coosld/tig-monorepopool
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/tig-pool-nk/tig-monorepo.git synced 2026-02-21 15:31:26 +08:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update documents for breakthroughs -> advances.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
FiveMovesAhead 2025-08-04 01:06:22 +01:00
parent 5134089700
commit 713e1483f7
20 changed files with 391 additions and 529 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
README.md
View File

@ -9,15 +9,15 @@ This repository contains the implementation of The Innovation Game (TIG).
* [TIG Documentation](https://docs.tig.foundation/)
* [TIG Whitepaper](docs/whitepaper.pdf)
* [TIG Licensing Explainer](docs/guides/anatomy.md)
* [Implementations vs Breakthroughs](docs/guides/breakthroughs.md)
* [Implementations vs Advances](docs/guides/advances.md)
* [Voting Guidelines for Token Holders](docs/guides/voting.md)
## Repo Contents
* [tig-advances](./tig-advances/README.md) - A folder that hosts submissions of algorithmic methods made by Innovators in TIG.
* [tig-algorithms](./tig-algorithms/README.md) - A Rust crate that hosts algorithm submissions made by Innovators in TIG
* [tig-benchmarker](./tig-benchmarker/README.md) - Python scripts for running TIG's benchmarker in master/slave configuration
* [tig-binary](./tig-binary/README.md) - A Rust crate that wraps an algorithm from [`tig-algorithm`](./tig-algorithms/README.md) for compilation into a shared object.
* [tig-breakthroughs](./tig-breakthroughs/README.md) - A folder that hosts submissions of algorithmic methods made by Innovators in TIG.
* [tig-challenges](./tig-challenges/README.md) - A Rust crate that contains the implementation of TIG's challenges (computational problems adapted for proof-of-work)
* [tig-protocol](./tig-protocol/README.md) - A Rust crate that contains the implementation of TIG's core protocol logic.
* [tig-runtime](./tig-runtime/README.md) - A Rust crate that execute an algorithm (compiled from [`tig-binary`](./tig-binary/README.md)) for a single nonce, generating runtime signature and fuel consumed for verification.

BIN
docs/agreements/game_rules.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/agreements/game_terms.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/agreements/invention_assignment.doc
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/agreements/invention_assignment.docx Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

125
docs/guides/advances.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
# Rewarding Innovation in The Innovation Game
## Introduction
The rewards for innovation in The Innovation Game (the "**Game**") are designed to be **sufficient** to incentivise innovators to submit their innovation ("**Contributions**") to the Game on the understanding that the Contributions will be made available to others as the basis for **open innovation** under the *TIG Open Data License*, and for further innovation by participants in the Game under the terms of the *TIG Innovator Outbound Game License*.
By **sufficiency** we mean that the reward must be at least enough to cause commercially valuable innovation (by implication, what is commercially valuable should, at least, be novel over the state of the art, innovative and free from encumbrances) to be submitted to the Game. What is sufficient reward may not necessarily be equitable in terms of fully compensating an innovator for their contribution of value (that is almost impossible to determine at the point of submission of the Contribution), at least not immediately, it just needs to be enough to cause the innovator to submit their Contribution.
In an ideal world the rewards to innovators would be exactly commensurate with the value added by an innovator’s Contribution. Because the Game seeks to reward Contributors for improved algorithm performance, it is intuitively attractive to look for a method of quantitatively measuring algorithmic performance but this would add significant (and what we consider unnecessary) complexity and also fail to recognise a number of realities including, the difficulties of objectively measuring and verifying the quantum of immediate commercial value of a particular Contribution, its spill over value and any latent value realised only later in time after the rewards have been assessed. Accordingly, we have decided, for now, to keep it as simple as possible. We will seek only what is **sufficient** in terms of reward to an innovator to compensate them for their effort and ingenuity to incentivise them to submit their innovation to the Game. This assessment of reward may not necessarily look objectively fair in relative terms (when comparing one algorithm to another), particularly in hindsight, but any apparent inequity is mitigated by the fact that the value of the TIG token will represent all off the accrued value of all Contributions over time and so each innovator will have the chance to benefit (if they hold some or all of their tokens) from the value created not just by their Contribution but also that from the Contributions of everyone else throughout the life of the Game.
One of the most obvious rewards offered by the Innovation Game for Contributions is the TIG token. Whether the token rewards are sufficient to incentivise the submission of Contributions will depend on the token price prevailing at the time of submission, the number of challenges to which rewards are allocated and, also to some extent, on the expected future value of the token. Some submissions will also be motivated by other forms of reward such as academic impact.
Because the token price will vary from time to time, we will only know if, as the basis of reward it is sufficient, by gathering empirical evidence provided by the quality of submissions in practice, and by feedback from potential innovators. For this reason, the Team will always be on alert to adjusting the rewards for the Game to make them sufficient. Whilst the protocol is still in development innovator rewards will be under constant review.
If an innovator decides to withhold their innovation from the Game because they assess that the reward is not sufficient incentive, they will be exposed to the jeopardy that, whilst they wait, someone else may submit an equivalent or better Contribution and resultingly then be deprived of the rewards that they may have earned themselves by submitting their algorithm.
A fundamental cornerstone of the Game is the synthetic market that is created by incentivising benchmarkers to create demand for the most performant algorithm implementations. The value of a Contribution is measured in that market by benchmarkers; the more a Contribution is adopted, the more reward is allocated to it. If a change of a single line of code in an existing code implementation (whether it relates to a change to the algorithmic method or to a code optimisation) makes sufficient difference that benchmarkers, acting rationally to improve their performance in the Game, adopt it instead of other available alternatives, then the market is designed to reward that change.
In the context of the Game, with the exception below related to the TIG Game Rules\*, it is crooked thinking to simply assess the quantum of lines of code present or changed for determining the appropriateness for reward or what the quantum of that reward should be. If the synthetic market is functioning properly the best algorithm implementation will prevail and an enquiry into "why" it is prevailing is not relevant. It is the job of the Team to ensure that the synthetic market is the closest proxy that it can be for rewarding the algorithmic performance and utility most valued by commercial enterprise.
\**The TIG Game Rules do mandate that a Contribution must make a "meaningful difference" over existing implementations in the Game. This will stop straightforward plagiarism where no or insignificant additional value is added by a Contributor and this aspect of the Game Rules will be policed.*
## Defining and Classifying Innovation
Generally, improvements in algorithmic methods tend to yield exponential or order-of-magnitude efficiency gains by changing the problem-solving approach, while the way in which algorithmic methods are implemented in code tend to provide incremental improvements. It is important therefore, that TIG places emphasis on incentivising the submission of innovative algorithmic methods. TIG intends to do that by introducing a process for identifying innovative algorithmic methods that will then be eligible for additional rewards.
We propose to distinguish two different types of Contribution in the context of the Game and rewarding them differently: (1) **Algorithm Implementations** (code); and (2) **Algorithmic Advances** (methods**)**.
Implementations of algorithms comprise two elements; **(i)** an algorithmic method (the fundamental approach or strategy for solving a problem, independent of specific code or language); and **(ii)** an expression of the algorithmic method in code.
In the Game the algorithmic method element may be a Algorithmic Advance or an algorithmic method that is not a Algorithmic Advance.
## Algorithmic Advances
TIG believes that the determination of whether an algorithmic method is an Algorithmic Advance should be done by a combination of; **(i)** a token weighted vote assessing novelty and inventiveness\*; and **(ii)** an assessment of the performance of the algorithmic method determined solely by the extent of its adoption by benchmarkers in the "TIG synthetic market" (see: *Accessing Advance Rewards* below).
\* *For a discussion and explanation of novelty and inventiveness in the context of the Game see the document [Advance Rewards Guide for Token Holders](./voting.md).*
## Algorithm Implementations
Algorithm Implementations are expressions of algorithmic methods in code and in the context of the Game they may be an expression of an algorithmic method which is a Algorithmic Advance or an expression of an algorithmic method that is not a Algorithmic Advance.
## Token Rewards for Innovation
To reflect the patentability and significant impact on performance that innovative algorithmic methods can have compared with algorithm implementations, TIG will offer additional rewards for Algorithmic Advances. These additional rewards, so called "**Advance Rewards"**, are brought about through the design of the protocol enabling the rewards for Algorithmic Advances to persist for multiple Rounds where they continue to provide the basis of algorithm implementations adopted by benchmarkers.
An Algorithm Implementation which does not embody an algorithmic method which is eligible for potential Advance Rewards, only rewards the innovator that submitted the Algorithm Implementation with Standard Rewards (subject to satisfaction of adoption thresholds). Because of the absence of a Algorithmic Advance, Advance Rewards notionally allocated for Algorithmic Advances will, instead, be allocated to the TIG treasury and used to bootstrap Algorithmic Advance development (these are referred to in the Game as "**Bootstrap Rewards**").
For Algorithm Implementations that embody an algorithmic method which is eligible for potential Advance Rewards, two types of reward are potentially available (subject to satisfaction of adoption thresholds):
* **Standard Rewards** will be available for the innovator that submitted the adopted implementation of the Algorithmic Advance.
* **Advance Rewards** will be available for the innovator that submitted the Algorithmic Advance embodied in the implementation.
The innovator(s) earning Standard Rewards and Advance Rewards in respect of an Algorithm Implementation may be the same or different entities. An innovator can earn both Standard Rewards and Advance Rewards simultaneously or at different times.
### Standard Rewards for Algorithm Implementations
**10%** of the total rewards available in a Round will be allocated to Standard Rewards for Algorithm Implementations.
### Advance Rewards for Algorithmic Advances
**20%** of the total rewards available in a Round will be allocated to Advance Rewards for Algorithmic Advances.
The most significant difference between Standard Rewards and Advance Rewards is that the Advance Rewards will continue to be earned where the Algorithmic Advance is inherited by an implementation, meaning that Advance Rewards can persist for longer because they will be earned in connection with any, and all adopted implementations of that Algorithmic Advance. Standard Rewards will be earned only for as long as the respective implementation is adopted by benchmarkers. Notwithstanding that the allocations of rewards are prima facie equal for both Advance Rewards and Standard Rewards (at 15% each), because of the factor of persistence of adoption in calculating aggregate rewards over time, Advance Rewards in respect of significant algorithmic breakthroughs are likely to far exceed Standard Rewards.
Advance Rewards are expected to be greater than Standard Rewards to reflect four attributes of Algorithmic Advances;
1) they are potentially patentable (bringing greater commercial value to the TIG ecosystem);
2) they are novel (there is no novelty test in the Game for Code Optimisations which means they may have lower commercial value than Algorithmic Advances);
3) they generally have greater potential to make significant performance improvements over the state of the art (bringing greater value to the TIG ecosystem); and
4) they are more certain to have value extrinsic to the Game.
It is the Team’s belief that sufficiency of reward can be achieved in respect of Standard Rewards by appropriately setting the period during which a Code Optimisation will be guaranteed not to be used as the basis for a subsequent Code Optimisation contributed by a third party. At present this period is two Rounds. Only the behaviour of innovators can ultimately signal to us whether, at a minimum, this "protected" period for a Code Optimisation is sufficient to incentivise its submission to the game and we will be monitoring this as the protocol develops.
## Accessing Advance Rewards
If an Innovator believes that their Contribution is or embodies a potential Algorithmic Advance, then they may request that their Contribution is considered for approval as a Algorithmic Advance. For a Contribution to be a Algorithmic Advance, the following must **ALL** be satisfied with respect to the Contribution:
1) It must be declared, by Token Holder Vote that the Algorithm implementation subject to review embodies an algorithmic method that is eligible for potential Advance Rewards;
2) The intellectual property rights embodied in the Contribution must be irrevocably assigned to TIG in accordance with the TIG IP Policy;
3) The Contributor must burn two hundred and fifty (250) TIG tokens for each requested Token Holder Vote; and
4) In a rolling 1 week window the sum of all algorithm implementations which embody the algorithmic method subject to review must achieve a sufficient degree of adoption by Benchmarkers (where for Standard rewards the adoption threshold by benchmarkers is presently 25% before the algorithm implementation is merged to obtain Standard Rewards, the corresponding adoption threshold by benchmarkers for potential Algorithmic Advances will be 50%). The reason why the threshold of adoption is higher for potential Algorithmic Advances is that TIG wishes to reserve Advance Rewards for algorithmic improvements that offer a significant universal improvement in performance (which will be valued more highly by commercial licensees).
Essentially the **Token Holder Vote** is assessing the novelty and inventiveness of a contributed algorithmic method. To maximise the likelihood that an Algorithmic Advance will be ratified by Token Holder Vote, an innovator seeking Advance Rewards is advised to disclose the following information so that it may be assessed by token holders:
* **Novelty:** Provide results of a prior art search to identify any existing disclosures that might affect the novelty of your algorithmic method.
* **Inventiveness:** Clearly document how the algorithmic method differs from existing solutions (i.e. is non-obvious) and any new technical effect it achieves.
* **Technical Effect:** Document of how the algorithmic method offers the potential to provide the basis for significant technical advancements. Document how the algorithmic method might have **real world application** e.g. in fields such as computer security, medical imaging, autonomous systems. or data compression.
## Encumbrances
The value of Contributions to TIG will be compromised if the Contributions are encumbered by third party intellectual property rights and terms of the TIG Inbound Game License seeks to deal with this.
The terms of the TIG Inbound Game License state:
"Submitter represents that Submitter is legally entitled to grant the above licenses and that, to the best of Submitter’s knowledge, the Work does not infringe any rights of a third party."
## Attribution of Copyright Owner
The header file for each algorithm implementation submitted to the Game must comply with the terms of the TIG Inbound Game License. This establishes the identity of the copyright owner (which may or may not be the original author of the code) of the implementation of the algorithmic method in source code.
## Unique Algorithmic Method Identifier (UAI)
With the introduction of Advance Rewards, the significance of the correct identification of the original creator of the algorithmic method embodied in an algorithm implementation has even greater significance.
It is important that the identification is not only correct, but that it appears in all algorithm implementations which embody the relevant algorithmic method.
The copyright notice does not necessarily identify the original creator of the algorithmic method embodied in the implementation (because the creator of the algorithmic method and the author of the code implementing the algorithmic method may be different). For this reason, the header file must also include information which identifies the creator of the algorithmic method. To do this TIG will issue a Unique Algorithmic Method Identifier (UAI) for any algorithmic method submitted to TIG. This UAI will be included in the header file of the algorithm implementation embodying the algorithmic method before it is published by TIG. The UAI will enable TIG to identify which algorithmic methods are eligible for Advance Rewards and which ones are not.
The Game Rules will mandate that where an Algorithm Implementation (Algorithm B) is a modified implementation of an existing Algorithm Implementation (Algorithm A) and continues to embody an algorithmic method substantially similar to that embodied in Algorithm A, if Algorithm A has an associated UAI then that UAI must be entered into the header file of Algorithm B. This should create a correct indication of the heritage of the code back to the original creator of the relevant embodied algorithmic method.
There will be a very strong incentive for innovators that benefit from Advance Rewards to ensure that they protect the persistence of the Advance Rewards associated with their Algorithmic Advance, by carefully scrutinising the novelty of any challenger algorithmic methods submitted to TIG.
## Attribution of Contributor
The header file must also include an attribution of the name of the Contributor (referred to as "Submitter" in the TIG Inbound Game License) of the Contribution and the Game Rules will be amended such that any code based on the work submitted by that Contributor is required to attribute the Contributor thus creating an indication of the heritage of the code back to the original Contributor.

6
docs/guides/anatomy.md
View File

@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ Notwithstanding that the copyright will afford significant value in the optimise
To help nurture and sustain open collaboration it is important that there is a disincentive to escape the “copyleft effect” sought by the TIG Open Data Licence with respect to the innovation incentivised and captured by The Innovation Game. Therefore, in addition to any copyright assigned to TIG in code submitted to The Innovation Game (which may be evaded by re-implementation), TIG wishes to seek patents on the technical effects of certain algorithmic advances embodied in submitted code.
TIG will provide enhanced rewards for code submissions which embody an algorithmic advance. To be considered for such enhanced rewards the Innovator must**: (i)** submit a claim which meets certain minimum disclosure criteria; and **(ii)** provide a fixed deposit. Whether the submitted code meets the standard to be classified as an algorithmic advance will be determined by a vote which will be open to all TIG token holders.
TIG will provide advance rewards for code submissions which embody an algorithmic advance. To be considered for such advance rewards the Innovator must**: (i)** submit a claim which meets certain minimum disclosure criteria; and **(ii)** provide a fixed deposit. Whether the submitted code meets the standard to be classified as an algorithmic advance will be determined by a vote which will be open to all TIG token holders.
TIG will file a provisional patent application (taking advantage of the twelve month grace period for disclosure available in the US) in relation to algorithmic advances prior to publication of such advances in The Innovation Game.
@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ The license fees will be adjustable to respond to demand and the growth of value
### What assurance does a licensee have that the licensed algorithm implementations do not infringe third party intellectual property rights ?**
The TIG Inbound Game License secures license rights for TIG with scope that is sufficient to support onward licensing of a contributors IP under any of the downstream TIG licenses. With respect to code that is not the original work of a contributor the level of exposure to third party IP infringement is the same as it would be under the license under which it was contributed (e.g. MIT, BSD, Apache). For IP that is assigned to TIG in return for enhanced rewards any patent granted related to that IP will only be granted by an examiner if it is novel which would be a firm indication that it is an original invention.
The TIG Inbound Game License secures license rights for TIG with scope that is sufficient to support onward licensing of a contributors IP under any of the downstream TIG licenses. With respect to code that is not the original work of a contributor the level of exposure to third party IP infringement is the same as it would be under the license under which it was contributed (e.g. MIT, BSD, Apache). For IP that is assigned to TIG in return for advance rewards any patent granted related to that IP will only be granted by an examiner if it is novel which would be a firm indication that it is an original invention.
## TIG Open Data License
@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ The TIG Open Data License only requires disclosure pf data that does not retain
### Am I obliged to assign the IP in my algorithm improvement to TIG ?
No. The assignment of intellectual property related to algorithmic breakthroughs will be an important contributor to driving the value of the innovator incentives (TIG Tokens) over time but there is no obligation to assign ownership of any intellectual property to TIG. It is the intention of TIG to introduce enhanced rewards for algorithmic breakthroughs that are submitted to the game should the innovator wish to claim them. Assignment of ownership of inventions will only be necessary if an innovator wishes to claim enhanced rewards.
No. The assignment of intellectual property related to algorithmic advances will be an important contributor to driving the value of the innovator incentives (TIG Tokens) over time but there is no obligation to assign ownership of any intellectual property to TIG. It is the intention of TIG to introduce advance rewards for algorithmic advances that are submitted to the game should the innovator wish to claim them. Assignment of ownership of inventions will only be necessary if an innovator wishes to claim advance rewards.
## TIG Benchmarker Game License

341
docs/guides/breakthroughs.md
View File

@ -1,341 +0,0 @@
# Rewarding Innovation in The Innovation Game
## Introduction
The rewards for innovation in The Innovation Game (the "**Game**") are
designed to be **sufficient** to incentivise innovators to submit their
innovation ("**Contributions**") to the Game on the understanding that
the Contributions will be made available to others as the basis for
**open innovation** under the *TIG Open Data License*, and for further
innovation by participants in the Game under the terms of the *TIG
Innovator Outbound Game License*.
By **sufficiency** we mean that the reward must be at least enough to
cause commercially valuable innovation (by implication, what is
commercially valuable should, at least, be novel over the state of the
art, innovative and free from encumbrances) to be submitted to the Game.
What is sufficient reward may not necessarily be equitable in terms of
fully compensating an innovator for their contribution of value (that is
almost impossible to determine at the point of submission of the
Contribution), at least not immediately, it just needs to be enough to
cause the innovator to submit their Contribution.
In an ideal world the rewards to innovators would be exactly
commensurate with the value added by an innovator's Contribution.
Because the Game seeks to reward Contributors for improved algorithm
performance, it is intuitively attractive to look for a method of
quantitatively measuring algorithmic performance but this would add
significant (and what we consider unnecessary) complexity and also fail
to recognise a number of realities including, the difficulties of
objectively measuring and verifying the quantum of immediate commercial
value of a particular Contribution, its spill over value and any latent
value realised only later in time after the rewards have been assessed.
Accordingly, we have decided, for now, to keep it as simple as possible.
We will seek only what is **sufficient** in terms of reward to an
innovator to compensate them for their effort and ingenuity to
incentivise them to submit their innovation to the Game. This assessment
of reward may not necessarily look objectively fair in relative terms
(when comparing one algorithm to another), particularly in hindsight,
but any apparent inequity is mitigated by the fact that the value of the
TIG token will represent **all** off the accrued value of all
Contributions over time and so each innovator will have the chance to
benefit (if they hold some or all of their tokens) from the value
created not just by their Contribution but also that from the
Contributions of everyone else throughout the life of the Game.
One of the most obvious rewards offered by the Innovation Game for
Contributions is the TIG token. Whether the token rewards are sufficient
to incentivise the submission of Contributions will depend on the token
price prevailing at the time of submission, the number of challenges to
which rewards are allocated and, also to some extent, on the expected
future value of the token. Some submissions will also be motivated by
other forms of reward such as academic impact.
Because the token price will vary from time to time, we will only know
if, as the basis of reward it is sufficient, by gathering empirical
evidence provided by the quality of submissions in practice, and by
feedback from potential innovators. For this reason, the Team will
always be on alert to adjusting the rewards for the Game to make them
sufficient. Whilst the protocol is still in development innovator
rewards will be under constant review.
If an innovator decides to withhold their innovation from the Game
because they assess that the reward is not sufficient incentive, they
will be exposed to the jeopardy that, whilst they wait, someone else may
submit an equivalent or better Contribution and resultingly then be
deprived of the rewards that they may have earned themselves by
submitting their algorithm.
A fundamental cornerstone of the Game is the synthetic market that is
created by incentivising benchmarkers to create demand for the most
performant algorithm implementations. The value of a Contribution is
measured in that market by benchmarkers; the more a Contribution is
adopted, the more reward is allocated to it. If a change of a single
line of code in an existing code implementation (whether it relates to a
change to the algorithmic method or to a code optimisation) makes
sufficient difference that benchmarkers, acting rationally to improve
their performance in the Game, adopt it instead of other available
alternatives, then the market is designed to reward that change.
In the context of the Game, with the exception below related to the TIG
Game Rules\*, it is crooked thinking to simply assess the quantum of
lines of code present or changed for determining the appropriateness for
reward or what the quantum of that reward should be. If the synthetic
market is functioning properly the best algorithm implementation will
prevail and an enquiry into "why" it is prevailing is not relevant. It
is the job of the Team to ensure that the synthetic market is the
closest proxy that it can be for rewarding the algorithmic performance
and utility most valued by commercial enterprise.
\**The TIG Game Rules do mandate that a Contribution must make a
"meaningful difference" over existing implementations in the Game. This
will stop straightforward plagiarism where no or insignificant
additional value is added by a Contributor and this aspect of the Game
Rules will be policed.*
## Defining and Classifying Innovation
Generally, improvements in algorithmic methods tend to yield exponential
or order-of-magnitude efficiency gains by changing the problem-solving
approach, while the way in which algorithmic methods are implemented in
code tend to provide incremental improvements. It is important
therefore, that TIG places emphasis on incentivising the submission of
innovative algorithmic methods. TIG intends to do that by introducing a
process for identifying innovative algorithmic methods that will then be
eligible for additional rewards.
We propose to distinguish two different types of Contribution in the
context of the Game and rewarding them differently: (1) **Algorithm
Implementations** (code); and (2) **Breakthrough Algorithms**
(methods).
Implementations of algorithms comprise two elements; **(i)** an
algorithmic method (the fundamental approach or strategy for solving a
problem, independent of specific code or language); and **(ii)** an
expression of the algorithmic method in code.
In the Game the algorithmic method element may be a Breakthrough
Algorithm or an algorithmic method that is not a Breakthrough Algorithm.
### Breakthrough Algorithms
TIG believes that the determination of whether an algorithmic method is
a Breakthrough Algorithm should be done by a combination of; **(i)** a
token weighted vote assessing novelty and inventiveness\*; and **(ii)**
an assessment of the performance of the algorithmic method determined
solely by the extent of its adoption by benchmarkers in the "TIG
synthetic market" (see: *Accessing Breakthrough Rewards* below).
\* *For a discussion and explanation of novelty and inventiveness in the
context of the Game see [Breakthrough Rewards Guide for
Token Holders](./voting.md).*
### Algorithm Implementations
Algorithm Implementations are expressions of algorithmic methods in code
and in the context of the Game they may be an expression of an
algorithmic method which is a Breakthrough Algorithm or an expression of
an algorithmic method that is not a Breakthrough Algorithm.
## Token Rewards for Innovation
To reflect the patentability and significant impact on performance that
innovative algorithmic methods can have compared with algorithm
implementations, TIG will offer additional rewards for Breakthrough
Algorithms. These additional rewards (so called "**Breakthrough
Rewards")**, are brought about through the design of the protocol
enabling the rewards for Breakthrough Algorithms to persist for multiple
Rounds where they continue to provide the basis of algorithm
implementations adopted by benchmarkers.
An Algorithm Implementation which does not embody an algorithmic method
which is eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards, only rewards the
innovator that submitted the Algorithm Implementation with Standard
Rewards (subject to satisfaction of adoption thresholds). Because of the
absence of a Breakthrough Algorithm, Breakthrough Rewards notionally
allocated for Breakthrough Algorithms will, instead, be allocated to the
TIG treasury and used to bootstrap Breakthrough Algorithm development
(these are referred to in the Game as "**Bootstrap Rewards**").
For Algorithm Implementations that embody an algorithmic method which is
eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards, two types of reward are
potentially available (subject to satisfaction of adoption thresholds):
- **Standard Rewards** will be available for the innovator that
submitted the adopted implementation of the Breakthrough Algorithm.
- **Breakthrough Rewards** will be available for the innovator that
submitted the Breakthrough Algorithm embodied in the implementation.
The innovator(s) earning Standard Rewards and Breakthrough Rewards in
respect of an Algorithm Implementation may be the same or different
entities. An innovator can earn both Standard Rewards and Breakthrough
Rewards simultaneously or at different times.
### Standard Rewards for Algorithm Implementations
> **15%** of the total rewards available in a Round will be allocated to
> Standard Rewards for Algorithm Implementations.
### Breakthrough Rewards for Breakthrough Algorithms
> **15%** of the total rewards available in a Round will be allocated to
> Breakthrough Rewards for Breakthrough Algorithms.
The most significant difference between Standard Rewards and
Breakthrough Rewards is that the Breakthrough Rewards will continue to
be earned where the Breakthrough Algorithm is inherited by an
implementation, meaning that Breakthrough Rewards can persist for longer
because they will be earned in connection with any, and all adopted
implementations of that Breakthrough Algorithm. Standard Rewards will be
earned only for as long as the respective implementation is adopted by
benchmarkers. Notwithstanding that the allocations of rewards are prima
facie equal for both Breakthrough Rewards and Standard Rewards (at 15%
each), because of the factor of persistence of adoption in calculating
aggregate rewards over time, Breakthrough Rewards in respect of
significant algorithmic breakthroughs are likely to far exceed Standard
Rewards.
Breakthrough Rewards are expected to be greater than Standard Rewards to
reflect four attributes of Breakthrough Algorithms;
(i) they are potentially patentable (bringing greater commercial value
to the TIG ecosystem);
(ii) they are novel (there is no novelty test in the Game for Code
Optimisations which means they may have lower commercial value than
Breakthrough Algorithms);
(iii) they generally have greater potential to make significant
performance improvements over the state of the art (bringing
greater value to the TIG ecosystem); and
(iv) they are more certain to have value extrinsic to the Game.
It is the Team's belief that sufficiency of reward can be achieved in
respect of Standard Rewards by appropriately setting the period during
which a Code Optimisation will be guaranteed not to be used as the basis
for a subsequent Code Optimisation contributed by a third party. At
present this period is two Rounds. Only the behaviour of innovators can
ultimately signal to us whether, at a minimum, this "protected" period
for a Code Optimisation is sufficient to incentivise its submission to
the game and we will be monitoring this as the protocol develops.
## Accessing Breakthrough Rewards
If an Innovator believes that their Contribution is or embodies a
potential Breakthrough Algorithm, then they may request that their
Contribution is considered for approval as a Breakthrough Algorithm. For
a Contribution to be a Breakthrough Algorithm, the following must
**ALL** be satisfied with respect to the Contribution:
(i) It must be declared, by Token Holder Vote that the Algorithm
implementation subject to review embodies an algorithmic method that
is eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards;
(ii) The intellectual property rights embodied in the Contribution must
be irrevocably assigned to TIG in accordance with the TIG IP
Policy;
(iii) The Contributor must burn two hundred and fifty (250) TIG tokens
for each requested Token Holder Vote; and
(iv) In a rolling 1 week window the sum of all algorithm implementations
which embody the algorithmic method subject to review must achieve
a sufficient degree of adoption by Benchmarkers (where for Standard
rewards the adoption threshold by benchmarkers is presently 25%
before the algorithm implementation is merged to obtain Standard
Rewards, the corresponding adoption threshold by benchmarkers for
potential Breakthrough Algorithms will be 50%). The reason why the
threshold of adoption is higher for potential Breakthrough
Algorithms is that TIG wishes to reserve Breakthrough Rewards for
algorithmic improvements that offer a significant universal
improvement in performance (which will be valued more highly by
commercial licensees).
Essentially the **Token Holder Vote** is assessing the novelty and
inventiveness of a contributed algorithmic method. To maximise the
likelihood that a Breakthrough Algorithm will be ratified by Token
Holder Vote, an innovator seeking Breakthrough Rewards is advised to
disclose the following information so that it may be assessed by token
holders:
- **Novelty:** Provide results of a prior art search to identify any
existing disclosures that might affect the novelty of your algorithmic
method.
- **Inventiveness:** Clearly document how the algorithmic method differs
from existing solutions (i.e. is non-obvious) and any new technical
effect it achieves.
- **Technical Effect:** Document of how the algorithmic method offers
the potential to provide the basis for significant technical
advancements. Document how the algorithmic method might have **real
world application** e.g. in fields such as computer security, medical
imaging, autonomous systems. or data compression.
## Encumbrances
The value of Contributions to TIG will be compromised if the
Contributions are encumbered by third party intellectual property rights
and terms of the TIG Inbound Game License seeks to deal with this.
The terms of the TIG Inbound Game License state:
"Submitter represents that Submitter is legally entitled to grant the
above licenses and that, to the best of Submitter's knowledge, the Work
does not infringe any rights of a third party."
## Attribution of Copyright Owner
The header file for each algorithm implementation submitted to the Game
must comply with the terms of the TIG Inbound Game License. This
establishes the identity of the copyright owner (which may or may not be
the original author of the code) of the implementation of the
algorithmic method in source code.
## Unique Algorithmic Method Identifier (UAI)
With the introduction of Breakthrough Rewards, the significance of the
correct identification of the original creator of the algorithmic method
embodied in an algorithm implementation has even greater significance.
It is important that the identification is not only correct, but that it
appears in all algorithm implementations which embody the relevant
algorithmic method.
The copyright notice does not necessarily identify the original creator
of the algorithmic method embodied in the implementation (because the
creator of the algorithmic method and the author of the code
implementing the algorithmic method may be different). For this reason,
the header file must also include information which identifies the
creator of the algorithmic method. To do this TIG will issue a Unique
Algorithmic Method Identifier (UAI) for any algorithmic method submitted
to TIG. This UAI will be included in the header file of the algorithm
implementation embodying the algorithmic method before it is published
by TIG. The UAI will enable TIG to identify which algorithmic methods
are eligible for Breakthrough Rewards and which ones are not.
The Game Rules will mandate that where an Algorithm Implementation
(Algorithm B) is a modified implementation of an existing Algorithm
Implementation (Algorithm A) and continues to embody an algorithmic
method substantially similar to that embodied in Algorithm A, if
Algorithm A has an associated UAI then that UAI must be entered into the
header file of Algorithm B. This should create a correct indication of
the heritage of the code back to the original creator of the relevant
embodied algorithmic method.
There will be a very strong incentive for innovators that benefit from
Breakthrough Rewards to ensure that they protect the persistence of the
Breakthrough Rewards associated with their Breakthrough Algorithm, by
carefully scrutinising the novelty of any challenger algorithmic methods
submitted to TIG.
## Attribution of Contributor
The header file must also include an attribution of the name of the
Contributor (referred to as "Submitter" in the TIG Inbound Game License)
of the Contribution and the Game Rules will be amended such that any
code based on the work submitted by that Contributor is required to
attribute the Contributor thus creating an indication of the heritage of
the code back to the original Contributor.

40
docs/guides/voting.md
View File

@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
# Breakthrough Rewards Guide for Token Holders
# Advance Rewards Guide for Token Holders
## SUMMARY
- **Vote on whether an algorithmic method is eligible to earn potential Breakthrough Rewards.**
- **Vote on whether an algorithmic method is eligible to earn potential Advance Rewards.**
- **One token one vote.**
@ -23,9 +23,9 @@
- **Assessing the impact of your voting decision on token value**
## What are Breakthrough Rewards and why does TIG offer them ?
## What are Advance Rewards and why does TIG offer them ?
- Breakthrough Rewards are a notional class of TIG token reward that is reserved for rewarding ONLY innovation in algorithmic methods.
- Advance Rewards are a notional class of TIG token reward that is reserved for rewarding ONLY innovation in algorithmic methods.
- The efficiency gains from improved algorithmic methods versus code optimizations in implementations can differ greatly in impact and scale.
@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
- Generally, improvements in algorithmic methods tend to yield exponential or order-of-magnitude efficiency gains by changing the problem-solving approach, while code optimizations tend to provide incremental improvements by refining an existing algorithm's implementation [*For illustrative examples see Appendix 1*]. It is important therefore, that TIG places emphasis on incentivising the submission of innovative algorithmic methods. TIG intends to do that by introducing a process for identifying algorithmic methods that may be eligible for higher rewards.
- To reflect the difference in impact and scale that improvements in algorithmic methods can have compared with code optimisations, TIG seeks to offer higher rewards for innovation in algorithmic methods. These higher rewards, so called “**Breakthrough Rewards”**, are made available through both**; (i)** a proportion of rewards in each Round being available to reward innovative algorithmic methods; and **(ii)** the design of the protocol enabling the rewards for innovative algorithmic methods to persist for multiple Rounds where they continue to provide the basis of algorithm implementations adopted by Benchmarkers.
- To reflect the difference in impact and scale that improvements in algorithmic methods can have compared with code optimisations, TIG seeks to offer higher rewards for innovation in algorithmic methods. These higher rewards, so called “**Advance Rewards”**, are made available through both**; (i)** a proportion of rewards in each Round being available to reward innovative algorithmic methods; and **(ii)** the design of the protocol enabling the rewards for innovative algorithmic methods to persist for multiple Rounds where they continue to provide the basis of algorithm implementations adopted by Benchmarkers.
**Intellectual Property**
@ -42,15 +42,15 @@
## What is a Token Holder Vote ?
- TIG believes that the determination of whether an algorithmic method is eligible for Breakthrough Rewards should be done by a token weighted vote.
- TIG believes that the determination of whether an algorithmic method is eligible for Advance Rewards should be done by a token weighted vote.
- Because the value of TIG tokens should correlate with the acquisition, by TIG, of innovative algorithmic methods and associated valuable intellectual property and because both of these are incentivised by the offer of Breakthrough Rewards, TIG believes that the interests of TIG token holders are very well aligned with the objective of correctly determining when eligibility for potential Breakthrough Rewards is appropriate.
- Because the value of TIG tokens should correlate with the acquisition, by TIG, of innovative algorithmic methods and associated valuable intellectual property and because both of these are incentivised by the offer of Advance Rewards, TIG believes that the interests of TIG token holders are very well aligned with the objective of correctly determining when eligibility for potential Advance Rewards is appropriate.
- Only votes cast will be counted for the purposes of determining the result of the Token Holder Vote. Abstentions and uncast votes will not be counted.
- Delegation of token votes will not be enabled initially but may be introduced at some point in the future.
- If 50% or more of the votes cast vote affirmatively, then the subject algorithmic method will be eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards from the beginning of the Round in which it is made available for benchmarking. Whether an algorithmic method with the potential to earn Breakthrough Rewards does earn those rewards will depend on adoption by Benchmarkers sufficient to reach the threshold for merger.
- If 50% or more of the votes cast vote affirmatively, then the subject algorithmic method will be eligible for potential Advance Rewards from the beginning of the Round in which it is made available for benchmarking. Whether an algorithmic method with the potential to earn Advance Rewards does earn those rewards will depend on adoption by Benchmarkers sufficient to reach the threshold for merger.
- Algorithmic methods which are the subject of the vote will be made public for review at the beginning of the Round commencing one Round after the Round in which the algorithmic method was submitted to TIG.
@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
## When does a Token Holder Vote occur ?
- A Token Holder Vote will be called by TIG each time an innovator requests a determination of whether their submitted algorithmic method is eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards.
- A Token Holder Vote will be called by TIG each time an innovator requests a determination of whether their submitted algorithmic method is eligible for potential Advance Rewards.
## Do you qualify to vote ?
@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
## What are you voting on ?
- **You are voting on whether you think the algorithmic method subject to review is eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards.**
- **You are voting on whether you think the algorithmic method subject to review is eligible for potential Advance Rewards.**
## What should you consider when exercising your vote ?
@ -80,7 +80,7 @@
- **How you vote is entirely up to you.**
- When voting; assuming you wish to enhance the value of the TIG tokens that you hold, it is important that you are equipped to recognise the kind of innovation that Breakthrough Rewards are intended to incentivise.
- When voting; assuming you wish to enhance the value of the TIG tokens that you hold, it is important that you are equipped to recognise the kind of innovation that Advance Rewards are intended to incentivise.
- Where an algorithmic method is submitted to the game embodied in a code implementation, first you should distinguish the algorithmic method embodied in the algorithm implementation from the way the algorithmic method is expressed in the code implementation. [***See Appendix 2***].
@ -94,9 +94,9 @@
- TIG anticipates that the contributor of the incumbent algorithmic method will advocate **against** the novelty and inventiveness of the challenger algorithmic method where appropriate, and the challenger will advocate **for** its novelty and inventiveness. We will establish a discord channel for each Token Holder Vote so that these arguments on each side can be put, examined, and challenged. This should provide a rich, case specific, body of knowledge to help with the assessment that you will be making.
- TIG accepts that not all TIG token holders will have the necessary skills or experience to make an informed decision on whether eligibility for potential Breakthrough Rewards is appropriate in every specific case, but we hope that sufficient people with the requisite skill, knowledge and experience will engage, advocate and vote in such a way that eligibility is appropriately awarded. In the future we may introduce delegation of votes so that token holders can delegate analysis to experts that they trust to vote in a way that maximises token value.
- TIG accepts that not all TIG token holders will have the necessary skills or experience to make an informed decision on whether eligibility for potential Advance Rewards is appropriate in every specific case, but we hope that sufficient people with the requisite skill, knowledge and experience will engage, advocate and vote in such a way that eligibility is appropriately awarded. In the future we may introduce delegation of votes so that token holders can delegate analysis to experts that they trust to vote in a way that maximises token value.
- Essentially, we expect a rational token holder when voting in the Token Holder Vote to be assessing the novelty and inventiveness of a contributed algorithmic method, and by so doing, its patentability. To maximise the likelihood that an innovative algorithmic method will be ratified by Token Holder Vote as eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards, contributors seeking Breakthrough Rewards have been advised to disclose the following information so that it may be assessed by token holders:
- Essentially, we expect a rational token holder when voting in the Token Holder Vote to be assessing the novelty and inventiveness of a contributed algorithmic method, and by so doing, its patentability. To maximise the likelihood that an innovative algorithmic method will be ratified by Token Holder Vote as eligible for potential Advance Rewards, contributors seeking Advance Rewards have been advised to disclose the following information so that it may be assessed by token holders:
- **Novelty:** Results of a prior art search to identify any existing disclosures that might affect the novelty of your algorithmic method.
@ -107,25 +107,25 @@
## The implications of the outcome of the token holder vote for the TIG protocol
To further assist you in exercising your vote in an informed way, we have set out below some of the implications of affirming an algorithmic method as being eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards.
To further assist you in exercising your vote in an informed way, we have set out below some of the implications of affirming an algorithmic method as being eligible for potential Advance Rewards.
### Impact on Innovator Incentives
- A voter may be tempted to default to voting affirmatively on each Token Holder Vote with the intent of making an algorithmic method eligible for Breakthrough Rewards to ensure that there is at least an option for TIG to capture intellectual property with respect to the algorithmic method. This might seem the safe option to ensure that TIG can capture innovation presented to it. But you should note that TIG has the right to apply for patents based on all algorithmic methods contributed to the game with an associated request for a Token Holder Vote regardless of the outcome of the vote.
- A voter may be tempted to default to voting affirmatively on each Token Holder Vote with the intent of making an algorithmic method eligible for Advance Rewards to ensure that there is at least an option for TIG to capture intellectual property with respect to the algorithmic method. This might seem the safe option to ensure that TIG can capture innovation presented to it. But you should note that TIG has the right to apply for patents based on all algorithmic methods contributed to the game with an associated request for a Token Holder Vote regardless of the outcome of the vote.
You should endeavour to avoid affirming eligibility for potential Breakthrough Rewards for algorithmic methods that are not, novel and inventive because this can have serious consequences by prejudicing and stifling innovation that does satisfy those criteria.
You should endeavour to avoid affirming eligibility for potential Advance Rewards for algorithmic methods that are not, novel and inventive because this can have serious consequences by prejudicing and stifling innovation that does satisfy those criteria.
An algorithmic method that is incorrectly made eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards may, if sufficiently adopted by benchmarkers, either; **(i)** deprive an innovator of their continuing Breakthrough Rewards thus disincentivising future innovation from that innovator and other observers; or **(ii)** deprive the TIG Treasury of bootstrap rewards (see below). Bootstrap Rewards should be used to fund/incentivise research towards an algorithmic breakthrough corresponding to challenges featured in TIG.
An algorithmic method that is incorrectly made eligible for potential Advance Rewards may, if sufficiently adopted by benchmarkers, either; **(i)** deprive an innovator of their continuing Advance Rewards thus disincentivising future innovation from that innovator and other observers; or **(ii)** deprive the TIG Treasury of bootstrap rewards (see below). Bootstrap Rewards should be used to fund/incentivise research towards an algorithmic breakthrough corresponding to challenges featured in TIG.
### Bootstrap Rewards
- It is possible, particularly in the early phases of TIG, that certain challenges will **not** be addressed in the Game by algorithmic methods that are eligible for Breakthrough Rewards because the algorithmic methods lack novelty or inventiveness or because no relevant algorithmic method has reached the threshold to be merged. In this situation those TIG token rewards ordinarily available for innovators as Breakthrough Rewards will be unallocated (we call these unallocated rewards, “**Bootstrap Rewards**”).
- It is possible, particularly in the early phases of TIG, that certain challenges will **not** be addressed in the Game by algorithmic methods that are eligible for Advance Rewards because the algorithmic methods lack novelty or inventiveness or because no relevant algorithmic method has reached the threshold to be merged. In this situation those TIG token rewards ordinarily available for innovators as Advance Rewards will be unallocated (we call these unallocated rewards, “**Bootstrap Rewards**”).
- Bootstrap Rewards will be allocated to the TIG Treasury. Bootstrap Rewards will be “ringfenced” and used very specifically by TIG (through distribution of bounty rewards) to incentivise the development of algorithmic methods which address challenges for which there are not presently algorithmic methods in the TIG Game which are eligible for potential Breakthrough Rewards or not merged. This should help algorithmic methods in the Game reach state of the art more quickly and this will accelerate the capture of meaningful value by TIG. This form of “centralised” allocation should only persist for as long as there are challenges in the game which are not solved by algorithmic methods that are earning Breakthrough Rewards.
- Bootstrap Rewards will be allocated to the TIG Treasury. Bootstrap Rewards will be “ringfenced” and used very specifically by TIG (through distribution of bounty rewards) to incentivise the development of algorithmic methods which address challenges for which there are not presently algorithmic methods in the TIG Game which are eligible for potential Advance Rewards or not merged. This should help algorithmic methods in the Game reach state of the art more quickly and this will accelerate the capture of meaningful value by TIG. This form of “centralised” allocation should only persist for as long as there are challenges in the game which are not solved by algorithmic methods that are earning Advance Rewards.
## Intellectual Property
- TIG will only have the rights to file patent applications based on algorithmic methods where the contributor has sought Breakthrough Rewards by making a request for a Token Holder Vote. Innovators will only request Token Holder Votes if they have reasonable confidence that the process is fair and consistent allowing them to assess their chances of success in the vote with reasonable certainty.
- TIG will only have the rights to file patent applications based on algorithmic methods where the contributor has sought Advance Rewards by making a request for a Token Holder Vote. Innovators will only request Token Holder Votes if they have reasonable confidence that the process is fair and consistent allowing them to assess their chances of success in the vote with reasonable certainty.
## Commercial Value

BIN
docs/licenses/benchmarker_outbound_license.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/licenses/commercial_license.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/licenses/inbound_license.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/licenses/innovator_outbound_license.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/licenses/open_data_license.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
docs/licenses/thv_license.pdf Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

24
tig-breakthroughs/README.md → tig-advances/README.md
View File

@ -1,33 +1,33 @@
# tig-breakthroughs
# tig-advances
A folder that hosts submissions of algorithmic methods made by Innovators in TIG.
Each submissions is committed to their own branch with the naming pattern:
`<challenge_name>\breakthrough\<method_name>`
`<challenge_name>\advance\<method_name>`
## Making a Submission
1. Read important docs for what is a Breakthrough and how it is rewarded:
* [Implementations vs Breakthroughs](../docs/guides/breakthroughs.md)
1. Read important docs for what is an Advance and how it is rewarded:
* [Implementations vs Advances](../docs/guides/advances.md)
* [Voting Guidelines for Token Holders](../docs/guides/voting.md)
2. Email the following to `breakthroughs@tig.foundation` with subject "Breakthrough Submission (`<breakthrough_name>`)":
* **Evidence form**: copy & fill in [`evidence.md`](./evidence.md). Of particular importance is Section 1 which describes your breakthrough
2. Email the following to `advances@tig.foundation` with subject "Advance Submission (`<advance_name>`)":
* **Evidence form**: copy & fill in [`evidence.md`](./evidence.md). Of particular importance is Section 1 which describes your advance
* **Invention assignment**: copy & replace [invention_assignment.doc](../docs/agreements/invention_assignment.doc) the highlighted parts. Inventor and witness must sign.
* **Address Signature**: use [etherscan](https://etherscan.io/verifiedSignatures#) to sign a message `I am signing this message to confirm my submission of breakthrough <breakthrough_name>`. Use your player_id that is making the submission. Send the verified etherscan link with message and signature.
* **Address Signature**: use [etherscan](https://etherscan.io/verifiedSignatures#) to sign a message `I am signing this message to confirm my submission of advance <advance_name>`. Use your player_id that is making the submission. Send the verified etherscan link with message and signature.
* (Optional) **Code implementation**: attach code implementing your breakthrough. Do not submit this code to TIG separately. This will be done for you
* (Optional) **Code implementation**: attach code implementing your advance. Do not submit this code to TIG separately. This will be done for you
**Notes**:
* The time of submission will be taken as the timestamp of the auto-reply to your email attaching the required documents.
* The time of submission will be taken as the timestamp of your email attaching the required documents.
* Iterations are permitted for errors highlighted by the Foundation. This will not change the timestamp of your submission
* 250 TIG will be deducted from your Available Fee Balance to make a breakthrough submission
* 250 TIG will be deducted from your Available Fee Balance to make a advance submission
* An additional 10 TIG will be deducted from your Available Fee Balance to make an algorithm submission (if one is attached)
@ -37,8 +37,8 @@ Each submissions is committed to their own branch with the naming pattern:
1. New submissions get their branch pushed to a private version of this repository
2. A new submission made during round `X` will have its branch pushed to the public version of this repository at the start of round `X + 2`
3. From the start of round `X + 3` till the start of round `X + 4`, token holders can vote on whether they consider the method to be a breakthrough based off the submitted evidence
3. From the start of round `X + 3` till the start of round `X + 4`, token holders can vote on whether they consider the method to be a advance based off the submitted evidence
4. At the start of round `X + 4`, if the submission has at least 50% yes votes, it becomes active
5. Every block, a method's adoption is the sum of all algorithm adoption, where the algorithm is attributed to that method. Methods with at least 50% adoption earn rewards and a merge point
6. At the end of a round, a method from each challenge with the most merge points, meeting the minimum threshold of 5040, gets merged to the `main` branch
* Merged methods are considered breakthroughs, and receive rewards every block where their adoption is greater than 0%
* Merged methods are considered advances, and receive rewards every block where their adoption is greater than 0%

223
tig-advances/evidence.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
## UNIQUE ALGORITHM IDENTIFIER (UAI)
> UAI PLACEHOLDER - ASSIGNED BY TIG PROTOCOL
# ADVANCE EVIDENCE TEMPLATE
**EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR ADVANCE REWARDS**
## INTRODUCTION
* TIG TOKEN HOLDERS WILL VOTE ON WHETHER YOUR **ALGORITHMIC METHOD** IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADVANCE REWARDS.
* TIG TOKEN HOLDERS ARE FREE TO VOTE AS THEY LIKE BUT HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IN MOST INSTANCES, IF THEY WANT TO MAXIMISE THE VALUE OF THE TOKENS THAT THEY HOLD, THEN THEY SHOULD BE SATISFYING THEMSELVES THAT ALGORITHMIC METHODS THAT THEY VOTE AS ELIGIBLE WILL BE **BOTH** NOVEL AND INVENTIVE.
* THE REASON WHY NOVELTY AND INVENTIVENESS ARE IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES IS BECAUSE THEY ARE PREREQUISITES OF PATENTABILITY AND PATENTS WILL ADD VALUE TO THE TOKENS BY PROVIDING A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST FREERIDERS IF THE PATENTS ARE INFRINGED.
* **THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS TO:**
* CAPTURE A DESCRIPTION OF THE SINGLE, DISCRETE **ALGORITHMIC METHOD** THAT YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ELIGIBILITY.
* IDENTIFY THE CREATOR OF THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD.
* PROMPT YOU TO PROVIDE THE BEST EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CASE THAT THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD IS NOVEL AND INVENTIVE.
* PROMPT YOU TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS FOR ANY TECHNICAL EFFECTS AND REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS OF YOUR ALGORITHMIC METHOD WHERE YOU CAN.
WHEN PROVIDING EVIDENCE, YOU MAY CITE LINKS TO EXTERNAL DATA SOURCES.
***NOTE:** TO HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED WE HAVE PREPARED THE [**ADVANCE REWARDS GUIDELINES**](./guidelines.pdf). PLEASE READ BEFORE COMPLETING THIS TEMPLATE.*
**IMPORTANT: NOTE THAT YOUR SUBMITTED METHOD (AS DEFINED IN THE GUIDELINES \*) REFERS TO A DISCRETE METHOD. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE SPECIFICATION OR IMPLEMENTATION THAT YOU SUBMIT TO THE INNOVATION GAME FOR SOLVING A RELEVANT CHALLENGE, EMBODIES MORE THAN ONE INNOVATIVE ALGORITHMIC METHOD. IN SUCH CASES, YOU SHOULD SELECT THE SINGLE DISCRETE METHOD THAT YOU BELIEVE WILL GIVE YOU THE GREATEST CHANCE OF SUCCESS WHEN SUBJECTED TO A TOKEN HOLDER VOTE FOR ADVANCE REWARD ELIGIBILITY, AND COMPLETE THIS EVIDENCE TEMPLATE WITH RESPECT TO THAT METHOD ONLY (IF YOUR SPECIFICATION OR IMPLEMENTATION EMBODIES MORE THAN ONE DISCRETE INNOVATIVE METHOD PLEASE ALSO DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE METHODS ARE IN SECTION 1 FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES).**
**\* “Method”: means a discrete algorithmic method that is a finite, abstract, and well-defined sequence of steps or operations, formulated to solve a specific problem or compute a result, independent of any programming language or execution environment. A code implementation of a Method, by contrast, is the realization of that Method in a specific programming language or system. For instance, two implementations of Dijkstra’s method in C++ and Java might differ in syntax and performance quirks, but they would still embody the same core method.**
**WITH RESPECT TO YOUR SELECTED METHOD, YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE STEPS BELOW:**
**STEP 1:** IDENTIFY ANY **TECHNICAL EFFECTS** OF EXECUTING THE METHOD. \[SEE SLIDE 6 OF THE ADVANCE REWARDS GUIDELINES\].
**STEP 2:** IDENTIFY THE **FIELD** IN WHICH THE METHOD IS TO BE ASSESSED FOR INVENTIVENESS \[*SEE SLIDE 7* OF THE ADVANCE REWARDS GUIDELINES\].
**STEP 3**: SEARCH FOR AND IDENTIFY **PRIOR ART** THAT MAY IMPACT NOVELTY AND INVENTIVENESS.
**STEP 4:** CONSIDER **NOVELTY**. ESTABLISH THE NOVELTY OF THE PROPOSED METHOD. \[SEE SLIDE 8 OF THE ADVANCE REWARDS GUIDELINES\].
**STEP 5**: BENCHMARK YOUR METHOD USING **TEST DATASETS** \[*SEE SLIDE 9* OF THE ADVANCE REWARDS GUIDELINES\].
**STEP 6**: CONSIDER **INVENTIVENESS** \[*SEE SLIDES 10-16* OF THE ADVANCE REWARDS GUIDELINES\].
## SECTION 1: DESCRIPTION OF YOUR ALGORITHMIC METHOD
*IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS SECTION IS COMPLETED TO FULLY DESCRIBE THE METHOD THAT YOU WISH TO BE ASSESSED TOGETHER WITH ANY OTHER INNOVATIVE METHODS EMBODIED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION IN WHICH YOUR SELECTED METHOD IS EMBODIED BECAUSE THIS WILL DEFINE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXECUTE.*
PLEASE IDENTIFY WHICH TIG CHALLENGE THE METHOD ADDRESSES.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE (options are satisfiability, vehicle_routing, knapsack, vector_search, or hypergraph)
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE METHOD THAT YOU HAVE SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
PLEASE DESCRIBE ANY INNOVATIVE METHODS EMBODIED IN THE SPECIFICATION OR IMPLEMENTATION IN WHICH YOUR SELECTED METHOD IS EMBODIED BUT WHICH YOU HAVE NOT SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTATION EMBODYING YOUR METHOD
*THE COPYRIGHT IN ANY IMPLEMENTATION WHICH EMBODIES THE METHOD WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF THE ASSIGNMENT THAT YOU EXECUTE.*
TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE METHOD IN CODE YOU SHOULD IDENTIFY THE CODE AND SUBMIT IT TOGETHER WITH THIS DOCUMENT.
## SECTION 4: TECHNICAL EFFECT
**YOUR NOMINATED TECHNICAL EFFECT FOR ESTABLISHING THE RELEVANT FIELD**: PLEASE IDENTIFY THE TECHNICAL EFFECT OF YOUR METHOD WHEN EXECUTED ON A COMPUTER WHICH YOU WISH TO BE USED TO HELP DETERMINE THE RELEVANT FIELD.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL EFFECTS**: PLEASE IDENTIFY ANY TECHNICAL EFFECTS OF YOUR METHOD WHEN EXECUTED ON A COMPUTER IN ADDITION TO YOUR NOMINATED TECHNICAL EFFECT.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 5: FIELD
**YOUR NOMINATED FIELD BASED ON YOUR NOMINATED TECHNICAL EFFECT:** PLEASE IDENTIFY THE FIELD THAT YOU BELIEVE MOST CLOSELY ALIGNS WITH YOUR NOMINATED TECHNICAL EFFECT OF YOUR METHOD.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**ADDITIONAL FIELDS**: PLEASE IDENTIFY ANY FIELDS, OTHER THAN YOUR NOMINATED FIELD, IN WHICH YOUR NOMINATED TECHNICAL EFFECT MIGHT BE RELEVANT.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**NO IDENTIFIABLE TECHNICAL EFFECT**: WHERE THERE IS NO IDENTIFIABLE TECHNICAL EFFECT, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE FIELD OF MATHEMATICS IN WHICH YOUR METHOD BELONGS.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 6: NOVELTY
TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT YOUR METHOD IS NOVEL, YOU SHOULD PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT DEMONSTRATES ITS NOVELTY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRIOR ART.
### ESTABLISH THE STATE OF THE ART
PLEASE CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF EXISTING METHODS, PATENTS, ACADEMIC PAPERS, AND INDUSTRY PRACTICES TO IDENTIFY PRIOR ART IN THE DOMAIN.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
PLEASE EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS AND TECHNOLOGIES MOST CLOSELY RELATED TO YOUR METHOD.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
PLEASE SHOW HOW THESE EXISTING METHODS FALL SHORT OF, OR LACK THE FEATURES THAT YOUR METHOD PROVIDES.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
IS THERE NOVELTY IN YOUR METHOD BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY NEW ?
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
IS THERE NOVELTY IN YOUR METHOD BECAUSE IT IS A NEW COMBINATION OF PRIOR ART ?
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
IS THERE NOVELTY IN THE WAY THAT THE METHOD IS APPLIED TO CREATE A TECHNICAL EFFECT ?
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
### EVIDENCE OF NOVELTY
**UNIQUE FEATURES:** PLEASE LIST THE FEATURES, MECHANISMS, OR ASPECTS OF YOUR METHOD THAT ARE ABSENT IN THE PRIOR ART.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**NEW PROBLEM SOLVED:** PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW YOUR METHOD PROVIDES A NEW SOLUTION TO AN EXISTING PROBLEM.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS:** PLEASE USE A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON TABLE TO HIGHLIGHT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR METHOD AND SIMILAR EXISTING METHODS, CLEARLY SHOWING WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS NEW.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 7: TEST DATASET RESULTS
TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT THE METHOD HAS AN UNEXPECTED RESULT, IT IS REQUIRED THAT YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON ITS PERFORMANCE ON DATASETS OUTSIDE OF THE TIG PROTOCOL.
**STANDARD BENCHMARK DATASETS**: PLEASE PROVIDE THE RESULTS OF RUNNING YOUR METHOD ON STANDARD TEST DATASETS PROVIDED BY TIG ON THE [TIG-SOTA-METRICS GITHUB](https://github.com/tig-foundation/tig-SOTA-metrics).
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**SUPPLEMENTARY DATASETS**: PLEASE PROVIDE ANY RESULTS FROM RUNNING ANY SUPPLEMENTARY TESTS ON SUPPLEMENTARY DATASETS USING YOUR METHOD (OPTIONAL).
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**UNEXPECTED RESULT:** PLEASE STATE YOUR OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE RESULTS FROM COMPARING YOUR METHOD AGAINST SOTA METHODS ON STANDARD AND/OR SUPPLEMENTARY DATASETS WOULD BE UNEXPECTED TO A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA).
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 8: INVENTIVENESS
TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT YOUR METHOD IS INVENTIVE, YOU SHOULD PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT DEMONSTRATES ITS NON-OBVIOUSNESS (INVENTIVENESS) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RELEVANT PRIOR ART.
DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF YOUR METHOD, THERE IS A VARYING DEGREE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT IS LIKELY TO BE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF INVENTIVENESS. WE BELIEVE IT IS HELPFUL AND USEFUL TO FILTER METHODS FOR INVENTIVENESS BY ASSESSING THE SOURCE OF THE METHOD AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE METHOD DELIVERS AN UNEXPECTED RESULT.
**METHOD CATEGORISATION**: PLEASE IDENTIFY WHICH CATEGORY A, B, C, D OR E FROM THE INVENTIVENESS GUIDELINES (SEE APPENDIX A TO THIS ADVANCE EVIDENCE TEMPLATE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE) YOU BELIEVE YOUR METHOD BELONGS TO.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**CATEGORISATION RATIONALE:** STATE THE REASONS FOR YOUR CHOICE OF CATEGORY AND IDENTIFY, WHERE RELEVANT, ANY PRIOR ART FROM WITHIN THE FIELD AND FROM OUTSIDE THE FIELD THAT IS EMBODIED IN YOUR METHOD.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
PLEASE STATE WHY IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART IN THE FIELD (POSITA) WOULD HAVE ARRIVED AT YOUR METHOD BY SIMPLY COMBINING EXISTING IDEAS OR EXTENDING KNOWN TECHNIQUES.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
YOUR RESPONSE ABOVE SHOULD CONSIDER AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF:
* **TECHNOLOGY CONTEXT**: DESCRIBE THE COMMON APPROACHES AND CHALLENGES IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO YOUR INNOVATION.
* **UNEXPECTED RESULTS**: HIGHLIGHT RESULTS OR BENEFITS THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREDICTED BASED ON PRIOR ART.
* **ADVANTAGES:** PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF HOW YOUR METHOD OUTPERFORMS OR OFFERS SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING METHODS, SUCH AS:
* INCREASED EFFICIENCY.
* GREATER ACCURACY.
* REDUCED COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY.
* **TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY OR UNPREDICTABILITY**: EXPLAIN HOW YOUR METHOD DOES SOMETHING IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN OBVIOUS CHOICE TO A POSITA.
* **SURPRISING RESULTS OR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE**: DOES YOUR METHOD YIELD UNEXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS (E.G. BETTER ACCURACY, SPEED, EFFICIENCY) ?
* **TEACHING AWAY IN PRIOR ART:** DOES PRIOR WORK SUGGEST THAT YOUR APPROACH WOULD NOT WORK OR WASN’T THE BEST DIRECTION?
* **LONG-FELT NEED**: HAS THE FIELD STRUGGLED WITH THE PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE SOLVING FOR A WHILE, AND YOU SOLVED IT ?
* **POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL ADOPTION:** IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR METHOD HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SEE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OR WIDE ADOPTION ?
* **MOTIVATION:** WOULD A POSITA, FACING THE SAME PROBLEM, HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO TRY YOUR SOLUTION, AND REASONABLY HAVE EXPECTED IT TO WORK ?
* **PREDICTABILITY**: WOULD A POSITA FIND YOUR METHOD A LOGICAL OR PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT ?
* **TEACHING OR SUGGESTION**: WOULD THE PRIOR ART SUGGEST TO OR TEACH A POSITA A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS PATH TO YOUR METHOD ?
* **EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS**: WOULD A POSITA HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF THE SUCCESS OF YOUR METHOD?
## SECTION 9: FURTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PATENTABILITY
**DEVELOPMENT RECORDS:** PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE INVENTION PROCESS, INCLUDING NOTES, SKETCHES, AND SOFTWARE VERSIONS, TO ESTABLISH THE TIMELINE OF YOUR INNOVATION.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 10: ANY OTHER INFORMATION
PLEASE PROVIDE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT YOU THINK MIGHT HELP SUPPORT YOUR REQUEST FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR ADVANCE REWARDS FOR YOUR METHOD.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
**Appendix A**
**Appendix B**
| Category | Evidence |
| :---: | ----- |
| **A** | **New Method or Method new to Field:** The newness of the Method or novelty in the Field should make overcoming obviousness relatively easy providing the Method solves the problem with a reasonable level of performance. If a method offering a reasonable level of performance would be obvious to a POSITA then they would likely have already tried it and the fact that they haven’t suggests it is therefore not obvious. Relevant evidence will therefore be an Unexpected Result (we suggest equal to or greater than 50% of the performance of the SOTA method) from benchmarking. |
| **B** | **Combination with prior art from outside the Field:** You should provide evidence that it would not be obvious for a POSITA to discover the prior art from the other field and combine it with prior art in the Field. You should also provide supporting evidence of commercial value or utility; the more evidence of this that you can provide the less likely it will be that the combination will be deemed to be obvious (commercial value or utility provides a source of motivation for the creation of the Method which a POSITA would be assumed to have responded to already if it was obvious to do so). Evidence of an Unexpected Result, as above, will be relevant for Methods in this Category too. |
| **C** | **Method based on prior art seen in the Field applied to produce a Technical Effect also seen in the Field but not previously associated with the Method:** A POSITA will be deemed to have knowledge of the prior art in the Field and the nature of the Technical Effect. You should provide evidence that it would not be obvious for a POSITA to achieve the Technical Effect using the Method. You should also provide supporting evidence of commercial value or utility; the more evidence of this that you can provide the less likely it will be that the application will be deemed to be obvious (commercial value or utility provides a source of motivation for the creation of the Method which a POSITA would be assumed to have responded to already if it was obvious to do so). Relevant evidence will therefore be an Unexpected Result (we suggest equal to or greater than the performance of the SOTA method) from benchmarking. |
| **D** | **Prior art from same field combined in a new way:** A POSITA will be deemed to have knowledge of the prior art. If an improved outcome based on prior art known to the POSITA would be obvious, they would likely have tried it. The most compelling evidence of non-obviousness will therefore be an Unexpected Result (we suggest equal to or greater than the performance of the SOTA method) from benchmarking. You should also provide supporting evidence of commercial value or utility; the more evidence of this that you can provide the less likely it will be that the combination will be deemed to be obvious (commercial value or utility provides a source of motivation for the creation of the Method which a POSITA would be assumed to have responded to already if it was obvious to do so). |
| **E** | **Method incorporates prior art seen in the Field applied in a new way within the Method (i.e. the application of the prior art to solve a mathematical problem or subset of a mathematical problem in a way for which there is no known precedent):** A POSITA will be deemed to have knowledge of the mathematical method and so you should provide supporting evidence that it would not be obvious for a POSITA to apply the mathematical method to solve the relevant problem in the way that your Method does. If an improved outcome based on prior art known to the POSITA would be obvious, they would likely have tried it and the fact that they haven’t suggests it is therefore not obvious. As with Category D, the most compelling evidence of non-obviousness will be an Unexpected Result (we suggest equal to or greater than the performance of the SOTA method) from benchmarking. As for Category D, you should also provide supporting evidence of commercial value or utility. |

BIN
tig-advances/guidelines.pdf Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

12
tig-algorithms/README.md
View File

@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Each submissions is committed to their own branch with the naming pattern:
2. [Developer Environment](#developer-environment)
3. [Improving Algorithms](#improving-algorithms)
4. [GPU Algorithms](#gpu-algorithms)
5. [Attributing Breakthroughs](#attributing-breakthroughs)
5. [Attributing Advances](#attributing-advances)
6. [License](#license)
# Quick Start
@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ Each submissions is committed to their own branch with the naming pattern:
*/
```
* See [Attributing Breakthroughs](#attributing-breakthroughs) for how to set UAI field
* See [Attributing Advances](#attributing-advances) for how to set UAI field
* Visit https://test.tig.foundation/innovation/submission and follow the instructions
* Each new address on testnet gets 10 TIG balance
* Algorithms on testnet can be used straight away after they are successfully compiled
@ -140,12 +140,12 @@ nvidia-smi
To be competitive in these challenges, you should develop cuda kernels in a `.cu` file which can be launched from your rust `.rs` code.
# Attributing Breakthroughs
# Attributing Advances
Innovators in TIG can also [submit breakthroughs](../tig-breakthroughs/README.md) (algorithmic methods).
Innovators in TIG can also [submit advances](../tig-advances/README.md) (algorithmic methods).
If your implementation is based on breakthrough that has been submitted to TIG, you must attribute your implementation to it (example UAI: `c001_b001`)
* UAI of a method is detailed inside `tig-breakthroughs/<challenge_name>/<method_name>.md`
If your implementation is based on an advance that has been submitted to TIG, you must attribute your implementation to it (example UAI: `c001_b001`)
* UAI of a method is detailed inside `tig-advances/<challenge_name>/<method_name>.md`
* If your implementation is based on an algorithmic method outside of TIG, set UAI to `null`
# License

145
tig-breakthroughs/evidence.md
View File

@ -1,145 +0,0 @@
# EVIDENCE
THIS IS A TEMPLATE FOR EVIDENCE TO BE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR BREAKTHROUGH REWARDS
## OVERVIEW
- TIG TOKEN HOLDERS WILL VOTE ON WHETHER YOUR ALGORITHMIC METHOD IS ELIGIBLE FOR BREAKTHROUGH REWARDS
- TIG TOKEN HOLDERS ARE FREE TO VOTE AS THEY LIKE BUT HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT IF THEY WANT TO MAXIMISE THE VALUE OF THE TOKENS THAT THEY HOLD, THEN THEY SHOULD BE SATISFYING THEMSELVES THAT ALGORITHIC METHODS THAT THEY VOTE AS ELIGIBLE WILL BE BOTH NOVEL AND INVENTIVE
- THE REASON WHY NOVELTY AND INVENTIVENESS ARE IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES IS BECAUSE THEY ARE PREREQUISITES OF PATENTATBILITY.
- **THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS TO:**
- CAPTURE A DESCRIPTION OF THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD THAT YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ELIGIBILTY.
- TO IDENTIFY THE CREATOR OF THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD.
- TO PROMPT YOU TO PROVIDE THE BEST EVIDNCE TO SUPPORT THE CASE THAT THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD IS NOVEL AND INVENTIVE.
- TO PROMPT YOU TO PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS FOR REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS OF YOUR ALGORITHMIC METHOD WHERE YIOU CAN.
WHEN PROVIDING EVIDENCE, YOU MAY CITE LINKS TO EXTERNAL DATA SOURCES.
## UNIQUE ALGORITHM IDENTIFIER (UAI)
> UAI PLACEHOLDER - ASSIGNED BY TIG PROTOCOL
## SECTION 1
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS SECTION IS COMPLETED IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO FULLY DESCRIBE THE METHOD BECAUSE THIS WILL DEFINE THE METHOD THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ASSIGNMENT THAT YOU EXECUTE.
### DESCRIPTION OF ALGORITHMIC METHOD
PLEASE IDENTIFY WHICH TIG CHALLENGE THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD ADDRESSES.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE (options are satisfiability, vehicle_routing, knapsack, vector_search, or hypergraph)
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD AND THE PROBLEM THAT IT SOLVES.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 2
THE COPYRIGHT IN THE IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF THE ASSIGNMENT THAT YOU EXECUTE.
### IMPLEMENTATION OF ALGORITHMIC METHOD
TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE ALGORITHMIC METHOD IN CODE YOU SHOULD IDENTIFY THE CODE AND SUBMIT IT WITH THIS
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 3
### NOVELTY AND INVENTIVENESS
To support your claim that an algorithmic method is novel and inventive, you should provide evidence that demonstrates both its uniqueness (novelty) and its non-obviousness (inventiveness) in relation to the existing state of the art.
### Establish the State of the Art
- **Prior Art Search:** Conduct a comprehensive review of existing methods, algorithms, patents, academic papers, and industry practices to identify prior art in the domain.
- Highlight documents and technologies most closely related to your method.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
- Show where these existing methods fall short or lack the features your algorithmic method provides.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
- **Technical Context:** Describe the common approaches and challenges in the field prior to your innovation.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
### Evidence of Novelty
- **Unique Features:** List the features, mechanisms, or aspects of your algorithmic method that are absent in prior art.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
- **New Problem Solved:** Describe how your algorithmic method provides a novel solution to an existing problem.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
- **Comparative Analysis:** Use a side-by-side comparison table to highlight the differences between your method and similar existing methods, clearly showing what’s new.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
### Evidence Inventiveness of Inventiveness
- **Non-Obviousness:** Argue why a skilled person in the field would not have arrived at your method by simply combining existing ideas or extending known techniques.
- Demonstrate that the development involved an inventive step beyond straightforward application of existing principles.
- Unexpected Results: Highlight results or benefits that could not have been predicted based on prior art.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
- **Advantages:** Provide evidence of how your algorithm outperforms or offers significant advantages over existing methods, such as:
- Increased efficiency.
- Greater accuracy.
- Reduced computational complexity.
- Novel applications.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
### Supporting Data
- **Experimental Results:** Include performance benchmarks, simulations, or empirical data that substantiate your claims of novelty and inventiveness.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
- **Proof of Concept:** If possible, show a working prototype or implementation that validates the method.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
### Citations and Expert Opinions
- **Literature Gaps:** Affirm, to the best of your knowledge, the absence of similar solutions in published literature to reinforce your novelty claim.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
- **Endorsements:** Include reviews or opinions from industry experts, researchers, or peer-reviewed publications that evidences the novelty and impact of your algorithm.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 4
### EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PATENTABILITY
- **Development Records:** Please provide documentation of the invention process, including notes, sketches, and software versions, to establish a timeline of your innovation.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 5
### SUGGESTED APPLICATIONS
- Please provide suggestions for any real world applications of your abstract algorithmic method that occur to you.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE
## SECTION 6
### ANY OTHER INFORMATION
- Please provide any other evidence or argument that you think might help support you request for eligibility for Breakthrough Rewards.
> YOUR RESPONSE HERE