| 44511. |
|
|
| 44512. |
- Krückel, Clemens, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards on-chip net-gain in CMOS-compatible waveguides
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO) Europe.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- We theoretically investigate performance requirements to achieve on-chip optical parametric net-gain of 10 dB with CW pump. The investigations cover high confinement CMOS-compatible waveguides based on silicon nitride and silicon.
|
|
| 44513. |
- Krückel, Clemens, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Wavelength Conversion in Low Loss Si3N4 Waveguides
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Optics InfoBase Conference Papers. - Washington, D.C. : OSA. - 2162-2701. ; , s. SW3M.4-
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- We show wavelength conversion in a compact Si3N4 waveguide. Combining low loss, long length, relatively large nonlinear coefficient, high-power handling and absence of two-photon absorption, this platform is promising for integrated nonlinear optics applications.
|
|
| 44514. |
- Kruegel, Christoffer, et al.
(författare)
-
FORWARD -- Second Workshop Report
- 2009
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This deliverable summarizes the activity of the second FORWARDworkshop. Thisworkshop constituted the end of the second phase of the project. The aim of thissecond phase was to establish a number of working groups; each working grouphad to identify a number of emerging threats in their respective areas (malware andfraud, smart environments, and critical systems). These threats were summarizedin three threat reports (Deliverable D2.1.x), one per working group. The goal ofthe second workshop was to checkpoint and critically review the work that hasbeen done in the working groups, in particular, the threat reports. More precisely,each working group should present their threats to a larger audience comprisedof experts. In discussions and presentations, we wanted to make sure that thelists of threats are comprehensive – that is, each working group has identified allmajor threats in their respective areas. Moreover, we wanted to use the workshopto establish an initial ranking for the threats presented by each working group.Clearly, at one point, it is necessary to prioritize threats and focus the attention onthose that present the largest threat potential to ICT infrastructures and the societyat large. Of course, the assessment of the danger that each threat poses, as wellas an analysis of inter-dependencies among threats, is a focus of the third projectphase (which is to be completed by the end of the year). However, we attemptedto leverage the presence of a large amount of domain experts to obtain an initialranking that would combine and reflect the viewpoints of a large audience.For the second workshop, we decided to invite a number of selected speakersthat would give presentations at the beginning of the workshop on the first dayand later during the second day. The talks set a framework in which the detailedtechnical discussions about the individual threat reports could take place. For thesediscussions, the attendees would first break into working group sessions to performthe necessary review of the threats that each group had defined. Then, in a next step,the outcome of each discussion was presented to the audience at large. This twostepprocess served two purposes. First, in the actual discussion sessions, we hadless people involved. Thismade the discussion process manageable and interactive.In the second step, we presented our findings in a succinct fashion to the whole audience. This allowed everybody who participated in the first discussion round toensure that their opinions were correctly reflected. In addition, it allowed peoplethat were present in other working group discussions to see what other groups did,and to provide feedback.According to Annex 1, a total of 60 attendees was considered to be the thresholdfor a successful workshop. This threshold was significantly exceeded, witha total of 103 attendees. This clearly demonstrates the significant interest andparticipation to the FORWARD working groups and workshops. Moreover, nonacademicparticipation remains to be strong. 39 attendees (37.8% of the participants)came from industry or policy-making institutions.In this document, we first summarize the three working group discussions thatwere held during the two-day workshop. In addition to the discussion sessions, atotal of 11 talks were given in the form of plenary talks and keynotes. Moreover,we had 7 five-minute work-in-progress talks. These talks are summarized in thesubsequent chapter. Finally, we discuss the conclusions that the consortium hasdrawn from the workshop, and we briefly outline the future actions that we plan totake in the subsequent, third phase of the project.
|
|
| 44515. |
- Kruegel, Christoffer, et al.
(författare)
-
FORWARD Threat Report
- 2009
-
Bok (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This document is the compilation of the three threat reports that were producedindependently by the three FORWARD working groups during the second phaseof the project. These working groups were established after the first FORWARDworkshop that was held in Goteborg, Sweden in April 2008. They are briefly describedin the following paragraphs:The Malware and Fraud working group is concerned with the malware andfraud-related threats on the Internet. It covers topics that range from novel malwaredevelopments over botnets to cyber crime and Internet fraud.The Smart Environments working group is concerned with ordinary environmentsthat have been enhanced by interconnected computer equipment. There isgeneral expectation that a large number of small devices such as sensors and mobilephones will be interconnected. The group aims to identify emerging trendswith respect to security in this domain.The Critical Systems working group focuses on critical systems whose disruptionof operation can lead to significant material loss or threaten human life. Itattempts to identify emerging threats in this area.For our work, we introduce the following definition of threat:Threat - Definition : A threat is any indication, circumstance, or event with thepotential to cause harm to an ICT infrastructure and the assets that dependon this infrastructure.Our version is related to a variety of other definitions that exist in the literature,such as the ones provided by ISO/IEC and the EU Green Paper for Criticalinfrastructure protection, 2005 [20]. In both cases, a threat is described as a event,circumstance, or incident that has the potential to cause destruction or, more general,harm to the system or organization that is exposed to the threat. We adapt ourdefinition to explicitly refer to ICT infrastructures and assets, as this is the scope of the project. However, we observe that the definition is reasonably general toaccommodate a wide range of possible threats and scenarios. This is necessary toallow different working groups to identify interesting threats without being constrainedby an overly narrow, initial definition.Creating a list of emerging and future threats is a challenging endeavor. Thepast has witnessed many stunning scientific and technical advances, and these advanceshave transformed society and the way people use and rely on informationtechnology. Of course, also attackers are creative and constantly invent new waysof abusing technologies and applications for financial profit or simply because theyenjoy virtual vandalism. Thus, trying to imagine potential developments is alwaysat risk of failing to accurately predict the future. Nevertheless, it is important toactively think about the potential risks and threats that emerging technologies andtheir applications entail. Otherwise, one would simply concede to the adversariesand, at most, react to their new attacks.One way to think about emerging and future threats is to bring together a groupof domain experts and let them enter a dialogue in which they will (hopefully)come up with a set of possible threats. This is one possible way, and in part an approachthat FORWARD leverages through its working groups. However, it wouldbe desirable to introduce a more systematic methodology to think about emergingthreats. In FORWARD, we attempt to do this by introducing a number of “axes”along which developments can happen (or are currently unfolding). These axesserve as the main drivers of development in general, and allow us to set a frameworkin which each working group can systematically explore threats. [...]
|
|
| 44516. |
|
|
| 44517. |
- Krueger, Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
Where is my feature and what is it about? A case study on recovering feature facets
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Systems and Software. - : Elsevier BV. - 0164-1212. ; 152, s. 239-253
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Developers commonly use features to define, manage, and communicate functionalities of a system. Unfortunately, the locations of features in code and other characteristics (feature facets), relevant for evolution and maintenance, are often poorly documented. Since developers change, and knowledge fades with time, such information often needs to be recovered. Modern projects boast a richness of information sources, such as pull requests, release logs, and otherwise specified domain knowledge. However, it is largely unknown from what sources the features, their locations, and their facets can be recovered. We present an exploratory study on identifying such information in two popular, variant-rich, and long-living systems: The 3D-printer firmware Marlin and the Android application Bitcoin-wallet. Besides the available information sources, we also investigated the projects' communities, communications, and development cultures. Our results show that a multitude of information sources (e.g., commit messages and pull requests) is helpful to recover features, locations, and facets to different extents. Pull requests were the most valuable source to recover facets, followed by commit messages and the issue tracker. As many of the studied information sources are, so far, rarely exploited in techniques for recovering features and their facets, we hope to inspire researchers and tool builders with our results. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 44518. |
- Krug, Robert, 1981-, et al.
(författare)
-
Analytic Grasp Success Prediction with Tactile Feedback
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. - New York, USA : IEEE. - 1050-4729. ; , s. 165-171
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Predicting grasp success is useful for avoiding failures in many robotic applications. Based on reasoning in wrench space, we address the question of how well analytic grasp success prediction works if tactile feedback is incorporated. Tactile information can alleviate contact placement uncertainties and facilitates contact modeling. We introduce a wrench-based classifier and evaluate it on a large set of real grasps. The key finding of this work is that exploiting tactile information allows wrench-based reasoning to perform on a level with existing methods based on learning or simulation. Different from these methods, the suggested approach has no need for training data, requires little modeling effort and is computationally efficient. Furthermore, our method affords task generalization by considering the capabilities of the grasping device and expected disturbance forces/moments in a physically meaningful way.
|
|
| 44519. |
- Krug, Robert, 1981-, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating the Quality of Non-Prehensile Balancing Grasps
- 2018
-
Ingår i: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). - : IEEE Computer Society. - 2577-087X .- 2577-087X. ; , s. 4215-4215
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Assessing grasp quality and, subsequently, predicting grasp success is useful for avoiding failures in many autonomous robotic applications. In addition, interest in nonprehensile grasping and manipulation has been growing as it offers the potential for a large increase in dexterity. However, while force-closure grasping has been the subject of intense study for many years, few existing works have considered quality metrics for non-prehensile grasps. Furthermore, no studies exist to validate them in practice. In this work we use a real-world data set of non-prehensile balancing grasps and use it to experimentally validate a wrench-based quality metric by means of its grasp success prediction capability. The overall accuracy of up to 84 % is encouraging and in line with existing results for force-closure grasps.
|
|
| 44520. |
- Krug, Robert, 1981-, et al.
(författare)
-
Grasp Quality Evaluation Done Right: How Assumed Contact Force Bounds Affect Wrench-Based Quality Metrics
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. - 1050-4729.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Wrench-based quality metrics play an important role in many applications such as grasp planning or grasp success prediction. In this work, we study the following discrepancy which is frequently overlooked in practice: the quality metrics are commonly computed under the assumption of sum-magnitude bounded contact forces, but the corresponding grasps are executed by a fully actuated device where the contact forces are limited independently. By means of experiments carried out in simulation and on real hardware, we show that in this setting the values of these metrics are severely underestimated. This can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the actual capabilities of the grasps under consideration. Our findings highlight the importance of matching the physical properties of the task and the grasping device with the chosen quality metrics.
|
|
