Advertisement

OR Spectrum

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 167–190 | Cite as

A survey of metaheuristic-based techniques for University Timetabling problems

  • Rhydian Lewis
Regular Article

Abstract

As well as nearly always belonging to the class of NP-complete problems, university timetabling problems can be further complicated by the often idiosyncratic requirements imposed by the particular institution being considered. It is perhaps due to this characteristic that in the past decade-or-so, metaheuristics have become increasingly popular in the field of automated timetabling. In this paper we carry out an overview of such applications, paying particular attention to the various methods that have been proposed for dealing and differentiating between constraints of varying importance. Our review allows us to classify these algorithms into three general classes, and we make some instructive comments on each of these.

Keywords

Timetabling Metaheuristics Constraints 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramson D (1991) Constructing school timetables using simulated annealing: sequential and parallel algorithms. Manag Sci 37(1):98–113Google Scholar
  2. Abramson D, Krishnamoorthy H, Dang H (1996) Simulated annealing cooling schedules for the school timetabling problem. Asia Pacific J Operational Res 16:1–22Google Scholar
  3. Arntzen H, Løkketangen A (2005) A tabu search heuristic for a university timetabling problem. In: Ikabaki T, Nonobe K, Yagiura M (eds) Metaheuristics: progress as real problem solvers, vol 32. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balakrishnan N (1991) Examination scheduling: a computerized application. Omega 19(1):37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batenburg KJ, Palenstijn WJ (2003) A new exam timetabling algorithm. In: Proceedings of the Belgian-Dutch artificial intelligence conference (BNAIC 2003), pp 19–26Google Scholar
  6. Birattari M, Sttzle T, Paquete L, Varrentrapp K (2002) A racing algorithm for configuring metaheuristics. In: Langdon WB, Mathias K, Roy R, Davis D, Poli R, Balakrishnan K, Honavar V, Rudolph G, Wegener J, Bull L, Potter MA, Schultz AC, Miller JF, Burke E, Jonoska N (eds) The genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO) 2002. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, New York, pp 11–18Google Scholar
  7. Boizumault P, Delon Y, Peridy L (1996) Logic programming for examination timetabling. Logic Program 26:217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke E, Newall JP (1999) A multi-stage evolutionary algorithm for the timetable problem. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(1):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke E, Petrovic M (2002) Recent research directions in automated timetabling. Eur J Oper Res 140(2):266–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke E, Elliman D, Weare R (1995a) The automation of the timetabling process in higher education. J Educ Technol Syst 23:257–266Google Scholar
  11. Burke E, Elliman D, Weare R (1995b) A hybrid genetic algorithm for highly constrained timetabling problems. In: Eshelman L (ed) Genetic algorithms: proceedings of the sixth international conference (ICGA95). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 605–610Google Scholar
  12. Burke E, Elliman D, Weare R (1995c) Specialised recombinative operators for timetabling problems. In: The artificial intelligence and simulated behaviour workshop on evolutionary computing, vol 993. Springer, Berlin, pp 75–85Google Scholar
  13. Burke E, Elliman DG, Ford PH, Weare R (1996a) Examination timetabling in british universities: a survey. In: Burke E, Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) I, vol 1153. Springer, Berlin, pp 76–92Google Scholar
  14. Burke E, Newall JP, Weare RF (1996b) A memetic algorithm for university exam timetabling. In: Burke E, Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) I, vol 1153. Springer, Berlin, pp 241–250Google Scholar
  15. Burke E, Bykov Y, Petrovic M (2001) A multicriteria approach to examination timetabling. In: Burke E, Erben E (eds) practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) III, vol 2070. Springer, Berlin, pp 118–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burke E, Bykov Y, Newall JP, Petrovic S (2003a) A time-defined approach to course timetabling. Yugoslav J Oper Res (YUJOR) 13(2):139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burke E, Kendall G, Soubeiga E (2003b) A tabu-search hyperheuristic for timetabling and rostering. J Heuristics 9(6):451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burke E, McCollum B, Meisels A, Petrovic S, Qu R (2007) A graph-based hyper heuristic for timetabling problems. Eur J Oper Res 176Google Scholar
  19. Carrasco M, Pato M (2001) A multiobjective genetic algorithm for the class/teacher timetabling problem. In: Burke E, Erben W (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) III, vol 2079. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carrasco M, Pato M (2004) Metaheuristics: computer decision-making, chapter A Potts neural network heuristic for the class/teacher timetabling problem. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 173–186Google Scholar
  21. Carter M (1986a) A langarian relaxation approach to the classroom assignment problem. INFOR 27(2):230–246Google Scholar
  22. Carter M (1986b) A survey of practical applications of examination timetabling algorithms. Oper Res 34(2):193–202Google Scholar
  23. Carter M, Laporte G (1998) Recent developments in practical course timetabling. In: Burke E, Carter M (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) II, vol 1408. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carter M, Laporte G, Lee SY (1996) Examination timetabling: algorithmic strategies and applications. J Oper Res Soc 47:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Casey S, Thompson J (2002) Grasping the examination scheduling problem. In: Burke E, De Causmaecker P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) IV, vol 2740. Springer, Berlin, pp 233–244Google Scholar
  26. Chiarandini M, Socha K, Birattari M, Rossi-Doria O (2003) An effective hybrid approach for the university course timetabling problem. Technical Report AIDA-2003-05, FG Intellektik, FB Informatik, TU Darmstadt, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo V (1991) Genetic algorithms and highly constrained problems: the time-table case. In: Schwefel H-P, Manner R (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN) I, vol 496. Springer, Berlin, pp 55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo V (1992) A genetic algorithm to solve the timetable problem. Technical Report 90-060 revised, Politecnico di Milano, Italy 1992Google Scholar
  29. Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo V (1997) Metaheuristics for high-school timetabling. Comput Optim Appl 9(3):277–298Google Scholar
  30. Cooper T, Kingston J (1996) The complexity of timetable construction problems. In: Burke E, Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) I, vol 1153. Springer, Berlin, pp 283–295Google Scholar
  31. Corne D, Ross P, Fang H (1995) Evolving timetables. In: Lance C. Chambers (ed) The practical handbook of genetic algorithms, vol 1. CRC, Florida, pp 219–276Google Scholar
  32. Costa D (1994) A tabu search algorithm for computing an operational timetable. Eur J Oper Res 79:98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cote P, Wong T, Sabourin R (2005) Application of a hybrid multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to the uncapacitated exam proximity problem. In: Burke E, Trick M (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) V, vol 3616. Springer, Berlin, pp 294–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Daskalaki S, Birbas T, Housos E (2004) An integer programming formulation for a case study in university timetabling. Eur J Oper Res 153:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. De Werra D (1985) An introduction to timetabling. Eur J Oper Res 19(2):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Deris B, Omatu S, Ohta H, Samat D (1997) University timetabling by constraint-based reasoning: a case study. J Oper Res Soc 48(12):1178–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Di Gaspero L, Schaerf A (2001) Tabu search techniques for examination timetabling. In: Burke E, Erben E (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) III, vol 2079. Springer, Berlin, pp 104–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Di Gaspero L, Schaerf A (2002) Multi-neighbourhood local search with application to course timetabling. In: Burke E, De Causmaecker P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) IV, vol 2740. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–287Google Scholar
  39. Dueck G (1993) New optimization heuristics: the great deluge algorithm and the record-to-record travel. J Comput Phys 104:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Elmohamed S, Fox G, Coddington P (1998) A comparison of annealing techniques for academic course scheduling. In: Burke E, Carter M (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) II, vol 1408. Springer, Berlin, pp 146–166Google Scholar
  41. Erben E (2001) A grouping genetic algorithm for graph colouring and exam timetabling. In: Burke E, Erben W (eds), Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) III, vol 2079. Springer, Berlin, pp 132–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Even S, Itai A, Shamir A (1976) On the complexity of timetable and multicommodity flow problems. SIAM J Comput 5(4):691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Falkenauer E (1994) A new representation and operators for genetic algorithms applied to grouping problems. Evol Comput 2(2):123–144Google Scholar
  44. Falkenauer E (1998) Genetic algorithms and grouping problems. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability—a guide to NP-completeness, 1st edn. W. H. Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  46. Garey MR, Johnson DS, Stockmeyer L (1976) Some simplified np-complete graph problems. Theor Comput Sci 1:237–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gislen L, Peterson C, Soderberg B (1989) Teachers and classes with neural networks. Int J Neural Syst 1:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Goltz H-J, Matzke D (1999) University timetabling using constraint logic programming. In: Practical aspects of declarative languages, vol 1511 of Lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 320–334Google Scholar
  49. Guéret C, Jussien N, Boizumault P, Prins C (1996) Building university timetables using constraint logic programming. In: Practice and theory of automated timetabling I (PATAT I), vol 1153 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 130–145Google Scholar
  50. Hertz A (1991) Tabu search for large scale timetabling problems. Eur J Oper Res 54(1):39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt C, Vecchi M (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 4598:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kostuch P (2005) The university course timetabling problem with a 3-phase approach. In: Burke E, Trick M (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) V, vol 3616. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kovacic M (1993) Timetable construction using markovian neural network. Eur J Oper Res 69:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lajos G (1996) Complete university modular timetabling using constraint logic programming. In: Burke E, Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) I, vol 1153. Springer, Berlin, pp 146–161Google Scholar
  55. Lewis R (2006) Metaheuristics for University course timetabling. PhD thesis, School of Computing, Napier University, Edinburgh, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  56. Lewis R, Paechter B (2004) New crossover operators for timetabling with evolutionary algorithms. In: Lofti A (ed) The fifth international conference on recent advances in soft computing RASC2004. Nottingham, England, pp 189–194Google Scholar
  57. Lewis R, Paechter B (2007) Finding feasible timetables using group based operators. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(3):397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Melicio F, Caldeira J (1998) Timetabling implementation aspects by simulated annealing. In: Jifa Gu (ed) IEEE systems science and systems engineering. Beijing. Aceite, pp 553–557Google Scholar
  59. Merlot L, Boland N, Hughes B, Stuckey P (2003) A hybrid algorithm for the examination timetabling problem. In: Burke E, De. Causmaeker P (eds) The practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) IV, vol 2740. Springer, Berlin, pp 207–231Google Scholar
  60. Morgenstern C (1989) Algorithms for general graph coloring. PhD thesis, University of New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  61. Morgenstern C, Shapiro H (1990) Coloration neighborhood structures for general graph coloring. In: Proceedings of the first annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms. San Francisco, California, USA, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, pp 226–235Google Scholar
  62. Paechter B, Rankin R, Cumming A, Fogarty T (1998) Timetabling the classes of an entire university with an evolutionary algorithm. In: Baeck T, Eiben A, Schoenauer M, Schwefel H (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN) V, vol 1498. Springer, Berlin, pp 865–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paquete L, Fonseca C (2001) A study of examination timetabling with multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In: 4th metaheuristics international conference (MIC 2001). Porto, pp 149–154Google Scholar
  64. Petrovic S, Bykov Y (2003) A multiobjective optimisation approach for exam timetabling based on trajectories. In: Burke E, De Causmaecker P (eds) The paractice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) IV, vol 2740. Springer, Berlin, pp 181–194Google Scholar
  65. Richardson JT, Palmer MR, Liepins G, Hilliard M (1989) Some guidelines for genetic algorithms with penalty functions. In: Schaffer JD (ed) The third international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, pp 191–197Google Scholar
  66. Ross P, Hart E, Corne D (2003) Genetic algorithms and timetabling. In: Ghosh A, Tsutsui K (eds) Advances in evolutionary computing: theory and applications. Springer, New York, pp 755–771Google Scholar
  67. Rossi-Doria O, Knowles J, Sampels M, Socha K, Paechter B (2002) A local search for the timetabling problem. In: Burke E, Causmaecker P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT) IV. Gent, Belgium, pp 124–127Google Scholar
  68. Schaerf A (1996) Tabu search techniques for large high-school timetabling problems. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on artificial intelligence. AAAI Press/MIT Press, Portland (OR), pp 363–368Google Scholar
  69. Schaerf A (1999) Local search techniques for large high-school timetabling problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyber Part A 29(4):368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schaerf A (1999) A survey of automated timetabling. Artif Intell Rev 13(2):87–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schimmelpfeng K, Helber S (2007) Application of a real-world university-course timetabling model solved by integer programming. OR Spect 29(4)Google Scholar
  72. Smith K, Abramson D, Duke D (2003) Hopfield neural networks for timetabling: formulations, methods, and comparative results. Comput Ind Eng 44(2):283–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Socha K, Samples M (2003) Ant algorithms for the university course timetabling problem with regard to the state-of-the-art. In: Evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization (EvoCOP 2003), vol 2611. Springer, Berlin, pp 334–345Google Scholar
  74. Socha K, Knowles J, Samples M (2002) A max-min ant system for the university course timetabling problem. In: Dorigo M, Di Caro G, Samples M (eds) Proceedings of ants 2002—third international workshop on ant algorithms (Ants’2002), vol 2463. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  75. Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2:221–248Google Scholar
  76. Thompson JM, Dowsland KA (1998) A robust simulated annealing based examination timetabling system. Comput Oper Res 25(7/8):637–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tripathy A (1984) School timetabling—a case in large binary linear integer programming. Manag Sci 30:1473–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. White G, Chan W (1979) Towards the construction of optimal examination schedules. INFOR 17:219–229Google Scholar
  79. Yu E, Sung K-S (2002) A genetic algorithm for a university weekly courses timetabling problem. Int Trans Oper Res 9:703–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2001) Spea2: improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. Technical Report 103, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff Business SchoolPryfysgol Caerdydd/Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations