An ordered key–value store (OKVS) is a type of data storage paradigm that can support multi-model databases. An OKVS is an ordered mapping of bytes to bytes. An OKVS will keep the key–value pairs sorted by the key lexicographic order. OKVS systems provides different set of features and performance trade-offs. Most of them are shipped as a library without network interfaces, in order to be embedded in another process. Most OKVS support ACID guarantees. Some OKVS are distributed databases. Ordered key–value stores found their way into many modern database systems including NewSQL database systems. == History == The origin of ordered key–value store stems from the work of Ken Thompson on dbm in 1979. Later in 1991, Berkeley DB was released that featured a B-Tree backend that allowed the keys to stay sorted. Berkeley DB was said to be very fast and made its way into various commercial product. It was included in Python standard library until 2.7. In 2009, Tokyo Cabinet was released that was superseded by Kyoto Cabinet that support both transaction and ordered keys. In 2011, LMDB was created to replace Berkeley DB in OpenLDAP. There is also Google's LevelDB that was forked by Facebook in 2012 as RocksDB. In 2014, WiredTiger, successor of Berkeley DB was acquired by MongoDB and is since 2019 the primary backend of MongoDB database. Other notable implementation of the OKVS paradigm are Sophia and SQLite3 LSM extension. Another notable use of OKVS paradigm is the multi-model database system called ArangoDB based on RocksDB. Some NewSQL databases are supported by ordered key–value stores. JanusGraph, a property graph database, has both a Berkeley DB backend and FoundationDB backend. == Key concepts == === Lexicographic encoding === There are algorithms that encode basic data types (boolean, string, number) and composition of those data types inside sorted containers (tuple, list, vector) that preserve their natural ordering. It is possible to work with an ordered key–value store without having to work directly with bytes. In FoundationDB, it is called the tuple layer. === Range query === Inside an OKVS, keys are ordered, and because of that it is possible to do range queries. A range query retrieves all keys between two specified keys, ensuring that the fetched keys are returned in a sorted order. === Subspaces === === Key composition === One can construct key spaces to build higher level abstractions. The idea is to construct keys, that takes advantage of the ordered nature of the top level key space. When taking advantage of the ordered nature of the key space, one can query ranges of keys that have particular pattern. === Denormalization === Denormalization, as in, repeating the same piece of data in multiple subspace is common practice. It allows to create secondary representation, also called indices, that will allow to speed up queries. == Higher level abstractions == The following abstraction or databases were built on top ordered key–value stores: Timeseries database, Record Database, also known as Row store databases, they behave similarly to what is dubbed RDBMS, Tuple Stores, also known as Triple Store or Quad Store but also Generic Tuple Store, Document database, that mimics MongoDB API, Full-text search Geographic Information Systems Property Graph Versioned Data Vector space database for Approximate Nearest Neighbor All those abstraction can co-exist with the same OKVS database and when ACID is supported, the operations happens with the guarantees offered by the transaction system. == Feature matrix == == Use-cases == OKVS are useful to implement two strategies: optimize a small feature e.g. to make a 10% improvement in read or write latency; the second strategy is to take advantage of the distributed nature of FoundationDB, and TiKV, for which there is no equivalent at very large scale in resilience. Both users need to re-implement the needed high level abstractions, because there are no portable ready-to-use libraries of high-level abstraction. There is still a complex balance, of complexity, maintainability, fine-tuning, and readily available features that makes it still a choice of experts. Sometime more specialized data-structures can be faster than a high-level abstraction on top of an OKVS. Another interest of OKVS paradigm stems from it simple, and versatile interface, that makes it an interesting target for experimental storage algorithms, and data structures.
IDMS
The Integrated Database Management System (IDMS) is a network model (CODASYL) database management system for mainframes. It was first developed at BFGoodrich and later marketed by Cullinane Database Systems (renamed Cullinet in 1983). Since 1989 the product has been owned by Computer Associates (now CA Technologies), who renamed it Advantage CA-IDMS and later simply to CA IDMS. In 2018 Broadcom acquired CA Technologies, renaming it back to IDMS. == History == The roots of IDMS go back to the pioneering database management system called Integrated Data Store (IDS), developed at General Electric by a team led by Charles Bachman and first released in 1964. In the early 1960s IDS was taken from its original form, by the computer group of the BFGoodrich Chemical Division, and re-written in a language called Intermediate System Language (ISL). ISL was designed as a portable system programming language able to produce code for a variety of target machines. Since ISL was actually written in ISL, it was able to be ported to other machine architectures with relative ease, and then to produce code that would execute on them. The Chemical Division computer group had given some thought to selling copies of IDMS to other companies, but was told by management that they were not in the software products business. Eventually, a deal was struck with John Cullinane to buy the rights and market the product. Because Cullinane was required to remit royalties back to B.F. Goodrich, all add-on products were listed and billed as separate products – even if they were mandatory for the core IDMS product to work. This sometimes confused customers. The original platforms were the GE 235 computer and GE DATANET-30 message switching computer: later the product was ported to IBM mainframes and to DEC and ICL hardware. The IBM-ported version runs on IBM mainframe systems (System/360, System/370, System/390, zSeries, System z9). In the mid-1980s, it was claimed that some 2,500 IDMS licenses had been sold. Users included the Strategic Air Command, Ford of Canada, Ford of Europe, Jaguar Cars, Clarks Shoes UK, Axa/PPP, MAPFRE, Royal Insurance, Tesco, Manulife, Hudson's Bay Company, Cleveland Clinic, Bank of Canada, General Electric, Aetna and BT in the UK. A version for use on the Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-11 series of computers was sold to DEC and was marketed as DBMS-11. In 1976 the source code was licensed to ICL, who ported the software to run on their 2900 series mainframes, and subsequently also on the older 1900 range. ICL continued development of the software independently of Cullinane, selling the original ported product under the name ICL 2900 IDMS and an enhanced version as IDMSX. In this form it was used by many large UK users, an example being the Pay-As-You-Earn system operated by Inland Revenue. Many of these IDMSX systems for UK Government were still running in 2013. In the early to mid-1980s, relational database management systems started to become more popular, encouraged by increasing hardware power and the move to minicomputers and client–server architecture. Relational databases offered improved development productivity over CODASYL systems, and the traditional objections based on poor performance were slowly diminishing. Cullinet attempted to continue competing against IBM's DB2 and other relational databases by developing a relational front-end and a range of productivity tools. These included Automatic System Facility (ASF), which made use of a pre-existing IDMS feature called LRF (Logical Record Facility). ASF was a fill-in-the-blanks database generator that would also develop a mini-application to maintain the tables. It is difficult to judge whether such features may have been successful in extending the selling life of the product, but they made little impact in the long term. Those users who stayed with IDMS were primarily interested in its high performance, not in its relational capabilities. It was widely recognized (helped by a high-profile campaign by E. F. Codd, the father of the relational model) that there was a significant difference between a relational database and a network database with a relational veneer. In 1989 Computer Associates continued after Cullinet acquisition with the development and released Release 12.0 with full SQL in 1992–93. CA Technologies continued to market and support the CA IDMS and enhanced IDMS in subsequent releases by TCP/IP support, two phase commit support, XML publishing, zIIP specialty processor support, Web-enabled access in combination with CA IDMS Server, SQL Option and GUI database administration via CA IDMS Visual DBA tool. CA-IDMS systems are today still running businesses worldwide. Many customers have opted to web-enable their applications via the CA-IDMS SQL Option which is part of CA Technologies' Dual Database Strategy. == Integrated Data Dictionary == One of the sophisticated features of IDMS was its built-in Integrated data dictionary (IDD). The IDD was primarily developed to maintain database definitions. It was itself an IDMS database. DBAs (database administrators) and other users interfaced with the IDD using a language called Data Dictionary Definition Language (DDDL). IDD was also used to store definitions and code for other products in the IDMS family such as ADS/Online and IDMS-DC. IDD's power was that it was extensible and could be used to create definitions of just about anything. Some companies used it to develop in-house documentation. == Overview == === Logical Data Model === The data model offered to users is the CODASYL network model. The main structuring concepts in this model are records and sets. Records essentially follow the COBOL pattern, consisting of fields of different types: this allows complex internal structure such as repeating items and repeating groups. The most distinctive structuring concept in the Codasyl model is the set. Not to be confused with a mathematical set, a Codasyl set represents a one-to-many relationship between records: one owner, many members. The fact that a record can be a member in many different sets is the key factor that distinguishes the network model from the earlier hierarchical model. As with records, each set belongs to a named set type (different set types model different logical relationships). Sets are in fact ordered, and the sequence of records in a set can be used to convey information. A record can participate as an owner and member of any number of sets. Records have identity, the identity being represented by a value known as a database key. In IDMS, as in most other Codasyl implementations, the database key is directly related to the physical address of the record on disk. Database keys are also used as pointers to implement sets in the form of linked lists and trees. This close correspondence between the logical model and the physical implementation (which is not a strictly necessary part of the Codasyl model, but was a characteristic of all successful implementations) is responsible for the efficiency of database retrieval, but also makes operations such as database loading and restructuring rather expensive. Records can be accessed directly by database key, by following set relationships, or by direct access using key values. Initially the only direct access was through hashing, a mechanism known in the Codasyl model as CALC access. In IDMS, CALC access is implemented through an internal set, linking all records that share the same hash value to an owner record that occupies the first few bytes of every disk page. In subsequent years, some versions of IDMS added the ability to access records using BTree-like indexes. === Storage === IDMS organizes its databases as a series of files. These files are mapped and pre-formatted into so-called areas. The areas are subdivided into pages which correspond to physical blocks on the disk. The database records are stored within these blocks. The DBA allocates a fixed number of pages in a file for each area. The DBA then defines which records are to be stored in each area, and details of how they are to be stored. IDMS intersperses special space-allocation pages throughout the database. These pages are used to keep track of the free space available in each page in the database. To reduce I/O requirements, the free space is only tracked for all pages when the free space for the area falls below 30%. Four methods are available for storing records in an IDMS database: Direct, Sequential, CALC, and VIA. The Fujitsu/ICL IDMSX version extends this with two more methods, Page Direct, and Random. In direct mode the target database key is specified by the user and is stored as close as possible to that DB key, with the actual DB key on which the record is stored being returned to the application program. Sequential placement (not to be confused with indexed sequential), simply places each new record at the end of the area. This option is rarely used. CALC uses a hashing algo
Markov blanket
In statistics and machine learning, a Markov blanket of a random variable is a set of variables that renders the variable conditionally independent of all other variables in the system. This concept is central in probabilistic graphical models and feature selection. If a Markov blanket is minimal—meaning that no variable in it can be removed without losing this conditional independence—it is called a Markov boundary. Identifying a Markov blanket or boundary allows for efficient inference and helps isolate relevant variables for prediction or causal reasoning. The terms Markov blanket and Markov boundary were coined by Judea Pearl in 1988. A Markov blanket may be derived from the structure of a probabilistic graphical model such as a Bayesian network or Markov random field. == Definition == A Markov blanket of a random variable Y {\displaystyle Y} in a random variable set S = { X 1 , … , X n } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}=\{X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}\}} is any subset S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} of S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , conditioned on which other variables are independent with Y {\displaystyle Y} : Y ⊥ ⊥ S ∖ S 1 ∣ S 1 {\displaystyle Y\perp \!\!\!\perp {\mathcal {S}}\smallsetminus {\mathcal {S}}_{1}\mid {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} It means that S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} contains at least all the information one needs to infer Y {\displaystyle Y} , where the variables in S ∖ S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}\smallsetminus {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} are redundant. In general, a given Markov blanket is not unique. Any set in S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} that contains a Markov blanket is also a Markov blanket itself. Specifically, S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a Markov blanket of Y {\displaystyle Y} in S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} . === Example === In a Bayesian network, the Markov blanket of a node consists of its parents, its children, and its children's other parents (i.e., co-parents). Knowing the values of these nodes makes the target node conditionally independent of the rest of the network. In a Markov random field, the Markov blanket of a node is simply its immediate neighbors. == Markov condition == The concept of a Markov blanket is rooted in the Markov condition, which states that in a probabilistic graphical model, each variable is conditionally independent of its non-descendants given its parents. This condition implies the existence of a minimal separating set — the Markov blanket — that shields a variable from the rest of the network. For instance, when a person holds an object stationary against gravity, the object’s acceleration is fully determined by its direct causes—namely, the upward force from the hand and the downward gravitational pull. Other variables such as air pressure or temperature are causally irrelevant. == Markov boundary == A Markov boundary of Y {\displaystyle Y} in S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a subset S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} of S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , such that S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} itself is a Markov blanket of Y {\displaystyle Y} , but any proper subset of S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} is not a Markov blanket of Y {\displaystyle Y} . In other words, a Markov boundary is a minimal Markov blanket. The Markov boundary of a node A {\displaystyle A} in a Bayesian network is the set of nodes composed of A {\displaystyle A} 's parents, A {\displaystyle A} 's children, and A {\displaystyle A} 's children's other parents. In a Markov random field, the Markov boundary for a node is the set of its neighboring nodes. In a dependency network, the Markov boundary for a node is the set of its parents. === Uniqueness of Markov boundary === The Markov boundary always exists. Under some mild conditions, the Markov boundary is unique. However, for most practical and theoretical scenarios multiple Markov boundaries may provide alternative solutions. When there are multiple Markov boundaries, quantities measuring causal effect could fail. == In cognitive science == In the study of consciousness, brain function, and complex adaptive systems, Markov blankets are proposed as a mathematical mechanism which delimits the extent of cognitive entities, whether it be physical or causal.
Apache Mahout
Apache Mahout is a project of the Apache Software Foundation to produce free implementations of distributed or otherwise scalable machine learning algorithms focused primarily on linear algebra. In the past, many of the implementations use the Apache Hadoop platform, however today it is primarily focused on Apache Spark. Mahout also provides Java/Scala libraries for common math operations (focused on linear algebra and statistics) and primitive Java collections. Mahout is a work in progress; a number of algorithms have been implemented. == Features == === Samsara === Apache Mahout-Samsara refers to a Scala domain-specific language (DSL) that allows users to use R-like syntax as opposed to traditional Scala-like syntax. This allows user to express algorithms concisely and clearly. === Backend agnostic === Apache Mahout's code abstracts the domain-specific language from the engine where the code is run. While active development is done with the Apache Spark engine, users are free to implement any engine they choose- H2O and Apache Flink have been implemented in the past and examples exist in the code base. === GPU/CPU accelerators === The JVM has notoriously slow computation. To improve speed, "native solvers" were added which move in-core, and by extension, distributed BLAS operations out of the JVM, offloading to off-heap or GPU memory for processing via multiple CPUs and/or CPU cores, or GPUs when built against the ViennaCL library. ViennaCL is a highly optimized C++ library with BLAS operations implemented in OpenMP, and OpenCL. As of release 14.1, the OpenMP build considered to be stable, leaving the OpenCL build is still in its experimental proof-of-concept phase. === Recommenders === Apache Mahout features implementations of Alternating Least Squares, Co-Occurrence, and Correlated Co-Occurrence, a unique-to-Mahout recommender algorithm that extends co-occurrence to be used on multiple dimensions of data. == History == === Transition from Map Reduce to Apache Spark === While Mahout's core algorithms for clustering, classification and batch based collaborative filtering were implemented on top of Apache Hadoop using the map/reduce paradigm, it did not restrict contributions to Hadoop-based implementations. Contributions that run on a single node or on a non-Hadoop cluster were also welcomed. For example, the 'Taste' collaborative-filtering recommender component of Mahout was originally a separate project and can run stand-alone without Hadoop. Starting with the release 0.10.0, the project shifted its focus to building a backend-independent programming environment, code named "Samsara". The environment consists of an algebraic backend-independent optimizer and an algebraic Scala DSL unifying in-memory and distributed algebraic operators. Supported algebraic platforms are Apache Spark, H2O, and Apache Flink. Support for MapReduce algorithms started being gradually phased out in 2014. === Release history === === Developers === Apache Mahout is developed by a community. The project is managed by a group called the "Project Management Committee" (PMC). The current PMC is Andrew Musselman, Andrew Palumbo, Drew Farris, Isabel Drost-Fromm, Jake Mannix, Pat Ferrel, Paritosh Ranjan, Trevor Grant, Robin Anil, Sebastian Schelter, Stevo Slavić.
Evolutionary programming
Evolutionary programming is an evolutionary algorithm, where a share of new population is created by mutation of previous population without crossover. Evolutionary programming differs from evolution strategy ES( μ + λ {\displaystyle \mu +\lambda } ) in one detail. All individuals are selected for the new population, while in ES( μ + λ {\displaystyle \mu +\lambda } ), every individual has the same probability to be selected. It is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. == History == It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence. It was used to evolve finite-state machines as predictors.
Overcast (app)
Overcast is a podcast app for iOS that was launched in 2014 by founder and operator Marco Arment. == Founder and operator == Arment was also the Chief Technology Officer of Tumblr and founder of Instapaper before founding Overcast, and he had created his own podcasts before launching the app. In March 2023, Arment told The Vergecast how he built and maintains Overcast by himself, and that he uses ad banners promoting podcasts to cover the costs of the free app. == Features and reception == In 2014, Overcast received positive reviews from MacWorld and iMore. In 2015, The Verge and The Sweet Setup each named it the best podcast app for iOS that year. In 2017, Discover Pods gave an endorsement citing the "smart speed" feature, which shortens quiet gaps in a podcast. In April 2019, Overcast introduced a feature that allowed users to share clips from podcasts to social media. In January 2020, Overcast was updated to allow users to skip the intros and outros of podcasts.
NOMINATE (scaling method)
NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress