This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

ˇ ´ DUSAN TEODOROVIC University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traﬃc Engineering ´ TATJANA DAVIDOVIC Mathematical Institute, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and ˇ ´ MILICA SELMIC University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traﬃc Engineering

Bee Colony Optimization is a recently proposed, nature-inspired meta-heuristic. It has been successfully applied to many combinatorial optimization problems, mostly in transportation, location and scheduling ﬁelds. In this survey we summarize these application and give a brief description of the BCO algorithm and its modiﬁcations. Categories and Subject Descriptors: I.2.8 [Artiﬁcial Intelligence]: Problem Solving, Control Methods, and Searc—Heuristic methods; G.2.1 [Discrete Mathematics]: Combinatorics; H.4.2 [Information Systems Applications]: Types of Systems— Decision support (e.g., MIS); Logistics General Terms: Optimization, Meta-heuristics Additional Key Words and Phrases: Combinatorial Optimization, Bee Colony Optimization, Location Problems, Scheduling

1.

INTRODUCTION

Nature-Inspired Algorithms are motivated by a variety of biological and natural processes. The popularity of the Nature-Inspired Algorithms is primarily caused by the ability of biological systems to eﬀectively adjust to frequently changeable environment. Evolutionary computation, neural networks, ant colony optimization, particle swarm optimization, artiﬁcial immune systems, and bacteria foraging algorithm are the algorithms and concepts that were motivated by nature. Swarm behavior is one of the main characteristics of diﬀerent colonies of social insects (bees, wasps, ants, termites). This type of behavior is ﬁrst and foremost characterized by autonomy, distributed functioning and self-organizing. Swarm Intelligence [Beni and Wang 1989] is the area of Artiﬁcial Intelligence that is based on study of actions of individuals in various decentralized systems. When creating

ˇ Author’s address: D. Teodorovi´, M. Selmi´, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and c c Traﬃc Engineering, Vojvode Stepe 305, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. T. Davidovi´, Mathematical Institute, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Kneza Mihaila 36, c P.O.Box 367, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.. Permission to make digital/hard copy of all or part of this material without fee for personal or classroom use provided that the copies are not made or distributed for proﬁt or commercial advantage, the ACM copyright/server notice, the title of the publication, and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the ACM, Inc. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior speciﬁc permission and/or a fee. c 2011 ACM 1529-3785/2011/0700-0001 $5.00

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. ??, No. ??, ?? 2011, Pages 1–20.

2

·

Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. s c

Swarm Intelligence models and techniques, researchers apply some principles of the natural swarm intelligence. Few algorithms from the swarm intelligence class, inspired by bees’ behavior, appeared during the last decade [Abbass 2001; Afshar et al. 2007; Benatchba et al. 2005; Chong et al. 2006; Drias et al. 2005; Karaboga 2005; Koudil et al. 2007; Luˇi´ cc and Teodorovi´ 2001; Navrat 2006; Pham et al. 2006; Quijano and Passino 2007a; c 2007b; Wedde et al. 2004; Yang et al. 2007]. An excellent survey of the algorithms inspired by bees’ behavior in the nature is given in [Baykasoglu et al. 2007]. The Bee Colony Optimization (BCO) proposed in [Luˇi´ and Teodorovi´ 2001; cc c 2002; 2003a] is a meta-heuristic, since it represents a general algorithmic framework applicable to various optimization problems in management, engineering, and control, and it should always be tailored for a speciﬁc problem. The BCO belongs to the class of population-based algorithms. Complex initial formulation of the algorithm has been evolving to simpler versions through later applications [Anantasate et al. 2009; Davidovi´ et al. 2009b; Edara et al. 2008; Luˇi´ and Teodorovi´ 2003b; c cc c ˇ Markovi´ et al. 2007; Teodorovi´ and Dell’Orco 2005; Teodorovi´ and Selmi´ 2007]. c c c c The BCO uses a similarity among the way in which bees in nature look for a food, and the way in which optimization algorithms search for an optimum in combinatorial optimization problems. The major idea behind the BCO is to create the multi agent system (colony of artiﬁcial bees) capable to eﬃciently solve hard combinatorial optimization problems. The artiﬁcial bee colony behaves to some extent similar and to some extent in a diﬀerent way from bee colonies in nature. They explore through the search space looking for the feasible solutions. In order to discover superior and superior solutions, artiﬁcial bees cooperate with each other and exchange information. Via collective knowledge and giving out information among themselves, artiﬁcial bees focus on more promising areas, and gradually discard solutions from the less promising areas. This paper presents a brief description of the BCO and some of its modiﬁcations, as well as the taxonomy and analysis of the results achieved using BCO to model various engineering and management processes. The paper is organized in the following way. The biological background is given in Section 2. The BCO is described Section 3, and its applications to engineering and management problems are outlined in Section 4. Section 5 contains conclusions and recommendation for the future research. 2. BIOLOGICAL INSPIRATION

Scout-Bees in nature leave the hive and explore the areas in the locality of their hive [Camazine and Sneyd 1991]. They search for sources of pollen, nectar and propolis. Finishing the search, scout bees go back to the hive and report to foraging collector bees about the locations, quantity and quality of existing sources of pollen, nectar and propolis in the areas they have explored. Bees exchange information about the food sources by dancing (ritual called a ”waggle dance”). Scout bees dance in the so-called ”dance ﬂoor area” of the hive in an endeavor to ”promote” food locations and persuade the members of the colony to trail their lead. When a bee decides to depart from the hive to collect nectar, it follows one of the dancing scout bees to the discovered source of food. Upon arrival to the food source, the foraging bee

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. ??, No. ??, ?? 2011.

every artiﬁcial bee visits N C solution components. . . . ). each bee decides with a certain probability whether it will stay loyal to its solution or not. Vol. all artiﬁcial bees share information about the quality of their partial solutions.1 Description of the BCO Artiﬁcial bees live in an environment characterized by the discrete time. According to the key idea in the present version of the BCO algorithm. (3) it can recruit other bees with the dance ritual prior to return to the food location. Bee 2. A number of scenarios are then possible for a foraging bee: (1) the bee can discard the food location and become again an uncommitted follower. the basic concepts of BCO [Luˇi´ and cc Teodorovi´ 2001. In the backward pass. ??. let bees Bee 1. and after that returns to the hive. 3. quantity. In the case when N C = 1. Each artiﬁcial bee generates one solution to the problem. 2003b] were introduced by Duˇan Teodorovi´ (adc s c viser) and Panta Luˇi´ (Ph. their solutions would be advertised. . The proposed BCO is based on the constructive concept. creates partial solution. candidate) while doing research at Virginia Tech. while the bees from a hive collect nectar and investigate new areas with possible food sources. Having obtained new partial solutions. The bee decides for one of the possibilities using the mechanism based on the characteristics of the food source (quality. In order to show the basic characteristics of the proposed BCO meta-heuristic. 2003a. i. (2) it can keep on with the foraging behavior at the discovered nectar source. 2002. ??. Once the solution is abandoned by a bee ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. the bees meet in the hive and start the backward pass. we will ﬁrst describe its steps as an analogy with the bees from nature and then present pseudo-code for its implementation. unlike the local search based meta-heuristics which perform iterative improvements of the current best solution.e. It was designed as a method which builds solutions from the scratch within execution steps. ?? 2011. Artiﬁcial bees that are loyal to their partial solutions are at the same time recruiters. distance from the hive. cc The BCO is nature-inspired meta-heuristic which is to be applied for ﬁnding solutions of diﬃcult combinatorial optimization problems. Colony of B artiﬁcial bees collaboratively searches for the optimal solution of a given problem. . For example. The bees with better solutions have more chances to keep and advertise their solutions. No. with no precise location and does not inﬂuence the algorithm execution.BCO: The Applications Survey · 3 takes a load of nectar and returns to the hive relinquishing the nectar to a food storer bee. THE BEE COLONY OPTIMIZATION META-HEURISTIC The Bee Colony Optimization (BCO) meta-heuristic belongs to the group of Swarm Intelligence techniques. In the 1999-2002. 3. The number of solution components N C to be visited within one forward pass is prescribed by the analyst at the beginning of the search process. Bee B are engaged in solving a problem consisting of n components. In each forward pass. at each forward pass bees are supposed to visit a single component. the hive is an non-natural object. with no recruiting the rest of the colony. There are two alternating phases (forward pass and backward pass) constituting single step in the BCO algorithm. The described process continues constantly. It is used just to denote the synchronization point at which bees are exchanging information about the current state of the search. . . . Having all solutions evaluated.D. The possible situation after third forward pass is illustrated on Figure 1.

The Bee 1 will keep already generated partial solution without being chosen by any of the uncommitted hive-mates. . ??. 4 . . . . so that better advertised solutions have bigger opportunity to be chosen for further exploration. . and remaining B − R uncommitted bees) as it is shown on Figure 2. . . this means that partial solution generated by Bee B is associated (copied) to Bee 2 also. n-1 n n-1 n n-1 n n-1 n n-1 n Fig. An illustration of the third forward pass it becomes uncommitted and has to select one of the advertised solutions. Bee 2. 2 1 2 4 3 5 . within each backward pass all bees are divided into two groups (R recruiters. from the previous example decided to abandon already generated partial solution and to join Bee B (see Figure 3). . 1 2 3 4 . and therefore. . they are free to make an individual decision about the next constructive step to be made. In practice. Vol. 1 2 3 . . Bee 1 Bee 2 Bee B 3 4 Bee 2 Bee B . ??. Bee 2 and Bee B ”ﬂy together” along the path already generated by the Bee B. This decision is taken with a probability too. . . . In such a way. it will perform new constructive step independently. . When they reach the end of that common path. . . Values for R and B − R are changing from one backward pass to another one. 2. . ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. . 1 2 3 4 . ?? 2011. B-R 3 Recruiters Uncommitted Fig. No.4 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. s c 1 2 3 4 n 1 2 Bee 1 1 2 3 4 . 1 R 4 . . The described situation is illustrated on Figure 3. after comparing all generated partial solutions. . Recruiting of uncommitted followers The case when. 1.

. N C . These are: constructive steps (the selection of solution components to be added to each particular partial solution). The BCO runs iteration by iteration until a stopping condition is met. the best found solution (the so called global best) is reported as the ﬁnal one. An example of partial solutions after fourth forward The two phases of the search algorithm. The decisions connected with probabilities. The pseudo-code of the BCO algorithm could be described in the following way: (1) Initialization: an empty solution is assigned to each bee. . At the start of the search. are alternating in order to generate all required feasible solutions (one for each bee). forward and backward pass.The number of bees in the hive. (3) All bees are back to the hive. . evaluation and comparison of partial solutions. etc. (2) For each bee: // (the forward pass) (a) Set k = 1. At the end. and the new iteration could start. loyalty decision and recruiting. . the maximum total number of iterations without the improvement of the objective function.BCO: The Applications Survey 1 2 3 4 n · 5 1 2 Bee 1 1 2 3 4 .2 Bee Colony Optimization (BCO) Algorithm The algorithm parameters whose values need to be set prior the algorithm execution are as follows: B . 3. 1 2 3 4 . . for example. . Bee 1 Bee 2 Bee B 3 4 . it is used to update global best solution and an iteration of the BCO is accomplished. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. . Details that depend on the concrete application should be resolved and speciﬁed within each particular implementation. // (backward pass starts) (4) Evaluate (partial) objective function value for each bee. 1 2 3 . all the bees are in the hive. 1 2 3 4 . maximum allowed CPU time. // (count constructive moves in the forward pass) (b) Evaluate all possible constructive moves. Bee B Bee 2 n-1 n n-1 n n-1 n n-1 n n-1 n Fig. At this point all B solutions are deleted. are usually resolved by using roulette wheel. The possible stopping conditions could be. 3. 4 . . When all solutions are completed the best one is determined. . . No. (d) k = k + 1. . ??. the maximum total number of iterations. ?? 2011. ??.The number of constructive moves during one forward pass. . (c) Choose one move using the roulette wheel. . . . Vol. . If k ≤ N C Goto step (b).

1 Loyalty decision. or to continue exploring already known path. the higher the probability that the bee b will be loyal to it. u = 1 for ﬁrst forward pass. loyalty decision. at the beginning of the search process bees are ”more brave” to search the solution space. (7) If solutions are not completed Goto step 2.g. The more forward passes they make. recruiting process. there are formulae specifying steps (5). For each uncommitted bee with a certain probability it is decided which recruiter it would follow. (8) Evaluate all solution and ﬁnd the best one. Using relation (1) and a random number generator. .2. ??. . Let us discuss relation (1) in some more details.the normalized value for the objective function of partial solution created by the b-th bee. the more focused the bees are on the already known partial solution. . . . for each artiﬁcial bee it is decided whether to become uncommitted follower. In other words. (10) Output the best solution found. each uncommitted follower join one recruiter. R (2) Ok k=1 where Ok represents normalized value for the objective function of the k-th advertised partial solution and R denotes the number of recruiters.the ordinary number of the forward pass (e.). The greater the ordinary number of the forward pass. The probability that b-th bee (at the beginning of the new forward pass) is loyal to its previously generated partial solution is expressed as follows: pu+1 = e− b Omax −Ob u . b = 1. The more we are approaching the end of the search process. No. . u = 2 for second forward pass. 2. On the other hand. Steps (2) and (4) are problem dependent and should be resolved in each BCO algorithm implementation. . (6) For each follower. The probability that b’s partial solution would be chosen by any uncommitted bee is equal to: pb = Ob R . 3. ??. and (6). The better the generated partial solution (higher Ob value).2 Recruiting process.6 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. the higher the inﬂuence of the already discovered partial solution.2. s c (5) Each bee decides randomly whether to continue its own exploration and become a recruiter. Using relation (2) and a random number generator. . ?? 2011. etc. Omax . This is expressed by the term u in the denominator of the exponent (relation (1)). Vol. .. 2. choose a new solution from recruiters by the roulette wheel. (1) where Ob . (9) If the stopping criteria is not met Goto step 2. and they are described in the rest of this section. b = 1. B. 3. u . or to become a follower. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. the bees have less courage to explore the solution space.maximum over all normalized values of partial solution to be compared.

and at each stage new bees join it by recruiting process. Vol.00 21285.40 640.90 2608.87 7544. ﬁnd the shortest itinerary that starts in a speciﬁc node.11 108159. .00 1. The scout bees start the search.77 50783. goes through all other nodes exactly once and ﬁnishes in the starting node. They considered symmetric TSP when the distance from node i to node j is the same as the distance from node j to node i. Problem name Eil51 Berlin52 St70 Pr76 Kroa100 Eil101 Tsp225 A280 Pcb442 Pr1002 TSP benchmark problems: The results obtained by the BCO algorithm Optimal value 428.06 0. as well as the total number of bees that visited considered link in the past.40 640.19 CPU (sec) 29 0 7 2 10 61 11651 6270 4384 28101 No. When calculating this probability. Logit model is one of the most successful and widely accepted discrete choice model [McFadden 1973].04 267340.33 51366.00 21285. ??. The well-known TSP is deﬁned in the following way: Given n nodes. a bee chooses the new nodes to be added to the partial Travelling Salesman tour created so far. of nodes 51 52 70 76 100 101 225 280 442 1002 ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.83 1.00 0. The proposed model was represented by the complex and complicated formulae.00 2586. and was not used in subsequent research. Once all solutions (travelling salesman tours) are completed the authors tried to improve them by applying diﬀerent tour improvement algorithms based on k-opt procedure.70 Relative error (%) 0. The authors called the ﬁrst version of the BCO . The other diﬀerence is that not all the bees are engaged at the beginning of the search process. the authors located hive at random node and decompose the TSP problem into stages.00 0. At each stage (corresponding to the forward pass of BCO).15 3. For calculating the probability of choosing next node to be visited the authors used Logit-based model.”Bee System”. The ”Bee System” had more similarities with the behavior of bees in the nature. Table I. This represented the end of single iteration and the next one started after the hive relocation.37 677.00 0. The hive had speciﬁed location that could also be changed during the search process. Among all generated solutions. the proposed model took into account the distance between current node (and/or hive) and node-candidate to be visited. ?? 2011. the best one was determined and used to update the global best.BCO: The Applications Survey · 7 4.37 677. 4. The main diﬀerence between these two versions is in the fact that hive had a crucial role in the previous one. ??.11 108159.55 259066. 2003a] tested the Bee cc c cc c Colony Optimization approach in the case of Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP).21 3899.60 BCO 428. This selection was performed in random manner with certain probabilities.21 3859.87 7544.00 0.1 APPLICATIONS OF BEE COLONY OPTIMIZATION Solving the Travelling Salesman Problem by BCO Luˇi´ and Teodorovi´ [Luˇi´ and Teodorovi´ 2001.00 0. the total number of performed iterations in a search process. In their papers. than the recent version of algorithm. No. 2002.

rmax .minimum and maximum among all demands.normalized value of the demand in the i-th node.de/iwr/comopt/software/TSPLIB95/tsp/. respectively.weight (importance) of the distance and the demand. Normalized values are calculated as follows: Ri = rmax − ri . . amax . Ai . Vol. i = 1. In [Teodorovi´ and Selmi´ 2007] the authors solved pc c c median problem by the BCO. respectively. The p-median problem was formulated for the ﬁrst time by Hakimi [Hakimi 1964. 2002.minimum and maximum among total distances. post oﬃces.normalized value of the distance from the hive to the i-th node. rmax − rmin Ai = ai − amin . s c The eﬀectiveness of the BCO was tested on a large number of numerical examples.2 BCO for the p-Median Problem The problem of locating p facilities in order to minimize the average ”distance” between facilities and service users is known an a p-median problem and it is encountered when designing networks for distribution centers.8 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. The p-median problem could be deﬁned in the following way: Locate the p facilities (medians) on a network so as to minimize the sum of all the distances from each demand node to its nearest facility. ?? 2011. 2003]). In other words. the authors used the concept of bee’s utility. rmin . No. ??. In the ﬁrst step they located hive in the node where a median should be positioned in the case p = 1. locations for schools. amin .the total distance from the hive to the i-th node. 1965]. The utility Vi in the case when bee chooses node i to be the median was calculated as: Vi = wRi + qAi . q . n. .demand at node i. ??. The p-median problem is NP-hard problem ([Kariv and Hakimi 1969]) that is solved by various heuristic algorithms and procedures based on meta-heuristic rules ˇ ([Mladenovi´ et al. the BCO was able to produce ”very good” solutions in a ”reasonable amount” of computer time. 2003a] was capable to get the objective function values equal or very close to the optimal ones. . shops. . ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. w. In order to calculate the node attractiveness and to choose the next node to be added to the partial solution. Results given in the Table I show that the BCO proposed in [Luˇi´ and Teodorovi´ cc c 2001. They used an algorithm based on the matrix of shortest distances between nodes and service demands in all nodes. It is one of the fundamental problems in the area of discrete location. 1]. respectively. (3) where: Ri . . . . . 4. amax − amin Ri . (4) where ri . n. The CPU times necessary to discover the best solutions by the BCO were very low (in 2001). i = 1.iwr. .uni-heidelberg. Ai ∈ [0. etc. ai . In Table I we present the results for benchmark problems taken from: http://www.

The results for CPU times. The BCO was able to produce ”good” solutions in a ”reasonable” computation time.34 1. unexpected delays. ??. Test problem M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 n 20 20 20 25 25 25 30 30 30 40 40 40 50 50 50 The p-median test problems: results obtained by the BCO algorithm p 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 BCO Rel.48 1. shown in Table II.34 2. After solutions are evaluated (and normalized) the loyalty decision and recruiting process are performed as described at the end of Section 3.00 95.46 2. i = 1.73 1.14 7. only the required computational times become larger.00 168. greater travel ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.94 0. .48 0. The proposed algorithm was tested on a various test problems with parameters range from instances with n = 20 nodes and p = 2. are obtained for the case of I = 100 algorithm iterations.00 448. and 5.60 4. ?? 2011.46 2.45 0.00 206.33 5. error (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 CPU (sec) 0. 3. resulting in increased travel times.45 2. . The obtained BCO results were compared with the optimal solution and results are recalled in the Table II. the authors showed that the solution quality does not change much if the number of bees increases.00 117.40 0.65 6.3 The BCO for Ride-Matching Problem Urban road networks in many countries are severely congested. 3. 2.94 Test problem Set2 Set2 Set3 Set3 Set4 Set4 Set5 Set5 Set6 Set6 Set7 Set7 n 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 p 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 5 BCO Rel. No.34 3.55 3. The 1000 nodes examples (Koerkel Problem Sets) were taken from the Internet.40 CPU (sec) 112.33 0.14 23.02 0. . Based on large number of performed tests.10 300.30 4.26 4.09 4. increased number of stops. Vol.99 0. . Test problems M1– ˇ ˇ M15 were generated by Teodorovi´ and Selmi´ in [Teodorovi´ and Selmi´ 2007] and c c c c they are available upon request. (5) Vk k=1 where K denotes the number of not previously chosen nodes.96 2.35 1.00 102. ??.40 211. Each generated partial solution was evaluated by using the total distance travelled by the clients served at the medians chosen so far. .52 46.00 406.00 448. N C = 1 constructive moves and B = 5 bees.40 117. Table II.BCO: The Applications Survey · 9 The probability pi of choosing node i as a median was calculated as follows: pi = Vi K . and 4 up to instances with n = 1000 and p = 2. n. error (%) 0.

the authors introduced the concept of partial solution badness. They created artiﬁcial bees that use approximate reasoning and rules of fuzzy logic [Zaheh 1965] in their communication and acting. or ’expensive’. Ride-sharing is one of the widely used TDM techniques.10 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. increased air pollution and noise level. The partial solution badness was calculated in the following way: Lb = L(b) − Lmin Lmax − Lmin (6) where: Lb . The operator of the system must posses the following information regarding trips planned for the next week: (a) Vehicle capacity (2. In this way. . ’attractive’. etc. Lmin and Lmax denote the objective function value of the best and worst partial solution discovered from the beginning of the search process. a speciﬁc bee perceives a speciﬁc solution component as ’less attractive’. They started their choice model from the assumption that the quantities perceived by bees are ”fuzzy”. No. two or more persons share vehicle when travelling from their origins to the destinations. ??. The authors developed BCO based model for the ride-matching problem. Bees use approximate reasoning. Vol. or 4 persons). Artiﬁcial bee can perceive a speciﬁc attribute as ’short’. (c) Trip origin for every day in a week. c 2008] could be deﬁned in the following way: Make routing and scheduling of the vehicles and passengers for the whole week in such a way to minimize the total distance travelled by all participants. The approximate reasoning algorithm to determine bee’s loyalty to its partial solution contained the rules of the following type: If the discovered partial solution is BAD Then loyalty is LOW. (e) Desired departure and/or arrival time for every day in a week. ’historical facts’ discovered by all members of the bee colony have signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the future search directions. s c costs. ?? 2011. L(b) . inconvenience to drivers and passengers. or ’very attractive’. When adding the solution component to the current partial solution during the forward pass. and compare their discovered partial solutions with the best. ’cheap’. ??. Based on the quality of its solution each bee decided with certain probability weather to stay loyal or became an uncommitted follower. and the worst discovered partial solution from the beginning of the search process. ’medium’ or ’long’. (d) Trip destination for every day in a week. and (b) the number of bees that were advertising ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. Transportation professionals have developed diﬀerent Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies to solve these problems. (b) Days in the week when person is ready to participate in ride-sharing.the objective function value of the corresponding partial solution. ’medium’. The ride-matching problem considered by in [Teodorovi´ and Dell’Orco 2005. and increased number of traﬃc accidents.represents the badness of the partial solution discovered by the b-th bee. Within this concept. Each partial solution (partial path) that was being advertised in the dance area had two main attributes: (a) the objective function value. In order to describe bee’s partial solutions comparison mechanism. 3. The authors developed the approximate reasoning algorithm for calculating the solution component attractiveness.

4. In this way. Vol. yielding up to four times savings regarding the number of cars. Bee was not always successful in establishing lightpath when visiting artiﬁcial node. the regional capital of Puglia.BCO: The Applications Survey · 11 the partial solution (partial path). m representing the total number of requested light-paths. The authors collected data regarding 97 travellers demanding ride sharing. The authors called the proposed algorithm the BCO-RWA. and slowly abandon the less promising ones. In [Markovi´ et al. to Bari. Using collective knowledge and sharing information among themselves. That means N C = n. a small city in the south-east of Italy. No. The RWA problem could be described in the following way: Assign a path through the network and a wavelength on that path for each considered connection between a pair of nodes in such a way to maximize the total number of established connections in the network. Sequence of the n visited artiﬁcial nodes generated by the bee represented one partial solution of the problem considered. ?? 2011. It showed how a bee colony perceives speciﬁc partial solutions. The number of bees advertising the partial solution was a good indicator of a bees’ collective knowledge. that capacity is four passengers for all their cars. generated partial solutions diﬀered among themselves according to the total number of established light-paths. 2007] this problem had successfully been solved by the BCO c meta-heuristic. ??. Light-path is a route chosen by bee agent. . and assumed. Bee’s success depended on the wavelengths’ availability on the speciﬁc links. The proposed model was tested in the case of ride-sharing demand from Trani. where n was selected in such a way that n m. ??. bees concentrate on more promising search paths. An artiﬁcial network had been created with nodes representing the collection of all considered origin-destination pairs. At every node a bee was choosing among remaining artiﬁcial nodes (not previously selected ones). During forward pass each bee visited n nodes (tried to establish n new lightpaths). for the sake of simplicity. Each artiﬁcial node is comprised of an origin and destination linked by a number of routes. The authors used the approximate reasoning algorithm to determine the advertised partial solution attractiveness consisted of the rules similar to: If the length of the advertised path is SHORT and the number of bees advertising the path is SMALL Then the advertised partial solution attractiveness is MEDIUM The approximate reasoning algorithm was used to calculate the number of shifting bees with the rules of the following type: If bees’ loyalty to path pi is LOW and path pj ’s attractiveness is HIGH Then the number of shifting bees from path pi to path pj is HIGH In this way. the number of bees ﬂying along a speciﬁc path is changed before beginning of the new forward pass.4 BCO for Routing and Wavelength Assignment in All-Optical Networks The Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in All-Optical Networks is the well-known optimization problem in telecommunication. Bee agent’s entire ﬂight is collection of established light-paths. The BCO obtained result turned out to be the optimal one. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.

?? 2011. it was necessary to choose the route and to assign an available wavelength along the route between these two real nodes. For every node pair (s. ∀r ∈ Rsd and W = 0. d) in the following way: Vrsd = a 1 hr − hr min + 1 + (1 − a) Wr Wmax (7) where: r . The BCO-RWA algorithm from [Markovi´ et al. . d) equals: ⎧ sd ⎨ eVr .the number of available wavelengths along the route r.the length of the shortest route rmin .. In the next step. The authors formulated corresponding Integer Linear Program (ILP) to determine optimal solutions for the considered examples. Vol. r r∈Rsd where |Rsd | is the total number of available routes between pair of nodes (s. 2. where nunvis was the total number of unvisited artiﬁcial nodes. After solutions are evaluated (and normalized) the loyalty decision and recruiting process are performed as described at the end of Section 3. ??. Some of the comparison results are shown in the Table III. The shorter the chosen route and the higher the number of available wavelengths along the route. These subsets were deﬁned by using the k shortest path algorithm: For each of the k possible routes the bee’s utility when choosing the considered route was calculated.weight (importance of the criteria).. 0 ≤ a ≤ 1. ??. Inspired by the Logit model. r = 1. sd |Rsd | V sd e i (8) pr = i=1 ⎩ 0..12 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. . They compared the BCO-RWA results with the optimal solution. No.the route ordinary number for a node pair. Wr . the authors deﬁned a subset Rsd of allowed routes that could be used when establishing the light-path. a . the higher the bee’s utilities were. or a near-optimal ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. hr min . Wmax = max {Wr } . the authors assumed that the probability psd of r choosing route r in the case of origin-destination pair (s. d). d).the maximum number of available wavelengths among all routes r ∈ Rsd . s c Probability p that speciﬁc unvisited artiﬁcial node will be chosen by the bee was 1/nunvis . As a criterion for the partial solution evaluation the total number of established light-paths from the beginning of the search process by the b-th bee was used. k r ∈ Rsd . Let us assume that the speciﬁc bee decided to consider the light-path request between the source node s and the destination node d.the route length expressed in the number of physical hops. From the results presented in Table III it can be concluded that the proposed BCO-RWA algorithm has been able to produce optimal. By visiting speciﬁc artiﬁcial node in the network bees attempted to establish the requested light-path between one real source-destination node pair in optical network. The route r is available if there is at least one available wavelength on all links that belong to the route r. 2007] was tested on a few nuc merical examples with number of requested light-paths ranging from 28 to 40. hr . ∀r ∈ Rsd and Wr > 0. Bees decide to choose a physical route in optical network in a random manner. The authors deﬁned the bee’s utilities Vrsd when choosing the route r between the node pair (s.

while taking into account the constraints of available capital and maintenance funding. Table III.g.57 0 0 BCO Relative error (%) Number of wavelengths 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 40 4.57 0 0 5. Within each forward pass a bee visited a certain number of nodes and created a partial solution (choose few nodes that become detector locations). Point detectors are deployed on roadways to collect traﬃc data including volume. a lane reduction) that leads to recurring congestion during the peak traﬃc periods.28 6. level of traﬃc volumes. No. and speed.88 3. etc. (9) where Ui represented the utility of having a detector at node i.23 6. Factors such as the presence of a natural bottleneck at that location (e. The spacing of detectors on freeways has a key impact on the travel time estimates obtained from the reported speeds. .67 5. Vol. ??. This utility depended on several factors that may aﬀect travel time estimates. There is a tradeoﬀ between detector spacing and travel time estimate correctness.88 3.09 6. It was assumed that all potential detector locations have equal utilities. within the constraints of available capital and maintenance funding.5 BCO Approach to Optimize Locations of Traﬃc Sensors on Highways The placement of point detectors within a roadway network problem belongs to the ﬁeld of location theory. During the forward pass of the BCO algorithm the Logit model [McFadden 1973] was used for selection of the potential detector locations (N C was equal to one). can be used to determine the utilities. ˇ In [Edara et al.33 6. 2008. The probability of a bee choosing the node i was expressed using the Logit model as follows: pi = eUi n Ur r=1 e . historical accident likelihoods (to monitor the induced delays by deploying detectors). Transportation agencies are therefore seeking a method to indicate the most appropriate locations for detector deployment such that the travel time estimate error is minimized. 2008] it was studied the problem of optimal c placing traﬃc detectors on freeways and developed the BCO algorithm to solve it. ?? 2011.67 6. Selmi´ et al.61 6. occupancy. ??.BCO: The Applications Survey · 13 solutions in a reasonable amount of computer time. Total number of requested light-paths 38 The results obtained by comparison of BCO-RWA with ILP Number of established light-paths ILP BCO-RWA 17 28 35 38 17 28 35 40 16 27 35 38 16 27 35 40 CPU time (sec) ILP 16 247 261 1773 31 491 429 1346 BCO-RWA 5. The proposed model tried to minimize the error in travel time estimation.00 6. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.

3 6. 4. 2009] the authors studied the problem of optimal placing distributed generation (DG) in the electric network in Greater Mekong subregion.14 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. ?? 2011.6 Optimal Placement and Calculation of the Number of the Distributed Generation (DG) in Electric Network by BCO In [Anantasate et al. the maximum travel time error over all travel time runs was selected. ??. After solutions are evaluated (and normalized) the loyalty decision and recruiting process are performed as described at the end of Section 3. ??. 4. The obtained results were very competitive when compared with the results of Genetic Algorithms achieved in previous study [Edara et al. Electricity is then transmitted over high voltage transmission lines. s c Each generated partial solution was characterized by the travel time estimation error. This centralized generation pattern is characterized by transmission ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. Vol. 2008].3 1. The maximum error versus the detector deployment obtained by the Genetic algorithms (GA) is also plotted in Figure 4. As the criteria for comparison of partial solutions. and passed down through low voltage distribution lines to ﬁnal circuits for delivery to the clients.7 GA Solutions BCO Solutions 5 3. For a given number of detectors. The proposed BCO algorithm was tested on a real-world freeway segment in Virginia. Maximum Travel Time Estimation Error Plot (BCO vs GA) Tradeoﬀ plots were generated by varying the actual number of detectors (d) from 2 to 20 in increments of 1.7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of Detector Deployed Fig. One of the main purposes of developing proposed methodology was to generate tradeoﬀ plots between the travel time error and the number of detectors which would give the optimal placement of detectors for diﬀerent levels of available ˇ funding. . In a traditional way. These results enabled savings of 30% as compared to the current deployment at 20 locations. and powered up through transformers. electricity is generated at central stations. c 10 Maximum TT Estimation Error (Minutes) 8. Results of the BCO runs from [Selmi´ et al. 2008] are shown in Figure 4. No. the obtained optimal placement would result in a travel time estimation error for each travel time run.

DG’s are also an alternative for some industrial and commercial customers. The considered multi-objective optimization problem is converted to a single objective problem with the help of suitable weights. 2. This problem can be described as follows. . Simulated Annealing (SA). They showed that when trying to minimize only system loss BCO can place DG’s in such a way that system loss is reduced 27% in comparison with system without DG’s. ??. The authors proposed mathematical formulation for the problem of optimal placement of distributed generation (DG) in the electric network. The DG’s can be driven by various types of resource and technology such as wind. 2009] also performed single objective optimization. . the need for permanent improvement and replacement of the transmission and distribution facilities. 2.0293 4. The authors of [Anantasate et al. The average computing time of BCO. Table IV. n) is denoted by li . . . In last decade. Task preemption is not allowed. The authors performed simulation on the IEEE 30-bus system. These small-scaled generators (distributed generation (DG)). ??. . . 2009a] the authors applied BCO heuristic algorithm c to the problem of static scheduling of independent tasks on identical machines. ?? 2011. n} be a given set of independent tasks. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. All given tasks must be executed. . The authors formulated combinatorial problem with multiple objectives. Task should be scheduled to exactly one machine and machines can execute one task at a time. the placement of small-scaled generators in the electric network in Greater Mekong subregion has been considered. Let T = {1. In the case of minimization of system contingency (voltage violation and line overloading) BCO placed DG’s in such away that violation is reduced 43. The goal is to ﬁnd a schedule of tasks to machines such that the corresponding completion time of all tasks (the so called makespan) is minimized.7729 7. All tasks are mutually independent and each task can be scheduled to any machine. . The main objective was minimization of the real power loss along with violation of system contingency (voltage violation and line overloading). Meta-heuristic GA SA TS BCO Comparison results for DG problem Average CPU [sec] 7.7 Scheduling Independent Tasks by BCO and Parallel BCO In [Davidovi´ et al. hydrogen. Vol.5553 1. m} a set of identical machines. The processing time of task i (i = 1.2219 4. No.75% in comparison with system without DG’s. . GA.BCO: The Applications Survey · 15 losses. solar. SA. and P = {1. . . and TS are shown in Table IV. . The performed experiments showed that BCO can obtain the optimal solutions faster than Genetic Algorithm (GA). The set of constraints took care about power balance and power generation limit. and biomass. 2. 2009b. and Tabu Search (TS). . fuel cells. are installed in the network to act as a source of power at the site where they are to be used.

Obviously. 2. s c At each iteration of its execution BCO performed constructive steps composed of forward and backward passes and within them generated B solutions (schedules). m (12) max F − min F and Fj represents running time of processor j based on tasks already scheduled to it. 2. ??.2 optimization software. Within a single forward step each bee had to select N C task-processor pairs and add them to its current partial schedule. j = 1. Therefore. The BCO implementation was tested on examples with known optimal solutions. Vj = ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. as the stopping criterion was selected number of iterations I within one run and was assigned values 100. . we determine a task to be chosen by each bee. Using relation (10) and a random number generator. j = 1. The BCO algorithm parameters were set to the following values: The total number of bees B engaged in the search process was equal to 5. . . . . Vj represented normalized value for the running time of corresponding processor and as such was used in the deﬁnition of probability for its selection. The authors assumed that the probability pi that speciﬁc bee chooses task i was equal: pi = li K .16 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. c 2009b. the authors assumed that the probability pj that speciﬁc bee chooses processor j was calculated as: pj = Vj m . lk i = 1. the number of moves during one forward pass (generated task-processor pairs) N C was equal to 10. . CPLEX and our BCO are running on the same computer and the authors were able to compare execution times and solution quality for these programs. . one schedule for each bee. Vol. 2. . tasks with a higher processing time have a higher chance to be chosen. min F being minimum over all processors running times. m (11) Vk k=1 where max F − Fj . . In addition. n (10) k=1 with li representing the processing time of the i-th task and K being the number of ”available” tasks (not previously chosen). . Both programs. max F denotes maximum over all processors running times. . . ??. ?? 2011. No. The backward pass starts with the evaluation of all partial solutions generated during the preceding forward pass. Optimal solutions were obtained by using ILOG AMPL and CPLEX 11. After solutions are evaluated (and normalized) the loyalty decision and recruiting process are performed as described at the end of Section 3. 2009a] we present in the Table V the comparison between BCO and CPLEX for the largest size instances. . The latest time point of ﬁnishing the last task at any processor characterizes each generated partial solution. Out of the large number of experimental results presented in [Davidovi´ et al.

89 1711 3 1711 23.82 3. ?? 2011. ??.112 6. The target architecture for parallelized BCO in [Davidovi´ et al. The parallel BCO was implemented in C programming language with MPI communication library.560 BCO CPU time 69.65 sequential and parallel BCO.65 1.93 ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.93 5 277 22.20 2.12 1. Table VI. N C = 10 and stopping criterion 1000 iterations.251 0.39 0.93 0. Vol.967 219. One of them was responsible for the communication with user and was named master. 2010] two c synchronous parallelization strategies of BCO were proposed.000 0. .75 0. within DBCO parameter settings were the following: B = 5.93 0. i.04 2.94 0.38 3.94 2 1095 37.94 1095 3 1095 24.93 274 3 277 37.00 0.76 0. In [Davidovi´ et al. The above described implementation represented good starting point for testing parallelization strategies of BCO.561 1130.00 100 1 277 104.50 0.93 2 277 65.00 1.89 4.e.94 1.000 0.BCO: The Applications Survey · 17 Table V.095 BCO min time 0.56 n = 5000 Sq 1. The test instances were the same one that have been used in [Davidovi´ et al. ??.00 1.00 2 1711 34.209 0.113 9.219 200. Parallel versions of BCO are executing on all q processors.850 4.94 0.070 0.867 231.03 1.93 4 277 28.54 0.000 0.665 250.00 25 1 1095 69. 2010] was homogeneous c completely connected network of processors. results for m DBCO Eq OPT q DBCO CPU t 1.217 0. These instances were not too hard to be solved by sequential BCO. computations were assigned to master too.73 3. and even they were solvable to optimality by CPLEX within a reasonable CPU time.288 28.79 4 548 21. It allowed authors to easily compare sequential and parallel BCO versions and measure the performance for various parallelization strategies.00 2 548 43. 2010] the q was changing from 2 to 12.78 3.41 4.77 4.73 50 1 548 81. It is usually marked as processor 0.00 0.83 4 1711 17. c We present here some of the results for coarse grained parallelization strategy DBCO and for the other cases we just rewrite conclusions.7.226 0.46 0. c 2009a].88 2.73 5 548 17.86 548 3 548 29. The results of scheduling one of the largest size examples from [Tobita and Kasahara 2002] (with 5000 tasks) on diﬀerent number of machines are given in Table VI.000 1. Within the experiments presented in [Davidovi´ et al.1 Parallel BCO.63 Eq 1. Their marks were processor 1 up to processor q − 1.85 2.12 0.95 5 1095 14.51 1. The comparison of the m DBCO OPT q DBCO CPU t Sq 16 1 1711 65.000 0.77 1.786 30. For all examples.94 4 1095 18.31 BCO 6844 3422 1711 1095 548 277 BCO % error 0.78 5 1711 13.93 0. m 4 8 16 25 50 100 The comparison of the BCO results the optimal ones for n=5000 OPT 6844 3422 1711 1095 548 274 Opt CPU time 1.70 4.21 0.70 1.94 0.562 295. No. The other q − 1 processors were called working processors or slaves.

c To assure fairness of obtained results. When testing another variant of coarse grained parallelization the authors obtained excellent (superlinar) speedup and eﬃciency. In years to come. the BCO has not been extensively used for solving real-life problems and theoretical results supporting BCO concepts are still absent. ??. The BCO method is based on the concept of cooperation. examining. Based on the achieved results and gained experience. Until now. and control problems. 5. various information sharing mechanisms. through the information exchange and recruiting process. Additionally. and it could always be tailored for a speciﬁc problem. grants No. new models founded on BCO principles (autonomy. Acknowledgements. . distributed functioning. 2010] it was assumed that BCO from c [Davidovi´ et al. ?? 2011. ﬁne grained parallelization resulted in slowing down the computations due to the communication delays caused by intensive data exchange between processors. almost linear speedup and above 90% eﬃciency. and control. and also the stability in the solution quality (there was no degradation in parallel execution). the appropriateness for parallelization of the BCO algorithm opens not only a new research direction but also some new possible applications. the authors reported improvements or degradations for less than 3%. management. s c Since for the calculation of the speedup and eﬃciency. for instance. As can be seen from the results presented in Table VI DBCO applied to those examples showed very good performance. ??. the most important direction of the future research is the mathematical validation of the BCO approach. 2009a] can take the role of the best sequential algorithm. The BCO has the capability. solution quality was changing. heterogeneous artiﬁcial bees). and various collaboration mechanisms. The BCO represents a general algorithmic framework relevant to various optimization problems in management. the BCO can also diversify the search: The freedom to make an individual decision constitutes that diversifying element. ”the best sequential algorithm” is required. Vol. The BCO has already been eﬀectively applied to some combinatorial optimization problems. In some other examples. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. is inspired by the foraging behavior of honeybees. This work has been supported by Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development. which increases the eﬃciency of artiﬁcial bees and allows achievement of goals that could not be reached individually. due to the reduction of computations assigned to each processor. bees’ homogeneity (homogenous vs. CONCLUSION The meta-heuristic Bee Colony Optimization. the authors expect more BCO based models. self-organizing) are expected to signiﬁcantly contribute to solving complex engineering. 144007 and 144033. and we hope that extended application reports are to come quickly. This strategy is obviously more suitable for shared memory multiprocessor systems. On the other hand. On the other hand. parallel versions of BCO were compared with the original sequential one executed on a single processor of given parallel architecture (instead of parallel version executed for q = 1). engineering. to intensify the search in the promising regions of the solution space. in [Davidovi´ et al. No. When it is necessary. 2009b.18 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. That it the necessary work in the forthcoming research.

17th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (June 24-26.. B.. Pattaraprakorn. 1964. Selmic. S. Camazine. and El Batoul Sahraoui. Tech. O. A. 1989. K. A. Parallel bee colony optimization for scheduling independent tasks to identical machines. Kariv. 452–462. D. Sivakumar. M. L. J. 2 (Mar. 2007. Nicol. M.. 1954–1961. I. Selmic. 2001. T. 539–560. O. 318–325. Journal of Theoretical Biology 149. and Bhasaputra. Seoul. H. Tarabetand. In Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation. M. A.. ?? 2011. Berlin–Heidelberg. Benatchba. M. A bee colony optimization algorithm to job shop scheduling simulation. Eds. Itech Education and Publishing.. J.. 2009. LNCS: Computational Intelligence and Bioinspired Systems 3512. VA.. 3562. An idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization.. Comput 186. G. GMSARN International Journal 3. Beni. Using bees to solve a data-mining problem expressed as a max-sat one. Optimal locations of switching centers and the absolute centers and medians of a graph.. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. Erciyes University. and Sneyd. D. ˇ ´ ´ Edara. 113–143. M. RSJ Press.. T. In Proceedings of the Winter Conference. and Teodorovic.. A model of collective nectar source by honey bees: selforganization through simple rules. J. Cooperative bees swarm for solving the maximum weighted satisﬁability problem. LNCS. K. ??. part ii: The p-median. L. 2007. Low. Lawson. 450–459. and Hakimi. and McGhee. Operations Research 13... Selmic. Fujimoto.).. Y. S. Drias. H. and Gay. 5 (Aug. Karaboga. 2005... T. An algorithmic approach to network location problems. Selmic. S. Multi-objective optimal placement of distributed generation using bee colony optimization. No. Manoj. Liu. rep. Ozbakyr. Tech. L. F.. Honey-bee mating optimization (HBMO) algorithm for optimal reservoir operation. South Korea. Anantasate. (submitted). Hakimi.. 547–571. S. 2008. ¨ ´ Baykasoglu. 1991. Vol. Chokpanyasuwan. P.). ??. Appl. B. L. Journal of the Franklin Institute 344. Vienna. Heuristic solution algorithms for a traﬃc sensor optimization problem. 207–214. M. F. D. L. D. ˜ Afshar. rep. DC. D. T. L. Engineering Faculty Computer Engineering Department Kayseri/Turkiye. Artiﬁcial bee colony algorithm and its application to generalized assignment problem. Scheduling independent tasks: Bee colony optimization approach. Koudil. and Tapkan. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 37. L. P. W.. Perrone. and Teodorovic. 1710–1722. S. Washington... Alvarez. MBO: marriage in honey bees optimization-a haplometrosis polygynous swarming approach. C. Austria. 212–220. Eds. M. P. In Proc. Ramljak. 3 (May – Jun. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Robotics Society of Japan. In IWINAC 2005. G. and Teodorovic. Bozorg Haddad... R. C. Virginia Transportation Research Council. 2005. . S. 1020–1025. Wieland. Edara. Richmond. Tokyo. 2009a. C. Benatchba. A.. 55–64. and R.).. J.. H. ˇ ´ ´ ´ Davidovic. D. Final Contract Report VTRC 08-CR3. D. Chong. Using artiﬁcial bees to solve partitioning and scheduling problems in codesign. and Wang. Math..J. Smith. 2005. 425–428. Swarm intelligence. Greece. P. S. A. Thessaloniki. Felix and K. Mira and J. 2009b. Marino. ˇ ´ ´ ´ Davidovic. Optimal placement of point detectors on Virginia’s freeways: case studies of northern Virginia and Richmond.. K. Makedonia Palace. ˇ ´ ´ ´ Davidovic. and Koudil.C.BCO: The Applications Survey REFERENCES · 19 Abbass.. Hakimi. 462–475. 1969. and Yahi. Springer-Verlag. Admane.. and B. Bee colony optimization for scheduling independent tasks to identical processors. Washington D.). J. Optimum distribution of switching centers in a communication network and some related graph theoretic problems.. L. and Teodorovic. M. 2006. Operations Research 12. P. 2007. C. S. T. Eds. In INFORMS 2008. 2008. In . M.. S. 1965. A. Sadeg.. 2010. Guo. In Swarm Intelligence: Focus on Ant and Particle Swarm Optimization. (Submitted for publication). M.

In Advanced OR and AI Methods in Transportation. LNCS: Ant Colony Optimization and Swarm Intelligence 3172. 1973. and Zhang. Cardiﬀ. 2003a. K. D. 2007. and Passino. 135–152. 83–94. A standard task graph set for fair evaluation of multiprocessor scheduling algorithms. Labbe.. In Proceedings of the XXXIV Serbian Operations Research Conferece.20 · Duˇan Teodorovi´ et al. J. Ed. M. 216–223. and Kasahara. J. In Frontier of Econometrics.a novel tool for complex optimisation problems. and Zaidi. ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ Markovic. BeeHive: an eﬃcient fault-tolerant routing algorithm inspired by honey bee behavior. New York. Received February 2010. 2006. D. Zaheh. Verdegay.. M. Yang. D. Part II: Application. IIIA. 1794–1799. A. M.. 1965. AI Commun. ´ Teodorovic. Navrat. ˇ´ ´ Lucic. Information and Control 8. In Proceedings of the 2007 American Control Conference. 2007. International Journal on Artiﬁcial Intelligence Tools 12. D. Bulgaria. Sao Miguel. Vol. New York. M. P. Rachev and A. 2008. T. and Teodorovic.12—1–7. Zlatibor. 2005. 2007.. The BCO algorithm for the p-median problem. Elsevier. 379–394. ´ Mladenovic.. Poznan. L. N. Conditional logit analysis of quantitative choice behavior. ˇ ´ ´ Teodorovic. V. Revised ???. 2003. D. No. Koc. Sched. Washington. Techn. and Dell’Orco. ´ Teodorovic. The bees algorithm . Azores Islands. Computing with bees: attacking complex transportation engineering problems. ˇ ´ ´ Selmic. M.. Zaremmbka. 1. In Fuzzy Sets based Heuristics for Optimization. Networks 42. Y. New York. and Acimovic-Raspopovic. Honey bee social foraging algorithms for resource allocation. M. 2004. and Hansen. Plan. Solving the p-center problem with tabu search and variable neighborhood search. P. Bee colony optimization . 2003b. Ed. M. 31. Otri. accepted ??? ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. P. D. J. Bee colony optimization approach to optimize locations of traﬃc sensors on highways. D. 51–60. Chen. 48–64. and Teodorovic. Vehicle routing problem with uncertain demand at nodes: the bee system and fuzzy logic approach. 20. Transportation modeling: an artiﬁcial life approach. H.. In Proceedings of the 2007 American Control Conference. 375–394. . 2007a. 3389–3394. Transport. Quijano. N. Jinan. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artiﬁcial Intelligence. ˇ´ ´ Lucic. M. Edara. and Teodorovic. Quijano. Pham. Teodorovic. 9–15. 67–82. Tobita.. P. China. and Selmic. 273–285. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics. Bee hive metaphor for web search. Physica Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg. 338–353.a cooperative learning approach to complex transportation problems. s c ˇ´ ´ Lucic. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the EURO Working Group on Transportation. Fuzzy sets. E. Ritigating traﬃc congestion: solving the ridematching problem by bee colony optimization. ?? 2011. S. Smrikarov. N. McFadden. 3383–3388.. 2006. D. P. 2002. and Dell’Orco. and Teodorovic. ??. Part I: Algorithm and theory. 5.. G. and Teodorovic. Veliko Turnovo. Honey bee social foraging algorithms for resource allocation. 441–445. Tehnika 6 (in Serbian). P.. Eds. and Tu. Poland. H. DC. ˇ´ ´ Lucic. C. Bee system: modeling combinatorial optimization transportation engineering problems by swarm intelligence. B. Serbia (in Serbian). L. P. Wedde. D..CompSysTech 2006. 2008. Algorithm of fast marriage in honey bees optimization and convergence analysis. In Preprints of the TRISTAN IV Triennial Symposium on Transportation Analysis. 2001. D. and Passino. In Proceedings of the 2nd Virtual International Conference on Intelligent Production Machines and Systems (IPROMS 2006). T. P. ??. M. 2002. 5. F. 2007b. K. Ghanbarzadeh. 454–459.. D. Academic Press. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies . X. Farooq. Routing and wavelength assignment in all-optical networks based on the bee colony optimization..

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd