Live data from Hacker News

Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

approximatelycorrect.com

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#71
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Five years ago (during my PhD) I would not have been "allowed" to cite a paper which has not been peer-reviewed and published in the proceedings of a recognised conference. Papers on arXiv where specifically black-listed. Mentioning Wikipedia (even off the record, in personal meetings) would have been the start of fast road to the bottom.

You couldn't even cite it as "in preparation"?

No, I couldn't. In academia, when publishing a technical paper, only final/published papers count. I doubt that this was a "rule" enforced only at my University or even just in my country. I'd love to hear from others where citing arXiv was at least allowed, but I doubt that that would have been the "standard" way of citing in technical papers.

I must add that this was such a pain for me, as I found several relevant articles on arXiv and I could download and read them. I can't say the same for articles found on Elsevier or ACM, where the relevant articles were mostly in the journals to which my University did not have access...

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very vague. Can you specify what math you are looking for?

The kind of math that would be necessary to understand papers like [1][2][3][4]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04933 [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07875 [3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01350 [4]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04860

That's mostly linear algebra, probability theory and calculus. You're going to have a difficult time self-studying all of that if you haven't had much exposure to it.

Books are probably a less efficient method of learning the mathematics if you have targeted subjects you want to learn about. They're typically suited to introductions and breadth-wise coverage of fields, but once you get higher up, "linear algebra" (for example) can get fuzzy with things like abstract algebra. That means you'll end up with several tome-like books to work through which can be productive, but it'll take a while and you'll need to map the material to the applications you're interested in on your own. It's more efficient to develop a good baseline of understanding about a broad subject area, learn the foundational theorems, then move on to the specific areas you need to learn. This is typically doable if you've developed the requisite mathematical maturity overall and if you have learned the "essentials."

Practically speaking: maybe pick up foundation texts like Strang's (linear algebra), Spivak's (calculus) and Ross' (probability theory). You're going to want a solid foundation in analysis before moving on to higher order probability theory, so drill down on that after you do a refresher on the calculus. From there you should attempt to read each paper (even if you struggle a lot), take notes on what confuses you or doesn't make sense, read the prior art on those topics and then come back to it.

I don't particularly read machine learning papers often, but I read mathematical cryptographic ones very often (at least once per day I find myself in a new one). It's not typical that I read a research paper introducing a novel primitive or construction where I follow the math immediately on a single pass, and I often come across things I need to read about first. From a thirty thousand foot view the math for both of these subjects is broadly similar in rough topical surface area, so I think this methodology for academic reading is fairly applicable to most subjects that involve a lot of mathematics understanding.

Basically: don't approach learning the heavy math with a monolithic, brute-force approach as if you were in university. That's a slog and it's demotivating. Learn the minimum foundation for each area you need, then proceed to more advanced topics as you need them.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#73

"If you built on it, cite it", is necessary but does not suffice. Most papers have a related work section that describes all work similar to your paper. In hot areas, such as deep learning, some of the related work may have been done in parallel with your work, so it did not inform it. If this related work is uncited on arxiv, you find it when you are about done, and it had no influence on your work, do you cite? Rev…

Of course you cite it. You want to help the reader find the related work. It doesn't matter whether it "had influence" on your work (a fuzzy criterion). If you aren't happy that you are doing the same work as others, then find a more original problem.

It definitely does not matter how many citations the other paper has. The point isn't to avoid getting caught, it is to inform the reader. Your citation is more useful the less well known the cited paper is.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#74
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kind of math that would be necessary to understand papers like [1][2][3][4]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04933 [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07875 [3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01350 [4]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04860

That's mostly linear algebra, probability theory and calculus. You're going to have a difficult time self-studying all of that if you haven't had much exposure to it. Books are probably a less efficient method of learning the mathematics if you have targeted subjects you want to learn about. They're typically suited to introductions and breadth-wise coverage of fields, but once you get higher up, "linear algebra" (fo…

Thanks a lot for your comment. I do have exposure to all the three topics. I self-studied with Strang's MIT OCW course in high school, took calculus and probability in high school and undergrad. So, I'm not really looking for big introductory books for two reasons, I don't really have time to go through big books, and since I already have some exposure, it becomes hard to find new things to learn from such introductory books. So, I was looking for something more concise which efficiently covers such mathematics.

EDIT: I think the main topic missing from my background is this so-called "analysis". I never formally studied it. Is there a more efficient way to study analysis than spivak's, for someone who has a decent background otherwise?

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#75
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the issue is the act of citation itself, more that the citation is meant to provide a level of assurance that the idea you're citing is true. If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify th…

> If you cite a paper in Science that carries with it a knowledge that some clever people have looked over it and can't see any obvious issues with the work. If you cite a napkin sketch that doesn't carry that weight and pushes the onus on to the reader to verify the cited claim themselves. I think no matter the source, you (as the author) have the final responsibility of citing correct work. You can (reasonably) cho…

Some interesting work regarding citations has been put forth by the Semantic Publishing and Referencing ontologies, specifically the CiTO ontology[1].

It allows an author to state the reason for the citation (supports, refutes, etc.).

Having to state a reason could reduce spurious citations while providing a more accurate view of the nature of a paper's impact.

[1] http://www.sparontologies.net/ontologies/cito

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#76
post #33

There is a massive disjunct between citation in the humanities and citation in science. People seem to have forgotten this. Ideas are two a penny, they literally do not matter at all they should not be cited. The person who introduces a concept to science deserves no credit whatsoever. What deserves credit is the provision of evidence or proof.

What? Leibniz/Newton introduced the concept of calculus; shouldn't we credit them with this (amazing) concept just because it wasn't formalized very well until Weierstrass came along?

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#77
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's mostly linear algebra, probability theory and calculus. You're going to have a difficult time self-studying all of that if you haven't had much exposure to it. Books are probably a less efficient method of learning the mathematics if you have targeted subjects you want to learn about. They're typically suited to introductions and breadth-wise coverage of fields, but once you get higher up, "linear algebra" (fo…

Thanks a lot for your comment. I do have exposure to all the three topics. I self-studied with Strang's MIT OCW course in high school, took calculus and probability in high school and undergrad. So, I'm not really looking for big introductory books for two reasons, I don't really have time to go through big books, and since I already have some exposure, it becomes hard to find new things to learn from such introducto…

Check out Mattuck's Introduction to Analysis.

Analysis is basically "really rigorous calculus". Basic analysis courses are also usually where you learn to do proofs.

(To some reasonable generality "calculus" stands for "rules of manipulation", while analysis is the mathematical theory of calculus. So I can teach you stochastic calculus in a couple of two-hour sessions but understanding what the hell is going on (stochastic analysis) requires measure theory, some functional analysis and much courage)

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#79
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Five years ago (during my PhD) I would not have been "allowed" to cite a paper which has not been peer-reviewed and published in the proceedings of a recognised conference. Papers on arXiv where specifically black-listed. Mentioning Wikipedia (even off the record, in personal meetings) would have been the start of fast road to the bottom.

This dissonance seems to come from the fact that citing has two purposes 1. Assigning credit to where you heard about something. 2. Giving a claim (the best possible, and sufficiently strong) support. From the credit perspective you should cite wherever you heard something, even if it was alleyway graffiti. From the support perspective, you should take the idea you read on the wall look it up to see if someone credib…

Yes, I think this is a very important insight.

Re: Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

#80
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kind of math that would be necessary to understand papers like [1][2][3][4]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04933 [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07875 [3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.01350 [4]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04860

That's mostly linear algebra, probability theory and calculus. You're going to have a difficult time self-studying all of that if you haven't had much exposure to it. Books are probably a less efficient method of learning the mathematics if you have targeted subjects you want to learn about. They're typically suited to introductions and breadth-wise coverage of fields, but once you get higher up, "linear algebra" (fo…

Nah, Lax/Folland/Shiryaev!
Post reply on HN