Open Questions Sample Clauses
Open Questions. Our results leave open several interesting questions for followup work. Our constructions of SRDS offer a trade-off between cryptographic assumptions and setup as- sumptions (indeed, our lower bound indicates that some form of private-coin setup is needed). Is it possible to get the best of both, i.e., construct SRDS with bare PKI under standard, falsifiable as- sumptions? This in turn would imply O˜(1)-balanced BA from the corresponding computational as- sumption and setup. Alternatively, does SRDS in a weak setup model require strong computational assumptions: For example, do SRDS with bare PKI imply some kind of succinct non-interactive arguments (SNARGs)? Taking a step back: Is it possible to achieve O˜(1)-balanced BA unconditionally? While our SRDS-based approach inherently makes use of computational assumptions (and our lower bound implies this necessity for a one-shot boost from almost-everywhere to everywhere agreement in the PKI model), this leaves open the possibility of removing cryptography via an alternative approach. Can one further extend the lower bound in this work, identifying a minimal required round com- plexity for generically converting from almost-everywhere to everywhere agreement within various setup models? In the O˜(1)-amortized BA setting, known constructions consider stronger security models. Namely, the protocol in Xxxxx-Xxxxxxx et al. [21] is secure against static corruptions (similarly to our protocols); however, no trusted setup assumptions are required. The protocol of Xxxxxxx et al. [1] guarantees security against adaptive corruptions; however, it requires a trusted PKI as-
Open Questions. The Ethics and Society Opinion on Protection and Privacy makes several recommendations [6, p15]. The following open questions ask how best HBP researchers can be aided in meeting the spirit of the recommendations, in the light of their specific research tasks. Following this are recommendations for follow-up that should contribute to the meeting of the challenges contained in these questions. The table indicates the SP or SPs primarily connected with the potential issues, a label for the issue, and a comment. The comment reflects something of prior discussion on the topic area that has taken place. Table 3: Specific issues, SPs concerned, Comments and Recommendations SP Topic Comment Relevant recommendation 2, 5, 11 Data transfers Explore Memoranda of understanding for transfers among projects. Issues of international transfers of data will require SP11 actions, in coordination with ethics management. 2 2, 3, 5 Incidental findings, and informed consent Contribute to standard operating procedures in these areas. 4, 5 3, 5 Data registration and audit Follow developments in DGWG. 3, 4 5 Data flow diagrams These are a useful, if not essential , part of demonstrating reflection upon, and coherent system-design for, data protection as between e.g., Data Registration -> Repository -> Active data repository -> User Retrieval. 1c 2, 4, 5 Data provenance Contribute to DGWG, and to Platform user guides. Broad consent, and de/re-identification are relevant here. The status of published data. 2, 7, 8 8 Privacy Impact Assessment This is of special importance in the light of SP12 Opinion recommendations, and for the forthcoming GDPR. 1c 11 Potential for commercial use of research data This connects with the work of the DGWG, as well as the topic of broad consent, and the field of data provenance. 3, 6, 8
Open Questions. What does the patient understand about their treatment, and which medicines do they actually take?
Open Questions. Author Manuscript The MIIV approach to SEMs is far less studied than are the system wide estimators such as ML. As a result there are many open research questions. For instance, the field needs to learn more about the optimal selection of scaling indicators for each latent variable. I mentioned this issue earlier in the paper. A scaling indicator with little association with its latent variable seems certain to lead to poorer estimator properties than would a strong indicator. Weak instrument statistics and the R-squared for scaling indicators seem promising diagnostics that could help spot poor scaling indicators. Another scaling issue not explored is what happens when the scaling indicator actually loads on two but is assumed to load on one latent variable.8 What are the consequences? Would this be detectable with the equation overidentification test due to incorrect selection of MIIVs? Author Manuscript The weak instrument problem was mentioned several times in this paper and in the original presentation of MIIV-2SLS (Bollen, 1996). Although the econometric literature has examined this problem for some time now (e.g.,Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxxx, 1984; Xxxxx, Xxxxxx, & Xxxxx, 1995), it has been in the context of single equation or simultaneous equation models without latent variables. Because the L2O transformation makes latent variable models into a type of simultaneous equation model with a more complicated error structure, it would seem that much of the findings from the econometric literature should carry over to the MIIV-2SLS estimator. On the other hand, when indicators of the same latent variable are the MIIVs that predict the scaling indicator as is common in multiple indicator models, these relations should be moderate to strong. This might mean that weak instruments are less common than they are in the econometric literature where auxiliary variables external to the model are common. This too would be a fruitful area of research. Author Manuscript The overidentification tests also demand more attention. Based on the results of Xxxxx and Xxxxxx (2009), I have emphasized the Sargan test in conjunction with the MIIV-2SLS estimator. But other overidentification tests should be further considered. Furthermore, if the Sargan test statistic is significant, researchers need more guidance on the best way to locate the offending MIIVs. This would be helpful in determining how to respecify the model. Another question is whether it is possible for an equation that...
Open Questions. Were synergies among policies at different scales important in your assessment? .Did you identify conflicts or inconsistencies among scales? If yes can you list them in order of priority (from more to less crucial aspects)? .How did you combine the results at different scales? .What do you see as remaining issues?
Open Questions. Explain to what extent it was possible to achieve the objectives of your source apportionment study and what were the limitations of the used methodology? . Are the source apportionment capacities in institutions of your country/region/city enough to achieve reliable source identification and support air quality management? . Is data collection in your country/region/city appropriate for source identification?
Open Questions. In general, to the question `Can you describe your experience performing the task with the robot?`, most participants tended to be more positive towards their own training. Most participants considered their own training as interesting and easier to use. They used words such as "better understandable", "more logical", "exciting" or "fun". However, a few participants answered that the experience was "not good"or that the programming could use some tweaking". This was due to some incidents with the motions and the joints angle. But one of those participants also indicated that with "some more trial and error", it could be better. Finally, two participants said their training was "slow".
Open Questions. • It is not possible in NLM DTD to store a structured and an unstructured version of a given citation side-by-side. We could decide that a single <ref> element only contains one reference, but can contain one or both of <element-citation> and <mixed-citation>. This would have the same benefits as having <string-name> together with <name> elements. However, this “best practice” would clearly break compatibility with recommended JATS practice where each <*-citation> element in a <ref> encodes a distinct reference. That would however fit better our understanding and reserve room for expected enhancer module’s functionalities, as one could imagine that a matching module could find the DOI, or Zentralblatt ID from the string citation, thus be able to add a structured version of the same citation together with more <ext-link> elements. • It is still not obvious to what extent our item-centric model will support all EuDML metadata needs. For instance, it is obvious that some knowledge about serials, authors and institutions would help in navigating the collection and mak- ing internal relations. Alternative spellings of authors, journal nick names, etc., would enhance retrieval. For these, we could either rely on external specialised databases providing identifiers and specific supplementary metadata, or we could try to reconstruct this knowledge from the harvested metadata and store it in the EuDML schema (this can be done using the available machinery for alternative titles, person names, etc.).
Open Questions. What have you identified as main weakness in your current approach (e.g. lack of data for validation, parametrisation of certain processes, emission factors)? . Were you able to identify cost-‐effective measures to reduce air pollutants concentrations? If not, why?
Open Questions. Are you using the state-‐of-‐art tools, methods and knowledge to assess the impact of air pollution on human health? . What do you see as future research needs? . What are the largest uncertainties in HIA?