Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.02698

Structure-Driven Methodology: An Emerging Cross-Domain Paradigm

Abstract

This article proposes and articulates structure-driven methodology as an emerging cross-domain paradigm. In contrast to the objective-driven paradigm that has dominated inverse-problem solving for over two centuries, structure-driven methodology advocates identifying and exploiting the intrinsic structure of a problem to construct the solution method directly, rather than approaching the solution through iterative search. Drawing on examples from the Liouville-variant Goldbach conjecture, the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture, Noether's theorem, and the author's nearly four decades of geophysical inversion practice, the article illustrates the common logic of structure-driven thinking in number theory, pure mathematics, physics, and seismic imaging. The author also systematically proposes the Structure-Driven Inversion (SDI) paradigm, comprising Mathematical Structure-Driven Inversion (MSDI) and Physical Structure-Driven Inversion (PSDI). Structure-driven methodology does not negate objective-driven methodology but complements it: objective-driven is a general search strategy, whereas structure-driven is a custom direct strategy. The article concludes that the significance of this shift lies not only in efficiency gains but also in cognitive deepening---when facing complex problems, the first question is no longer ``how to solve the problem faster'' but ``what is the structure of the problem.''

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shengchang Chen. 2026-10-02. Structure-Driven Methodology: An Emerging Cross-Domain Paradigm. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02698

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Mathematical Illustration: Proof, Intuition and AI

In the French pedagogic tradition of Gaspard Monge, geometry was learned by drawing and handling models: drawing was knowing. The formalism of the early twentieth century placed illustration on the side of intuition, perhaps useful for discovery but kept apart from proof. Yet illustration stayed active in mathematics and provides a model for mathematical knowledge as proofs can be generated by automated systems and the Leiden Declaration asks again what mathematical knowledge is. We trace a persistent tradition of illustration through Hadamard, Coxeter, Conway, Thurston and the Geometry Center, and draw on the philosophy of mathematical practice, including Manders' distinction between exact and coexact claims, De Toffoli's account of diagrams with justificatory force, and Giardino's representational affordances. Using examples from Schwartz's minimal flat torus, early images of the Mandelbrot set, and shader renderings of algebraic starscapes, we argue for the development of rigorous illustration, to help inspire and certify the insights it affords. We close by asking the mathematical community to recognise the role illustration plays in helping develop mathematical research and understanding.

math.HO↗

A memorial tribute: Adriano Garsia (1928--2024)

Adriano Mario Garsia was born in Tunis on August 20, 1928, to a Tunisian-Italian family. He lived on a farm there until the end of World War II, then moved to Rome. After finishing high school, he was sent to the United States to live with relatives in Woyming and eventually made his way to California, becoming a student of Charles Loewner at Stanford in the early 1950s. Following his Ph.D., Adriano held positions at MIT, the University of Minnesota, and Caltech before joining the nascent mathematics department at the University of California, San Diego, in 1966 where he spent the remainder of his career. He passed away in San Diego on October 6, 2024, at the age of 96.

math.HO↗

The Siren Call of Silicon Leviathan: Reflections on blowup and Aufklärungsdämmerung

Over three centuries ago our Enlightenment forefathers brought forth in Europe--and later on this continent--a new approach to knowledge production and dissemination, conceived in distrust of authority, and dedicated to the proposition that truth is accessible to human reason. Mathematics, the Enlightenment's firstborn, was its existence proof--knowledge that compels assent without appeal to authority--because the only way to make a theorem certain was to show it to a human mind. Now we are engaged in an existential struggle testing whether mathematics, or any discipline so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met in the wake of the OpenAI press release: 166 pages, 616,000 lines of Lean, produced in 88 hours by some 10,000 software agents, and read in full--at the time of this Siren Call--by no human being. A proof has historically been two things: a certificate that a theorem is true, and a demonstration that lets another person see why. OpenAI delivered the first without the second. But, in a larger sense, what matters is not what the Silicon Leviathan (OpenAI and its peer competitors) produces but rather what we accept. By accepting the certificate without the demonstration, we adopt the Hobbesian bargain: authority, not truth, makes the law. The age that this augurs is--in Panofsky's phrase--a Middle Ages in reverse--its authority a subhuman superintelligence. The great task before us is to frame a covenant under which what has become optional--understanding--remains required: that nothing counts as mathematics until a human being has understood it--and can show the next person why. Whether we will safeguard and keep our sovereign inheritance--decided at the moment of acceptance--which is not yet past--will determine if this Aufklärungsdämmerung spells the Enlightenment's end.

math.HO↗