research-gap

name	research-gap
description	Identify research gaps and open questions from the literature in a workspace. Combines auditable search, citation analysis, and cross-paper comparison. Use when the user wants to find unexplored areas, formulate research questions, or assess where the field is heading.

Research Gap Identification

Systematically discover research gaps and open questions from the literature in a workspace.

Prerequisites

The user must specify a workspace (--ws NAME) containing a sufficient number of papers (10+ recommended). Report language is specified by the user (English or Chinese).

Execution Logic

1. Global Scan

autor ws show <name>                    # paper list
autor ws search <name> "<broad theme>"   # auditable node-level field scan

Perform an L2 scan (title + abstract) on workspace papers to build a field map.

2. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Dimension 1: Theme Coverage

autor ws search <name> "<theme keywords>"
autor research "<theme or gap question>" --run-dir workspace/<name>/runs/<case>

Are workspace papers concentrated in a few topics? Which related topics lack coverage?

Dimension 2: Temporal Trends

Tally workspace papers by year to identify:

• Directions with rapidly growing paper counts in recent years (hot topics)
• Directions where publication rates are declining (possibly matured or abandoned)
• Directions with early work but no recent follow-up (potential gaps)

Use Python to read data/papers/*/meta.json directly for statistical analysis.

Dimension 3: Methodological Comparison

Scan L3/L4 of workspace papers to construct a methodology matrix:

autor show <dir_name> --level 3          # L3 gives paper-level takeaway, key findings, quantitative signals, and limitations when available

• Which methods are widely used?
• Which method combinations have not yet been tried?
• A method that works for problem A — can it transfer to problem B?

Dimension 4: Citation Graph Holes

autor shared-refs "<id1>" "<id2>"        # shared references
autor refs "<id>"                        # reference list
autor citing "<id>"                      # papers that cite this one

• Which papers cite each other but reach contradictory conclusions? (unresolved disputes)
• Which heavily cited papers lack follow-up verification/replication?
• Which key references are absent from the workspace? (possible blind spots)

Dimension 5: Author-Stated Future Work

Load L3 of highly cited workspace papers and extract future directions, limitations, and unresolved questions. If L3 mode is inferred_synthesis, verify author-stated future work in L4 before treating it as the authors' own proposal:

autor show <dir_name> --level 3

Have those future directions been addressed? Cross-search to verify:

autor search "<future work keywords>"

3. Output Report

Generate a structured research-gap report and save it to workspace/<name>/research-gaps.md.

Classify each identified gap by type:

Gap Type	Meaning	Example
Knowledge gap	A phenomenon/question no one has studied yet	"The X effect at high Re has not been measured"
Methodological gap	Existing conclusions but method has flaws or limitations	"All current studies use RANS; DNS validation is lacking"
Contradiction gap	Different studies reach contradictory conclusions	"Group A reports a positive effect; Group B reports a negative one"
Transfer gap	A method/finding has not been extended to a related domain	"This method works in 2D; 3D has not been attempted"
Scale gap	Only small-scale or restricted results exist	"Only low-Re data; not validated at engineering Re"

Report structure:

1. Field overview (2–3 paragraphs)
2. Identified research gaps (ranked by priority)
   • Gap type + description
   • Supporting evidence (which papers hint at this gap)
   • Potential research questions
   • Feasibility assessment (are data / methods / resources accessible?)
3. Unresolved disputes (if any)
4. Recommended next steps

Quantitative support: when useful, write Python code to batch-extract data from meta.json, produce statistical charts (year distribution, method frequency, parameter-space coverage), and use visualizations to substantiate gap findings.

4. Interactive Discussion

After the report is generated, proactively discuss with the user:

• Which gaps are most relevant to their research direction?
• Are additional papers needed to validate a particular gap?
• Can a gap be refined into a specific research question and hypothesis?

Examples

User says: "Find research gaps in the drag-review workspace." → Comprehensively scan the literature, multi-dimensional analysis, generate research-gap report

User says: "What future work directions did these papers mention? Has anyone followed up?" → Extract future-work, limitation, and unresolved-question signals from each paper's L3 card, then cross-search and verify in L4 when needed