Files
ietf-draft-analyzer/docs/plans/landscape-survey-paper.md

51 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Verified IETF AI/Agent Landscape Survey — Paper Plan
**Decision (2026-05-23):** Neutral, citable landscape survey. IETF-only corpus. Full
inter-rater verification (Cohen's Kappa) + systematic coverage validation. NO ECT advocacy.
## Corpus (verified, deterministic)
- `source='ietf'`: 597 docs. Minus 73 false-positive flags → **524 clean IETF Internet-Drafts**.
- All 597 have ISO-parseable `time` (the date-quality problem was confined to ISO/ETSI/ITU — excluded here).
- All rated. 591 have full_text.
## The honest methodological facts (must be in the paper, not hidden)
1. **Ratings are abstract-only** (`analyzer.py:298`, `abstract[:2000]`), not full-text. Documented limitation.
2. **Categories / gap-scores are LLM-generated** (Sonnet `claude-sonnet-4-20250514`, cheap path Haiku 4.5).
3. **Self-documented limitations** already in `analyzer.py` header (lines 42147) + `data/reports/methodology.md`.
## Phase 0 — Deterministic foundation (FREE, local) ✅ partly done
- [x] IETF-only corpus size + false-positive removal → 524
- [x] Category distribution (clean): 141 identity, 108 A2A, 64 netops, 48 ML-traffic, 44 data-formats,
35 discovery, 30 policy, 24 safety, 16 model-serving, 9 other, 5 human-agent
- [ ] Monthly submission curve from clean ISO dates → honest growth statement (replace stale "36×")
- [ ] Working-group / author concentration (who writes the drafts)
- [ ] Embedding-based overlap/similarity matrix + clustering (Ollama, local) → "redundancy" finding
- [ ] Coverage map: which categories are dense vs sparse (neutral framing, no ECT)
## Phase 1 — Inter-rater verification (CHEAP API, ~$39; needs explicit go)
- Re-rate all 524 abstracts with a **second independent model** (Haiku) using the pinned prompt.
- Compare against existing labels (model A) → **Cohen's Kappa** per dimension + on category assignment.
- Stratified manual spot-check (~50 drafts) by hand → human-vs-LLM agreement.
- Report kappa + confusion matrix honestly. If kappa is low on some categories, that IS a finding.
- Cost optimisations: Batch API (50% off), prompt-cache the rubric (90% off cached input).
## Phase 2 — Coverage validation (FREE/cheap)
- For each category, embedding nearest-neighbour + keyword counter-search to confirm sparse areas
are genuinely sparse (not a classification artefact). Reframed neutrally (NOT "ECT gap").
## Phase 3 — Write-up
- New survey paper (separate from ECT paper). Reproducible: ship queries + corpus snapshot hash.
- Sections: corpus & method, category landscape, temporal trends, author/WG structure,
redundancy/overlap, reliability (kappa), limitations, related work.
## Cost summary
- Phase 0/2: €0 (local SQLite + Ollama).
- Phase 1: ~$39 total (abstract-only keeps it tiny). Quantify exact tokens before running.