MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319337692 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2511227/v1

Exam Room Timetabling Using MIP and SMAC

2023· preprint· en· W4319337692 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsScheduleComputer scienceSolverSession (web analytics)Scheduling (production processes)Greedy algorithmMathematical optimizationOperations researchAlgorithmProgramming languageEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> At the end of every academic session, institutions around the world need to schedule final examinations for students. This entails allocating sufficient space for each course that requires it in a manner that minimizes scheduling conflicts for students taking multiple courses. The primary goal is to minimize cost associated with administering these exams-driven by the cost of invigilation staff needed. This paper explores the implementation of an MIP solver (CPLEX) in addition to Sequential Model-based Algorithm Configuration (SMAC) that exhibits potential to replace the current methods-consisting of heuristics and greedy algorithms. The approach produced promising results for both schedule optimality and faster generation, particularly on larger instances. However, due to computational power constraints, there remains a need for further testing on realistically-sized instances.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.117 · 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