A Genetic Programming Approach to the Generation of Hyper-Heuristics for the Uncapacitated Examination Timetabling Problem
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Research in the field of examination timetabling has developed in two directions. The first looks at applying various methodologies to induce examination timetables. The second takes an indirect approach to the problem and examines the generation of heuristics or combinations of heuristics, i.e. hyper-heuristics, to be used in the construction of examination timetables. The study presented in this paper focuses on the latter area. This paper presents a first attempt at using genetic programming for the evolution of hyper-heuristics for the uncapacitated examination timetabling problem. The system has been tested on 9 benchmark examination timetabling problems. Clash-free timetables were found for all 9 nine problems. Furthermore, the performance of the genetic programming system is comparable to, and in a number of cases has produced better quality timetables, than other search algorithms used to evolve hyper-heuristics for this set of problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it