University Examination Timetable Optimisation: Analysis, Initialisation, and Effective Heuristic Optimisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In higher education institutions, particularly universities, the task of scheduling examinations is a heavily constrained problem involving the allocation of exams, and corresponding enrolled students, to examination rooms over a limited number of periods. This is commonly performed by heuristic optimisers, as the task is NP-complete. The research work presented in this thesis focuses on examination timetabling with the aim of investigating three main areas: (i) initialising efficient seeded solutions for starting examination timetabling heuristics, (ii) developing a novel genetic algorithm-based examination timetabling optimiser, and (iii) analysing and comparing published works from the literature. The new iterative initialisation algorithm presented here attempts to generate legal and high-quality solutions, to feed into a heuristic optimiser. Subject to satisfying hard constraints, it schedules as many conflicting examinations as possible in the early and late periods of a timetable, whilst managing the soft constraints. The proposed initialisation strategy is empirically verified on problem instances from two different benchmark sets: ITC 2007 and Yeditepe, and compared to a number of popular initialisation approaches. The effectiveness of this approach is also evaluated via incorporation in an exemplar evolutionary algorithm. This thesis also investigates a novel genetic algorithm that incorporates new operators to avoid various types of violations that occur in the exam timetable optimisation task. It utilises the initialisation approach developed earlier in the thesis, as well as specialised operators for search. It is validated on a range of problems and is seen to produce results that place its performance amongst the state-of-the-art. The third area of investigation of this thesis is concerned with issues in the comparison between published works on examination timetabling in the literature. Such comparison is often difficult and can be misleading because results obtained differ significantly in run-times --- even when variations in computational power are accounted for. Consequently, a multi-objective comparison scheme based on (uncertain) Pareto dominance is presented and utilised with the aim of comparing published exam timetabling approaches on the Toronto benchmark sets to identify the (probabilistic) Pareto set of optimisers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".