International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014

Improved Onlooker Bee Phase in Artificial Bee Colony
Algorithm
Sandeep Kumar

Vivek Kumar Sharma, Ph.D

Rajani Kumari

Jagannath University
Chaksu, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
India - 303901

Jagannath University
Chaksu, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
India - 303901

Jagannath University
Chaksu, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
India - 303901

ABSTRACT
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) is a distinguished optimization
strategy that can resolve nonlinear and multifaceted problems.
It is comparatively a straightforward and modern population
based probabilistic approach for comprehensive optimization.
In the vein of the other population based algorithms, ABC is
moreover computationally classy due to its slow nature of
search procedure. The solution exploration equation of ABC
is extensively influenced by a arbitrary quantity which helps
in exploration at the cost of exploitation of the better search
space. In the solution exploration equation of ABC due to the
outsized step size the chance of skipping the factual solution
is high. Therefore, here this paper improve onlooker bee
phase with help of a local search strategy inspired by memetic
algorithm to balance the diversity and convergence capability
of the ABC. The proposed algorithm is named as Improved
Onlooker Bee Phase in ABC (IoABC). It is tested over 12
well known un-biased test problems of diverse complexities
and two engineering optimization problems; results show that
the anticipated algorithm go one better than the basic ABC
and its recent deviations in a good number of the experiments.

General Terms
Computer Science, Nature Inspired Algorithms, Metaheuristics

Keywords
Artificial bee colony algorithm, Swarm
Evolutionary computation, Memetic algorithm

intelligence,

1. INTRODUCTION
Swarm Intelligence has turned out to be a promising and out
of the ordinary area in the field of nature inspired techniques
that are used to get to the bottom of optimization problems at
some stage in the past decade. It is motivated by the
communal behavior of social living things. Swarm based
optimization algorithms hit upon solution by collaborative
trial and error. Social creatures employ their talent of social
learning to get to the bottom of complex tasks. Peer to peer
learning conduct of social colonies is the most important
driving force behind the expansion of many efficient swarm
based optimization algorithms. Investigators have investigated
such behaviors and proposed algorithms that can be used to
get to the bottom of nonlinear, non-convex or discrete
optimization problems. Prior research [1, 2, 3, 4] have
revealed that algorithms based on swarm intelligence have
enormous prospective to find solutions of factual world
optimization problems. The algorithms that have materialized
in recent years comprise ant colony optimization (ACO) [1],
particle swarm optimization (PSO) [2], bacterial foraging
optimization (BFO) [5] etc.

Artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization algorithm initiated
by Karaboga [6] is a ground-breaking addition in this group.
This algorithm is stimulated by the conduct of honey bees
while searching a quality food source. Similar to other
inhabitants based optimization strategy, ABC consists of a
population of impending solutions. The budding solutions are
food sources of honey bee insects. The fitness is established in
terms of the eminence (nectar amount) of the food source.
ABC is somewhat a straightforward, fast and population
based stochastic investigation technique in the pasture of
nature inspired algorithms. There are two elementary course
of action which compels the swarm to keep informed in ABC:
the deviation process, which enables exploring poles apart
areas of the search space, and the assortment process, which
make certain the exploitation of the previous understanding.
However, it has been shown that the ABC may occasionally
stop proceeding toward the global optimum even though the
population has not congregated to a local optimum [7]. It can
be observed that the solution search process of original ABC
algorithm is fine at exploration but pitiable at exploitation [8].
For that reason, to maintain the appropriate steadiness
between exploration and exploitation behavior of ABC, it is
highly required to develop a local search approach in the
fundamental ABC to exploit the search region. In earlier
period, very few endeavors have been done on this trend.
Kang et al. [9] anticipated a Hooke Jeeves Artificial Bee
Colony algorithm (HJABC) for numerical optimization.
HJABC integrates a new local search modus operandi which
is based on Hooke Jeeves method (HJ) [10] with the basic
ABC. Further, J. C. Bansal et al. [34] introduced an alternate
of the original ABC named Memetic search in Artificial Bee
Colony algorithm. In this work, the authors incorporated
memetic search procedure inspired by Golden Section Search
(GSS) process [36]. S. Kumar et al. proposed a novel hybrid
of crossover based ABC [11] for global optimization by
incorporating crossover phase from genetic algorithm.
In this paper, new search strategy is proposed. The proposed
local search strategy is used in place of onlooker bee phase.
Further, the proposed algorithm is compared by
experimenting on 14 un-biased test problems (i.e. the
problems which solutions do not exist at starting point, axes
or diagonal) to the basic ABC and its recent variants named,
Memetic ABC (MeABC) [34], Randomized Memetic ABC
(RMABC) [13], Modified ABC (MABC) [14] and Fitness
Based Position Update in ABC (FPABC) [15].
Rest of the paper is systematized as follows: Sect. 2 describes
brief overview of the basic ABC. Memetic algorithms
explained in Sect. 3. Improved Onlooker phase in ABC
(IoABC) is proposed and tested in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5, a
comprehensive set of experimental results are provided.
Finally, in Sect. 6, paper is concluded.

31

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014

2. ARTIFICIAL BEE COLONY
ALGORITHM
The ABC algorithm is relatively up to date swarm intelligence
based algorithm. The algorithm is stimulated by the
intellectual food foraging behavior of honey bees. In ABC,
each solution of the problem is known as food source of
honey bee insects. The fitness is established in terms of the
quality of the food source. In ABC, honey bees are
categorized into three classes namely employed bees,
onlooker bees and scout bees. The counts of employed bees
are equal to the onlooker bees. The employed bees are the
bees which search the food source and congregate the
information about the eminence of the food source. Onlooker
bees are the bees which reside in the beehive and search the
food sources on the basis of the information collected by the
employed bees. The scout bee searches new food sources
haphazardly in places of the discarded foods sources.
Analogous to the other population-based algorithms, ABC
solution search process is a step by step iterative process.
Following, initialization of the ABC parameters and swarm, it
requires the monotonous iterations of the three phases namely
employed bee phase, onlooker bee phase and scout bee phase.

2.1 Correspondence of Artificial Bee
Colony Algorithm and Honey Bee
The innovative model proposed by D. Karaboga [6] consists
of three major rudiments: employed and unemployed foragers,
and food sources. The employed bees are collaborator with an
appropriate food source. Employed bees have intimate
understanding about food source. Utilization of food sources
done by employed bees. When a food source discarded
employed bee become unemployed. The unemployed foragers
are bees having no information on the subject of food sources
and searching for a food source to take advantage of it. We
can categorize unemployed bees in two categories: scout bees
and onlooker bees. Scout bees search at hit and miss for new
food sources adjoining the hive. Onlooker bees examine the
waggle dance in beehive, to select a food source for
exploitation. The third element is the prosperous food sources
in propinquity to their hive. Relatively in the optimization
framework, the number of food sources (that is either
employed or onlooker bees) in ABC algorithm, is
corresponding to the number of solutions in the population.
Additionally, the locality of a food source corresponds to the
position of a complimentary solution to the optimization
problem, in view of the fact that the trait of nectar of a food
source correspond to the fitness cost (quality) of the allied
solution.

2.2 Phases of Artificial Bee Colony
Algorithm
The investigation course of action of ABC follows three most
important steps [6]:


Send the employed bees to a food source to collect
information about it and decide the nectar quality;



Onlooker bees decide on the food sources subsequent to
gathering information from employed bees and deciding
the nectar eminence;



Find out the scout bees and make use of them onto
achievable food sources.

The locality of the food sources are capriciously selected by
the bees at the preliminary stage and their nectar qualities are
measured. The employed bees then share the nectar

information of the sources with the onlooker bees waiting at
the dance vicinity within the beehive. After distribution of this
information, each employed bee returns to the food source
checked at some stage in the previous cycle, as the location of
the food source had been recalled and at that time selects new
food source using its observed information in the
neighborhood of the present food source. At the last stage, an
onlooker bee uses the information retrieved from the
employed bees at the dance area to select a good food source.
The opportunity for the food sources to be nominated rose
with rise in its quality of nectar. Hence, the employed bee
with information of a food source with the peak quality of
nectar employs the onlookers to that food source. It
subsequently chooses another food source in proximity of the
one presently in her memory depending on experiential
information. A new food source is erratically generated by a
scout bee to swap the one deserted by the onlooker bees.

2.2.1 Initialization of Swarm
The ABC algorithm has three major parameters: the number
of food sources (population), the quantity of test subsequent to
which a food source is treated to be deserted (limit) and the
termination criteria (maximum number of cycle). In the
original ABC proposed by D. Karaboga [6], the number of
food sources is equal to the employed bees or onlooker bees.
In the beginning it think about an regularly dealt swarm of
food sources (SN), where every food source xi (i = 1, 2 ...SN)
is a D-dimensional vector. Each food source is generated
using subsequent equation [7]:
(1)
Here rand[0,1] is a function that gives an equally distributed
random number in range [0,1].

2.2.2 Employed Bee
Employed bees phase bring up to date the present solution
based on the information of individual understandings and the
fitness value of the newly found solution. New food source
with higher fitness value replace the existing one. The
situation update equation for jth dimension of ith candidate
during this phase is shown below [7]:
(2)
Where
is known as size of step, k ∈ {1, 2, ...,
SN}, j ∈ {1, 2, ...,D} are two haphazardly preferred indices. k
≠i make sure that step size has some problem-solving
upgrading.

2.2.3 Onlooker Bee
The number of food sources for onlooker bee is alike as the
employed bee. For the duration of this phase all employed bee
share fitness information of new food sources with onlooker
bees. Onlooker bees determine the selection probability of
every food source engendered by the employed bee. The
superlative food source is elected by the onlooker. There are
number of scheme for computation of probability, but it must
include fitness. Probability of each food source is decided
using its fitness as follow [7]:
(3)

2.2.4 Scout Bee Phase
If the locality of a food source is not updated for a predefined
number of iterations, then the food source is considered as
deserted and scout bees phase is initialized. During this phase
the bee coupled with the deserted food source transformed
into scout bee and the food source is replaced by the

32

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
capriciously chosen food source inside the search space. In
ABC, the predefined number of cycles is an important control
parameter which is called limit for rejection. Now the scout
bees substitute the deserted food source with new one using
following equation [7].
(4)
As per the above discussion, it is unambiguous that in ABC
search process there are three most important control
parameters: the number of food sources SN (same as number
of onlooker or employed bees), the limit and the maximum
number of cycles. The major steps of the ABC algorithm are
outlined as follow [7]:
Algorithm 1: Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm
Initialize all parameters;
Repeat while Termination criteria is not meet
Step 1: Employed bee phase for computing new food
sources.
Step 2: Onlooker bees phase for updating location the
food sources based on their amount of nectar.
Step 3: Scout bee phase for searching new food sources
in place of rejected food sources.
Step 4: Memorize the best food source identified so far.
End of while
Output: The best solution identified so far.

3. MEMETIC ALGORITHMS
Memetic Algorithms (MAs) was the name introduced by P.A.
Moscato [18] to a class of stochastic global search techniques
that, commonly speaking, coalesce within the skeleton of
Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) the profit of problem-oriented
local search heuristics and multi-agent systems. In ethnic
improvement processes, information is processed and
extravagant by the communicating parts; it is not only
transmitted impassive between entities. This enhancement is
recognized in MAs by taking on board heuristics,
approximation algorithms, metaheuristics, local search
techniques, particular recombination operators and truncated
exact search methods. In aspect, more or less all MAs can be
illustrated as a search technique in which a population of
optimizing operator work together and compete. MAs have
been successfully imposed to a large scale domains that
encircle problems in combinatorial optimization, like E.
Burke, J. Newall, R. Weare [19] used memetic algorithm for
university exam timetabling. R. Cheng, M. Gen [21] use
memetic algorithms for scheduling parallel machine. R. Carr,
W. Hart, N. Krasnogor, E. Burke, J. Hirst, J. Smith [20]
applied a memetic evolutionary algorithm for alignment of
protein structures. C. Fleurent, J. Ferland [22] developed a
hybrid of Genetic algorithm with graph coloring algorithm. It
is also applied for solving travelling salesman problem [23],
back routing in telecommunication [24], bin packing [25],
VLSI floor planning [26] continuous optimization [27],[28],
dynamic optimization [29] and multi-objective optimization
[30].
Exploitation capability of evolutionary computing enhanced at
large scale in collaboration to memetic algorithm. Application
area of memetic algorithms is endlessly expending after its
initiation. Y. Wang et al [31] developed a memetic algorithm
for the maximum diversity problem based on Tabu search. X.
Xue et al [32] Optimize ontology alignment with help of
Memetic Algorithm based on partial reference alignment. O.
Chertov and Dan Tavrov [33] anticipated a memetic algorithm

for solution of the task of providing group anonymity. J. C.
Bansal et al [34] included Memetic search in artificial bee
colony algorithm. F. Kang et al [9] anticipated a new memetic
algorithm HJABC inspired by hooke-jeeves method. I. Fister
et al [35] anticipated a memetic ABC algorithm for largescale global optimization.
Memetic algorithm proposed by Kang et al. [9] incorporates
Hooke Jeeves [10] local search method in Artificial Bee
Colony algorithm. HJABC is a hybrid algorithm of
intensification search based on the Hooke Jeeves pattern
search and the ABC. HJABC modify the fitness (Fiti)
calculation function incorporate the Hooke-Jeeves local
search in original ABC. HJABC contains combination of
exploratory move and pattern move to search optimum result
of problem. The first, step exploratory move think about one
variable at a time in order to choose appropriate direction of
search process. The second step is pattern search to speed up
search in decisive direction by exploratory move. These two
steps repeated until the rejection criteria meet. The HookeJeeves pattern move is a contentious attempt of the algorithms
for the exploitation of promising search directions as it collect
information from previous successful search iteration.
The memetic search in ABC (MeABC) anticipated by J. C.
Bansal et al [34] stimulated by Golden Section Search (GSS)
process [36]. In MeABC only the superlative particle of the
current swarm updates itself in its immediacy. MeABC also
modify position update equation as per the following equation
in order to control step size.

x'ij  xij  ij ( xij  xkj )  ij ( xbestj  xij )

(5)

Here Ѱij is an arbitrary number in interval [0, C], for some
positive constant C.

4. IMPROVED ONLOOKER BEE
PHASE IN ARTIFICIAL BEE COLONY
(IoABC) ALGORITHM
Exploration and exploitation are the two vital characteristics
of the population-based optimization algorithms such as GA
(16), PSO (2), DE (17), and BFO (5). In these optimization
algorithms, the exploration refers to the ability to investigate
the various unknown regions in the solution space to discover
the global optimum. The exploitation is the ability to use the
knowledge of the previous good solutions to find better
solutions and exploration is the process that spread the search
space. The exploration and exploitation are two contradictory
concepts, and in order to accomplish better optimization
performance, these two abilities must remain in balance.
Dervis Karaboga and Bahriye Akay (7) experienced different
modifications of ABC for global optimization and bring into
being that the ABC shows poor performance and remains
inefficient during the exploration of the search space. In ABC,
any probable solution updates itself using the information
provided by a randomly selected probable solution within the
in progress swarm. In this development, a step size which is a
linear combination of a casual number ɸij ∈ [−1, 1], current
solution and a haphazardly selected solution are used. Now
the quality of the modified solution generally depends upon
this step size. If the step size is too large then updated solution
can surpass the true solution. Large step size may takes place
if the difference of current solution and randomly selected
solution is large with high unqualified value of ɸij , and if this
step size is too small then the convergence rate of ABC may
considerably decrease as it takes more time to move towards
optimum value. An appropriate sense of balance in this step

33

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
size can balance the exploration and exploitation capability of
the ABC at the same time. But, since this step size consists of
random element so the balance cannot be done by hand. The
exploitation capability can be improved by incorporation of a
local search algorithm with the ABC algorithm. For that
reason, this paper introduce, an improved onlooker bee phase
inspired by modified GSS process to balance the diversity and
convergence speed of ABC. It modifies the range of two
parameters in GSS process and applies GSS based search
process in onlooker bee phase. For that reason, in these
modifications, better solutions get more chance in search
process and minimize the threat of less stability here. The
improved search strategy in ABC is outlined as follow:
Step 1: Initialize the population of N evenly disseminated
individuals. Each individual xij is a food source (i.e. required
solution) and has D number of attributes. D is identified as the
dimension of the problem. ith solution in jth dimension denoted
as xij. Where j ∈ {1, 2, ……, D}

Modify the position of solution using following equation

Here k=rand[0,1]*Food Number, j=rand[0,1]*dimension and
l={1,2}.
Step 7: Arrange new food sources, vij for each onlooker bee.
Step 8: Compute the fitness of each onlooker bee, xij and the
new solution, vij. Select the fittest one using greedy selection
process.
Step 9: If a particular solution xij has not been improved over
a predefined number of cycles, then select it for rejection.
Replace the solution by placing a scout bee at a food source
generated evenly at random within the search space using

for j = 1, 2,……,D
Step 10: Keep track of the best food sources (solution) found
so far.

Step 2: Calculate approximately the fitness of each and every
individual solution using the following method,
if (soln_value >= 0)
then

Step 11: Check termination criteria. If the best solution found
is acceptable or reached the maximum iterations, stop and
return the best solution found so far. Otherwise go back to
step 2 and repeat again.

5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
5.1 Test problems under consideration
else

Step 3: Each employed bee, placed at a food source that is
different from others, search in the proximity of its current
position to find a better food source. For each employed bee,
generate a new solution, vij around its current position, xij
using the following formula.

Here, k ∈ {1, 2,….,N} and j ∈ {1, 2, …, D} are randomly
chosen indices. N is number of employed bees. ɸij is a
uniform arbitrary number from [-1, 1].
Step 4: Compute the fitness of both xij and vij. Apply greedy
selection strategy to select better one of them.
Step 5: Calculate and normalize the probability values, P ij for
each solution xi using the following formula.

Artificial Bee Colony algorithm with improvement in
onlooker bee phase applied to the twelve benchmark functions
for whether it gives better result or not at different probability
and also applied for two real world problems. Benchmark
functions taken in this paper are of different characteristics
like uni-model or multi-model and separable or non-separable
and of different dimensions. In order to analyze the
performance of IoABC, it is applied to global optimization
problems (f1 to f14) listed in Table 1. Test problems f1 –f14 are
taken from [37-39].
Compression Spring (f13): The compression spring problem
[37] minimizes the weight of a compression spring that is
subjected to constraints of shear stress, surge frequency,
minimum deflection and limits on outside diameter and on
design variables. In case of compression spring three design
variables considered: The diameter of wire(x1), mean coil
diameter (x2) and count of active coils (x3). Simple
mathematical representation of this problem is:
∈
∈

,
∈

and four constraints
Here ɸ is a random number in range [0,1]
Step 6: Assign each onlooker bee to a solution, x i at random
with probability proportional to P ij. Apply improved search
phase inspired by GSS process. Take a=-1.2, b 1.2 and ɸ =
rand[0.55,0.65]. Compute f1=b-((b-a)*ɸ) and f2=a+ ((b-a)*ɸ).
Repeat while termination criteria meet

Where

Calculate value of function based on f1 and f2.
If f1.val < f2.val then
b = f2 and the solution lies in the range [a, b]
else
a = f1 and the solution lies in the range [a, b]

And the function to be minimized is

34

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014

The best ever identified solution is (7, 1.386599591, 0.292),
which gives the fitness value f =2.6254 and 1.0E-04 is
tolerable error for compression spring problem.

length (x4). Simple mathematical representation of this
problem is as follow:

Subject to

Pressure Vessel Design (f14): The problem of minimizing
total cost of the material, forming and welding of a cylindrical
vessel [37]. In case of pressure vessel design generally four
design variables are considered: shell thickness (x1), spherical
head thickness (x2), radius of cylindrical shell (x3) and shell
Table 1. Test Problems
Test
Problem

Objective Function
D

Zakharov

f1( x) 

x  (
2
i

i 1

D
i 1

ixi 2
) (
2





D
i 1

ix1 4
)
2



Salomon
Problem

f 2 ( x)  1  cos(2

Colville
function

f3 ( x)  100( x2  x12 )2  (1  x1) 2  90( x4  x32 ) 2  (1  x3 ) 2

D
i 1

xi2 )  0.1(

D
i 1

xi2 )

10.1[( x2  1)2  ( x4  1)2 ]  19.8( x2  1)( x4  1)

Braninss
Function

f 4 ( x)  a( x2  bx12  cx1  d )2  e(1  f )cos x1  e

Kowalik
function

f5 ( x) 

Shifted
Rosenbrock

f 6 ( x) 



i 1



i 1

11

(ai 

D 1

x1(bi2  bi x2 )
bi2  bi x3  x4

)2

z  x  o  1, x  [ x1, x2 ,...xD ], o  [o1, o2 ,.......oD ]
1 4 2
x1 ) x1  x1x2  (4  4 x22 ) x22
3

f7 ( x)  (4  2.1x12 

Hosaki
Problem

f9 ( x)  (1  8 x1  7 x12 

McCormick

f10 ( x)  sin( x1  x2 )  ( x1  x2 )2 

Meyer
and
Roth Problem

f11( x) 

Shubert

f12 ( x)  

f8 ( x)   cos x1 cos x2e(( x1  )



5
i 1



(

2

( x2  )2 )

7 3 1 4 2
x1  x1 ) x2 exp( x2 )
3
4
3
5
x1  x2  1
2
2

x1x3ti
 yi )2
1  x1ti  x2vi

5
t 1

i cos((i  1) x1  1)



Optimum Value

D

Acceptable
Error

[-5.12, 5.12]

f(0) = 0

30

1.0E-02

[-100, 100]

f(0) = 0

30

1.0E-01

[-10, 10]

f(1) = 0

4

1.0E-05

x1  [5,10],

f(-π,
12.275)
0.3979

2

1.0E-05

x2  [0,15]

5
i 1

i cos((i  1) x2  1)

=

f(0.1928, 0.1908,
0.1231, 0.1357) =
3.07E-04

4

[-100, 100]

f(o)=fbias=390

10

1.0E-01

[-5, 5]

f(-0.0898, 0.7126)
= -1.0316

2

1.0E-05

[-10, 10]

f(π, π) = -1

2

1.0E-13

-2.3458

2

1.0E-06

3  x2  3,

f(-0.547, -1.547) =1.9133

30

1.0E-04

[-10, 10]

f(3.13, 15.16,0.78)
= 0.4E-04

3

1.0E-03

[-10, 10]

f(7.0835, 4.8580)= 186.7309

2

1.0E-05

[-5, 5]

(100( zi2  zi 1)2  ( zi  1)2  fbias ,

Six-hump
camel back
Easom’s
function

Search Range

x1  [0,5],
x2  [0, 6]

1.5  x1  4,

1.0E-05

35

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
Table 2. Comparison of the results of test problems
Test Problem
f1

f2

f3

f4

f5

f6

f7

f8

f9

f10

Algorithm
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC

MFV
9.92E+01
9.62E+01
2.01E-02
9.67E-03
1.02E-02
1.67E+00
9.36E-01
9.18E-01
9.21E-01
9.14E-01
1.93E-01
1.80E-02
7.53E-03
1.59E-02
7.64E-03
3.98E-01
3.98E-01
3.98E-01
3.98E-01
3.98E-01
4.72E-04
3.96E-04
3.98E-01
3.91E-04
4.16E-04
3.95E+02
3.90E+02
3.91E+02
3.92E+02
3.91E+02
3.00E+00
-1.03E+00
3.00E+00
3.00E+00
3.00E+00
-1.03E+00
-9.85E-01
-1.03E+00
-1.03E+00
-1.03E+00
-2.47E+04
-5.99E+11
-2.48E+04
-2.48E+04
-2.48E+04
-2.31E+00
9.35E-01
-2.35E+00
-2.35E+00
-2.35E+00

SD
1.49E+01
1.78E+01
7.87E-03
3.78E-04
1.32E-03
2.30E-01
3.32E-02
3.47E-02
3.05E-02
4.05E-02
1.54E-01
1.62E-02
3.29E-03
1.72E-02
2.52E-03
6.26E-06
6.33E-06
6.84E-06
6.98E-06
6.66E-06
7.13E-05
3.45E-05
6.84E-06
2.40E-05
6.82E-05
5.11E+00
3.82E-02
1.10E+00
3.24E+00
2.73E+00
3.43E-05
7.52E-04
4.13E-15
9.28E-09
4.27E-15
3.33E-03
1.37E-02
1.35E-05
1.37E-05
1.37E-05
7.61E+01
1.43E+11
1.66E-01
1.28E-01
3.18E-02
3.25E-02
4.44E-16
1.69E-05
7.69E-06
7.16E-06

ME
9.92E+01
9.62E+01
2.01E-02
9.67E-03
1.02E-02
1.67E+00
9.36E-01
9.18E-01
9.21E-01
9.14E-01
1.93E-01
1.80E-02
7.53E-03
1.59E-02
7.64E-03
5.74E-06
5.49E-06
6.30E-06
6.29E-06
5.97E-06
1.65E-04
8.86E-05
6.30E-06
8.39E-05
1.08E-04
5.03E+00
9.02E-02
6.52E-01
2.17E+00
1.10E+00
5.15E-06
4.03E+00
4.96E-15
9.59E-10
4.66E-15
4.06E-03
4.68E-02
1.53E-05
1.68E-05
1.75E-05
6.14E+01
5.99E+11
6.05E-01
6.00E-01
5.10E-01
3.39E-02
3.28E+00
1.01E-05
6.11E-06
6.71E-06

AFE
100020
200000
99739.44
115431.8
88594.8
100020.1
87168.16
20766.84
29277.91
18276.72
99123.47
159293.8
39822.68
112400.9
36752.5
13070.99
19134.85
14998.47
27786.34
12110.51
87107.16
91857.83
14998.47
73715.78
58993.74
95138.97
101917.5
77067.59
171792.1
80512.48
78504.88
200027.9
5770.3
106115.1
7913.22
100040.6
200026
55900.32
121099.5
58389.18
100041.6
200025
86608.66
181448.8
73568.61
100033.1
200021.2
50091.38
75705.21
35178.05

SR
0
0
5
100
79
0
97
100
100
100
1
41
90
60
98
89
91
86
87
89
32
89
86
95
84
10
91
40
21
40
34
0
100
73
100
0
0
49
43
44
0
0
23
16
49
0
0
75
88
84

36

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
Table 2. Comparison of the results of test problems (cont.)
Test Problem
f11

f12

f13

f14

Algorithm
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC
ABC
RMABC
MeABC
EnABC
IoABC

MFV
-1.88E+00
1.50E-02
-1.91E+00
-1.91E+00
-1.91E+00
1.91E-03
-1.79E+02
1.91E-03
1.91E-03
1.91E-03
2.65E+00
2.64E+00
2.63E+00
2.63E+00
2.63E+00
3.69E-13
-1.61E+38
8.99E-16
9.13E-16
9.02E-16

The search boundaries for the variables are
1.125 ≤ x1 ≤12.5, 0.625 ≤ x2 ≤ 12.5,
1.0*10-8 ≤ x3 ≤ 240 and 1.0*10-8 ≤ x4 ≤ 240.
The best ever identified global optimum solution is f(1.125,
0.625, 55.8592, 57.7315) = 7197.729 [41]. The tolerable error
for considered problem is 1.0E-05.

5.2 Experimental Setup
To prove the efficiency of IoABC, it is compared with
original ABC algorithm [6], Randomized Memetic ABC
(RMABC) algorithm [13], Memetic search in ABC (MeABC)
algorithm [34] and Enhanced Local Search in Artificial Bee
Colony (EnABC) Algorithm [12] over well thought-out
fourteen problems, following experimental setting is adopted:









The size of colony= Population size SN =60
Number of Employed bee = Number of Onlooker bee
=SN/2
The maximum number of cycles for foraging MCN
=200000
Number of repetition of experiment =Runtime =100
Limit =1500 ,A food source which could not be
improved through "limit" trial is abandoned by its
employed bee
The mean function values (MFV), standard deviation
(SD), mean error (ME), average function evaluation
(AFE) and success rate (SR) of considered problem have
been recorded.

Experimental setting for ABC, RMABC, MeABC and
EnABC are same as IoABC.

5.3 Result Comparison
Mathematical results of IoABC with experimental setting as
per subsection 5.2 are discussed in Table 2. Table 2 show the
connection of results based on mean function value (MFV),

SD
ME
AFE
SR
3.05E-02
3.28E-02
100035.8
0
1.73E-18
1.93E+00
200022.7
0
1.16E-05
9.11E-05
41514.96
86
4.56E-05
1.20E-04
137127
48
7.00E-06
8.74E-05
18802.85
100
6.39E-06
1.95E-03
31617.35
91
7.07E+00
1.79E+02
200023
0
2.81E-06
1.95E-03
4658.79
100
2.93E-06
1.95E-03
12426.8
100
2.92E-06
1.95E-03
4355.93
100
1.14E-02
2.30E-02
96378.65
8
1.06E-02
1.11E-02
185673.8
13
9.37E-03
8.04E-03
93536.88
15
9.07E-03
7.37E-03
177131.7
25
3.58E-03
3.05E-03
71783.43
51
5.69E-13
3.69E-13
100020
0
8.83E+37
1.61E+38
200015.1
0
1.02E-16
8.99E-16
63060.48
100
6.64E-17
9.13E-16
153553.9
100
9.14E-17
9.02E-16
52811.1
100
standard deviation (SD), mean error (ME), average function
evaluations (AFE) and success rate (SR). Table 2 shows that a
good number of the times IoABC outperforms in terms of
efficiency (with less number of function evaluations) and
reliability as compare to other considered algorithms. The
proposed algorithm all the time improves AFE and most of
the time it also improve SD and ME. It is due to randomness
introduced during fitness calculation and probability
calculation. Table 3 contains summary of table 2 outcomes. In
Table 3, ‘+’ indicates that the IoABC is better than the
considered algorithms and ‘-’ indicates that the algorithm is
not better or the difference is very small. The last row of
Table 3, establishes the superiority of IoABC over RMABC,
EnABC, MeABC and ABC.

6. CONCLUSION
This paper, modify the onlooker bee phase in original ABC by
introducing modified GSS process. Newly introduced strategy
added in onlooker bee phase. Proposed algorithm modifies
search range of GSS process and solution update equation in
order to balance intensification and diversification of local
search space. Further, the modified strategy is applied to solve
12 well-known standard benchmark functions and two real
world problems. With the help of experiments over test
problems and real world problems, it is shown that the
insertion of the proposed strategy in the original ABC
algorithm improves the steadfastness, efficiency and accuracy
as compare to their original version. Table 2 and 3 show that
the proposed IoABC is able to solve almost all the considered
problems with fewer efforts. Numerical results show that the
improved algorithm is superior to original ABC algorithm and
its recent variants. Proposed algorithm has the ability to get
out of a local minimum and has higher rate of convergence. It
can be resourcefully applied for separable, multivariable,
multimodal function optimization. The proposed strategy also
improves results for two real world problems: compression
spring and pressure vessel design. When applied to solve
compression spring it improves results by 50% (in term of
success rate and average function evaluation).

37

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
Table 3. Summary of table 2 outcome
Test Problem

IoABC vs. ABC

IoABC vs. RMABC

IoABC vs. MeABC

f1

+

+

+

-

f2

+

+

+

+

f3

+

+

+

+

f4

+

-

+

+

f5

+

-

-

-

f6

+

-

-

+

f7

+

+

-

+

f8

+

+

-

+

f9

+

+

+

+

f10

+

+

+

-

f11

+

+

+

+

f12

+

+

+

-

f13
f14

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

Total Number of + Sign

14

11

10

10

7. REFERENCES
[1] M Dorigo, G Di Caro (1999) Ant colony optimization: a
new metaheuristic. In: Evolutionary computation, 1999.
CEC 99. Proceedings of the 1999 congress on, 2. IEEE
[2] J Kennedy, R Eberhart (1995) Particle swarm
optimization. In: Neural networks, 1995. Proceedings.,
IEEE international conference on, 4, pp 1942–1948.
IEEE
[3] KV Price, RM Storn, JA Lampinen (2005) Differential
evolution: a practical approach to global optimization.
Springer, Berlin
[4] J Vesterstrom, R Thomsen (2004) A comparative study
of differential evolution, particle swarm optimization,
and evolutionary algorithms on numerical benchmark
problems. In: Evolutionary computation, 2004.
CEC2004. Congress on, 2, pp 1980–1987. IEEE
[5] KM Passino (2002) Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for
distributed optimization and control. IEEE Control
SystMag 22(3):52–67
[6] D Karaboga (2005) An idea based on honey bee swarm
for numerical optimization. Techn. Rep. TR06, Erciyes
University Press, Erciyes
[7] D Karaboga, B Akay (2009) A comparative study of
artificial bee colony algorithm. Appl Math Comput
214(1):108–132
[8] G Zhu, S Kwong (2010) Gbest-guided artificial bee
colony algorithm for numerical function optimization.
Appl Math Comput 217(7):3166–3173
[9] F Kang, J Li, Z Ma, H Li (2011) Artificial bee colony
algorithm with local search for numerical optimization. J
Softw 6(3):490–497
[10] R Hooke, TA Jeeves (1961) “Direct search” solution of
numerical and statistical problems. J ACM (JACM)
8(2):212–229

IoABC vs. EnABC

[11] S Kumar, VK Sharma and R Kumari (2013) A Novel
Hybrid Crossover based Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm
for Optimization Problem, International Journal of
Computer Application 82(8):18-25
[12] S Kumar and VK Sharma (2014), Enhanced Local
Search in Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Computational and
Applied Sciences (IJETCAS). In Print.
[13] S Kumar, VK Sharma and R Kumari (2014) Randomized
Memetic Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm. International
Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer
Science (IJETTCS).In Print.
[14] S Kumar and VK Sharma (2014) Modified Artificial Bee
Colony Algorithm. International Journal of Information,
Communication and Computing Technology. In Print.
[15] S Kumar, VK Sharma, A Kumar and H Sharma (2014)
Fitness Based Position Update in Artificial Bee Colony
Algorithm. Unpublished.
[16] DE Goldberg (1989) Genetic algorithms in search,
optimization, and machine learning.
[17] R Storn and K Price (1997) Differential evolution-a
simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global
optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global
Optimization, 11:341–359.
[18] PA Moscato, “On evolution, search, optimization,
genetic algorithms and martial arts: Towards memetic
algorithms.”
Tech.
Rep.
Caltech
Concurrent
Computation Program, Report. 826, California Inst. of
Tech., Pasadena, California, USA (1989).
[19] E Burke, J Newall, R Weare.: A memetic algorithm for
university exam timetabling. In: E. Burke, P. Ross (eds.)
The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1153, pp. 241–
250. Springer Verlag (1996).
[20] R Carr, W Hart, N Krasnogor, E Burke, J Hirst, J Smith,
”Alignment of protein structures with a memetic

38

International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 90 – No 6, March 2014
evolutionary algorithm,” In: Proceedings of the Genetic
and Evolutionary Computation Conference. Morgan
Kaufman (2002).
[21] R Cheng, M Gen, “Parallel machine scheduling problems
using memetic algorithms.” Computers & Industrial
Engineering 33(3–4), 761–764 (1997).
[22] C Fleurent, J Ferland, “Genetic and hybrid algorithms for
graph coloring.” Annals of Operations Research 63, 437–
461 (1997).
[23] G Gutin, D Karapetyan, N Krasnogor, “Memetic
algorithm for the generalized asymmetric traveling
salesman problem.” In: M. Pavone, G. Nicosia, D. Pelta,
N. Krasnogor (eds.) Proceedings of the 2007Workshop
On Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for
Optimisation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(LNCS), vol. to appear. Springer (2007)

[30] D Liu, KC Tan, CK Goh, WK Ho, “A multi-objective
memetic algorithm based on particle swarm
optimization.” Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B,
IEEE Transactions on 37(1), 42–50 (2007).
[31] Y Wang, JK Hao, F Glover, Z Lü, “A tabu search based
memetic algorithm for the maximum diversity problem.”
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 27
(2014): 103-114.
[32] X Xue, Y Wang, and A Ren. “Optimizing ontology
alignment through Memetic Algorithm based on Partial
Reference
Alignment.”
Expert
Systems
with
Applications 41.7 (2014): 3213-3222.
[33] O Chertov and D Tavrov. "Memetic Algorithm for
Solving the Task of Providing Group Anonymity."
Advance Trends in Soft Computing. Springer
International Publishing, 2014. 281-292.

[24] L He, N Mort, “Hybrid genetic algorithms for
telecomunications network back-up routeing.” BT
Technology Journal 18(4) (2000)

[34] JC Bansal, H Sharma, KV Arya and A Nagar, “Memetic
search in artificial bee colony algorithm.” Soft
Computing (2013): 1-18.

[25] C Reeves, “Hybrid genetic algorithms for bin-packing
and related problems.” Annals of Operations Research
63, 371–396 (1996)

[35] I Fister, I Fister Jr, J Bres, V Zumer. "Memetic artificial
bee colony algorithm for large-scale global
optimization." Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2012
IEEE Congress on. IEEE, 2012.

[26] M Tang, X Yao, “A memetic algorithm for VLSI
floorplanning.” Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B,
IEEE Transactions on 37(1), 62–69 (2007). DOI
10.1109/TSMCB.2006.883268.

[36] J Kiefer (1953) Sequential minimax search for a
maximum. In: Proceedings of American Mathematical
Society, vol. 4, pp 502–506.

[27] WE Hart, “Adaptive Global Optimization with Local
Search.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San
Diego (1994)

[37] H Sharma, JC Bansal, and KV Arya. "Opposition based
lévy flight artificial bee colony." Memetic Computing
(2012): 1-15.

[28] GM Morris, DS Goodsell, RS Halliday, R Huey, WE
Hart, RK Belew, AJ Olson,: “Automated docking using a
lamarkian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding
free energy function.” J Comp Chem 14, 1639–1662
(1998)

[38] MM Ali, C Khompatraporn, and ZB Zabinsky. “A
numerical evaluation of several stochastic algorithms on
selected continuous global optimization test problems.”
Journal of Global Optimization, 31(4):635–672, 2005.

[29] H Wang, D Wang, and S Yang. "A memetic algorithm
with adaptive hill climbing strategy for dynamic
optimization problems." Soft Computing 13.8-9 (2009):
763-780.

IJCATM : www.ijcaonline.org

[39] PN Suganthan, N Hansen, JJ Liang, K Deb, YP Chen, A.
Auger, and S. Tiwari. “Problem definitions and
evaluation criteria for the CEC 2005 special session on
real-parameter optimization.” In CEC 2005, 2005.

39

