National Tsing Hua University

A new approach for the design of alloys is presented in this study. These “high‐entropy alloys” with multi‐principal elements were synthesized using well‐developed processing technologies. Preliminary results demonstrate examples of the alloys with simple crystal structures, nanostructures, and promising mechanical properties. This approach may be opening a new era in materials science and engineering.

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.

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles ("MISEV") guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these "MISEV2014" guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

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

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,&#13;\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,&#13;\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,&#13;\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,&#13;\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,&#13;\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,&#13;\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,&#13;\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,&#13;\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,&#13;\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,&#13;\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,&#13;\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,&#13;\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,&#13;\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,&#13;\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,&#13;\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,&#13;\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,&#13;\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,&#13;\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,&#13;\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,&#13;\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,&#13;\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,&#13;\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,&#13;\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,&#13;\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,&#13;\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,&#13;\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,&#13;\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,&#13;\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,&#13;\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,&#13;\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,&#13;\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,&#13;\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,&#13;\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,&#13;\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,&#13;\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,&#13;\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,&#13;\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,&#13;\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,&#13;\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,&#13;\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,&#13;\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,&#13;\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,&#13;\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,&#13;\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,&#13;\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,&#13;\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,&#13;\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,&#13;\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,&#13;\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,&#13;\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,&#13;\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,&#13;\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,&#13;\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,&#13;\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,&#13;\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,&#13;\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,&#13;\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,&#13;\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,&#13;\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,&#13;\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,&#13;\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,&#13;\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,&#13;\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,&#13;\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,&#13;\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,&#13;\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,&#13;\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,&#13;\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,&#13;\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,&#13;\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,&#13;\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,&#13;\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,&#13;\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,&#13;\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,&#13;\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,&#13;\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,&#13;\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,&#13;\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,&#13;\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,&#13;\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,&#13;\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,&#13;\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,&#13;\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,&#13;\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,&#13;\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Included in Prentice Hall's MATLAB Curriculum Series, this text provides a comprehensive treatment of the methodologies underlying neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. The book places equal emphasis on theoretical aspects of covered methodologies, empirical observations, and verifications of various applications in practice.

Summary Hill numbers (or the effective number of species) have been increasingly used to quantify the species/taxonomic diversity of an assemblage. The sample‐size‐ and coverage‐based integrations of rarefaction (interpolation) and extrapolation (prediction) of H ill numbers represent a unified standardization method for quantifying and comparing species diversity across multiple assemblages. We briefly review the conceptual background of H ill numbers along with two approaches to standardization. We present an R package iNEXT (i N terpolation/ EXT rapolation) which provides simple functions to compute and plot the seamless rarefaction and extrapolation sampling curves for the three most widely used members of the H ill number family (species richness, S hannon diversity and S impson diversity). Two types of biodiversity data are allowed: individual‐based abundance data and sampling‐unit‐based incidence data. Several applications of the iNEXT packages are reviewed: (i) Non‐asymptotic analysis: comparison of diversity estimates for equally large or equally complete samples. (ii) Asymptotic analysis: comparison of estimated asymptotic or true diversities. (iii) Assessment of sample completeness (sample coverage) across multiple samples. (iv) Comparison of estimated point diversities for a specified sample size or a specified level of sample coverage. Two examples are demonstrated, using the data (one for abundance data and the other for incidence data) included in the package, to illustrate all R functions and graphical displays.

Quantifying and assessing changes in biological diversity are central aspects of many ecological studies, yet accurate methods of estimating biological diversity from sampling data have been elusive. Hill numbers, or the effective number of species, are increasingly used to characterize the taxonomic, phylogenetic, or functional diversity of an assemblage. However, empirical estimates of Hill numbers, including species richness, tend to be an increasing function of sampling effort and, thus, tend to increase with sample completeness. Integrated curves based on sampling theory that smoothly link rarefaction (interpolation) and prediction (extrapolation) standardize samples on the basis of sample size or sample completeness and facilitate the comparison of biodiversity data. Here we extended previous rarefaction and extrapolation models for species richness (Hill number q D , where q = 0) to measures of taxon diversity incorporating relative abundance (i.e., for any Hill number q D , q &gt; 0) and present a unified approach for both individual‐based (abundance) data and sample‐based (incidence) data. Using this unified sampling framework, we derive both theoretical formulas and analytic estimators for seamless rarefaction and extrapolation based on Hill numbers. Detailed examples are provided for the first three Hill numbers: q = 0 (species richness), q = 1 (the exponential of Shannon's entropy index), and q = 2 (the inverse of Simpson's concentration index). We developed a bootstrap method for constructing confidence intervals around Hill numbers, facilitating the comparison of multiple assemblages of both rarefied and extrapolated samples. The proposed estimators are accurate for both rarefaction and short‐range extrapolation. For long‐range extrapolation, the performance of the estimators depends on both the value of q and on the extrapolation range. We tested our methods on simulated data generated from species abundance models and on data from large species inventories. We also illustrate the formulas and estimators using empirical data sets from biodiversity surveys of temperate forest spiders and tropical ants.

Purpose Partial least squares (PLS) has been introduced as a “causal-predictive” approach to structural equation modeling (SEM), designed to overcome the apparent dichotomy between explanation and prediction. However, while researchers using PLS-SEM routinely stress the predictive nature of their analyses, model evaluation assessment relies exclusively on metrics designed to assess the path model’s explanatory power. Recent research has proposed PLSpredict, a holdout sample-based procedure that generates case-level predictions on an item or a construct level. This paper offers guidelines for applying PLSpredict and explains the key choices researchers need to make using the procedure. Design/methodology/approach The authors discuss the need for prediction-oriented model evaluations in PLS-SEM and conceptually explain and further advance the PLSpredict method. In addition, they illustrate the PLSpredict procedure’s use with a tourism marketing model and provide recommendations on how the results should be interpreted. While the focus of the paper is on the PLSpredict procedure, the overarching aim is to encourage the routine prediction-oriented assessment in PLS-SEM analyses. Findings The paper advances PLSpredict and offers guidance on how to use this prediction-oriented model evaluation approach. Researchers should routinely consider the assessment of the predictive power of their PLS path models. PLSpredict is a useful and straightforward approach to evaluate the out-of-sample predictive capabilities of PLS path models that researchers can apply in their studies. Research limitations/implications Future research should seek to extend PLSpredict’s capabilities, for example, by developing more benchmarks for comparing PLS-SEM results and empirically contrasting the earliest antecedent and the direct antecedent approaches to predictive power assessment. Practical implications This paper offers clear guidelines for using PLSpredict, which researchers and practitioners should routinely apply as part of their PLS-SEM analyses. Originality/value This research substantiates the use of PLSpredict. It provides marketing researchers and practitioners with the knowledge they need to properly assess, report and interpret PLS-SEM results. Thereby, this research contributes to safeguarding the rigor of marketing studies using PLS-SEM.

Transformative artificially intelligent tools, such as ChatGPT, designed to generate sophisticated text indistinguishable from that produced by a human, are applicable across a wide range of contexts. The technology presents opportunities as well as, often ethical and legal, challenges, and has the potential for both positive and negative impacts for organisations, society, and individuals. Offering multi-disciplinary insight into some of these, this article brings together 43 contributions from experts in fields such as computer science, marketing, information systems, education, policy, hospitality and tourism, management, publishing, and nursing. The contributors acknowledge ChatGPT’s capabilities to enhance productivity and suggest that it is likely to offer significant gains in the banking, hospitality and tourism, and information technology industries, and enhance business activities, such as management and marketing. Nevertheless, they also consider its limitations, disruptions to practices, threats to privacy and security, and consequences of biases, misuse, and misinformation. However, opinion is split on whether ChatGPT’s use should be restricted or legislated. Drawing on these contributions, the article identifies questions requiring further research across three thematic areas: knowledge, transparency, and ethics; digital transformation of organisations and societies; and teaching, learning, and scholarly research. The avenues for further research include: identifying skills, resources, and capabilities needed to handle generative AI; examining biases of generative AI attributable to training datasets and processes; exploring business and societal contexts best suited for generative AI implementation; determining optimal combinations of human and generative AI for various tasks; identifying ways to assess accuracy of text produced by generative AI; and uncovering the ethical and legal issues in using generative AI across different contexts.

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.

High-entropy alloys (HEAs) are alloys with five or more principal elements. Due to the distinct design concept, these alloys often exhibit unusual properties. Thus, there has been significant interest in these materials, leading to an emerging yet exciting new field. This paper briefly reviews some critical aspects of HEAs, including core effects, phases and crystal structures, mechanical properties, high-temperature properties, structural stabilities, and corrosion behaviors. Current challenges and important future directions are also pointed out.

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&amp;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.

The recent discovery of superconductivity with relatively high transition temperature (Tc) in the layered iron-based quaternary oxypnictides La[O(1-x)F(x)] FeAs by Kamihara et al. [Kamihara Y, Watanabe T, Hirano M, Hosono H (2008) Iron-based layered superconductor La[O1-xFx] FeAs (x = 0.05-0.12) with Tc = 26 K. J Am Chem Soc 130:3296-3297.] was a real surprise and has generated tremendous interest. Although superconductivity exists in alloy that contains the element Fe, LaOMPn (with M = Fe, Ni; and Pn = P and As) is the first system where Fe plays the key role to the occurrence of superconductivity. LaOMPn has a layered crystal structure with an Fe-based plane. It is quite natural to search whether there exists other Fe based planar compounds that exhibit superconductivity. Here, we report the observation of superconductivity with zero-resistance transition temperature at 8 K in the PbO-type alpha-FeSe compound. A key observation is that the clean superconducting phase exists only in those samples prepared with intentional Se deficiency. FeSe, compared with LaOFeAs, is less toxic and much easier to handle. What is truly striking is that this compound has the same, perhaps simpler, planar crystal sublattice as the layered oxypnictides. Therefore, this result provides an opportunity to better understand the underlying mechanism of superconductivity in this class of unconventional superconductors.

In this paper, recent progress of binary metal–oxide resistive switching random access memory (RRAM) is reviewed. The physical mechanism, material properties, and electrical characteristics of a variety of binary metal–oxide RRAM are discussed, with a focus on the use of RRAM for nonvolatile memory application. A review of recent development of large-scale RRAM arrays is given. Issues such as uniformity, endurance, retention, multibit operation, and scaling trends are discussed.

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.

We describe the observation of GW170104, a gravitational-wave signal produced by the coalescence of a pair of stellar-mass black holes. The signal was measured on January 4, 2017 at 10∶11:58.6 UTC by the twin advanced detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory during their second observing run, with a network signal-to-noise ratio of 13 and a false alarm rate less than 1 in 70 000 years. The inferred component black hole masses are 31.2_{-6.0}^{+8.4}M_{⊙} and 19.4_{-5.9}^{+5.3}M_{⊙} (at the 90% credible level). The black hole spins are best constrained through measurement of the effective inspiral spin parameter, a mass-weighted combination of the spin components perpendicular to the orbital plane, χ_{eff}=-0.12_{-0.30}^{+0.21}. This result implies that spin configurations with both component spins positively aligned with the orbital angular momentum are disfavored. The source luminosity distance is 880_{-390}^{+450} Mpc corresponding to a redshift of z=0.18_{-0.07}^{+0.08}. We constrain the magnitude of modifications to the gravitational-wave dispersion relation and perform null tests of general relativity. Assuming that gravitons are dispersed in vacuum like massive particles, we bound the graviton mass to m_{g}≤7.7×10^{-23} eV/c^{2}. In all cases, we find that GW170104 is consistent with general relativity.

A point estimator and its associated confidence interval for the size of a closed population are proposed under models that incorporate heterogeneity of capture probability. Real data sets provided in Edwards and Eberhardt (1967, Journal of Wildlife Management 31, 87-96) and Carothers (1973, Journal of Animal Ecology 42, 125-146) are used to illustrate this method and to compare it with other estimates. The performance of the proposed procedure is also investigated by means of Monte Carlo experiments. The method is especially useful when most of the captured individuals are caught once or twice in the sample, for which case the jackknife estimator usually does not work well. Numerical results also show that the proposed confidence interval performs satisfactorily in maintaining the nominal levels.