Co-authors

合集下载

文献检索题(1)

文献检索题(1)

单选1。

《中国图书馆分类法》将所有学科分为()个基本大类。

A。

15B.18C.80D。

222.( )是记录有知识的一切载体.A。

信息B.情报C.文献D。

知识3。

以下数据来源中经过主题标引的是( )A.MedlineB。

preMedlineC。

PSCD。

publine4.医学文献检索领域里最具权威性的主题词表是美国国立医学图书馆编制的( ).A。

MeSHB。

MedLineC.IMD.PubMed5.下列检索出文献量最少的检索式是( )A.A and BB。

A or BC.A and B and CD.(A or B) and C6.下列检索出文献量最多的检索式是()A。

A and BB。

A or BC。

(A or B) not CD.(A or B) and C7。

起着扩大检索范围的逻辑运算符是()A。

逻辑“与”B。

逻辑“或”C。

逻辑“非"D。

括号()8。

按照文献获取的难易程度分,内容完全不公开的信息资源属于()文献 A。

无色B.白色C.灰色D.黑色9。

按照文献的加工程度分,《医学文献信息检索实用教程》属于( )A。

零次文献B。

一次文献C.二次文献D。

三次文献10.下列哪种文献属于二次文献( ).(1分)A.专利文献B。

学位论文C。

会议文献D.目录11。

以下检索语言中基于文献内容特征的是()。

(1分)A.作者B.作者单位C.分类语言D。

刊名12。

哪个途径是从文献的内部特征进行检索的( )。

A.分类途径B.发表年份途径C.作者途径D。

刊名途径13。

下列属于文献外表特征的是()。

(1分)A。

文献的分类号B。

文献的主题词C。

文献的关键词D.文献的作者14.()是指能代表文献或课题的主要内容,具有实质意义,规范化的词或词组。

A.标题词B。

主题词C。

副主题词D。

关键词15。

( )是指能代表文献或课题主要内容或主要内容的某一方面,具有一定实质意义的词或词组。

A.标题词B。

主题词C.叙词D。

关键词16。

微型光伏逆变器拓扑及相关技术研究综述

微型光伏逆变器拓扑及相关技术研究综述
摘要
本文主要对光伏发电系统中的微型逆变器拓扑进行了综述,旨在寻找能够降低成本并提升效率与可靠性 的最佳方案。介绍了微型逆变器的并网优势及其设计目标。结合国内外研究现状,分析了典型的单级式
文章引用: 韩雪, 高圣伟. 微型光伏逆变器拓扑及相关技术研究综述[J]. 电气工程, 2017, 5(1): 12-24. https:///10.12677/jee.2017.51003
Open Access
1. 引言
随着环境保护问题的日益趋紧,生产无污染的天然能源的需求已引起国际上的广泛关注。太阳能, 由于其清洁,无污染,取之不尽,可作为未来的一种代替性能源。我国太阳能资源丰富,太阳能作为传 统能源的替代能源具有巨大的经济效益和战略意义。在过去的十年中,光伏发电技术早已显示出其潜力, 成为了全世界发电的主要来源,即使在金融和经济危机的时候,也取得了强劲且持久的发展,这一趋势 在未来几年也会随着光伏发电优势的增加而持续。据 HIS 最新报告显示,到 2017 年,微型逆变器的全球 市场规模将有望随着海外市场需求的持续增长而增长四倍以上,出货量将增长到 2.1 GW。
3. 微型逆变器拓扑
光伏逆变器拓扑结构可分为单级式与多级式结构,常见的多级式结构例如两级式,第一级将光伏板 侧电压升高到并网电压所需电压等级,即 DC-DC 阶段,最大功率跟踪功能在此阶段完成;第二级将直流 电逆变为并网所需的与电网同相的交流电,即 DC-AC 阶段。而单级式结构在一级内同时完成两种功能, 两种结构各有其优缺点。
Journal of Electrical Engineering 电气工程, 2017, 5(1), 12-24 Published Online March 2017 in Hans. /journal/jee https:///10.12677/jee.2017.51003

修改稿cover,letter模板

修改稿cover,letter模板

修改稿cover,letter模板篇一:SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览(Cover letter,催稿信等) 一、最初投稿Cover letterDear Editors:We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of inter est exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not beenpublished previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.In this work, we evaluated ?? (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:1) Name AE-mail: ××××@××××2) Name BE-mail: ××××@××××We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××二、催稿信Dear Prof. ×××:Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not?I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hearfrom you on the reviewer’s comments.Thank you very much for your consideration.Best regards!Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××三、修改稿Cover letterDear Dr/ Prof..(写上负责你文章编辑的姓名,显得尊重,因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑,只能用通用的Editors):On behalf of my co- authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructivecomments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, whichwe would like to submit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见(最重要的部分)List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??) Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??) Response: ××××××。

重点:内部控制培训讲义ppt课件

重点:内部控制培训讲义ppt课件

课程安排
•内部控制是什么 •内部控制怎么做 •案例分析
设计内部控制的总体思路
借鉴内部控制理论 参考内部控制范例
根据内部控制法规 结合企业管理实际
设计内部控制系统
定期评价
修改、调整
内部控制的设计原则
相互牵制原则 协调配合原则 岗位匹配原则 成本效益原则 整体结构原则
内部控制的设计步骤
内部控制的种类
按控制内容分
一般控制 应用控制
按控制地位分
主导性控制 补偿性控制
按控制功能分
预防式控制 侦察式控制
按控制时序分
原因控制 过程控制 结果控制
同以往的内控理论及研究成果相比coso报
告提出了哪些新的、有价值的观点
明确对内部控制的“责任” 强调“软控制”的作用 强调风险意识 融合了管理与控制 强调内部控制的分类及目标 明确内部控制只能做到“合理”保证 成本与效益原则
内部控制的目标
• 提高经营活动的效率和效果 • 保证财务报告的可靠性 • 保证遵循政策、计划、程序、法律和法规
内部控制五要素
信息与沟通
监控 控制活动 风险评估
控制环境
构成一个企业的氛围,是 其他内部控制要素的基础,是 推动控制工作的发动机
主要包括:诚信原则和道德 价值观、评定员工能力、董事 会、管理哲学和经营风格、组 织结构、责任的分配与授权、 人力资源政策及实务等
•控制活动能够防范风险
信息与沟通
监控
控制活动
风险评估 控制环境
监督和评估内部控制 系统设计合理性和运行有 效性。
信息与沟通
监控
控制活动 风险评估 控制环境
为了实现控制目标,保证 内部控制各个要素的可靠性, 有关信息必须及时沟通。

EMA工艺验证指南

EMA工艺验证指南

27 February 2014EMA/CHMP/CVMP/QWP/BWP/70278/2012-Rev1Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP)Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP)Guideline on process validation for finished products-information and data to be provided in regulatory submissionsDraft agreed by CHMP / CVMP Quality Working Party 2 February 2012 Adoption by CVMP for release for consultation8 March 2012 Adoption by CHMP for release for consultation15 March 2012 End of consultation (deadline for comments)31 October 2012 Agreed by QWP8 November 2013 Agreed by BWP13 November 2013 Adoption by CHMP19 December 2013 Adoption by CVMP15 January 2014 Date for coming into effect 6 months after publication This guideline replaces the note for guidance on process validation (CPMP/QWP/848/96,EMEA/CVMP/598/99)including annex II–non-standard processes (CPMP/QWP/2054/03).Keywords Process validation, continuous process verification, on-goingprocess verification, critical process parameter, critical qualityattribute, lifecycle, change control7 Westferry Circus ● Canary Wharf ● London E14 4HB ● United KingdomTable of contentsExecutive summary (3)1. Introduction (background) (3)2. Scope (3)3. Legal basis (4)4. General considerations (4)5. Process validation (4)5.1. Traditional process validation (4)5.2. Continuous process verification (5)5.3. Hybrid approach (6)5.4. Design space verification (7)6. Scale-up (7)7. Post approval change control (7)8. Standard vs. non-standard methods of manufacture (8)Definitions (8)References (10)Annex I: Process validation scheme (12)Annex II: Standard/non-standard processes (14)Executive summaryThis guideline replaces the previous note for guidance on process validation (CPMP/QWP/848/96, EMEA/CVMP/598/99). The guideline is brought into line with ICH Q8, Q9 and Q10 documents and the possibility to use continuous process verification in addition to, or instead of, traditional process validation described in the previous guideline has been added and is encouraged. This guideline does not introduce new requirements on medicinal products already authorised and on the market, but clarifies how companies can take advantage of the new possibilities given when applying enhanced process understanding coupled with risk management tools under an efficient quality system as described by ICH Q8, Q9 and Q10.1. Introduction (background)Process validation can be defined as documented evidence that the process, operated within established parameters, can perform effectively and reproducibly to produce a medicinal product meeting its predetermined specifications and quality attributes (ICH Q7). Continuous process verification has been introduced to cover an alternative approach to process validation based on a continuous monitoring of manufacturing performance. This approach is based on the knowledge from product and process development studies and / or previous manufacturing experience. Continuous process verification may be applicable to both a traditional and enhanced approach to pharmaceutical development. It may use extensive in-line, on-line or at-line monitoring and / or controls to evaluate process performance. It is intended that the combination of the advice provided in the Note for Guidance on Development Pharmaceutics (CPMP/QWP/155/96) and the Note for Guidance on Pharmaceutical Development (ICH Q8R2) together with this guideline should cover all of the critical elements in manufacturing process for inclusion in the dossier for regulatory submission for a pharmaceutical product for human use. For veterinary medicinal products, the applicable guidance is that provided in the Note for Guidance on Development Pharmaceutics for Veterinary Medicinal Products (EMEA/CVMP/315/98) together with this guideline. Although the ICH Q8 guideline is not applicable to veterinary medicinal products the principles detailed in this guideline may be applied to veterinary medicinal products should an applicant choose to apply an enhanced approach to pharmaceutical development and process validation.Process validation should not be viewed as a one-off event. Process validation incorporates a lifecycle approach linking product and process development, validation of the commercial manufacturing process and maintenance of the process in a state of control during routine commercial production.2. ScopeThis document is intended to provide guidance on the process validation information and data to be provided in regulatory submissions for the finished dosage forms of chemical medicinal products for human and veterinary use. The general principles also apply to active substances. However, information on validation of non-sterile active substances is not required in the dossier. In addition, expectations for active substances are contained in ICH Q11 and so the information is not repeated in this document.The principles described are also applicable to biological medicinal products. However, these should be considered on a case by case basis in view of the complex nature and inherent variability of the biological substance.It is expected that the information / data requested in this guideline be present in the dossier at the time of regulatory submission.This document provides guidance on the validation of the manufacturing process, which can be considered as the second stage in the product lifecycle. The first stage (process design) is covered in the note for guidance on pharmaceutical development (ICH Q8R2/ EMEA/CVMP/315/98) and the third stage (on-going process verification) is covered under GMP (Annex 15).3. Legal basisThis guideline has to be read in conjunction with the introduction and general principles section (4) of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC as amended and the introduction and general principles section (2) of Annex I to Directive 2001/82/EC as amended.4. General considerationsIrrespective of whether a medicinal product is developed by a traditional approach or an enhanced approach, the manufacturing process should be validated before the product is placed on the market. In exceptional circumstances concurrent validation may be accepted. Please refer to GMP Annex 15 for further guidance.Process validation should confirm that the control strategy is adequate to the process design and the quality of the product. The validation should cover all manufactured strengths and all manufacturing sites used for production of the marketed product. A bracketing approach may be acceptable for different strengths, batch sizes and pack sizes. However, validation must cover all proposed sites. Process validation data should be generated for all products to demonstrate the adequacy of the manufacturing process at each site of manufacture. Validation should be carried out in accordance with GMP and data should be held at the manufacturing location and made available for inspection if not required in the dossier (see section 8).Process validation can be performed in a traditional way, as described below, regardless of the approach to development taken. However, there is also the possibility to implement continuous process verification if an enhanced approach to development has been performed or where a substantial amount of product and process knowledge and understanding has been gained through historical data and manufacturing experience. A combination of traditional process validation and continuous process verification may be employed. The in-line, on-line or at-line monitoring that is often utilised for continuous process verification (discussed in section 5.2) provides substantially more information and knowledge about the process and might facilitate process improvements.5. Process validation5.1. Traditional process validationTraditional process validation is normally performed when the pharmaceutical development and/or process development is concluded, after scale-up to production scale and prior to marketing of the finished product.As part of the process validation lifecycle, some process validation studies maybe conducted on pilot scale batches if the process has not yet been scaled up to production scale. It should be noted that pilot batch size should correspond to at least 10% of the production scale batch (i.e. such that the multiplication factor for the scale-up does not exceed 10). For solid oral dosage forms this size should generally be 10% of the maximum production scale or 100,000 units whichever is the greater1. Where the intended batch size is less than 100,000 units, the predictive value of the pilot batches may be limited and a justified approach should be followed. For other dosage forms the pilot batch size should be justified taking into account risk to the patient of failure of the dosage form. Since it is not generally considered useful to conduct full validation studies on pilot scale batches, the process validation scheme outlined in Annex I of this guideline should be completed for each product for subsequent execution at production scale; bracketing may be acceptable. The process validation scheme to be followed should be included in the dossier. The scheme should include a description of the manufacturing process, the tests to be performed and acceptance criteria, a description of the additional controls in place and the data to be collected. A justification for the chosen process validation scheme should be presented in Module 3 and the Quality Overall Summary for human medicines and in Part 2.B and the Pharmaceutical Detailed and Critical Summary for veterinary medicines.In certain cases however, it is considered necessary to provide production scale validation data in the marketing authorisation dossier at the time of regulatory submission, for example when the product is a biological / biotech product or where the applicant is proposing a non-standard method of manufacture (see section 8 and Annex II).In these cases, data should be provided in the dossier on a number of consecutive batches at production scale prior to approval. The number of batches should be based on the variability of the process, the complexity of the process / product, process knowledge gained during development, supportive data at commercial scale during technology transfer and the overall experience of the manufacturer. Data on a minimum of 3 production scale batches should be submitted unless otherwise justified. Data on 1 or 2 production scale batches may suffice where these are supported by pilot scale batches and a justification as highlighted above.The studies should address critical steps of manufacture, by conducting additional testing as necessary.5.2. Continuous process verificationContinuous process verification is an alternative approach to traditional process validation in which manufacturing process performance is continuously monitored and evaluated (ICH Q8). Continuous process verification can be used in addition to, or instead of, traditional process validation.It is a science and risk-based real-time approach to verify and demonstrate that a process that operates within the predefined specified parameters consistently produces material which meets all its critical quality attributes (CQAs) and control strategy requirements. In order to enable continuous process verification, companies should perform, as relevant, extensive in-line, on-lineor at-line controls and monitor process performance and product quality on each batch. Relevant data on quality attributes of incoming materials or components, in-process material and finished products should be collected. This should include the verification of attributes, parameters and end points, and assessment of CQA and critical process parameter (CPP) trends. Process analytical1In the case of veterinary medicinal products, the minimum pilot batch size may be smaller than 100,000 units where justified.technology (PAT) applications such as NIR spectroscopy with or without feedback loop (e.g. end point determination of blend homogeneity, determination of granules surface area, determination of content uniformity with large sample size) and Multivariate Statistical Process Control (MSPC) can be viewed as enablers for continuous process verification.Sufficient knowledge and understanding of the process is required in order to support continuous process verification. However, the scope and extent of continuous process verification will be influenced by a number of factors including:∙prior development and manufacturing knowledge from similar products and/or processes;∙the extent of process understanding gained from development studies and commercial manufacturing experience;∙the complexity of the product and/or manufacturing process;∙the level of process automation and analytical technologies used;∙for legacy products, with reference to the product lifecycle, process robustness and manufacturing history since point of commercialization as appropriate.A discussion on the appropriateness and feasibility of the continuous process verification strategy should be included in the development section of the dossier and should be supported with data from at least laboratory or pilot scale batches. A description of the continuous process verification strategy including the process parameters and material attributes that will be monitored, as well as the analytical methods that will be employed, should be included as described in Annex 1, with cross-reference to the validation section of the dossier. Actual data generated during continuous process verification at production scale should be available at the site for inspection. The applicant should define the stage at which the process is considered to be under control and the validation exercise completed prior to release of the product to the market, and the basis on which that decision will be made. The discussion should include a justification for the number of batches to be used based on the complexity and expected variability of the process and existing manufacturing experience of the manufacturing site. Continuous process verification would be considered the most appropriate method for validating continuous processes.Continuous process verification can be introduced at any time in the lifecycle of the product. It can be used for the initial commercial production, to re-validate commercialised products as part of process changes or to support continual improvement.Continuous process verification is dependent on compliance with GMP principles and requirements. Pharmaceutical quality systems (PQS) as described in ICH Q10 can complement GMP requirements. However, GMP matters and PQS should not be included in the submission as they are assessed and handled by GMP inspectors as appropriate.5.3. Hybrid approachIt may be necessary to use either the traditional process validation or the continuous process verification approach for different steps within the manufacturing process. It should be clear in the dossier which approach to validation has been taken for which steps in the manufacturing process. The validation requirements in terms of batch size and number of batches would depend on the extent to which continuous process verification has been used. For non-standard processes (as defined in section 8) if continuous process verification does not address the critical unitoperation(s)the process validation requirements highlighted in section 5.1 should be applied unless otherwise justified.5.4. Design space verificationA design space will normally be developed at laboratory or pilot scale. During scale-up the commercial process is generally conducted and validated in a specific area of the design space, defined as the target interval or Normal Operating Range (NOR). During the product lifecycle, moving from one area to another within the design space (i.e. change in the NOR) may represent higher or unknown risks not previously identified during initial establishment of the design space. For this reason and depending on how the design space was originally established and how the process was validated, there will be situations where it will be necessary to confirm the suitability of the design space and verify that all product quality attributes are still being met in the new area of operation within the design space. This is termed ‘design space verification’.If the parameters investigated during development of the design space have not been shown to be scale independent and the process has been validated using traditional process validation, design space verification would be required and a verification protocol should be provided in the dossier. If continuous process verification has been utilised, this may contribute towards ensuring the validity of the design space throughout the product lifecycle. In this case,a design space verification strategy should be included as part of the continuous process verification strategy.Depending on the change and the extent of movement within the design space (i.e. distance from validated target/NOR or new area of design space with higher or unknown risk) protocols for verification may include controls of quality attributes (QA’s) and process parameters (PP’s) not included in the routine control system (e.g. monitoring or testing of QA’s and PP’s that are expected to be scale dependant and when applicable, equipment dependant). It is not necessary to verify entire areas of the Design Space or the edge of failure. In principle more than one area of the design space should be verified but a stepwise approach taking into consideration the need to adjust the NOR within the approved design space during product lifecycle is acceptable.6. Scale-upIn order to avoid the repetition of lengthy and costly tests, it is necessary to gather information during properly designed development and process optimisation studies, when scaling up from laboratory through pilot to production scale. Such information provides the basis for justification that scale-up can be achieved without a consequent loss in quality. Those parts of the process likely to be critical in scale-up should be identified in section 3.2.P.2 (Veterinary Part 2.A.4) and defined in section 3.2.P.3 (Veterinary Part 2.B) of the dossier.Where ranges of batch sizes are proposed, it should be justified that variations in batch size would not adversely alter the CQAs of the finished product. It is envisaged that those parameters listed in the process validation scheme (Annex I of this guideline) will need to be re-validated once further scale-up is proposed post-authorisation unless the process has been proven to be scale independent or continuous process verification is employed.7. Post approval change controlClearly defined procedures are needed to control changes proposed in production processes. These procedures are part of GMP and would not normally be specified in the dossier. Such proceduresshould control planned changes, ensure that sufficient supporting data are generated to demonstrate that the revised process will result in a product of the desired quality, consistent with the approved control strategy and ensure that all aspects are thoroughly documented and approved including whether regulatory approval is needed by way of variation.Refer to the European Commission guidance on Type I and Type II variations (Guidelines on the details of the various categories of variations, on the operation of the procedures laid down in Chapters II, IIa, III and IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2008 of 24 November 2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorizations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products and on the documentation to be submitted pursuant to those procedures ) and Regulation 712/2012/EC for details on the changes which would require a variation.8. Standard vs. non-standard methods of manufactureThis section is only relevant for processes which have been validated using traditional process validation. It is not relevant for those processes where continuous process verification is employed (see sections 5.1 and 5.2). According to section 5.1, full production-scale data should be provided in the dossier for non-standard products or processes which were validated using traditional process validation. It is possible for the applicant to justify that the product process can be considered standard for a particular manufacturer / site taking into account the risk to the patient of failure of the product or process. Such justifications are assessed on a case by case basis, but the information provided by the applicant (for each manufacturing site) should include:∙experience with the same or essentially similar product or process (number of products authorised / marketed in the EU/EEA and number of batches (including information on scale) manufactured);-the names/ marketing authorisation numbers in the relevant EU/EEA member state should be provided.∙amount of knowledge gained during the development of the product (number and scale of batches manufactured at each manufacturing site involved);∙history of GMP compliance of manufacturing sites for that type of process The applicant should clearly state (in section 3.2.P.3.5 of the dossier for human medicines, in section 2.B of the dossier for veterinary medicines) whether they consider the manufacturing process to be standard or non-standard and the justification for their decision for new marketingauthorisation applications.Please see Annex II for further information on products / processes considered to be non-standard.DefinitionsAt-line:Measurement where the sample is removed, isolated from, and analysed in close proximity to the process stream.Bracketing approach:A validation scheme / protocol designed such that only batches on the extremes of certain predetermined and justified design factors, e.g., strength, batch size, pack size are tested during process validation. The design assumes that validation of any intermediate levels is represented by the validation of the extremes. Where a range of strengths is to be validated, bracketing could be applicable if the strengths are identical or very closely related in composition (e.g., for a tablet range made with different compression weights of a similar basic granulation, or a capsule range made by filling different plug fill weights of the same basic composition into different size capsule shells). Bracketing can be applied to different container sizes or different fills in the same container closure system.Control strategy:A planned set of controls, derived from current product and process understanding that ensures process performance and product quality. The controls can include parameters and attributes related to active substance and finished product materials and components, facility and equipment operating conditions, in-process controls, finished product specifications, and the associated methods and frequency of monitoring and control. (ICH Q10)Continuous process verification:An alternative approach to process validation in which manufacturing process performance is continuously monitored and evaluated. (ICH Q8)Critical process parameter (CPP):A process parameter whose variability has an impact on a critical quality attribute and therefore should be monitored or controlled to ensure the process produces the desired quality. (ICH Q8)Critical quality attribute (CQA):A physical, chemical, biological or microbiological property or characteristic that should be within an appropriate limit, range, or distribution to ensure the desired product quality. (ICH Q8)Design space:The multidimensional combination and interaction of input variables (e.g., material attributes) and process parameters that have been demonstrated to provide assurance of quality. Working within the design space is not considered as a change. Movement out of the design space is considered to be a change and would normally initiate a regulatory post approval change process. Design space is proposed by the applicant and is subject to regulatory assessment and approval. (ICH Q8)Enhanced approach:A development approach where risk management and scientific knowledge is used to identify and understand the material attributes and process parameters which influence the critical quality attributes of a product.In-line:Measurement where the sample is analysed within the process stream and not removed from it.Lifecycle:All phases in the life of a product from the initial development through marketing until the product’s discontinuation. (ICH Q8)Ongoing process verification:Documented evidence that the process remains in a state of control during commercial manufacture.On-line:Measurement where the sample is diverted from the manufacturing process and not returned to the process stream.Pharmaceutical quality system (PQS):Management system to direct and control a pharmaceutical company with regard to quality. (ICH Q10)Process validation:The documented evidence that the process, operated within established parameters, can perform effectively and reproducibly to produce a medicinal product meeting its predetermined specifications and quality attributes.Traditional approach:A product development approach where set points and operating ranges for process parameters are defined to ensure reproducibility.ReferencesCommission Regulation (EC) No 712/2012 of 3 August 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No1234/2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products.Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products.Eudralex volume 4 (GMP guidelines), Annex 15 (Qualification and validation).Guidelines on the details of the various categories of variations, on the operation of the procedures laid down in Chapters II, IIa, III and IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008 of 24 November 2008 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of marketing authorizations for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products and on the documentation to be submitted pursuant to those procedures.ICH Q8 (R2) (Pharmaceutical development).ICH Q9 (Quality risk management).ICH Q10 (Pharmaceutical quality system).ICH Q11 (Development and manufacture of drug substances (chemical entities and biotechnological / biological entities).Note for guidance on development pharmaceutics (CPMP/QWP/155/96).Note for guidance on development pharmaceutics for veterinary medicinal products (EMEA/CVMP/315/98).Note for guidance on quality of modified release products (CPMP/QWP/604/96).Note for guidance on the quality of modified release dosage forms for veterinary use (EMEA/CVMP/680/02).Annex I: Process validation schemeTraditional process validationWhere validation data on production scale batches are not provided with the application and traditional process validation as described in section 5.1 is proposed, the process validation scheme described below should be submitted by the applicant. This should outline the formal process validation studies to be conducted on production scale batches (the number of batches used would depend on the variability of the process, the complexity of the process / product and the experience of the manufacturer, but would usually be a minimum of 3 consecutive batches). The information from these studies will be available for verification post authorisation by the supervisory authority. The process validation scheme should be submitted in the marketing authorisation dossier and should include the following information as a minimum:∙short description of the process with a summary of the critical processing steps or critical process parameters to be monitored during validation;∙finished product release specification (references to the dossier);∙details of analytical methods (references to the dossier);∙in-process controls proposed with acceptance criteria;∙additional testing intended to be carried out (e.g. with proposed acceptance criteria and analytical validation as appropriate);∙sampling plan - where, when and how the samples are taken;∙details of methods for recording and evaluation of results;∙proposed timeframe.Following completion of the scheme, a report containing the following information and signed by the appropriate authorised person should be generated and made available for inspection:∙batch analytical data;∙certificates of analysis;∙batch production records;∙report on unusual findings, modifications or changes found necessary with appropriate rationale;∙conclusions.Where the results obtained show significant deviations from those expected, the regulatory authorities need to be informed immediately. In such cases, corrective actions should be proposed and any proposed changes to the manufacturing process should receive appropriate regulatory approval by way of variation.Continuous process verificationIn cases where continuous process verification is proposed (as described in section 5.2) a continuous process validation scheme should be submitted by the applicant. This should outline the monitoring to be performed on production scale batches. The information obtained will be。

学术英语理工详解答案Unit3

学术英语理工详解答案Unit3

第11页/共53页
Unit 3 Listening to Lectures
1 Preparing for listening to a lecture
4 What are the potential effects of global warming?
The effects of global warming may be physical, ecological, social or economic. Evidence of observed climate change includes the instrumental temperature record, an increase of extreme weather events (such as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides), rising sea levels, decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, mass animal extinctions and human migrations.
Unit 3 Listening to Lectures
Unit Contents
1 Preparing for listening to a lecture 2 Paying attention to the introduction 3 Understanding the ideas through examples 4 Following a lecture through signal words 5 Memorizing the points by taking notes
1 What are the definitions of the following terms?

George Lakoff

George Lakoff

George LakoffFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaProfessor George LakoffBorn May 24, 1941 (1941-05-24) (age 68)Residence Berkeley, California, USANationality United StatesFields Cognitive linguisticsCognitive scienceInstitutions University of California, BerkeleyAlma mater Indiana UniversityKnown for Conceptual metaphor theoryEmbodied cognitionGeorge P. Lakoff (pronounced /ˈleɪkɒf/, born May 24, 1941) is an American cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972. Although some of his research involves questions traditionally pursued by linguists, such as the conditions under which a certain linguistic construction is grammatically viable, he is most famous for his ideas about the centrality of metaphor to human thinking, political behavior and society. He is particularly famous for his concept of the "embodied mind", which he has written about in relation to mathematics. In recent years he has applied his work to the realm of politics, exploring this in his books. He was the founder of the now defunct progressive think tank the Rockridge Institute.[1][2]Reappraisal of metaphor:Lakoff began his career as a student and later a teacher of the theory of transformational grammar developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky. In the late 1960s, however, he joined with others to promote generative semantics as an alternative to Chomsky's generative syntax. In an interview he stated:During that period, I was attempting to unify Chomsky's transformational grammar with formal logic. I had helped work out a lot of the early details of Chomsky's theory of grammar. Noam claimed then —and still does, so far as I can tell —that syntax is independent of meaning, context, background knowledge, memory, cognitive processing, communicative intent, and every aspect of the body...In working through the details of his early theory, I found quite a few cases where semantics, context, and other such factors entered into rules governing the syntactic occurrences of phrases and morphemes. I came up with the beginnings of an alternative theory in 1963 and, along with wonderful collaborators like Haj Ross and Jim McCawley, developed it through the sixties.[1]Lakoff's claim that Chomsky claims independence between syntax and semantics has beenrejected by Chomsky and he has given examples from within his work where he talks about the relationship between his semantics and syntax. Chomsky goes further and claims that Lakoff has "virtually no comprehension of the work he is discussing" (the work in question being Chomsky's) [3]. His differences with Chomsky contributed to fierce, acrimonious debates among linguists that have come to be known as the "linguistics wars".Lakoff's original thesis on conceptual metaphor was expressed in his book with Mark Johnson entitled Metaphors We Live By in 1980.Metaphor has been seen within the Western scientific tradition as purely a linguistic construction. The essential thrust of Lakoff's work has been the argument that metaphors are primarily a conceptual construction, and indeed are central to the development of thought. He says, "Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature." Non-metaphorical thought is for Lakoff only possible when we talk about purely physical reality. For Lakoff the greater the level of abstraction the more layers of metaphor are required to express it. People do not notice these metaphors for various reasons. One reason is that some metaphors become 'dead' and we no longer recognize their origin. Another reason is that we just don't "see" what is "going on".For instance, in intellectual debate the underlying metaphor is usually that argument is war (later revised as "argument is struggle"):He won the argument.Your claims are indefensible.He shot down all my arguments.His criticisms were right on target.If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.For Lakoff, the development of thought has been the process of developing better metaphors. The application of one domain of knowledge to another domain of knowledge offers new perceptions and understandings.Lakoff's theory has applications throughout all academic disciplines and much of human social interaction. Lakoff has explored some of the implications of the embodied mind thesis in a number of books, most written with coauthors.Embodied mind:Further information: Embodied philosophyWhen Lakoff claims the mind is "embodied", he is arguing that almost all of human cognition, up through the most abstract reasoning, depends on and makes use of such concrete and "low-level" facilities as the sensorimotor system and the emotions. Therefore embodiment is a rejection not only of dualism vis-a-vis mind and matter, but also of claims that human reason can be basically understood without reference to the underlying "implementation details".Lakoff offers three complementary but distinct sorts of arguments in favor of embodiment. First,using evidence from neuroscience and neural network simulations, he argues that certain concepts, such as color and spatial relation concepts (e.g. "red" or "over"; see also qualia), can be almost entirely understood through the examination of how processes of perception or motor control work.Second, based on cognitive linguistics' analysis of figurative language, he argues that the reasoning we use for such abstract topics as warfare, economics, or morality is somehow rooted in the reasoning we use for such mundane topics as spatial relationships. (See conceptual metaphor.)Finally, based on research in cognitive psychology and some investigations in the philosophy of language, he argues that very few of the categories used by humans are actually of the black-and-white type amenable to analysis in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. On the contrary, most categories are supposed to be much more complicated and messy, just like our bodies."We are neural beings," Lakoff states, "Our brains take their input from the rest of our bodies. What our bodies are like and how they function in the world thus structures the very concepts we can use to think. We cannot think just anything — only what our embodied brains permit."[2]Many scientists share the belief that there are problems with falsifiability and foundation ontologies purporting to describe "what exists", to a sufficient degree of rigor to establish a reasonable method of empirical validation. But Lakoff takes this further to explain why hypotheses built with complex metaphors cannot be directly falsified. Instead, they can only be rejected based on interpretations of empirical observations guided by other complex metaphors. This is what he means when he says, in "The Embodied Mind", that falsifiability itself can never be established by any reasonable method that would not rely ultimately on a shared human bias. The bias he's referring to is the set of conceptual metaphors governing how people interpret observations.Lakoff is, with coauthors Mark Johnson and Rafael E. Núñez, one of the primary proponents of the embodied mind thesis. Others who have written about the embodied mind include philosopher Andy Clark (See his Being There), philosopher and neurobiologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela and his student Evan Thompson (See Varela, Thompson & Rosch's "The Embodied Mind"), roboticists such as Rodney Brooks, Rolf Pfeifer and Tom Ziemke, the physicist David Bohm (see his Thought As A System), Ray Gibbs (see his "Embodiment and Cognitive Science"), John Grinder and Richard Bandler in their neuro-linguistic programming, and Julian Jaynes. All of these writers can be traced back to earlier philosophical writings, most notably in the phenomenological tradition, such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger.Mathematics:According to Lakoff, even mathematics itself is subjective to the human species and its cultures: thus "any question of math's being inherent in physical reality is moot, since there is no way to know whether or not it is." By this, he is saying that there is nothing outside of the thought structures we derive from our embodied minds that we can use to "prove" that mathematics issomehow beyond biology. Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez (2000) argue at length that mathematical and philosophical ideas are best understood in light of the embodied mind. The philosophy of mathematics ought therefore to look to the current scientific understanding of the human body as a foundation ontology, and abandon self-referential attempts to ground the operational components of mathematics in anything other than "meat".Mathematical reviewers have generally been critical of Lakoff and Núñez, pointing to mathematical errors. (Lakoff claims that these errors have been corrected in subsequent printings.) Their book has yet to elicit much of a reaction from philosophers of mathematics, although the book can be read as making strong claims about how that philosophy should proceed. The small community specializing in the psychology of mathematical learning, to which Núñez belongs, is paying attention.Lakoff has also claimed that we should remain agnostic about whether math is somehow wrapped up with the very nature of the universe. Early in 2001 Lakoff told the AAAS: "Mathematics may or may not be out there in the world, but there's no way that we scientifically could possibly tell." This is because the structures of scientific knowledge are not "out there" but rather in our brains, based on the details of our anatomy. Therefore, we cannot "tell" that mathematics is "out there" without relying on conceptual metaphors rooted in our biology. This claim bothers those who believe that there really is a way we could "tell". The falsifiability of this claim is perhaps the central problem in the cognitive science of mathematics, a field that attempts to establish a foundation ontology based on the human cognitive and scientific process.Political significance and involvement:Lakoff's application of cognitive linguistics to politics, literature, philosophy and mathematics has led him into territory normally considered basic to political science.Lakoff has publicly expressed both ideas about the conceptual structures that he views as central to understanding the political process, and some of his particular political views. He almost always discusses the latter in terms of the former.Moral Politics gives book-length consideration to the conceptual metaphors that Lakoff sees as present in the minds of American "liberals" and "conservatives". The book is a blend of cognitive science and political analysis. Lakoff makes an attempt to keep his personal views confined to the last third of the book, where he explicitly argues for the superiority of the liberal vision.[2]Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the "strict father model" and has a family structured around a strong, dominant "father" (government), and assumes that the "children" (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible "adults" (morality, self-financing). Once the "children" are "adults", though, the "father" should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society whohave proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the "nurturant parent model", based on "nurturant values", where both "mothers" and "fathers" work to keep the essentially good "children" away from "corrupting influences" (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.[4]Lakoff further argues that one of the reasons liberals have had difficulty since the 1980s is that they have not been as aware of their own guiding metaphors, and have too often accepted conservative terminology framed in a way to promote the strict father metaphor. Lakoff insists that liberals must cease using terms like partial birth abortion and tax relief because they are manufactured specifically to allow the possibilities of only certain types of opinions. Tax relief for example, implies explicitly that taxes are an affliction, something someone would want "relief" from. To use the terms of another metaphoric worldview, Lakoff insists, is to unconsciously support it. Liberals must support linguistic think tanks in the same way that conservatives do if they are going to succeed in appealing to those in the country who share their metaphors.[5]Lakoff has distributed some much briefer political analyses via the Internet. One article distributed this way is "Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf", in which Lakoff argues that the particular conceptual metaphors used by the first Bush administration to justify American involvement in the Gulf ended up either obscuring reality, or putting a spin on the facts that was accommodating to the administration's case for military action.In recent years, Lakoff has become involved with a progressive think tank, the Rockridge Institute, an involvement that follows in part from his recommendations in Moral Politics. Among his activities with the Institute, which concentrates in part on helping liberal candidates and politicians with re-framing political metaphors, Lakoff has given numerous public lectures and written accounts of his message from Moral Politics. In 2008, Lakoff joined Fenton Communications, the nation's largest public interest communications firm, as a Senior Consultant.One of his political works, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, self-labeled as "the Essential Guide for Progressives", was published in September 2004 and features a foreword by former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.Debate with Steven Pinker:In 2006 Steven Pinker wrote an unfavourable review [3] of Lakoff's book Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea. Pinker's review was published in The New Republic magazine. Pinker argued that Lakoff's propositions are unsupported and his prescriptions a recipe for electoral failure. He writes that Lakoff is condescending and deplores Lakoff's "shameless caricaturing of beliefs" and his "faith in the power of euphemism". Pinker portrays Lakoff's arguments as "cognitive relativism, in which mathematics, science, and philosophy are beauty contests between rival frames rather than attempts to characterize the nature of reality". Lakoff wrote a rebuttal to the review [4] stating that his position on many matters is the exact reverse of what Pinker attributes to him and explicitly rejecting for example the cognitive relativism andfaith in euphemism as described above.Geoffrey Nunberg, linguist, UC Berkeley professor and author of Talking Right, weighed in on Lakoff vs Pinker in a post on The New Republic's web site.[5]Selected bibliography:2003 (1980) with Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press. 2003 edition contains an 'Afterword'.1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-46804-6.1989 with Mark Turner. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. University of Chicago Press.1996. Moral politics : What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-022*******2001 Edition. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-022*******1999 (with Mark Johnson). Philosophy In The Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.2000 (with Rafael Núñez). Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03771-2.2004. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing. ISBN 978-19314987152005, "A Cognitive Scientist Looks at Daubert", American Journal of Public Health. 95, no. 1: S114.2006. Whose Freedom? : The Battle over America's Most Important Idea. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-15828-62008. The Political Mind : Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain, ISBN 978-0670019274Videos:How Democrats and Progressives Can Win: Solutions from George Lakoff DVD formatC-Span program online, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th Century BrainBooks that discuss Lakoff:Harris, Randy Allen (1995). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509834-X. (Focuses on the disputes Lakoff and others have had with Chomsky.)Haser, Verena (2005). Metaphor, Metonymy, and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Cognitive Semantics (Topics in English Linguistics), Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3110182835 (A critical look at the ideas behind embodiment and conceptual metaphor.)Kelleher, William J. (2005). Progressive Logic: Framing A Unified Field Theory of Values For Progressives. La CaCañada Flintridge, CA: The Empathic Science Institute. ISBN 0-9773717-1-9. McGlone, M. S. (2001). "Concepts as Metaphors" in Sam Glucksberg, Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford Psychology Series 36. Oxford University Press,90–107. ISBN 0195111095.O'Reilly, Bill (2006). Culture Warrior. New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-2092-9. (Calls Lakoff the guiding philosopher behind the "secular progressive movement".)Renkema, Jan (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 1588115291.Richardt, Susanne (2005). Metaphor in Languages for Special Purposes: The Function of Conceptual Metaphor in Written Expert Language and Expert-Lay Communication in the Domains of Economics, Medicine and Computing. European University Studies: Series XIV, Anglo-Saxon Language and Literature, 413. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. ISBN 0820473812. Soros, George (2006). The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror. ISBN 1586483595. (discusses Lakoff in regard to the application of his theories on the work of Frank Luntz and with respect to his own theory about perception and reality)Winter, Steven L. (2003). A Clearing in the Forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-90222-6. (Applies Lakoff's work in cognitive science and metaphor to the field of law and legal reasoning.)Dean, John W. (2006), Conservatives without Conscience, Viking Penguin ISBN 0-670-03774-5.。

APA格式参考文献指导应用清单制作简明规则

APA格式参考文献指导应用清单制作简明规则

APA格式参考文献清单制作简明规则一、总的说明1. 各个条目均不用给出文献标记类型(因为不是给国期刊投稿),也不用。

2. 各个条目的后续行缩四个字符,即两个汉字的空间。

3. 英文的参考文献在上,中文的参考文献在下。

4. 中英文的条目均用字母升序排列,不用多余地以方括号括住的阿拉伯数字排列(因为不是给国期刊投稿)。

5. 结合本规则里的第一至第三部分,一一读懂本规则里的第四部分的实例,将大有裨益。

6. 第四部分里的实例不能涵盖全部的情况,所以碰到本规则外的未尽情况时,要多查阅权威参考书。

二、条目的制作1.1.1 姓在前,名在后,中间加逗号。

1.2 名字一律缩略,以缩略点结束。

缩略点也就是结束点。

1.3 两个作者之间用&或and连接(前后保持一致),第一个作者的缩略名之后用逗号。

第二个作者也是颠倒,中间用逗号。

1.4 三个作者时,头两个作者的缩略名后面均用逗号,第三个作者前用&或and。

第二个和第三个作者的也颠倒,中间用逗号。

1.5 四个或四个以上的作者时,第一个作者的处理方法如第1条,其余作者只用斜体的et al.代替。

1.6 没有作者但有机构名称时,用该机构名代替作者。

1.7 既没有作者名又没有机构名时,则顺延将文章名或书名代替(即条目的第一部分是文章名或书名)1.8 对书籍的篇章的条目而言,书籍本身的编者的不颠倒。

2. 出版年份2.1 放在作者名的后面,用圆括号。

以句点结束。

2.2 杂志、报纸等出版物的文章除了提供年份之外,需要提供月份或月份加日子。

3. 出版物名称3.1 书、期刊、报纸、长诗、长篇小说等用斜体。

3.2 书、长诗、长篇小说等用句子格式,但是名称的专有名词和形容词仍需大写。

期刊、杂志、报纸等的文章用句子格式,但期刊、杂志和报纸等的名称用标题格式。

3.3 上述名称如有副标题,则副标题后的首字母需要大写(即冒号后的首字母要大写)。

3.4 文章不斜体,也不加引号。

4. 所在的城市4.1 凡是书籍的条目,一定要给出所在的城市名。

  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

Jan P. Allebach, School of Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 4 email: allebach@
ABSTRACT We propose an efficient vector quantization (VQ) technique which we call sequential scalar quantization (SSQ). The scalar components of the vector are individually quantized in a sequence, with the quantization of each component utilizing conditional information from the quantization of previous components. Unlike conventional independent scalar quantization (ISQ), SSQ has the ability to exploit inter-data correlation. At the same time, since quantization is performed on scalar rather than vector variables, SSQ offers a significant computational advantage over conventional VQ techniques, and is easily amenable to a hardware implementation. In order to analyze the performance of SSQ, we appeal to asymptotic quantization theory where the codebook size is assumed to be large. Closed form expressions are derived for the quantizer mean squared error (MSE). These expressions are used to compare the asymptotic performance of SSQ with other VQ techniques. We also demonstrate the use of asymptotic theory in designing SSQ for a practical application, color image quantization, where the codebook size is typically small. Theoretical and experimental results show that SSQ far outperforms ISQ with respect to MSE, while offering a considerable reduction in computation over conventional VQ at the expense of a moderate increase in MSE. 1. INTRODUCTION Vector quantization (VQ) has found increasing use in data compression applications such as image and speech coding. The technique is an extension of scalar quantization to the vectorial case, and is motivated by the well known result from Shannon's rate distortion theory that superior performance can always be achieved by coding vectors rather than scalars. As with scalar quantization, the objective in VQ design is to minimize a distortion criterion such as mean squared error (MSE). An iterative error minimization algorithm developed by Lloyd for scalar quantization was extended to the vector case by Linde, Buzo, and Gray [1]. The iterative nature of this algorithm makes it computationally very intensive. A host of other suboptimal but computationally simpler VQ techniques have been reported in the literature either as an alternative to the Linde-Buzo-Gray (LBG) algorithm, or as an initial step that may be refined by 1
the LBG technique. Excellent reviews of these techniques may be found in [2, 3, 4]. Until recently, the general class of VQ techniques has not received much attention for practical implementation because of the high computational cost, and the lack of codebook structures that are amenable to hardware implementation. In this paper, we propose a VQ technique, which we call sequential scalar quantization (SSQ). Although similar ideas have been alluded to in the literature [3, 4], to our knowledge, this method has not been theoretically analyzed or seriously pursued in any application. As the name implies, the basic idea behind the technique is to sequentially quantize the scalar components of a vector, rather than to quantize the vector as a whole. The main computational savings arises from the fact that we are quantizing along scalar rather than vector dimensions. At the same time, due to its sequential nature, SSQ possesses the ability to exploit the correlation and statistical dependency between scalar components of a vector. As is the case with any other VQ technique, SSQ attempts to minimize a distortion measure. In order to analyze and optimize the performance of SSQ with respect to this measure, we appeal to asymptotic or high-rate quantization theory, where the number of output quantization levels is assumed to be very large. This theory allows us to derive closed form expressions for the distortion resulting from SSQ as a function of the quantizer design parameters, and to find the optimum parameter values that minimize the distortion. It also proves to be a very useful tool in quantizer design even when the number of output levels is small. While SSQ may be used in any scenario that is amenable to vector quantization, we have investigated its use in the application of color image quantization, where a high quality color image is to be displayed on a low cost display device with a small palette of colors. Several VQ techniques have been applied to this problem. Braudaway [5] and Gentile et al. [6] used the LBG iterative algorithm for palette selection; Orchard and Bouman [7] utilized a tree-structured splitting VQ technique; and Balasubramanian and Allebach [8] reported a merging VQ approach. In [9], we describe in detail an algorithm that employs SSQ for color palette design. The algorithm uses the results of the asymptotic analysis developed in this paper to optimize the palette design with respect to a squared error criterion. We show that with the sequential 2
相关文档
最新文档