From cgq at ornl.gov Mon Feb 24 07:04:48 1992 From: cgq at ornl.gov (cgq@ornl.gov) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 07:04:48 -0500 Subject: Open Letter - Response Message-ID: [[ Editor's Note: Here is one response to the recent issue. Compare this with one later in this issue of the Digest. -PM ]] Dear Neuron-Digest Moderator - Peter: The "Open letter to Dr. Sun-Ichi Amari" section of the most recent digest issue is an example of a very serious scientific problem that plagues many fields. It is ABSOLUTELY UNETHICAL to not provide and acknowlegde references to prior, related research when publishing a paper; especially when one is aware of the related work. Dr. Pellionisz is so correct when he says: "The main issue, that of intellectual priority and proper citation, affects all of us in research and forms the foundation of the modern scientific tradition." As a researcher I hold this tradition above all others. Thank You for bring this subject to our attention. Chuck Glover cgq at ornl.gov Oak Ridge National Lab ------------------------------ From arbib at pollux.usc.edu Tue Feb 25 16:59:15 1992 From: arbib at pollux.usc.edu (Michael Arbib) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 13:59:15 -0800 Subject: Reply to Pellionisz' "Open Letter" Message-ID: [[ Editor's Note: Here is another response. I appreciate the candor and encourage others to express their opinion in a reasoned and supported fashion. While I cannot comment on the correctness of the points either in the original "open letter" or the various responses due to lack of appropriate background, I am encouraged by the debate itself as process of public education. -PM ]] One of my colleagues sent me a copy of the letter by A. Pellionisz complaining that Amari had not cited his earlier papers on applying tensor analysis. Since my reply may be of general interest, I reproduce it here: "Amari had sent me the original letter, and we had agreed it was a KINDNESS to Pellionisz not to refer to his earlier work, since in doing so Amari would have had to summarize our 1985 argument showing that Pellionisz had misunderstood the mathematics of tensor analysis. Anyway, the work of Amari is NOT a generalization (why generalize a flawed theory?!) but is a totally different application. For Pellionisz, the tensors are the inputs and outputs to a single NN. For Amari (applying his work of many years on information geometry) the whole NN is an element of the Riemannian space on which tensors are defined, and the metric on that space is used as an information measure to guide inference of network parameters to find a NN meeting specified criteria. My only criticism of Amari's paper is that it relies too much on his previous publications directed to statisticians, and so will be very hard for NN workers to read. Finally, note that tensor analysis is a powerful branch of mathematics with many applications. The idea of applying it to NNs does not need citation any more than does say the use of linear algebra. But if one makes use of a specific technique in a way close to the work of others, then full citation is appropriate. The latter case does NOT apply here." Let me simply add that the Japan-bashing in Pellionisz's letter is both distasteful and (as I need hardly add) totally without foundation. It is Professor Amari, not Dr. Pellionisz, who deserves a public apology. Michael Arbib Center for Neural Engineering University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520 USA ------------------------------ Neuron Digest Tuesday, 10 Mar 1992 Volume 9 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Reply to Pellionisz' "Open Letter" Re: Arbib's response to "open letter to Amari" Re: Pellionisz' "Open Letter" reply to the open letter to Amari From cgq at ornl.gov Mon Feb 24 07:04:48 1992 From: cgq at ornl.gov (cgq@ornl.gov) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 07:04:48 -0500 Subject: Open Letter - Response Message-ID: [[ Editor's Note: Here is one response to the recent issue. Compare this with one later in this issue of the Digest. -PM ]] Dear Neuron-Digest Moderator - Peter: The "Open letter to Dr. Sun-Ichi Amari" section of the most recent digest issue is an example of a very serious scientific problem that plagues many fields. It is ABSOLUTELY UNETHICAL to not provide and acknowlegde references to prior, related research when publishing a paper; especially when one is aware of the related work. Dr. Pellionisz is so correct when he says: "The main issue, that of intellectual priority and proper citation, affects all of us in research and forms the foundation of the modern scientific tradition." As a researcher I hold this tradition above all others. Thank You for bring this subject to our attention. Chuck Glover cgq at ornl.gov Oak Ridge National Lab ------------------------------ From arbib at pollux.usc.edu Tue Feb 25 16:59:15 1992 From: arbib at pollux.usc.edu (Michael Arbib) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 92 13:59:15 -0800 Subject: Reply to Pellionisz' "Open Letter" Message-ID: [[ Editor's Note: Here is another response. I appreciate the candor and encourage others to express their opinion in a reasoned and supported fashion. While I cannot comment on the correctness of the points either in the original "open letter" or the various responses due to lack of appropriate background, I am encouraged by the debate itself as process of public education. -PM ]] One of my colleagues sent me a copy of the letter by A. Pellionisz complaining that Amari had not cited his earlier papers on applying tensor analysis. Since my reply may be of general interest, I reproduce it here: "Amari had sent me the original letter, and we had agreed it was a KINDNESS to Pellionisz not to refer to his earlier work, since in doing so Amari would have had to summarize our 1985 argument showing that Pellionisz had misunderstood the mathematics of tensor analysis. Anyway, the work of Amari is NOT a generalization (why generalize a flawed theory?!) but is a totally different application. For Pellionisz, the tensors are the inputs and outputs to a single NN. For Amari (applying his work of many years on information geometry) the whole NN is an element of the Riemannian space on which tensors are defined, and the metric on that space is used as an information measure to guide inference of network parameters to find a NN meeting specified criteria. My only criticism of Amari's paper is that it relies too much on his previous publications directed to statisticians, and so will be very hard for NN workers to read. Finally, note that tensor analysis is a powerful branch of mathematics with many applications. The idea of applying it to NNs does not need citation any more than does say the use of linear algebra. But if one makes use of a specific technique in a way close to the work of others, then full citation is appropriate. The latter case does NOT apply here." Let me simply add that the Japan-bashing in Pellionisz's letter is both distasteful and (as I need hardly add) totally without foundation. It is Professor Amari, not Dr. Pellionisz, who deserves a public apology. Michael Arbib Center for Neural Engineering University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520 USA ------------------------------ Neuron Digest Tuesday, 10 Mar 1992 Volume 9 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Reply to Pellionisz' "Open Letter" Re: Arbib's response to "open letter to Amari" Re: Pellionisz' "Open Letter" reply to the open letter to Amari