http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Multi-Antenna Noncoherent ML Synchronization for UWB-IR Faded Channels
Baccarelli Enzo,Biagi Mauro,Pelizzoni Cristian,Cordeschi Nicola The Korea Institute of Information and Commucation 2006 Journal of communications and networks Vol.8 No.2
This contribution focuses on the maximum likelihood (ML) noncoherent synchronization of multi-antenna transceivers working in faded environments and employing ultra-wideband impulse radio (UWB-IR) transmit technology. In particular, the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) is derived for the general case of multiple input multiple output (MIMO) UWB-IR systems and used to compare the ultimate performance of three basic transmit schemes, thereinafter referred to as single input multiple output (SIMO), MIMO equal signaling (MIMO-ES), and MIMO orthogonal signaling (MIMO-OS) ones. Thus, the noncoherent ML synchronizer is developed for the better performing transmit scheme (i.e., the SIMO one) and its performance is evaluated under both signal acquisition and tracking operating conditions. The performance gain in the synchronization of UWB- IR signals arising by the utilization of the multi-antenna technology is also evaluated.
IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
Pearce, Neil,Blair, Aaron,Vineis, Paolo,Ahrens, Wolfgang,Andersen, Aage,Anto, Josep M.,Armstrong, Bruce K.,Baccarelli, Andrea A.,Beland, Frederick A.,Berrington, Amy,Bertazzi, Pier Alberto,Birnbaum, L U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ 2015 Environmental health perspectives Vol.123 No.6
<P>Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.</P><P>Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.</P><P>Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.</P><P>Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.</P><P>Citation: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, ‘t Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland K, Stenzel M, Stewart BW, Stewart PA, Symanski E, Terracini B, Tolbert PE, Vainio H, Vena J, Vermeulen R, Victora CG, Ward EM, Weinberg CR, Weisenburger D, Wesseling C, Weiderpass E, Zahm SH. 2015. IARC Monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health Perspect 123:507–514; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149</P>