2
$\begingroup$

Apologies in advance if this is not the right place to ask this question.

But I was wondering if, at some point in the future, it would make sense to have a QF overflow as well. Like the mathematics overflow and physics overflow, it could be a platform for graduate/research type questions.

EDIT

Today (29 September 2022), out of the most recent 12 questions 10 have been closed. That is not a good record. Although it helps that now only 3 close votes are required, it does not address the more fundamental problem that many questions lately have been of poor quality. Although I am still a proponent of an Quant Fin Overflow, what could also help is having a repository of basic Q&As that can be consulted by newcomers to the field so that the same question doesn't get asked over and over again.

$\endgroup$
17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It may be fun. What would be some examples please? Thanks $\endgroup$ Aug 23, 2022 at 22:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have thought exactly the same a while ago, when the quality of questions on QSE started declining. I am really happy you asked this question, hopefully, there will be some discussion around this here. I think there are pros and cons. The pros would be to filter out "basic" student questions from the more advanced ones. The cons might be that QSE attracts large audience, and that helps to answer all types of questions, simple as well as advanced: could one exists without the other? I have been wondering that. Would QSE die out? And would QFO take off...? What do people think? $\endgroup$ Aug 29, 2022 at 18:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DimitriVulis: Here are a few that I have asked that could maybe qualify? Convergence of Radon-Nikodym, Caplet in arrears, Numeraire correlated to traded asset, Pricing Swaption analytically $\endgroup$ Aug 29, 2022 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For me, the main attraction of QFO would be the hope that it would attract more high quality contributors from academia and industry. As we have seen, people tend to "burn out" on QSE due to the high volume of basic questions. Although enabling the closure of questions with only 3 votes has (somewhat) helped to reduce very low quality questions, many industry professionals and academics might still be discouraged from participating as it doesn't generate value for them (due to the low level of the general content on QSE). $\endgroup$ Aug 29, 2022 at 18:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with the pros and cons mentioned by @JanStuller. And the question he posed there if QSE could die out and if QFO could succeed are good ones. I suppose that the `problem' with quantitative finance could be that it is not as broad yet (in terms of topics) as say maths or physics or chemistry or biology. Hence the chance of QSE dying if QFO takes off is bigger, but also the chance of QFO succeeding is a bit smaller than say math overflow or physics overflow versus physics SE and maths SE. $\endgroup$
    – user34971
    Aug 29, 2022 at 20:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On the other hand, there is a lot of exciting research going on in QF. Also, since each asset class has its own peculiarities and conventions, QF is not that narrow either. So even though QFO may not be as active as a physics or maths overflow, it can still be a very relevant resource if a certain level is maintained and a sufficient number of practitioners and researchers know about it and actively contribute to it. How to make this happen is of course another question. $\endgroup$
    – user34971
    Aug 29, 2022 at 20:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DimitriVulis I cannot speak to examples in eg portfolio optimisation, or ML/AI applications in finance, or modelling questions in say FI/IR, but for example in volatility modelling specifically, some questions could be what are the different approaches to modelling VIX, to joint calibration of VIX and SPX, how does one calibrate an uncertain volatility model, does the implied volatility generated by a SV model have a global minimum for each time to maturity, what is the Malliavin derivative, how does the Clark-Ocone formula (which uses Malliavin derivative) give the hedge portfolio, etc. $\endgroup$
    – user34971
    Aug 29, 2022 at 20:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Some of these examples I mentioned above could also be in QSE or imported from QSE into QFO of course. Frankly I am still struggling with where does QSE end and could QFO begin. $\endgroup$
    – user34971
    Aug 29, 2022 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I totally share Frido's and Jan's disappointment in the quality of recent questions. I think one problem is that "quantitative finance" means to some people CAPM, OLS regressions and put-call-parity whilst we look for a very different types of questions. That problem could be addressed by introducing quant finance overflow. But would we have enough traffic (questions and answers) on that level? Instead of going through a new beta phase (when setting up Quant Overflow), we might try to stimulate the asking of good questions here whilst keeping up with the closure of low-quality questions? $\endgroup$
    – Kevin
    Oct 1, 2022 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I just thought of this: maybe we could aim to "mark" the more advanced questions in some way, but they would still be part of QSE. Not sure yet how it would work: maybe users could "self-declare" a question as basic or "advanced" and users with certain reputation could "reverse" the marking (but it would not be necessary to confirm the marking, as that would create onus on higher-rep users). Just an idea... $\endgroup$ Oct 5, 2022 at 10:00
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with @Kevin 's concern that going through a new beta phase at this point may not be the most obvious thing to do especially since at the moment there is not enough evidence of increasing traffic on QFSE. So the way forward might be to direct new users to a repository of basic questions first, before they can post questions. The downside of this approach obviously is say if an experienced quant decides to join s/he would have to read about put call parity before s/he can ask/answer a question. This is undesirable. $\endgroup$
    – user34971
    Oct 5, 2022 at 10:14
  • $\begingroup$ @JanStuller I'm not sure that marking question as "advanced" would helps us. It doesn't remove the poor quality questions. Instead of adding a variable to filter the questions, we should aim to prevent/remove poor quality questions such that all (most) questions are kind of advanced and interesting. Indeed, I am actually in favour of having at least 50 rep to ask a question, see here.... [1/2] $\endgroup$
    – Kevin
    Oct 5, 2022 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ ... Yes, this proposal does impose high entry costs and might deter some new people from asking good questions, but it's more likely that it significantly reduces newbies asking simple/useless questions as they aren't familiar with the site yet. If one has to first gather some upvotes on one's answers and stick around for a little while, one is forced to contribute to the community first and learn the ``rules''. [2/2] $\endgroup$
    – Kevin
    Oct 5, 2022 at 18:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JanStuller I don't think any of your early crappy questions sunk to the level of attaching a screenshot with the text "Please solve". At the very least we can filter out those questions by forbidding uploading of images for everyone with reputation less than 50 or 100. I think this is "low-hanging fruit". (Apologies for the corporate jargon) $\endgroup$
    – user34971
    Oct 5, 2022 at 19:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Frido, haha, good point :) Actually a great idea! Users with reputation below 100 should not be allowed to upload images! $\endgroup$ Oct 5, 2022 at 19:47

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I thought the whole point of this Stack was to have a venue for high-level quantitative finance questions.

If anything, my impression is that Stack Exchange lacks a middle ground between Quant and Money.

If the issue is that the quality of questions at Quant is low, I think that comes with the territory of working a field where the perception is that extraordinary wealth is in play; people want in! That is not the perception about working on categories of schemes.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "If anything, my impression is that Stack Exchange lacks a middle ground between Quant and Money." - That's another way to look at it. But also this implies that another platform is desirable. I guess the question is how do you keep the QSE at a certain level. $\endgroup$
    – user34971
    Sep 24, 2022 at 19:52

You must log in to answer this question.