4.6 Article

A Survey of University Course Timetabling Problem: Perspectives, Trends and Opportunities

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 106515-106529

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3100613

关键词

Optimization; Color; Heuristic algorithms; Education; Benchmark testing; Market research; Licenses; Combinatorial optimisation problem; course timetabling problem; optimisation

资金

  1. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) [F08/RISE/2090/2021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The University Course Timetabling Problem (UCTTP) is a challenging optimization issue attracting much interest from researchers. Recent studies show that meta-heuristic and hybrid approaches are popular and effective in solving UCTTP, with hyper-heuristic methods also yielding good results. However, top methodologies in scientific literature may not be fully utilized in practical settings.
The timetabling problem is common to academic institutions such as schools, colleges or universities. It is a very hard combinatorial optimisation problem which attracts the interest of many researchers. The university course timetabling problem (UCTTP) is difficult to address due to the size of the problem and several challenging hard and soft constraints. Over the years, various methodologies were proposed to solve UCTTP. The purpose of this survey paper is to provide the most recent scientific review of the methodologies applied to UCTTP. The paper unveils a classification of methodologies proposed in recent years based on chronology and datasets used. Perspectives, trends, challenges and opportunities in UCTTP are also presented. It is observed that meta-heuristic approaches are popular among researchers. This is followed closely by hybrid methodologies. Hyper-heuristic approaches are also able to produce effective results. Another observation is that the state-of-art methodologies in the scientific literature are not fully utilised in a real-world environment perhaps due to the limited flexibility of these methodologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据