Registry v1.0.0 · Updated 2026-07-27

Maha Research Context Registry

A public index of versioned, source-aware research artifacts designed for human reading and bounded AI-assisted use.

This registry is not a journal, a peer-review system, or a scientific authority. It indexes artifacts and records what each one is, what it is based on, and what it does not establish. Listing an artifact here says nothing about whether the field agrees with it.

How to read this registry

What a research context pack is

A context pack is a bounded, versioned package of a research artifact: its claims, each with a stable identifier and an epistemic status; its sources, each traced to where it was verified; and its exclusions, stated as part of the package rather than left to inference. The point is that the qualifications travel with the content. A claim separated from its status label and its limitations has lost the thing that made it safe to reuse — and that separation is exactly what happens when research is scraped, summarized, or pasted into a model without provenance.

Why claims, sources, versioning, and exclusions matter

A claim identifier lets someone cite a specific formulation rather than a paraphrase. A source trail lets them check it. A version and review date let them tell whether the copy they hold is current. An exclusion tells them what the artifact was never meant to support. Together these are what separate a reusable research artifact from a confident-sounding document — and they are what a downstream reader, human or machine, needs in order to represent the work honestly.

Four different things, deliberately not blurred

Research atlas
An orientation layer over a body of literature. It maps how concepts connect and labels how well each claim is supported. It is not a source; it points at sources.
Context pack
A bounded, versioned package of an atlas or dataset — claims, sources, exclusions, and citation metadata — designed to be reused, including as context for an AI-assisted workflow, without losing its provenance.
Working paper
A self-published research document with a stated status and version. Not peer reviewed unless it explicitly says so, and never to be represented as a journal article.
Dataset
Structured data with documented provenance and reuse terms. No dataset is currently registered.
Methodology or standard
A document specifying how research artifacts are produced, versioned, sourced, or audited. No methodology document is currently registered as a standalone artifact.
Peer-reviewed publication
A paper that has passed independent expert review organized by a journal or conference. Nothing in this registry is peer reviewed. No artifact here should be cited or described as though it were.

Inclusion in this registry does not imply scientific consensus. It records that an artifact’s provenance, status, and boundaries have been made explicit and can be checked — nothing more. Several registered artifacts describe debates the field has not settled, and they say so.

Registered artifacts — 2

An artifact is listed only when its canonical URL, machine-readable endpoints, status, and any DOI can be verified against the source repository. Machine-readable form at registry.json.

Filter the registry

Artifact type
Topic
Availability

Showing 2 of 2 artifacts

  • Research atlasv1.2.0DOI

    The de Sitter / String Swampland Atlas

    Public educational orientation tool

    Not peer reviewed. Does not adjudicate whether string theory admits metastable de Sitter vacua, and asserts no experimental confirmation of string theory, M-theory, or any swampland conjecture.

    A source-first concept map and claim ledger for the de Sitter problem in the string/M-theory swampland program. Sixteen concept nodes, twelve claims with stable identifiers and epistemic status labels, seven open problems presented with both camps, and twenty-eight annotated source cards — every citation drawn from the verified set of the underlying working paper. Ships with a downloadable context pack carrying its own exclusions.

    • Claim ledger (12)
    • Source trail (28)
    • Machine-readable JSON
    • Downloadable context pack
    • Stable claim URLs
    Machine-readable (7)
    • Atlas metadata · application/jsonConcept nodes, edges, and the claim ledger.
    • Claim ledger · application/jsonClaims with status, limitations, source ids, review date, canonical URL.
    • Source trail · application/jsonSource cards with verification labels and provenance notes.
    • Context pack manifest · application/jsonIntended uses, exclusions, endpoints, integrity and citation notes.
    • Plain-text context · text/plainCompact context document for AI-assisted workflows.
    • Context pack download · application/jsonSingle-file bundle: manifest, claims, sources, open questions, README.
    • Citation metadata · text/yaml
    Archive
    DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21603961 ↗ · concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21603960 ↗This DOI identifies the underlying working paper, not the atlas. The atlas and its context pack have no DOI of their own.
    Intended use
    • Students and self-directed learners: Orient yourself in a contested literature before reading the primary papers, with an explicit signal of which statements are settled and which are not.
    • Educators: A worked example for teaching the difference between an established result, an open research question, a conjecture, and a speculative interpretation — using a live debate rather than a tidy one.
    • Researchers entering the area: A provenance-checked starting bibliography of twenty-seven works, with the structure of the seven open problems and the strongest argument on each side.
    • AI-assisted research workflows: A compact, bounded context attachment that carries source links and epistemic labels with it, so a model summarizing this material has the qualifications in front of it rather than having to infer them.
    What this does not establish
    • This pack is not peer reviewed and confers no authority. It is an educational orientation resource assembled by a non-specialist curator.
    • It is not a complete string theory corpus. It covers one debate — whether string/M-theory admits metastable de Sitter vacua — through twenty-seven works, and nothing else.
    • It asserts no experimental confirmation of string theory, M-theory, or any swampland conjecture. None of these has been experimentally established, and the pack must not be used to suggest otherwise.
    • It does not adjudicate the central question. Competent researchers hold opposing positions for technical reasons, and the pack represents both without deciding between them.
    • It contains no full text, abstracts, figures, or data from any cited paper. Sources are identified and linked, never reproduced.
    • It is not a substitute for the primary literature. Research conclusions require reading the cited papers.
    • Its citation set is deliberately closed to the source paper. Works outside that set — including the discovery-era supernova cosmology papers — are absent by design, and gaps are stated rather than filled.
    • It contains no numerical results, datasets, or code, and makes no predictions of its own.

    Updated 2026-07-27 · Reviewed 2026-07-27 · CC BY 4.0

    String theoryQuantum gravityCosmology

  • Working paperv2.0DOI

    The de Sitter Problem in the String Swampland: A Verified Literature Map

    Preprint · Not peer reviewed

    A literature map, not original research. It surveys a contested debate and represents the disagreement rather than resolving it.

    A survey of the de Sitter problem in string/M-theory structured around seven open problems and their competing camps. Every cited arXiv identifier was independently resolved against arXiv and INSPIRE-HEP before publication, and provenance tags record the verification status of each cited work. This paper is the authority for every citation used by the atlas built on it.

    • Provenance-tagged citations
    • Verification ledger
    • Machine-readable metadata
    • Archived with DOI
    Machine-readable (4)
    Archive
    DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21603961 ↗ · concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21603960 ↗This DOI identifies this paper. Cite the version DOI for the archived edition you consulted.
    Intended use
    • Researchers and students who need the structure of the de Sitter debate and a provenance-checked entry point into its literature.
    • Anyone assessing what an AI-assisted synthesis can and cannot be trusted to produce: the paper documents its own verification passes and corrections.
    What this does not establish
    • Not peer reviewed, and must not be represented as a journal article.
    • Not original research. It maps a debate; it advances no physics position of its own.
    • It does not adjudicate whether string theory admits metastable de Sitter vacua, and takes no side on the question.
    • Verification means a citation resolves to a real paper correctly placed in the debate. It is not an endorsement of that paper’s argument — most works cited disagree with one another.
    • Affiliations and camp placements are time-stamped to the revision date, not permanent.

    Updated 2026-07-26 · Reviewed 2026-07-26 · CC BY 4.0

    String theoryQuantum gravityCosmology

Not yet registered

Artifacts that have been planned or referred to but whose metadata is not yet complete enough to list. They are named here with the specific gap, rather than being included on the strength of a description.

  • Methodology or standardMetadata incomplete

    Maha Provenance Standard

    No canonical public page and no DOI for this artifact exist in the repository. The citable-working-paper standard it would describe is currently implemented as repository infrastructure — the citation endpoints, the working-paper status model, and an internal deposit-readiness note — rather than as a published, versioned document. It will be listed once it has a public URL and its own record.

Inclusion policy

  • An artifact is listed only when its canonical URL, machine-readable endpoints, status, and any DOI can be verified against the source repository.
  • Inclusion records provenance. It is not a claim that the field agrees with an artifact, and it is not peer review.
  • Each entry states what its artifact does not establish. Those exclusions travel with the record and should be preserved on reuse.
  • Artifacts whose metadata is incomplete are listed under pendingArtifacts with the specific gap named, rather than being included on the strength of a description.