In databases and transaction processing, two-phase locking (2PL) is a pessimistic concurrency control method that guarantees conflict-serializability. It is also the name of the resulting set of database transaction schedules (histories). The protocol uses locks, applied by a transaction to data, which may block (interpreted as signals to stop) other transactions from accessing the same data during the transaction's life. By the 2PL protocol, locks are applied and removed in two phases: Expanding phase: locks are acquired and no locks are released. Shrinking phase: locks are released and no locks are acquired. Two types of locks are used by the basic protocol: Shared and Exclusive locks. Refinements of the basic protocol may use more lock types. Using locks that block processes, 2PL, S2PL, and SS2PL may be subject to deadlocks that result from the mutual blocking of two or more transactions. == Read and write locks == Locks are used to guarantee serializability. A transaction is holding a lock on an object if that transaction has acquired a lock on that object which has not yet been released. For 2PL, the only used data-access locks are read-locks (shared locks) and write-locks (exclusive locks). Below are the rules for read-locks and write-locks: A transaction is allowed to read an object if and only if it is holding a read-lock or write-lock on that object. A transaction is allowed to write an object if and only if it is holding a write-lock on that object. A schedule (i.e., a set of transactions) is allowed to hold multiple locks on the same object simultaneously if and only if none of those locks are write-locks. If a disallowed lock attempts on being held simultaneously, it will be blocked. == Variants == Note that all conflict serializable schedules are also view serializable (but not vice-versa). === Two-phase locking === According to the two-phase locking protocol, each transaction handles its locks in two distinct, consecutive phases during the transaction's execution: Expanding phase (aka Growing phase): locks are acquired and no locks are released (the number of locks can only increase). Shrinking phase (aka Contracting phase): locks are released and no locks are acquired. The two phase locking rules can be summarized as: each transaction must never acquire a lock after it has released a lock. The serializability property is guaranteed for a schedule with transactions that obey this rule. Typically, without explicit knowledge in a transaction on end of phase 1, the rule is safely determined only when a transaction has completed processing and requested commit. In this case, all the locks can be released at once (phase 2). === Conservative two-phase locking === Conservative two-phase locking (C2PL) differs from 2PL in that transactions obtain all the locks they need before the actual execution begins. This is to ensure that a transaction that already holds some locks will not block waiting for other locks. C2PL prevents deadlocks. In cases of heavy lock contention, C2PL reduces the time locks are held on average, relative to 2PL and Strict 2PL, because transactions that hold locks are never blocked. In light lock contention, C2PL holds more locks than is necessary, because it is difficult to predict which locks will be needed in the future, thus leading to higher overhead. A C2PL transaction will not obtain any locks if it cannot obtain all the locks it needs in its initial request. Furthermore, each transaction needs to declare its read and write set (the data items that will be read/written), which is not always possible. Because of these limitations, C2PL is not used very frequently. === Strict two-phase locking === To comply with the strict two-phase locking (S2PL) protocol, a transaction needs to comply with 2PL, and release its write (exclusive) locks only after the transaction has ended (i.e., either committed or aborted). On the other hand, read (shared) locks are released regularly during the shrinking phase. Unlike 2PL, S2PL provides strictness (a special case of cascade-less recoverability). This protocol is not appropriate in B-trees because it causes Bottleneck (while B-trees always starts searching from the parent root). === Strong strict two-phase locking === or Rigorousness, or Rigorous scheduling, or Rigorous two-phase locking To comply with strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL), a transaction's read and write locks are released only after that transaction has ended (i.e., either committed or aborted). A transaction obeying SS2PL has only a phase 1 and lacks a phase 2 until the transaction has completed. Every SS2PL schedule is also an S2PL schedule, but not vice versa.
View synthesis
In computer graphics, view synthesis, or novel view synthesis, is a task which consists of generating images of a specific subject or scene from a specific point of view, when the only available information is pictures taken from different points of view. This task was only recently (late 2010s – early 2020s) tackled with significant success, mostly as a result of advances in machine learning. Notable successful methods are Neural radiance fields and 3D Gaussian Splatting. Applications of view synthesis are numerous, one of them being Free view point television. The technique has also been applied to real-estate marketing, where novel views of a listing's interior are generated from a limited set of photographs for use in virtual home staging.
Death of Elaine Herzberg
The death of Elaine Herzberg (August 2, 1968 – March 18, 2018) was the first recorded case of a pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car, after a collision that occurred late in the evening of March 18, 2018. Herzberg was pushing a bicycle across a four-lane road in Tempe, Arizona, United States, when she was struck by an Uber test vehicle, which was operating in self-drive mode with a human safety backup driver sitting in the driving seat. Herzberg was taken to the local hospital where she died of her injuries. Following the fatal incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a series of recommendations and sharply criticized Uber. The company suspended testing of self-driving vehicles in Arizona, where such testing had been approved since August 2016. Uber chose not to renew its permit for testing self-driving vehicles in California when it expired at the end of March 2018. Uber resumed testing in December 2018, starting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not criminally responsible for the crash. The back-up driver of the vehicle was charged with negligent homicide, pled guilty to endangerment, and was sentenced to three years' probation. While Herzberg was the first pedestrian killed by a self-driving car, driver Gao Yaning died in a Tesla semi-autonomous car two years earlier. A reporter for The Washington Post compared Herzberg's fate with that of Bridget Driscoll who, in the United Kingdom in 1896, was the first pedestrian to be killed by an automobile. The Arizona incident has magnified the importance of collision avoidance systems for self-driving vehicles. == Collision summary == Herzberg was crossing Mill Avenue (North) from west to east, approximately 360 feet (110 m) south of the intersection with Curry Road, outside the designated pedestrian crosswalk, close to the Red Mountain Freeway. She was pushing a bicycle laden with shopping bags, and had crossed at least two lanes of traffic when she was struck at approximately 9:58 pm MST (UTC−07:00) by a prototype Uber self-driving car based on a Volvo XC90, which was traveling north on Mill. The vehicle had been operating in autonomous mode since 9:39 pm, nineteen minutes before it struck and killed Herzberg. The car's human safety backup driver, Rafaela Vasquez, did not intervene in time to prevent the collision. Vehicle telemetry obtained after the crash showed that the human operator responded by moving the steering wheel less than a second before impact, and she engaged the brakes less than a second after impact. == Cause investigation == The county district attorney's office recused itself from the investigation, due to a prior joint partnership with Uber promoting their services as an alternative to driving under the influence of alcohol. Accounts differ on the speed limit at the place of the incident. According to Tempe police the car was traveling in a 35 mph (56 km/h) zone, but this is contradicted by a posted speed limit of 45 mph (72 km/h). The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a team of federal investigators to gather data from vehicle instruments, and to examine vehicle condition along with the actions taken by the safety driver. Their preliminary findings were substantiated by multiple event data recorders and proved the vehicle was traveling 43 miles per hour (69 km/h) when Herzberg was first detected 6 seconds (378 feet (115 m)) before impact; during 4.7 seconds the self driving system did not infer that emergency braking was needed. A vehicle traveling 43 mph (69 km/h) can generally stop within 89 feet (27 m) once the brakes are applied. The machine needed to be 1.3 seconds (82 feet (25 m)) away prior to discerning that emergency braking was required, whereas at least that much distance was required to stop. The system failed to behave properly. A total stopping distance of 76 feet itself would imply a safe speed under 25 mph (40 km/h). Human intervention was still legally required. Computer perception–reaction time would have been a speed limiting factor had the technology been superior to humans in ambiguous situations; however, the nascent computerized braking technology was disabled the day of the crash, and the machine's apparent 4.7-second perception–reaction (alarm) time allowed the car to travel 250 feet (76 m). Video released by the police on March 21 showed the safety driver was not watching the road moments before the vehicle struck Herzberg. === Environment === In widely disseminated remarks that would shape the narrative about the crash, which were later seen as prejudicial and subsequently contradicted by her own department, Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir was quoted stating that the collision was "unavoidable" based on the initial police investigation, which included a review of the video captured by an onboard camera. Moir faulted Herzberg for crossing the road in an unsafe manner: "It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available." According to Uber, safety drivers were trained to keep their hands very close to the wheel all the time while driving the vehicle so they were ready to quickly take control if necessary. The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them. His [sic] first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision. [...] it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway. Tempe police released video on March 21, 2018, showing footage recorded by two onboard cameras: one forward-looking, and one capturing the safety driver's actions. The forward-facing video shows that the self-driving car was traveling in the far right lane when it struck Herzberg. The driver-facing video shows the safety driver was looking down prior to the collision. The Uber operator is responsible for intervening and taking manual control when necessary as well as for monitoring diagnostic messages, which are displayed on a screen in the center console. In an interview conducted after the crash with NTSB, the driver stated she was monitoring the center stack at the time of the collision. After the Uber video was released, journalist Carolyn Said noted the police explanation of Herzberg's path meant she had already crossed two lanes of traffic before she was struck by the autonomous vehicle. The Marquee Theatre and Tempe Town Lake are west of Mill Avenue, and pedestrians commonly cross mid-street without detouring north to the crosswalk at Curry. According to reporting by the Phoenix New Times, Mill Avenue contains what appears to be a brick-paved path in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes; however, posted signs prohibit pedestrians from crossing in that location. When the second of the Mill Avenue bridges over the town lake was added in 1994 for northbound traffic, the X-shaped crossover in the median was installed to accommodate the potential closing of one of the two road bridges. The purpose of this brick-paved structure is purely to divert cars from one side to the other if a bridge is closed to traffic, and although it may look like a crosswalk for pedestrians, it is in fact a temporary roadway with vertical curbs and warning signs. === Software issues === Michael Ramsey, a self-driving car expert with Gartner, characterized the video as showing "a complete failure of the system to recognize an obviously seen person who is visible for quite some distance in the frame. Uber has some serious explaining to do about why this person wasn't seen and why the system didn't engage." The NTSB preliminary report, however, noted that the software did order the car to brake 1.3 seconds before the collision. A video shot from the vehicle's dashboard camera showed the safety driver looking down, away from the road. It also appeared that the driver's hands were not hovering above the steering wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake control of the car. Uber had moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties: one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting. The second person was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer. Mr. Kallman, the Uber spokesman, said the second person was in the car for purely data related tasks, not safety. When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber's operations. They were worried that going solo would make it harder to remain alert during hours of monotonous driving. The recorded telemetry showed the system had detected Herzberg six seconds before the crash, and classified her first as an unknown object, then as a
2025 Bilderberg Conference
The 2025 Bilderberg Conference was held between June 12–June 15, 2025 at the Grand Hôtel in Stockholm, Sweden. The 2025 meeting was the 71st edition of the event. A Bilderberg Group press release listed 121 participants from 23 countries. Established in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Bilderberg conferences (or meetings) are an annual private gathering of the European and North American political and business elite. Events are attended by between 120 and 150 people each year invited by the Bilderberg Group's steering committee; including prominent politicians, CEOs, national security experts, academics and journalists. Bilderberg conferences operate under the Chatham House Rule, meaning that participants are sworn to secrecy and cannot disclose the identity or affiliation of any particular speaker. As a result, media are not invited and delegates rarely speak about what was discussed. Permits for two public demonstrations against the meeting were requested, one of which, a march from the Norrmalm Square to the Grand Hôtel, was planned for June 14. == Agenda == The key topics for discussion were announced on the Bilderberg website shortly before the meeting. These topics included: == Participants == A list of 121 participants was published on the Bilderberg website. This list may not be complete, as a source connected to the Bilderberg group told The Daily Telegraph in 2013 that some attendees do not have their names publicized. Prime Minister of Sweden Ulf Kristersson attended the meeting despite his name not appearing on the published participant list.
Argument Interchange Format
The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) is an international effort to develop a representational mechanism for exchanging argument resources between research groups, tools, and domains using a semantically rich language. AIF traces its history back to a 2005 colloquium in Budapest. The result of the work in Budapest was first published as a draft description in 2006. Building on this foundation, further work then used the AIF to build foundations for the Argument Web. AIF-RDF is the extended ontology represented in the Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS) semantic language. The Argument Interchange Format introduces a small set of ontological concepts that aim to capture a common understanding of argument -- one that works in multiple domains (both domains of argumentation and also domains of academic research), so that data can be shared and re-used across different projects in different areas. These ontological concepts are: Information (I-nodes) Applications of Rules of Inference (RA-nodes) Applications of Rules of Conflict (CA-nodes) Applications of Rules of Preference (PA-nodes) extended by: Schematic Forms (F-nodes) that are instantiated by RA, CA and PA nodes The AIF has reifications in a variety of development environments and implementation languages including MySQL database schema RDF Prolog JSON as well as translations to visual languages such as DOT and SVG. AIF data can be accessed online at AIFdb.
Iterative reconstruction
Iterative reconstruction refers to iterative algorithms used to reconstruct 2D and 3D images in certain imaging techniques. For example, in computed tomography an image must be reconstructed from projections of an object. Here, iterative reconstruction techniques are usually a better, but computationally more expensive alternative to the common filtered back projection (FBP) method, which directly calculates the image in a single reconstruction step. In recent research works, scientists have shown that extremely fast computations and massive parallelism is possible for iterative reconstruction, which makes iterative reconstruction practical for commercialization. == Basic concepts == The reconstruction of an image from the acquired data is an inverse problem. Often, it is not possible to exactly solve the inverse problem directly. In this case, a direct algorithm has to approximate the solution, which might cause visible reconstruction artifacts in the image. Iterative algorithms approach the correct solution using multiple iteration steps, which allows to obtain a better reconstruction at the cost of a higher computation time. There are a large variety of algorithms, but each starts with an assumed image, computes projections from the image, compares the original projection data and updates the image based upon the difference between the calculated and the actual projections. === Algebraic reconstruction === The Algebraic Reconstruction Technique (ART) was the first iterative reconstruction technique used for computed tomography by Hounsfield. === Iterative Sparse Asymptotic Minimum Variance === The iterative sparse asymptotic minimum variance algorithm is an iterative, parameter-free superresolution tomographic reconstruction method inspired by compressed sensing, with applications in synthetic-aperture radar, computed tomography scan, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). === Statistical reconstruction === There are typically five components to statistical iterative image reconstruction algorithms, e.g. An object model that expresses the unknown continuous-space function f ( r ) {\displaystyle f(r)} that is to be reconstructed in terms of a finite series with unknown coefficients that must be estimated from the data. A system model that relates the unknown object to the "ideal" measurements that would be recorded in the absence of measurement noise. Often this is a linear model of the form A x + ϵ {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} x+\epsilon } , where ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } represents the noise. A statistical model that describes how the noisy measurements vary around their ideal values. Often Gaussian noise or Poisson statistics are assumed. Because Poisson statistics are closer to reality, it is more widely used. A cost function that is to be minimized to estimate the image coefficient vector. Often this cost function includes some form of regularization. Sometimes the regularization is based on Markov random fields. An algorithm, usually iterative, for minimizing the cost function, including some initial estimate of the image and some stopping criterion for terminating the iterations. === Learned Iterative Reconstruction === In learned iterative reconstruction, the updating algorithm is learned from training data using techniques from machine learning such as convolutional neural networks, while still incorporating the image formation model. This typically gives faster and higher quality reconstructions and has been applied to CT and MRI reconstruction. == Advantages == The advantages of the iterative approach include improved insensitivity to noise and capability of reconstructing an optimal image in the case of incomplete data. The method has been applied in emission tomography modalities like SPECT and PET, where there is significant attenuation along ray paths and noise statistics are relatively poor. Statistical, likelihood-based approaches: Statistical, likelihood-based iterative expectation-maximization algorithms are now the preferred method of reconstruction. Such algorithms compute estimates of the likely distribution of annihilation events that led to the measured data, based on statistical principle, often providing better noise profiles and resistance to the streak artifacts common with FBP. Since the density of radioactive tracer is a function in a function space, therefore of extremely high-dimensions, methods which regularize the maximum-likelihood solution turning it towards penalized or maximum a-posteriori methods can have significant advantages for low counts. Examples such as Ulf Grenander's Sieve estimator or Bayes penalty methods, or via I.J. Good's roughness method may yield superior performance to expectation-maximization-based methods which involve a Poisson likelihood function only. As another example, it is considered superior when one does not have a large set of projections available, when the projections are not distributed uniformly in angle, or when the projections are sparse or missing at certain orientations. These scenarios may occur in intraoperative CT, in cardiac CT, or when metal artifacts require the exclusion of some portions of the projection data. In Magnetic Resonance Imaging it can be used to reconstruct images from data acquired with multiple receive coils and with sampling patterns different from the conventional Cartesian grid and allows the use of improved regularization techniques (e.g. total variation) or an extended modeling of physical processes to improve the reconstruction. For example, with iterative algorithms it is possible to reconstruct images from data acquired in a very short time as required for real-time MRI (rt-MRI). In Cryo Electron Tomography, where the limited number of projections are acquired due to the hardware limitations and to avoid the biological specimen damage, it can be used along with compressive sensing techniques or regularization functions (e.g. Huber function) to improve the reconstruction for better interpretation. Here is an example that illustrates the benefits of iterative image reconstruction for cardiac MRI.
Distributed artificial intelligence
Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) (also called Decentralized Artificial Intelligence) is a melding of artificial intelligence with distributed computing. From artificial intelligence comes the theory and technology for constructing or analyzing an intelligent system. But where artificial intelligence uses psychology as a source of ideas, inspiration, and metaphor, DAI uses sociology, economics, and management science for inspiration. Where the focus of artificial intelligence is on the individual, the focus of DAI is on the group. Distributed computing provides the computational substrate on which this group focus can occur. Using techniques from artificial intelligence, communication theory, control theory, and interaction theory, it produces a cooperative solution to problems by a decentralized group of computational entities (agents). DAI is closely related to and a predecessor of the field of multi-agent systems. They are distinguished generally by multi-agent systems being open, where the entities might arise from different interests and have individual goals, and distributed artificial-intelligence systems, where the entities have common goals. There are numerous applications and tools. == Definition == Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) is an approach to solving complex learning, planning, and decision-making problems. It is embarrassingly parallel, thus able to exploit large scale computation and spatial distribution of computing resources. These properties allow it to solve problems that require the processing of very large data sets. DAI systems consist of autonomous learning processing nodes (agents), that are distributed, often at a very large scale. DAI nodes can act independently, and partial solutions are integrated by communication between nodes, often asynchronously. By virtue of their scale, DAI systems are robust and elastic, and by necessity, loosely coupled. Furthermore, DAI systems are built to be adaptive to changes in the problem definition or underlying data sets due to the scale and difficulty in redeployment. DAI systems do not require all the relevant data to be aggregated in a single location, in contrast to monolithic or centralized Artificial Intelligence systems, which have tightly coupled and geographically close processing nodes. Therefore, DAI systems often operate on sub-samples or hashed impressions of very large datasets. In addition, the source dataset may change or be updated during the course of the execution of a DAI system. == Development == In 1975 distributed artificial intelligence emerged as a subfield of artificial intelligence that dealt with interactions of intelligent agents. As a scientific discipline, it progressed through a series of workshops in the USA (International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, held in 13 editions from 1978 - 1994), Europe (Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World https://link.springer.com/conference/maamaw), and Asia (Multi-Agent and Cooperative Computation Workshop (MACC) https://sites.google.com/view/sig-macc/macc-workshop?authuser=0). Distributed artificial intelligence systems were conceived as a group of intelligent entities, called agents, that interacted by cooperation, by coexistence, or by competition. DAI is categorized into multi-agent systems and distributed problem solving. In multi-agent systems the main focus is how agents coordinate their knowledge and activities. For distributed problem solving the major focus is how the problem is decomposed and the solutions are synthesized. == Goals == The objectives of Distributed Artificial Intelligence are to solve the reasoning, planning, learning and perception problems of artificial intelligence, especially if they require large data, by distributing the problem to autonomous processing nodes (agents). To reach the objective, DAI requires: A distributed system with robust and elastic computation on unreliable and failing resources that are loosely coupled Coordination of the actions and communication of the nodes Subsamples of large data sets and online machine learning There are many reasons for wanting to distribute intelligence or cope with multi-agent systems. Mainstream problems in DAI research include the following: Parallel problem solving: mainly deals with how classic artificial intelligence concepts can be modified, so that multiprocessor systems and clusters of computers can be used to speed up calculation. Distributed problem solving (DPS): the concept of agent, autonomous entities that can communicate with each other, was developed to serve as an abstraction for developing DPS systems. See below for further details. Multi-Agent Based Simulation (MABS): a branch of DAI that builds the foundation for simulations that need to analyze not only phenomena at macro level but also at micro level, as it is in many social simulation scenarios. == Approaches == Two types of DAI has emerged: In Multi-agent systems agents coordinate their knowledge and activities and reason about the processes of coordination. Agents are physical or virtual entities that can act, perceive their environment, and communicate with other agents. An agent is autonomous and has skills to achieve goals. The agents change the state of their environment by their actions. There are a number of different coordination techniques. In distributed problem solving the work is divided among nodes and the knowledge is shared. The main concerns are task decomposition and synthesis of the knowledge and solutions. DAI can apply a bottom-up approach to AI, similar to the subsumption architecture as well as the traditional top-down approach of AI. In addition, DAI can also be a vehicle for emergence. === Challenges === The challenges in Distributed AI are: How to carry out communication and interaction of agents and which communication language or protocols should be used. How to ensure the coherency of agents. How to synthesise the results among 'intelligent agents' group by formulation, description, decomposition and allocation. == Applications and tools == Areas where DAI have been applied are: Electronic commerce, e.g. for trading strategies the DAI system learns financial trading rules from subsamples of very large samples of financial data Networks, e.g. in telecommunications the DAI system controls the cooperative resources in a WLAN network Routing, e.g. model vehicle flow in transport networks Scheduling, e.g. flow shop scheduling where the resource management entity ensures local optimization and cooperation for global and local consistency Search engines, e.g. in LLM federated search like Ithy where document retrieval and analysis are distributed to DAI agents before aggregation Multi-Agent systems, e.g. artificial life, the study of simulated life Electric power systems, e.g. Condition Monitoring Multi-Agent System (COMMAS) applied to transformer condition monitoring, and IntelliTEAM II Automatic Restoration System DAI integration in tools has included: ECStar is a distributed rule-based learning system. == Agents == === Systems: Agents and multi-agents === Notion of Agents: Agents can be described as distinct entities with standard boundaries and interfaces designed for problem solving. Notion of Multi-Agents: Multi-Agent system is defined as a network of agents which are loosely coupled working as a single entity like society for problem solving that an individual agent cannot solve. === Software agents === The key concept used in DPS and MABS is the abstraction called software agents. An agent is a virtual (or physical) autonomous entity that has an understanding of its environment and acts upon it. An agent is usually able to communicate with other agents in the same system to achieve a common goal, that one agent alone could not achieve. This communication system uses an agent communication language. A first classification that is useful is to divide agents into: reactive agent – A reactive agent is not much more than an automaton that receives input, processes it and produces an output. deliberative agent – A deliberative agent in contrast should have an internal view of its environment and is able to follow its own plans. hybrid agent – A hybrid agent is a mixture of reactive and deliberative, that follows its own plans, but also sometimes directly reacts to external events without deliberation. Well-recognized agent architectures that describe how an agent is internally structured are: ASMO (emergence of distributed modules) BDI (Believe Desire Intention, a general architecture that describes how plans are made) InterRAP (A three-layer architecture, with a reactive, a deliberative and a social layer) PECS (Physics, Emotion, Cognition, Social, describes how those four parts influences the agents behavior). Soar (a rule-based approach)