Increasing the Quality of Multi-step Consensus
Determining the consensus of a collective is becoming a popular problem-solving method in our society. However, given that determining the consensus of large collectives is time-consuming, a multi-step consensus approach is necessary. Thus, one important problem is to determine the number of steps required to obtain a reliable consensus in an acceptable time. Execution time depends on the number of steps; determining the number of steps relies on the quality of the consensus in each step. The overall consensus quality depends on the problem of determining consensus in each step. Therefore, it is important to improve the consensus quality and investigate the quality according to the number of smaller collectives in each step. Herein, we improve the basic algorithm used for the multi-step consensus approach. The experiment result shows that the approach based on the improved algorithm is more efficient than that of the basic algorithm in terms of consensus quality (4.9%). Furthermore, the consensus quality was investigated according to the number of smaller collectives in each step.
KeywordsConsensus Multi-step consensus Collective intelligence
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (2017R1A2B4009410).
- 5.Yang, B.: Bioinformatics analysis and consensus ranking for biological high throughput data. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Paris 11 (2015)Google Scholar
- 7.Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska, A.: Comparison of one-level and two-level consensuses satisfying the 2-optimality criterion. In: Nguyen, N.-T., Hoang, K., Jȩdrzejowicz, P. (eds.) ICCCI 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7653, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34630-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Du Nguyen, V., Nguyen, N.T.: A two-stage consensus-based approach for determining collective knowledge. In: Le Thi, H.A., Nguyen, N.T., Van Do, T. (eds.) Advanced Computational Methods for Knowledge Engineering. AISC, vol. 358, pp. 301–310. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17996-4_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kozierkiewicz-Hetmanska, A., Pietranik, M.: Assessing the quality of a consensus determined using a multi-level approach. In: IEEE International Conference on INnovations in Intelligent SysTems and Applications (INISTA), pp. 131–136. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
- 14.Du Nguyen, V., Nguyen, N.T., Hwang, D.: An improvement of the two-stage consensus-based approach for determining the knowledge of a collective. In: Nguyen, N.-T., Manolopoulos, Y., Iliadis, L., Trawiński, B. (eds.) ICCCI 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9875, pp. 108–118. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45243-2_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Dang, D.T., Du Nguyen, V., Nguyen, N.T., Hwang, D.: A three-stage consensus-based method for collective knowledge determination. In: Sieminski, A., Kozierkiewicz, A., Nunez, M., Ha, Q.T. (eds.) Modern Approaches for Intelligent Information and Database Systems. SCI, vol. 769, pp. 3–14. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76081-0_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska, A., Sitarczyk, M.: The efficiency analysis of the multi-level consensus determination method. In: Nguyen, N.T., Papadopoulos, G.A., Jędrzejowicz, P., Trawiński, B., Vossen, G. (eds.) ICCCI 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10448, pp. 103–112. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67074-4_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.William, J.V., Joseph, P.W.: Statistics in Kinesiology, 4th edn. Human Kinetics (2012)Google Scholar