See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261081293

Design and implementation of course timetabling system based on genetic

algorithm

Conference Paper · November 2013

DOI: 10.1109/ICCES.2013.6707195

CITATIONS READS

3 1,129

2 authors:

Hamdy M. Mousa Ashraf El-Sisi

Menoufia University - Faculty of Computers and Information Menoufia University
43 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   385 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intrusion detection systems View project

Accelerated Parallel Training of Logistic Regression using OpenCL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamdy M. Mousa on 13 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design and Implementation of Course Timetabling
System Based on Genetic Algorithm
Hamdy M. Mousa and Ashraf B. El-Sisi
Computer Science dept., Faculty of Computers and Information,
Menofia University, Egypt
{hamdimmm@hotmail.com, ashrafelsisi@hotmail.com}
Abstract— University course timetabling is one of the most
important and time-consuming problem which takes place
frequently in all the educational institutes. This paper proposes
design and implementation system to generate timetable based on
genetic algorithm using different combinations selection
algorithm and mutation types. Two cases small problem and big
problem are studied. The results show that two cases tournament
selection is giving solutions better than roulette wheel Selection.
The worst pair is roulette wheel selection and mutation. Mutation
error method helps to reach to the best solution faster. In case of
conflicts and no solution, our system generates a report,
containing conflict constraints that must be remove or modified.
Keywords—Courses timetabling; Genetic algorithm;
Optimization; Crossover and Mutation operators
I. INTRODUCTION
Timetabling is one of the areas that have been studied
extensively in recent decade. Among different timetabling
issues, course timetabling has been studied extensively due to
its application. This is one of the most important and time-
consuming task which takes place frequently (every year /
term) in all the educational institutes. The quality of
timetabling is vital on different groups such as professors,
students and managers. Setting the timetabling of university is
the specification of each pilot period and timing, professor and
classroom on the grounds that these resources and the students’
registration are taken into account [1]. The timetabling problem
is in class of NP-hard problems. This means that the amount of
time and work required solving this type of problems increases
exponentially with the problem size. This makes these
problems more difficult and time consuming. The optimal use
of educational resources depends on the best optimization of
course scheduling. Optimization of course scheduling must be
achieved hard constraints and as possible as soft constraints [2-
5]. Hard constraints include:
• Two courses cannot be scheduled into the same timeslot.
• A course should be carried out n times a week (at least n=1).
• Each course has a specific room requirement with type and
capacity.
• There are a specified number of periods for each course.
The soft constraints may be including:
• One course should be scheduled before or after another.
• Course should/should not be scheduled into a fixed timeslot
• Course should/should not be scheduled into a timeslot
consecutive to that of another.
Soft constraints are desirable but can be relaxed if
necessary. In a course timetabling problem, a number of
courses are assigned into classrooms and a limited number of
timeslots within a week. Students and lecturers are assigned to
courses. Of course, course timetabling also comes along with a
set of constraints that can also been classified as hard and soft
constraints as mentioned above. Individual academic
institutions usually have a combination of specific constraints
and most of research in course timetabling investigated
particular real world problems in their own institutions. In
literature, research on course timetabling is grouped as class-
teacher timetabling, student scheduling, teacher assignment and
classroom assignment. In our work we deal with class-teacher
timetabling and room capacities as a hard constraint. Various
methods have been investigated to solve educational
timetabling problems [6-7]. In the early days of educational
timetabling research, graph theoretic methods represented the
state of the art [8-9]. Techniques such as graph coloring were
widely used to solve the problems. For example, in [10]
developed a heuristic based on graph coloring approach that
split the exams into groups and schedule them together. The
number of timeslots correspond the number of colors needed.
Sequential assignment approach was also investigated in some
work, where the events were ordered by heuristics to be
scheduled one by one and backtracking was usually carried out
to obtain a feasible solution [11]. Other techniques that were
also widely employed in the early days of timetabling research
included integer linear programming [12-13]. Also meta-
heuristic methods used in educational timetabling, such as
simulated annealing was a widely studied method on
course/school timetabling problems. In [14] studied a simulated
annealing that were implemented on a multiprocessor and
presented further research issues arise from this approach.
Some work concluded that the implementation of simulated
annealing is highly dependent on various settings and
parameters (e.g. solution space, cooling schedule,
neighborhood generation, cost function) on both examination
and course/school timetabling problems thus careful selection
on parameters and settings on this algorithm are needed [15-
16]. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary algorithms have been
widely studied in timetabling, concerning different aspects of
timetabling problems [17]. In [18] which investigated parallel
genetic algorithms for course timetabling that greatly reduced
the execution time to solve the problem. In [19] studied a
genetic algorithm with greedy algorithm that used domain
knowledge for room and timeslot scheduling. In [20]
investigated a grouping genetic algorithms in which the
representation was based on the grouping character of the
graph coloring problem, and tested the genetic algorithm on
real-world examination timetabling problem and suggested that
the fitness function should convey as much information about
the quality of the solution as possible. In [221] propose a new
method of genetic algorithm with searchh bank strategies
namely local which increase the solutions,, guided and tabu
searches. This paper proposes design annd implementation
system to generate timetable based on genetic algorithm. In the
first, encode of the group’s variables, initialiize the population,
and reproduce with different ways (seleection algorithms,
crossover, mutation, mutation error) ann individual and
termination criteria are defined. The gennetic algorithm is
usually terminated if the fitness exceeds a certain threshold
value or a certain pre-specified number off generations have
been produced. Small problem (Ps) and big problem (Pb), are
considered as examples to running sevveral times using
implemented system. The results show that using tournament
selection and mutation error methods and the worst pair is
roulette wheel selection and mutation. In twoo cases tournament
selection is giving solutions best than roulettte wheel selection.
Mutation error method helps to reach to the best
b solution faster.
The organization of paper as followingg, in section 2,
introduction to genetic algorithms is presenteed. In section 3 we
present a proposed design system using gennetic algorithm for
timetabling problem. Proposed design system m implementation,
results and discussion are shown in sectionn 4. Finally some
conclusion is put forward in section 5.
II. GENETIC ALGORITHM
MS
Evolutionary Computation (EC) is a field f of computer
science that uses biological processes as a model for solving
problems [22]. Genetic Algorithms (GAs), first proposed by
John Holland in the 1960s, are a categoryy of EC that use
concepts derived from evolution. A good ovverview of how to
design a GA is given in [23]. A basic geneetic algorithm that
can produce acceptable results in many praactical problems is
composed of three operators, reproductioon, crossover and
mutation [24]. Fig. 1 shows the structure thaat is used by GAs.
First, a population of chromosomes is ranndomly initialized.
These chromosomes each contain a collecttion of genes and
each gene has a value (called an allele). A single chromosome
is an encoded version of a solution to the problem. The GA
performs exploration/exploitation of the probblems search space
by evolving the population of chromosomes through
t a series of
generations. During each generation off the GA, parent
chromosomes are selected from the populatiion. These parent
chromosomes are combined to form children chromosomes and
then the child chromosomes are mutated. Until to get best
solutions, repeat the selection and mutation.
III. PROPOSED AUTOMATED GENETIC TIMEETABLING SYSTEM
The automated genetic timetabling system m designed in this
paper study deals with a simplified versionn of the university
timetabling problem. At the beginning of proposed algorithm
the size of university course timetabling andd its constraints are
defined. In the first step of proposed design,, groups, lecturers,
rooms, labs, and their variables are encodedd as the following,
the group fields are group index, number of courses,
c number of
students, number of sections, max number of o students per one
section, group name, course name, course type,t course index
and then repeat the last three fields for eacch course for this
group. The lecturer fields aree lecturer index, lecturer name,
available intervals per day lectuurer type, number of courses and
courses codes. The rooms andd the labs fields are room index
and room capacity after recordding rooms then store lab index
and lab capacity.
Fig. 1. Process of
o Genetic Algorithms
The following example represents lecturer and his
variables.
This record represents Dr_AAshraf lecturer with his index is
8 and his available intervals. And
A he teaches two courses and
their codes are 2200 and 2500.
And the group example;
This record represents Firsst_Year group and its index is 1.
This group studies 6 courses anda contains 100 students. This
group divides to 4 sections andd every 25 students represent one
section. Also, this group studiees English course as lecture and
so on.
A. Chromosome Representatioon
In our implementation, twoo chromosomes are suggested to
avoid wrong assignment of particular
p rooms/labs for some
classes. The first chromosome represents rooms and the other
represents labs. The length of o chromosome equals to the
multiplication of the number of
o days, number of intervals and
the number of Rooms/Labs. So each place in that array
represents a Room/Lab at a parrticular interval time of the day.
As the following example; Where any place in that array holds
a course code represent the Leccture/Section that will be hold in
that Room/Lab at that day innterval, otherwise that place is
equal zero to mean that room is
i empty at the day interval. Fig.
2 and Fig. 3 are shown two dayys chromosome array for rooms
and chromosome array for labs as example.
To make chromosome is flexible,
fl easily readable and has
more information, the course index,
i group index and sections
index are encoded as the followwing:
Course numbers: 100 200 3000 ... 700 800 900
Group number: 01000, 02000, 03000,
0 04000, … , 99000
Section numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …,
… 99
 As example: the code is 03504, this mean: 3rd Group – course must be scheduled exactly once and so on before two
course number 5 (i.e. course number 5 in 3rd Group) – section new chromosomes replaced the two old chromosomes in the
4. population.

There are four types of errors may happen in the timetable.

Fig. 2 shown chromosome array for rooms.
1) Group of students may be double booked.
2) A classroom may be small to hold one or more of courses
booked to it.
3) Lecturers may be double booked.
4) A lecturer may be booked when he/she is unavailable.
Fig. 4 to Fig. 7 shown the procedures are used to compute
how many times each error of errors is occurred and then
computes the costs and fitness of the chromosomes using the
following equation:

Cost = GdbError + CsError + LdbError + LUError (1)

Where GdbError is Group_double_booked_Error,

CsError is Classroom_Small_Error, LdbError is
Lecturers_double_booked_Error, and LUError is
Lecturer_Unavailable_Error.

Fig. 3 Chromosome array for labs.

Our main GA algorithm consists of the following steps:

1) Randomly generate 20 chromosomes to create the
initial population.
2) Select chromosomes for crossover.
3) Do crossover for the selected chromosomes.
4) Perform the mutation and update.
5) Repair the chromosomes.
6) Compute the costs and fitness for each chromosome.
7) Survive the next generation and store the elitism.
8) Repeat steps from 2 to 7 until zero cost chromosomes
or maximum number of generation are reached.

Two methods are used to select parents for the new

generation; the first one is Roulette wheel selection. Roulette
wheel selection is implemented as follows:
Fig. 4 Algorithm to Compute Group_double_booked_Error
1) Sum the fitness of all the population members. Call this TF
(total fitness).
2) Generate a random number n, between 0 and TF.
3) Return the first population member whose fitness added to
the preceding population a member is greater than or equal
to n.
Another method is Tournament selection and is
implemented as the following:
1) Choose four chromosomes randomly
2) Return with the index of the chromosome with the smallest
cost.
There are two methods are used to crossover the two Fig. 5 Algorithm to Compute Classroom_Small_Error
selected chromosomes. The first one is uniform crossover. The
These errors may be multiplied by weights for each of them
change of any gene in two chromosomes is available in this
in the previous equation. Our system select one of two types of
method by randomly copied from the first or from the second
mutations which called normal mutation and mutation error.
parent. The second method is one point crossover. Two
When any error of four previous errors is take place, mutation
selected chromosomes are swapped at random position to process manipulate with this error by exchange gene with
create new two chromosomes. The Repair chromosomes another one in the same chromosome randomly.
procedure is used to scan and repair from errors such that every

Fig. 6 Algorithm to Compute Lecturers_double_booked_Error
intervals per day to the number of days, the Lecturer Type, the
Number of courses. After that the courses codes which that
lecturer will teach are written. Fourth part contains the rooms
then the labs variables as the following: the Room Index
followed by the Room Capacity then the labs is also
represented by placing the Lab Index followed by the Lab
Capacity. The two problems used to test our program are small
problem (Ps) and big problem (Pb). The small problem (Ps)
contains “24” lectures and sections and “6” lecturers and “6”
days with “4” intervals in each day and two rooms and two
labs. The big problem (Pb) contains “93” lectures and sections
and “31” lecturers and “6” days with “4” intervals in each day
and “3” rooms and “6” labs. Configuration of the problem for
combination of selection and mutation for small and big
problems are ran several times on the same machine with the
same number of Population and Mutation Rate and Crossover
Rate. The average results of these two problems are as shown
in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.

Fig. 7 Algorithm to Compute Lecturer_Unavailable_Error

IV. IMPLEMENTATION, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fig. 8 The results for the small problem (Ps)
The proposed design is implemented by using java
programming, under windows 7, running on Intel core 2 duo
t725 2 GHz. The text file stores some basic data that used in
the main system program. Text file is divided into four parts.
First part contains the constraints and variables the GA will
need as the following:
Number_of_Groups =5
Number_of_Intervals =4
Number_of_Days =6
Number_of_Rooms =3
number_of_Labs =6
Number_of_Stuff = 31
Numder_of_Population = 20
Uniform_Crossover_Rate = 50 %
Mutation_Rate = 10 %
Fig. 9 The results for the big problem (Pb)
Second part contains the groups and their variables as the
following: The Group index followed by the Number of
Courses, the Number of Students, the Number of Sections, the In the first problem four combinations of selection and
Max number of Students per one Section, the Group Name. mutation are roulette wheel selection and mutation (WM),
After that the courses of that group is written as the following: tournament selection and mutation (TM), Roulette wheel
the Course Name, then the Course Type, then the Course Index selection and mutation error (WME), and tournament selection
and that is repeated for each course for that group. Third part and mutation error (TME). The results illustrated that
contains the lecturers and their variables as the following: The tournament selection and mutation error is achieved the desired
Lecturer Index followed by the Lecturer Name, the Available fitness at third generation in average time 120 ms, roulette
Array which its size is equal to the multiple of number of wheel selection and mutation error is achieved the desired
fitness at ninety seventh generation in average time 430 ms and
tournament selection and mutation is achieved the desired
fitness at second generation in average time 100 ms. But the
other roulette wheel selection and mutation not reach to
solution before (10000) generation. So the better combinations
are TM and TME which achieved the desired goal in time less
than 130 ms. In the big problem run, two types of selection
and two types of mutations are used. The results that are shown
in Fig. 9, illustrated the tournament selection and mutation
error combination is achieved the desired fitness at thirty third
generations in average 475 ms. But the other combinations not
reach to solution before maximum number of generation. So
the TME is the better combination to optimize the big problem
timetabling scheduling. After analysis our results we find that
the best pair is using Tournament Selection and MutationError
methods for different timetabling scheduling problems and the
worst pair is Roulette Wheel Selection and Mutation. When
running program with conflicted hard constrains, conflicted
report is created after reaching maximum number of
generation. For example Lecturer unavailable is an error; we
can solve this problem by changing the available array for
some lecturers or by increasing the number of the intervals per
the day or by increasing the number of the lecturers.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper is design and implemented the system to
generate timetable based on genetic algorithm. Also
combination of selection and mutation are suggested as roulette
wheel selection and mutation, tournament selection and
mutation, roulette wheel selection and mutation error, and
tournament selection and mutation error. Two cases are small
problem and big problem, are tested. The results show that the
worst selection pair is roulette wheel selection and mutation. In
the other two cases tournament selection is giving solutions
better than roulette wheel Selection. Mutation error method
helps to reach to the better solution faster. In case of conflicts
and there is no solution such as the intervals are insufficient,
our system generates a report, containing conflict constraints
that must be remove or modified. In future work we try to
study scaling factor of problem size practically for
implemented system to achieve acceptable performance against
generation table time.
REFERENCES
[1] Mohamed Tahar Ben Othman, “Ant Universal Tool for University
Course Schedule Using Genetic Algorithm”, (IJCNS) International
Journal of Computer and Network Security, Vol. 2, No. 6. 2010.
[2] Abdelaziz Dammak, Abdelkarim Elloumi, Hichem Kamoun,
“Classroom assignment for exam timetabling”, Advances in Engineering
Software, 37, 659–666, 2006.
[3] Christopher Head, and Sami Shaban, “A heuristic approach to
simultaneous course/student timetabling”, Computers & Operations
Research, vol. 34, pp. 919–933, 2007.
[4] P. De Causmaecker et al., “A decomposed metaheuristic approach for a
real-world university timetabling problem”, European Journal of
Operational Research Volume 195, Issue 1, Pages 307–318, 2009.
[5] Natashia Bolanda, Barry D. Hughesa, Liam T.G. Merlotb, Peter J.
Stuckey, “New integer linear programming approaches for course
timetabling”, Computers & Operations Research vol.35, pp. 2209 –
2233, 2008.
View publication stats
[6] Michael W. Carter, Gilbert Laporte, “Recent developments in practical
examination timetabling”, Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceVolume
1153, pp 1-21, 1996.
[7] Michael W. Carter, Gilbert Laporte, “Recent developments in practical
course timetabling”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 1408,
pp 3-19, 1998.
[8] Daniel Brelaz, “New methods to colour the vertices of a graph”,
Communication of the Association for Computing Machinery, 22, 251 –
256, 1979.
[9] Werra D., “Graphs, hypergraphs and timetabling”, Methods of
Operations Research (Germany F.R.), 49, 201 – 213, 1985.
[10] Burke EK, Elliman DG, Weare RF, “A university timetabling system
based on graph colouring and constraint manipulation”, Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 27, 1 – 18, 1994.
[11] Michael W. Carter, Gilbert Laporte, “Examination timetabling:
algorithmic Strategies and applications”, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 74, 373 – 383, 1996.
[12] Arabinda Tripathy, “School timetabling - A case in large binary integer
linear programming”, Management Science, Vol. 30, 1473 – 1489, 1984.
[13] Natashia Bolanda, Barry D. Hughesa, Liam T.G. Merlotb, Peter J.
Stuckey, “New integer linear programming approaches for course
timetabling”, Computers & Operations Research, vol.35, pp. 2209 –
2233, 2008.
[14] Abramson, “Constructing school timetables using simulated annealing:
sequential and parallel algorithms”, Management Science, 37, 98 –113,
1991.
[15] Thompson and Dowsland, “A robust simulated annealing based
examination timetabling system”, Computers and Operations
Research,25, 637 – 648, 1998.
[16] Abramson, Dang and Krisnamoorthy, “Simulated annealing cooling
schedules for the school timetabling problem, Asia-PacificJournal of
Operational Research, 16, 1 – 22, 1999.
[17] Corne, Ross and Fang, “Evolutionary timetabling: practice, prospects
and work in progress” Proceedings of UK Planning and Scheduling SIG
Workshop, 1994.
[18] Abramson and Abela, “A parallel genetic algorithm for solving school
timetabling problem”, The fifteenth Australian Computer Science
Conference, 1 – 11, 1992.
[19] David C. Rich, “A smart genetic algorithm for university timetabling”,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 1153, pp 179-197, 1996.
[20] Wilhelm Erben, “A grouping genetic algorithm for graph colouring and
exam timetabling”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 2079,
pp 132-156, 2001.
[21] Mahiba A., Durai C., “Genetic algorithm with search bank strategies for
university course timetabling problem”, Procedia Engineering 38, pp.
253 – 263, 2012.
[22] P. J. Angeline, “Adaptive and self-adaptive evolutionary computations,”
Computational Intelligence: A Dynamic System Perspective,
Piscataway, IEEE Press, pp. 152-163, 1995.
[23] M. Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press, 1998.
[24] Haupt R. Haupt S., “Practical Genetic Algorithms” 2nd ed. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. 2004.