[Scip] Segmentation Fault

Tobias Achterberg achterberg at zib.de
Thu Nov 19 12:47:11 MET 2009


Just increase the solution limit by 1 and call "optimize" again. SCIP will then continue 
the search and stop when the next solution has been found.

Tobias


Julio Rojas wrote:
> I'm running a series of simulations and it seems that this binary is ok.
> No segfaults yet.
>
> Is it possible that you add a way for the standalone solver to keep
> sunning after finding the first solution? I mean, if I would like to
> keep looking for more solutions I would issue a command like "nextsol"
> and the solver would run again to find the next solution.
>
> Thank you very much.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Julio Rojas
> jcredberry at gmail.com <mailto:jcredberry at gmail.com>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Stefan Vigerske
> <stefan at math.hu-berlin.de <mailto:stefan at math.hu-berlin.de>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     try the binary from
>     http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/~stefan/scip-1.2.0.linux.x86.gnu.opt.clp <http://www.math.hu-berlin.de/%7Estefan/scip-1.2.0.linux.x86.gnu.opt.clp>
>     It is a patched version of SCIP 1.2.0 linked against CLP 1.11 and
>     Ipopt 3.7.
>
>     Best,
>     Stefan
>
>     Am 19.11.2009 11:30, schrieb Julio Rojas:
>      > I downloaded the binary for Linux32. Again thanks.
>      > -------------------------------------------------
>      > Julio Rojas
>      > jcredberry at gmail.com <mailto:jcredberry at gmail.com>
>      >
>      >
>      > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Stefan Vigerske
>      > <stefan at math.hu-berlin.de <mailto:stefan at math.hu-berlin.de>>wrote:
>      >
>      >> Hi,
>      >>
>      >> did you compile SCIP with CLP from source or you downloaded a
>     binary?
>      >>
>      >> If you got it from source, go into the scip-1.2.0 directory and do
>      >>  patch -p1 < scip.patch
>      >> Then recompile.
>      >> Or you can look at scip.patch and change things in the souce by
>     hand.
>      >> Important are those in lpi_clp.cpp and heur_trivial.c.
>      >>
>      >> If you downloaded a binary, then for which platform?
>      >>
>      >> Stefan
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Am 19.11.2009 11:21, schrieb Julio Rojas:
>      >>> Thanks for the patch, but how can I apply it?
>      >>> -------------------------------------------------
>      >>> Julio Rojas
>      >>> jcredberry at gmail.com <mailto:jcredberry at gmail.com>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Stefan Vigerske
>      >>> <stefan at math.hu-berlin.de <mailto:stefan at math.hu-berlin.de>>wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>>> Hi,
>      >>>>
>      >>>> there is a bug in the SCIP/CLP interface.
>      >>>> The patch is attached.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Stefan
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Am 19.11.2009 10:04, schrieb Julio Rojas:
>      >>>>> Dear all, I have been using SCIP-CLP to solve some BIP
>     problems of my
>      >> PhD
>      >>>>> work. One of the problems has the generic form:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> Min Sum(Xi)
>      >>>>> s.t.
>      >>>>> Xi+Xk <= 1, if Aik=1 and i<k, for i,k in {1,...,n}
>      >>>>> Xi-Xk = 0, if {Xi,Xk} in Pj for all j in {1,...,g}, g<n
>      >>>>> Sum(Xi)>=floor(n/2)+1
>      >>>>> Xi in {0,1}
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> I know that for some setups this problem is unfeasible, but
>     sometimes I
>      >>>> get
>      >>>>> segmentation fault errors like in the attached example.
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> I use the standalone solver. After loading it the message
>     presented is
>      >>>> the
>      >>>>> following:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> original problem has 75 variables (0 bin, 75 int, 0 impl, 0
>     cont) and
>      >> 846
>      >>>>> constraints
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> After presolve, the message is:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> presolving:
>      >>>>> (round 1) 69 del vars, 690 del conss, 0 chg bounds, 0 chg
>     sides, 0 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 0 upgd conss, 1046 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> (round 2) 69 del vars, 842 del conss, 0 chg bounds, 0 chg
>     sides, 0 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 0 upgd conss, 1046 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> (round 3) 69 del vars, 842 del conss, 0 chg bounds, 0 chg
>     sides, 0 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 3 upgd conss, 1046 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> (round 4) 69 del vars, 842 del conss, 0 chg bounds, 0 chg
>     sides, 0 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 4 upgd conss, 1046 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> (round 5) 70 del vars, 842 del conss, 0 chg bounds, 2 chg
>     sides, 4 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 4 upgd conss, 1056 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> (round 6) 71 del vars, 843 del conss, 0 chg bounds, 3 chg
>     sides, 6 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 4 upgd conss, 1060 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> (round 7) 71 del vars, 846 del conss, 1 chg bounds, 5 chg
>     sides, 8 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 4 upgd conss, 1062 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> (round 8) 72 del vars, 846 del conss, 1 chg bounds, 5 chg
>     sides, 8 chg
>      >>>>> coeffs, 4 upgd conss, 1062 impls, 0 clqs
>      >>>>> presolving (9 rounds):
>      >>>>>  72 deleted vars, 846 deleted constraints, 1 tightened
>     bounds, 0 added
>      >>>>> holes, 5 changed sides, 8 changed coefficients
>      >>>>>  1062 implications, 0 cliques
>      >>>>> presolved problem has 3 variables (3 bin, 0 int, 0 impl, 0
>     cont) and 3
>      >>>>> constraints
>      >>>>>       1 constraints of type <knapsack>
>      >>>>>       2 constraints of type <logicor>
>      >>>>> Presolving Time: 0.01
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> So, as you can see, the problem should be unfeasible, but
>     when I run
>      >> the
>      >>>>> solving routine I get the following message:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>  time | node  | left  |LP iter| mem |mdpt |frac |vars |cons
>     |ccons|cols
>      >>>>> |rows |cuts |confs|strbr|  dualbound   | primalbound  |  gap
>      >>>>> t 0.0s|     1 |     0 |     0 | 449k|   0 |   - |   3 |   3 |
>        3 |   0
>      >> |
>      >>>>> 0 |   0 |   0 |   0 |      --      | 1.192662e+03 |    Inf
>      >>>>> t 0.0s|     1 |     0 |     0 | 449k|   0 |   - |   3 |   3 |
>        3 |   0
>      >> |
>      >>>>> 0 |   0 |   0 |   0 |      --      | 1.170286e+03 |    Inf
>      >>>>> Segmentation fault
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> Any idea on what's happening? Is there a way to avoid this
>     problem? I'm
>      >>>>> running the standalone solver from an R script, so I don't
>     know if by
>      >>>> using
>      >>>>> C I can catch this problem. I don't program in C. Can I trust
>     that when
>      >>>> this
>      >>>>> happens the solution is unfeasible? I can cope with this
>     problem if it
>      >> is
>      >>>>> presented when the solution is unfeasible and some set of
>     features
>      >> exist
>      >>>> in
>      >>>>> the model.
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> Thank you very much for your help.
>      >>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>      >>>>> Julio Rojas
>      >>>>> jcredberry at gmail.com <mailto:jcredberry at gmail.com>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>> _______________________________________________
>      >>>>> Scip mailing list
>      >>>>> Scip at zib.de <mailto:Scip at zib.de>
>      >>>>> http://listserv.zib.de/mailman/listinfo/scip
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scip mailing list
> Scip at zib.de
> http://listserv.zib.de/mailman/listinfo/scip


More information about the Scip mailing list