Solving the Examination Timetabling Problem in GPUs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The examination timetabling problem belongs to the class of combinatorial optimization problems and is of great importance for every University. In this paper, a hybrid evolutionary algorithm running on a GPU is employed to solve the examination timetabling problem. The hybrid evolutionary algorithm proposed has a genetic algorithm component and a greedy steepest descent component. The GPU computational capabilities allow the use of very large population sizes, leading to a more thorough exploration of the problem solution space. The GPU implementation, depending on the size of the problem, is up to twenty six times faster than the identical single-threaded CPU implementation of the algorithm. The algorithm is evaluated with the well known Toronto datasets and compares well with the best results found in the bibliography. Moreover, the selection of the encoding of the chromosomes and the tournament selection size as the population grows are examined and optimized. The compressed sparse row format is used for the conflict matrix and was proven essential to the process, since most of the datasets have a small conflict density, which translates into an extremely sparse matrix.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Uses a GPU hybrid evolutionary algorithm to solve exam timetabling; the object is an optimization algorithm.
It develops an algorithm for examination timetabling, not a study of research.
GPU algorithm for university exam timetabling; combinatorial optimization of schedules, not study of research.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".