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 á and â 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