Journals and the arXiv

Over the past decade, a number of mathematical journals experimented with becoming “arXiv overlay journals”. This meant, essentially, that the final versions of all their articles would be available on the arXiv, and indeed that their online editions would simply be a list of links to arXiv hosted papers.

In this post, I want to collect what I know about the history of the arXiv overlays, talk a little about why the idea failed, and what the prospects might be for future integration between journal operations and the arXiv. I hope people will find analyzing this history relevant amongst the current surge of enthusiasm for transmogrifying mathematical publishing!

I’m hoping also that some of the “primary sources” for this history might jump in to correct and add to what I’ve found.

Continue reading

What are the downsides of the arXiv?

The title above was a recent (somewhat contentious) MathOverflow question by Igor Pak. While I still think this is a slightly problematic framing, it’s a discussion people seem to truly want to have, so I thought I might as well create a space for it.

Let me start discussion with the biggest concern (I don’t know if it is a downside) I have about the arXiv:
What is the arXiv’s policy on what can be posted and what can’t? I ask this as an honest question (with some trepidation about getting flaming from both sides). On MO we have an FAQ that tries to lay out as clearly as we can what sort of material should be put on MO and what should not. I cannot find an analogous statement from the arXiv about what they will accept and who they will accept it from. I doubt I disagree very much with what they do in practice, but the lack of an easily located statement of what that practice is actually disturbs me a bit. I apologize if such a document is publicly available somewhere on the arXiv website, but I maintain I shouldn’t have to hunt for it.

After reading the discussion below, I’m even more convinced that the idea of “downsides” is so tied up in one’s values and personal experiences that its impossible to come up with a list that makes sense to everyone. For example: one serious worry seems to be that if you put your papers on the arXiv, people will write follow-ups to them before you’ve had a chance to fully process your ideas. I’ve had this (sort-of) happen to me, though from a talk, not the arXiv; I gave a talk about my research program, and about 6 months later got an email from a graduate student saying he and a collaborator had solved one the problems in my talk. And you know what, it was great. He’d found a reference I hadn’t that made it possible to do lots of other stuff he hadn’t thought of, and I got to farm out that part of the research program to his paper. It really was a problem I wish I had a lot more often.

New arxiv interface for authors: go update your papers!

If you have any papers on the arxiv which have since been published, very likely you are amongst the many mathematicians who have neither added the journal reference to the arxiv article metadata, nor updated the arxiv copy to match the final (post-refereeing) version.

Go do this, right now.

The reason I’m so boldly telling you to do this is that it’s now easier than ever. On March 5, the arxiv rolled out a new submissions interface, and also added a new interface for managing your papers. This shows a list of your papers (and hints on how to claim others that a coauthor submitted, but that the arxiv hasn’t connected to you), with links for replacing or providing a journal reference. Adding a journal reference is particularly easy — it doesn’t require replacing the paper and the whole process involves filling out a single form. You can also give a DOI (which you can lookup on mathscinet, or your journal’s webpage), which will make it much easier in the future for automated tools to identify an arxiv eprint with the “official version”.

EDIT: (Ben) I would also suggest making sure all your papers are connected to your “public author identifier” especially if you have the same last name as another mathematician. Hopefully this will essentially make life easier for all of us.

MSC vs. ArXiv (and some interesting info on mathjobs)

One of my pet peeves is how annoyingly the AMS’s math subject classification is for people working in quantum algebra and quantum topology. The MSC has 97 different major subjects and my field is not one of them, and instead appears many times a subheading. In the new 2009 classification there’s at least the following: 16T, 17B37, 18D10, 20G42, 33D80, 57R56, 58B32, 81R50, and 81T45. Here I’m only counting things that are obviously quantum algebra and quantum topology (for example I didn’t list subfactors, quantum computation, knot invariants, etc.) By way of contrast, on the ArXiv there are only 32 categories, yet one of them (math.QA) contains the vast majority of work in my field (of course, many of those are cross-posted).

This mini-rant of mine came up at dinner at an AMS meeting in Waco (more on the excellent “fusion categories” special session later). Someone pointed out an interesting side-effect of this issue that I hadn’t thought of. One of the awesome things about mathjobs is that rather than simply having a large paper stack of applications, the people on hiring committees can instead sort the applications automatically in many different ways. It makes a lot of sense that mathjobs has this feature, but none of us who were on the applying side of things had ever considered it. Here are a few examples of things you might want to search for: look at people applying from a specific school, find everyone who has a recommendation letter from Prof. X, and (relevant to this post) sort by AMS subject classification.

This means that choosing the right AMS subject classifications is actually somewhat important. If you choose poorly then someone who might be interested in hiring you might never actually find your application among the hundreds they’re looking through. So if you’re in a situation like mine it’s worth asking a professor or two which AMS subject classifications they’d be most likely to look through.

Since then I’ve been wondering whether it might be a useful for mathjobs that the data they ask for also include which arxiv classifications applicants have posted preprints under, as that’s the search that I would want to use if I were on a hiring committee. What do people think? Mathjobs is very responsive to requests, so if people think this makes sense I may send them an email.

Have someone else write your bibliography

Whenever I’m finishing off a paper, at some point I have to sit down and clean up all the references, which generally look something like \cite{Popa?} or \cite{that paper by Marco and co}. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone else could do the rest?

If you don’t already know about it, one great resource is mathscinet, which will produce nicely formatted BIBTEX entries for you (example). If you want to be even more efficient, you can wander around mathscinet, saving articles to your “clipboard”, and then ask mathscinet to give you the BIBTEX entries for everything at once. (After you have articles on the clipboard, follow the “clipboard” link in the top right of the page, then select BIBTEX from the drop-down box and click “SaveClip”.)

If you’re even lazier, you could use the two command-line scripts that I use (download find-missing-bibitems and get-mathscinet-bibtex and put them on your path; you’ll need linux/OSX/cygwin to run). Now, when you cite items in LaTeX, cite them via their mathscinet identifiers, e.g. \cite{MR1278111} instead of \cite{Popa?}. Now, if you usually type latex article to compile, and bibtex article to generate the bibliography, you can also type find-missing-bibitems article, and all the missing BIBTEX entries will appear! For example, after adding \cite{MR1278111} somewhere in my text, the output of find-missing-bibitems article is

@article {MR1278111,
    AUTHOR = {Popa, Sorin},
     TITLE = {Classification of amenable subfactors of type {II}},
   JOURNAL = {Acta Math.},
  FJOURNAL = {Acta Mathematica},
    VOLUME = {172},
      YEAR = {1994},
    NUMBER = {2},
     PAGES = {163--255},
      ISSN = {0001-5962},
     CODEN = {ACMAA8},
   MRCLASS = {46L37 (46L10 46L40)},
  MRNUMBER = {MR1278111 (95f:46105)},
MRREVIEWER = {V. S. Sunder},

If you’re brave, you could run something like

find-missing-bibitems article >> bibliography.bib

to automatically append any missing entries to your BIBTEX file. The really enthusiastic could incorporate this script into the standard latex-latex-bibtex-latex cycle.

Really, I like to have more in my BIBTEX file: I generally use the note field to include a link to the mathscinet review, and a link to the DOI for the paper on the publisher’s webpage. If available, I want a link to the arxiv version of the paper too, for people without institutional access to the published version. Currently, the scripts can’t do this automatically, but it’s might not be much more work. Maybe next time.

A useful cranny of the arXiv site

For those of you who ever get confused about what effect submitting to the arXiv at a given time will have in terms of going out in mailings and when you can replace without a date stamp, etc. (by which I mean anyone has ever submitted anything to the arXiv), the ArXiv actually has a handy little page that tells you exactly this for the present moment. Enjoy.


At some point in my graduate career, some kind person told me that I should be subscribing to arXiv emails. This was, of course, a big improvement over not paying attention to what was on the arXiv at all, but still more trouble than it should be. the arXiv classification is way too crude for my purposes, and I just get overwhelmed.

What would be much better is if I could get emails compiling submissions of particular authors (effectively, arXiv-stalking them). Anyone have ideas on how to do this?

EDIT: I ended up writing a Yahoo Pipe that does this. You can use it yourself here, and if you clone it, you can use your own list instead of mine. I’ve also included some keyword sorting, to address the concerns of David and Allen.

Why isn’t the arXiv more like Craigslist?

While some people might be suspicious of this analogy, I think the arXiv and Craigslist have a lot in common;  both took a service previously only available through an expensive print intermediary, and instead made it freely available on the web.

But there’s one point where the analogy breaks down: the aggressiveness with which they have expanded.  Craigslist started out only in San Francisco, but has since opened a bewildering number of local sites.  Of course, at the time, most them were very sparsely used at first, since people in those cities had never heard of Craigslist.  But relatively quickly, the ones all over the US took off (for a sense of which are getting used, I think best of craigslist is an excellent way to get a (highly NSFW) cross-section).  I think some of the UK ones are also getting some use, though there are also dozens of mostly empty Craigslist sites for random foreign cities like Seoul or Buenos Aires.  However, when the demand gets in place for such sites, Craigslist will be there, and who’s to say where and when it will happen first.  After all, it was very little trouble for craigslist to set up the foreign sites, having already created the US ones.

Similarly, the arXiv has a model which scales brilliantly, and in the time that Craigslist has gone from an SF-only site to covering 500 cities around the world, the arXiv has…added sections in Quantitative Biology and Quantitative Finance.  I don’t want to be too hard on the arXiv.  I mean, they do an incredible service to the mathematics and physics communities, but I don’t understand why they’ve taken such a restrictive view of their possibilities.  Maybe there’s some serious obstruction I’m not seeing, but I’d like to know what it is.

I mean, why not an arXiv for economics?  For literature?  For history?  My understanding is that most other disciplines don’t have a centralized preprint server (this experience is most based on my dating of grad students in other disciplines, so it’s rather, ahem, anecdotal), so why isn’t the arXiv at least providing the opportunity?  Maybe they wouldn’t be used much at first, but what’s the harm in trying?

arXiv replacement: two-block Springer fibers ride again

So, I thought I would go back to math briefly; as great as it is to get so much energy and comments around a sexier issue like journals, I don’t want that to entirely take over the blog. Fortuitously, I’ve also got a math topic I want to cover; Catharina Stroppel and I have just replaced our paper on two-block Springer fibers on the arXiv, with significant enough changes that they deserve some mention. (see the previous post on this here).

Most notably, now our main theorem is a geometric construction of Khovanov’s algebra, not some weird signed variant on it, which is a good thing given how the general picture of this stuff is supposed to fit together, but a tiny bit disappointing for me, since I had grown a little fond of the guy with weird signs. He always struck me as a scrappy underdog.

Now, we had known for a while that there was something a bit off about the previous version of the paper. It isn’t precisely that the theorems in there were wrong, but rather than they were the wrong theorems; we now give a geometric construction of Khovanov’s algebra, but it’s a subtly different construction than in the previous version which didn’t give us Khovanov’s algebra at all. Remarkably, a slight change of perspective suddenly popped everything that had been subtly off back into place.

I feel a lot better about the whole business now, though it is slightly embarrassing to have given a number of talks on the subject when I had a less than complete understanding of what was going on. So, if you happened to see one of those talks, you may want to blank the last few minutes of it from your memory, and replace that with what’s now in the paper.

Continue reading

Gale and Koszul duality, together at last

So, in past posts, I’ve attempted to explain a bit about Gale duality and about Koszul duality, so now I feel like I should try to explain what they have to do with each other, since I (and some other people) just posted a preprint called “Gale duality and Koszul duality” to the arXiv.

The short version is this: we describe a way of getting a category \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{V}) (or equivalently, an algebra) from a linear program \mathcal{V} (or as we call it, a polarized hyperplane arrangement).

Before describing the construction of this category, let me tell you some of the properties that make it appealing.

Theorem. \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{V}) is Koszul (that is, it can be given a grading for which the induced grading on the Ext-algebra of the simples matches the homological grading).

In fact, this category satisfies a somewhat stronger property: it is standard Koszul (as defined by Ágoston, Dlab and Lukács.  Those of you with Springer access can get the paper here).  In short, the category has a special set of objects called “standard modules” (which you should think of as analogous to Verma modules) which make it a “highest weight category,”  such that these modules are sent by Koszul duality to a set of standards for the Koszul dual.

Of course, whenever confronted with a Koszul category, we immediately ask ourselves what its Koszul dual is.  In our case, there is a rather nice answer.

Theorem. The Koszul dual to \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{V}) is \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{V}^\vee), the category associated to the Gale dual \mathcal{V}^\vee of \mathcal{V}.

Now, part of the data of a linear program is an “objective function” (which we’ll denote by \xi) and of bounds for the contraints (which will be encoded by a vector \eta).  Stripping these way, we end up with a vector arrangement, simply a choice of a set of vectors in a vector space, which will specify the constraints.

Theorem. If two linear programs have same underlying vector arrangment, the categories \mathcal C(\mathcal V) may not be equivalent, but they will be derived equivalent, that is, their bounded derived categories will be equivalent.

Interestingly, these equivalences are far from being canonical. In the course of their construction, one actually obtains a large group of auto-equivalences acting on the derived category of \mathcal{C}(\mathcal{V}), which we conjecture to include the fundamental group of the space of generic choices of objective function.

Continue reading