×
![]()
neos-pseudoapplication-98
| Type: | Model Group |
| Submitter: | NEOS Server Submission |
| Description: | Imported from the MIPLIB2010 submissions. |
Parent Model Group (neos-pseudoapplication-98)
All other model groups below were be compared against this "query" model group.  |
 |
|
Model Group Composite (MGC) image
Composite of the decomposed CCM images for every instance in the query model group.
|
Component Instances (Decomposed)
These are the decomposed CCM images for each instance in the query model group. |
These are component instance images.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Name | neos-3209462-rhin | neos-5188808-nattai | neos-4321076-ruwer | neos-1423785 |
MIC Top 5 Model Groups
These are the 5 MGC images that are most similar to the MGC image for the query model group, according to the ISS metric. |
FIXME - These are model group composite images.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Name | neos-pseudoapplication-13 | neos-pseudoapplication-31 | neos-pseudoapplication-12 | pb- | milo | |
|
Rank / ISS
The image-based structural similarity (ISS) metric measures the Euclidean distance between the image-based feature vectors for the query model group and all other model groups. A smaller ISS value indicates greater similarity.
|
1 / 1.834 | 2 / 1.864 | 3 / 1.913 | 4 / 1.964 | 5 / 1.979 |
Model Group Summary
The table below contains summary information for neos-pseudoapplication-98, and for the five most similar model groups to neos-pseudoapplication-98 according to the MIC.
| MODEL GROUP | SUBMITTER | DESCRIPTION | ISS | RANK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent Model Group | neos-pseudoapplication-98 | NEOS Server Submission | Imported from the MIPLIB2010 submissions. | 0.000000 | - |
| MIC Top 5 | neos-pseudoapplication-13 | NEOS Server Submission | Model coming from the NEOS Server with unknown application | 1.834324 | 1 |
| neos-pseudoapplication-31 | Jeff Linderoth | (None provided) | 1.863871 | 2 | |
| neos-pseudoapplication-12 | NEOS Server Submission | Imported from the MIPLIB2010 submissions. | 1.913401 | 3 | |
| pb- | Gleb Belov | These are the models from MiniZinc Challenges 2012-2016 (see www.minizinc.org), compiled for MIP WITH INDICATOR CONSTRAINTS using the develop branch of MiniZinc and CPLEX 12.7.1 on 30 April 2017. Thus, these models can only be handled by solvers accepting indicator constraints. For models compiled with big-M/domain decomposition only, see my previous submission to MIPLIB.To recompile, create a directory MODELS, a list lst12_16.txt of the models with full paths to mzn/dzn files of each model per line, and say$> ~/install/libmzn/tests/benchmarking/mzn-test.py -l ../lst12_16.txt -slvPrf MZN-CPLEX -debug 1 -addOption "-timeout 3 -D fIndConstr=true -D fMIPdomains=false" -useJoinedName "-writeModel MODELS_IND/%s.mps" Alternatively, you can compile individual model as follows: $> mzn-cplex -v -s -G linear -output-time ../challenge_2012_2016/mznc2016_probs/zephyrus/zephyrus.mzn ../challenge_2012_2016/mznc2016_p/zephyrus/14__8__6__3.dzn -a -timeout 3 -D fIndConstr=true -D fMIPdomains=false -writeModel MODELS_IND/challenge_2012_2016mznc2016_probszephyruszephyrusmzn-challenge_2012_2016mznc2016_probszephyrus14__8__6__3dzn.mps | 1.963905 | 4 | |
| milo | Tamas Terlaky | The models come from structural design optimization where the objective is to minimize the total weight of 2 and 3 dimensional cantilevers. The 2D examples are simpler, and GuRobi can solve the 40_1 and 58_1 models, while struggles with 75_1. The 3D examples are more challenging. The x_0 and x_1 models are two different modeling of the same identical problems, so their optimal value is the same. The 1_x and 2_x problems are solved by GuRoBi, the 3_x and 4_x are not solved in reasonable time. | 1.979437 | 5 |
