Novelty Verifier (novelty-verifier)
Overview
novelty-verifier is Stage 3 of 4 in the Academic Research Skill Suite:
paper-analyzer(Stage 1) $\rightarrow$ Standardized technical deconstruction of individual papers.research-gap-finder(Stage 2) $\rightarrow$ Cross-paper synthesis and hypothesis generation.novelty-verifier(Stage 3) $\rightarrow$ Academic collision scan and dataset/compute feasibility verification.proposal-drafter(Stage 4) $\rightarrow$ Formal research proposal generation.
Acting as an objective "Academic Police & Reviewer 2", this skill prevents wasted effort on already-published ideas and verifies that public datasets, pretrained checkpoints, and baseline code exist before drafting a proposal.
Language Adaptation Rule
- Output the verification report in the language requested by the user (Vietnamese or English), keeping technical terms, paper titles, query strings, and URLs in their original English form.
- Always preserve the YAML frontmatter schema in novelty_verdict_template.md for downstream consumption by
proposal-drafter.
Workflow
Step 1: Deconstruct the Idea into Orthogonal Search Queries
Given a specific research hypothesis (e.g., IDEA-01 from research-gap-finder), decompose it into 3 orthogonal keyword sets (consult collision_and_pivot_guide.md):
- Core Phenomenon / Target: e.g.,
"register tokens","high-norm tokens","attention artifacts","vision transformer outliers". - Proposed Mechanism / Technique: e.g.,
"test-time","training-free","quantization","vision-language","token pruning","dynamic routing". - Task / Domain: e.g.,
"dense prediction","segmentation","multimodal","DINOv2","CLIP".
Step 2: Run Automated Academic & Feasibility Scan
- Execute search_academic.py with 2–4 narrow query combinations and dataset queries:
python3 <skill_dir>/scripts/search_academic.py \ --queries "<query_1>" "<query_2>" "<query_3>" \ --datasets "<dataset_1>" "<dataset_2>" \ --models "<model_1>" \ --out "<workspace>/research_workspace/03_verification/search_results.json" - Complement the script results by calling the
search_webtool for recent conference/workshop papers (ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, ECCV, ICCV, ACL, OpenReview) from the last 24 months.
Step 3: Classify Collision Severity
Inspect the abstracts and methods of the top retrieved papers and classify each competitor into one of three tiers:
- 🔴 Direct Collision ($\ge 80%$ overlap): Same core mechanism applied to the same bottleneck and evaluation regime.
- 🟡 Partial / Adjacent Overlap ($30%–75%$ overlap): Similar motivation or related technique, but differs significantly in mechanism, training requirement, target modality, or theoretical formulation.
- 🟢 Distinct / Complementary ($< 30%$ overlap): Provides supporting evidence or baseline code without encroaching on the core contribution.
Step 4: Verify Empirical Feasibility (Datasets, Checkpoints & Compute)
Check the huggingface_datasets, huggingface_models, and github_repos sections in search_results.json:
- Public Datasets: Are the required evaluation datasets openly accessible (e.g., on HuggingFace Datasets, TorchVision, or standard academic mirrors)?
- Pretrained Checkpoints & Baseline Code: Are official checkpoints (e.g.,
facebook/dinov2-base,openai/clip-vit-base-patch16) and baseline repositories publicly available so the user does not have to pretrain from scratch? - Compute Budget: Confirm whether the experiments can run on accessible hardware (e.g., 1x–2x consumer/academic GPUs).
Step 5: Issue Verdict (GO / PIVOT / NO-GO) & Pivot Angles
- Issue an explicit verdict:
GO: Zero direct collisions found; strong differentiation against adjacent work; datasets and checkpoints are immediately available.PIVOT: High overlap detected on the naive formulation, but a sharp positioning angle (provided in the report) restores novelty.NO-GO: Fully scooped by recent work with no viable differentiation, or blocked by proprietary data/compute.
- Write the report using novelty_verdict_template.md to
<workspace>/research_workspace/03_verification/novelty_verdict.md.