Control of Redundant Joint Structures Using Image Information During the Tracking of Non-Smooth Trajectories

Visual information is increasingly being used in a great number of applications in order to perform the guidance of joint structures. This paper proposes an image-based controller which allows the joint structure guidance when its number of degrees of freedom is greater than the required for the developed task. In this case, the controller solves the redundancy combining two different tasks: the primary task allows the correct guidance using image information, and the secondary task determines the most adequate joint structure posture solving the possible joint redundancy regarding the performed task in the image space. The method proposed to guide the joint structure also employs a smoothing Kalman filter not only to determine the moment when abrupt changes occur in the tracked trajectory, but also to estimate and compensate these changes using the proposed filter. Furthermore, a direct visual control approach is proposed which integrates the visual information provided by this smoothing Kalman filter. This last aspect permits the correct tracking when noisy measurements are obtained. All the contributions are integrated in an application which requires the tracking of the faces of Asperger children.

Orbital Magnetization of Quantum Spin Hall Insulator Nanoparticles

Both spin and orbital degrees of freedom contribute to the magnetic moment of isolated atoms. However, when inserted in crystals, atomic orbital moments are quenched because of the lack of rotational symmetry that protects them when isolated. Thus, the dominant contribution to the magnetization of magnetic materials comes from electronic spin. Here we show that nanoislands of quantum spin Hall insulators can host robust orbital edge magnetism whenever their highest occupied Kramers doublet is singly occupied, upgrading the spin edge current into a charge current. The resulting orbital magnetization scales linearly with size, outweighing the spin contribution for islands of a few nm in size. This linear scaling is specific of the Dirac edge states and very different from Schrodinger electrons in quantum rings. By modeling Bi(111) flakes, whose edge states have been recently observed, we show that orbital magnetization is robust with respect to disorder, thermal agitation, shape of the island, and crystallographic direction of the edges, reflecting its topological protection.

Optimization of Chemical Processes Using Surrogate Models Based on a Kriging Interpolation

Superstructure approaches are the solution to the difficult problem which involves the rigorous economic design of a distillation column. These methods require complex initialization procedures and they are hard to solve. For this reason, these methods have not been extensively used. In this work, we present a methodology for the rigorous optimization of chemical processes implemented on a commercial simulator using surrogate models based on a kriging interpolation. Several examples were studied, but in this paper, we perform the optimization of a superstructure for a non-sharp separation to show the efficiency and effectiveness of the method. Noteworthy that it is possible to get surrogate models accurate enough with up to seven degrees of freedom.

The Goodness of Simultaneous Fits in ISIS

In a previous work, we introduced a tool for analyzing multiple datasets simultaneously, which has been implemented into ISIS. This tool was used to fit many spectra of X-ray binaries. However, the large number of degrees of freedom and individual datasets raise an issue about a good measure for a simultaneous fit quality. We present three ways to check the goodness of these fits: we investigate the goodness of each fit in all datasets, we define a combined goodness exploiting the logical structure of a simultaneous fit, and we stack the fit residuals of all datasets to detect weak features. These tools are applied to all RXTE-spectra from GRO 1008−57, revealing calibration features that are not detected significantly in any single spectrum. Stacking the residuals from the best-fit model for the Vela X-1 and XTE J1859+083 data evidences fluorescent emission lines that would have gone undetected otherwise.

The ‘Lisbonisation’ of the European Parliament: Assessing progress, shortcomings and challenges for democratic accountability in the area of freedom, security and justice. CEPS Paper on Liberty and Security in Europe No. 58, September 2013

This paper examines the performance of the European Parliament in EU AFSJ law and policy-making from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty until the end of the first half of 2013. The paper situates the EP in the new post-Lisbon institutional setting, documenting its transition to ‘AFSJ decision-maker’, and its new powers to shape and make policy covering the EU’s internal and external security agenda. While the paper finds that the EP has become an active co-owner of the EU AFSJ post-Lisbon, with the Parliament demonstrating a dynamic adjustment to its new post-Lisbon role and powers, the authors identify a set of new developments and challenges that have arisen in the conduct of democratic accountability by the EP in the AFSJ since 2009, which call for critical reflection ahead of the new parliamentary term 2014-2019 and the post-2014 phase of the EU’s AFSJ.

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).

Casual but Smart: The Court’s new clothes in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) after the Lisbon Treaty. Research Papers in Law, 2/2008

Introduction. Unintended as it was, the European Court of Justice (ECJ, the Court, the Court of the EU) has played an extremely important role in the construction of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ). The AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999. The fact that this is a new field of EU competence, poses afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its Member States, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) extent of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions have prompted judicial solutions which take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.1 The ECJ is the body whose institutional role is to benefit most from this upcoming ‘depilarisation’, possibly more than that of the European Parliament. This structure is on the verge of being abandoned, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.2 However spectacular this formal boost of the Court’s competence, the changes in real terms are not going to be that dramatic. This apparent contradiction is explained, to a large extent, by the fact that the Court has in many ways ‘provoked’, or even ‘anticipated’, the depilarisation of its own jurisdictional role, already under the existing three-pillar structure. Simply put, under the new – post Treaty of Lisbon – regime, the Court will have full jurisdiction over all AFSJ matters, as those are going to be fully integrated in what is now the first pillar. Some limitations will continue to apply, however, while a special AFSJ procedure will be institutionalised. Indeed, if we look into the new Treaty we may identify general modifications to the Court’s structure and jurisdiction affecting the AFSJ (section 2), modifications in the field of the AFSJ stemming from the abolition of the pillar structure (section 3) and, finally, some rules specifically applicable to the AFSJ (section 4).