Personalized Course Schedule Planning Using Answer Set Programming
Course scheduling or timetabling is a well-known problem that is generally studied from the perspective of schools; the goal is to schedule the courses, considering, e.g., the expected number of students, the sizes of the available classrooms, time conflicts between courses of the same category. We study a complementary problem to help the students during the course registration periods; the goal is to plan personalized course schedules for students, considering, e.g., their preferences over sections, instructors, distribution of the courses. We present a declarative method to compute personalized course schedules, and an application of this method using answer set programming, and discuss promising results of some preliminary user evaluations via surveys.
KeywordsCourse scheduling Answer set programming Declarative problem solving
We thank the anonymous reviewers and the survey participants for useful comments and suggestions.
- 1.Aini, I.F., Saptawijaya, A., Aminah, S.: Bringing answer set programming to the next level: a real case on modeling course timetabling. In: Proceedings of ICACSIS, pp. 471–476 (2017)Google Scholar
- 3.Ajanovski, V.V.: Curriculum mapping as a tool for improving students satisfaction with the choice of courses. In: Proceedings of ITiCSE, pp. 76–77 (2017)Google Scholar
- 5.Banbara, M., et al.: teaspoon: solving the curriculum-based course timetabling problems with answer set programming. Ann. Oper. Res. (2018)Google Scholar
- 11.Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press (1988)Google Scholar
- 15.Marek, V., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: Apt, K.R., Marek, V.W., Truszczynski, M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) The Logic Programming Paradigm. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 375–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60085-2_17CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 18.Schaerf, A.: A survey of automated timetabling. AI Rev. 13(2), 87–127 (1999)Google Scholar