Knowledge-Based Solution Construction for Evolutionary Minimization of Systemic Risk

  • Krzysztof MichalakEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11314)


This paper concerns a problem of minimizing systemic risk in a system composed of interconnected entities such as companies on the market. Systemic risk arises, when, because of an initial failure of a limited number of elements, a significant part of the system fails. The system is modelled as a graph, with some nodes in the graph initially failing. The spreading of failures can be stopped by protecting nodes in the graph, which in case of companies can be achieved by setting aside reserve funds. The goal of the optimization problem is to reduce the number of nodes that eventually fail due to connections in the system. This paper studies the possibility of utilizing external knowledge for solution construction in this problem. Rules representing reusable information are extracted from solutions of problem instances and are used when solving new instances.

Experiments presented in the paper show that using rule-based knowledge representation for constructing initial population allows the evolutionary algorithm to attain better results during the optimization run.


Knowledge-based optimization Rule-based knowledge representation Graph problems REDS graphs 



This work was supported by the Polish National Science Centre under grant no. 2015/19/D/HS4/02574. Calculations have been carried out using resources provided by Wroclaw Centre for Networking and Supercomputing (, grant No. 407.


  1. 1.
    Burkholz, R., Leduc, M., Garas, A., Schweitzer, F.: Systemic risk in multiplex networks with asymmetric coupling and threshold feedback. Phys. D 323–324, 64–72 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Battiston, S., Puliga, M., Kaushik, R., Tasca, P., Caldarelli, G.: DebtRank: too central to fail? Financial networks, the FED and systemic risk. Sci. Rep. 2, 541 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thurner, S., Poledna, S.: DebtRank-transparency: controlling systemic risk in financial networks. Sci. Rep. 3, 1888 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antonioni, A., Bullock, S., Tomassini, M.: REDS: an energy-constrained spatial social network model. In: Lipson, H., Sayama, H., Rieffel, J., Risi, S., Doursat, R. (eds.) ALIFE 14: The Fourteenth International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. MIT Press (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esquivel, S.C., Leiva, A., Gallard, R.H.: Multiple crossover per couple in genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation (ICEC 1997), pp. 103–106 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elsayed, S.M., Sarker, R.A., Essam, D.L.: Multi-operator based evolutionary algorithms for solving constrained optimization problems. Comput. Oper. Res. 38(12), 1877–1896 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, L., Wang, L., Zheng, D.Z.: An adaptive genetic algorithm with multiple operators for flowshop scheduling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 27(5), 580–587 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michalak, K.: The Sim-EA algorithm with operator autoadaptation for the multiobjective firefighter problem. In: Ochoa, G., Chicano, F. (eds.) EvoCOP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9026, pp. 184–196. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K., Agarwal, R.: Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst. 9(2), 115–148 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deb, K., Goyal, M.: A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design. Comput. Sci. Inform. 26, 30–45 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vijayarani, S., Divya, M.: An efficient algorithm for generating classification rules. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 2, 512–515 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Machine Learning Group at the University of Waikato: Weka 3 - Data Mining Software in Java (2017).
  13. 13.
    Ott, L., Longnecker, M.: An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma, A., Dey, S.: Performance investigation of feature selection methods. CoRR abs/1309.3949 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garcia-Martinez, C., Blum, C., Rodriguez, F., Lozano, M.: The firefighter problem: empirical results on random graphs. Comput. Oper. Res. 60, 55–66 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erdős, P.: Some remarks on the theory of graphs. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 53(4), 292–294 (1947)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Technologies, Institute of Business InformaticsWroclaw University of EconomicsWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations