S-Shaped vs. V-Shaped Transfer Functions for Ant Lion
Optimization Algorithm in Feature Selection Problem
Majdi Mafarja

Derar Eleyan

Salwani Abdullah

Department of Computer Science,
Birzeit University
P.O. Box 14
Palestine
mmafarja@birzeit.edu

Department of Applied Computing,
Palestine Technical University
P.O. Box 7,
Department of Computer Science,
Birzeit University
Palestine

Data Mining and Optimisation
Research, Group (DMO)
43600 UKM
Malaysia
salwani@ukm.edu.my

Seyedali Mirjalili
School of Information and
Communication Technology
Griffith University
QLD 4111
Australia
seyedali.mirjalili@griffith.edu.au

ABSTRACT
Feature selection is an important preprocessing step for
classification problems. It deals with selecting near optimal
features in the original dataset. Feature selection is an NP-hard
problem, so meta-heuristics can be more efficient than exact
methods. In this work, Ant Lion Optimizer (ALO), which is a
recent metaheuristic algorithm, is employed as a wrapper feature
selection method. Six variants of ALO are proposed where each
employ a transfer function to map a continuous search space to a
discrete search space. The performance of the proposed approaches
is tested on eighteen UCI datasets and compared to a number of
existing approaches in the literature: Particle Swarm Optimization,
Gravitational Search Algorithm and two existing ALO-based
approaches. Computational experiments show that the proposed
approaches efficiently explore the feature space and select the most
informative features, which help to improve the classification
accuracy.

CCS CONCEPTS




Mathematical optimization →Discrete optimization;
Artificial intelligence -> Search methodologies →
Heuristic function construction;
Machine learning → Machine learning algorithms →
Feature Selection

KEYWORDS
Antlion Optimization Algorithm, Transfer Functions, Feature
Selection, Classification, Optimization
ACM Reference format:
M. Mafarja, D. Eleyan, S. Abdullah, S. Mirjalili, 2017. S-Shaped vs. VShaped Transfer Functions for Ant Lion Optimization Algorithm in Feature
Selection Problem. In Proceedings of International Conference on Future
DOI:10.1145/3102304.3102325

Networks and Distributed Systems, Cambridge, UK, July 2017, (ICFNDS)
2017, 6 pages.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Feature Selection (FS) plays a vital role in machine learning since
it aims to reduce the data size by eliminating the
irrelevant/redundant features from the original datasets [1]. The use
of FS algorithms in conjunction with a classification algorithm
improves
the classification accuracy and/or reducing the
processing time [2]. FS methods can be classified based on two
main criteria; searching the feature space for the near optimal
feature subset and the evaluation of the selected subsets. Evaluating
the selected subsets can be classified into two different approaches;
Filter and Wrapper. A filter approach usually evaluates the subset
depending on the data itself, whereas a wrapper approach uses an
external learning algorithm (mostly machine learning technique) to
evaluate the selected features.
Searching a feature space to find the best combination of features
is an NP-hard problem [1]. Therefore, using brute-force search
techniques are impractical with FS problems especially for the
medium and large-scale datasets. As an alternative, heuristic
methods can be used to find the near-optimal subset faster than
brute-force methods [3]. Evolutionary Computation (EC) are
population-based meta-heuristic algorithms with a global search
capability [4]. Most of such methods are nature-inspired and mimic
the behavior (social and biological) of animals, insects or birds like
whales, bees, ants, antlions, bats, etc.[5]. In EC, a population of
individuals (solutions) interact to obtain the optimal solution [4].
EC have been widely employed to tackle FS problems in the
literature [6]. For instance, there are feature selection methods
based on Genetic Algorithm (GA) [7, 8], Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) [9], Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [10, 11],
Differential Evolution (DE) [12], and Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)

ICFNDS 2017,, July 2017, Cambridge, UK

M. Mafarja et al.

[13] For a comprehensive list of works in this field, readers can
refer to [14-18] .

𝑋(𝑡) = [0, 𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑠𝑢𝑚(2𝑟(𝑡1) − 1), 𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑠𝑢𝑚(2𝑟(𝑡1) − 1),
… , 𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑠𝑢𝑚(2𝑟(𝑡𝑛) − 1) ]

Recently, new EC algorithms are proposed and have shown good
performances when dealing with the FS problem. For instance, a
wrapper feature selection model that was based on Ant Lion
Optimization Algorithm (ALO) [19] proposed in [20] and [6], and
Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [21] has been successfully employed
for solving feature selection problems in [22, 23].

where cumsum represents the cumulative sum, n is the max
iteration, t is the iteration and 𝑟(𝑡) is a stochastic function that takes
value (1) if a random number is less than 0.5 and 0 otherwise.

ALO is a recent EC algorithm that mimics the behavior of antlions
in hunting preys. An ALO-based wrapper FS method has been
proposed by Zawbaa et al. in [20]. The proposed approach was
compared with PSO- and GA-based algorithms and showed
competitive performance. Another work in the literature is a
chaotic-based ALO algorithm [24], in which a set of chaotic
functions were used to control the balance between exploration and
exploitation in the original algorithm. Later on, a binary version of
the ALO algorithm was proposed by Emary et al. in [6]. In all the
aforementioned works, two transfer functions (proposed by
Kennedy and Eberhart [18] and Rashedi et al. [19],) were used to
convert the continuous ALO to a binary version with the eventual
goal of solving feature selection problems.
According to Mirjalili and Lewis in [25], a transfer function is an
important part in the binary versions of the metaheuristics. It
significantly impacts the local optima avoidance and the balance
between exploration and exploitation. In this paper, six transfer
functions, proposed in [25], are applied to the ALO algorithm. A
total of three s-shaped and three v-shaped are employed as the first
attempt in the literature to find a suitable transfer function for the
ALO algorithm. A wrapper model that uses K-Nearest
Neighborhood (KNN) classifier is adopted as an evaluation
criterion in this work. The results are compared with the two
variants of basic ALO algorithm, PSO [26], and GSA [27] for
verification.









The ants move in a random walk in the search space. The
random walk of the ants at each iteration of the algorithm is
simulated as in Eq. (1)

𝑐𝑖𝑡 = 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑡 + 𝑐 𝑡

(2)

𝑑𝑖𝑡 = 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡

(3)

The largest trap belongs to the fittest antlion. Thus, catching
an ant by an antlion is proportional to the fitness of that antlion
(i.e., the antlion with the higher fitness has a higher chance to
catch an ant). To model this assumption, a selection
mechanism based on a roulette wheel operator is used.
To model sliding ants towards antlions, the radius of random
walks of the ant is decreased adaptively using Eq. (4) and Eq.
(5).
𝑐 𝑡 = 𝑐 𝑡 ⁄𝐼

(4)

𝑑 𝑡 = 𝑑 𝑡 ⁄𝐼

(5)

where 𝐼 is a ration that controls the exploration/exploitation
rate in ALO algorithm by limiting the random walk range of
the ants and preys. The parameter 𝐼 in the above equations is
defined in Eq. 6.
𝐼 = 10𝑤

𝑡
𝑇

(6)

where 𝑡 is the current iteration, 𝑇 is the max iteration, and 𝑤
is a constant that can adjust the accuracy level of the
exploitation. 𝑤 is defined based on the current iteration (𝑤 =
2 when 𝑡 > 0.1𝑇, 𝑤 = 3 when 𝑡 > 0.5𝑇, 𝑤 = 4 when
𝑡 > 0.75𝑇, 𝑤 = 5 when 𝑡 > 0.9𝑇, and 𝑤 = 6 when 𝑡 >
0.95𝑇).

BINARY ALO ALGORITHM

ALO is a recent EC algorithm proposed by Mirjalili [19]. ALO
algorithm mimics the interaction between the antlion insects and
ants in the hunting process. In nature, an antlion digs a trap with a
cone shape. The size of the trap is directly proportional to the
hunger level of an antlion. Then, the antlion hides underneath the
bottom of the trap waiting for an ant, which moves randomly
around the trap, to fall down. Once the antlion realizes that there is
an ant in the trap, it catches it. Based on this brief description of the
antlion hunting process, the following items can be formulated as a
set of conditions for the overall process [19]:

The traps of antlions affect the moves of the ants in the search
space. Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 model this assumption:

where 𝑐 𝑡 and 𝑑𝑡 are two vectors that contain the minimum and
maximum of all variables in t-th iteration, 𝑐𝑖𝑡 and 𝑑𝑖𝑡 are the
minimum and maximum i-th ant and 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑡 represents the
position of the j-th antlion at the t-th iteration.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: The basic ALO
algorithm is presented in Section 2. Section 3 presents the details
of the proposed approaches. In Section 4, the experimental results
are presented and analyzed. Finally, conclusions and future work
are given in Section 5,

2.

(1)



If an ant is caught and pulled under the sand by the antlion,
then it becomes fitter than its corresponding antlion. Then, the
antlion updates its position to the latest caught prey and builds
a trap to improve its chance of catching another prey after each
hunt. Eq. (7) models this process:
𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑡 = 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑓 𝑓(𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡 ) 𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑓(𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑡 )
(7)

2

ICFNDS 2017,, July 2017, Cambridge, UK

M. Mafarja et al.

where 𝑡 represents the current iteration, 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑗𝑡 , 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡
represent the position of the j-th antlion and the i-th ant at the
t-th iteration.
The antlion with the higher fitness in each iteration is considered as
the elite. The elite antlion (E) and the selected antlion by using the
selection mechanism (S) guide the random walk of an ant (RW1 and
RW2 respectively). Since these two solutions are continuous, they
must be converted to a binary version to suit the feature selection
problem. The conversion is performed by applying different
transfer functions that belong to two families (s-shaped and vshaped) [25]. The transfer function defines the probability of
updating the binary solution’s elements from 0 to 1 and vice versa.
In S-shaped functions, the solution is updated based on Eq. (8)
𝑥𝑖𝑑 (𝑡

1 𝐼𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 < 𝑆𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑥𝑖𝑑 (𝑡 + 1))
+ 1) = {
0 𝐼𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 ≥ 𝑆𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑥𝑖𝑑 (𝑡 + 1))

BINARY ALO FOR FEATURE
SELECTION

In FS problems, a solution is represented as an 𝑁-sized binary
vector, where 𝑁 is the total number of features in a dataset. The
complexity of generating all possible feature combinations would
be 2𝑁 where a brute-force search becomes impractical. Metaheuristics are more reliable techniques for such problems. ALO is
one of the metaheuristic that show a good performance in searching
the feature space for the best feature subset. Each feature subset is
evaluated according to two criteria; number of selected features in
addition to the classification accuracy obtained when using those
features. The fitness function that takes into consideration those
two criteria is modeled in Eq. (10).
𝑅

𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝛼𝛾𝑅 (𝐷) + 𝛽 ,
(8)

where 𝑥𝑖𝑘 (𝑡 + 1) is the i-th element in the solution 𝑥 at dimension
𝑑 calculated as RW1 –E or RW2 – S, rand is a random number drawn
from uniform distribution ∈ [0,1].
on the position updating using a v-shaped transfer function should
be done by Eq. (9)
¬𝑋 , 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 < 𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑥𝑡+1 )
𝑋𝑡+1 = { 𝑡
𝑋𝑡 , 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 ≥ 𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑥𝑡+1 )

3.

𝑁

(10)

where 𝛾𝑅 (D) represents the classification error rate of a given
classier (the K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) classifier [28] is used
here). |𝑅| is the number of selected features, |𝑁| is the total number
of features in the dataset, and 𝛼 ∈ [1,0], 𝛽 = (1 − 𝛼) are two
parameters corresponding to the importance of classification
quality and subset length as per the recommendations in [6].
Algorithm 1 shows the pseudocode of the proposed approach.

(9)

In this work, we are interested to study the impacts of different
transfer functions on the performance of ALO. As such, six transfer
functions proposed by Mirjalili and Lewis [25] are employed and
replaced by the two transfer functions used in [6]. Table 1 shows
the mathematical formulation of the transfer functions used in this
paper and Fig. 2 shows these two families of transfer functions.
Table 1. V-shaped and S-shaped transfer functions [25]
Mathematical formulation
V-shaped transfer functions
√𝜋

1

ALO-V1

√2 2 𝑥 −𝑡2
√𝜋
𝑇(𝑥) = |erf ( 𝑥)| = | ∫
𝑒 𝑑𝑡|
2
𝜋 0

ALO-V2

𝑇(𝑥) = |

𝑥

|
√1 + 𝑥 2
2
𝜋
3
ALO-V3 𝑇(𝑥) = | arctan( 𝑥)|
𝜋
2
S-shaped transfer functions
1
4
ALO-S1
𝑇(𝑥) =
1 + 𝑒 −2𝑥
1
𝑇(𝑥) =
5
ALO-S2
−𝑥
1+𝑒 2
1
𝑇(𝑥) =
6
ALO-S3
−𝑥
1+𝑒 3

2

Figure 2. Transfer functions families (top) v-shaped and
(bottom) s-shaped [25]

3

ICFNDS 2017,, July 2017, Cambridge, UK

Algorithm 1: The pseudocode of the binary ant lion optimizer
Initialize n ants (ant population) randomly
Initialize n antlions (antlion population) randomly
Evaluate each ant and antlion in the two populations
Mark the fittest antlion as Elite
For 1 to max number of iterations
Calculate (I), the radius of random walk of the ant using Eqs. (4), (5)
and (6).
For each antj in the population do
 Select an antlion using RWS (AntRW)
 Apply random walk around AntRW to produce RA
 Apply random walk around Elite to produce RE
 Convert RA and RE from continuous to binary using transfer
functions to produce RW1 and RW2
 Update the position of antj by performing crossover between
RW1 and RW2
End
Update the fitness of all ants
Update the position and fitness of antlion based on the
position of its corresponding ant if it becomes fitter.
Update the Elite’s position if any antlion becomes fitter than
it.
End
Output the Elite antlion and its fitness.

The ALO algorithm starts by generating two random populations
for the antlions and ants. All individuals in the populations are
evaluated and the best antlion is marked as the elite. Until a
stopping criterion satisfied, each ant in the population updates its
position with respect to either the elite solution or the solution
selected by the roulette wheel. Two continuous solutions (RW1 and
RW2) are generated for each ant. Hence, a transfer function is used
to convert them to a binary format by defining a probability of
updating the binary solution’s elements from 0 to 1 and vice versa.
Finally, the position of ant is updated by performing crossover
between RW1 and RW2. If the fitness of the ant becomes better
than that for the corresponding antlion, then the antlion’s position
is updated based on it.
In this study, six transfer functionsare embedded in the ALO. The
three approaches that use s-shaped transfer functions are named
ALO-S1, ALO-S2, and ALO-S3, while the three approaches named
ALO-V1, ALO-V2, and ALO-V3 use v-shaped transfer functions.

4.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION

In this paper, a wrapper feature selection method based on BLAO
is proposed. KNN is chosen as the classifier, and a Euclidean
distance matrix is employed to evaluate the algorithm. Each
algorithm is run 20 times with a random seed on an Intel Core i5
machine, 2.2 GHz CPU and 4 GB of RAM. Eighteen well-known
benchmark datasets from the UCI data repository [29] are used to
assess the performance of the proposed approaches. The details of

M. Mafarja et al.
the datasets including number of attributes and instances are shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. The datasets used in the experiments
Dataset

No. of Attributes

Breastcancer
BreastEW
CongressEW
Exactly
Exactly2
HeartEW
IonosphereEW
KrvskpEW
Lymphography
M-of-n
PenglungEW
SonarEW
SpectEW
Tic-tac-toe
Vote
WaveformEW
WineEW
Zoo

9
30
16
13
13
13
34
36
18
13
325
60
22
9
16
40
13
16

No. of
Objects
699
569
435
1000
1000
270
351
3196
148
1000
73
208
267
958
300
5000
178
101

The proposed methods are compared PSO [26], GSA [27], and two
basic ALO algorithms (coded as bALO1 [6] and bALO2 [6]). Note
that, bALO1 uses an s-shaped transfer function and bALO2 uses a
v-shaped transfer function. The initial parameters and other
experimental setup are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Parameter setting for experiments
Parameter
K for cross validation
Number of runs
Population size
Number of iterations
Problem dimension
Inertia weight for PSO [6]
Individual-best acceleration
factor of PSO [6]
𝛼 parameter in the fitness
function [6]
𝛽 parameter in the fitness
function [6]
G0 for GSA [30]
𝛼 For GSA [30]

Value
10
20
8
70
No. of features in the
dataset
0.1
0.1
0.99
0.01
100
20

All algorithms are compared based on three criteria: classification
accuracy, average number of selected features and the average
computational time.

4

ICFNDS 2017,, July 2017, Cambridge, UK

M. Mafarja et al.

Inspecting Table 3, its evident that the approaches using v-shaped
transfer functions are better than those equipped with s-shaped
transfer functions in terms of classification accuracy (denoted in
bold). This enhancement in performance may be interpreted by the
abrupt switching between 0 and 1 in case of using v-shaped
function that emphasize the explorative behavior of an algorithm.
In addition, it may be seen that ALO-based approaches are better
than GSA and PSO over all datasets. It is worth mentioning that
ALO-V3 approach provides the best results on 11 datasets and
outperforms GSA and PSO on all datasets, while the other proposed
approaches in this work show competitive results on the majority
of case studies.

involved in the searching process with the hope to find promising
areas in the search space.

Table 3 also shows that ALO-based approaches perform better than
PSO and GSA approaches. The reason is that ALO algorithm
contains only one parameter (I) that controls the balance between
exploration and exploitation. This parameter enforces a high level
of exploration at the beginning of the searching process while more
exploitation is imposed at the end of the optimization process. This
is a bonus in avoiding local solutions. Another reason of ALO’s
superiority is its ability to search the feature space for the most
informative features. Each ant is updated based on the best solution
so far (a mechanism to highlight exploitation), and based on a
solution that selected by the roulette wheel (an operator to support
exploration). This gives more chances to the weak solutions to be

Table 4 includes the average number of selected features obtained
from different algorithms when solving the case studies. It is
observed that ALO-V3 shows better performance than other
approaches on the majority of the datasets in terms of the number
of selected attributes. It obtains the minimal number of selected
attributes in eight datasets, while there is no other approach that
could outperform other approaches in more than four datasets. The
same observation can be made when analyzing the average
selection ratio and classification accuracy for the same dataset;
ALO-V3 has the best performance in both of them. The remarkable
increase in the ALO’s results when employing different transfer
functions indicates the important role of the transfer function in
improving the performance of the ALO algorithm.

Table 5 reports the computational time to obtain near optimal
feature subset. Note that we re-implemented the PSO, GSA,
bALO1 and bALO2 algorithms in Matlab and used the same
parameter settings on all datasets to provide a fair comparison. It
can be seen that ALO-V2 approach has the lowest computation
time over 14 datasets. Overall ALO based approaches are better
than GSA and PSO approaches in terms of computational time.
This again proves the superiority of ALO algorithm on the FS
problem.

Table 3. Average classification accuracy obtained from different optimizers
Dataset
Breastcancer
BreastEW
Exactly
Exactly2
HeartEW
Lymphography
M-of-n
PenglungEW
SonarEW
SpectEW
CongressEW
IonosphereEW
KrvskpEW
Tic-tac-toe
Vote
WaveformEW
WineEW
Zoo

ALOS1

ALOS2

ALOS3

0.950
0.936
0.646
0.712
0.742
0.700
0.707
0.745
0.713
0.800
0.909
0.832
0.758
0.684
0.884
0.691
0.857
0.835

0.951
0.938
0.640
0.702
0.739
0.701
0.690
0.739
0.732
0.805
0.911
0.840
0.758
0.666
0.886
0.704
0.886
0.862

0.949
0.936
0.637
0.698
0.732
0.732
0.735
0.750
0.732
0.790
0.902
0.839
0.803
0.655
0.880
0.695
0.877
0.856

ALOV1
0.972
0.975
0.982
0.762
0.838
0.916
0.964
0.827
0.852
0.900
0.980
0.900
0.974
0.779
0.970
0.793
0.971
0.976

ALOV2
0.963
0.954
0.710
0.734
0.793
0.730
0.864
0.730
0.731
0.806
0.940
0.852
0.911
0.766
0.920
0.763
0.921
0.902

ALOV3
0.974
0.974
0.965
0.762
0.838
0.917
0.967
0.827
0.845
0.899
0.981
0.904
0.973
0.783
0.972
0.797
0.972
0.980

bALO1

bALO2

0.951
0.934
0.645
0.702
0.741
0.715
0.711
0.745
0.734
0.796
0.903
0.830
0.786
0.654
0.901
0.676
0.890
0.888

0.973
0.974
0.985
0.762
0.839
0.913
0.969
0.826
0.856
0.898
0.980
0.896
0.975
0.778
0.969
0.791
0.969
0.980

GSA

PSO

0.942
0.940
0.697
0.715
0.761
0.672
0.714
0.630
0.760
0.754
0.913
0.837
0.783
0.666
0.904
0.693
0.864
0.752

0.957
0.945
0.683
0.721
0.790
0.698
0.818
0.666
0.775
0.747
0.931
0.843
0.849
0.706
0.919
0.743
0.930
0.781

5

ICFNDS 2017,, July 2017, Cambridge, UK

M. Mafarja et al.

Table 4. Average number of selected features obtained from different optimizers
Dataset
Breastcancer
BreastEW
Exactly
Exactly2
HeartEW
Lymphography
M-of-n
PenglungEW
SonarEW
SpectEW
CongressEW
IonosphereEW
KrvskpEW
Tic-tac-toe
Vote
WaveformEW
WineEW
Zoo

ALOS1
5.25
16.5
7.95
2.05
8.55
8.15
8.75
140.1
26.1
8.25
7.4
12.55
19.55
4.9
7.95
22.95
7.55
8.05

ALOS2
4.55
17.05
7.75
2.3
8
8.7
8.2
153.75
28
8.9
7.9
13.15
18.25
4.95
7.9
22.35
6.3
7.75

ALOS3
4.45
14.6
7.75
3.05
8.1
8.2
8.4
153.3
27.6
9.25
8.35
14.4
18.75
4.9
6.85
22.35
7.35
7.9

ALOV1
4.35
14.5
6
1.8
7.25
7.15
6.1
135
26.8
6.95
7.15
11.35
16.25
5
6.15
21.6
5.6
5.35

ALOV2
5.6
18.5
11.4
11
8.8
8.45
12.05
156.2
28.6
10.35
9.1
19.55
27.85
8.05
9.5
35.55
7.8
9.8

ALOV3
4.7
13.85
5.75
1.5
8.6
7.35
6
133.1
26.6
7.65
6.65
11.75
16.15
5
6.6
20.5
5.4
5.7

bALO1

bALO2

4.65
16.1
7.7
2.5
8.9
8.4
8.5
146.9
28.1
9.1
7.55
13.5
20.15
4.85
7.2
22.2
7.45
7.3

4.4
14.9
6
1.5
7.45
7.8
6
130.15
26.5
7.25
6.95
11.6
16.9
5
6.65
22.35
6.6
5.5

GSA

PSO

6.85
17.2
7.45
2.7
8.45
9.65
7.5
153
29.7
10.85
7.55
12.9
19.85
5.9
7
27.05
8
6.4

7
15.05
5.75
2.4
7.7
9.2
6
149.4
27
9.65
6.65
10.25
17.1
6
5.75
22.1
7.7
5.85

Table 5. Average computational time (in seconds) for different optimizers

Breastcancer
BreastEW
Exactly
Exactly2
HeartEW
Lymphography
M-of-n
PenglungEW
SonarEW
SpectEW
CongressEW
IonosphereEW
KrvskpEW
Tic-tac-toe
Vote
WaveformEW
WineEW
Zoo

5.

ALOS1

ALOS2

ALOS3

ALOV1

ALOV2

ALOV3

1.75
2.02
2.62
3.03
1.29
1.19
2.67
3.58
1.59
1.34
1.59
1.56
24.33
2.29
1.36
62.78
1.30
1.30

1.69
2.02
2.64
2.93
1.30
1.21
2.71
3.59
1.58
1.33
1.61
1.56
24.64
2.27
1.36
61.89
1.33
1.30

1.69
2.01
2.64
2.91
1.30
1.20
2.71
3.58
1.59
1.34
1.60
1.55
24.48
2.28
1.36
61.79
1.27
1.30

1.72
2.03
2.63
2.46
1.32
1.24
2.74
3.68
1.59
1.36
1.61
1.56
24.56
2.37
1.36
63.25
1.29
1.31

1.57
1.67
2.57
2.25
0.78
0.70
2.54
3.16
1.19
0.87
0.95
1.26
29.53
2.55
0.85
90.10
0.90
0.79

1.73
2.02
2.64
2.48
1.32
1.22
2.72
3.62
1.59
1.36
1.61
1.55
24.49
2.45
1.37
63.29
1.26
1.30

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper, we studied the behavior of BALO with six different
transfer functions dividing into two classes: s-shaped and v-shaped.
The proposed approaches are applied on the feature selection
problems. In order to assess the performance of the proposed
approaches, 18 well-known UCI benchmark datasets were used,
and the results were compared with state-of-the-art approaches. It

bALO1
1.68
2.01
2.65
2.98
1.29
1.20
2.70
3.58
1.58
1.33
1.60
1.56
24.79
2.28
1.36
62.05
1.29
1.29

bALO2
1.71
2.02
2.67
2.46
1.31
1.23
2.70
3.60
1.58
1.36
1.61
1.56
24.89
2.35
1.36
64.15
1.26
1.28

GSA

PSO

3.18
3.58
5.44
5.35
2.30
2.15
5.04
2.54
2.24
2.27
2.89
2.53
46.53
4.22
2.42
116.38
2.01
2.07

3.36
3.62
4.85
4.18
2.33
2.13
4.81
2.49
2.16
2.29
2.82
2.46
44.50
4.58
2.37
113.26
1.99
2.11

was shown that the binary ALO approaches equipped with vshaped transfer functions with their unique method of position
update, significantly improve the performance of the original ALO
in terms of avoiding local minima and results accuracy.
The simplicity and low-computational cost of the presented
algorithms make them suitable to solve a wide range of practical
problems such as the those studied in [31 - 34]. For future studies,

6

ICFNDS 2017,, July 2017, Cambridge, UK

it is recommended to use the binary algorithm proposed in this
wrork for data mining big sensory data sets to reduce the amount of
data to be analyzed while building models with efficient
interpretability using fewer features.

REFERENCES
[1] Liu, H. and Motoda, H. Feature Selection for Knowledge Discovery and
Data Mining. Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston, 1998.
[2] Dash, M. and Liu, H. Feature selection for classification. Intelligent data
analysis, 1, 3 1997), 131-156.
[3] Zhong, N., Dong, J. and Ohsuga, S. Using rough sets with heuristics for
feature selection. Journal of intelligent information systems, 16, 3
2001), 199-214.
[4] Talbi, E. G. Metaheuristics From design to implementation. Wiley
Online Library, 2009.
[5] Valdez, F. Bio-Inspired Optimization Methods. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, City, 2015.

M. Mafarja et al.
[17] Mafarja, M. and Abdullah, S. A fuzzy record-to-record travel algorithm
for solving rough set attribute reduction. International Journal of
Systems Science, 46, 3 2015), 503-512.
[18] Mafarja, M. and Abdullah, S. Modified great deluge for attribute
reduction in rough set theory. In Proceedings of the Fuzzy Systems
and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), 2011 Eighth International
Conference on (2011). IEEE.
[19] Mirjalili, S. The ant lion optimizer. Adv. Eng. Software, 832015), 8098.
[20] Zawbaa, H. M., Emary, E. and Parv, B. Feature selection based on
antlion optimization algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2015 Third
World Conference on Complex Systems (WCCS) (23-25 Nov., 2015).
[21] Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M. and Lewis, A. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv.
Eng. Software, 692014), 46-61.
[22] Emary, E., Zawbaa, H. M. and Hassanien, A. E. Binary grey wolf
optimization approaches for feature selection. Neurocomputing,
172(1/8/ 2016), 371-381.

[6] Emary, E., Zawbaa, H. M. and Hassanien, A. E. Binary ant lion
approaches for feature selection. Neurocomputing2016).

[23] Emary, E., Zawbaa, H. M., Grosan, C. and Hassenian, A. E. Feature
subset selection approach by gray-wolf optimization. Springer, City,
2015.

[7] Kabir, M. M., Shahjahan, M. and Murase, K. A new local search based
hybrid genetic algorithm for feature selection. Neurocomputing, 74,
17 2011), 2914-2928.

[24] Zawbaa, H. M., Emary, E. and Grosan, C. Feature Selection via
Chaotic Antlion Optimization. PloS one, 11, 3 2016), e0150652.

[8] Mafarja, M. and Abdullah, S. Investigating memetic algorithm in
solving rough set attribute reduction. International Journal of
Computer Applications in Technology, 48, 3 2013), 195-202.

[25] Mirjalili, S. and Lewis, A. S-shaped versus V-shaped transfer functions
for binary Particle Swarm Optimization. Swarm and Evolutionary
Computation, 9(4// 2013), 1-14.

[9] Bello, R., Gomez, Y., Nowe, A. and Garcia, M. M. Two-Step Particle
Swarm Optimization to Solve the Feature Selection Problem. In
Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (Brazil,
2007). IEEE Computer Society.

[26] Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In
Proceedings of the Neural Networks, 1995. Proceedings., IEEE
International Conference on (1995). IEEE.

[10] Kashef, S. and Nezamabadi-pour, H. An advanced ACO algorithm for
feature subset selection. Neurocomputing, 147(1 May 2015), 271-279.
[11] Mafarja, M. and Eleyan, D. Ant colony optimization based feature
selection in rough set theory. International Journal of Computer
Science and Electronics Engineering (IJCSEE) Volume, 1, 2 2013).
[12] Zorarpacı, E. and Özel, S. A. A hybrid approach of differential
evolution and artificial bee colony for feature selection. Expert
Systems with Applications, 62(11/15/ 2016), 91-103.
[13] Wang, J., Li, T. and Ren, R. A real time idss based on artificial bee
colony-support vector machine algorithm. In Proceedings of the
Advanced Computational Intelligence (IWACI), 2010 Third
International Workshop on (2010). IEEE.
[14] Mafarja, M. and Abdullah, S. Comparison between Record to Record
Travel and Great Deluge Attribute Reduction Algorithms for
Classification Problem. Springer, City, 2013.
[15] Mafarja, M. and Abdullah, S. Fuzzy modified great deluge algorithm
for attribute reduction. Springer, City, 2014.
[16] Majdi, M., Abdullah, S. and Jaddi, N. S. Fuzzy Population-Based
Meta-Heuristic Approaches for Attribute Reduction in Rough Set
Theory. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,
International Journal of Computer, Electrical, Automation, Control
and Information Engineering, 9, 12 2015), 2289-2297.

[27]Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-pour, H. and Saryazdi, S. GSA: A
Gravitational Search Algorithm. Information Sciences, 179, 13 (6/13/
2009), 2232-2248.
[28] Chuang, L.-Y., Chang, H.-W., Tu, C.-J. and Yang, C.-H. Improved
binary PSO for feature selection using gene expression data. Comput.
Biol. Chem., 32, 1 2008), 29-38.
[29] Blake, C. L. and Merz, C. J. UCI Repository of machine learning
databases. University of California at Irvine, City, 1998.
[30] Han, X., Chang, X., Quan, L., Xiong, X., Li, J., Zhang, Z. and Liu, Y.
Feature subset selection by gravitational search algorithm
optimization. Information Sciences, 281(10/10/ 2014), 128-146.
[31] Hammoudeh, M., Newman, R., Dennett, C., Mount, S., & Aldabbas,
O. (2015). Map as a Service: A Framework for Visualising and
Maximising Information Return from Multi-ModalWireless Sensor
Networks. Sensors, 15(9), 22970-23003.
[32] Hammoudeh, M., & Newman, R. (2015). Information extraction from
sensor networks using the Watershed transform algorithm.
Information Fusion, 22, 39-49.
[33] Hammoudeh, M., Al-Fayez, F., Lloyd, H., Newman, R., Adebisi, B.,
Bounceur, A., & Abuarqoub, A. (2017). A Wireless Sensor Network
Border Monitoring System: Deployment Issues and Routing
Protocols. IEEE Sensors Journal.
[34] Abuarqoub, A., Hammoudeh, M., Adebisi, B., Jabbar, S., Bounceur,
A., & Al-Bashar, H. (2017). Dynamic clustering and management of
mobile wireless sensor networks. Computer Networks, 117, 62-75.

7

