Unit Commitment on PGLib-UC Against HiGHS
Certified Objectives on 22 Power-System Instances at 600 s.
11/5/6vs HiGHS, 1 core
13/4/5vs HiGHS, 16 cores
22PGLib-UC instances, 600 s
0uncertified objectives
- Relax-and-fix + fix-and-optimize on the official PGLib-UC model; every objective certified by re-solving the official model with the commitment fixed
- vs HiGHS on the official MIP: 11/5/6 at 1 core, 13/4/5 at 16 cores
- California 2014 cases: HiGHS finds no solution in 600 s; ours certifies 48,233 (bound 48,226)
- FERC instances: neither solver finds a solution (tie)
More garmo solvers benchmark results
- Proof-Carrying Max-Cut on a GH200: 67 Biq Mac Optima Proved vs HiGHS's 49
- 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++ Solver Wins 37/26/21 at Equal Budget
- ISPD98 Bisection: Our Partitioner 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
- Constraint Programming 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
- GPU Bundle Adjustment Against Ceres Solver
- AC Optimal Power Flow and State Estimation
- Exact Min-Cost Flow Against OR-Tools
- GPU Semidefinite Programming on SDPLIB