MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294225733 · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1068

An introduction of preference based stepping ahead firefly algorithm for the uncapacitated examination timetabling

2022· article· en· W4294225733 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ Computer Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)HeuristicPreferenceFirefly algorithmMathematical optimizationParticle swarm optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent times, there has been a growing attention to intelligent optimization algorithms centred on swarm principles such as the firefly algorithm (FA). It was proposed for the continuous domain that mimics the attraction of fireflies to flashing light and has been used in discrete domains via modification. A discrete domain that is a major challenge in most higher education institutes (HEI) is examination timetabling. This article presents a new methodology based on FA for uncapacitated examination timetabling problems (UETP) where the proposed method is an extension of earlier work by the authors on the continuous domain. UETP is considered in this article as it is a university examination timetabling problem, which is still an active research area and has not been solved by FA algorithm as per authors knowledge. The proposed method concentrates on solving the initial solution using discrete FA where it consolidates the reordering of examinations and slots through a heuristic ordering known as neighborhood search. Three neighborhoods are employed in this research, where one is used during the initialization phase while two are utilized during solution improvement phase. Later, through preference parameters, a novel stepping ahead mechanism is used, which employs neighborhood searches built on previous searches. The proposed method is tested with 12 UETP problems where the preference based stepping ahead FA creates comparative results to the best ones available in the literature for the Toronto exam timetabling dataset. The results obtained are proof of concept at the preliminary stage and require further experiments on other educational datasets such as the second international timetable competition benchmark sets. The newly introduced preference based stepping ahead mechanism takes advantage of the current best solution space where it exploits the solution space for better solutions. This paves the way for researchers to utilize the mechanism in other domains such as robotics, etc .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it