Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 252, Issue 2, pp 239–254 | Cite as

Feature-based tuning of single-stage simulated annealing for examination timetabling

  • Michele Battistutta
  • Andrea Schaerf
  • Tommaso Urli
Article

Abstract

We propose a simulated annealing approach for the examination timetabling problem, as formulated in the 2nd International Timetabling Competition. We apply a single-stage procedure in which infeasible solutions are included in the search space and dealt with using suitable penalties. Upon our approach, we perform a statistically-principled experimental analysis, in order to understand the effect of parameter selection on the performance of our algorithm, and to devise a feature-based parameter tuning strategy, which can achieve better generalization on unseen instances with respect to a one-fits-all parameter setting. The outcome of this work is that this rather straightforward search method, if properly tuned, is able to compete with all state-of-the-art specialized solvers on the available instances. As a byproduct of this analysis, we propose and publish a new, larger set of (artificial) instances that could be used for tuning and also as a ground for future comparisons.

Keywords

Examination timetabling Local search Simulated annealing Metaheuristics Linear regression Feature-based parameter tuning 

References

  1. Abramson, D. (1991). Constructing school timetables using simulated annealing: Sequential and parallel algorithms. Management Science, 37(1), 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alzaqebah, M., & Abdullah, S. (2014). An adaptive artificial bee colony and late-acceptance hill-climbing algorithm for examination timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 17, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alzaqebah, M., & Abdullah, S. (2015). Hybrid bee colony optimization for examination timetabling problems. Computers and Operations Research, 54, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellio, R., Ceschia, S., Di Gaspero, L., Schaerf, A., & Urli, T. (2016). Feature-based tuning of simulated annealing applied to the curriculum-based course timetabling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 65, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellio, R., Di Gaspero, L., & Schaerf, A. (2012). Design and statistical analysis of a hybrid local search algorithm for course timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 15(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birattari, M., Yuan, Z., Balaprakash, P., & Stützle, T. (2010). F-race and iterated F-race: An overview. In Th. Bartz-Beielstein, M. Chiarandini, M. Paquete, & M. Preuss (Eds.), Experimental methods for the analysis of optimization algorithms (pp. 311–336). Springer: Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, E. K., Qu, R., & Soghier, A. (2014). Adaptive selection of heuristics for improving exam timetables. Annals of Operations Research, 218(1), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bykov, Y., & Petrovic, S. (2013). An initial study of a novel step counting hill climbing heuristic applied to timetabling problems. In Proceedings of the 6th multidisciplinary international conference on scheduling: Theory and applications (MISTA-13) (pp. 691–693).Google Scholar
  9. Carter, M. W. (1986). A survey of practical applications of examination timetabling algorithms. Operations Research, 34(2), 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter, M.W., & Laporte, G. (1996). Recent developments in pratical examination timetabling. In Burke, E. K., Ross, P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (ICPTAT-95). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1153, pp. 3–21). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, M. W., Laporte, G., & Lee, S. Y. (1996). Examination timetabling: Algorithmic strategies and applications. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 74, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ceschia, S., Di Gaspero, L., & Schaerf, A. (2012). Design, engineering, and experimental analysis of a simulated annealing approach to the post-enrolment course timetabling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 39, 1615–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Gaspero, L., & Schaerf, A. (2003). EasyLocal++: An object-oriented framework for flexible design of local search algorithms. Software-Practice and Experience, 33(8), 733–765.Google Scholar
  14. Dowsland, K. A. (1990). A timetabling problem in which clashes are inevitable. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(10), 907–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glover, F., & Laguna, M. (1997). Tabu search. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gogos, C., Alefragis, P., & Housos, E. (2012). An improved multi-staged algorithmic process for the solution of the examination timetabling problem. Annals of Operations Research, 194(1), 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gogos, C., Goulas, G., Alefragis, P., Kolonias, V., & Housos, E. (2010). Distributed scatter search for the examination timetabling problem. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT-2010) (pp. 211–223).Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton-Bryce, R., McMullan, P., & McCollum, B. (2013). Directing selection within an extended great deluge optimization algorithm. In Proceedings of the 6th multidisciplinary international conference on scheduling: Theory and applications (MISTA-13) (pp. 499–508).Google Scholar
  19. Hammersley, J. M., Handscomb, D. C., & Weiss, G. (1965). Monte Carlo methods. Physics Today, 18, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, D. S., Aragon, C. R., McGeoch, L. A., & Schevon, C. (1989). Optimization by simulated annealing: An experimental evaluation; part I, graph partitioning. Operations Research, 37(6), 865–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jolliffe, I. (2005). Principal component analysis. Hoboken: Wiley Online Library.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lopes, L., & Smith-Miles, K. (2010). Pitfalls in instance generation for Udine timetabling. In C. Blum, & R. Battiti (Eds.), Learning and intelligent optimization (LION4) (pp. 299–302). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Mascia, F., Pellegrini, P., Birattari, M., & Stützle, T. (2014). An analysis of parameter adaptation in reactive tabu search. International Transactions in Operational Research, 21(1), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCollum, B., McMullan, P. J., Parkes, A. J., Burke, E. K., & Abdullah, S. (2009). An extended great deluge approach to the examination timetabling problem. In Proceedings of the 4th multidisciplinary international conference on scheduling: Theory and applications (MISTA-09) (pp. 424–434).Google Scholar
  26. McCollum, B. (2007). A perspective on bridging the gap in university timetabling. In E. Burke & H. Rudová (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT-2006), selected papers. Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 3867, pp. 3–23). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. McCollum, B., McMullan, P., Burke, E. K., Parkes, A. J., & Qu, R. (2007). The second international timetabling competition: Examination timetabling track. Technical report QUB/IEEE/Tech/ITC2007/Exam/v4.0/17, Queen’s University, Belfast (UK), September.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Merlot, L., Boland, N., Hughes, B., & Stuckey, P. (2003). A hybrid algorithm for the examination timetabling problem. In B. Edmund & C. Patrick De (Eds.) Proceedings of the 4th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT-2002), selected papers. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2740, pp. 207–231). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Müller, T. (2009). ITC2007 solver description: A hybrid approach. Annals of Operations Research, 172(1), 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P. J., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G. J., & Tack, G. (2007). MiniZinc: Towards a standard CP modelling language. In C. Bessière (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming CP 2007 (pp. 529–543). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Özcan, E., Elhag, A., & Shah, V. (2012). A study of hyper-heuristics for examination timetabling. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT-2012) (pp. 410–414).Google Scholar
  33. Pillay, N. (2010). Evolving hyper-heuristics for a highly constrained examination timetabling problem. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (PATAT-2010) (pp. 211–223).Google Scholar
  34. Qu, R., Burke, E., McCollum, B., Merlot, L., & Lee, S. Y. (2009). A survey of search methodologies and automated system development for examination timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 12(1), 55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  36. Sabar, N. R., Ayob, M., Kendall, G., & Qu, R. (2014). A dynamic multiarmed bandit-gene expression programming hyper-heuristic for combinatorial optimization problems. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 45(2), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schaerf, A. (1999). A survey of automated timetabling. Artificial Intelligence Review, 13(2), 87–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith-Miles, K. A., & Lopes, L. (2011). Generalising algorithm performance in instance space: A timetabling case study. In C. A. Coello Coello (Ed.), Learning and intelligent optimization (LION 2011). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6683, pp. 524–538). Springer: Berlin.Google Scholar
  39. Thompson, J. M., & Dowsland, K. A. (1996). Variants of simulated annealing for the examination timetabling problem. Annals of Operations Research, 63(1), 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson, J. M., & Dowsland, K. A. (1998). A robust simulated annealing based examination timetabling system. Computers and Operations Research, 25(7), 637–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Urli, T. (2013). json2run: A tool for experiment design & analysis. CoRR, arXiv:abs/1305.1112.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIEGMUniversity of UdineUdineItaly
  2. 2.Optimisation Research GroupNICTA and The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations