Enforcement in Dynamic Spectrum Access Systems

The spectrum access rights granted by the Federal government to spectrum users come with the expectation of protection from harmful interference. As a consequence of the growth of wireless demand and services of all types, technical progress enabling smart agile radio networks, and on-going spectrum management reform, there is both a need and opportunity to use and share spectrum more intensively and dynamically. A key element of any framework for managing harmful interference is the mechanism for enforcement of those rights. Since the rights to use spectrum and to protection from harmful interference vary by band (licensed/unlicensed, legacy/newly reformed) and type of use/users (primary/secondary, overlay/underlay), it is reasonable to expect that the enforcement mechanisms may need to vary as well.\ud \ud In this paper, we present a taxonomy for evaluating alternative mechanisms for enforcing interference protection for spectrum usage rights, with special attention to the potential changes that may be expected from wider deployment of Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) systems. Our exploration of how the design of the enforcement regime interacts with and influences the incentives of radio operators under different rights regimes and market scenarios is intended to assist in refining thinking about appropriate access rights regimes and how best to incentivize investment and growth in more efficient and valuable uses of the radio frequency spectrum

Early aspects: aspect-oriented requirements engineering and architecture design

This paper reports on the third Early Aspects: Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Architecture Design Workshop, which has been held in Lancaster, UK, on March 21, 2004. The workshop included a presentation session and working sessions in which the particular topics on early aspects were discussed. The primary goal of the workshop was to focus on challenges to defining methodical software development processes for aspects from early on in the software life cycle and explore the potential of proposed methods and techniques to scale up to industrial applications

Bayesian Learning for a Class of Priors with Prescribed Marginals

We present Bayesian updating of an imprecise probability measure, represented by a class of precise multidimensional probability measures. Choice and analysis of our class are motivated by expert interviews that we conducted with modelers in the context of climatic change. From the interviews we deduce that generically, experts hold a much more informed opinion on the marginals of uncertain parameters rather than on their correlations. Accordingly, we specify the class by prescribing precise measures for the marginals while letting the correlation structure subject to complete ignorance. For sake of transparency, our discussion focuses on the tutorial example of a linear two-dimensional Gaussian model. We operationalize Bayesian learning for that class by various updating rules, starting with (a modified version of) the generalized Bayes' rule and the maximum likelihood update rule (after Gilboa and Schmeidler). Over a large range of potential observations, the generalized Bayes' rule would provide non-informative results. We restrict this counter-intuitive and unnecessary growth of uncertainty by two means, the discussion of which refers to any kind of imprecise model, not only to our class. First, we find our class of priors too inclusive and, hence, require certain additional properties of prior measures in terms of smoothness of probability density functions. Second, we argue that both updating rules are dissatisfying, the generalized Bayes' rule being too conservative, i.e., too inclusive, the maximum likelihood rule being too exclusive. Instead, we introduce two new ways of Bayesian updating of imprecise probabilities: a ``weighted maximum likelihood method'' and a ``semi-classical method.'' The former bases Bayesian updating on the whole set of priors, however, with weighted influence of its members. By referring to the whole set, the weighted maximum likelihood method allows for more robust inferences than the standard maximum likelihood method and, hence, is better to justify than the latter.Furthermore, the semi-classical method is more objective than the weighted maximum likelihood method as it does not require the subjective definition of a weighting function. Both new methods reveal much more informative results than the generalized Bayes' rule, what we demonstrate for the example of a stylized insurance model

(Mis)Attribution Symposium: Government Speech

In this Essay, I evaluate three issues of attribution and misattribution that arise in the so-called area of government speech. \u27 First, I explore when an individual might have a constitutional claim for misattribution by the state. Second, I discuss the citizen\u27s interest in proper attribution by the government when it is speaking. Third, I consider the government\u27s interest in avoiding expression being improperly attributed to it. This concern arises less often than is commonly assumed; what many scholars (and governments) claim to be a state interest in avoiding attribution or endorsement is in fact a state interest in not providing a platform for certain types of private speech. As such, the matter cannot be resolved according to the categories of public forum or government speech, and instead we must decide how much content-based decision- making is appropriate for the state when creating speech opportunities that fall into neither of these more doctrinally understandable forms

Functional declarative language design and predicate calculus: A practical approach

A