Just out of curiosity, is anybody still reading this thread? What are people thinking of the listhost so far?
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Eric Purdy epurdy@uchicago.edu wrote:
Well, we could just say that we'll do what we want, not use their code (except possibly to help us understand the paper), and offer co-author credit to them if we manage to get a paper out of it.
In general, being overly generous with co-authorship doesn't usually have any bad effects?
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Michael Bishop michaelbish@gmail.com wrote:
well its not published yet. i think it was conditionally accepted and probably won't come out until the spring. i'm currently operating under the assumption that i can't publish using their ranking without there say so. since they said they were planning on doing things similar to what i was planning on doing, and they gave me their code before others have access to it (i think), i probably need to consider them coauthors.
but now that i've got the code, its not clear how much more help i need or could get from them. therefore i feel like i'm in a grey area where given my plans, giving them co-authorship seems generous, but giving them nothing more than an acknowledgement seems sorta wrong as well.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Eric Purdy epurdy@uchicago.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Michael Bishop michaelbish@gmail.com wrote:
If I open a second instance of cygwin and run another instance of this program, will windows/cygwin know to execute it on a separate core? Brian (the author) just sent me his timings (attached) to give me an idea about what to expect. #3 is the shortest, #50 is the longest.
Probably that would work? I know very little about windows.
Yeah I don't really know what the norms are surrounding this sorta thing. I really don't want to send these guys a huge fuck-you. But it is basically accepted at a real journal... this new one I think? Does its going to press change anything?
If it's already published, then we can do whatever we want. And we're not the referees, which is where the real fuck-yous come in. Maybe we should ask them??
Its good to hear their approach seems fairly reasonable to you. It seemed weird to me to bring periodic functions like cosine into it... my intuition is that the density for unreciprocated ties would achieve perhaps 3 local maxima... one somewhere in the middle, and the two "corner solutions" at max rank differences.
Yes, the periodicity is a very weird assumption. That's exactly why I was saying polynomials made more sense to me.
I have another friend who suggested eliminating α and β as separate parameters, i.e. don't assume reciprocated ties and unreciprocated ties are different, just allow that to emerge... so he suggested a mixture of 3 beta distributions.
If you use polynomials like I suggested, then there's no real difference between alpha and beta being separate or being together. It is possibly helpful at a conceptual level to separate out the parts that are symmetric and anti-symmetric, because they tell you about reciprocated and unreciprocated friendships, respectively.
-- -Eric
-- -Eric