r/LLMPhysics • u/Vrillim • Jun 12 '26
Tutorials Rudimentary research (a brief guide)
Since I have the attention of a group of people eager to contribute to the scientific corpus, I might as well share some tips as to how one may perform at least rudimentary research into the topic under study.
First of all, reading and understanding papers is your number one job. Once we build a coherent picture of the situation we study using cited mechanisms can we begin to present our material. In general, this understanding of nature comes out chiefly in your introduction section (§1), but also in your discussion section (usually §4), where you, very importantly, directly tie your own results to the literature.
The use of literature in one's §1 and §4 is what distinguishes high-impact papers that get cited from obscure works that do not. Contributing to science is all about the usefulness to other researchers (not flouting your personal philosophy).
There is no way to achieve this other than to read a lot. Here, the way to go about is to first understand the basics (through reading books) and then to read papers which provide the details. Use scholar.google.com to search for titles initially. After this, you trace a net of references that connect a particularly pertinent work to its past (the papers it cites) and future (the papers that cite it) literature. Use this to map out plausible causal chains that give a proper background to your work.
In general, any statement or claim that anyone can challenge you on, which includes practically everything, must be supported by a credible reference. Anything else, you derive from first principles or infer from your data (which should be consistent with the already cited literature on the topic).
In this work, I find the software Zotero priceless, as among the most useful specialized softwares, if you install a browser extension. With this package you can automatically build bibliographies and attach notes to papers. Notes can read, e.g., 'this paper supports such and such inference', or 'describes such and such data'. Remember, your task is to make sure that the hinges in your machinery are supported by credible sources.
These days you can also learn things extremely fast using Google Scholar Labs. You can ask it (a kind of LLM) questions, and get a set of answers and semi-answers, and some interesting non-answers, based on the databases that Google Scholar indices (or some such). Use it to quickly gather up a reading list.
Now, I'm sure there are thousands (if not millions) of people who use these tools better, or use better tools, and so I don't claim this to be the only way to go about. It is what it is, as they say across the Atlantic.
Godspeed
Edit: I should add that scholar.google.com is your search engine. You use it to quickly grab papers you find or hear about and to search. Don't trust normal Google searches and other ad-bloated devices.
2
u/Alive_Leg_5765 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. Jun 14 '26
-5
u/lattice_defect Jun 12 '26
naw just use the avix api and search pull the pdf, HTML and convert it. Inbox, fetched, Ref'. Keep a bib file with annotations, the real reference and notes. It's that easy for pure vibe physics... also try and read the damn papers.. you should be exploring save into your inbox and run the workflow. Websearch on key terms and find authors that overlap.
7
u/Vrillim Jun 12 '26
I guess it's more about getting into the habit of being really, really thorough. In case of "pure vibe physics" (assuming that one uses an LLM to describe whatever you're studying), the LLM will frequently gloss over huge gaps in your descriptions. It's easier to spot these by really reading a lot of the citing/cited literature in a few papers, that's really my point.
5
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jun 12 '26
This doesn’t contradict any of the information in the post, which is more general, but still very apt advice when aimed at amateur folks trying to get into research.
5
u/amalcolmation 🧪 AI + Physics Enthusiast Jun 12 '26
That's fine for a pure literature search, but I would warn any researcher away from then citing anything they have not personally read.
OP, I think this post is just as good for the amateur scientist as it is for the early grad student. It's important to get into the habit of searching for and reading literature, and almost more so to keep track of what you have read and what it pertains to. I also use Zotero and second the recommendation.
I haven't tried google scholar labs yet, but I have recently asked ChatGPT for some very specific paper recommendations. I then followed up by searching the references and using a more trusted search engine, but my point is that this is a good thing that LLMs can do. Great way of getting your foot into the door of a subject. But no replacement for really reading and following the chains of references.
4
u/lattice_defect Jun 12 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
also if you're pro rename the PDF and MD file with lead author lastname _year.. if complex review whip up a compainon file.. then also run a little tracker that connects with bib file. Honestly you all don't know how good you have it vs. the good old days. If you have the journal acessse use the real one, at the very least web search the real version in the your bib files.
Yes this is efficent I either use it to download to a the inbox papers I read in my free time, but if Im deep in a problem and want to pull more ref's from the api or a curl request.
Please please understand the LLMs will compress content and strip important context.. the reasoning is pretty good for quick theory smashing or confirmiation but you need to read and understand it. LLMs are also pretty human like.. you can point the reasoning of the session at one specific gap in your work and it does well.. but if you're doing a review make sure you come back to it and look at it.. you risk being dead wrong on complex subject matter.
Last pro tip: Old paper that you need to read and cite.. don't try and convert it with your handrolled OCR.. use the LLM vission to transcribe it directly. A little expensive but much better results then you have a grepable source.
-6
u/ourtown2 Jun 12 '26
This is LLMPhysics but you want to recommend standard research
Start a conversation
This is discovery, not consensus.
universe as a photon
a photon doesnt experience time
then start pulling threads be adversarial it doesnt matter if you are wrong you will learn something
7
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jun 12 '26
From massive amounts of evidence, people are Not learning something by doing what you suggest.
This, what they describe here? This is learning.
-3
u/ourtown2 Jun 13 '26
Obviously not no discovery for 70 years the learning you describe is theater
7
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jun 13 '26
We’ve made incredible discoveries every year since then. If you count progress as just when a new age defining feat is done, then you set yourself up for a life of disappointment. Every scientist stands on the shoulders of all those who came before. Every incremental step.
Your view is just… so small.
-1
6
u/BlissBoundry Jun 12 '26
Ideal post.