Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 115–132 | Cite as

Case-based heuristic selection for timetabling problems

Papers

Abstract

This paper presents a case-based heuristic selection approach for automated university course and exam timetabling. The method described in this paper is motivated by the goal of developing timetabling systems that are fundamentally more general than the current state of the art. Heuristics that worked well in previous similar situations are memorized in a case base and are retrieved for solving the problem in hand. Knowledge discovery techniques are employed in two distinct scenarios. Firstly, we model the problem and the problem solving situations along with specific heuristics for those problems. Secondly, we refine the case base and discard cases which prove to be non-useful in solving new problems. Experimental results are presented and analyzed. It is shown that case based reasoning can act effectively as an intelligent approach to learn which heuristics work well for particular timetabling situations. We conclude by outlining and discussing potential research issues in this critical area of knowledge discovery for different difficult timetabling problems.

Keywords

Case based reasoning Course timetabling Exam timetabling Graph heuristics Knowledge discovery Meta-heuristics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amintoosi, M. and J. Haddadina, “Feature selection in a fuzzy student sectioning algorithm,” in Burke, E. K. and M. Trick, (eds.), The 5th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3616, Springer-Verlag 2005, pp. 148–161.Google Scholar
  2. Asmuni, H., E. K. Burke, and J. M. Garibaldi, “Fuzzy multiple ordering criteria for examination timetabling.” inBurke, E. K. and M. Trick, (eds.), The 5th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3616, Springer-Verlag 2005, pp. 334–354.Google Scholar
  3. Beddoe, G. and S. Petrovic, “Determining feature weights using a genetic algorithm in a case-based reasoning approach to personnel rostering,” Accepted for publication in the European Journal of Operational Research, (2005).Google Scholar
  4. Burke, E. K. and M. Carter (eds.), The 2nd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1408. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, E. K. and P de Causmaecker (eds.), The 4th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2740. Springer-Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, E. K., P. De Causmaecker, G. Vanden Berghe, and H. Van Landeghem, “The state of the art of nurse rostering,” Journal of Scheduling, 7(6), 441–499, (2004a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, E. K., D. De Werra, and J. Kingston, “Applications to timetabling,” in J. Gross and J. Yellen (eds.), Handbook of Graph Theory. Chapman Hall/CRC Press 2004b, pp. 445–474.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, E. K., M. Dror, S. Petrovic, and R. Qu, “Hybrid graph heuristics within a hyper-heuristic approach to exam timetabling problems,” in B.L. Golden, S. Raghavan, and E. A. Wasil (eds.), The Next Wave in Computing, Optimization, and Decision Technologies, Conference Volume of the 9th informs Computing Society Conference Springer 2005, pp. 79–91.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, E. K., A. Eckersley, B. McCollum, S. Petrovic, and R. Qu, “Similarity measures for exam timetabling problem,” 1st Multidisciplinary Intl. Conf. on Scheduling: Theory and Applications, Nottingham, UK, Aug 13–16 2003a, Vol. 1, pp. 120–136,.Google Scholar
  10. Burke, E. K. and W Erben (eds.), “The 3rd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2079, Springer-Verlag 2000.Google Scholar
  11. Burke, E. K., E. Hart, G. Kendall, J. Newall, P. Ross, and S. Schulenburg, “Hyper-heuristics: An emerging direction in modern search technology,” in F. Glover and G. Kochenberger (eds.), Handbook of Meta-Heuristics, Kluwer. pp. 457–474 2003b.Google Scholar
  12. Burke, E. K., K. S. Jackson, J. H. Kingston, and R. F. Weare, “Automated timetabling: The sate of the art,” The Computer Journal, 40(9), 565–571 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke, E. K., G. Kendall, and E. Soubeiga, “A tabu-search hyperheuristic for timetabling and rostering,” Journal of Heuristics, 9(6), 451–470 (2003c).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke, E. K., B. L. MacCarthy, S. Petrovic, and R. Qu, “Structured cases in case-based reasoning-re-using and adapting cases for time-tabling problems,” Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(2–3), 159–165 (2000).Google Scholar
  15. Burke, E. K., B. L. MacCarthy, S. Petrovic, and R. Qu, “Case-based reasoning in course timetabling: an attribute graph approach,” in D. W. Aha and I. Watson (eds.), Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2080, 2001 pp. 90–104.Google Scholar
  16. Burke, E. K., B. MacCarthy, S. Petrovic, and R. Qu, “Multiple-retrieval case-based reasoning for course timetabling problems,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(2), 148–162 (2006a).Google Scholar
  17. Burke, E. K., B. MacCarthy, S. Petrovic, and R. Qu, “Knowledge discovery in hyper-heuristic using case-based reasoning on course timetabling,” in Burke, E. K. and P de Causmaecker (eds.), The 4th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2740. Springer-Verlag, 2002 pp. 277–288.Google Scholar
  18. Burke, E. K., B. McCollum, A. Meisels, S. Petrovic, and R. Qu, “A graph-based hyper heuristic for educational timetabling problems,” (to appear) in the European Journal of Operational Research (2006b).Google Scholar
  19. Burke, E. K. and J. P. Newall, “A multi-stage evolutionary algorithm for the timetable problem,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(1), 63–74 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burke, E.K., J. Newall, and R. Weare, “A simple heuristically guided search for the timetabling problem,” in Proceedings of the International ICSC Symposium on Engineering of Intelligent Systems, 1998 pp. 574–579.Google Scholar
  21. Burke, E. K. and S. Petrovic, “Recent research directions in automated timetabling,” European Journal of Operational Research, 140(2), 266–280 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Burke, E. K. and P. Ross, (eds.), The 1st international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1153, Springer-Verlag (1996).Google Scholar
  23. Burke, E. K. and M. Trick, (eds.), The 5th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3616, Springer-Verlag 2005.Google Scholar
  24. Carrasco, M. P. and M. V. Pato, “A multiobjective genetic algorithm for the class/teacher timetabling problem,” in Burke, E. K. and P de Causmaecker (eds.), The 4th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2740. Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp. 179–192.Google Scholar
  25. Carter, M. W., “A lagrangian relaxation approach to the classroom assignment problem,” IFOR, 27(2), 230–246 (1986).Google Scholar
  26. Carter, M. W. and G. Laporte, “Recent developments in practical exam timetabling,” in Burke, E. K. and P. Ross, (eds.), The 1st international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1153, Springer-Verlag, (1996) pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  27. Carter, M. W. and G. Laporte, “Recent developments in practical course timetabling,” in Burke, E. K. and M. Carter (eds.), The 2nd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1408. Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
  28. Carter, M. W., G. Laporte and S. Y. Lee, “Examination timetabling: Algorithmic strategies and applications,” Journal of Operations Research Society, 74, 373–383 (1996).Google Scholar
  29. Chan, P. and G. Weil, “Cyclic staff scheduling using constraint logic programming,” in Burke, E. K. and W Erben (eds.), “The 3rd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2079, Springer-Verlag 2000, pp. 159–175.Google Scholar
  30. Colorni, A., M. Dorigo, and V. Maniezzo, “Metaheuristics for school timetabling,” Computational Optimisation and Applications, 9(3), 277–298 (1998).Google Scholar
  31. Costa, D., “A tabu search algorithm for computing an operational timetable,” European Journal of Operational Research, 76, 98–110 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cunningham, P. and B. Smyth, “Case-based reasoning in scheduling: reusing solution components,” The International Journal of Production Research, 35, 2947–2961 (1997).Google Scholar
  33. Dorn, J., “Case-based reactive scheduling,” Technical Report CD-TR 95/75. Vienna University of Technology, Institut for Information Systems (1995).Google Scholar
  34. Dowsland, K. A., “Off the peg or made to measure,” in Burke, E. K. and M. Carter (eds.), The 2nd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1408. Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 37–52 .Google Scholar
  35. Easton, K., G. Nemhauser, and M. Tick, “Sports Scheduling,” in Leung JYT (ed.), Handbook of Scheduling, Chapter 52. CRC Press LLC (2004).Google Scholar
  36. Erben, W., “A grouping genetic algorithm for graph coloring and exam timetabling,” in Burke, E. K. and W Erben (eds.), “The 3rd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2079, Springer-Verlag 2000, pp. 132–158.Google Scholar
  37. Fayyad, U., G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, and R. (eds.), Uthurusamy, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, AAAI Press, Melo Park, CA (1996).Google Scholar
  38. Foulds, L. R. and D. G. Johnson, “SlotManager: A microcomputer-based decision support system for university timetabling,” Decision Support Systems, 27, 307–381 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gaspero, L. D. and A. Schaerf, “Tabu search techniques for examination timetabling,” in Burke, E. K. and W Erben (eds.), “The 3rd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2079, Springer-Verlag 2000, pp. 104–117.Google Scholar
  40. Han, L. and G. Kendall, “Investigation of a tabu assisted hyper-heuristic genetic algorithm,” in Proceedings of Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC2003), Vol. 3, 2003, 2230–2237.Google Scholar
  41. Kendall, G. and N. M. Hussin, “An investigation of a tabu-search-based hyper-heuristic for examination timetabling,” in Kendall, G., E. Burke, S. Petrovic and M. Gendreau (eds.), Multidisciplinary Scheduling: Theory and Applications, Springer, USA (2005a).Google Scholar
  42. Kendall, G. and N.M. Hussin, “A tabu search hyper-heuristic approach to the examination timetabling problem at the MARA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY,” in Burke, E. K. and M. Trick, (eds.), The 5th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3616, Springer-Verlag 2005b, pp. 270–293.Google Scholar
  43. Kolodner, J. L. and D. Leake, “A tutorial introduction to case-based reasoning,” in Leake, D. (ed.), Case-based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA (1996), pp. 31–65.Google Scholar
  44. Kong, S. C. and L. F. Kwok, “A conceptual model of knowledge-based timetabling system,” Knowledge-Based Systems, 12, 81–93 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leake, D. (ed.), Case-based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA (1996).Google Scholar
  46. MacCarthy, B. L. and P. Jou, “Case-based reasoning in scheduling,” in M. K. Khan and C. S. Wright, (eds.), in Proceedings of the Symposium on Advanced Manufacturing Processes, Systems and Techniques, (MEP Publications Ltd, 1996), 1996 pp. 211–218.Google Scholar
  47. Mantaras, R. L. and E. Plaza,“Case-based reasoning: An overview,” Al Communications, 10, 21–29 (1997).Google Scholar
  48. T-Marin, H., P. Ross, and M. V-Rendon, “Evolution of constraint satisfaction strategies in examination timetabling,” in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 1999 pp. 635–642.Google Scholar
  49. Miyashita, K. and K. Sycara, “CABINS: A framework of knowledge acquisition and iterative revision for schedule improvement and reactive repair,” Artificial Intelligence, 76, 377–426 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petrovic, S. and E. K. Burke, “University timetabling,” in J. Y. T. Leung (ed.), Handbook of Scheduling, Chapter 45. CRC Press LLC (2004).Google Scholar
  51. Petrovic, S., V. Patel, and Y. Yang, “Examination timetabling with fuzzy constraints,” in Burke, E. K. and M. Trick, (eds.), The 5th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3616, Springer-Verlag 2005, pp. 313–333.Google Scholar
  52. Reeves, C. R., “Modern heuristic techniques,” in V. J. R-Smith, I. H. Osman, C. R. Reeves and G. D. Smith (eds.), Modern Heuristic Search Methods, 1996 pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  53. Ross, P., “Hyper-heuristics,” in E. K. Burke and G. Kendall (eds.), Introductory Tutorials in Optimisation, Decision Support and Search Methodology, Chapter 17. Kluwer (2004).Google Scholar
  54. Ross, P., E. Hart, and D. Corne, “Some observations about GA based timetabling,” in Burke, E. K. and M. Carter (eds.), The 2nd International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1408. Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 115–229 .Google Scholar
  55. Rattadilok, P., A. Gaw, and R. S. K. Kwan, “Distributed choice function hyper-heuristics for timetabling and scheduling,” in Burke, E. K. and M. Trick, (eds.), The 5th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3616, Springer-Verlag 2005, 51–70.Google Scholar
  56. Schaef, A., “A survey of automated timetabling,” Artificial Intelligence Review, 13, 87–127 (1999).Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt, G.,“ Case-based reasoning for production scheduling,” International Journal of Production Economics, 56–57, 537–546 (1998).Google Scholar
  58. Scott, S., R. Simpson, and R. Ward, “Combining case-based reasoning and constraint logic programming techniques for packaged nurse rostering systems,” in Proceedings of the 3rd UK Case-Based Reasoning Workshop, University of Manchester, U.K. 9 September (1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Automated Scheduling Optimisation and Planning (ASAP) Group, School of Computer Science and Information Technology, Jubilee CampusUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations