Computer operating systems (OSes) provide a set of functions needed and used by most application programs on a computer, and the links needed to control and synchronize computer hardware. On the first computers, with no operating system, every program needed the full hardware specification to run correctly and perform standard tasks, and its own drivers for peripheral devices like printers and punched paper card readers. The growing complexity of hardware and application programs eventually made operating systems a necessity for everyday use. == Background == Early computers lacked any form of operating system. Instead, the user (rarely also the computer operator), had sole use of the machine for a scheduled period of time. The user would deliver his program to a computer operator who would be responsible for loading the computer with the program and data needed for its 'run'. Eventually, the end of a user's program could be detected and a control program automatically loaded which would load the next user's program, relieving the operator of having to load in each user's program individually and introducing the era of 'batched' programming. That is, a number of user programs could all be loaded together in a batch. Loading of program and data was accomplished in various ways including toggle switches (only used by a user on the earliest of computers, but later used by the computer operator to control the computer, e.g., to start it up, to shut it down, to 'pause', to 'dump' its RAM contents, and/or to control its input and/or its output), punched paper cards and magnetic or paper tape. Once loaded, the machine would be set to execute each program singly until that program completed, crashed, exceeded its time limit or went into a(n infinite) loop. In those early days, there were only 'Control Program' units for providing the software necessary to control the computers and ancillary hardware, e.g., for such semi hardware functions as I/O . None of the early 'Control Programs' were sufficiently sophisticated to recognize a looping user program or initiate a recovery action. Detection and recovery from a looping program was another critical operator function and was usually detected by the sound of the looping computer, whereupon the operator would simply initiate a complete dump of the executing program (for later debugging by the programmer) and then load in (or instruct the computer to go on to) the next user's program. Programs could sometimes be debugged via a control panel using dials, toggle switches and panel lights, making it a very manual and error-prone process. But, this was quite rare, since the high cost of even the simplest of the early computers prohibited such exclusive use of a computer by an individual programmer. Almost all program debugging was done away from any computer by the original programmer perusing the program and the dump of its execution obtained, e.g., by the computer operator or automatically by some computer hardware exception detection (such as a timeout, an attempt to divide by zero, or an over or underflow). Programmers then could only very rarely have more than one computer 'run' per day! Symbolic languages, e.g., assemblers and compilers were developed for programmers to translate symbolic program code into machine code that previously would have been hand-encoded. Later machines came with libraries of support code on punched cards or magnetic tape, which would be linked to the user's program to assist in operations such as input and output. This was the genesis of the modern-day operating system; however, machines still ran a single program or job at a time. At Cambridge University in England the job queue was at one time a string from which tapes attached to corresponding job tickets were hung with stationery pegs. == Mainframes == The first operating system used for real work was GM-NAA I/O, produced in 1956 by General Motors' Research division for its IBM 704. Most other early operating systems for IBM mainframes were also produced by customers. Early operating systems were very diverse, with each vendor or customer producing one or more operating systems specific to their particular mainframe computer. Every operating system, even from the same vendor, could have radically different models of commands, operating procedures, and such facilities as debugging aids. Typically, each time the manufacturer brought out a new machine, there would be a new operating system, and most applications would have to be manually adjusted, recompiled, and retested. === Systems on IBM hardware === Building on customer experience and requirements, IBM took on a more active role in developing operating systems for the 709, 1410, 7010, 7040, 7044, 7090 and 7094. IBM also collaborated with universities. The state of affairs continued until the mid 1960s when IBM, already a leading hardware vendor, stopped work on existing systems and put all its effort into developing the System/360 series of machines, all of which used the same instruction and input/output architecture. IBM intended to develop a single operating system for the new hardware, the OS/360. The problems encountered in the development of the OS/360 are legendary, and are described by Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month—a book that has become a classic of software engineering. Because of performance differences across the hardware range and delays with software development, a whole family of operating systems was introduced instead of a single OS/360. IBM wound up releasing a series of stop-gaps followed by two longer-lived operating systems: OS/360 for mid-range and large systems. This was available in three system generation options: PCP for early users and for those without the resources for multiprogramming. MFT for mid-range systems, replaced by MFT-II in OS/360 Release 15/16. This had one successor, OS/VS1, which was discontinued in the 1980s. MVT for large systems. This was similar in most ways to PCP and MFT (most programs could be ported among the three without being re-compiled), but has more sophisticated memory management and a time-sharing facility, TSO. MVT had several successors including the current z/OS. DOS/360 for small System/360 models had several successors including the current z/VSE. It was significantly different from OS/360. IBM maintained full compatibility with the past, so that programs developed in the sixties can still run under z/VSE (if developed for DOS/360) or z/OS (if developed for MFT or MVT) with no change. IBM also developed TSS/360, a time-sharing system for the System/360 Model 67. Overcompensating for their perceived importance of developing a timeshare system, they set hundreds of developers to work on the project. Early releases of TSS were slow and unreliable; by the time TSS had acceptable performance and reliability, IBM wanted its TSS users to migrate to OS/360 and OS/VS2; while IBM offered a TSS/370 PRPQ, they dropped it after 3 releases. Several operating systems for the IBM S/360 and S/370 architectures were developed by third parties, including the Michigan Terminal System (MTS) and MUSIC/SP. === Other mainframe operating systems === Control Data Corporation developed the SCOPE operating systems in the 1960s, for batch processing and later developed the MACE operating system for time sharing, which was the basis for the later Kronos. In cooperation with the University of Minnesota, the Kronos and later the NOS operating systems were developed during the 1970s, which supported simultaneous batch and time sharing use. Like many commercial time sharing systems, its interface was an extension of the DTSS time sharing system, one of the pioneering efforts in timesharing and programming languages. In the late 1970s, Control Data and the University of Illinois developed the PLATO system, which used plasma panel displays and long-distance time sharing networks. PLATO was remarkably innovative for its time; the shared memory model of PLATO's TUTOR programming language allowed applications such as real-time chat and multi-user graphical games. For the UNIVAC 1107, UNIVAC, the first commercial computer manufacturer, produced the EXEC I operating system, and Computer Sciences Corporation developed the EXEC II operating system and delivered it to UNIVAC. EXEC II was ported to the UNIVAC 1108. Later, UNIVAC developed the EXEC 8 operating system for the 1108; it was the basis for operating systems for later members of the family. Like all early mainframe systems, EXEC I and EXEC II were a batch-oriented system that managed magnetic drums, disks, card readers and line printers; EXEC 8 supported both batch processing and on-line transaction processing. In the 1970s, UNIVAC produced the Real-Time Basic (RTB) system to support large-scale time sharing, also patterned after the Dartmouth BASIC system. Burroughs Corporation introduced the B5000 in 1961 with the MCP (Master Control Program) operating system. The B5000
15.ai
15.ai was a free non-commercial web application and research project that uses artificial intelligence to generate text-to-speech voices of fictional characters from popular media. Created by a pseudonymous artificial intelligence researcher known as 15, who began developing the technology as a freshman during their undergraduate research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the application allows users to make characters from video games, television shows, and movies speak custom text with emotional inflections. The platform is able to generate convincing voice output using minimal training data; the name "15.ai" references the creator's statement that a voice can be cloned with just 15 seconds of audio. It was an early example of an application of generative artificial intelligence during the initial stages of the AI boom. Launched in March 2020, 15.ai became an Internet phenomenon in early 2021 when content utilizing it went viral on social media and quickly gained widespread use among Internet fandoms, such as the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, Team Fortress 2, and SpongeBob SquarePants fandoms. The service featured emotional context through emojis, precise pronunciation control, and multi-speaker capabilities. Critics praised 15.ai's accessibility and emotional control but criticized its technical limitations in prosody options and non-English language support, with mixed results depending on character complexity. 15.ai is credited as the first platform to popularize AI voice cloning in memes and content creation. Voice actors and industry professionals debated 15.ai's implications, raising concerns about employment impacts, voice-related fraud, and potential misuse. In January 2022, it was discovered that a company called Voiceverse had generated voice lines using 15.ai without attribution, promoted them as the byproduct of their own technology, and sold them as non-fungible tokens (NFT) without permission. News publications universally characterized this incident as the company having "stolen" from 15.ai. The service went offline in September 2022 due to legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence and copyright. Its shutdown was followed by the emergence of commercial alternatives whose founders have acknowledged 15.ai's pioneering influence in the field of deep learning speech synthesis. On May 18, 2025, 15 launched 15.dev as the sequel to 15.ai. == History == === Background === The field of speech synthesis underwent a significant transformation with the introduction of deep learning approaches. In 2016, DeepMind's publication of the WaveNet paper marked a shift toward neural network-based speech synthesis, which enabled higher audio quality via causal convolutional neural networks. Previously, concatenative synthesis—which worked by stitching together pre-recorded segments of human speech—was the predominant method for generating artificial speech, but it often produced robotic-sounding results at the boundaries of sentences. In 2018, Google AI's Tacotron 2 showed that neural networks could produce highly natural speech synthesis but required substantial training data (typically tens of hours of audio) to achieve acceptable quality. When trained on two hours of training data, the output quality degraded while still being able to maintain intelligible speech; with 24 minutes of training data, Tacotron 2 failed to produce intelligible speech. The same year saw the emergence of HiFi-GAN, a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based vocoder that improved the efficiency of waveform generation while producing high-fidelity speech, followed by Glow-TTS, which introduced a flow-based approach that allowed for both fast inference and voice style transfer capabilities. Chinese tech companies like Baidu and ByteDance also made contributions to the field by developing breakthroughs that further advanced the technology. === 2016–2020: Conception and development === 15.ai was conceived in 2016 as a research project in deep learning speech synthesis by a developer known as 15 (at the age of 18) during their freshman year at MIT as part of its Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. 15 was inspired by DeepMind's WaveNet paper, with development continuing through their studies as Google AI released Tacotron 2 the following year. By 2019, they had demonstrated at MIT their ability to replicate WaveNet and Tacotron 2's results using 75% less training data than previously required. The name "15.ai" is a reference to the developer's statement that a voice can be cloned with as little as 15 seconds of data. 15 had originally planned to pursue a PhD based on their undergraduate research, but opted to work in the tech industry instead after their startup was accepted into the Y Combinator accelerator in 2019. After their departure in early 2020, 15 returned to their voice synthesis research and began implementing it as a web application. According to a post on X from 15, instead of using conventional voice datasets like LJSpeech that contained simple, monotone recordings, they sought out more challenging voice samples that could demonstrate the model's ability to handle complex speech patterns and emotional undertones. During this phase, 15 discovered the Pony Preservation Project, a collaborative project started by /mlp/, the My Little Pony board on 4chan. Contributors of the project had manually trimmed, denoised, transcribed, and emotion-tagged thousands of voice lines from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and had compiled them into a dataset that provided ideal training material for 15.ai. === 2020–2022: Release and operation === 15.ai was released on March 2, 2020 as a free and non-commercial web application that did not require user registration to use, but did require the user to accept its terms of service before proceeding. At the time of its launch, the platform had a limited selection of available characters, including those from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and Team Fortress 2. Users were permitted to create any content with the synthesized voices under two conditions: they had to properly credit 15.ai by including "15.ai" in any posts, videos, or projects using the generated audio; and they were prohibited from mixing 15.ai outputs with other text-to-speech outputs in the same work to prevent misrepresentation of the technology's capabilities. On March 8, 2020, Tyler McVicker of Valve News Network uploaded a YouTube video showcasing 15.ai. More voices were added to the website in the following months. In late 2020, 15 implemented a multi-speaker embedding in the deep neural network, which enabled the simultaneous training of multiple voices. Following this, the website's roster expanded from eight to over fifty characters. In addition, this implementation allowed the deep learning model to recognize common emotional patterns across different characters, even when certain emotions were missing from the characters' training data. By May 2020, the site had served over 4.2 million audio files to users. In early 2021, the application gained popularity after skits, memes, and fan content created using 15.ai went viral on Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, Twitch, Facebook, and YouTube. At its peak, the platform incurred operational costs of US$12,000 per month from AWS infrastructure needed to handle millions of daily voice generations; despite receiving offers from companies to acquire 15.ai and its underlying technology, the website remained independent and was funded out of the personal previous startup earnings of the developer. === 2022: Voiceverse NFT controversy === On January 14, 2022, 15 discovered that a blockchain-based company called Voiceverse had generated voice lines using 15.ai, falsely showcased them on Twitter as a demonstration of their own voice technology without permission or attribution, and sold them as NFTs. This came shortly after 15 had stated in December 2021 that they had no interest in incorporating NFTs into their work. A screenshot of the log files posted by 15 showed that Voiceverse had generated audio of characters from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic using 15.ai and pitched them up to make them sound unrecognizable, a violation of 15.ai's terms of service, which explicitly prohibited commercial use and required proper attribution. When confronted with evidence, Voiceverse stated that their marketing team had used 15.ai without proper attribution while rushing to create a demo. In response, 15 tweeted "Go fuck yourself," which went viral, amassing hundreds of thousands of retweets and likes on Twitter in support of the developer. The tweets showcasing the stolen voices were subsequently deleted. ==== Aftermath ==== The controversy raised concerns about NFT projects, which, according to critics, were frequently associated with intellectual property theft and questionable business practices. The incident was documented in the AI Incident Database (AIID) and the AI, Alg
Cellular evolutionary algorithm
A cellular evolutionary algorithm (cEA) is a kind of evolutionary algorithm (EA) in which individuals cannot mate arbitrarily, but every one interacts with its closer neighbors on which a basic EA is applied (selection, variation, replacement). The cellular model simulates natural evolution from the point of view of the individual, which encodes a tentative optimization, learning, or search problem solution. The essential idea of this model is to provide the EA population with a special structure defined as a connected graph, in which each vertex is an individual who communicates with his nearest neighbors. Particularly, individuals are conceptually set in a toroidal mesh, and are only allowed to recombine with close individuals. This leads to a kind of locality known as "isolation by distance". The set of potential mates of an individual is called its "neighborhood". It is known that, in this kind of algorithm, similar individuals tend to cluster creating niches, and these groups operate as if they were separate sub-populations (islands). There is no clear borderline between adjacent groups, and close niches could be easily colonized by competitive niches and potentially merge solution contents during the process. Simultaneously, farther niches can be affected more slowly. == Introduction == A cellular evolutionary algorithm (cEA) usually evolves a structured bidimensional grid of individuals, although other topologies are also possible. In this grid, clusters of similar individuals are naturally created during evolution, promoting exploration in their boundaries, while exploitation is mainly performed by direct competition and merging inside them. The grid is usually 2D toroidal structure, although the number of dimensions can be easily extended (to 3D) or reduced (to 1D, e.g. a ring). The neighborhood of a particular point of the grid (where an individual is placed) is defined in terms of the Manhattan distance from it to others in the population. Each point of the grid has a neighborhood that overlaps the neighborhoods of nearby individuals. In the basic algorithm, all the neighborhoods have the same size and identical shapes. The two most commonly used neighborhoods are L5, also called the Von Neumann or NEWS (North, East, West and South) neighborhood, and C9, also known as the Moore neighborhood. Here, L stands for "linear" while C stands for "compact". In cEAs, the individuals can only interact with their neighbors in the reproductive cycle where the variation operators are applied. This reproductive cycle is executed inside the neighborhood of each individual and, generally, consists in selecting two parents among its neighbors according to a certain criterion, applying the variation operators to them (recombination and mutation for example), and replacing the considered individual by the recently created offspring following a given criterion, for instance, replace if the offspring represents a better solution than the considered individual. == Synchronous versus asynchronous == In a regular synchronous cEA, the algorithm proceeds from the very first top left individual to the right and then to the several rows by using the information in the population to create a new temporary population. After finishing with the bottom-right last individual the temporary population is full with the newly computed individuals, and the replacement step starts. In it, the old population is completely and synchronously replaced with the newly computed one according to some criterion. Usually, the replacement keeps the best individual in the same position of both populations, that is, elitism is used. According to the update policy of the population used, an asynchronous cEA may also be defined and is a well-known issue in cellular automata. In asynchronous cEAs the order in which the individuals in the grid are update changes depending on the choice of criterion: line sweep, fixed random sweep, new random sweep, and uniform choice. All four proceed using the newly computed individual (or the original if better) for the computations of its neighbors. The overlap of the neighborhoods provides an implicit mechanism of solution migration to the cEA. Since the best solutions spread smoothly through the whole population, genetic diversity in the population is preserved longer than in non structured EAs. This soft dispersion of the best solutions through the population is one of the main issues of the good tradeoff between exploration and exploitation that cEAs perform during the search. This tradeoff can be tuned (and by extension the genetic diversity level along the evolution) by modifying (for instance) the size of the neighborhood used, as the overlap degree between the neighborhoods grows according to the size of the neighborhood. A cEA can be seen as a cellular automaton (CA) with probabilistic rewritable rules, where the alphabet of the CA is equivalent to the potential number of solutions of the problem. Hence, knowledge from research in CAs can be applied to cEAs. == Parallelism == Cellular EAs are very amenable to parallelism, thus usually found in the literature of parallel metaheuristics. In particular, fine grain parallelism can be used to assign independent threads of execution to every individual, thus allowing the whole cEA to run on a concurrent or actually parallel hardware platform. In this way, large time reductions can be obtained when running cEAs on FPGAs or GPUs. However, it is important to stress that cEAs are a model of search, in many senses different from traditional EAs. Also, they can be run in sequential and parallel platforms, reinforcing the fact that the model and the implementation are two different concepts. See here for a complete description on the fundamentals for the understanding, design, and application of cEAs.
Stress majorization
Stress majorization is an optimization strategy used in multidimensional scaling (MDS) where, for a set of n {\displaystyle n} m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional data items, a configuration X {\displaystyle X} of n {\displaystyle n} points in r {\displaystyle r} ( ≪ m ) {\displaystyle (\ll m)} -dimensional space is sought that minimizes the so-called stress function σ ( X ) {\displaystyle \sigma (X)} . Usually r {\displaystyle r} is 2 {\displaystyle 2} or 3 {\displaystyle 3} , i.e. the ( n × r ) {\displaystyle (n\times r)} matrix X {\displaystyle X} lists points in 2 − {\displaystyle 2-} or 3 − {\displaystyle 3-} dimensional Euclidean space so that the result may be visualised (i.e. an MDS plot). The function σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a cost or loss function that measures the squared differences between ideal ( m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional) distances and actual distances in r-dimensional space. It is defined as: σ ( X ) = ∑ i < j ≤ n w i j ( d i j ( X ) − δ i j ) 2 {\displaystyle \sigma (X)=\sum _{i 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 Product-family engineering (PFE), also known as product-line engineering (PLE), is based on the ideas of "domain engineering" created by the Software Engineering Institute, a term coined by James Neighbors in his 1980 dissertation at University of California, Irvine. Software product lines are quite common in our daily lives, but before a product family can be successfully established, an extensive process has to be followed. This process is known as product-family engineering. Product-family engineering can be defined as a method that creates an underlying architecture of an organization's product platform. It provides an architecture that is based on commonality as well as planned variabilities. The various product variants can be derived from the basic product family, which creates the opportunity to reuse and differentiate on products in the family. Product-family engineering is conceptually similar to the widespread use of vehicle platforms in the automotive industry. Product-family engineering is a relatively new approach to the creation of new products, recently evolving to Model-Based Product Line Engineering (MBPLE), emphasizing the centrality of a model-centric approach in PLE. It focuses on the process of engineering new products in such a way that it is possible to reuse product components and apply variability with decreased costs and time. Product-family engineering is all about reusing components and structures as much as possible, according to the ISO/IEC 26550/2015 and the latest ISO/IEC 26580/2021 that introduced the concept of feature-based Product Line Engineering. Several studies have proven that using a product-family engineering approach for product development can have several benefits. Here is a list of some of them: Higher productivity Higher quality Faster time-to-market Lower labor needs The Nokia case mentioned below also illustrates these benefits. In 2025 the publishing of the book Model-Based Product Line Engineering (MBPLE): The feature-based path to product lines success by Marco Forlingieri, Tim Weilkiens and Hugo Guillermo Chalé-Gongora formalized the foundation of the discipline, including best practices and new industrial cases. == Overall process == The product family engineering process consists of several phases. The three main phases are: Phase 1: Product management Phase 2: Domain engineering Phase 3: Product engineering The process has been modeled on a higher abstraction level. This has the advantage that it can be applied to all kinds of product lines and families, not only software. The model can be applied to any product family. Figure 1 (below) shows a model of the entire process. Below, the process is described in detail. The process description contains elaborations of the activities and the important concepts being used. All concepts printed in italic are explained in Table 1. === Phase 1: product management === The first phase is the starting up of the whole process. In this phase some important aspects are defined especially with regard to economic aspects. This phase is responsible for outlining market strategies and defining a scope, which tells what should and should not be inside the product family. ==== Evaluate business visioning ==== During this first activity all context information relevant for defining the scope of the product line is collected and evaluated. It is important to define a clear market strategy and take external market information into account, such as consumer demands. The activity should deliver a context document that contains guidelines, constraints and the product strategy. ==== Define product line scope ==== Scoping techniques are applied to define which aspects are within the scope. This is based upon the previous step in the process, where external factors have been taken into account. The output is a product portfolio description, which includes a list of current and future products and also a product roadmap. It can be argued whether phase 1, product management, is part of the product-family-engineering process, because it could be seen as an individual business process that is more focused on the management aspects instead of the product aspect. However phase 2 needs some important input from this phase, as a large piece of the scope is defined in this phase. So from this point of view it is important to include the product-management phase (phase 1) into the entire process as a base for the domain-engineering process. === Phase 2: domain engineering === During the domain-engineering phases, the variable and common requirements are gathered for the whole product line. The goal is to establish a reusable platform. The output of this phase is a set of common and variable requirements for all products in the product line. ==== Analyze domain requirements ==== This activity includes all activities for analyzing the domain with regard to concept requirements. The requirements are categorized and split up into two new activities. The output is a document with the domain analysis. As can be seen in Figure 1 the process of defining common requirements is a parallel process with defining variable requirements. Both activities take place at the same time. ==== Define common requirements ==== Includes all activities for eliciting and documenting the common requirements of the product line, resulting in a document with reusable common requirements. ==== Define variable requirements ==== Includes all activities for eliciting and documenting the variable requirements of the product line, resulting in a document with variable requirements. ==== Design domain ==== This process step consists of activities for defining the reference architecture of the product line. This generates an abstract structure for all products in the product line. ==== Implement domain ==== During this step a detailed design of the reusable components and the implementation of these components are created. ==== Test domain ==== Validates and verifies the reusability of components. Components are tested against their specifications. After successful testing of all components in different use cases and scenarios, the domain engineering phase has been completed. === Phase 3: product engineering === In the final phase a product X is being engineered. This product X uses the commonalities and variability from the domain engineering phase, so product X is being derived from the platform established in the domain engineering phase. It basically takes all common requirements and similarities from the preceding phase plus its own variable requirements. Using the base from the domain engineering phase and the individual requirements of the product engineering phase a complete and new product can be built. After the product has been fully tested and approved, the product X can be delivered. ==== Define product requirements ==== Developing the product requirements specification for the individual product and reuse the requirements from the preceding phase. ==== Design product ==== All activities for producing the product architecture. Makes use of the reference architecture from the step "design domain", it selects and configures the required parts of the reference architecture and incorporates product specific adaptations. ==== Build product ==== During this process the product is built, using selections and configurations of the reusable components. ==== Test product ==== During this step the product is verified and validated against its specifications. A test report gives information about all tests that were carried out, this gives an overview of possible errors in the product. If the product in the next step is not accepted, the process will loop back to "build product", in Figure 1 this is indicated as "[unsatisfied]". ==== Deliver and support product ==== The final step is the acceptance of the final product. If it has been successfully tested and approved to be complete, it can be delivered. If the product does not satisfy to the specifications, it has to be rebuilt and tested again. The next figure shows the overall process of product-family engineering as described above. It is a full process overview with all concepts attached to the different steps. == Process data diagram == On the left side the entire process from the top to bottom has been drawn. All activities on the left side are linked to the concepts on the right side through dotted lines. Every concept has a number, which reflects the association with other concepts. == List of concepts == Below the list with concepts will be explained. Most concept definitions are extracted from Pohl, Bockle, & Linden (2005) and also some new definitions have been added. Table 1: List of concepts == Example == There are some good examples of the use of product family engineering, which were quite successful. The abstract model of product family engineering allows different kinds of uses, most of them are related to the consumer electronics m In Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, the Vapnik–Chervonenkis (VC) dimension is a measure of the size (capacity, complexity, expressive power, richness, or flexibility) of a class of sets. The notion can be extended to classes of binary functions. It is defined as the cardinality of the largest set of points that the function class can shatter—that is, for which all possible binary labelings can be realized by some function in the class. It was originally defined by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis. Informally, the capacity of a classification model is related to how complicated it can be. For example, consider the thresholding of a high-degree polynomial: if the polynomial evaluates above zero, that point is classified as positive, otherwise as negative. A high-degree polynomial can be wiggly, so that it can fit a given set of training points well. Such a polynomial has a high capacity. A much simpler alternative is to threshold a linear function. This function may not fit the training set well, because it has a low capacity. This notion of capacity is made rigorous below. == Definitions == === VC dimension of a set-family === Let C = { C } C ∈ C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}=\{C\}_{C\in {\mathcal {C}}}} be a family of sets (also called set family, collection of sets or set of sets) and X {\displaystyle X} a set. Their intersection is defined as the following set family: C ∩ X := { C ∩ X ∣ C ∈ C } . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}\cap X:=\{C\cap X\mid C\in {\mathcal {C}}\}.} Here typically X {\displaystyle X} and each C ∈ C {\displaystyle C\in {\mathcal {C}}} are subsets of a big "universe" of possibilities U {\displaystyle U} where intersection takes place. We say that a set X {\displaystyle X} is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} if P ( X ) = C ∩ X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(X)={\mathcal {C}}\cap X} i.e. the set of intersections contains (hence is equal to) all the subsets of X {\displaystyle X} . For finite sets X {\displaystyle X} this is equivalent to | C ∩ X | = 2 | X | . {\displaystyle |{\mathcal {C}}\cap X|=2^{|X|}.} The VC dimension D {\displaystyle D} of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is the cardinality of the largest set that is shattered by C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} . If arbitrarily large sets can be shattered, the VC dimension of C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} is ∞ {\displaystyle \infty } . === VC dimension of a classification model === A binary classification model f {\displaystyle f} with some parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is said to shatter a set of generally positioned data points ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})} if, for every assignment of labels to those points, there exists a θ {\displaystyle \theta } such that the model f {\displaystyle f} makes no errors when evaluating that set of data points. The VC dimension of a model f {\displaystyle f} is the maximum number of points that can be arranged so that f {\displaystyle f} shatters them. More formally, it is the maximum cardinal D {\displaystyle D} such that there exists a generally positioned data point set of cardinality D {\displaystyle D} that can be shattered by f {\displaystyle f} . == Examples == f {\displaystyle f} is a constant classifier (with no parameters); Its VC dimension is 0 since it cannot shatter even a single point. In general, the VC dimension of a finite classification model, which can return at most 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} different classifiers, is at most d {\displaystyle d} (this is an upper bound on the VC dimension; the Sauer–Shelah lemma gives a lower bound on the dimension). f {\displaystyle f} is a single-parametric threshold classifier on real numbers; i.e., for a certain threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } , the classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} returns 1 if the input number is larger than θ {\displaystyle \theta } and 0 otherwise. The VC dimension of f {\displaystyle f} is 1 because: (a) It can shatter a single point. For every point x {\displaystyle x} , a classifier f θ {\displaystyle f_{\theta }} labels it as 0 if θ > x {\displaystyle \theta >x} and labels it as 1 if θ < x {\displaystyle \theta NOMINATE (scaling method)
Product-family engineering
Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension