Case-Based Reasoning as a Heuristic Selector in a Hyper-Heuristic for Course Timetabling Problems

This paper studies Knowledge Discovery (KD) using Tabu Search and Hill Climbing within Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) as a hyper-heuristic method for course timetabling problems. The aim of the hyper-heuristic is to choose the best heuristic(s) for given timetabling problems according to the knowledge stored in the case base. KD in CBR is a 2-stage iterative process on both case representation and the case base. Experimental results are analysed and related research issues for future work are discussed.

Case Based Heuristic Selection for Timetabling Problems

This paper presents a case-based heuristic selection approach for automated university course and exam timetabling. The method described in this paper is motivated by the goal of developing timetabling systems that are fundamentally more general than the current state of the art. Heuristics that worked well in previous similar situations are memorized in a case base and are retrieved for solving the problem in hand. Knowledge discovery techniques are employed in two distinct scenarios. Firstly, we model the problem and the problem solving situations along with specific heuristics for those problems. Secondly, we refine the case base and discard cases which prove to be non-useful in solving new problems. Experimental results are presented and analyzed. It is shown that case based reasoning can act effectively as an intelligent approach to learn which heuristics work well for particular timetabling situations. We conclude by outlining and discussing potential research issues in this critical area of knowledge discovery for different difficult timetabling problems.

National evaluation of NHS genetics service investments: emerging issues from the cancer genetics pilots

In seeking to fulfil the ambition of the 2003 genetics white paper, Our Inheritance, Our Future, to ‘mainstream’ genetic knowledge and practices, the Department of Health provided start-up funding for pilot services in various clinical areas, including seven cancer genetics projects. To help to understand the challenges encountered by such an attempt at reconfiguring the organization and delivery of services in this field, a programme-level evaluation of the genetics projects was commissioned to consider the organizational issues faced. Using a qualitative approach, this research has involved comparative case-study work in 11 of the pilot sites, including four of the seven cancer genetics pilots. In this paper, the researchers present early findings from their work, focusing in particular on the cancer genetics pilots. They consider some of the factors that have influenced how the pilots have sought to address pre-existing sector, organizational and professional boundaries to these new ways of working. The article examines the relationship between these factors and the extent to which pilots have succeeded in setting up boundary-spanning services, dealing with human-resource issues and creating sustainable, ‘mainstreamed’ provision which attracts ongoing funding in a volatile NHS commissioning environment where funding priorities do not always favour preventive, risk-assessment services.