You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I solve a single instance (maximize) with pygcgopt and pyscipopt, but find different primal solutions. Pygcgopt terminates at 42.60s and outputs an "optimal" objective of +9.06769695399432e+04. Pyscipopt reaches the time limit of 100s and outputs the best objective of +9.35093089340221e+04, better than pygcgopt.
I wonder whether someone knows this problem.
The code, instance file and log files are as follows.
Here is the .lp file (change the file type due to the platform support): instance.txt
The code:
from pygcgopt import Model
instance = f'instance.lp'
m = Model()
m.setParam('limits/time', 100)
m.setParam('randomization/randomseedshift', 0)
m.setParam('randomization/lpseed', 0)
m.setParam('randomization/permutationseed', 0)
m.readProblem(instance)
m.optimize()
Log file of pygcgopt:
original problem has 1500 variables (1500 bin, 0 int, 0 impl, 0 cont) and 2605 constraints
feasible solution found by trivial heuristic after 0.0 seconds, objective value 0.000000e+00
presolving:
(round 1, fast) 34 del vars, 627 del conss, 0 add conss, 0 chg bounds, 0 chg sides, 0 chg coeffs, 0 upgd conss, 0 impls, 1978 clqs
(round 2, fast) 58 del vars, 627 del conss, 0 add conss, 0 chg bounds, 0 chg sides, 0 chg coeffs, 0 upgd conss, 0 impls, 1978 clqs
(round 3, exhaustive) 58 del vars, 774 del conss, 0 add conss, 0 chg bounds, 147 chg sides, 0 chg coeffs, 0 upgd conss, 0 impls, 1978 clqs
(round 4, exhaustive) 58 del vars, 774 del conss, 0 add conss, 0 chg bounds, 147 chg sides, 0 chg coeffs, 1831 upgd conss, 0 impls, 1978 clqs
(round 5, fast) 74 del vars, 776 del conss, 0 add conss, 0 chg bounds, 147 chg sides, 0 chg coeffs, 1831 upgd conss, 0 impls, 1974 clqs
(round 6, medium) 156 del vars, 779 del conss, 0 add conss, 0 chg bounds, 147 chg sides, 79 chg coeffs, 1831 upgd conss, 0 impls, 1969 clqs
(round 7, exhaustive) 167 del vars, 779 del conss, 0 add conss, 0 chg bounds, 147 chg sides, 79 chg coeffs, 1831 upgd conss, 0 impls, 1960 clqs
(0.1s) probing: 51/1333 (3.8%) - 0 fixings, 0 aggregations, 0 implications, 0 bound changes
(0.1s) probing aborted: 50/50 successive totally useless probings
presolving (8 rounds: 8 fast, 5 medium, 4 exhaustive):
167 deleted vars, 780 deleted constraints, 0 added constraints, 0 tightened bounds, 0 added holes, 147 changed sides, 79 changed coefficients
0 implications, 1960 cliques
presolved problem has 1333 variables (1333 bin, 0 int, 0 impl, 0 cont) and 1825 constraints
1825 constraints of type <setppc>
Presolving Time: 0.06
Consclassifier "nonzeros" yields a classification with 10 different constraint classes
Consclassifier "constypes" yields a classification with 1 different constraint classes
Consclassifier "constypes according to miplib" yields a classification with 2 different constraint classes
Consclassifier "gamsdomain" yields a classification with 1 different constraint classes
Conspartition "gamsdomain" is not considered since it offers the same structure as "constypes" conspartition
Consclassifier "gamssymbols" yields a classification with 1 different constraint classes
Conspartition "gamssymbols" is not considered since it offers the same structure as "constypes" conspartition
Varclassifier "gamsdomain" yields a classification with 1 different variable classes
Varclassifier "gamssymbols" yields a classification with 1 different variable classes
Varpartition "gamssymbols" is not considered since it offers the same structure as "gamsdomain"
Varclassifier "vartypes" yields a classification with 1 different variable classes
Varpartition "vartypes" is not considered since it offers the same structure as "gamsdomain"
Varclassifier "varobjvals" yields a classification with 1333 different variable classes
Varclassifier "varobjvalsigns" yields a classification with 1 different variable classes
Varpartition "varobjvalsigns" is not considered since it offers the same structure as "gamsdomain"
Added reduced version of conspartition nonzeros with 9 different constraint classes
the current varclass distribution includes 1333 classes but only 18 are allowed for GCGconshdlrDecompCalcCandidatesNBlocks()
in dec_consclass: there are 4 different constraint classes
the current consclass distribution includes 10 classes but only 9 are allowed for propagatePartialdec() of cons class detector
the current constraint classifier "constypes" consists of 1 different classes
the current constraint classifier "constypes according to miplib" consists of 2 different classes
the current constraint classifier "nonzeros-red-to-9" consists of 9 different classes
dec_consclass found 515 new partialdecs
dec_densemasterconss found 1 new partialdec
dec_neighborhoodmaster found 1 new partialdec
POSTPROCESSING of decompositions. Added 477 new decomps.
Found 992 finished decompositions.
Measured running time per detector:
Detector postprocess worked on 477 finished decompositions and took a total time of 0.089
Detector consclass worked on 988 finished decompositions and took a total time of 0.055
Detector densemasterconss worked on 1 finished decompositions and took a total time of 0.000
Detector neighborhoodmaster worked on 1 finished decompositions and took a total time of 0.000
Detector connectedbase worked on 991 finished decompositions and took a total time of 0.393
Detector varclass worked on 1 finished decompositions and took a total time of 0.000
Detection Time: 1.64
A Dantzig-Wolfe reformulation is applied to solve the original problem.
Chosen structure has 173 blocks, 763 master-only (static) variables, and 1427 linking constraints.
This decomposition has a maxwhite score of 0.216789.
Matrix has 173 blocks, using 173 pricing problems.
time | node | left |SLP iter|MLP iter|LP it/n| mem |mdpt |ovars|mvars|ocons|mcons|mcuts| dualbound | primalbound | deg | gap
t 0.5s| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 62M| 0 |1333 | 0 |1825 | 0 | 0 | 4.780775e+05 | 1.063107e+04 | -- |4396.98%
p 0.5s| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 64M| 0 |1333 | 0 |1825 | 0 | 0 | 4.780775e+05 | 6.586432e+04 | -- | 625.85%
p 0.5s| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 64M| 0 |1333 | 0 |1825 | 0 | 0 | 4.780775e+05 | 7.626814e+04 | -- | 526.84%
i 0.5s| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 64M| 0 |1333 | 0 |1825 | 0 | 0 | 4.780775e+05 | 7.797528e+04 | -- | 513.11%
1.5s| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 64M| 0 |1333 | 0 |1825 | 0 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 7.797528e+04 | -- | 36.05%
1.6s| 1 | 0 | 552 | 552 | - | 69M| 0 |1333 | 936 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 7.797528e+04 | 0.00%| 36.05%
1.6s| 1 | 0 | 552 | 552 | - | 71M| 0 |1333 |1974 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 7.797528e+04 | 0.00%| 36.05%
*P13.8s| 1 | 0 | 11728 | 11728 | - | 71M| 0 |1333 |1974 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 8.465736e+04 | 0.00%| 25.31%
13.8s| 1 | 0 | 11728 | 11728 | - | 71M| 0 |1333 |1974 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 8.465736e+04 | 0.00%| 25.31%
Starting reduced cost pricing...
20.1s| 1 | 0 | 22795 | 22795 | - | 80M| 0 |1333 |2402 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 8.465736e+04 | 0.82%| 25.31%
d 27.9s| 1 | 0 | 45269 | 45269 | - | 112M| 0 |1333 |9149 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 8.510654e+04 | 0.82%| 24.65%
d 27.9s| 1 | 0 | 45269 | 45269 | - | 113M| 0 |1333 |9322 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 8.653401e+04 | 0.82%| 22.59%
d 27.9s| 1 | 0 | 45269 | 45269 | - | 113M| 0 |1333 |9495 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 9.067697e+04 | 0.82%| 16.99%
38.2s| 1 | 0 | 45269 | 45269 | - | 114M| 0 |1333 |9841 |1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 9.067697e+04 | 0.82%| 16.99%
38.3s| 1 | 0 | 45269 | 45269 | - | 115M| 0 |1333 | 10k|1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 9.067697e+04 | 0.82%| 16.99%
time | node | left |SLP iter|MLP iter|LP it/n| mem |mdpt |ovars|mvars|ocons|mcons|mcuts| dualbound | primalbound | deg | gap
38.3s| 1 | 2 | 45269 | 45269 | - | 116M| 0 |1333 | 10k|1826 |1601 | 0 | 1.060817e+05 | 9.067697e+04 | 0.82%| 16.99%
SCIP Status : problem is solved [optimal solution found]
Solving Time (sec) : 42.60
Solving Nodes : 3
Primal Bound : +9.06769695399432e+04 (56 solutions)
Dual Bound : +9.06769695399432e+04
Gap : 0.00 %
Dear support team,
I solve a single instance (maximize) with pygcgopt and pyscipopt, but find different primal solutions. Pygcgopt terminates at 42.60s and outputs an "optimal" objective of +9.06769695399432e+04. Pyscipopt reaches the time limit of 100s and outputs the best objective of +9.35093089340221e+04, better than pygcgopt.
I wonder whether someone knows this problem.
The code, instance file and log files are as follows.
Here is the .lp file (change the file type due to the platform support):
instance.txt
The code:
Log file of pygcgopt:
Log file of pyscipopt:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: