Inspired by the comparison of programming languages by GitHub and Stack Overflow activity (e.g. this one for 2015) I decided to look at the popularity of mathematical disciplines by using data from both arXiv and MathOverflow (see also my motivation for getting a dump of arXiv metadata). Here it is:

It's based on all data until January 2015. For MO there is little dependence of popularity of topics over time; for arXiv there is some, but it does not change the plot in any drastic way (due to arXiv growth the lifetime average is close the the average from the last 5 years).

There is some (positive) correlation between the number of questions here and the number of preprints on arXiv, per discipline. Of course, there are many factors that come into play:

- the number of people interested in a given field,
- coverage of people (not all mathematicians are here, not all - are posting to arXiv),
- difficulty to ask a question,
- difficulty to write a paper,
- etc.

I am not a (real) mathematician, and not even a frequent MO user; so I may be missing some explanations, which are obvious for everyone in a given field.

Do you know plausible explanations why certain fields lie above, or below, the regression line?

(I have some guesses, but don't want to mix this answer with a very partial response.)

`logic`

. I use only arXiv tags. $\endgroup$morethan certain this situation is not uncommon in other fields. The arXiv tags are not as used as they were five years ago. For better and for worse. $\endgroup$`set-theory`

with no effort. But what about all other tags? (And I prefer to have a uniform undercounting rather than manual and subjective case-by-case approach, generating artifacts.) $\endgroup$`mathoverflow`

and stackexchange in general is not really a site for presentingnewresearch akaterra incognita, but instead to work withexistingresearch akaterra cognita. short Q/A by experts/ general internet audience is much different than long-form papers by experts/ academics. one would expect the users/ audiences to be somewhat different/ overlapping also. $\endgroup$2more comments