Advertisement

Personalized Course Schedule Planning Using Answer Set Programming

  • Muhammed Kerem Kahraman
  • Esra ErdemEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11372)

Abstract

Course scheduling or timetabling is a well-known problem that is generally studied from the perspective of schools; the goal is to schedule the courses, considering, e.g., the expected number of students, the sizes of the available classrooms, time conflicts between courses of the same category. We study a complementary problem to help the students during the course registration periods; the goal is to plan personalized course schedules for students, considering, e.g., their preferences over sections, instructors, distribution of the courses. We present a declarative method to compute personalized course schedules, and an application of this method using answer set programming, and discuss promising results of some preliminary user evaluations via surveys.

Keywords

Course scheduling Answer set programming Declarative problem solving 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers and the survey participants for useful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Aini, I.F., Saptawijaya, A., Aminah, S.: Bringing answer set programming to the next level: a real case on modeling course timetabling. In: Proceedings of ICACSIS, pp. 471–476 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ajanovski, V.V.: A personal mobile academic adviser. In: Daniel, F., Papadopoulos, G.A., Thiran, P. (eds.) MobiWIS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8093, pp. 300–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40276-0_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajanovski, V.V.: Curriculum mapping as a tool for improving students satisfaction with the choice of courses. In: Proceedings of ITiCSE, pp. 76–77 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asín Achá, R., Nieuwenhuis, R.: Curriculum-based course timetabling with sat and maxsat. Ann. Oper. Res. 218(1), 71–91 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banbara, M., et al.: teaspoon: solving the curriculum-based course timetabling problems with answer set programming. Ann. Oper. Res. (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banbara, M., Soh, T., Tamura, N., Inoue, K., Schaub, T.: Answer set programming as a modeling language for course timetabling. TPLP 13(4–5), 783–798 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. ACM Communun. 54(12), 92–103 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming: an introduction to the special issue. AI Mag. 37(3), 5–6 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.T.: Potassco: the potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Comm. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelfond, M., Kahl, Y.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The Answer-Set Programming Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lifschitz, V.: Answer set programming and plan generation. AIJ 138, 39–54 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marek, V., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: Apt, K.R., Marek, V.W., Truszczynski, M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) The Logic Programming Paradigm. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 375–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60085-2_17CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCollum, B.: A perspective on bridging the gap between theory and practice in university timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., Rudová, H. (eds.) PATAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 3867, pp. 3–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77345-0_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25, 241–273 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schaerf, A.: A survey of automated timetabling. AI Rev. 13(2), 87–127 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesSabanci UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations