Hanyang University
UniversitySeoul, Seoul, South Korea
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from Hanyang University (South Korea). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from Hanyang University
On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0×10(-21). It matches the waveform predicted by general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203,000 years, equivalent to a significance greater than 5.1σ. The source lies at a luminosity distance of 410(-180)(+160) Mpc corresponding to a redshift z=0.09(-0.04)(+0.03). In the source frame, the initial black hole masses are 36(-4)(+5)M⊙ and 29(-4)(+4)M⊙, and the final black hole mass is 62(-4)(+4)M⊙, with 3.0(-0.5)(+0.5)M⊙c(2) radiated in gravitational waves. All uncertainties define 90% credible intervals. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.
On August 17, 2017 at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral. The signal, GW170817, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mrow><a:mrow><a:mn>8.0</a:mn><a:mo>×</a:mo><a:msup><a:mrow><a:mn>10</a:mn></a:mrow><a:mrow><a:mn>4</a:mn></a:mrow></a:msup></a:mrow><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:mi>years</a:mi></a:mrow></a:math>. We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><c:mrow><c:mn>2.26</c:mn><c:mtext> </c:mtext><c:mtext> </c:mtext><c:msub><c:mrow><c:mi>M</c:mi></c:mrow><c:mrow><c:mo stretchy="false">⊙</c:mo></c:mrow></c:msub></c:mrow></c:math>, in agreement with masses of known neutron stars. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron stars, we find the component masses to be in the range <f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><f:mrow><f:mn>1.17</f:mn><f:mi>–</f:mi><f:mn>1.60</f:mn><f:mtext> </f:mtext><f:mtext> </f:mtext><f:msub><f:mrow><f:mi>M</f:mi></f:mrow><f:mrow><f:mo stretchy="false">⊙</f:mo></f:mrow></f:msub></f:mrow></f:math>, with the total mass of the system <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><i:mrow><i:mn>2.7</i:mn><i:msubsup><i:mrow><i:mn>4</i:mn></i:mrow><i:mrow><i:mo>−</i:mo><i:mn>0.01</i:mn></i:mrow><i:mrow><i:mo>+</i:mo><i:mn>0.04</i:mn></i:mrow></i:msubsup><i:msub><i:mrow><i:mi>M</i:mi></i:mrow><i:mrow><i:mo stretchy="false">⊙</i:mo></i:mrow></i:msub></i:mrow></i:math>. The source was localized within a sky region of <l:math xmlns:l="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><l:mrow><l:mn>28</l:mn><l:mtext> </l:mtext><l:mtext> </l:mtext><l:mrow><l:msup><l:mrow><l:mi>deg</l:mi></l:mrow><l:mrow><l:mn>2</l:mn></l:mrow></l:msup></l:mrow></l:mrow></l:math> (90% probability) and had a luminosity distance of <n:math xmlns:n="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mn>4</n:mn><n:msubsup><n:mrow><n:mn>0</n:mn></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mo>−</n:mo><n:mn>14</n:mn></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mo>+</n:mo><n:mn>8</n:mn></n:mrow></n:msubsup><n:mtext> </n:mtext><n:mtext> </n:mtext></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mi>Mpc</n:mi></n:mrow></n:mrow></n:math>, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signal yet. The association with the <p:math xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><p:mi>γ</p:mi></p:math>-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short <r:math xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><r:mi>γ</r:mi></r:math>-ray bursts. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology. Published by the American Physical Society 2017
CHARMM (Chemistry at HARvard Molecular Mechanics) is a highly versatile and widely used molecular simulation program. It has been developed over the last three decades with a primary focus on molecules of biological interest, including proteins, peptides, lipids, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and small molecule ligands, as they occur in solution, crystals, and membrane environments. For the study of such systems, the program provides a large suite of computational tools that include numerous conformational and path sampling methods, free energy estimators, molecular minimization, dynamics, and analysis techniques, and model-building capabilities. The CHARMM program is applicable to problems involving a much broader class of many-particle systems. Calculations with CHARMM can be performed using a number of different energy functions and models, from mixed quantum mechanical-molecular mechanical force fields, to all-atom classical potential energy functions with explicit solvent and various boundary conditions, to implicit solvent and membrane models. The program has been ported to numerous platforms in both serial and parallel architectures. This article provides an overview of the program as it exists today with an emphasis on developments since the publication of the original CHARMM article in 1983.
MicroRNA targets are often recognized through pairing between the miRNA seed region and complementary sites within target mRNAs, but not all of these canonical sites are equally effective, and both computational and in vivo UV-crosslinking approaches suggest that many mRNAs are targeted through non-canonical interactions. Here, we show that recently reported non-canonical sites do not mediate repression despite binding the miRNA, which indicates that the vast majority of functional sites are canonical. Accordingly, we developed an improved quantitative model of canonical targeting, using a compendium of experimental datasets that we pre-processed to minimize confounding biases. This model, which considers site type and another 14 features to predict the most effectively targeted mRNAs, performed significantly better than existing models and was as informative as the best high-throughput in vivo crosslinking approaches. It drives the latest version of TargetScan (v7.0; targetscan.org), thereby providing a valuable resource for placing miRNAs into gene-regulatory networks.
AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425, \nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981, \nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826, \nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376, \nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294, \nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198, \nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544, \nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107, \nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756, \nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6, \nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58, \nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007, \nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591, \nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930, \nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794, \nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727, \nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986, \nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409, \nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368, \nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884, \nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239, \nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997, \nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798, \nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909, \nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336, \nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419, \nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490, \nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401, \nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880, \nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913, \nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381, \nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112, \nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812, \nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287, \nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308, \nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901, \nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141, \nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374, \nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822, \nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480, \nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171, \nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789, \nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217, \nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24, \nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700, \nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983, \nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002, \nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318, \nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462, \nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884, \nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996, \nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628, \nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003, \nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434, \nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783, \nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514, \nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172, \nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113, \nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135, \nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702, \nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703, \nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308, \nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290, \nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105, \nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563, \nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936, \nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657, \nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254, \nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694, \nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781, \nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533, \nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829, \nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395, \nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566, \nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767, \nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301, \nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919, \nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576, \nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572, \nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940, \nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340, \nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254, \nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604, \nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182, \nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775, \nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,
The formation of a dense and uniform thin layer on the substrates is crucial for the fabrication of high-performance perovskite solar cells (PSCs) containing formamidinium with multiple cations and mixed halide anions. The concentration of defect states, which reduce a cell's performance by decreasing the open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current density, needs to be as low as possible. We show that the introduction of additional iodide ions into the organic cation solution, which are used to form the perovskite layers through an intramolecular exchanging process, decreases the concentration of deep-level defects. The defect-engineered thin perovskite layers enable the fabrication of PSCs with a certified power conversion efficiency of 22.1% in small cells and 19.7% in 1-square-centimeter cells.
Energy production and storage technologies have attracted a great deal of attention for day-to-day applications. In recent decades, advances in lithium-ion battery (LIB) technology have improved living conditions around the globe. LIBs are used in most mobile electronic devices as well as in zero-emission electronic vehicles. However, there are increasing concerns regarding load leveling of renewable energy sources and the smart grid as well as the sustainability of lithium sources due to their limited availability and consequent expected price increase. Therefore, whether LIBs alone can satisfy the rising demand for small- and/or mid-to-large-format energy storage applications remains unclear. To mitigate these issues, recent research has focused on alternative energy storage systems. Sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) are considered as the best candidate power sources because sodium is widely available and exhibits similar chemistry to that of LIBs; therefore, SIBs are promising next-generation alternatives. Recently, sodiated layer transition metal oxides, phosphates and organic compounds have been introduced as cathode materials for SIBs. Simultaneously, recent developments have been facilitated by the use of select carbonaceous materials, transition metal oxides (or sulfides), and intermetallic and organic compounds as anodes for SIBs. Apart from electrode materials, suitable electrolytes, additives, and binders are equally important for the development of practical SIBs. Despite developments in electrode materials and other components, there remain several challenges, including cell design and electrode balancing, in the application of sodium ion cells. In this article, we summarize and discuss current research on materials and propose future directions for SIBs. This will provide important insights into scientific and practical issues in the development of SIBs.
Object tracking is one of the most important components in numerous applications of computer vision. While much progress has been made in recent years with efforts on sharing code and datasets, it is of great importance to develop a library and benchmark to gauge the state of the art. After briefly reviewing recent advances of online object tracking, we carry out large scale experiments with various evaluation criteria to understand how these algorithms perform. The test image sequences are annotated with different attributes for performance evaluation and analysis. By analyzing quantitative results, we identify effective approaches for robust tracking and provide potential future research directions in this field.
Now in a new full-color edition, Fundamentals of Photonics, Second Edition is a self-contained and up-to-date introductory-level textbook that thoroughly surveys this rapidly expanding area of engineering and applied physics. Featuring a logical blend of theory and applications, coverage includes detailed accounts of the primary theories of light, including ray optics, wave optics, electromagnetic optics, and photon optics, as well as the interaction of photons and atoms, and semiconductor optics. Presented at increasing levels of complexity, preliminary sections build toward more advan
Abstract Somatic mutations in cancer genomes are caused by multiple mutational processes, each of which generates a characteristic mutational signature 1 . Here, as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium 2 of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we characterized mutational signatures using 84,729,690 somatic mutations from 4,645 whole-genome and 19,184 exome sequences that encompass most types of cancer. We identified 49 single-base-substitution, 11 doublet-base-substitution, 4 clustered-base-substitution and 17 small insertion-and-deletion signatures. The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses 3–15 , enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated—but distinct—DNA damage, repair and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogues of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA-maintenance processes. However, many signatures are of unknown cause. This analysis provides a systematic perspective on the repertoire of mutational processes that contribute to the development of human cancer.
We present the results from three gravitational-wave searches for coalescing compact binaries with component masses above <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mrow><a:mn>1</a:mn><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:msub><a:mrow><a:mi>M</a:mi></a:mrow><a:mrow><a:mo stretchy="false">⊙</a:mo></a:mrow></a:msub></a:mrow></a:math> during the first and second observing runs of the advanced gravitational-wave detector network. During the first observing run (<d:math xmlns:d="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><d:mi>O</d:mi><d:mn>1</d:mn></d:math>), from September 12, 2015 to January 19, 2016, gravitational waves from three binary black hole mergers were detected. The second observing run (<f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><f:mi>O</f:mi><f:mn>2</f:mn></f:math>), which ran from November 30, 2016 to August 25, 2017, saw the first detection of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, in addition to the observation of gravitational waves from a total of seven binary black hole mergers, four of which we report here for the first time: GW170729, GW170809, GW170818, and GW170823. For all significant gravitational-wave events, we provide estimates of the source properties. The detected binary black holes have total masses between <h:math xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><h:mrow><h:msubsup><h:mrow><h:mn>18.6</h:mn></h:mrow><h:mrow><h:mo>−</h:mo><h:mn>0.7</h:mn></h:mrow><h:mrow><h:mo>+</h:mo><h:mn>3.2</h:mn></h:mrow></h:msubsup><h:mtext> </h:mtext><h:mtext> </h:mtext><h:msub><h:mrow><h:mi>M</h:mi></h:mrow><h:mrow><h:mo stretchy="false">⊙</h:mo></h:mrow></h:msub></h:mrow></h:math> and <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><k:msubsup><k:mn>84.4</k:mn><k:mrow><k:mo>−</k:mo><k:mn>11.1</k:mn></k:mrow><k:mrow><k:mo>+</k:mo><k:mn>15.8</k:mn></k:mrow></k:msubsup><k:mtext> </k:mtext><k:mtext> </k:mtext><k:msub><k:mrow><k:mi>M</k:mi></k:mrow><k:mrow><k:mo stretchy="false">⊙</k:mo></k:mrow></k:msub></k:math> and range in distance between <n:math xmlns:n="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><n:msubsup><n:mn>320</n:mn><n:mrow><n:mo>−</n:mo><n:mn>110</n:mn></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mo>+</n:mo><n:mn>120</n:mn></n:mrow></n:msubsup></n:math> and <p:math xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><p:mrow><p:msubsup><p:mrow><p:mn>2840</p:mn></p:mrow><p:mrow><p:mo>−</p:mo><p:mn>1360</p:mn></p:mrow><p:mrow><p:mo>+</p:mo><p:mn>1400</p:mn></p:mrow></p:msubsup><p:mtext> </p:mtext><p:mtext> </p:mtext><p:mi>Mpc</p:mi></p:mrow></p:math>. No neutron star–black hole mergers were detected. In addition to highly significant gravitational-wave events, we also provide a list of marginal event candidates with an estimated false-alarm rate less than 1 per 30 days. From these results over the first two observing runs, which include approximately one gravitational-wave detection per 15 days of data searched, we infer merger rates at the 90% confidence intervals of <r:math xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><r:mrow><r:mn>110</r:mn><r:mo>−</r:mo><r:mn>3840</r:mn><r:mtext> </r:mtext><r:mtext> </r:mtext><r:msup><r:mrow><r:mi>Gpc</r:mi></r:mrow><r:mrow><r:mo>−</r:mo><r:mn>3</r:mn></r:mrow></r:msup><r:mtext> </r:mtext><r:msup><r:mrow><r:mi mathvariant="normal">y</r:mi></r:mrow><r:mrow><r:mo>−</r:mo><r:mn>1</r:mn></r:mrow></r:msup></r:mrow></r:math> for binary neutron stars and <u:math xmlns:u="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><u:mrow><u:mn>9.7</u:mn><u:mo>−</u:mo><u:mn>101</u:mn><u:mtext> </u:mtext><u:mtext> </u:mtext><u:msup><u:mrow><u:mi>Gpc</u:mi></u:mrow><u:mrow><u:mo>−</u:mo><u:mn>3</u:mn></u:mrow></u:msup><u:mtext> </u:mtext><u:msup><u:mrow><u:mi mathvariant="normal">y</u:mi></u:mrow><u:mrow><u:mo>−</u:mo><u:mn>1</u:mn></u:mrow></u:msup></u:mrow></u:math> for binary black holes assuming fixed population distributions and determine a neutron star–black hole merger rate 90% upper limit of <x:math xmlns:x="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><x:mrow><x:mn>610</x:mn><x:mtext> </x:mtext><x:mtext> </x:mtext><x:msup><x:mrow><x:mi>Gpc</x:mi></x:mrow><x:mrow><x:mo>−</x:mo><x:mn>3</x:mn></x:mrow></x:msup><x:mtext> </x:mtext><x:msup><x:mrow><x:mi mathvariant="normal">y</x:mi></x:mrow><x:mrow><x:mo>−</x:mo><x:mn>1</x:mn></x:mrow></x:msup></x:mrow></x:math>. Published by the American Physical Society 2019
Abstract On 2017 August 17, the gravitational-wave event GW170817 was observed by the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, and the gamma-ray burst (GRB) GRB 170817A was observed independently by the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, and the Anti-Coincidence Shield for the Spectrometer for the International Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory . The probability of the near-simultaneous temporal and spatial observation of GRB 170817A and GW170817 occurring by chance is <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mn>5.0</mml:mn> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>8</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> . We therefore confirm binary neutron star mergers as a progenitor of short GRBs. The association of GW170817 and GRB 170817A provides new insight into fundamental physics and the origin of short GRBs. We use the observed time delay of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.74</mml:mn> <mml:mo>±</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mspace width="0.25em"/> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi> </mml:math> between GRB 170817A and GW170817 to: (i) constrain the difference between the speed of gravity and the speed of light to be between <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>15</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>7</mml:mn> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>16</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> times the speed of light, (ii) place new bounds on the violation of Lorentz invariance, (iii) present a new test of the equivalence principle by constraining the Shapiro delay between gravitational and electromagnetic radiation. We also use the time delay to constrain the size and bulk Lorentz factor of the region emitting the gamma-rays. GRB 170817A is the closest short GRB with a known distance, but is between 2 and 6 orders of magnitude less energetic than other bursts with measured redshift. A new generation of gamma-ray detectors, and subthreshold searches in existing detectors, will be essential to detect similar short bursts at greater distances. Finally, we predict a joint detection rate for the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor and the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors of 0.1–1.4 per year during the 2018–2019 observing run and 0.3–1.7 per year at design sensitivity.
We report the observation of a gravitational-wave signal produced by the coalescence of two stellar-mass black holes. The signal, GW151226, was observed by the twin detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) on December 26, 2015 at 03:38:53 UTC. The signal was initially identified within 70 s by an online matched-filter search targeting binary coalescences. Subsequent off-line analyses recovered GW151226 with a network signal-to-noise ratio of 13 and a significance greater than 5σ. The signal persisted in the LIGO frequency band for approximately 1 s, increasing in frequency and amplitude over about 55 cycles from 35 to 450 Hz, and reached a peak gravitational strain of 3.4_{-0.9}^{+0.7}×10^{-22}. The inferred source-frame initial black hole masses are 14.2_{-3.7}^{+8.3}M_{⊙} and 7.5_{-2.3}^{+2.3}M_{⊙}, and the final black hole mass is 20.8_{-1.7}^{+6.1}M_{⊙}. We find that at least one of the component black holes has spin greater than 0.2. This source is located at a luminosity distance of 440_{-190}^{+180} Mpc corresponding to a redshift of 0.09_{-0.04}^{+0.03}. All uncertainties define a 90% credible interval. This second gravitational-wave observation provides improved constraints on stellar populations and on deviations from general relativity.
Object tracking has been one of the most important and active research areas in the field of computer vision. A large number of tracking algorithms have been proposed in recent years with demonstrated success. However, the set of sequences used for evaluation is often not sufficient or is sometimes biased for certain types of algorithms. Many datasets do not have common ground-truth object positions or extents, and this makes comparisons among the reported quantitative results difficult. In addition, the initial conditions or parameters of the evaluated tracking algorithms are not the same, and thus, the quantitative results reported in literature are incomparable or sometimes contradictory. To address these issues, we carry out an extensive evaluation of the state-of-the-art online object-tracking algorithms with various evaluation criteria to understand how these methods perform within the same framework. In this work, we first construct a large dataset with ground-truth object positions and extents for tracking and introduce the sequence attributes for the performance analysis. Second, we integrate most of the publicly available trackers into one code library with uniform input and output formats to facilitate large-scale performance evaluation. Third, we extensively evaluate the performance of 31 algorithms on 100 sequences with different initialization settings. By analyzing the quantitative results, we identify effective approaches for robust tracking and provide potential future research directions in this field.
The Advanced LIGO gravitational wave detectors are second-generation instruments designed and built for the two LIGO observatories in Hanford, WA and Livingston, LA, USA. The two instruments are identical in design, and are specialized versions of a Michelson interferometer with 4 km long arms. As in Initial LIGO, Fabry&ndash;Perot cavities are used in the arms to increase the interaction time with a gravitational wave, and power recycling is used to increase the effective laser power. Signal recycling has been added in Advanced LIGO to improve the frequency response. In the most sensitive frequency region around 100 Hz, the design strain sensitivity is a factor of 10 better than Initial LIGO. In addition, the low frequency end of the sensitivity band is moved from 40 Hz down to 10 Hz. All interferometer components have been replaced with improved technologies to achieve this sensitivity gain. Much better seismic isolation and test mass suspensions are responsible for the gains at lower frequencies. Higher laser power, larger test masses and improved mirror coatings lead to the improved sensitivity at mid and high frequencies. Data collecting runs with these new instruments are planned to begin in mid-2015.
Abstract Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale 1–3 . Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter 4 ; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation 5,6 ; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution 7 ; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity 8,9 ; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes 8,10–18 .
Filtering through to what's important Membranes are widely used for gas and liquid separations. Historical analysis of a range of gas pair separations indicated that there was an upper bound on the trade-off between membrane permeability, which limits flow rates, and the selectivity, which limits the quality of the separation process. Park et al. review the advances that have been made in attempts to break past this upper bound. Some inspiration has come from biological membranes. The authors also highlight cases where the challenges lie in areas other than improved separation performance. Science , this issue p. eaab0530
Energy-storage technologies, including electrical double-layer capacitors and rechargeable batteries, have attracted significant attention for applications in portable electronic devices, electric vehicles, bulk electricity storage at power stations, and "load leveling" of renewable sources, such as solar energy and wind power. Transforming lithium batteries and electric double-layer capacitors requires a step change in the science underpinning these devices, including the discovery of new materials, new electrochemistry, and an increased understanding of the processes on which the devices depend. The Review will consider some of the current scientific issues underpinning lithium batteries and electric double-layer capacitors.
autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
A critical overview of the latest developments in the lithium ion batteries technology is reported. We first describe the evolution in the electrolyte area with particular attention to ionic liquids, discussing the expected application of these room temperature molten salts and listing the issues that still prevent their practical implementation. The attention is then focused on the electrode materials presently considered the most promising for enhancing the energy density of the batteries. At the anode side a discussion is provided on the status of development of high capacity tin and silicon lithium alloys. We show that the morphology that is the most likely to ensure commercial exploitation of these alloy electrodes is that involving carbon-based nanocomposites. We finally touch on super-high-capacity batteries, discussing the key cases of lithium-sulfur and lithium-air and attempting to forecast their chances to eventually reach the status of practically appealing energy storage systems. We conclude with a brief reflection on the amount of lithium reserves in view of its large use in the case of global conversion from gasoline-powered cars to hybrid and electric cars.