Efficient Detectors for MIMO-OFDM Systems under Spatial Correlation Antenna Arrays

This work analyzes the performance of the implementable detectors for multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) technique under specific and realistic operation system condi- tions, including antenna correlation and array configuration. Time-domain channel model has been used to evaluate the system performance under realistic communication channel and system scenarios, including different channel correlation, modulation order and antenna arrays configurations. A bunch of MIMO-OFDM detectors were analyzed for the purpose of achieve high performance combined with high capacity systems and manageable computational complexity. Numerical Monte-Carlo simulations (MCS) demonstrate the channel selectivity effect, while the impact of the number of antennas, adoption of linear against heuristic-based detection schemes, and the spatial correlation effect under linear and planar antenna arrays are analyzed in the MIMO-OFDM context.Comment: 26 pgs, 16 figures and 5 table

The discovery and follow-up of four transiting short-period sub-Neptunes orbiting M dwarfs

Sub-Neptunes with radii of 2–3 R⊕ are intermediate in size between rocky planets and Neptune-sized planets. The orbital properties and bulk compositions of transiting sub-Neptunes provide clues to the formation and evolution of close-in small planets. In this paper, we present the discovery and follow-up of four sub-Neptunes orbiting M dwarfs (TOI-782, TOI-1448, TOI-2120, and TOI-2406), three of which were newly validated by ground-based follow-up observations and statistical analyses. TOI-782 b, TOI-1448 b, TOI-2120 b, and TOI-2406 b have radii of Rp = 2.740 +0.082-0.079 R⊕, 2.769+0.073-0.068 R⊕, 2.120 ± 0.067 R⊕, and 2.830+0.068-0.066 R⊕ and orbital periods of P = 8.02, 8.11, 5.80, and 3.08 days, respectively. Doppler monitoring with the Subaru/InfraRed Doppler instrument led to 2σ upper limits on the masses of <19.1 M⊕, <19.5 M⊕, <6.8 M⊕, and <15.6 M⊕ for TOI-782 b, TOI-1448 b, TOI-2120 b, and TOI-2406 b, respectively. The mass–radius relationship of these four sub-Neptunes testifies to the existence of volatile material in their interiors. These four sub-Neptunes, which are located above the so-called "radius valley," are likely to retain a significant atmosphere and/or an icy mantle on the core, such as a water world. We find that at least three of the four sub-Neptunes (TOI-782 b, TOI-2120 b, and TOI-2406 b), orbiting M dwarfs older than 1 Gyr, are likely to have eccentricities of e ∼ 0.2–0.3. The fact that tidal circularization of their orbits is not achieved over 1 Gyr suggests inefficient tidal dissipation in their interiors.Peer reviewe

Gliese 12 b: A Temperate Earth-sized Planet at 12 pc Ideal for Atmospheric Transmission Spectroscopy

Recent discoveries of Earth-sized planets transiting nearby M dwarfs have made it possible to characterize the atmospheres of terrestrial planets via follow-up spectroscopic observations. However, the number of such planets receiving low insolation is still small, limiting our ability to understand the diversity of the atmospheric composition and climates of temperate terrestrial planets. We report the discovery of an Earth-sized planet transiting the nearby (12 pc) inactive M3.0 dwarf Gliese 12 (TOI-6251) with an orbital period (P orb) of 12.76 days. The planet, Gliese 12 b, was initially identified as a candidate with an ambiguous P orb from TESS data. We confirmed the transit signal and P orb using ground-based photometry with MuSCAT2 and MuSCAT3, and validated the planetary nature of the signal using high-resolution images from Gemini/NIRI and Keck/NIRC2 as well as radial velocity (RV) measurements from the InfraRed Doppler instrument on the Subaru 8.2 m telescope and from CARMENES on the CAHA 3.5 m telescope. X-ray observations with XMM-Newton showed the host star is inactive, with an X-ray-to-bolometric luminosity ratio of logLX/Lbol≈−5.7 . Joint analysis of the light curves and RV measurements revealed that Gliese 12 b has a radius of 0.96 ± 0.05 R ⊕, a 3σ mass upper limit of 3.9 M ⊕, and an equilibrium temperature of 315 ± 6 K assuming zero albedo. The transmission spectroscopy metric (TSM) value of Gliese 12 b is close to the TSM values of the TRAPPIST-1 planets, adding Gliese 12 b to the small list of potentially terrestrial, temperate planets amenable to atmospheric characterization with JWST

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present