Water Resources Management

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 661–680

Honey-Bees Mating Optimization (HBMO) Algorithm: A New Heuristic Approach for Water Resources Optimization

  • Omid Bozorg Haddad
  • Abbas Afshar
  • Miguel A. Mariño
Article

Abstract

Over the last decade, evolutionary and meta-heuristic algorithms have been extensively used as search and optimization tools in various problem domains, including science, commerce, and engineering. Their broad applicability, ease of use, and global perspective may be considered as the primary reason for their success. The honey-bees mating process may also be considered as a typical swarm-based approach to optimization, in which the search algorithm is inspired by the process of real honey-bees mating. In this paper, the honey-bees mating optimization algorithm (HBMO) is presented and tested with few benchmark examples consisting of highly non-linear constrained and/or unconstrained real-valued mathematical models. The performance of the algorithm is quite comparable with the results of the well-developed genetic algorithm. The HBMO algorithm is also applied to the operation of a single reservoir with 60 periods with the objective of minimizing the total square deviation from target demands. Results obtained are promising and compare well with the results of other well-known heuristic approaches.

Key words

honey-bees mating optimization genetic algorithm heuristic search non-linear optimization single-reservoir operation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbaspour, K. C. and Schulin, R., and van Genuchten, M. T., 2001, ‘Estimating unsaturated soil hydraulic parameters using ant colony optimization’, Adv. Water Resour. 24(8), 827–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbass, H. A., 2001a, ‘Marriage in honeybees optimization (MBO): A haplometrosis polygynous swarming approach’, in The Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC2001, Seoul, Korea, May 2001, pp. 207–214.Google Scholar
  3. Abbass, H. A., 2001b, ‘A monogenous MBO approach to satisfiability, in The International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling’, Control and Automation, CIMCA'2001, Las Vegas, NV, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Brasil, L. M., de Azevdo, F. M., Barreto, J. M., and Noirhomme, M., 1998, ‘Training algorithm for Neuro-Fuzzy-GA systems’, in Proc. 16th IASTED International Conference on Applied Informatics, AI'98, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, pp. 45–47.Google Scholar
  5. Dietz, A., 1986, ‘Evolution’, in T. E. Rinderer (ed.), Bee Genetics and Breeding, Academic Press Inc., N.Y. pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
  6. Dorigo, M., 1992, ‘Optimization, learning and natural algorithms’, Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. Dorigo, M., Bonabeau, E., and Theraulaz, G., 2000, ‘Ant algorithms and stigmergy’, Future Generation Computer Systems 16, 851–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorigo, M. and Di Caro, G., 1999, ‘The ant colony optimization metaheuristic’, in D. Corne, M. Dorigo, and F. Glover (eds.), New Ideas in Optimization, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, London, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
  9. Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., and Colorni, A., 1996, The ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating ants, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 26, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esat, V. and Hall, M. J., 1994, ‘Water resources system optimization using genetic algorithms’, in Hydroinformatics' 94, Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Hydroinformatics, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 225–231.Google Scholar
  11. Gen, M. and Cheng, R., 1997, ‘Genetic Algorithm and Engineering Design’, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.Google Scholar
  12. Goldberg, D. E., Deb, K., and Horn, J., 1992, ‘Massive multimodality, deception, and genetic algorithms’, in R. Manner and B. Manderick (eds.), Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2, pp. 37–46.Google Scholar
  13. Jalali, M. R., Afshar, A., and Mariño, M. A., (2006). ‘Reservoir operation by ant colony optimization algorithms.’ Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Shiraz, Iran, in press.Google Scholar
  14. Jaszkiewicz, A., 2001, ‘Multiple objective metaheuristic algorithms for combinatorial optimization, Habilitation Thesis’, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan.Google Scholar
  15. Laidlaw, H. H. and Page, R.E., 1986, ‘Mating designs, in T. E. Rinderer (ed.), Bee Genetics and Breeding’, Academic Press, Inc., pp. 323–341.Google Scholar
  16. Moritz, R. F. A. and Southwick, E. E., 1992, Bees as Superorganisms, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  17. Page, R. E., 1980, ‘The evolution of multiple mating behavior by honey bee queens (Apis mellifera L.)’, Journal of Genetics 96, 263–273.Google Scholar
  18. Perez-Uribe, A. and Hirsbrunner, B., 2000, ‘Learning and foraging in robot-bees, in Meyer, Berthoz, Floreano, Roitblat and Wilson (eds.)’, SAB2000 Proceedings Supplement Book, Intermit. Soc. for Adaptive Behavior, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 185–194.Google Scholar
  19. Rinderer, T. E. and Collins, A. M., 1986, ‘Behavioral genetics, in T. E. Rinderer (ed.), Bee Genetics and Breeding’, Academic Press, Inc., pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
  20. Simpson, A. R. Maier, H. R., Foong, W. K., Phang, K. Y., Seah, H. Y., and Tan, C. L., 2001, ‘Selection of parameters for ant colony optimization applied to the optimal design of water distribution systems’, in Proc., Int. Congress on Modeling and Simulation. Canberra, Australia, pp. 1931–1936.Google Scholar
  21. Wardlaw, R. and Sharif, M., 1999, ‘Evaluation of genetic algorithms for optimal reservoir system operation’, J. Water Resour. Plng. and Mgmt. ASCE, 125(1), 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omid Bozorg Haddad
    • 1
  • Abbas Afshar
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Mariño
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Civil EngineeringIRAN University of Science and Technology (IUST)TehranIran
  2. 2.Hydrology Program and Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations