| name | mathfin-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when positioning a Mathematical Finance (Wiley) manuscript against the financial-mathematics frontier — stake the methodological contribution against prior stochastic-analysis, pricing, and control results, citing the precise theorem you sharpen, generalize, or supersede. |
Literature Positioning (mathfin-literature-positioning)
When to trigger
- The introduction reads as a survey rather than a precise contribution claim
- Unsure which prior theorem your result generalizes, sharpens, or contradicts
- A referee might say "this is already known under weaker/stronger assumptions"
The Mathematical Finance positioning bar
Because the journal prizes methodological novelty and contribution to financial modelling,
positioning must be theorem-level, not topic-level. The reader (often a Bachelier Finance
Society member steeped in stochastic analysis) wants to know exactly which assumptions you
relax, which generality you add, or which open problem you close — and why earlier machinery
was unable to. A vague "the literature has studied X" invites a desk concern about novelty.
How to position
- Name the closest prior result and its assumptions precisely (model class, regularity,
filtration, market completeness). State what it cannot deliver.
- Locate your delta on one axis: weaker assumptions, broader model class, sharper rate,
constructive vs. existence-only, time-consistent vs. not, or a genuinely new object.
- Cite landmark machinery, not laundry lists — the foundational tools you build on
(e.g., semimartingale theory, FTAP/NFLVR, BSDE theory, convex duality, stochastic control)
should be cited where they do work, not as decoration.
- Pre-empt the "special case" objection: show your result is not a corollary of an
existing theorem under a change of variables.
- Flag what you do NOT claim — keeping scope honest is part of the rigor culture.
Frontier strands and what positioning owes each
- Robust finance / model uncertainty: say whether your setting is dominated or
non-dominated, pathwise or quasi-sure — claims blur across these regimes and referees check.
- Rough volatility: state the Hurst regime and whether the result concerns the model's
probabilistic structure, its approximation theory, or its pricing asymptotics.
- Mean-field games / large populations: distinguish existence for the limiting MFG from
convergence of the N-player equilibrium — different theorems with different ancestors.
- Transaction costs / frictions: identify whether the comparison literature is shadow-price,
duality, or viscosity/PDE based; your delta reads differently against each.
- Term structure / HJM: position against the consistency and finite-dimensional-realization
results, naming the state space your forward-curve dynamics live on.
- Risk measures / time consistency: specify static vs. dynamic, convex vs. coherent, and
which representation theorem you extend.
Delta sentence scaffold
The closest result is [Author, Year, Thm n], which proves [conclusion] under [hypotheses].
Our Theorem [m] removes [hypothesis] / extends the model class from [class A] to [class B] /
upgrades existence to a constructive characterization. The key obstacle is [technical issue];
[Author]'s argument relies on [tool], which fails here because [reason]. We instead [new idea].
One scaffold per main theorem suffices; referees at this venue prefer a single precise
comparison to a paragraph of adjacent citations.
Sibling-venue triangulation
Positioning also signals fit. If every paper you compare against lives in a probability journal
with no financial object in its theorem statements, the manuscript reads as misdirected pure
mathematics; if the comparisons are all empirically oriented, the rigor-bar question arises.
Healthy Mathematical Finance positioning braids the journal's own literature with Finance
and Stochastics and stochastic-analysis sources, keeping the financial-modelling payoff
visible in the same paragraph as the mathematical delta.
Anti-patterns
- A standalone literature-review section detached from the contribution claim.
- Citing a result without its hypotheses, so the reader cannot judge your delta.
- Over-claiming generality the proof does not actually deliver.
- Ignoring a known counterexample or a sharper existing bound.
- Treating "no one has done exactly this" as novelty when the technique is routine.
Output format
【Closest prior result】author/year + its assumptions + its limit
【Your delta】weaker-assumptions / broader-class / sharper / constructive / new-object
【Machinery you build on】[foundational tools, cited where they work]
【Special-case defense】why your result is not a corollary of prior work
【Scope honesty】what you explicitly do NOT claim
【Next step】mathfin-identification-strategy
