2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.04.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A mixed-integer programming approach to a class timetabling problem: A case study with gender policies and traffic considerations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
17
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, Daskalaki et al (2004Daskalaki et al ( , 2005 solved instances of up to 211 events using ILOG CPLEX, without introducing any user cuts. Al-Yakoob and Sherali (2007) and Schimmelpfeng and Helber (2007) modelled more complex problems, although they have not introduced any constraints penalising interaction between events in timetables (other than straightforward conflicts), which would have made the problem considerably more difficult. In some of the most rigorous recent Table 2 Linear programming relaxations of a compact formulation of the Udine Course Timetabling problem, referred to as Monolithic by , and of the subset of the proposed formulation with mildly exponential number of constraints we use at the root node, with all implied bounds added statically: dimensions of matrices after all automatic reductions inbuilt in CPLEX 10 and root relaxation time using default settings of CPLEX 10 (Dual Simplex) and manually tuned CPLEX 10 Barrier LP solver (2005) present a branch-and-cut solver for the Benevento Course Timetabling Problem, which forbids some interactions of events in timetables other than conflicts using hard constraints.…”
Section: Problem Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Daskalaki et al (2004Daskalaki et al ( , 2005 solved instances of up to 211 events using ILOG CPLEX, without introducing any user cuts. Al-Yakoob and Sherali (2007) and Schimmelpfeng and Helber (2007) modelled more complex problems, although they have not introduced any constraints penalising interaction between events in timetables (other than straightforward conflicts), which would have made the problem considerably more difficult. In some of the most rigorous recent Table 2 Linear programming relaxations of a compact formulation of the Udine Course Timetabling problem, referred to as Monolithic by , and of the subset of the proposed formulation with mildly exponential number of constraints we use at the root node, with all implied bounds added statically: dimensions of matrices after all automatic reductions inbuilt in CPLEX 10 and root relaxation time using default settings of CPLEX 10 (Dual Simplex) and manually tuned CPLEX 10 Barrier LP solver (2005) present a branch-and-cut solver for the Benevento Course Timetabling Problem, which forbids some interactions of events in timetables other than conflicts using hard constraints.…”
Section: Problem Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the best of our knowledge, the studies in [29], [30], [34], [35], [36], and [37] are the only ones that, to a limited extent, incorporate student flows. AlYakoob and Sherali [29] present a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) model for class timetabling problems and consider a related congestion topic. The authors address the problem of parking and traffic congestions for students and faculty members when lectures are inadequately spread over all the available timeslots.…”
Section: Student Flowsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples of these algorithms include graph colouring heuristics [2], Tabu Search [7], simulated annealing [8], evolutionary algorithms [10], case-based reasoning [11], two-stage heuristic algorithms [12], tabu search [13], ant colony [14] and so on. Interested readers are referred to [6] for a comprehensive survey of the automated approaches for university timetabling presented in recent years. This paper proposes three different metaheuristics, artificial immune, genetic and simulated annealing algorithms.…”
Section: Solution Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…UCS problems are usually different from one university to another [2,6]. It is very likely that each university has its own unique set of requirements to utilize its resources effectively, fulfil the requirements of its business, give a high level of satisfaction to its students and so forth.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%