 + \eta } |r_{\rm{nor}}(t_m)|\ , .
\label{ii.6 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] this is the quantity whose distribution will be discussed here ( we omit the subscript  nor " in the following ) . to this end
we shall examine the data set for the s&p 500 stock market index .
data in question were gathered over the period of 22 years from jan 1985 to jan 2007 at roughly @xmath37 minute increments .
the corresponding empirical time sequence is seen in fig .
[ sp500index ] .    ' '' ''    with the help of the prescription ( [ ii.5 ] ) we obtain the volatility for the above s&p 500 index data shown in fig .  [ sp500vol - notnorm ] .    ' '' ''    the corresponding normalized volatility @xmath38 is shown in fig .
[ sp500vol ] .
the normalization was taken with respect to @xmath39 ( i.e. , approximate number of trading days between 5 jan .
1985 - 5 jan .
2007 ) .    ' '' ''    figure  [ g.22b ] shows the volatility probability density function @xmath30 with the time window @xmath40min .
while it is seen that @xmath30 can be well fitted with the log - normal function ( as proposed in ref.@xcite ) , the chi distribution gives a better fit in the central part and is of roughly the same quality in the tail part . because the value of the volatility quantifies the asset risk , fig .
[ g.22b ] implies that the log - normal fit slightly overestimates , while the chi distribution slightly underestimates the large risks .
in addition , the functions @xmath41 and @xmath42 that parameterize the chi ( and gamma ) distribution ( cf .
eq.([chi ] ) ) are in the observed time windows proportional to @xmath29 , i.e. @xmath43 and @xmath44 .
this tendency is confirmed in fig .
[ g.23 ] which shows the corresponding variance distribution @xmath45 for    ' '' ''    three different window sizes @xmath29 . for better comparison
we use the scaled distribution form , @xmath46 as a function of @xmath47 , with @xmath48 and @xmath49 ( @xmath50 and @xmath51 are empirical mean and variance , respectively ) . after the above scaling , empirical variance distributions , with @xmath52 and @xmath53min . nicely
 collapse " to the canonical exponential @xmath54 ( i.e. , gamma distribution with both mean and variance equal to @xmath55 ) , confirming thus the assumed gamma distribution behavior for rather long averaging times .    ' '' ''    in the limit of very long @xmath29 , one expects that @xmath30 becomes gaussian , due to clt . for the times considered here
, however , the chi distribution fits the data better than a gaussian one .
we see thus that the long - range correlations in the volatility fluctuations considerably slow down the convergence towards the gaussian distribution .
the conclusions that one my draw from this is that , even for large times , the tail of @xmath30 has a fairly large amount of distribution ( or information ) that can not be ignored .
this will provide a key input in generalizing the black  scholes pricing formula in section  [ opf ] .
we have mentioned before the result in statistical physics  @xcite that a density matrix of a system with fluctuating temperature can be written as a density matrix with fixed temperature averaged with respect to some temperature distribution function .
this technique was recenly proposed as a natural frame for composing non - gaussian price distributions  @xcite and for deriving option pricing formulas  @xcite .      ' '' ''    in the limit @xmath73 where @xmath74 , the tsallis operator ( [ 3.1 ] ) converges to an exponential @xmath75 \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] and the distribution function ( [ eq2.1 ] ) becomes gaussian .
the corresponding limit of the gamma distribution ( [ gammad ] ) is a @xmath76-function : @xmath11 f_{\mu , \nu}(x ) \approx   \sqrt{\frac{\mu}{2\pi x } } \ !
\left(\frac{\mu x}{\nu }   \right)^{\nu -1/2 } e^{-\nu(\mu x/\nu -1 ) }   \approx   \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}~x } ~\delta\!\left ( \sqrt { \frac{\mu x}{\nu } -1 - \log   \frac{\mu   x}{\nu}}\right )   =   \delta\!\left(x - \frac{\nu}{\mu}\right)\ !   .
\label{@limit } \\[-1mm]\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence the density matrix ( [ 3.2 ] ) approaches for @xmath77 the canonical density matrix of the gibbs - boltzmann statistics of the inverse temperature @xmath78 .
note , that in order to ensure that @xmath79 is finite in the small-@xmath69 limit , @xmath41 must behave as @xmath80 at @xmath73 .
the reader may easily check that a superposition of the type ( [ 3.2 ] ) exists also for distributions of bashkirov s 1-st version of thermostatics ( cf .
appendix  b ) . in that case @xmath81 ,
@xmath82 and @xmath83 . in the limit
@xmath84 the density matrix becomes again a gibbs - boltzmann canonical density matrix .
consider a continuously tradable stock and assume that the stock fluctuations over short time intervals @xmath85 such as @xmath86 day are described by the stationary tsallis density operator ( [ 3.1 ] ) .
the time @xmath85 will from now on play the role of a time unit .
we now analyze the modifications of the black - scholes formula for pricing european call options @xcite brought about by the fluctuations of the volatilities . after a time @xmath87
( always in units of @xmath85 ) the stock fluctuations follow a tsallis density operator @xmath11 [ \hat{\rho } ( \beta)]^t ~&= & ~z^{-t}\left[1 ~+   ~ \beta \delta \hat{h}\right]^{-t/\delta}\nonumber ~= \   \frac{z^{-t}}{\gamma\left(t/\delta\right)}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\d   s}{s}~s^{t/\delta}e^{-s[1 +   \beta \delta \hat{h } ] }   \nonumber \\[3 mm ]      & = &   ~\left(\frac{t } { \beta \delta}\right)^{\ ! t/\delta }   \frac{z^{-t}}{\gamma\left(t/\delta\right)}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\d   v}{v}~v^{t/\delta}e^{-tv\mu}e^{-tv\hat{h}}\ , ,
\label{cd.1 } \\[-1 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath88 is a normalization factor . in the sequel
we shall allow for a drift of the returns by extending the hamiltonian operator ( [ @hamil ] ) to @xmath89 where @xmath90 is the growth rate of the riskfree investment , and @xmath91 is the associated growth rate of its logarithm .
the parameter @xmath92 equals to @xmath93 , as before .
the matrix elements of ( [ cd.1 ] ) yield the time - compounded probability density @xmath11 p_\delta(x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a)~= ~\langle x_b|[\hat{\rho } ( \beta)]^t    \label{iv9b } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] being the matrix element of the product of operators @xmath94 .
@xmath95 fulfills trivially the chapman - kolmogorov relation for a markovian process @xmath11 p_{\delta}(x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a ) \ = \ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\d x \
p_{\delta}(x_b , t_b;x , t_c ) p_{\delta}(x , t_c;x_a , t_a)\ , , \;\;\;\;\ ;
t_b > t_c > t_a\ , .
\label{iv1aa } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] for gaussian stock fluctuations with the hamiltonian ( [ hami2 ] ) , the riskfree martingale measure density has the form  @xcite @xmath11 & & p^{(m , r_w ) } _ v ( x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a ) = \theta(t_b - t_a)\frac{e^{-r_w(t_b - t_a)}}{\sqrt{2\pi v(t_b - t_a)}}\ \exp\left\{- \frac{[x_b - x_a - r_{x_w}(t_b - t_a)]^2}{2 v(t_b - t_a ) }   \right\}\nonumber \\[3 mm ] & & \mbox{\hspace{2cm}}= \theta(t_b - t_a ) e^{-r_w(t_b - t_a ) } \int_{x(t_a ) = x_a}^{x(t_b ) = x_b}{\mathcal{d}}x ~\exp\left\{- \frac{1}{2 v}\int_{t_a}^{t_b}[\dot{x } - r_{x_w}]^2 \d t \right\}.   \label{iv1a } \\[-1 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the corresponding time - compounded version of the superposition ( [ 3.2 ] ) can be directly written as @xmath11 & & p _ \delta ( x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a ) ~= ~ \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\ ! \d v ~f_{t\mu,\ \!t/\delta}(v)\!~p_v^{(m , r_w)}(x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a)\ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] correctness of the latter can be verified by combining ( [ cd.1 ] ) , ( [ iv9b ] ) , and ( [ iv1a ] ) .
the result is @xcite @xmath11 & & p_\delta(x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a ) ~= ~ \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\ ! \d v    ~f_{t\mu,\ \!t/\delta}(v)\!~p_v^{(m , r_w)}(x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a)\nonumber\\[3 mm ] & & \mbox{\hspace{0.5 cm } } = ~ \frac{e^{- ( r_w
t + \delta x)/2}(2\mu ) ^{t/\delta }       } { \sqrt{\pi } \,\gamma\left(t/\delta\right ) } \ ! \left(\frac{\sqrt{1 + 8\,\mu}}{|\delta x - r_w t|}\right)^{\!\!1/2 - t/\delta}\!\ ! k_{1/2 - t/\delta}\!\!~\left(|\delta x - r_w       t|~\frac{\sqrt{1 + 8\,\mu } } { 2}\right)\ ! , \label{iv2 } \\[-1 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath96 and @xmath97 .
the measure density ( [ iv2 ] ) has for @xmath98 the asymptotic behavior of the erlang distribution  @xcite : @xmath11 p_\delta(x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a ) ~\approx ~\exp\left(-\frac{|\delta x|}{2}\sqrt{1 + 8\,\mu } - \frac{\delta x}{2}\right ) ~|\delta x|^{-1 + ( t_b - t_a)/\delta } \ , ,   \label{iv2b } \\[-1 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] which has a semi - fat tail
( see fig .
[ g.2 ] ) .
it should be noted that the exponential suppression ensures that all momenta are finite .
this fact is an important ingredient in showing that ( [ iv2 ] ) represents indeed the riskfree martingale measure density .
the actual proof of the latter can be found in ref .
@xcite .    ' '' ''    from the martingale measure ( [ iv2 ] ) , we now calculate the option price at an arbitrary _ earlier _ time @xmath99 via the evolution equation @xmath11   o _ \delta ( x_a , t_a ) ~= ~\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\d x_b ~o(x_b , t_b)p_\delta(x_b , t_b;x_a , t_a )   \ , . \label{iv3 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the value of the option at its expiration date @xmath100 is given by the difference between the underlying stock price @xmath101 on expiration date and the strike price @xmath50 , i.e. , @xmath11 o(x_b , t_b)~= ~\theta(s_b - e)(s_b - e ) ~= ~\theta(x_b - x_e)\left(e^{x_b } - e^{x_e}\right)\ , , \label{iv4 } \\[-4 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath102 .
heaviside function @xmath103 ensures that the owner of the option will exercise his right to buy the stock only if he profits , i.e. , only when @xmath104 is positive .    for gaussian fluctuations of variance @xmath10 , formula ( [ iv3 ] )
is evaluated with the measure ( [ iv1a ] ) and yields directly the black - scholes option pricing formula  @xcite : @xmath11 o_v^{(bs)}(x_a , t_a ) ~= ~s(t_a)\phi(y^+_v ) ~- ~e^{-r_w(t_b - t_a)}e \phi(y^-_v)\ , , \label{iv5 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath105 represents the cumulative normal distribution and @xmath11 y^{\pm}_v ~= ~\frac{\log[s(t_a)/e ] ~+ ~\left(r_w \pm \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}v \right)(t_b - t_a)}{\sqrt{v(t_b - t_a)}}\ , \label{iv6 } .
\\[-1 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the generalization to the present semi - heavy tail distribution is obtained from the superposition  @xcite @xmath11 o _ \delta ( x_a , t_a ) ~= ~ \int_{0}^{\infty}\!\ ! \d v    ~f_{t\mu,\ \!t/\delta}(v ) ~o^{(bs)}_v(x_a , t_a)\ , , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\ ;
\label{iv7 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] at this stage one should realize that integration in ( [ iv7 ] ) acts only on the @xmath106 parts of @xmath107 .
this allows to write the option price in the black - scholes - like form , namely @xmath11 o_{\delta}(x_a , t_a ) ~ = ~s(t_a)\phi^{(+)}_v ~- ~e^{-r_w(t_b - t_a)}e \phi^{(-)}_v\ , , \label{iv8 } \\[-4 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath108 and @xmath109 are gamma - smeared versions of the functions @xmath110 and @xmath111 , respectively . for @xmath73 ,
the new functions reduce , of course , to the un - smeared ones due to the limit ( [ @limit ] ) .
let us now do the smearing operation for @xmath108 : @xmath3 \phi^{(+)}_v ~&= & ~\int_{0}^{\infty}\d v~f_{t\mu , t/\delta}(v ) \phi(y_v^+ ) \
= ~\int_{0}^{\infty}\d v~f_{t\mu , t/\delta}(v ) \int_{-\infty}^{y_v^+}\frac{\d \xi}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\ e^{-\xi^2/2}\nonumber \\[2 mm ] & = & ~\int_{0}^{\infty}\d v~f_{t\mu ,
t/\delta}(v ) \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\d \xi}{\sqrt{2\pi}}~\theta ( y_v^+ - \xi ) ~e^{-\xi^2/2 } .\end{aligned}\ ] ] by expressing the heaviside function as @xmath112 and using sokhotsky s formula @xmath3 \frac{1}{p - i0_+ } ~=
~{\cal{p}}\!\left(\frac{1}{p}\right ) ~+ \ i\pi \delta(p)\ , , \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath113 denotes the principal value of the integral , we perform the integral over @xmath114 and obtain  @xcite @xmath115 \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath116 is the integral @xmath3 f^{(+)}_{t\mu , t/\delta}(p , a)\ \equiv \ \int_{0}^{\infty}\d v ~f_{t\mu , t/\delta}(v ) \
e^{ipy_v^+}\ , .\label{iv99 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] this is evaluated as follows .
we perform a change of variables from @xmath10 to @xmath117 , and define @xmath118 + r_w t$ ] , then we have @xmath3 f^{(+)}_{t\mu , t/\delta}(p , a)&= & 2 \frac{\mu^{t/\delta}}{\gamma(t/\delta ) } \int_{0}^{\infty}\d \omega \
\omega^{2t/\delta -1 } ~e^{-\mu \omega^2 } \
\exp\left[i\frac{p}{2}\left(\omega + \frac{2a}{\omega } \right)\right ] \nonumber \\[2 mm ]   & \equiv & ~2 \frac{\mu^{t/\delta}}{\gamma(t/\delta ) } ~g^{(+)}_\mu(p , a)~.\label{iv11 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] in order to calculate @xmath119 we observe that the following integral can immediately be done : @xmath3 \int_{0}^{\infty}\d \mu ~\mu^{s-1}g^{(+)}_\mu(p , a ) ~= ~\gamma(s ) \int_{0}^{\infty}\d \omega~\omega^{2t/\delta
-2s -1}\ \exp\left[i\frac{p}{2}\left(\omega + \frac{2a}{\omega } \right)\right ] \ , .
\\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] let us first assume that @xmath120 and arg@xmath121 and perform the substitution @xmath122 . this yields directly @xmath3 \int_{0}^{\infty}\d \mu ~\mu^{s-1}g^{(+)}_\mu(p , a ) ~&= & \ \gamma(s)(2a)^{t/\delta - s } \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\d u \
e^{ip\sqrt{2a}\cosh u - ( 2s - 2t/\delta)u}\nonumber \\[2 mm ] & = & ~i\pi \gamma(s)(e^{-i\pi } 2a)^{t/\delta - s } h^{(1)}_{2s - 2t/\delta}(p\sqrt{2a})\ , , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\ ; ( p>0)\ , , \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath123 is the hankel function of the first kind  @xcite .
this result holds for @xmath124 .
similarly we obtain for @xmath125 : @xmath3 \int_{0}^{\infty}\d \mu ~\mu^{s-1}g^{(+)}_\mu(p , a ) ~&= & ~-i\pi \gamma(s)(e^{i\pi } 2a)^{t/\delta - s } h^{(2)}_{2s - 2t/\delta}(-p\sqrt{2a } ) \ , , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\ ; ( p<0)\ , , \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath126 is the hankel function of the second kind  @xcite .
the result is valid for @xmath127 .
another interesting situation arises for small @xmath154 , where @xmath155 .
using the fact that @xmath156 , and that we may neglect for small @xmath154 the last two sums in eq.([iv9c ] ) and eq.([a13 ] ) , we obtain that both @xmath108 and @xmath109 approach the cumulative normal distributions @xmath157 and @xmath158 , respectively , implying that @xmath159 .
options with @xmath160 are known as _ at - the - money - forward _ options , i.e. options whose strike price is equal to the current , prevailing price in the underlying forward market .
inasmuch , whenever the option is at - the - money - forward we regain back the formula of black and scholes .
since many real transactions in the over - the - counter markets are quoted and executed at or near at - the - money - forward  @xcite , this explains some of the empirical support for the black - scholes model .    in this connection it is interesting to note that for _ put _ options , where the terminal condition is @xmath161\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] we would have obtained the pricing equation in the form @xmath11 o_{\delta}(x_a , t_a ) ~= ~e e^{-r_w ( t_b - t_a ) } ( 1 - \phi^{(-)}_v ) - s(t_a)(1 - \phi^{(+)}_v)\ , .
\label{iv9fff } \\[-3mm]\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] this shows that our option - pricing model fulfills important consistency condition known as the _ put_-_call _ parity relation  @xcite @xmath11 o^p_{\delta}\!(x_a , t_a ) ~= ~o^c_{\delta}\!(x_a , t_a ) - s(t_a ) + e e^{-r_w ( t_b - t_a)}\ , , \label{iv9ggg } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath162 and @xmath163 denote put and call options , respectively .
consequently , the case when @xmath164 can be equally phased as a situation with @xmath165 .
we shall further see in the following section that the expansion factor @xmath166 is directly related to the so - called _ moneyness _ of the options .    moneyness is a measure of the degree to which an option is likely to have a nonzero value at the expiration date . in the black - scholes formula , the moneyness ( measured in the units of standard deviation ) is defined by  @xcite @xmath11 m_{\rm bs } ~= ~\frac{y_v^+ ~+ ~y_v^-}{2 } ~= ~\frac{\log[s(t_a)/e]~ + ~r_w t}{\sigma \sqrt{t } } ~= ~\frac{a } { \sqrt{vt}}\ , .
\label{cum26 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] for at - the - money - forward options , the moneyness is zero .
a positive value of @xmath167 corresponds to in - the - money - forward options ( i.e. , options with positive monetary value ) while a negative value represents out - of - the - money options .    in our case
@xmath168 is a random variable and for given @xmath9 it is distributed according to the gamma distribution @xmath169 .
we may easily calculate the momenta of @xmath170 .
the odd moments are @xmath11 \frac{\langle |m_{\rm bs}|^{2n + 1}\rangle}{(2n+1 ) ! } ~= \ \frac{a^{2n+1}}{t^{n + 1/2}}~\frac{{\langle } { \sigma^{-2n-1}}{\rangle}}{(2n+1 ) ! } ~= ~\left ( \frac{a^2}{\delta \bar v } \right)^{\!\ !
n } \sqrt{\frac{a^2}{\delta \bar v}}~\frac{(t/\delta)_{-n-1/2}}{(1)_{2n+1}}\ , , \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] so that the second sum in ( [ iv9c ] ) and ( [ a13 ] ) corresponds to an expansion in the odd momenta of the moneyness . by taking into account
that @xmath171 , the third sum in ( [ iv9c ] ) and ( [ a13 ] ) is seen to be an expansion in the even momenta of @xmath167 .
hence we can roughly characterize the three sums in the expansion ( [ iv9c ] ) and ( [ a13 ] ) as follows : the first sum is an expansion involving the properties of the stochastic process such as volatility , characteristic time , spread parameter @xmath172 ) , while the remaining two expansions are expansions involving the option contract characteristics ( i.e. , expiration time , strike price ) .    the computations presented above assume a single - pole structure of ( [ @cont ] ) , i.e. that @xmath173 is not half - integered
. if @xmath173 is half - integered , the perturbation expansion ( [ iv9c ] ) clearly fails .
the half - integered @xmath173 case must be thus treated separately . for completeness , we state the corresponding result for @xmath108 coming from the double poles in the @xmath67-plane of the integral ( [ @cont ] ) .
first of all , the structure of @xmath136 stays the same because there are no multi - poles present .
the corresponding computation of @xmath137 is not much more complicated than for simple - poles . assuming that @xmath174 , the analysis reveals that @xmath11 & & \mbox{\hspace{-9mm}}\phi^{(+)}_v = \frac{1}{2}\left[1 ~+ ~\sqrt{\frac{\bar v \delta } { 2\pi } } \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(1/2 + l)_{n+1/2}(1/2)_n}{(1)_{2n+1}}\left ( -\frac{\bar v\delta}{2}\right)^{\!\ ! n}\!\!~_{1\!}f_1\!\left(n+\frac{1}{2 } , 2n + 2 , -a\right ) \right .
\nonumber \\[2 mm ] & & \mbox{\hspace{-9 mm } } + \left .
~2\sqrt{\frac{a^2}{2\pi \bar{v } \delta } } \sum_{n=0}^{l-1}\frac{(1/2+l)_{-n-1/2}(1/2)_n}{(1)_{2n+1}}\left ( -\frac{2a^2}{\bar v\delta}\right)^{\!\ ! n}\!\!~_{1\!}f_1\!\left(n+\frac{1}{2 } , 2n + 2 , -a\right)\right .
\nonumber   \\[2 mm ] & & \mbox{\hspace{-9 mm } }   + \left .
\frac{(-1)^l}{\gamma(l+1/2 ) } \sqrt{\frac{a^2}{2\pi \bar v\delta } } \sum_{n = l}^{\infty } \frac{\left [ \psi(n - l + 1 ) + \psi(n+1 ) \right]}{\gamma(n)\gamma(n+l-1)}\left ( \frac{a^2}{\bar v\delta}\right)^{\!\ !
! \!~_{1\!}f_1\!\left(n+\frac{1}{2 } , 2n + 2 , -a\right)\ ! \right]\ ! ,
\label{iv9e } \\[-1 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath175 is the digamma function  @xcite .
it is possible to check numerically that for @xmath176 the relation ( [ iv9c ] ) equals to ( [ iv9e ] ) ( which is not true perturbatively ! ) .
thus @xmath108 is a smooth and non - singular function at aforementioned critical times .
when confronted with a practical option price problem , one must decide whether or not @xmath9 ( i.e , the time to expiration ) is large enough to deal satisfactorily with gaussian distributions .
this is done by estimating the characteristic ( or crossover ) time @xmath177 , below which the black - scholes formula is inapplicable and our solution becomes relevant .
the estimate can be done with the help of a chebyshev expansion  @xcite .
we define a rescaled time - compounded variable @xmath178 \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] removing the trivial drift we find the difference between cumulative distribution at time @xmath9 and that of the asymptotic gaussian distribution as an expansion  @xcite @xmath11 \delta p_{\delta}(u ) ~&\equiv & ~ \int_u^{\infty } dz \left[p_{\delta}(z , t ) - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi } } e^{-z^2/2}\right]\nonumber \\[2 mm ] & = & ~\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi } } e^{-u^2/2 } \left[\frac{q_1(u)}{\sqrt{t } }   +   \frac{q_2(u)}{t }   + \cdots + \frac{q_j(u)}{t^{j/2 } } + \cdots \right]\ , .
\label{iv9gg } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] here we have used the abbreviation @xmath179 , with the time @xmath9 measured in the basic time units @xmath180 .
functions @xmath181 are chebyshev - hermite polynomials , the coefficients of which depend only on the first @xmath182 momenta of the random variable @xmath183 appearing in the elementary distribution @xmath184 .
the first two expansion functions are @xmath11 & & q_1(u ) ~= ~\frac{\kappa_3}{6}(1 - u^2)\ , , \nonumber \\[2 mm ] & & q_2(u ) ~= ~\frac{10\kappa_3 ^ 2}{6 ! } ~u^5 ~+ \ \frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{\kappa_4}{3 } - \frac{10\kappa_3 ^ 2}{9 } \right ) u^3 ~+ ~\left(\frac{5\kappa^2_3}{24 } - \frac{\kappa_4}{8 } \right ) u\ , .
\label{iv9k } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath185 and @xmath186 are _ skewness _ and _ kurtosis _ of @xmath184 . since the drift was removed , @xmath184 is symmetric and the skewness @xmath187 vanishes .
the characteristic time @xmath177 is now defined  @xcite as a time at which the relative difference @xmath188 starts to be substantially smaller than @xmath55 ( to be specific we choose @xmath189 ) , if @xmath190 is taken to be a typical endpoint of the gaussian central region , which we take as @xmath191 .
since @xmath192 has the value @xmath193 for @xmath194 , we identify @xmath177 with @xmath186 .
this implies that for @xmath195 the gaussian approximation is almost exact while for @xmath196 the black - scholes analysis is unreliable and our new option pricing formula applies .    to find @xmath186
we calculate the moment generating function @xmath197 associated with @xmath198 via the fourier transform @xmath199 g(p ) \ = \
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty } \d y \ e^{ipy } \
p(y,1)\ = \
\frac{2^{1/\delta } ( \mu)^{1/2}}{(p^2 + 2\mu)^{1/\delta}}\ , .
\label{iv12 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the cumulant generating function @xmath200 is then the logarithm of @xmath197 .
the cumulants @xmath201 are obtained from the derivativesand of @xmath202 @xmath199 c_n \ = \
\left.(-i)^n\frac{\d w(p)}{\d p^n}\right|_{p = 0 } \;\;\ ; { \rightarrow } \;\;\;\ ;   & & c_2 \ = \ \frac{1}{\delta \mu } \ = \
\bar{v}\ ,   , \;\ ; \;\;c_{2n } \ = \
\frac{(2n)!}{n 2^n}\frac{1}{\delta \mu^n } \ = \
\frac{(2n)!}{n 2^n } \
n } \delta^{n-1}\ , , \nonumber \\[2 mm ] & & c_{2n+1 } \ = \ 0,\ ; \;\ ; n \in { \mathbb{n}}\ , .
\label{cum22 } \\[-2 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the excess kurtosis has the value @xmath203 , implying that @xmath177 is equal to three times the spread of the distribution @xmath204 .
this means that for large spread one can apply the black - scholes formula only a long time before expiration ( long maturity options ) .
it is worth noting that the present analysis is not applicable in cases when the distribution of returns is of the tsallis type .
this has heavy power - like tails , so that the second moment may be infinite and the above chebyshev s expansion may not exist . in the present case the tsallis distribution is in fourier space and
all cumulants are finite leading to the above estimate of @xmath177 .
our cumulant calculation ( [ cum22 ] ) also further clarifies the meaning of the expansions ( [ iv9c ] ) and ( [ a13 ] ) .
in fact , the first sum in both ( [ iv9c ] ) and ( [ a13 ] ) corresponds directly to the expansion in cumulants @xmath205 .
this is because @xmath11 \frac{\delta ~\ ! c_{2n}}{\gamma(n)2^{2n } } ~= ~(1/2 ) _ { n } \left(\frac{\bar v \delta}{2 } \right)^{\ !
n } \ , .\label{cum23
} \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath206 , we can alternatively view the aforementioned expansion as an expansion in small @xmath71 , i.e. , as a  high - tsallis - temperature "- expansion .
this establishes contact with the market temperature introduced in ref .
@xcite .
let us finally mention that the characteristic time can be crudely but fairly rapidly estimated from the shape of the variance ( or volatility ) distribution . in particular , the relative width of the distribution @xmath207 at time @xmath9 is @xmath11 \frac{\overline{(v - \overline{v})^2}}{\overline{v}^2 } \
\frac{\delta}{t}\ , .
\label{chartime2 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] if the lhs of ( [ chartime2 ] ) is much smaller than @xmath55 then the distribution is effectively @xmath69-function and the volatility is a constant as assumed in the black - scholes analysis .
however , when the relative width starts to be of order @xmath55 the black - scholes model ceases to be valid .
this happens at the time @xmath208 which is consistent with our previous estimate .
it is interesting to compare our solution ( [ iv8 ] ) for european call options with realistic market data .
consider the option prices for an european option whose underlying is the dow jones euro stoxx 50 with the time series shown in fig .
[ dji ] .    ' '' ''    the associated empirical option prices are plotted in fig .
it is clear that because of the noise in the data no option pricing formula will fit the market prices perfectly .    ' '' ''    even for a very good fit the option price would not be the most meaningful measure for the quality of the pricing model . instead , one should test directly the hedging qualities of the pricing model  @xcite . to this end
one introduces the @xmath1-hedge @xmath11 \delta(\tau ) \ \equiv \
\frac{\partial o_{\delta}(\tau)}{\partial s(\tau ) } \ , .\label{delta - hedge } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] given @xmath209 we construct a so - called @xmath210-hedged portfolio @xmath211 by mixing stocks and options so that @xmath11 \pi(\tau ) = o_{\delta}(\tau ) - \delta(\tau)s(\tau)\ ,
. \label{portfolioii } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] the cash amount @xmath212 can be interpreted as the value of a portfolio of a trader who at time @xmath213 bought one option @xmath214 and sold an amount @xmath215 of the underlying with price @xmath216 . in the ideal situation ,
i.e. , neglecting the time delays in the determination of @xmath209 and the adaptation of the portfolio , and ignoring the transaction costs , this portfolio is perfectly hedged , i.e. , it is free of fluctuations since the fluctuations of @xmath217 and @xmath218 cancel each other  @xcite .
the growth of the portfolio is therefore deterministic and proceeds at the riskfree rate @xmath219 : @xmath11 \frac{\d \pi(\tau)}{\d \tau } \ = \
r_{w } \ \ !
\pi(\tau)\ , .
\\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] any other growth rate would yield arbitrage possibilities .
the amount @xmath215 deduced directly from empirical data should thus yield portfolio @xmath220 that is almost precisely @xmath221 ( modulo multiplicative pre - factor ) .
consequently , @xmath215 computed from a _ good _ option pricing formula must give @xmath220 that is also close to the @xmath221 behavior .
in our case the @xmath1-hedge is @xmath11 \delta \ & = & \ \phi^{(+)}_v(a )   \ + \ \left[s \
\frac{\partial   \phi^{(+)}_v(a)}{\partial a } \ - \ e e^{-r_w t } \
\frac{\partial \phi^{(-)}_v(a)}{\partial a }   \right ] \frac{\d a}{\d s } \
\phi^{(+)}_v(a ) \ , , \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] since the expression in the square bracket vanishes due to eqs .  ( [ phi - plus ] ) , ( [ phi - minus ] ) and the identities [ see e.g. , ref .
@xcite ] @xmath11 & & \frac{\partial \!~_{1\!}f_1(a , b , a)}{\partial a } \ = \ \frac{a}{b } \!~_{1\!}f_1(a + 1 , b + 1 , a)\ , , \\[2 mm ] & & \!~_{1\!}f_1(a , b , a ) \ = \ e^{a } \!~_{1\!}f_1(b - a , b , -a ) \ = \   \frac{s}{e } \ \!e^{r_w t } \!~_{1\!}f_1(b - a , b , -a)\ , , \\[2 mm ] & & a \ \!\!~_{1\!}f_1(a + 1 , b , a)\ = \ a \
\!\!~_{1\!}f_1(a , b , a ) \
+ \ a \ \!\frac{\partial\!~_{1\!}f_1(a , b , a)}{\partial a } \   \ , .
\\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] let us note that by comparing ( [ portfolioii ] ) with the option - pricing formula ( [ iv8 ] ) we can write the portfolio at the time @xmath213 in the explicit form @xmath11 \pi(\tau ) \ = \ - e e^{-r_w(t_b - \tau ) } \phi^{(-)}_v(\tau)\ , .
\label{portfolio } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber \end{aligned}\ ] ] imperfectness of the hedging induced by the pricing formula ( [ iv8 ] ) thus depends on the actual behavior of @xmath222 in time . in the black - scholes model
the corresponding @xmath223 is effectively @xmath213-independent due to assumed form of the geometric brownian motion for @xmath216 . in our model
the situation is less obvious because the additional stochastic process due to volatility may substantially spoil the time independence . to see how big is the amount of the residual risk implied by our pricing model we turn now back to our empirical data .
the best option - pricing solution @xmath218 fit for the empirical option - price data from fig .
[ djop ] is depicted in fig .
[ option - pricing - fit ] . in the plot fig .
[ option - pricing - fit ] ( and the plots to follow ) we have used @xmath218 calculated to @xmath224th perturbation order with the double - poles removed .
the obtained result is quite robust with the residual error smaller that @xmath225 .    ' '' ''    using as inputs : @xmath226eur , @xmath227%/year and @xmath228trading days ( @xmath229feb@xmath230 ) , the corresponding free parameters are then best fitted with @xmath231 , @xmath232 ( i.e. , @xmath233 ) .
the fit can be further optimized when newly arrived option pricing data are taken into account .
details of the departure of the @xmath218 prediction from the black - scholes fit is depicted in figs .
[ option - pricing - fit - detail ] .    ' '' ''    the goodness of the fit can be estimated , for instance , by the method of least squares .
the correspondent likelihood function @xmath234 is for the @xmath218 fit in the period @xmath235dec@xmath236jan@xmath237 smaller by @xmath238 in comparison with the black - scholes best fit . in the period
@xmath235jan@xmath239feb@xmath237 the difference in @xmath234 is @xmath240 , and in the period @xmath235feb@xmath241mar@xmath237 it is already @xmath242 .
this trend seems to get even more pronounced for periods closer to the expiry date .    according to section  [ sec8 ]
, the characteristic time corresponds to the time scale where non - gaussian effects begin to smear out and beyond which the clt begins to operate . for the call options at hand @xmath243  days , which , is particularly large and although the actual value will get further adjust with newly arrived option data , fig .
[ option - pricing - fit - detail ] indicates that @xmath177 will not get dramatically changed .
note also , that despite the fact that @xmath244  days , the departure effect is visible already @xmath245 months before the maturity .    by having the best @xmath218 fit we can construct the daily portfolio @xmath212 according the prescription ( [ portfolioii ] ) .
the resulting portfolio is shown in fig .
[ delta - hedging ] .    ' '' ''    to quantify the fluctuations it is convenient to write @xmath246 .
the relative interest - rate fluctuations @xmath247 implied by the stochastic nature of the volatility are according to fig .
[ delta - hedging ] , @xmath248 .
consequently we can conclude that for the data at hand the @xmath218 pricing formula induces a @xmath1-hedging strategy that is close to being optimal .
we have developed the theory of an option pricing model with a stochastic volatility following a chi distribution .
the corresponding volatility variance is then distributed with an ubiquitous gamma distribution .
our direct motivation was drawn from the high - frequency s&p 500 volatility fluctuation data , whose distribution is well fitted in this way .
there are two interesting implications resulting from such volatility fluctuations .
first , the returns of the corresponding asset prices exhibit semi - heavy tails around the peak ( i.e. , leptocurtic behavior ) which mimics empirically observed long - range correlations . at the same time
, the returns preserve some of typical features of the original black - scholes model , namely they follow a linear it stochastic equation with multiplicative noise ( though with stochastic volatility ) and a continuous stock dynamics .
second , the associated density operator in momentum space is of the tsallis type .
the inverse tsallis temperature then agrees with the average variance of the distribution .
our main result is a generalized black - scholes pricing formula that takes into account the above volatility behavior . with the help of
a mellin transform we were able to find an ensuing analytic solution for the price of european call options .
the result is expressed as a series in the higher normalized cumulants and in higher moments of moneyness . due to a spread parameter @xmath69 related to the extra kurtosis of the log - return data ,
our model is capable of calibration to a richer set of observed market histories than the simple black - scholes model , which is a special case corresponding to a zero spread @xmath63 , or to a very long time horizon ( @xmath249 ) .
comparisons with other time - dependent volatility models such as arch  @xcite , garch  @xcite or multiscale garch  @xcite will be addressed in future work .    in the light of recent works on superstatistics
we should mention that the density operator representation ( [ 3.3 ] ) reveals the superstatistic nature of the tsallis distribution in momentum space . recently , c.  beck  @xcite and c.  beck and e.  cohen  @xcite , prompted by the works by g.  wilk and z.  wlodarczyk  @xcite , have suggested that the origin of certain heavy - tail distributions should be understood as weighted averages of the usual exponential statistics .
such averages have been used also in the textbook @xcite to calculate option prices for non - gaussian distributions @xcite .
recently , f.  sattin  @xcite rephrased the same procedure in terms of evolving systems embedded within a static but non - trivial background .
all these approaches commonly strive to interpret broad distributions as a result of an averaging of usual exponential ( gibbs ) distributions over certain fluctuating ( random ) parameter .
this is the procedure running under the name superstatistics  @xcite .
although frequently used , superstatistics procedure is still far from being systematized and , in fact , smearing distributions are usually chosen to fit experimental data .
the theory of option pricing in this work may therefore be viewed as an example for superstatistics with a smeared gaussian representing the probability distribution of volatilities .
finally , the present scenario also provides an interesting meaning to the tsallis escort parameter @xmath68 . in option pricing models where stock fluctuations are directly fitted by a tsallis distribution of returns  @xcite ,
the @xmath68 parameter is a fit parameter with a typical value around @xmath250 . in the present case where the momentum distribution is of the tsallis type ,
@xmath251 is proportional to the characteristic time @xmath177 below which the gaussian treatment of stock fluctuations is inadequate .
one of us ( p.j . ) acknowledges discussions with prof .  t.  arimitsu and dr .
x.  salier , and financial supports from the doppler institute in prague , from the ministry of education of the czech republic ( research plan no .
msm 6840770039 ) , and from the deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft under grant kl256/47 .
we all wish to thank dr .
x.  salier and dr .
a.  garas for providing us with the data .
some remarks may be useful concerning the stochastic equations for volatility and variance stated in the introduction .
let us assume that the variance @xmath10 is driven by the it stochastic process @xmath3
\d v(t ) \ = \
\gamma(t)[\nu(t ) - \mu(t ) v(t ) - a(v(t ) , \mu(t ) , \nu(t ) ) ] \d t \
\sqrt{2 \gamma(t ) v(t ) } \ ; \ ! \d w(t)\ , .
\label{aa00 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath5 and @xmath6 are arbitrary non - singular positive real functions on @xmath7 .
the function @xmath252 is assumed to be a non - singular function of its arguments .
the corresponding fokker - planck equation for the distribution function @xmath253 reads @xmath3 \frac{\partial \rho(v , t)}{\partial t } \ = \
\frac{\partial}{\partial v}\left\ { \gamma(t)\left[v \mu(t ) - \nu(t ) + a(v , \mu(t ) , \nu(t))\right ] \,\ !
\rho(v , t)\right\ }   \ + \ \frac{\partial^2 } { \partial v^2}\left[\gamma(t ) v \,\ !
\rho(v , t ) \right]\ , .
\label{aa01 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] let us choose the function @xmath254 to be @xmath3 a(v , \mu,\nu ) \ = \ v \frac{(\log \mu)'}{\gamma } \ & + & \ v e^{v\mu}\left\{\left[\gamma(\nu)\log\left(\frac{v\mu}{\nu}\right ) + \gamma(\nu , v\mu)(\psi(\nu ) - \log(v \mu))\right](v\mu)^{-\nu}\right .
\nonumber \\[2 mm ] & - & \left .
\frac { ~_2f_2(\nu,\nu;\nu+1,\nu+1 ; -v\mu)}{\nu^2 } \right\ } \frac{(\nu)'}{\gamma } \ , , \label{aa02 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath255 is the incomplete gamma function , @xmath256 the digamma function , and @xmath257 a hypergeometric function  @xcite ) the solution of ( [ aa01 ] ) has the form @xmath3 \rho(v , t ) \
=   \frac{1}{\gamma(\nu(t ) ) } ~[\mu(t)]^{\nu(t ) } v^{\nu(t ) -1 } e^{-\mu(t ) v}\ , .\label{aa03 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] this is precisely the gamma distribution @xmath258 in eq .
( [ gammad ] ) describing the temporal statistical evolution of the random variable @xmath10 .
note also that @xmath259 does not enter in the solution .    by applying the it formula of the stochastic calculus  @xcite
one easily obtains the corresponding it stochastic equation for the volatility @xmath260 in the form @xmath3
\d \sigma(t ) \ = \
\frac{\gamma(t)}{2}\left[\frac{(\nu(t)-1/2)}{\sigma(t ) } - \mu(t ) \sigma(t ) - \frac{a(\sigma^2(t ) , \mu(t ) , \nu(t))}{\sigma(t)}\right ] \d t \
+ \ \sqrt{\frac{\gamma(t)}{2 } } \ ; \ !
\d w(t)\ , , \label{aa04 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] from which we derive the fokker - planck equation for the distribution of the volatility @xmath261 : @xmath3 \frac{\partial \rho(\sigma , t)}{\partial t } \ & = & \
\frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma}\left\ { \frac{\gamma(t)}{2}\left[\sigma \mu(t ) - \frac{(\nu(t ) -1/2)}{\sigma } + \frac{a(\sigma^2 , \mu(t ) , \nu(t))}{\sigma}\right ] \,\ !
\rho(\sigma , t)\right\}\nonumber \\[2 mm ] & + & \ \frac{\partial^2 } { \partial \sigma^2}\left[\frac{\gamma(t)}{4 } \,\ ! \rho(\sigma , t ) \right ] .
\label{aa05 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] of course , this equation is simply related to ( [ aa01 ] ) by the substitution @xmath262 .
equation eq.([aa05 ] ) has the solution @xmath3 \rho(\sigma , t)\ =   \
2\sigma f_{\mu(t),\nu(t)}(\sigma^2 ) \ , , \label{aa06 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] which is also known as the chi distribution  @xcite .
the particular solutions ( [ aa03 ] ) and ( [ aa06 ] ) are the only ones fulfilling the asymptotic conditions @xmath263 and @xmath264 , respectively .
they are also both normalized to unity .
note that the uniqueness of the solutions ( [ aa03 ] ) and ( [ aa06 ] ) ensures that the stochastic equations ( [ aa00 ] ) and ( [ aa05 ] ) have weak solutions .
anticipating the empirical form presented in section  [ sec2a ] we shall now assume that at large @xmath9 the functions @xmath265 and @xmath6 behave like @xmath266 and @xmath267 . without loss of generality
we also set @xmath268 . in this case the large-@xmath9 behavior of @xmath254 can be easily found . using the asymptotic formulas
@xcite @xmath3 & & \psi(\nu t)|_{t\rightarrow\infty } \ \approx \ \log(\nu t )   \ , , \nonumber \\[2 mm ] & & \!\!~_2f_2(\nu t,\nu t;\nu t+1,\nu t+1 ; -v\mu t)|_{t\rightarrow\infty }
\ \approx \
e^{-v\mu t}\left(1 \
+ \ \frac{v
\mu}{\nu}\right)^{\ ! 2}\ , , \nonumber \\[2 mm ] & & \gamma(\nu t , v \mu t)|_{t\rightarrow\infty } \ \approx \
e^{-\nu t}(\nu t)^{\nu t - 1/2 } \sqrt{2\pi } \ - \ ( \nu t)^{-1}(v \mu t)^{\nu t } e^{-v \mu t}\left(1 \ + \ \frac{v
\mu}{\nu}\right )   \ , , \label{aa07 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] we obtain that @xmath269 . in this limit , the stochastic differential equation ( [ aa00 ] ) for the variance corresponds to the cox - ingersoll - ross process  @xcite .
although this asymptotic equation resembles heston s stochastic volatility model  @xcite , there is a difference : in the drift term @xmath270 and @xmath265 are linear functions of @xmath9 rather than constants .
let us assume the same linear behavior @xmath266 and @xmath271 at small @xmath9 ( more precisely for @xmath272 ) . for convenience we set @xmath273 , as in section  [ sec3 ] .
the small-@xmath9 behavior of @xmath8 can be easily found from the asymptotic formulas  @xcite @xmath3 & & \psi(\nu t)|_{\nu t\rightarrow 0 } \
\approx \ - \frac{1}{\nu t } + c \
, , \nonumber \\[2 mm ] & & \!\!~_2f_2(\nu t,\nu t;\nu t+1,\nu t+1 ; -v/\overline{v } \ \!\nu t)|_{\nu t\rightarrow 0 } \ \approx \ 1\ , , \nonumber \\[2 mm ] & & \gamma(\nu t , v/\overline{v}\ \ ! \nu t)|_{\nu
t \rightarrow 0 } \ \approx \
- \mbox{log}[\nu t ] - \mbox{log}[v/\overline{v } ] - c   \ , , \label{aa09 } \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath274 is the euler - mascheroni constant . then @xmath275 .
this shows that in the small-@xmath9 limit , the drift term is dominated by the function @xmath254 .
let us finally note that the stochastic equation ( [ aa04 ] ) corresponds to an additive process , rather than to a multiplicative one .
in the small-@xmath76 limit where @xmath290 , the third sum in ( [ a13 ] ) goes to zero . in such
a situation @xmath11 \phi^{(-)}_v ~= ~\frac{1}{2}\left[1 ~+ ~\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}~y_{\bar v}^-   \!~_{1\!}f_1\left(\frac{1}{2 } , \frac{3}{2 } , - \frac{\left ( y_{\bar v}^-\right)^2}{2}\right ) \right ] ~= ~\phi(y_{\bar v}^- ) \
, , \\[-3 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] i.e. , we regain the cumulative normal distribution . in the limit @xmath291
, one finds that @xmath292 .
a useful conceptual frame that allows to generate important classes of distributions is based on information entropies .
information entropies generally represent measures of uncertainty inherent in a distribution describing a given statistical or information - theoretical system .
central role of information entropies is in that they serve as inference functionals whose extremalization subject to certain constraint conditions ( known as prior information ) , yields the maxent distribution .
importance of information entropies as tools for inductive inference ( i.e. , inference where new information is given in terms of expected values ) was emphasized by many authors  @xcite .    among the many possible information entropies
one may focus attention on two examples , first on rnyi s entropy @xmath293 and second on the tsallis - havrda - charvt ( thc ) entropy @xmath294 the discrete distribution @xmath295 is usually associated with a discrete set of micro - states in statistical physics , or set of all transmittable messages in information theory . in the limit @xmath296 ,
the two entropies coincide with each other , both reducing to the thermodynamic shannon - gibbs entropy @xmath297 thus the parameter @xmath251 characterizes the departure from the usual boltzmann - gibbs statistics or from shannonian information theory .
it is well known  @xcite that within the context of shannonian information theory the laws of equilibrium statistical mechanics can be viewed as _
inferences _ based entirely on prior information that is given in terms of expected values of energy and number of particles , energy and volume , energy and angular momentum , etc . for the sake of simplicity we shall consider here only the analog of canonical ensembles , where the prior information is characterized by a fixed energy expectation value . the corresponding maxent distributions for @xmath298 and @xmath299 can be obtained by extremizing the associated inference functionals @xmath300 where @xmath301 and @xmath71 are lagrange multipliers , the latter being the analog of the inverse temperature in natural units .
the subscript @xmath302 on the energy expectation value @xmath303 distinguishes two conceptually different approaches . in information theory one
typically uses the linear mean , i.e. , @xmath304 while in non - extensive thermostatistics it is customary to utilize a non - linear mean @xmath305 the distribution @xmath306 is called _ escort _ or _ zooming _ distribution and it has its origin in chaotic dynamics  @xcite and in the physics of multifractals  @xcite .
simple analysis reveals  @xcite that @xmath3 \frac{\delta l_q^{(r)}({\mathcal{p}})}{\delta p_i } ~= ~0 \
\rightarrow \left\ {                \begin{array}{ll }                  { p}_i^{(1 ) } ~= ~z_r^{-1}\left [ 1 ~- ~\tilde{\beta }                  ( q-1)\delta e_i   \right]^{1/(q-1 ) } , & \;\ ; { \mbox{for } } \;\ ; \langle h \rangle_{r=1}\ , , \\[3 mm ]                  p^{(2)}_i~= ~z_r^{-1}\left [ 1 ~- ~\beta(1-q )                  \delta e_i \right]^{1/(1-q ) } ,          & \;\ ; \hbox{for } \ ; \ ; \langle h \rangle_{r = q}\ , .
\end{array }              \right .
\label{2.7 } \\[-1 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath307 and @xmath308 .
by the same token one obtains for the thc case  @xcite @xmath11 \frac{\delta l_q^{(thc)}({\mathcal{p}})}{\delta p_i } ~= ~0 \
\rightarrow \left\ {                \begin{array}{ll } { p}^{(1)}_i ~= ~z_{thc}^{-1}\left[1 ~- ~ \tilde{\beta}^ * ( q-1 ) \delta e_i \right]^{1/(q-1 ) } , & \;\ ; { \mbox{for } } \;\ ; \langle h \rangle_{r=1}\ , , \\[3 mm ] p^{(2)}_i ~= ~z_{thc}^{-1}\left[1 ~- ~\beta^{*}(1-q ) \delta e_i \right]^{1/(1-q ) } , & \;\ ; { \mbox{for } } \;\ ; \langle h \rangle_{r= q}\ , ,                       \end{array }              \right .
\label{2.8}\\[-1 mm ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath309 and @xmath310 .
so in contrast to ( [ 2.7 ] ) , the thc maxent distributions are self - referential . generalized distributions of the form ( [ 2.7 ] ) and ( [ 2.8 ] ) are known as tsallis distributions and they appear in numerous statistical systems  @xcite . for historical reasons
is @xmath311 in ( [ 2.8 ] ) also known as the bashkirov s @xmath55-st version of thermostatistics , while @xmath312 in ( [ 2.8 ] ) is called the tsallis @xmath313rd version of thermostatistics .
an important feature of tsallis distributions is that they are invariant under uniform shifts @xmath314 of the energy spectrum .
so one can always choose to work directly with @xmath315 rather than @xmath316 .
y.  liu , p.  cizeau , m.  meyer , c .- k .
peng , and h.e .
stanley , physica a * 245 * ( 1997 ) 437 ; physica a * 245 * 441 ; y.  liu , p.  gopikrishnan , p.  cizeau , m.  mayer , c .- k .  peng and h.e .
stanley , phys .
e * 60 * ( 1999 ) 1390                f.  corsi , g.  zumbach , u.a .  muller and m.m .
dacorogna , economic notes * 30 * ( 2001 ) 183 ; m.  pasquini and m.  serva , econophysics letters , * 65 * ( 1999 ) 275 ; a.  pagan , j. empirical financa * 3 * ( 1996 ) 15 ; b.  zhou , journal of business & economical statistics * 14 * ( 1996 ) 45                                          d.k  faddeyev , uspekhi mat .
nauk , * 11 * ( 1956 ) ; j.e .  shore and r.w .
johnson , ieee trans .
theory * 26 * ( 1980 ) 26 . ; in , e.t .
jaynes , _ probability theory , the logic of science _ ( cambridge un . press , cambridge , 2003 ) ; f.  topse , kybernetika * 15 * ( 1979 ) 8 ; ieee trans .
theory * 48 * ( 2002 ) 2368 .
see e.g. , s.  abe and y.  okamoto ( eds . ) , _ nonextensive statistical mechanicsand its applications _
( springer - verlag , new york , 2001 ) and monographs in + http://tsallis.cat.cbpf.br/biblio.htm ; + http://www.cbpf.br/gruppesq/statisticalphys/books.htm