Research Program

Research program

How should science work when candidate research becomes abundant?

Artificial intelligence can expand discovery while also increasing the burden of interpretation, error detection, synthesis, and governance. My research examines how scientific institutions and technical infrastructure can preserve credibility when production scales faster than verification and accumulation.

Primary domain: empirical and computational researchApproach: institutional theory · systems design · controlled evaluation

Core thesis

Knowledge production is a conversion system

A candidate claim becomes useful knowledge only after it is represented faithfully, independently checked, connected to alternatives, and incorporated into a current knowledge state. AI changes the relative cost and throughput of these functions, but it does not remove any of them.

01

Creation

Produces candidate questions, hypotheses, designs, analyses, findings, code, and artifacts.

Abundance risk: plausible output expands faster than warranted knowledge.

02

Verification

Tests representation fidelity, artifact integrity, measurement, identification, reproduction, transport, and rival explanations.

Current focus: making this layer accurate, reusable, and independently auditable.

03

Accumulation

Preserves, relates, versions, contests, updates, synthesizes, and retrieves knowledge through time.

Abundance risk: even verified findings fail to become a coherent, current state.

Four linked workstreams

A cumulative program, not a single system claim

1

Institutional diagnosis

Measure how AI changes lifecycle costs, bottlenecks, incentives, and coordination problems in scientific knowledge production.

Foundation: Knowledge Abundance Paradox
2

Scientific architecture

Specify alternative scientific objects and transitions—including explicit DGP hypotheses, finding-level records, provenance, and bounded updates.

Foundation: DGP Multiverse Science
3

Independent verification

Build and test protocols, benchmarks, and human–AI workflows that can detect consequential scientific errors accurately and efficiently.

Current priority: structured peer-review experiment
4

Living knowledge infrastructure

Connect verified findings into updateable systems for synthesis, research prioritization, and decision support.

Advancement condition: empirical benefit must exceed representation and governance costs

Research discipline

The architecture is a hypothesis to test

The program does not assume that structured or AI-native systems are better. Any successor to paper-centered coordination should advance only when it improves quality-adjusted verification and accumulation, preserves context and pluralism, exposes dependence and provenance, and remains feasible for the people who bear its costs.

RepresentationDoes the structure preserve what matters?
VerificationDoes it improve error detection without false assurance?
AccumulationDoes it reduce the cost of maintaining a current knowledge state?
GovernanceCan it resist gaming, monoculture, privacy loss, and concentrated control?
AdoptionAre costs and benefits distributed so that participation is sustainable?
Net valueDo measured benefits exceed all added lifecycle costs?

The theory and architecture are public, citable, and open for criticism.

View publications