tig-monorepopool/tig-algorithms/advances/evidence_template.md

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. 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 3: 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 4: 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 5: 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 6: 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.

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 7: 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. PLEASE SEE APPENDIX B FOR GUIDANCE REGARDING RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

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 8: 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 9: 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.