Use when the mathematical core of a Mathematical Finance (Wiley) manuscript is the bottleneck — adapted for a theory journal, this means assumptions, theorem statements, proof architecture, and generality, not causal/empirical identification. Stress-tests rigor before exposition is polished.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thedixitjain/the-mega-skill-library --skill mathfin-identification-strategy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Mathfin Identification Strategy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thedixitjain-mathfin-identification-strategy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: mathfin-identification-strategy
description: "Use when the mathematical core of a Mathematical Finance (Wiley) manuscript is the bottleneck — adapted for a theory journal, this means assumptions, theorem statements, proof architecture, and generality, not causal/empirical identification. Stress-tests rigor before exposition is polished."
category: business-and-finance
source_repo: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
source_path: "Mathematical-Finance-Skills/skills/mathfin-identification-strategy/SKILL.md"
source_url: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/Mathematical-Finance-Skills/skills/mathfin-identification-strategy/SKILL.md
---
# Assumptions, Theorems & Proof Architecture (mathfin-identification-strategy)
## Note on framing
*Mathematical Finance* is a **theory-first** journal: papers are evaluated on **methodological
novelty and rigor**, not empirical causal identification. The "identification" that matters
here is **mathematical identification** — pinning down the right assumptions, the precise
theorem, and a complete proof. This skill therefore covers assumptions, results, proof
exposition, and generality. (Empirical causal design is out of scope for this venue.)
## When to trigger
- A "model" is proposed but its formal properties (existence, uniqueness, no-arbitrage) are unproved
- The assumptions are vague (which filtration? which integrability? which regularity?)
- A proof has a gap, an unstated measurability/integrability condition, or a circular step
- You are unsure your generality is the right level for the contribution
## The rigor bar (the journal requires self-contained full proofs)
1. **State assumptions precisely.** Probability space, filtration and its conditions (usual
conditions?), integrability ($L^p$, square-integrability), regularity, market structure
(complete/incomplete), admissibility of strategies. Number them (A1, A2, ...) and reuse them.
2. **State the theorem cleanly.** Hypotheses → conclusion, with the object's existence,
uniqueness, and characterization separated. Avoid burying conditions in prose.
3. **Make the proof self-contained.** Full proofs of all formal results are required; cite
external theorems with exact hypotheses and check they apply (e.g., that a martingale is
genuinely a martingale, not just a local one).
4. **Get the generality right.** Too narrow → looks like a special case (see
mathfin-literature-positioning); too broad → the proof breaks. Justify each assumption:
is it essential, or a convenience that could be relaxed?
5. **Guard the standard pitfalls.** Local vs. true martingale, integrability of stochastic
integrals, applicability of Itô / Girsanov / Feynman–Kac, well-posedness of SDEs/BSDEs,
verification of HJB solutions, smooth-fit at free boundaries, NFLVR/FTAP conditions.
## Branch paths
- **Pricing / no-arbitrage:** establish the (equivalent) martingale measure; verify NFLVR /
FTAP hypotheses; confirm the discounted price is a true martingale.
- **Stochastic control / portfolio:** state the HJB / verification theorem; check admissibility
and the transversality/integrability conditions; prove the candidate is optimal, not just stationary.
- **BSDE / duality:** existence–uniqueness under stated drivers; comparison theorem if used;
rigorous duality gap = 0 argument.
- **Optimal stopping / free boundary:** Snell envelope or variational inequality; smooth-pasting
justified, not assumed.
## Assumption-block and statement templates
A house-style assumption block fixes the stochastic basis once and lets every result refer to
it by label:
```latex
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:basis}
$(\Omega,\mathcal F,(\mathcal F_t)_{t\in[0,T]},\mathbb P)$ is a filtered probability space
satisfying the usual conditions and supporting a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $W$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:coeff}
$b,\sigma$ are progressively measurable; $\sigma\sigma^{\top}$ is uniformly elliptic and
$\mathbb E\!\int_0^T \big(|b_t|^2 + |\sigma_t|^4\big)\,dt < \infty$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Under Assumptions \ref{ass:basis}--\ref{ass:coeff}, the value function ... Moreover, the
optimal strategy $\pi^{\star}$ is admissible and unique up to indistinguishability.
\end{theorem}
```
Separating the basis assumption from the coefficient assumption lets you weaken one without
touching results that need only the other — referees notice and reward this modularity.
## Where each lemma lives
- **Main text:** the lemma carrying the new idea (a novel estimate, a new compactness or
selection argument) — referees should meet it before the main proof, with a sentence saying
why existing estimates fail.
- **Appendix:** routine verifications (moment bounds, measurability of value functions,
standard localization steps) — each still proved in full, never waved at.
- **Inline remark:** one-line consequences of cited results, with the citation pinned to the
exact theorem number and a sentence confirming its hypotheses hold here.
- Never split one proof across main text and appendix mid-argument: give a sketch in the text
and defer the complete proof as a single unit.
## Anti-patterns
- "It is well known that..." standing in for a required step.
- Assuming an integrability/measurability condition only where convenient.
- Treating a local martingale as a martingale without a uniform-integrability argument.
- Stating maximal generality the proof cannot support.
- Relegating a load-bearing lemma to "the reader can verify."
## Output format
```
【Main theorem】hypotheses → conclusion (one line)
【Assumptions】[A1, A2, ...] with role of each
【Proof architecture】lemmas → main steps → where external theorems enter
【Generality check】each assumption: essential / relaxable
【Pitfalls cleared】[martingale, integrability, well-posedness, smooth-fit, ...]
【Gaps remaining】[...]
【Next step】mathfin-contribution-framing
```
---
**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Mathematical-Finance-Skills/skills/mathfin-identification-strategy/SKILL.md`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!