1  Research Purpose

Before writing your first line of code, it’s crucial to have a clear understanding of what you’re trying to achieve—specifically, the purpose of your research. This clarity will not only help you reach your desired outcomes more efficiently but will also be invaluable when collaborating with others. Being able to explain your goals effectively ensures everyone is aligned and working toward the same objective.

We’ll begin with an overview of common research goals and the types of data analysis needed to achieve them. Then, we’ll explore how to visually communicate your research purpose, as visual representations are often the most effective way to convey complex ideas. Finally, we’ll discuss how to quantify the outcomes you’re trying to achieve.

Research Goals

Most research questions can be categorized into four broad groups, each associated with a specific type of analytics approach (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive analytics, with increasing computational complexity and need to write custom code.

Descriptive Analytics

This approach focuses on observing and describing phenomena, often for the first time.
Examples include:

  • Identifying animal and plant species in unexplored regions of the deep ocean.
  • Measuring the physical properties of a newly discovered material.
  • Surveying the political views of the next generation of teenagers.

Methodology:

  • Collect a large amount of data (e.g., samples or observations).
  • Calculate summary statistics like averages, ranges, or standard deviations, typically using standard software tools.

Diagnostic Analytics

Here, the goal is to understand relationships between variables and uncover causal chains to explain why phenomena occur.
Examples include:

  • Investigating how CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels drive global warming.
  • Evaluating whether a new drug reduces symptoms and under what conditions it works best.
  • Exploring how economic and social factors influence shifts toward right-wing political parties.

Methodology:

  • Perform exploratory data analysis, such as looking for correlations between variables.
  • Conduct statistical tests to support or refute hypotheses (e.g., comparing treatment and placebo groups).
  • Design of experiments to control for external factors (e.g., randomized clinical trials).
  • Build predictive models to simulate relationships. If these models match real-world observations, it suggests their assumptions correctly represent causal effects.

Predictive Analytics

This method involves building models to describe and predict relationships between independent variables (inputs) and dependent variables (outputs). These models often rely on insights from diagnostic analytics, such as which variables to include in the model and how they might interact (e.g., linear or nonlinear dependence). Despite its name, this approach is not just about predicting the future, but also includes any kind of simulation model to describe a process virtually (i.e., to conduct in silico experiments).
Examples include:

  • Weather forecasting models.
  • Digital twin of a wind turbine to simulate how much energy is generated under different conditions.
  • Predicting protein folding based on amino acid sequences.

Methodology:
The key difference lies in how much domain knowledge informs the model:

  • White-box (mechanistic) models: Based entirely on known principles, such as physical laws or experimental findings. These models are often manually designed, with parameters fitted to observed data.

  • Black-box (data-driven) models: Derived purely from observational data. Researchers usually test different model types (e.g., neural networks or Gaussian processes) and choose the one with the highest accuracy.

  • Gray-box (hybrid) models: These combine mechanistic and data-driven approaches. For example, the output of a mechanistic model may serve as an input to a data-driven model, or the data-driven model may predict residuals (i.e., prediction errors) from the mechanistic model, where both outputs combined yield the final prediction.

    If you want to learn more about how to create data-driven models and the machine learning (ML) algorithms behind them, these two free online books are highly recommended:

After developing an accurate model, researchers can analyze its behavior (e.g., through a sensitivity analysis, which examines how outputs change with varying inputs) to gain further insights about the system (to feed back into diagnostic analytics).

Prescriptive Analytics

This approach focuses on decision-making and optimization, often using predictive models.
Examples include:

  • Screening thousands of drug candidates to find those most likely to bind with a target protein.
  • Optimizing reactor conditions to maximize yield while minimizing energy consumption.

Methodology:

  • Decision support: Use models for “what-if” analyses to predict outcomes of different scenarios. For example, models can estimate the effects of limiting global warming to 2°C versus exceeding that threshold, thereby informing policy decisions.

  • Decision automation: Use models in optimization loops to systematically test input conditions, evaluate outcomes (e.g., resulting predicted material quality), and identify the best conditions automatically.

    Note

    These recommendations are only as good as the underlying models. Models must accurately capture causal relationships and often need to extrapolate beyond the data used to build them (e.g., for disaster simulations). Data-driven models are typically better at interpolation (predicting within known data ranges), so results should ideally be validated through additional experiments, such as testing the recommended new materials in the lab.

Together, these four types of analytics form a powerful toolkit for tackling real-world challenges: descriptive analytics provides a foundation of understanding, diagnostic analytics uncovers the causes behind observed phenomena, predictive analytics models future scenarios based on this understanding, and prescriptive analytics turns these insights into actionable solutions. Each step builds on the previous one, creating a systematic approach to answering complex questions and making informed decisions.

Draw your Why

In research, your goal is to improve the status quo, whether by filling a knowledge gap or developing a new method, material, or process with better properties. When sharing your idea—with collaborators, in a talk, or through a publication—a visual representation of what you’re trying to achieve can be incredibly useful.

One effective way to illustrate the improvement you’re working on is by creating “before and after” visuals, depicting the problem with the status quo and your solution (Figure 1.2).

The “before” scenario might show a lack of data, an incomplete understanding of a phenomenon, poor model performance, or an inefficient process or material. The “after” scenario highlights how your research addresses these issues and improves on the current state, such as refining a predictive model or enhancing the properties of a new material.

Figure 1.2: Exemplary research goals and corresponding “before and after” visuals for descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive analytics tasks.

At this point, your “after” scenario might be based on a hypothesis or an educated guess about what your results will look like—and that’s totally fine! The purpose of visualizing your goal is to guide your development process. Later, you can update the picture with actual results if you decide to include it in a journal publication, for example.

Of course, not all research goals are tied directly to analytics. Sometimes the main improvement is more qualitative, for example, focusing on design or functionality (Figure 1.3). Even in these cases, however, you’ll often need to demonstrate that your new approach meets or exceeds existing solutions in terms of other key performance indicators (KPIs), such as energy efficiency, speed, or quality parameters like strength or durability.

Figure 1.3: This example illustrates a task where a robot must reach its target (represented by money) as efficiently as possible. Original approach (left): The robot relied on information encoded in the environment as expected rewards. To determine the shortest path to the target, the robot required a large sensor (shown as a yellow circle) capable of scanning nearby fields to locate the highest reward. New approach (right): Instead of relying on reward values scattered across the environment, the optimal direction is now encoded directly in the current field. This eliminates the need for large sensors, as the robot only needs to read the value of its current position, enabling it to operate with a much smaller sensor and thereby reducing hardware costs. Additional quantitative evaluation: It still needs to be demonstrated that with the new approach, the robot reaches is target at least as quickly as with the original approach.

Give it a try—does the sketch help you explain your research to your family?

Evaluation Metrics

The “before and after” visuals help illustrate the improvement you’re aiming for in a qualitative way. However, to make a compelling case, it’s important to back up your findings with quantifiable results that show the extent of your improvement.
Common evaluation metrics include:

  • Number of samples: This refers to the amount of data you’ve collected, such as whether you surveyed 100 or 10,000 people. Larger sample sizes can provide more robust and reliable results.
  • Reliability of measurements: This evaluates the consistency of your data. For example, how much variation occurs if you repeat the same measurement, e.g., run a simulation with different random seeds. Other factors, like sampling bias (i.e., when your sample is not representative for the whole population), can also affect the validity of your conclusions.
  • Statistical significance: The outcome of a statistical hypothesis test, such as a p-value that indicates whether the difference in symptom reduction between the treatment and placebo groups is significant.
  • Model accuracy: This measures how well your model predicts or matches new observational data. Common metrics include \(R^2\), which indicates how closely the model’s predictions align with actual outcomes.
  • Algorithm performance: This includes metrics like memory usage and the time required to fit a model or make predictions, and how these values change as the dataset size increases. Efficient algorithms are crucial when scaling to large datasets or handling complex simulations.
  • Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): These are specific metrics tied to the success of your optimized process or product. For example, KPIs might include yield, emissions, energy efficiency, or quality parameters like durability, strength, or purity of a chemical compound.
  • Convergence time: This refers to how quickly a process (or simulation thereof) reaches optimal results and stabilizes without fluctuating. A shorter convergence time often suggests a more efficient and reliable process.

Your evaluation typically involves multiple metrics. For example, in prescriptive analytics, you need to demonstrate both the accuracy of your model and that the recommendations generated with it led to a genuinely optimized process or product.

Ideally, you should already have an idea of how existing solutions perform on these metrics (e.g., based on findings from other publications) to establish the baseline your solution should outperform (i.e., your “before”). You’ll likely need to replicate at least some of these baseline results (e.g., by reimplementing existing models) to ensure your comparisons are not influenced by external factors. But understanding where the “competition” stands can also help you identify secondary metrics where your solution could excel. For example, even if there’s little room to improve model accuracy, existing solutions might be too slow to handle large datasets efficiently.1

These results are central to your research (and publications), and much of your code will be devoted to generating them, along with the models and simulations behind them. Clearly defining the key metrics needed to demonstrate your research’s impact will help you focus your programming efforts effectively.

Before you continue

At this point, you should have a clear understanding of:

  • The problem you’re trying to solve.
  • Existing solutions to this problem, i.e., the baseline you’re competing against.
  • Which metrics should be used to quantify your improvement on the current state.

  1. For example, currently, a lot of research aims to replace traditional mechanistic models with data-driven machine learning models, as these enable significantly faster simulations. A notable example is the AlphaFold model, which predicts protein folding from amino acid sequences—a breakthrough so impactful it was recognized with a Nobel Prize [3].↩︎