Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DOI 10.1007/s10287-007-0066-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
H. D. Sherali
Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (0118),
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
e-mail: hanifs@vt.edu
123
20 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
1 Introduction
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 21
(a) The Office of the Assistant Dean for Students’ Affairs prepares basic statistics
concerning the exams of the college. These statistics include: number of exams,
pertinent departments, number of students in classes, facility resources (rooms
and laboratories), etc.
(b) Based on the statistics obtained in Part (a), exams for the various classes are
assigned to exam-periods in two steps. First, exams of multiple-section classes
are scheduled, taking into consideration facility resources. Second, exam-periods
for the remaining classes are specified so that no two classes having different
time-slots are assigned to the same exam-period. This is done to avoid exam
conflicts, i.e., students having more than one exam during a given exam-period.
(c) Based on the statistics obtained in Part (a), subsets of classes are established, each
of which is composed of classes taken simultaneously by a group of students.
These subsets are used to avoid exam conflicts.
(d) Exams are assigned to exam-periods and suitable classrooms by the Office of
the Assistant Dean for Students’ Affairs. This assignment is performed in an ad
hoc fashion. Pertinent information is then sent to the individual departments.
123
22 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
The current manual approach for generating exam schedules at KU has many draw-
backs and shortcomings, some of which are identified below.
(a) Exam conflicts
Exam conflicts often occur due to the lack of coordination among colleges that offer
classes taken by common groups of students. Also, the exam scheduling approach
outlined previously may lead to exam conflicts within the same college. Generat-
ing conflict-free exam schedules is an arduous combinatorial task that can be better
achieved via proper modeling and analytical tools.
(b) Exam-driven class registrations
A major disadvantage of the current approach is that students often sign-up for classes
based on the exam-periods of these classes. Hence, certain feasible combinations of
classes are precluded to prevent conflicts. This has led many students to take more
than the average number of years to graduate.
(c) Consecutive exams over two different campuses
Scheduling two exams that are taken by a common group of students consecutively
over two different campuses is undesirable, and results in traffic congestion, parking,
and delay problems.
(d) Inefficient utilization of facility resources
Manual scheduling approaches often lead to the inefficient use of classrooms and
parking facilities. For example, exams are often assigned to unsuitable classrooms in
terms of size.
(e) Dissatisfaction of proctors
Preferences of proctors for specific days and exam-periods are often overlooked by
the individual departments when assigning proctors to exams. This typically leads to
dissatisfaction among proctors.
The problem considered in this paper is of great importance to students, faculty
members, and decision-makers at KU, and as evident from the current exam schedul-
ing approach, generating effective exam schedules is a step forward in further enhanc-
ing the educational process at KU. Furthermore, this research effort makes a useful
contribution to the development of quantitative methods for tackling an academic
scheduling and timetabling problem that incorporates many novel features such as
proctors’ preferences, traffic considerations, and certain imposed gender policies.
The proposed mathematical models and solution algorithms can be used to generate
conflict-free exam schedules before or after the student registration period. The models
may be incorporated in a decision-support system to generate exam schedules having
many desirable features for KU that avoid the shortcomings identified above, as well
as for other academic institutions in the Gulf region having similar exam timetabling
environments.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we review the liter-
ature related to academic timetabling and scheduling. In Sect. 3, we present modeling
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 23
2 Related literature
123
24 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
3 Modeling preliminaries
Let |A| be the cardinality of any set A. Let N be the set of days during which exams
will be held, indexed by n = 1, . . . , |N |. The specific value of |N |can be determined
based on the number of exams that must be taken and previous experience, or it can
be better derived via the proposed modeling approach by examining different values
of |N |.
Currently, there are four exam-periods in a given day specified as follows: 8:00
a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and 5:00 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. Hence there are 4|N | total exam-periods. Let T denote the set of exam-
periods, indexed by t = 1, . . . , |T | = 4|N |, where t = 4n − 3, 4n − 2, 4n − 1 and
4n respectively index the exam-periods of day n ∈ N . Also, for n ∈ N , we define
n = {4n − 3, 4n − 2, 4n − 1, 4n}.
Let G denote the set of colleges whose exams are to be scheduled, indexed by
g = 1, . . . , |G|, and let G1 = {(g 1 , g2 ) : g1 , g 2 ∈ G, g1 < g 2 , where g1 and g2 are
located in different campuses}. Let D g be the set of departments in college g ∈ G,
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 25
123
26 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
and available to proctor exams offered during exam-period t. Hence, the total number
of proctors that are available during exam-period t ∈ T is given by |P2t | + |P2 |.
Let T p ⊆ T denote the set of exam-periods for which proctor p is available. Note
that for p ∈ P 2 , T p = T , unless some exam-periods are blocked for other consider-
ations. For n ∈ N , let n, p = n T p denote the set of exam-periods of a given day
n ∈ N for which proctor p is available. Also, for c ∈ C, let P c ⊆ P denote the set of
proctors who are available during the exam-period of the exam associated with class c.
For exam-period t ∈ T , let C t ⊆ C denote the set of classes whose exams are offered
during exam-period t, and let C p,t ⊆ C denote the set of classes whose exams can be
monitored by proctor p during exam-period t. Note that for p ∈ P 2 , C p,t = C t . Let
P F ⊆ P and P M ⊆ P respectively, denote the sets of female and male proctors and
let M J ⊆ P denote the set of proctors who can proctor male and joint sections. Also,
define Q i = {( p1 , p 2 ) : where p1 , p 2 ∈ Pi with p1 < p 2 }, for i = 1, 2.
Exams of certain classes should not be held during the same exam-period to avoid
conflicts, or during the same day to enhance exam offering patterns. Accordingly, spe-
cial sets of classes are constructed and a penalty is associated with each set to reflect
the significance of not having exams of classes from this set scheduled during the
same exam-period or the same day, with a higher penalty value indicating a relatively
greater corresponding undesirability.
These special sets are defined as follows:
(A) We define S1 , . . . , Sm to be sets of classes from all colleges such that each set
contains classes that can be taken concurrently by a group of students, and are
formulated based on established student curricula. Note that the sets S1 , . . . , Sm
are not necessarily pairwise disjoint. For college g ∈ G and department d ∈ D g ,
g,d
let Si = Si C g,d , ∀ i = 1, . . . , m. Let M Si denote the set of students who
are taking the classes in Si .
(B) For g ∈ G, d ∈ D g let U g,d = {(c1 , c2 ) : c1 , c2 ∈ C g,d , c1 < c2 , where both
classes c1 , and c2 are taught by the same faculty member and each requires the
presence of this faculty member during the exam}.
The preferences of the proctors for specific exam days and exam-periods are essen-
tial information that needs to be appropriately and fairly considered when assigning
proctors to exams. Hence, every proctor fills out a questionnaire pertaining to the pref-
erences for specific days and exam-periods and also the desirability to work during
two consecutive exam-periods. The questionnaire consists of three parts (A), (B) and
(C) as detailed below.
(A) General information
This part records preferences of proctors for working during two consecutive exam
periods.
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 27
The model variables and constraints are respectively defined in Sects. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2,
and the overall formulation of ETM is given in Sect. 4.1.3. Incorporating enhancing
issues as soft-constraints are then presented in Sect. 4.1.4.
In order to formulate the problem described in the foregoing sections, we define the
following integer variables.
For g ∈ G and d ∈ D g , let
⎧
⎨ 1 if the exam associated with class c ∈ C g, d is held during the
X g, d, c, t = exam -period t ∈ T,
⎩
0 otherwise.
123
28 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
Two exams that are taken by a common group of students should not be held dur-
ing the same exam-period. This conflict-free requirement is guaranteed by Constraint
(1.1.2) for the sets Si , for i = 1, . . . , m.
X g, d, c, t ≤ 1, ∀ t ∈ T and i = 1, . . . , m. (1.1.2)
g∈ G d∈ D g c∈ S g,d
i
X g, d, c1 ,t + X g, d, c2 ,t ≤ 1, ∀ g ∈ G, d ∈ D g , (c1 , c2 ) ∈ U g, d
and t ∈ T.
(1.1.3)
(B) Availability of classrooms
Exams must be held in suitable classrooms as guaranteed by Constraint (1.2.1),
subject to the availability of the facility resources as enforced by Constraint (1.2.2).
Yg, d, c, r, t = O g, d, c X g, d, c, t , ∀ g ∈ G, d ∈ D g , c ∈ C g, d and t ∈ T.
r ∈ K g, d, c
(1.2.1)
Yg, d, c, r, t ≤ N g, r
, ∀ g ∈ G, r ∈ R g
and t ∈ T. (1.2.2)
d∈ Dg c∈ V g, d, r
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 29
The maximum number of exams that may be taken on a given day by any student
is two, as assured by the following constraint.
X g, d, c, t ≤ 2, ∀ n ∈ N and i = 1, . . . , m. (1.4.2)
g∈ G d∈ D g c∈ S g, d t ∈ n
i
Constraint (1.4.3) assures that the maximum number of exams that may be taken
on two consecutive days is l, where l may take the value of two or three as determined
by the concerned decision-maker.
X g, d, c, t ≤ l, ∀ n ∈ {1, . . . , |N | − 1} and
g∈ G d∈ D g c∈ S g, d t ∈ 4n−3,...,4n+4
i
i = 1, . . . , m. (1.4.3)
The next constraint obviates assigning any two exams from the set Si , for i =
1, . . . , m, with one on the last exam-period of one day, and the other on the first
exam-period of the next day.
X g1 , d1 , c1 , 4n + X g2 , d2 , c2 , 4n+1 ≤ 1,
g1 ∈ G d1 ∈ D g1 c ∈ S g1 , d1 g2 ∈ G d2 ∈ D g2 c ∈ S g2 , d2
1 i 2 i
∀ n ∈ {1, . . . , |N | − 1} and i = 1, . . . , m. (1.4.4)
Remark 4.1.1 The value of C Q g can be computed based on the total capacities of all
classrooms that are available at college g ∈ G, and the number of available parking
and traffic facilities during each exam-period.
123
30 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
The enhancing issues presented in Part (D) of Sect. 4.1.2 can be alternatively incorpo-
rated in ETM as soft-constraints as discussed next. For i ∈ {1, . . . , m}, consider the
set Si . Let Bt,1 i be a binary variable that equals 1 if two exams of different colleges
in different campuses are taken by students during exam-periods t and t + 1, where
t ∈ {4n − 3, 4n − 2, 4n − 1} of day n ∈ N . For n ∈ N , let Bn, 2 be a nonnegative
i
integer variable representing the number of exams exceeding two that are taken by
students on a given day n. Note that since there are four exam-periods on any given day,
2 ∈ {0, 1, 2}. Let B 3 be a nonnegative integer variable representing the number
Bn, i n, i
of exams exceeding l [as defined for (1.4.3)] that are taken by students during exam-
periods t ∈ {4n − 3, . . . , 4n + 4} over days n and n +1 for each n ∈ {1, . . . , |N |−1}.
Since, there are eight exam-periods on two consecutive days, Bn, 3 ∈ {0, . . . , 8 − l}.
i
4
Let Bn, i be a binary variable that equals 1 if two exams, one on the last exam-period
(t = 4n) of any given day n and the other on the first exam-period (t = 4n + 1) of
the next day n + 1, are taken by students, ∀ n ∈ {1, . . . , |N | − 1}.
Then, Constraints (1.4.1),…,(1.4.4) can be alternatively formulated as follows.
⎛⎛ ⎞ ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎟
Bt,1 i ≥ ⎝⎝ X g1 , d1 , c1 , t + X g2 , d2 , c2 , t+1 ⎠ −1⎠ , ∀ (g1 , g2 ) ∈ G1,
g , d1 g , d2
c1 ∈Si 1 c2 ∈Si 2
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 31
⎛⎛ ⎞ ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎟
3
Bn, i ≥ ⎝⎝ X g, d, c, t ⎠ − l ⎠ ,
g∈ G d∈ D g c∈ S g, d t ∈ {4n−3,...,4n+4}
i
∀ n ∈ {1, . . . , |N | − 1} and i = 1, . . . , m. (1.6.3)
⎛⎛
⎜⎜
i ≥ ⎝⎝
4
Bn, X g1 , d1 , c1 , 4n
g1 ∈ G d1 ∈ D g1 c ∈ S g1 , d1
1 i
⎞ ⎞
⎟ ⎟
+ X g2 , d2 , c2 , 4n+1 ⎠ − 1⎠ ,
g2 ∈ G d2 ∈ D g2 c2 ∈ Si
g2 , d2
Then, the modified version of ETM, denoted by ETM1, can be stated as fol-
lows, where δi , i = 1, . . . , 4 are respectively penalties associated with the variables
Bt,1 i , Bn,
2 , B 3 , and B 4 . Specific values of δ , . . . , δ should be determined by the
i n, i n, i 1 4
concerned decision-makers depending on the importance of satisfying the enhancing
issues discussed in Part (D) of Sect. 4.2.1.
ETM1:
Minimize
m
m
δ1 Bt,1 i + δ2 2
Bn, i
n∈N t ∈{4n−3, 4n−2, 4n−1} i=1 n∈N i=1
m m
+ δ3 3
Bn, i + δ4 4
Bn, i,
n∈ {1,...,|N |−1} i=1 n∈ {1,...,|N |−1} i=1
subject to
(1.1.1)–(1.1.3), (1.2.1), (1.2.2), (1.3.1),(1.5.1), (1.6.1)–(1.6.4),
Remark 4.1.2 Note that due to the minimization objective function in Problem ETM1,
the constraints (1.6.1)–(1.6.4) will be active (and relevant) only when the respective
right-hand sides take positive values; else, the corresponding variable on the left-hand
side will be zero. Moreover, for the same reason, these variables will automatically
123
32 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
be integral for binary X-values, even if declared as continuous within any software
package used to solve ETM1.
In order to formulate the problem, we define the following integer variables. For c ∈ C
and p ∈ P c , we define the following integer variables.
1 if proctor p is assigned to an exam associated with a section of class c,
ac, p =
0 otherwise.
Recall that ETM specifies the exam-period for each exam, based on which we define
the following parameter. For c ∈ C and t ∈ T , let
1 if the exam associated with class c is assigned to exam-period t,
λc, p =
0 otherwise.
2
Minimize p + π w p1 , p2 ,
p∈P i=1 ( p1 , p 2 )∈ Q i
subject to
a c, p = O c , ∀ c ∈ C, (2.1)
p∈Pc
λ c, t a c, p ≤ 1, ∀ p ∈ P and t ∈ T p , (2.2)
c∈C p, t
λ c, t a c, p ≤ 2, ∀ p ∈ P and n ∈ N , (2.3)
t ∈ n, p c ∈ C p, t
λ c, t a c, p ≤ L 1 , ∀ p ∈ P1 , (2.4.1)
t ∈T p c∈C p, t
λ c, t a c, p ≤ L 2 , ∀ p ∈ P2 , (2.4.2)
t ∈T c∈C t
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 33
λ c, t a c, p + λ c, t+1 a c, p ≤ 1, ∀ t ∈ {4n − 3, 4n − 2, 4n − 1},
c∈C p, t c∈C p, t+1
n ∈ N , p ∈ P3 , (2.5)
p = DC( p, n, t) λ c, t a c, p , ∀ p ∈ P, (2.6)
n∈N t ∈ n, p c ∈ C p, t
w p1 , p 2 ≥ p1 − p 2 , ∀ ( p1 , p 2 ) ∈ Q i , i = 1, 2, (2.7)
w p1 , p 2 ≥ p2 − p 1 , ∀ ( p1 , p 2 ) ∈ Q , i = 1, 2, i
(2.8)
a c, p ∈ {0, 1} , ∀ c ∈ C and p ∈ P c ,
p ≥ 0, ∀ p ∈ P,
w p1 , p 2 ≥ 0, ∀ ( p1 , p 2 ) ∈ Q i , for i = 1, 2.
4.2.2 Constraints
For a given class c ∈ C, Constraint (2.1) assures that there are O c proctors to mon-
itor all the exams of the sections associated with class c. Constraint (2.2) guarantees
that a proctor may be assigned to at most one exam of a section of a class in any
time-period. A proctor may be assigned to at most two exams per day as enforced
by Constraint (2.3). The maximum loads of proctors p ∈ P1 and p ∈ P2 over all
exam-periods are respectively enforced by Constraints (2.4.1) and (2.4.2). Restric-
tions related to not proctoring during two consecutive exam-periods for proctors in
P3 are enforced by Constraint (2.5). The dissatisfaction level of a proctor is computed
in Constraint (2.6), and then Constraints (2.7) and (2.8) give the absolute difference
between dissatisfaction levels for pairs of proctors.
The objective function of the model seeks to minimize the total dissatisfaction and
inequity costs associated with assigning proctors to exams. The total dissatisfaction
cost is given by the first part of the objective function, and the sum of differences in
dissatisfaction levels between proctors is given by the second part of the objective
function. A weight factor π is associated with the second objective function term to
reflect its relative priority with respect to the first term.
Alternative modeling approaches for the proctors’ equity considerations are presented
next. Consider the following constraint.
123
34 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
2
PAM is replaced with π = [θ p+1 , p2 − θ p−1 , p2 ]. Let i ∈ {1, 2} and
i=1 ( p1 , p 2 )∈ Q i
( p1 , p 2 ) ∈Qi . For a given solution of PAM1 where p1 ≥ p2 , the most attrac-
tive values for θ p+1 , p2 and θ p−1 , p2 are θ p+1 , p2 = p1 − p2 and θ p−1 , p2 = 0 . On
the other hand, if p1 < p2 , then the most attractive values for θ p+1 , p2 and θ p−1 , p2
are θ p+1 , p2 = 0 and θ p−1 , p2 = p2 − p1 . Therefore, combining both cases, this
new modeling approach also attempts to minimize the absolute difference between
dissatisfaction levels for pairs of proctors.
Now, let PAM2 denote the model derived from PAM by replacing Constraints (2.7)
and (2.8) with the following constraints:
where θi max , θi min ≥ 0 , and by replacing the second term of the objective func-
2
tion of PAM with the term π [ θi max − θi min ]. Note that for i = 1, 2, θi max
i=1
and θi min respectively represent the maximum and minimum dissatisfaction levels
of proctors in Pi . Hence, PAM2 attempts to reduce the spread in the dissatisfaction
levels among the proctors in each set Pi , i = 1, 2 as opposed to minimizing the sum
of the absolute differences between dissatisfaction levels for pairs of proctors. Hence,
it involves O(|Pi |), rather than O(|Pi |2 ), constraints. Computational results related to
solving PAM, PAM1, and PAM2 will be presented in Sect. 5.
F g, d, c X g, d, c, t ≤ |P F, g, d |, ∀ g ∈ G, d ∈ D g , t ∈ T. (3.1)
c ∈C g,d
Some female proctors strongly prefer proctoring female sections only; hence, PAM
(and its foregoing variants) can be modified to avoid assigning male and joint sections
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 35
λc, t ac, p ≥ M c + J c , ∀ t ∈ T, c ∈ C t . (3.2)
p∈ MJ P c
Next, we define a glossary of some additional notation that will be used in this section.
Denote:
The following statistics are compiled when using the manual approach (MET).
• C1MET : Total number of exam conflicts. Recall that an exam conflict occurs if two
exams of classes that are taken concurrently by a group of students are assigned to
the same exam-period.
• C2MET : Total number of occurrences of coinciding exam periods for classes taught
by the same faculty member associated with the set U g,d .
• C3MET : Number of occurrences where groups of students take three exams on one
day.
• C4MET : Number of occurrences where groups of students take four exams on two
consecutive days.
• C5MET : Number of occurrences where groups of students take one exam on the last
exam-period of a given day and another exam on the first exam-period of the next
day.
• RMET : Number of occurrences where an exam is assigned to an unsuitable classroom.
123
36 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
p1 q1 Fall 2002–2003
p2 q2 Spring 2002–2003
p3 q3 Fall 2003–2004
p4 q4 Spring 2003–2004
p5 q5 Fall 2004–2005
p6 q6 Spring 2004–2005
• µiPAM : The mean for the individual proctors’ dissatisfaction levels obtained via PAM
for proctors in the set Pi , for i = 1, 2.
• σiPAM : The standard deviation for the proctors’ individual dissatisfaction levels
obtained via PAM for proctors in the set Pi , for i = 1, 2.
• MPA : The manual scheduling approach that is presently used at KU to generate
proctors’ schedules as described in Al-Jazzaf (2006).
The following statistics are compiled when using the manual approach (MPA).
• α MPA : The summation of the individual dissatisfaction levels for all proctors.
• β MPA : The summation of the absolute differences between the dissatisfaction levels
of proctors.
• µMPA (i): The mean for the individual proctors’ dissatisfaction levels for proctors in
the set Pi , for i = 1, 2.
• σ MPA (i): The standard deviation for the individual proctors’ dissatisfaction levels
for proctors in the set Pi , for i = 1, 2.
Note that we considered six test cases related to Problem ETP and six test cases
related to Problem PAP. Details related to these test cases are available in Al-Jazzaf
(2006). For the sake of simplicity in reference, Table 1 associates each test case with
an indexed symbol.
We began by solving ETM directly via CPLEX-MIP-9.0 for the College of Science.
We selected this particular college because it is one of the largest colleges at Kuwait
University in terms of number of classes offered. Tables 2 and 3 present computa-
tional results related to solving ETM and ETM for the College of Science based on
test cases p1 , . . . , p6 . Since all the constraints (1.6.1)–(1.6.4) of Sect. 4 were dealt
with as hard-constraints in ETM, the resulting model becomes a feasibility problem,
and hence, v(ETM) = v(ETM) = 0 .
Note that we were able to easily solve ETM directly using CPLEX for the six test
cases. It turned out that the root node relaxation of the problem yielded a feasible
integer solution.
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 37
Table 2 Computational results related to solving ETM for the College of Science
Table 3 Computational results related to solving ETM for the College of Science
Table 4 Computational results related to solving ETM1 for the College of Science
Likewise, we were also able to readily solve ETM1 for the College of Science,
where it turns out that v(ETM) = v(ETM) = 0 for all the test problems. Table 4
presents statistics related to solving ETM1.
Next, we attempted to solve ETM and ETM1 directly using CPLEX-MIP-9.0 for
two colleges (the College of Science and the College of Education) simultaneously.
However, no meaningful solution was obtained due to out-of-memory difficulties.
Table 5 presents results related to solving ETM for the two colleges based on test
problems p1 and p6 . We comment here that ETM can be solved jointly for multiple
colleges at Kuwait University using a sequential variable fixing heuristic similar to
the one that will be developed in Sect. 5.3 to solve PAM. An actual implementation
of this heuristic is deferred to future research due to the intricate information that has
to be compiled and analyzed for all the colleges.
123
38 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
Table 5 Computational statistics related to ETM for the College of Science and the College of Education
for two academic terms
Test problem Rows Columns No. of integer variables Nonzero entries RT⊗
In this section, we present computational results related to solving PAM, PAM1, and
PAM2 for the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at the College of
Science. We have selected this particular department because it is the largest depart-
ment in the College of Science in terms of the number of offered classes and sections.
Table 6 below presents the total number of sections offered by all departments of the
College of Science for the Fall 2002-2003 term. Also, in solving these models, we
initially used just the maximum load restriction L 2 for p ∈ P2 as defined in Sect. 3.
However, we encountered noticeable load discrepancies among some of the proctors.
To minimize these discrepancies, we imposed a lower bound, denoted by L min , on the
total load of proctors to ensure fairness of exam assignments in all the runs reported
below.
A direct solution of PAM and PAM1 via CPLEX was out-of-reach due to out-of-
memory difficulties for all test cases. (The minor modeling difference between these
two formulations did not reveal any computational effects.) Solutions of the linear
relaxations of PAM and PAM1 were readily obtained, where, as expected, v(PAM) =
v(PAM1) for all test cases. Tables 7 and 8 present computational results for PAM.
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 39
Test problem Rows Columns No. of integer No. of continuous Nonzero RT⊗
variables variables entries
Test problem Rows Columns No. of integer No. of continuous Nonzero v(PAM2) RT
variables variables entries
Next, Tables 9 and 10 provide statistics related to solving PAM2 and PAM2 using
CPLEX.
A direct solution of PAM2 was attainable for all test cases, noting that the linear
relaxation of the model is fairly tight as indicated from the objective function values
of PAM2 and PAM2. Also, note that the run time for solving PAM2 varies from .20
seconds for Test Problem q2 to 472.25 seconds for Test Problem q1 .
Now, let PAM3 denote a modification of PAM that eliminates equity considerations,
other than minimizing the total dissatisfaction, by:
(a) discarding the w -variables; (b) discarding the second term of the objective function,
2
namely w p1 , p2 , and (c) discarding Constraints (2.7) and (2.8).
i=1 ( p1 , p2 )∈ Q i
123
40 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
We were now able to solve PAM3 to optimality, where it turned out that the
objective function values for PAM3 and PAM3 are identical and the root node relaxa-
tion of the problem yielded a feasible mixed-integer solution for all the test problems
(see Tables 11, 12). Hence, this indicates that the objective term and constraints per-
taining to balancing proctors’ discrepancies tremendously encumbers the performance
of the branch-and-bound procedure used by CPLEX to solve PAM. In this respect,
PAM2 offers a good compromise in accommodating equity issues.
The out-of-memory difficulties associated with solving PAM for all test problems
primarily stems from the large number of binary variables and complex constraint
structures. This motivates the development of a heuristic procedure similar to that
adopted in Al-Yakoob and Sherali (2006a) to solve a class-faculty assignment prob-
lem, which generates a solution in an iterative fashion where each iteration involves
solving a modified version of PAM on which the integrality of only a subset of the
integer variables is enforced. This heuristic procedure is described next.
In PAM, let the vector a be partitioned as a = (a1 , a2 . . . , aC ), where for c ∈
{1, . . . , C} , ac denotes the vector of a-variables associated with class c . Partition the
set {1, . . . , C} into ≥ 1 components, denoted by 1 , . . . , , where j =
j=1
{1, . . . , C} and j k = ∅ , ∀ j, k ∈ {1, . . . , } , and j = k (Recommendations
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 41
for suitable partitioning schemes are addressed in the sequel below). Furthermore,
we will let PAM(1, opt-gap1 ) denote the relaxation of PAM for which integrality is
enforced only on the a-variables that correspond to c ∈ 1 and an optimal solution
is required to be found within a tolerance opt-gap1 of optimality. For l = 2, . . . , ,
we define PAM(l, opt-gapl ) to be the relaxation of PAM that has the following char-
acteristics:
l−1
(a) The values of all the a-variables that correspond to c ∈ j are fixed as obtained
j=1
from PAM(l − 1, opt-gapl−1 ) .
(b) The integrality on the a-variables that correspond to c ∈ l is enforced, and is
relaxed for the remaining variables corresponds to j , j > l .
(c) An optimal solution is required to be found within a tolerance opt-gapl of opti-
mality.
The sequential fixing of variables heuristic SFVH then proceeds as follows:
Initialization: Let ≤ C be some integer number. Let l = 1 and let opt-gap1 be
some selected optimality tolerance. SolvePAM(1, opt-gap1 ) .
Main Step: If the solution to PAM(l, opt-gapl ) is integral; then terminate the algo-
rithm; the proposed solution is that obtained from solving PAM(l, opt-gapl ). If l =
and the foregoing condition is not satisfied, then PAM(l, opt-gapl ) is infeasible; ter-
minate the heuristic—no feasible solution has been found. Otherwise, increment l by
one and solve the PAM(l, opt-gapl ). Repeat the Main Step.
A partitioning scheme for a = (a1 , a2 , . . . , a C )
The actual value of depends on the problem data, the required overall optimality
of solution, and the maximum time-frame during which a solution should be obtained.
In general, smaller values of should produce better quality solutions, but would
be more computationally demanding. Note that based on our extensive computational
testing and analysis, we observed that in some cases, enforcing the integrality of one
extra variable significantly changes the solvability of the problem. Also, it seems rea-
sonable to set 1 to be the set of classes that are taken by the first and second year
students to the extent possible. This stems from the fact that these classes mostly
involve a large number of sections.
Lower and upper bounds
Recall that at termination of Heuristic SFVH, at iteration l = l ∗ , say, the final
∗
PAM(l ∗ , opt-gapl ) yields an overall feasible solution whenever it produces an opti-
mum, and hence, the objective function value of this problem constitutes the best avail-
able upper bound. Moreover, the objective function value of PAM(1, opt-gap1 ) gives a
∗
lower bound on the overall problem. Hence, vub (PAM) = v(PAM(l ∗ , opt-gapl )) and
vlb (PAM) = v(PAM(1, opt-gap )). 1
123
42 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
from 53.5 to 67.9%. Note that these optimality percentages are based on the initial LP
relaxation values, which might be weak and therefore not truly indicative of the quality
of solutions attained (see further comparisons in Sect. 5.4.2). For test problem q5 , a
solution was obtained using two iterations, while for test problems q1 , q2 , and q3 ,
solutions were obtained using three iterations, and for test problems q4 , and q6 , four
iterations were needed to reach the stated solutions.
Now, let PDPAM2
M
and PDPAM3
M
respectively denote the total difference of discrepancies
between proctors based on the solution to PAM2 and PAM3. Table 14 compares results
obtained via Procedure SFVH and PAM2 and PAM3.
While procedure SFVH produced higher total dissatisfaction levels than those
obtained via PAM2 and PAM3, with its full consideration of equity, it outperformed
PAM2 and PAM3 in the sense that it generated total pairwise differences of discrep-
ancies that are much smaller than those obtained based on the outcome of these other
modified models.
Remark 5.1 The difficulty in solving PAM (and PAM1) might be due to symmetry
effects related to groups of identical proctors within each set P1 and P2 . A more sophis-
ticated data manipulation could attempt to identify such groups and then augment the
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 43
Table 14 Total proctors’ discrepancies obtained via Procedure SFVH and PAM2 and PAM3
Test problem q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6
Procedure SFVH p 2,252 1,918 2,090 1,563 2,429 1,785
p∈P
2
w p1 , p2 2,672 2,682 2,927 3,085 2,119 1,691
i=1 ( p1 , p2 )∈ Q i
Total 4,924 4,600 5,017 4,648 4,548 3,476
PAM2 p 1,864 1,601 1,821.9 1,340 1,487 1,507
p∈P
PDPAM2
M 9,776.0 11,211 5,178 6,996 7,681 6,128
Total 11,640 12,812 6,999.9 8,336 9,168 7,635
PAM3 p 1,843 1,665 1,810 1,339 1,482 1,473
p∈P
PDPAM3
M 11,635 11,170 9,057 7,718 8,068 10,333
Total 113,478 12,835 10,867 9,057 9,550 11,806
Table 15 Values of C1MET , C2MET , C3MET , C4MET , C5MET , and RMET obtained via the manual approach
MET
p1 15 0 11 3 1 12
p2 17 2 9 11 2 18
p3 16 6 8 1 0 17
p4 16 1 8 3 0 13
p5 17 4 15 3 2 12
p6 15 5 11 3 0 12
5.4 Comparison of the manual scheduling approaches MET and MPA and ETM and
PAM, respectively
In this section, we compare the overall performance of the manual approach in present
use at KU and the proposed modeling approach. In Sect. 5.4.1 a comparison of ETM
with the manual approach MET is presented, while a comparison of PAM with the
manual approach MPA is presented in Sect. 5.4.2.
Table 15 displays the values of C1MET , C2MET , C3MET , C4MET , C5MET , and RMET obtained
by the manual approach MET.
123
44 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
Table 16 Improvement of proctors’ preferences achieved via the proposed modeling approach
Table 17 Means and standard deviations of the proctor dissatisfaction levels obtained manually and via
PAM
Test problem µMPA (i) µPAM (i) σ MPA (i) σ PAM (i)
i i i i
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Note that the values of all the statistics given in Table 15 vanish to zero when gen-
erating exam timetables via ETM, indicating that exam schedules generated via ETM
overcome the shortcomings of the schedules generated via the manual approach MET.
5.4.2 Comparison of the proctors’ preferences achieved via the manual approach
and PAM
This section presents a comparison of the proctors’ dissatisfaction levels achieved via
the manual approach MPA and PAM.
Tables 16, 17 reveal that even though the provable optimality percentages associ-
ated with solving PAM using Procedure SFVH were relatively low (probably due to
the weak initial LP relaxation-based lower bound for assessing this gap), the modeling
approach by far outperformed the current manual approach from both an individual
and fairness (or equity) points of view. Furthermore, not only are the mean dissatisfac-
tion levels higher using the manual approach, but the manual approach also produces
MPA
β −β PAM
greater disparity among proctors, as evidenced by the values of 100 β MPA % in
Table 16, and of σ and σ in Table 17.
MPA PAM
123
A mixed-integer mathematical modeling approach to exam timetabling 45
This paper presents mixed-integer programming models for an exam timetabling prob-
lem related to Kuwait University (KU). This problem, as well as other scheduling and
timetabling problems such as class scheduling, and faculty and teaching assistant
scheduling, are challenging and complex tasks faced by relatively large universities
such as KU. The highly combinatorial nature of such problems makes ad hoc man-
ual approaches inefficient, expensive, and often accompanied by serious deficiencies
resulting in exam and class conflicts, dissatisfaction of proctors, consecutive exams
over two different campuses, clustering exams in certain exam-periods of some days,
and parking and traffic congestion. A two-stage modeling approach has been pro-
posed in this paper for the overall exam timetabling and proctor assignment problem
at KU. For the first stage, a mixed-integer programming model, ETM, was developed
to assign the exams of sections of classes to exam-periods, taking into consideration
conflict-free requirements as well as commuting issues. The assignment of proctors
to exams for each department was then handled via another mixed-integer program-
ming model, PAM, given the exam-periods as determined via the solution to ETM.
Model PAM attempts to perform an assignment taking into consideration the proctors’
preferences for specific days and exam-periods.
Model ETM was solved via a direct application of the commercial package CPLEX-
MIP (version 9.0) for the College of Science at Kuwait University, and exam timetables
generated manually and via ETM for the various departments at the College of Science
for six academic terms were compared and analyzed. Solving PAM via CPLEX-MIP
(version 9.0) was out-of-reach for six test cases related to the Department of Math-
ematics and Computer Science at the College of Science, but an alternative model
(PAM2) that formulates the equity issue by attempting to minimize the spread of
dissatisfaction levels among the proctors was readily solved to optimality. This moti-
vated the development of an iterative heuristic procedure for the original Model PAM
in which the integrality of only a subset of the integer variables is enforced at any
given iteration. The results obtained far outperformed the current manual approach
from both an individual and fairness (or equity) points of view.
Acknowledgments This research is supported by Kuwait University under Grant No. [YS 05/04]. We also
express our gratitude to the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) for their generous
support. Special thanks are also due to Miss. Renju Lekshmi for her help in the CPLEX computational
implementation of the developed models and heuristics. We also thank the referees for their constructive
comments that helped improve the presentation in this paper.
References
123
46 S. M. Al-Yakoob et al.
Beaumont N (1997b) Using mixed-integer programming to design employee rosters. J Oper Res Soc 48:
585–590
Birbas T, Daskalaki S, Housos E (1997) Timetabling for greek high schools. J Oper Res Soc 48: 1191–1200
Burke EK, Bykov Y, Petrovic S (2001) A multicriteria approach to examination timetabling. In: Burke
E, Erban W (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling III, (LNCS 2079). Springer, Berlin,
pp 104–117
Burke EK, Elliman DG, Ford PH, Weare RF (1996) Examination timetabling in British universities: a sur-
vey. In: Burke E, Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling I, (LNCS 1153). Springer,
Berlin, pp 76–90
Burke EK, Petrovic S (2002) Recent research directions in automated timetabling. Eur J Oper Res 140:
266–280
Carter MW, Laporte G (1996) Recent developments in practical examination timetabling. In: Burke E,
Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling I, (LNCS 1153). Springer, Berlin, pp 3–21
Cheng E, Kruk S, Lipman M (2003) Flow formulations for the student scheduling problem. In: Burke E,
De Causmaecker P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV, (LNCS 2740). Springer,
Berlin, pp 299–309
Daskalaki S, Birbas T (2005) Efficient solutions for a university timetabling problem through integer pro-
gramming. Eur J Oper Res 160: 106–120
Daskalaki S, Birbas T, Housos E (2004) An integer programming formulation for a case study in university
timetabling. Eur J Oper Res 153: 117–135
ILOG Inc. (2004) CPLEX optimization solver reference manual
Meisels A, Gudes E, Solotorevsky G (1996) Employee timetabling, constraint networks and knowledge-
based rules: a mixed approach. In: Burke E, Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling
I, (LNCS 1153). Springer, Berlin, pp 93–105
Meisels A, Kaplansky E (2003) Scheduling agents-distributed timetabling problems. In: Burke E,
De Causmaecker P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling IV, (LNCS 2740). Springer,
Berlin, pp 166–177
Meisels A, Kaplansky E (2004) Iterative restart technique for solving timetabling problems. Eur J Oper Res
153: 41–50
Mirrazavi SK, Mardle SJ, Tamiz M (2003) A two-phase multiple objective approach to university timet-
abling utilizing optimization and evolutionary solution methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 54: 1155–1166
Mukherjee AK, Gilbert KC (1997) Lagrangian heuristics for instructor scheduling in executive development
programmes. J Oper Res Soc 48: 373–382
Mullinax C, Lawley M (2002) Assigning patients to nurses in neonatal intensive care. J Oper Res Soc 53:
25–35
Sandhu KS (2001) Automating class schedule generation in the context of a university timetabling infor-
mation system, Phd dissertation, School of Management, Nathan Campus, Griffith University
Schaerf A (1999) A survey of automated timetabling. Artif Intell Rev 13: 87–127
Sherali HD, Smith JC (2001) Improving discrete model representations via symmetry considerations.
Manage Sci 47(10): 1396–1407
123