Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Difference in the objective value of a MIP in version 8.1.0 #86

Open
Thiago-NovaesB opened this issue Feb 9, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Comments

@Thiago-NovaesB
Copy link

files.zip

  1. original.lp is a MIP problem.
  2. permutation.lp is the same "original" problem but with permuted rows and columns.
  3. table.png is a table with the objective value for each problem in each version.

When solving both problems in versions 8.0.3 and 8.0.4, I get exactly the same solution (default parameters). However, when solving with 8.1.0 I find totally different solutions.

In "original", the objective value is very similar, so it's not necessarily a problem. But "permutation" has a very different objective value.

Can you help me understand what is happening?

@DominikKamp
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for creating this issue!

Indeed, we already looked into your bug report and could reproduce a bug on original.lp. This is currently under investigation. We will let you know when there are more insights.

It could be traced back to an issue in PaPILO. So a possible workaround is to set presolving/milp/maxrounds = 0. Could you check if this leads to the same objective value on original.lp and permutation.lp in your setup?

@Thiago-NovaesB
Copy link
Author

Thiago-NovaesB commented Feb 12, 2024

I found very close values, such as 71882637.3662884 and 71882637.3662881. The variables are very different.
It seems to me that this option really avoids the bug. I'll keep it that way until we have a more definitive solution.
Thanks!

@leoneifler
Copy link
Contributor

I will close this issue for now, as we have a separate internal issue tracking the bug.

@DominikKamp
Copy link
Contributor

This issue persists.

@DominikKamp DominikKamp reopened this Aug 30, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants