First proposed by Gerhard Frey in 1998, trace zero cryptography refers to the use of trace zero varieties (TZV) for cryptographic purpose. Trace zero varieties are subgroups of the divisor class group on a low genus hyperelliptic curve defined over a finite field. These groups can be used to establish asymmetric cryptography using the discrete logarithm problem as cryptographic primitive. Trace zero varieties feature a better scalar multiplication performance than elliptic curves. This allows fast arithmetic in these groups, which can speed up the calculations with a factor 3 compared with elliptic curves and hence speed up the cryptosystem. Another advantage is that for groups of cryptographically relevant size, the order of the group can simply be calculated using the characteristic polynomial of the Frobenius endomorphism. This is not the case, for example, in elliptic curve cryptography when the group of points of an elliptic curve over a prime field is used for cryptographic purpose. However, to represent an element of the trace zero variety more bits are needed compared with elements of elliptic or hyperelliptic curves. Another disadvantage is the fact that it is possible to reduce the security of the TZV of 1/6th of the bit length using cover attack. == Mathematical background == A hyperelliptic curve C of genus g over a prime field F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} where q = pn (p prime) of odd characteristic is defined as C : y 2 + h ( x ) y = f ( x ) , {\displaystyle C:~y^{2}+h(x)y=f(x),} where f monic, deg(f) = 2g + 1 and deg(h) ≤ g. The curve has at least one F q {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q}} -rational Weierstraßpoint. The Jacobian variety J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} of C is for all finite extension F q n {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q^{n}}} isomorphic to the ideal class group Cl ( C / F q n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Cl} (C/\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} . With the Mumford's representation it is possible to represent the elements of J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} with a pair of polynomials [u, v], where u, v ∈ F q n [ x ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q^{n}}[x]} . The Frobenius endomorphism σ is used on an element [u, v] of J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} to raise the power of each coefficient of that element to q: σ([u, v]) = [uq(x), vq(x)]. The characteristic polynomial of this endomorphism has the following form: χ ( T ) = T 2 g + a 1 T 2 g − 1 + ⋯ + a g T g + ⋯ + a 1 q g − 1 T + q g , {\displaystyle \chi (T)=T^{2g}+a_{1}T^{2g-1}+\cdots +a_{g}T^{g}+\cdots +a_{1}q^{g-1}T+q^{g},} where ai in Z {\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} } With the Hasse–Weil theorem it is possible to receive the group order of any extension field F q n {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{q^{n}}} by using the complex roots τi of χ(T): | J C ( F q n ) | = ∏ i = 1 2 g ( 1 − τ i n ) {\displaystyle |J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})|=\prod _{i=1}^{2g}(1-\tau _{i}^{n})} Let D be an element of the J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} of C, then it is possible to define an endomorphism of J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} , the so-called trace of D: Tr ( D ) = ∑ i = 0 n − 1 σ i ( D ) = D + σ ( D ) + ⋯ + σ n − 1 ( D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Tr} (D)=\sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\sigma ^{i}(D)=D+\sigma (D)+\cdots +\sigma ^{n-1}(D)} Based on this endomorphism one can reduce the Jacobian variety to a subgroup G with the property, that every element is of trace zero: G = { D ∈ J C ( F q n ) | Tr ( D ) = 0 } , ( 0 neutral element in J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle G=\{D\in J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})~|~{\text{Tr}}(D)={\textbf {0}}\},~~~({\textbf {0}}{\text{ neutral element in }}J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} G is the kernel of the trace endomorphism and thus G is a group, the so-called trace zero (sub)variety (TZV) of J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} . The intersection of G and J C ( F q ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q})} is produced by the n-torsion elements of J C ( F q ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q})} . If the greatest common divisor gcd ( n , | J C ( F q ) | ) = 1 {\displaystyle \gcd(n,|J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q})|)=1} the intersection is empty and one can compute the group order of G: | G | = | J C ( F q n ) | | J C ( F q ) | = ∏ i = 1 2 g ( 1 − τ i n ) ∏ i = 1 2 g ( 1 − τ i ) {\displaystyle |G|={\dfrac {|J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})|}{|J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q})|}}={\dfrac {\prod _{i=1}^{2g}(1-\tau _{i}^{n})}{\prod _{i=1}^{2g}(1-\tau _{i})}}} The actual group used in cryptographic applications is a subgroup G0 of G of a large prime order l. This group may be G itself. There exist three different cases of cryptographical relevance for TZV: g = 1, n = 3 g = 1, n = 5 g = 2, n = 3 == Arithmetic == The arithmetic used in the TZV group G0 based on the arithmetic for the whole group J C ( F q n ) {\displaystyle J_{C}(\mathbb {F} _{q^{n}})} , But it is possible to use the Frobenius endomorphism σ to speed up the scalar multiplication. This can be archived if G0 is generated by D of order l then σ(D) = sD, for some integers s. For the given cases of TZV s can be computed as follows, where ai come from the characteristic polynomial of the Frobenius endomorphism : For g = 1, n = 3: s = q − 1 1 − a 1 mod ℓ {\displaystyle s={\dfrac {q-1}{1-a_{1}}}{\bmod {\ell }}} For g = 1, n = 5: s = q 2 − q − a 1 2 q + a 1 q + 1 q − 2 a 1 q + a 1 3 − a 1 2 + a 1 − 1 mod ℓ {\displaystyle s={\dfrac {q^{2}-q-a_{1}^{2}q+a_{1}q+1}{q-2a_{1}q+a_{1}^{3}-a_{1}^{2}+a_{1}-1}}{\bmod {\ell }}} For g = 2, n = 3: s = − q 2 − a 2 + a 1 a 1 q − a 2 + 1 mod ℓ {\displaystyle s=-{\dfrac {q^{2}-a_{2}+a_{1}}{a_{1}q-a_{2}+1}}{\bmod {\ell }}} Knowing this, it is possible to replace any scalar multiplication mD (|m| ≤ l/2) with: m 0 D + m 1 σ ( D ) + ⋯ + m n − 1 σ n − 1 ( D ) , where m i = O ( ℓ 1 / ( n − 1 ) ) = O ( q g ) {\displaystyle m_{0}D+m_{1}\sigma (D)+\cdots +m_{n-1}\sigma ^{n-1}(D),~~~~{\text{where }}m_{i}=O(\ell ^{1/(n-1)})=O(q^{g})} With this trick the multiple scalar product can be reduced to about 1/(n − 1)th of doublings necessary for calculating mD, if the implied constants are small enough. == Security == The security of cryptographic systems based on trace zero subvarieties according to the results of the papers comparable to the security of hyper-elliptic curves of low genus g' over F p ′ {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p'}} , where p' ~ (n − 1)(g/g' ) for |G| ~128 bits. For the cases where n = 3, g = 2 and n = 5, g = 1 it is possible to reduce the security for at most 6 bits, where |G| ~ 2256, because one can not be sure that G is contained in a Jacobian of a curve of genus 6. The security of curves of genus 4 for similar fields are far less secure. == Cover attack on a trace zero crypto-system == The attack published in shows, that the DLP in trace zero groups of genus 2 over finite fields of characteristic diverse than 2 or 3 and a field extension of degree 3 can be transformed into a DLP in a class group of degree 0 with genus of at most 6 over the base field. In this new class group the DLP can be attacked with the index calculus methods. This leads to a reduction of the bit length 1/6th.
DABUS
DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived of two novel products — a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for attracting attention in an emergency. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system. == History in different jurisdictions == === Australia === On 17 September 2019, Thaler filed an application to patent a "Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention," naming DABUS as the inventor. On 21 September 2020, IP Australia found that section 15(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) is inconsistent with an artificial intelligence machine being treated as an inventor, and Thaler's application had lapsed. Thaler sought judicial review, and on 30 July 2021, the Federal Court set aside IP Australia's decision and ordered IP Australia to reconsider the application. On 13 April 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside that decision, holding that only a natural person can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth), and that such an inventor must be identified for any person to be entitled to a grant of a patent. On 11 November 2022, Thaler was refused special leave to appeal to the High Court. === European Patent Office === On 17 October 2018 and 7 November 2018, Thaler filed two European patent applications with the European Patent Office. The first claimed invention was a "Food Container" and the second was "Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention." On 27 January 2020, the EPO rejected the applications on the grounds that the application listed an AI system named DABUS, and not a human, as the inventor, based on Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). On 21 December 2021, the Board of Appeal of the EPO dismissed Thaler's appeal from the EPO's primary decision. The Board of Appeal confirmed that "under the EPC the designated inventor has to be a person with legal capacity. This is not merely an assumption on which the EPC was drafted. It is the ordinary meaning of the term inventor." === United Kingdom === Similar applications were filed by Thaler to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office on 17 October and 7 November 2018. The Office asked Thaler to file statements of inventorship and of right of grant to a patent (Patent Form 7) in respect of each invention within 16 months of the filing date. Thaler filed those forms naming DABUS as the inventor and explaining in some detail why he believed that machines should be regarded as inventors in the circumstances. His application was rejected on the grounds that: (1) naming a machine as inventor did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act 1977; and (2) the IPO was not satisfied as to the manner in which Thaler had acquired rights that would otherwise vest in the inventor. Thaler was not satisfied with the decision and asked for a hearing before an official known as the "hearing officer". By a decision dated 4 December 2019 the hearing officer rejected Thaler's appeal. Thaler appealed against the hearing officer's decision to the Patents Court (a specialist court within the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales that determines patent disputes). On 21 September 2020, Mr Justice Marcus Smith upheld the decision of the hearing officer. On 21 September 2021, Thaler's further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by Arnold LJ and Laing LJ (Birss LJ dissenting). On 20 December 2023, the UK Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by Thaler. In its judgment, the court held that an "inventor" under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. === United States === The patent applications on the inventions were refused by the USPTO, which held that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application. Thaler first fought this result by filing a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law; unsupported by substantial evidence, and in excess of Defendants’ statutory authority." A month later on August 19, 2019, Thaler filed a petition with the USPTO as allowed in 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 stating that DABUS should be the inventor. The judge and Thaler agreed in this case that Thaler himself is unable to receive the patent on behalf of DABUS. In their August 5, 2022, Thaler decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that only a natural person could be an inventor, which means that the AI that invents any other type of invention is not addressed by the "who" mentioned in the legislation. === New Zealand === On January 31, 2022, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) decided that a patent application (776029) filed by Stephen Thaler was void, on the basis that no inventor was identified on the patent application. IPONZ determined that DABUS could not be "an actual devisor of the invention" as required by the Patents Act 2013, and that this must be a natural person as held by the previous patent offices above. The High Court of New Zealand confirmed the decision in 2023. === South Africa === On 24 June 2021, the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) accepted Dr Thaler's Patent Cooperation Treaty, for a patent in respect of inventions generated by DABUS. In July 2021, the CIPC released a notice of issuance for the patent. It is the first patent granted for an AI invention. === Switzerland === On June 26, 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors in patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), which requires that only natural persons can be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law. The case concerned a patent application, which sought to designate DABUS as the sole inventor of a food container designed with a fractal geometry to enhance heat distribution. The IPI had rejected the application, arguing that both the absence of a human inventor and the attribution of inventorship to an AI system were inadmissible. While the court dismissed Thaler's main request, it accepted a subsidiary request: if a human applicant recognizes and files a patent based on an AI-generated invention, that person may be considered the inventor. As a result, the application may proceed with Thaler listed as the inventor. The decision (B-2532/2024) can still be appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Teacher forcing
Teacher forcing is an algorithm for training the weights of recurrent neural networks (RNNs). It involves feeding observed sequence values (i.e. ground-truth samples) back into the RNN after each step, thus forcing the RNN to stay close to the ground-truth sequence. The term "teacher forcing" can be motivated by comparing the RNN to a human student taking a multi-part exam where the answer to each part (for example a mathematical calculation) depends on the answer to the preceding part. In this analogy, rather than grading every answer in the end, with the risk that the student fails every single part even though they only made a mistake in the first one, a teacher records the score for each individual part and then tells the student the correct answer, to be used in the next part. The use of an external teacher signal is in contrast to real-time recurrent learning (RTRL). Teacher signals are known from oscillator networks. The promise is, that teacher forcing helps to reduce the training time. The term "teacher forcing" was introduced in 1989 by Ronald J. Williams and David Zipser, who reported that the technique was already being "frequently used in dynamical supervised learning tasks" around that time. A NeurIPS 2016 paper introduced the related method of "professor forcing".
FastICA
FastICA is an efficient and popular algorithm for independent component analysis invented by Aapo Hyvärinen at Helsinki University of Technology. Like most ICA algorithms, FastICA seeks an orthogonal rotation of prewhitened data, through a fixed-point iteration scheme, that maximizes a measure of non-Gaussianity of the rotated components. Non-gaussianity serves as a proxy for statistical independence, which is a very strong condition and requires infinite data to verify. FastICA can also be alternatively derived as an approximative Newton iteration. == Algorithm == === Prewhitening the data === Let the X := ( x i j ) ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} :=(x_{ij})\in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} denote the input data matrix, M {\displaystyle M} the number of columns corresponding with the number of samples of mixed signals and N {\displaystyle N} the number of rows corresponding with the number of independent source signals. The input data matrix X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } must be prewhitened, or centered and whitened, before applying the FastICA algorithm to it. Centering the data entails demeaning each component of the input data X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , that is, for each i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,N} and j = 1 , … , M {\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,M} . After centering, each row of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } has an expected value of 0 {\displaystyle 0} . Whitening the data requires a linear transformation L : R N × M → R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} :\mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}\to \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} of the centered data so that the components of L ( X ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} (\mathbf {X} )} are uncorrelated and have variance one. More precisely, if X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } is a centered data matrix, the covariance of L x := L ( X ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} _{\mathbf {x} }:=\mathbf {L} (\mathbf {X} )} is the ( N × N ) {\displaystyle (N\times N)} -dimensional identity matrix, that is, A common method for whitening is by performing an eigenvalue decomposition on the covariance matrix of the centered data X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , E { X X T } = E D E T {\displaystyle E\left\{\mathbf {X} \mathbf {X} ^{T}\right\}=\mathbf {E} \mathbf {D} \mathbf {E} ^{T}} , where E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } is the matrix of eigenvectors and D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. The whitened data matrix is defined thus by === Single component extraction === The iterative algorithm finds the direction for the weight vector w ∈ R N {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N}} that maximizes a measure of non-Gaussianity of the projection w T X {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} } , with X ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} denoting a prewhitened data matrix as described above. Note that w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is a column vector. To measure non-Gaussianity, FastICA relies on a nonquadratic nonlinear function f ( u ) {\displaystyle f(u)} , its first derivative g ( u ) {\displaystyle g(u)} , and its second derivative g ′ ( u ) {\displaystyle g^{\prime }(u)} . Hyvärinen states that the functions are useful for general purposes, while may be highly robust. The steps for extracting the weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } for single component in FastICA are the following: Randomize the initial weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } Let w + ← E { X g ( w T X ) T } − E { g ′ ( w T X ) } w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ^{+}\leftarrow E\left\{\mathbf {X} g(\mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )^{T}\right\}-E\left\{g'(\mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )\right\}\mathbf {w} } , where E { . . . } {\displaystyle E\left\{...\right\}} means averaging over all column-vectors of matrix X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } Let w ← w + / ‖ w + ‖ {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} \leftarrow \mathbf {w} ^{+}/\|\mathbf {w} ^{+}\|} If not converged, go back to 2 === Multiple component extraction === The single unit iterative algorithm estimates only one weight vector which extracts a single component. Estimating additional components that are mutually "independent" requires repeating the algorithm to obtain linearly independent projection vectors - note that the notion of independence here refers to maximizing non-Gaussianity in the estimated components. Hyvärinen provides several ways of extracting multiple components with the simplest being the following. Here, 1 M {\displaystyle \mathbf {1_{M}} } is a column vector of 1's of dimension M {\displaystyle M} . Algorithm FastICA Input: C {\displaystyle C} Number of desired components Input: X ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} Prewhitened matrix, where each column represents an N {\displaystyle N} -dimensional sample, where C <= N {\displaystyle C<=N} Output: W ∈ R N × C {\displaystyle \mathbf {W} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times C}} Un-mixing matrix where each column projects X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } onto independent component. Output: S ∈ R C × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} \in \mathbb {R} ^{C\times M}} Independent components matrix, with M {\displaystyle M} columns representing a sample with C {\displaystyle C} dimensions. for p in 1 to C: w p ← {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow } Random vector of length N while w p {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} } changes w p ← 1 M X g ( w p T X ) T − 1 M g ′ ( w p T X ) 1 M w p {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow {\frac {1}{M}}\mathbf {X} g(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )^{T}-{\frac {1}{M}}g'(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )\mathbf {1_{M}} \mathbf {w_{p}} } w p ← w p − ∑ j = 1 p − 1 ( w p T w j ) w j {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow \mathbf {w_{p}} -\sum _{j=1}^{p-1}(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {w_{j}} )\mathbf {w_{j}} } w p ← w p ‖ w p ‖ {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow {\frac {\mathbf {w_{p}} }{\|\mathbf {w_{p}} \|}}} output W ← [ w 1 , … , w C ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {W} \leftarrow {\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf {w_{1}} ,\dots ,\mathbf {w_{C}} \end{bmatrix}}} output S ← W T X {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} \leftarrow \mathbf {W^{T}} \mathbf {X} }
Homogeneity blockmodeling
In mathematics applied to analysis of social structures, homogeneity blockmodeling is an approach in blockmodeling, which is best suited for a preliminary or main approach to valued networks, when a prior knowledge about these networks is not available. This is because homogeneity blockmodeling emphasizes the similarity of link (tie) strengths within the blocks over the pattern of links. In this approach, tie (link) values (or statistical data computed on them) are assumed to be equal (homogenous) within blocks. This approach to the generalized blockmodeling of valued networks was first proposed by Aleš Žiberna in 2007 with the basic idea, "that the inconsistency of an empirical block with its ideal block can be measured by within block variability of appropriate values". The newly–formed ideal blocks, which are appropriate for blockmodeling of valued networks, are then presented together with the definitions of their block inconsistencies. Similar approach to the homogeneity blockmodeling, dealing with direct approach for structural equivalence, was previously suggested by Stephen P. Borgatti and Martin G. Everett (1992).
Automation integrator
An automation integrator is a systems integrator company or individual who makes different versions of automation hardware and software work together, generally combining several subsystems to work together as one large system. The title may refer to those who only integrate hardware, although these will often work with software integrators. Software created by automation integrators allows devices to communicate with each other, as well as collecting and reporting data. The magazine Control Engineering publishes an annual “Automation Integrator Guide” which lists over 2,000 automation integrators. They also give an annual system integrator of the year award to three automation integration firms. The Control System Integrators Association (CSIA) maintains a buyers' guide of over 1200 member and nonmember systems integrators known as the Industrial Automation Exchange, or CSIA Exchange for short. == Certification == The Control System Integrators Association (CSIA) certifies automation integrators, through an audit based on 79 critical criteria from the best practices manual. Companies must be associate members of the CSIA to be eligible for certification. Integrators can also receive certification through a program launched in 2012 by the Robotics Industries Association. == Industries == Automation Integrators work in a wide variety of industries which use robotics and automation. Some of the most common include:
Dominance-based rough set approach
The dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) is an extension of rough set theory for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), introduced by Greco, Matarazzo and Słowiński. The main change compared to the classical rough sets is the substitution for the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits one to deal with inconsistencies typical to consideration of criteria and preference-ordered decision classes. == Multicriteria classification (sorting) == Multicriteria classification (sorting) is one of the problems considered within MCDA and can be stated as follows: given a set of objects evaluated by a set of criteria (attributes with preference-order domains), assign these objects to some pre-defined and preference-ordered decision classes, such that each object is assigned to exactly one class. Due to the preference ordering, improvement of evaluations of an object on the criteria should not worsen its class assignment. The sorting problem is very similar to the problem of classification, however, in the latter, the objects are evaluated by regular attributes and the decision classes are not necessarily preference ordered. The problem of multicriteria classification is also referred to as ordinal classification problem with monotonicity constraints and often appears in real-life application when ordinal and monotone properties follow from the domain knowledge about the problem. As an illustrative example, consider the problem of evaluation in a high school. The director of the school wants to assign students (objects) to three classes: bad, medium and good (notice that class good is preferred to medium and medium is preferred to bad). Each student is described by three criteria: level in Physics, Mathematics and Literature, each taking one of three possible values bad, medium and good. Criteria are preference-ordered and improving the level from one of the subjects should not result in worse global evaluation (class). As a more serious example, consider classification of bank clients, from the viewpoint of bankruptcy risk, into classes safe and risky. This may involve such characteristics as "return on equity (ROE)", "return on investment (ROI)" and "return on sales (ROS)". The domains of these attributes are not simply ordered but involve a preference order since, from the viewpoint of bank managers, greater values of ROE, ROI or ROS are better for clients being analysed for bankruptcy risk . Thus, these attributes are criteria. Neglecting this information in knowledge discovery may lead to wrong conclusions. == Data representation == === Decision table === In DRSA, data are often presented using a particular form of decision table. Formally, a DRSA decision table is a 4-tuple S = ⟨ U , Q , V , f ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle U,Q,V,f\rangle } , where U {\displaystyle U\,\!} is a finite set of objects, Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is a finite set of criteria, V = ⋃ q ∈ Q V q {\displaystyle V=\bigcup {}_{q\in Q}V_{q}} where V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} is the domain of the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} and f : U × Q → V {\displaystyle f\colon U\times Q\to V} is an information function such that f ( x , q ) ∈ V q {\displaystyle f(x,q)\in V_{q}} for every ( x , q ) ∈ U × Q {\displaystyle (x,q)\in U\times Q} . The set Q {\displaystyle Q\,\!} is divided into condition criteria (set C ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle C\neq \emptyset } ) and the decision criterion (class) d {\displaystyle d\,\!} . Notice, that f ( x , q ) {\displaystyle f(x,q)\,\!} is an evaluation of object x {\displaystyle x\,\!} on criterion q ∈ C {\displaystyle q\in C} , while f ( x , d ) {\displaystyle f(x,d)\,\!} is the class assignment (decision value) of the object. An example of decision table is shown in Table 1 below. === Outranking relation === It is assumed that the domain of a criterion q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} is completely preordered by an outranking relation ⪰ q {\displaystyle \succeq _{q}} ; x ⪰ q y {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y} means that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is at least as good as (outranks) y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to the criterion q {\displaystyle q\,\!} . Without loss of generality, we assume that the domain of q {\displaystyle q\,\!} is a subset of reals, V q ⊆ R {\displaystyle V_{q}\subseteq \mathbb {R} } , and that the outranking relation is a simple order between real numbers ≥ {\displaystyle \geq \,\!} such that the following relation holds: x ⪰ q y ⟺ f ( x , q ) ≥ f ( y , q ) {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y\iff f(x,q)\geq f(y,q)} . This relation is straightforward for gain-type ("the more, the better") criterion, e.g. company profit. For cost-type ("the less, the better") criterion, e.g. product price, this relation can be satisfied by negating the values from V q {\displaystyle V_{q}\,\!} . === Decision classes and class unions === Let T = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle T=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\,\!} . The domain of decision criterion, V d {\displaystyle V_{d}\,\!} consist of n {\displaystyle n\,\!} elements (without loss of generality we assume V d = T {\displaystyle V_{d}=T\,\!} ) and induces a partition of U {\displaystyle U\,\!} into n {\displaystyle n\,\!} classes Cl = { C l t , t ∈ T } {\displaystyle {\textbf {Cl}}=\{Cl_{t},t\in T\}} , where C l t = { x ∈ U : f ( x , d ) = t } {\displaystyle Cl_{t}=\{x\in U\colon f(x,d)=t\}} . Each object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} is assigned to one and only one class C l t , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t},t\in T} . The classes are preference-ordered according to an increasing order of class indices, i.e. for all r , s ∈ T {\displaystyle r,s\in T} such that r ≥ s {\displaystyle r\geq s\,\!} , the objects from C l r {\displaystyle Cl_{r}\,\!} are strictly preferred to the objects from C l s {\displaystyle Cl_{s}\,\!} . For this reason, we can consider the upward and downward unions of classes, defined respectively, as: C l t ≥ = ⋃ s ≥ t C l s C l t ≤ = ⋃ s ≤ t C l s t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }=\bigcup _{s\geq t}Cl_{s}\qquad Cl_{t}^{\leq }=\bigcup _{s\leq t}Cl_{s}\qquad t\in T} == Main concepts == === Dominance === We say that x {\displaystyle x\,\!} dominates y {\displaystyle y\,\!} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted by x D p y {\displaystyle xD_{p}y\,\!} , if x {\displaystyle x\,\!} is better than y {\displaystyle y\,\!} on every criterion from P {\displaystyle P\,\!} , x ⪰ q y , ∀ q ∈ P {\displaystyle x\succeq _{q}y,\,\forall q\in P} . For each P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , the dominance relation D P {\displaystyle D_{P}\,\!} is reflexive and transitive, i.e. it is a partial pre-order. Given P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} and x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , let D P + ( x ) = { y ∈ U : y D p x } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{+}(x)=\{y\in U\colon yD_{p}x\}} D P − ( x ) = { y ∈ U : x D p y } {\displaystyle D_{P}^{-}(x)=\{y\in U\colon xD_{p}y\}} represent P-dominating set and P-dominated set with respect to x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} , respectively. === Rough approximations === The key idea of the rough set philosophy is approximation of one knowledge by another knowledge. In DRSA, the knowledge being approximated is a collection of upward and downward unions of decision classes and the "granules of knowledge" used for approximation are P-dominating and P-dominated sets. The P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≥ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≥ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\geq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≥ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ∩ C l t ≥ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\geq }\neq \emptyset \}} Analogously, the P-lower and the P-upper approximation of C l t ≤ , t ∈ T {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq },t\in T} with respect to P ⊆ C {\displaystyle P\subseteq C} , denoted as P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} and P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })} , respectively, are defined as: P _ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P − ( x ) ⊆ C l t ≤ } {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{-}(x)\subseteq Cl_{t}^{\leq }\}} P ¯ ( C l t ≤ ) = { x ∈ U : D P + ( x ) ∩ C l t ≤ ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle {\overline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\leq })=\{x\in U\colon D_{P}^{+}(x)\cap Cl_{t}^{\leq }\neq \emptyset \}} Lower approximations group the objects which certainly belong to class union C l t ≥ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\geq }} (respectively C l t ≤ {\displaystyle Cl_{t}^{\leq }} ). This certainty comes from the fact, that object x ∈ U {\displaystyle x\in U} belongs to the lower approximation P _ ( C l t ≥ ) {\displaystyle {\underline {P}}(Cl_{t}^{\geq })} (respectively P _ ( C l t ≤ ) {\displaystyle {\underl