Human-in-the-loop

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) is used in multiple contexts. It can be defined as a model requiring human interaction. HITL is associated with modeling and simulation (M&S) in the live, virtual, and constructive taxonomy. HITL, along with the related human-on-the-loop, are also used in relation to lethal autonomous weapons. Further, HITL is used in the context of machine learning.It is also used in conversational AI to manage complex interactions that require human empathy. == Machine learning == In machine learning, HITL is used in the sense of humans aiding the computer in making the correct decisions in building a model. HITL improves machine learning over random sampling by selecting the most critical data needed to refine the model. == Simulation == In simulation, HITL models may conform to human factors requirements as in the case of a mockup. In this type of simulation, a human is always part of the simulation and consequently influences the outcome in such a way that is difficult if not impossible to reproduce exactly. HITL also readily allows for the identification of problems and requirements that may not be easily identified by other means of simulation. HITL is often referred to as an interactive simulation, which is a special kind of physical simulation in which physical simulations include human operators, such as in a flight or a driving simulator. === Benefits === Human-in-the-loop allows the user to change the outcome of an event or process. The immersion effectively contributes to a positive transfer of acquired skills into the real world. This can be demonstrated by trainees utilizing flight simulators in preparation to become pilots. HITL also allows for the acquisition of knowledge regarding how a new process may affect a particular event. Utilizing HITL allows participants to interact with realistic models and attempt to perform as they would in an actual scenario. HITL simulations bring to the surface issues that would not otherwise be apparent until after a new process has been deployed. A real-world example of HITL simulation as an evaluation tool is its usage by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow air traffic controllers to test new automation procedures by directing the activities of simulated air traffic while monitoring the effect of the newly implemented procedures. As with most processes, there is always the possibility of human error, which can only be reproduced using HITL simulation. Although much can be done to automate systems, humans typically still need to take the information provided by a system to determine the next course of action based on their judgment and experience. Intelligent systems can only go so far in certain circumstances to automate a process; only humans in the simulation can accurately judge the final design. Tabletop simulation may be useful in the very early stages of project development for the purpose of collecting data to set broad parameters, but the important decisions require human-in-the-loop simulation. HITL reflects scenarios where human input remains essential despite advances in automation. === Within the virtual simulation taxonomy === Virtual simulations inject HITL in a central role by exercising motor control skills (e.g. flying an airplane), decision making skills (e.g. committing fire control resources to action), or communication skills (e.g. as members of a C4I team). === Examples === Flight simulators Driving simulators Marine simulators Video games Supply chain management simulators Digital puppetry === Misconceptions === Although human-in-the-loop simulation can include a computer simulation in the form of a synthetic environment, computer simulation is not necessarily a form of human-in-the-loop simulation, and is often considered as human-out-of-the loop simulation. In this particular case, a computer model’s behavior is modified according to a set of initial parameters. The results of the model differ from the results stemming from a true human-in-the-loop simulation because the results can easily be replicated time and time again, by simply providing identical parameters. == Weapons == === Taxonomy === Three classifications of the degree of human control of autonomous weapon systems were laid out by Bonnie Docherty in a 2012 Human Rights Watch report. human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous) human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved === Positive human action === In discussions of autonomous weapons and nuclear command and control, the phrase positive human action has been used alongside "human-in-the-loop" to emphasize that a human operator must affirmatively authorize the use of force. Descriptions of the United States Navy's Aegis Combat System have used the phrase in characterizing a requirement for affirmative human action to initiate live firing. A survey of autonomous weapons systems described the Aegis "Auto SM" mode as one in which "the system fully develops the engagement process however engagement requires positive human action". The phrase entered United States federal law in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, which stipulates that artificial intelligence systems not compromise "the principle of requiring positive human actions in execution of decisions by the President with respect to the employment of nuclear weapons".

Metadatabase

Metadatabase is a database model for (1) metadata management, (2) global query of independent databases, and (3) distributed data processing. The word metadatabase is an addition to the dictionary. Originally, metadata was only a common term referring simply to "data about data", such as tags, keywords, and markup headers. However, in this technology, the concept of metadata is extended to also include such data and knowledge representation as information models (e.g., relations, entities-relationships, and objects), application logic (e.g., production rules), and analytic models (e.g., simulation, optimization, and mathematical algorithms). In the case of analytic models, it is also referred to as a Modelbase. These classes of metadata are integrated with some modeling ontology to give rise to a stable set of meta-relations (tables of metadata). Individual models are interpreted as metadata and entered into these tables. As such, models are inserted, retrieved, updated, and deleted in the same manner as ordinary data do in an ordinary (relational) database. Users will also formulate global queries and requests for processing of local databases through the Metadatabase, using the globally integrated metadata. The Metadatabase structure can be implemented in any open technology for relational databases. == Significance == The Metadatabase technology is developed at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute at Troy, New York, by a group of faculty and students (see the references at the end of the article), starting in late 1980s. Its main contribution includes the extension of the concept of metadata and metadata management, and the original approach of designing a database for metadata applications. These conceptual results continue to motivate new research and new applications. At the level of particular design, its openness and scalability is tied to that of the particular ontology proposed: It requires reverse-representation of the application models in order to save them into the meta-relations. In theory, the ontology is neutral, and it has been proven in some industrial applications. However, it needs more development to establish it for the field as an open technology. The requirement of reverse-representation is common to any global information integration technology. A way to facilitate it in the Metadatabase approach is to distribute a core portion of it at each local site, to allow for peer-to-peer translation on the fly.

Collision detection

Collision detection is the computational problem of detecting an intersection of two or more objects in virtual space. More precisely, it deals with the questions of if, when, and where two or more objects intersect. Collision detection is a classic problem of computational geometry with applications in computer graphics, physical simulation, video games, robotics (including autonomous driving), and computational physics. Collision detection algorithms can be divided into operating on 2D or 3D spatial objects. == Overview == Collision detection is closely linked to calculating the distance between objects, as objects collide when the distance between them is less than or equal to zero. Negative distances indicate that one object has penetrated another. Performing collision detection requires more context than just the distance between the objects. Accurately identifying the points of contact on both objects' surfaces is also essential for computing a physically accurate collision response. The complexity of this task increases with the level of detail in the objects' representations: the more intricate the model, the greater the computational cost. Collision detection frequently involves dynamic objects, adding a temporal dimension to distance calculations. Instead of simply measuring distance between static objects, collision detection algorithms often aim to determine whether the objects' motion will bring them to a point in time when their distance is zero—an operation that adds significant computational overhead. In collision detection involving multiple objects, a naive approach would require detecting collisions for all pairwise combinations of objects. As the number of objects increases, the number of required comparisons grows rapidly: for n {\displaystyle n} objects, n ( n − 1 ) / 2 {n(n-1)}/{2} intersection tests are needed with a naive approach. This quadratic growth makes such an approach computationally expensive as n {\displaystyle n} increases. Due to the complexity mentioned above, collision detection is a computationally intensive process. Nevertheless, it is essential for interactive applications like video games, robotics, and real-time physics engines. To manage these computational demands, extensive efforts have gone into optimizing collision detection algorithms. A commonly used approach towards accelerating the required computations is to divide the process into two phases: the broad phase and the narrow phase. The broad phase aims to answer the question of whether objects might collide, using a conservative but efficient approach to rule out pairs that clearly do not intersect, thus avoiding unnecessary calculations. Objects that cannot be definitively separated in the broad phase are passed to the narrow phase. Here, more precise algorithms determine whether these objects actually intersect. If they do, the narrow phase often calculates the exact time and location of the intersection. == Broad phase == This phase aims at quickly finding objects or parts of objects for which it can be quickly determined that no further collision test is needed. A useful property of such approach is that it is output sensitive. In the context of collision detection this means that the time complexity of the collision detection is proportional to the number of objects that are close to each other. An early example of that is the I-COLLIDE where the number of required narrow phase collision tests was O ( n + m ) {\displaystyle O(n+m)} where n {\displaystyle n} is the number of objects and m {\displaystyle m} is the number of objects at close proximity. This is a significant improvement over the quadratic complexity of the naive approach. === Spatial partitioning === Several approaches can be grouped under the spatial partitioning umbrella, which includes octrees (for 3D), quadtrees (for 2D), binary space partitioning (or BSP trees) and other, similar approaches. If one splits space into a number of simple cells, and if two objects can be shown not to be in the same cell, then they need not be checked for intersection. Dynamic scenes and deformable objects require updating the partitioning which can add overhead. === Bounding volume hierarchy === Bounding Volume Hierarchy (BVH) is a tree structure over a set of bounding volumes. Collision is determined by doing a tree traversal starting from the root. If the bounding volume of the root doesn't intersect with the object of interest, the traversal can be stopped. If, however there is an intersection, the traversal proceeds and checks the branches for each there is an intersection. Branches for which there is no intersection with the bounding volume can be culled from further intersection test. Therefore, multiple objects can be determined to not intersect at once. BVH can be used with deformable objects such as cloth or soft-bodies but the volume hierarchy has to be adjusted as the shape deforms. For deformable objects we need to be concerned about self-collisions or self intersections. BVH can be used for that end as well. Collision between two objects is computed by computing intersection between the bounding volumes of the root of the tree as there are collision we dive into the sub-trees that intersect. Exact collisions between the actual objects, or its parts (often triangles of a triangle mesh) need to be computed only between intersecting leaves. The same approach works for pair wise collision and self-collisions. === Exploiting temporal coherence === During the broad-phase, when the objects in the world move or deform, the data-structures used to cull collisions have to be updated. In cases where the changes between two frames or time-steps are small and the objects can be approximated well with axis-aligned bounding boxes, the sweep and prune algorithm can be a suitable approach. Several key observation make the implementation efficient: Two bounding-boxes intersect if, and only if, there is overlap along all three axes; overlap can be determined, for each axis separately, by sorting the intervals for all the boxes; and lastly, between two frames updates are typically small (making sorting algorithms optimized for almost-sorted lists suitable for this application). The algorithm keeps track of currently intersecting boxes, and as objects move, re-sorting the intervals helps keep track of the status. === Pairwise pruning === Once a pair of physical bodies has been selected for further investigation, collisions need to be checked more carefully. However, in many applications, individual objects (if they are not too deformable) are described by a set of smaller primitives, mainly triangles. So there are two sets of triangles, S = S 1 , S 2 , … , S n {\displaystyle S={S_{1},S_{2},\dots ,S_{n}}} and T = T 1 , T 2 , … , T n {\displaystyle T={T_{1},T_{2},\dots ,T_{n}}} (for simplicity, each set has the same number of triangles.) The obvious thing to do is to check all triangles S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} against all triangles T k {\displaystyle T_{k}} for collisions, but this involves n 2 {\displaystyle n^{2}} comparisons, which is highly inefficient. If possible, it is desirable to use a pruning algorithm to reduce the number of pairs of triangles that need to be checked. The most widely used family of algorithms is known as the hierarchical bounding volumes method. As a preprocessing step, for each object (e.g., S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} ) calculates a hierarchy of bounding volumes. Then, at each time step, when collisions need to be checked between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , the hierarchical bounding volumes are used to reduce the number of pairs of triangles under consideration. For simplicity, provide an example using bounding spheres, although it has been noted that spheres are undesirable in many cases. If E {\displaystyle E} is a set of triangles, a bounding sphere is pre-calculated. B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} . There are many ways of choosing B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} , B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} is a sphere that completely contains E {\displaystyle E} and is as small as possible. Ahead of time, B ( S ) {\displaystyle B(S)} and B ( T ) {\displaystyle B(T)} can be computed. Clearly, if these two spheres do not intersect (and that is very easy to test), then neither do S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} . This is not much better than an n-body pruning algorithm, however. If E = E 1 , E 2 , … , E m {\displaystyle E={E_{1},E_{2},\dots ,E_{m}}} is a set of triangles, then split it into two halves L ( E ) := E 1 , E 2 , … , E m / 2 {\displaystyle L(E):={E_{1},E_{2},\dots ,E_{m/2}}} and R ( E ) := E m / 2 + 1 , … , E m − 1 , E m {\displaystyle R(E):={E_{m/2+1},\dots ,E_{m-1},E_{m}}} . Apply this to S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , and calculate (ahead of time) the bounding spheres B ( L ( S ) ) , B ( R ( S ) ) {\displaystyle B(L(S)),B(R(S))} and B ( L ( T ) ) , B ( R ( T ) ) {\displaystyle B(L(T)),B(R(T))} . T

Two-phase locking

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.

Glyph (data visualization)

In the context of data visualization, a glyph is any marker, such as an arrow or similar marking, used to specify part of a visualization. This is a representation to visualize data where the data set is presented as a collection of visual objects. These visual objects are collectively called a glyph. It helps visualizing data relation in data analysis, statistics, etc. by using any custom notation. In the context of data visualization, a glyph is the visual representation of a piece of data where the attributes of a graphical entity are dictated by one or more attributes of a data record. == Constructing glyphs == Glyph construction can be a complex process when there are many dimensions to be represented in the visualization. Maguire et al proposed a taxonomy based approach to glyph-design that uses a tree to guide the visual encodings used to representation various data items. Duffy et al created perhaps one of the most complex glyph representations with their representation of sperm movement.

Loebner Prize

The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

Commitment ordering

Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means (reliable, high-performance, distributed, and scalable) to achieve global serializability (modular serializability) across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms (CO also makes each system serializability compliant, if not already). Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the commitment order coordinator—COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such, CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability), instrumental for global concurrency control (and distributed concurrency control) of multi-database systems and other transactional objects, possibly highly distributed (e.g., within cloud computing, grid computing, and networks of smartphones). An atomic commitment protocol (ACP; of any type) is a fundamental part of the solution, utilized to break global cycles in the conflict (precedence, serializability) graph. CO is the most general property (a necessary condition) that guarantees global serializability, if the database systems involved do not share concurrency control information beyond atomic commitment protocol (unmodified) messages and have no knowledge of whether transactions are global or local (the database systems are autonomous). Thus CO (with its variants) is the only general technique that does not require the typically costly distribution of local concurrency control information (e.g., local precedence relations, locks, timestamps, or tickets). It generalizes the popular strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) property, which in conjunction with the two-phase commit protocol (2PC), is the de facto standard to achieve global serializability across (SS2PL based) database systems. As a result, CO compliant database systems (with any different concurrency control types) can transparently join such SS2PL based solutions for global serializability. In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, a vital side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL). Furthermore, strict commitment ordering (SCO; Raz 1991c), the intersection of Strictness and CO, provides better performance (shorter average transaction completion time and resulting in better transaction throughput) than SS2PL whenever read-write conflicts are present (identical blocking behavior for write-read and write-write conflicts; comparable locking overhead). The advantage of SCO is especially during lock contention. Strictness allows both SS2PL and SCO to use the same effective database recovery mechanisms. Two major generalizing variants of CO exist, extended CO (ECO; Raz 1993a) and multi-version CO (MVCO; Raz 1993b). They also provide global serializability without local concurrency control information distribution, can be combined with any relevant concurrency control, and allow optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. Both use additional information for relaxing CO constraints and achieving better concurrency and performance. Vote ordering (VO or Generalized CO (GCO); Raz 2009) is a container schedule set (property) and technique for CO and all its variants. Local VO is necessary for guaranteeing global serializability if the atomic commitment protocol (ACP) participants do not share concurrency control information (have the generalized autonomy property). CO and its variants inter-operate transparently, guaranteeing global serializability and automatic global deadlock resolution together in a mixed, heterogeneous environment with different variants. == Overview == The Commitment ordering (CO; Raz 1990, 1992, 1994, 2009) schedule property has been referred to also as Dynamic atomicity (since 1988), commit ordering, commit order serializability, and strong recoverability (since 1991). The latter is a misleading name since CO is incomparable with recoverability, and the term "strong" implies a special case. This means that a substantial recoverability property does not necessarily have the CO property and vice versa. In 2009 CO has been characterized as a major concurrency control method, together with the previously known (since the 1980s) three major methods: Locking, Time-stamp ordering, and Serialization graph testing, and as an enabler for the interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple and possibly Distributed databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is still serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. The problem of achieving global serializability effectively had been characterized as open until the public disclosure of CO in 1991 by its inventor Yoav Raz (Raz 1991a; see also Global serializability). Enforcing CO is an effective way to enforce conflict serializability globally in a distributed system since enforcing CO locally in each database (or other transactional objects) also enforces it globally. Each database may use any, possibly different, type of concurrency control mechanism. With a local mechanism that already provides conflict serializability, enforcing CO locally does not cause any other aborts, since enforcing CO locally does not affect the data access scheduling strategy of the mechanism (this scheduling determines the serializability related aborts; such a mechanism typically does not consider the commitment events or their order). The CO solution requires no communication overhead since it uses (unmodified) atomic commitment protocol messages only, already needed by each distributed transaction to reach atomicity. An atomic commitment protocol plays a central role in the distributed CO algorithm, which enforces CO globally by breaking global cycles (cycles that span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph. CO, its special cases, and its generalizations are interoperable and achieve global serializability while transparently being utilized together in a single heterogeneous distributed environment comprising objects with possibly different concurrency control mechanisms. As such, Commitment ordering, including its special cases, and together with its generalizations (see CO variants below), provides a general, high performance, fully distributed solution (no central processing component or central data structure are needed) for guaranteeing global serializability in heterogeneous environments of multidatabase systems and other multiple transactional objects (objects with states accessed and modified only by transactions; e.g., in the framework of transactional processes, and within Cloud computing and Grid computing). The CO solution scales up with network size and the number of databases without any negative impact on performance (assuming the statistics of a single distributed transaction, e.g., the average number of databases involved with a single transaction, are unchanged). With the proliferation of Multi-core processors, Optimistic CO (OCO) has also been increasingly utilized to achieve serializability in software transactional memory, and numerous STM articles and patents utilizing "commit order" have already been published (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). == The commitment ordering solution for global serializability == === General characterization of CO === Commitment ordering (CO) is a special case of conflict serializability. CO can be enforced with non-blocking mechanisms (each transaction can complete its task without having its data-access blocked, which allows optimistic concurrency control; however, commitment could be blo