Soft Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 12, pp 2279–2292 | Cite as

A greedy gradient-simulated annealing selection hyper-heuristic

  • Murat Kalender
  • Ahmed Kheiri
  • Ender Özcan
  • Edmund K. Burke
Methodologies and Application


Educational timetabling problem is a challenging real world problem which has been of interest to many researchers and practitioners. There are many variants of this problem which mainly require scheduling of events and resources under various constraints. In this study, a curriculum based course timetabling problem at Yeditepe University is described and an iterative selection hyper-heuristic is presented as a solution method. A selection hyper-heuristic as a high level methodology operates on the space formed by a fixed set of low level heuristics which operate directly on the space of solutions. The move acceptance and heuristic selection methods are the main components of a selection hyper-heuristic. The proposed hyper-heuristic in this study combines a simulated annealing move acceptance method with a learning heuristic selection method and manages a set of low level constraint oriented heuristics. A key goal in hyper-heuristic research is to build low cost methods which are general and can be reused on unseen problem instances as well as other problem domains desirably with no additional human expert intervention. Hence, the proposed method is additionally applied to a high school timetabling problem, as well as six other problem domains from a hyper-heuristic benchmark to test its level of generality. The empirical results show that our easy-to-implement hyper-heuristic is effective in solving the Yeditepe course timetabling problem. Moreover, being sufficiently general, it delivers a reasonable performance across different problem domains.


Heuristic Hyper-heuristic Timetabling Computational design 


  1. Abramson D (1991) Constructing school timetables using simulated annealing: sequential and parallel algorithms. Manag Sci 37(1):98–113 Google Scholar
  2. Abramson D, Dang H, Krisnamoorthy M (1999) Simulated annealing cooling schedules for the school timetabling problem. Asia Pac J Oper Res 16:1–22zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alkan A, Özcan E (2003) Memetic algorithms for timetabling. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, CEC ’03, vol 3, pp 1796–1802Google Scholar
  4. Bai R, Kendall G (2005) An investigation of automated planograms using a simulated annealing based hyper-heuristics. In: Ibaraki T, Nonobe K, Yagiura M (eds) Metaheuristics: progress as real problem solver. Springer, Berlin, pp 87–108Google Scholar
  5. Bai R, Burke E, Gendreau M, Kendall G, McCollum B (2007a) Memory length in hyper-heuristics: An empirical study. In: IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in scheduling, SCIS ’07, pp 173–178Google Scholar
  6. Bai R, Burke EK, Kendall G, McCollum B (2007 b) A simulated annealing hyper-heuristic methodology for flexible decision support. Tech. Rep. NOTTCS-TR-2007-8, School of CSiT, University of Nottingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilgin B, Özcan E, Korkmaz E (2007) An experimental study on hyper-heuristics and exam timetabling. In: Burke E, Rudovn H (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling VI. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3867. Springer, Berlin, pp 394–412Google Scholar
  8. Burke E, Kendall G, Mısır M, Özcan E (2012) Monte carlo hyper-heuristics for examination timetabling. Ann Oper Res 196(1):73–90MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke EK, Kendall G, Soubeiga E (2003) A tabu-search hyperheuristic for timetabling and rostering. J Heuristics 9(6):451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke EK, Petrovic S, Qu R (2006) Case-based heuristic selection for timetabling problems. J Sched 9(2):115–132CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke EK, Hyde M, Kendall G, Ochoa G, Özcan E, Woodward JR (2010) A classification of hyper-heuristics approaches. In: Gendreau M, Potvin JY (eds) Handbook of metaheuristics. International series in operations research & management Science, chap 15, vol 57, 2nd edn. Springer, pp 449–468Google Scholar
  12. Burke EK, Gendreau M, Hyde M, Kendall G, Ochoa G, Özcan E, Qu R (2013) Hyper-heuristics: a survey of the state of the art. J Oper Res Soc. doi: 10.1057/jors.2013.71
  13. Colorni A, Dorigo M, Maniezzo V (1992) A genetic algorithm to solve the timetable problem. Tech Rep 90–060, Politecnico di Milano, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowling P, Kendall G, Soubeiga E (2001) A hyperheuristic approach to scheduling a sales summit. In: Selected papers from the Third International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Springer, London, pp 176–190Google Scholar
  15. Crowston WB, Glover F, Thompson GL, Trawick JD (1963) Probabilistic and parametric learning combinations of local job shop scheduling rules. ONR Research memorandum, vol 117. GSIA, Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  16. de Werra D (1997) The combinatorics of timetabling. Eur J Oper Res 96(3):504–513CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Gaspero L, Urli T (2012) Evaluation of a family of reinforcement learning cross-domain optimization heuristics. In: Hamadi Y, Schoenauer M (eds) Learning and Intelligent Optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 384–389Google Scholar
  18. Domrös J, Homberger J (2012) An evolutionary algorithm for high school timetabling. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2012), pp 485–488Google Scholar
  19. Erben W, Keppler J (1996) A genetic algorithm solving a weekly course-timetabling problem. In: Selected papers from the first international conference on practice and theory of automated timetabling. Springer, London, pp 198–211Google Scholar
  20. Even S, Itai A, Shamir A (1976) On the complexity of timetable and multicommodity flow problems. SIAM J Comput 5(4):691–703MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Filho GR, Antonio L, Lorena LAN (2001) A constructive evolutionary approach to school timetabling. In: Proceedings of the EvoWorkshops on applications of evolutionary computing. Springer, London, pp 130–139Google Scholar
  22. Fisher H, Thompson GL (1963) Probabilistic learning combinations of local job-shop scheduling rules. In: Muth JF, Thompson GL (eds) Industrial scheduling. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, pp 225–251Google Scholar
  23. Fonseca GHG, Santos HG, Toffolo TAM, Brito SS, Souza MJF (2012) A sa-ils approach for the high school timetabling problem. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2012), pp 493–496Google Scholar
  24. Hertz A (1992) Finding a feasible course schedule using tabu search. Discrete Appl Math 35(3):255–270MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalender M, Kheiri A, Özcan E, Burke E (2012) A greedy gradient-simulated annealing hyper-heuristic for a curriculum-based course timetabling problem. In: 2012 12th UK workshop on computational intelligence, UKCI 2012Google Scholar
  26. Kheiri A, Özcan E, Parkes AJ (2012) Hysst: hyper-heuristic search strategies and timetabling. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2012), pp 497–499Google Scholar
  27. Lehre P, Özcan E (2013) A runtime analysis of simple hyper-heuristics: To mix or not to mix operators. In: FOGA 2013—proceedings of the 12th ACM workshop on foundations of genetic algorithms, pp 97–104Google Scholar
  28. Lewis R (2007) A survey of metaheuristic-based techniques for university timetabling problems. OR Spectrum 30(1):167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis R, Paechter B, Rossi-Doria O (2007) Metaheuristics for university course timetabling. In: Dahal K, Tan K, Cowling P (eds) Evolutionary scheduling. Studies in computational intelligence vol. 49. Springer, Berlin, pp 237–272Google Scholar
  30. McCollum B, Schaerf A, Paechter B, McMullan P, Lewis R, Parkes AJ, Gaspero LD, Qu R, Burke EK (2010) Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: the second international timetabling competition. INFORMS J Comput 22(1):120–130Google Scholar
  31. Nareyek A (2004) Choosing search heuristics by non-stationary reinforcement learning. In: Resende MGC, de Sousa JP, Viana A (eds) Metaheuristics: computer desicion-making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 523–544Google Scholar
  32. Ochoa G, Hyde M, Curtois T, Vazquez-Rodriguez J, Walker J, Gendreau M, Kendall G, McCollum B, Parkes A, Petrovic S, Burke E (2012) Hyflex: a benchmark framework for cross-domain heuristic search. In: Hao JK, Middendorf M (eds) European conference on evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimisation, EvoCOP ’12. LNCS, vol 7245. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 136–147 Google Scholar
  33. Özcan E, Ersoy E (2005) Final exam scheduler— fes. In: The 2005 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, vol 2, pp 1356–1363Google Scholar
  34. Özcan E, Kheiri A (2012) A hyper-heuristic based on random gradient, greedy and dominance. In: Gelenbe E, Lent R, Sakellari G (eds) Computer and information sciences II. Springer, London, pp 557–563Google Scholar
  35. Özcan E, Bilgin B, Korkmaz EE (2006) Hill climbers and mutational heuristics in hyperheuristics. In: Runarsson TP, Beyer HG, Burke E, Merelo-Guerv’s JJ, Whitley LD, Yao X (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature—PPSN IX. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4193. Springer, Berlin, pp 202–211Google Scholar
  36. Özcan E, Bilgin B, Korkmaz EE (2008) A comprehensive analysis of hyper-heuristics. Intelligent data analysis 12(1):3–23Google Scholar
  37. Özcan E, Parkes AJ, Alkan A (2012) The interleaved constructive memetic algorithm and its application to timetabling. Comput Oper Res 39(10):2310–2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paechter B, Rankin R, Cumming A, Fogarty T (1998) Timetabling the classes of an entire university with an evolutionary algorithm. In: Eiben A, Bäck T, Schoenauer M, Schwefel HP (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature n++ PPSN V. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1498. Springer, Berlin, pp 865–874Google Scholar
  39. Post G, Gaspero LD, Kingston JH, McCollum B, Schaerf A (2012) The third international timetabling competition. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2012), pp 479–484Google Scholar
  40. Schaerf A (1996) Tabu search techniques for large high-school timetabling problems. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI ’96. AAAI Press, USA, pp 363–368Google Scholar
  41. Socha K, Knowles J, Sampels M (2002) A max-min ant system for the university course timetabling problem. In: Proceedings of the third international workshop on ant algorithms, ANTS ’02, Springer, London, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  42. Sørensen M, Kristiansen S, Stidsen TR (2012) International timetabling competition 2011: an adaptive large neighborhood search algorithm. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2012), pp 489–492Google Scholar
  43. Swan J, Özcan E, Kendall G (2011) Hyperion—a recursive hyper-heuristic framework. In: Coello CAC (ed) LION. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6683. Springer, Berlin, pp 616–630Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Kalender
    • 1
  • Ahmed Kheiri
    • 2
  • Ender Özcan
    • 2
  • Edmund K. Burke
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Engineering DepartmentYeditepe UniversityKadikoyTurkey
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.University of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations