Skip to main content

Comparison of One-Level and Two-Level Consensuses Satisfying the 2-Optimality Criterion

  • Conference paper
Computational Collective Intelligence. Technologies and Applications (ICCCI 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 7653))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper is dedicated to examine the results of methods determining the one-level and the two-level consensuses fulfilling the 2-optimality criterion with reference to the optimal solution. The 2-optimality criterion requires the sum of the squared distance between a consensus and the profile’s elements to be minimal. This problem is an NP-complete problem, so for solving it heuristic approaches are presented. The researches demonstrate that a better solution is always given by the one-level consensus. In comparison to the optimal solution the two-level algorithm gives results by 5% worse and the one-level method by 1% worse. Additionally, author considers how many units are required to determine the reasonable consensus, which is called a susceptible to a consensus of profiles. Analyses presented in this paper show that the increasing the cardinality of a profile increases the probability of being susceptible to a consensus but for the assumed study cardinality of the profile greater than 384 gives a good result.

This research was partially supported by Grant no. N N519 444939 funded by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (2010-2013).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values. Wiley, New York (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Badache, N., Hurfin, M., Madeco, R.: Solving the consensus problem in a mobile environment. In: Proc. of IEEE International Performance, Computing and Communications Conference, pp. 29–35. IEEE, Piscatawy (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barthelemy, J.P.: Thresholded consensus for n-trees. Journal of Classification 5, 229–236 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Barthelemy, J.P., Janowitz, M.F.: A Formal Theory of Consensus. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 4, 305–322 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Barthelemy, J.P., Leclerc, B.: The Median Procedure for Partitions. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 19, 3–33 (1995)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, F.N.: Boolean reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1990)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Day, W.H.E.: Consensus Methods as Tools for Data Analysis. In: Bock, H.H. (ed.) Classification and Related Methods for Data Analysis, pp. 312–324. North-Holland (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kamel, M.: Identifying, classifying, and resolving semantic conflicts in distributed heteroge-neous databases. Journal of Database Management 6, 20–32 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Katarzyniak, R., Nguyen, N.T.: Reconciling inconsistent profiles of agents’ knowledge states in distributed multiagent systems using consensus methods. System Science 26(4), 93–119 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska, A., Nguyen, N.T.: A Comparison Analysis of Consensus Deter-mining Using One and Two-level Methods. In: Proc. of KES 2012 (to be appeared, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. McMorris, F.R., Powers, R.C.: The Median Function on Weak Hierarchies. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 37, 265–269 (1997)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Mirkin, B.G.: Problems of group choice. Nauka Moscow (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nguyen, N.T.: A Method for Ontology Conflict Resolution and Integration on Relation Level. Cybernetics and Systems 38(8), 781–797 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen, N.T.: Inconsistency of Knowledge and Collective Intelligence. Cybernetics and Systems 39(6), 542–562 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Nguyen, N.T.: Processing Inconsistency of Knowledge in Determining Knowledge of a Collective. Cybernetics and Systems 40(8), 670–688 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nguyen, N.T.: Consensus Choice Methods and their Application to Solving Conflicts in Distributed Systems. Wroclaw University of Technology Press (2002) (in Polish)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen, N.T.: Advanced Methods for Inconsistent Knowledge Management. Springer, London (2008)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets-theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska, A. (2012). Comparison of One-Level and Two-Level Consensuses Satisfying the 2-Optimality Criterion. In: Nguyen, NT., Hoang, K., Jȩdrzejowicz, P. (eds) Computational Collective Intelligence. Technologies and Applications. ICCCI 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7653. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34630-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34630-9_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34629-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34630-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics