Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should We Care?

BACKGROUND: In a 1994 Ninth Circuit decision on the remand of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Judge Alex Kosinski wrote that science done for the purpose of litigation should be subject to more stringent standards of admissibility than other science. OBJECTIVES: We analyze this proposition by considering litigation-generated science as a subset of science involving conflict of interest. DISCUSSION: Judge Kosinski's formulation suggests there may be reasons to treat science involving conflict of interest differently but raises questions about whether litigation-generated science should be singled out. In particular we discuss the similar problems raised by strategically motivated science done in anticipation of possible future litigation or otherwise designed to benefit the sponsor and ask what special treatment, if any, should be given to science undertaken to support existing or potential future litigation. CONCLUSION: The problems with litigation-generated science are not special. On the contrary, they are very general and apply to much or most science that is relevant and reliable in the courtroom setting.

An Implementation of Mermera: A Shared Memory System that Mixes Coherence with Non-coherence

Coherent shared memory is a convenient, but inefficient, method of inter-process communication for parallel programs. By contrast, message passing can be less convenient, but more efficient. To get the benefits of both models, several non-coherent memory behaviors have recently been proposed in the literature. We present an implementation of Mermera, a shared memory system that supports both coherent and non-coherent behaviors in a manner that enables programmers to mix multiple behaviors in the same program[HS93]. A programmer can debug a Mermera program using coherent memory, and then improve its performance by selectively reducing the level of coherence in the parts that are critical to performance. Mermera permits a trade-off of coherence for performance. We analyze this trade-off through measurements of our implementation, and by an example that illustrates the style of programming needed to exploit non-coherence. We find that, even on a small network of workstations, the performance advantage of non-coherence is compelling. Raw non-coherent memory operations perform 20-40~times better than non-coherent memory operations. An example application program is shown to run 5-11~times faster when permitted to exploit non-coherence. We conclude by commenting on our use of the Isis Toolkit of multicast protocols in implementing Mermera.

Laminar Cortical Dynamics of Visual Form and Motion Interactions During Coherent Object Motion Perception

How do visual form and motion processes cooperate to compute object motion when each process separately is insufficient? Consider, for example, a deer moving behind a bush. Here the partially occluded fragments of motion signals available to an observer must be coherently grouped into the motion of a single object. A 3D FORMOTION model comprises five important functional interactions involving the brain’s form and motion systems that address such situations. Because the model’s stages are analogous to areas of the primate visual system, we refer to the stages by corresponding anatomical names. In one of these functional interactions, 3D boundary representations, in which figures are separated from their backgrounds, are formed in cortical area V2. These depth-selective V2 boundaries select motion signals at the appropriate depths in MT via V2-to-MT signals. In another, motion signals in MT disambiguate locally incomplete or ambiguous boundary signals in V2 via MT-to-V1-to-V2 feedback. The third functional property concerns resolution of the aperture problem along straight moving contours by propagating the influence of unambiguous motion signals generated at contour terminators or corners. Here, sparse “feature tracking signals” from, e.g., line ends, are amplified to overwhelm numerically superior ambiguous motion signals along line segment interiors. In the fourth, a spatially anisotropic motion grouping process takes place across perceptual space via MT-MST feedback to integrate veridical feature-tracking and ambiguous motion signals to determine a global object motion percept. The fifth property uses the MT-MST feedback loop to convey an attentional priming signal from higher brain areas back to V1 and V2. The model's use of mechanisms such as divisive normalization, endstopping, cross-orientation inhibition, and longrange cooperation is described. Simulated data include: the degree of motion coherence of rotating shapes observed through apertures, the coherent vs. element motion percepts separated in depth during the chopsticks illusion, and the rigid vs. non-rigid appearance of rotating ellipses.

Genetically Generated Neural Networks I: Representational Effects

This paper studies several applications of genetic algorithms (GAs) within the neural networks field. After generating a robust GA engine, the system was used to generate neural network circuit architectures. This was accomplished by using the GA to determine the weights in a fully interconnected network. The importance of the internal genetic representation was shown by testing different approaches. The effects in speed of optimization of varying the constraints imposed upon the desired network were also studied. It was observed that relatively loose constraints provided results comparable to a fully constrained system. The type of neural network circuits generated were recurrent competitive fields as described by Grossberg (1982).

Genetically Generated Neural Networks II: Searching for an Optimal Representation

Genetic Algorithms (GAs) make use of an internal representation of a given system in order to perform optimization functions. The actual structural layout of this representation, called a genome, has a crucial impact on the outcome of the optimization process. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of different internal representations in a GA, which generates neural networks. A second GA was used to optimize the genome structure. This structure produces an optimized system within a shorter time interval.