Determining Acceptance Possibility for a Quantum Computation is Hard for PH

It is shown that determining whether a quantum computation has a non-zero probability of accepting is at least as hard as the polynomial time hierarchy. This hardness result also applies to determining in general whether a given quantum basis state appears with nonzero amplitude in a superposition, or whether a given quantum bit has positive expectation value at the end of a quantum computation.

Determining Acceptance Possibility for a Quantum Computation is Hard for the Polynomial Hierarchy

It is shown that determining whether a quantum computation has a non-zero probability of accepting is at least as hard as the polynomial time hierarchy. This hardness result also applies to determining in general whether a given quantum basis state appears with nonzero amplitude in a superposition, or whether a given quantum bit has positive expectation value at the end of a quantum computation. This result is achieved by showing that the complexity class NQP of Adleman, Demarrais, and Huang, a quantum analog of NP, is equal to the counting class coC=P.

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

IDENTIFYING AND MONITORING THE ROLES OF CAVITATION IN HEATING FROM HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND

For high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) to continue to gain acceptance for cancer treatment it is necessary to understand how the applied ultrasound interacts with gas trapped in the tissue. The presence of bubbles in the target location have been thought to be responsible for shielding the incoming pressure and increasing local heat deposition due to the bubble dynamics. We lack adequate tools for monitoring the cavitation process, due to both limited visualization methods and understanding of the underlying physics. The goal of this project was to elucidate the role of inertial cavitation in HIFU exposures in the hope of applying noise diagnostics to monitor cavitation activity and control HIFU-induced cavitation in a beneficial manner. A number of approaches were taken to understand the relationship between inertial cavitation signals, bubble heating, and bubble shielding in agar-graphite tissue phantoms. Passive cavitation detection (PCD) techniques were employed to detect inertial bubble collapses while the temperature was monitored with an embedded thermocouple. Results indicate that the broadband noise amplitude is correlated to bubble-enhanced heating. Monitoring inertial cavitation at multiple positions throughout the focal region demonstrated that bubble activity increased prefocally as it diminished near the focus. Lowering the HIFU duty cycle had the effect of maintaining a more or less constant cavitation signal, suggesting the shielding effect diminished when the bubbles had a chance to dissolve during the HIFU off-time. Modeling the effect of increasing the ambient temperature showed that bubbles do not collapse as violently at higher temperatures due to increased vapor pressure inside the bubble. Our conclusion is that inertial cavitation heating is less effective at higher temperatures and bubble shielding is involved in shifting energy deposition at the focus. The use of a diagnostic ultrasound imaging system as a PCD array was explored. Filtering out the scattered harmonics from the received RF signals resulted in a spatially- resolved inertial cavitation signal, while the amplitude of the harmonics showed a correlation with temperatures approaching the onset of boiling. The result is a new tool for detecting a broader spectrum of bubble activity and thus enhancing HIFU treatment visualization and feedback.

On the Scalability-Performance Tradeoffs in MPLS and IP Routing

MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) has recently emerged to facilitate the engineering of network traffic. This can be achieved by directing packet flows over paths that satisfy multiple requirements. MPLS has been regarded as an enhancement to traditional IP routing, which has the following problems: (1) all packets with the same IP destination address have to follow the same path through the network; and (2) paths have often been computed based on static and single link metrics. These problems may cause traffic concentration, and thus degradation in quality of service. In this paper, we investigate by simulations a range of routing solutions and examine the tradeoff between scalability and performance. At one extreme, IP packet routing using dynamic link metrics provides a stateless solution but may lead to routing oscillations. At the other extreme, we consider a recently proposed Profile-based Routing (PBR), which uses knowledge of potential ingress-egress pairs as well as the traffic profile among them. Minimum Interference Routing (MIRA) is another recently proposed MPLS-based scheme, which only exploits knowledge of potential ingress-egress pairs but not their traffic profile. MIRA and the more conventional widest-shortest path (WSP) routing represent alternative MPLS-based approaches on the spectrum of routing solutions. We compare these solutions in terms of utility, bandwidth acceptance ratio as well as their scalability (routing state and computational overhead) and load balancing capability. While the simplest of the per-flow algorithms we consider, the performance of WSP is close to dynamic per-packet routing, without the potential instabilities of dynamic routing.