17
$\begingroup$

Are there any publications that were motivated by a CrossValidated post? Was the site acknowledged? Is there a badge for that?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Not sure about methodological research. Another point is that CV is quite young for any paper to have made it through a publication cycle. Also, for the most part, the questions here are usually not research level, even in applications, as far as I can tell. There are some questions and answers here or there that have likely gotten someone over a hump (or at least out of a trough) on some of their work. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Nov 3 '11 at 23:36
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think it would be good if someone could write up a paper describing the site, which people who want to acknowledge/thank the site could then reference. Biostar has done something like this. $\endgroup$ Nov 6 '11 at 15:59
16
$\begingroup$

I thought that the answers to the question "For which distributions are the parameterizations in BUGS and R different?" would be of general interest to the R community so I wrote it up (in collaboration with the answer's author). The article "Translating Probability Density Functions: From R to BUGS and Back Again." is methodological, though the research part was limited to compiling references.

The acknowledgements read "This collaboration began on the Cross Validated statistical forum (http.//stats.stackexchange.com/q/5543/1381)."

$\endgroup$
0
13
$\begingroup$

Hopefully there will be at some point. I am performing an empirical study of Nelder-Mead simplex, gradient descent and grid-search methods for model selection for kernel machines, which was inspired by a question on Cross Validated (which appropriately is also the model selection criterion ;o). No paper yet though.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The paper is currently in review. $\endgroup$ Jul 18 '13 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ Has this paper been published by now? $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Oct 22 '15 at 15:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, it was rejected (despite statistically significant result ;o), am still working on the second draft, hopefully it will be a better paper for the revisions. $\endgroup$ Oct 23 '15 at 8:28
13
$\begingroup$

Yes.

Our paper summarizing this discussion: Is ridge regression useless in high dimensions ($n \ll p$)? How can OLS fail to overfit? has just been published by The Journal of Machine Learning Research:

The Optimal Ridge Penalty for Real-world High-dimensional Data Can Be Zero or Negative due to the Implicit Ridge Regularization
Dmitry Kobak, Jonathan Lomond, Benoit Sanchez; 21(169):1−16, 2020.
https://jmlr.org/papers/v21/19-844.html

It was a preprint since mid-2018: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10939 but took some time to publish formally (and got substantially extended over the course of revisions). JMLR is a very respectable journal, so I am happy :-)

We of course acknowledge CrossValidated:

enter image description here

@amoeba, @JonnyLomond, @BenoitSanchez

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Very respectable indeed! They get the first opportunity to reject all my papers. $\endgroup$ Aug 26 at 17:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I forgot to say, congratulations! $\endgroup$ Aug 26 at 17:17
11
$\begingroup$

Almost two years after having asked this question, I actually wrote a paper inspired by CV (still unpublished):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4920

I used the question's url in the body of the text.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ John could you correct the name of the site in the title and body of your post here (you're missing a "d") and also in your paper (replace the terminal "s" with a "d")? $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Jul 19 '13 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I edited this post. Could you be more specific about the changes needed in the paper? $\endgroup$
    – JohnRos
    Jul 20 '13 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ In the abstract, fix the name of the site - i.e. the same word as you corrected here. That is, taking the abstract from here: "in the statistics Questions & Answers web site Cross Validates", replace the terminal s with a d. You could just search for 'cross'. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Jul 21 '13 at 0:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This issue (that the summary at the link refers to our site as "Cross Validates") remains. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Sep 20 '20 at 6:57
10
$\begingroup$

A badge for it would be tricky, as it's not an automatic thing that can be scraped from the site itself.

I don't know of any methods research spawned by CV, but I haven't been here all that long, so someone may come and chime in. I have however used it to sanity check an idea or two that I've had. Though the one time CV did out-and-out answer the question, I had a better source provided.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I'm currently looking into the class imbalance problem, which is a very common methodological issue on this site, and have been working on a tutorial paper. The lack of an answer to my question "How do you know that your classifier is suffering from class imbalance?" suggests there are some issues with current practice that need to be addressed. Cross Validatated seems a good place for finding out what people actually do (or don't do)

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .