The performance analysis of hyper-heuristics algorithms over examination timetabling 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
In general, uncapacitated exam timetabling is conducted manually, which can be time-consuming. Many studies aim to automate and optimize uncapacitated exam timetabling. However, pinpointing the most efficient algorithm is challenging since most studies assert that their algorithms surpass previous ones. To identify the optimal algorithm, this research evaluates the performance of four algorithms: Hill climbing (HC), simulated annealing (SA), great deluge (GD), and tabu search (TS) in addressing the exam timetabling problem. The Kempe chain operator’s influence on optimization solutions is also examined. A simple random method is employed to select the low-level heuristic (LLH). The Carter (Toronto) dataset served as the test material, with each algorithm undergoing 200,000 iterations for comparison. The results indicate that the TS algorithm is superior, providing the best solution in 13 instances. The use of a tabu list enhanced the search process’s efficiency by preventing redundant modifications. The Kempe chain LLH exhibited a tendency towards achieving better solutions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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