5

I am having trouble choosing a category for a paper to upload to the arXiv.

The paper gives some results concerning substochastic matrices, M-matrices, and algorithms to determine whether a matrix is an M-matrix.

I am having trouble choosing an appropriate arXiv category. Certainly, if there was a category for matrix analysis, it would undoubtedly be the right choice. There are a few possible approximations which I list below, along with some reasoning.

  • math.RA (Rings and Algebras): I often see papers concerning matrix analysis here (C^{n x n} is a ring, after all).
  • math.FA (Functional Analysis): Matrix analysis is certainly a subset of functional analysis, but I'm not sure if this feels quite in spirit with the category.
  • math.NA (Numerical Analysis): M-matrices appear frequently in the numerical analysis literature.
  • cs.DM (Discrete Mathematics): algorithms in the paper analyze and manipulate the adjacency digraph associated with a matrix.
  • If your paper contains non-algorithm results on digraphs as well, you might want to consider math.CO (for cross-posting) as well. The tag is huge and (to some extent) overused (I think it should be split, the sooner the better, into at least algebraic combinatorics and graph theory and maybe also infinitary combinatorics), but what you seem to be describing fits just as well inside it as many other things. – darij grinberg Jan 24 '17 at 19:26
4

This question may be considered too specific for this site, but I'll try an answer anyway.

As someone who works in numerical linear algebra and has used M-matrices extensively, I think a submission with this topic would be welcome in math.NA. Math.RA would be my second choice, followed closely by Math.PR (probablity) which you haven't considered. One of the main results of your paper is an algorithm, and it must be an algorithm which is (at least partly) numerical in nature if it can recognize M-matrices. As you correctly note, M-matrices and algorithms involving them are a first-class citizen in numerical analysis, and they are featured in articles appearing in journals in the field. Even abstract properties of them would be on-topic, because their main use is (probably) going to be proving the properties of algorithms.

I must say that the arguments you list in favor of math.FA and math.RA seem quite vague to me; they would apply to almost all of numerical linear algebra. As for cs.DM, as I said earlier, your algorithm necessarily is not entirely discrete, so it seems less appropriate.

Anyway, you probably won't go wrong with any of NA, RA or PR. Arxiv's categories have some overlap. As Pieter Naaijkens's answer suggests, you may get slightly more visibility from the people in your field if you go for NA.

  • Thank you Federico (+1). I assume your choice of math.PR stem from the results on substochastic matrices, right? – parsiad Jan 23 '17 at 18:29
  • @parsiad Yes (although I don't know how prominent they are in your paper). – Federico Poloni Jan 23 '17 at 18:33
4

I am the moderator for cs.DM. I can't be sure without actually seeing your paper, of course, but it would probably be fine for cross-listing in cs.DM.

I wouldn't worry about the classification too much; pick a reasonable primary category, and then cross-list in a few categories where you have good reason to believe people will be interested. If you cross-list in too many categories, your paper will get flagged, which will delay release until the mods can figure out which categories to discard. But papers with two or three secondary categories are fairly common.

arXiv allows moderators to accept or reject papers into their category and to propose new categories, in both cases either as primary category or as a cross-list. As a moderator, I see every submission for which either the author lists cs.DM as one of its categories, or an admin/moderator proposes cs.DM as a new category. Occasionally preprints will appear under an entirely different set of categories from the ones the authors proposed.

The arXiv system also classifies each submitted paper by comparing the text to papers in every category; moderators and admins see an automatically generated list of suggested categories for their papers. (I've included a censored snapshot of the moderator page for an unreleased submission below.) So the moderators can propose categories that the authors might not have considered, even if the paper falls outside their area of expertise.

enter image description here

2

Note that it is possible to cross-list your paper in (a small number of) different categories, so if you believe your paper fits in multiple categories, this is the right thing to do.

Of course the question still remains: which categories to choose? Besides the content there are a few factors that you might want to consider. An obvious one is to try to see which category most people in your field choose. These are likeley the categories they pay the most attention to themselves, so this would ensure the greatest visibility along your target audience.

I am not very familiar with your field, but math.FA would be appropriate if your paper uses lots of analysis. Most papers there consider infinite dimensional spaces. Just becasue M-matrices are used in numerical analysis does not make math.NA automatically a good fit, and I would only cross-list there if the paper would have applications to numerical analysis. The other two from the looks of it sound more appropriate, but again this is not my field and it is difficult to judge without knowing the paper.

  • Thank you Pieter (+1). The only possible argument for math.FA is results on various operator norms, but since most of the arguments are combinatorial, perhaps this is not ideal, so I agree with you. – parsiad Jan 23 '17 at 18:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.