Generating Probability Distributions using Multivalued Stochastic Relay Circuits

The problem of random number generation dates back to von Neumann's work in 1951. Since then, many algorithms have been developed for generating unbiased bits from complex correlated sources as well as for generating arbitrary distributions from unbiased bits. An equally interesting, but less studied aspect is the structural component of random number generation as opposed to the algorithmic aspect. That is, given a network structure imposed by nature or physical devices, how can we build networks that generate arbitrary probability distributions in an optimal way? In this paper, we study the generation of arbitrary probability distributions in multivalued relay circuits, a generalization in which relays can take on any of N states and the logical 'and' and 'or' are replaced with 'min' and 'max' respectively. Previous work was done on two-state relays. We generalize these results, describing a duality property and networks that generate arbitrary rational probability distributions. We prove that these networks are robust to errors and design a universal probability generator which takes input bits and outputs arbitrary binary probability distributions

Introduction to the special section on dependable network computing

Dependable network computing is becoming a key part of our daily economic and social life. Every day, millions of users and businesses are utilizing the Internet infrastructure for real-time electronic commerce transactions, scheduling important events, and building relationships. While network traffic and the number of users are rapidly growing, the mean-time between failures (MTTF) is surprisingly short; according to recent studies, in the majority of Internet backbone paths, the MTTF is 28 days. This leads to a strong requirement for highly dependable networks, servers, and software systems. The challenge is to build interconnected systems, based on available technology, that are inexpensive, accessible, scalable, and dependable. This special section provides insights into a number of these exciting challenges

Low-density MDS codes and factors of complete graphs

We present a class of array code of size n×l, where l=2n or 2n+1, called B-Code. The distances of the B-Code and its dual are 3 and l-1, respectively. The B-Code and its dual are optimal in the sense that i) they are maximum-distance separable (MDS), ii) they have an optimal encoding property, i.e., the number of the parity bits that are affected by change of a single information bit is minimal, and iii) they have optimal length. Using a new graph description of the codes, we prove an equivalence relation between the construction of the B-Code (or its dual) and a combinatorial problem known as perfect one-factorization of complete graphs, thus obtaining constructions of two families of the B-Code and its dual, one of which is new. Efficient decoding algorithms are also given, both for erasure correcting and for error correcting. The existence of perfect one-factorizations for every complete graph with an even number of nodes is a 35 years long conjecture in graph theory. The construction of B-Codes of arbitrary odd length will provide an affirmative answer to the conjecture

Does the Death Penalty Still Matter: Reflections of a Death Row Lawyer

This talk was given by Professor David Bruck for the Frances Lewis Law Center at Washington and Lee University School of Law, April, 2002. It is a follow-up to “Does the Death Penalty Matter?,” given by Professor Bruck as the 1990 Ralph E. Shikes Lecture at Harvard Law School

Emergency Parole Release for Older Parole-Eligible DOC Inmates

Professor Bruck writes to Secretary Moran and Chairwoman Bennett to urge them to protect elderly Virginia prison inmates from the risk of death from COVID-19 by granting immediate parole release to as many over-60 parole-eligible prisoners as possible, upon a showing that they are at low risk to re-offend, and have a supportive home to go to once released

Sentencing the Mentally Retarded to Death: An Eighth Amendment Analysis

Today, on death rows across the United States, sit a number of men with the minds of children. These people are mentally retarded. Typical of these individuals is Limmie Arthur, who currently is imprisoned at Central Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina. Although Arthur is twenty-eight years old, all the mental health professionals who have evaluated him, including employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, agree he has the mental capacity of approximately a 10-year-old child. Arthur was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a neighbor. At his first trial, his court appointed attorneys did not present any evidence regarding Mr. Arthur\u27s mental retardation. Neither the first jury that sentenced Limmie Arthur to death nor the attorneys who represented him in that proceeding knew he was mentally disabled. After his death sentence was reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court on other grounds, we became involved in the case. A routine psychological assessment revealed Limmie Arthur was mentally retarded. At his second trial, conducted before a judge sitting without a jury, extensive evidence regarding Arthur\u27s mental retardation was presented. After deliberating for approximately one hour, the trial judge sentenced Arthur to death. We suspected that the evidence regarding Arthur\u27s mental retardation may have been misunderstood and that our client may have been sentenced to die not in spite of the fact he was mentally disabled but rather because he was mentally retarded. We immediately filed a motion for reconsideration and reduction of sentence. A hearing was conducted in conjunction with this motion several weeks later to determine whether the execution of any mentally retarded person is inconsistent with the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. The court, however, refused to modify its prior ruling. Limmie Arthur\u27s case demonstrates in dramatic fashion the current failure of the American criminal justice system to adequately weigh mental retardation in the capital sentencing process. Whether a mentally retarded person such as Limmie Arthur should be sentenced to death is not a proper issue to be resolved by juries and judges on a case-by-case basis. After first describing what it means to be a person with mental retardation, this article will demonstrate that mental retardation is a significant and devastating mental impairment which reduces a mentally retarded person\u27s moral blameworthiness to a level different in kind from other nonretarded persons accused of murder. Thus, the current procedures governing the imposition of the death penalty are inadequate to ensure mental retardation is given the weight it deserves in the sentencing process. Furthermore, this article will attempt to articulate the reasons the death penalty is never an appropriate sentence when imposed upon a person with mental retardation and, thus, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. Finally, this article will set forth the reasons why mental retardation is a mitigating factor that deserves great weight in the capital sentencing process, and therefore, unique procedural protections are necessary in a case involving a mentally retarded defendant

Sentencing the Mentally Retarded to Death: An Eighth Amendment Analysis

Today, on death rows across the United States, sit a number of men with the minds of children. These people are mentally retarded. Typical of these individuals is Limmie Arthur, who currently is imprisoned at Central Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina. Although Arthur is twenty-eight years old, all the mental health professionals who have evaluated him, including employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, agree he has the mental capacity of approximately a 10-year-old child. Arthur was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a neighbor. At his first trial, his court appointed attorneys did not present any evidence regarding Mr. Arthur\u27s mental retardation. Neither the first jury that sentenced Limmie Arthur to death nor the attorneys who represented him in that proceeding knew he was mentally disabled. After his death sentence was reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court on other grounds, we became involved in the case. A routine psychological assessment revealed Limmie Arthur was mentally retarded. At his second trial, conducted before a judge sitting without a jury, extensive evidence regarding Arthur\u27s mental retardation was presented. After deliberating for approximately one hour, the trial judge sentenced Arthur to death. We suspected that the evidence regarding Arthur\u27s mental retardation may have been misunderstood and that our client may have been sentenced to die not in spite of the fact he was mentally disabled but rather because he was mentally retarded. We immediately filed a motion for reconsideration and reduction of sentence. A hearing was conducted in conjunction with this motion several weeks later to determine whether the execution of any mentally retarded person is inconsistent with the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. The court, however, refused to modify its prior ruling. Limmie Arthur\u27s case demonstrates in dramatic fashion the current failure of the American criminal justice system to adequately weigh mental retardation in the capital sentencing process. Whether a mentally retarded person such as Limmie Arthur should be sentenced to death is not a proper issue to be resolved by juries and judges on a case-by-case basis. After first describing what it means to be a person with mental retardation, this article will demonstrate that mental retardation is a significant and devastating mental impairment which reduces a mentally retarded person\u27s moral blameworthiness to a level different in kind from other nonretarded persons accused of murder. Thus, the current procedures governing the imposition of the death penalty are inadequate to ensure mental retardation is given the weight it deserves in the sentencing process. Furthermore, this article will attempt to articulate the reasons the death penalty is never an appropriate sentence when imposed upon a person with mental retardation and, thus, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. Finally, this article will set forth the reasons why mental retardation is a mitigating factor that deserves great weight in the capital sentencing process, and therefore, unique procedural protections are necessary in a case involving a mentally retarded defendant

A Modular Voting Architecture ("Frogs")

We present a “modular voting architecture” in which “vote generation” is performed separately from “vote casting.