Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 925–934 | Cite as

Modified cuckoo search algorithm with rough sets for feature selection

  • Mohamed Abd El AzizEmail author
  • Aboul Ella Hassanien
Original Article


In this paper, a modified cuckoo search algorithm with rough sets is presented to deal with high dimensionality data through feature selection. The modified cuckoo search algorithm imitates the obligate brood parasitic behavior of some cuckoo species in combination with the Lévy flight behavior of some birds. The modified cuckoo search uses the rough sets theory to build the fitness function that takes the number of features in reduct set and the classification quality into account. The proposed algorithm is tested and validated benchmark on several benchmark datasets drawn from the UCI repository and using different evaluation criteria as well as a further analysis is carried out by means of the Analysis of Variance test. In addition, the proposed algorithm is experimentally compared with the existing algorithms on discrete datasets. Finally, two learning algorithms, namely K-nearest neighbors and support vector machines are used to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach. The results show that the proposed algorithm can significantly improve the classification performance.


Hamming distance Modified cuckoo search (MCS) Feature selection Rough sets Lévy flight 


  1. 1.
    Akhil jabbar M, Deekhatulu BL, Chandr P (2013) Classification of heart disease using K- nearest neighbor and genetic algorithm. Int Conf Comput Intell Model Tech Appl Proc Technol 10:85–94Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alia M, Mandava R (2011) the variants of the harmony search algorithm: an overview. Artif Intell Rev 36(1):49–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azar AT, Banu P, Inbarani H (2013) PSORR: an unsupervised feature selection technique for fetal heart rate. In: 5th International conference on modelling, identification and control (ICMIC 2013), Egypt, 31 Aug, 1–2 Sept 2013, pp 60–65Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bjorvand AT, Komorowski J (1997) Practical applications of genetic algorithms for efficient reduct computation. Wiss Tech Verl 4:601–606Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown C, Liebovitch LS, Glendon R (2007) Lévy flights in Dobe Ju/hoansi foraging patterns. Hum Ecol 35:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandrashekar G, Sahin F (2014) A survey on feature selection methods. Comput Electr Eng 40:16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chuang LY, Chang HW (2008) Improved binary PSO for feature selection using gene expression data. Comput Biol Chem 32(29):29–38CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dash M, Liu H (1997) Feature selection for classification. Intell Data Anal 1(4):131–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elshazly HI, Azar AT, Elkorany AM, Hassanien AE (2013) Hybrid system based on rough sets and genetic algorithms for medical data classifications. Int J Fuzzy Syst Appl (IJFSA) 3(4):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han J, Kamber M, Pei J (2011) Data mining: concepts and techniques, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, WalthamzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassanien AE, Tolba M, Azar AT (2014) Advanced machine learning technologies and applications: second international conference, AMLTA 2014, Cairo, Egypt, 28–30 Nov, 2014. In: Proceedings, communications in computer and information science, Springer, Berlin, p 488Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassanien AE, Azar AT, Snasel V, Kacprzyk J, Abawajy JH (2015) Big data in complex systems: challenges and neural comput & applic opportunities, studies in big data, 9th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu K, Lu YC, Shi CY (2003) Feature ranking in rough sets. AI Commun 16:41–50zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hua-qiang W, Zhan-wen N, Li-jun L (2013) Feature Selection based on rough set and gravitational search algorithm. In: Proceedings of 20th international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, pp 409–418Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inbarani HH, Azar AT, Jothi G (2014) Supervised hybrid feature selection based on PSO and rough sets for medical diagnosis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 113:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Inbarani H, Bagyamathi M, Azar A (2015) A novel hybrid feature selection method based on rough set and improved harmony search. Neural Comput ApplGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Javani M, Faez K, Aghlmandi D (2011) Clustering and feature selection via pso algorithm. In: International symposium on artificial intelligence and signal processing, pp 71–77Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanagaraj G, Ponnambalam S, Jawahar N (2013) A hybrid cuckoo search and genetic algorithm for reliability-redundancy allocation problems. Comput Ind Eng 66(4):1115–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee CK, Lee GG (2006) Information gain and divergence-based feature selection for machine learning-based text categorization. Inf Process Manag 42(1):155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu H, Motoda H (2007) Computational methods of feature selection (Chapman & Hall/CRC data mining and knowledge discovery series). Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu Y, Wang G, Chen H, Dong H, Zhu X, Wang S (2011) An improved particle swarm optimization for feature selection. J Bionic Eng 8(2):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Long N, Cong N, Meesad P, Unger H (2014) Attribute reduction based on rough sets and the discrete firefly algorithm. Recent Adv Inf Commun Technol 265:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miao DQ, Hou L (2004) A comparison of rough set methods and representative inductive learning algorithms. Fund Inf 59(2–3):203–219MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mohanty PK, Parhi DR (2013) Cuckoo search algorithm for the mobile robot navigation, in swarm, evolutionary, and memetic computing. Springer, New York, pp 527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neshatian K, Zhang M (2009) Genetic programming for feature subset ranking in binary classification problems. In: European conference on genetic programming, pp 121–132Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Osuna E, Freund R, Girosit F (1997) Training support vector machines: an application to face detection. In: Proceedings of IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1997, San Juan, pp 130–136Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parham M, Mehrdad R (2015) Integration of graph clustering with ant colony optimization for feature selection. Knowl-Based Syst 84:144–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pawlak Z (1991) Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishing, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Payne RB, Sorenson MD, Klitz K (2005) The Cuckoos. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rodrigues D, Pereira LAM, Almeida T, Papa JP, Souza AN, Ramos C, Yang XS (2013) BCS: A Binary Cuckoo search algorithm for feature selection, IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems (ISCAS) 19–23 May 2013, pp 465,468Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rodrigues D, Pereira LAM, Rodrigo YM, Nakamura Kelton AP, Costa Yang XS, Souza AN, Papa JP (2014) A wrapper approach for feature selection based on Bat Algorithm and optimum-path forest. Expert Syst Appl Int J 41(5):2250–2258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shokouhifar M, Sabet S (2010) Hybrid approach for effective feature selection using neural networks and artificial bee colony optimization. In: 3rd International conference on machine vision (ICMV), Dec 2010, pp 502–506Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Si-Yuan J (2014) A hybrid genetic algorithm for feature subset selection in rough set theory. Soft Comput 18:1373–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stanczyk U, Jain LC (2015) Feature selection for data and pattern recognition, vol 584. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Suguna N, Thanushkodi K (2010) A novel rough set reduct algorithm for medical domain based on bee colony optimization. J Comput 2(6):49–54Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Suguna N, Thanushkodi K (2011) An independent rough set approach hybrid with artificial bee colony algorithm for dimensionality reduction. Am J Appl Sci 8(3):261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Swiniarski RW, Skowron A (2003) Rough set methods in feature selection and recognition. Pattern Recognit Lett 24:833–849CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Walton S, Hassan O, Morgan K, Brown MR (2011) Modified cuckoo search: a new gradient free optimization algorithm. Chaos Solitons Fractals 44(9):710–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang X, Yang J, Teng X, Xia W, Jensen R (2007) Feature selection based on rough sets and particle swarm optimization. Pattern Recognit Lett 28(4):459–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang F, Xu J, Li L (2014) A novel rough set reduct algorithm to feature selection based on artificial fish swarm algorithm. Adv Swarm Intell 8795:24–33Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wroblewski J (1995) Finding minimal reducts using genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of second annual join conference on information sciences, Wrightsville Beach, NC, pp 186–189Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang XS (2009) Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. Stoch Algorithms Found Appl 5792:169–178MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang XS (2013) Bat algorithm and cuckoo search: a tutorial, artificial intelligence. Evol Comput Metaheur Stud Comput Intell 427:421–434zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yang XS, Deb S (2009) Cuckoo search via flvy flights. In: Proceedings of the NaBIC 2009—world congress on nature & biologically inspired computing, pp 210–214Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yang X-S, Deb S (2010) Engineering optimization by cuckoo search. Int J Math Model Numer Optim 1:330–430zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yonghong P, Zhiqing W, Jianmin JA (2010) novel feature selection approach for biomedical data classification. J Biomed Inf 43(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yusta SC (2009) Different metaheuristic strategies to solve the feature selection problem. Pattern Recognit Lett 30:525–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhu ZX, Ong YS, Dash M (2007) Wrapper-filter feature selection algorithm using a memetic framework. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 37(1):70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Faculty of ScienceZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  2. 2.Faculty of Computers InformationCairo UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations