The information audit (IA) extends the concept of auditing from a traditional scope of accounting and finance to the organisational information management system. Information is representative of a resource which requires effective management and this led to the development of interest in the use of an IA. Prior the 1990s and the methodologies of Orna, Henczel, Wood, Buchanan and Gibb, IA approaches and methodologies focused mainly upon an identification of formal information resources (IR). Later approaches included an organisational analysis and the mapping of the information flow. This gave context to analysis within an organisation's information systems and a holistic view of their IR and as such could contribute to the development of the information systems architecture (ISA). In recent years the IA has been overlooked in favour of the systems development process which can be less expensive than the IA, yet more heavily technically focused, project specific (not holistic) and does not favour the top-down analysis of the IA. == Definition == A definition for the Information Audit cannot be universally agreed-upon amongst scholars, however the definition offered by ASLIB received positive support from a few notable scholars including Henczel, Orna and Wood; “(the IA is a) systematic examination of information use, resources and flows, with a verification by reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives” In summary, the term audit itself implies a counting, the IA being much the same yet it counts IR and analyses how they are used and how critical they are to the success of a given task. == Role and scope of an IA == In much the same way as the IA is difficult to define, it can be utilised in a range of contexts by the information professional, from complying with freedom of information legislation to identifying any existing gaps, duplications, bottlenecks or other inefficiencies in information flows and to understand how existing channels can be used for knowledge transfer In 2007 Buchanan and Gibb developed upon their 1998 examination of the IA process by outlining a summary of its main objectives: To identify an organisation’s information resource To identify an organisation’s information needs Furthermore, Buchanan and Gibb went on to state that the IA also had to meet the following additional objectives: To identify the cost/benefits of information resources To identify the opportunities to use the information resources for strategic competitive advantage To integrate IT investment with strategic business initiatives To identify information flow and processes To develop an integrated information strategy and/or policy To create an awareness of the importance of Information Resource Management (IRM) To monitor/evaluate conformance to information related standards, legislations, policy and guidelines. == Methodology evolution == === Overview === In 1976 Riley first published a definition of IA as a way of analysing IR based on a cost-benefit model. Since Riley, scholars have outlined further developed methodologies. Henderson took a cost-benefit approach hoping to draw focus from manpower-costing to information storage and acquisition which he felt was being overlooked. In 1985 Gillman focused upon identifying the relationships which existed between various components in order to map them to one another. Neither Henderson nor Gillman’s methods offered alternative approaches beyond the existing organisational frameworks. Quinn took a hybrid-approach combining Gillman and Henderson’s methods to identify the purpose of existing IR and to position them within the organisation, as did Worlock. The differentiator between Quinn and Worlock lay in Worlock’s consideration of solutions outside of the current organisational structure. These approaches had thus far had paid little attention to the needs of the user or in making structured recommendations for the development of a corporate information strategy. Therefore, here follows a brief outline and overall comparison of four published strategic approaches in order that one might understand the development of the IA methodology. === Burk and Horton === In 1988 Burk and Horton developed InfoMap, the first IA methodology developed for widespread use. It aimed to discover, map and evaluate the IR within an organisation using a 4-stage process: Survey staff using questionnaires/interviews Measure the IR against cost/value Analyse resources Synthesise the findings and map the strengths and weaknesses of the IR against the objectives of the organisation. Although the method inventoried all IR (and therefore met standard ISO 1779) this bottom-up approach revealed limited analysis of the organisation holistically and the steps were not explicit enough. === Orna === Orna produced a top-down methodology in contrast to Burk and Horton, placing emphasis upon the importance of organisational analysis and aimed to assist in the production of a corporate information policy. Initially the method had just 4-stages, this later revised to a 10-stage process which included pre and post-audit stages as below: Conduct a preliminary review to confirm operational/strategic direction Gain support/resource from management Gain commitment from the other stakeholders (staff) Planning including the project, team, tools and techniques Identify the IR, information flow and produce a cost/value assessment Interpret findings based upon current versus desired state Produce a report to present findings Implement recommendations Monitor effects of change Repeat the IA Orna’s method introduced the need for a cyclical IA to be put in place in order for the IR to be continually tracked and improvements made regularly. Again this method was criticised for lacking some practical application and in 2004 Orna revised the methodology once more to try to rectify this problem === Buchanan and Gibb === In 1998, similarly to Orna's earlier publication, Buchanan and Gibb took a top-down approach, drawing techniques from established management disciplines to provide a framework and a level of familiarity for information professionals. This set of techniques was a notable contribution to IA methodologies and understood the need to be flexible for each organisation. Theirs was a 5-stage process: Promote benefits of the IA through seminars/surveys/CEO letter for cooperation Identify the mission objectives of the organisation, define environment (PEST), map information flow and examine organisation culture. Analyse and formulate action plan for problem areas, flow diagrams and a report of findings and recommendations Account for cost of IR and related services using Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Output Based Specification (OBS). Synthesise the whole process in final audit report and provide an information strategy (strategic direction) in relation to the organisation’s mission statement. This was the introduction of a new approach to costing the IR and had an integrated strategic direction, yet the scholars admitted that this method may be impractical for smaller organisations. === Henczel === Henczel’s methodology drew upon the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to produce a 7-stage process: Planning and submission of business case for approval to proceed Data collection and development of an IR database and population through survey techniques Structured data analysis Data evaluation, interpretation and formulation of recommendations Communication of recommendations through a report Implementing recommendations through a devised programme The IA as a continuum-establishment of a cyclical process Focus was made once more on the strategic direction of the organisation conducting the IA. Furthermore, Henczel made examination into the use of the IA as a first-step in the development of a knowledge audit or knowledge management strategy as discussed in the later section. == Case studies == Scholars and information professionals have since tested the above methodologies with varied results. An early case study produced by Soy and Bustelo in a Spanish financial institution in 1999 aimed to identify the use of information resources for qualitative and quantitative data analysis due to the rapid expansion of the organisation within a six-year period. Although the methodology was not explicitly credited to any of the above-mentioned scholars, it did follow a strategic (post 1990's) IA process including gaining support from management, the use of questionnaires for data collection, analysis and evaluation of the data, identification and mapping of the IR, cost-analysis and outlining recommendations to assist with the establishment of an Information policy. In addition the IA report suggested that the process would need to be continual (cyclical as Orna, Henczel and Buchanan and Gibb suggest). Conclusions of this case-study stated that th
Progressive Graphics File
PGF (Progressive Graphics File) is a wavelet-based bitmapped image format that employs lossless and lossy data compression. PGF was created to improve upon and replace the JPEG format. It was developed at the same time as JPEG 2000 but with a focus on speed over compression ratio. PGF can operate at higher compression ratios without taking more encoding/decoding time and without generating the characteristic "blocky and blurry" artifacts of the original DCT-based JPEG standard. It also allows more sophisticated progressive downloads. == Color models == PGF supports a wide variety of color models: Grayscale with 1, 8, 16, or 31 bits per pixel Indexed color with palette size of 256 RGB color image with 12, 16 (red: 5 bits, green: 6 bits, blue: 5 bits), 24, or 48 bits per pixel ARGB color image with 32 bits per pixel Lab color image with 24 or 48 bits per pixel CMYK color image with 32 or 64 bits per pixel == Technical discussion == PGF claims to achieve an improved compression quality over JPEG adding or improving features such as scalability. Its compression performance is similar to the original JPEG standard. Very low and very high compression rates (including lossless compression) are also supported in PGF. The ability of the design to handle a very large range of effective bit rates is one of the strengths of PGF. For example, to reduce the number of bits for a picture below a certain amount, the advisable thing to do with the first JPEG standard is to reduce the resolution of the input image before encoding it — something that is ordinarily not necessary for that purpose when using PGF because of its wavelet scalability properties. The PGF process chain contains the following four steps: Color space transform (in case of color images) Discrete Wavelet Transform Quantization (in case of lossy data compression) Hierarchical bit-plane run-length encoding === Color components transformation === Initially, images have to be transformed from the RGB color space to another color space, leading to three components that are handled separately. PGF uses a fully reversible modified YUV color transform. The transformation matrices are: [ Y r U r V r ] = [ 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 − 1 0 0 − 1 1 ] [ R G B ] ; [ R G B ] = [ 1 3 4 − 1 4 1 − 1 4 − 1 4 1 − 1 4 3 4 ] [ Y r U r V r ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}Y_{r}\\U_{r}\\V_{r}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}{\frac {1}{4}}&{\frac {1}{2}}&{\frac {1}{4}}\\1&-1&0\\0&-1&1\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}R\\G\\B\end{bmatrix}};\qquad \qquad {\begin{bmatrix}R\\G\\B\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}1&{\frac {3}{4}}&-{\frac {1}{4}}\\1&-{\frac {1}{4}}&-{\frac {1}{4}}\\1&-{\frac {1}{4}}&{\frac {3}{4}}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}Y_{r}\\U_{r}\\V_{r}\end{bmatrix}}} The chrominance components can be, but do not necessarily have to be, down-scaled in resolution. === Wavelet transform === The color components are then wavelet transformed to an arbitrary depth. In contrast to JPEG 1992 which uses an 8x8 block-size discrete cosine transform, PGF uses one reversible wavelet transform: a rounded version of the biorthogonal CDF 5/3 wavelet transform. This wavelet filter bank is exactly the same as the reversible wavelet used in JPEG 2000. It uses only integer coefficients, so the output does not require rounding (quantization) and so it does not introduce any quantization noise. === Quantization === After the wavelet transform, the coefficients are scalar-quantized to reduce the amount of bits to represent them, at the expense of a loss of quality. The output is a set of integer numbers which have to be encoded bit-by-bit. The parameter that can be changed to set the final quality is the quantization step: the greater the step, the greater is the compression and the loss of quality. With a quantization step that equals 1, no quantization is performed (it is used in lossless compression). In contrast to JPEG 2000, PGF uses only powers of two, therefore the parameter value i represents a quantization step of 2i. Just using powers of two makes no need of integer multiplication and division operations. === Coding === The result of the previous process is a collection of sub-bands which represent several approximation scales. A sub-band is a set of coefficients — integer numbers which represent aspects of the image associated with a certain frequency range as well as a spatial area of the image. The quantized sub-bands are split further into blocks, rectangular regions in the wavelet domain. They are typically selected in a way that the coefficients within them across the sub-bands form approximately spatial blocks in the (reconstructed) image domain and collected in a fixed size macroblock. The encoder has to encode the bits of all quantized coefficients of a macroblock, starting with the most significant bits and progressing to less significant bits. In this encoding process, each bit-plane of the macroblock gets encoded in two so-called coding passes, first encoding bits of significant coefficients, then refinement bits of significant coefficients. Clearly, in lossless mode all bit-planes have to be encoded, and no bit-planes can be dropped. Only significant coefficients are compressed with an adaptive run-length/Rice (RLR) coder, because they contain long runs of zeros. The RLR coder with parameter k (logarithmic length of a run of zeros) is also known as the elementary Golomb code of order 2k. === Comparison with other file formats === JPEG 2000 is slightly more space-efficient in handling natural images. The PSNR for the same compression ratio is on average 3% better than the PSNR of PGF. It has a small advantage in compression ratio but longer encoding and decoding times. PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is more space-efficient in handling images with many pixels of the same color. There are several self-proclaimed advantages of PGF over the ordinary JPEG standard: Superior compression performance: The image quality (measured in PSNR) for the same compression ratio is on average 3% better than the PSNR of JPEG. At lower bit rates (e.g. less than 0.25 bits/pixel for gray-scale images), PGF has a much more significant advantage over certain modes of JPEG: artifacts are less visible and there is almost no blocking. The compression gains over JPEG are attributed to the use of DWT. Multiple resolution representation: PGF provides seamless compression of multiple image components, with each component carrying from 1 to 31 bits per component sample. With this feature there is no need for separately stored preview images (thumbnails). Progressive transmission by resolution accuracy, commonly referred to as progressive decoding: PGF provides efficient code-stream organizations which are progressive by resolution. This way, after a smaller part of the whole file has been received, it is possible to see a lower quality of the final picture, the quality can be improved monotonically getting more data from the source. Lossless and lossy compression: PGF provides both lossless and lossy compression in a single compression architecture. Both lossy and lossless compression are provided by the use of a reversible (integer) wavelet transform. Side channel spatial information: Transparency and alpha planes are fully supported ROI extraction: Since version 5, PGF supports extraction of regions of interest (ROI) without decoding the whole image. == Available software == The author published libPGF via a SourceForge, under the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.0. Xeraina offers a free Windows console encoder and decoder, and PGF viewers based on WIC for 32bit and 64bit Windows platforms. Other WIC applications including File Explorer are able to display PGF images after installing this viewer. Digikam is a popular open-source image editing and cataloging software that uses libPGF for its thumbnails. It makes use of the progressive decoding feature of PGF images to store a single version of each thumbnail, which can then be decoded to different resolutions without loss, thus allowing users to dynamically change the size of the thumbnails without having to recalculate them again.
Consensus clustering
Consensus clustering is a method of aggregating (potentially conflicting) results from multiple clustering algorithms. Also called cluster ensembles or aggregation of clustering (or partitions), it refers to the situation in which a number of different (input) clusterings have been obtained for a particular dataset and it is desired to find a single (consensus) clustering which is a better fit in some sense than the existing clusterings. Consensus clustering is thus the problem of reconciling clustering information about the same data set coming from different sources or from different runs of the same algorithm. When cast as an optimization problem, consensus clustering is known as median partition, and has been shown to be NP-complete, even when the number of input clusterings is three. Consensus clustering for unsupervised learning is analogous to ensemble learning in supervised learning. == Issues with existing clustering techniques == Current clustering techniques do not address all the requirements adequately. Dealing with large number of dimensions and large number of data items can be problematic because of time complexity; Effectiveness of the method depends on the definition of "distance" (for distance-based clustering) If an obvious distance measure doesn't exist, we must "define" it, which is not always easy, especially in multidimensional spaces. The result of the clustering algorithm (that, in many cases, can be arbitrary itself) can be interpreted in different ways. == Justification for using consensus clustering == There are potential shortcomings for all existing clustering techniques. This may cause interpretation of results to become difficult, especially when there is no knowledge about the number of clusters. Clustering methods are also very sensitive to the initial clustering settings, which can cause non-significant data to be amplified in non-reiterative methods. An extremely important issue in cluster analysis is the validation of the clustering results, that is, how to gain confidence about the significance of the clusters provided by the clustering technique (cluster numbers and cluster assignments). Lacking an external objective criterion (the equivalent of a known class label in supervised analysis), this validation becomes somewhat elusive. Iterative descent clustering methods, such as the SOM and k-means clustering circumvent some of the shortcomings of hierarchical clustering by providing for univocally defined clusters and cluster boundaries. Consensus clustering provides a method that represents the consensus across multiple runs of a clustering algorithm, to determine the number of clusters in the data, and to assess the stability of the discovered clusters. The method can also be used to represent the consensus over multiple runs of a clustering algorithm with random restart (such as K-means, model-based Bayesian clustering, SOM, etc.), so as to account for its sensitivity to the initial conditions. It can provide data for a visualization tool to inspect cluster number, membership, and boundaries. However, they lack the intuitive and visual appeal of hierarchical clustering dendrograms, and the number of clusters must be chosen a priori. == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm is one of the most popular consensus clustering algorithms and is used to determine the number of clusters, K {\displaystyle K} . Given a dataset of N {\displaystyle N} total number of points to cluster, this algorithm works by resampling and clustering the data, for each K {\displaystyle K} and a N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} consensus matrix is calculated, where each element represents the fraction of times two samples clustered together. A perfectly stable matrix would consist entirely of zeros and ones, representing all sample pairs always clustering together or not together over all resampling iterations. The relative stability of the consensus matrices can be used to infer the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . More specifically, given a set of points to cluster, D = { e 1 , e 2 , . . . e N } {\displaystyle D=\{e_{1},e_{2},...e_{N}\}} , let D 1 , D 2 , . . . , D H {\displaystyle D^{1},D^{2},...,D^{H}} be the list of H {\displaystyle H} perturbed (resampled) datasets of the original dataset D {\displaystyle D} , and let M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} denote the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} connectivity matrix resulting from applying a clustering algorithm to the dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} . The entries of M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} are defined as follows: M h ( i , j ) = { 1 , if points i and j belong to the same cluster 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle M^{h}(i,j)={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if}}{\text{ points i and j belong to the same cluster}}\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Let I h {\displaystyle I^{h}} be the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} identicator matrix where the ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} -th entry is equal to 1 if points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are in the same perturbed dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} , and 0 otherwise. The indicator matrix is used to keep track of which samples were selected during each resampling iteration for the normalisation step. The consensus matrix C {\displaystyle C} is defined as the normalised sum of all connectivity matrices of all the perturbed datasets and a different one is calculated for every K {\displaystyle K} . C ( i , j ) = ( ∑ h = 1 H M h ( i , j ) ∑ h = 1 H I h ( i , j ) ) {\displaystyle C(i,j)=\left({\frac {\textstyle \sum _{h=1}^{H}M^{h}(i,j)\displaystyle }{\sum _{h=1}^{H}I^{h}(i,j)}}\right)} That is the entry ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} in the consensus matrix is the number of times points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} were clustered together divided by the total number of times they were selected together. The matrix is symmetric and each element is defined within the range [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . A consensus matrix is calculated for each K {\displaystyle K} to be tested, and the stability of each matrix, that is how far the matrix is towards a matrix of perfect stability (just zeros and ones) is used to determine the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . One way of quantifying the stability of the K {\displaystyle K} th consensus matrix is examining its CDF curve (see below). == Over-interpretation potential of the Monti consensus clustering algorithm == Monti consensus clustering can be a powerful tool for identifying clusters, but it needs to be applied with caution as shown by Şenbabaoğlu et al. It has been shown that the Monti consensus clustering algorithm is able to claim apparent stability of chance partitioning of null datasets drawn from a unimodal distribution, and thus has the potential to lead to over-interpretation of cluster stability in a real study. If clusters are not well separated, consensus clustering could lead one to conclude apparent structure when there is none, or declare cluster stability when it is subtle. Identifying false positive clusters is a common problem throughout cluster research, and has been addressed by methods such as SigClust and the GAP-statistic. However, these methods rely on certain assumptions for the null model that may not always be appropriate. Şenbabaoğlu et al demonstrated the original delta K metric to decide K {\displaystyle K} in the Monti algorithm performed poorly, and proposed a new superior metric for measuring the stability of consensus matrices using their CDF curves. In the CDF curve of a consensus matrix, the lower left portion represents sample pairs rarely clustered together, the upper right portion represents those almost always clustered together, whereas the middle segment represent those with ambiguous assignments in different clustering runs. The proportion of ambiguous clustering (PAC) score measure quantifies this middle segment; and is defined as the fraction of sample pairs with consensus indices falling in the interval (u1, u2) ∈ [0, 1] where u1 is a value close to 0 and u2 is a value close to 1 (for instance u1=0.1 and u2=0.9). A low value of PAC indicates a flat middle segment, and a low rate of discordant assignments across permuted clustering runs. One can therefore infer the optimal number of clusters by the K {\displaystyle K} value having the lowest PAC. == Related work == Clustering ensemble (Strehl and Ghosh): They considered various formulations for the problem, most of which reduce the problem to a hyper-graph partitioning problem. In one of their formulations they considered the same graph as in the correlation clustering problem. The solution they proposed is to compute the best k-partition of the graph, which does not take into account the penalty for merging two nodes that are far apart. Clustering aggregation (Fern and Brodley): They applied the clustering aggregation idea to a collection of soft clusterings they obtained by random projections. They used an agglomerative algorithm
L-1 Identity Solutions
L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. was an American biometric technology company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, specializing in identity management products and services including facial recognition systems, fingerprint readers, and secure credentialing solutions for governments and commercial enterprises. The company's shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ID." == History == L-1 Identity Solutions was formed on August 29, 2006, from a merger of Viisage Technology, Inc. and Identix Incorporated. Prior to the Safran acquisition, L-1 divested its Intelligence Services Group (ISG) comprising SpecTal LLC, Advanced Concepts Inc., and McClendon LLC to BAE Systems, Inc. for approximately $297 million. The transaction, initially announced in September 2010, closed on February 15, 2011, with more than 1,000 ISG employees joining BAE Systems' Intelligence & Security sector. It specializes in selling face recognition systems, electronic passports, such as Fly Clear, and other biometric technology to governments such as the United States and Saudi Arabia. It also licenses technology to other companies internationally, including China. On July 26, 2011, Safran (NYSE Euronext Paris: SAF) acquired L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. for a total cash amount of USD 1.09 billion. L-1 was part of Morpho's MorphoTrust department which rebranded to Idemia in 2017. Bioscrypt is a biometrics research, development and manufacturing company purchased by L-1 Identity Solutions. It provides fingerprint IP readers for physical access control systems, Facial recognition system readers for contactless access control authentication and OEM fingerprint modules for embedded applications. According to IMS Research, Bioscrypt has been the world market leader in biometric access control for enterprises (since 2006) with a worldwide market share of over 13%. In 2011, Bioscrypt was sold to Safran Morpho.
Linguamatics
Linguamatics, headquartered in Cambridge, England, with offices in the United States and UK, is a provider of text mining systems through software licensing and services, primarily for pharmaceutical and healthcare applications. Founded in 2001, the company was purchased by IQVIA in January 2019. == Technology == The company develops enterprise search tools for the life sciences sector. The core natural language processing engine (I2E) uses a federated architecture to incorporate data from 3rd party resources. Initially developed to be used interactively through a graphic user interface, the core software also has an application programming interface that can be used to automate searches. LabKey, Penn Medicine, Atrius Health and Mercy all use Linguamatics software to extract electronic health record data into data warehouses. Linguamatics software is used by 17 of the top 20 global pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as healthcare providers. == Software community == The core software, "I2E", is used by a number of companies to either extend their own software or to publish their data. Copyright Clearance Center uses I2E to produce searchable indexes of material that would otherwise be unsearchable due to copyright. Thomson Reuters produces Cortellis Informatics Clinical Text Analytics, which depends on I2E to make clinical data accessible and searchable. Pipeline Pilot can integrate I2E as part of a workflow. ChemAxon can be used alongside I2E to allow named entity recognition of chemicals within unstructured data. Data sources include MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA Drug Labels, PubMed Central, and Patent Abstracts.
Supermind AI
Supermind is a state-funded Chinese artificial intelligence platform that tracks scientists and researchers internationally. The platform is the flagship project of Shenzhen's International Science and Technology Information Center. It mines data from science and technology databases such as Springer, Wiley, Clarivate and Elsevier. It is intended to detect technological breakthroughs and to identify possible sources of talent as part of China's efforts to advance technologically. The platform also uses government data security and security intelligence organizations such as Peng Cheng Laboratory, the China National GeneBank, BGI Group and the Key Laboratory of New Technologies of Security Intelligence. According to Hong Kong-based Asia Times, the platform, "While not an overt espionage tool...may be used to identify key personnel who could be bribed, deceived or manipulated into divulging classified information". The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) flagged the project as an incident, meaning it may be of interest to policymakers and other stakeholders. US technology group American Edge Project criticized the project as a global risk of China's security services using the platform to place agents in jobs with access to important information, recruit technical personnel, and identify targets for hacking operations.
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