# Research-Generative Methodology Use this reference when the user wants more than grounded verification. Its goal is to turn a paper reading into a **research-generation exercise** while keeping every important statement source-aware. The core move is: > Read the paper as a hidden design path. ## 1. Research Equation Compress the paper into: `old success + broken assumption + hard setting + borrowed tool + surrogate mechanism` Useful questions: - What important paradigm already worked? - What hidden assumption made it work? - In what realistic setting does that assumption fail? - What neighboring method almost transfers? - What missing mechanism `Y` blocks direct transfer? - What surrogate `Z` does the paper build instead? ## 2. How the Direction Was Likely Found Use evidence-backed phrasing: - "The authors likely noticed that ..." - "A plausible thinking path is ..." - "The setup suggests ..." Try to reconstruct: - starting dissatisfaction - tempting transferred method - blocking constraint - replacement logic ## 3. How the Story Was Built Look for: `challenge -> failure mode -> design principle -> module -> ablation` Strong papers often create a loop instead of a bag of tricks. Explain whether one module creates the resource that the next module needs. ## 4. Method Deep Reading For each module, reconstruct: `failure + ideal unavailable solution + available proxy + design choice + hidden assumption + risk` The most useful framing is usually: > This module is not just a trick; it is a surrogate for the missing mechanism `Y`. ## 5. Reverse Citation Logic Treat citations as narrative functions: - field anchor - limitation evidence - method ancestor - neighboring inspiration - baseline pressure - protocol justification - contrast boundary Explain what permission each key citation gives the paper. ## 6. Experiments as Story Evidence Read each result as: `claim + counterfactual + metric + stress condition` Ask: - what claim it supports - what alternative explanation it rules out - which module it validates - whether the stress condition really matches the paper's target difficulty ## 7. Story Pattern Worth Learning Extract one reusable pattern, such as: - replacement story - three-module story - two-axis empty cell - closed-loop contribution - hidden-assumption break ## 8. Weakness to New Idea Conversion Use: `future work = current method + violated assumption + new mechanism` For each strong weakness, ask what next paper becomes possible if the key hidden assumption fails harder. ## 9. Writing Rules Prefer phrasing like: - "A plausible author-side thinking path is ..." - "This module is best understood as a surrogate for ..." - "The citation is not ornamental; it functions as ..." - "This weakness can be converted into a new research direction ..." Avoid: - restating the abstract - listing sections without causal explanation - paraphrasing equations without saying why they exist - speaking as if private author intent were directly observed --- # Direction-Mining Upgrade for v1.2.0 This upgrade adds explicit research-seed generation to the original research-generative reading method. The original method asks how a paper was likely invented; this upgrade asks which next paper can be tested. ## 10. Research Seed Equation Turn any strong weakness into: `Seed = evidence trigger + hidden assumption + violated setting + new mechanism + minimum viable experiment` A useful template is: ```text The paper's method works because H is usually true. In setting S, H is false or unverifiable. Current proxy Z is insufficient because of failure F. A new mechanism Z' may solve F. The minimum viable experiment is E. A negative result would mean N. A killer result would be K. ``` ## 11. New Direction Templates ### 11.1 Assumption-violation seed ```text Current paper: M works if H. Break: H fails under S. Research question: Can M be redesigned for not-H? Mechanism: replace proxy P with mechanism Q. Minimum viable experiment: compare M and Q under controlled not-H stress. ``` ### 11.2 Proxy-mismatch seed ```text Current paper: proxy P is used as a surrogate for ideal signal Y. Break: P diverges from Y under condition S. Research question: Can we estimate Y more directly or build a better surrogate? Minimum viable experiment: construct a stress test where P and Y disagree. ``` ### 11.3 Reviewer-objection seed ```text Objection: the paper does not rule out alternative explanation A. Research question: Is the reported gain due to the proposed mechanism or A? Minimum viable experiment: isolate A with matched controls. Killer result: proposed mechanism wins when A is controlled. ``` ### 11.4 Negative-result seed ```text Popular belief: method family M should help in setting S. Negative result: M fails despite careful tuning. Why this matters: failure reveals that assumption H is false. Minimum viable experiment: reproduce failure across small but representative cases. ``` ### 11.5 Successor-gap seed ```text Original paper: introduced mechanism Z. Successor papers: reuse Z but avoid setting S. Gap: no one has tested Z under S or replaced it when it fails. Minimum viable experiment: benchmark Z in S against a simple robust alternative. ``` ## 12. Scoring Candidate Directions Score top seeds on 0-5 scales: - `novelty`: Does this differ from direct follow-up work? - `significance`: Would the field care if the result is true? - `testability`: Can a first experiment decide anything useful? - `feasibility`: Can the user plausibly start it soon? - `evidence_anchor`: Is the seed grounded in paper evidence? - `risk_adjusted_value`: Is the upside worth the uncertainty? Prefer a diverse board: - one low-risk validation direction - one medium-risk mechanism direction - one high-risk boundary-pushing direction ## 13. Minimum Viable Experiment Discipline A minimum viable experiment is not a full paper. It is the smallest decisive test that reduces uncertainty. It must specify: - dataset or synthetic setup - baseline or ablation - changed mechanism - metric or proof target - expected result - decision rule - negative-result interpretation Do not output research directions without at least a draft minimum viable experiment. ## 14. Boundary-Pushing Direction Filter A direction is likely boundary-pushing only if it changes at least one of: - the assumption under which a method family works - the mechanism used to replace an unavailable ideal signal - the benchmark or stress condition used to define progress - the theory of why a method should work - the community's understanding through a surprising negative result Engineering cleanup is useful, but do not label it boundary-pushing unless it changes understanding.