Advertisement

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

  • Adrianna Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7653)

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values. Wiley, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Barthelemy, J.P.: Thresholded consensus for n-trees. Journal of Classification 5, 229–236 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barthelemy, J.P., Janowitz, M.F.: A Formal Theory of Consensus. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 4, 305–322 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barthelemy, J.P., Leclerc, B.: The Median Procedure for Partitions. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 19, 3–33 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, F.N.: Boolean reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mirkin, B.G.: Problems of group choice. Nauka Moscow (1974)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen, N.T.: A Method for Ontology Conflict Resolution and Integration on Relation Level. Cybernetics and Systems 38(8), 781–797 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Inconsistency of Knowledge and Collective Intelligence. Cybernetics and Systems 39(6), 542–562 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Processing Inconsistency of Knowledge in Determining Knowledge of a Collective. Cybernetics and Systems 40(8), 670–688 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 17.
    Nguyen, N.T.: Advanced Methods for Inconsistent Knowledge Management. Springer, London (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets-theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrianna Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsWroclaw University of TechnologyPoland

Personalised recommendations