Soft Computing

, 13:883 | Cite as

Performance evaluation of memetic approaches in 3D reconstruction of forensic objects

  • J. Santamaría
  • O. CordónEmail author
  • S. Damas
  • J.M. García-Torres
  • A. Quirin


Different tasks in forensics require the use of 3D models of forensic objects (skulls, bones, corpses, etc.) captured by 3D range scanners. Since a whole object cannot be completely scanned in a single image using a range scanner, multiple acquisitions from different views are needed to supply the information to construct the 3D model by a range image registration method. There is an increasing interest in adopting evolutionary algorithms as the optimization technique for image registration methods. However, the image registration community tends to separate global and local searches in two different stages, named sequential hybridization approach, which is opposite to the scheme adopted by the memetic framework. In this work, we aim to analyze the capabilities of memetic algorithms (Moscato in On evolution, search, optimization, genetic algorithms and martial arts: towards memeticalgorithms. Report 826, Caltech Concurrent Computation Program, Pasadena, 1989) for tackling a really complex and challenging real-world problem as the 3D reconstruction of forensic objects. Our intention is threefold: firstly, designing new memetic-based methods for tackling a real-world problem and subsequently carrying out a performance and behavioral analysis of the results; secondly, comparing their performance with the one achieved by other methods based on the classical sequential hybridization approach; and thirdly, concluding the experimental study by highlighting the outcomes achieved by the best method in tackling the real-world problem. Several real-world 3D reconstruction problems from the Physical Anthropology Lab at the University of Granada, Spain, were used to support the evaluation study.


Local Search Differential Evolution Image Registration Memetic Algorithm Local Search Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bäck T, Fogel DB, Michalewicz Z (1997) Handbook of Evolutionary Computation. IOP Publishing Ltd/Oxford University Press, Bristol/OxfordzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballerini L, Cordon O, Damas S, Santamaria J, Aleman I, Botella M (2007) Craniofacial superimposition in forensic identification using genetic algorithms. In: IEEE International Workshop on Computational Forensics (IWCF 2007), Manchester, pp 429–434Google Scholar
  3. Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14: 239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer HG, Deb K (2001) On self-adaptive features in real-parameter evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5: 250–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cordón O, Damas S, Martí R, Santamaría J (2008) Scatter search for the 3D point matching problem in image registration. INFORMS J Comput 20(1): 55–68. doi: 10.1287/ijoc.1060.0216 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Cordón O, Damas S, Santamaría J (2006a) A fast and accurate approach for 3D image registration using the scatter search evolutionary algorithm. Pattern Recognit Lett 27(11): 1191–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cordón O, Damas S, Santamaría J (2006b) Feature-based image registration by means of the CHC evolutionary algorithm. Image Vis Comput 22: 525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cordón O, Damas S, Santamaría J (2007) A practical review on the applicability of different EAs to 3D feature-based registration. In: Cagnoni S, Lutton E, Olague G (eds) Genetic and evolutionary computation in image processing and computer vision. EURASIP Book Series on SP&C, pp 247–269Google Scholar
  9. Costa D, Hertz A, Dubuis O (1995) Embedding of a sequential algorithm within an evolutionary algorithm for coloring problems in graphs. J Heuristics 1: 105–128zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Falco I, Della Cioppa A, Maisto D, Tarantino E (2008) Differential Evolution as a viable tool for satellite image registration. Appl Soft Comput (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Deb K, Joshi D (2002) A computationally efficient evolutionary algorithm for real-parameter optimization. Evol Comput 10(4): 371–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dru F, Wachowiak MP, Peters TM (2006) An ITK framework for deterministic global optimization for medical image registration. In: Reinhardt JM, Pluim JPW (eds) SPIE, medical imaging 2006: image processing, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  13. Eshelman LJ (1991) The CHC adaptive search algorithm: how to safe search when engaging in non traditional genetic recombination. In: Rawlins GJE (eds) Foundations of genetic algorithms 1. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, EEUU, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  14. Eshelman LJ (1993) Real-coded genetic algorithms and interval schemata. In: Whitley LD (eds) Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 2. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, EEUU, pp 187–202Google Scholar
  15. Fitzpatrick J, Grefenstette J, Gucht D (1984) Image registration by genetic search. In: IEEE Southeast conference. EEUU, Louisville, pp 460–464Google Scholar
  16. Glover F (1977) Heuristic for integer programming using surrogate constraints. Decision Sci 8: 156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hart WE (1994) Adaptive global optimization with local search. PhD Thesis, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrera F, Lozano M, Molina D (2005) Continuous scatter search: an analysis of the integration of some combination methods and improvement strategies. Eur J Oper Res 169(2): 450–476CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Ikeuchi K, Sato Y (2001) Modeling from Reality. KluwerGoogle Scholar
  20. Iscan M (1993) Introduction to techniques for photographic comparison. In: Iscan M, Helmer R (eds) Forensic analysis of the skull: craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. Wiley Liss, New York, pp 57–70Google Scholar
  21. Ishibuchi H, Yoshida T, Murata T (2003) Balance between genetic search and local search in memetic algorithms for multiobjective permutation flow shop scheduling. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(2): 204–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenkinson M, Smith S (2001) A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal 5(2): 143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krasnogor N, Smith J (2000) A memetic algorithm with self-adaptive local search: Tsp as a case study. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’05), pp 987–994Google Scholar
  24. Krasnogor N, Smith J (2005) A tutorial for competent memetic algorithms: model, taxonomy and design issues. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(5): 474–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laguna M, Martí R (2003) Scatter search: methodology and implementations in C. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehmann E (1975) Nonparametric statistical methods based on ranks. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Lozano M, Herrera F, Krasnogor N, Molina D (2004) Real-coded memetic algorithms with crossover hill-climbing. Evol Comput 12(3): 273–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maes F, Vandermeulen D, Suetens P (1999) Comparative evaluation of multiresolution optimization strategies for image registration by maximization of mutual information. Med Image Anal 3(4): 373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merz P, Freisleben B (1999) A comparison of memetic algorithms, tabu search, and ant colonies for the quadratic assignment problem. In: Angeline PJ, Michalewicz Z, Schoenauer M, Yao X, Zalzala A (eds) Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3. Mayflower Hotel, Washington DC, IEEE Press, Piscataway, pp 2063–2070Google Scholar
  30. Moscato P (1989) On evolution, search, optimization, genetic algorithms and martial arts: towards memeticalgorithms. Report 826, Caltech Concurrent Computation Program, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  31. Noman N, Iba H (2005) Enhancing differential evolution performance with local search for high dimensional function optimization. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’05), ACM, New York, pp 967–974Google Scholar
  32. Ong YS, Lim M, Zhu N, Wong K (2006) Classification of adaptive memetic algorithms: a comparative study. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 36(1): 141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powell M (1964) An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives. Comput J 7: 155–162zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1999) Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Price K (1999) An introduction to differential evolution. In: Corne D, Dorigo M, Glover F (eds) New ideas in optimization. McGraw-Hill, Cambridge, pp 79–108Google Scholar
  36. Salomon M, Perrin G-R, Heitz F (2001) Differential evolution for medical image registration. In: Arabnia H (eds) International conference on artificial intelligence IC-AI’2001, vol 2. CSREA Press, Las Vegas, pp 123–129Google Scholar
  37. Santamaría J, Cordón O, Damas S, Alemán I, Botella M (2007) A Scatter Search-based technique for pair-wise 3D range image registration in forensic anthropology. Soft Comput 11: 819–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Satoh MYH, Kobayashi S (1996) Minimal generation Gap model for GAs considering both exploration and exploitation. In: Methodologies for the conception. Design and Application of Intelligent Systems (IIZUKA’96), pp 494–497Google Scholar
  39. Shoemake K (1985) Animating rotation with quaternion curves. In: ACM SIGGRAPH. San Francisco, July 22–26, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  40. Solis FJ, Wets RJB (1981) Minimization by random search techniques. Math Oper Res 6: 19–30zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Storn R (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11: 341–359zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Tang J, Lim M, Ong YS (2007) Diversity-adaptive parallel memetic algorithm for solving large scale combinatorial optimization problems. Soft Comput 11(9): 873–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Telenczuk B, Ledesma MJ, Velazquez JA, Sorzano COS, Carazo JM, Santos A (2006) Molecular image registration using mutual information and differential evolution optimization. In: IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: macro to nano, pp 844–847Google Scholar
  44. Whitley D, Garrett D, Watson JP (2003) Quad search and hybrid genetic algorithms. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’03), ACM, New York, pp 1469–1480Google Scholar
  45. Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1996) No free lunch theorems for search. Technical Report SFI-TR-95-02-010, The Santa Fe InsitituteGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu X, Dony RD (2004) Differential evolution with powell’s direction set method in medical image registration. In: IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: macro to nano, pp 732–735Google Scholar
  47. Yamany SM, Ahmed MN, Farag AA (1999) A new genetic-based technique for matching 3D curves and surfaces. Pattern Recognit 32: 1817–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yao J, Goh KL (2006) A refined algorithm for multisensor image registration based on pixel migration. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(7): 1839–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yoshizawa S, Belyaev A, Seidel HP (2005) Fast and robust detection of crest lines on meshes. In: SPM ’05: proceedings of the 2005 ACM symposium on solid and physical modeling. EEUU, ACM Press, New York, pp 227–232Google Scholar
  50. Zhang Z (1994) Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces. Int J Comput Vis 13(2): 119–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhou Z, Ong YS, Lim M, Lee B (2007) Memetic algorithm using multi-surrogates for computationally expensive optimization problems. Soft Comput 11(10): 957–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhu YM, Cochoff SM (2002) Influence of implementation parameters on registration of MR and SPECT brain images by maximization of mutual information. J Nuclear Med 43(2): 160–166Google Scholar
  53. Zhu Z, Ong YS, Dash M (2007) Wrapper-filter feature selection algorithm using a memetic framework. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 37(1): 70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zitová B, Flusser J (2003) Image registration methods: a survey. Image Vis Comput 21: 977–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Santamaría
    • 1
  • O. Cordón
    • 2
    Email author
  • S. Damas
    • 2
  • J.M. García-Torres
    • 3
  • A. Quirin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of JaenJaenSpain
  2. 2.European Centre for Soft ComputingMieresSpain
  3. 3.Soft Computing Research GroupUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations