Proof-Carrying Max-Cut on a GH200: 67 Biq Mac Optima Proved vs HiGHS's 49
Rigorous SDP and Odd-Cycle LP Bounds in a GPU Branch-and-Bound, Every Proof Re-Checked by an Independent Verifier.
67 vs 49Biq Mac instances proved optimal, CertCut vs HiGHS (148)
58/83/7wins / ties / losses vs HiGHS
71/71Gset upper bounds re-verified by the CPU verifier
L = 92-D ±J torus: every seed proved up to n = 81
- Full Biq Mac: 67 vs 49 proved; W/T/L 58/83/7; 0 bound mismatches
- Sparse families (pre-declared 48): 44 vs 40 proved, 33/6/9
- Gset 71/71 rigorous bounds verified VALID; median certified gap 10.05 %
More garmo solvers benchmark results
- Weighted MaxSAT on a GH200: From 14/33/50 to 33/38/26 Against NuWLS-c-IBR
- Large-Instance TSP on 16 Arm Cores: 0.692 % → 0.165 % Mean Gap, Still Behind LKH-3
- A Native QCDCL Solver vs DepQBF: From 0 vs 4 to a 15–15 Tie, Then 15 vs 18 on Fresh Instances
- Vehicle Routing vs PyVRP: a C++ Iterated Local Search Wins 37/26/21 at Equal Budget
- ISPD98 Bisection: a Multilevel FM + Flow Engine Beats KaHyPar and mt-KaHyPar at Equal Budget
- An Evidence-Driven Solver Router: Regret 0.046 vs 0.190 for the Best Single Backend
- A Verified MIP Race: HiGHS, SCIP and GPU Primal Heuristics Against cuOpt on MIPLIB 2017
- Lazy Clause Generation in C++: 39 of 40 Schedules Proved Optimal vs CP-SAT's 20
- Certified GPU Numerics: Every Answer Carries a Checkable Certificate: and Where It Costs
- LABS on a GH200: Exponent 1.24 to the Proven Optimum, Beside the QAOA Exponents
- UNISOLVE 0.16.1: One Solver Platform, 13 Problem Domains, Every Answer Checked
- Four Certified Builds: Toroidal Proofs, Unroutability Certificates, CertBQP and a 235× Batch Service