Abstract
We propose an algorithm selection approach and an instance space analysis for the well-known curriculum-based course timetabling problem (CB-CTT), which is an important problem for its application in higher education. Several state of the art algorithms exist, including both exact and metaheuristic methods. Results of these algorithms on existing instances in the literature show that there is no single algorithm outperforming the others. Therefore, a deep analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these algorithms, depending on the instance, is an important research question. In this work, a detailed analysis of the instance space for CB-CTT is performed, charting the regions where these algorithms perform best. We further investigate the application of machine learning methods to automated algorithm selection for CB-CTT, strengthening the insights gained through the instance space analysis. For our research, we contribute new real-life instances and extend the generation of synthetic instances to better correspond to these new instances. Finally, this work shows how instance space analysis and the application of algorithm selection complement each other, underlining the value of both approaches in understanding algorithm performance.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77169/77169053087445ce0abc474282e5f00fcf8fc644" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f93b9/f93b948f49f1207147d5d7a1ae17338a6cef45eb" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bd71f/bd71fea2b9ee5905c624f74e1de2b71645be3a17" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/614f1/614f1292f676b54b070ee606b770f73dafe3e0de" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e1e22/e1e224b461d83f06f0e89a036b485f201bd6174e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9d6b6/9d6b66fc99a19492a176711c6d00f953cdf02db7" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7642/d76428cefffe9345b027f5aee697b4a0c78a97d6" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/96a78/96a78368f74125585fc8e07fcdcebff6c2b37381" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1cfd2/1cfd2bb9a5b992f10d4a113c9d76aa86d1852335" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/562f6/562f6d13ee122bf0d2fa1bfede80500c987d4ea5" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/56809/56809885bdfc6ca5c46298878496b7a788cb0598" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/34a6d/34a6d9e5ff22938fdbe0afca061fbbd758f585b3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/42e50/42e50b5d77174260ec69c31eed764a67e2fd4ad5" alt=""
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
These instances are actually 20, given that for our formulation two of them, namely comp03 and comp15, are identical.
References
Achá, R. A., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2014). Curriculum-based course timetabling with sat and maxsat. Annals of Operations Research, 218(1), 71–91.
Banbara, M., Inoue, K., Kaufmann, B., Okimoto, T., Schaub, T., Soh, T., et al. (2019). Teaspoon: Solving the curriculum-based course timetabling problems with answer set programming. Annals of Operations Research, 275(1), 3–37.
Bellio, R., Ceschia, S., Di Gaspero, L., Schaerf, A., & Urli, T. (2016). Feature-based tuning of simulated annealing applied to the curriculum-based course timetabling problem. Computers and Operations Research, 65, 83–92.
Berg, J., Demirovic, E., & Stuckey, P.J. (2019). Core-boosted linear search for incomplete maxsat. In Integration of constraint programming, artificial intelligence, and operations research - 16th international conference, CPAIOR 2019, Thessaloniki, Greece, June 4–7, 2019, Proceedings, pp. 39–56.
Bonutti, A., De Cesco, F., Di Gaspero, L., & Schaerf, A. (2012). Benchmarking curriculum-based course timetabling: formulations, data formats, instances, validation, visualization, and results. Annals of Operations Research, 194(1), 59–70.
Burke, E. K., Causmaecker, D., & Patrick, S. (Eds.). (2003). Practice and theory of automated timetabling iv, 4th international conference, PATAT 2002, Gent, Belgium, August 21–23, 2002, selected revised papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2740). Springer.
Burke, E. K., Mareček, J., Parkes, A. J., & Rudová, H. (2008). Penalising patterns in timetables: Novel integer programming formulations. In J. Kalcsics & S. Nickel (Eds.), Operations Research Proceedings 2007 (pp. 409–414). Heidelberg: Berlin.
Chiarandini, M., & Stützle, T. (2003). Experimental evaluation of course timetabling algorithms. fachgebiet intellektik at tu darmstadt.,03,
Coello C., Carlos A., editor. (2011). Learning and intelligent optimization - 5th international conference, LION 5, Rome, Italy, January 17–21, 2011. Selected Papers, volume 6683 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., & Schaub, T. (2012). Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artificial Intelligence, 187, 52–89.
Gottlieb, J., & Raidl, G.R., (eds.) (2004). Evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization, 4th european conference, EvoCOP 2004, Coimbra, Portugal, April 5–7, 2004, Proceedings, volume 3004 of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin
Hoos, H. H., Lindauer, M. T., & Schaub, T. (2014). claspfolio 2: Advances in algorithm selection for answer set programming. TPLP, 14(4–5), 569–585.
Kostuch, P., & Socha, K. (2004). Hardness prediction for the university course timetabling problem. In Evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization, 4th European conference, EvoCOP 2004, Coimbra, Portugal, April 5–7, 2004, Proceedings, pp. 135–144.
Lin, X., Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2008). Satzilla: Portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 32, 565–606.
Lopes, L., & Smith-Miles, K. (2010). Pitfalls in instance generation for udine timetabling. In C. Blum & R. Battiti (Eds.), Learning and intelligent optimization (pp. 299–302). Heidelberg: Berlin.
Lopes, L., & Smith-Miles, K. (2013). Generating applicable synthetic instances for branch problems. Operations Research, 61, 563–577.
McCollum, B., Schaerf, A., Paechter, B., McMullan, P., Lewis, R., Parkes, A. J., et al. (2010). Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: The second international timetabling competition. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 22(1), 120–130.
Muñoz, M. A., & Smith-Miles, K. A. (2017). Performance analysis of continuous black-box optimization algorithms via footprints in instance space. Evolutionary Computation, 25(4), 529–554.
Muñoz, M. A., Villanova, L., Baatar, D., & Smith-Miles, K. (2018). Instance spaces for machine learning classification. Machine Learning, 107(1), 109–147.
Musliu, N., Schwengerer, M. (2013). Algorithm selection for the graph coloring problem. In Learning and intelligent optimization - 7th international conference, LION 7, Catania, Italy, January 7–11, 2013, Revised Selected Papers, pp. 389–403.
Müller, T. (2009). Itc 2007 solver description: A hybrid approach. Annals of Operations Research, 172(1), 429–446.
Nicosia, G., & Pardalos, P.M. (eds.). (2013). Learning and intelligent optimization - 7th international conference, LION 7, Catania, Italy, January 7–11, 2013, Revised Selected Papers, volume 7997 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., et al. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.
Rice, J. R. (1976). The algorithm selection problem. Advances in Computers, 15, 65–118.
Rossi-Doria, O., Sampels, M., Birattari, M., Chiarandini, M., Dorigo, M., Gambardella, L.M., Knowles, J.D., Manfrin, M., Mastrolilli, M., Paechter, B., Paquete, L., & Stützle, T. (2002). A comparison of the performance of different metaheuristics on the timetabling problem. In Practice and theory of automated timetabling iv, 4th international conference, PATAT 2002, Gent, Belgium, August 21–23, 2002, Selected Revised Papers, pp. 329–354.
Smith-Miles, K., Baatar, D., Wreford, B., & Lewis, R. (2014). Towards objective measures of algorithm performance across instance space. Computers and Operations Research, 45, 12–24.
Smith-Miles, K., & Bowly, S. (2015). Generating new test instances by evolving in instance space. Computers and Operations Research, 63, 102–113.
Smith-Miles, K., & Lopes, L. (2012). Measuring instance difficulty for combinatorial optimization problems. Computers and Operations Research, 39(5), 875–889.
Smith-Miles, K., & Tan, T. T. (2012). Measuring algorithm footprints in instance space. IEEE CEC, 12, 3446–3453.
Smith-Miles, K., & van Hemert, J. (2011). Discovering the suitability of optimisation algorithms by learning from evolved instances. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 61, 87–104.
Smith-Miles, K. A. (2009). Cross-disciplinary perspectives on meta-learning for algorithm selection. ACM Computing Survey, 41(1), 6:1–6:25.
Smith-Miles, K., & Lopes, L. (2011). Generalising algorithm performance in instance space: A timetabling case study. In Learning and intelligent optimization - 5th international conference, LION 5, Rome, Italy, January 17–21, 2011. Selected Papers, pp. 524–538.
Smith-Miles, K., & Lopes, L. (2012). Measuring instance difficulty for combinatorial optimization problems. Computers and OR, 39(5), 875–889.
Acknowledgements
The financial support by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs, the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development and the Christian Doppler Research Association is gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by the Austrian Development Cooperation: Project HERAS – Higher Education, Research and Applied Science. Support from the Australian Research Council is also acknowledged through the Laureate Fellowship grant FL140100012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Coster, A., Musliu, N., Schaerf, A. et al. Algorithm selection and instance space analysis for curriculum-based course timetabling. J Sched 25, 35–58 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-021-00701-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-021-00701-x