ljg-paper-connects: Reverse Reading Method
A research paper is not an isolated island. It stands on the shoulders of predecessors, and also steps on the flaws of previous work. Dig backwards to the root, then look forward from there - see how the problem emerged, what each researcher noticed that others missed, and how solutions gradually approached the truth.
Core Logic
The most common mistake when reading papers: only reading the current paper without knowing its background. The reverse reading method works the other way around - first find which papers this paper critiques and improves on, then find which papers those papers critique and improve on, recursively for 5 layers until you reach the origin. Then turn around and read forward from the origin.
After reading this way, you won't just get the knowledge of a single paper, but a complete understanding of the entire evolution line of the problem.
Format Constraints
Org-mode Syntax
- Bold uses (single asterisk), is prohibited
- Heading levels start from , no level skipping
ASCII Art
All charts use pure ASCII characters. Allowed characters:
+ - | / \ > < v ^ * = ~ . : # [ ] ( ) _ , ; ! ' "
and spaces. Unicode drawing symbols are prohibited.
Template Authority
Output structure follows
.
Denote File Specifications
- Timestamp:
- Readable time:
date "+%Y-%m-%d %a %H:%M"
- File name:
{timestamp}--paper-river-{short-title}__paper_river.org
- Output directory:
Org File Header
#+title: paper-river-{short-title}
#+date: [{YYYY-MM-DD Day HH:MM}]
#+filetags: :paper:river:
#+identifier: {YYYYMMDDTHHMMSS}
#+source: {URL or source description}
#+authors: {target paper authors}
#+venue: {publication venue/year}
Red Lines
- Problem-centric — The main line of the entire article is "how the problem evolved", not "how papers are arranged". Papers are supporting roles, problems are the main character
- Oral language test — Would you explain the development history of a field to a friend like this? Revise if not
- Difference as core — The focus of each paper's explanation is "what is the difference between it and the previous one", not introducing each paper independently
- Zero jargon first — Explain in plain language first, then mention the terminology incidentally
- Unbroken logical chain — From the first paper to the last, the causal chain cannot be broken. Readers should feel "that's why they did it this way"
- Honesty — State how many layers you found if you can't find 5 layers. State if the relationship between papers is uncertain. Do not fabricate citation relationships
Writing Principles
- Difference-driven narrative — Do not write independent abstracts for each paper and piece them together. Start each paragraph with "what problem did this paper find in the previous one", let the differences themselves drive the narrative forward
- Transformation instead of definition — When explaining the difference between two solutions, continuously transform solution A into solution B. "If you remove X, add Y, you get Z" — ten times more powerful than "the difference between Z and X is..."
- Explicit reasoning — Before each solution appears, let readers feel the pressure that "we have to do it this way". Simulate the discovery process, not report the discovery result
- A picture is worth a thousand words — Draw a traceability map before the evolution narrative, and draw a compressed overview map after the narrative. Let readers have a panoramic view first before entering details, and return to the panoramic view after reading the details
Execution
1. Obtain the target paper
- arxiv URL → WebFetch
- PDF → Read (pay attention to pages parameter limit)
- Paper name → WebSearch to find the full text
Make sure to get: title, authors, abstract, introduction (especially the critiques of previous work in related work / introduction sections).
2. Extract critique chain clues
Read the introduction and related work sections of the target paper carefully. Find:
- Places where it explicitly says "previous method X has problem Y"
- Which papers it claims to have improved
- Which baseline it compares against
Lock the core papers that are critiqued/improved from these (usually 1-3 papers, choose the most direct line).
3. Recursive traceability (in-depth research)
Repeat the same process for the core previous papers found in step 2: who are they critiquing? Who are they improving?
Recursion rules:
- Max 5 recursive layers (stop at layer 5 or the foundational paper of the field)
- Only follow the most relevant line of the problem for each layer, do not diverge
- Stop if no clear critiqued target can be found at a layer
Use Research skill (deep research mode) to obtain key information for each layer of papers. For each paper, get at least: title, authors, year, core problem, core solution, critique points of previous work.
4. Cutting-edge extension
Reverse direction: after the target paper, are there any new papers critiquing/improving it?
Also use Research skill to search:
- Follow-up work that cites the target paper
- Latest progress on the same problem
Find 1-3 most relevant follow-up papers, obtain the same information.
5. Build evolution line
Organize the results of steps 3 and 4 into a timeline:
[Oldest] Paper_0 → Paper_1 → ... → [Target Paper] → [Follow-up Papers]
Mark each arrow: what problem the latter found in the former.
6. Forward Feynman-style narrative
Start from the oldest paper, tell the story forward. Key point: do not introduce each paper independently, but connect them with problem evolution as the clue.
Explain three things for each paper (focus on differences):
- What specific problem did it find in the previous solution (explain with examples or scenarios)
- Core idea of its solution (explain clearly with analogy)
- What new problems did this solution leave behind (naturally transition to the next paper)
7. Draw diagrams
Two diagrams:
- Traceability Map: placed before the evolution narrative, showing the citation/critique relationship between papers
- Problem-Solution Overview: placed after the narrative, compressing the entire line into one screen. Let people know how the line developed at a glance
8. Extract insights
After reading the entire line, answer:
- What changes are really happening behind this evolution line? (Not superficial technical iteration, but deeper cognitive shift)
- What is the most likely next direction?
9. Check red lines + generate file
Go through the red lines one by one. Additional checks:
- Is the causal chain coherent — read all "what problem did it find" strings together, is the logic smooth
- Are differences prominent — is the focus of each paper on "what is different from the previous ones"
Read
, write to
according to Denote specifications.
Acceptance Criteria
- Problem is the main character: After reading, you remember "how the problem evolved", not "what papers are there"
- Unbroken causality: From the first paper to the last, every transition has a "so"
- Clear differences: The unique contribution of each paper can be explained in one sentence
- Accessible to laymen: Smart people who don't know this field can retell the evolution line after reading
- Two diagrams are independent: You can grasp the main idea just by looking at the diagrams without reading the text
- Honest marking: Clearly mark which citation relationships are confirmed and which are speculated