MBO: marriage in honey bees optimization-a Haplometrosis polygynous swarming approach

Honey-bees are one of the most well studied social insects. They exhibit many features that distinguish their use as models for intelligent behavior. These features include division of labor, communication on the individual and group level, and cooperative behavior. In this paper, we present a unified model for the marriage in honey-bees within an optimization context. The model simulates the evolution of honey-bees starting with a solitary colony (single queen without a family) to the emergence of an eusocial colony (one or more queens with a family). From optimization point of view, the model is a committee machine approach where we evolve solutions using a committee of heuristics. The model is applied to a fifty propositional satisfiability problems (SAT) with 50 variables and 215 constraints to guarantee that the problems are centered on the phase transition of 3-SAT. Our aim in this paper is to analyze the behavior of the algorithm using biological concepts (number of queens, spermatheca size, and number of broods) rather than trying to improve the performance of the algorithm while losing the underlying biological essence. Notwithstanding, the algorithm outperformed WalkSAT, one of the state-of-the-art algorithms for SAT.

[1]  Luca Maria Gambardella,et al.  Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[2]  Alfred Dietz,et al.  CHAPTER 1 – Evolution , 1986 .

[3]  R. Plomin Behavioral genetics. , 1991, Research publications - Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease.

[4]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems , 1992, AAAI.

[5]  Bart Selman,et al.  Local search strategies for satisfiability testing , 1993, Cliques, Coloring, and Satisfiability.

[6]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  From Natural to Artificial Swarm Intelligence , 1999 .

[7]  Bart Selman,et al.  An Empirical Study of Greedy Local Search for Satisfiability Testing , 1993, AAAI.

[8]  Holger H. Hoos,et al.  On the Run-time Behaviour of Stochastic Local Search Algorithms for SAT , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[9]  Bart Selman,et al.  Noise Strategies for Improving Local Search , 1994, AAAI.

[10]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  The ant colony optimization meta-heuristic , 1999 .

[11]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems , 1999 .

[12]  Bart Selman,et al.  Domain-Independent Extensions to GSAT : Solving Large StructuredSatis ability , 1993 .

[13]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  New ideas in optimization , 1999 .

[14]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The Satisfiability Constraint Gap , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Thomas E. Rinderer,et al.  CHAPTER 6 – Behavioral Genetics , 1986 .

[16]  David G. Mitchell,et al.  Finding hard instances of the satisfiability problem: A survey , 1996, Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications.

[17]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  Ant algorithms and stigmergy , 2000, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[18]  Holger H. Hoos SAT-Encodings, Search Space Structure, and Local Search Performance , 1999, IJCAI.

[19]  Barbara Webb,et al.  Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems , 2002, Connect. Sci..

[20]  Kenneth Steiglitz,et al.  Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity , 1981 .

[21]  J. Adams,et al.  Estimation of the number of sex alleles and queen matings from diploid male frequencies in a population of Apis mellifera. , 1977, Genetics.