Collective knowledge is understood as the common knowledge state of a collective consisting of autonomous units. The knowledge states referred from these autonomous units to some degree reflect the real knowledge state of a subject in the real world, but it is not known to what degree because of incompleteness and uncertainty. Although collective knowledge determination is an important task because these knowledge states can be different from each other, there exists another important issue with its quality. The quality of collective knowledge is based on the difference between the real knowledge state and the collective knowledge. In this study, we investigate the influence of the number of collective members on the quality of collective knowledge. Through experimental analysis, the larger collective we use, the better the quality of collective knowledge will be. In other words, the large number of collective members positively affects the quality of collective knowledge. Besides, some theorems about the relationship between the collective knowledge and the knowledge states in a collective, the influence of adding or removing members on the quality of collective knowledge are also proved.
ArrowK.J., Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York, 1963.
2.
Barth’elemyJ. and LeclercB., The median procedure for partitions, 1995.
3.
BarthelemyJ.P., GuenocheA. and HudryO., Median linear orders: Heuristics and a branch and bound algorithm, European Journal of Operational Research42 (1989), 313–325.
4.
BarthélemyJ.P. and JanowitzM.F., A formal theory of consensus, SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics4 (1991), 305–322.
5.
BosseT., JonkerC.M., SchutM.C. and TreurJ., Collective representational content for shared extended mind, Cognitive Systems Research7 (2006), 151–174.
6.
CastelfranchiC., Modelling social action for AI agents, Artif Intell103 (1998), 157–182.
7.
CuiR., GallinoS., MorenoA. and ZhangD.J., The operational value of social media information, Available at SSRN (2015).
8.
DaniłowiczC., NguyenH.C. and NguyenN.T., Model of User Profiles and Personalization for Web-Based Information Retrieval System. In AbramowiczW., (Ed.), Knowledge-Based Information Retrieval and Filtering from the Web, 746, 2003, pp. 121–136.
9.
DanilowiczC. and NguyenN.T., Consensus-based partitions in the space of ordered partitions, Pattern Recognition21 (1988), 269–273.
10.
DayW.H.E., The Consensus Methods as Tools for Data Analysis. In BlockH.H. (Ed.), IFC’87: Classifications and Related Methods of Data Analysis, 1988, pp. 317–324.
11.
EklundP., RusinowskaA. and de SwartH., A consensus model of political decision-making, Annals of Operations Research158 (2008), 5–20.
12.
FishburnP.C., Condorcet social choice functions, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics33 (1977), 469–489.
13.
GaltonF., Vox populi (The wisdom of crowds), Nature75 (1907), 450–451.
14.
GoldsteinD.G., McAfeeR.P. and SuriS., The wisdom of smaller, smarter crowds. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 2014, pp. 471–488.
15.
GordonK., Group judgments in the field of lifted weights, Journal of Experimental Psychology7 (1924), 398–400.
16.
HeckerA., Knowledge beyond the individual? Making sense of a notion of collective knowledge in organization theory, Organization Studies33 (2012), 423–445.
17.
HernesM. and NguyenN.T., Deriving consensus for hierarchical incomplete ordered partitions and coverings, J UCS13 (2007), 317–328.
18.
Herrera-ViedmaE., CabrerizoF.J., KacprzykJ. and PedryczW., A review of soft consensus models in a fuzzy environment, Information Fusion17 (2014), 4–13.
19.
Herrera-ViedmaE., HerreraF. and ChiclanaF., A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures, Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions on32 (2002), 394–402.
20.
HoenP.J.T. and BohteS.M., COllective INtelligence with Sequences of Actions. In LavračN., GambergerD., BlockeelH. & TodorovskiL. (Eds.), Machine Learning: ECML 2003, 28372003, pp. 181–192.
21.
KaoA.B. and CouzinI.D., Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes, In Proc R Soc B, 2812014, 20133305.
22.
KelleyT.L., The applicability of the Spearman-Brown formula for the measurement of reliability, Journal of Educational Psychology16 (1925), 300–303.
23.
KlineJ.A., Orientation and group consensus, Central States Speech Journal23 (1972), 44–47.
24.
MaleszkaM., MianowskaB. and NguyenN.T., A method for collaborative recommendation using knowledge integration tools and hierarchical structure of user profiles, Knowledge-Based Systems47 (2013), 1–13.
25.
MaleszkaM. and NguyenN.T., Integration computing and collective intelligence, Expert Syst Appl42 (2015), 332–340.
26.
McMorrisF. and PowersR., The median function on weak hierarchies, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science37 (1997), 265–269.
27.
NakamatsuK. and AbeJ., The paraconsistent process order control method, Vietnam Journal of Computer Science1 (2014), 29–37.
28.
NguyenN.T., Using consensus methods for determining the representation of expert information in distributed systems. In Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications, 2000, pp. 11–20.
29.
NguyenN.T., Using Consensus Methods for Solving Conflicts of Data in Distributed Systems. In HlaváčV., JefferyK. & WiedermannJ. (Eds.), SOFSEM 2000: Theory and Practice of Informatics, 2000, pp. 411–419.
30.
NguyenN.T., Consensus-based timestamps in distributed temporal databases, The Computer Journal44 (2001), 398–409.
31.
NguyenN.T., Representation choice methods as the tool for solving uncertainty in distributed temporal database systems with indeterminate valid time, In 2070, 2001, pp. 445–454.
32.
NguyenN.T., Using consensus for solving conflict situations in fault-tolerant distributed systems. In Cluster Computing and the Grid, 2001 Proceedings First IEEE/ACM International Symposium on, 2001, pp. 379–384.
33.
NguyenN.T., Consensus system for solving conflicts in distributed systems, Information Sciences147 (2002), 91–122.
34.
NguyenN.T., Criteria for Consensus Susceptibility in Conflicts Resolving. In InuiguchiM., HiranoS. & TsumotoS. (Eds.), Rough Set Theory and Granular Computing, 125, 2003, pp. 223–232.
35.
NguyenN.T., Advanced Methods for Inconsistent Knowledge Management. London: Springer-Verlag, 2008.
36.
NguyenN.T., Inconsistency of knowledge and collective intelligence, Cybernetics and Systems39 (2008), 542–562.
37.
NguyenN.T., Processing inconsistency of knowledge in determining knowledge of collective, Cybernetics and Systems40 (2009), 670–688.
38.
NguyenN.T. and DanilowiczC., Deriving Consensus for Conflict Data in Web-Based Systems. In ChungP.H., HindeC. & AliM. (Eds.), Developments in Applied Artificial Intelligence, 2718, 2003, pp. 254–263.
39.
NguyenV.D. and NguyenN.T., A Method for Improving the Quality of Collective Knowledge. In ACIIDS, 2015, pp. 75–84.
40.
NguyenV.D. and NguyenN.T., An Influence Analysis of the Inconsistency Degree on the Quality of Collective Knowledge for Objective Case. In ACIIDS, 2016, pp. 23–32.
41.
NguyenV.D., NguyenN.T. and TruongH.B., A preliminary analysis of the influence of the inconsistency degree on the quality of collective knowledge, Cybernetics and Systems (2016), 69–87.
42.
PadulaM., ReggioriA. and CapettiG., Managing Collective Knowledge in the Web 3.0. In Evolving Internet, 2009 INTERNET ’09 First International Conference on, 2009, pp. 33–38.
43.
PageS.E., The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
44.
RidderJ., Epistemic dependence and collective scientific knowledge, Synthese (2013), 1–17.
45.
RolinK., Science as collective knowledge, Cognitive Systems Research9 (2008), 115–124.
46.
SaintS. and LawsonJ.R., Rules for Reaching Consensus: A Modern Approach to Decision Making: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
47.
SanchezE., ToroC., ArtetxeA., GrañaM., SaninC., SzczerbickiE., CarrascoE. and GuijarroF., Bridging challenges of clinical decision support systems with a semantic approach. A case study on breast cancer, Pattern Recognition Letters34 (2013), 1758–1768.
48.
SaninC. and SzczerbickiE., Towards the construction of decisional DNA: A set of experience knowledge structure jave class within an ontology system, Cybernetics and Systems38 (2007), 859–878.
49.
ShermerM., The science of good and evil: New York: Henry Holt, 2004.
50.
SimonsA.M., Many wrongs: The advantage of group navigation, Trends in Ecology & Evolution19 (2004), 453–455.
51.
SurowieckiJ., The wisdom of crowds: Anchor, 2005.
52.
VroomV.H., Leadership and the decision-making process, Organizational Dynamics28 (2000), 82–94.
53.
WagnerC. and SuhA., The Wisdom of Crowds: Impact of Collective Size and Expertise Transfer on Collective Performance, In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2014, pp. 594–603.
54.
WangJ.T.L. and ZhangK., Identifying consensus of trees through alignment, Journal of Information Sciences126 (2000), 165–189.
55.
WardA.J.W., Herbert-ReadJ.E., SumpterD.J.T. and KrauseJ., Fast and accurate decisions through collective vigilance in fish shoals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108 (2011), 2312–2315.
56.
WuZ. and XuJ., Consensus reaching models of linguistic preference relations based on distance functions, Soft Computing16 (2012), 577–589.
57.
YoungH.P., An axiomatization of Borda’s rule, Journal of Economic Theory9 (1974), 43–52.
