The Borda Count, the Intersection and the Highest Rank Method in a Dispersed Decision-Making System

  • Małgorzata Przybyła-KasperekEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9437)


The main aim of the article is to compare the results obtained using three different methods of conflict analysis in a dispersed decision-making system. The conflict analysis methods, used in the article, are discussed in the paper of Ho, Hull and Srihari [6] and in the book of Black [2]. All these methods are used if the individual classifiers generate rankings of classes instead of unique class choices. The first method is the Borda count method, which is a generalization of the majority vote. The second is the intersection method, which belong to the class set reduction method. The third one is the highest rank method, which belong to the methods for class set reordering. All of these methods were used in a dispersed decision-making system which was proposed in the paper [12].


Decision-making system Global decision Conflict analysis Borda count method Intersection method Highest rank method 


  1. 1.
    Bazan, J., Peters, J., Skowron, A., Nguyen, H., Szczuka, M.: Rough set approach to pattern extraction from classifiers. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 82, 20–29 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, D.: The Theory of Committees and Elections. University Press, Cambridge (1958)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delimata, P., Suraj, Z.: Feature selection algorithm for multiple classifier systems: a hybrid approach. Fundamenta Informaticae 85(1–4), 97–110 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietterich, T.G.: An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: bagging, boosting, and randomization. Mach. Learn. 40(2), 139–157 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gou, J., Xiong, T., Kuang, Y.: A novel weighted voting for K-Nearest neighbor rule. J. Comput. 6(5), 833–840 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ho, T.K., Hull, J.J., Srihari, S.N.: Decision combination in multiple classifier systems. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 16(1), 66–75 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kononenko, I., Simec, E., Robnik-Sikonja, M.: Overcoming the myopia of inductive learning algorithms with RELIEFF. Appl. Intell. 7(1), 39–55 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pawlak, Z.: On conflicts. Int. J. of Man-Mach. Stud. 21, 127–134 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pawlak, Z.: An inquiry anatomy of conflicts. J. Inf. Sci. 109, 65–78 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Przybyła-Kasperek, M., Wakulicz-Deja, A.: Application of reduction of the set of conditional attributes in the process of global decision-making. Fundamenta Informaticae 122(4), 327–355 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Przybyła-Kasperek, M., Wakulicz-Deja, A.: Global decision-making system with dynamically generated clusters. Inf. Sci. 270, 172–191 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Przybyła-Kasperek, M., Wakulicz-Deja, A.: A dispersed decision-making system - the use of negotiations during the dynamic generation of a systems structure. Inf. Sci. 288, 194–219 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schneeweiss, C.: Distributed Decision Making. Springer, Berlin (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skowron, A., Wang, H., Wojna, A., Bazan, J.: Multimodal classification: case studies. In: Peters, J.F., Skowron, A. (eds.) Transactions on Rough Sets V. LNCS, vol. 4100, pp. 224–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soria, D., Garibaldi, J.M., Ambrogi, F., Biganzoli, E., Ellis, I.O.: A ‘non-parametric’ version of the naive Bayes classifier. Knowl.-Based Syst. 24(6), 775–784 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ślȩzak, D., Wróblewski, J., Szczuka, M.: Neural network architecture for synthesis of the probabilistic rule based classifiers. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 82, 251–262 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wakulicz-Deja, A., Przybya-Kasperek, M.: Application of the method of editing and condensing in the process of global decision-making. Fundamenta Informaticae 106(1), 93–117 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (, which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of SilesiaSosnowiecPoland

Personalised recommendations