{"empirical_scope": {"n": 131508, "stated": 0.2749, "laws": [{"key": "breadth_rule", "name": "The breadth rule", "def": "Claims of robustness, generalizability, and practical stability require validation across varied data distributions, scales, architectures, attack intensities, and non-ideal conditions, with unexpected results explained rather than assumed.", "share": 0.0631, "home": "empirical_scope", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "exploiting irrelevant features requires theoretical justification.", "year": 2025, "forum": "4NtrMSkvOy"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 5664, "report": 190, "evidence": 2130, "articulate": 311}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Claims of applicability, structural properties, or theoretical validity require corresponding empirical evidence or verification.", "share": 0.062, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Structural claims about learned representations require theoretical justification or empirical verification.", "year": 2025, "forum": "zAogQOIphH"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 5600, "evidence": 1895, "report": 228, "articulate": 424}}, {"key": "novelty_rule", "name": "The novelty rule", "def": "A paper must clearly articulate and distinguish its contribution from prior work; combining existing techniques without a distinct new insight does not constitute sufficient novelty.", "share": 0.0419, "home": "novelty", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "A paper must clearly articulate its contribution relative to prior work;", "year": 2025, "forum": "mHkbi3XM58"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 858, "none": 4061, "articulate": 410, "report": 180}}, {"key": "realism_rule", "name": "The realism rule", "def": "Claims of real-world or practical applicability require validation on real-world or realistic data, not only synthetic or idealized settings.", "share": 0.0355, "home": "empirical_scope", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Practical applicability requires validation on real-world data.", "year": 2025, "forum": "niDo8UYcEs"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 3146, "evidence": 1215, "report": 152, "articulate": 154}}, {"key": "justification_rule", "name": "The justification rule", "def": "Design choices and newly proposed methods must be theoretically or empirically justified, demonstrating a distinct advantage over existing approaches.", "share": 0.0343, "home": "empirical_scope", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Key design choices require theoretical justification.", "year": 2025, "forum": "6nZwOYDcQx"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 3098, "articulate": 341, "evidence": 882, "report": 193}}, {"key": "baseline_rule", "name": "The baseline rule", "def": "Fair comparison requires testing against strong, relevant, and consistently applied baselines.", "share": 0.025, "home": "baselines_ablations", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "fair comparison requires testing against strong baselines.", "year": 2026, "forum": "BfCwzmyaMO"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 2205, "evidence": 797, "articulate": 139, "report": 151}}, {"key": "reporting_rule", "name": "The reporting rule", "def": "Reproducibility requires precise, transparent, and clearly described methodology and data-processing details.", "share": 0.0165, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility and clarity require precise details.", "year": 2025, "forum": "YUaQ6qrbRL"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 1405, "evidence": 467, "report": 205, "articulate": 90}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.1342, "evidence": 0.6231, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.1012, "none": 0.1416}, "grounds": [{"key": "untested_generality", "name": "The untested generality", "def": "Whether the method's claims about robustness, applicability, or specific mechanisms hold beyond the tested setting is unverified and questioned by reviewers.", "share": 0.2021}, {"key": "untested_regime", "name": "The untested regime", "def": "The paper does not test performance under conditions such as real-world data, distribution shift, varying scale, or varying density/noise.", "share": 0.1659}, {"key": "narrow_dataset", "name": "The narrow dataset", "def": "Experiments rely on a small number of datasets, small-scale data, or data that may not be representative enough to support the paper's conclusions.", "share": 0.1587}, {"key": "unjustified_scope_choice", "name": "The unjustified scope choice", "def": "A design or scoping decision (what to embed, which model or input space to select) is left unexplained, unjustified, or ambiguous.", "share": 0.1483}, {"key": "confounded_results", "name": "The confounded result", "def": "Reported results may be artifacts of specific model sizes, class counts, or data contamination rather than a genuine effect.", "share": 0.1183}, {"key": "missing_baseline", "name": "The missing baseline", "def": "The paper omits direct comparison against specific known competing methods or formal diagnostic statistics.", "share": 0.1084}, {"key": "marginal_gain", "name": "The marginal gain", "def": "Reported improvements over baselines are small, inconsistent across datasets, or not clearly distinguishable.", "share": 0.0982}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"unjustified_scope_choice": {"evidence_imported": 466, "justification_rule": 244, "baseline_rule": 127, "reporting_rule": 96, "breadth_rule": 261, "novelty_rule": 212, "realism_rule": 131}, "missing_baseline": {"baseline_rule": 143, "breadth_rule": 226, "novelty_rule": 118, "evidence_imported": 268, "realism_rule": 176, "justification_rule": 150, "reporting_rule": 198}, "untested_regime": {"realism_rule": 347, "breadth_rule": 475, "baseline_rule": 271, "evidence_imported": 578, "novelty_rule": 362, "reporting_rule": 121, "justification_rule": 275}, "narrow_dataset": {"breadth_rule": 604, "justification_rule": 116, "realism_rule": 357, "evidence_imported": 364, "reporting_rule": 87, "novelty_rule": 108, "baseline_rule": 112}, "untested_generality": {"baseline_rule": 172, "breadth_rule": 489, "justification_rule": 413, "evidence_imported": 568, "realism_rule": 254, "novelty_rule": 435, "reporting_rule": 161}, "marginal_gain": {"justification_rule": 87, "reporting_rule": 12, "breadth_rule": 215, "evidence_imported": 190, "realism_rule": 93, "novelty_rule": 84, "baseline_rule": 137}, "confounded_results": {"evidence_imported": 135, "breadth_rule": 238, "baseline_rule": 82, "novelty_rule": 387, "justification_rule": 92, "reporting_rule": 8, "realism_rule": 72}}}}, "method_design": {"n": 76175, "stated": 0.2823, "laws": [{"key": "justification_rule", "name": "The justification rule", "def": "New tasks, added complexity, and specific design choices must be theoretically or empirically justified and shown to offer feasible, distinct advantage over simpler alternatives.", "share": 0.0775, "home": "method_design", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "A new task requires justification of its broader utility or importance.", "year": 2025, "forum": "c1Vn1RpB64"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 916, "evidence": 1921, "none": 2794, "report": 270}}, {"key": "robustness_rule", "name": "The robustness rule", "def": "Claims of generality, learned mechanisms, or design robustness must be verified across varied conditions, hyperparameters, and operational paradigms rather than a single setting.", "share": 0.0678, "home": "method_design", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Generalizations about task properties require broader experimental validation beyond small-buffer regimes.", "year": 2025, "forum": "kf9phcBvQ5"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 270, "evidence": 2109, "articulate": 529, "none": 2256}}, {"key": "novelty_rule", "name": "The novelty rule", "def": "The paper must clearly distinguish its specific contribution from closely related prior work; combining existing techniques without significant new insight or adaptation is not a substantial contribution.", "share": 0.0447, "home": "novelty", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Application of existing techniques to a new domain without significant methodological innovation does not constitute sufficient contribution.", "year": 2025, "forum": "gJ48psisby"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 2047, "articulate": 501, "evidence": 811, "report": 43}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Theoretical and interpretability claims require corresponding experimental validation.", "share": 0.0323, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Theoretical claims require experimental validation.", "year": 2026, "forum": "3FCHmUPmhe"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 1070, "articulate": 415, "evidence": 904, "report": 73}}, {"key": "clarity_rule", "name": "The clarity rule", "def": "The method's mechanism and motivation must be explained with enough technical clarity to be understood and validated.", "share": 0.0311, "home": "clarity", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Technical clarity required to understand the method.", "year": 2025, "forum": "8zCB9rTnmE"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 533, "evidence": 728, "none": 981, "report": 129}}, {"key": "baseline_rule", "name": "The baseline rule", "def": "Fair comparison requires accurately reproduced, relevant, and consistently applied strong baselines.", "share": 0.018, "home": "baselines_ablations", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Fair comparison requires accurate reproduction of baselines.", "year": 2022, "forum": "WIJVRV7jnTX"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 555, "evidence": 550, "report": 133, "articulate": 134}}, {"key": "reporting_rule", "name": "The reporting rule", "def": "Reproducibility requires sufficiently detailed methods, rationale, and implementation specifics.", "share": 0.0156, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility requires detailed methods.", "year": 2023, "forum": "hj7uBF92qvm"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 256, "report": 242, "none": 494, "articulate": 199}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.2195, "evidence": 0.5366, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.0807, "none": 0.1632}, "grounds": [{"key": "missing_ablation", "name": "The missing ablation", "def": "The paper lacks analysis isolating or justifying individual components -- training stability, alternative design choices, or the mechanism's theoretical grounding are not examined.", "share": 0.163}, {"key": "unverified_component", "name": "The unverified representation", "def": "A claim about what a model component or representation learns, preserves, or improves is asserted without direct empirical evidence beyond downstream accuracy.", "share": 0.1424}, {"key": "untested_transfer", "name": "The untested transfer", "def": "Whether the method generalizes beyond classification/benchmark tasks, combines with other methods, or remains stable across refinement steps is untested and questioned by reviewers.", "share": 0.1409}, {"key": "untranslated_theory", "name": "The untranslated theory", "def": "Theoretical or heuristic insights are demonstrated only abstractly or in limited domains, without evidence they translate into practical algorithmic improvement.", "share": 0.1262}, {"key": "inconsistent_gain", "name": "The inconsistent gain", "def": "The method underperforms baselines on some tasks or produces results that appear contradictory or confounded by uncontrolled factors like optimizer settings.", "share": 0.1251}, {"key": "incremental_novelty", "name": "The incremental novelty", "def": "The proposed technique closely resembles, or could be reconstructed from, existing established methods, leaving its distinct contribution unclear.", "share": 0.1155}, {"key": "unspecified_design_choice", "name": "The unspecified design choice", "def": "A specific equation, hyperparameter, threshold, or fusion strategy in the method is left unexplained, unjustified, or uncompared against alternatives.", "share": 0.1064}, {"key": "training_artifact", "name": "The training artifact", "def": "Reported improvements may stem from the training setup itself -- limited pretraining data, an unclear per-phase contribution, or a fine-tune-only regime -- rather than the proposed method.", "share": 0.0805}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"inconsistent_gain": {"clarity_rule": 74, "justification_rule": 368, "robustness_rule": 325, "evidence_imported": 129, "novelty_rule": 131, "baseline_rule": 93, "reporting_rule": 10}, "missing_ablation": {"novelty_rule": 336, "evidence_imported": 375, "robustness_rule": 524, "clarity_rule": 213, "baseline_rule": 180, "reporting_rule": 93, "justification_rule": 561}, "untested_transfer": {"clarity_rule": 145, "baseline_rule": 98, "robustness_rule": 398, "novelty_rule": 252, "justification_rule": 467, "evidence_imported": 208, "reporting_rule": 36}, "incremental_novelty": {"justification_rule": 312, "robustness_rule": 163, "clarity_rule": 44, "novelty_rule": 429, "evidence_imported": 35, "baseline_rule": 42, "reporting_rule": 3}, "training_artifact": {"evidence_imported": 62, "robustness_rule": 191, "clarity_rule": 80, "baseline_rule": 88, "justification_rule": 239, "reporting_rule": 101, "novelty_rule": 54}, "unspecified_design_choice": {"robustness_rule": 308, "justification_rule": 283, "clarity_rule": 192, "reporting_rule": 152, "evidence_imported": 87, "baseline_rule": 62, "novelty_rule": 86}, "untranslated_theory": {"justification_rule": 502, "clarity_rule": 325, "novelty_rule": 311, "reporting_rule": 118, "evidence_imported": 240, "robustness_rule": 336, "baseline_rule": 59}, "unverified_component": {"evidence_imported": 161, "justification_rule": 392, "robustness_rule": 477, "novelty_rule": 225, "clarity_rule": 170, "baseline_rule": 78, "reporting_rule": 88}}}}, "theory": {"n": 106288, "stated": 0.3097, "laws": [{"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Theoretical, scalability, and robustness claims require corresponding empirical validation or grounding in practice.", "share": 0.1128, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Methods relying on strong assumptions must demonstrate robustness or provide verification mechanisms.", "year": 2023, "forum": "WzGdBqcBicl"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 7195, "evidence": 2484, "articulate": 2073, "method": 240}}, {"key": "assumption_rule", "name": "The assumption rule", "def": "Theoretical assumptions must be justified, and unnecessary or unused assumptions that complicate or over-constrain the theory must be removed or defended.", "share": 0.0628, "home": "theory", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "unused assumptions suggest incomplete bounds or unnecessary complexity.", "year": 2020, "forum": "HkgAJxrYwr"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 4159, "articulate": 1389, "evidence": 991, "method": 134}}, {"key": "novelty_rule", "name": "The novelty rule", "def": "A theoretical contribution must be new and clearly positioned against prior work; incremental derivations or trivial extensions do not constitute significant contribution.", "share": 0.0501, "home": "novelty", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "A paper's contribution must be new relative to prior work and claims must be demonstrated rather than conjectured", "year": 2024, "forum": "RKh7DI23tz"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 3643, "articulate": 1021, "evidence": 543, "method": 123}}, {"key": "clarity_rule", "name": "The clarity rule", "def": "Clarity of technical exposition is required for a result to be verified and reproduced.", "share": 0.0422, "home": "clarity", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Clarity in technical exposition is required.", "year": 2024, "forum": "X8Vx1zGJMs"}, "remedy_mix": {"method": 216, "none": 2544, "articulate": 1206, "evidence": 516}}, {"key": "rigor_rule", "name": "The rigor rule", "def": "Mathematical correctness, valid derivations, and logical consistency are required for a proof to be accepted.", "share": 0.0355, "home": "theory", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "mathematical correctness requires valid derivations.", "year": 2023, "forum": "l1tSyx67_J"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 670, "none": 2209, "evidence": 529, "method": 360}}, {"key": "justification_rule", "name": "The justification rule", "def": "Theory-motivated design choices require theoretical or empirical justification.", "share": 0.0113, "home": "theory", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Design choices require empirical justification.", "year": 2025, "forum": "2MLvV7fvAz"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 704, "evidence": 190, "articulate": 297, "method": 14}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.4182, "evidence": 0.3526, "method": 0.0722, "report": 0.0, "none": 0.157}, "grounds": [{"key": "missing_guarantee", "name": "The missing guarantee", "def": "The paper lacks formal proofs, bounds, or theoretical guarantees for the convergence, optimality, or consistency of the proposed method.", "share": 0.2531}, {"key": "theory_practice_gap", "name": "The theory-practice gap", "def": "It is unclear whether the theoretical results or algorithm reliably translate into consistent empirical performance, especially outside idealized or convergent conditions.", "share": 0.217}, {"key": "unclear_derivation", "name": "The opaque derivation", "def": "The mathematical derivation is difficult to follow, omits key assumptions, or contains notational inconsistencies, undefined terms, or technical errors.", "share": 0.1899}, {"key": "missing_mechanism_justification", "name": "The unjustified mechanism", "def": "A specific theoretical mechanism or design choice, such as why a projection, regularizer, or gradient operation should work, is asserted without formal support.", "share": 0.1427}, {"key": "prior_art_overlap", "name": "The prior derivation", "def": "The theoretical construction or result overlaps with, or could be obtained from, existing prior work, and empirical instability such as optimizer divergence undercuts its claimed advantage.", "share": 0.109}, {"key": "unmotivated_construction", "name": "The unmotivated construction", "def": "The rationale behind a specific parameterization, function, or heuristic mechanism is not understood or explained.", "share": 0.0882}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"unmotivated_construction": {"novelty_rule": 168, "evidence_imported": 350, "assumption_rule": 277, "clarity_rule": 137, "rigor_rule": 139, "justification_rule": 48}, "theory_practice_gap": {"assumption_rule": 511, "novelty_rule": 358, "evidence_imported": 1035, "justification_rule": 71, "clarity_rule": 184, "rigor_rule": 95}, "missing_guarantee": {"evidence_imported": 1416, "clarity_rule": 328, "rigor_rule": 452, "justification_rule": 119, "assumption_rule": 705, "novelty_rule": 464}, "unclear_derivation": {"novelty_rule": 377, "assumption_rule": 503, "clarity_rule": 714, "rigor_rule": 606, "evidence_imported": 727, "justification_rule": 94}, "prior_art_overlap": {"evidence_imported": 259, "assumption_rule": 232, "novelty_rule": 455, "justification_rule": 20, "clarity_rule": 33, "rigor_rule": 41}, "missing_mechanism_justification": {"assumption_rule": 293, "rigor_rule": 79, "clarity_rule": 255, "novelty_rule": 231, "evidence_imported": 686, "justification_rule": 90}}}}, "stats_metrics": {"n": 73752, "stated": 0.2984, "laws": [{"key": "significance_rule", "name": "The significance rule", "def": "Small or marginal improvements, and claims of superiority or practical relevance, are not meaningful without statistical proof of significance.", "share": 0.0889, "home": "stats_metrics", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "A method requiring unusual data conditions must demonstrate practical relevance to be valuable.", "year": 2026, "forum": "7yJHKXV0B2"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 427, "none": 3093, "report": 1114, "evidence": 1923}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Empirical and computational-tractability claims require corresponding supporting evidence and empirical validation.", "share": 0.0616, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Claims must be accurately supported by empirical evidence.", "year": 2026, "forum": "D0u0glT060"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 437, "articulate": 328, "evidence": 1827, "none": 1951}}, {"key": "validation_rule", "name": "The validation rule", "def": "Robust and generalizable conclusions require comprehensive, quantitative validation across parameter settings, architectures, and diverse datasets.", "share": 0.0449, "home": "stats_metrics", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "investigating this is necessary for robust validation.", "year": 2026, "forum": "0QPXvKE4SV"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 1412, "evidence": 1604, "articulate": 119, "report": 177}}, {"key": "baseline_rule", "name": "The baseline rule", "def": "Fair, credible comparison requires strong, consistent, and adequate baselines.", "share": 0.0387, "home": "baselines_ablations", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Validating performance requires adequate comparative baselines.", "year": 2025, "forum": "llW4qRsF0o"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 1182, "none": 1225, "report": 338, "articulate": 110}}, {"key": "metric_validity_rule", "name": "The metric-validity rule", "def": "Chosen metrics must be justified and shown to have predictive validity for the evaluation to be trusted.", "share": 0.0267, "home": "stats_metrics", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "more robust metrics are required for valid evaluation.", "year": 2024, "forum": "LegZeFYugN"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 881, "articulate": 123, "none": 817, "report": 145}}, {"key": "clarity_rule", "name": "The clarity rule", "def": "Terminological precision and operational clarity are required for the work to be technically clear.", "share": 0.0248, "home": "clarity", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "terminological precision is required for clarity.", "year": 2026, "forum": "rTte3iUsXV"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 276, "evidence": 494, "none": 787, "articulate": 273}}, {"key": "reporting_rule", "name": "The reporting rule", "def": "Reproducibility requires transparent reporting of parameters and clear, complete methodological detail.", "share": 0.0165, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility and parameter transparency are necessary.", "year": 2026, "forum": "BNRylXgEgw"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 476, "evidence": 377, "report": 202, "articulate": 160}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.1059, "evidence": 0.5838, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.1747, "none": 0.1357}, "grounds": [{"key": "missing_significance", "name": "The missing significance test", "def": "Formal statistical rigor, such as significance tests, confidence intervals, variance, or error bars, is absent or inconsistently reported for the results.", "share": 0.3253}, {"key": "unfair_comparison", "name": "The unfair comparison", "def": "The comparison between methods is confounded by assumption violations, mismatched data types or scope, or missing cost metrics like FLOPs and parameter counts.", "share": 0.2401}, {"key": "narrow_evaluation", "name": "The narrow evaluation", "def": "The experimental evaluation spans too few datasets or baselines, or lacks qualitative/experimental validation altogether.", "share": 0.1759}, {"key": "underexplained_result", "name": "The underexplained result", "def": "A specific reported number, metric computation, or pattern of variation across datasets is presented without adequate explanation.", "share": 0.1}, {"key": "marginal_improvement", "name": "The marginal improvement", "def": "Reported gains over baselines are small and may not be statistically meaningful.", "share": 0.0986}, {"key": "unconvincing_generality", "name": "The unconvincing generality", "def": "The reviewer remains unconvinced that the reported results establish the claimed correctness, interpretability, or generality.", "share": 0.06}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"unfair_comparison": {"validation_rule": 332, "evidence_imported": 541, "clarity_rule": 182, "baseline_rule": 341, "significance_rule": 699, "reporting_rule": 133, "metric_validity_rule": 223}, "underexplained_result": {"metric_validity_rule": 135, "validation_rule": 108, "reporting_rule": 198, "significance_rule": 226, "clarity_rule": 190, "evidence_imported": 207, "baseline_rule": 192}, "missing_significance": {"significance_rule": 1427, "validation_rule": 695, "evidence_imported": 984, "clarity_rule": 383, "baseline_rule": 465, "metric_validity_rule": 443, "reporting_rule": 236}, "marginal_improvement": {"baseline_rule": 222, "significance_rule": 425, "evidence_imported": 192, "clarity_rule": 25, "validation_rule": 69, "metric_validity_rule": 41, "reporting_rule": 4}, "narrow_evaluation": {"significance_rule": 597, "validation_rule": 524, "evidence_imported": 475, "metric_validity_rule": 168, "clarity_rule": 155, "baseline_rule": 267, "reporting_rule": 50}, "unconvincing_generality": {"reporting_rule": 35, "validation_rule": 103, "clarity_rule": 91, "significance_rule": 211, "evidence_imported": 110, "baseline_rule": 73, "metric_validity_rule": 77}}}}, "compute_cost": {"n": 51800, "stated": 0.3222, "laws": [{"key": "scalability", "name": "The scale rule", "def": "Claims of scalability or feasibility must be demonstrated with empirical evidence at the scales the method is meant for, not asserted from small settings.", "share": 0.1087, "home": "compute_cost", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "methods must demonstrate feasibility at scale.", "year": 2022, "forum": "YtdASzotUEW"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 1422, "none": 1102, "report": 1004, "articulate": 2105}}, {"key": "efficiency_validation", "name": "The efficiency-proof rule", "def": "Claims of efficiency or optimization, and any deviation from standard efficient practice, require quantitative empirical validation rather than conceptual argument alone.", "share": 0.0671, "home": "compute_cost", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Claims of efficiency require quantitative validation.", "year": 2025, "forum": "OBUQNASaWw"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 841, "articulate": 1008, "evidence": 851, "none": 774}}, {"key": "cost_benefit", "name": "The cost-benefit rule", "def": "Added complexity, computational cost, and deployment trade-offs must be justified by commensurate performance gains.", "share": 0.0569, "home": "compute_cost", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Practical utility requires assessment of computational cost relative to performance gains.", "year": 2026, "forum": "522R7hU5J0"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 1272, "none": 534, "articulate": 593, "evidence": 548}}, {"key": "fair_comparison", "name": "The equal-budget rule", "def": "Practical utility must be established through efficiency comparisons against baselines under equal computational budgets.", "share": 0.0479, "home": "baselines_ablations", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Practical utility requires efficiency comparisons.", "year": 2021, "forum": "ZvvxYyjfvZc"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 601, "report": 791, "none": 411, "articulate": 678}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Claims must be backed by empirical or theoretical evidence, stated with qualifiers proportionate to that evidence.", "share": 0.0281, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Claims require empirical evidence to be credible.", "year": 2024, "forum": "5liV2xUdJL"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 614, "none": 257, "evidence": 371, "report": 216}}, {"key": "reporting_details", "name": "The disclosure rule", "def": "Reproducibility requires precise, explicit reporting of algorithmic and computational implementation details.", "share": 0.0178, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility and practical implementation require clear algorithmic details.", "year": 2020, "forum": "SJlsFpVtDB"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 396, "none": 139, "report": 141, "evidence": 245}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.389, "evidence": 0.225, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.2518, "none": 0.1342}, "grounds": [{"key": "missing_efficiency_comparison", "name": "The missing efficiency comparison", "def": "No runtime, training/inference time, parameter count, or resource-cost comparison against baselines is provided.", "share": 0.4373}, {"key": "unclear_scalability", "name": "The unclear scalability", "def": "It is unclear how the method's computational or memory cost scales to larger datasets, sample sizes, or parameter spaces.", "share": 0.2025}, {"key": "cost_performance_tradeoff", "name": "The unanalyzed cost-performance tradeoff", "def": "The method gains performance by consuming more compute or parameters, and this tradeoff is not analyzed or is inconsistent across settings.", "share": 0.1994}, {"key": "unquantified_overhead_claims", "name": "The unquantified overhead claim", "def": "Claims that overhead or resource cost is negligible or minimal are not backed by numerical measurements.", "share": 0.1044}, {"key": "unanswered_efficiency_question", "name": "The unanswered efficiency question", "def": "The reviewer directly asked about computational or memory efficiency without the concern being addressed.", "share": 0.0564}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"unquantified_overhead_claims": {"scalability": 465, "cost_benefit": 262, "efficiency_validation": 318, "reporting_details": 124, "evidence_imported": 82, "fair_comparison": 218}, "cost_performance_tradeoff": {"scalability": 653, "efficiency_validation": 464, "cost_benefit": 280, "fair_comparison": 263, "evidence_imported": 124, "reporting_details": 33}, "unclear_scalability": {"scalability": 742, "cost_benefit": 463, "evidence_imported": 176, "fair_comparison": 332, "efficiency_validation": 403, "reporting_details": 160}, "missing_efficiency_comparison": {"efficiency_validation": 1364, "evidence_imported": 716, "scalability": 2207, "fair_comparison": 995, "cost_benefit": 1155, "reporting_details": 330}, "unanswered_efficiency_question": {"scalability": 274, "reporting_details": 42, "cost_benefit": 104, "efficiency_validation": 139, "fair_comparison": 109, "evidence_imported": 57}}}}, "clarity": {"n": 71492, "stated": 0.2642, "laws": [{"key": "verification_clarity", "name": "The verification rule", "def": "Presentation must be clear enough that readers can verify, interpret, and trust the reported results.", "share": 0.0764, "home": "clarity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Clarity and precision are required for reproducibility and understanding.", "year": 2023, "forum": "o-Yxq5iicIp"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 3203, "none": 2261}}, {"key": "contribution_clarity", "name": "The contribution rule", "def": "A paper must clearly and precisely articulate its purpose, logic, and specific contribution so it can be evaluated by its intended audience.", "share": 0.0499, "home": "clarity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Conceptual clarity is required to evaluate the contribution.", "year": 2022, "forum": "NPJ5zWk_IQj"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 1868, "none": 1697}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Empirical claims must be supported by evidence \u2014 including consistency and robustness checks and explicit, plausible assumptions \u2014 sufficient to actually verify them.", "share": 0.0452, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Consistency across experimental results is necessary for verification.", "year": 2024, "forum": "oTRwljRgiv"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 1391, "articulate": 1839}}, {"key": "notation_law", "name": "The precision rule", "def": "Consistent notation and precise terminology are required for mathematical correctness and clarity.", "share": 0.0411, "home": "clarity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Mathematical correctness requires precise notation.", "year": 2020, "forum": "HJxVC1SYwr"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 1223, "articulate": 1713}}, {"key": "visualization_law", "name": "The figure rule", "def": "Figures and visualizations must accurately reflect the methodology and be clearly, legibly labeled so they convey their intended information.", "share": 0.0325, "home": "clarity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "visualizations must clearly convey information.", "year": 2022, "forum": "nuWpS9FNSKn"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 1377, "none": 950}}, {"key": "simplicity_law", "name": "The economy rule", "def": "Unnecessary complexity or abstraction hinders understanding of the contribution and can itself introduce technical error.", "share": 0.0225, "home": "clarity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Unnecessary complexity hinders understanding of the contribution.", "year": 2020, "forum": "Hygv3xrtDr"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 854, "articulate": 758}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.9028, "evidence": 0.0, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.0, "none": 0.0972}, "grounds": [{"key": "figure_content_defects", "name": "The mismatched figure", "def": "Figures, captions, or tables contain unclear, inconsistent, duplicated, or mislabeled content that does not match the surrounding text.", "share": 0.2065}, {"key": "confusing_prose_organization", "name": "The confusing prose", "def": "Sections, the abstract, or the paper overall lack clear logical flow and are difficult to follow.", "share": 0.2003}, {"key": "undefined_or_inconsistent_notation", "name": "The undefined notation", "def": "Symbols, variables, and notation are undefined, inconsistent, or non-standard across the paper.", "share": 0.1931}, {"key": "missing_illustrative_figures", "name": "The missing illustrative figure", "def": "The paper lacks clear figures or visualizations to illustrate the proposed method.", "share": 0.1393}, {"key": "inconsistent_result_presentation", "name": "The inconsistently presented result", "def": "Qualitative results, presentation styles, or highlighted metrics are shown inconsistently or misleadingly.", "share": 0.1209}, {"key": "typos_and_formatting_errors", "name": "The uncorrected typo", "def": "Typos, grammatical errors, missing captions, and formatting inconsistencies appear throughout the text.", "share": 0.0795}, {"key": "reviewer_comprehension_difficulty", "name": "The reviewer's stated confusion", "def": "The reviewer explicitly reports difficulty understanding central parts, terms, or the paper's differentiation from prior work.", "share": 0.0605}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"undefined_or_inconsistent_notation": {"contribution_clarity": 148, "notation_law": 877, "verification_clarity": 806, "visualization_law": 143, "simplicity_law": 109, "evidence_imported": 222}, "confusing_prose_organization": {"contribution_clarity": 728, "notation_law": 156, "verification_clarity": 755, "evidence_imported": 237, "simplicity_law": 216, "visualization_law": 81}, "typos_and_formatting_errors": {"contribution_clarity": 36, "verification_clarity": 257, "simplicity_law": 41, "notation_law": 85, "evidence_imported": 14, "visualization_law": 6}, "figure_content_defects": {"evidence_imported": 393, "contribution_clarity": 254, "simplicity_law": 133, "visualization_law": 683, "verification_clarity": 560, "notation_law": 207}, "reviewer_comprehension_difficulty": {"verification_clarity": 170, "simplicity_law": 79, "evidence_imported": 133, "contribution_clarity": 181, "visualization_law": 57, "notation_law": 90}, "missing_illustrative_figures": {"verification_clarity": 396, "evidence_imported": 592, "simplicity_law": 174, "contribution_clarity": 516, "notation_law": 158, "visualization_law": 170}, "inconsistent_result_presentation": {"evidence_imported": 304, "verification_clarity": 94, "simplicity_law": 196, "contribution_clarity": 192, "notation_law": 97, "visualization_law": 102}}}}, "baselines_ablations": {"n": 65782, "stated": 0.3421, "laws": [{"key": "comparison_law", "name": "The comparison rule", "def": "Valid claims of effectiveness or superiority require fair comparison against strong, relevant, and current state-of-the-art baselines.", "share": 0.2424, "home": "baselines_ablations", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Comparison with existing methods is necessary to demonstrate advantage.", "year": 2024, "forum": "DWJr05rymY"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 5724, "articulate": 748, "evidence": 9475}}, {"key": "ablation_law", "name": "The isolation rule", "def": "Ablation studies that isolate each component's individual contribution are necessary to validate and understand the method.", "share": 0.0421, "home": "baselines_ablations", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Ablations are necessary to validate the contribution of specific components.", "year": 2026, "forum": "X74KnsoYEM"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 1589, "none": 1042, "articulate": 141}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Empirical assertions and claims require corresponding experimental evidence to be valid.", "share": 0.0273, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Empirical assertions require corresponding experimental evidence.", "year": 2024, "forum": "pzpWBbnwiJ"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 881, "none": 674, "articulate": 244}}, {"key": "novelty_law", "name": "The non-triviality rule", "def": "A contribution must be shown to be non-trivial and understood on its own terms, not merely a marginal or trivial combination of existing methods.", "share": 0.021, "home": "novelty", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Without understanding baseline failures, it is unclear if the proposed method is truly more general or merely better tuned for the specific task.", "year": 2026, "forum": "Fjd2O8RIqu"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 563, "none": 642, "articulate": 176}}, {"key": "reporting_details", "name": "The specification rule", "def": "Reproducibility and validity require precise, complete descriptions of experimental conditions.", "share": 0.0117, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility and validity require precise experimental descriptions.", "year": 2026, "forum": "YWwcYFlJSj"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 280, "evidence": 389, "articulate": 102}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.1142, "evidence": 0.8016, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.0, "none": 0.0842}, "grounds": [{"key": "missing_specific_baseline_results", "name": "The missing named-method comparison", "def": "Specific recent or state-of-the-art methods, or particular result tables, are absent from the comparison.", "share": 0.2402}, {"key": "missing_baseline_comparison", "name": "The missing baseline comparison", "def": "The paper lacks comparison against existing or established baseline methods.", "share": 0.2177}, {"key": "marginal_or_inconsistent_gains", "name": "The marginal improvement over baselines", "def": "The proposed method performs similarly to, only marginally better than, or inconsistently worse than baselines.", "share": 0.1973}, {"key": "weak_baseline_selection", "name": "The unrepresentative baseline", "def": "The chosen baselines are too simple, naive, or unrepresentative relative to the proposed method.", "share": 0.1142}, {"key": "limited_experimental_scope", "name": "The narrow experimental scope", "def": "Experiments and baseline comparisons are confined to small-scale datasets or a limited set of tasks.", "share": 0.0895}, {"key": "absent_comparative_experiments", "name": "The absent comparative experiment", "def": "No fair comparative experiments against baseline or state-of-the-art methods are provided at all.", "share": 0.0706}, {"key": "missing_ablation_study", "name": "The missing ablation study", "def": "The paper lacks ablation studies isolating the contribution of individual components.", "share": 0.0706}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"missing_specific_baseline_results": {"comparison_law": 2672, "ablation_law": 423, "novelty_law": 143, "evidence_imported": 172, "reporting_details": 206}, "missing_baseline_comparison": {"evidence_imported": 413, "comparison_law": 2415, "ablation_law": 300, "novelty_law": 232, "reporting_details": 99}, "limited_experimental_scope": {"novelty_law": 66, "comparison_law": 896, "reporting_details": 6, "evidence_imported": 120, "ablation_law": 50}, "marginal_or_inconsistent_gains": {"comparison_law": 1189, "ablation_law": 140, "evidence_imported": 166, "novelty_law": 258, "reporting_details": 32}, "missing_ablation_study": {"ablation_law": 625, "comparison_law": 268, "evidence_imported": 99, "novelty_law": 49, "reporting_details": 31}, "weak_baseline_selection": {"novelty_law": 41, "comparison_law": 1583, "evidence_imported": 74, "ablation_law": 51, "reporting_details": 59}, "absent_comparative_experiments": {"comparison_law": 712, "ablation_law": 116, "novelty_law": 78, "evidence_imported": 88, "reporting_details": 18}}}}, "robustness_sensitivity": {"n": 35831, "stated": 0.2855, "laws": [{"key": "sensitivity_law", "name": "The sensitivity rule", "def": "Claims of robustness or generalizability require empirical validation across parameter variations, ranges, and tuning conditions, not assertion or reliance on unavailable ground truth.", "share": 0.1248, "home": "robustness_sensitivity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "robustness claims require validation across parameter variations.", "year": 2025, "forum": "ee2c4MEx9l"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 2638, "articulate": 1024, "report": 467, "none": 342}}, {"key": "justification_law", "name": "The justification rule", "def": "Design choices, parameter choices, and method structure must be transparently explained and empirically justified.", "share": 0.0489, "home": "robustness_sensitivity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Clarity and completeness of method description are required.", "year": 2026, "forum": "ciO8Bt4oUS"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 705, "articulate": 789, "none": 117, "report": 141}}, {"key": "comparison_law", "name": "The fair-tuning rule", "def": "Comparisons against baselines require comparable, transparent tuning effort to establish genuine superiority.", "share": 0.0406, "home": "baselines_ablations", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "A new method requires justification of its superiority or distinctness from established baselines.", "year": 2025, "forum": "BINwUtUGuq"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 392, "none": 93, "evidence": 745, "report": 224}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Empirical and theoretical claims require numerical or empirical substantiation to be credible.", "share": 0.029, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Empirical validity requires substantiation of specific claims through appropriate metrics.", "year": 2026, "forum": "KqCU5rfcMm"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 613, "articulate": 333, "none": 60, "report": 32}}, {"key": "reporting_details", "name": "The specification rule", "def": "Reproducibility requires precise, justified specification of hyperparameters and experimental parameters.", "share": 0.0259, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility requires detailed hyperparameter justification.", "year": 2025, "forum": "W0nydevOlG"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 330, "evidence": 265, "articulate": 299, "none": 33}}, {"key": "failure_analysis_law", "name": "The failure-analysis rule", "def": "Assessing robustness requires understanding and analyzing the method's failure modes and cases.", "share": 0.011, "home": "robustness_sensitivity", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Understanding failure modes is necessary for assessing robustness.", "year": 2026, "forum": "RgGfzrflx6"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 324, "articulate": 48, "none": 18, "report": 5}}, {"key": "novelty_law", "name": "The non-triviality rule", "def": "Novelty requires clear differentiation from established techniques, not merely applying known methods to a new problem.", "share": 0.0085, "home": "novelty", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Novelty requires differentiation from established techniques.", "year": 2025, "forum": "dmzM5UdAq6"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 65, "articulate": 120, "none": 120, "report": 1}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.277, "evidence": 0.5115, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.1108, "none": 0.1007}, "grounds": [{"key": "unverified_robustness_claim", "name": "The unverified robustness claim", "def": "Robustness or stability claims are asserted without supporting experiments or justification.", "share": 0.2783}, {"key": "hyperparameter_proliferation", "name": "The proliferating hyperparameter", "def": "The method introduces numerous hyperparameters that require careful, unguided tuning.", "share": 0.1947}, {"key": "missing_sensitivity_analysis", "name": "The missing sensitivity analysis", "def": "No systematic sensitivity or robustness analysis, error bars, or hyperparameter-influence study is provided.", "share": 0.1607}, {"key": "unexplained_performance_degradation", "name": "The unexplained performance drop", "def": "Performance drops significantly or degrades under certain conditions without explanation.", "share": 0.1206}, {"key": "unjustified_hyperparameter_choices", "name": "The unjustified hyperparameter choice", "def": "Specific hyperparameter or threshold values and design choices lack justification or motivation.", "share": 0.1071}, {"key": "limited_robustness_experimental_scope", "name": "The narrow robustness testbed", "def": "Robustness experiments are confined to synthetic, small-scale, or single-setting conditions.", "share": 0.0778}, {"key": "reviewer_sensitivity_question", "name": "The reviewer's sensitivity question", "def": "The reviewer directly questions how sensitive the method is to hyperparameters, initialization, or sample choice.", "share": 0.0608}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"missing_sensitivity_analysis": {"sensitivity_law": 845, "comparison_law": 267, "reporting_details": 146, "evidence_imported": 270, "failure_analysis_law": 149, "justification_law": 324, "novelty_law": 37}, "unjustified_hyperparameter_choices": {"sensitivity_law": 385, "reporting_details": 220, "justification_law": 226, "comparison_law": 125, "evidence_imported": 89, "novelty_law": 10, "failure_analysis_law": 21}, "unverified_robustness_claim": {"justification_law": 628, "novelty_law": 78, "evidence_imported": 330, "reporting_details": 306, "sensitivity_law": 1273, "comparison_law": 357, "failure_analysis_law": 140}, "reviewer_sensitivity_question": {"justification_law": 128, "sensitivity_law": 260, "novelty_law": 24, "evidence_imported": 63, "comparison_law": 90, "reporting_details": 35, "failure_analysis_law": 10}, "hyperparameter_proliferation": {"sensitivity_law": 828, "comparison_law": 287, "novelty_law": 109, "justification_law": 210, "reporting_details": 173, "evidence_imported": 83, "failure_analysis_law": 10}, "limited_robustness_experimental_scope": {"evidence_imported": 87, "reporting_details": 16, "sensitivity_law": 356, "comparison_law": 112, "justification_law": 105, "failure_analysis_law": 18, "novelty_law": 24}, "unexplained_performance_degradation": {"sensitivity_law": 457, "comparison_law": 197, "evidence_imported": 103, "justification_law": 115, "failure_analysis_law": 39, "novelty_law": 24, "reporting_details": 5}}}}, "problem_framing": {"n": 16931, "stated": 0.3136, "laws": [{"key": "justification", "name": "The justification rule", "def": "Design and methodological choices, especially those departing from established baselines or claiming generality, require explicit justification grounded in evidence rather than assertion.", "share": 0.1133, "home": "problem_framing", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "robustness requires testing against reasonable alternatives.", "year": 2022, "forum": "jgAl403zfau"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 1138, "none": 337, "report": 98, "articulate": 346}}, {"key": "motivation", "name": "The motivation rule", "def": "A paper must clearly articulate its motivation and distinguish its aims and capabilities from prior art to justify its existence.", "share": 0.0542, "home": "problem_framing", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "A paper must demonstrate practical value in the setting it claims to address.", "year": 2026, "forum": "0wCTDqkK8I"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 178, "evidence": 409, "articulate": 279, "report": 51}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Claims, whether theoretical or empirical, require corresponding evidence to be credible.", "share": 0.0475, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Claims require empirical or theoretical backing to be credible.", "year": 2025, "forum": "ymqLAmqYHW"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 135, "articulate": 171, "evidence": 476, "report": 22}}, {"key": "significance", "name": "The significance rule", "def": "A contribution must be distinctive and demonstrate practical or theoretical significance beyond incremental extension to be worthwhile.", "share": 0.0454, "home": "problem_framing", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Contribution standard: extensions of existing methods require strong motivation and clear differentiation from prior art.", "year": 2020, "forum": "B1xeZJHKPB"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 204, "evidence": 376, "articulate": 136, "report": 52}}, {"key": "coherence", "name": "The coherence rule", "def": "A method's formalism, problem statement, and implementation must align logically to provide a rigorous, self-consistent justification for the approach.", "share": 0.0351, "home": "problem_framing", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "The formalism must match the implementation to provide a coherent theoretical justification.", "year": 2026, "forum": "AvYGy1faez"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 93, "articulate": 208, "evidence": 268, "report": 25}}, {"key": "terminology", "name": "The terminology rule", "def": "Accurate terminology and conceptual clarity are required to position the work correctly relative to established literature.", "share": 0.0256, "home": "problem_framing", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Accurate positioning against relevant literature is required for proper context.", "year": 2018, "forum": "BJGWO9k0Z"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 130, "report": 103, "articulate": 157, "none": 44}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.2635, "evidence": 0.4908, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.0615, "none": 0.1842}, "grounds": [{"key": "unfocused_problem_definition", "name": "The unfocused problem definition", "def": "The paper conflates several problems or leaves the problem setup so general that reviewers cannot see what is actually novel or specific to the claimed setting.", "share": 0.2256}, {"key": "missing_theoretical_grounding", "name": "The missing theoretical grounding", "def": "The paper offers no theoretical account, explainability mechanism, or link between experiments and theory to explain why the proposed approach works.", "share": 0.1754}, {"key": "incremental_contribution", "name": "The incremental contribution", "def": "The work reads as an engineering tweak or natural extension of existing techniques rather than a substantively new contribution, with comparisons or scope framed to flatter it.", "share": 0.167}, {"key": "unstated_motivation", "name": "The unstated motivation", "def": "The paper does not clearly explain why the problem matters, what limits prior approaches, or what real-world applications the method serves.", "share": 0.1267}, {"key": "weak_empirical_framing", "name": "The non-hypothesis-driven results", "def": "Findings are reported descriptively rather than as tests of a stated hypothesis, and results look unremarkable next to methods that use stronger pretrained priors or more diverse baselines.", "share": 0.1146}, {"key": "unvalidated_assumptions", "name": "The unrealistic assumptions", "def": "Theoretical assumptions may not hold in practice, and claims about what drives the observed behavior are not disentangled or validated across a broad enough domain.", "share": 0.1024}, {"key": "unclear_significance", "name": "The unclear significance", "def": "Reviewers understand the method mechanically but remain unconvinced of its importance, questioning whether the comparisons or substitutions made are fair or meaningful.", "share": 0.0881}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"unfocused_problem_definition": {"justification": 483, "terminology": 84, "significance": 145, "coherence": 152, "evidence_imported": 154, "motivation": 186}, "missing_theoretical_grounding": {"justification": 382, "evidence_imported": 236, "significance": 166, "motivation": 222, "terminology": 111, "coherence": 137}, "incremental_contribution": {"justification": 266, "motivation": 87, "coherence": 53, "significance": 114, "evidence_imported": 85, "terminology": 61}, "unclear_significance": {"justification": 158, "terminology": 41, "coherence": 66, "motivation": 96, "evidence_imported": 57, "significance": 63}, "weak_empirical_framing": {"terminology": 28, "justification": 250, "coherence": 29, "evidence_imported": 91, "motivation": 58, "significance": 91}, "unstated_motivation": {"evidence_imported": 125, "significance": 138, "motivation": 217, "coherence": 100, "justification": 215, "terminology": 53}, "unvalidated_assumptions": {"coherence": 50, "justification": 159, "motivation": 45, "evidence_imported": 56, "significance": 50, "terminology": 53}}}}, "related_work": {"n": 22960, "stated": 0.3525, "laws": [{"key": "positioning", "name": "The positioning rule", "def": "A paper must comprehensively and accurately situate itself within existing literature, citing and acknowledging relevant prior work to properly position its contribution.", "share": 0.1692, "home": "related_work", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Scholarly completeness requires proper positioning within existing literature.", "year": 2025, "forum": "zDJf7fvdid"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 2706, "report": 383, "evidence": 527, "none": 269}}, {"key": "differentiation", "name": "The differentiation rule", "def": "Novelty and contribution require explicit, substantive differentiation from closely related prior art, not superficial or incremental changes.", "share": 0.1024, "home": "novelty", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Contextualizing contribution requires explicit comparison with closely related bounds and methods.", "year": 2025, "forum": "is4nCVkSFA"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 450, "articulate": 1335, "evidence": 501, "report": 64}}, {"key": "citation_accuracy", "name": "The citation rule", "def": "Citations must be accurate to maintain scholarly rigor and proper attribution.", "share": 0.0353, "home": "related_work", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Accurate citations are required for scholarly rigor and proper attribution.", "year": 2021, "forum": "TwkEGci1Y-"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 360, "articulate": 396, "none": 41, "evidence": 13}}, {"key": "formatting", "name": "The formatting rule", "def": "Citations and references must adhere to required formatting standards.", "share": 0.0277, "home": "related_work", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Adherence to formatting standards is required.", "year": 2025, "forum": "VRTCXYvPxc"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 71, "articulate": 346, "report": 182, "none": 38}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Claims require supporting evidence and accurate citation to be credible.", "share": 0.0211, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Empirical claims require supporting evidence to be credible.", "year": 2026, "forum": "n0CspqeNjw"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 307, "evidence": 92, "report": 43, "none": 43}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.6179, "evidence": 0.131, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.1283, "none": 0.1227}, "grounds": [{"key": "missing_citation", "name": "The missing citation", "def": "Specific relevant papers, baselines, or prior methods that should be cited are absent from the reference list.", "share": 0.4133}, {"key": "unexplained_differentiation", "name": "The unexplained differentiation", "def": "The paper mentions related work but never states, item by item, how its approach or contribution differs from it.", "share": 0.1948}, {"key": "insufficient_comparison", "name": "The insufficient comparison", "def": "Comparisons to prior methods are present but too vague or thin to show whether the proposed method actually improves on them.", "share": 0.1161}, {"key": "derivative_contribution", "name": "The derivative contribution", "def": "The paper's conclusions or methods closely echo prior work, reading as an application of an existing approach to a new dataset rather than a new idea.", "share": 0.1158}, {"key": "thin_literature_review", "name": "The thin literature review", "def": "The related-work coverage is too shallow, incomplete, or scattered through the text instead of consolidated into one coherent section.", "share": 0.0814}, {"key": "citation_formatting_error", "name": "The citation formatting error", "def": "Reference entries or in-text citations contain formatting mistakes, inconsistencies, or errors.", "share": 0.0786}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"missing_citation": {"positioning": 2015, "differentiation": 844, "citation_accuracy": 303, "evidence_imported": 150, "formatting": 175}, "insufficient_comparison": {"differentiation": 401, "citation_accuracy": 33, "positioning": 338, "evidence_imported": 123, "formatting": 58}, "unexplained_differentiation": {"differentiation": 507, "positioning": 807, "formatting": 115, "citation_accuracy": 117, "evidence_imported": 128}, "thin_literature_review": {"differentiation": 108, "positioning": 392, "formatting": 68, "evidence_imported": 23, "citation_accuracy": 33}, "citation_formatting_error": {"positioning": 68, "citation_accuracy": 214, "formatting": 149, "differentiation": 46, "evidence_imported": 28}, "derivative_contribution": {"citation_accuracy": 48, "formatting": 36, "differentiation": 421, "positioning": 191, "evidence_imported": 29}}}}, "reproducibility": {"n": 15541, "stated": 0.3499, "laws": [{"key": "disclosure", "name": "The disclosure rule", "def": "Reproducibility requires complete, clear, and accessible implementation details sufficient for independent replication.", "share": 0.1652, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility requires accessible implementation details.", "year": 2025, "forum": "yeEWZ8qvlS"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 2276, "evidence": 198, "none": 94}}, {"key": "validation_rigor", "name": "The validation rule", "def": "Claims of robustness, generality, or practical utility require rigorous empirical validation, including controlled experiments, statistical significance, and evaluation across multiple settings, not assertion.", "share": 0.0838, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Discrepancies with established baselines require justification to ensure experimental validity.", "year": 2026, "forum": "OWkkFaq1IZ"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 302, "report": 894, "none": 107}}, {"key": "code_release", "name": "The code rule", "def": "Reproducibility requires that source code be made accessible.", "share": 0.0297, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility requires accessible code.", "year": 2023, "forum": "K8oz8DyuJD"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 454, "evidence": 1, "none": 7}}, {"key": "evidence_imported", "name": "The evidence rule", "def": "Claims of importance or effectiveness require empirical verification to be credible.", "share": 0.0284, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Claims of importance require empirical verification.", "year": 2023, "forum": "r3-aLHxn2nB"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 278, "none": 34, "evidence": 129}}, {"key": "availability", "name": "The availability rule", "def": "Practical applicability requires that necessary inputs, data, and resources actually be available in realistic deployment or replication contexts.", "share": 0.0265, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "The theoretical algorithm requires specific constraints that are not reflected in the reported experiments.", "year": 2024, "forum": "2h3m61LFWL"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 89, "report": 235, "none": 88}}, {"key": "provenance_ethics", "name": "The provenance rule", "def": "Reproducibility and ethical acceptance require clear, transparent documentation of data provenance.", "share": 0.0207, "home": "reproducibility", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Reproducibility and ethical compliance require clear data provenance.", "year": 2026, "forum": "UNaGjOSQ7F"}, "remedy_mix": {"report": 293, "evidence": 16, "none": 13}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.0, "evidence": 0.1444, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.7613, "none": 0.0943}, "grounds": [{"key": "missing_code", "name": "The missing code", "def": "No source code, or an incomplete release lacking a readme, generation scripts, or examples, is provided, leaving implementation details unverifiable.", "share": 0.2923}, {"key": "missing_configuration_details", "name": "The missing configuration details", "def": "Key experimental specifics such as hyperparameters, architecture, training setup, compute cost, and statistical significance needed to reproduce results are not reported.", "share": 0.2471}, {"key": "unclear_methodology", "name": "The unclear methodology", "def": "How the method applies beyond the tested setting (e.g., non-dense tasks, non-open-source models) is unclear, and some claims aren't fully backed by the reported implementation.", "share": 0.1528}, {"key": "untested_generality", "name": "The untested generality", "def": "Experiments validate only a narrow setting or depend on an external model, leaving it unclear whether the reported effect comes from the method itself or from confounding factors.", "share": 0.1016}, {"key": "missing_efficiency_report", "name": "The missing efficiency report", "def": "The paper omits inference speed, training speed, or other computational-cost figures, along with some architecture and hyperparameter specifics.", "share": 0.0913}, {"key": "data_access_restriction", "name": "The data-access restriction", "def": "Copyright, EULA, or licensing constraints on the released data or dataset overlaps raise doubts about others' ability to access or legally reuse it.", "share": 0.061}, {"key": "unverified_feasibility", "name": "The unverified feasibility", "def": "Reviewers raise open questions about technical feasibility or detectability and sometimes admit they did not independently verify implementation details, while asking for code or experimental specifics.", "share": 0.0539}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"missing_configuration_details": {"disclosure": 983, "evidence_imported": 81, "validation_rigor": 324, "code_release": 37, "availability": 47, "provenance_ethics": 40}, "missing_efficiency_report": {"validation_rigor": 178, "disclosure": 135, "availability": 37, "provenance_ethics": 34, "evidence_imported": 86, "code_release": 15}, "untested_generality": {"availability": 104, "disclosure": 55, "validation_rigor": 110, "evidence_imported": 26, "provenance_ethics": 12, "code_release": 3}, "missing_code": {"validation_rigor": 295, "evidence_imported": 118, "code_release": 250, "availability": 80, "disclosure": 802, "provenance_ethics": 70}, "unclear_methodology": {"disclosure": 248, "validation_rigor": 252, "availability": 91, "evidence_imported": 81, "code_release": 8, "provenance_ethics": 10}, "data_access_restriction": {"provenance_ethics": 132, "disclosure": 55, "validation_rigor": 49, "availability": 21, "code_release": 10, "evidence_imported": 20}, "unverified_feasibility": {"disclosure": 104, "evidence_imported": 19, "availability": 23, "validation_rigor": 70, "provenance_ethics": 15, "code_release": 8}}}}, "novelty": {"n": 30447, "stated": 0.40369999999999995, "laws": [{"key": "diff", "name": "The differentiation rule", "def": "novelty means articulated distinctness from prior art \u2014 and the burden of articulation is the author's", "share": 0.1831, "home": "novelty", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Novelty requires distinctiveness from established methods.", "year": 2022, "forum": "dEelotBE6e2"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 1727, "articulate": 2823, "evidence": 1025}}, {"key": "transfer", "name": "The transfer rule", "def": "applying a known method to a new domain or setting does not constitute methodological novelty", "share": 0.0777, "home": "novelty", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Applying known techniques to a new domain does not constitute significant methodological novelty.", "year": 2019, "forum": "B1l9qsA5KQ"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 333, "articulate": 841, "none": 1191}}, {"key": "increment", "name": "The increment rule", "def": "incremental modification or extension of an existing method does not constitute sufficient novelty", "share": 0.0718, "home": "novelty", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Incremental improvements or reapplications of known techniques do not constitute strong novelty.", "year": 2023, "forum": "HZJje06x6IO"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 1022, "articulate": 873, "evidence": 290}}, {"key": "claims", "name": "The evidence rule (imported)", "def": "not a definition of novelty at all \u2014 the general law that claims must match their validation, imported into novelty denials: the objection is to the support for the novelty claim, not to the novelty itself", "share": 0.0371, "home": "__evidence__", "visiting": true, "quote": {"text": "Strong claims require corresponding experimental validation;", "year": 2025, "forum": "1SYUKPeM12"}, "remedy_mix": {"articulate": 680, "none": 115, "evidence": 335}}, {"key": "combination", "name": "The combination rule", "def": "assembling known components is not novel unless the integration itself is", "share": 0.0241, "home": "novelty", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "Combining existing components does not constitute significant novelty if the unique contribution is unclear.", "year": 2026, "forum": "emoRnl7BiF"}, "remedy_mix": {"none": 429, "articulate": 222, "evidence": 83}}, {"key": "venue", "name": "The venue bar", "def": "explicitly indexed to the venue's rank \u2014 'not sufficient for a top-tier conference'", "share": 0.0224, "home": "novelty", "visiting": false, "quote": {"text": "ICLR requires theoretical novelty or significant contributions beyond straightforward implementation;", "year": 2021, "forum": "tkra4vFiFq"}, "remedy_mix": {"evidence": 109, "none": 391, "articulate": 181}}], "remedies": {"articulate": 0.4467, "evidence": 0.159, "method": 0.0, "report": 0.0, "none": 0.3943}, "grounds": [{"key": "combination", "name": "Obvious combination", "n": 7284, "share": 0.2392}, {"key": "uncited", "name": "The uncited neighborhood", "n": 4719, "share": 0.155}, {"key": "transfer", "name": "Mere transfer", "n": 4134, "share": 0.1358}, {"key": "anticipation", "name": "Anticipation", "n": 4124, "share": 0.1354}, {"key": "step", "name": "The insufficient step", "n": 2783, "share": 0.0914}, {"key": "equivalent", "name": "The disguised equivalent", "n": 2178, "share": 0.0715}, {"key": "currency", "name": "The wrong currency", "n": 2133, "share": 0.0701}, {"key": "restating", "name": "Restating the known", "n": 1878, "share": 0.0617}, {"key": "assertion", "name": "The bare assertion", "n": 1214, "share": 0.0399}], "flows": {"doctrine_law": {"combination": {"diff": 1580, "transfer": 650, "venue": 297, "combination": 330, "claims": 61, "increment": 502}, "assertion": {"increment": 43, "transfer": 74, "claims": 36, "diff": 236, "venue": 26, "combination": 10}, "equivalent": {"transfer": 201, "diff": 350, "combination": 49, "increment": 201, "venue": 40, "claims": 19}, "uncited": {"diff": 845, "claims": 139, "transfer": 398, "venue": 82, "increment": 302, "combination": 84}, "restating": {"increment": 32, "claims": 513, "transfer": 107, "diff": 142, "venue": 4, "combination": 2}, "step": {"venue": 91, "diff": 415, "transfer": 131, "increment": 435, "combination": 44, "claims": 39}, "anticipation": {"diff": 948, "increment": 248, "combination": 94, "venue": 43, "transfer": 272, "claims": 112}, "currency": {"diff": 369, "increment": 127, "transfer": 232, "venue": 49, "claims": 117, "combination": 22}, "transfer": {"transfer": 300, "diff": 690, "increment": 295, "claims": 94, "venue": 49, "combination": 99}}}}}