Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 58, Issue 11, pp 1494–1502 | Cite as

A tabu-based large neighbourhood search methodology for the capacitated examination timetabling problem

  • S Abdullah
  • S Ahmadi
  • E K Burke
  • M Dror
  • B McCollum
Case-Oriented Paper

Abstract

Neighbourhood search algorithms are often the most effective known approaches for solving partitioning problems. In this paper, we consider the capacitated examination timetabling problem as a partitioning problem and present an examination timetabling methodology that is based upon the large neighbourhood search algorithm that was originally developed by Ahuja and Orlin. It is based on searching a very large neighbourhood of solutions using graph theoretical algorithms implemented on a so-called improvement graph. In this paper, we present a tabu-based large neighbourhood search, in which the improvement moves are kept in a tabu list for a certain number of iterations. We have drawn upon Ahuja–Orlin's methodology incorporated with tabu lists and have developed an effective examination timetabling solution scheme which we evaluated on capacitated problem benchmark data sets from the literature. The capacitated problem includes the consideration of room capacities and, as such, represents an issue that is of particular importance in real-world situations. We compare our approach against other methodologies that have appeared in the literature over recent years. Our computational experiments indicate that the approach we describe produces the best known results on a number of these benchmark problems.

Keywords

examination timetabling large neighbourhood improvement graph tabu search 

References

  1. Abdullah S, Ahmadi S, Burke EK and Dror M (2006). Investigating Ahuja–Orlin's large neighbourhood search approach for examination timetabling. Accepted for publication in OR Spectrum 2006, to appear.Google Scholar
  2. Ahuja RK, Ergun O, Orlin JB and Punnen AO (2002). A survey of very large-scale neighbourhood search techniques. Discrete Appl Math 123: 75–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahuja RK, Magnanti TL and Orlin JB (1993). Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  4. Ahuja RK, Orlin JB and Sharma D (2000). Very large scale neighbourhood search. Int Trans Opns Res 7: 302–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahuja RK, Orlin JB and Sharma D (2001). Multiexchange neighbourhood search algorithm for capacitated minimum spanning tree problem. Math Programm 91: 71–97.Google Scholar
  6. Ahuja RK, Orlin JB and Sharma D (2003). A composite very large-scale neighborhood structure for the capacitated minimum spanning tree problem. Opns Res Lett 31: 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayob M and Kendall G (2003). A Monte Carlo hyper-heuristic to optimise component placement sequencing for multi head placement machine. In: Kasemset C. (ed). Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Technologies, InTech'03, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Institute of Science and Technology and Development, Chiang Mai University: Thailand, pp. 132–141.Google Scholar
  8. Bardadym VA (1996). Computer-aided school and university timetabling: the new wave. In: Burke E and Ross P (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 1153. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp 22–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke EK, Bykov Y, Newall JP and Petrovic S (2004). A time-predefined local search approach to exam timetabling problem. IIE Transactions 36: 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke EK, Newall JP and Weare RF (1996a). A memetic algorithm for university exam timetabling. In: Burke E and Ross P (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1153. Springer-Verlag: Berlinpp. 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke EK, Elliman D, Ford P and Weare RF (1996b). Examination timetabling in British universities—a survey. In: Burke E and Ross P (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1153. Springer-Verlag: Berlin. pp. 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke EK, Jackson KS, Kingston JH and Weare RF (1997). Automated university timetabling: the state of the art. Comput J 40: 565–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burke EK and Petrovic S (2002). Recent research directions in automated timetabling. Eur J Opl Res 140: 266–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke EK, Kendall G and Soubeiga E (2003a). A Tabu-Search Hyperheuristic for Timetabling and Rostering. Journal of Heuristics 9: 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burke EK, Hart E, Kendall G, Newall JP, Ross P and Schulenburg S (2003b). Hyper-heuristics: an emerging direction in modern search technology. In: Glover F and Kochenberger G (eds). Handbook of Metaheuristics, Kluwer: Boston, (Chapter 16), pp 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caramia M, Dell'Olmo P and Italiano GF (2001). New algorithms for examination timetabling. In: Naher S and Wagner D (eds). Algorithm Engineering, 4th International Workshop Proceedings WAE 2000, Saarbrucken Germany. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1982. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 230–241.Google Scholar
  17. Carter MW (1986). A survey of practical applications of examination timetabling. Opns Res 34: 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carter MW and Laporte G (1996). Recent developments in practical examination timetabling. In: Burke E and Ross P (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 1153. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  19. Carter MW, Laporte G and Lee SY (1996). Examination timetabling: algorithmic strategies and applications. J Opl Res Soc 74: 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Werra D (1985). An introduction to timetabling. Eur J Opl Res 19: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Di Gaspero L and Schaerf A (2001). Tabu search techniques for examination timetabling. In: Burke E and Erbens W (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2079. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dowsland KA (2001). Off-the-peg or made-to measure? Timetabling and scheduling with SA and TS. In: Burke E and Carter M (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1408. Springer-Verlag: Berlin. pp. 37–52.Google Scholar
  23. Gendreau M and Potvin J (2005). Tabu search. In: Burke E and Kendall G (eds). Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimisation and Decision Support Techniques. Kluwer Academic Publishers: London (chapter 6), pp 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glover F . (1986). Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Comput Opl Res 13: 533–549.Google Scholar
  25. Glover F and Laguna M (1997). Tabu Search. Kluwer Academic Publishers: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kendall G and Hussin N (2005a). An investigation of a tabu search based hyper-heuristic for examination timetabling. In: Kendall G, Burke EK, Petrovic S and Gendreau M (eds). Multidisciplinary Scheduling: Theory and Applications. Springer Verlag, USA, pp 309–328.Google Scholar
  27. Kendall G and Hussin N (2005b). Tabu search hyper-heuristic approach to the examination timetabling problem at MARA University of Technology. In: Burke E and Trick M (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3616, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 270–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merlot LTG, Boland N, Hughes BD and Stuckey PJ (2003). A hybrid algorithm for the examination timetabling problem. In: Burke E and DeCausmaecker P (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2740. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 207–231.Google Scholar
  29. Petrovic S and Burke EK (2004). University timetabling. In: Leung J. (ed). Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, London, pp 45.1–45.23.Google Scholar
  30. Schaerf A (1999a). Local search techniques for high-school timetabling problems. IEEE Trans Systems, Man, Cyberne 29: 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaerf A (1999b). A survey of automated timetabling. Artif Intelli Rev 13: 87–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson PM and Orlin JB (1989). The theory of cyclic transfer. Working paper OR200-89, Operation Research Center, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson PM and Psaraftis HN (1993). Cyclic transfer algorithm for multi-vehicle routing and scheduling problems. Opns Res 41: 935–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White GM and Xie BS (2000). Examination timetables and tabu search with longer term memory. In: Burke E and Erbens W (eds). The Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2079. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
  35. White, GM, Xie, BS, and Zonjic, S (2004). Using tabu search with longer-term memory and relaxation to create examination timetables. Eur J Opl Res 153: 80–91.Google Scholar
  36. Wright M (2001). Subcost-guided search—experiments with timetabling problems. J Heuristics 7: 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • S Abdullah
    • 1
  • S Ahmadi
    • 2
  • E K Burke
    • 1
  • M Dror
    • 3
  • B McCollum
    • 4
  1. 1.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.De Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  3. 3.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Queen's University BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations