A Relation-Algebraic View on Evolutionary Algorithms for Some Graph Problems

  • Britta Kehden
  • Frank Neumann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3906)


We take a relation-algebraic view on the formulation of evolutionary algorithms in discrete search spaces. First, we show how individuals and populations can be represented as relations and formulate some standard mutation and crossover operators for this representation using relation-algebra. Evaluating a population with respect to their constraints seems to be the most costly step in one generation for many important problems. We show that the evaluation process for a given population can be sped up by using relation-algebraic expressions in the process. This is done by examining the evaluation of possible solutions for three of the best-known NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems on graphs, namely the vertex cover problem, the computation of maximum cliques, and the determination of a maximum independent set. Extending the evaluation process for a given population to the evaluation of the whole search space we get exact methods for the considered problems, which allow to evaluate the quality of solutions obtained by evolutionary algorithms.


Evolutionary Algorithm Random Graph Crossover Operator Vertex Cover Relational Algebra 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berghammer, R., Leoniuk, B., Milanese, U.: Implementation of Relational Algebra Using Binary Decision Diagrams. In: de Swart, H. (ed.) RelMiCS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2561, pp. 241–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berghammer, R., Neumann, F.: RELVIEW – An OBDD-Based Computer Algebra System for Relations. In: Ganzha, V.G., Mayr, E.W., Vorozhtsov, E.V. (eds.) CASC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3718, pp. 40–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer, D., Noack, A., Lewerentz, C.: Efficient Relational Calculation for Software Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(2), 137–149 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coppersmith, D., Winograd, S.: Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions. Journal of Symbolic Computation 9, 251–280 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cormen, T., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., Stein, C.: Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-completeness. Freeman, New York (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    He, J., Yao, X., Li, J.: A Comparative Study of Three Evolutionary Algorithms Incorporating Different Amount of Domain Knowledge for Node Covering Problems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C 35(2), 266–271 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kehden, B., Neumann, F., Berghammer, R.: Relational Implementation of Simple Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms. In: Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Relational Methods in Computer Science (RelMiCS 8), pp. 137–146 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leoniuk, B.: ROBDD-based implementation of relational algebra with applications (in German). Diss., Univ. Kiel (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michalewicz, Z.: How to solve it: Modern heuristics, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milanese, U.: On the implementation of a ROBDD-based tool for the manipulation and visualization of relations (in German). Diss., Univ. Kiel (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raidl, G.R., Julstrom, B.A.: Edge sets: an effective evolutionary coding of spanning trees. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 7, 225–239 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmidt, G., Ströhlein, T.: Relations and graphs. EATCS Monographs on Theoret. Comp. Sci. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schnorr, C.-P., Subramanian, C.R.: Almost Optimal (on the average) Combinatorial Algorithms for Boolean Matrix Product Witnesses, Computing the Diameter. In: Rolim, J.D.P., Serna, M., Luby, M. (eds.) RANDOM 1998. LNCS, vol. 1518, pp. 218–231. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soak, S.-M., Corne, D.W., Ahn, B.-H.: A Powerful New Encoding for Tree-Based Combinatorial Optimisation Problems. In: Yao, X., Burke, E.K., Lozano, J.A., Smith, J., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Bullinaria, J.A., Rowe, J.E., Tiňo, P., Kabán, A., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3242, pp. 430–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wegener, I.: Branching programs and binary decision diagrams: Theory and applications. SIAM Monographs on Discr. Math. and Appl. SIAM, Philadelphia (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Britta Kehden
    • 1
  • Frank Neumann
    • 1
  1. 1.Inst. für Informatik und Prakt. MathematikChristian-Albrechts-Univ. zu KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations