A Multiobjective Optimisation Technique for Exam Timetabling Based on Trajectories

  • Sanja Petrovic
  • Yuri Bykov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2740)


The most common approach to multiobjective examination timetabling is the weighted sum aggregation of all criteria into one cost function and application of some single-objective metaheuristic. However, the translation of user preferences into the weights of criteria is a sophisticated task, which requires experience on the part of the user, especially for problems with a high number of criteria. Moreover, the results produced by this technique are usually substantially scattered. Thus, the outcome of weighted sum algorithms is often far from user expectation.

In this paper we suggest a more transparent method, which enables easier expression of user preferences. This method requires the user to specify a reference solution, which can be either produced manually or chosen among the set of solutions, generated by any automated method. Our aim is to improve the values of the reference objectives, i.e. to produce a solution which dominates the reference one. In order to achieve this, a trajectory is drawn from the origin to the reference point and a Great Deluge local search is conducted through the specified trajectory. During the search the weights of the criteria are dynamically changed.

The proposed technique was experimentally tested on real-world exam timetabling problems on both bi-criteria and nine-criteria cases. All results obtained by the variable weights Great Deluge algorithm outperformed the ones published in the literature by all criteria.


Multiobjective Optimisation Reference Solution Current Solution Memetic Algorithm Timetabling Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boufflet, J.P., Negre, S.: Three Methods Used to Solve an Examination Timetabling Problem. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 327–344. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke, E.K., Elliman, D.G., Ford, P.H., Weare, R.F.: Examination Timetabling in British Universities: a Survey. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 76–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burke, E.K., Jackson, K., Kingston, J.H., Weare, R.: Automated University Timetabling: The State of the Art. Comput. J. 40, 565–571 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke, E.K., Newall, J.P.: A Multi-stage Evolutionary Algorithm for the Timetabling Problem. IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 3, 63–74 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burke, E.K., Bykov, Y., Petrovic, S.: A Multicriteria Approach to Examination Timetabling. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burke, E.K., Bykov, Y., Newall, J.P., Petrovic, S.: A Time-Predefined Local Search Approach to Exam Timetabling Problems. Computer Science Technical Report NOTTCS-TR-2001-6, University of Nottingham (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burke, E.K., Bykov, Y., Newall, J.P., Petrovic, S.: A New Local Search Approach with Execution Time as an Input Parameter. Computer Science Technical Report NOTTCS-TR-2002-3, University of Nottingham (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter, M.W., Laporte, G.: Recent Developments in Practical Examination Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., Ross, P. (eds.) PATAT 1995. LNCS, vol. 1153, pp. 3–21. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carrasco, M.P., Pato, M.V.: A Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm for the Class/Teacher Timetabling Problem. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 3–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corne, D., Ross, P., Fang, H.L.: Fast Practical Evolutionary Timetabling. In: Fogarty, T.C. (ed.) AISB-WS 1994. LNCS, vol. 865, pp. 250–263. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dueck, G.: New Optimization Heuristics. The Great Deluge Algorithm and the Record-to-Record Travel. J. Comput. Phys. 104, 86–92 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lotfi, V., Cerveny, R.: A Final-Exam Scheduling Package. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 42, 205–216 (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paechter, B., Rankin, R.C., Cumming, A., Fogarty, T.C.: Timetabling the Classes of an Entire University with an Evolutionary Algorithm. In: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSNV). Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson, J.M., Dowsland, K.A.: Multi-Objective University Examination Scheduling. EBMS/1993/12, European Business Management School, University of Wales, Swansea (1993) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thompson, J.M., Dowsland, K.A.: Variants of Simulated Annealing for the Examination Timetabling Problem. Ann. Oper. Res. 63, 105–128 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson, J.M., Dowsland, K.A.: A Robust Simulated Annealing Based Examination Timetabling System. Comput. Oper. Res. 25, 637–648 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tanaka, M., Adachi, S.: Request-Based Timetabling by Genetic Algorithm with Tabu Search. In: 3rd Int. Workshop Frontiers Evolut. Algorithms, pp. 999–1002 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanja Petrovic
    • 1
  • Yuri Bykov
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Information TechnologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations