Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complex university course timetabling

  • Published:
Journal of Scheduling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper summarizes the work done to solve a complex course timetabling problem at a large university and provides new insights into the overall timetabling process. The first step in the successful solution of this problem was to define a course structure model that allowed application of classical course timetabling methods. Several methods were necessary to solve the complete problem. First, support procedures were needed to detect and correct an infeasible problem where hard constraints were being violated. The resulting timetabling problem was then solved via a search for a complete assignment of times and rooms to classes, taking all hard and soft constraints into account. Methods were also developed for modifying a computed solution in response to changes introduced at a later time while having a minimal impact on existing assignments.

These problems are described formally using a weighted constraint satisfaction model of the timetabling problem and solutions are proposed through two types of the algorithms: (1) generic iterative forward search with conflict-based statistics, and (2) branch and bound. Experimental results from the course timetabling system developed for Purdue University are provided. These include solutions computed by university schedulers using the system for two separate terms along with extensive experiments solving two central and six departmental problems, individually, and as a combined problem with almost 2,500 classes. The system described is currently used on all of the many varied course timetabling problems encountered each term at Purdue University.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdennadher, S., & Marte, M. (2000). University course timetabling using constraint handling rules. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14(4), 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubin, J., & Ferland, J. A. (1989). A large scale timetabling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 16(1), 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avella, P., & Vasil’ev, I. (2005). A computational study of a cutting plane algorithm for university course timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 8, 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, D., van Beek, P., & Meisels, A. (1998). A heuristic incremental modeling approach to course timetabling. In LNCS : Vol. 1418. Proceedings of the 12th biennial conference of the Canadian society for computational studies of intelligence on advances in artificial intelligence (pp. 16–29). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baptiste, P., & Le Pape, C. (1995). A theoretical and experimental comparison of constraint propagation techniques for disjunctive scheduling. In C. S. Mellish (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 600–606). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barták, R., Müller, T., & Rudová, H. (2004). A new approach to modeling and solving minimal perturbation problems. In LNAI : Vol. 3010. Recent advances in constraints (pp. 233–249). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bessiere, C. (2006). Constraint propagation. In F. Rossi et al. (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming (pp. 29–83). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beyrouthy, C., Burke, E. K., McCollum, B., Landa-Silva, D., McMullan, P., & Parkes, A. J. (2007). The teaching space allocation problem with splitting. In E. Burke & H. Rudová (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 3867. Practice and theory of automated timetabling VI (pp. 228–247). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beyrouthy, C., Burke, E. K., Landa-Silva, D., McCollum, B., McMullan, P., & Parkes, A. J. (2009). Towards improving the utilisation of university teaching space. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60, 130–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., & Rossi, F. (1997). Semiring-based constraint solving and optimization. Journal of the ACM, 44(2), 201–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. N., & Miguel, I. (2006). Uncertainty and change. In F. Rossi et al. (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming (pp. 731–760). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brucker, P., & Knust, S. (2001). Resource-constrained project scheduling and timetabling. In E. Burke & W. Erben (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 2079. Practice and theory of automated timetabling III (pp. 277–293). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E., & Carter M. (Eds.) (1998). LNCS : Vol. 1408. Practice and theory of automated timetabling II. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E., & De Causmaecker, P. (Eds.) (2003). LNCS : Vol. 2740. Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E., & Erben, W. (Eds.) (2001). LNCS : Vol. 2079. Practice and theory of automated timetabling III. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E., & Gendreau, M. (Eds.) (2008). 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E., & Ross, P. (Eds.) (1996). LNCS : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E., & Rudová, H. (Eds.) (2007). LNCS : Vol. 3867. Practice and theory of automated timetabling VI. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E., & Trick, M. (Eds.) (2005). LNCS : Vol. 3616. Practice and theory of automated timetabling V. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, E. K., & Petrovic, S. (2002). Recent research directions in automated timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research, 140, 266–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cambazard, H., Demazeau, F., Jussien, N., & David, P. (2005). Interactively solving school timetabling problems using extensions of constraint programming. In E. Burke & M. Trick (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 3616. Practice and theory of automated timetabling V (pp. 190–207). Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cambazard, H., Hebrard, E., O’Sullivan, B., & Papadopoulos, A. (2008). Local search and constraint programming for the post-enrolment-based course timetabling problem. In E. Burke & M. Gendreau (Eds.), 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M. W. (2001). A comprehensive course timetabling and student scheduling system at the University of Waterloo. In E. Burke & W. Erben (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 2079. Practice and theory of automated timetabling III (pp. 64–82). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M. W., & Laporte, G. (1998). Recent developments in practical course timetabling. In E. Burke & M. Carter (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 1408. Practice and theory of automated timetabling II (pp. 3–19). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caseau, Y., & Laburthe, F. (1996). Cumulative scheduling with task intervals. In M. Maher (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 joint international conference and symposium on logic programming (pp. 363–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Causmaecker, P., Demeester, P., & Vanden Berghe, G. (2009). A decomposed metaheuristic approach for a real-world university timetabling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(1), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheadle, A. M., Harvey, W., Sadler, A. J., Schimpf, J., Shen, K., & Wallace, M. G. (2003). ECL i PS e : A tutorial introduction (Technical Report IC-Parc-03-1). IC-Parc, Imperial College London.

  • Chiarandini, M., Birattari, M., Socha, K., & Rossi-Doria, O. (2006). An effective hybrid algorithm for university course timetabling. Journal of Scheduling, 9(6), 403–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarandini, M., Fawcett, C., & Hoos, H. H. (2008). A modular multiphase heuristic solver for post enrolment course timetabling. In E. Burke & M. Gendreau (Eds.), 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debruyne, R., & Bessière, C. (2001). Domain filtering consistencies. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 14, 205–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechter, R., & Frost, D. (2002). Backjump-based backtracking for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 136(2), 147–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gaspero, L., & Schaerf, A. (2006). Neighborhood portfolio approach for local search applied to timetabling problems. Journal of Mathematical Modeling and Algorithms, 5(1), 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gaspero, L., McCollum, B., & Schaerf, A. (2007). The second international timetabling competition (ITC-2007): Curriculum-based course timetabling (track 3) (Technical Report QUB/IEEE/Tech/ITC2007/CurriculumCTT/v1.0). University, Belfast, United Kingdom.

  • El Sakkout, H., & Wallace, M. (2000). Probe backtrack search for minimal perturbation in dynamic scheduling. Constraints, 4(5), 359–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Sakkout, H., Richards, T., & Wallace, M. (1998). Minimal perturbation in dynamic scheduling. In H. Prade (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-98) (pp. 504–508). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkhyari, A., Guéret, C., & Jussien, N. (2003). Solving dynamic timetabling problems as dynamic resource constrained project scheduling problems using new constraint programming tools. In E. Burke & P. De Causmaecker (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 2740. Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV (pp. 39–59). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freuder, E. C., & Wallace, R. J. (1992). Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 58, 21–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, M. L. (1993). Dynamic backtracking. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéret, C., Jussien, N., Boizumault, P., & Prins, C. (1996). Building university timetables using constraint logic programming. In E. Burke & P. Ross (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 130–145). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henz, M., & Würtz, J. (1996). Using Oz for college timetabling. In E. Burke & P. Ross (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 162–177). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertz, A. (1991). Tabu search for large scale timetabling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 54(1), 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jussien, N., & Lhomme, O. (2002). Local search with constraint propagation and conflict-based heuristics. Artificial Intelligence, 139(1), 21–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostuch, P. (2005). The university course timetabling problem with a 3-phase approach. In E. Burke & M. Trick (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 3616. Practice and theory of automated timetabling V (pp. 109–125). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lajos, G. (1996). Complete university modular timetabling using constraint logic programming. In E. Burke & P. Ross (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 146–161). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrosa, J., & Schiex, T. (2004). Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artificial Intelligence, 159(1–2), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. (2008a). A time-dependent metaheuristic algorithm for Track-2 of the second international timetabling competition. In E. Burke & M. Gendreau (Eds.), 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. (2008b). A survey of metaheuristic-based techniques for university timetabling problems. OR Spectrum, 30(1), 167–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R., Paechter, B., & McCollum, B. (2007). Post enrolment based course timetabling: A description of the problem model used for track two of the second international timetabling competition (Cardiff Working Papers in Accounting and Finance A2007-3). Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University.

  • Mackworth, A. K. (1977). Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, A., Nothegger, C., Chwatal, A., & Raidl, G. R. (2008). Solving the post enrolment course timetabling problem by ant colony optimization. In Burke, E. & Gendreau, M. (Eds.), 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCollum, B. (2007). A perspective on bridging the gap between theory and practice in university timetabling. In E. Burke & H. Rudová (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 3867. Practice and theory of automated timetabling VI (pp. 3–23). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCollum, B., Schaerf, A., Paechter, B., McMullan, P., Lewis, R., Parkes, A. J., Di Gaspero, L., Qu, R., & Burke, E. K. (2010). Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: The second international timetabling competition. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 22, 120–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minton, S., Johnston, M. D., Philips, A. B., & Laird, P. (1992). Minimizing conflicts: a heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems. Artificial Intelligence, 58, 161–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T. (2005). Constraint-based timetabling. PhD thesis, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics.

  • Müller, T. (2009). ITC2007 solver description: A hybrid approach. Annals of Operations Research, 172(1), 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T., & Barták, R. (2002). Interactive timetabling: Concepts, techniques, and practical results. In E. Burke & P. De Causmaecker (Eds.), PATAT 2002—Proceedings of the 4th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 58–72).

  • Müller, T., & Murray, K. (2008). Comprehensive approach to student sectioning. In E. Burke & M. Gendreau (Eds.), 7th international conference on the practice and theory of automated timetabling. Montréal: Université de Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T., Barták, R., & Rudová, H. (2004). Conflict-based statistics. In J. Gottlieb, D. Landa-Silva, N. Musliu, & E. Soubeiga (Eds.), EU/ME workshop on design and evaluation of advanced hybrid meta-heuristics. University of Nottingham.

  • Müller, T., Barták, R., & Rudová, H. (2005). Minimal perturbation problem in course timetabling. In E. Burke & M. Trick (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 3616. Practice and theory of automated timetabling V (pp. 126–146). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K., Müller, T., & Rudová, H. (2007). Modeling and solution of a complex university course timetabling problem. In E. Burke & H. Rudová (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 3867. Practice and theory of automated timetabling VI (pp. 189–209). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ouelhadj, D., Petrovic, S., & Qu, R. (2009). A survey of dynamic scheduling in manufacturing systems. Journal of Scheduling, 12(4), 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrovic, S., & Burke, E. K. (2004). University timetabling. In J. Y.-T. Leung (Ed.), The handbook of scheduling: algorithms, models, and performance analysis. New York: CRC Press, Chap. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piechowiak, S., Ma, J., & Mandiau, R. (2005). An open interactive timetabling tool. In E. Burke & M. Trick (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 3616. Practice and theory of automated timetabling V (pp. 34–50). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Régin, J.-C. (1994). A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in CSPs. In Proceedings of the eleventh national conference on artificial intelligence and the eighth innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (pp. 362–367). Cambridge: AAAI Press/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, V., & Hertz, A. (1996). How to decompose constrained course scheduling problems into easier assignment type subproblems. In E. Burke & P. Ross (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 1153. Practice and theory of automated timetabling (pp. 364–373). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, F., van Beek, P., & Walsh, T. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of constraint programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudová, H., & Murray, K. (2003). University course timetabling with soft constraints. In E. Burke & P. De Causmaecker (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 2740. Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV (pp. 310–328). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, S. E., Freeland, J. R., & Weiss, E. N. (1995). Class scheduling to maximize participant satisfaction. Interfaces, 25(3), 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaerf, A. (1999). A survey of automated timetabling. Articifial Intelligence Review, 13(2), 87–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiex, T., Fargier, H., & Verfaillie, G. (1995). Valued constraint satisfaction problems: Hard and easy problems. In C. S. Mellish (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 631–639). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelpfeng, K., & Helberg, S. (2007). Application of a real-world university-course timetabling model solved by integer programming. OR Spectrum, 29(4), 783–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrimpf, G., Schneider, J., Stamm-Wilbrandt, H., & Dueck, G. (2000). Record breaking optimization results using the ruin and recreate principle. Journal of Computational Physics, 159(2), 139–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, L. G., & Haralick, R. M. (1981). Structural descriptions and inexact matching. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 3, 504–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Beek, P. (2006). Backtracking search algorithms. In F. Rossi et al. (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming (pp. 85–134). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verfaillie, G., & Jussien, N. (2005). Constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments—a survey. Constraints, 10(3), 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voudouris, C., & Tsang, E. (2003). Guided local search. In F. Glover & G. A. Kochenberger (Eds.), Handbook of metaheuristics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, Chap. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, G. M., & Zhang, J. (1998). Generating complete university timetables by combining tabu search with constraint logic. In E. Burke & M. Carter (Eds.), LNCS : Vol. 1408. Practice and theory of automated timetabling II (pp. 187–198). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Botanická 68a, Brno, 602 00, Czech Republic

    Hana Rudová

  2. Space Management and Academic Scheduling, Purdue University, 400 Centennial Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2016, USA

    Tomáš Müller & Keith Murray

Authors
  1. Hana Rudová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomáš Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keith Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hana Rudová.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rudová, H., Müller, T. & Murray, K. Complex university course timetabling. J Sched 14, 187–207 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-010-0171-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-010-0171-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation