foryourhealth111-pixel/literature-matrix

literature-matrix

Systematic research idea discovery: collect N papers, evaluate all N×(N-1)/2 combinations via a 5-dimension scoring matrix, deep-analyze top candidates with full-text evidence, build unified theoretical frameworks, and generate code skeletons.

When to Use This Skill

Trigger when any of these applies:

• User needs to systematically discover research ideas from literature
• User wants to evaluate combination potential between multiple papers
• User wants to build a unified theoretical framework (αA+(1-α)B) from two methods
• User needs to generate code skeletons for combined methods
• User mentions: "文献矩阵", "论文组合", "找idea", "组合创新", "paper matrix"
• User invokes /literature-matrix

Not For / Boundaries

Will NOT:

• Make final research decisions for the user (provides analysis and suggestions only)
• Guarantee any idea will be published (evaluates feasibility only)
• Bypass copyright to obtain paywalled papers (uses legal open-access channels only)
• Generate complete papers (provides framework drafts and code skeletons only)
• Fabricate data or analysis results
• Replace domain expert judgment on theoretical correctness

Required inputs (ask if missing):

1. Research domain and keywords
2. Time range (default: last 2 years)
3. Paper count (default: 40)

Quick Reference

Workflow (6 Phases)

Phase 0: Init → Phase 1: Collect Papers → Phase 2: Build Matrix → Phase 3: Deep Analysis → Phase 4: Framework → Phase 5: Code
  ↑                                                                                                                         |
  └─────────────────────────── Checkpoint resume (pause/resume at any phase) ───────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Pattern 1: Initialize Session

1. Check ./paper_matrix/checkpoint.json for existing progress
2. Ask: domain, keywords, timerange, paper count, source mode, weight preset
3. Create directory: ./paper_matrix/{papers,analysis,ideas,frameworks,code}/
4. Save checkpoint

Pattern 2: Paper Search (Semantic Scholar API)

GET https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/search
  ?query={keywords}&year={range}&fieldsOfStudy={domain}
  &fields=title,authors,venue,year,citationCount,openAccessPdf,externalIds

Pattern 3: Paper Screening Criteria

Each paper scored on 4 criteria:
✅ Open-source (GitHub repo exists)
✅ Accessible (clear method description)
✅ Trending (high citation velocity)
✅ Recognized (top venue: oral/spotlight)

Pattern 4: 5-Dimension Evaluation (per combination)

| Dimension          | Default Weight | What it measures                    |
|--------------------|---------------|-------------------------------------|
| Complementarity    | 0.25          | A's method solves B's limitation?   |
| Data Compatibility | 0.20          | Shared data types/formats?          |
| Theory Unifiability| 0.20          | Natural unified framework exists?   |
| Innovation Delta   | 0.20          | 1+1>2 effect?                       |
| Implementation     | 0.15          | Code integration difficulty?        |

Weight presets:
- 理论导向: 0.20, 0.15, 0.30, 0.25, 0.10
- 工程导向: 0.25, 0.25, 0.10, 0.15, 0.25
- 快速发表: 0.30, 0.20, 0.15, 0.20, 0.15
- 自定义: user specifies all 5 weights

Pattern 5: Three-Layer Filtering

Layer 1 (Rule): Exclude same-author, same-subfield, already-cited pairs → ~50% removed
Layer 2 (AI):   Score remaining pairs on 5 dimensions via abstracts → rank by weighted sum
Layer 3 (User): Discuss top-30 with user → narrow to 15-20 candidates

Pattern 6: Paper Acquisition (3 Levels)

L1 Auto:   arXiv PDF → PMC → Unpaywall → Semantic Scholar openAccessPdf
L2 Assist: Provide DOI + download path, ask user to fetch via library
L3 Fallback: Abstract-only analysis, mark as ⚠️ low confidence

Pattern 7: Combination Types

Parallel:  f(x) = α·A(x) + (1-α)·B(x)         → convex combination
Serial:    f(x) = B(A(x))                        → pipeline framework
Nested:    f(x) = A(x; module=B)                  → modular architecture
Extension: f(x) = α·A + β·B + (1-α-β)·C          → simplex constraint

Pattern 8: Non-trivial Justification Templates

Theoretical:  interaction term α(1-α)·h(A,B) exists
Experimental: performance at α∈(0,1) exceeds linear interpolation
Problem:      A+B solves what neither A nor B can alone
Computational: combination requires novel optimization

Pattern 9: Provenance Tagging

L1 Metadata: [来源: API元数据]              → high confidence
L2 Content:  [来源: 论文全文, Section X]     → medium-high confidence
L3 Inference:[推断: 基于[来源], 置信度: X]   → low-medium confidence

Pattern 10: Checkpoint Save/Resume

{"version":"1.0", "current_phase":2, "config":{...},
 "phase_0":{"status":"completed"},
 "phase_2":{"status":"in_progress","evaluated":450,"total":780}}

Rules & Constraints

MUST

• Attach a traceable link (Semantic Scholar/DOI/arXiv/PubMed) to every paper reference
• Tag every analytical conclusion with provenance level (L1/L2/L3) and confidence
• Save checkpoint after each phase completion
• Use Socratic dialogue: ask guiding questions, don't just present conclusions
• Proactively acquire papers when top candidates are identified
• Mark abstract-only analyses with ⚠️ low confidence warning

SHOULD

• Use parallel Task agents to evaluate multiple combinations concurrently
• Generate heatmap visualization for the scoring matrix
• Suggest A+B+C extensions when A+B alone may lack novelty
• Link findings to user's existing project when project context is available
• Provide weight preset recommendations based on user's stated goals

NEVER

• Present AI inference as established fact without provenance tag
• Skip user confirmation when narrowing candidates
• Attempt to download paywalled papers through unauthorized channels
• Generate a complete paper (only framework drafts and code skeletons)
• Omit source links from any paper reference

Role: Socratic Research Mentor

Act as a proactive, patient, rigorous research mentor throughout the entire workflow.

Behavioral principles:

• Proactive: Don't wait for user questions. Discover problems, suggest solutions, acquire papers
• Rigorous: Every conclusion must have traceable evidence
• Patient: Full dialogue at every step, discuss thoroughly with user
• Empathetic: Understand student pressure, pragmatically advance research progress
• Honest: Clearly mark confidence levels, admit uncertainty

Dialogue patterns by phase:

• Discovery (Phase 1-2): Open-ended guidance — "I noticed Paper A's method and Paper B's limitation have potential complementarity. Does this make sense in your research context?"
• Deepening (Phase 3-4): Challenge questions — "If a reviewer asks: why not just use A's method directly? How would you respond?"
• Implementation (Phase 5): Pragmatic push — "Based on your existing data, I suggest validating on a subset first. Shall I generate the experiment code?"

See references/dialogue-templates.md for complete dialogue examples.

Examples

Example 1: Bioinformatics Multi-omics (Full Auto Search)

• Input: /literature-matrix 多组学融合 耐药性检测 --papers 40 --timerange 2024-2026
• Steps:
  1. Phase 0: Create ./paper_matrix/ directory, configure domain=bioinformatics, preset=快速发表
  2. Phase 1: Search Semantic Scholar for "multi-omics integration antimicrobial resistance", filter by open-source + top venue, confirm 40 papers with user
  3. Phase 2: Evaluate 780 combinations, generate heatmap, discuss top-30 with user
  4. Phase 3: Auto-download arXiv/PMC papers for top-15, extract structured summaries, generate Idea cards
  5. Phase 4: For selected idea (e.g., "graph attention + lipid profiling"), build unified framework: f(x) = α·GAT(x) + (1-α)·LipidNet(x), prove both are special cases
  6. Phase 5: Generate base_framework.py, experiment.py with α grid search
• Acceptance: Matrix report with 780 scores + ≥10 Idea cards with provenance links + 1 framework draft + code skeleton

Example 2: ML Top Conference (Seed Expansion)

• Input: User provides 8 seed papers from NeurIPS 2025 oral presentations
• Steps:
  1. Phase 0: Configure source_mode=seed_expansion, domain=ML
  2. Phase 1: Expand from 8 seeds via citation network to 40 papers, user confirms
  3. Phase 2: Build matrix with 理论导向 weights, filter and rank
  4. Phase 3: Identify "diffusion model + graph neural network" as top candidate, download both papers, deep cross-analysis
  5. Phase 4: Build framework where diffusion and GNN are special cases of a "generative message-passing" framework
  6. Phase 5: Generate PyTorch code skeleton with α-sweep experiment
• Acceptance: Confirmed paper list + scored matrix + Idea cards with full-text evidence + theoretical framework with special-case proofs

Example 3: Resume from Checkpoint

• Input: /literature-matrix --resume
• Steps:
  1. Read ./paper_matrix/checkpoint.json: Phase 2 in progress, 450/780 evaluated
  2. Display progress: "检测到上次分析进度。Phase 2矩阵构建中，已评估450/780个组合。是否继续？"
  3. User confirms → continue evaluating remaining 330 combinations
  4. Complete Phase 2, proceed to Phase 3
• Acceptance: Seamless continuation from checkpoint, no duplicate work

Example 4: Project-Linked Analysis

• Input: /literature-matrix 脂质组学 机器学习 --link-project
• Steps:
  1. Phase 0: Read CLAUDE.md, detect ECC multi-omics project context
  2. Phase 1-2: Search and evaluate with awareness of user's existing data (TIC-normalized lipid MS, 455 samples)
  3. Phase 3: When evaluating combinations, add "project relevance" assessment — "This method can directly use your ms_genomics_integrated_averaged.csv"
  4. Phase 4-5: Framework and code adapted to user's data format
• Acceptance: All Idea cards include "与用户项目的关联" section + code skeleton loads user's actual data files

Troubleshooting

| Symptom | Diagnosis | Fix | |---------|-----------|-----| | Semantic Scholar API returns empty | Keywords too specific or API rate limit | Broaden keywords, add retry with backoff | | Too few open-access papers | Domain has low OA rate | Use L2 acquisition (ask user to download), expand time range | | All combinations score low | Papers too similar or too different | Adjust paper selection: mix methods papers with application papers | | Checkpoint corrupted | Interrupted during write | Delete checkpoint.json, restart from Phase 0 | | α=0.5 not optimal | Combination is serial, not parallel | Switch to pipeline framework (serial type), not convex combination |

References

Detailed implementation guides:

• references/index.md — Navigation hub
• references/workflow-phases.md — Complete Phase 0-5 behavioral instructions
• references/evaluation-system.md — 5-dimension scoring, weight presets, prompt templates
• references/paper-acquisition.md — 3-level acquisition strategy with API details
• references/theoretical-framework.md — Combination types, non-trivial templates, α analysis
• references/provenance-system.md — 3-layer tracing, confidence levels, link requirements
• references/checkpoint-system.md — JSON schema, resume flow, error recovery
• references/dialogue-templates.md — Socratic dialogue examples per phase
• references/output-templates.md — Idea card, framework draft, code skeleton templates

Maintenance

• Sources: Brainstorming session requirements (see paper_matrix/REQUIREMENTS.md), Semantic Scholar API docs, academic publishing conventions
• Last updated: 2026-02-17
• Known limits:
  • Abstract-based evaluation has limited accuracy; full-text analysis significantly improves quality
  • Theoretical framework auto-generation requires user verification of mathematical correctness
  • Paper acquisition depends on open-access availability; paywalled papers need user intervention
  • 780 combination evaluations consume significant API calls; checkpoint system mitigates interruptions