1 files changed, 561 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.agents/skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/theory-driven-papers-kaiming-he.md b/.agents/skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/theory-driven-papers-kaiming-he.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8c0a0e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/theory-driven-papers-kaiming-he.md
@@ -0,0 +1,561 @@
+# Theory-Driven Papers: From First Principles
+
+**Source**: Kaiming He et al., "Mean Flows for One-step Generative Modeling" (2025)
+
+**Paper Type**: Theory-driven / First-principles paper
+
+**Core Pattern**: Start from first principles → Derive theory → Build method → Demonstrate superiority
+
+---
+
+## 1. Abstract Structure: The "Principle Introduction" Framework
+
+### Pattern: From Theory to Results
+
+**Template**:
+```markdown
+Abstract:
+1. [Background] Established framework provides [foundation]
+2. [Problem] Recent research focuses on [challenge], but existing methods have [limitation]
+3. [Critique] Despite encouraging results, [specific problem with prior approaches]
+4. [Core Concept] We introduce [new concept], in contrast to [old concept]
+5. [Theory] Solely from definition, we derive [theoretical foundation]
+6. [Advantage] This provides [principled basis] vs [heuristic approaches]
+7. [Results] Achieves [strong result] - [relative improvement] over SOTA
+8. [Significance] Self-contained, [independence from external components]
+```
+
+### MeanFlows Abstract Example (annotated):
+
+```latex
+Flow Matching provides an intuitive and conceptually simple framework for
+constructing flow paths that transport one distribution to another.
+
+Recent research has paid significant attention to few-step—and in
+particular, one-step, feedforward—generative models.
+
+Despite encouraging results, the consistency constraint is imposed as a
+property of the network's behavior, while the properties of the underlying
+ground-truth field that should guide learning remain unknown.
+
+The core idea is to introduce a new ground-truth field representing the
+average velocity, in contrast to the instantaneous velocity typically
+modeled in Flow Matching.
+
+Solely originated from this definition, we derive a well-defined, intrinsic
+relation between the average and instantaneous velocities, which naturally
+serves as a principled basis for guiding network training.
+
+Our method achieves an FID of 3.43 using 1-NFE generation, significantly
+outperforming previous state-of-the-art methods by a relative margin of 50%
+to 70%.
+
+It is trained entirely from scratch, without any pre-training, distillation,
+or curriculum learning.
+```
+
+### Key Techniques:
+
+1. **"Provides an intuitive and conceptually simple framework"** - Light touch introduction
+2. **"Recent research has paid significant attention to..."** - Establish context
+3. **"Despite encouraging results..."** - The critique pattern (acknowledge then problem)
+4. **"The core idea is to introduce..."** - Clear concept statement
+5. **"in contrast to"** - Conceptual differentiation
+6. **"Solely originated from this definition"** - First-principles emphasis
+7. **"well-defined, intrinsic relation"** - Theory keywords
+8. **"naturally serves as a principled basis"** - Naturalness emphasis
+9. **Relative improvement (50-70%)** - More impactful than absolute numbers
+10. **Negative list** - What you DON'T need (pre-training, distillation, curriculum)
+
+---
+
+## 2. Introduction: The "Critique-First" Framework
+
+### Pattern: Build Up → Identify Flaw → Propose Alternative
+
+**Structure**:
+```markdown
+1. [Background] Established field with [characteristic]
+2. [Problem Shift] Research focus has moved to [new direction]
+3. [Specific Problem] Existing approaches address this by [method]
+4. [The Critique] Despite [acknowledgment], [fundamental problem]
+   - "imposed as a property of [X]"
+   - "[Y] remains unknown"
+5. [Consequences] Consequently, [practical problems]
+6. [Your Concept] We propose [alternative] with [differentiation]
+7. [Theory] From [first principles], we derive [result]
+8. [Advantage] This is [principled/natural/intrinsic] vs [heuristic/artificial]
+9. [Results] [Quantitative result] with [qualitative advantage]
+```
+
+### MeanFlows Introduction Flow:
+
+#### Background (Light Touch)
+```latex
+Flow Matching provides an intuitive and conceptually simple framework
+for constructing flow paths that transport one distribution to another.
+```
+
+**Technique**:
+- "intuitive and conceptually simple" - Modest, not revolutionary
+- Focus on what it IS, not how important it is
+
+#### Problem Shift
+```latex
+Closely related to diffusion models, Flow Matching focuses on the velocity
+fields that guide model training.
+
+Both Flow Matching and diffusion models perform iterative sampling during
+generation. Recent research has paid significant attention to few-step
+—and in particular, one-step, feedforward—generative models.
+```
+
+**Technique**:
+- "Closely related to" - Establish connection
+- "Recent research has paid significant attention to" - Research trend
+- "few-step—and in particular, one-step" - Progressive emphasis
+
+#### The Critique (Key Pattern)
+```latex
+Consistency Models [46, 43, 15, 31] achieve few-step generation by enforcing
+a consistency constraint on the velocity field.
+
+Despite encouraging results, the consistency constraint is imposed as a
+property of the network's behavior, while the properties of the underlying
+ground-truth field that should guide learning remain unknown.
+
+Consequently, training can be unstable and requires a carefully designed
+'discretization curriculum' to progressively constrain the time domain.
+```
+
+**Technique**:
+- **"Despite encouraging results"** - Always acknowledge first
+- **"imposed as a property of the network's behavior"** - It's artificial
+- **"underlying ground-truth field...remain unknown"** - Missing theory
+- **"Consequently"** - Show practical consequences
+- **Specific problems**: "training can be unstable", "requires...curriculum"
+
+#### Your Concept
+```latex
+The core idea is to introduce a new ground-truth field representing the
+average velocity, in contrast to the instantaneous velocity typically
+modeled in Flow Matching.
+```
+
+**Technique**:
+- **"The core idea is to introduce"** - Direct statement
+- **"in contrast to"** - Conceptual differentiation
+- **Old vs New**: "average velocity" vs "instantaneous velocity"
+
+#### Theory First
+```latex
+Average velocity is defined as the ratio of displacement to a time interval,
+with displacement given by the time integral of the instantaneous velocity.
+
+Solely originated from this definition, we derive a well-defined, intrinsic
+relation between the average and instantaneous velocities, which naturally
+serves as a principled basis for guiding network training.
+```
+
+**Technique**:
+- **"Solely originated from this definition"** - Pure derivation
+- **"well-defined, intrinsic relation"** - Theory keywords
+- **"naturally serves as"** - Not forced
+- **"principled basis"** - Foundation
+
+---
+
+## 3. Methods Section: The "Named Identity" Pattern
+
+### Pattern: Define → Derive → Name
+
+**Structure**:
+```markdown
+1. [Concept Name] Define with formal notation
+2. [Motivation] Explain why we need this
+3. [Derivation] Step-by-step with justifications
+4. [Naming] Give it a memorable name
+5. [Comparison] Contrast with prior approaches
+```
+
+### MeanFlows Example:
+
+#### Step 1: Concept Naming
+```latex
+Average Velocity. We define average velocity as the displacement between
+two time steps t and r (obtained by integration) divided by the time interval.
+
+Formally, the average velocity u is:
+
+u(zt, r, t) ≜ 1/(t−r) ∫_r^t v(zτ, τ)dτ.    (3)
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **Bold heading**: "Average Velocity." - Makes it memorable
+- **Text description first**: Explain before formula
+- **"Formally,"**: Signals math coming
+- **≜ symbol**: "defined as" (clearer than =)
+
+#### Step 2: Derivation with Motivation
+```latex
+To have a formulation amenable to training, we rewrite Eq. (3) as:
+
+(t−r)u(zt, r, t) = ∫_r^t v(zτ, τ)dτ.    (4)
+
+Now we differentiate both sides with respect to t, treating r as independent
+of t. This leads to:
+
+d/dt(t−r)u = d/dt∫_r^t v(zτ, τ)dτ
+
+⇒ u + (t−r)d/dt u = v(zt, t),    (5)
+
+where the manipulation of the left hand side employs the product rule and
+the right hand side uses the fundamental theorem of calculus.
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **"To have a formulation amenable to training"** - Explain why
+- **"Now we differentiate..."** - Guide reader
+- **Step-by-step**: Don't skip
+- **"where..."**: Explain each manipulation
+- **"⇒" symbol**: Clear direction
+
+#### Step 3: Naming the Identity
+```latex
+Rearranging terms, we obtain the identity:
+
+u(zt, r, t) = v(zt, t) − (t−r)d/dt u(zt, r, t)    (6)
+
+We refer to this equation as the "MeanFlow Identity", which describes the
+relation between v and u.
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **"Rearranging terms, we obtain..."** - What you did
+- **"We refer to this equation as the 'X Identity'"** - Brand it
+- **Explain**: "which describes..." - What it does
+
+---
+
+## 4. Comparison: Principled vs Heuristic
+
+### Pattern: Emphasize Theoretical Independence
+
+**Structure**:
+```markdown
+1. [Your Core] At the core of our method is [fundamental principle]
+2. [Independence] This [does not depend on / is independent of] [implementation]
+3. [Contrast] In contrast, prior works typically rely on [heuristic/artificial constraint]
+4. [Qualitative] [Natural/principled/intrinsic] vs [imposed/empirical/heuristic]
+```
+
+### MeanFlows Example:
+
+```latex
+At the core of our method is the functional relationship between two
+underlying fields v and u, which naturally leads to the MeanFlow Identity
+that u must satisfy (Eq. (6)).
+
+This identity does not depend on the introduction of neural networks.
+
+In contrast, prior works typically rely on extra consistency constraints,
+imposed on the behavior of the neural network.
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **"At the core of our method is..."** - What matters
+- **"naturally leads to"** - Not forced
+- **"does not depend on"** - Independence
+- **"In contrast"** - Clear pivot
+- **"imposed on"** - Theirs is artificial
+
+### Specific Method Comparison
+
+```latex
+Consistency Models [46, 43, 15, 31] are focused on paths anchored at the
+data side: in our notations, this corresponds to fixing r≡0 for any t.
+
+As a result, Consistency Models are conditioned on a single time variable,
+unlike ours.
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **"focused on X"** - Their scope
+- **"in our notations, this corresponds to..."** - Precise mapping
+- **"As a result"** - Consequence
+- **"unlike ours"** - One-word differentiation
+
+---
+
+## 5. Results: Significant Improvements with Context
+
+### Pattern: Relative Improvement + Independence
+
+**Structure**:
+```markdown
+1. [Absolute] We achieve [metric] on [task]
+2. [Relative] This represents [X-Y%] relative improvement over [comparison]
+3. [Context] Our method is [self-contained / independent]
+4. [Negative List] without [list of things you don't need]
+```
+
+### MeanFlows Example:
+
+```latex
+Our method achieves an FID of 3.43 using 1-NFE generation.
+
+This result significantly outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods in
+its class by a relative margin of 50% to 70% (Fig. 1).
+
+In addition, our method stands as a self-contained generative model: it is
+trained entirely from scratch, without any pre-training, distillation, or
+curriculum learning.
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **Absolute first**: "FID of 3.43"
+- **"significantly outperforms"** - Strong but not "dramatically"
+- **"by a relative margin of 50% to 70%"** - Range, not single number
+- **Reference to figure**: "(Fig. 1)"
+- **"In addition"** - Second dimension of value
+- **"self-contained"** - Independence keyword
+- **"trained entirely from scratch"** - Complete independence
+- **Negative list**: "without any pre-training, distillation, or curriculum learning"
+
+---
+
+## 6. Table Design: System-Level Comparison
+
+### Pattern: Multiple Paradigms, Clear Highlighting
+
+**Structure**:
+```markdown
+Table X:
+┌────────────────────────────────────┐
+│ Left side: Your direct competitors  │
+│ (1-NFE and 2-NFE methods)          │
+├────────────────────────────────────┤
+│ Right side: Other paradigms         │
+│ (GANs, autoregressive, etc.)       │
+├────────────────────────────────────┤
+│ **Your method** (bold, positioned)  │
+└────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### MeanFlows Table 2 Organization:
+
+```latex
+Table 2: Comparison on ImageNet 256×256.
+
+Left: 1-NFE and 2-NFE diffusion/flow models
+Right: Other generative models
+
+Highlighted: MeanFlow (our method)
+```
+
+**Key Techniques**:
+1. **Split paradigm**: Direct competitors on left, others on right
+2. **Fair metrics**: params, NFE, FID (same for all)
+3. **Bold your method**: Visual emphasis
+4. **Position strategically**: Where you look best
+5. **Comprehensive**: Include all major paradigms
+
+---
+
+## 7. Figure Design: Visual Storytelling
+
+### Pattern: Multi-Panel Narrative
+
+**MeanFlows Figure 1**: "One-step generation on ImageNet 256×256 from scratch"
+
+**Structure**:
+- **Main panel**: Generated images (visual evidence)
+- **Caption**: Detailed comparison table
+- **Annotations**: FID scores of competing methods
+- **Highlight**: "Our MeanFlow (MF) model achieves significantly better..."
+
+**Techniques**:
+1. **Title tells the story**: "from scratch" - key differentiator
+2. **Images + numbers**: Both visual and quantitative
+3. **Competitor scores in caption**: Reader doesn't need to flip pages
+4. **"significantly better"**: In the figure caption itself
+
+---
+
+## 8. Ablation Study: Destructive Testing
+
+### Pattern: Prove Necessity by Breaking Things
+
+**Structure**:
+```markdown
+Table X:
+┌──────────────────────────────────┐
+│ (a) Vary one design dimension    │
+│ - Show effect of parameter       │
+│ - Mark default in gray           │
+├──────────────────────────────────┤
+│ (b) Destructive comparison       │
+│ - Intentionally use WRONG values │
+│ - Show only correct works        │
+└──────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### MeanFlows Table 1 Example:
+
+#### Part (a): Design Sweep
+```latex
+(a) Ratio of sampling r≠t
+% of r≠t      FID, 1-NFE
+0% (= FM)     328.91
+25%           61.06
+50%           63.14
+100%          67.32
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **Descriptive caption**: "Ratio of sampling r≠t"
+- **Show failure mode**: "0% (= FM) 328.91" - pure FM fails
+- **Range**: 0% to 100% of parameter
+- **Default marked**: In original (not shown here)
+
+#### Part (b): Destructive Testing
+```latex
+(b) JVP computation
+jvp tangent          FID, 1-NFE
+(v, 0, 1)            61.06
+(v, 0, 0) [wrong]    268.06
+(v, 1, 0) [wrong]    329.22
+(v, 1, 1) [wrong]    137.96
+```
+
+**Techniques**:
+- **"Destructive comparison"** in caption
+- **"intentionally performed"** in text
+- **Only first row works**: Others are wrong by design
+- **Proves necessity**: "meaningful results are achieved only when..."
+
+---
+
+## 9. Writing Style: Theory Keywords
+
+### Emphasis Words for Theory-Driven Papers
+
+**Naturalness Keywords** (use these to describe your theory):
+- "naturally" - "This naturally leads to..."
+- "intrinsic" - "intrinsic relation"
+- "well-defined" - "well-defined problem"
+- "principled" - "principled basis"
+- "first principles" - "from first principles"
+- "solely originated from" - "solely from definition"
+
+**Independence Keywords**:
+- "does not depend on" - Theory independence
+- "independent of" - Implementation independence
+- "self-contained" - System independence
+- "from scratch" - No external dependencies
+- "without any X" - Negative list
+
+**Differentiation Keywords**:
+- "in contrast to" - Conceptual contrast
+- "unlike" - Direct comparison
+- "typically" - "typically modeled" (their approach)
+- "prior works typically rely on" - Their limitation
+- "imposed as" - Artificial constraint (theirs)
+
+### Avoid These (Too Promotional):
+- ❌ "revolutionary" - Too strong
+- ❌ "breakthrough" - Let others say it
+- ❌ "completely eliminates" - Too absolute
+- ✅ "significantly outperforms" - Strong but measured
+- ✅ "substantial improvement" - Professional
+
+---
+
+## 10. Common Mistakes in Theory Papers
+
+### ❌ Don't:
+- Derive without explaining motivation - Why are we doing this?
+- Skip steps in derivation - Readers aren't you
+- Use heuristics without admitting it - Be honest
+- Overclaim - "proves optimal" vs "improves over"
+- Forget to acknowledge dependencies - If you use X, say it
+
+### ✅ Do:
+- Start from first principles explicitly
+- Give each equation/dentity a memorable name
+- Show "destructive" ablations to prove necessity
+- Report relative improvements (more impactful)
+- Use "principled" keywords consistently
+- Admit what you DON'T need (negative list)
+
+---
+
+## 11. Revision Checklist for Theory-Driven Papers
+
+**Before Submission, Verify:**
+
+- [ ] Abstract starts from established framework (not "X is important")
+- [ ] Introduction has "Despite encouraging results..." critique
+- [ ] Core concept has a memorable name
+- [ ] Derivation is step-by-step with justifications
+- [ ] Key equation is named ("X Identity")
+- [ ] Theory is contrasted as "principled" vs "heuristic"
+- [ ] Results include relative improvement (X-Y%)
+- [ ] Self-containment is emphasized (what you don't need)
+- [ ] Ablations include destructive tests
+- [ ] Tables organize by paradigm, highlight your position
+- [ ] Figures tell visual story with captions
+- [ ] Theory keywords used consistently (principled, intrinsic, natural)
+
+---
+
+## 12. Example: Applying This Pattern
+
+### Original Idea (Not Theory-Driven):
+"We propose a new training method that improves FID by 20%."
+
+### Theory-Driven Version:
+"Flow Matching provides an intuitive framework for generative modeling,
+but recent one-step methods impose consistency constraints heuristically.
+Despite encouraging results, the underlying ground-truth field properties
+remain unknown. We introduce average velocity (in contrast to instantaneous
+velocity), deriving the MeanFlow Identity solely from first principles.
+This provides a principled basis for training, achieving 3.43 FID with
+50-70% relative improvement. Our method is self-contained, trained from
+scratch without pre-training or distillation."
+
+**The Theory-Driven Frame**:
+- Foundation: Flow Matching (established)
+- Problem: Heuristic constraints (theory gap)
+- Concept: Average velocity (new)
+- Theory: MeanFlow Identity (derived)
+- Result: Strong + independent (no external deps)
+
+---
+
+## Paper Metadata
+
+**Title**: Mean Flows for One-step Generative Modeling
+
+**Authors**: Kaiming He et al.
+
+**Year**: 2025
+
+**Key Concepts**:
+- Average velocity vs instantaneous velocity
+- MeanFlow Identity
+- Principled vs heuristic training
+- Self-contained generative models
+
+---
+
+## Extracted by
+
+**Date**: 2026-01-26
+
+**Source**: Analysis of Mean Flows paper (16 pages)
+
+**Extraction Focus**: Theory-driven paper writing patterns, first-principles
+derivations, principled vs heuristic positioning
+
+**For Integration**: ml-paper-writing skill knowledge base