Soft Computing

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 833–846 | Cite as

Soft computing and Web intelligence for supporting consensus reaching

Focus
First Online:

Abstract

A novel idea and architecture of a group decision support system for reaching consensus in a group of individuals (agents) is proposed. The core of the system is the preferences modeling and consensus assessment module, which is based on fuzzy logic. However, the focus is on providing the members of the group with an information- and knowledge-rich environment, and tools to make an effective and efficient use of such an environment. This should help the agent gain proper opinions about the issues and opinions and/or attitudes of other agents, articulate proper testimonies, actively contribute to the discussion, and finally make sound and informed decisions that can help constructively run the consensus reaching process. For this purpose modern Web-based technologies are employed and tightly integrated with the core of the system.

Keywords

Consensus Group decision making Fuzzy logic Preferences Ontology Information retrieval 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education under Grant N N519 404734. This work was conducted using the Protégé resource, which is supported by Grant LM007885 from the United States National Library of Medicine.

References

  1. Amgoud L, Bonnefon JF, Prade H (2005) An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In: Godo L (ed) ECSQARU. LNCS, vol 3571. Springer, Berlin, pp 269–280Google Scholar
  2. Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnefon JF, Dubois D, Fargie H, Leblois S (2008) Qualitative heuristics for balancing the pros and cons. Theor Decis 65:71–95CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesnevar C, McGinnis J, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4):293–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carenini G, Moore JD (2006) Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artif Intell 170(11):925–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cregan A, Schwitter R, Meyer T (2007) Sydney OWL syntax—towards a controlled natural language syntax for OWL 1.1. In: Golbreich C, Kalyanpur A, Parsia B (eds) OWLED, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol 258. http://CEUR-WS.org
  7. Ding X, Liu B, Yu PS (2008) A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In: Najork M, Broder AZ, Chakrabarti S (eds) WSDM. ACM Press, London, pp 231–240Google Scholar
  8. Dubois D, Gottwald S, Hájek P, Kacprzyk J, Prade H (2005) Terminological difficulties in fuzzy set theory—the case of “intuitionistic fuzzy sets”. Fuzzy Sets Syst 156(3):485–491CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Fedrizzi M, Kacprzyk J, Zadrożny S (1988) An interactive multi-user decision support system for consensus reaching processes using fuzzy logic with linguistic quantifiers. Decis Support Syst 4(3):313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franco LA (2008) Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: a case study of an inter-organisational construction partnership. Group Decis Negot 17(4):267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 120:144–161CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Herrera-Viedma E, Martinez L, Mata F, Chiclana F (2005a) A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multi-granular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 13(5):644–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrera-Viedma E, Mata F, Martínez L, Pérez LG (2005b) An adaptive module for the consensus reaching process in group decision making problems. In: Torra V, Narukawa Y, Miyamoto S (eds) MDAI. LNCS, vol 3558. Springer, Berlin, pp 89–98Google Scholar
  14. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78:73–88CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Jameson A, Smyth B (2007) Recommendation to groups. In: Brusilovsky P, Kobsa A, Nejdl W (eds) The adaptive Web. LNCS, vol 4321. Springer, Berlin, pp 596–627Google Scholar
  16. Jindal N, Liu B (2006) Mining comparative sentences and relations. In: AAAI. AAAI Press, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  17. Kacprzyk J (1987) On some fuzzy cores and “soft” consensus measures in group decision making. In: Bezdek J (ed) The analysis of fuzzy information, vol 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 119–130Google Scholar
  18. Kacprzyk J, Zadrożny S (2001) Computing with words in decision making through individual and collective linguistic choice rules. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 9:89–102CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Kacprzyk J, Zadrożny S (2002a) A group decision support system based on linguistic multicriteria assesments. In: Bouchon-Meunier B, Gutierrez-Rios J, Magdalena L, Yager R (eds) Technologies for constructing intelligent systems 1. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 139–152Google Scholar
  20. Kacprzyk J, Zadrożny S (2002b) Collective choice rules in group decision making under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority: a unified owa operator based approach. Control Cybern 31(4):937–948MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Kacprzyk J, Zadrożny S (2004) Linguistically quantified propositions for consensus reaching support. In: FUZZ-IEEE’2004, Budapest, Hungary, pp 1135–1140Google Scholar
  22. Kacprzyk J, Zadrozny S (2005) Linguistic database summaries and their protoforms: towards natural language based knowledge discovery tools. Inf Sci 173(4):281–304CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Kacprzyk J, Yager RR, Zadrożny S (2000) A fuzzy logic based approach to linguistic summaries of databases. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 10:813–834MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Kunz W, Rittel HWJ (1970) Issues as elements of information systems. Technical Report WP-131, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. Kushmerick N (2000) Wrapper induction: efficiency and expressiveness. Artif Intell 118(1–2):15–68CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy C (2006) Comparatives, semantics of. In: Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 690–694Google Scholar
  27. Knublauch H, Fergerson RW, Noy NF, Musen MA (2004) The Protégé OWL Plugin: an open development environment for semantic web applications. In: McIlraith SA, Plexousakis D, van Harmelen F (eds) International semantic Web conference. LNCS, vol 3298. Springer, Berlin, pp 229–243Google Scholar
  28. Lowe DG (1985) Cooperative structuring of information: the representation of reasoning and debate. Int J Man Mach Stud 23:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin P, Blumenstein M, Deer PJ (2005) Toward cooperatively-built knowledge repositories. In: Dau F, Mugnier ML, Stumme G (eds) ICCS. LNCS, vol 3596. Springer, Berlin, pp 411–424Google Scholar
  30. Martin P, Jo J, Jones V (2007) Cooperatively updated knowledge bases as an optimal medium to learn, publish, evaluate and collaborate. In: Proceedings of the first international conference of ubiquitous information technology, Dubai, 12–14 February 2007, pp 875–885Google Scholar
  31. Maybury MT, Mani I (eds) (1999) Advances in automatic text summarization. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (2006). http://cci.mit.edu/research/index.html
  33. Niekrasz J, Purver M, Dowding J, Peters S (2005) Ontology-based discourse understanding for a persistent meeting assistant. In: Proceedings of the 2005 AAAI spring symposium, pp 26–33Google Scholar
  34. Paris JB (1997) A semantics for fuzzy logic. Soft Computing 1(3):143–147Google Scholar
  35. Reed C, Rowe GW (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int J AI Tools 14(3–4):961–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saint S, Lawson J (1994) Rules for reaching consensus: a modern approach to decision making. PfeifferGoogle Scholar
  37. Schafer JB, Frankowski D, Herlocker J, Sen S (2007) Collaborative filtering recommender systems. In: Brusilovsky P, Kobsa A, Nejdl W (eds) The adaptive Web. LNCS, vol 4321. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–324Google Scholar
  38. Schwitter R, Kaljur K, Cregan A, Dolbear C, G, H (2008) A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1. In: Proceedings of the OWLED 2008 workshop on OWL: experiences and directions, Washington, USA, 1–2 April 2008Google Scholar
  39. Selvin A, Buckingham Shum S, Sierhuis M, Conklin J, Zimmermann B, Palus C, Drath W, Horth D, Domingue J, Motta E, Li G (2001) Compendium: making meetings into knowledge events. In: Proceedings of knowledge technologies 2001, Austin, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. Susskind LE, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) (1999) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  41. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2000) Intuitionistic fuzzy relations and consensus formations. Notes Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 6:1–10MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2002a) Intuitionistic fuzzy relations and measures of consensus. In: Bouchon-Meunier B, Gutierrez-Rios J, Magdalena L, Yager R (eds) Technologies for constructing intelligent systems: 2 tools. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 261–275Google Scholar
  43. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2002b) Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in group decision making. Control Cybern 31(4)Google Scholar
  44. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2003) A consensus-reaching process under intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Int J Intell Syst 18(7):837–852CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Tempich C, Pinto HS, Sure Y, Staab S (2005) An argumentation ontology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolving engineering processes of ontologies (DILIGENT). In: Gómez-Pérez A, Euzenat J (eds) ESWC. LNCS, vol 3532. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–256Google Scholar
  46. Tomobe H, Nagao K (2006) Discussion ontology: Knowledge discovery from human activities in meetings. In: Washio T, Satoh K, Takeda H, Inokuchi A (eds) JSAI. LNCS, vol 4384. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–41Google Scholar
  47. Zadeh L (1983) A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Comput Math Appl 9:149–184CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Zadrożny S (1997) An approach to the consensus reaching support in fuzzy environment. In: Kacprzyk J, Nurmi H, Fedrizzi M (eds) Consensus under fuzziness. Kluwer, Boston, pp 83–109Google Scholar
  49. Zadrożny S, Kacprzyk J (2003) An internet-based group decision and consensus reaching support system. In: Yu X, Kacprzyk J (eds) Applied decision support with soft computing. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 263–275Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Systems Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations