CHAPTER I

ABSTRACT

Medical Image segmentation is an important tool in viewing and analyzing

magnetic resonance (MR) images and solving a wide range of problems in medical

imaging. The Fuzzy C means clustering algorithm performs well in the absence of noise

but considers only the pixel attributes and not its neighbors. This leads to accuracy

degradation with image segmentation. This was addressed by using Generalized spatial

Fuzzy C-means clustering algorithm, which utilizes both given pixel attributes and the

spatial local information which is weighted corresponding to neighbor elements based on

their distance attributes. Though GSFCM gives good output, the main drawback behind

this method is, it reaches only the local minima values of the objective function. To

improve the efficiency of clustering MR images, this paper proposes the genetic

algorithm (GA) based GSFCM. By using GA, the global minima of the clustering

objective function can be reached. Although GA has high computational complexity, it

greatly improves the accuracy of the segmentation on medical images.

1
 CHAPTER II

INTRODUCTION

Image segmentation is one of the first and most important tasks in image analysis

and computer vision. Image segmentation remains one of the major challenges in image

analysis, since image analysis tasks are often constrained by how well previous

segmentation is accomplished. Many existing image segmentation algorithms fail to

provide the satisfactory results when the boundaries of the desired objects are not clearly

defined by the image intensity information. Having good segmentations will benefit

clinicians and patients as they provide important information for 3-D visualization,

surgical planning and early disease detection. However, the design of robust and efficient

segmentation algorithms is still very challenging research topic, due to the variety and

complexity of images.

Many image processing techniques have been proposed for brain MRI

segmentation including Threshold, region growing and clustering. Fuzzy clustering is an

appropriate method in medical image segmentation. Its applications are very successful in

the area of image processing as well as medical imaging. The field of medicine has

become a very attribute domain for the application of fuzzy set theory. FCM is one of the

important clustering methods to segment the image. Fuzzy c-means (FCM) is a data

clustering technique in which a dataset is grouped into n clusters with every data point in

the dataset belonging to every cluster to a certain degree. For example, a certain data

point that lies close to the center of a cluster will have a high degree of belonging or

membership to that cluster and another data point that lies far away from the center of a

cluster will have a low degree of belonging or membership to that cluster.

 The Fuzzy Logic function performs FCM clustering. It starts with an initial guess

for the cluster centers, which are intended to mark the mean location of each cluster. The

initial guess for these cluster centers is most likely incorrect. Next, the fuzzy logic

function assigns every data point a membership grade for each cluster. By iteratively

updating the cluster centers and the membership grades for each data point, The Fuzzy

Logic function iteratively moves the cluster centers to the right location within a data set.

This iteration is based on minimizing an objective function that represents the distance

from any given data point to a cluster center weighted by that data point's membership

grade. Membership values of the FCM are renewed by considering the resistance of

neighbours or feature-weight learning to improve the performance of Fuzzy C-means

clustering. In the possibilistic approach that corresponds to the intuitive concept of degree

of belonging or compatibility and reduce trouble in noise environment.

To improve the possibilistic approach, a new Generalized Spatial Fuzzy C-

means(GSFCM) algorithm has improved. This method takes into account properties of

local neighborhoods because the membership of each pixel is caused by its membership

and the memberships of neighboring pixels which depend on their distances to the

considered pixel. This GSFCM algorithm results as a weighted sum of the pixel

membership and the membership of the pixels in the neighbouring pixels along with the

center pixel.

Finally, this GSFCM algorithm has to be implemented by the genetic algorithmic

approach. It utilizes a random initialization of the genomes. It implements this by

randomly choosing cluster centers from a uniform distribution over the data space.

3
 In this approach, the binary strings representing the cluster centers undergo

mutation. The incorporation of mutation enhances the ability of the genetic algorithm to

near optimal solutions. The role of the mutation operator is to introduce new genetic

material to the gene pool, thus preventing the inadvertent loss of useful genetic material

in earlier phases of evolution. The creation of new genomes from existing ones during

reproduction is the process of crossover. Parent genomes are selected with a probability

of Pcross (Pcross=0.8) using the roulette wheel selection scheme.

The genetic algorithm does not depend on any initial conditions, efficiently

escapes from the sensibility to initial value and improves the accuracy of clustering. It

proceeds in an incremental way attempting to optimally add one new cluster center at

each stage. This approach is very efficient to remove the noise also in the image. It is

unorthodox search or optimization algorithms.

 CHAPTER III

LITERATURE SURVEY

Paper 1

Topic : A Generalized Spatial Fuzzy C-Means Algorithm for Medical Image

Segmentation

Author : Huynh Van Lung and Jong-Myon Kim, Member IEEE

Conference : Fuzz-IEEE 2009, Korea, August 20-24, 2009

Problem Description

3.1 Fuzzy C-Means Algorithm:

The FCM algorithm is an iterative algorithm of clustering technique that produce

optimal C partitions, centers V={v1,v2,…,vc}which an exemplars, and radii which defines

these C partitions, let unlabelled data set X={x1,x2,…,xc} be the pixel intensity. Where n

is the number of image pixels to determine their membership. The FCM algorithm tries to

partition the dataset X into C clusters. The standard FCM objective function is defined as

follows.

c n

∑∑
Jm(U,V)= i =1 k =1 uikmd2(xk,vi)-------------------------------------------------------(1)

Where d2(xk,vi) represents the distance between the pixel xk and centroid vi along with the

∑
constraint i =1 uik = 1, and the degree of fuzzification m≥1. A data point xk belongs to the

specific cluster vi that is given by the membership value uik of the data point to that

5
 −1
 c 1

 2
  d ( xk , vi )   ( m −1)

U ik = ∑ 2 
 
d ( xk , v j ) 
 j =1  
cluster. Local minimization of the objective function Jm(U,V) is accomplished by repeatly

adjusting the values of uik and vi according to the following equations

-----------------------------------------------------------------(2)

Where Vi is calculated by the following equation

n

∑
k =0 uikm xk

∑
k =0 uikm --------------------------------------------------------------------(3)

3.2 Generalized Spatial Fuzzy C Means Algorithm:

In the traditional FCM algorithm, for a pixel xk, the clustering of xk with class i

depends on the membership value uik. Since the neighboring pixel xj has an influential

function h of itself membership value uij against pixel xk, this degrades accuracy. To

overcome this problem, we take into the account the spatial information of correlated

neighboring pixels to impact the pixel xk belonging to cluster I by a total function of Pik

which is described as follows:

Nk

∑
Pik = j =0 h(xk,xj)g(uij) -------------------------------------------------------------------------(4)

Nk

∑
j =0 h(xk,xj) = 1 and g(uij) are ranged in [0,1] with j ∈ sk

If all pixels inside Sk completely belong to cluster i, the function value Pik=1. This implies

that the pixel xk is mostly impacted by its neighbours. Since the function g(uij) depends on

membership value of uij(The probability of pixel xj belonging to cluster i), the effective
rate of g(uij) is between neighbor xj and the pixel xk. To determine the function

h(xk,xj), assume that if uij=1, g(uij)=1.

Nk

∑
As a result, j =0 h(xk,xj) = 1 when both the function value pik and function g(uij) are equal

to 1. This is sound if h(xk,xj) is function of distances between neighbouring pixel xj and

center pixel xk, Moreover the function h(xk,xj) should satisfy that the longer distance

between xk and xj, the smaller value of h(xk,xj). These leads the following equation :

-1

k
d2(xk, xj)
∑ d2(xk, xi) ---------------------------------------------------------------------(5)
h(xk,xj) = i =0

combine equation (1) and (2)

-1

Nk k
d2(xk, xj)
∑ ∑ d2(xk, xi) ---------------------------------------------------------------(6)
Pik = j =0 g(uij) i =0

Nk k
1 g(uij)
∑ d2(xk, xi)
∑ d2(xk, xj) ---------------------------------------------------------(7)
Pik = j =0 i =0

Where d2(xk,xi)= d2(xk,xi)f(Pik)----------------------------------------------------------------(8)

7
3.2.1 Advantages of the GSFCM:

1. It considers the nearest neighbor pixels

2. It minimizes the value of the objective function

3. It degrades the difficulties of the FCM

4. It increases the accuracy of the image clustering

3.2.2 Limitations of the GSFCM:

1. Its convergence speed is low

2. High Computational Complexity than traditional FCM

3. It converges to the local minima value of the medical image.

Paper 2

Topic : Robust Weighted Fuzzy C-Means Clustering

Author : A.H. Hadjahmadi, M.M. Homayounpour and S.M. Ahadi

Year : 2008

Problem Description

3.3 Robust Weighted Fuzzy C-Means Clustering (RWFCM):

FCM is the most famous clustering algorithm. However one of the greatest

disadvantages of this method is sensitivity for noises and outliers in the data. Since

the membership values of FCM for an outlier data is the same as real data, outliers

have a great influence on the centers of the clusters.

There exist different method to overcome this problem. Among them, three

well-known robust clustering algorithms, namely Fuzzy Possibilistic C-Means

(FPCM), Credibilistic Fuzzy C-Means (CFCM) and Density weighted Fuzzy C-

Means (DWFCM) were proposed in this paper. This paper decreased the noise

sensitivity in fuzzy clustering by using different kinds of weights in objective

function, in order to decrease the effect of noisy samples and outliers on centroids.

9
3.3.1. A fuzzy Possibilistic C-Means Clustering (FPCM):

FPCM is a mixed c-means technique which generated both probabilistic

membership and typically for each vector in the dataset. FPCM minimizes the objective

function

c N

∑∑ xk − vi
Jfcm= i = 1 k = 1 (Uikm+tikn) dik2 , dik = -----------------------------------------(9)

Where η is a parameter for controlling the effect typically on clustering and the

c c

∑ ∑
constraints i =1 uik = 1 and i =1 tik = 1.--------------------------------------------------------(10)

This algorithm provided the matrices U,T and V. The conditions for local minima

on the following equations

∑
Tik= [ j =1 (dik/dij)2/(n-1) ] -1 ----------------------------------------------------(11) and

Due to the constraint (10), if the number of input samples (N) in a dataset is large,

the typically of samples will degrade and then the FPCM will not be insensitive to

outliers. So the modified version of FPCM was used. This is known as MFPCM which is

the sum of typically values of a cluster i, for all the input samples are equal to the number
of data that belongs to this cluster.

c N N

∑∑ ∑
Vi= i = 1 k = 1 (Uikm+tikn) xi k =1 (Uikm+tikn) ------------------------------------------(12)

3.3.2. The Credibilistic Fuzzy C-Means Clustering (CFCM):

This algorithm is decreased the noise sensitivity in fuzzy clustering by modifying

the probabilistic constraint uij=1. So that the algorithm generates low memberships for

outliers. To distinguish an outlier from a non-outlier, a new variable was introduced, that

is called as credibility. It is a vector represents its typically to the data set, not to any

particular cluster. If a vector has a low value of credibility, it is a typical to the data set

and is considered an outlier. Thus the credibility ψ k of a vector xk is defined as

ψ = 1-(1- θ ) α /max( α ) where j=1…n and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1-------------------------(13)

k k j

Here α k is the distance of vector xk from its nearest centroid. The parameter θ controls

the minimum value of vk so that the noisiest vector gets credibility equal to θ . So the

CFCM partitions X by minimizing the FCM objective function.

∑i =1 uik = ψ k--------------------------------------------------------------------------(14)

like wise Uik is calculated as follows

∑
uik = ψ k
j =1 (dik/dij)2/(m-1)-----------------------------------------------------(15)

11
3.3.3. The Density Weighted Fuzzy C-Means Clustering (DWFCM):

This algorithm modify the FCM to convergence process of clustering. The

equation of DWFCM is

c n

∑∑
J= i =1 k =1 uikmd2(xk,vi)wk------------------------------------------------------------(16)

∑
Where Wk = y =1 exp(-h x xk-xy / σ ) for which h is a resolution parameter

and σ is a standard deviation of input data.

Like wise the following update equations for U and V for DWFCM

n N

∑ ∑
Vi= k =1 Wk (Uikm) xi k =1 Wk(Uikm)-----------------------------------------(17)
3.3.4 Advantages of the RWFCM:

1. This algorithm has 3 well known clustering algorithms namely FPCM,CFCM

and DWFCM

2. All algorithms attempt to decrease the noise sensitivity

3. The FPCM algorithm attempt to minimize the objective function than FCM

4. The CFCM is decreasing the noise sensitivity in fuzzy clustering by

modifying the probabilistic constraint

5. By using CFCM may result in oscillations for noise-free data and for

overlapped clusters, but the original update equation will not

6. The DWFCM has different density parameters

3.3.5 Limitations of the RWFCM:

1. All the three algorithms computational complexity is very high

2. It is hard to measure the density parameter

3. All these 3 algorithms are not particularly suited for medical image

segmentation.

13
Paper 3

Topic : The Global Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Algorithm

Author : Weina Wang, Yunjie Zhang, Yi Li and Xiaona Zhang

Year : 2006

Problem Description

3.4 The Global Fuzzy C-Means Clustering (GFCM):

For a set of unlabeled data X={x1,x2,…xn}, where N is the number of data

points. Its constrained fuzzy C-partition can be briefly described as follows : given

that the membership function of the ith (i=1…N) vector to the jth (j=1,2,…C)

cluster is denoted as Uij. The membership values are often constrained as

c N

∑ ∑
∀ i, i =1 uik = 1; ∀ i, j, uij ∈ [0,1]; ∀ j, i =1 uij > 0

The most widely used clustering criterion is the weighted within-group sum of

squared errors as follows:

c n

∑∑
Jm = i =1 k =1 uikmd2(xk,vi) -------------------------------------------------------------(18)
 Where V is the vector of the cluster centers and m is the weighting component.

The FCM is a local search procedure with respect to the clustering criterion. Its

performance heavily depends on initial starting conditions and always converges to a

local minimum. To find the global minimum value, this paper proposed the global fuzzy

C-Means Clustering algorithm.

More specifically, we start with fuzzy 1-partition and find its optimal position

which corresponds to the centroid of the data set X. For fuzzy -2 partition problem, the

first initial cluster center is placed at the optimal position for fuzzy -1 partition, while the

second initial center at execution n is placed at the position of the data point xn(n=1..N).

Then we perform the FCM algorithm from each of these initial partitions respectively, to

obtain the best solution for Fuzzy-2 partition. In general, let (V1(c) ,….,Vc(c)) denote the

final solution for Fuzzy C-means partition. If we have found the solution for the fuzzy (c-

1) partition problem, we perform the FCM algorithm with C clusters from each of these

initial state (V1(c-1) ,….,Vc-1(c-1),xn) (n=1,2,3…N) respectively.

The main advantage of the algorithm is that it does not depend on any initial

conditions and improves the accuracy of clustering.

3.4.1 Algorithm :

1. Perform the FCM algorithm to find the optimal clustering centers V (1) of the

fuzzy 1-partition problem and let obj-1 be its corresponding value of the objective

function found by 18

2. Perform N runs of the FCM algorithm with c clusters where each run n starts

15
from the initial value (V1(c) ,….,Vc(c),xn) and obtain their corresponding values of the

objective function and clustering centers.

3. Find the minimal value of the objective function obj(c+1) and its corresponding

clustering centers V(c+1) from step 2. Let V(c+1) be the final clustering centers for fuzzy c+1

partition.

4. if c+1=C stop; otherwise set c=c+1 and go to step 2.

3.4.2 The Fast Global Fuzzy C-Means Clustering (FGFCM):

The global Fuzzy C-Means algorithm requires N executions of the FCM

algorithm for each value of c (c=1,2,….,C), in order to improve the convergence speed of

the global Fuzzy C-means algorithm we proposed the fast global FCM clustering

algorithm. For each of the N initial states(V1(c-1),…Vc-1(c-1),xn) we do not execute the

FCM to obtain the final clustering error Jm. Instead we straightforward compute the

value of the objective function for all initial state, find the center corresponding to the

minimum value of objective function to be the initial center, and then execute the FCM

algorithm to obtain the solution with c clusters. The steps for the fast global Fuzzy C-

means clustering algorithms can be described as follows:

Step 1:

Perform the FCM to find the optimal clustering center V(1) of the Fuzzy 1-

partition and let obj_1 be the corresponding value of the objective function found by 18.

Step 2:

Compute the value of the objective function for all initial state (V1(c-1),….,Vc-
 N C

∑ (∑
1(c-1),xn) by using Jm = i =1 c =1 xi-vc ) ,
2(1-m) 1-m xi-vc ≠ 0 (i=1,…,N;c=1,2,3,…,C)

Step 3:

Find the minimal value of the objective function obj_(c+1) and the corresponding

initial state V0(c+1) and obtain the final clustering center V(c+1) for fuzzy c+1 partition

Step 4:

Perform FCM algorithm with c+1 clusters from the initial state V0(c+1) and

obtain the final clustering center V(c+1) for fuzzy c+1 partition.

Step 5:

If c+1 = C stop; otherwise set c=c+1 and go to step 2

Obviously, the global Fuzzy C-Means clustering algorithms requires performing

C X N executions of the FCM algorithm, the fast global FCM clustering algorithms only

requires performing C executions of the FCM algorithm. Therefore it improves the

convergence speed of the former.

17
 3.4.3 Advantages of the GFCM & FGFCM:

1. It converges to the global minima

2. GFCM accuracy is very high compared to the FCM

3. FGFCM algorithm improves the convergence speed of the GFCM

4. The converging speed of the FGFCM did not significantly affect the solution

quality

3.4.4 limitations of the GFCM & FGFCM:

1. GFCM converging speed is very low

2.

Paper 4

Topic : A Genetic Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Algorithm

Author : M.A.Egan
Year : 1998

3.5 Genetic c-means fuzzy clustering algorithm:

Most FCM minimize the fitness function. The FCM is an iterative technique that

refines the cluster centers, sizes and weights at each iteration. The genetic c-means fuzzy

clustering algorithm GFCM uses non-overlapping populations in which each generation

creates an entirely new population of individuals.

Genetic operators are initialization, mutation, and crossover. GFCM utilizes a

random initialization of the genomes. It implements this by randomly choosing cluster

centers from a uniform distribution over the data space. In GFCM, the binary strings

representing the cluster centers undergo mutation. The incorporation of mutation

enhances the ability of the genetic algorithm to find near optimal solutions. The role of

the mutation operator is to introduce new genetic material to the gene pool, thus

preventing the inadvertent loss of useful genetic material in earlier phases of evolution.

The mutation operator in GFCM flips each bit of the bit string with a small probability,

Pmut(Pmut=0.01).

The creation of new genomes from existing ones during reproduction is the

process of crossover. Parent genomes are selected with a probability of

Pcross(Pcross=0.8) using the roulette wheel selection scheme. After a partner string is

19
chosen randomly, the two-point crossover operator is applied to these two parents.

The implementation of two point cross over is as follows: two integer random numbers, i

and j, between 1 and 2c are generated. Both strings are cut into three portions at positions

I and j and the portions between these crossover points are mutually interchanged. The

following figure demonstrates this two-point cross over on a binary-to-decimal

representation. It shows the two parent genomes, the crossover points, i and j and their

resulting offspring.

Parent 1: 122 23 35 56 89 81 67 65 124 176

Parent 2: 67 98 76 53 76 86 54 34 65 45

1st crossover 2rd crossover

point i point j

Offspring1: 122 98 76 56 89 86 67 65 124 176

Offstring2: 67 23 35 53 76 81 54 34 65 45

CHAPTER IV

PROBLEM DEFINITION:

4.1 Fuzzy Applications in Medicine:

 Medicine is one of the field in which the applicability of fuzzy set theory was

recognized quite early, in the mid-1970. Within this field, it is uncertainty found in the

process of diagnosis of disease that has most frequently been the focus of applications of

fuzzy set theory. With the increased volume of information available to physicians from

new medical technologies, the process of classifying different sets of symptoms under a

single name and determining appropriate therapeutic actions becomes increasingly

difficult. A single disease may manifest itself quite differently in different patients and at

different disease stages. Furthermore, a single symptom may be indicative of several

different diseases, and the presence of several diseases in a single patient may disrupt the

expected symptom pattern of any one of them.

Although medical knowledge concerning the symptom-disease relationship

constitutes one source of imprecision and uncertainty in the diagnostic process, the

knowledge concerning the state of the patient constitutes another. The physician

generally gathers knowledge about the patient from the past history, physical

examination, laboratory test results, and other investigative procedures such as X-rays

and ultrasonic. The knowledge provided by each of these sources carries with it varying

degrees of uncertainty. The past history offered by the patient may be subjective,

exaggerated, underestimated, or incomplete. Mistakes may be made in the physical

examination, and symptoms may be overlooked. The measurements provided by

laboratory test are often of limited precision, and the exact borderline between normal

and pathological is often unclear. X-rays and other similar procedures require correct

interpretation of the results. Thus, the state and symptoms of the patient can be known by

the physician with only a limited degree of precision. In the face of the uncertainty

21
concerning the observed symptoms of the patient as well as the uncertainty concerning

the relation of the symptoms to a disease entity, it is nevertheless crucial that a physician

determine the diagnostic label that will entail the appropriate therapeutic regimen. The

desire to better understand and teach this difficult and important process of medical

diagnostics has prompted attempts to model it with the use of fuzzy sets.

These models vary in the degree to which they attempt to deal with different

complicating aspects of medical diagnostics such as relative importance of symptoms, the

varied symptom patterns of different disease stages , relations between diseases

themselves, and the stages of hypothesis formation, preliminary diagnostics, and final

diagnostics within the diagnostics process itself. These models also form the basis for

computerized medical expert systems, which are usually designed to aid the physician in

the diagnostics of some specified category of diseases.

A fuzzy set framework has been utilized in the several different approaches to

modeling the diagnostics process. In the approach formulated by Sanchez (1979), the

physician’s medical knowledge is represented as a fuzzy relation between the symptoms

and diseases.

4.2 Existing System

4.2.1 Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Method:

Clustering is one of the most fundamental issues in medical image segmentation.

It plays a key role in searching for structures in data. Given a finite set of data X, the

problem of clustering in X is to find several cluster centers that can properly characterize

relevant classes of X. In classical cluster analysis, these classes are required to form a

partition of X such that the degree of association is strong for data within blocks of the

partition and weak for data in different blocks. However, this requirement is too strong in

many practical applications, and it is thus desirable to replace it with the weaker

requirement. When the requirement crisp partition of X is replaced with the weaker

requirement of a fuzzy partition or a fuzzy pseudo partition on X, we refer to the

emerging problem area as Fuzzy Clustering. Fuzzy pseudo partitions are often called

Fuzzy C-Partitions, where c designates the number of fuzzy classes in the partition. Both

of them are generalizations of classical partitions.

There are two basic methods of fuzzy clustering. One of them, which are based on

Fuzzy C-Partitions, is called a Fuzzy C-Means clustering method. The other method,

based on fuzzy equivalence relations is called a Fuzzy equivalence relation-based

hierarchical clustering method.

The traditional FCM algorithm based on pixel attributes lead to accuracy

degradation with segmentation because medical images are limited spatial resolution,

poor contrast, noise and non-uniform intensity variation. To overcome this GSFCM was

introduced that incorporates both given pixel attributes and spatial local information

23
ep 1: Input : Medical Image
Stepof2:
ance
Output: Determine
the current
Clustered the Number
pixel
image and centroid value &Cluster
of clusters set thethe imageas
m value according
>=1 to the value U
Step 8: otherwise calculate
Step 3:the J objective
Generate the function.
fuzzification Matrix Um (Uniform Distribution)
tep 5 : Centroid value is calculated
Step 6:
byAssume
sum((U)e=
m) difference
alue is greater than 0.01 then repeat the step 4 to 6. X current pixel
between
/ sum((U)
previous
) center and current cente
which is weighted correspondingly to neighbor elements based on their distance

attributes.

The problem architecture of the FCM and GSFCM is given in the following

diagram.

FCM Algorithm

4.1.2 Generalized Spatial Fuzzy C-Means Method:

1. Distributed the pixels of the input image into data set X and initiate centers

V(0)=(v1(0),v2(0),…,vc(0))

2. Compute all membership values Uik of each pixel against c centroids in

ep 1: Input : Medical Image
Step 2: Determine the NumberStep
of clusters
3: Generate
& setthe
thefuzzification
m value as >=1
Matrix U (Uniform Distribution)

fuzzification matrix.

3. Compute new membership values wik by manipulating g(uij) and f(pik), in

which we used g(uij)=uij and f(pik)=1/pik for an efficient trade-off among the cluster

validity functions.

4. Calculate new centroid values vi such as

n n

∑ ∑
vi= k =1 wikmXk k =1 wikm

5. Evaluate the threshold of information condition max(vi(t)-vi(t-1)) < 0.01. stop if

it is satisfied, otherwise go to step 2.

6. Assign all pixels to belong to clusters by using the maximum membership

value of every pixel.

Problem Architecture of GSFCM:

25
000000000000030004000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Output: Clustered
Step 6:Image
Find the different between new centroid and old centroid
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Yes No

GSFCM algorithm

4.2 Proposed System (Genetic approach):

This paper takes the advantages of genetic algorithm which is used to find the

global optimum solution and degrades the disadvantages of the traditional FCM and
GSFCM algorithm. These two algorithm proposes the gradient local minimum optimum

solution. But these two methods are not successful for finding the global optimum

solution. So this paper propose, Genetic approach apply to this two algorithms FCM and

GSFCM for medical image segmentation. The following diagram shows the architecture

of the Genetic approach on medical image segmentation by GSFCM.

0100090000032a0200000200a20100000000a201000026060f003a03574d464301000000

00000100a0290000000001000000180300000000000018030000010000006c0000000000

000000000000350000006f0000000000000000000000883b00002032000020454d460000

01001803000012000000020000000000000000000000000000003b13000020190000d00

0000010010000000000000000000000000000142e0300a0270400160000000c000000180

000000a0000001000000000000000000000000900000010000000100e0000d50b0000250

000000c0000000e000080250000000c0000000e000080120000000c00000001000000520

000007001000001000000a4ffffff000000000000000000000000900100000000000004400

022430061006c00690062007200690000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001200ac9a1

20010000000109e1200909b1200524f6032109e1200089b120010000000789c1200f49d12

00244f6032109e1200089b120020000000076f2e31089b1200109e120020000000ffffffff8

c1dfc00826f2e31ffffffffffff0180ffff01803fff0180ffffffff000000000008000000080000430

0000001000000000000005802000025000000372e90010000020f0502020204030204ef0

200a07b20004000000000000000009f00000000000000430061006c00690062007200000

0000000000000d09b120010232e3130be0f32309f12003c9b1200ca3927310b0000000100

0000789b1200789b1200087a25310b000000a09b12008c1dfc0064760008000000002500

27
 CHAPTER V

ALGORITHM

5.1 Genetic Algorithm :

There are basically two ways of fuzzifying classical genetic algorithms. One way

is to fuzzify the gene pool and the associated coding of chromosomes. The other one is to

fuzzify operations on chromosomes. To illustrate this possibility, let us consider the

example of determining the maximum of function f(x) = 2x-x2 / 16 within the domain

[0,31]. Numbers in this domain are represented by chromosomes whose components are
 ∈
numbers in [0,1]. For example, the chromosome {0.1,0.5,0,1,9} represents the number

8.5 = 0.1 x 24 + 0.5 x 23 + 0 x 22 + 1 x 21 + 0.9 x 20

in [0,31]. It turns out that this reformulation of classical genetic algorithms tends to

converge faster and is more reliable in obtaining the desired optimum. To employ it,

however, we have to find an appropriate way of coding alternatives of each given

problem by chromosomes formed from the gene pool [0,1].

To illustrate this issue, let us consider a travelling salesman problem with four
cities C1, C2, C3 and C4. The alternative routes that can be taken by the salesman may be
characterized by chromosomes {X1, X2, X3, X4} in which xi corresponds to city ci (i N4)
and represents the degree to which the city should be visited early.
Thus for example,{ 0.1,0.9,0.8,0} denotes the route C2,C3,C1,C4,C2. Although the

extension of the gene pool from {0, 1} to [0, 1] may be viewed as a fuzzification of the

genetic algorithms, more genuine fuzzification requires that the operations on

Chromosomes also be fuzzified.

5.2 Genetic Algorithm in fuzzy systems:

There are basically two ways of fuzzifying classical genetic algorithms. One way

is to fuzzify the gene pool and the associated coding of chromosomes. The other one is to

fuzzify operations on chromosomes. In classical genetic algorithms£

To illustrate this possibility, let us consider the example of determining the

maximum of function f(x) = 2x-x2 / 16 within the domain [0,31]. Numbers in this domain

are represented by chromosomes whose components are numbers in [0,1]. For example,

the chromosome {0.1,0.5,0,1,9} represents the number

8.5 = 0.1 x 24 + 0.5 x 23 + 0 x 22 + 1 x 21 + 0.9 x 20

in [0,31]. It turns out that this reformulation of classical genetic algorithms tends to

29
∈ ∈

∈
converge faster and is more reliable in obtaining the desired optimum. To employ it,

however, we have to find an appropriate way of coding alternatives of each given

problem by chromosomes formed from the gene pool [0,1].

To illustrate this issue, let us consider a travelling salesman problem with four
cities C1, C2, C3 and C4. The alternative routes that can be taken by the salesman may be
characterized by chromosomes {X1, X2, X3, X4} in which xi corresponds to city ci (i N4)
and represents the degree to which the city should be visited early.
Thus for example,{ 0.1,0.9,0.8,0} denotes the route C2,C3,C1,C4,C2. Although the

extension of the gene pool from {0, 1} to [0, 1] may be viewed as a fuzzification of the

genetic algorithms, more genuine fuzzification requires that the operations on

chromosomes also be fuzzified.

Consider chromosomes X = {x1,x2,..,xn} and Y={y1,y2,…yn} , whose components

are taken from a given genepool. Then, the simple crossover with the crossover position

i ∈ Nn-1 can be formulated in the terms of a special n-tuple.

t = {tj|tj=1 for j Ni and tj=0 for Ni+1,n} referred to as a template, by the formulas
X’=(x ∧ t) ∨ (x ∧ t)

Y’=(x ∧ t) ∨ (x ∧ t),

Where ∧ and ∨ are min and max operations on tuples and t = <tj/tj=1-tj>.

We can see that the template t defines an abrupt change at the crossover

position i. This is characteristic of the usual, crisp operation of simple crossover.

The change can be made gradual by defining the crossover position

approximately. This can be done by a Fuzzy template,

f=< fi|i Nn, f1=1, fn=0, i < j ⇒ fi ≥ fj >.

For example, f=<1,….,1,.8,.5,.2,0,…,0> is a fuzzy template for some n.

Assume that chromosomes X = {x1,x2,..,xn} and y={y1,y2,…yn}are given, whose
components are, in general, numbers in [0,1]. Assume further that a fuzzy template f =
<f1,f2,…,fn> is given. Then the operation of fuzzy simple crossover of mates x and y
produces offstrings x’ and y’ defined by the formulas
X’=(x ∧ f) ∨ (x ∧ f)

Y’=(x ∧ f) ∨ (x ∧ f),

These formulas can be written, more specifically as

X’ = <max[min(xi,fi),min(yi,fi)]|i ∈ Nn>,

Y’ = <max[min(xi,fi),min(yi,fi)]|i ∈ Nn>,

The operation of a double crossover as well as the other operations on

chromosomes can be fuzzified in a similar ways. Experience with fuzzy genetic

algorithms seems to indicate that they are efficient, robust, and better attuned to

some applications than their classical, crisp, counterparts.

31
 Compare Input
Generate theMRI
and image
find
chromosome theforoptimal
fitness solution
function
Find the
Find Cross
the
Set thesegmentad
centroidover
centroid valuevalue
matrix
segmentation using
d of
2as
(x the
GSFCM
a
,x chromosome
and FCM
chromosome
)d 2(x
2(x ,x )d2(x ,x k) i k,xi)
segmentation d (xk,xi)d (xk,xi)
2k i 2 k i

5.2 Architecture of Genetic Algorithm :

 Clustered Image

Chapter VI

EXPECTED OUTCOME

This section evaluates the performance of the proposed GSFCM algorithm and

compares the GSFCM with the FCM and MFCM algorithms

Table 1

Performance comparison of FCM, MFCM and GSFCM in terms of Cluster Validity

Functions

Number

Image of Technique The value of validity functions

clusters
Vpe
Vpc Vxb Vfs[x106]

0.89052 0.10165 0.23995

Image 1 3 FCM -288.221096
5 6 5
0.94904 0.07276 0.28326
MFCM -299.651287
3 3 8
0.97702 0.02199 0.12106
GSFCM -324.535968
7 1 0

33
 0.94080 0.10401 0.16145
4 FCM -322.930972
4 5 4
0.95382 0.08752 0.16569
MFCM -321.925050
4 6 1
0.96543 0.03043 0.09695
GSFCM -329.502357
4 0 0
0.91684 0.13712 0.17282
5 FCM -335.425575
4 8 5
0.78408 0.17558 0.29602
MFCM -307.483034
9 2 0
0.96776 0.02826 0.07696
GSFCM -353.473182
5 7 5
0.83368 0.10395 0.03777
Image 2 3 FCM -316.408642
3 6 2
0.90960 0.08299 0.03785
MFCM -318.056959
1 2 6
0.95008 0.03770 0.03395
GSFCM -335.892399
9 6 7
Number

Image of Technique The value of validity functions

clusters
Vpe
Vpc Vxb Vfs[x106]

0.86566 0.12636 0.06004

Image 2 4 FCM -305.583680
0 2 9
0.88933 0.10616 0.05690
MFCM -305.905533
1 1 2
0.93569 0.04851 0.04751
GSFCM -314.344920
1 8 5
0.86540 0.15523 0.18440
5 FCM -292.620881
7 0 7
0.82069 0.18405 2.05156
MFCM -254.728798
8 9 0
 0.91525 0.06385 0.07858
GSFCM -301.709628
2 2 7

Image 1 Image 2

Chapter VII

35
 IDL TECHNOLOGICAL MAP

Randomu(seed, dimension of matrix):

-To generate the random numbers for the given input matrix

Reform(Array,size):

– Reform the matrix that is change the row and column of the matrix

Fltarr() : To declare the float array

Intarr() : to declare the int array

For i=0,n-1 do begin……endfor – Iteration loop

Chapter VIII
 MILES STONES

March first week : Find the Segmentation related IEEE Papers

March last week : Understood Existing System

April First week : Find the Proposed system

May first week : Implementation of Existing System

May Last week : Problem of Proposed System defined and understood the problem

June First Week : Implementation of Proposed System

June Last week : Documentation

Chapter IX

37
 REFERENCES

[1] Huynh Van Lung and Jong-Myon Kim “A Generalized Spatial Fuzzy C-means

algorithm for medical image segmentation” FUZZ-IEEE 2009,Korea,August 20-

24,2009,PP-409 to 414

[2] M.A.Egan “Locating Clusters in Noisy Data: A Genetic Fuzzy C-Means Clustering

Algorithm” PP-178 to 182 1998 IEEE

[3] Weina Wang, Yunjie Zhang, Yi Li and Xiaona Zhang “The Global Fuzzy C-means

Clustering algorithm” proceedings of the 6th world congress on Intelligent Control and

automation, June 21-23 2006 IEEE PP-3604-3607

[4] A.H.Hadjahmadi, M.M.Homayounpour and S.M.Ahadi “Robust weighted fuzzy C-

Means Clustering” 2008 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems(FUZZ 2008)

pp-305- 311

[5] Dong-Chul Park “Intuitive Fuzzy C-Means Algorithm” IEEE 2009 PP – 83-87

[6] Wu Jian, Feng GuoRui “Intrusion Detection Based On Simulated Annealing and

Fuzzy C-Means Clustering” 2009 International conference on Multimedia Information

Networking and Security IEEE PP 382-385

[7] Jiang-She Zhang and Yiu-Wing Leung “Improved Possibilistic C-Means Clustering

Algorithms” Apr 2004 IEEE Vol 12, No 2 PP 209-217

[8] Stelios Krinidis and Vassilios Chatzis “ A Robust Fuzzy Local Information C-Means

Clustering Algorithm” 2009 IEEE journal Transactions on Image Processing pp-01-11

[9] H.P.Ng, S.H.Ong, K.W.C.Foong, P.S.Goh, W.L.Nowinski “Medical Image

Segmentation using K-Means Clustering and Improved Watershed Algorithm” 2006-

IEEE PP-61-65
[10] Chang Wen Chen, Jiebo Luo and Kevin J.Parker “Image Segmentation via Adaptive

K-Mean Clustering and Knowledge-Based Morphological Operations with Biomedical

Applications” IEEE Transactions on image processing, Vol 7, No12, Dec 1998 PP – 1673

-1683

[11] George J. Klir and Bo Yuan “Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic“ Prentice-Hall India

Publications

[12] Rafael C. Gonzalez and Richard E.Woods “Digital Image Processing” 3rd edition

Pearson Prentice-Hall Publications

39