---
title: AC Optimal Power Flow and State Estimation | SpinForge
url: https://spin-forge.com/proof/s16
description: 7.8 s: case2869 AC-OPF (CPU). PGLib-OPF Optima Reproduced; 25k-Bus State Estimation in 1.2 s.
---

GARMO SOLVERS · S16

# AC Optimal Power Flow and State Estimation

PGLib-OPF Optima Reproduced; 25k-Bus State Estimation in 1.2 s.

7.8 s case2869 AC-OPF (CPU)

27.5 s case9241 on GPU

1.18 s 25k-bus state estimation

open RTE 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
[Request the full poster by email](https://spin-forge.com/contact?product=portfolio&brief=Please%20send%20the%20full%20poster%3A%20AC%20Optimal%20Power%20Flow%20and%20State%20Estimation%20%28S16%29.%0A%0AOur%20organization%20and%20intended%20use%3A%0A)

## More garmo solvers benchmark results

- [Proof-Carrying Max-Cut on a GH200: 67 Biq Mac Optima Proved vs HiGHS's 49](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s01)
- [Weighted MaxSAT on a GH200: From 14/33/50 to 33/38/26 Against NuWLS-c-IBR](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s02)
- [Large-Instance TSP on 16 Arm Cores: 0.692 %  0.165 % Mean Gap, Still Behind LKH-3](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s03)
- [A Native QCDCL Solver vs DepQBF: From 0 vs 4 to a 15–15 Tie, Then 15 vs 18 on Fresh Instances](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s04)
- [Vehicle Routing vs PyVRP: a C++ Solver Wins 37/26/21 at Equal Budget](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s05)
- [ISPD98 Bisection: Our Partitioner Beats KaHyPar and mt-KaHyPar at Equal Budget](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s06)
- [An Evidence-Driven Solver Router: Regret 0.046 vs 0.190 for the Best Single Backend](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s07)
- [A Verified MIP Race: HiGHS, SCIP and GPU Primal Heuristics Against cuOpt on MIPLIB 2017](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s08)
- [Constraint Programming in C++: 39 of 40 Schedules Proved Optimal vs CP-SAT's 20](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s09)
- [Certified GPU Numerics: Every Answer Carries a Checkable Certificate: and Where It Costs](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s10)
- [LABS on a GH200: Exponent 1.24 to the Proven Optimum, Beside the QAOA Exponents](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s11)
- [UNISOLVE 0.16.1: One Solver Platform, 13 Problem Domains, Every Answer Checked](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s12)
- [Four Certified Builds: Toroidal Proofs, Unroutability Certificates, CertBQP and a 235× Batch Service](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s13)
- [Unit Commitment on PGLib-UC Against HiGHS](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s14)
- [GPU Bundle Adjustment Against Ceres Solver](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s15)
- [Exact Min-Cost Flow Against OR-Tools](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s17)
- [GPU Semidefinite Programming on SDPLIB](https://spin-forge.com/proof/s18)

[All results, charts and papers](https://spin-forge.com/proof)

Results describe the stated inputs, hardware and conditions and are not a guarantee of results in your environment. See the [Terms of Use](https://spin-forge.com/terms).