Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 196, Issue 1, pp 73–90 | Cite as

Monte Carlo hyper-heuristics for examination timetabling

  • Edmund K. Burke
  • Graham Kendall
  • Mustafa Mısır
  • Ender Özcan
Article

Abstract

Automating the neighbourhood selection process in an iterative approach that uses multiple heuristics is not a trivial task. Hyper-heuristics are search methodologies that not only aim to provide a general framework for solving problem instances at different difficulty levels in a given domain, but a key goal is also to extend the level of generality so that different problems from different domains can also be solved. Indeed, a major challenge is to explore how the heuristic design process might be automated. Almost all existing iterative selection hyper-heuristics performing single point search contain two successive stages; heuristic selection and move acceptance. Different operators can be used in either of the stages. Recent studies explore ways of introducing learning mechanisms into the search process for improving the performance of hyper-heuristics. In this study, a broad empirical analysis is performed comparing Monte Carlo based hyper-heuristics for solving capacitated examination timetabling problems. One of these hyper-heuristics is an approach that overlaps two stages and presents them in a single algorithmic body. A learning heuristic selection method (L) operates in harmony with a simulated annealing move acceptance method using reheating (SA) based on some shared variables. Yet, the heuristic selection and move acceptance methods can be separated as the proposed approach respects the common selection hyper-heuristic framework. The experimental results show that simulated annealing with reheating as a hyper-heuristic move acceptance method has significant potential. On the other hand, the learning hyper-heuristic using simulated annealing with reheating move acceptance (L–SA) performs poorly due to certain weaknesses, such as the choice of rewarding mechanism and the evaluation of utility values for heuristic selection as compared to some other hyper-heuristics in examination timetabling. Trials with other heuristic selection methods confirm that the best alternative for the simulated annealing with reheating move acceptance for examination timetabling is a previously proposed strategy known as the choice function.

Keywords

Hyper-heuristics Simulated annealing Meta-heuristics Examination timetabling Reinforcement learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdullah, S., Ahmadi, S., Burke, E. K., Dror, M., & McCollum, B. (2007). A tabu-based large neighbourhood search methodology for the capacitated examination timetabling problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 1494–1502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkan, A., & Özcan, E. (2003). Memetic algorithms for timetabling. In Proc. of the congress on evolutionary computation (Vol. 3, pp. 1796–1802). Google Scholar
  3. Asmuni, H., Burke, E. K., & Garibaldi, J. M. (2005). Fuzzy multiple ordering criteria for examination timetabling. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 3616. Selected papers from the 5th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 334–353). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayob, M., & Kendall, G. (2003). A Monte Carlo hyper-heuristic to optimise component placement sequencing for multi head placement machine. In Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent technologies (InTech’03), Chiang Mai, Thailand (pp. 132–141). Google Scholar
  5. Azimi, Z. N. (2005). Hybrid heuristics for examination timetabling problem. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 163(2), 705–733. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bai, R., & Kendall, G. (2005). An investigation of automated planograms using a simulated annealing based hyper-heuristics. In T. Ibaraki, K. Nonobe, & M. Yagiura (Eds.), Operations research/computer science interface series : Vol. 32. Metaheuristics: progress as real problem solver (pp. 87–108). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bai, R., Blazewicz, J., Burke, E. K., Kendall, G., & McCollum, B. (2007). A simulated annealing hyper-heuristic methodology for flexible decision support (Tech. Rep. NOTTCS-TR-2007-8). School of CSiT, University of Nottingham. Google Scholar
  8. Bilgin, B., Özcan, E., & Korkmaz, E. E. (2007). An experimental study on hyper-heuristics and exam timetabling. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 3867. Practice and theory of automated timetabling VI (PATAT 2006) (pp. 394–412). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broder, S. (1964). Final examination scheduling. Communications of the ACM, 7, 494–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke, E. K., & Newall, J. P. (1999). A multistage evolutionary algorithm for the timetable problem. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation, 3(1), 63–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, E. K., & Newall, J. P. (2004). Solving examination timetabling problems through adaption of heuristic orderings. Annals of Operations Research, 129, 107–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke, E. K., & Petrovic, S. (2002). Recent research directions in automated timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research, 140(2), 266–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke, E. K., Newall, J. P., & Weare, R. F. (1996a). A memetic algorithm for university exam timetabling. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1153. Selected papers from the first international conference on practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 241–250). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  14. Burke, E. K., Elliman, D. G., Ford, P. H., & Weare, R. F. (1996b). Examination timetabling in British universities: a survey. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1153. Selected papers from the first international conference on practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 76–90). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  15. Burke, E. K., Hart, E., Kendall, G., Newall, J., Ross, P., & Schulenburg, S. (2003). Hyper-heuristics: An emerging direction in modern search technology. In F. Glover & G. Kochenberger (Eds.), Handbook of metaheuristics (pp. 457–474). Norwell: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  16. Burke, E. K., Hyde, M. R., & Kendall, G. (2006). Evolving bin packing heuristics with genetic programming. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 4193. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN 2006), Reykjavik, Iceland (pp. 860–869). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burke, E. K., Hyde, M. R., Kendall, G., & Woodward, J. (2007a). Automatic heuristic generation with genetic programming: evolving a jack-of-all-trades or a master of one. In GECCO ’07: proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation (pp. 1559–1565). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1276958.1277273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burke, E. K., McCollum, B., Meisels, A., Petrovic, S., & Qu, R. (2007b). A graph-based hyper-heuristic for educational timetabling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 176(1), 177–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Caramia, M., Dell’Olmo, P., & Italiano, G. F. (2001). New algorithms for examination timetabling. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1982. WAE ’00: the 4th international workshop on algorithm engineering (pp. 230–242). London: Springer. Google Scholar
  20. Caramia, M., Dellolmo, P., & Italiano, G. F. (2008). Novel local search-based approaches to university examination timetabling. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 20(1), 86–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carter, M. W. (1986). A survey of practical applications of examination timetabling algorithms. Operations Research Society of America, 34(2), 193–202. Google Scholar
  22. Carter, M. W., & Laporte, G. (1996). Recent developments in practical examination timetabling. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1153. Selected papers from the first international conference on practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 373–383). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  23. Carter, M. W., Laporte, G., & Lee, S. (1996). Examination timetabling: Algorithmic strategies and applications. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(3), 373–383. Google Scholar
  24. Cerny, V. (1985). Thermodynamical approach to the traveling salesman problem: An efficient simulation algorithm. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 45(1), 41–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cole, A. J. (1964). The preparation of examination timetables using a small-store computer. The Computer Journal, 7, 117–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Corne, D., Ross, P., & Fang, H. L. (1994). Fast practical evolutionary timetabling. In Selected papers from AISB workshop on evolutionary computing (pp. 250–263). Google Scholar
  27. Corr, P. H., McCollum, B., McGreevy, M.A.J., & McMullan, P. (2006). A new neural network based construction heuristic for the examination timetabling problem. In Parallel problem solving from nature—PPSN IX (pp. 392–401). Google Scholar
  28. Cowling, P., Kendall, G., & Soubeiga, E. (2001a). A hyperheuristic approach to scheduling a sales summit. In PATAT ’00: selected papers from the third international conference on practice and theory of automated timetabling III (pp. 176–190). London: Springer. Google Scholar
  29. Cowling, P., Kendall, G., & Soubeiga, E. (2001b). A parameter-free hyperheuristic for scheduling a sales summit. In Proceedings of the 4th metaheuristic international conference (pp. 127–131). Google Scholar
  30. Cowling, P., Kendall, G., & Soubeiga, E. (2002). Hyperheuristics: A tool for rapid prototyping in scheduling and optimisation. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 4193. EvoWorkShops (pp. 1–10). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  31. Dowsland, K., & Thompson, J. (2005). Ant colony optimization for the examination scheduling problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(4), 426–438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dowsland, K. A., Soubeiga, E., & Burke, E. (2007). A simulated annealing based hyperheuristic for determining shipper sizes for storage and transportation. European Journal of Operational Research, 179(3), 759–774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eley, M. (2006). Ant algorithms for the exam timetabling problem. In Proc. of the 5th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 364–382). Google Scholar
  34. Ergul, A. (1996). Ga-based examination scheduling experience at middle east technical university. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 212–226). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ersoy, E., Özcan, E., & Uyar, S. (2007). Memetic algorithms and hyperhill-climbers. In Proc. of the 3rd multidisciplinary int. conf. on scheduling: theory and applications (MISTA’07) (pp. 159–166). Google Scholar
  36. Even, S., Itai, A., & Shamir, A. (1976). On the complexity of timetable and multicommodity flow problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 5(4), 691–703. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gaspero, L. D., & Schaerf, A. (2001). Tabu search techniques for examination timetabling. In E. K. Burke & W. Erben (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 2079. Third international conference on practice and theory of automated timetabling, PATAT2000 (pp. 104–117). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gogos, C., Alefragis, P., & Housos, E. (2010). An improved multi-staged algorithmic process for the solution of the examination timetabling problem. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-010-0712-3. Google Scholar
  39. Goldberg, DE (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  40. Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., & Moore, A. W. (1996). Reinforcement learning: a survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4, 237–285. Google Scholar
  41. Kendall, G., & Hussin, N. M. (2005). A tabu search hyper-heuristic approach to the examination timetabling problem at the Mara University of Technology. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 3616. Practice and theory of automated timetabling V (pp. 270–293). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220, 671–680. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krasnogor, N., & Gustafson, S. (2004). A study on the use of ‘self-generation’ in memetic algorithms. Natural Computing, 3(1), 53–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leighton, F. T. (1979). A graph coloring algorithm for large scheduling problems. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 84, 489–506. Google Scholar
  45. Lundy, M., & Mees, A. (1986). Convergence of an annealing algorithm. Mathematical Programming, 34, 111–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marin, H. T. (1998). Combinations of ga and csp strategies for solving the examination timetabling problem (PhD thesis). Instituto Technologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey. Google Scholar
  47. McCollum, B. (2006). University timetabling: Bridging the gap between research and practice. In Proc. of the 5th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 15–35). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  48. McCollum, B., Schaerf, A., Paechter, B., McMullan, P., Lewis, R., Parkes, A. J., Gaspero, L., Qu, R., & Burke, E. K. (2010). Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: the second international timetabling competition. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 22, 120–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merlot, L. T., Boland, N., Hughes, B. D., & Stuckey, P. J. (2003). A hybrid algorithm for the examination timetabling problem. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV, PATAT 2002 (pp. 207–231). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Müller, T. (2009). Itc2007 solver description: A hybrid approach. Annals of Operations Research, 172(1), 429–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nareyek, A. (2003). Choosing search heuristics by non-stationary reinforcement learning. In M. G. C. Resende & J. P. de Sousa (Eds.), Metaheuristics: computer decision-making (pp. 523–544). Norwell: Kluwer Academic, Chap. 9. Google Scholar
  52. Ong, Y. S., Lim, M. H., Zhu, N., & Wong, K. W. (2006). Classification of adaptive memetic algorithms: a comparative study. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B, 36(1), 141–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Özcan, E., & Alkan, A. (2007). A memetic algorithm for solving a timetabling problem: An incremental strategy. In: P. Baptiste, G. Kendall, A.M. Kordon & F. Sourd (Eds.), Proc. of the 3rd multidisciplinary int. conf. on scheduling: theory and applications (pp. 394–401). Google Scholar
  54. Özcan, E., & Ersoy, E. (2005). Final exam scheduler—fes. In Proc. of the congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1356–1363). New York: IEEE Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Özcan, E., Bilgin, B., & Korkmaz, E. E. (2006). Hill climbers and mutational heuristics in hyperheuristics. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 4193. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN 2006), Reykjavik, Iceland (pp. 202–211). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Özcan, E., Bilgin, B., & Korkmaz, E. E. (2008). A comprehensive survey of hyperheuristics. Intelligent Data Analysis, 12(1), 3–23. Google Scholar
  57. Paquete, L. F., & Fonseca, C. M. (2001). A study of examination timetabling with multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In Proc. of the 4th metaheuristics international conference (MIC 2001) (pp. 149–154). Google Scholar
  58. Petrovic, S., Patel, V., & Yang, Y. (2005). Examination timetabling with fuzzy constraints. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 3616. The 5th int. conf. on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 313–333). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Petrovic, S., Yang, Y., & Dror, M. (2007). Case-based selection of initialisation heuristics for metaheuristic examination timetabling. Expert Systems with Applications, 33(3), 772–785. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Qu, R., Burke, E. K., McCollum, B., Merlot, L., & Lee, S. (2009). A survey of search methodologies and automated system development for examination timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 12(1), 55–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ross, P., Corne, D., & Fang, H. L. (1994). Improving evolutionary timetabling with delta evaluation and directed mutation. In PPSN III: proceedings of the international conference on evolutionary computation. The third conference on parallel problem solving from nature (pp. 556–565). London: Springer. Google Scholar
  62. Schaerf, A. (1999). A survey of automated timetabling. Artificial Intelligence Review, 13(2), 87–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schaerf, A. & Gaspero, L.D. (2006). Measurability and reproducibility in timetabling research: State-of the-art and discussion (invited paper). In Proc. of the 6th int. conf. on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 53–62). Google Scholar
  64. Wong, T., Cote, P., & Gely, P. (2002). Final exam timetabling: a practical approach. In Proc. of the IEEE canadian conference on electrical and computer engineering (Vol. 2, pp. 726–731). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmund K. Burke
    • 1
  • Graham Kendall
    • 1
  • Mustafa Mısır
    • 2
  • Ender Özcan
    • 1
  1. 1.Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group, School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringYeditepe UniversityKadikoy, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations