Application of Heuristic Combinations in Hyper-Heuristic Framework for Exam Scheduling Problems
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
Examination Timetabling Problem is one of the optimization and combinatorial problems. It is proved to be a non-deterministic polynomial (NP)-hard problem. On a large scale of data, the examination timetabling problem becomes a complex problem and takes time if it solved manually. Therefore, heuristics exist to provide reasonable enough solutions and meet the constraints of the problem. In this study, a real-world dataset of Examination Timetabling (Toronto dataset) is solved using a Hill-Climbing and Tabu Search algorithm. Different from the approach in the literature, Tabu Search is a meta-heuristic method, but we implemented a Tabu Search within the hyper-heuristic framework. The main objective of this study is to provide a better understanding of the application of Hill-Climbing and Tabu Search in hyper-heuristics to solve timetabling problems. The results of the experiments show that Hill-Climbing and Tabu Search succeeded in automating the timetabling process by reducing the penalty 18-65% from the initial solution. Besides, we tested the algorithms within 10,000-100,000 iterations, and the results were compared with a previous study. Most of the solutions generated from this experiment are better compared to the previous study that also used Tabu Search algorithm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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