Skip to main content

A Comparison of Fuzzy and ACO-Based Fuzzy for Classification of Bio-Medical Database

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Mathematical Modeling and Computational Science

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 1422))

Abstract

This paper deals with fuzzy evolutionary algorithms which is the fast developing area in the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. In today’s world, lots and lots of data are available for various real-life problems, where finding the relevant information from huge quantities become a challenge to the human society. This leads the way for data mining which plays an important role to extract the relevant information from vast amount of data. In this paper, deadly diseases such as lung cancer and breast cancer are considered for classification. Also, the concept of ant colony optimization (ACO) is used for variable selection, and fuzzy concept is used for classification. Based on the activities of the real ant systems, ACO is developed by Marco Dorigo in the year 1992, and it is utilized in solving many complex problems of optimization. It is one of the types of evolutionary computations. Its main aim is to identify the shortest distance between the source of food and its nest. The behavior of ants that deposits their incense on the top layer of ground to make a desired path so that other members of the colony should follow the path. Using the concept of fuzzy unordered rule induction algorithm (FURIA), classification has been done, and the results are compared with and without hybridization. Lung cancer dataset consists of 57 variables. Fuzzy gives classification accuracy as 75% with total variables. By ACO, 57 variables are reduced to five variables, and fuzzy gives classification after reduction of variables is 84.37%. Similarly, breast cancer consists of ten variables, and fuzzy classification gives accuracy as 73.07% with total variables. ACO reduced ten variables to three variables, and fuzzy gives classification after reduction of variables is 75.17%. Hence, the hybridization concept consumed less time and also less cost. By finding the relevant variables, identifying the disease at earlier stage becomes easier, and curing the disease becomes faster.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Tan, P.N., M. Steinbach, and V. Kumar. 2004. Introduction to data mining. New York: Addison-Vesley.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cai, D., C. Zhang, and X. He. 2010. Unsupervised feature selection for multi-cluster data. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM, pp. 333–342.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yang, Y., H.T. Shen, Z. Ma, Z. Huang, and X. Zhou. 1-norm Regularized Discriminative Feature Selection for Unsupervised Learning. IJCAI.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dehghan, M., B. Hashemi, and M. Ghatee. 2006. Computational Methods for Solving Fully Fuzzy Linear Systems, Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 179, pp. 328–343.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fraser, A.S. 1958. Monte Carlo analyses of genetic models. Nature 181: 208–209.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Back, T., and H.P. Schwefel. 1993. An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms or Parameter Optimization, Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, pp. 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Poongothai, S., C. Dharuman, and P. Venkatesan. 2019. A comparative study of hybrid evolutionary based algorithms with machine learning classifiers for the prediction of medical database. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1377: 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1377/1/012026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Back, T. (1996). Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice: Evolution Strategies, Evolutionary Programming, Genetic Algorithms. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Holland, J. 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Liu, L., Y. Dai, and J. Gao. 2014. Ant colony optimization algorithm for continuous domains based on position distribution model of ant colony foraging. The Scientific World Journal 428539: 9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dorigo, M., V. Maniezzo, and A. Colorni. 1996. Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics B: Cybernetics 26: 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Parpinelli, R.S., H.S. Lopes, and A.A. Freitas. 2002. Data mining with an ant colony optimization algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6: 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stutzle, T., and M. Dorigo. 2002. The ant colony optimization metaheuristic: Algorithms, applications, and advances, In Handbook of Metaheuristics, ed. F. Glover, and G. Kochenberger. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jinyan, Li., H. Liu, J.R. Downing, A.E.J. Yeoh, and W. Limsoon 2003. Simple rules underlying gene expression profiles of more than six subtypes of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients. Bioinformatics 19: 71.

    Google Scholar 

  15. UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases. University of California, Irvine. 1998. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/MLRepository.html.

  16. Saleem Durai, M.A, and N.C.S.N. Iyengar. 2010. Effective analysis and diagnosis of lung cancer using fuzzy rules. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2: 2102–2108.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hall, P., B.U. Park, and R.J. Samworth. 2008. Choice of neighbor order in nearest-neighbor classification. The Annals of Statistics 36: 2135–2152.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Poongothai, S., C. Dharuman, and P. Venkatesan. 2019. A comparative study of hybrid evolutionary based algorithms with machine learning classifiers for the prediction of medical database. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1377: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. del Jesus, M., F. Hoffmann, L. Navascues, and L. Sanchez. 2004. Induction of fuzzy rule-based classifiers with evolutionary boosting algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 12: 296–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stutzle, T., and M. Dorigo. 2002. The ant colony optimization metaheuristic: Algorithms, applications, and advances. In Handbook of Metaheuristics, ed. F. Glover, and G. Kochenberger. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Poongothai .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Poongothai, S., Sharmila, S.L. (2022). A Comparison of Fuzzy and ACO-Based Fuzzy for Classification of Bio-Medical Database. In: Peng, SL., Lin, CK., Pal, S. (eds) Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Mathematical Modeling and Computational Science. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1422. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0182-9_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics