abstract: We present a self-consistent interpretation of the of very-high-energy neutrino signal from the direction of the inner Galaxy, which is a part of the astronomical neutrino signal reported by IceCube. We demonstrate that an estimate of the neutrino flux in the $E>100$ TeV energy range lies at the high-energy power-law extrapolation of the spectrum of diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission from the Galactic Ridge, as observed by Fermi telescope. This suggests that IceCube neutrino and Fermi/LAT $\gamma$-ray fluxes are both produced in interactions of cosmic rays with the interstellar medium in the Norma arm and/or in the Galactic Bar. Cosmic rays responsible for the $\gamma$-ray and neutrino flux are characterised by hard spectrum with the slope harder than $-2.4$ and cut-off energy higher than $10$ PeV.
author: A. Neronov$^{1}$, D.Semikoz$^{2}$, C.Tchernin$^{1}$
title: PeV neutrinos from interactions of cosmic rays with the interstellar medium in the Galaxy

# Introduction

IceCube collaboration has recently reported detection of two PeV energy neutrino events which constitute an excess of $2.8\sigma$ over background . In addition, a search of neutrino signal in the energy band above 30 TeV was performed and an evidence of the astrophysical signal on top of the background of atmospheric neutrinos and muons was reported at the level of $4.1\sigma$ . The highest energy events are mostly cascade events in the IceCube detector. Because of this, measurement of the directions of the incoming neutrinos suffers from poor angular resolution, in the 10 degrees range. Nevertheless, some of the 28 high-energy events belong to event clusters, with the strongest cluster of 5 events detected in the direction of the central part of the Galactic Plane.

The central part of the Milky Way galactic disk is the strongest $\gamma$-ray source on the sky . Most of the $\gamma$-ray emission from the Galaxy is produced by the cosmic ray interactions with the interstellar medium, which result in production and subsequent two-photon decays of neutral pions. The same interactions also lead to neutrino emission from the Galaxy, via production and decays of charged pions . The neutrino and $\gamma$-ray signals from the cosmic ray interactions are expected to have comparable flux and energy distributions. Therefore, the Galaxy is expected to be (one of) the strongest astronomical source of high-energy neutrinos.

The Galaxy taken as a whole is a very extended astronomical source on the sky. This poses a problem for the search of neutrino signal from this source. Indeed, signals from isolated point sources could be distinguished from the background of atmospheric neutrinos and muons as "excess" events coming from some particular sky directions. To the contrary, it might be difficult to separate the very extended neutrino signal from the Galaxy from still more extended atmospheric neutrino and muon signal, or from an isotropic extragalactic neutrino flux based on the spatial morphology of neutrino arrival directions. Still, the central part of the Milky Way and, in particular the central part of the Galactic Plane is generically expected to be a brighter neutrino source than e.g. the outer Galaxy. This distinguishing feature of the Galaxy source could be used to identify the Milky Way contribution to the astronomical neutrino flux, in particular of the flux detected by IceCube at the energies above 30 TeV.

Detection of multi-TeV neutrino signal from the Galactic Plane would be important because this would trace the locations of recent injections of cosmic rays in the interstellar medium . These recent events of injections of cosmic rays might be traced by a range of extended (several degree scale) $\gamma$-ray sources dominating the emission from the Galaxy in the very-high-energy band . The observed statistics of hard extended $\gamma$-ray sources is consistent with that expected in the model in which the observed cosmic ray content of the Galaxy is produced by episodic injections by supernova explosions over the last 10-30 kyr. This provides an (almost) direct evidence for the hypothesis of association of cosmic ray injection with supernova explosion events. However, firm identification of the hard extended sources around recent supernova explosions as the places of injections of cosmic rays could be achieved only via detection of neutrino flux from these sources.

The conjecture that Galactic sources of TeV-PeV cosmic rays should reveal themselves at the first place through the extended (rather than point source) $\gamma$-ray and neutrino emission is motivated by a recent progress in the study of spreading of cosmic rays in the interstellar medium. Cosmic ray diffusion on 100 pc scale distance range is found to proceed in a very anisotropic manner, with much faster diffusion along certain directions, as compared to isotropic diffusion, even in case of pure turbulent magnetic field . The same is true for the diffusion even at kiloparsec scale distances in the presence of a regular component of magnetic field (e.g. in the Galactic arms). Those findings suggest that neutrinos and $\gamma$-ray signal produced by TeV-PeV cosmic rays injected by young (tens of kiloyears old) sources should primarily come from large multi-degrees angular scale regions.

In this paper we follow a previously developed approach of Ref. and combine the analysis of gamma-ray data of Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) in inner Galaxy and new IceCube data[^1]. We find that the flux contained in IceCube neutrino events near the Galactic Centre lies at the high-energy extrapolation of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum of the inner part of the Galactic Disk (from -30 to 30 degrees Galactic longitude range). Based on this observation, we argue that cosmic ray interactions in the Galactic Ridge should be considered as a viable source of the observed 0.1-1 PeV neutrinos from the inner Galaxy.

The suggested measurement of the neutrino flux from the Galactic Ridge, if confirmed with deeper IceCube exposure, would have strong implications for the origin of cosmic rays with hard spectrum, responsible for the production of the hard component of the $\gamma$-ray emission. Detection of PeV neutrino from this region imposes a lower bound on the cut-off energy $E_{cut}\gtrsim 10$ PeV of the hard cosmic ray spectrum. This is consistent with an observation of ankle-like structure in the spectrum of the "light" cosmic rays by KASCADE-Grande  together with recent limits on cosmic ray anisotropy by Auger Observatory , which imply that transition from Galactic to extra-galactic cosmic rays starts only above $10^{17}$ eV . This, in turn, means that at least some Galactic sources should accelerate cosmic ray protons well beyond the knee.

# $\gamma$-ray and neutrino data analysis.

The inner part of the Galactic Plane is the brightest $\gamma$-ray source on the sky. The $\gamma$-ray emission originates from cosmic ray interactions in the interstellar medium. The same interactions produce also neutrinos and it is natural to expect that the inner part of the Galaxy is also one of the brightest neutrino sources on the sky.

The neutrino signal at the energies below 100 TeV is dominated by the atmospheric muon and neutrino background. The IceCube analysis reported in the Ref. shows that some 70% of detected events in the energy band 30-100 TeV are due to the atmospheric background. In the energy band above 100 TeV the background event fraction is below 10%. Taking this into account, we concentrate in the following on the events with energies $E>100$ TeV.

Fig. shows the distribution of arrival directions of the highest energy ($E>100$ TeV) neutrinos detected by IceCube, superimposed onto a Fermi $\gamma$-ray image of the sky in the energy band above 100 GeV. One could see that among 9 neutrino events, three are distributed around the Galactic Ridge, a bright $\gamma$-ray emission region in the Galactic longitude range $-30^\circ<l<30^\circ$. Two more events are arriving from the directions close to the Galactic Plane and four events are arriving from high Galactic latitude.

Low statistics of events and absence of clustering of events at high Galactic latitudes and in the outer Galactic disk lead to a too large range of possible viable models for the origin of those neutrinos. The high Galactic latitude events could be produced by e.g. extragalactic sources, like blazars , while the events from the Galactic Plane may be from individual Galactic sources or be a part of diffuse emission from the Galaxy.

In principle, the same applies also to the neutrinos coming from the inner Galaxy. However, taking into account the coincidence of arrival directions of a subset of $E>100$ TeV neutrinos with the direction toward the inner Milky Way disk, we put forward a conjecture that the Galactic Ridge is a source of those neutrinos. To verify the self-consistency of this conjecture, we estimate the $E>100$ TeV neutrino flux and compare it with an extrapolation of the measured $\gamma$-ray spectrum of the Galactic Ridge. If both $\gamma$-rays and neutrinos are produced via the same mechanism (cosmic ray interactions resulting in pion production and decays), the neutrino flux and spectrum is expected to be nearly identical with the the $\gamma$-ray flux and spectrum.

In an alternative model in which neutrinos are produced by individual isolated sources in the inner Galaxy or beyond it, there should be no particular reason for the consistency of the spectral characteristics of the $\gamma$-ray diffuse emission from the Galactic Plane with those of the neutrino signal. Instead, if the neutrino signal originates from a particular isolated source, the $\gamma$-ray spectrum of this source should be consistent with the flux / spectrum of neutrinos coming from the direction of the inner Galaxy.

The sensitivity of $\gamma$-ray telescopes in 100 TeV energy band is currently not sufficient for detection of astronomical sources and neutrino flux in this band could be estimated via extrapolation of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum from lower energies. The highest 100 TeV band flux is expected from the brightest region with the hardest $\gamma$-ray spectrum. Fig. shows a scan of the spectral properties of the $\gamma$-ray emission from the $8^\circ\times 8^\circ$ regions at different Galactic longitudes. The grey band in this Figure marks the Galactic Ridge region $-30^\circ<l<30^\circ$ (see Fig. ).

From Fig. one could see that the highest flux in the range of Galactic longitudes $-30^\circ <l<30^\circ$ is measured from the parts of the Galactic Plane centered at the positions of the sources HESS J1837-069 (an unidentified extended source), HESS J1825-137 (a pulsar wind nebula), a source close to the Galactic Centre supermassive black hole and/or G 0.9+0.1 composite supernova remnant and an unidentified extended source HESS J1632-478. To identify the most probable candidate(s) for the sources of observed neutrinos, we have combined the measured spectrum of $\gamma$-ray emission from the hard / bright sources consistent with the IceCube event cluster and and estimate of the neutrino flux from the IceCube data. The result is shown in Fig. .

The TeV band spectra of individual sources contributing to the Galactic Ridge emission are shown by grey curves. The overall spectrum of emission from the Galactic Ridge is well represented by a broken power law with a hardening in the 20 GeV range. The harder component of the spectrum is characterised by the photon index $\Gamma\simeq 2.4$, while the softer component has the spectrum with the slope $\Gamma\simeq 2.5$.

To calculate the estimate of the flux and spectrum suggested by the IceCube data we used the following procedure. We consider at the first place only the events with energies above 100 TeV. This is done based on the modelling presented in the IceCube publication , from which it follows that the all-sky spectrum below at least 60 TeV is consistent with the expectations from the atmospheric muon and neutrino backgrounds. At the same time, comparison of the background with the observed signal in the energy range above 100 TeV shows that the observed flux is dominated by the astronomical source signal, with only minor / negligible background contribution.

There are three neutrinos with energies above 100 TeV in the Galactic Centre region event cluster (see Fig. ). The effective area of IceCube still grows rapidly in the energy range above 100 TeV and the difference between the effective area at 200 TeV and 1 PeV is by a factor of three (i.e. half-an-order of magnitude). Taking this into account, we divide the energy range 100 TeV – 3 PeV onto three energy bins of equal width in the logarithmic scale: 100-316 TeV, 316 TeV-1 PeV and 1-3.16 PeV. In these energy bins we calculate the effective area from the data presented in . The data given in provides a sky-averaged effective area for electron, tau and muon neutrinos. To find the effective area corresponding to the range of declinations of interest we use the declination dependence of the count rate from an isotropic source and find that the effective area of the detector is almost declination-independent in the Southern hemisphere for the event selection chosen for the analysis. This effective area is by a factor $1.3$ higher than the $4\pi$-averaged affective area reported in . This information is sufficient for the estimate of the flux in the 100 TeV-3 PeV energy band shown in Fig. .

From Fig. one could see that the IceCube flux estimate lies right at the power law extrapolation of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum of the Galactic Ridge to the 100 TeV energy range. At the same time, the estimate of the neutrino flux is inconsistent with the extrapolations of the spectra of individual sources contributing to the Galactic Ridge. This suggests a model in which the hard component of the $\gamma$-ray flux from the entire Galactic Ridge and the neutrino flux from the inner Galaxy direction are produced via one and the same mechanism: interactions of cosmic rays with the interstellar medium.

The relation between the $\gamma$-ray and neutrino signal from cosmic ray interactions in the interstellar medium should hold not only in the Galactic Ridge region, but everywhere along the Galactic Plane. This means that the extrapolation of the $\gamma$-ray signal from the sub-TeV toward higher energies should provide a good estimate for the 100 TeV neutrino signal all along the Galactic Plane . To verify the self-consistency of the model in which the observed $E>100$ TeV neutrinos at low Galactic latitudes are coming from the cosmic ray interactions, we also extract the $\gamma$-ray spectrum and estimate the neutrino flux from the region $-90^\circ<l<-30^\circ$, see Fig. . This region is entirely contained in the Southern hemisphere, so that our estimate of the IceCube exposure is also applicable for this region. From Fig. one could see that the detection of one $E>100$ TeV neutrino from the direction toward this part of the Galactic Plane is consistent with the expectations based on the extrapolation of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum.

Counting the numbers of photons with energies above 100 GeV coming from the inner and outer Galaxy, we find that the $\gamma$-ray flux from the outer part of the Galactic Disk ($90^\circ<l<270^\circ$) is approximately three times lower than the flux from the inner Galactic Disk . If both $\gamma$-rays and neutrinos coming from the direction of the Galactic Plane are produced by cosmic ray interactions, the ratio of neutrino flux from the outer Galactic Plane to that from the inner Galactic plane is also expected to be approximately $1\div 3$. This is what is observed in the IceCube data (see Fig. ). There are four neutrinos with energies above 100 TeV from the inner Galactic Disk and one from the outer Galactic Disk. This demonstrates the self-consistency of the hypothesis that low Galactic latitude astronomical neutrinos with energies above 100 TeV detected by IceCube could be a part of diffuse emission from the Galaxy.

Modelling of diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission from the inner Galaxy suggests that a significant part of $E>100$ GeV flux could be due to inverse Compton emission from electrons. In this case, the flux of pion decay contribution to the $\gamma$-ray flux measured by Fermi is lower than the total flux of the Galactic Ridge region shown in Fig. . The spectrum of the pion decay component is softer in the $E\sim 100$ GeV band, so that the estimate of the neutrino flux in the $E>100$ TeV band is inconsistent with the high-energy extrapolation of the pion decay component of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum. Our analysis suggests that an alternative model for the $E>100$ GeV $\gamma$-ray emission from the Galaxy might be valid, with the pion decay component dominating up to the highest energies and inverse Compton emission giving only a sub-dominant contribution to the spectrum.

# Discussion

In this paper we have considered a possibility that the $E>100$ TeV neutrino signal observed from the direction of the Galactic Center region is due to the cosmic ray interactions in the inner Galaxy. We have compared different possibilities for the Galactic neutrino source(s): diffuse emission from the entire Galactic Ridge or emission from isolated individual sources.

From Fig. is is clear that the neutrino flux is not produced by any individual source in the Galactic Centre region, like the Galactic Center itself, G 0.9+0.1 HESS J1632-478 and HESS J1825-137. One could see that the neutrino flux in the 100 TeV energy band exceeds the $\gamma$-ray fluxes from individual sources by more than an order-of-magnitude. This mismatch between the $\gamma$-ray and neutrino fluxes could not be explained by possible absorption of the highest energy $\gamma$-rays in the source because (a) normalisation of the flux at lower energies is already much lower than the neutrino flux estimate and (b) all the sources, as well as the interstellar medium around the sources are expected to be transparent for the 100 TeV $\gamma$-rays: the density of the soft photon backgrounds is largely insufficient for significant attenuation of the $\gamma$-ray flux due to the pair production .

This suggests that the observed neutrino flux, similarly to the Galactic diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission, originates from an extended region in the interstellar medium. Extended emission from the entire Galactic Disk scale height is natural to expect in a scenario in which most of the cosmic rays escape from a source to the interstellar medium and diffuse preferentially along the ordered magnetic field in the Galactic arms. We have demonstrated the self-consistency of such scenario by showing that the estimate of the neutrino flux agrees with the extrapolation of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum of the entire Galactic Ridge spanning the longitude range $-30^\circ<l<30^\circ$. It is remarkable that the estimated neutrino flux in the IceCube event cluster is close to both the 35-year-old and recent estimates of the expected neutrino flux from the Galactic Ridge region.

The Galactic Ridge spans the range of Galactic longitudes delimited by the projections of the innermost Norma arm of the Galaxy and also of the Galactic Bar . Cosmic rays spreading from sources in the Norma arm and /or in the Galactic Bar could not spread into $|l|>30^\circ$ range, they only extend along the arm. This might explain the distinct appearance of the brighter Galactic Ridge in the $\gamma$-ray map and should lead to a similar extension of the neutrino source in the inner Galaxy (a conjecture which could be verified with a deeper IceCube exposure).

More generally, our analysis is consistent with a general expectation that strongest PeV neutrino signal from Galaxy should come from all the Galactic Disk, rather than from isolated point sources. Cosmic rays with energies $E>1$ PeV propagate in intermediate regime between diffusion and linear escape, producing complicated spatial distributions around their sources, with higher density in the Galactic arms, see e.g. . Recent detailed calculations of 1-100 PeV cosmic ray propagation in Galaxy have shown that cosmic rays typically escape from Galactic disk in 200 kyr at PeV energies and in about 20 kyr at 10 PeV energies and above. At 10 kyr time scale 10 PeV cosmic ray protons spread on several kpc scales in direction of regular fields and just on 0.5 kpc in perpendicular directions. Thus all proton sources in Galactic Ridge would contribute to observed neutrino spectrum. 1-10 PeV cosmic rays injected by by the sources in the Norma arm and in the Galactic Bar spread over the angular distance range $\theta\simeq R/D\simeq 20^\circ-30^\circ$ on 20 kyr time scale. Thus, unless there is a large population of sources much younger than 10 kyr, the cosmic ray induced neutrino signal is expected to come from the entire Galactic arms, rather than from isolated sources.

Of course, the statistics of the neutrino signal is at the moment too low to make firm conclusions on the identification of the Galactic Ridge as the source of the observed neutrinos. Alternative possibilities are not ruled out. It is possible that the signal in the direction of the inner Galaxy is produced by the cosmic ray interactions in the more extended Fermi bubble structures , or a distribution of cosmic ray sources like hyper nova remnants , or by the extragalactic sources , see for a review. Further accumulation of statistics of neutrino events from the inner Galaxy will confirm or ruled out the model proposed in this paper in a straightforward way.

*Acknowledgement*. We would like to thank F.Halzen for useful discussion and comments on the text. The work of AN and CT is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The work of DS is supported in part by the grant RFBR 13-02-12175-ofi-m.

[^1]: Note that a the analysis used for the 28 high-energy events , sensitive to the shower events produced by electron, tau neutrinos and neutral current interaction has much larger effective area in the Southern hemisphere than the standard IceCube analysis based on muon tracks. This explains the improvement of sensitivity of IceCube to the signal from the inner Galactic Plane, compared to the estimate of Ref.


abstract: This study describes a vision, how technology can help improving the efficiency in research. We propose a new clean-slate design, where more emphasis is given on the correctness and up-to-dateness of the scientific results, it is more open to new ideas and better utilize the research efforts worldwide by providing personalized interface for every researcher. The key idea is to reveal the structure and connections of the problems solved in the scientific studies. We will build the system with the main focus on the solved problems itself, and treat the studies only as one presentation form. By utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning on the network of the solved problems we could coordinate individual research activities in a large scale, that has never been seen before.
author: János Tapolcai
bibliography: ref.bib
title: Digital Encycplopedia of Scientific Results

# Introduction

Research is about searching for answers on very difficult questions, e.g. *How did climate changed in the recent 30 years? How can cloud technologies change data storing? How can we cure AIDS? etc.* The full answers to these questions are way too complex to be understood by a single human; thus, these problems are cut into small parts that can be answered by a group of people. We call these small parts as *sub-problems*, and with solutions we treat them as the main building blocks of science. Eventually, the final answer to the very difficult questions is going to be a joint work of many researchers working independently, sometimes even in different centuries. The only glue that connects these researchers are text documents in which researchers write down their new findings. We call these documents *studies*, and they may have various formats (such as papers, theses, reports and books) but overall they follow roughly the same structure since many centuries.

There have been many efforts in building up digital databases over these studies, such as ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar, CiteSeer^x^, Microsoft Academic Search, etc . They provide advanced search and keep track the citation network, which greatly improved the efficiency of research in the last decade. The key statement of the current study is that the time is ripe: technology is ready to provide a way more efficient tool for researchers after a clean-slate design. The key idea is to built the system around the scientific sub-problems and their relationships. Currently the main focus is on the scientific studies, and the structure of the sub-problems remains hidden behind them. Lunching such a system requires a significant amount of intellectual work by transforming existing scientific studies into a network of solved sub-problems. This study overviews how this can be done and what can be the incentives.

# State of the Art

Before we further discuss our goals let us overview the typical properties and possible weaknesses of the current system. It considers research studies as the central element that follows the unique style and logic of each research field. These styles can be quite different, but the following building blocks appear in all of them with different emphasis:

sub-problems:

:   the research questions addressed in the study. It is often in the form of problem definition or theorems.

solutions:

:   the answers to the above questions (also called the main contributions).

positioning:

:   the relationship of the study compared to previous studies. For example, how the addressed sub-problem is related to more general research questions.

supporting material:

:   which are summaries (e.g. abstract and conclusions), and all type of extra information about the work (e.g. motivation, background of the work, list of authors, acknowledgements, etc).

An important property is that once a study is *published* it remains as is forever, and cannot be edited anymore. We have seen many examples where the development of a research field was temporary stopped because of some badly written section in an important study. For example, in mathematical papers it is common to ignore some parts of the proof by saying "one can easily see". Even if the paper is brilliant, later it might not be trivial for a reader with different background than the authors, and make the solution incomplete. On the other hand, publishing these missing parts of the proofs as an independent study is rarely done as it is considered to be a very incremental contribution. The extended proof can be included in a book overviewing the whole research field, but this is also a huge work.

If an error is found in a study it is possible to publish an *errata* to correct it. Withdrawing a study is also possible, but it is very rare and considered to be a disgraceful event. Before a study is published it is almost always peer reviewed in ordered to verify it by a few anonym researchers. The reviewers often have a chance to suggest some changes in the study before it is published. Publishers of the prestigious venues pay special attention to have high quality reviews, and be able to select the most important studies for publishing. Many pointed out the weak points of peer review systems, but so far there is no successful alternatives. For example usually the reviewers do not get any credit, and thus it is always hard to convince (and find) the most proper reviewer.

The publishing venues (e.g. journal, conference, book) have several requirements in order to make the work more readable for humans. For example length of the published study is defined by a strict page-limit. Another typical human constraint is sanctioning plagiarism in academia. Each study should avoid using another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions. Although these constraints are all reasonable, but sometimes have negative influence on how research evolves. We argue that *currently too much emphasis is given on the presentation of research results, and it is far from the optimal structure.*

# Goals

## Goal 1: Maintain an editable map of sub-problems

We treat research as a process where a great number of sub-problems are solved to eventually find the answer on a question addressed. In our vision besides the solutions to sub-problems, the relationships of these sub-problems are also of central importance, which we call *the map of the sub-problems*. This map is changing as the research evolves and its details are often hidden in the studies. For example a study deals with two sub-problems $A$ and $B$, where $B$ is a special case of $A$ (any solution to sub-problem $B$ is also a solution to sub-problem $A$, while the opposite is not true).

We take a special care of the citations. First we allow to precisely define which sections of the cited paper they are referring to. Many studies cover several sub-problems and it is not simple to map the particular sub-problems cited in a paper. Second, we list the paragraphs/sentences how a study is cited later in the literature. This allows to navigate forward in the citation graph to find a latest result related to each sub-problem.

## Goal 2: Emphasis the links between sub-problem (and papers)

The map of sub-problem can be treated as a network, where the nodes are the sub-problems and the links are the relationship between the sub-problems. To understand this network we need to discover all possible links between the nodes. Our motto is that "the main contribution is often lays not within the paper, but between the papers". Unfortunately, the current structure of research does not favor discovering these links, but rather focuses on the nodes. For example it is very rare that the only contribution of a study is to show that a sub-problem in paper $A$ is the same as the sub-problem of paper $B$. This type of contribution is often considered incremental, and thus easily becomes forgotten by not receiving sufficient highlights. At the same time research activity is greatly increased in the last decades, and many small research communities were born focusing on one line of research evolving from a sub-problem. These communities are large enough to progress in one direction, and to make them believe other research communities are working on totally different sub-problems. Nevertheless, we strongly believe there is significant overlapping between them, and "reinvention of the wheel in research" is a factor that can be reduced.

## Goal 3: Lower the entry threshold for research

Researchers in each field form a narrow pyramid where the top researchers have huge influence, while it is negligible small at the bottom of the pyramid (e.g. student from less economically developed countries). Luckily, great talents usually find the way to get higher in the pyramid. Nevertheless, we believe a wider and lower pyramid would make research way more efficient. The success of open source software implementations proved how computer systems can efficiently organize collaborative working. We plan to manage a large database on the background knowledge of each researcher.

Pioneering results by top researchers often have effects on a great number of sub-problems. If we can identify these small possible contributions by analyzing the network of subproblems, and able to implement a strong validation process, then we could suggest them for students to work on, and get them involved in top research as well. In particular, by running machine learning algorithms in the network of subproblems, we should be able to identify interesting hotspots and assign for a suitable candidate. Technically, a user can request the system to point on a small set of papers that has a high potential to inspire new contributions. The user later can submit a short discussion how the sub-problems are related to each other.

An interesting successful example of an on-line collaborative research platform is the "Polymath project" created by Terence Tao of the University of California, Los Angeles, a winner of the Fields Medal, mathematics' highest honor. Here, a massive on-line collaboration of a dozen of researchers have made enormous advances over six months on a centuries-old twin primes conjecture .

## Goal 4: Keep the unconstrained structure of research

We will keep written English text (optionally with equations and figures) as the main way of presenting results. Written text is an unconstrained form of expressing ideas. We also allow to add "translations" of the sub-problem using different terminology and notation. To design the system very flexible, we will not define any research fields, and instead store as many translations of the same sub-problem as possible (even if it is just a replacement of one world to an other, like "nodes" to "vertices" in graph theory).

Technically, we intend to use latex where the notations are defined by macros that enables to simply adapt the text to different terminology. The idea is that when a text object is cited we have the opportunity to re-define the notation and terminology. In this way a cited object will appear using the same notation and terminology as in the original paper. The confusion in the terminology between paper is often the source of errors in research.

We also allow adding any other digital contents like: presentation slides, videos, source codes, and all types of data, etc.

## Goal 5: Ensure the validity of the research results

We should avoid that fake results appear in research and in our database, thus every objects (questions, answers, translations, links, etc.) should be verified by reviewers. Instead of traditional peer review systems we will propose a different mechanism, where reviews are simpler (yes or no) and the identity of the reviewers can be revealed. We expect this will significantly increase the number of reviews, and make the results more solid. The name of a famous scholar who verified the object is the best certificate it can get. In our view, an idea is not necessarily finished when it is "published", but it evolves as more and more researchers understand and verify its correctness. If a reviewer finds some parts confusing, he/she can add a translation, which will give credits for both the authors and reviewer. The reviewer can identify missing parts of the work (as new sub-problems), which can be solved by the original authors or by someone else.

We plan to publish a quantified metric on each contributors reviewer's activity, to give credits for their work. We also plan to keep track the responsibility of the contributors. The authors will be motivated to submit mature and correct work, to have high contributor index. The contributor and reviewer index will define a pyramid of the researchers, and for each object we will try to automatically assign some reviewers that are higher in the pyramid than the author. In this way if a newcomers submits a work, it will receive a review from the bottom of the pyramid first, etc.

We also plan to list how each object was cited in the later studies. It can help identifying the possible problems and limitations of the solutions, which were not discovered (or presented) by the authors. For example many study have numerical evaluations to support the main messages. However, it is very hard for the reader to judge wether the obtained measurements are general, or they were carefully selected to best support the contributions, while some of the measurements (not supporting the claims) were simply ignored. This issue, call ed reproducibility, got quite some attention recently.

## Goal 6: Provide methods to evaluate the contributors

Currently there are only very rough metrics available to quantify researchers. Most of them corresponds citation analysis (like, independent citations, H-index, etc). These metrics suffer from many known weaknesses when credits are not given where credit is due, like secondary sources where review articles collect the credit instead of the original sources, etc. By understanding the structure of research results, we can provide more accurate methods to evaluate the author's contributions, numbers that even non-professionals can understand. This can help in making "unbiased" decisions concerning grants, promotions, etc.

# Proposed system design

A Wikipedia style online webpage storing the editable map of sub-problems targeted in research papers. Solutions can be added to these sub-problems, and studies can be build up from these objects along with the supporting material. We also introduce several new objects, like

-   Links between problems, for example: a solution to Problem $A$ is a solution to Problem $B$ as well.

-   Objects to better specify a reference with explanation how to transfer notations, and the exact sentences referring to.

-   Add a new property of any set of objects e.g. add a new keyword or hashtag.

-   Add labels to an existing object, with remarks, notes, errata, translation.

-   Allow discussions between contributors by messages and on-line conversations.

Based on the above database the following potential benefits we expect:

Easier to learn a field

:   Wikipedia has showed how efficient can be to learn a new field when the text is extended with hyperlinks. When a page is linked we also define the notation and terminology transformation, so when it is loaded the notation is inline with the previous page. This helps to reduce the confusion caused if the same notation is used for two different things on different pages.

Easier to find results

:   Be knowing the relationship of the sub-problems, will will be able to implement a very advanced search among the research results.

Introduce Artificial Intelligence in research

:   Running machine learning on network of subproblems we can automatically identify potential similarities and the most important issues that need sot be addressed. It can automatically discovering all the consequences of a new solutions. By understanding how each sub-problem relates to fundamental research problem, we may be able to shepherd researchers to work on topics most important for the society.

Personalized interface for researchers

:   The system can identify the background knowledge and style of each contributor. Based on this the system will be able the suggest "interesting" objects (links) to validate. It can also suggest interesting sub-problems or (recent) solutions of high importance for researcher. It can initiate a conversation between different researchers on a specific topic by knowing their background and interest.

# Risk management

## Difficulty 1: There is no common language

Research papers are mostly written in English, however each community has their very own style. Being a novice in a research area it is considered to be a challenging task to read the first paper, even if you have a lot of experience in other research fields. It is because the paper structure and logic, the terminology and notation, the format, and usage of figures are all varies among the fields. Papers in each area shortens (or leaves out) the part which is trivial (was already said many times before) or very technical or non-relevant. These parts can be challenging to reproduce for someone with different background, e.g. in engineering papers the targeted sub-problems are often explained through simple examples, and a formal definition is omitted. As a solution we will encourage translating sub-problems to different styles, in order to help identifying the papers with similar topics in different fields. Currently, such translations are not a recognized scientific value, and thus it is rarely done by experts.

Having such translations, we can show the sub-problems in the translation closest to the reader's style. We plan to adapt a latex style interface, where the notations of a study are defined by macros and can be easily changed.

## Difficulty 2: It conflicts with the current business model in research

Research is mostly funded by governments, mainly as a part of common wealth. It paybacks in short term if research can be transformed into innovation. However, usually research is a long term investment, and countries investing in knowledge are more successful. There is also some targeted industrial support, but not with the aim to publish the great ideas. Governments fund research through selected projects and researchers, which generates a staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing. Overall there is room to improve the efficiency of current research funding systems.

In short term we treat our system as an extension to the current model. However, we see the value of conferences in long term. Conferences can summarize and highlight recent results, and are great opportunities for researchers to meet. Our plan to dedicate conferences where the studies with highest impact are presented each year.

In long term our gaol is to convince funding agencies to support research through our system. Based on the network of results we can better quantify the contributions of each researcher. We can also allow to address questions in the system and assign a price for it, which is divided between the many contributors in fair way. Addressing questions is also open for companies, which can provide them an affordable interface for researchers, while researchers can work on with real life problems. Nevertheless, we need continuous income to keep the system up to date.

## Difficulty 3: How to validate research results?

Validating the results is the key of the success of the system. It is in general very challenging, as we have seen many groundbreaking contributions which were not appreciated when they first come out. For this purpose, if the validation is controversial, we will initiate a discussions during the validation between the reviewers, and keep it in the loop until a consensus is found.

As we have discussed earlier for each object we will show the list of contributors who validated. It can be done with an interface similar to Stack Overflow, where the best solutions can be upvoted. We will keep track of the level of confidence of each contributor. Some of the budget can be allocated for reviewing purposes. We also pan to use artificial intelligence to identify malicious researchers *not* collaborating.

# An illustrative example

In this section we will give an example by examining the paper "Choosy: Max-Min Fair Sharing for Datacenter Jobs with Constraints" by Ghodsi, Zaharia, Shenker and Stoica . The paper focuses on a sub-problem of the general question *How to schedule jobs in data center?* The sub-problems and their relationship of the study is shown on Fig. .

Based on the above sub-problem structure we can assign each subsection to one of the boxes or arrows. For example Sec. 2 provides an example and explains the background of Prob. 2. Sec. 3 provides a discussion about Prob. 3. Thm. 2 and 3 shows why CMMF meets the constrained sharing incentive and strategy-proofness properties. The example of Fig 3 and 4. explains the CMMF problem. Sec. 5 deals with the algorithmic solution to Prob. 5-8, Sec. 6 with Prob. 9-12. Finally, Sec. 7 provides an evaluation of the solutions given to Prob. 5-12.

Sec. 8 corresponds to Related Works, which need to be split between the above problems, but mostly they correspond to Problems 1 and 2. Usually, the related works section is mainly written for reviewers with the aim to highlight the differences compared to the previous works, and to show that the results are original. Therefore the authors are motivated to find the differences instead of discovering the similarities, which can be an important information for future readers. We suggest to add each reference (or group of references) as separate link objects between the corresponding sub-problems with the text describing the relationship. This will allow later to add remarks to these link object if similarities are found. If the cited paper is not part of the database we can add it as one study object, and later the study object can be still divided into sub-problems.

We also define a *study* object for this paper as well, which defines the structure of the paper. It includes the title, authors, abstract, introduction section, reference to the Problems 2-12 and solution objects and finally the conclusions. The aim of the study object is to provide a "linear" description of the work, where the order and the emphasis of each section is optimized for easier understanding. Nevertheless, the presentation of the paper is excellent for researchers in the networking field, it is way too vague for someone with computer science background because of the lack of formal mathematical problem definitions.

When formalizing the problems one may notice that Prob. 8 is equivalent to a hyper-edge orientation problem in hyper-graphs with a cost function of having lexicographically-maximal (egalitarian) node degrees (e.g. ). It would be interesting to add such contribution to the paper which would provide a link to matroid theory. Note that, single-source un-splittable flow problem can be regarded as a matroid. It is also mentioned under scheduling theory in the related work section, and the relationship between the two problems is described with the following sentence: "This work differs from ours in that we are concerned with parallel jobs that are composed of multiple tasks and can thus be assigned multiple machines, as opposed to the unsplittable jobs in Kleinberg et al.'s work." In the works of Kleinberg et al. the terms "parallel" or "multiple tasks" are not used, which makes confusion in the reader. The references would benefit from clear transformation between the terminology of the two papers. In my understanding Kleinberg et al.'s algorithms solves Prob. 8. Note that, network flows can be splittable or unsplittable in the same way as the jobs are either divisible or nondivisible in the paper. These issues worth clarification, and adding them as remarks to the link objects would help the reader better understanding the work.

Discovering the relationship between matroid (network flow) theory and the CMMF problem could be an interesting work for a master student in computer science. The greedy algorithm solving the related matroid (intersection) problem would be a new algorithm compared to the ones in the paper. Moreover the general question of identifying the connections between efficient algorithms (greedy) and cloud job scheduling could be an important contribution for both fields. However, first, it requires to translating the related papers to both languages that engineers an computer scientists can read.