Bio-Inspired Computation and Applications in Image Processing

Bio-Inspired Computation and Applications in Image Processing

Edited by

Xin-She Yang

School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom

João Paulo Papa

Department of Computing, São Paulo State University, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil

Table of Contents

Cover

Title page

Copyright

List of Contributors

About the editors

Preface

Chapter 1: Bio-inspired computation and its applications in image processing: an overview

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Image processing and optimization

3. Some key issues in optimization

4. Nature-inspired optimization algorithms

5. Artificial neural networks and support vector machines

6. Recent trends and applications

7. Conclusions

Chapter 2: Fine-tuning enhanced probabilistic neural networks using metaheuristic-driven optimization

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Probabilistic neural network

3. Methodology and experimental results

4. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Chapter 3: Fine-tuning deep belief networks using cuckoo search

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical background

3. Methodology

4. Experiments and results

5. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Chapter 4: Improved weighted thresholded histogram equalization algorithm for digital image contrast enhancement using the bat algorithm

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

3. Bat algorithm

4. Our proposed method

5. Experimental results

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgment

Chapter 5: Ground-glass opacity nodules detection and segmentation using the snake model

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Related works on delineation of GGO lesions

3. Snake model

4. Proposed framework

5. Result and discussion

6. Conclusions

Chapter 6: Mobile object tracking using the modified cuckoo search

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Metaheuristics in image processing: overview

3. Cuckoo search for object tracking

4. Cuckoo search–based reidentification

5. Conclusions

Chapter 7: Toward optimal watermarking of grayscale images using the multiple scaling factor–based cuckoo search technique

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Cuckoo search algorithm

3. Watermarking scheme using the single scaling factor

4. Minimizing trade-off between visual quality and robustness using single scaling factor

5. Cuckoo search–based watermarking algorithm to optimize scaling factors

6. Experimental results and discussion

7. Conclusions and possible extensions of the present work

Chapter 8: Bat algorithm–based automatic clustering method and its application in image processing

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Bat optimization algorithm

3. Proposed method: bat algorithm–based clustering

4. Evaluation

5. Image segmentation

6. Conclusions

Chapter 9: Multitemporal remote sensing image classification by nature- inspired techniques

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Problem formulation

3. Methodology

4. Performance evaluation

5. Results and discussion

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Chapter 10: Firefly algorithm for optimized nonrigid demons registration

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Related works

3. Material and methods

4. Proposed method

5. Results

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgment

Chapter 11: Minimizing the mode-change latency in real-time image processing applications

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Review of earlier work

3. Model and approach to minimization

4. Case studies

5. Discussion

6. Conclusions

Chapter 12: Learning OWA filters parameters for SAR imagery with multiple polarizations

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Basic concepts of SAR images

3. Genetic algorithms

4. OWA filters

5. Learning OWA filters for multiple polarization with GAs

6. Experiments

7. Conclusions and future work

Acknowledgments

Chapter 13: Oil reservoir quality assisted by machine learning and evolutionary computation

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Field description

3. Database

4. Methods

5. Results and discussion

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Chapter 14: Solving imbalanced dataset problems for high-dimensional image processing by swarm optimization

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Dataset and experiment

3. Analysis and conclusions

Chapter 15: Retinal image vasculature analysis software (RIVAS)

Abstract

1. Introducing RIVAS

2. Key features of RIVAS

3. Application examples

Index

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-804536-7

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/

Publisher: Joe Hayton

Acquisition Editor: Tim Pitts

Editorial Project Manager: Charlotte Kent

Production Project Manager: Caroline Johnson

Designer: Victoria Pearson

Typeset by Thomson Digital

List of Contributors

H. Adeli,     Department of Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States

C. Agarwal,     Department of Computer Science, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

B. Aliahmad,     Biosignals Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

A. Amine,     BOSS Team, National School of Applied Sciences (ENSA), Ibn Tofail University, Kenitra, Morocco

A. Arsic,     University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

A.S. Ashour

Department of Electronics and Electrical Communications Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

College of CIT, Taif University, Saudi Arabia

V.E. Balas,     Faculty of Engineering, Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, Arad, Romania

J.C. Becceneri,     National Institute for Space Research—INPE, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

C.W. Bong,     School of Science and Technology, Wawasan Open University, Penang; Northern Health Cardiothoracic Services Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia

M.G. Carvalho,     School of Technology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Limeira, São Paulo, Brazil

S. Chakraborty,     Department of CSE, Bengal College of Engineering and Technology, Durgapur, West Bengal, India

N. Dey,     Department of Information Technology, Techno India College of Technology, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

S.E.N. Fernandes,     Department of Computing, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

S. Fong,     Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China

C.C. Freitas,     National Institute for Space Research—INPE, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

M. Jordanski,     University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

D.K. Kumar,     Biosignals Group, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

M.C. Kuroda,     University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Institute of Geosciences, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

H.Y. Lam

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Hospital Penang

Lam Wah Ee Hospital, Penang, Malaysia

J. Li,     Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China

C.C. Liew,     Koo Foundation of Sun Yat Sen Cancer Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

T. Ljouad,     Faculty of Sciences of Rabat (FSR), Mohammed V University, Morocco

P.S. Martins,     School of Technology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Limeira, São Paulo, Brazil

F.R. Massaro,     School of Technology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Limeira, São Paulo, Brazil

A. Mishra,     Department of Electronics, Deendayal Upadhyay College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

S. Nandy,     Budge Budge Institute of Technology, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

J.P. Papa,     Department of Computing, São Paulo State University, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil

J. Real,     Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

D. Rodrigues,     Department of Computing, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

M. Rziza,     Faculty of Sciences of Rabat (FSR), Mohammed V University, Morocco

S. Samanta,     Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University Institute of Technology, Burdwan, West Bengal, India

S. Sandri,     National Institute for Space Research—INPE, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

S.J.S. Sant’Anna,     National Institute for Space Research—INPE, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

P.P. Sarkar,     Kalyani University, Kalyani, West Bengal, India

J. Senthilnath,     Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, United States

K.K.F. Setoue,     Department of Computing, São Paulo State University, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil

L. Torres,     National Institute for Space Research—INPE, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

M. Tuba,     John Naisbitt University, Belgrade, Serbia

E.L. Ursini,     School of Technology, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Limeira, São Paulo, Brazil

A.C. Vidal,     University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Institute of Geosciences, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

X.-S. Yang,     School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom

About the editors

XIN-SHE YANG

Xin-She Yang obtained his DPhil in Applied Mathematics from the University of Oxford. He then worked at Cambridge University and the National Physical Laboratory (United Kingdom) as a Senior Research Scientist. Now he is Reader in Modelling and Optimisation at Middlesex University London, Adjunct Professor at Reykjavik University (Iceland), and Guest Professor at the Xi’an Polytechnic University and Harbin Engineering University (China). He is also a Bye-Fellow at Downing College, Cambridge University. He is the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society (CIS) Task Force Chair on Business Intelligence and Knowledge Management, the Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation, and the Director of the International Consortium for Optimization and Modelling in Science and Industry (iCOMSI.org).

JOÃO PAULO PAPA

João Paulo Papa received his BSc in Information Systems from the São Paulo State University, SP, Brazil. In 2005, he received his MSc in Computer Science from the Federal University of São Carlos, SP, Brazil. In 2008, he received his PhD in Computer Science from the University of Campinas, SP, Brazil. During 2008–09, he worked as a postdoctorate researcher at the same institute. He has been Professor at the Computer Science Department, São Paulo State University, since 2009. During 2014–15, he worked as a visiting professor at the Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, USA, under the supervision of Prof. David Cox. His main research interests include machine learning, pattern recognition, and image processing.

Preface

Throughout history, human beings have been fascinated by pictures and images, and images have played an important role in our understanding and recording of the world. It is hard to imagine what modern life would look like without images. Modern life is filled with images and multimedia, which affect greatly the ways we live, work, and think. Image processing involves a diverse range of hardware, software, and technologies, which in turn use a vast range of algorithms and methodologies. Some of the primary aims of image processing are to extract useful information, to recognize patterns and objects, to enhance and reconstruct the images, and ultimately to make sense of the images so as to improve the quality of life. In order to do so, useful tools and techniques have been developed for processing images efficiently. Within such tool sets, algorithms are the key part. However, due to the complicated nature of images with potentially huge datasets, image processing is usually a time-consuming task, and there are many challenging issues related to it.

Even for seemingly simple images, extracting useful information may not be easy. First, what usefulness means may be quite subjective, largely depending on the knowledge set of the decision maker or the user. Even if a useful feature can be clearly defined, extracting it may not be an easy task. For example, to find a straight line or an object in an image is an easy task for human eyes, but to extract it using digital image processing requires edge detection techniques. Depending on the shape of the object and the image quality, the techniques may vary from simple gradient-based detection methods to very sophisticated machine learning techniques. Many image processing tasks may require starting with image segmentation, which itself is not a trivial task. In fact, image segmentation is closely related to optimization. For example, for image thresholding, choosing the right threshold can be very tricky. To carry out such tasks, efficient algorithms are needed, though efficient algorithms may not always exist. Even when good algorithms are available, almost all have algorithm-dependent adjustable parameters, and the performance of an algorithm can be affected a great deal by the settings of these adjustable parameters. In fact, tuning these parameters properly for a given algorithm and for a given set of problems is a nontrivial task, which is essentially a challenging optimization problem.

To complicate things even further, stringent time and resource constraints may be imposed on image processing tasks. For example, a key factor is time; many applications require processing the images in real time with limited computational resources. In addition, it is also necessary to minimize energy consumption and computational costs while at the same time it is necessary to maximize processing speed and accuracy. Such requirements pose a series of challenging optimization problems in image processing and optimization.

Many image processing tasks can be formulated as optimization problems so that they can in principle be tackled by sophisticated optimization techniques; however, usually traditional approaches do not work well. In addition, ever-increasing complexity in constraints and the need to handle big data have complicated these challenging issues even further, and the issues become even more challenging for dynamic, noisy images and for machine intelligence. Such challenges necessitate new approaches and new methods, such as bio-inspired computation. One of the current trends is to combine traditional image processing techniques with bio-inspired algorithms and swarm intelligence.

In recent years, there have been significant developments in bio-inspired computation and image processing with a rapidly expanding literature. Such bio-inspired algorithms are flexible, versatile, and efficient. Consequently, these algorithms can be used to deal with a wide range of challenging problems that arise from diverse applications. There is a strong need to review and summarize the latest developments in both bio-inspired computation and image processing. Obviously, it is not possible to summarize even a good fraction of the state-of-the-art developments in a single volume because the literature is vast and expanding. Therefore, we have selected only a subset of the developments so as to provide a timely snapshot that may be representative enough to inspire more research in this area.

This edited book strives to provide a timely summary and review of a selection of topics, including feature selection, deep belief networks, grayscale image enhancement, image segmentation, remote-sensing image registration, radar imagery analysis, retinal image analysis, image contrast enhancement, mobile object tracking, glass opacity detection, image watermarking, oil reservoir quality assessment, handwritten digits recognition, and others. Algorithms used in these case studies and applications include particle swarm optimization, bat algorithm, cuckoo search, firefly algorithm, harmony search, neural networks, genetic algorithms, probabilistic neural networks, self-organized map, restricted Boltzmann machines, and support vector machines as well as many others. It is hoped that this book can serve as an ideal reference and a rich source of literature for graduates, lecturers, engineers, and researchers in image processing, computer science, machine learning, artificial intelligence, optimization, and computational intelligence.

We would like to thank our editors, especially Charlotte Kent, and the staff at Elsevier for their help and professionalism. Last but not least, we thank our families for their support and encouragement.

X.-S. Yang

J.P. Papa

      Mar. 2016

Chapter 1

Bio-inspired computation and its applications in image processing: an overview

X.-S. Yang*

J.P. Papa**

*    School of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom

**    Department of Computing, São Paulo State University, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil

Abstract

Almost all design problems in the sciences and engineering can be formulated as optimization problems, and many image processing problems can also be related to or formulated as optimization problems. These optimization problems can be solved by optimization techniques. However, these problems are often highly nonlinear and are subject to multiple nonlinear constraints, which makes them very challenging to solve. The further complication to these challenges is the stringent time requirements and high dimensionality, which means that traditional optimization techniques, such as gradient-based methods cannot deal with such kinds of problems well. Recent trends tend to use bio-inspired optimization techniques as a promising alternative, and it is usually combined with traditional methods, especially in the area of image processing. These bio-inspired computational methods are usually based on swarm intelligence and can be very effective in coping with nonlinearity in real-world problems. This chapter presents an overview of bio-inspired computation and its application in image processing, including some current trends and important issues, such as efficiency and time constraints.

Keywords

algorithm

ant algorithm

artificial neural networks

bee algorithm

bat algorithm

bio-inspired computation

cuckoo search

firefly algorithm

harmony search

particle swarm optimization

metaheuristics

swarm intelligence

support vector machine

signal and image processing

Chapter Outline

1 Introduction

2 Image processing and optimization

2.1 Image segmentation via optimization

2.2 Optimization

3 Some key issues in optimization

3.1 Efficiency of an algorithm

3.2 How to choose algorithms?

3.3 Time and resource constraints

4 Nature-inspired optimization algorithms

4.1 Bio-inspired algorithms based on swarm intelligence

4.2 Nature-inspired algorithms not based on swarm intelligence

4.3 Other algorithms

5 Artificial neural networks and support vector machines

5.1 Artificial neural networks

5.2 Support vector machines

6 Recent trends and applications

7 Conclusions

References 

1. Introduction

Among the many tasks in image processing, one of the main aims is to make sense of the image contents using image recognition, feature extraction, and measurements of patterns in addition to useful processing, such as visualization, image sharpening, and restoration. Obviously, image data can have noise and images can be analog or digital, although our focus in this book is mainly on digital image processing. Whether it is feature extraction, image enhancement, classification, or ultimately image interpretation, in most cases we may have to deal with supervised or unsupervised learning in combination with standard image processing techniques. Nowadays, image processing often has to deal with complex, time-dependent, noisy, dynamic images and make sense of the image data at the lowest computational costs with high accuracy, often with the lowest energy consumption possible and in a practically acceptable time scale. All these form a series of very challenging problems related to machine learning and optimization.

It is no exaggeration to say that optimization is almost everywhere. In almost every application, especially engineering designs, we are trying to optimize something, whether to minimize the cost and energy consumption, or to maximize the profit, output, performance, and efficiency. In reality, resources, time, and money are always limited; consequently, optimization is far more important in practice (Yang, 2010b; Koziel and Yang, 2011). Thus, the proper use of available resources of any sort requires a paradigm shift in scientific thinking and design innovation. In the area of image processing and optimization, new methods tend to be evolutionary or bio-inspired. Good examples include evolutionary algorithms, artificial neural networks (ANNs), swarm intelligence (SI), cellular signaling pathways, and others. In fact, an emerging area, namely the bio-inspired computation, is becoming increasingly popular. Good examples of SI-based, bio-inspired algorithms are ant colony optimization, particle swarm optimization (PSO), bat algorithm (BA), firefly algorithm (FA), cuckoo search (CS), and others. For example, genetic algorithms (GA) and the BA have been used in many applications including image feature extraction and classification. In fact, all major bio-inspired algorithms have been used in image processing and optimization, and we discuss a diverse range of examples and case studies in this book.

The main purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview. Therefore, this chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a brief discussion of the formulation concerning the optimization problems in image processing. Section 3 discusses the key issues in optimization, followed by the detailed introduction of commonly used bio-inspired algorithms in Section 4. Section 5 discusses neural networks and support vector machines. Section 6 discusses some recent trends and applications in image processing. Finally, Section 7 concludes with some discussions.

2. Image processing and optimization

Many image processing tasks can be reformulated as optimization problems. For example, image thresholding and segmentation can obviously formulated as optimization problems in terms of the design parameter of the threshold, while the objective can be properly defined. As there are dozens of image processing techniques (Glasbey and Horgan, 1995; Gonzalez and Woods, 2007; Sonka et al., 2014; Russ and Neal, 2015), it is not possible to discuss them in general. Instead, we use image segmentation as an example to show how such tasks are linked to optimization.

2.1. Image segmentation via optimization

The aim task of image segmentation is to divide an image into different regions (or categories) so that different regions belong to different objects or different part of objects. Ideally, the pixels in the same region or category have similar grayscale, forming a connected region, while neighboring pixels have dissimilar grayscale if they belong to a different category (Glasbey and Horgan, 1995; Russ and Neal, 2015). Segmentation is a major step in image processing for other tasks, such as object recognition, image compression, image editing, and image understanding. Again, there are many different segmentation techniques; but loosely speaking, there are three different types of approaches for image segmentation: thresholding-based segmentation, edge-based segmentation, and region-based segmentation.

For the simplest binary thresholding, an image with a grayscale value Iij at position or lattice (i, j) is segmented into a binary image (two different categories or classes). If the pixel value is less than a threshold T (ie, Iij ≤ T), then it is allocated to one category (category 1); otherwise, it belongs to another category. The choice of the threshold value T will affect the segmented results. If there exists an optimal/best T, how do find this value? This is an optimization problem. Obviously, there are many methods that can help to find a good value of T. For example, histogram-based thresholding uses the histogram of the pixel values. The aim is to try to split or reposition exactly half between the means of the two category pixel values, to minimize the errors, or to maximize the interclass variance (Glasbey and Horgan, 1995; Russ and Neal, 2015). In addition, these methods can be combined with machine learning techniques, such as supervised and unsupervised learning. Whatever the technique is, the main purpose is to find the best thresholding T so that the segmented image produces the best results and makes sense in real-world applications. Without an effective way to find the optimal T, it is not possible to carry out segmentation automatically.

Furthermore, for edge-detection–based segmentation techniques, the correct edge-detection method has to be used. Otherwise, the inappropriate detection of edges will affect subsequent segmentation results. In general, edge detection can be also considered as filters. For example, gradient-based edge detection can be very sensitive to noise, while the Canny edge detection algorithm can largely be influenced by the variance of the Gaussian filter and the size of the filter kernel (Gonzalez and Woods, 2007). The choices of the best values for such key parameters again form an optimization problem. In fact, almost all edge detectors have algorithm-dependent parameters, and tuning of these parameters becomes a nonlinear optimization problem.

On the other hand, the techniques for region-based segmentation can be considered as a kind of spatial clustering (Glasbey and Horgan, 1995; Russ and Neal, 2015). Many clustering algorithms, such as the K-means and fuzzy clustering, can be formulated as optimization problems. For example, the centroids in the K-mean clustering method can affect the clustering results greatly, and the effective determination of the centroid locations for the clusters is in fact a challenging optimization problem. In addition, other segmentation methods, including graph-based segmentation, the partial differential equation-based approach, the variational method, and the Markov random field method, all have adjustable parameters, and the choice of parameter values can also be solved using optimization techniques. As we will see in later chapters, deep belief networks and restricted Boltzmann machines can also be formulated as types of optimization problem (Papa et al., 2015).

We will formulate optimization problems in a more generic form in the next subsection so that it forms a basis for introducing nature-inspired optimization algorithms later in this chapter.

2.2. Optimization

In general, all optimization problems can be written in more general form. The most widely used formulation is to write a nonlinear optimization problem as

(1.1)

subject to the constraints

(1.2)

where all the functions are in general nonlinear. Here the design vector x = (x1, x2, …, xd) can be continuous, discrete, or mixed in a d-dimensional space (Yang, 2010b).

It is worth pointing out that the definition of the objective related to image processing can often be linked to the computation of certain image-related metrics. The aim is to optimize (either minimize or maximize) the defined metric. Similarly, the constraints may also be implicitly or indirectly related to other measures in image processing. Here we write the problem as a minimization problem, but it can also be written as a maximization problem by simply replacing f(x) by −f(x). When all functions are nonlinear, we are dealing with nonlinear constrained problems. In some special cases when all functions are linear, the problem becomes linear and we can use widely known linear programming techniques, such as the simplex method. When some design variables can take only discrete values (often integers) while other variables are real continuous, the problem is of mixed type, which is often difficult to solve, especially for large-scale optimization problems. On the other hand, a very special class of optimization is convex optimization, which has guaranteed global optimality. Any optimal solution is also the global optimum and most important, there are efficient algorithms of polynomial time to solve such problems (Conn et al., 2009). Efficient algorithms such the interior-point methods (Karmarkar, 1984) are widely used and have been implemented in many software packages.

In contrast to other optimization problems, image-related optimization problems tend to be highly nonlinear and computationally expensive. First, the objectives and constraints may be related to image metrics that need to be calculated based on the images, and each evaluation of such an objective requires the combination of applying traditional image processing techniques (such as edge detection, convolution, and gradient-based manipulations) with optimization-related techniques. Second, as the sizes and numbers of images increase, the computational costs will increase (often nonlinearly). Third, the application of nontraditional methods, such as metaheuristic algorithms, will also require substantial computational efforts due to the multiple evaluations and stochastic nature so as to provide meaningful statistics. Finally, some image processing techniques themselves, such as those related to neural networks, deep learning, and computational intelligence, are intrinsically iterative, which will inevitably require high computational costs. All these factors usually lead to high computational costs. Thus, any efforts or techniques that can reduce computational costs will be desirable.

3. Some key issues in optimization

Optimization problems can be very challenging to solve, especially for nonlinear optimization problems with complex constraints and for large-scale problems. Many key issues need to be addressed, and we highlight only three key issues here: efficiency of an algorithm, choice of algorithms, and time constraints.

3.1. Efficiency of an algorithm

One of the key issues in optimization is the efficiency of an algorithm that can depend on many factors, such as the intrinsic structure of the algorithm, the way it generates new solutions, and the setting of its algorithm-dependent parameters. The essence of an optimizer is a search or optimization algorithm implemented correctly so as to carry out the desired search (though not necessarily efficiently). Typically, an algorithm starts with an educated guess or a random guess as the initial solution vector. The aim is to try to find a better solution (ideally the best solution) as quickly as possible, either in terms of the minimum computational costs or in terms of the minimum number of steps. In reality, this is usually not achievable. In many cases, even a single feasible solution may not be easy to find.

The efficiency of an algorithm is often measured by the number of steps, iterations, or trials that it needs to find a converged solution, and this converged solution is usually no longer changing as the iterations continue. However, such a converged solution does not necessarily guarantee that it is an optimal solution. In fact, there is no guarantee that it is a sufficiently good solution at all. This kind of solution is often called a premature solution and such behavior of the algorithm is thus referred to as premature convergence. Alternatively, the efficiency of an algorithm can also be measured by the rate of convergence, and an efficient algorithm should converge quickly.

In addition, an optimization algorithm can be integrated and linked with other modeling components. There are many optimization algorithms in the literature and no single algorithm is suitable for all problems, as dictated by the No Free Lunch Theorems (Wolpert and Macready, 1997). In order to solve an optimization problem efficiently, an efficient optimization algorithm is needed.

In order to understand optimization algorithms in greater depth, it is often helpful to see how optimization algorithms are classified. Obviously, there are many ways to classify algorithms, depending on the focus or the characteristics we are trying to compare. For example, from the mobility point of view, algorithms can be classified as local or global. Local search algorithms typically converge toward a local optimum, not necessarily (often not) the global optimum, and such algorithms are often deterministic and are not able to escape local optima. Simple hill-climbing is an example.

On the other hand, we always try to find the global optimum for a given problem. If this global optimality is robust, it is often the best, though it is not always possible to find such global optimality. For global optimization, local search algorithms are not suitable. We have to use a global search algorithm. In most cases modern bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithms are intended for global optimization, though they are not always successful or efficient. A simple strategy, such as hill-climbing with random restart may change a local search algorithm into a global search. In essence, randomization is an efficient component for global search algorithms.

In this chapter, we provide a brief review of most metaheuristic optimization algorithms. From a practical point of view, an important question is how to choose the right algorithm(s) so that the optimal solutions can be found quickly.

3.2. How to choose algorithms?

The choice of the right optimizer or algorithm for a given problem can be crucially important to determine both the solution quality and how quickly the solutions can be obtained. However, the choice of an algorithm for an optimization task will largely depend on the type of the problem, the nature of the algorithm, the desired quality of solutions, the available computing resource, time limits, the availability of the algorithm implementation, and the expertise of the decision makers (Blum and Roli, 2003; Yang, 2010b;  2014).

From the algorithm point of view, the intrinsic nature of an algorithm may essentially determine if it is suitable for a particular type of problem. For example, gradient-based algorithms such as hill-climbing are not suitable for an optimization problem whose objective is discontinuous because of the difficulty in determining the derivatives needed by such gradient-based algorithms. On the other hand, the type of problem to be solved can also determine the algorithms needed to obtain good-quality solutions. For example, if the objective function of an optimization problem at hand is highly nonlinear and multimodal, classic algorithms, such as hill-climbing are usually not suitable because the results obtained by these local search methods tend to be dependent on the initial starting points. For nonlinear global optimization problems, algorithms based on SI, such as the FA and PSO, can be very effective (Yang, 2010a,  2014).

The desired solution quality and available computing resources may also affect the choice of algorithms. As in most applications, computing resources are limited, and good solutions (not necessary the best) have to be obtained in a reasonable and practical time, which means that there is a certain compromise between the available resource and the needed solution quality. For example, if the main aim is to find a feasible solution (not necessarily the best solution) in the least amount of time, greedy methods or gradient-based methods should be the first choice. In addition, the availability of software packages and expertise of the designers are also key factors that can affect the algorithm choice. For example, Newton’s method, hill-climbing, Nelder–Mead downhill simplex, trust-region methods (Conn et al., 2009), and interior-point methods are implemented in many software packages, which partly increase their popularity in applications.

In practice, even with the best possible algorithms and well-crafted implementation, we may still not get the desired solutions. This is the nature of nonlinear global optimization, as most of these problems are NP-hard, and no efficient (in the polynomial sense) exist for a given problem. Therefore, one of the main challenges in many applications is to find the right algorithm(s) most suitable for a given problem so as to obtain good solutions (hopefully also the global best solutions), in a reasonable time scale with a limited amount of resources. However, there is no simple answer to this problem. As a result, the choice of the algorithms still largely depends on the expertise of the researchers involved and the available resources in a more or less heuristic way.

3.3. Time and resource constraints

Apart from the challenges already mentioned, one of the most pressing requirements in image processing is the speed of finding the solutions. In some applications, images need to be processed in a dynamic, real-time manner in practice. Therefore, the time should be sufficiently short