Exploiting flower constancy in flower pollination algorithm: improved biotic flower pollination algorithm and its experimental evaluation
 258 Downloads
Abstract
Recent growth of metaheuristic search strategies has brought a huge progress in the domain of computational optimization. The breakthrough started since the wellknown Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm had been introduced and examined. Optimization technique presented in this contribution mimics the process of flower pollination. It is build on the foundation of the first technique of this kind—known as Flower Pollination Algorithm (FPA). In this paper, its simplified and improved version, obtained after extensive performance testing, is presented. It is based on only one natural phenomena—called flower constancy—the natural mechanism allowing pollen carrying insects to remember the positions of the best pollen sources. Modified FPA, named as Biotic Flower Pollination Algorithm (BFPA) and relying solely on biotic pollinators, outperforms original FPA, which itself proved to be very effective approach. The paper first presents a short description of original FPA and the changes leading to Biotic Flower Pollination Algorithm. It also discusses performance of the modified algorithm on a full set of CEC17 benchmark functions. Furthermore, in that aspect, the comparison between BFPA and other optimization algorithms is also given. Finally, brief exemplary application of modified algorithm in the field of probabilistic modeling, related to physics and engineering, is also presented.
Keywords
Metaheuristics Optimization Natureinspired algorithms Flower pollination algorithm1 Introduction
Natureinspired metaheuristics constitute an important element of Computational Intelligence revolution, due to their high performance and reasonable quality of obtained results. Recent years brought intensive growth of this field. A variety of new methods have been introduced, which—while being criticized for lack of methodological novelty and relying only on attractive metaphors [30]—were often demonstrated to perform very well for benchmark optimization problems. The inspiration for these algorithms typically comes from one of four types of natural phenomena: evolution, swarm behavior, physical processes or human activity. Common example of the first class is the Genetic Algorithm [29]; however, more recent Differential Evolution technique [31] can also be named in this context. Swarming behaviors exhibited by a variety of living organisms serve as a foundation for a large number of techniques such as: Grey Wolf Optimizer [19], Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm [25], Krill Herd Algorithm [12] or standard Particle Swarm Optimization [9] to name just a few. As typical representatives of the third class—techniques inspired by physical processes—along the most commonly known Simulated Annealing algorithm [15] more recent methods of Gravitational Search Algorithm [23] or Sine Cosine Algorithm [18] can be presented. Finally, analyzing human behavior and activities lead to the creation of, inter alia, Fireworks Algorithm [32] and Brainstorming [27]. For a more extensive overview of natureinspired optimization algorithms, one could refer to a recent extensive survey [11].
The natural phenomena, which became the core of algorithm presented in this paper, is one of the flower pollination processes, more accurately—the flower constancy mechanism. Flower constancy [8] allows the insects, which are able to carry a pollen (e.g., honey bees), to remember the paths between bestknown pollen sources. The original optimization technique based on flower pollination, called Flower Pollination Algorithm (FPA), comes from 2012 and has been introduced by Yang [37]. This algorithm imitated two different variants of flower pollination and classified them into local pollination—where all actions occurred locally, and global pollination—where the pollen was moved to partly random, often distant location [20]. With more insightful approach, local pollination could be compared to flower constancy, being responsible for pollen carriers attraction to advantageous flower types, which were positively scrutinized in the past. Thus, local pollination imitated carriers communication and tendency to remain at lucrative habits. In practice, conjunction of this mechanism and randomized global pollination led to creation of interesting optimization method, which quickly explores the given function landscape to get to its optimal domain, simultaneously preventing the algorithm from getting stuck in local extremes. Since the foundation of the original FPA, many researchers have studied it with different results [1, 17, 34], and also modified standard algorithm’s structure [26, 28], but the basic idea behind FPA has remained unchanged. The goal of this article is to present improved and simplified FPA version, which has been created to increase algorithm performance, and to reduce computational cost and total time of algorithm’s execution. It is not a new swarm intelligence technique but a modification of the existing algorithm inspired by experimental studies on its behavior. This work is motivated by the fact that in the most recent comparative experimental studies [2, 4], the FPA proved to be highly competitive—even in reference to the more recent algorithms. It has also been successfully adopted in many engineering and scientific applications [21].
This paper is constructed as follows. Firstly, the natural process of pollination—which has become an archetype of the algorithm—is described. Then, the structure of the algorithm itself, as well as the changes introduced by authors of this paper are presented. Subsequently, the performance of modified algorithm with regard to other known algorithms (PSO, original FPA, slightly modified FPA with improved random factor—LEFPA [28] and Symbiotic Organism Search (SOS) [7]) is demonstrated. It is followed by usecase example of application of the proposed algorithm. Finally, further possible improvements are communicated.
2 Flower pollination metaphor in optimization
Plant pollination in nature can occur as a consequence of several different mechanisms. First of these is selfpollination, where the pollen comes from the same flower or different flower of the same plant. In contrast to that, crosspollination takes place when the pollen comes from different plant [14]. In original FPA, inspired by pollination, all flowers were assumed to be of the same type [37], so all events could be classified into selfpollination category.
Another classification type divides pollination processes into two groups, biotic and abiotic. Biotic pollination occurs while insects, also called pollinators, carry pollen between consecutive flowers. Abiotic pollination in turn is done through the presence of independent and random factors like wind or water. It was established through biological research that over \(80\%\) of all pollinations occurring in nature are in fact biotic [3]. Abiotic pollination can be considered as the one introducing more randomness to the process of pollen transfer and, as we suggest later, this behavior could be neglected in building algorithm structure.
The algorithm inspired by pollination introduces third categorization of pollination process—based on its range: local or global. It is worth to mention that original FPA employs both of them. The first—local pollination theoretically could be considered as either biotic or abiotic, because the flowers are in this case located close to each other. It means that both natural factors such as wind and pollinator activities could be perceived as of significant importance. Still local pollination used in the original FPA technique was limited to be only biotic and represents the flower constancy, mentioned in the previous section. It is based on random walks between flowers. Global pollination, which is a second part of the algorithm, is the longdistance pollination. In this case, FPA focuses mainly on abiotic pollination as successful longrange wind pollination can also be observed in Nature, e.g., for open areas where pollen can be carried far without any obstruction. In FPA, the trajectories of pollen displacement are in this case being rolled using Levy distribution [22]. Angular part of Levy distribution is symmetric; thus, direction of displacement must be simultaneously rolled from uniform distribution. It means that simulation of abiotic global pollination modeled by FPA brings more randomness and unpredictability to the pollination process.
Optimization deployment of described processes is based on locating flowers on functional landscape. The function value reflecting flower position determines the amount of pollen produced by this flower. Detailed description of algorithms based on aforementioned natural processes is provided in the following sections.
3 Specification of original FPA and existing modifications
The population in Flower Pollination Algorithm consists of N flowers of the same type. Each flower is denoted a vector \(x_n,\; n=1, \ldots , N\) and represents exactly one solution in the domain of tested function f. The goal of the optimization is to find a value of \(x_n\)—within the feasible search space \(S\subset R^D\)—denoted as \(x^*\) such as \(x^*=\hbox {argmin}_{x\in S} \,f(x)\), assuming that the goal is to minimize cost function f. Population in FPA is at first initialized randomly. After initialization, in every step of algorithm’s main iteration k, all flowers in sequence are selected to be pollinated. It is controlled by parameter p, named as switch probability, which determines the probability of global pollination. If a flower is chosen not to be pollinated this way, a local pollination is executed instead. The whole process is repeated iteratively until predetermined termination criterion is found to be fulfilled.
Let us denote \(x_n(k)\) as solution n in iteration k, \(x^*(k)\)—as the best solution found so far and \(s_0, \gamma\) as global pollination parameters. Furthermore, let \(x_{n,\mathrm{trial}}\) to represent a new candidate solution obtained through the pollination phase. It becomes a new location of solution n if its quality—in terms of cost function f—is better than the quality of the original one. Algorithm 1 provides the description of pollination process in FPA using this notation.
Flower Pollination Algorithm as an effective optimizer found variety of modifications—enhancing its capabilities and improving performance. Besides, more specific FPA variants for combinatorial [33] and binary optimization [10] more generic changes—related to the structure of the algorithm have been proposed [26]. It includes newly introduced Linear–Exponential Flower Pollination Algorithm [28] based on customized switching of probability p. In addition to that adding a chaotic component in a form of chaotic maps [13] was also considered—it is one of the popular approaches used recently in heuristic optimization. An improvement in new mutation operators and modified local search was also under investigation [24]. A list of modifications also includes new population initialization methods [36]. For a more extensive overview of changes proposed for the standard FPA, one could refer to recent stateofart reviews [5, 21].
4 Proposed approach
As already demonstrated in original FPA, the probability of local and global pollination for single flower is defined by the probability factor p, for which the optimal value of 0.8 was suggested, according to the contributions of algorithm’s developer Yang [37] and other sources [17]. However, our intensive experimentation exhibited that in most cases FPA produces the best results while the value of p drifts to 0—in other words, when the system tends to eliminate completely the global pollination process. As it was presented in Sect. 2, random walks have the strict nature of randomness that interferes the methodical, intuitive behavior of pollinators. Removing global pollination process also simplifies the scheme of FPA, because rolling random numbers from Levy distribution (which has the infinite variance) might be problematic and it slightly extends the algorithm execution time. In addition to that, in this way an elimination of two algorithm’s parameters: \(s_0\) and \(\gamma\) is achieved. Computational cost of algorithm remains at O(k, N), where k is iteration number, N is the size of flower population. By removing global pollination and forcing the flowers to only pollinate by flower constancy mechanism, simplified variant of FPA is created, which can be naturally called Biotic Flower Pollination Algorithm (BFPA). The complete structure of BFPA is presented as Algorithm 2.
Another modification taken into consideration was the factor of local pollination \(\epsilon\). Adding the sign of its value does not change the structure of the algorithm—and at the same time, it causes the pollination steps to be extended. In practice, modifying \(\epsilon\) value heavily influences received results, and it can be helpful if we want to obtain the best possible solution for given problem. Through our experimentation—selection of which will be enclosed in subsequent part of the paper—we established that as the best universal value C equal to 1 can be used.
The results of BFPA optimization performed on benchmark continuous problems, with regard to other exemplary and indicative algorithms are presented in the next section.
5 Experimental performance
Continuous benchmark function suite used to examine the performance of BFPA
Function  Type of function 

F1  Shifted and Rotated Bent Cigar Function 
F2  Shifted and Rotated Zakharov Function 
F3  Shifted and Rotated Rosenbrock’s Function 
F4  Shifted and Rotated Rastrigin’s Function 
F5  Shifted and Rotated Expanded Scaffer’s Function 
F6  Shifted and Rotated Lunacek BiRastrigin Function 
F7  Shifted and Rotated Noncontinuous Rastrigin’s Function 
F8  Shifted and Rotated Levy Function 
F9  Shifted and Rotated Schwefel’s Function 
F10–F19  Hybrid Functions 
F20–F29  Composition Functions 
Algorithms’ performance on CEC17 continuous benchmark problems
Fnct.  Result  BFPA  FPA  LEFPA  PSO  SOS 

F1  Mean  0  372.43  \(1.79\times 10^{6}\)  \(3.95\times 10^{3}\)  \(2.2\times 10^{6}\) 
Min.  0  31.364  \(2.47\times 10^{5}\)  1.153  \(2.41\times 10^{3}\)  
SD  0  259.49  \(1.27\times 10^{6}\)  \(5.28\times 10^{3}\)  \(6.78\times 10^{6}\)  
F2  Mean  0  \(6.07\times 10^{9}\)  70.573  \(4.17\times 10^{14}\)  \(2.84\times 10^{15}\) 
Min.  0  \(3.11\times 10^{10}\)  10.613  0  0  
SD  0  \(6.01\times 10^{9}\)  72.500  \(2.94\times 10^{14}\)  \(1.25\times 10^{14}\)  
F3  Mean  0  0.0016  5.702  3.193  0.0979 
Min.  0  \(1.34\times 10^{7}\)  3.104  0.2873  0.0259  
SD  0  0.0111  1.251  0.8638  0.0775  
F4  Mean  5.947  14.286  13.010  7.918  6.938 
Min.  1.990  7.541  6.969  1.990  2.024  
SD  2.384  4.247  3.20  3.024  3.391  
F5  Mean  0.2368  4.783  1.592  \(2.37\times 10^{8}\)  \(6.63\times 10^{6}\) 
Min.  \(1.63\times 10^{5}\)  1.750  0.547  0  \(1.14\times 10^{13}\)  
SD  0.6487  2.429  0.824  \(1.83\times 10^{7}\)  \(1.32\times 10^{5}\)  
F6  Mean  15.950  26.229  30.920  18.870  27.544 
Min.  7.618  16.488  22.595  5.606  13.266  
SD  2.590  4.694  4.277  6.521  6.356  
F7  Mean  5.747  14.082  11.486  10.085  7.266 
Min.  0.9950  6.502  4.641  3.980  1.041  
SD  2.325  3.845  2.692  3.682  2.936  
F8  Mean  0  1.712  3.177  0.0015  0.0104 
Min.  0  0.0078  0.3159  0  0  
SD  0  1.194  5.818  0.0116  0.029  
F9  Mean  663.02  650.11  626.57  287.07  174.91 
Min.  166.59  370.78  288.60  6.892  6.955  
SD  192.81  111.82  176.35  176.01  102.39  
F10  Mean  0.1243  4.415  16.470  4.42  2.795 
Min.  0  1.445  6.165  0.0341  0.0256  
SD  0.3228  1.234  6.738  2.727  1.889  
F11  Mean  8.380  \(1.11\times 10^{3}\)  \(4.78\times 10^{4}\)  \(2.29\times 10^{4}\)  \(1.48\times 10^{4}\) 
Min.  \(8.98\times 10^{5}\)  346.73  \(8.52\times 10^{3}\)  336.29  261.11  
SD  18.329  323.73  \(4.95\times 10^{4}\)  \(2.90\times 10^{4}\)  \(1.53\times 10^{4}\)  
F12  Mean  4.052  14.620  \(2.89\times 10^{3}\)  \(5.49\times 10^{3}\)  \(2.93\times 10^{3}\) 
Min.  \(4.99\times 10^{5}\)  6.331  490.13  14.424  7.756  
SD  1.959  4.423  \(1.73\times 10^{3}\)  \(6.74\times 10^{3}\)  \(2.73\times 10^{3}\)  
F13  Mean  0.9602  16.542  84.31  26.190  93.082 
Min.  0  7.754  41.260  2.051  0.3019  
SD  1.003  3.876  21.040  13.391  197.42  
F14  Mean  0.2306  5.733  153.03  27.513  61.507 
Min.  0.0297  3.063  44.009  1.156  0.41  
SD  0.1886  1.781  74.263  24.817  134.62  
F15  Mean  3.620  7.196  26.106  22.683  41.206 
Min.  1.249  1.874  4.3246  0.0448  0.2698  
SD  1.859  6.040  17.15  47.860  57.057  
F16  Mean  32.729  41.923  44.133  18.617  8.283 
Min.  25.704  25.887  27.993  0.3122  0.0197  
SD  4.217  7.363  7.122  22.526  8.513  
F17  Mean  0.4570  42.151  \(1.34\times 10^{3}\)  \(4.74\times 10^{3}\)  \(4.46\times 10^{3}\) 
Min.  0.3948  26.738  138.96  115.53  14.374  
SD  0.0378  9.689  \(1.28\times 10^{3}\)  \(5.12\times 10^{3}\)  \(5.98\times 10^{3}\)  
F18  Mean  1.106  5.182  543.49  24.041  289.09 
Min.  0.6459  2.959  51.059  0.5999  0.1049  
SD  0.3211  0.8035  548.75  25.499  654.72  
F19  Mean  24.120  45.663  38.398  11.470  1.415 
Min.  0.9766  27.038  22.289  0  0  
SD  7.560  9.221  7.511  11.340  1.809  
F20  Mean  141.58  111.75  119.52  195.16  106.68 
Min.  100  100  101.09  100  100  
SD  56.941  36.170  37.351  40.045  25.069  
F21  Mean  80.215  80.117  71.606  104.62  98.975 
Min.  0  4.292  6.041  19.224  11.563  
SD  44.842  38.006  40.578  23.326  14.032  
F22  Mean  308.21  319.46  313.53  309.34  310.28 
Min.  306.96  312.16  303.74  300  304.37  
SD  1.167  5.383  3.643  4.019  3.758  
F23  Mean  288.29  205.53  306.22  311.46  276.7 
Min.  100  100.00  110.34  100  100  
SD  105.28  119.11  69.154  77.622  102.57  
F24  Mean  397.86  399.44  412.77  414.65  421.19 
Min.  397.74  397.75  398.87  397.89  397.74  
SD  0.1633  8.479  15.716  23.073  23.095  
F25  Mean  271.67  258.53  314.26  514.94  309.09 
Min.  0  0.0037  302.54  \(4.55\times 10^{13}\)  0  
SD  71.525  92.460  15.063  413.37  70.657  
F26  Mean  371.30  389.21  395.98  394.91  391.83 
Min.  370.17  386.90  390.49  389.30  387.32  
SD  0.8716  0.7597  9.312  2.596  2.654  
F27  Mean  549.74  300.00  418.29  447.21  386.81 
Min.  300.97  300  317.94  300  300  
SD  94.782  0.0017  121.71  161.02  130.12  
F28  Mean  242.33  271.45  286.93  273.63  254.88 
Min.  229.47  241.61  248.84  234.91  236.07  
SD  7.372  18.699  23.274  41.955  13.581  
F29  Mean  682.42  \(3.13\times 10^{4}\)  \(2.07\times 10^{5}\)  \(4.28\times 10^{5}\)  \(1.55\times 10^{5}\) 
Min.  249.47  467.79  \(1.65\times 10^{3}\)  \(1.44\times 10^{3}\)  723.32  
SD  631.80  \(1.44\times 10^{5}\)  \(2.86\times 10^{5}\)  \(7.85\times 10^{5}\)  \(3.17\times 10^{5}\) 
Overview of Welch test p value, which represent the probability of two selected samples of algorithm results being statistically insignificant
No.  BFPA–FPA  BFPA–LEFPA  BFPA–PSO  BFPA–SOS 

F1  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F2  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p = 0.0836\) 
F3  eq, \(p=0.2687\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F4  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p=0.0001\)  btr, \(p = 0.0669\) 
F5  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p=0.0064\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F6  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p=0.0019\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F7  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p = 0.0021\) 
F8  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  eq, \(p=0.3206\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F9  eq, \(p=0.6548\)  eq, \(p=0.2822\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F10  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F11  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F12  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F13  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F14  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F15  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p=0.0031\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F16  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F17  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F18  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F19  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F20  wrs, \(p=0.0009\)  wrs, \(p=0.0137\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F21  eq, \(p=0.9897\)  eq, \(p=0.2724\)  btr, \(p=0.0003\)  btr, \(p = 0.0028\) 
F22  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p=0.0396\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F23  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\)  eq, \(p=0.2728\)  eq, \(p=0.1728\)  eq, \(p = 0.5425\) 
F24  eq, \(p=0.1535\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F25  eq, \(p=0.3861\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p = 0.0047\) 
F26  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F27  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\)  wrs, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F28  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
F29  eq, \(p=0.1055\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\)  btr, \(p \le 0.0001\) 
As the alternative optimization algorithms—used to evaluate the performance of BFPA—besides FPA (with \(p=0.8\)), standard Particle Swarm Optimization, stateofart FPA variant—linear–exponential Flower Pollination Algorithm (LEFPA), and Symbiotic Organism Search (SOS) were used. For PSO, as the C1 and C2 parameters typical values of \(C1=C2=2\) were employed [9]. For LEFPA \(p_\mathrm{initial}\) and \(p_\mathrm{final}\) inner parameters, values 0.8 and 0.6 were used, respectively, as the creators of LEFPA recommend [28]. SOS algorithm used in our experiments employ default settings as described in [7].
BFPA performance variability for different algorithm parameters
Fnct.  Result  \({C}=0.5\), \({N}=35\)  \({C}=1\), \({N}=25\)  \({C}=1\), \({N}=35\)  \({C}=1\), \({N}=50\)  \({C}=1.5\), \({N}=35\) 

F1  Mean  0  \(2.37\times 10^{16}\)  0  \(6.24\times 10^{12}\)  0 
Min.  0  0  0  0  0  
SD  0  \(1.83\times 10^{15}\)  0  \(1.74\times 10^{10}\)  0  
F4  Mean  15.71  8.971  5.947  8.02  6.748 
Min.  6.141  1.990  1.990  2.8738  1.990  
SD  4.492  4.078  2.384  2.617  2.646  
F9  Mean  641.16  587.76  663.02  893.68  701.85 
Min.  292.60  125.72  166.59  511.83  247.96  
SD  157.01  185.58  192.81  171.89  221.70  
F14  Mean  1.215  0.5828  0.2306  0.6376  0.3807 
Min.  0.3337  \(1.01\times 10^{4}\)  0.0297  0.2122  0.0061  
SD  0.6031  0.6068  0.1886  0.3146  0.4117  
F19  Mean  53.157  17.996  24.120  37.513  19.154 
Min.  33.373  0.6244  0.9766  26.210  2.301  
SD  14.397  12.204  7.560  9.541  9.998  
F24  Mean  333.01  398.30  397.86  351.63  402.42 
Min.  111.96  100  397.74  100  397.74  
SD  99.222  41.925  0.1633  107.22  13.917 
In order to investigate algorithms’ dynamics, the best minimum values found so far for all iterations were noted. Sample of 200 independent runs with the same initial population and random number generator seed for all algorithms were arranged, to avoid the effect of randomization. The average best solution of gradient comparison for all examined algorithms, calculated for F8 function, are presented in Fig. 1. Both FPA and LEFPA, which is FPA with improved global pollination process, acted similarly, with LEFPA converging a bit faster. SOS provided better results and was the leading algorithm over first 1000 iterations, however eventually was overtaken by PSO and BFPA. PSO algorithm most of times terminated reaching the actual position of global minimum. Finally, BFPA tended to global minimum quicker and more regularly, discovering desirable global minimum position every time. This result signifies that even though BFPA reduces random decisions during simulation, population does not remain in a local minima and always looks for the better position. This is most likely caused by removing usage of current bestknown position in algorithm structure—that surprisingly often pulls the population into a local minimum trap. Similar experiments executed for selected CEC17 optimization problems with \(D=30\) demonstrated that this positive feature is also observed for search spaces of higher dimensionality.
The differences between FPA and its modified version BFPA might be seen in diversity plots, presenting the average distance between solutions during optimization process for both FPA and BFPA in Fig. 2. The random walk contribution in FPA manifests in the form of the distance fluctuations. In the BFPA case, the exploration process is shortened and algorithm steps into desired area very quickly, continuing the exploitation phase with a linear decrease of the average distance between population agents. FPA keeps large distances between solutions over all iterations, which is the main reason of its worse exploitation abilities.
In order to examine the impact of the algorithm’s parameters on the optimizing performance, a number of different parameters set were chosen and examined in the same way as for the comparison of the algorithms, with 6 selected functions. All the results are collated in Table 4. The first three sets of parameters we have considered include different values taken for C—the gain of local pollination step—the middle, proposed value of \(C=1\) and two marginal of \(C=0.5\) and \(C=1.5\). At the same time, the population was fixed to \(N=35\). The results of this test are included in columns 3, 5 and 7 of the Table. The suggested value of \(C=1\) gave the best result in 3 out of the other 6 cases; however, it was also the second best in the other 3 cases.
Another performance variability test concerned studying the effect of different number of flowers in the population with fixed value of C. A population lower than 18 flowers showed a tendency to stuck in one place, with an identical location vector. Since the full function suite was run for a population of 35 flowers, versions with 25 flowers and 50 flowers were added to the performance test, the results of which are also presented in Table 4. Once again, the proposed value of 35 flowers for 100, 000 function evaluations gave the best results, however the differences were not as significant, as for the different values of C provided. The most suitable number of flowers also depends on the dimensionality of a given problem. The C parameter, however, is independent of the number of dimensions, and if the initial population is randomly deployed over the function landscape, again its value of \(C=1\) may be safely assumed.
6 Application example
BFPA’s simplicity allows it to be implemented in a wide range of applications. One of the functionalities we have already developed is fitting function models to the data, which follows combination of analytically defined distributions. If the function model consists of a huge number of independent variables, this task becomes impossible to complete swiftly through standard fitting techniques. Usage of BFPA is based on employing an objective function defined as of Mean Square Error (MSE) between data and current function fit, designated by a temporary set of model parameters of the best flower position vector. The algorithm minimizes objective function in relation to model parameters. These parameters are contingent on the model and might be simple, e.g., when fitting a Gaussian distribution or more complex when a mixture of different distributions is considered. The nature of MSE cost function, due to its high complexity and difference in contribution of parameters, can be compared to composition functions that were part of CEC performance test. This means that fitting a function model to data points is often difficult and the global optimum cannot always be found. Nonetheless, it is a common task in data analysis and developing an algorithm which is simple and understandable is highly desirable.

\(\mu\)—mean of the Gauss distribution

\(\sigma\)—standard deviation of Gauss distribution

c—Landau width parameter

A—amplitude of Landau–Gauss distribution
The BFPA algorithm achieved a final result after an average of 422 iterations. The original FPA has also been tested and it needed more than 750 iterations; however, the final result was identical in both attempts. The result of the model fitting using BFPA was demonstrated in Fig. 3.
7 Summary
The proposed modified variant of the Flower Pollination Algorithm has exhibited excellent results in the course of the experimental test procedure covered in previous sections, with both highquality results and a decent time of execution being identified. BFPA proved to perform much better than the original FPA, which itself is a highly effective optimization technique. In addition to that, Biotic Flower Pollination Algorithm is not complicated in structure and consists of only one noniterational equation, which leads to its easy and fast implementation in every programming environment. In conclusion, the BFPA performance allows this technique to be used both for simple tasks as well as in more complicated optimization projects. To allow the replication of our result, the code of BFPA along with the short example of its usage was published on [16].
Since it has been observed that BFPA usually quickly finds the right region where the global minimum is located and most of the time looks for the most attractive point, further research concerning the BFPA’s structure with special emphasis on exploitation process reinforcement, should be performed. It is also worth mentioning that obliteration of Levy flights in the BFPA excluded from the algorithm the best global solution found so far, which is quite often used in strengthening the exploitation process and its inclusion to BFPA in alternative way might also be the theme of future studies.
Notes
Acknowledgements
This work was partially financed (supported) by the Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, AGH University of Science and Technology statutory tasks within subsidy of Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
 1.AbdelBaset M, Hezam I (2016) A hybrid flower pollination algorithm for engineering optimization problems. Int J Comput Appl 140:10–23Google Scholar
 2.AbdelBasset M, Shawky LA (2018) Flower pollination algorithm: a comprehensive review. Artif Intell Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1046201896244
 3.Abrol D (2012) Non bee pollinators–plant interaction. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/9789400719422_9 Google Scholar
 4.Agarwal P, Mehta S (2018) Empirical analysis of five natureinspired algorithms on real parameter optimization problems. Artif Intell Rev 50(3):383–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1046201795475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 5.Alyasseri Z, Khader A, AlBetar M, Awadallah M, Yang XS (2018) Variants of the flower pollination algorithm: a review. Springer, Cham, pp 91–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319676692_5 Google Scholar
 6.Awad N, Ali M, Liang J, Qu B, Suganthan P (2016) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the cec 2017 special session and competition on single objective bound constrained realparameter numerical optimization. Tech. rep., Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
 7.Cheng MY, Prayogo D (2014) Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 139:98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.Chittka L, Thomson J, Waser N (1999) Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 86(8):361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 9.Clerc M (2006) Particle swarm optimization. Translated from the French original., translated from the french original edn. London: ISTE. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470612163
 10.Dahi Z, Mezioud C, Draa A (2016) On the efficiency of the binary flower pollination algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 47(C):395–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.05.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 11.Fausto F, ReynaOrta A, Cuevas E, Andrade ÁG, PerezCisneros M (2019) From ants to whales: metaheuristics for all tastes. Artif Intell Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462018096762
 12.Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2012) Krill herd: a new bioinspired optimization algorithm. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 17(12):4831–4845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.05.010. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1007570412002171
 13.Kaur A, Pal S, Singh A (2017) New chaotic flower pollination algorithm for unconstrained nonlinear optimization functions. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s131980170664y
 14.Kent M (2013) Advanced biology. Advanced sciences, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
 15.Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.220.4598.671. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/220/4598/671
 16.Kopciewicz P, Lukasik S (2018) FCA source code for fitting a function model to charge distributions. http://home.agh.edu.pl/~slukasik/pub/SourceFCA2018/
 17.Lukasik S, Kowalski P (2015) Study of flower pollination algorithm for continuous optimization. In: Intelligent Systems’2014. Springer, Cham, pp. 451–459Google Scholar
 18.Mirjalili S (2016) Sca: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl Based Syst 96:120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.12.022. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705115005043
 19.Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965997813001853
 20.Nigdeli SM, Bekdaş G, Yang XS (2016) Application of the flower pollination algorithm in structural engineering. In: Yang XS, Bekdaş G, Nigdeli S (eds) Metaheuristics and optimization in civil engineering. Modeling and optimization in science and technologies, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319262451_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.Pant S, Kumar A, Ram M (2017) Flower pollination algorithm development: a state of art review. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8(2):1858–1866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1319801706237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 22.Pavlyukevich I (2007) Levy flights, nonlocal search and simulated annealing. J Comput Phys 226(2):1830–1844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.06.008. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002199910700263X
 23.Rashedi E, Nezamabadipour H, Saryazdi S (2009) Gsa: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179(13):2232–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.03.004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025509001200 (special section on high order fuzzy sets)
 24.Salgotra R, Singh U (2017) Application of mutation operators to flower pollination algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 79:112–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.035. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417417301264
 25.Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2017) Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: theory and application. Adv Eng Softw 105:30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965997816305646
 26.Shambour M, Abusnaina A, Alsalibi A (2018) Modified global flower pollination algorithm and its application for optimization problems. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1253901802952
 27.Shi Y (2011) An optimization algorithm based on brainstorming process. Int J Swarm Intell Res (IJSIR) 2(4):35–62. https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jsir00/v2y2011i4p3562.html
 28.Singh D, Singh U, Salgotra R (2018) An extended version of flower pollination algorithm. Arab J Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1336901831666
 29.Sivanandam S, Deepa S (2007) Introduction to genetic algorithms, 1st edn. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 30.Sorensen K (2015) Metaheuristicsthe metaphor exposed. Int Trans Oper Res 22(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12001 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 31.Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11(4):341–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 32.Tan Y, Zhu Y (2010) Fireworks algorithm for optimization. In: Tan Y, Shi Y, Tan KC (eds) Advances in swarm intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 33.Wagih KA (2015) An improved flower pollination algorithm for solving integer programming problems. Appl Math Inf Sci Lett 3:31–37Google Scholar
 34.Wang R, Zhou Y (2014) Flower pollination algorithm with dimension by dimension improvement. Math Probl Eng 2014:481791. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/481791 Google Scholar
 35.Welch B (1947) The generalization of ‘student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34(1/2):28–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2332510
 36.Xu S, Wang Y, Huang F (2017) Optimization of multipass turning parameters through an improved flower pollination algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89(1):503–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0017001691124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 37.Yang XS (2012) Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization. In: DurandLose J, Jonoska N (eds) Unconventional computation and natural computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.