An Improvement of the Two-Stage Consensus-Based Approach for Determining the Knowledge of a Collective

  • Van Du NguyenEmail author
  • Ngoc Thanh Nguyen
  • Dosam Hwang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9875)


Generally the knowledge of a collective, which is considered as a representative of the knowledge states in a collective, is often determined based on a single-stage approach. For big data, however, a collective is often very large, a multi-stage approach can be used. In this paper we present an improvement of the two-stage consensus-based approach for determining the knowledge of a large collective. For this aim, clustering methods are used to classify a large collective into smaller ones. The first stage of consensus choice aims at determining the representatives of these smaller collectives. Then these representatives will be treated as the knowledge states of a new collective which will be the subject for the second stage of consensus choice. In addition, all the collectives will be checked for susceptibility to consensus in both stages of consensus choice process. Through experiments analysis, the improvement method is useful in minimizing the difference between single-stage and two-stage consensus choice approaches in determining the knowledge of a large collective.


Collective knowledge Inconsistency knowledge Two-stage consensus choice 



We would like to thank Gideon Rosenblatt, Quoc Trung Bui, Erik Steiner for sharing datasets.


  1. 1.
    Vroom, V.H.: Leadership and the decision-making process. Organ. Dyn. 28(4), 82–94 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Processing inconsistency of knowledge in determining knowledge of collective. Cybern. Syst. 40(8), 670–688 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Advanced Methods for Inconsistent Knowledge Management. Springer, London (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Day, W.H.E. The consensus methods as tools for data analysis. In: IFC 1987: Classifications and Related Methods of Data Analysis. North-Holland, Springer, Heidelberg (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kline, J.A.: Orientation and group consensus. Cent. States Speech J. 23(1), 44–47 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saint, S., Lawson, J.R.: Rules for Reaching Consensus: A Modern Approach to Decision Making. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F.: A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 32(3), 394–402 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eklund, P., Rusinowska, A., de Swart, H.: A consensus model of political decision-making. Ann. Oper. Res. 158(1), 5–20 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu, Z., Xu, J.: Consensus reaching models of linguistic preference relations based on distance functions. Soft. Comput. 16(4), 577–589 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., et al.: A review of soft consensus models in a fuzzy environment. Inf. Fusion 17, 4–13 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Using consensus methods for determining the representation of expert information in distributed systems. In: Cerri, S.A., Dochev, D. (eds.) AIMSA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1904, pp. 11–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Using consensus methods for solving conflicts of data in distributed systems. In: Jeffery, K., Hlaváč, V., Wiedermann, J. (eds.) SOFSEM 2000. LNCS, vol. 1963, pp. 411–419. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Using consensus for solving conflict situations in fault-tolerant distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barthelemy, J.P., Guenoche, A., Hudry, O.: Median linear orders: heuristics and a branch and bound algorithm. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 42(3), 313–325 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguyen, T.N., Sobecki, J.: Using consensus methods to construct adaptive interfaces in multimodal web-based systems. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 2(4), 342–358 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maleszka, M., Nguyen, N.T.: Integration computing and collective intelligence. Expert Syst. Appl. 42(1), 332–340 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Du Nguyen, V., Nguyen, N.T.: A two-stage consensus-based approach for determining collective knowledge. In: Le Thi, H.A., Nguyen, N.T., Do, T.V. (eds.) Advanced Computational Methods for Knowledge Engineering. AISC, vol. 358, pp. 301–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska, A.: Analysis of susceptibility to the consensus for a few representations of collective knowledge. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 24(05), 759–775 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanungo, T., et al.: An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: analysis and implementation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24(7), 881–892 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Methods for achieving susceptibility to consensus for conflict profiles. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 17(3), 219–229 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, H., Song, M.: Ckmeans.1d.dp: optimal k-means clustering in one dimension by dynamic programming. R J. 3(2), 29–33 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamatsu, K., Abe, J.: The paraconsistent process order control method. Vietnam J. Comput. Sci. 1(1), 29–37 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Van Du Nguyen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ngoc Thanh Nguyen
    • 1
  • Dosam Hwang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computer Science and ManagementWrocław University of TechnologyWrocławPoland
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringYeungnam UniversityGyeongsanKorea

Personalised recommendations