Current and Future Trends in Segmenting Satellite Images Using Hybrid and Dynamic Genetic Algorithms

  • Mohamad M. AwadEmail author


Metaheuristic algorithms are an upper level type of heuristic algorithm. They are known for their efficiency in solving many difficult nondeterministic polynomial (NP) problems such as timetable scheduling, the traveling salesmen, telecommunications, geosciences, and many other scientific, economic, and social problems. There are many metaheuristic algorithms, but the most important one is the Genetic Algorithm (GA). What makes GA an exceptional algorithm is the ability to adapt to the problem to find the most suitable solution—that is, the global optimal solution. Adaptability of GA is the result of the population consisting of “chromosomes” which are replaced with a new one using genetics stimulated operators of crossover (reproduction ), and mutation . The performance of the algorithm can be enhanced if hybridized with heuristic algorithms. These heuristics are sometimes needed to slow the convergence of GA toward the local optimal solution that can occur with some problems, and to help in obtaining the global optimal solution. GA is known to be very slow compared to other known optimization algorithms such as Simulated Annealing (SA). This speed will further decrease when GA is hybridized (HyGA). To overcome this issue, it is important to change the structure of the chromosomes and the population . In general, this is done by creating variable length chromosomes . This type of structure is called a Hybrid Dynamic Genetic Algorithm (HyDyGA). In this chapter, GA is covered in detail, including hybridization using the Hill-Climbing Algorithm. The improvements to GA are used to solve a very complex NP problem, which is image segmentation. Using multicomponent images increases the complexity of the segmentation task and puts more burden on GA performance. The efficiency of HyGA and HyDyGA in the segmentation process of multicomponent images is proved using collected field samples; it can reach more than 97%. In addition, the reliability and the robustness of the new algorithms are proved using different analysis methods.


Dynamic Genetic algorithm Land cover Metaheuristic Segmentation 



The author thanks CNRS and the United States Geological Survey for providing satellite images which were used to prove many concepts in this chapter.


  1. 1.
    F. Glover, Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Comput. Oper. Res. 13(5), 533–549 (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Glover, M. Laguna, Tabu Search (Kluwer Academic, Norwell, 1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Glover, M. Laguna, R. Marti, Fundamentals of scatter search and path relinking. Control. Cybern. 39(3), 653–684 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Dejong, Evolutionary Computation a Unified Approach (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006), 268 pp.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Holland, Adaption in Natural and Artificial Systems (The University of Michigan Press, Ann Harbor, 1975)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gelatt, M.P. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598), 671–680 (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.R. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Simon, Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12(6), 702–713 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    X.S. Yang, Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization, in Stochastic Algorithms: Foundations and Applications, ed. by O. Watanabe, T. Zeugmann. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5792 (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 169–178Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    X.S. Yang, S. Deb, Engineering optimization by cuckoo search. Int. J. Math. Model. Numer. Optim. 1(4), 330–343 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    X.S. Yang, A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm, in Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (NICSO 2010). Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 284 (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 65–74Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Demirci, Rule-based automatic segmentation of color images. Int. J. Electron. Commun. 60, 435–442 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Pratt, Digital Image Processing, 2nd edn. (Wiley, New York, 1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Canny, Computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 8(6), 679–698 (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Shen, S. Castan, An optimal linear operator for edge detection, in Abstract of the Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Kass, A. Witkin, D. Terzopoulos, Snakes: active contour models. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 1, 259–268 (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Deriche, Using Canny’s criteria to derive a recursively implemented optimal edge detector. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 1(2), 167–187 (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Awad, K. Chehdi, A. Nasri, Multi-component image segmentation using genetic algorithms and artificial neural network. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 4(4), 571–575 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.M. Awad, An unsupervised artificial neural network method for satellite image segmentation. Int. Arab. J. Inf. Technol. 7(2), 199–205 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Shih, S. Cheng, Automatic seeded region growing for color image segmentation. Image Vis. Comput. 23(10), 877–886 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Garcia, E. Saber, S. Vantaram, V. Amuso, M. Shaw, R. Bhaskar, Automatic image segmentation by dynamic region growth and multiresolution merging. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 18(10), 2275–2288 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Jensen, An Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1996), 379 pp.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Bezdek, Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms (Plenum Press, New York, 1981)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Lo Bosco, A genetic algorithm for image segmentation, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing (ICIAP01), Palermo, 2001Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Lai, C. Chang, A hierarchical genetic algorithm based approach for image segmentation, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, Taiwan (2004), pp. 1284–1288Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    V. Ramos, F. Muge, Image color segmentation by genetic algorithms, in Proceedings of the 11th Portuguese Conference on Pattern Recognition 2000, Porto (2000), pp. 125–129Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Chabrier, C. Rosenberger, B. Emile, H. Laurent, Optimization based image segmentation by genetic algorithms. EURASIP J. Image Video Process. (2008).
  28. 28.
    W. Fujun, J. Li, S. Liu, X. Zhao, D. Zhang, Y. Tian, An improved adaptive genetic algorithm for image segmentation and vision alignment used in microelectronic bonding. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 19(3), 916–923 (2014). ISSN 1083-4435Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    M. Marangoz, M. Oruc, G. Buyuksalih, Object-oriented image analysis and semantic network for extracting the roads and buildings from Ikonos pan-sharpened images, in Proceedings of Geo-Imagery Bridging Continents, XXth ISPRS Congress, Istanbul, 2004Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), GOES data archive, Cited 15 July 2017
  32. 32.
    United States Geological Survey Society (USGS), Landsat 8 and 7 download, Cited 18 July 2017
  33. 33.
    National Aeronautical Space Agency (NASA), Modis Web site, Cited 16 July 2017
  34. 34.
    Digital Globe, WorldView-4, Cited 16 July 2017
  35. 35.
    Satellite Imaging Corporation, Cited 15 July 2017
  36. 36.
    S. Skiena, The Algorithm Design Manual, 2nd edn. (Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin, 2010). ISBN 1-849-96720-2Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Huapt, S. Haupt, Practical Genetic Algorithm (Wiley, Hoboken, 2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Baker, Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications (1987), pp. 14–21Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. Kohavi, F. Provost, Glossary of terms, Special Issue Appl. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Disc. Process 30(2/3), 271–274 (1998)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Singh, K. Singh, Satellite image classification using genetic algorithm trained radial basis function neural network, application to the detection of flooded areas. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 42, 173–182 (2017)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    B. Ankayarkanni, A.E.S. Leni, GABC based neuro-fuzzy classifier with multi kernel segmentation for satellite image classification. Biomed. Res. J. (2016). ISSN 0970-938X. Special Issue: S158–S165Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    V. Preetha Pallavi, V. Vaithiyanathan, Combined artificial neural network and genetic algorithm for cloud classification. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 5(2), 787–794 (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    N. Da Silva, D. Hernane Spatti, R. Andrade Flauzino, L.H.B. Liboni, S.F. dos Reis Alves, Artificial Neural Networks (Springer International Publishing, Berlin, 2017), 307 pp.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    E. Sumera, M. Turker, An adaptive fuzzy-genetic algorithm approach for building detection using high-resolution satellite images. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 39, 48–62 (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    J. Bezdek, R. Ehlrich, W. Full, FCM: the fuzzy-C-means clustering algorithm. Comput. Geosci. 10(23), 191–230 (1984)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    T. Kohenen, Self-organizing Maps. Springer Series in Information Sciences, vol. 30 (Springer, Berlin, 2001), 501 pp.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    H. Yin, N. Allinson, On the distribution and convergence of feature space in self-organizing maps. Neural Comput. 7(6), 1178–1187 (1995)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    S.C. Ng, S.H. Leung, C.Y. Chung, A. Luk, W.H. Lau, The genetic search approach. A new learning algorithm for adaptive IIR filtering. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 13(6), 38–46 (1996)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    M. Jayasree, N.K. Narayanan, A novel fuzzy filter for mixed impulse Gaussian noise from color images, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal, Networks, Computing, and Systems, ed. by D. Lobiyal, D. Mohapatra, A. Nagar, M. Sahoo. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 395 (Springer, New Delhi, 2017), pp. 53–59Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    D. Zhu, J. Jiang, The multi-objective image fast segmentation in complex traffic environment, in International Conference on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering (MACE), Wuhan, 2010Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    M. Awad, I. Jomaa, F. EL-Arab, Improved capability in stone pine forest mapping and management in Lebanon using hyperspectral CHRIS PROBA data relative to landsat ETM+. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 80(5), 725–731 (2014)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    N. Greggio, A. Bernardino, J. Santos-Victor, Image segmentation for robots: fast self-adapting Gaussian mixture model, in International Conference Image Analysis and Recognition ICIAR 2010: Image Analysis and Recognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Book Series, vol. 6111 (2010), pp. 105–116Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    M. Awad, A morphological model for extracting road networks from high-resolution satellite images. J. Eng. 2013(2013), 9 pp. (2013). Cited June 2017
  54. 54.
    X. Font-Aragones, M. Faundez-Zanuy, J. Mekyska, Thermal hand image segmentation for biometric recognition. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 28(6), 4–14 (2013)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    M. Forghani, M. Forouzanfar, M. Teshnehlab, Parameter optimization of improved fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm for brain MR image segmentation. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 23(2), 160–168 (2010)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    W. Wu, A. Chen, L. Zhao, J. Corso, Brain tumor detection and segmentation in a CRF framework with pixel-pairwise affinity and super pixel-level features. Int. J. Comput. Aided Radiol. Surg. 9, 241–253 (2014)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    N. Kabbara, J. Benkhelil, M. Awad, V. Barale, Monitoring water quality in the coastal area of Tripoli (Lebanon) using high-resolution satellite data. Elsevier ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 63(5), 488–495 (2008)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    M. Awad, Sea water chlorophyll-a estimation using hyperspectral images and supervised artificial neural network. Elsevier Ecol. Inform. 24, 60–68 (2014).
  59. 59.
    A. Mukhopadhyay, S. Bandyopadhyay, U. Maulik, Clustering using multi-objective genetic algorithm and its application to image segmentation, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems - Man and Cybernetics, vol. 3 (2007)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    N. Ghoggali, F. Melgani, Y. Bazi, A multi-objective genetic SVM approach for classification problems with limited training samples. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 47, 1707–1718 (2009)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    V. Guliashki, H. Toshev, C. Korsemov, Survey of evolutionary algorithms used in multi-objective optimization. Probl. Eng. Cybern. Robot. Bulgarian Acad. Sci. 60, 42–54 (2009)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    A. Sharma, S. Sehgal, Image segmentation using firefly algorithm, in International Conference on Information Technology (InCITe) - The Next Generation IT Summit on the Theme - Internet of Things: Connect your Worlds, Noida, 6–7 Oct. 2016.
  63. 63.
    M. Rocha, J. Neves, Preventing premature convergence to local optima in genetic algorithms via random offspring generation, in Multiple Approaches to Intelligent Systems, ed. by I. Imam, Y. Kodratoff, A. El-Dessouki, M. Ali. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1611 (Springer, Berlin, 1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Council for Scientific ResearchRemote Sensing CenterBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations