If they had a solution that was better than what was out there, and they are publishing their research, then it follows we should be able to find their novelty

If they had a solution that was better than what was out there, and they are publishing their research, then it follows we should be able to find their novelty in their publications, right? So, I took a look at their publication track record on this topic [0], and there are a few red flags that stood out to me. First, they're publishing at a pretty astounding rate, with new submissions roughly every 1-3 months for the past 3 years, with the same authors. I'm skeptical that a small (<5?) research team would be able to produce novel contributions at such a rate, which leads me to believe they're probably remixing previous works into incremental publications. Second, all of their publications are in neuroscience journals, which may not be up to date with the latest research going on with HTM in (for example) computer science. NIPS does have a computational neuroscience track, after all - I would have expected at least some interdisciplinary leakage if the novelty was very high. Finally, the journals that they're publishing in are relatively low-ranking, which also seems to indicate that what they're doing is not necessary very novel (as you said, perhaps just a re-hash of existing HTM research). Also, this article was co-written with a marketing exec, so I think it's fair to bring a certain level of skepticism. [0]: https://numenta.com/resources/papers/ https://numenta.com/resources/papers/