diff --git a/master-thesis.md b/master-thesis.md
index 186bccc..a3bb9e1 100644
--- a/master-thesis.md
+++ b/master-thesis.md
@@ -127,6 +127,38 @@ trustworthy software systems.</p>
 <li > <a href="https://github.com/rschwietzke/jmh-C2-compile">https://github.com/rschwietzke/jmh-C2-compile</a> </li>
 <ol>
 
+### Cross-Ecosystem Dependency Resolution: Applying Foreign Resolver Algorithms Across Build Toolchains
+Contact: Aman Sharma
+
+Every major build ecosystem ships its own dependency resolution algorithm tightly coupled to its build toolchain [1].
+Maven uses a nearest-wins strategy over a dependency tree.
+Go modules pioneered Minimal Version Selection (MVS) [2].
+Despite the fact that all of these systems ultimately solve the same abstract problem — selecting a consistent, compatible set of package versions from a version graph — dependency resolution is conceptually separable from the build tool itself.
+Given a manifest (e.g., `package.json`, `pom.xml`, `Cargo.toml`), a registry, and an algorithm, the output is a resolved lock set that can in principle be handed to any native build tool for fetching and building.
+
+This thesis investigates what happens when you decouple the resolver from the build tool: applying the resolution algorithm of ecosystem A to the dependency manifest of ecosystem B, then using the native build tool of B to build from the foreign-resolved lock set.
+For example, using Maven's nearest-wins strategy to resolve an npm project's `package.json`, then invoking `npm install` against those resolved versions. The study will cover multiple cross-pairings across npm, Maven, Cargo, Go, and PyPI.
+
+Some ideas for research questions can be:
+
+- RQ1 (Build Correctness): In what fraction of real-world projects does applying a foreign resolver produce a build that compiles and passes tests, compared to the native resolver?
+- RQ2 (Dependency Minimality): Which resolver algorithm produces the fewest transitive dependencies when applied cross-ecosystem? Does MVS — known to be conservative — consistently produce leaner dependency graphs?
+- RQ3 (Failure Taxonomy): When builds fail under a foreign resolver, what is the root cause? (Missing peer dependency, API breakage, ABI mismatch, missing native module, version underspecification?)
+- RQ4 (Security Trade-offs): Conservative algorithms like MVS may select older versions. Do they select more CVE-affected package versions than the native resolver, as measured against OSV.dev?
+
+Related Work:
+
+[1] [Dependency Resolution Algorithms in Different Ecosystems](dependency-resolution/index.md)
+[2] [Minimal Version Selection](https://research.swtch.com/vgo-mvs)
+[3] [ecosyste-ms/package-manager-resolvers — A reference for dependency resolution algorithms and strategies across different package managers](https://github.com/ecosyste-ms/package-manager-resolvers)
+[4] [Dependency Solving Is Still Hard, but We Are Getting Better at It](https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07851)
+[5] [PubGrub: Next-Generation Version Solving](https://nex3.medium.com/pubgrub-2fb6470504f)
+[6] [Package Managers à la Carte: A Formal Model of Dependency Resolution](https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.18602)
+[7] [The stages of package installation](https://nesbitt.io/2026/04/27/the-stages-of-package-installation.html)
+
+
+---
+
 ### Dependency Fingerprinting: Reconstructing Full Dependency Trees from Partial Observations
 Contact: Aman Sharma, Eric Cornelissen