Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: a response to Chaski

In response to Chaski’s article (published in this volume) an examination is made of the methodological understanding necessary to identify dependable markers for forensic (and general) authorship attribution work. This examination concentrates on three methodological areas of concern which researchers intending to identify markers of authorship must address. These areas are sampling linguistic data, establishing the reliability of authorship markers and establishing the validity of authorship markers. It is suggested that the complexity of sampling problems in linguistic data is often underestimated and that theoretical issues in this area are both difficult and unresolved. It is further argued that the concepts of reliability and validity must be well understood and accounted for in any attempts to identify authorship markers and that largely this is not done. Finally, Principal Component Analysis is identified as an alternative approach which avoids some of the methodological problems inherent in identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship.

Subtractive and divisive adaptation in visual motion computations

Models of visual motion processing that introduce priors for low speed through Bayesian computations are sometimes treated with scepticism by empirical researchers because of the convenient way in which parameters of the Bayesian priors have been chosen. Using the effects of motion adaptation on motion perception to illustrate, we show that the Bayesian prior, far from being convenient, may be estimated on-line and therefore represents a useful tool by which visual motion processes may be optimized in order to extract the motion signals commonly encountered in every day experience. The prescription for optimization, when combined with system constraints on the transmission of visual information, may lead to an exaggeration of perceptual bias through the process of adaptation. Our approach extends the Bayesian model of visual motion proposed byWeiss et al. [Weiss Y., Simoncelli, E., & Adelson, E. (2002). Motion illusions as optimal perception Nature Neuroscience, 5:598-604.], in suggesting that perceptual bias reflects a compromise taken by a rational system in the face of uncertain signals and system constraints. © 2007.

New horizons in mouse immunoinformatics:reliable in silico prediction of mouse class I histocompatibility major complex peptide binding affinity

Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) analysis is a main cornerstone of modern informatic disciplines. Predictive computational models, based on QSAR technology, of peptide-major histocompatibility complex (MHC) binding affinity have now become a vital component of modern day computational immunovaccinology. Historically, such approaches have been built around semi-qualitative, classification methods, but these are now giving way to quantitative regression methods. The additive method, an established immunoinformatics technique for the quantitative prediction of peptide–protein affinity, was used here to identify the sequence dependence of peptide binding specificity for three mouse class I MHC alleles: H2–Db, H2–Kb and H2–Kk. As we show, in terms of reliability the resulting models represent a significant advance on existing methods. They can be used for the accurate prediction of T-cell epitopes and are freely available online (http://www.jenner.ac.uk/MHCPred).

On reliable computation by noisy random Boolean formulas

We study noisy computation in randomly generated k-ary Boolean formulas. We establish bounds on the noise level above which the results of computation by random formulas are not reliable. This bound is saturated by formulas constructed from a single majority-like gate. We show that these gates can be used to compute any Boolean function reliably below the noise bound.

A robust preference for cheap-and-easy strategies over reliable strategies when verifying personal memories

People depend on various sources of information when trying to verify their autobiographical memories. Yet recent research shows that people prefer to use cheap-and-easy verification strategies, even when these strategies are not reliable. We examined the robustness of this cheap strategy bias, with scenarios designed to encourage greater emphasis on source reliability. In three experiments, subjects described real (Experiments 1 and 2) or hypothetical (Experiment 3) autobiographical events, and proposed strategies they might use to verify their memories of those events. Subjects also rated the reliability, cost, and the likelihood that they would use each strategy. In line with previous work, we found that the preference for cheap information held when people described how they would verify childhood or recent memories (Experiment 1); personally-important or trivial memories (Experiment 2), and even when the consequences of relying on incorrect information could be significant (Experiment 3). Taken together, our findings fit with an account of source monitoring in which the tendency to trust one’s own autobiographical memories can discourage people from systematically testing or accepting strong disconfirmatory evidence.

Can aberrometry provide rapid and reliable measures of subjective depth of focus following multifocal intraocular lens implantation?

Purpose: To determine whether the ‘through-focus’ aberrations of a multifocal and accommodative intraocular lens (IOL) implanted patient can be used to provide rapid and reliable measures of their subjective range of clear vision. Methods: Eyes that had been implanted with a concentric (n = 8), segmented (n = 10) or accommodating (n = 6) intraocular lenses (mean age 62.9 ± 8.9 years; range 46-79 years) for over a year underwent simultaneous monocular subjective (electronic logMAR test chart at 4m with letters randomised between presentations) and objective (Aston open-field aberrometer) defocus curve testing for levels of defocus between +1.50 to -5.00DS in -0.50DS steps, in a randomised order. Pupil size and ocular aberration (a combination of the patient’s and the defocus inducing lens aberrations) at each level of blur was measured by the aberrometer. Visual acuity was measured subjectively at each level of defocus to determine the traditional defocus curve. Objective acuity was predicted using image quality metrics. Results: The range of clear focus differed between the three IOL types (F=15.506, P=0.001) as well as between subjective and objective defocus curves (F=6.685, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between subjective and objective defocus curves in the segmented or concentric ring MIOL group (P>0.05). However a difference was found between the two measures and the accommodating IOL group (P<0.001). Mean Delta logMAR (predicted minus measured logMAR) across all target vergences was -0.06 ± 0.19 logMAR. Predicted logMAR defocus curves for the multifocal IOLs did not show a near vision addition peak, unlike the subjective measurement of visual acuity. However, there was a strong positive correlation between measured and predicted logMAR for all three IOLs (Pearson’s correlation: P<0.001). Conclusions: Current subjective procedures are lengthy and do not enable important additional measures such as defocus curves under differently luminance or contrast levels to be assessed, which may limit our understanding of MIOL performance in real-world conditions. In general objective aberrometry measures correlated well with the subjective assessment indicating the relative robustness of this technique in evaluating post-operative success with segmented and concentric ring MIOL.