IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v196y2012i1p73-9010.1007-s10479-010-0782-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monte Carlo hyper-heuristics for examination timetabling

Author

Listed:
  • Edmund Burke
  • Graham Kendall
  • Mustafa Mısır
  • Ender Özcan

Abstract

Automating the neighbourhood selection process in an iterative approach that uses multiple heuristics is not a trivial task. Hyper-heuristics are search methodologies that not only aim to provide a general framework for solving problem instances at different difficulty levels in a given domain, but a key goal is also to extend the level of generality so that different problems from different domains can also be solved. Indeed, a major challenge is to explore how the heuristic design process might be automated. Almost all existing iterative selection hyper-heuristics performing single point search contain two successive stages; heuristic selection and move acceptance. Different operators can be used in either of the stages. Recent studies explore ways of introducing learning mechanisms into the search process for improving the performance of hyper-heuristics. In this study, a broad empirical analysis is performed comparing Monte Carlo based hyper-heuristics for solving capacitated examination timetabling problems. One of these hyper-heuristics is an approach that overlaps two stages and presents them in a single algorithmic body. A learning heuristic selection method (L) operates in harmony with a simulated annealing move acceptance method using reheating (SA) based on some shared variables. Yet, the heuristic selection and move acceptance methods can be separated as the proposed approach respects the common selection hyper-heuristic framework. The experimental results show that simulated annealing with reheating as a hyper-heuristic move acceptance method has significant potential. On the other hand, the learning hyper-heuristic using simulated annealing with reheating move acceptance (L–SA) performs poorly due to certain weaknesses, such as the choice of rewarding mechanism and the evaluation of utility values for heuristic selection as compared to some other hyper-heuristics in examination timetabling. Trials with other heuristic selection methods confirm that the best alternative for the simulated annealing with reheating move acceptance for examination timetabling is a previously proposed strategy known as the choice function. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Edmund Burke & Graham Kendall & Mustafa Mısır & Ender Özcan, 2012. "Monte Carlo hyper-heuristics for examination timetabling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 73-90, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:196:y:2012:i:1:p:73-90:10.1007/s10479-010-0782-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-010-0782-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-010-0782-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-010-0782-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burke, Edmund Kieran & Petrovic, Sanja, 2002. "Recent research directions in automated timetabling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 266-280, July.
    2. S Abdullah & S Ahmadi & E K Burke & M Dror & B McCollum, 2007. "A tabu-based large neighbourhood search methodology for the capacitated examination timetabling problem," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1494-1502, November.
    3. Dowsland, Kathryn A. & Soubeiga, Eric & Burke, Edmund, 2007. "A simulated annealing based hyperheuristic for determining shipper sizes for storage and transportation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(3), pages 759-774, June.
    4. Barry McCollum & Andrea Schaerf & Ben Paechter & Paul McMullan & Rhyd Lewis & Andrew J. Parkes & Luca Di Gaspero & Rong Qu & Edmund K. Burke, 2010. "Setting the Research Agenda in Automated Timetabling: The Second International Timetabling Competition," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 120-130, February.
    5. Burke, Edmund K. & McCollum, Barry & Meisels, Amnon & Petrovic, Sanja & Qu, Rong, 2007. "A graph-based hyper-heuristic for educational timetabling problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 177-192, January.
    6. K A Dowsland & J M Thompson, 2005. "Ant colony optimization for the examination scheduling problem," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 426-438, April.
    7. Massimiliano Caramia & Paolo Dell'Olmo & Giuseppe F. Italiano, 2008. "Novel Local-Search-Based Approaches to University Examination Timetabling," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 86-99, February.
    8. E.K. Burke & J.P. Newall, 2004. "Solving Examination Timetabling Problems through Adaption of Heuristic Orderings," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 129(1), pages 107-134, July.
    9. Michael W. Carter, 1986. "OR Practice—A Survey of Practical Applications of Examination Timetabling Algorithms," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 193-202, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Franck Butelle & Laurent Alfandari & Camille Coti & Lucian Finta & Lucas Létocart & Gérard Plateau & Frédéric Roupin & Antoine Rozenknop & Roberto Wolfler Calvo, 2016. "Fast machine reassignment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 242(1), pages 133-160, July.
    2. Johnes, Jill, 2015. "Operational Research in education," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(3), pages 683-696.
    3. Li, Kunpeng & Liu, Tengbo & Ram Kumar, P.N. & Han, Xuefang, 2024. "A reinforcement learning-based hyper-heuristic for AGV task assignment and route planning in parts-to-picker warehouses," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Kheiri, Ahmed & Özcan, Ender, 2016. "An iterated multi-stage selection hyper-heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 77-90.
    5. Mohammed Al-Betar & Ahamad Khader & Iyad Doush, 2014. "Memetic techniques for examination timetabling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 218(1), pages 23-50, July.
    6. Alejandro Cataldo & Juan-Carlos Ferrer & Jaime Miranda & Pablo A. Rey & Antoine Sauré, 2017. "An integer programming approach to curriculum-based examination timetabling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 258(2), pages 369-393, November.
    7. T. Godwin, 2022. "Obtaining quality business school examination timetable under heterogeneous elective selections through surrogacy," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(3), pages 1055-1093, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. R Qu & E K Burke, 2009. "Hybridizations within a graph-based hyper-heuristic framework for university timetabling problems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1273-1285, September.
    2. Johnes, Jill, 2015. "Operational Research in education," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(3), pages 683-696.
    3. Edmund K. Burke & Yuri Bykov, 2016. "An Adaptive Flex-Deluge Approach to University Exam Timetabling," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 781-794, November.
    4. Turabieh, Hamza & Abdullah, Salwani, 2011. "An integrated hybrid approach to the examination timetabling problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 598-607, December.
    5. Burke, E.K. & Eckersley, A.J. & McCollum, B. & Petrovic, S. & Qu, R., 2010. "Hybrid variable neighbourhood approaches to university exam timetabling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 46-53, October.
    6. Qu, Rong & Burke, Edmund K. & McCollum, Barry, 2009. "Adaptive automated construction of hybrid heuristics for exam timetabling and graph colouring problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 392-404, October.
    7. Mohammed Al-Betar & Ahamad Khader & Iyad Doush, 2014. "Memetic techniques for examination timetabling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 218(1), pages 23-50, July.
    8. Barry McCollum & Paul McMullan & Andrew Parkes & Edmund Burke & Rong Qu, 2012. "A new model for automated examination timetabling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 194(1), pages 291-315, April.
    9. Pillay, N. & Banzhaf, W., 2009. "A study of heuristic combinations for hyper-heuristic systems for the uncapacitated examination timetabling problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 482-491, September.
    10. Zhang, Defu & Liu, Yongkai & M'Hallah, Rym & Leung, Stephen C.H., 2010. "A simulated annealing with a new neighborhood structure based algorithm for high school timetabling problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 550-558, June.
    11. Christine Mumford, 2010. "A multiobjective framework for heavily constrained examination timetabling problems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 3-31, November.
    12. Abdul Rahman, Syariza & Bargiela, Andrzej & Burke, Edmund K. & Özcan, Ender & McCollum, Barry & McMullan, Paul, 2014. "Adaptive linear combination of heuristic orderings in constructing examination timetables," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(2), pages 287-297.
    13. Soria-Alcaraz, Jorge A. & Ochoa, Gabriela & Swan, Jerry & Carpio, Martin & Puga, Hector & Burke, Edmund K., 2014. "Effective learning hyper-heuristics for the course timetabling problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 77-86.
    14. Syariza Abdul-Rahman & Edmund Burke & Andrzej Bargiela & Barry McCollum & Ender Özcan, 2014. "A constructive approach to examination timetabling based on adaptive decomposition and ordering," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 218(1), pages 3-21, July.
    15. T. Godwin, 2022. "Obtaining quality business school examination timetable under heterogeneous elective selections through surrogacy," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(3), pages 1055-1093, September.
    16. Kahar, M.N.M. & 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, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 557-565, December.
    17. Thepphakorn, Thatchai & Pongcharoen, Pupong & Hicks, Chris, 2014. "An ant colony based timetabling tool," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 131-144.
    18. G N Beligiannis & C Moschopoulos & S D Likothanassis, 2009. "A genetic algorithm approach to school timetabling," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 23-42, January.
    19. Sabar, Nasser R. & Ayob, Masri & Kendall, Graham & Qu, Rong, 2012. "A honey-bee mating optimization algorithm for educational timetabling problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(3), pages 533-543.
    20. De Boeck, Liesje & Beliën, Jeroen & Creemers, Stefan, 2016. "A column generation approach for solving the examination-timetabling problemAuthor-Name: Woumans, Gert," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 178-194.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:196:y:2012:i:1:p:73-90:10.1007/s10479-010-0782-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.