CS4641 Project 3: Neural Networks Reflection

Introduction

If you have read my last article, you know that we have been here before. Although I talked about the process of completing and submitting Project 2, I wanted to write about Project 3 but focus on more of the content I learned from it.

Project 3 was completely different to Project 2- not only in terms of difficulty, but also what it meant it to me. In high school, I remember binging YouTube videos on neural networks for hours upon hours. I thought they were extremely interesting and powerful- but still had no idea how they really worked. Another reason that the algorithm caught my attention firstly was due to the relation the name has to the human brain, which has always fascinated me. Below is a picture that shows the relation between a brain’s neurons and a computer neural network.

Neural networks and their allure were part of the reason that I wanted to study the Intelligence thread as CS major- so this particular project in Machine Learning was going to be important for unveiling the black box of how they work.

What is a Neural Network?

Neural networks seem extremely complicated, and they definitely can be. However, there are simple ways to think about them that makes the understanding much easier. Simply put, a neural network is a set of algorithms working together to show relationships in a dataset and try its best to mimic the behavior of human brains. They represent one of the most popular algorithms and can be programmed to do almost anything.

This particular project was focused on one of the algorithms potential uses- text classification. Text classification is when a computer model is able to categorize words based on a certain trait they possess. For example, for this assignment, we were given the iMDB dataset of movie reviews that the computer model would take in and break down to analyze. The model is also fed training data and testing data- the training data is what the computer uses to learn how things are classified and the testing data is used to test the model’s accuracy. The computer model must be accurate on classifying movie reviews as either positive or negative on both sets of data. The coolest part of implementing a neural network like this is when it can accurately predict whether it is reading a nice review or bad review just like a human.

Neural Bag of Words

For the sake of length, I will only discuss one of the algorithms we implemented for Project 3, Neural Bag of Words. NBOW represents the situation in which a bag contains a bunch of words; think of someone reaching into a bag and fetching a word, but only paying attention to the amount of times a word appears and disregards grammar and word ordering from the word’s original sentence. This means that every single word in the bag is treated the same, it doesn’t matter what the word’s meaning or significance is.

The Neural Bag of Words model works like any other neural network- with an input and output layer, and a hidden layer in between.

This algorithm works its magic by using an embedding layer, which helps convert words to vectors that can be used in the neural network. In our situation the input layer consists of the IMDB review dataset and the output we get is an accuracy of the computer’s prediction on the nature of the reviews.

Conclusion

Although I have only scratched the surface of what a neural network is made up of and does, the message of how strong it can be should be clear. Using neural networks, computer scientists can train any computer to predict anything at all using just an established dataset and training time! The possibilities of functions are endless!

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.