On-Board Decision Making in Space with Deep Neural Networks and RISC-V Vector Processors

AbstractMany recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are rooted in visual neuroscience. However, ideas from more complicated paradigms like decision-making are less used. Although automated decision-making systems are ubiquitous (driverless cars, pilot support systems, medical diagnosis algorithms etc.), achieving human-level performance in decision making tasks is still a challenge. At the same time, these tasks that are hard for AI are easy for humans. Thus, understanding human brain dynamics during these decision-making tasks and modeling them using deep neural networks could improve AI performance. Here we modelled some of the complex neural interactions during a sensorimotor decision making task. We investigated how brain dynamics flexibly represented and distinguished between sensory processing and categorization in two sensory domains: motion direction and color. We used two different approaches for understanding neural representations. We compared brain responses to 1) the geometry of a sensory or category domain (domain selectivity) and 2) predictions from deep neural networks (computation selectivity). Both approaches gave us similar results. This confirmed the validity of our analyses. Using the first approach, we found that neural representations changed depending on context. We then trained deep recurrent neural networks to perform the same tasks as the animals. Using the second approach, we found that computations in different brain areas also changed flexibly depending on context. Color computations appeared to rely more on sensory processing, while motion computations more on abstract categories. Overall, our results shed light to the biological basis of categorization and differences in selectivity and computations in different brain areas. They also suggest a way for studying sensory and categorical representations in the brain: compare brain responses to both a behavioral model and a deep neural network and test if they give similar results.

Download Full-text

Included, but still not equal? Gender segregation at quota regulated boards

Corporate Board role duties and composition ◽

10.22495/cbv12i2art5 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 35-45 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Aagoth Storvik ◽

Trygve Gulbrandsen

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Gender Segregation ◽

Women Directors ◽

Independent Variables ◽

New Women ◽

Window Dressing ◽

The World ◽

Gender Hierarchies ◽

Board Decision ◽

Board Decision Making

In 2003 Norway introduced a new regulation that required at least 40 percent of each gender on company boards. Norway was the first country in the world to introduce such a law, but several countries have since proposed similar arrangements. Before the reform, opponents of the law in Norway claimed that the new women directors would not be allowed to participate fully in board decision-making. Instead, their role would only be window dressing. Based on a questionnaire sent to all directors in public limited companies in 2009, the article studies this allegation. Results show that women directors report less ability to influence board decision making than men directors. Moreover, women to a lesser extent feel they are part of the inner circle on boards where such phenomena is perceived to exist. These tendencies also hold when we control for many other independent variables such as board role, ownership interest, number of directorships, and occupation, among others. Hence, the quota regulated boards might show tendencies of gender hierarchies and resegregation.

Download Full-text

Decision, no decision: The challenges of board decision making

British Journal of Healthcare Management ◽

10.12968/bjhc.2015.21.9.413 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 21 (9) ◽

pp. 413-419

Author(s):

John Deffenbaugh

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Board Decision ◽

Board Decision Making

Download Full-text

Parole Board Decision Making and Constitutional Rights

Annual Review of Law and Social Science ◽

10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051121-070621 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Amelia Courtney Hritz

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Supreme Court ◽

The United States ◽

Annual Review ◽

Publication Date ◽

Criminal Proceedings ◽

Legal Questions ◽

Parole Board ◽

Board Decision ◽

Board Decision Making

Parole board decision making has changed dramatically over the last century, mirroring broader trends in criminal punishment. Even though parole decisions affect the length of prison sentences and the US Supreme Court has safeguarded defendants’ rights during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings, the court has largely declined to interfere in parole. After briefly surveying the historical evolution of parole in the United States, this article proceeds in two parts. First, the article analyzes Supreme Court cases involving sentencing and parole and discusses questions raised by those decisions. Second, the article examines modern studies of parole board decisions and highlights ethical and legal questions raised by the research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Download Full-text

The Importance of Value Diversity in Corporate Life

Business Ethics Quarterly ◽

10.5840/beq200313431 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 13 (4) ◽

pp. 433-452 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Wayne Eastman ◽

Michael Santoro

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Organizational Context ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Value Diversity ◽

Board Decision ◽

Board Decision Making ◽

Group Interests

Abstract:Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) suggest in a brief discussion that a manager may in some cases rely on his or her own values in making organizational decisions. Our paper examines the role of diversity in values in an organizational context. Our central contention is that value diversity among managers, employees, and other stakeholders on dimensions such as prudence-boldness, clarity-flexibility, and rigor-mercy is highly useful for an organization. We introduce nontechnical models of individual and board decision-making in which value diversity cuts across group interests that would otherwise control the decision. In these models, decision-makers who are influenced by values such as prudence or boldness as well as by their group interests are more likely to avoid suboptimal decisions, because their weaker but not their more intense group interests are likely to be overridden by their cross-cutting value inclinations.

Download Full-text