Skip to main content
Log in

A complexity analysis and an algorithmic approach to student sectioning in existing timetables

  • Published:
Journal of Scheduling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We show that the following fundamental question in student sectioning can be efficiently decided in polynomial time: Is it possible to assign \(m\) students to \(k\) sectioned courses with respect to a given timetable with \(l\) timeslots such that the individual capacities of all sections are not exceeded and no student has more than one appointment per timeslot? Our result opens the possibility of efficiently checking the feasibility of candidate timetables with respect to this question as part of timetabling algorithms. Based on a succinct representation of solutions, we also provide an algorithm to compute optimal assignments in \(O( k^2l^2 \log (\mathrm{sum}_{A}))\), where \(\mathrm{sum}_{A}\) is the sum of all specified section capacities. On the other hand, we prove that adding any single of the following constraints turns the above question into an NP-complete problem:

  • Course-selection constraint: Student’s course-selections must be respected.

  • Timeslot constraint: Students have individual timeslot restrictions.

  • Multiple-event constraint: Sections may have multiple events in the timetable, and there must be no timeslot clashes between all section-events for each student.

Hence our investigation gives insight into the location of the borderline between efficiently solvable and computationally hard problem variations.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarez-Valdes, R., Crespo, E., & Tamarit, J. M. (2000). Assigning students to course sections using tabu search. Annals of Operations Research, 96(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amintoosi, M., & Haddadnia, J. (2005). Feature selection in a fuzzy student sectioning algorithm. Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, 5, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amintoosi, M., Yazdi, H. S., & Haddadnia, J. (2004). Fuzzy student sectioning. In PATAT’04: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (pp. 421–425).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M. W. (2000) A comprehensive course timetabling and student scheduling system at the University of Waterloo. In PATAT ’00: Selected papers from the third international conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling III. Berlin: Springer.

  • Carter, M. W., & Tovey, C. A. (1992). When is the classroom assignment problem hard? Operations Research, 40(1-supplement-1), S28–S39.

  • Cheng, E., Kruk, S. G., & Lipman, M. J. (2002). Flow formulations for the student scheduling problem. In Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling IV, 4th international conference, PATAT 2002, Gent, Belgium, August 21–23, 2002, Selected Revised Papers, 299–309.

  • Cole, R., & Hopcroft, J. (1982). On edge coloring bipartite graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 11, 540–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, T. B., & Kingston, J. H. (1995). The complexity of timetable construction problems. In Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, first international conference, Edinburgh, UK, August 29–September 1, 1995, Selected Papers, 283–295.

  • Csima, J. (1965). Investigations on a time-table problem. Ph.D. thesis, School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto.

  • de Werra, D. (1985). An introduction to timetabling. European Journal of Operational Research, 19(2), 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Werra, D. (2002). Constraints of availability in timetabling and scheduling. In Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling IV, 4th international conference, PATAT 2002, Gent, Belgium, August 21–23, 2002, Selected Revised Papers, 3–23.

  • Dostert, M., Politz, A., & Schmitz, H. (2013). Student sectioning for fixed timetables. Tech. Rep. 2013-1. Trier: Hochschule Trier.

  • Even, S., Itai, A., & Shamir, A. (1975). On the complexity of time table and multi-commodity flow problems. In 16th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, 1975 (pp. 184–193).

  • Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1980). Computers and intractability. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotlieb, C. C. (1963). The construction of class-teacher timetables. In C. M. Popplewell (Ed.), Proceedings of IFIP congress 62 (pp. 73–77).

  • Karp, R. M. (1972). Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In R. E. Miller & J. W. Thatcher (Eds.), Complexity of computer computations. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, J. H. (2014). Integrated student sectioning. In Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling X, tenth international conference, PATAT 2014 (pp. 489–492).

  • Kingston, J. H. (2014). Timetable construction: The algorithms and complexity perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 218(1), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T., & Murray, K. (2010). Comprehensive approach to student sectioning. Annals of Operations Research, 181(1), 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T., Rudová, H., & Barták, R. (2004). Minimal perturbation problem in course timetabling. In: PATAT’04: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Berlin: Springer.

  • Papadimitriou, C. H. (1994). Computational complexity. Reading: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, H., & Heimfarth, C. (2010). Cross-curriculum scheduling with Themis. In PATAT’10: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling (pp. 385–391).

  • Schrijver, A. (1998). Bipartite edge coloring in O\((\Delta \text{ m })\) time. SIAM Journal on Computing, 28, 841–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleator, D. D., & Tarjan, R. E. (1983). A data structure for dynamic trees. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 26, 362–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Eikelder, H. M. M., & Willemen, R. J. (2000). Some complexity aspects of secondary school timetabling problems. In Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling III, third international conference, PATAT 2000, Konstanz, Germany, August 16–18, 2000, Selected Papers, 18–27.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank our anonymous referees for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Schmitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dostert, M., Politz, A. & Schmitz, H. A complexity analysis and an algorithmic approach to student sectioning in existing timetables. J Sched 19, 285–293 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-015-0424-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-015-0424-2

Keywords

Navigation