- "the newspapers, especially in Russia, are presently “discussing” a completely different question: Is mathematical education, and mathematics itself, really necessary in contemporary society ". At the risk of sounding patronizing, I find it terribly worrisome that the place that spawns such amazing mathematicians, and has such a legendary training program for scientists, should even indulge in such a discussion. Especially now, with all the handwringing in the US about the lack of mathematical training at school level, it seems a particularly bad time to abdicate what is a clearly a competitive advantage.
- He talks about not understanding "the American way of life" as regards how money is viewed. There's a juxtapositon of images that I've always been struck by, and that tennis lovers will recognize: At Wimbledon, the winner is crowned with a fanfare, royalty, and a trophy (or plate); the prize money is never really discussed. At the US Open on the other hand, along with the fanfare comes the huge check handed out by some corporate sponsor while the PA blares out the amount. The trophy presentation, although making for good photo-ops, seems almost anticlimactic.
I am a little skeptical though whether offering prizes like the Clay prize convinces people that mathematics is a lucrative profession. After all, this hasn't happened for the Nobel prizes. - On the false-duality: I've heard a variation of this argument many times. It goes basically like this: "Either you're interested in subject X and don't need motivation, or you aren't, in which case no amount of motivation is going to help". This is possibly true for identifying students likely to make the transition to being professionals in subject X. In fact, I've heard an anecdote from the world of music, about a maestro who would tell all his students that they would fail professionally at being musicians. His argument was that only the ones who cared enough to prove him wrong had what it took to survive.
One has to realize though that the teaching of a subject is not about creating Mini-Mes: only a small fraction of the students we come in contact with will become professional computer scientists/mathematicians/whatever. But a large fraction of these students will vote, many of them will go onto position of influence either in industry or government, and they will all contribute to a general awareness of the discipline. So it's a mistake to give up on motivating students; even if they never end up proving theorems for a living, a better appreciation for those who do will help all of us.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Three thoughts on Anatoly Vershik's article...
Via Peter Woit and Luca Trevisan comes a pointer to an article by Anatoly Vershik in the new Notices of the AMS, lamenting the role of money prizes in mathematics. Three thoughts:
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Sorting algorithm animations
Pat Morin has a great collection of Java sorting applets. You can line up three at a time and have them sort a random permutation of one through N. It's fun to see insertion sort or bubble sort earnestly plodding along long after merge sort or quick sort has blazed through.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Author ordering and game theory.
There are typically two major ways of ordering authors on a paper. In theoryCS, we (mostly) use the lexicographic ordering (by last name); in many other areas, author ordering by relative contribution is common. There are variants: advisors might list themselves last by default even within a lexicographic or contribution-based system, and middle authors may not always be ordered carefully, etc etc.
Since paper authorship conveys many important pieces of information, author ordering is an important problem. It's an even bigger problem if you have hundreds of authors on a paper, some of which may not even know each other (!). This is apparently becoming common in the HEP (high energy physics) literature, and an interesting article by Jeremy Birnholtz studies the problem of authorship and author ordering in this setting. The study is sociological; the author interviews many people at CERN, and derives conclusions and observations from their responses.
As one might imagine, not too many of the problems of 1000-author papers are translatable to our domain. After all, these papers are bigger than our conferences, and I doubt anyone has never needed a "publication committee" when writing their paper. And yet, the interviews reveal the same kinds of concerns that we see all the time. Is a certain ordering scheme shortchanging certain authors ? Did a certain author do enough to merit authorship ? Who gets to go around giving talks on the work ?
Towards the end of the paper, the author makes an interesting (but unexplored) connection to game theory. The players in this game are the authors, and what they are trying to optimize is perceived individual contributions by the community (the "market"). Intuitively, lexicographic ordering conveys less information about author contributions and thus "spreads" contributions out: however, it's not symmetric, in the sense that if we see a paper with alphabetically ordered authors, it could be a product of a truly relative contribution ordering that yields this ordering, or a lexicographic ordering. In that sense, authors with names earlier in the alphabet are disadvantaged, something that seems counter-intuitive.
As it turns out, there's been some work on the equilibrium behaviour of this system. To cite one example, there's a paper by Engers, Gans, Grant and King (yes, it's alphabetically ordered) that studies the equilibrium behaviour of author ordering systems with a two-author paper in a market. Their setup is this:
What's even more interesting is that if we look at merely maximizing research output (the external "quality" of the paper), then this is not maximized by lexicographic ordering, because of the overal disincentive to put in more effort if it's not recognized. However, this does not suggest that always using contribution-based ordering is better; the authors have an example where this is not true, and one intuition could be that if there's a discrepancy between the market perception of contribution and individual contributions, then there is a disincentive to deviate too much from the "average" contribution level.
It's all quite interesting. Someone made a comment to me recently (you know who you are :)) about how assigning papers to reviewers made them value research into market-clearing algorithms. I like the idea of applying game theory to the mechanisms of our own research.
(HT: Chris Leonard)
Previous posts on author ordering here, and here.
Since paper authorship conveys many important pieces of information, author ordering is an important problem. It's an even bigger problem if you have hundreds of authors on a paper, some of which may not even know each other (!). This is apparently becoming common in the HEP (high energy physics) literature, and an interesting article by Jeremy Birnholtz studies the problem of authorship and author ordering in this setting. The study is sociological; the author interviews many people at CERN, and derives conclusions and observations from their responses.
As one might imagine, not too many of the problems of 1000-author papers are translatable to our domain. After all, these papers are bigger than our conferences, and I doubt anyone has never needed a "publication committee" when writing their paper. And yet, the interviews reveal the same kinds of concerns that we see all the time. Is a certain ordering scheme shortchanging certain authors ? Did a certain author do enough to merit authorship ? Who gets to go around giving talks on the work ?
Towards the end of the paper, the author makes an interesting (but unexplored) connection to game theory. The players in this game are the authors, and what they are trying to optimize is perceived individual contributions by the community (the "market"). Intuitively, lexicographic ordering conveys less information about author contributions and thus "spreads" contributions out: however, it's not symmetric, in the sense that if we see a paper with alphabetically ordered authors, it could be a product of a truly relative contribution ordering that yields this ordering, or a lexicographic ordering. In that sense, authors with names earlier in the alphabet are disadvantaged, something that seems counter-intuitive.
As it turns out, there's been some work on the equilibrium behaviour of this system. To cite one example, there's a paper by Engers, Gans, Grant and King (yes, it's alphabetically ordered) that studies the equilibrium behaviour of author ordering systems with a two-author paper in a market. Their setup is this:
- The two players A and B decide to put in some individual effort.
- The relative contribution of each (parametrized by the fraction of contribution assigned to A) is determined as a (fixed but hidden) stochastic function of the efforts.
- The players "bargain" to determine ordering (lexicographic or contribution). The result is a probability of choosing one kind of ordering, after which a coin is tossed to determine the actual ordering
- The work is "published", and the market assigns a value to the paper as a whole, and a fraction of this value to A, based on public information and other factors.
What's even more interesting is that if we look at merely maximizing research output (the external "quality" of the paper), then this is not maximized by lexicographic ordering, because of the overal disincentive to put in more effort if it's not recognized. However, this does not suggest that always using contribution-based ordering is better; the authors have an example where this is not true, and one intuition could be that if there's a discrepancy between the market perception of contribution and individual contributions, then there is a disincentive to deviate too much from the "average" contribution level.
It's all quite interesting. Someone made a comment to me recently (you know who you are :)) about how assigning papers to reviewers made them value research into market-clearing algorithms. I like the idea of applying game theory to the mechanisms of our own research.
(HT: Chris Leonard)
Previous posts on author ordering here, and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)