AC Optimal Power Flow and State Estimation
PGLib-OPF Optima Reproduced; 25k-Bus State Estimation in 1.2 s.
7.8 scase2869 AC-OPF (CPU)
27.5 scase9241 on GPU
1.18 s25k-bus state estimation
openRTE cases diverge
- AC-OPF interior point with exact sparse Hessians on cuDSS: PGLib case5 to case2869 match the published AC optimum
- case2869 in 7.8 s on CPU vs the PGLib published Ipopt time of 13 s (different machine); case9241 on GPU in 27.5 s
- Large RTE cases still diverge (open)
- State estimation: 25k buses, 204k measurements in 1.18 s, chi-square consistent, robust bad-data suppression
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
- Unit Commitment on PGLib-UC Against HiGHS
- GPU Bundle Adjustment Against Ceres Solver
- Exact Min-Cost Flow Against OR-Tools
- GPU Semidefinite Programming on SDPLIB