| Literature DB >> 24772023 |
Abstract
Artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm, inspired by the intelligent foraging behavior of honey bees, was proposed by Karaboga. It has been shown to be superior to some conventional intelligent algorithms such as genetic algorithm (GA), artificial colony optimization (ACO), and particle swarm optimization (PSO). However, the ABC still has some limitations. For example, ABC can easily get trapped in the local optimum when handing in functions that have a narrow curving valley, a high eccentric ellipse, or complex multimodal functions. As a result, we proposed an enhanced ABC algorithm called EABC by introducing self-adaptive searching strategy and artificial immune network operators to improve the exploitation and exploration. The simulation results tested on a suite of unimodal or multimodal benchmark functions illustrate that the EABC algorithm outperforms ACO, PSO, and the basic ABC in most of the experiments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24772023 PMCID: PMC3948480 DOI: 10.1155/2014/438260
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Algorithm 1Pseudocode of main body of ABC algorithm.
Algorithm 2Modified initialization step of ABC algorithm.
Algorithm 3Pseudocode of main body of the enhanced ABC algorithm.
Benchmark functions used in experiments.
| Number | Function | Dimension | Property | Range | Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 30 | Unimodal | [−100, 100] | 0 |
| 2 |
| 30 | Unimodal | [−10, 10] | 0 |
| 3 |
| 5 | Unimodal | [−5.12, 5.12] | 0 |
| 4 |
| 30 | Unimodal | [−100, 100] | 0 |
| 5 |
| 30 | Unimodal | [−1.28, 1.28] | 0 |
| 6 |
| 30 | Unimodal | [−100, 100] | 0 |
| 7 |
| 2 | Unimodal | [−100, 100] | −1 |
| 8 |
| 2 | Unimodal | [−10, 10] | 0 |
| 9 |
| 30 | Unimodal | [−10, 10] | 0 |
| 10 |
| 30 | Unimodal | [−30, 30] | 0 |
| 11 |
| 30 | Multimodal | [−5.12, 5.12] | 0 |
| 12 |
| 30 | Multimodal | [−600, 600] | 0 |
| 13 |
| 10 | Multimodal | [−50, 50] | 0 |
| 14 |
| 2 | Multimodal | [−100, 100] | 0 |
| 15 |
| 30 | Multimodal | [−500, 500] | −12569.5 |
Benchmark functions used in experiments for testing the performances of EABC, ACO, PSO, and ABC.
| Function number | Min | ACO | PSO | ABC | EABC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0.00289 | 0.00321 | 0.00543 | 0.00422 | ||
| Mean | 0.00136 | 0.00116 | 0.00300 | 0.00196 | ||
| SD | 0.00219 | 0.00276 | 0.00387 | 0.00208 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0.00246 | 0.00305 | 0.00110 | 0.00400 | ||
| Mean | 0.00180 | 0.00156 | 0.0066 | 0.00210 | ||
| SD | 0.00039 | 0.00058 | 0.00092 | 0.00037 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| −1 | Best | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 |
| Worst | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | ||
| Mean | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | ||
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0.66667 | 0.6667 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0.66667 | 0.6667 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0.66667 | 0.6667 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0.00001 | 0.00001 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 8.7513 | 10.5433 | 19.6788 | 9.1578 |
| Worst | 32.4215 | 24.6711 | 54.2333 | 26.9874 | ||
| Mean | 18.2039 | 15.0886 | 33.1227 | 17.3558 | ||
| SD | 5.0361 | 24.1702 | 154.1443 | 11.4774 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 52.6677 | 43.5774 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 53.2331 | 44.1131 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 52.9226 | 43.9771 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 4.5649 | 11.7286 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0.01470 | 0.017112 | 0.008531 | 0 |
| Worst | 0.01499 | 0.017989 | 0.017356 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0.01479 | 0.017391 | 0.011447 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0.00296 | 0.020808 | 0.001223 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 4.56781 | 21.44755 | 3.34788 | 0 |
| Worst | 8.77993 | 39.55741 | 10.91447 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 5.85411 | 26.3991 | 5.59331 | 0 | ||
| SD | 13.1142 | 155.6380 | 10.04216 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0 | Best | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Worst | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mean | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| −12569.5 | Best | −10296 | −6993.47 | −11566.9 | −12568.7 |
| Worst | −10237 | −6883.33 | −11498.8 | −12514.3 | ||
| Mean | −10266 | −6909.12 | −11544.1 | −12551.1 | ||
| SD | 521.849 | 457.9577 | 125.4471 | 101.3217 | ||
Figure 1Convergence speed of the different ABCs on the two test functions (f 13, f 15).