Dispersive Flies Optimisation and Medical Imaging

  • Mohammad Majid al-RifaieEmail author
  • Ahmed Aber
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 610)


One of the main sources of inspiration for techniques applicable to complex search space and optimisation problems is nature. This paper introduces a new metaheuristic—Dispersive Flies Optimisation (DFO)—whose inspiration is beckoned from the swarming behaviour of flies over food sources in nature. The simplicity of the algorithm facilitates the analysis of its behaviour. A series of experimental trials confirms the promising performance of the optimiser over a set of benchmarks, as well as its competitiveness when compared against three other well-known population based algorithms. The convergence-independent diversity of DFO algorithm makes it a potentially suitable candidate for dynamically changing environment. In addition to diversity, the performance of the newly introduced algorithm is investigated using the three performance measures of accuracy, efficiency and reliability and its outperformance is demonstrated in the paper. Then the proposed swarm intelligence algorithm is used as a tool to identify microcalcifications on the mammographs. This algorithm is adapted for this particular purpose and its performance is investigated by running the agents of the swarm intelligence algorithm on sample mammographs whose status have been determined by the experts. Two modes of the algorithms are introduced in the paper, each providing the clinicians with a different set of outputs, highlighting the areas of interest where more attention should be given by those in charge of the care of the patients.


Multi-agent algorithm Dispersive flies optimisation Medical imaging Mammographs 


  1. 1.
    M.M. al-Rifaie, Dispersive flies optimisation, in Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, vol. 2, ed. by M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki. IEEE (2014), pp. 529–538.
  2. 2.
    C. Beam, D. Sullivan, P. Layde, Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad. Radiol. 3(11), 891–897 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Bratton, J. Kennedy, Defining a standard for particle swarm optimization, in Proceedings of the Swarm Intelligence Symposium. (IEEE, Honolulu, 2007), pp. 120–127Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, L. Naul, J. Hoffmeister, Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. Am. J. Roentgenol. 181(3), 687–693 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Burgess, On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. Med. Phys. 31, 1987–1995 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Burnside, E. Sickles, R. Sohlich, K. Dee, Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 179(5), 1173–1177 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Chakraborty, Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (froc) data. Med. Phys. 16, 561 (1989)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Dorigo, M. Birattari, T. Stutzle, Ant colony optimization. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 1(4), 28–39 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Gehlhaar, D. Fogel, Tuning evolutionary programming for conformationally flexible molecular docking, in Evolutionary Programming V: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming (1996), pp. 419–429Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning (Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, 1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Kennedy, R.C. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks. vol. IV. (IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, 1995), pp. 1942–1948Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.Y. Lee, X. Yao, Evolutionary programming using mutations based on the Lévy probability distribution. IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 8(1), 1–13 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Olorunda, A.P. Engelbrecht, Measuring exploration/exploitation in particle swarms using swarm diversity, in IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC 2008. (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence). (IEEE, 2008), pp. 1128–1134Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Peña, Theoretical and empirical study of particle swarms with additive stochasticity and different recombination operators, in Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. GECCO’08. ACM, New York (2008), pp. 95–102,
  15. 15.
    P.N. Suganthan, N. Hansen, J.J. Liang, K. Deb, Y.P. Chen, A. Auger, S. Tiwari, Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2005 special session on real-parameter optimization. Technical report, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, IIT Kanpur (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Sumkin, D. Gur, Computer-aided detection with screening mammography: improving performance or simply shifting the operating point? Radiology 239(3), 916–918 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    X. Yao, Y. Liu, G. Lin, Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 3(2), 82–102 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Cardiovascular SciencesUniversity of Leicester Royal InfirmaryLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations