Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 239, Issue 1, pp 135–151 | Cite as

A stochastic local search algorithm with adaptive acceptance for high-school timetabling

  • Ahmed KheiriEmail author
  • Ender Özcan
  • Andrew J. Parkes


Automating high school timetabling is a challenging task. This problem is a well known hard computational problem which has been of interest to practitioners as well as researchers. High schools need to timetable their regular activities once per year, or even more frequently. The exact solvers might fail to find a solution for a given instance of the problem. A selection hyper-heuristic can be defined as an easy-to-implement, easy-to-maintain and effective ‘heuristic to choose heuristics’ to solve such computationally hard problems. This paper describes the approach of the team hyper-heuristic search strategies and timetabling (HySST) to high school timetabling which competed in all three rounds of the third international timetabling competition. HySST generated the best new solutions for three given instances in Round 1 and gained the second place in Rounds 2 and 3. It achieved this by using a fairly standard stochastic search method but significantly enhanced by a selection hyper-heuristic with an adaptive acceptance mechanism.


Timetabling Stochastic local search Hyper-heuristic Restart Scheduling 



This work is supported in part by the UK EPSRC under Grant EP/F033214/1—the LANCS Initiative in Foundational Operational Research: Building Theory for Practice.


  1. Abramson, D. (1991). Constructing school timetables using simulated annealing: Sequential and parallel algorithms. Management Science, 37(1), 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramson, D., & Dang, H. (1993). School timetables: A case study in simulated annealing. In Applied simulated annealing, lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems (Vol. 396, pp. 103–124). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Abramson, D., Dang, H., & Krisnamoorthy, M. (1999). Simulated annealing cooling schedules for the school timetabling problem. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 16, 1–22.Google Scholar
  4. Beligiannis, G. N., Moschopoulos, C. N., Kaperonis, G. P., & Likothanassis, S. D. (2008). Applying evolutionary computation to the school timetabling problem: The greek case. Computers & Operations Research, 35(4), 1265–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bello, G. S., Rangel, M. C., & Boeres, M. C. S. (2008). An approach for the class/teacher timetabling problem. In PATAT ’08 proceedings of the 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling.Google Scholar
  6. Birbas, T., Daskalaki, S., & Housos, E. (2009). School timetabling for quality student and teacher schedules. Journal of Scheduling, 12(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broder, S. (1964). Final examination scheduling. Communication of the ACM, 7(8), 494–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, E. K., Landa-Silva, J. D., & Soubeiga, E. (2005). Meta-heuristics: Progress as real problem solvers, chap. In Multi-objective hyper-heuristic approaches for space allocation and timetabling (pp. 129–158). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, E. K., Curtois, T., Hyde, M. R., Kendall, G., Ochoa, G., Petrovic, S., Rodríguez, J. A. V., & Gendreau, M. (2010a). Iterated local search vs. hyper-heuristics: Towards general-purpose search algorithms. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  10. Burke, E. K., Hyde, M., Kendall, G., Ochoa, G., Özcan, E., & Woodward, J. R. (2010b). A classification of hyper-heuristics approaches. In M. Gendreau, & J. Y. Potvin (Eds.), Handbook of metaheuristics, international series in operations research & management science (2nd edn., Vol. 57, pp. 449–468). Berlin: Springer, chap 15.Google Scholar
  11. Burke, E. K., Gendreau, M., Hyde, M., Kendall, G., Ochoa, G., Özcan, E., et al. (2013). Hyper-heuristics: A survey of the state of the art. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(12), 1695–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chakhlevitch, K., & Cowling, P. (2005). Choosing the fittest subset of low level heuristics in a hyperheuristic framework. In Proceedings of 5th European conference on evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization (EvoCOP2005), lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3448, pp. 25–33). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Chakhlevitch, K., & Cowling, P. (2008). Hyperheuristics: Recent developments. In C. Cotta, M. Sevaux, & K. Srensen (Eds.), Adaptive and multilevel metaheuristics, studies in computational intelligence (Vol. 136, pp. 3–29). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colorni, A., Dorigo, M., & Maniezzo, V. (1992). A genetic algorithm to solve the timetable problem. Technical report. Technical Report No. 90-060, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Corne, D., Ross, P., & Fang, H. L. (1994). Fast practical evolutionary timetabling. In Selected papers from AISB workshop on evolutionary computing (pp. 250–263). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Cowling, P., & Chakhlevitch, K. (2003). Hyperheuristics for managing a large collection of low level heuristics to schedule personnel. In Proceedings of the 2003 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1214–1221).Google Scholar
  17. 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 (pp. 176–190). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. de Werra, D. (1997). The combinatorics of timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(3), 504–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erben, W., & Keppler, J. (1996). A genetic algorithm solving a weekly course-timetabling problem. In E. Burke & P. Ross (Eds.), Practice and theory of automated timetabling, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1153, pp. 198–211). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Filho, G. R., Antonio, L., & Lorena, L. A. N. (2001). A constructive evolutionary approach to school timetabling. In Applications of evolutionary computing lecture (pp. 130–139). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, H., & Thompson, G. L. (1963). Probabilistic learning combinations of local job-shop scheduling rules. In J. F. Muth & G. L. Thompson (Eds.), Industrial scheduling (pp. 225–251). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Hertz, A. (1992). Finding a feasible course schedule using a tabu search. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 35, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobsen, F., Bortfeldt, A., & Gehring, H. (2006). Timetabling at German secondary schools: Tabu search versus constraint Programming. In: Proceedings 6th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling, PATAT2006 (pp. 439–442).Google Scholar
  25. Kannan, A., van den Berg, G., & Kuo, A. (2012). Schedule to personalize learning. Interfaces, 42(5), 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kautz, H., Horvitz, E., Ruan, Y., Gomes, C., & Selman, B. (2002). Dynamic restart policies. In Eighteenth national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 674–681). American Association for Artificial Intelligence: Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Kendall, G., & Mohamad, M. (2004). Channel assignment optimisation using a hyper-heuristic. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE conference on cybernetic and intelligent systems (CIS2004), Singapore (pp. 790–795).Google Scholar
  28. Kingston, J. (2005). A tiling algorithm for high school timetabling. In E. Burke & M. Trick (Eds.), Practice and theory of automated timetabling V, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3616, pp. 208–225). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Lourenço, H. R., Martin, O. C., & Stützle, T. (2010). Iterated local search: Framework and applications. In M. Gendreau & J. Y. Potvin (Eds.), Handbook of metaheuristics, international series in operations research and management science (Vol. 146, pp. 363–397). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Luby, M., Sinclair, A., & Zuckerman, D. (1993). Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms. Information Processing Letters, 47(4), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marte, M. (2007). Towards constraint-based school timetabling. Annals of Operations Research, 155, 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCollum, B., Schaerf, A., Paechter, B., McMullan, P., Lewis, R., Parkes, A. J., et al. (2010). Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: The second international timetabling competition. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 22(1), 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moura, A. V., & Scaraficci, R. A. (2010). A GRASP strategy for a more constrained school timetabling problem. International Journal of Operational Research, 7, 152–170.Google Scholar
  34. Mustafa, M. (2012). Intelligent hyperheuristics: A tool for solving generic optimisation problems. PhD thesis. Belgium: Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
  35. Özcan, E., & Kheiri, A. (2011). A hyper-heuristic based on random gradient, greedy and dominance. In E. Gelenbe, R. Lent, & G. Sakellari (Eds.), ISCIS (pp. 557–563). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Özcan, E., Bilgin, B., & Korkmaz, E. E. (2008). A comprehensive analysis of hyper-heuristics. Intelligent Data Analysis, 12(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
  37. Özcan, E., Bykov, Y., Birben, M., & Burke, E. (2009). Examination timetabling using late acceptance hyper-heuristics. In Evolutionary computation, 2009. CEC ’09. IEEE Congress on (pp. 997–1004).Google Scholar
  38. Özcan, E., Parkes, A. J., & Alkan, A. (2012). The interleaved constructive memetic algorithm and its application to timetabling. Computers & Operations Research, 39(10), 2310–2322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pillay, N. (2010a). An overview of school timetabling research. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2010) (pp. 321–335).Google Scholar
  40. Pillay, N. (2010b). A study into the use of hyper-heuristics to solve the school timetabling problem. In Proceedings of the 2010 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists, ACM, New York, NY, USA, SAICSIT ’10 (pp. 258–264).Google Scholar
  41. Pillay, N. (2012). Hyper-heuristics for educational timetabling. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT 2012).Google Scholar
  42. Pisinger, D., & Ropke, S. (2007). A general heuristic for vehicle routing problems. Computers and Operations Research, 34, 2403–2435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Post, G., Ahmadi, S., Daskalaki, S., Kingston, J. H., Kyngas, J., Nurmi, C., et al. (2012). An XML format for benchmarks in high school timetabling. Annals of Operations Research, 194(1), 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Post, G., Gaspero, L. D., Kingston, J. H., 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).Google Scholar
  45. Raghavjee, R., & Pillay, N. (2008). An application of genetic algorithms to the school timetabling problem. In Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries: Riding the wave of technology, ACM, New York, NY, USA, SAICSIT ’08 (pp. 193–199).Google Scholar
  46. Raghavjee, R., & Pillay, N. (2010). Using genetic algorithms to solve the South African school timetabling problem. In Second world congress on nature & biologically inspired computing, NaBIC 2010, 15–17 December 2010 (pp. 286–292). Kitakyushu: IEEE.Google Scholar
  47. Ross, P. (2005). Hyper-heuristics. In E. K. Burke, & G. Kendall (Eds.) Search methodologies: Introductory tutorials in optimization and decision support techniques (pp. 529–556). Berlin: Springer, chap 17.Google Scholar
  48. Ross, P., Corne, D., & Fang, H. L. (1994). Improving evolutionary timetabling with delta evaluation and directed mutation. In Y. Davidor, H. P. Schwefel, & R. Männer (Eds.), Parallel problem solving from nature, PPSN III, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 866, pp. 556–565). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Schaerf, A. (1996). Tabu search techniques for large high-school timetabling problems. In Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence—volume 1, AAAI Press, AAAI’96 (pp 363–368).Google Scholar
  50. Smith, K. A., Abramson, D., & Duke, D. (2003). Hopfield neural networks for timetabling: formulations, methods, and comparative results. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44(2), 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Valouxis, C., & Housos, E. (2003). Constraint programming approach for school timetabling. Computers and Operations Research, 30(10), 1555–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilke, P., Gröbner, M., & Oster, N. (2002). A hybrid genetic algorithm for school timetabling. In Proceedings of the 15th Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence: Advances in artificial intelligence. Springer: London, AI ’02 (pp. 455–464).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottingham UK

Personalised recommendations