An adaptive artificial bee colony algorithm with ranking based selection and UCB-guided strategy learning mechanism


Abstract

Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithms are widely applied to continuous optimisation due to their simplicity and low parameter dependency, but they often suffer from slow convergence, weak exploitation capability, and premature convergence on complex problems. To address these issues, this paper proposes an Adaptive Mechanism-Based Artificial Bee Colony algorithm with ranking-based selection and a UCB-guided strategy learning mechanism (AMABC). A ranking-based selection mechanism is introduced to regulate individual participation in the search process, enhancing the utilisation of high-quality solutions while maintaining population diversity. In the employed and onlooker bee phases, multiple search strategies are formulated as arms in a multi-armed bandit framework, and an Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) policy is adopted to adaptively select strategies based on historical performance. This mechanism enables a dynamic balance between exploration and exploitation. Additionally, an elite-guided local search strategy is incorporated in the later search stage to improve solution refinement and convergence accuracy. Experimental evaluations on 22 standard benchmark functions and the CEC2014 test suite under different dimensional settings demonstrate that AMABC outperforms several representative ABC variants in terms of convergence accuracy, convergence speed, and robustness, particularly on high-dimensional optimisation problems.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].