Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 116–133 | Cite as

A great deluge algorithm for a real-world examination timetabling problem

General Paper

Abstract

The examination timetabling problem involves assigning exams to a specific or limited number of timeslots and rooms with the aim of satisfying all hard constraints (without compromise) and satisfying the soft constraints as far as possible. Most of the techniques reported in the literature have been applied to simplified examination benchmark data sets. In this paper, we bridge the gap between research and practice by investigating a problem taken from the real world. This paper introduces a modified and extended great deluge algorithm (GDA) for the examination timetabling problem that uses a single, easy to understand parameter. We investigate different initial solutions, which are used as a starting point for the GDA, as well as altering the number of iterations. In addition, we carry out statistical analyses to compare the results when using these different parameters. The proposed methodology is able to produce good quality solutions when compared with the solution currently produced by the host organisation, generated in our previous work and from the original GDA.

Keywords

examination timetabling great deluge algorithm scheduling 

References

  1. Abdullah S (2006). Heuristic approaches for university timetabling problems. PhD Thesis, School of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Nottingham, June 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Abdullah S, Burke EK and McCollum B (2005). An investigation of variable neighbourhood search for university course timetabling. In: Proceedings of MISTA 2005: The 2nd Multidisciplinary Conference on Scheduling: Theory and Applications. 18–21 July, pp 413–427.Google Scholar
  3. Abdullah S, Shaker K, McCollum B and McMullan P (2009a). Construction of course timetables based on great Deluge and Tabu search. In: Proceedings of MIC 2009: VIII Metaheuristic International Conference, 13–16 July, Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Abdullah S, Turabieh H and McCollum B (2009b). A tabu-based memetic approach for examination timetabling problems. In: AI-2009 Twenty-ninth SGAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 15–17 December, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  5. Burke EK and Bykov Y (2008). A late acceptance strategy in hill-climbing for exam timetabling problems. In: Proceeding PATAT’08: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, 19–22 August, Universit de Montral, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Burke EK and Carter MW (eds) (1998). Second International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling II, PATAT ’97. Toronto, Canada, 20–22 August, Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1408. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  7. Burke EK and De Causmaecker P (eds) (2003). Fourth International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling IV, (PATAT 2002). Gent, Belgium, 21–23 August 2002, Selected Revised Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2740. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  8. Burke EK and Erben W (eds) (2001). Third International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling III, (PATAT 2000). Konstanz, Germany, 16–18 August 2000, Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2079. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  9. Burke EK and Kendall G (eds) (2005). Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimization and Decision Support Techniques. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke EK and Newall J (2003). Enhancing timetable solutions with local search methods. In: Burke EK and De Causmaecker P (eds). Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT 2002). Gent, Belgium, 21–23 August 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2740. 2740, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 195–206.Google Scholar
  11. Burke EK and Ross P (eds) (1996). First International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Edinburgh, UK, 29 August – 1 September 1995, Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1153. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  12. Burke EK and Rudova H (eds) (2007). Sixth International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling VI, (PATAT 2006). Brno, Czech Republic, 30 August – 1 September 2006, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3867. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke EK and Trick M (eds) (2005). Fifth International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling V, (PATAT 2004). Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 18–20 August 2004, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3616. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  14. Burke EK, Newall J and Weare RF (1996a). A memetic algorithm for university exam timetabling. In: Burke EK and Ross P (eds). Selected Papers from the First International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1153, Springer-Verlag, pp 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burke EK, Elliman DG, Ford PH and Weare RF (1996b). Examination timetabling in British universities – A survey. In: Burke EK and Ross P (eds). Selected Papers from First International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Edinburgh, UK, Vol. 1153. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, pp 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burke EK, Eckersley A, McCollum B, Petrovic S and Qu R (2003). Using simulated annealing to study behaviour of various exam timetabling data sets. In: Proceedings of Metaheuristic International Conference 2003 (MIC 2003), 25–28 August, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  17. Burke EK, Bykov Y, Newall JP and Petrovic S (2004). A time-predefined local search approach to exam timetabling problems. IIE Transactions 36 (6): 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burke EK, McCollum B, Meisels A, Petrovic S and Qu R (2007). A graph-based hyper-heuristic for educational timetabling problems. European Journal of Operational Research 176 (1): 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burke EK, Eckersley AJ, McCollum B, Petrovic S and Qu R (2010a). Hybrid variable neighbourhood approaches to university exam timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research 206 (1): 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burke EK, Hyde M, Kendall G, Ochoa G, Ozcan E and Qu R (2010b). Hyper-heuristics: A survey of the state of the art, School of Computer Science and Information Technology. University of Nottingham, Computer Science Technical Report No. NOTTCS-TR-SUB-0906241418-2747.Google Scholar
  21. Carter MW and Laporte G (1996). Recent developments in practical examination timetabling. In: Burke EK and Ross P (eds). Selected Papers from the First International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT I). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Edinburgh, UK, Vol. 1153, Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, pp 3–21.Google Scholar
  22. Carter MW, Laporte G and Lee SY (1996). Examination timetabling: Algorithmic strategies and applications. Journal of Operational Research Society 47 (3): 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cowling P, Kendall G and Hussin NM (2002). A survey and case study of practical examination timetabling problems. In: Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT 2002). Gent, Belgium, 21–23 August, pp 258–261.Google Scholar
  24. Di Gaspero L and Schaerf A (2001). Tabu search techniques for examination timetabling. In: Burke EK and Erben W (eds). Selected Papers from the Third International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2079. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, pp 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dorigo M, Maniezzo V and Colorni A (1996). Ant System: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B 26 (1): 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dueck G (1993). New optimization heuristics: The great deluge algorithm and the record-to-record travel. Journal of Computational Physics 104 (1): 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eley M (2006). Some experiments with ant colony algorithms for the exam timetabling problem. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 4150, LNCS, pp 492–499.Google Scholar
  28. Eley M (2007). Ant algorithms for the exam timetabling problem. In: Burke EK and Rudova H (eds). Selected Papers from the 6th International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 30 August–1 September, Vol. 3867, Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, pp 364–382.Google Scholar
  29. Glover F (1986). Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Computers and Operations Research 13 (5): 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen P and Mladenovic N (1999). An introduction to variable neighborhood search. In: Voß S, Martello S, Roucairol C and Osman IH (eds). Meta-Heuristics 98: Theory & Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, pp 433–458.Google Scholar
  31. Hussin NM (2005). Tabu search based hyper-heuristic approaches to examination timetabling. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  32. Kahar MNM and Kendall G (2010). The examination timetabling problem at Universiti Malaysia Pahang: Comparison of a constructive heuristic with an existing software solution. European Journal of Operational Research 207 (2): 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kendall G and Hussin MN (2004). Tabu search hyper-heuristic approach to the examination timetabling problem at University Technology Mara. In: Burke EK and Trick M (eds). Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (PATAT V). Pittsburgh, USA, 18–20 August, Vol. 3616. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, pp 199–217.Google Scholar
  34. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt Jr CD and Vecchi MP (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220 (4598): 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCollum B (2007). A perspective on bridging the gap between theory and practice in university timetabling. In: Burke EK and Rudova H (eds). Selected Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3867, pp 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCollum B 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
  37. McMullan P (2007). An extended implementation of the great deluge algorithm for course timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4487. Springer, pp 538–545.Google Scholar
  38. Merlot LTG, Boland N, Hughes BD and Stuckey PJ (2003). A hybrid algorithm for the examination timetabling problem. In: Burke EK and De Causmaecker P (eds). Selected Papers from Fourth International Conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling IV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2740, Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, pp 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petrovic S and Burke EK (2004). University timetabling. In: Leung J. (ed). Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis. Chapter 45, University Timetabling, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis: USA.Google Scholar
  40. Pillay N and Banzhaf W (2009). A study of heuristic combinations for hyper-heuristic systems for the uncapacitated examination timetabling problem. European Journal of Operational Research 197 (2): 482–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Qu R, Burke EK, McCollum B, Merlot LTG and Lee SY (2009). A survey of search methodologies and automated system development for examination timetabling. Journal of Scheduling 12 (1): 55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross P and Corne D (1995). Comparing genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, and stochastic hillclimbing on timetabling problems. In: Fogarty TC (ed). Evolutionary Computing 2. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 993. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, pp 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaerf A (1999). A survey of automated timetabling. Artificial Intelligence Review 13 (2): 87–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silva DL and Obit JH (2008). Great deluge with non-linear decay rate for solving course timetabling problems. Intelligent Systems (IS'08). 4th International IEEE Conference, Varna, Vol. 1, 6–8 September pp 8–11, 8–18.Google Scholar
  45. Thompson JM and Dowsland KA (1998). A robust simulated annealing based examination timetabling system. Computers & Operations Research 25 (7–8): 637–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White GM, Xie BS and Zonjic S (2004). Using tabu search with longer-term memory and relaxation to create examination timetables. European Journal of Operational Research 153 (1): 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society Ltd. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.University Malaysia PahangPahangMalaysia
  3. 3.The University of Nottingham Malaysia CampusSelangor Darul EhsanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations