coin-or / Clp

COIN-OR Linear Programming Solver
Other
396 stars 82 forks source link

semi-continuous variables causes infeasible on presolve #165

Open raller09 opened 3 years ago

raller09 commented 3 years ago

Hi,

i am trying to use clp to solve a minimization problem with semi-continuous variables.

Please see my sample problem (i hope I haven't oversimplified it):

NAME                  
ROWS
 N  R0      
 L  y5050_max
 L  y0954_max
 E  y_T     
 E  scv_y3380
 E  scv_y5050
COLUMNS
    x3380_p   R0        2.8500000000   y0954_max  100.00000000
    x3380_p   y_T       1.0000000000   scv_y3380  1.0000000000
    x5050_p   R0        1.7650000000   y5050_max  1.0000000000
    x5050_p   y_T       1.0000000000   scv_y5050  1.0000000000
    x7010_p   R0        0.3400000000   y_T       1.0000000000
    x3380_s   R0        2.8499900000   y0954_max  100.00000000
    x3380_s   y_T       1.0000000000   scv_y3380  1.0000000000
    x5050_s   R0        1.7649900000   y5050_max  1.0000000000
    x5050_s   y_T       1.0000000000   scv_y5050  1.0000000000
    x7010_s   R0        0.3399900000   y_T       1.0000000000
    scv_x3380  scv_y3380  -1.000000000
    scv_x5050  scv_y5050  -1.000000000
RHS
    RHS       y5050_max  10.000000000   y0954_max  1.0000000000
    RHS       y_T       100.00000000
BOUNDS
 SC BND       scv_x3380  
 LO BND       scv_x3380  2.3000000000
 SC BND       scv_x5050  
 LO BND       scv_x5050  2.3000000000
ENDATA

I reduced it to 3 (6) variables. Always 2 are in relation to each other (in my example only with different costs) -> _p + _s.

if a or b are used, then 
a + b must be 0 or >= value.

so i added a column scv_y with

  a + b = c   ->
  a + b - c = 0
with
  c semi-continuous and >= 2.3

clp reports this as infeasible:

D:\Temp\lpsolver\Clp-master-win64-msvc15-md\bin>clp.exe ccc.mps solve
Coin LP version devel, build Jul  3 2020
command line - clp.exe ccc.mps solve
At line 1 NAME
At line 2 ROWS
At line 9 COLUMNS
At line 22 RHS
At line 25 BOUNDS
At line 30 ENDATA
Problem no_name has 5 rows, 8 columns and 16 elements
2 semi-continuous variables - report odd behavior
Model was imported from .\ccc.mps in 0.003 seconds
Presolve determined that the problem was infeasible with tolerance of 1e-08
Analysis indicates model infeasible or unbounded
Primal infeasible - objective value 43.0495
PrimalInfeasible objective 43.0495 - 3 iterations time 0.002

it is even with presolve tolerance set to 0.1 infeasible:

clp.exe ccc.mps preT 1e-1 solve
preTolerance was changed from 1e-08 to 0.1
Presolve determined that the problem was infeasible with tolerance of 0.1

if i remove the semi-continuous variables it is feasible. In my example there a only "lower-then" and a var without a constraints. So it should always be solvable.

I've tried a little offset for the equation of "scv_y" ±0.00001 But this leads to an incorrect result in one case.

I tried to solve > 400 sample problems. But t think only 2-3 are problematic.

I am using binarys from bintray for Windows 64 bit (tryed msvc15/16 versions). Should I use the newsgroup or is this the right place?

Am I doing something wrong?

jjhforrest commented 3 years ago

Use cbc not clp.

There may be bugs with semi-continuous variables - one output line is

2 semi-continuous variables - report odd behavior

However cbc reports the problem to feasible and gets correct answer. If cbc gives wrong answers to nay of your problems - I will look into it.

clp is getting confused as it does not really know about semi-continuous variables (or any discontinuities).

John Forrest

On 13/11/2020 09:21, raller09 wrote:

Hi,

i am trying to use clp to solve a minimization problem with semi-continuous variables.

Please see my sample problem (i hope I haven't oversimplified it):

|NAME ROWS N R0 L y5050_max L y0954_max E y_T E scv_y3380 E scv_y5050 COLUMNS x3380_p R0 2.8500000000 y0954_max 100.00000000 x3380_p y_T 1.0000000000 scv_y3380 1.0000000000 x5050_p R0 1.7650000000 y5050_max 1.0000000000 x5050_p y_T 1.0000000000 scv_y5050 1.0000000000 x7010_p R0 0.3400000000 y_T 1.0000000000 x3380_s R0 2.8499900000 y0954_max 100.00000000 x3380_s y_T 1.0000000000 scv_y3380 1.0000000000 x5050_s R0 1.7649900000 y5050_max 1.0000000000 x5050_s y_T 1.0000000000 scv_y5050 1.0000000000 x7010_s R0 0.3399900000 y_T 1.0000000000 scv_x3380 scv_y3380 -1.000000000 scv_x5050 scv_y5050 -1.000000000 RHS RHS y5050_max 10.000000000 y0954_max 1.0000000000 RHS y_T 100.00000000 BOUNDS SC BND scv_x3380 LO BND scv_x3380 2.3000000000 SC BND scv_x5050 LO BND scv_x5050 2.3000000000 ENDATA |

I reduced it to 3 (6) variables. Always 2 are in relation to each other (in my example only with different costs) -> _p + _s.

|if a or b are used, then a + b must be 0 or >= value. |

so i added a column scv_y with

|a + b = c -> a + b - c = 0 with c semi-continuous and >= 2.3 |

clp reports this as infeasible:

|D:\Temp\lpsolver\Clp-master-win64-msvc15-md\bin>clp.exe ccc.mps solve Coin LP version devel, build Jul 3 2020 command line - clp.exe ccc.mps solve At line 1 NAME At line 2 ROWS At line 9 COLUMNS At line 22 RHS At line 25 BOUNDS At line 30 ENDATA Problem no_name has 5 rows, 8 columns and 16 elements 2 semi-continuous variables - report odd behavior Model was imported from .\ccc.mps in 0.003 seconds Presolve determined that the problem was infeasible with tolerance of 1e-08 Analysis indicates model infeasible or unbounded Primal infeasible - objective value 43.0495 PrimalInfeasible objective 43.0495 - 3 iterations time 0.002 |

it is even with presolve tolerance set to 0.1 infeasible:

|clp.exe ccc.mps preT 1e-1 solve preTolerance was changed from 1e-08 to 0.1 Presolve determined that the problem was infeasible with tolerance of 0.1 |

if i remove the semi-continuous variables it is feasible. In my example there a only "lower-then" and a var without a constraints. So it should always be solvable.

I've tried a little offset for the equation of "scv_y" ±0.00001 But this leads to an incorrect result in one case.

I tried to solve > 400 sample problems. But t think only 2-3 are problematic.

I am using binarys from bintray for Windows 64 bit (tryed msvc15/16 versions). Should I use the newsgroup or is this the right place?

Am I doing something wrong?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/issues/165, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWJYHBIK7XBEQCQXVH6MVDSPT3ADANCNFSM4TUK5W2Q.

raller09 commented 3 years ago

Thank you. the small example works.

I made a not-so-small example: ccc.log ccc.mps.txt

and used cbc but i think I'm getting a wrong result:

x1120_s = 0.45841789
but should be 0 or >= 2.3

And with a very big problem, it looks like cbc is exiting after

Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver
Version: devel
Build Date: Jul  2 2020

command line - cbc.exe ccc.mps solve (default strategy 1)
At line 11 NAME
At line 12 ROWS
At line 33894 COLUMNS
At line 324113 RHS
At line 337558 RANGES
At line 340216 BOUNDS
At line 352849 ENDATA
Problem no_name has 33880 rows, 59113 columns and 503923 elements
6316 semi-continuous variables - report odd behavior
Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors
Continuous objective value is 122260 - 0.76 seconds
No integer variables - nothing to do
Cgl0004I processed model has 10418 rows, 21898 columns (0 integer (0 of which binary)) and 168751 elements
Cbc3007W No integer variables - nothing to do
Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.006 seconds, density: 0.000%
Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated
Cbc0036I Heuristics switched off as 6316 branching objects are of wrong type

is this the place where we should write about it or should i post it on cbc or in the mailing list?

thank you.

jjhforrest commented 3 years ago

If you run cbc with -preprocess off, then it works with ccc.mps.

I have fixed the bug with preprocessing in master/Cbc/src/CbcSolver.cpp.

With the big problem, you will probably need preprocessing (the bug might have caused code to crash). If you can send me the model, I will find out what the problem is and whether fixing the bug sorts everything out.

John Forrest

If you are not using master then the change is not great

diff --git a/src/CbcSolver.cpp b/src/CbcSolver.cpp index 21eef2ee..d3127bdf 100644 --- a/src/CbcSolver.cpp +++ b/src/CbcSolver.cpp @@ -4652,13 +4652,22 @@ int CbcMain1(int argc, const char *argv[], if (numberLotSizing) { CbcObject *objects = new CbcObject [numberLotSizing]; double points[] = { 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 };

On 13/11/2020 11:58, raller09 wrote:

Thank you. the small example works.

I made a not-so-small example: ccc.log https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/files/5536561/ccc.log ccc.mps.txt https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/files/5536563/ccc.mps.txt

and used cbc but i think I'm getting a wrong result:

|x1120_s = 0.45841789 but should be 0 or >= 2.3 |

And with a very big problem, it looks like cbc is exiting after

|Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver Version: devel Build Date: Jul 2 2020 command line - cbc.exe ccc.mps solve (default strategy 1) At line 11 NAME At line 12 ROWS At line 33894 COLUMNS At line 324113 RHS At line 337558 RANGES At line 340216 BOUNDS At line 352849 ENDATA Problem no_name has 33880 rows, 59113 columns and 503923 elements 6316 semi-continuous variables - report odd behavior Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors Continuous objective value is 122260 - 0.76 seconds No integer variables - nothing to do Cgl0004I processed model has 10418 rows, 21898 columns (0 integer (0 of which binary)) and 168751 elements Cbc3007W No integer variables - nothing to do Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.006 seconds, density: 0.000% Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated Cbc0036I Heuristics switched off as 6316 branching objects are of wrong type |

is this the place where we should write about it or should i post it on cbc or in the mailing list?

thank you.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/issues/165#issuecomment-726725305, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWJYHASCXF2KNK6NNCX4ULSPUNNJANCNFSM4TUK5W2Q.

raller09 commented 3 years ago

Hi,

thank you for your support.

I tried the modified version and it solves the example model model.

but if i add some constraints NotSoSmall.mps.txt

The new constraint is an equation with

_Pw + _Ps = value

and should not change the feasibility of the model.

i get a incorrect result:

Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver 
Version: devel 
Build Date: Nov 16 2020 

command line - cbc.exe NotSoSmall.mps solve solution $ (default strategy 1)
At line 1 NAME
At line 2 ROWS
At line 143 COLUMNS
At line 993 RHS
At line 1052 RANGES
At line 1063 BOUNDS
At line 1094 ENDATA
Problem no_name has 139 rows, 144 columns and 1511 elements
15 semi-continuous variables - report odd behavior
Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors
Continuous objective value is 238.529 - 0.00 seconds
No integer variables - nothing to do
Cgl0004I processed model has 31 rows, 51 columns (0 integer (0 of which binary)) and 514 elements
Cbc3007W No integer variables - nothing to do
Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.000 seconds, density: 0.000%
Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated
Cbc0036I Heuristics switched off as 15 branching objects are of wrong type
Cbc0004I Integer solution of 238.52898 found after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.01 seconds)
Cbc0001I Search completed - best objective 238.5289845810843, took 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.01 seconds)
Cbc0035I Maximum depth 0, 0 variables fixed on reduced cost
Cuts at root node changed objective from 238.529 to 238.529
Probing was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
Gomory was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
Knapsack was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
Clique was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
OddWheel was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
FlowCover was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
TwoMirCuts was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
ZeroHalf was tried 0 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
Cgl0013I Postprocessed model is infeasible - possible tolerance issue - try without preprocessing
36 bounds tightened after postprocessing

51 relaxed row infeasibilities - summing to 145883
58 relaxed row infeasibilities - summing to 504450
58 relaxed row infeasibilities - summing to 504450

Result - Optimal solution found

Objective value:                238.52898458
Enumerated nodes:               0
Total iterations:               0
Time (CPU seconds):             0.02
Time (Wallclock seconds):       0.02

Optimal - objective value 235.69821230
**       2 x1060          -17.415952                   1e-05
     13 x5050           4.8833616                       0
     17 x6170          0.82416512               2.2778827
**      43 x1040_Pw                0                       0
     44 x1048_Pw        49.915952                       0
     45 x1060_Pw             27.5                       0
     48 x3000_Pw        15.132632               1.0002527
     54 x4070_Pw              2.3              0.56213055
     56 x5050_Pw               10                  -1e-05
     58 x5150_Pw              1.5              0.56092617
     60 x6170_Pw              1.5               2.2778727
     63 x6420_Pw             0.04                 8.49999
     65 x6460_Pw              0.4               4.4946154
     66 x7010_Pw        1.6162355                       0
     67 x7030_Pw       0.59187603                       0
     68 x7090_Pw       0.51304704                       0
     70 x7270_Pw            0.015                22.49999
     71 x9012_Pw      0.050729337               11.037548
     74 x9024_Pw       0.42821232               4.1646383
     75 x9030_Pw       0.07274083               7.4431256
     76 x9080_Pw            0.012                64.99999
     77 x9090_Pw             0.01               145.12753
     79 x9150_Pw             0.03               59.915256
     80 x9364_Pw             0.05                40.99999
     81 x9710_Pw             0.03                62.99999
     86 x1040_Ps               45                       0
     88 x1060_Ps              7.5                       0
     90 x1121_Ps           88.178                       0
     91 x3000_Ps        73.045368                       0
     92 x3050_Ps           88.178                       0
     94 x3180_Ps           88.178                       0
     95 x3380_Ps                7                       0
     96 x4030_Ps               15                       0
     98 x4530_Ps           88.178                       0
    100 x5130_Ps           88.178                       0
    106 x6420_Ps           88.178                       0
    107 x6450_Ps           88.178                       0
    109 x7010_Ps        8.3837645                       0
    110 x7030_Ps         1.408124                       0
    116 x9022_Ps           88.178                       0
    120 x9090_Ps           88.178                       0
    123 x9364_Ps           88.178                       0
    124 x9710_Ps           88.178                       0
    125 x9770_Ps           88.178                       0
Total time (CPU seconds):       0.02   (Wallclock seconds):       0.02

What do "Result - Optimal solution found" and "solution rows with **" mean?

if i change the paramter to "preprocess off" i get the expected result

Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver 
Version: devel 
Build Date: Nov 16 2020 

command line - cbc.exe NotSoSmall.mps preprocess off solve solution $ (default strategy 1)
At line 1 NAME
At line 2 ROWS
At line 143 COLUMNS
At line 993 RHS
At line 1052 RANGES
At line 1063 BOUNDS
At line 1094 ENDATA
Problem no_name has 139 rows, 144 columns and 1511 elements
15 semi-continuous variables - report odd behavior
Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors
Option for preprocess changed from sos to off
Continuous objective value is 238.529 - 0.00 seconds
Cbc3007W No integer variables - nothing to do
Cbc3007W No integer variables - nothing to do
Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.001 seconds, density: 0.000%
Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated
Cbc0036I Heuristics switched off as 15 branching objects are of wrong type
Cbc0013I At root node, 0 cuts changed objective from 238.52898 to 238.52898 in 1 passes
Cbc0014I Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.001 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 4 (OddWheel) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 5 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 6 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0016I Integer solution of 238.68306 found by strong branching after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.00 seconds)
Cbc0001I Search completed - best objective 238.6830616464941, took 0 iterations and 0 nodes (0.01 seconds)
Cbc0032I Strong branching done 2 times (6 iterations), fathomed 1 nodes and fixed 0 variables
Cbc0035I Maximum depth 0, 0 variables fixed on reduced cost
Cuts at root node changed objective from 238.529 to 239.075
Probing was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
Gomory was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.001 seconds)
Knapsack was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
Clique was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
OddWheel was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
FlowCover was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
TwoMirCuts was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
ZeroHalf was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)

Result - Optimal solution found

Objective value:                238.68306165
Enumerated nodes:               0
Total iterations:               0
Time (CPU seconds):             0.01
Time (Wallclock seconds):       0.01

Optimal - objective value 238.68306165
     43 x1040_Pw        40.269337           -2.220446e-16
     44 x1048_Pw                2           -2.220446e-16
     45 x1060_Pw        17.730663           -2.220446e-16
     49 x3050_Pw        10.011579          -6.6613381e-16
     50 x3080_Pw                5          -4.4408921e-16
     53 x4030_Pw         6.124527            2.220446e-16
     54 x4070_Pw              2.3            2.220446e-16
     56 x5050_Pw               10           1.1449175e-16
     58 x5150_Pw              1.5           -2.220446e-16
     60 x6170_Pw        1.0878251            1.110223e-15
     63 x6420_Pw             0.04           6.6613381e-16
     65 x6460_Pw              0.4            1.110223e-15
     66 x7010_Pw         1.579344          -4.4408921e-16
     67 x7030_Pw       0.43057174           -2.220446e-16
     68 x7090_Pw       0.52379458          -4.4408921e-16
     69 x7160_Pw              0.2           -2.220446e-16
     70 x7270_Pw            0.015           -1.110223e-15
     71 x9012_Pw       0.07407547           6.6613381e-16
     74 x9024_Pw        0.4324366           -2.220446e-16
     75 x9030_Pw       0.10584694           1.5543122e-15
     76 x9080_Pw            0.012           5.9952043e-15
     77 x9090_Pw             0.01           -2.553513e-14
     78 x9130_Pw            0.025          -5.5511151e-15
     79 x9150_Pw             0.03           5.5511151e-15
     80 x9364_Pw             0.05           -1.110223e-15
     81 x9710_Pw             0.03           5.9952043e-15
     84 x9820_Pw            0.008           -1.110223e-15
     85 x9840_Pw             0.01           5.9952043e-15
     86 x1040_Ps        4.7306631                       0
     88 x1060_Ps        17.269337                       0
     89 x1120_Ps               10                       0
     90 x1121_Ps           88.178                       0
     91 x3000_Ps           88.178                       0
     92 x3050_Ps        78.166421                       0
     94 x3180_Ps           88.178                       0
     95 x3380_Ps                7                       0
     96 x4030_Ps         8.875473                       0
     97 x4070_Ps              0.2                       0
     98 x4530_Ps           88.178                       0
    100 x5130_Ps           88.178                       0
    101 x5150_Ps              1.5                       0
    102 x6110_Ps                2                       0
    103 x6170_Ps       0.41217491                       0
    104 x6172_Ps              2.2                       0
    105 x6180_Ps              0.5                       0
    106 x6420_Ps           88.178                       0
    107 x6450_Ps           88.178                       0
    108 x6460_Ps              0.1                       0
    109 x7010_Ps         8.420656                       0
    110 x7030_Ps        1.5694283                       0
    111 x7090_Ps       0.47620542                       0
    113 x7270_Ps            0.005                       0
    114 x9012_Ps     0.0059245299                       0
    115 x9020_Ps             0.65                       0
    116 x9022_Ps           88.178                       0
    117 x9024_Ps        0.5675634                       0
    118 x9030_Ps       0.89415306                       0
    119 x9080_Ps            0.008                       0
    120 x9090_Ps           88.178                       0
    122 x9150_Ps             0.02                       0
    123 x9364_Ps           88.178                       0
    124 x9710_Ps           88.178                       0
    125 x9770_Ps           88.178                       0
    126 x9810_Ps             0.01                       0
    129 scv1040         40.269337                       0
    130 scv1060         17.730663                       0
    134 scv3050         10.011579                       0
    137 scv4030          6.124527                       0
    139 scv5050                10                       0
    143 scv7030        0.43057174                       0
Total time (CPU seconds):       0.01   (Wallclock seconds):       0.01

i tested with the big model before i found the problem with the NotSoSmall model... (i missed the problems):

(* with my big model I still have problems... big.zip

If i remove the "sc bounds" cbc on need a few seconds to find the optimal solution. big_without.log

without "-preprocess off" it will finish after some time but many of the variables are less than zero: big.log

with "-preprocess off" set i stoped cbc after > 2 houres Cbc0010I After 26911 nodes, 10531 on tree, 122295.35 best solution, best possible 122262.08 (10000.78 seconds)

so it semes that i will need a preprocessing... *)

raller09 commented 3 years ago

Hi,

i changed my model to use more bounds. Unfortunately I had to add more equations for this:

x + x_Pw - shv = 0;
with ranges for shv 

I hoped this would make it easier to solve. But it also gives an incorrect result with preprocessing, is a little slower + delivers poorer accuracy. It appears that the equation's penalty is stronger... right?

moreRanges.mps.txt moreRanges_withPreProcess.log moreRanges_withoutPreProcess.log

Will it be possible to preprocessing my big model? Or do I have to change my model? (unfortunately i don't know how...)

Thank you.

jjhforrest commented 3 years ago

I am working on getting preprocessing to work with SC variables.

Will keep you informed of progress.

John Forrest

On 19/11/2020 16:30, raller09 wrote:

Hi,

i changed my model to use more bounds. Unfortunately I had to add more equations for this:

|x + x_Pw - shv = 0; with ranges for shv |

I hoped this would make it easier to solve. But it also gives an incorrect result with preprocessing, is a little slower + delivers poorer accuracy. It appears that the equation's penalty is stronger... right?

moreRanges.mps.txt https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/files/5568199/moreRanges.mps.txt moreRanges_withPreProcess.log https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/files/5568200/moreRanges_withPreProcess.log moreRanges_withoutPreProcess.log https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/files/5568201/moreRanges_withoutPreProcess.log

Will it be possible to preprocessing my big model? Or do I have to change my model? (unfortunately i don't know how...)

Thank you.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/issues/165#issuecomment-730489877, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWJYHD22B276RVLKC2LCPLSQVB2XANCNFSM4TUK5W2Q.

jjhforrest commented 3 years ago

I have made modifications to Cbc to allow preprocessing on problems with semi-continuous variables.

The large problem has 33969 rows, 59242 columns and 6328 semi-continuous variables which is preprocessed down to 16713 rows, 21879 columns (5923 semi-continuous).

The continuous objective is 122465 and a solution of 122500.72 is obtained in a few minutes, but the lower bound is only 122466 and there is no hope of doing complete search in a reasonable time.

Semi-continuous variables were invented in the 1970's before cuts were used in integer programming. Now it may be better to use 0-1 variables (although this is problem dependent), even though the problem will be larger.

If I reformulate the problem with integer variables, the equivalent problem has 46625 rows, 65570 columns which is preprocessed down to 22177 rows, 21364 columns (5906 integer).

The continuous objective is 122465, cuts improve lower bound to 122491.58 and a solution of 122497.284 is obtained in a few minutes. The complete search still takes too long - although the gap between best solution and bound is less than 1.0.

When I have done more tests to see if I have broken anything, I will put changes into master (this involves changes to Cbc, CoinUtils, Osi and Cgl!).

John Forrest

raller09 commented 3 years ago

Thank you for your effort.

Semi-continuous variables were invented in the 1970's before cuts were used in integer programming. Now it may be better to use 0-1 variables (although this is problem dependent), even though the problem will be larger.

I changed my model to use binary instead of semi-continuous variables. Additionally I removed some of the constraint names to use more bounds and some of "* 100" factors:

bigBinary.zip

I am pretty sure that I changed the model correctly. I checked that with smaller models. But of course I cannot rule out a mistake on my part.

cbc with preprocessing determines infeasibility:

Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver 
Version: devel 
Build Date: Nov 16 2020 

command line - cbc.exe bigBinary.mps solve $ (default strategy 1)
At line 10 NAME
At line 11 ROWS
At line 40306 COLUMNS
At line 337633 RHS
At line 351111 RANGES
At line 353779 BOUNDS
At line 360112 ENDATA
Problem no_name has 40293 rows, 59242 columns and 524422 elements
Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors
Continuous objective value is 122465 - 1.83 seconds
Cgl0003I 153 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 4420 strengthened rows, 13 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 84 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 638 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 127 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 35 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 18 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 12 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 7 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 2 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 2 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions
Cgl0004I processed model has 22282 rows, 21441 columns (5906 integer (5906 of which binary)) and 192287 elements
Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.009 seconds, density: 0.001%
Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated
Cbc0038I Initial state - 1771 integers unsatisfied sum - 459.315
Cbc0038I Pass   1: (14.58 seconds) suminf.   88.80378 (478) obj. 147009 iterations 7776
Cbc0038I Pass   2: (14.64 seconds) suminf.   85.49433 (467) obj. 146971 iterations 51
Cbc0038I Pass   3: (14.70 seconds) suminf.   76.33337 (445) obj. 147010 iterations 49
Cbc0038I Pass   4: (14.76 seconds) suminf.   67.44046 (423) obj. 148994 iterations 87
Cbc0038I Pass   5: (14.82 seconds) suminf.   60.04605 (398) obj. 149099 iterations 107
Cbc0038I Pass   6: (14.88 seconds) suminf.   56.13018 (386) obj. 149051 iterations 43
Cbc0038I Pass   7: (14.94 seconds) suminf.   51.22934 (369) obj. 149188 iterations 58
Cbc0038I Pass   8: (14.99 seconds) suminf.   43.35421 (341) obj. 149555 iterations 149
Cbc0038I Pass   9: (15.05 seconds) suminf.   37.03020 (314) obj. 149494 iterations 75
Cbc0038I Pass  10: (15.10 seconds) suminf.   33.48981 (298) obj. 149458 iterations 48
Cbc0038I Pass  11: (15.15 seconds) suminf.   28.89466 (275) obj. 149379 iterations 71
Cbc0038I Pass  12: (15.21 seconds) suminf.   25.87547 (260) obj. 149460 iterations 33
Cbc0038I Pass  13: (15.27 seconds) suminf.   20.83938 (231) obj. 149357 iterations 53
Cbc0038I Pass  14: (15.32 seconds) suminf.   15.80558 (203) obj. 149085 iterations 49
Cbc0038I Pass  15: (15.38 seconds) suminf.   13.19798 (186) obj. 149392 iterations 28
Cbc0038I Pass  16: (15.43 seconds) suminf.   10.04853 (163) obj. 149399 iterations 34
Cbc0038I Pass  17: (15.48 seconds) suminf.    7.28113 (140) obj. 149808 iterations 58
Cbc0038I Pass  18: (15.54 seconds) suminf.    4.90168 (116) obj. 149817 iterations 46
Cbc0038I Pass  19: (15.59 seconds) suminf.    3.05547 (92) obj. 149889 iterations 41
Cbc0038I Pass  20: (15.64 seconds) suminf.    1.74895 (70) obj. 149831 iterations 42
Cbc0038I Pass  21: (15.71 seconds) suminf.    1.01758 (53) obj. 149735 iterations 44
Cbc0038I Pass  22: (15.76 seconds) suminf.    0.20348 (24) obj. 144264 iterations 105
Cbc0038I Pass  23: (15.82 seconds) suminf.    0.04355 (12) obj. 144386 iterations 41
Cbc0038I Pass  24: (15.88 seconds) suminf.    0.00075 (3) obj. 144527 iterations 28
Cbc0038I Pass  25: (15.90 seconds) suminf.    0.00075 (3) obj. 144527 iterations 0
Cbc0038I Pass  26: (16.00 seconds) suminf.    8.03840 (47) obj. 146345 iterations 1138
Cbc0038I Pass  27: (16.05 seconds) suminf.    7.58101 (46) obj. 146345 iterations 1
Cbc0038I Pass  28: (16.11 seconds) suminf.    0.64086 (15) obj. 146144 iterations 60
Cbc0038I Pass  29: (16.16 seconds) suminf.    0.00075 (3) obj. 146487 iterations 33
Cbc0038I Pass  30: (16.19 seconds) suminf.    0.00075 (3) obj. 146487 iterations 0
Cbc0038I No solution found this major pass
Cbc0038I Before mini branch and bound, 3833 integers at bound fixed and 8900 continuous
Cbc0038I Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (16.28 seconds)
Cbc0038I After 24.81 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 10.95 seconds
Cbc0013I At root node, 8091 cuts changed objective from 122465.08 to 122465.08 in 1 passes
Cbc0014I Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 259 row cuts average 2.1 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.157 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 1733 row cuts average 31.2 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 1.559 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cbc0014I Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 945 row cuts average 8.1 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.441 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cbc0014I Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 4 (OddWheel) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 5 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 3111 row cuts average 15.8 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.247 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cbc0014I Cut generator 6 (FlowCover) - 249 row cuts average 5.4 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.063 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 7 (TwoMirCuts) - 1794 row cuts average 24.8 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 1.473 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0001I Search completed - best objective 1e+50, took 0 iterations and 0 nodes (34.20 seconds)
Cbc0035I Maximum depth 0, 0 variables fixed on reduced cost
Cuts at root node changed objective from 122465 to 122465
Probing was tried 1 times and created 259 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.157 seconds)
Gomory was tried 1 times and created 1733 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.559 seconds)
Knapsack was tried 1 times and created 945 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.441 seconds)
Clique was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
OddWheel was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)
MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 1 times and created 3111 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.247 seconds)
FlowCover was tried 1 times and created 249 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.063 seconds)
TwoMirCuts was tried 1 times and created 1794 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.473 seconds)
ZeroHalf was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds)

Result - Problem proven infeasible

No feasible solution found
Enumerated nodes:               0
Total iterations:               0
Time (CPU seconds):             34.22
Time (Wallclock seconds):       34.22

No match for $ - ? for list of commands
Total time (CPU seconds):       34.61   (Wallclock seconds):       34.62

if i call cbc with "preprocess off" i get:

D:\Temp\lpsolver\Cbc-master-win64-msvc16-md\bin>cbc.exe bigBinary.mps preprocess off solve
Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver
Version: devel
Build Date: Nov 16 2020

command line - cbc.exe bigBinary.mps preprocess off solve (default strategy 1)
At line 1 NAME
At line 2 ROWS
At line 40297 COLUMNS
At line 337624 RHS
At line 351102 RANGES
At line 353770 BOUNDS
At line 360103 ENDATA
Problem no_name has 40293 rows, 59242 columns and 524422 elements
Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors
Option for preprocess changed from sos to off
Continuous objective value is 122465 - 1.62 seconds
Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.022 seconds, density: 0.000%
Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated
Cbc0038I Initial state - 2892 integers unsatisfied sum - 296.954
Cbc0038I Pass   1: (4.38 seconds) suminf.  166.84568 (1918) obj. 285984 iterations 13100
Cbc0038I Pass   2: (4.57 seconds) suminf.  164.90797 (1915) obj. 285734 iterations 35
Cbc0038I Pass   3: (4.77 seconds) suminf.  153.19043 (1887) obj. 282361 iterations 223
Cbc0038I Pass   4: (4.95 seconds) suminf.  148.43505 (1875) obj. 282145 iterations 44
Cbc0038I Pass   5: (5.13 seconds) suminf.  141.13589 (1850) obj. 281387 iterations 99
Cbc0038I Pass   6: (5.29 seconds) suminf.  135.79973 (1834) obj. 280893 iterations 40
Cbc0038I Pass   7: (5.45 seconds) suminf.  129.18678 (1810) obj. 280070 iterations 101
Cbc0038I Pass   8: (5.60 seconds) suminf.  120.89200 (1784) obj. 278803 iterations 93
Cbc0038I Pass   9: (5.75 seconds) suminf.  112.40503 (1748) obj. 275649 iterations 158
Cbc0038I Pass  10: (5.90 seconds) suminf.  105.15037 (1716) obj. 272253 iterations 176
Cbc0038I Pass  11: (6.05 seconds) suminf.   98.34457 (1683) obj. 270528 iterations 158
Cbc0038I Pass  12: (6.23 seconds) suminf.   90.59220 (1633) obj. 267011 iterations 307
Cbc0038I Pass  13: (6.39 seconds) suminf.   87.48083 (1614) obj. 266346 iterations 56
Cbc0038I Pass  14: (6.54 seconds) suminf.   84.56460 (1600) obj. 266565 iterations 20
Cbc0038I Pass  15: (6.69 seconds) suminf.   79.62087 (1565) obj. 261369 iterations 254
Cbc0038I Pass  16: (6.84 seconds) suminf.   76.63074 (1542) obj. 258793 iterations 90
Cbc0038I Pass  17: (7.00 seconds) suminf.   71.11197 (1496) obj. 253325 iterations 264
Cbc0038I Pass  18: (7.15 seconds) suminf.   67.23203 (1461) obj. 248105 iterations 165
Cbc0038I Pass  19: (7.30 seconds) suminf.   63.56622 (1434) obj. 237657 iterations 76
Cbc0038I Pass  20: (7.51 seconds) suminf.   58.34480 (1399) obj. 235538 iterations 250
Cbc0038I Pass  21: (7.68 seconds) suminf.   54.64752 (1370) obj. 234682 iterations 149
Cbc0038I Pass  22: (7.84 seconds) suminf.   52.58791 (1353) obj. 233466 iterations 103
Cbc0038I Pass  23: (7.99 seconds) suminf.   49.41902 (1323) obj. 232556 iterations 163
Cbc0038I Pass  24: (8.15 seconds) suminf.   47.57530 (1308) obj. 231904 iterations 50
Cbc0038I Pass  25: (8.30 seconds) suminf.   44.17383 (1274) obj. 230924 iterations 164
Cbc0038I Pass  26: (8.45 seconds) suminf.   42.55956 (1255) obj. 230191 iterations 58
Cbc0038I Pass  27: (8.60 seconds) suminf.   41.09506 (1233) obj. 228873 iterations 107
Cbc0038I Pass  28: (8.76 seconds) suminf.   39.97222 (1221) obj. 228614 iterations 54
Cbc0038I Pass  29: (8.91 seconds) suminf.   36.98414 (1189) obj. 226554 iterations 137
Cbc0038I Pass  30: (9.07 seconds) suminf.   33.83927 (1149) obj. 224822 iterations 202
Cbc0038I No solution found this major pass
Cbc0038I Before mini branch and bound, 2622 integers at bound fixed and 39880 continuous
Cbc0038I Full problem 40293 rows 59242 columns, reduced to 16109 rows 14469 columns
Cbc0038I Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (57.70 seconds)
Cbc0038I After 75.81 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 73.45 seconds
Cbc0031I 2982 added rows had average density of 42.897049
Cbc0013I At root node, 2982 cuts changed objective from 122464.79 to 122491.04 in 12 passes
Cbc0014I Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 4444 row cuts average 2.4 elements, 233 column cuts (2967 active)  in 1.303 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cbc0014I Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 4094 row cuts average 59.4 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 8.257 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cbc0014I Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.753 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.005 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 4 (OddWheel) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 0.013 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 5 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 1510 row cuts average 3.1 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 1.064 seconds - new frequency is 1
Cbc0014I Cut generator 6 (FlowCover) - 15 row cuts average 3.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 2.753 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0014I Cut generator 7 (TwoMirCuts) - 5233 row cuts average 37.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active)  in 9.510 seconds - new frequency is -100
Cbc0010I After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (128.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 1 nodes, 2 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (137.61 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 2 nodes, 3 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (153.98 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 3 nodes, 4 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (176.07 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 4 nodes, 5 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (192.97 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 5 nodes, 6 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (200.17 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 6 nodes, 7 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (216.49 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 7 nodes, 8 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (232.30 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 8 nodes, 9 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (240.58 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 9 nodes, 10 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (241.46 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 10 nodes, 11 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (250.15 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 11 nodes, 12 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (259.32 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 12 nodes, 13 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (261.15 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 13 nodes, 14 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (262.44 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 14 nodes, 15 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (264.40 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 15 nodes, 16 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (265.79 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 16 nodes, 17 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (267.07 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 17 nodes, 18 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (268.52 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 18 nodes, 19 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (269.58 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 19 nodes, 19 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (270.93 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 20 nodes, 19 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (271.66 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 22 nodes, 21 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (274.60 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 23 nodes, 22 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (275.55 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 24 nodes, 23 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (277.06 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 25 nodes, 24 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (278.46 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 26 nodes, 25 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (280.30 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 27 nodes, 26 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (281.35 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 28 nodes, 27 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (282.48 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 29 nodes, 28 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (283.49 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 30 nodes, 29 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (284.83 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 31 nodes, 30 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (286.17 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 32 nodes, 31 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (286.90 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 33 nodes, 32 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (287.63 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 34 nodes, 33 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (288.64 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 35 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (290.63 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 36 nodes, 35 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (291.90 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 37 nodes, 36 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (293.62 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 39 nodes, 37 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (294.88 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 40 nodes, 37 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (295.68 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 42 nodes, 39 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (296.97 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 43 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (297.95 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 45 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (299.15 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 46 nodes, 42 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (299.90 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 47 nodes, 43 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (301.33 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 48 nodes, 43 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (303.11 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 50 nodes, 44 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (304.60 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 51 nodes, 45 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (305.45 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 52 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (306.47 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 53 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (307.86 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 54 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (308.81 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 55 nodes, 47 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (309.88 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 56 nodes, 47 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (311.16 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 57 nodes, 47 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (312.23 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 59 nodes, 49 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (313.58 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 60 nodes, 50 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (314.37 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 61 nodes, 51 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (315.21 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 62 nodes, 52 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (316.14 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 64 nodes, 54 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (317.44 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 66 nodes, 56 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (318.64 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 67 nodes, 57 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (319.68 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 68 nodes, 58 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (320.73 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 69 nodes, 58 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (322.09 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 70 nodes, 58 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (323.71 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 72 nodes, 59 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (324.74 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 74 nodes, 61 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (326.12 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 75 nodes, 62 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (326.87 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 76 nodes, 63 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (327.73 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 78 nodes, 65 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (329.08 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 79 nodes, 66 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (330.09 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 80 nodes, 66 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (331.16 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 81 nodes, 67 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (332.07 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 83 nodes, 69 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (333.19 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 85 nodes, 71 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (334.56 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 86 nodes, 72 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (335.43 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 88 nodes, 74 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (336.70 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 89 nodes, 75 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (337.56 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 90 nodes, 76 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (338.32 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 91 nodes, 77 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (339.23 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 93 nodes, 79 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (340.62 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 94 nodes, 80 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (341.62 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 95 nodes, 81 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (342.51 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 96 nodes, 81 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (343.60 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 97 nodes, 82 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (344.83 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 98 nodes, 83 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (345.75 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 99 nodes, 84 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (346.71 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 100 nodes, 85 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (347.68 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 101 nodes, 86 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (348.53 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 102 nodes, 87 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (349.48 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 103 nodes, 88 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (350.42 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 105 nodes, 90 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (351.86 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 107 nodes, 92 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (353.71 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 108 nodes, 93 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (354.56 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 109 nodes, 94 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (355.56 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 110 nodes, 95 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (356.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 112 nodes, 97 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (358.01 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 114 nodes, 99 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (359.26 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 115 nodes, 99 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (360.47 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 117 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (361.57 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 119 nodes, 103 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (362.79 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 120 nodes, 104 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (363.53 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 121 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (364.40 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 122 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (365.36 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 123 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (366.07 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 125 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (367.37 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 126 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (368.59 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 127 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (370.07 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 128 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (371.45 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 130 nodes, 110 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (373.11 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 131 nodes, 110 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (374.21 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 133 nodes, 112 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (375.74 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 134 nodes, 113 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (376.86 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 135 nodes, 114 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (377.59 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 137 nodes, 116 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (378.88 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 139 nodes, 118 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (380.16 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 140 nodes, 119 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (380.99 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 141 nodes, 120 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (381.95 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 143 nodes, 121 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (383.25 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 145 nodes, 123 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (384.63 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 147 nodes, 124 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (386.11 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 148 nodes, 124 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (387.44 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 149 nodes, 125 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (388.20 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 150 nodes, 125 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (389.14 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 151 nodes, 126 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (389.89 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 152 nodes, 127 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (390.59 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 154 nodes, 129 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (392.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 155 nodes, 130 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (393.24 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 156 nodes, 131 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (394.31 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 157 nodes, 132 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (395.38 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 158 nodes, 133 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (396.45 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 159 nodes, 134 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (397.57 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 160 nodes, 135 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (398.46 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 161 nodes, 136 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (399.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 162 nodes, 137 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (400.10 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 163 nodes, 138 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (400.81 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 164 nodes, 138 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (401.78 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 165 nodes, 139 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (403.28 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 166 nodes, 140 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (404.07 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 167 nodes, 141 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (404.97 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 169 nodes, 142 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (406.33 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 170 nodes, 143 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (407.27 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 171 nodes, 144 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (408.50 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 172 nodes, 145 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (409.24 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 174 nodes, 146 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (411.00 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 176 nodes, 147 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (412.38 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 178 nodes, 148 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (413.75 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 179 nodes, 149 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (414.89 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 180 nodes, 150 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (415.84 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 182 nodes, 152 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (417.02 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 183 nodes, 153 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (417.80 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 184 nodes, 154 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (418.79 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 186 nodes, 155 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (420.09 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 188 nodes, 157 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (421.16 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 189 nodes, 158 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (421.87 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 190 nodes, 159 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (422.80 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 192 nodes, 161 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (424.13 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 194 nodes, 163 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (425.44 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 195 nodes, 164 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (426.17 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 197 nodes, 166 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (427.27 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 199 nodes, 168 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (428.53 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 200 nodes, 169 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (429.32 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 202 nodes, 171 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (430.49 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 204 nodes, 173 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (431.69 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 205 nodes, 174 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (432.49 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 207 nodes, 176 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (433.67 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 209 nodes, 178 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (435.00 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 210 nodes, 179 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (435.81 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 211 nodes, 180 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (436.58 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 213 nodes, 182 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (437.66 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 215 nodes, 184 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (438.99 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 216 nodes, 184 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (440.12 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 218 nodes, 185 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (441.20 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 220 nodes, 186 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (442.50 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 221 nodes, 186 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (443.57 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 223 nodes, 187 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (444.78 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 225 nodes, 189 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (446.10 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 227 nodes, 190 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (447.16 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 228 nodes, 191 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (447.99 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 229 nodes, 192 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (448.84 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 231 nodes, 194 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (450.15 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 233 nodes, 196 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (451.45 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 234 nodes, 197 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (452.46 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 236 nodes, 199 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (453.72 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 237 nodes, 200 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (454.42 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 239 nodes, 201 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (455.50 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 240 nodes, 202 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (456.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 242 nodes, 204 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (457.35 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 243 nodes, 205 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (458.09 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 244 nodes, 206 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (458.79 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 245 nodes, 207 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (459.53 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 247 nodes, 209 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (460.87 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 249 nodes, 211 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (462.17 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 251 nodes, 213 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (463.34 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 253 nodes, 215 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (464.65 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 255 nodes, 216 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (465.97 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 256 nodes, 217 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (466.82 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 258 nodes, 219 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (468.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 260 nodes, 220 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (469.89 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 262 nodes, 222 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (471.57 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 263 nodes, 223 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (472.37 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 265 nodes, 224 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (473.67 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 267 nodes, 226 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (474.88 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 268 nodes, 227 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (475.95 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 269 nodes, 227 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (476.88 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 271 nodes, 228 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (478.73 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 272 nodes, 228 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (479.79 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 274 nodes, 230 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (480.93 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 276 nodes, 231 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (481.95 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 279 nodes, 233 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (482.88 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 283 nodes, 235 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (483.75 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 286 nodes, 236 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (484.92 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 288 nodes, 238 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (485.67 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 291 nodes, 239 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (486.63 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 294 nodes, 241 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (487.47 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 297 nodes, 244 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (488.51 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 300 nodes, 247 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (489.40 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 304 nodes, 251 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (490.28 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 306 nodes, 252 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (491.03 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 311 nodes, 257 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (492.30 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 314 nodes, 260 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (493.06 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 316 nodes, 262 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (493.79 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 320 nodes, 266 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (494.61 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 323 nodes, 269 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (495.41 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 326 nodes, 272 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (496.25 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 330 nodes, 276 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (497.25 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 334 nodes, 280 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (498.04 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 337 nodes, 283 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (498.81 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 341 nodes, 287 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (499.67 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 346 nodes, 292 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (500.61 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 351 nodes, 297 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (501.67 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 356 nodes, 302 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (502.58 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 360 nodes, 306 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (503.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 364 nodes, 310 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (504.19 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 367 nodes, 313 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (504.93 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 371 nodes, 317 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (505.86 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 375 nodes, 321 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (506.56 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 378 nodes, 324 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (507.43 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 381 nodes, 327 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (508.26 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 386 nodes, 332 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (509.39 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 390 nodes, 336 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (510.32 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 394 nodes, 340 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (511.18 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 396 nodes, 342 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (511.97 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 399 nodes, 344 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (512.90 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 402 nodes, 347 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (513.73 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 406 nodes, 351 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (514.55 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 409 nodes, 354 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (515.34 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 413 nodes, 358 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (516.16 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 417 nodes, 361 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (517.02 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 420 nodes, 364 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (517.90 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 423 nodes, 367 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (518.60 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 428 nodes, 372 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (519.77 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 431 nodes, 374 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (520.57 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 435 nodes, 378 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (521.54 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 440 nodes, 382 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (522.58 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 445 nodes, 387 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (523.58 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 449 nodes, 391 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (524.33 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 452 nodes, 394 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (525.18 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 456 nodes, 398 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (525.96 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 461 nodes, 402 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (526.92 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 465 nodes, 406 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (527.71 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 469 nodes, 410 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (528.48 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 473 nodes, 414 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (529.24 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 477 nodes, 418 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (530.04 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 481 nodes, 421 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (530.80 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 485 nodes, 425 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (531.61 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 489 nodes, 429 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (532.45 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 492 nodes, 432 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (533.19 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 497 nodes, 437 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (534.11 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 502 nodes, 442 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (535.03 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 507 nodes, 447 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (535.95 seconds)
Cbc0004I Integer solution of 122527.01 found after 10318 iterations and 510 nodes (554.18 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 510 nodes, 442 on tree, 122527.01 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (554.19 seconds)
Cbc0038I Full problem 40293 rows 59242 columns, reduced to 9967 rows 12559 columns
Cbc0012I Integer solution of 122526.88 found by RINS after 10319 iterations and 511 nodes (585.85 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 511 nodes, 443 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (585.86 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 514 nodes, 445 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (587.16 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 517 nodes, 448 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (587.95 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 520 nodes, 450 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (589.00 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 523 nodes, 453 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (589.92 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 527 nodes, 454 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (590.77 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 529 nodes, 456 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (591.47 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 533 nodes, 458 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (592.27 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 536 nodes, 460 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (593.04 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 537 nodes, 461 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (593.93 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 540 nodes, 463 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (594.94 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 543 nodes, 466 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (596.07 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 546 nodes, 468 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (596.80 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 550 nodes, 470 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (597.65 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 552 nodes, 472 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (598.53 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 555 nodes, 475 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (599.41 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 557 nodes, 476 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (600.15 seconds)
Cbc0010I After 560 nodes, 478 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (600.97 seconds)

-> a feasible but not optimal solution is found after some longer time.

I also tested my models with lp_solve 5.5.2.9. It find a first feasible solution faster with semi-continuous but will also never? end... With binarys it will find no solution in a reasonable time.

Am I doing something wrong or does not converting to binaries into an easier solution in my model?

jjhforrest commented 3 years ago

Are you using code in master?

I found an odd bug in Mixed Integer Rounding cuts and fixed it. You can just switch those off if you want. With old code and

cbc bigBinary.mps -mixed off -multiple 4 -thread 4 -timemode elapsed -allowable 2.0 -solve

it stops after after 400 seconds as gap is < 2.0

With latest code you do not need "mixed off" but result is similar. You can of course use ratioGap or just stop on time.

I attach output (and from run with SC variables, which is worse)

John Forrest On 30/11/2020 15:14, raller09 wrote:

Thank you for your effort.

Semi-continuous variables were invented in the 1970's before cuts
were used in integer programming. Now it may be better to use 0-1
variables (although this is problem dependent), even though the
problem will be larger.

I changed my model to use binary instead of semi-continuous variables. Additionally I removed some of the constraint names to use more bounds and some of "* 100" factors:

bigBinary.zip https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/files/5616666/bigBinary.zip

I am pretty sure that I changed the model correctly. I checked that with smaller models. But of course I cannot rule out a mistake on my part.

cbc with preprocessing determines infeasibility:

|Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver Version: devel Build Date: Nov 16 2020 command line - cbc.exe bigBinary.mps solve $ (default strategy 1) At line 10 NAME At line 11 ROWS At line 40306 COLUMNS At line 337633 RHS At line 351111 RANGES At line 353779 BOUNDS At line 360112 ENDATA Problem no_name has 40293 rows, 59242 columns and 524422 elements Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors Continuous objective value is 122465 - 1.83 seconds Cgl0003I 153 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 4420 strengthened rows, 13 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 84 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 638 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 127 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 35 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 18 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 12 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 7 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 2 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 2 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0004I processed model has 22282 rows, 21441 columns (5906 integer (5906 of which binary)) and 192287 elements Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.009 seconds, density: 0.001% Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated Cbc0038I Initial state - 1771 integers unsatisfied sum - 459.315 Cbc0038I Pass 1: (14.58 seconds) suminf. 88.80378 (478) obj. 147009 iterations 7776 Cbc0038I Pass 2: (14.64 seconds) suminf. 85.49433 (467) obj. 146971 iterations 51 Cbc0038I Pass 3: (14.70 seconds) suminf. 76.33337 (445) obj. 147010 iterations 49 Cbc0038I Pass 4: (14.76 seconds) suminf. 67.44046 (423) obj. 148994 iterations 87 Cbc0038I Pass 5: (14.82 seconds) suminf. 60.04605 (398) obj. 149099 iterations 107 Cbc0038I Pass 6: (14.88 seconds) suminf. 56.13018 (386) obj. 149051 iterations 43 Cbc0038I Pass 7: (14.94 seconds) suminf. 51.22934 (369) obj. 149188 iterations 58 Cbc0038I Pass 8: (14.99 seconds) suminf. 43.35421 (341) obj. 149555 iterations 149 Cbc0038I Pass 9: (15.05 seconds) suminf. 37.03020 (314) obj. 149494 iterations 75 Cbc0038I Pass 10: (15.10 seconds) suminf. 33.48981 (298) obj. 149458 iterations 48 Cbc0038I Pass 11: (15.15 seconds) suminf. 28.89466 (275) obj. 149379 iterations 71 Cbc0038I Pass 12: (15.21 seconds) suminf. 25.87547 (260) obj. 149460 iterations 33 Cbc0038I Pass 13: (15.27 seconds) suminf. 20.83938 (231) obj. 149357 iterations 53 Cbc0038I Pass 14: (15.32 seconds) suminf. 15.80558 (203) obj. 149085 iterations 49 Cbc0038I Pass 15: (15.38 seconds) suminf. 13.19798 (186) obj. 149392 iterations 28 Cbc0038I Pass 16: (15.43 seconds) suminf. 10.04853 (163) obj. 149399 iterations 34 Cbc0038I Pass 17: (15.48 seconds) suminf. 7.28113 (140) obj. 149808 iterations 58 Cbc0038I Pass 18: (15.54 seconds) suminf. 4.90168 (116) obj. 149817 iterations 46 Cbc0038I Pass 19: (15.59 seconds) suminf. 3.05547 (92) obj. 149889 iterations 41 Cbc0038I Pass 20: (15.64 seconds) suminf. 1.74895 (70) obj. 149831 iterations 42 Cbc0038I Pass 21: (15.71 seconds) suminf. 1.01758 (53) obj. 149735 iterations 44 Cbc0038I Pass 22: (15.76 seconds) suminf. 0.20348 (24) obj. 144264 iterations 105 Cbc0038I Pass 23: (15.82 seconds) suminf. 0.04355 (12) obj. 144386 iterations 41 Cbc0038I Pass 24: (15.88 seconds) suminf. 0.00075 (3) obj. 144527 iterations 28 Cbc0038I Pass 25: (15.90 seconds) suminf. 0.00075 (3) obj. 144527 iterations 0 Cbc0038I Pass 26: (16.00 seconds) suminf. 8.03840 (47) obj. 146345 iterations 1138 Cbc0038I Pass 27: (16.05 seconds) suminf. 7.58101 (46) obj. 146345 iterations 1 Cbc0038I Pass 28: (16.11 seconds) suminf. 0.64086 (15) obj. 146144 iterations 60 Cbc0038I Pass 29: (16.16 seconds) suminf. 0.00075 (3) obj. 146487 iterations 33 Cbc0038I Pass 30: (16.19 seconds) suminf. 0.00075 (3) obj. 146487 iterations 0 Cbc0038I No solution found this major pass Cbc0038I Before mini branch and bound, 3833 integers at bound fixed and 8900 continuous Cbc0038I Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (16.28 seconds) Cbc0038I After 24.81 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 10.95 seconds Cbc0013I At root node, 8091 cuts changed objective from 122465.08 to 122465.08 in 1 passes Cbc0014I Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 259 row cuts average 2.1 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.157 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 1733 row cuts average 31.2 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 1.559 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cbc0014I Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 945 row cuts average 8.1 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.441 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cbc0014I Cut generator 3 (Clique)

  • 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.000 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 4 (OddWheel) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.000 seconds
  • new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 5 (MixedIntegerRounding2)
  • 3111 row cuts average 15.8 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.247 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cbc0014I Cut generator 6 (FlowCover) - 249 row cuts average 5.4 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.063 seconds
  • new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 7 (TwoMirCuts) - 1794 row cuts average 24.8 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 1.473 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0001I Search completed - best objective 1e+50, took 0 iterations and 0 nodes (34.20 seconds) Cbc0035I Maximum depth 0, 0 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from 122465 to 122465 Probing was tried 1 times and created 259 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.157 seconds) Gomory was tried 1 times and created 1733 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.559 seconds) Knapsack was tried 1 times and created 945 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.441 seconds) Clique was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds) OddWheel was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 1 times and created 3111 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.247 seconds) FlowCover was tried 1 times and created 249 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.063 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 1 times and created 1794 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (1.473 seconds) ZeroHalf was tried 1 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.000 seconds) Result - Problem proven infeasible No feasible solution found Enumerated nodes: 0 Total iterations: 0 Time (CPU seconds): 34.22 Time (Wallclock seconds): 34.22 No match for $ - ? for list of commands Total time (CPU seconds): 34.61 (Wallclock seconds): 34.62 |

if i call cbc with "preprocess off" i get:

|D:\Temp\lpsolver\Cbc-master-win64-msvc16-md\bin>cbc.exe bigBinary.mps preprocess off solve Welcome to the CBC MILP Solver Version: devel Build Date: Nov 16 2020 command line - cbc.exe bigBinary.mps preprocess off solve (default strategy 1) At line 1 NAME At line 2 ROWS At line 40297 COLUMNS At line 337624 RHS At line 351102 RANGES At line 353770 BOUNDS At line 360103 ENDATA Problem no_name has 40293 rows, 59242 columns and 524422 elements Coin0008I no_name read with 0 errors Option for preprocess changed from sos to off Continuous objective value is 122465

  • 1.62 seconds Coin3009W Conflict graph built in 0.022 seconds, density: 0.000% Cgl0015I Clique Strengthening extended 0 cliques, 0 were dominated Cbc0038I Initial state - 2892 integers unsatisfied sum - 296.954 Cbc0038I Pass 1: (4.38 seconds) suminf. 166.84568 (1918) obj. 285984 iterations 13100 Cbc0038I Pass 2: (4.57 seconds) suminf. 164.90797 (1915) obj. 285734 iterations 35 Cbc0038I Pass 3: (4.77 seconds) suminf. 153.19043 (1887) obj. 282361 iterations 223 Cbc0038I Pass 4: (4.95 seconds) suminf. 148.43505 (1875) obj. 282145 iterations 44 Cbc0038I Pass 5: (5.13 seconds) suminf. 141.13589 (1850) obj. 281387 iterations 99 Cbc0038I Pass 6: (5.29 seconds) suminf. 135.79973 (1834) obj. 280893 iterations 40 Cbc0038I Pass 7: (5.45 seconds) suminf. 129.18678 (1810) obj. 280070 iterations 101 Cbc0038I Pass 8: (5.60 seconds) suminf. 120.89200 (1784) obj. 278803 iterations 93 Cbc0038I Pass 9: (5.75 seconds) suminf. 112.40503 (1748) obj. 275649 iterations 158 Cbc0038I Pass 10: (5.90 seconds) suminf. 105.15037 (1716) obj. 272253 iterations 176 Cbc0038I Pass 11: (6.05 seconds) suminf. 98.34457 (1683) obj. 270528 iterations 158 Cbc0038I Pass 12: (6.23 seconds) suminf. 90.59220 (1633) obj. 267011 iterations 307 Cbc0038I Pass 13: (6.39 seconds) suminf. 87.48083 (1614) obj. 266346 iterations 56 Cbc0038I Pass 14: (6.54 seconds) suminf. 84.56460 (1600) obj. 266565 iterations 20 Cbc0038I Pass 15: (6.69 seconds) suminf. 79.62087 (1565) obj. 261369 iterations 254 Cbc0038I Pass 16: (6.84 seconds) suminf. 76.63074 (1542) obj. 258793 iterations 90 Cbc0038I Pass 17: (7.00 seconds) suminf. 71.11197 (1496) obj. 253325 iterations 264 Cbc0038I Pass 18: (7.15 seconds) suminf. 67.23203 (1461) obj. 248105 iterations 165 Cbc0038I Pass 19: (7.30 seconds) suminf. 63.56622 (1434) obj. 237657 iterations 76 Cbc0038I Pass 20: (7.51 seconds) suminf. 58.34480 (1399) obj. 235538 iterations 250 Cbc0038I Pass 21: (7.68 seconds) suminf. 54.64752 (1370) obj. 234682 iterations 149 Cbc0038I Pass 22: (7.84 seconds) suminf. 52.58791 (1353) obj. 233466 iterations 103 Cbc0038I Pass 23: (7.99 seconds) suminf. 49.41902 (1323) obj. 232556 iterations 163 Cbc0038I Pass 24: (8.15 seconds) suminf. 47.57530 (1308) obj. 231904 iterations 50 Cbc0038I Pass 25: (8.30 seconds) suminf. 44.17383 (1274) obj. 230924 iterations 164 Cbc0038I Pass 26: (8.45 seconds) suminf. 42.55956 (1255) obj. 230191 iterations 58 Cbc0038I Pass 27: (8.60 seconds) suminf. 41.09506 (1233) obj. 228873 iterations 107 Cbc0038I Pass 28: (8.76 seconds) suminf. 39.97222 (1221) obj. 228614 iterations 54 Cbc0038I Pass 29: (8.91 seconds) suminf. 36.98414 (1189) obj. 226554 iterations 137 Cbc0038I Pass 30: (9.07 seconds) suminf. 33.83927 (1149) obj. 224822 iterations 202 Cbc0038I No solution found this major pass Cbc0038I Before mini branch and bound, 2622 integers at bound fixed and 39880 continuous Cbc0038I Full problem 40293 rows 59242 columns, reduced to 16109 rows 14469 columns Cbc0038I Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (57.70 seconds) Cbc0038I After 75.81 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting - took 73.45 seconds Cbc0031I 2982 added rows had average density of 42.897049 Cbc0013I At root node, 2982 cuts changed objective from 122464.79 to 122491.04 in 12 passes Cbc0014I Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 4444 row cuts average 2.4 elements, 233 column cuts (2967 active) in 1.303 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cbc0014I Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 4094 row cuts average 59.4 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 8.257 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cbc0014I Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.753 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.005 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 4 (OddWheel) - 0 row cuts average 0.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.013 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 5 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 1510 row cuts average 3.1 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 1.064 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cbc0014I Cut generator 6 (FlowCover) - 15 row cuts average 3.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 2.753 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 7 (TwoMirCuts) - 5233 row cuts average 37.0 elements, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 9.510 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0010I After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (128.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1 nodes, 2 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (137.61 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2 nodes, 3 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (153.98 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3 nodes, 4 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (176.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4 nodes, 5 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (192.97 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5 nodes, 6 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (200.17 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6 nodes, 7 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (216.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7 nodes, 8 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (232.30 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8 nodes, 9 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (240.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9 nodes, 10 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (241.46 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10 nodes, 11 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (250.15 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11 nodes, 12 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (259.32 seconds) Cbc0010I After 12 nodes, 13 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (261.15 seconds) Cbc0010I After 13 nodes, 14 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (262.44 seconds) Cbc0010I After 14 nodes, 15 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (264.40 seconds) Cbc0010I After 15 nodes, 16 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (265.79 seconds) Cbc0010I After 16 nodes, 17 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (267.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 17 nodes, 18 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (268.52 seconds) Cbc0010I After 18 nodes, 19 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (269.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 19 nodes, 19 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (270.93 seconds) Cbc0010I After 20 nodes, 19 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (271.66 seconds) Cbc0010I After 22 nodes, 21 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (274.60 seconds) Cbc0010I After 23 nodes, 22 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (275.55 seconds) Cbc0010I After 24 nodes, 23 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (277.06 seconds) Cbc0010I After 25 nodes, 24 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (278.46 seconds) Cbc0010I After 26 nodes, 25 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (280.30 seconds) Cbc0010I After 27 nodes, 26 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (281.35 seconds) Cbc0010I After 28 nodes, 27 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (282.48 seconds) Cbc0010I After 29 nodes, 28 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (283.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 30 nodes, 29 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (284.83 seconds) Cbc0010I After 31 nodes, 30 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (286.17 seconds) Cbc0010I After 32 nodes, 31 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (286.90 seconds) Cbc0010I After 33 nodes, 32 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (287.63 seconds) Cbc0010I After 34 nodes, 33 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (288.64 seconds) Cbc0010I After 35 nodes, 34 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (290.63 seconds) Cbc0010I After 36 nodes, 35 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (291.90 seconds) Cbc0010I After 37 nodes, 36 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (293.62 seconds) Cbc0010I After 39 nodes, 37 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (294.88 seconds) Cbc0010I After 40 nodes, 37 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (295.68 seconds) Cbc0010I After 42 nodes, 39 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (296.97 seconds) Cbc0010I After 43 nodes, 40 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (297.95 seconds) Cbc0010I After 45 nodes, 41 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (299.15 seconds) Cbc0010I After 46 nodes, 42 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (299.90 seconds) Cbc0010I After 47 nodes, 43 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (301.33 seconds) Cbc0010I After 48 nodes, 43 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (303.11 seconds) Cbc0010I After 50 nodes, 44 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (304.60 seconds) Cbc0010I After 51 nodes, 45 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (305.45 seconds) Cbc0010I After 52 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (306.47 seconds) Cbc0010I After 53 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (307.86 seconds) Cbc0010I After 54 nodes, 46 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (308.81 seconds) Cbc0010I After 55 nodes, 47 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (309.88 seconds) Cbc0010I After 56 nodes, 47 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (311.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 57 nodes, 47 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (312.23 seconds) Cbc0010I After 59 nodes, 49 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (313.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 60 nodes, 50 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (314.37 seconds) Cbc0010I After 61 nodes, 51 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (315.21 seconds) Cbc0010I After 62 nodes, 52 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (316.14 seconds) Cbc0010I After 64 nodes, 54 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (317.44 seconds) Cbc0010I After 66 nodes, 56 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (318.64 seconds) Cbc0010I After 67 nodes, 57 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (319.68 seconds) Cbc0010I After 68 nodes, 58 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (320.73 seconds) Cbc0010I After 69 nodes, 58 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (322.09 seconds) Cbc0010I After 70 nodes, 58 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (323.71 seconds) Cbc0010I After 72 nodes, 59 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (324.74 seconds) Cbc0010I After 74 nodes, 61 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (326.12 seconds) Cbc0010I After 75 nodes, 62 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (326.87 seconds) Cbc0010I After 76 nodes, 63 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (327.73 seconds) Cbc0010I After 78 nodes, 65 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (329.08 seconds) Cbc0010I After 79 nodes, 66 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (330.09 seconds) Cbc0010I After 80 nodes, 66 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (331.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 81 nodes, 67 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (332.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 83 nodes, 69 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (333.19 seconds) Cbc0010I After 85 nodes, 71 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (334.56 seconds) Cbc0010I After 86 nodes, 72 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (335.43 seconds) Cbc0010I After 88 nodes, 74 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (336.70 seconds) Cbc0010I After 89 nodes, 75 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (337.56 seconds) Cbc0010I After 90 nodes, 76 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (338.32 seconds) Cbc0010I After 91 nodes, 77 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (339.23 seconds) Cbc0010I After 93 nodes, 79 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (340.62 seconds) Cbc0010I After 94 nodes, 80 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (341.62 seconds) Cbc0010I After 95 nodes, 81 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (342.51 seconds) Cbc0010I After 96 nodes, 81 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (343.60 seconds) Cbc0010I After 97 nodes, 82 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (344.83 seconds) Cbc0010I After 98 nodes, 83 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (345.75 seconds) Cbc0010I After 99 nodes, 84 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (346.71 seconds) Cbc0010I After 100 nodes, 85 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (347.68 seconds) Cbc0010I After 101 nodes, 86 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (348.53 seconds) Cbc0010I After 102 nodes, 87 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (349.48 seconds) Cbc0010I After 103 nodes, 88 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (350.42 seconds) Cbc0010I After 105 nodes, 90 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (351.86 seconds) Cbc0010I After 107 nodes, 92 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (353.71 seconds) Cbc0010I After 108 nodes, 93 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (354.56 seconds) Cbc0010I After 109 nodes, 94 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (355.56 seconds) Cbc0010I After 110 nodes, 95 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (356.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 112 nodes, 97 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (358.01 seconds) Cbc0010I After 114 nodes, 99 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (359.26 seconds) Cbc0010I After 115 nodes, 99 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (360.47 seconds) Cbc0010I After 117 nodes, 101 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (361.57 seconds) Cbc0010I After 119 nodes, 103 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (362.79 seconds) Cbc0010I After 120 nodes, 104 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (363.53 seconds) Cbc0010I After 121 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (364.40 seconds) Cbc0010I After 122 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (365.36 seconds) Cbc0010I After 123 nodes, 105 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (366.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 125 nodes, 107 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (367.37 seconds) Cbc0010I After 126 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (368.59 seconds) Cbc0010I After 127 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (370.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 128 nodes, 108 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (371.45 seconds) Cbc0010I After 130 nodes, 110 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (373.11 seconds) Cbc0010I After 131 nodes, 110 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (374.21 seconds) Cbc0010I After 133 nodes, 112 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (375.74 seconds) Cbc0010I After 134 nodes, 113 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (376.86 seconds) Cbc0010I After 135 nodes, 114 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (377.59 seconds) Cbc0010I After 137 nodes, 116 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (378.88 seconds) Cbc0010I After 139 nodes, 118 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (380.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 140 nodes, 119 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (380.99 seconds) Cbc0010I After 141 nodes, 120 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (381.95 seconds) Cbc0010I After 143 nodes, 121 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (383.25 seconds) Cbc0010I After 145 nodes, 123 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (384.63 seconds) Cbc0010I After 147 nodes, 124 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (386.11 seconds) Cbc0010I After 148 nodes, 124 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (387.44 seconds) Cbc0010I After 149 nodes, 125 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (388.20 seconds) Cbc0010I After 150 nodes, 125 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (389.14 seconds) Cbc0010I After 151 nodes, 126 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (389.89 seconds) Cbc0010I After 152 nodes, 127 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (390.59 seconds) Cbc0010I After 154 nodes, 129 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (392.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 155 nodes, 130 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (393.24 seconds) Cbc0010I After 156 nodes, 131 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (394.31 seconds) Cbc0010I After 157 nodes, 132 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (395.38 seconds) Cbc0010I After 158 nodes, 133 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (396.45 seconds) Cbc0010I After 159 nodes, 134 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (397.57 seconds) Cbc0010I After 160 nodes, 135 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (398.46 seconds) Cbc0010I After 161 nodes, 136 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (399.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 162 nodes, 137 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (400.10 seconds) Cbc0010I After 163 nodes, 138 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (400.81 seconds) Cbc0010I After 164 nodes, 138 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (401.78 seconds) Cbc0010I After 165 nodes, 139 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (403.28 seconds) Cbc0010I After 166 nodes, 140 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (404.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 167 nodes, 141 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (404.97 seconds) Cbc0010I After 169 nodes, 142 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (406.33 seconds) Cbc0010I After 170 nodes, 143 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (407.27 seconds) Cbc0010I After 171 nodes, 144 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (408.50 seconds) Cbc0010I After 172 nodes, 145 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (409.24 seconds) Cbc0010I After 174 nodes, 146 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (411.00 seconds) Cbc0010I After 176 nodes, 147 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (412.38 seconds) Cbc0010I After 178 nodes, 148 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (413.75 seconds) Cbc0010I After 179 nodes, 149 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (414.89 seconds) Cbc0010I After 180 nodes, 150 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (415.84 seconds) Cbc0010I After 182 nodes, 152 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (417.02 seconds) Cbc0010I After 183 nodes, 153 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (417.80 seconds) Cbc0010I After 184 nodes, 154 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (418.79 seconds) Cbc0010I After 186 nodes, 155 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (420.09 seconds) Cbc0010I After 188 nodes, 157 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (421.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 189 nodes, 158 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (421.87 seconds) Cbc0010I After 190 nodes, 159 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (422.80 seconds) Cbc0010I After 192 nodes, 161 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (424.13 seconds) Cbc0010I After 194 nodes, 163 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (425.44 seconds) Cbc0010I After 195 nodes, 164 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (426.17 seconds) Cbc0010I After 197 nodes, 166 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (427.27 seconds) Cbc0010I After 199 nodes, 168 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (428.53 seconds) Cbc0010I After 200 nodes, 169 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (429.32 seconds) Cbc0010I After 202 nodes, 171 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (430.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 204 nodes, 173 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (431.69 seconds) Cbc0010I After 205 nodes, 174 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (432.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 207 nodes, 176 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (433.67 seconds) Cbc0010I After 209 nodes, 178 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (435.00 seconds) Cbc0010I After 210 nodes, 179 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (435.81 seconds) Cbc0010I After 211 nodes, 180 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (436.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 213 nodes, 182 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (437.66 seconds) Cbc0010I After 215 nodes, 184 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (438.99 seconds) Cbc0010I After 216 nodes, 184 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (440.12 seconds) Cbc0010I After 218 nodes, 185 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (441.20 seconds) Cbc0010I After 220 nodes, 186 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (442.50 seconds) Cbc0010I After 221 nodes, 186 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (443.57 seconds) Cbc0010I After 223 nodes, 187 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (444.78 seconds) Cbc0010I After 225 nodes, 189 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (446.10 seconds) Cbc0010I After 227 nodes, 190 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (447.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 228 nodes, 191 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (447.99 seconds) Cbc0010I After 229 nodes, 192 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (448.84 seconds) Cbc0010I After 231 nodes, 194 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (450.15 seconds) Cbc0010I After 233 nodes, 196 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (451.45 seconds) Cbc0010I After 234 nodes, 197 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (452.46 seconds) Cbc0010I After 236 nodes, 199 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (453.72 seconds) Cbc0010I After 237 nodes, 200 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (454.42 seconds) Cbc0010I After 239 nodes, 201 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (455.50 seconds) Cbc0010I After 240 nodes, 202 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (456.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 242 nodes, 204 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (457.35 seconds) Cbc0010I After 243 nodes, 205 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (458.09 seconds) Cbc0010I After 244 nodes, 206 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (458.79 seconds) Cbc0010I After 245 nodes, 207 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (459.53 seconds) Cbc0010I After 247 nodes, 209 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (460.87 seconds) Cbc0010I After 249 nodes, 211 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (462.17 seconds) Cbc0010I After 251 nodes, 213 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (463.34 seconds) Cbc0010I After 253 nodes, 215 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (464.65 seconds) Cbc0010I After 255 nodes, 216 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (465.97 seconds) Cbc0010I After 256 nodes, 217 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (466.82 seconds) Cbc0010I After 258 nodes, 219 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (468.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 260 nodes, 220 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (469.89 seconds) Cbc0010I After 262 nodes, 222 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (471.57 seconds) Cbc0010I After 263 nodes, 223 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (472.37 seconds) Cbc0010I After 265 nodes, 224 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (473.67 seconds) Cbc0010I After 267 nodes, 226 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (474.88 seconds) Cbc0010I After 268 nodes, 227 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (475.95 seconds) Cbc0010I After 269 nodes, 227 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (476.88 seconds) Cbc0010I After 271 nodes, 228 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (478.73 seconds) Cbc0010I After 272 nodes, 228 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (479.79 seconds) Cbc0010I After 274 nodes, 230 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (480.93 seconds) Cbc0010I After 276 nodes, 231 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (481.95 seconds) Cbc0010I After 279 nodes, 233 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (482.88 seconds) Cbc0010I After 283 nodes, 235 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (483.75 seconds) Cbc0010I After 286 nodes, 236 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (484.92 seconds) Cbc0010I After 288 nodes, 238 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (485.67 seconds) Cbc0010I After 291 nodes, 239 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (486.63 seconds) Cbc0010I After 294 nodes, 241 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (487.47 seconds) Cbc0010I After 297 nodes, 244 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (488.51 seconds) Cbc0010I After 300 nodes, 247 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (489.40 seconds) Cbc0010I After 304 nodes, 251 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (490.28 seconds) Cbc0010I After 306 nodes, 252 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (491.03 seconds) Cbc0010I After 311 nodes, 257 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (492.30 seconds) Cbc0010I After 314 nodes, 260 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (493.06 seconds) Cbc0010I After 316 nodes, 262 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (493.79 seconds) Cbc0010I After 320 nodes, 266 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (494.61 seconds) Cbc0010I After 323 nodes, 269 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (495.41 seconds) Cbc0010I After 326 nodes, 272 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (496.25 seconds) Cbc0010I After 330 nodes, 276 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (497.25 seconds) Cbc0010I After 334 nodes, 280 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (498.04 seconds) Cbc0010I After 337 nodes, 283 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (498.81 seconds) Cbc0010I After 341 nodes, 287 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (499.67 seconds) Cbc0010I After 346 nodes, 292 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (500.61 seconds) Cbc0010I After 351 nodes, 297 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (501.67 seconds) Cbc0010I After 356 nodes, 302 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (502.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 360 nodes, 306 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (503.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 364 nodes, 310 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (504.19 seconds) Cbc0010I After 367 nodes, 313 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (504.93 seconds) Cbc0010I After 371 nodes, 317 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (505.86 seconds) Cbc0010I After 375 nodes, 321 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (506.56 seconds) Cbc0010I After 378 nodes, 324 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (507.43 seconds) Cbc0010I After 381 nodes, 327 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (508.26 seconds) Cbc0010I After 386 nodes, 332 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (509.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 390 nodes, 336 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (510.32 seconds) Cbc0010I After 394 nodes, 340 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (511.18 seconds) Cbc0010I After 396 nodes, 342 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (511.97 seconds) Cbc0010I After 399 nodes, 344 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (512.90 seconds) Cbc0010I After 402 nodes, 347 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (513.73 seconds) Cbc0010I After 406 nodes, 351 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (514.55 seconds) Cbc0010I After 409 nodes, 354 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (515.34 seconds) Cbc0010I After 413 nodes, 358 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (516.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 417 nodes, 361 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (517.02 seconds) Cbc0010I After 420 nodes, 364 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (517.90 seconds) Cbc0010I After 423 nodes, 367 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (518.60 seconds) Cbc0010I After 428 nodes, 372 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (519.77 seconds) Cbc0010I After 431 nodes, 374 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (520.57 seconds) Cbc0010I After 435 nodes, 378 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (521.54 seconds) Cbc0010I After 440 nodes, 382 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (522.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 445 nodes, 387 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (523.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 449 nodes, 391 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (524.33 seconds) Cbc0010I After 452 nodes, 394 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (525.18 seconds) Cbc0010I After 456 nodes, 398 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (525.96 seconds) Cbc0010I After 461 nodes, 402 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (526.92 seconds) Cbc0010I After 465 nodes, 406 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (527.71 seconds) Cbc0010I After 469 nodes, 410 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (528.48 seconds) Cbc0010I After 473 nodes, 414 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (529.24 seconds) Cbc0010I After 477 nodes, 418 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (530.04 seconds) Cbc0010I After 481 nodes, 421 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (530.80 seconds) Cbc0010I After 485 nodes, 425 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (531.61 seconds) Cbc0010I After 489 nodes, 429 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (532.45 seconds) Cbc0010I After 492 nodes, 432 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (533.19 seconds) Cbc0010I After 497 nodes, 437 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (534.11 seconds) Cbc0010I After 502 nodes, 442 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (535.03 seconds) Cbc0010I After 507 nodes, 447 on tree, 1e+50 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (535.95 seconds) Cbc0004I Integer solution of 122527.01 found after 10318 iterations and 510 nodes (554.18 seconds) Cbc0010I After 510 nodes, 442 on tree, 122527.01 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (554.19 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 40293 rows 59242 columns, reduced to 9967 rows 12559 columns Cbc0012I Integer solution of 122526.88 found by RINS after 10319 iterations and 511 nodes (585.85 seconds) Cbc0010I After 511 nodes, 443 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (585.86 seconds) Cbc0010I After 514 nodes, 445 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (587.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 517 nodes, 448 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (587.95 seconds) Cbc0010I After 520 nodes, 450 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (589.00 seconds) Cbc0010I After 523 nodes, 453 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (589.92 seconds) Cbc0010I After 527 nodes, 454 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (590.77 seconds) Cbc0010I After 529 nodes, 456 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (591.47 seconds) Cbc0010I After 533 nodes, 458 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (592.27 seconds) Cbc0010I After 536 nodes, 460 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (593.04 seconds) Cbc0010I After 537 nodes, 461 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (593.93 seconds) Cbc0010I After 540 nodes, 463 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (594.94 seconds) Cbc0010I After 543 nodes, 466 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (596.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 546 nodes, 468 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (596.80 seconds) Cbc0010I After 550 nodes, 470 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (597.65 seconds) Cbc0010I After 552 nodes, 472 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (598.53 seconds) Cbc0010I After 555 nodes, 475 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (599.41 seconds) Cbc0010I After 557 nodes, 476 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (600.15 seconds) Cbc0010I After 560 nodes, 478 on tree, 122526.88 best solution, best possible 122491.04 (600.97 seconds) |

-> a feasible but not optimal solution is found after some longer time.

I also tested my models with lp_solve 5.5.2.9. It find a first feasible solution faster with semi-continuous but will also never? end... With binarys it will find no solution in a reasonable time.

Am I doing something wrong or does not converting to binaries into an easier solution in my model?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/coin-or/Clp/issues/165#issuecomment-735847224, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWJYHHMK2SLGNIGNO7RARTSSOZHHANCNFSM4TUK5W2Q.