\section{Introduction}
The National Health Service (NHS) serves a broad UK population with varied demographic and medical histories. An acceleration in medical advances has led to a greater scope of treating chronic illness~\cite{Naylor2015TransformingCommissioners}. In turn, this burden the NHS with rising costs and with limitation of access to funds, these have fuelled the popularity and the adoption of Prospective Payment System (PPS) over retrospective systems. PPS is a reimbursement method that allows for the predetermination of a fixed amount to be allocated to health providers for the treatment of patients with a specific diagnosis. The overall aim is to ensure an equitable and fair distribution of funds. It also acts as an instrument to understand the organisational activity, such as the type of patient cared for and treatment delivered. The system adopted in the UK is called Health Resource Groups (HRGs). HRGs are groupings of clinically similar patients which use comparable healthcare resources.  Although these groups are generated using patient-level data, the grouping rules are typically generated by transcribing expert advice into if-else rules meant to capture differing patient severity and length of stay (LOS).

These HRGs should be clinically meaningful groups of diagnoses and interventions that consume similar levels of NHS resources. However, the aim of having homogeneous groups in terms of resource usage might not be met due to: (i) The methodology’s dependence on expert advice, which carries the risk of ignoring less established factors that account for specific patient subgroups’ complexity; (ii) the validation of identified groups using LOS only, an imperfect indicator of resource usage~\cite{Street2012}; (iii) the determination of payment rate as an average of the cost of each HRG. This is, in essence, a generalisation that will exacerbate the effect of any non-homogeneous groups. Non-homogeneity in the resource usage of the identified groups may lead to a significant disadvantage to small and highly specialised services that, by necessity, operate at very high expenditure. Burn services are one such service -- they are small, rely on specialist equipment and intervention, deal with various case complexity and stay open regardless of the number of patients admitted, with a minimum staff number constantly on the rota \cite{NHSEngland2018NHSCasualties}.

We investigate if the current burn HRG can be improved while remaining interpretable, by using a cost-sensitive decision tree model. Our approach aims to create a fairer system by identifying more homogeneous groups of burn patients, thus ensuring a consistent cost reimbursement for the provision of similar patient care. To validate the methodology, we use data of actual burn patients. We show that the proposed approach can identify more homogeneous patient groups, enabling a more equitable and fair reimbursement.

\section{COHORT AND DATA DESCRIPTION}
The current burn care pathway is designed to treat paediatrics separately from adults due to evidence of young age as a significant complicator of burn injury \cite{NationalBurnCareReviewCommittee2001NationalIsles}.  Further evidence was found in \cite{Onah2019} that different factors and resource requirements characterise adult and young burn patients. Thus, any developed approach should be customised for adult and child patients. This paper focuses on identifying homogeneous groups of young (<16 years old) burn patients only, by using anonymised patient-level data from all burn services in England and Wales.

The information of patients that attended a burn service is collected by clinicians and nurses, from the first contact with a burn service to rehabilitation and any late reconstruction procedure \cite{Stylianou2015a}. The dataset excludes burn injury patients who died before reaching a burn service and those with minor injuries cared for in the community or hospitals that are not specialist burn services. The data covers 2003 to 2019, comprising just over 18,000 young patients and was extracted from the international Burn Injury Database (iBID) \cite{IBID2014}. An internal iBID patient-level costing methodology \cite{Duncan2020} is applied to generate the cost of the burn patients.

\section{ANALYTICAL PIPELINE}
In healthcare, adopted models are potentially responsible for human life and, thus, there is a need for high confidence from clinicians on the results of a model. Therefore, it is imperative that adopted models are explainable. An explainable model, such as a decision tree, allows result tracing, increases transparency and facilitates model improvement \cite{Pawar2020ExplainableHealthcare}. For instance, offering a clear explanation of why a specific burn patient is placed in a higher severity group than another would increase the trust level of clinicians. Thus, we propose a cost-sensitive decision tree model, trained and tested to evaluate model performance on unseen data.

A decision tree classifier was chosen as it allows the identification of rules generated for classification. To increase homogeneity, our paper introduces a key feature: the allocation of misclassification costs between classes. We chose a cost-sensitive decision tree that ensures that even with a misclassification, the predicted class is in close proximity (by cost, LOS and severity) to the expected patient class. This model enables model penalisation as the distance of the class predicted compared to the actual class increases \cite{Domingos1999}. This distance is identified by ranking classes by the average value of LOS, cost and total burn surface area (TBSA). The classifier was implemented with the mlr \cite{Bischl2016} and rpart \cite{Therneau2019} packages in R, with a customised cost measure.

In summary, the analytical pipeline adopted to build this proposed model includes data preprocessing, identifying target features and variables of importance, and building the final model.

\subsection{Data Preprocessing}
With the need to compare our adopted model results to the current HRG groups, access to the HRG labels for each patient is needed. However, due to non-access to the Health Episode Statistics (HES) dataset typically used to create HRGs and thus the inability to directly merge the iBID dataset to the HES, it is essential to recreate the HRG burn methodology using the iBID dataset. This was done in close collaboration with the NHS National Casemix office. The first step was to replace all missing values with 0. The assumption is that fields are left empty when the value is 0, no or not applicable (also adopted by the current HRG methodology) \cite{Keuss2018}.  The next step was the identification of iBID variables or a proxy to variables used in the HES dataset. The HRG replication was then done using if-else rules created by the Casemix team and adapted by an NHS Casemix expert to suit the iBID dataset. We expect 13 classes to be generated for the young burn patient subgroup, ranked from most severe to least severe.

The next data preprocessing step involves removing all cases grouped into the unclassifiable group, as these cases have no TBSA or depth of burn recorded for any of the 27 potential burn sites (parts of the body), which is a pre-requisite (as stated in the burn HRG methodology) for reimbursement as a burn case. Cases with LOS greater than 360 and cost greater than £1,000,000 are considered outliers by the iBID data administrators and thus removed.  The data preprocessing also includes removing irrelevant variables (administrative variables, variables with high missing values, variables with unstructured data, variables with one unique value and variables which are duplicates of another).

\subsection{Identification of Target Features and Variables of Importance}
The proposed model is a decision tree (DT) classifier, a supervised model that requires ‘true’ labels. Thus, the target classes (true labels) were generated using three critical factors in burn care – LOS, cost and TBSA. These factors were identified from previous analysis and the literature and represent the aim of HRGs to create clinically meaningful groups (burn severity) that have similar resource usage (LOS and cost of treatment). These factors were first log-transformed to reduce skew, followed by k-means cluster analysis to segment each factor into 13 target classes. The identified classes were ranked from most severe/costly to least severe/costly (to allow for adequate comparison with the current HRGs). With these, three cost-sensitive DT models (LOS, TBSA and cost DT)  were built using the ranked classes to identify the variables of importance from each model. The target class ranking is necessary to enable comparison with the ranked HRG and the incorporation of a cost-sensitive model.

\subsection{Final Decision Tree (DT) Model}
Here, we describe the final model for comparison with the current HRG and extraction of classification rules. The 13 target classes for this model are derived using k-means cluster analysis. The feature space for the cluster analysis is computed by calculating the average rank across all LOS, TBSA and cost DT target classes as identified using the approach described in Section 3.2. Adopting the mean rank of each case allows for the identification of classes that reflect the average severity, cost and length of hospital stay.

The independent variables are those identified as important from the LOS, TBSA and cost DT. The dataset is then split into a train and test set. These subsets are oversampled independently by duplicating cases in the minority classes. The oversampling is needed to ensure the adopted model has enough samples to learn the decision boundary effectively.

The model used is a cost-sensitive DT model, trained and tested to evaluate model performance on unseen data. The cost-sensitive DT model is used to increase model penalisation as the distance of the class predicted compared to the actual class increases.

\section{Results}
This section presents the results of the data-driven model generated using a cost-sensitive DT. We first evaluate the engineered target classes generated to ensure it reflects homogeneity in severity and resource usage. Figure \ref{fig:spread} shows a scatterplot of LOS, TBSA, and Cost DT model ranked target classes, where class 1 depicts least severe/costly, and class 13 depicts most severe/costly, against that of the Final DT target classes (also ranked). The plotted Final DT target classes reflects, as expected, homogeneity in severity and resource usage. It shows that the target classes have a decreasing LOS, cost, and TBSA as its severity (reflected by the Final DT ranked classes) decreases.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{spread.eps}
  \caption{Spread of ranked LOS, Cost and TBSA model target classes - each dot represents a patient's LOS, cost and TBSA group and the colour represents the Final DT group.}
  \label{fig:spread}
  \Description{Shows the distribution of LOS/TBSA/Cost DT by the final DT target classes}
\end{figure}

Comparing the HRGs with the generated target classes, we show histograms of intra-group variance (in terms of cost, TBSA and LOS) of the DT and HRG model to evaluate how much homogeneity can be found.  Figure \ref{fig:variance} illustrates a lower intra-group variance in the DT groups than to the HRG groups for the train data. In particular, we found that, on average, the cost intra-group variance (0.4) for DT groups is three times lower than the HRG groups cost intra-group variance (1.5). This pattern is seen for the LOS intra-group variance - 0.8 for DT groups and 1.7 for HRG groups. As expected, a lower difference when we compare the average severity (TBSA) intra-group variance of DT groups at 0.5 and that of the HRG groups at 0.6. Evaluating these intra-group variances on the train data is needed to ensure the engineered classes meet the homogeneity criteria. These evaluations indicate that the new target classes provide higher intra-group similarity in terms of the three critical factors than the HRGs.  Thus, these target classes are adopted.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{variance.eps}
  \caption{DT and HRG intra-group variance - LOS, Cost and TBSA - on train data. The value on each legend is the average Cost, LOS and TBSA intra-group variance for the DT and HRG groups.}
  \label{fig:variance}
  \Description{This shows the cluster variance measured on LOS, TBSA and cost.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{costmatrix.eps}
  \caption{Cost matrix representing the penalty used in the cost-sensitive DT to ensure any misclassifications are close to the true class.}
  \label{fig:costmatrix}
  \Description{This shows the cost of misclassification}
\end{figure}

With these promising results, it is imperative to understand the rules that allow the classification of cases into each engineered class and evaluate the model’s performance on unseen cases. This is done by identifying the feature space, which are the variables of importance identified from the TBSA, LOS and Cost DT classifiers. Then the creation of a cost matrix for penalisation. The cost matrix is shown in Figure \ref{fig:costmatrix}, with the rows indicating true and the columns predicted class labels. The diagonal zero values indicate a cost of 0 for accurate prediction, with an increase in cost as predicted class deviation from the true class increases.  This is added to the Final DT model pipeline with a train and test split to evaluate performance.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{confusionmatrix.eps}
  \caption{Confusion matrix representing the impact of penalisation on the DT model, using the test data, this shows that all misclassifications are at most 3 neighbours away from the true class.}
  \label{fig:confmat}
  \Description{This shows the cost of misclassification}
\end{figure}

The confusion matrix shown in Figure \ref{fig:confmat} reveals good classification of unseen cases (test data). The confusion matrix shows that most of the cases are predicted as the precise class. Where the classification is wrong, the misclassified class is in close proximity to the true class. Except for class 8, with most cases predicted as class 9 and some cases misclassified three classes away.  This higher misclassification of class 8 suggests the likely need to reduce the total number of classes in the young patient subgroup.  The model identifies class 8 and 9 as both made up of cases with TBSA >=5 but differentiated by the LOS. Class 8 are those with LOS < 2.5 while class 9 are patients with LOS >= 2.5 (see Figure \ref{fig:decisiontree}).

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{boxplot.eps}
  \caption{DT and HRG groups by LOS, Cost and TBSA on test data. Ordered in decreasing order of injury severity.}
  \label{fig:boxplot}
  \Description{The image shows a boxplot of critical factor distribution in the HRG and DT groups.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{varianceTest.eps}
  \caption{DT and HRG intra-group variance - LOS, Cost and TBSA - on test data. The value on each legend is the average LOS, Cost and TBSA intra-group variance for the DT and HRG groups.}
  \label{fig:varianceTest}
  \Description{This shows the predicted DT versus HRG intra-group variance measured on LOS, TBSA and cost.}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig:boxplot} illustrates the difference in the homogeneity of the HRG groups and the DT groups using a boxplot to show the distribution of TBSA, LOS and cost in each group. The groups are ordered by severity/resource usage, with class 13 representing HRG and DT groups with the most severe cases and high resource usage. Class 1 represents the groups with the least severe and least costly cases in both the HRG and DT groups. In both, as expected, we see a gradual reduction in these three factors as severity and resource usage decreases. Notably, this is more apparent in the DT groups, which also have shorter boxplots indicating higher homogeneity across DT groups. Comparing the cluster variance (using LOS, Cost and TBSA) of the predicted groups to the HRG groups of the same cases, we confirm this higher homogeneity. As seen in Figure \ref{fig:varianceTest} on average, the DT groups have a lower intra-group variance compared to the HRG groups.

Exploring the classification rules as shown in Figure \ref{fig:decisiontree}, the adopted model does well in producing an explainable result. The classification tree illustrates the criteria for adding a case to a particular group. Class 1's (the least severe/costly group) case membership are those with LOS < 1 and TBSA < 1.6 while class 13 (the most severe/costly group) are made up of cases with LOS >=11 and TBSA >= 19. We can also identify the three most important features as LOS, TBSA, and total theatre visits from the classification tree.

\begin{figure}[hbt!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{decisiontree.eps}
  \caption{Classification tree showing explainable classification rules generated from the cost-sensitive DT model.}
  \label{fig:decisiontree}
  \Description{This is a view of the decision tree}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion and Future Work}

The adopted model creates a classification rule that is easy to explain and less complex than the current HRG methodology. This meets the HRG requirement that groups are clinically relevant to allow for organisational activities. Additional, our adopted model meets the requirements of group homogeneity in terms of resource usage and severity. The resultant groups from the adopted DT model evidenced increased homogeneity across the three critical factors – length of hospital stay, cost to the hospital and severity of burn, compared to the current HRG. Thus, our identified groups are better suited for cost reimbursement.

Our future work includes the customisation of the cost matrix to reflect a non-linear and non-monotonic penalty (e.g. actual monetary cost) for misclassification and applying this analytical pipeline to adult burn patients.

\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}


\section{Introduction}
The purpose of this note is to study the implications of the recent $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ calculations
by Fael, Sch\"onwald and Steinhauser \cite{Fael:2020tow,Fael:2020iea,Fael:2020njb}
on the determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ from inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays, see Refs.~\cite{Alberti:2014yda,Gambino:2016jkc} for the most recent results. As is well-known,
the  values of $|V_{cb}|$ determined from
inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays and from $\bar B\to D^*\ell\bar\nu$ have differed
for a long time and, despite significant experimental and theoretical efforts, the situation remains quite confusing.
Recent accounts of the {\it $V_{cb}$ puzzle} can be found in Refs.~\cite{Gambino:2019sif,Bordone:2019vic,Gambino:2020jvv,Jaiswal:2020wer}. The latest lattice calculations \cite{Bazavov:2021bax,Harrison:2021tol,Kaneko:2019vkx,Martinelli:2021onb}, which for the first time explore the $\bar B\to D^*\ell\bar\nu$ form factors at non-zero recoil, have not clarified the issue and a preliminary comparison of these results shows  a few discrepancies \cite{Kaneko:talk}.
\vskip 2mm

The third order perturbative correction to the $b\to c \ell\bar\nu$ decay width computed  in Ref.~\cite{Fael:2020tow} and partially checked in Ref.~\cite{Czakon:2021ybq} represents  a fundamental step to improve the precision in the extraction of $|V_{cb}|$ from
inclusive $B$ decays. Indeed, perturbative corrections are sizeable -- they reduce the semileptonic rate by over 10\% -- and provide the dominant theoretical uncertainty. In the following we will
study the impact of the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections on the central value and uncertainty of $|V_{cb}|$.
\vskip 2mm

The other relevant three-loop calculation in our analysis is that of Refs.~\cite{Fael:2020iea,Fael:2020njb}, which concerns the relation between the pole (or $\overline{\rm MS}$)  and the kinetic masses of a heavy quark.  This calculation allows us to convert recent high-precision determinations of the $b$ quark  $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass \cite{Bazavov:2018omf,Aoki:2019cca} into the kinetic scheme \cite{Bigi:1996si} with an uncertainty of about 15 MeV, or 50\% less than the previous two-loop conversion \cite{Czarnecki:1997sz,Gambino:2011cq}. We will investigate the effect of such high-precision input in the global fit to the semileptonic moments and in the extraction of $|V_{cb}|$.
We should add that Ref.~\cite{Fael:2020njb} also computed the
charm mass effects at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2, \alpha_s^3)$ in the kinetic scheme relations.
We will also include $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s \rho_D^3/m_b^3)$ effects from Ref.~\cite{Mannel:2019qel} in the semileptonic width and slightly update the global fit to the semileptonic moments.

\section{The total semileptonic width}
Our starting point is the Operator Product Expansion (OPE)
for the total semileptonic width (see Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2015ima} for a complete list of references):
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{sl}=\Gamma_0 f(\rho) \Big[1+ a_1 a_s+ a_2 a_s^2+ a_3 a_s^3-
\left(\frac12  -p_1  a_s \right)
\frac{\mu_\pi^2}{m_b^2}   + \left(g_0 +g_1 a_s\right)\frac{\mu_G^2(m_b)}{m_b^2}  +
 d_0 \frac{\rho_D^3}{m_b^3} -g_0 \frac{\rho_{LS}^3}{m_b^3} +\dots
\Big] \label{Gammasl}
\end{equation}
where  $\Gamma_0= A_{ew}|V_{cb}|^2 G_F^2 m_b^{kin}(\mu)^5 /192 \pi^3$, $f(\rho)=1\!-\!8\rho\!+\!8\rho^3\! -\!\rho^4 \!-\!12\rho^2 \ln\rho$, $a_s=\alpha_s^{(4)}(\mu_b)/\pi$ is the strong coupling in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme with 4 active quark flavours, $\rho=(\overline m_c(\mu_c)/m_b^{kin}(\mu))^2$ is the squared ratio of the $\overline{\rm MS}$ charm mass at the scale $\mu_c$,  $\overline m_c(\mu_c)$, and of the $b$ quark kinetic mass with a cutoff $\mu\sim1\,$GeV, $m_b^{kin}(\mu)$. $A_{ew}\simeq 1.014$ is the leading electroweak correction. The parameters  $\mu_\pi^2, \rho^3_D, $ etc.\
are nonperturbative expectation values of local operators in the $B$ meson defined in the kinetic scheme with cutoff $\mu$. They are generally extracted from a fit to central moments
of the lepton energy and of the hadronic invariant mass distributions in semileptonic $B$ decays \cite{Alberti:2014yda,Gambino:2016jkc}, for which the same contributions as in Eq.~\eqref{Gammasl} are included, with the exception of the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections which are available only for the width.
\vskip 2mm

The coefficients in Eq.~\eqref{Gammasl} depend on three unphysical scales: the scale of the $\overline{\rm MS}$ strong coupling constant $\mu_b$, that of the $\overline{\rm MS}$ charm
mass $\mu_c$, and the wilsonian cutoff $\mu$ employed in the kinetic scheme definition of the $b$ mass and of the OPE matrix elements. We choose  the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme for the charm mass because all high-precision determinations of this mass are expressed in this scheme and we prefer to escape uncertainties related to the scheme conversion; in the following we choose 1.6 GeV$\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}\mu_c\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 3$ GeV, avoiding scales which are either too low or too high to provide a good convergence of the perturbative series.  The kinetic scheme \cite{Bigi:1996si,Czarnecki:1997sz,Fael:2020njb} provides a short-distance, renormalon-free definition of $m_b$ and of the
OPE parameters by introducing a hard cutoff $\mu$ to factor out the infrared contributions from the perturbative calculation. The cutoff $\mu$ should  ideally  satisfy $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\ll \mu\ll m_b$; in the following we will vary it in the range 0.7--1.3\,GeV. Finally,
the scale of the strong coupling constant will be varied in the range 2--8$\,$GeV.
  Table I of Ref.~\cite{Alberti:2014yda} shows the size of the various coefficients in Eq.~\eqref{Gammasl}  for a couple of typical scale-settings.
The third order coefficient $a_3$ is new and stems from the calculation of Ref.~\cite{Fael:2020tow}.  We reproduce the numerical results of Ref.~\cite{Fael:2020tow}
 for the coefficients $a_i$.
\vskip 2mm

As a first step in our analysis, we employ the results of  the default fit of Ref.~\cite{Alberti:2014yda} with $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}$, $\mu_c=3\,$GeV, and $\mu=1\,$GeV,
to extract $|V_{cb}|$ from Eq.~(\ref{Gammasl}). To this end, we employ the total semileptonic branching fraction obtained in the same fit and $\tau_B=1.579(5)\,$ps \cite{Amhis:2019ckw}. Notice that the 2014 default fit included a constraint on $\overline{m}_c(3\, \mathrm{GeV})$, but not on $m_b^{kin}$.
Small shifts have to be applied to the values of $m_b^{kin}$, $\mu_\pi^2$ and $\rho_D^3$ extracted from the fit in order to account for
missing two-loop charm mass effects in the  kinetic scheme definition adopted
in the 2014 fit. These effects have now been computed in Ref.~\cite{Fael:2020njb},
where it was found that they reduce to decoupling effects and that they can be taken into account
by expressing the kinetic scheme definitions in terms of  $\alpha_s^{(3)}$.
For $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}$ the shifts amount to $+4\,$MeV, $-0.003\,$GeV$^2$, $-0.002\,$GeV$^3$, respectively.
We adopt the PDG value for $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1179(10)$, from which we get
   $\alpha_s^{(4)}(4.557 {\rm GeV})=0.2182(36)$. We employ RunDec  \cite{Chetyrkin:2000yt} to compute the running of all relevant scale-dependent quantities.
 We eventually
 find $|V_{cb}|=42.49(44)_{th}(33)_{exp}\ 10^{-3}$, where the uncertainty refers to the inputs {\it only} and is split into an experimental and  a theoretical component. If we neglect the new three-loop result we recover the same $|V_{cb}|$ central value  as in \cite{Alberti:2014yda}.
The three loop correction therefore shifts   $|V_{cb}|$ by +0.6\%, well within the theoretical uncertainty of 1.3\% estimated in \cite{Alberti:2014yda}. The perturbative series is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{sl}=\Gamma_0 f(\rho)\Big[
{ 0.9255- 0.1162_{\alpha_s} } -
 { 0.0350_{ \alpha_s^2} }- 0.0097_{\alpha_s^3}\Big] =
{ 0.5401}\, \Gamma_0,\label{eq:2}
\end{equation}
where the first term differs from 1 because of the power corrections.
We can also repeat the same exercise evolving the value of $\overline{m}_c(3\,\mathrm{GeV})=0.987(13)\,$GeV from the fit to $\mu_c=2\,$GeV, which gives  $\overline{m}_c(2\,\mathrm{GeV})=1.091(14)\,$GeV and extract again $|V_{cb}|$ using $\mu_c=2\,$GeV in Eq.~\eqref{Gammasl}. We get $|V_{cb}|=42.59(44)_{th}(33)_{exp} \ 10^{-3}$
and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{sl}=\Gamma_0 f(\rho)\Big[0.9258 - 0.0878_{\alpha_s}  - 0.0179_{ \alpha_s^2} - 0.0005_{\alpha_s^3}\Big]=  0.5374 \,\Gamma_0.\label{eq:3}
\end{equation}
As  noted in Ref.~\cite{Fael:2020tow}, the better convergence of the perturbative expansion with $\mu_c=2\,$GeV,  already observed in Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2013rza}, carries on  at the three loop level, but the cancellations appear somewhat accidental. Since the physical scale of the decay is actually lower than $m_b$, we believe a more appropriate choice  for the scale of $\alpha_s^{(4)}$ is  $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2$, which with $\mu_c=2\,$GeV leads to $|V_{cb}|=42.59(44)_{th}(33)_{exp} \ 10^{-3}$ and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{sl}=\Gamma_0 f(\rho)\Big[{0.9255} - 0.1140_{\alpha_s}  - 0.0011_{ \alpha_s^2} +{ 0.0103}_{\alpha_s^3}\Big]={0.5381}\, \Gamma_0.\label{eq:4}
\end{equation}
\vskip 2mm

We see from Eqs.~\eqref{eq:2}-\eqref{eq:4} that the typical size of the three-loop corrections is 1\% and that the perturbative series converge well at different values of the scales. A conservative estimate of the residual perturbative uncertainty on $\Gamma_{sl}$ is therefore 0.5\%,
but it is worth studying the scale dependence of the width in more detail.
In Fig.~1 we show the $\mu_b$ and $\mu_c$ dependence of Eq.~\eqref{Gammasl} at two and three loops, using the inputs of the 2014 default fit. The scale dependence is reduced by the inclusion of the three loop contribution by over a factor 2, and the red curves appear to be flatter than the blue ones. The region of minimal scale dependence is the one around $\mu_b\sim\mu_c\approx 2-3$ GeV. We also studied the dependence of the width on the kinetic scale in the range $0.7<\mu<1.3\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}$ for different values of $\mu_{b,c}$, finding similar results.
Defining $\Delta_{\mu_{b,c}}$ the maximum percentage deviation of the red solid lines in Fig.~1 and $\Delta_{\mu}$ accordingly, with $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2$ and $\mu_c=2\text{GeV}$, we get
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\mu_{b}}=
0.44\%\,, \quad
\qquad
\Delta_{\mu_{c}}=
0.44\%\,,
\qquad
\Delta_{\mu}=0.67\%\,.
\end{equation}
Based on all this, we  conservatively estimate a residual perturbative uncertainty of  0.7\% in $\Gamma_{sl}$ and consequently of 0.35\% in $|V_{cb}|$ for our new default scenario, corresponding to  $\mu=1\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}$, $\mu_c=2\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}$ and $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2\simeq 2.3\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}$.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{mudependence.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{mucdependence.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{ Scale dependence of $\Gamma_{sl}$ at fixed values of the inputs and $\mu^{kin}=1$GeV. Dashed (solid) lines represent the two (three) loop calculation. In the left  plot ($\mu_b$-dependence) the blue (red)
curves are at $\mu_c=3$(2)GeV; in the right plot ($\mu_c$-dependence) the blue(red) curves  $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}(m_b^{kin}/2)$.
}\label{mu-dep}
\end{figure}
\vskip 2mm

Beside the purely perturbative contributions, there are various other sources of uncertainty in the calculation of the semileptonic width \cite{Benson:2003kp}, but the work done in the last few years has been fruitful. After the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s/m_b^2)$ corrections
\cite{Alberti:2013kxa,Mannel:2015jka},
 the  $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s \rho_D^3/m_b^3)$ corrections to  $\Gamma_{sl}$ have been recently computed in Ref.~\cite{Mannel:2019qel} (the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s \rho_{LS}^3)$ corrections to  $\Gamma_{sl}$ follow from the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s\mu_G^2/m_b^2)$ and are tiny). They are expressed in terms of $m_b$ in the on-shell scheme and of $\overline{m}_c(m_b)$. After converting their result to the kinetic scheme and changing the scale of $\overline{m}_c$, we find that this new correction, together with all the terms of the same order  generated by the change of scheme, enhances the coefficient of $\rho_D^3$ by 8 to 18\%,  depending on the various scales. However, after the conversion to the kinetic scheme the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s\rho_D^3)$ terms generate
new $\mathcal{O}(\mu^3\alpha_s^2)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\mu^3\alpha_s^3)$ contributions that tend to compensate their effect. The resulting final shift on $|V_{cb}|$ is $ +0.05\%$ with $\mu_c=3\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}, \mu_b=m_b^{kin}$ and $+0.1\%$ for $\mu_c=2\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}, \mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2$, and we choose to neglect it in the following.
\vskip 2mm

After the  calculation of the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s\rho_D^3)$ contribution, the main residual
uncertainty in $\Gamma_{sl}$ is related to higher power corrections. The Wilson coefficients of the $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4, 1/m^5)$ contributions have been computed at the tree level \cite{Mannel:2010wj}  --- here the $\mathcal{O}(1/m^5)$ effects include $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^3 m_c^2)$, sometimes referred to as Intrinsic Charm --- but little is known about the corresponding 27 matrix elements. The Lowest Lying State Approximation (LLSA) \cite{Mannel:2010wj} has been employed to estimate them and to guide the extension \cite{Gambino:2016jkc} of Ref.~\cite{Alberti:2014yda} to  $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4, 1/m^5)$. In the LLSA, the  $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4, 1/m^5)$ contributions increase  the width by about 1\%, but there is an important  interplay with the semileptonic fit: as shown in Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2016jkc}, the
$\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4, 1/m^5)$
corrections to the moments and their uncertainties  modify the results of the fit in a subtle way and the final change in $\Gamma_{sl}$ is about +0.5\%, a result stable under changes of the LLSA assumptions \cite{Gambino:2016jkc}. We therefore expect the $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4, 1/m^5)$
corrections to decrease $|V_{cb}|$ by 0.25\% with respect to the default fit. Although the uncertainty attached to this value is mostly included in the theoretical uncertainty of the 2014 fit results, we may consider  an additional 0.3\% uncertainty for the width.
Further uncertainties stem from
unknown $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2/m_b^2)$, and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2 \rho_{D}^3/m_b^3)$ corrections, but they are all likely to be at or below the 0.1\% level.
 The so-called Intrinsic Charm contributions, related to soft charm, lead to the $\mathcal O(1/m_b^3 m_c^2)$ corrections mentioned above, but also to terms of $\mathcal O(\alpha_s/m_b^3 m_c)$ which may contribute up to 0.5\%
to the width \cite{Bigi:2005bh}.  Finally, one expects
quark-hadron duality  to break down at some point. Combining all the discussed sources of uncertainty, we estimate the total remaining uncertainty in  $\Gamma_{sl}$ to be 1.2\%.
\vskip 2mm

In the end, using the inputs of the 2014 default fit and setting $\mu_c=2\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2$ for the central value, we obtain
\begin{equation}
|V_{cb}|_{2014}=42.49(44)_{th}(33)_{exp} (25)_\Gamma \,10^{-3}= 42.48(60)\,10^{-3}\label{Vcbfixed}
\end{equation}
where the uncertainty due to $\Gamma_{sl}$ has been reduced by a factor 2 with respect to Ref.~\cite{Alberti:2014yda}.

\section{Updating the semileptonic fit}

Despite ongoing analyses  of the $q^2$ and $M_X$-moments at Belle and Belle II \cite{Abudinen:2020zwm,vanTonder:2021cyp}, no new experimental result on the semileptonic moments has been published since
the 2014 fit  \cite{Alberti:2014yda}. On the other hand, new lattice determinations of $m_b$ and $m_c$ have been presented, improving their precision by roughly a factor 2. We use the  FLAG 2019 averages \cite{Aoki:2019cca} with $N_f=2+1+1$ for $m_b$ and $m_c$,
\begin{align}
& \overline m_c(\rm 3 GeV)=0.988(7) \rm GeV,\nonumber\\
&  \overline m_b( \overline m_b)=4.198(12) \rm GeV,\label{eq:masses}
 \end{align}
which correspond to $\overline m_c(2\, \mathrm{GeV})=1.093(8)$ and
$m_b^{kin}({\rm 1 GeV})=4.565(19)$GeV, where for the latter
we have used option  B of \cite{Fael:2020njb} for the definition of $m_b^{kin}$.
We now repeat the 2014 default fit with both these constraints, slightly updating the
theoretical uncertainty estimates. In view of the small impact of the $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^{4}, 1/m^5)$   and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s \rho_D^3)$ corrections discussed in the previous section, we
reduce the theoretical  uncertainties used in the fit to the moments with respect to Ref.~\cite{Alberti:2014yda}. In particular, we
consider a 20\%, instead of a 30\%, shift in $\rho_D^3$ and $\rho_{LS}^3$, and reduce to 4 MeV the safety shift in $m_{c,b}$. For all of the other settings and for the selection of experimental data
we follow Ref.~\cite{Alberti:2014yda}.
\vskip 2mm

While the central values of the fit are close to those of 2014, the uncertainty on $m_b^{kin}$ ($\overline{m}_c(3\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV})$) decreases from 20(12) to 12(7) MeV, and we get
$
|V_{cb}|=42.39(32)_{th}(32)_{exp}(25)_\Gamma\ 10^{-3}
$
with  $\chi^2_{min}/dof=0.46$. The very same fit performed with  $\mu_c=2\,$GeV and $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2$ gives
\begin{equation}
|V_{cb}|=42.16(30)_{th}(32)_{exp}(25)_\Gamma\ 10^{-3} \label{default}
\end{equation}
 with  $\chi^2_{min}/dof=0.47$ and we neglect the very small shift due to the $\mathcal O(\alpha_s \rho_D^3)$ correction to $\Gamma_{sl}$.

This is our new reference value and in Table I we display the complete results of this fit.

\begin{table}[t]
  \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}\hline
 $m_b^{kin}$ & $\overline m_c(2\rm GeV)$   &  $\mu_\pi^2 $ &$\rho_D^3$ &$\mu_G^2(m_b)$ & $\rho_{LS}^3$  & ${\rm BR}_{c\ell\nu}$ & $10^3|V_{cb}|$ \\ \hline
     4.573 &1.092 & 0.477 & 0.185 & 0.306 & -0.130 & 10.66 & 42.16 \\
    0.012 & 0.008 & 0.056 & 0.031 & 0.050 & 0.092 & \ 0.15 & \ 0.51\\ \hline
   1
 & 0.307 & -0.141 & 0.047 & 0.612 & -0.196 & -0.064 & -0.420\\
  & 1 & 0.018 & -0.010 & -0.162 & 0.048 & 0.028&0.061\\
 &  & 1& 0.735 & -0.054 & 0.067 & 0.172 &0.429\\
  &  &  & 1 & -0.157 & -0.149 & 0.091& 0.299\\
  &  &  &  & 1 & 0.001 & 0.013& -0.225\\
  &  &  &  &  & 1 & -0.033 &-0.005\\
  &  &
 &  &  &  & 1 &    0.684\\
   &  &  &  &  &  & & 1    \\  \hline
   \end{tabular} \end{center}
       \caption{ \label{tab:2}
    Results of the updated fit in our default scenario ($\mu_c=2\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}, \mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2$).
All parameters are in $\,\mbox{GeV}$ at the appropriate power and all, except $m_c$, in the kinetic scheme at $\mu=1\,\mbox{GeV}$. The first and second rows give central values and uncertainties, the correlation matrix follows. }
\end{table}

\vskip 2mm

Let us now comment on the interplay between the fit to the moments and the use of Eq.~\eqref{Gammasl}. First, we observe that the fit to the moments is based on an $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ calculation \cite{Melnikov:2008qs,Pak:2008qt,Pak:2008cp,Biswas:2009rb,Gambino:2011cq} without $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s\rho_D^3)$ contributions,
and that the lower precision in the calculation of the moments  with respect to the width inevitably affects the determination of $|V_{cb}|$. This is clearly visible in Eq.~\eqref{Vcbfixed}, where the theoretical component of the
error is larger than the residual theory error associated with the width.
However, only a small part of that uncertainty is related to the purely perturbative corrections,
which are relatively suppressed in some semileptonic moments but  sizeable in $\Gamma_{sl}$, as we have seen above. In other words, an $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$ calculation of the moments is unlikely to improve the precision of the fit significantly, and
the inclusion of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)$  corrections only in $\Gamma_{sl}$ is perfectly justified.
 On the other hand,  an $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s/m_b^3)$ calculation of the moments can have an important
impact on the $|V_{cb}|$ determination. This is because the semileptonic moments, and the hadronic central moments in particular, are highly sensitive to the OPE parameters. Since
the power correction related to $\rho_D^3$ amounts to about 3\% percent in Eq.~\eqref{Gammasl}, an $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ shift on $\rho_D^3$ induced by perturbative corrections to  the moments can have a significant impact in the determination of $|V_{cb}|$.
Our estimates of the theoretical uncertainties take this into account. We also note that  a fit without theoretical errors is a very poor fit ($\chi^2/dof\sim 2$) with  $|V_{cb}|$ decreased by slightly less than $ 1\,\sigma$.
\vskip 2mm

An important problem of the semileptonic fit is the sensitivity to the ansatz employed for
the correlation among the theoretical uncertainties associated with the various observables \cite{Gambino:2013rza}. We have studied the dependence of the result of Eq.~(\ref{default})
 on the modelling of the theoretical correlations following Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2013rza} closely. Since the results shown above have been obtained using scenario {\bf D} from Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2013rza}
with $\Delta=0.25$GeV, we have repeated the fit with option {\bf B}, with option {\bf C}  using
various values of $\xi$, and with option {\bf D} for $\Delta$ in the range $0.15-0.30\,$GeV. The central values
for $|V_{cb}|$ vary between 42.05 $10^{-3}$ and 42.28 $10^{-3}$.   These results are very much in line
with Fig.~1 and Table 3 of Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2013rza} and therefore we do not add any uncertainty related to the theoretical correlations in Eq.~(\ref{default}).
\vskip 2mm

We have also performed a fit including $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4, 1/m^5)$ corrections, in analogy with Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2016jkc}, to check the consistency with our main result of Eq.~(\ref{default}).  We assign an error to the LLSA predictions and assume gaussian priors for all of the 27 dimension 7 and 8 matrix elements. The error is chosen as the maximum of either 60\% of the parameters value in the LLSA or $\Lambda_{LL}^n/2$ ($n = 4, 5$), with $\Lambda_{LL}=0.55\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}$, see Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2016jkc} for additional details. As already noticed in Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2016jkc}, higher power corrections tend to  decrease the value of $|V_{cb}|$. A fit performed with the same theory errors of Ref.~\cite{Gambino:2016jkc} and $\mu_c=2\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\mu_b=m_b^{kin}/2$ leads to $|V_{cb}|=42.00(32)_{th}(32)_{exp}(25)_\Gamma\ 10^{-3}=42.00(53)\ 10^{-3}$, which is consistent with Eq.~(\ref{default}). Following the discussion above, one could slightly reduce the theory uncertainties
in this fit with the only consequence of a small reduction on the error of $|V_{cb}|$.
\vskip 2mm

Finally, repeating the reference fit of Table \ref{tab:2} without a constraint on $m_b$
we obtain an independent determination of $m_b^{kin}(1\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV})=4.579(16)\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}$, which
translates into $\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.210(22)\ensuremath{\,}\mbox{GeV}$. This determination, which
still relies on the lattice determination of $m_c$ reported in  (\ref{eq:masses}), is compatible with the FLAG $N_f=2+1+1$ average for  $\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)$ and competitive with other current determinations of $m_b$.

\section{Discussion}
From a theoretical point of view, the reliability of the determination of $|V_{cb}|$ from inclusive semileptonic decays depends on our control of higher order effects. The new three-loop calculation of Ref.~\cite{Fael:2020tow} shows that higher order perturbative effects are
under control, and that they lie within the previously estimated uncertainties. This progress, together with the work done on higher power corrections \cite{Mannel:2010wj,Gambino:2016jkc} and on perturbative corrections to the Wilson coefficients of power suppressed operators \cite{Alberti:2013kxa,Mannel:2015jka,Mannel:2019qel}, led us to
estimate a residual theoretical error on $\Gamma_{sl}$ of about 1.2\%, and to slightly reduce the theoretical uncertainty in the fit to the moments.

Our final result is shown in Eq.~(\ref{default}). It is very close to previous determinations of
$|V_{cb}|$ \cite{Alberti:2014yda, Gambino:2016jkc}, but the total uncertainty is now 1.2\%, one
third smaller than in \cite{Alberti:2014yda}. This reduction of the uncertainty reflects a better control of higher order effects,  but it is also due to
improved determinations of the heavy quark masses.
 The dominant single component of the uncertainty in Eq.~(\ref{default}) is now related to the experimental determination of the moments and of the semileptonic branching fraction, which are expected to be improved at Belle II.
Future experimental analyses should also consider new observables beyond the traditional moments of the lepton energy and hadronic invariant mass distributions. For instance, the forward-backward asymmetry \cite{Turczyk:2016kjf} and the moments of the leptonic invariant mass ($q^2$) distribution would enhance the sensitivity to the OPE matrix elements and reduce the uncertainty on $|V_{cb}|$.
Because of reparametrisation invariance, the $q^2$-moments and $\Gamma_{sl}$ depend on a reduced number of OPE matrix elements   \cite{Fael:2018vsp}, so that a fit to the $q^2$-moments at $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^4)$ involves only 8 parameters. This nice property allows for an independent check of the treatment of higher power corrections adopted in \cite{Gambino:2016jkc}, but it is unlikely to lead to a competitive determination of $|V_{cb}|$.
 The $q^2$-moments will also constrain the soft charm effects considered in \cite{Bigi:2005bh}.
As far as the current experimental analyses are concerned, there are various aspects that require closer scrutiny. We refer in particular to the subtraction of QED corrections made with PHOTOS~\cite{Golonka:2005pn}, to the impact of Coulomb interactions, to the contribution of $D^{**}$ states and to the correlations which play a crucial role in the fit.
\vskip 2mm

Finally, turning to ways in which theory can improve the inclusive determination of  $|V_{cb}|$,
we have already argued that  the most important missing higher order effects are probably the  $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s/m_b^3)$ corrections to the moments.  Lattice QCD calculations
provide precise constraints on the heavy quark masses, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:masses}, which are going
to improve in the future, but  we now have  methods  to compute differential distributions and
their moments directly on the lattice  \cite{Gambino:2020crt}. While it is still unclear
whether  a
determination of $\Gamma_{sl}$ competitive with Eq.~(\ref{Gammasl}) can be achieved at the physical $b$ mass,  these lattice calculations might be able to
enhance the predictive power of the OPE by accessing quantities which are inaccurate or beyond the reach of current experiments and are highly sensitive to the non-perturbative parameters.
The computation of meson masses at different quark mass values \cite{Bazavov:2018omf,Gambino:2017vkx}  can also provide useful information when the data are analysed in the  heavy quark expansion.
At the moment, however,  the reduction of the uncertainty  in Eq.~(\ref{default}) exacerbates the $V_{cb}$ puzzle, and calls for renewed efforts to solve an unwelcome anomaly,
impervious to New Physics explanations \cite{Jung:2018lfu,Crivellin:2014zpa}.

\vspace{3mm}

{\bf Acknowledgements}
 We are grateful to Matteo Fael for useful communications concerning the results of Refs.~\cite{Fael:2020tow,Fael:2020iea,Fael:2020njb}.
This work is supported   by the Italian Ministry of Research (MIUR) under grant PRIN  20172LNEEZ.


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Consider an underlying risky asset, which exhibits both stochastic volatility and independent jumps.  In this setting, we show how to value claims on the $\log$ price of the asset and its quadratic variation relative to vanilla European puts and calls.
{Under an additional assumption that jump sizes of the $\log$ price of the risky asset are restricted to a discrete finite set}, we show how to replicate claims on the  $\log$ price of the asset and its quadratic variation by dynamically trading zero-coupon bonds, shares of the underlying and a portfolio of European puts and calls.
\par
The class of models we consider in this paper is semi-parametric in a sense we now describe.  The distribution and arrival rate of jumps of the risky asset must be specified parametrically.  However, we do not specify a particular volatility process.  Rather, we simply require that the volatility process be an adapted righ-continuous process that evolves independently of the Brownian motion and Poisson random measure that drive the price process of the risky asset.  In particular, the volatility process may be non-Markovian and it may experience jumps.  Because we need not specify a particular volatility process, our pricing formula and replication strategies are robust to misspecification of the volatility process.
\par
{This paper is the updated version of the working paper \cite{rrvd}, which showed how to price and replicate claims on the quadratic variation of the $\log$ price of a risky asset \emph{without} jumps.}  That work was  extended in \cite{lorig-carr-lee-2} where the authors show how to value and replicate a variety of barrier-style claims on the $\log$ price and quadratic variation of a risky asset \emph{without} jumps.  In both papers, the underlying is assumed to have continuous sample paths and an independent volatility-driving process.  These assumptions imply a symmetric model-induced implied volatility smile.  Symmetric smiles are observed in certain markets (e.g., FX), but generally are not observed for options on equity, where smiles typically exhibit downward sloping at-the-money skews.
\par
Matching the skew of implied volatility is important both for pricing and hedging, and there are a number of ways this can be achieved.
One method of matching skew is to use Dupire's formula \cite{dupire1994pricing} to find the local volatility model that is consistent the market's quoted call and put prices.  Another means of matching skew
{is to consider a stochastic volatility model such Heston \cite{heston1993} or SABR \cite{sabr}.  In these models, the correlation between the $\log$ price and volatility processes can be adjusted in order to match the observed implied volatility skew. A third means of matching the skew is the approach taken in this paper:}
to consider models that allow the underlying risky asset to experience jumps; asymmetric jumps induce asymmetric smiles.
While both local volatility and jump models can match quoted option prices, the corresponding delta hedges differ significantly.
The delta computed from the local volatility model typically falls below the Black-Scholes delta (as computed using a given option's implied volatility), whereas the delta computed from the model with jumps typically falls above the Black-Scholes delta.  As, empirically, delta is above the Black-Scholes delta (for options on SPX),
this is motivation for matching the skew of implied volatility with jumps rather than local volatility.
{Another reason for considering models with jumps is that, consistent with empirical observations, these models induce an explosion of the at-the-money skew as time to maturity approaches zero.  By contrast, the implied volatility skews induced by stochastic volatility models such as Heston and SABR remain bounded as time to maturity approaches zero.}
\par
The rest of this paper proceeds as follows.  In Section \ref{sec:model} we describe a market for a risky asset and state our modeling assumptions.  In Section \ref{sec:pricing} we show how to price power-exponential-style claims on $\log$ price and its quadratic variation and in Section \ref{sec:replication} we show these claims can be replicated.  Lastly, in Section \ref{sec:example}, we price a variety of claims that do not fall into the power-exponential category.

\section{Model and assumptions}
\label{sec:model}
We fix a finite time horizon $T < \infty$ and consider a frictionless market, defined on a filtered probability space $(\Om, \Fc, \Fb, \Pb)$ satisfying the usual conditions, such that the prices of all assets are martingales with respect to $(\Fb,\Pb)$.  The probability measure $\Pb$ represents the market's chosen pricing measure and the filtration $\Fb = (\Fc_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ represents this history of the market.

Assume $\Fb = \Gb \vee \Hb$ where $\Gb=(\Gc_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ and $\Hb=(\Hc_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ are independent filtrations,
let $W$ be a $\Gb$-Brownian motion, let $\sig$ be a $\Gb$-adapted right-continuous process independent of $W$, and let $N$ be a Poisson random measure
with respect to $\Hb$, with intensity measure $\nu(\dd z)\dd u$ for some L\'evy measure $\nu$.

Let $B_t$ be the price of a zero-coupon bond paying one unit of currency at time $T$.  Assuming zero interest rates, or that all prices are expressed as $T$-forward prices, we have $B_t = 1$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
Let $S_t$ be the price of a risky asset, which pays no dividends.  Suppose $S$ is strictly positive and has dynamics of the form
\begin{align}
\dd S_t
	&=	\sig_t S_t \dd W_t + \int_\Rb (\ee^z - 1) S_{t-} \Nt(\dd t, \dd z) , &
\Nt(\dd t, \dd z)
	&=	N(\dd t, \dd z) - \nu(\dd z) \dd t ,
\end{align}
where $W$ is a Brownian motion and $\Nt$ is the compensated Poisson random measure with respect to $(\Fb,\Pb)$.
{We refer the reader to \cite[Ch. 1]{oksendal2} for an overview of L\'evy-It\^o processes.}
We will not specify dynamics for the \emph{volatility process} $\sig$.  Note that $\sig$ may be non-Markovian and may experience jumps.  However, we have required that $\sig$ evolve independently of $W$ and $N$.
For simplicity, we further assume there exist constants $b, c < \infty$ such that
\begin{align}
\int_0^T \sig_t^2 \dd t
	&< b , &
\nu(\Rb)
	&< \infty , &
\nu( |z| > c )
	&=	0 . \label{eq:assumption}
\end{align}
For certain claims, conditions \eqref{eq:assumption} can be relaxed, {as described in \cite[Section 8]{rrvd}}.  However, our aim is not to provide here the most general conditions under which our pricing and hedging methodology can be applied.  Rather, we aim to provide simple conditions, which allow us to clearly illustrate our pricing and hedging methods without complicating the presentation with numerous technicalities.
\par
The $\log$ price of the risky asset $X_t := \log S_t$ therefore has dynamics
\begin{align}
\dd X_t
	&=	- \tfrac{1}{2} \sig_t^2 \dd t + \sig_t \dd W_t - \int_\Rb (\ee^z - 1 - z) \nu(\dd z) \dd t + \int_\Rb z \Nt(\dd t, \dd z) . \label{eq:dX}
\end{align}
\par
Let $P_t(K)$ and $C_t(K)$ be the time-$t$ prices of, respectively, a European put and European call written on $S$,
maturing at time $T$ with strike $K$.  Under the assumptions above,
\begin{align}
P_t(K)
	&=	\Eb_t (K - S_T)^+ , &
C_t(K)
	&=	\Eb_t (S_T - K)^+ , &
t
	&\in [0,T] , &
K
	&\geq 0 ,
\end{align}
where the notation $\Eb_t \, \, \cdot \, := \Eb[ \, \cdot \, | \Fc_t ]$ denotes conditional expectation.
As $S = \ee^X$, we may refer to claims written on $S$ or $X$ interchangeably, with the understanding that these are the same thing.
Our payoff decompositions will assume a European put or call trades at every strike $K >0$.  As \cite{breeden} show, this assumption is equivalent to knowing the distribution of $S_T$ under $\Pb$.  Additionally,  \cite{carrmadan1998} show that this assumption allows general $T$-expiry European claims on $S_T$ to be perfectly replicated with a static portfolio of bonds, puts, and calls; for general function $f$ that can be expressed as the difference of convex functions, the resulting pricing formula, under integrability conditions, is
\begin{align}
\Eb_t f(S_T)
	&=		f(S_t) B_t + \int_0^{S_t}  f''(K) P_t(K) \dd K + \int_{S_t}^\infty f''(K) C_t(K) \dd K, \label{eq:f.call.put}
\end{align}
where $f'$ is the left-derivative of $f$ and $f''$ is the second derivative, which exists as a generalized function.
While in reality calls and puts trade at only finitely many strikes, this can be addressed following techniques described in \cite{leung-lorig}, who show how to optimally adjust static hedges when calls and puts are traded at only discrete strikes in a finite interval.

\begin{remark}[Limitations of our modeling framework]
\label{rmk:limitations}
{Our modeling framework has certain limitations, which we describe here.  First, because we have assumed that $\sig$ evolves independently of $W$ and $N$, the class of models we consider cannot capture {correlation between instantaneous volatility and price}.  Nevertheless, the errors that would result from using the pricing and replication  strategies developed in this paper in a setting in which $\sig$ and $W$ are correlated can, to an extent, be minimized using a \textit{correlation immunization strategy}, which is described in \cite[Section 4]{rrvd}.  Extensive Monte Carlo testing of the correlation immunization strategy have been carried out \cite{lorig-lin}.
Second, the assumptions in \eqref{eq:assumption} exclude most traditional stochastic volatility models and exponential L\'evy models because the former do not typically have bounded integrated variance and the latter do not typically have bounded jump sizes.  However, {this assumption can be relaxed, as discussed after \eqref{eq:assumption}. Moreover,} our aim is not to consider a class of models that includes all other models.  Rather, our aim is to consider a class of models that captures the dynamics of the market, and we are not aware of any empirical evidence that
{the market is better described by a traditional SV model than by SV dynamics in which integrated variance is capped at, for instance, $10^{100}$}.
}
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}[Relation to other work]
\label{rmk:previous-work}
{The present paper {\emph{initiated}} a line of work in the general area of robust pricing and replication of claims on realized variance.
{An earlier version of this paper, the unpublished working paper \cite{rrvd}, developed pricing and replication strategies} for claims on $X$ and $[X]$ under an assumption that $X$ experiences no jumps.
In \cite{lorig-carr-lee-2}, the results of \cite{rrvd} are extended to knock-in, knock-out and rebate claims written on $X$ and $[X]$.
And in \cite{carr2011variance} and \cite{lorig-carr-lee-2}, variance swaps are robustly priced when $X$ is a time-changed L\'evy process and time-changed Markov process, respectively.}
\end{remark}

\section{Pricing power-exponential claims}
\label{sec:pricing}
Let $[X]$ denote the quadratic variation of the $X$ process.  By \eqref{eq:dX}, we have
\begin{align}
\dd [X]_t
	&=	\sig_t^2 \dd t + \int_\Rb z^2 N(\dd t, \dd z) .
\end{align}
This section will price and replicate the real and imaginary parts of a \emph{power-exponential claim}, which we define as any claim whose payoff has the form
\begin{align}
	&\text{Power-exponential Claim Payoff}:&
	&X_T^n [X]_T^m \ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T} ,
	&n,m \in \{0\} \cup \Nb , &
	&\om,\co  \in \Cb .
\end{align}
These power-exponential claims will be used as building blocks to construct more general claims.

\begin{remark}
The various processes and random variables discussed in this section and Section \ref{sec:replication} are $\Cb$-valued.  The pricing and hedging results given below should be understood to hold for the real and imaginary components.  For example, when we say ``the price of $Z$'' we mean ``the price of the real and imaginary parts of $Z$,'' and when we say ``to replicate $Z$'' we mean ``to replicate the real and imaginary parts of $Z$.''
\end{remark}

We have the decomposition
\begin{align}
X_t
	&=	X_t^c + X_t^j ,
\end{align}
where the dynamics of the continuous component $X^c$ and the jump component $X^j$ are given by
\begin{align}
\dd X_t^c
	&=	-\tfrac{1}{2} \sig_t^2 \dd t + \sig_t \dd W_t , &
\dd X_t^j
	&=	- \int_\Rb (\ee^z - 1 - z) \nu(\dd z) \dd t + \int_\Rb z \Nt(\dd t, \dd z) .
\end{align}
Likewise, the quadratic variation process $[X]$ also separates into a continuous component $[X^c]$ and an independent jump component $[X^j]$:
\begin{align}
[X]_t
	&=	[X^c]_t + [X^j]_t , &
\dd [X^c]_t
	&=	\sig_t^2 \dd t , &
\dd [X^j]_t
	&=	\int_\Rb z^2 N(\dd t, \dd z) ,
\end{align}
Proposition \ref{prp:char1} will relate the joint $\Fc_t$-conditional characteristic function of $(X_T,[X]_T)$ to the $\Fc_t$-conditional characteristic function of $X_T$.  Its proof will use the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:E1=E2}
Define $u:\Cb^2 \to \Cb$ by either of the following:
\begin{align}
u(\om,\co )
	&:=	\ii \( - \tfrac{1}{2} \pm \sqrt{\tfrac{1}{4} - \om^2 - \ii \om + 2 \ii \co} \)
	=:	u_\pm(\om,\co ) . \label{eq:u}
\end{align}
Then for all $\om,\co \in \Cb$,
\begin{align}
\Eb_t \ee^{ \ii \om (X_T^c - X_t^c) + \ii \co ([X^c]_T - [X^c]_t)}
	&=	\Eb_t \ee^{\ii u(\om,\co ) (X_T^c - X_t^c) } .  \label{eq:E1=E2}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:E1=E2}

\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
\label{prp:char1}
Define $\psi: \Cb^2 \to \Cb$ by
\begin{align}
\psi(\om,\co )
	&:=	\int_\Rb \Big( \ee^{\ii \om z + \ii \co z^2} - 1 - \ii \om ( \ee^z - 1 ) \Big) \nu(\dd z). \label{eq:psi}
\end{align}
Then $(X_T,[X]_T)$ has $\Fc_t$-conditional joint characteristic function
\begin{align}
\Eb_t \ee^{\ii \om X_T  + \ii \co[X]_T }
	&=	\frac{ \ee^{(T-t)\psi(\om,\co ) + \ii (\om - u(\om,\co ))X_t + \ii \co [X]_t}}{\ee^{(T-t)\psi(u(\om,\co ),0)}} \Eb_t \ee^{\ii u(\om,\co ) X_T}, \label{eq:char1}
\end{align}
where $u: \Cb^2 \to \Cb$ is defined in \eqref{eq:u}.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:char1}.

\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:pow-exp}
Fix $\om,\co  \in \Cb$ and $n,m \in \{0\} \cup \Nb$.
Assume $\frac{1}{4} - \ii \om + 2 \ii \co - \om^2 \neq 0$.
Then
\begin{align}
&\Eb_t X_T^n [X]_T^m \ee^{\ii \om X_T  + \ii \co [X]_T } \\
	&=	\Eb_t \sum_{j=0}^n \sum_{k=0}^m \Bigg(
				\binom{n}{j} \binom{m}{k}
				(-\ii \d_\om)^j (-\ii \d_\co)^k \frac{ \ee^{(T-t)\psi(\om,\co ) + \ii (\om - u(\om,\co ))X_t + \ii \co [X]_t}}{\ee^{(T-t)\psi(u(\om,\co ),0)}}

			\cdot (-\ii \d_\om)^{n-j} (-\ii \d_\co)^{m-k} \ee^{\ii u(\om,\co ) X_T} \Bigg). \label{eq:name}
\end{align}
where $u$ and $\psi$ are defined in \eqref{eq:u} and \eqref{eq:psi}, respectively.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:pow-exp}.

\end{proof}

Corollary \ref{cor:pow-exp} relates the price of a (path-dependent) power-exponential claim to the price of a (path-independent) European claim written on $X_T$.  Specifically,
\begin{align}
\Eb_t X_T^n [X]_T^m \ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}
	&=	\Eb_t g(X_T;X_t,[X]_t) ,
\end{align}
where the function $g(\,\cdot\,;X_t,[X]_t)$ is given by the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:name} (keep in mind that $X_t,[X]_t \in \Fc_t$).
In turn, the price $\Eb_t g(X_T;X_t,[X]_t)$ of the European claim can be related to value of a portfolio consisting of vanilla European puts and calls and zero-coupon bonds, which are market observables, by setting $f(S_T) = g(\log S_T;X_t,[X]_t)$ in \eqref{eq:f.call.put}.

\begin{remark}
We describe equations of the form $\Eb \varphi(X_T,[X]_T) = \Eb g(X_T)$ by saying that the function $g$ \emph{prices} the claim with payoff $\varphi(X_T,[X]_T)$.  For any given $\varphi$, the function $g$ will not be unique.  For example, the right-hand-side of \eqref{eq:name} will depend on whether we choose $u=u_+$ or $u=u_-$.
\end{remark}

In order to apply Corollary \ref{cor:pow-exp} to price a power-exponential claim, we require an expression for the L\'evy exponent $\psi$, which can be
computed explicitly for a variety of L\'evy measures $\nu$, such as the following:
\begin{align}
\text{Dirac sum}:&&
\nu
	&=	\sum_j \lam_j \del_{m_j}, \label{eq:nu.dirac} \\
\text{Uniform}:&&
\nu(\dd z)
	&=	\lam \indicator_{\{ m_1 < z < m_2 \}} \dd z ,
			\label{eq:nu.uniform} \\
\text{Trunc. Exp.}:&&
\nu(\dd z)
	&=	\lam \indicator_{\{|z| < m\}} \ee^{-\alpha|z|} \dd z ,
\end{align}
where $\lam, \lam_j, \alpha,m >0$ and $m_1<m_2$.  From \eqref{eq:psi}, we compute
\begin{align}
\text{Dirac sum}:&&
\psi(\om,\co )
	&=	 \sum_j \lam_j \Big( \ee^{\ii \om m_j + \ii \co m_j^2} - 1 - \ii \om ( \ee^{m_j} - 1 ) \Big) , \label{eq:psi.dirac} \\
\text{Uniform}:&&
\psi(\om,\co )
	&=	\lam \sqrt{\frac{\ii\pi}{4\co} } \ee^{-\frac{\ii \om ^2}{4 \co}}
			\( \text{erf}\(\frac{\co (2 \co m_1+\om )}{2 (-\ii \co)^{3/2}}\)-\text{erf}\(\frac{\co (2 \co m_2 +\om )}{2 (-\ii \co)^{3/2}}\) \) \\ &&&\quad
			+ \lam \Big( (\ii \om - 1 )(m_2 - m_1) - (m_2 - m_1) \Big) ,			\label{eq:psi.uniform} \\
\text{Trunc. Exp.}:&&
\psi(\om,\co )
	&=	\lam \sqrt{ \frac{\ii\pi}{4\co} } \ee^{\frac{\ii (\alpha +\ii \om )^2}{4 \co}} \(
			\text{erf}\(\frac{\alpha + \ii \om+2 \ii \co m  }{2 \sqrt{-\ii \co}}\)-\text{erf}\(\frac{\alpha + \ii \om }{2 \sqrt{-\ii \co}}\)
			\) \\ &&& \quad
			+ \lam \sqrt{ \frac{\ii\pi}{4 \co} } \ee^{\frac{\ii (\alpha -\ii \om )^2}{4 \co}} \(
			\text{erf}\(\frac{\alpha - \ii \om+2 \ii \co m  }{2 \sqrt{-\ii \co}}\)-\text{erf}\(\frac{\alpha - \ii \om }{2 \sqrt{-\ii \co}}\)
			\) \\ &&& \quad
			+ \frac{2 \lam \(\ee^{-\alpha m}-1\)}{\alpha }
			- \frac{2 \lam \ii \omega  \ee^{-\alpha m}}{\alpha  \(\alpha^2-1\)}
			\Big( \alpha^2 - \alpha^2 \cosh m+\ee^{\alpha m}-\alpha  \sinh m-1\Big),
\end{align}
where $\text{erf}$ denotes the \emph{error function} defined by $\text{erf}(x):= (2/\sqrt{\pi})\int_0^x  \ee^{-z^2/2} \dd z$.

\begin{example}[Variance Swap]
\label{eq:VarSwap}
Consider the floating leg of a (continuously monitored) variance swap, which pays $[X]_T$ to the long side at time $T$.
For simplicity, let $X_0 = 0$.  Then setting $(n,m,\om,\co ) = (0,1,0,0)$ in \eqref{eq:name} we obtain $\Eb [X]_T = \Eb g(X_T;0,0)$
where
\begin{align}
g(x;0,0)
	&= -2 x + T \Big( - 2 \< \ee^{\Del X} \> + \< \Del X^2 \> + 2 \< \Del X \>  + 2 \< 1 \> \Big)	, &
	&\text{(for $u=u_+$)}  \label{eq:g0.vs.1} \\
g(x;0,0)
	&=	2 x \ee^x + T \ee^x \Big( - 2 \< \Del X \ee^{\Del X} \> + 2 \< \ee^{\Del X} \> + \< \Del X^2 \> - 2 \< 1 \> \Big), &
	&\text{(for $u=u_-$)}   \label{eq:g0.vs.2}
\end{align}
where $\< f(\Del X) \> := \int_\Rb f(z)\nu(\dd z)$.
In Figure \ref{fig:VarSwap} we plot $g(\log S_T;0,0)$ as a function of $S_T$ for both $u_+$ and $u_-$ and for various jump distributions and intensities.
\end{example}

\begin{remark}
The function $g$ in \eqref{eq:g0.vs.1} and \eqref{eq:g0.vs.2} depends on the time to maturity $T$.  This is in contrast to the results of \cite{carr2011variance} where, in a time-changed L\'evy setting, the authors find that the variance swap has the same value as a European-style $\log$ contract, whose payoff function has no dependence on time-to-maturity.  As empirical evidence from \cite{carr2011variance} indicates the European-style payoff function that prices the variance swap \emph{does} depend on time to maturity, this is motivation to consider the models presented in present paper rather than those considered in \cite{carr2011variance}.
\end{remark}

\section{Replicating exponential claims}
\label{sec:replication}
Define a complex-valued \emph{self-financing portfolio}
with respect to a $\Cb^J$-valued semimartingale $\Upsilon$
to be a $\Cb^J$-valued locally bounded predictable process $\Xi$ such that
\begin{align}
\dd \Pi_t
	&=	\sum_j \Xi_{t}^{(j)} \dd \Upsilon_t^{(j)}
&
\text{where }\Pi_t
	&:=	\sum_j \Xi_t^{(j)} \Upsilon_t^{(j)}.
\label{eq:complex}
\end{align}
In particular, if $\Xi^{(j)}$ and $\Upsilon^{(j)}$ are real-valued for all $j$, then expression \eqref{eq:complex} corresponds to the usual notion of a self-financing portfolio.  The dynamics of the real and imaginary parts of $\Pi$ are given by
\begin{align}
\dd (\Re \Pi_t)
	&=	\sum_j  (\Re \Xi_{t-}^{(j)}) \dd (\Re \Upsilon_t^{(j)}) - \sum_j (\Im \Xi_{t-}^{(j)}) \dd (\Im \Upsilon_t^{(j)}) , \label{eq:real}\\
\dd (\Im \Pi_t)
	&=	\sum_j (\Re \Xi_{t-}^{(j)}) \dd (\Im \Upsilon_t^{(j)}) + \sum_j (\Im \Xi_{t-}^{(j)}) \dd (\Re \Upsilon_t^{(j)}) . \label{eq:imag}
\end{align}
respectively.  Thus, expression \eqref{eq:complex} should be seen as a concise way to state both \eqref{eq:real} and \eqref{eq:imag}.

\begin{assumption}
Throughout Section \ref{sec:replication}, the constants $\om,\co  \in \Cb$ are \emph{fixed} and $u \equiv u(\om,\co )$ is given by \eqref{eq:u}.
\end{assumption}

At any time $t \leq T$, by \eqref{eq:char1}, the claim on the exponential payoff $\ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}$ has value
\begin{align}
\Eb_t \ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}
	&=	A_t Q_t^{(u)} ,
\end{align}
where we have defined
\begin{align}
A_t
	&:=	\ee^{\ii (\om-u) X_t + \ii \co [X]_t} \frac{ \ee^{(T-t)\psi(\om,\co )}}{\ee^{(T-t)\psi(u,0)}} , &
Q_t^{(q)}
	&:=	\Eb_t \ee^{\ii q X_T} , &
q
	&\in \Cb . \label{eq:AQ.def}
\end{align}
Theorem \ref{thm:hedge} will show that $A Q^{(u)}$ is the value process of a self-financing portfolio, which
 gives a trading strategy to replicate the exponential claim because
 $A_T Q_T^{(u)} = \ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}$.
\par
Theorem \ref{thm:hedge} uses Lemmas \ref{lem:Delta.Q} and \ref{lem:sym}, presented below,
and the standard notation
\begin{align}
\Del H_t
	&:=	H_t - H_{t-} = H_t - \lim_{s \nearrow t} H_s ,
\end{align}
for the jump in $H$ at time $t$, where $H$ is any process with left limits.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Delta.Q}
For any $q \in \Cb$, let $Y^{(q)}$ and $Z^{(q)}$ be (the c\`adl\`ag versions of) the martingales
\begin{align}
Y_t^{(q)}
	&:=	\Eb_t \ee^{\ii q X_T^c} , &
Z_t^{(q)}
	&:=	\Eb_t \ee^{\ii q X_T^j} , & 0\leq t\leq T\label{eq:YZ}
\end{align}
Then, under the assumptions of Section \ref{sec:model}, we have
\begin{align}
\Del A_t \Del Q_t^{(q)}
	&=	\Del A_t ( Y_{t-}^{(q)}  \Del Z_t^{(q)} ) , \label{eq:DeltaQ}\\
Y_{t-}^{(q)}  \Del Z_t^{(q)}
	&=	Q_{t-}^{(q)} \int_\Rb \Big( \ee^{\ii q z} - 1 \Big) N(\dd t , \dd z) . \label{eq:DeltaZ}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:Delta.Q}.

\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:sym}
For any $q \in \Cb$ and $t\in[0,T]$, define
\begin{align}
R_t^{(q)}
	&=	\ee^{-\ii q X_t + (T-t)\psi(-\ii - q,0)} , \label{eq:R}
\end{align}
with $\psi$ given in \eqref{eq:psi}.
Then
\begin{align}
R_t^{(q)} Q_t^{(q)}
	&=	R_t^{(-\ii-q)} Q_t^{(-\ii-q)} , \label{eq:RQ=RQ}
\end{align}
with $Q^{(q)}$ given in \eqref{eq:AQ.def}.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:sym}.

\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:hedge}
Let $q \in \Cb$.  Define processes $\Del \Gam^{(u)} = (\Del \Gam_t^{(u)})_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ and $\Del \Om^{(q)} = (\Del \Om_t^{(q)})_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ by
\begin{align}
\Del \Gamma_t^{(u)}
	&:=	Q_{t-}^{(u)} \Del A_t - \ii (\om-u) \frac{A_{t-}Q_{t-}^{(u)}}{S_{t-}} \Del S_t
			 + \Del A_t ( Y_{t-}^{(u)} \Del Z_t^{(u)} )  \\
	&=	A_{t-} Q_{t-}^{(u)} \int_\Rb \Big(
			\ee^{\ii \om z + \ii \co z^2} - \ee^{\ii u z} - \ii (\om - u)(\ee^z - 1)
			\Big) N(\dd t, \dd z) , \label{eq:DeltaGamma} \\
\Del \Om_t^{(q)}
	&:=	Q_{t-}^{(q)} \Del R_t^{(q)} + \ii q \frac{R_{t-}^{(q)} Q_{t-}^{(q)}}{S_{t-}} \Del S_t
			+ \Del R_t^{(q)} ( Y_{t-}^{(q)} \Del Z_t^{(q)} ) \\
	&=	R_{t-}^{(q)} Q_{t-}^{(q)} \int_\Rb \Big(
			- \ee^{\ii q z}  + 1 + \ii q (\ee^z - 1)
			\Big) N(\dd t, \dd z) . \label{eq:DeltaOmega}
\end{align}
Let $(q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_m) \in \Cb^m$.
Suppose there exists an $m$-dimensional predictable process $H = (H_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ with components $H^{(j)} = (H_t^{(j)})_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ satisfying
\begin{align}
0
	&=	\Del \Gam_t^{(u)} + \sum_{j=1}^m H_t^{(j)} \Big( \Del \Om_t^{(q_j)} - \Del \Om_t^{(-\ii-q_j)} \Big) , \label{eq:H}
\end{align}
Then
\begin{align}
\dd (A_t Q_t^{(u)})
	&=	A_{t-} \dd Q_t^{(u)} + \ii (\om-u) \frac{A_{t-}Q_{t-}^{(u)}}{S_{t-}} \dd S_t \\ &\quad
			+ \sum_{j=1}^m H_{t-}^{(j)} \Big(
			R_{t-}^{(q_j)} \dd Q_t^{(q_j)} - R_{t-}^{(-\ii-q_j)} \dd Q_t^{(-\ii-q_j)}
			+ (1 - 2 \ii q_j) \frac{R_{t-}^{(q_j)} Q_{t-}^{(q_j)}}{S_{t-}} \dd S_t
			\Big) , \label{eq:dAQ}
\end{align}
where the processes $A$, $Q^{(q)}$ and $R^{(q)}$ are as given in \eqref{eq:AQ.def} and \eqref{eq:R}.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:hedge}.

\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:hedge}
By \eqref{eq:dAQ}, the following self-financing portfolio replicates the exponential claim $\ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}$: at all times $t < T$ one should
\begin{align}
&\bullet \, \text{hold $A_{t-}$ European claims with payoff $\ee^{\ii u X_T}$,} \\
&\bullet \, \text{hold $\Big( \ii (\om-u) \frac{A_{t-}Q_{t-}^{(u)}}{S_{t-}}+\sum_{j=1}^m  H_{t-}^{(j)} (1 - 2 \ii q_j) \frac{R_{t-}^{(q_j)} Q_{t-}^{(q_j)}}{S_{t-}} \Big)$ shares of $S$,} \\
&\bullet \, \text{for $j=1,2,\ldots,m$, hold $H_{t-}^{(j)} R_{t-}^{(q_j)}$ European claims with payoff $\ee^{\ii  q_j X_T}$,}\\
&\bullet \, \text{for $j=1,2,\ldots,m$, hold $-H_{t-}^{(j)} R_{t-}^{(-\ii-q_j)}$ European claims with payoff $\ee^{\ii (-\ii-q_j) X_T}$,}\\
&\bullet \, \text{lend and borrow zero coupon bonds $B$ from the bank as needed.}
\end{align}
This portfolio's net position in European claims, which has value
\begin{align}
A_{t-} \Eb_t \ee^{\ii u X_T} + \sum_{j=1}^m H_{t-}^{(j)}
\Big( R_{t-}^{(q_j)} \Eb_t \ee^{\ii  q_j X_T} - R_{t-}^{(-\ii-q_j)} \Eb_t \ee^{\ii (-\ii-q_j) X_T}  \Big) ,
\end{align}
can be constructed from a portfolio of European calls $C_t(K)$ and puts $P_t(K)$ for $K \geq 0$, using \eqref{eq:f.call.put}.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:spanning}
{
The intuition of condition \eqref{eq:H} is that the \emph{pricing} relation
$\Eb_t \ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}
	=	A_t \Eb_t \ee^{\ii q X_T}$
is valid in the presence of jump risk; however, the naive candidate for a \emph{hedging} portfolio,
namely $A_{t-}$ contracts on $\ee^{\ii q X_T}$, is \emph{not} a valid replication of $\ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}$,
because this naive portfolio fails to self-finance at jump times.  So we augment the naive portfolio with ``zero-cost collars'',
specifically $H^{(j)}$ units of the ``collar'' that combines the claims on payouts $\ee^{\ii  q_j X_T}$ and $\ee^{\ii (-\ii-q_j) X_T}$.
At jump times these collars have a combined profit/loss which provides the needed financing to offset the ``tracking error'' $\Del \Gam_t^{(u)}$
of the naive hedge, if \eqref{eq:H} holds.   This leads us to ask, whether there exist $H^{(j)}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:H} -- in other words,
do the collars span the tracking error?   The answer will involve (naturally, in this \emph{spanning} context) a \emph{full rank}
condition \eqref{eq:L} on the collars. }

{To be specific:} in order to hedge
an exponential claim with payoff $\ee^{\ii \om X_T+ \ii \co [X]_T}$,
what remains is to find a predictable process $H = (H_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ with components $H^{(j)} = (H_t^{(j)})_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:H}.  This is the subject of the next proposition.
\end{remark}

\begin{proposition}
\label{prp:matrix}
Suppose the L\'evy measure $\nu$ has the form
\begin{align}
\nu
	&=	\sum_{i=1}^n \lam_i \del_{z_i}, \label{eq:nu}
\end{align}
for some $(\lam_1, \lam_2 , \ldots, \lam_n) \in \Rb_+^n$ and some $(z_1, z_2, \ldots, z_n) \in \Rb^n$.
Define an $n \times 1$ stochastic column matrix $K_t = (K_t^{(i)})$ with entries
\begin{align}
K_t^{(i)}
	&=	A_{t-} Q_{t-}^{(u)} F(z_i) , &
F(z)
	&:=	\ee^{\ii \om z + \ii \co z^2} - \ee^{\ii u z} - \ii (\om - u)(\ee^z - 1) . \label{eq:K}
\end{align}
Suppose there exists $(q_1, q_2, \ldots , q_m) \in \Cb^m$ with $m \geq n$ such that the $n \times m$ stochastic matrix $L_t = (L_t^{(i,j)})$, with entries
\begin{align}
L_t^{(i,j)}
	&=	R_{t-}^{(q_j)} Q_{t-}^{(q_j)}  G(z_i;q_j) , &
G(z;q)
	&:=	-  \ee^{\ii q z} + \ee^{(1-\ii q)z} - (1 - 2 \ii q) (\ee^z - 1) , \label{eq:L}
\end{align}
has rank $n$ for all $t \in [0,T)$.  Then there exists an $m$-dimensional predictable process
$H$ with components $H^{(j)}$
that satisfies \eqref{eq:H}; it solves
\begin{align}
K_t
	&= L_t H_t .	\label{eq:K=LH}
\end{align}
In particular, if $m=n$ then $H_t = L_t^{-1} K_t$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:matrix}.

\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:twojumps}
Suppose $\nu = \lam_1 \del_{z_1} + \lam_2 \del_{z_2}$, {where $z_1 z_2(z_1-z_2)\neq 0$.}
{Then the exponential claim paying $\ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \co [X]_T}$ is replicated by the hedging strategy of Remark \ref{rem:hedge}}, with
\begin{align}\label{eq:twojumps}
\[ \begin{array}{c}
H_t^{(1)} \\ H_t^{(2)}
\end{array} \]
	&=	\[ \begin{array}{cc}
			R_{t-}^{(q_1)} Q_{t-}^{(q_1)}  G(z_1;q_1)	&	R_{t-}^{(q_2)} Q_{t-}^{(q_2)}  G(z_1;q_2) \\
			R_{t-}^{(q_1)} Q_{t-}^{(q_1)}  G(z_2;q_1)	&	R_{t-}^{(q_2)} Q_{t-}^{(q_2)}  G(z_2;q_2)
			\end{array} \]^{-1}
			\[ \begin{array}{c}
			A_{t-} Q_{t-}^{(u)} F(z_1) \\
			A_{t-} Q_{t-}^{(u)} F(z_2)
			\end{array} \] .
\end{align}
{
where, given $(z_1,z_2)$, the $(q_1,q_2)$ are chosen such that for all $t$ the inverse exists.  The existence of such $(q_1,q_2)$ is a \emph{conclusion} of this Corollary, not an assumption.  }
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:twojumps}.
\end{proof}

\section{Pricing other payoffs}
\label{sec:example}
This section applies the results of Section \ref{sec:pricing} to price some contracts with payoffs $\varphi(X_T,[X]_T)$ that are not of the power-exponential form.  Generally speaking, our results shall take the form
\begin{align}
\Eb \varphi(X_T,[X]_T)
	&= \Eb g(X_T) , &
X_0
	&=	0 , \label{eq:g0}
\end{align}
where $\Eb g(X_T)$ can be computed relative to traded European calls/puts via \eqref{eq:f.call.put}.  Note, by the spatial homogenity of the $X$ process, there is no loss in generality in assuming $X_0 = 0$.

\subsection{Fractional powers and ratios}

\begin{proposition}[Fractional powers of quadratic variation]
\label{prp:frac}
Consider a fractional power claim, whose payoff function is of the form
\begin{align}
\varphi(x,v)
	&=	v^r , &
0
	&< r < 1 . \label{eq:phi.frac}
\end{align}
Then
\begin{align}
g(x)
	&:=	 \frac{r}{\Gam(1-r)} \int_0^\infty \frac{1}{z^{r+1}}
			\Big( \ee^{\ii u(0,0) x} - \frac{ \ee^{T\psi(0,\ii z)}}{\ee^{T \psi(u(0,\ii z),0)}} \ee^{\ii u(0,\ii z) x} \Big) \dd z . \label{eq:g0.frac}
\end{align}
satisfies \eqref{eq:g0} and hence prices the fractional power claim.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:frac}.

\end{proof}

\begin{example}[Volatility Swap]
\label{eq:VolSwap}
Consider the floating leg of a (continuously monitored) volatility swap, which pays $\sqrt{[X]_T}$ to the long side at time $T$.
The payoff function $\varphi(x,v) = \sqrt{v}$ can be obtained as a special case of \eqref{eq:phi.frac} by setting $r=1/2$.
In Figure \ref{fig:VolSwap} we plot $g(\log S_T)$ as a function of $S_T$ for various jump distributions and intensities, where $g$ is given by \eqref{eq:g0.frac}.
\end{example}

\begin{proposition}[Ratio claims (I)]
\label{prp:ratio}
Consider a ratio claim, whose payoff function has the form
\begin{align}
\varphi(x,v)
	&=	\frac{x \ee^{\ii p x} }{ (v + \eps)^{r} } , & \text{where $p\in\Cb$, \
$r\in (0,1)$,\ and
$\eps>0$. }\label{eq:phi.ratio}
\end{align}
Then
\begin{align}
g(x)
	&:=	\frac{1}{r\Gam(r)}  \int_0^\infty
			(-\ii \d_p) \frac{ \ee^{T\psi(p,\ii z^{1/r})}}{\ee^{T \psi(u(p,\ii z^{1/r}),0)}} \ee^{\ii u(p,\ii z^{1/r}) x - z^{1/r} \eps }
			\ \dd z.
			\label{eq:g0.ratio}
\end{align}
satisfies \eqref{eq:g0} and hence prices the ratio claim.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:ratio}.

\end{proof}

\begin{example}[Realized Sharpe ratio]
\label{ex:sharpe}
The \emph{Sharpe ratio} was introduced in \cite{sharpe1966mutual} as a simple way to measure the performance of an investment while adjusting for its risk.
Define the \emph{realized Sharpe ratio}
\begin{align}
\Lam_T
	&:=		\frac{ X_T - X_0 }{ \sqrt{ [X]_T-[X]_0 } }.
\end{align}
Consider a claim that pays the realized Sharpe ratio.  With $X_0 = [X]_0 = 0$ we have $\varphi(X_T,[X]_T) =  X_T / \sqrt{[X]_T}$.  The payoff function $\varphi(x,v) = x/\sqrt{v}$ can be approximated with arbitrary accuracy by setting $r=1/2$ in Proposition \ref{prp:ratio} and choosing $\eps$ small enough.  Figure \ref{fig:SharpeRatio} plots $g(\log S_T)$ as a function of $S_T$, where $g$ is given by \eqref{eq:g0.ratio}.
\end{example}

\begin{proposition}[Ratio claims (II)]
\label{prp:negative}
Consider a ratio claim whose payoff function has the form
\begin{align}
\varphi(x,v)
	&=	\frac{ \ee^{\ii p x} }{ (v + \eps)^r } , &
r, \eps
	&> 0,\ p\in\Cb. \label{eq:phi.negative}
\end{align}
Then
\begin{align}
g(x)
	&:=	\frac{1}{r\Gam(r)}  \int_0^\infty
			\frac{ \ee^{T\psi(p,\ii z^{1/r})}}{\ee^{T \psi(u(p,\ii z^{1/r}),0)}} \ee^{\ii u(p,\ii z^{1/r}) x - z^{1/r} \eps } \dd z
			\label{eq:g0.negative}
\end{align}
satisfies \eqref{eq:g0} and hence prices the ratio claim.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
See Appensix \ref{sec:negative}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:hedging}
{Throughout this section we have used the fact that a large class of payoffs of the form $\varphi(X_T,[X]_T)$ can be written as derivatives, sums and/or integrals of exponential basis functions $\ee^{\ii \om X_T + \ii \eta [X]_T}$.  By linearity, one can in principle {combine} the replication strategies developed in Section \ref{sec:replication} in order to replicate {a further expanded class of} payoffs of the form $\varphi(X_T,[X]_T)$.}
\end{remark}

\subsection{Options on Levered Exchange Traded Funds}
\label{sec:LETF}
A growing class of \emph{exchange-traded funds} (ETFs) are the \emph{leveraged exchanged traded funds} (LETFs).
In an ideal setting (i.e., no management fees), the relationship between an LETF $L = (L_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ and the underlying ETF $S=(S_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ is
\begin{align}
\frac{\dd L_t}{L_{t-}}
	&=	\beta \frac{\dd S_t}{S_{t-}} ,
\end{align}
where $\beta$ is a fixed constant known as the \emph{leverage ratio}.  Typical values of $\beta$ are $\{-3,-2,-1,2,3\}$.  As \cite{avellaneda1} point out, the value of $L_T$ depends on the entire path of $S$ over the interval $[0,T]$.  This is most readily seen by looking at $(Y_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$, the $\log$ LETF process: $Y_t = \log L_t$.  With the dynamics of $X = \log S$ given by \eqref{eq:dX}, a simple application of the It\^o formula yields
\begin{align}
\dd Y_t
	&=	\dd Y_t^c + \dd Y_t^j , \label{eq:dY} \\
\dd Y_t^c
	&=	\beta \dd X_t^c + \tfrac{1}{2}\beta(1-\beta) \dd [X^c]_t , \label{eq:dYc} \\
\dd Y_t^j
	&=	- \int_\Rb \Big( \beta( \ee^z - 1 ) - \log \big( \beta( \ee^z - 1 ) + 1 \big) \Big) \nu(\dd z) \dd t
			+ \int_\Rb \log \big( \beta( \ee^z - 1 ) + 1 \big)  \Nt(\dd t, \dd z) ,  \label{eq:dYj}
\end{align}
where we assume that the constant $c$ appearing in \eqref{eq:assumption} satisfies
\begin{align}
\beta( \ee^z - 1 ) + 1
	&> 0 , &
	&\forall \, z \in [-c,c] , \label{eq:assumption2}
\end{align}
which guarantees that, when the ETF $S$ jumps, the LETF $L$ jumps to a strictly positive value.
Observe that $\dd Y_t$ depends not only on $\dd X_t^c$ but also on $\dd [X^c]_t$ and on a nontrivial integral with respect to the Poisson random measure $\Nt(\dd t, \dd z)$.  Because of the intricate path-dependent behavior, there has been significant interest in relating option prices/implied volatilities on $X$ to option prices/implied volatilities written on $Y$; see, for example,
\cite{haugh-letf,leungsircarLETF,lorig-leung-pascucci-1,lee2015leverage}.
Although $Y_T$ cannot be written as a function of $X_T$ and $[X]_T$ only,
our framework allows us to value a claim written on $Y_T$ (which can be viewed as a claim on the path of $X$) relative to a European (i.e., path-independent) claim written on $X_T$.
\par
The following proposition relates the characteristic function of $(Y_T - Y_t)$, conditional on $\Fc_t$, to the characteristic function of $(X_T-X_t)$, also conditional on $\Fc_t$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{prp:LETF}
Let $X$ and $Y$ have dynamics given by \eqref{eq:dX} and \eqref{eq:dY}, respectively.  Define $\chi : \Cb \to \Cb$ by
\begin{align}
\chi(q)
	&:=	\int_\Rb \Big( \big( \beta(\ee^z -1) + 1 \big)^{\ii q} - 1 - \ii q \beta(\ee^z-1) \Big) \nu(\dd z).  \label{eq:chi}
\end{align}
Then the characteristic function of $(Y_T - Y_t)$, conditional on $\Fc_t$, is given by
\begin{align}
\Eb_t \ee^{\ii q (Y_T - Y_t)}
	&=	\frac{\ee^{(T-t)\chi(q)}}{\ee^{(T-t)\psi(u( q \beta , q \tfrac{1}{2} \beta(1-\beta) ),0)}}
			\Eb_t \ee^{ \ii u( q \beta , q \tfrac{1}{2} \beta(1-\beta) )(X_T - X_t) } , \label{eq:char.XY}
\end{align}
where $u$ and $\psi$ are given by \eqref{eq:u} and \eqref{eq:psi}, respectively.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:LETF2}.

\end{proof}

Using Proposition \ref{prp:LETF}, we can relate the value of a claim written on $Y$ to the value of a European claim written on $X$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:LETF}
Let $\varphih$ be the generalized (one-dimensional) Fourier transform of $\varphi : \Rb \to \Rb$.  We have
\begin{align}
\varphih(q)
	&=	\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_\Rb \ee^{-\ii q x} \varphi(x)\dd x , &
q
	&\in \Cb .
\end{align}
Define $q_r := \Re q$ and $q_i := \Im q$.
Assume the inverse Fourier transform of $\varphih$ is $\varphi$
\begin{align}
\varphi(x)
	&=	\int_\Rb \ee^{\ii q x} \varphih(q) \dd q_r. \label{eq:iFT}
\end{align}
Assume further that $\varphih(\cdot + \ii q_i)$ has no singularities and satisfies
\begin{align}
|\varphih(q)|
	&= \Oc( |q_r|^{-1-\eps} ) &
	&\text{as $|q_r| \to \infty$} , \label{eq:phih.assumption}
\end{align}
for some $\eps > 0$.
Then, with $X$ and $Y$ given by \eqref{eq:dX} and \eqref{eq:dY}, respectively, we have
\begin{align}
\Eb_t \varphi(Y_T)
	&=	\Eb_t g(X_T;X_t,Y_t) , \\
g(x;X_t,Y_t)
	&=	\int_\Rb \varphih(q)
			\frac{\ee^{\ii q Y_t + (T-t)\chi(q)}}{ \ee^{(T-t)\psi(u( q \beta , q \tfrac{1}{2} \beta(1-\beta) ),0)} }
			\ee^{ \ii u( q \beta , q \tfrac{1}{2} \beta(1-\beta) )(x - X_t) }\dd q_r, \label{eq:g.LETF}
\end{align}
where $u$, $\psi$ and $\chi$ are given by \eqref{eq:u}, \eqref{eq:psi} and \eqref{eq:chi}, respectively.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{sec:LETF3}.

\end{proof}

\begin{example}[LETF Call option]
Consider a call option written on the LETF.  The payoff function $\varphi(y) := (\ee^y - \ee^k)^+$ has a generalized Fourier transform
\begin{align}
\varphih(q)
	&=	\frac{-\ee^{k-\ii k q}}{2 \pi (q^2+ \ii q)} , &
q_i := \Im q
	&< - 1 .
\end{align}
Observe that $| \varphih(q) | = \Oc(|q_r|^{-2})$ as $|q_r| \to \infty$, where $q_r := \Re q$.  Moreover, with $q_i < - 1$ fixed, the function $\varphih(\cdot + \ii q_i):\Rb \to \Cb$ has no singularities.  Thus, $\varphih$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:LETF}.  In Figure \ref{fig:LETF} we plot the function $g(\log S_T;X_t,Y_t)$ with $g$ given by \eqref{eq:g.LETF} as a function of $S_T$ for various leverage ratios $\beta$ and for both $u=u_+$ and $u=u_-$.
\end{example}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclude}
In this paper we consider a variety of claims written on the $\log$ price $X$ and quadratic variation $[X]$ of a risky asset $S = \ee^X$.  The asset $S$ is modeled as a positive semimartingale with finite activity jumps and independent unspecified (possibly non-Markovian) volatility.
In this setting, we show how to price various path-dependent claims relative to path-independent calls and puts on $S$.  We also show how some of these path-dependent claims can be replicated by trading the underlying $S$, a bond $B$, and calls and puts on $S$.  A number of examples are provided in which we explicitly compute a payoff function $g$ of a European claim whose value equals the value of the path-dependent claim.