Coin Cbc and Clp Solver version 2.20.00, build Aug 5 2008 command line - cbc done/neos13.mps At line 1 NAME NEOS13 At line 2 ROWS At line 20856 COLUMNS At line 274715 RHS At line 295568 BOUNDS At line 297396 ENDATA Problem NEOS13 has 20852 rows, 1827 columns and 253842 elements Coin0008I NEOS13 read with 0 errors Continuous objective value is -126.178 - 0.59 seconds Optimal - objective value -126.178 Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 279 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0003I 0 fixed, 0 tightened bounds, 269 strengthened rows, 0 substitutions Cgl0004I processed model has 19278 rows, 1826 columns (1815 integer) and 215677 elements Cbc0038I Pass 1: (1.00 seconds) suminf. 0.00000 (0) obj. -15.4103 iterations 446 Cbc0038I Solution found of -15.4103 Cbc0038I Before mini branch and bound, 1415 integers at bound fixed and 5 continuous Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 18088 rows 406 columns - too large Cbc0038I Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (1.64 seconds) Cbc0038I Round again with cutoff of -26.4871 Cbc0038I Pass 2: (2.50 seconds) suminf. 0.00000 (0) obj. -26.4871 iterations 428 Cbc0038I Solution found of -26.4871 Cbc0038I Before mini branch and bound, 1415 integers at bound fixed and 6 continuous Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 17847 rows 405 columns - too large Cbc0038I Mini branch and bound did not improve solution (3.10 seconds) Cbc0038I After 3.10 seconds - Feasibility pump exiting with objective of -26.4871 - took 3.05 seconds Cbc0012I Integer solution of -46.3368 found by feasibility pump after 0 iterations and 0 nodes (3.31 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1684 columns - 500 fixed gives 19061, 1123 - still too large Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19061 rows 1123 columns - too large Cbc0031I 304 added rows had average density of 13 Cbc0013I At root node, 304 cuts changed objective from -126.178 to -114.009 in 2 passes Cbc0014I Cut generator 0 (Probing) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 50.175 seconds - new frequency is 1000 Cbc0014I Cut generator 1 (Gomory) - 250 row cuts, 0 column cuts (250 active) in 0.196 seconds - new frequency is 1 Cbc0014I Cut generator 2 (Knapsack) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.016 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 3 (Clique) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.008 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 4 (MixedIntegerRounding2) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.052 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 5 (FlowCover) - 0 row cuts, 0 column cuts (0 active) in 0.140 seconds - new frequency is -100 Cbc0014I Cut generator 6 (TwoMirCuts) - 382 row cuts, 0 column cuts (54 active) in 0.468 seconds - new frequency is -100 Optimal - objective value -114.009 Optimal - objective value -114.009 Cbc0010I After 0 nodes, 1 on tree, -46.3368 best solution, best possible -114.009 (56.96 seconds) Cbc0010I After 100 nodes, 80 on tree, -46.3368 best solution, best possible -113.895 (73.12 seconds) Cbc0004I Integer solution of -82.9535 found after 1200 iterations and 119 nodes (74.27 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1815 columns - too large Cbc0004I Integer solution of -84.8823 found after 1361 iterations and 127 nodes (77.36 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1815 columns - too large Cbc0004I Integer solution of -90.0913 found after 1509 iterations and 162 nodes (81.71 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1815 columns - too large Cbc0010I After 200 nodes, 165 on tree, -90.0913 best solution, best possible -113.895 (85.49 seconds) Cbc0004I Integer solution of -94.2322 found after 1692 iterations and 205 nodes (85.89 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1815 columns - too large Cbc0010I After 300 nodes, 183 on tree, -94.2322 best solution, best possible -113.895 (97.35 seconds) Cbc0010I After 400 nodes, 245 on tree, -94.2322 best solution, best possible -113.895 (104.50 seconds) Cbc0010I After 500 nodes, 217 on tree, -94.2322 best solution, best possible -113.895 (115.75 seconds) Cbc0010I After 600 nodes, 162 on tree, -94.2322 best solution, best possible -110.484 (130.00 seconds) Cbc0004I Integer solution of -94.6744 found after 3841 iterations and 607 nodes (130.62 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1815 columns - too large Cbc0004I Integer solution of -95.1549 found after 3935 iterations and 630 nodes (133.09 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1815 columns - too large Cbc0010I After 700 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -110.484 (143.53 seconds) Cbc0010I After 800 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -109.99 (151.40 seconds) Cbc0010I After 900 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -109.44 (160.34 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1000 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -109.391 (168.08 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1100 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -109.391 (175.91 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1200 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -109.155 (185.54 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1300 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -109.155 (193.15 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1400 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -108.916 (202.52 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1500 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -108.496 (212.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1600 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -108.496 (220.03 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1700 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -108.344 (228.57 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1800 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -107.924 (238.36 seconds) Cbc0010I After 1900 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -107.77 (246.54 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2000 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -107.767 (253.96 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2100 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -107.397 (263.52 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2200 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -107.097 (272.31 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2300 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -107.097 (279.67 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2400 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -107.075 (287.56 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2500 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -106.613 (296.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2600 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -106.042 (305.47 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2700 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -105.975 (313.95 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2800 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -105.877 (322.86 seconds) Cbc0010I After 2900 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -105.509 (331.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3000 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -105.509 (342.15 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3100 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -105.509 (348.90 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3200 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -105.244 (357.37 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3300 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -104.807 (365.56 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3400 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -104.807 (372.78 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3500 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -104.807 (379.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3600 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -104.477 (386.63 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3700 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -104.11 (394.00 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3800 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -103.873 (401.08 seconds) Cbc0010I After 3900 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -103.873 (407.61 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4000 nodes, 157 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -103.763 (414.19 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4100 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -103.454 (420.93 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4200 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -103.454 (427.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4300 nodes, 158 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -103.276 (434.11 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4400 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -102.948 (441.40 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4500 nodes, 161 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -102.948 (448.26 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4600 nodes, 161 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -102.948 (454.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4700 nodes, 162 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -102.754 (461.12 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4800 nodes, 163 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -102.633 (468.02 seconds) Cbc0010I After 4900 nodes, 166 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -102.054 (475.17 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5000 nodes, 174 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -101.194 (482.61 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5100 nodes, 177 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.699 (489.18 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5200 nodes, 181 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.649 (496.19 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5300 nodes, 181 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.649 (502.82 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5400 nodes, 191 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.649 (509.08 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5500 nodes, 187 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.593 (515.32 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5600 nodes, 187 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.499 (521.94 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5700 nodes, 187 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.385 (528.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5800 nodes, 187 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.346 (534.93 seconds) Cbc0010I After 5900 nodes, 190 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.323 (541.69 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6000 nodes, 190 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.323 (550.44 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6100 nodes, 204 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.323 (556.62 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6200 nodes, 205 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.237 (562.68 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6300 nodes, 206 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.212 (568.87 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6400 nodes, 208 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.189 (575.28 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6500 nodes, 209 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.155 (581.62 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6600 nodes, 210 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.111 (588.04 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6700 nodes, 213 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -100.024 (594.51 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6800 nodes, 209 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -99.8622 (601.61 seconds) Cbc0010I After 6900 nodes, 131 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -99.6646 (616.29 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7000 nodes, 101 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -99.4231 (623.86 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7100 nodes, 101 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -99.0043 (629.80 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7200 nodes, 113 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.4144 (636.06 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7300 nodes, 118 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.4144 (641.43 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7400 nodes, 124 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.4144 (647.19 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7500 nodes, 123 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.4144 (652.68 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7600 nodes, 125 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2748 (658.69 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7700 nodes, 123 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2564 (664.34 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7800 nodes, 125 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2564 (670.07 seconds) Cbc0010I After 7900 nodes, 123 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2564 (675.75 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8000 nodes, 130 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2564 (681.20 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8100 nodes, 130 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2564 (686.74 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8200 nodes, 137 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2564 (692.49 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8300 nodes, 141 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.2268 (698.25 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8400 nodes, 148 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.1732 (704.23 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8500 nodes, 151 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.1133 (710.19 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8600 nodes, 155 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -98.0513 (716.38 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8700 nodes, 159 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -97.9755 (722.52 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8800 nodes, 164 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -97.8615 (728.97 seconds) Cbc0010I After 8900 nodes, 172 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -97.6675 (735.13 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9000 nodes, 177 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -97.2459 (741.82 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9100 nodes, 184 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.8178 (748.05 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9200 nodes, 191 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.696 (754.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9300 nodes, 207 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.6064 (761.02 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9400 nodes, 219 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.5911 (767.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9500 nodes, 224 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.5632 (773.58 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9600 nodes, 233 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.5472 (779.62 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9700 nodes, 228 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.4256 (785.18 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9800 nodes, 244 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.3195 (790.69 seconds) Cbc0010I After 9900 nodes, 249 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.3195 (796.33 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10000 nodes, 257 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.3195 (802.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10100 nodes, 250 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -96.0811 (807.81 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10200 nodes, 228 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.7562 (813.09 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10300 nodes, 236 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.7562 (818.22 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10400 nodes, 240 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.7562 (823.46 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10500 nodes, 247 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.7562 (828.54 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10600 nodes, 245 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.7236 (833.47 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10700 nodes, 249 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.6659 (838.39 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10800 nodes, 260 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.6659 (843.18 seconds) Cbc0010I After 10900 nodes, 265 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.6359 (848.23 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11000 nodes, 272 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.6085 (853.03 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11100 nodes, 281 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.543 (857.93 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11200 nodes, 279 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.543 (863.23 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11300 nodes, 274 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.543 (867.87 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11400 nodes, 289 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.543 (872.99 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11500 nodes, 297 on tree, -95.1549 best solution, best possible -95.543 (877.60 seconds) Cbc0004I Integer solution of -95.2612 found after 24117 iterations and 11578 nodes (881.38 seconds) Cbc0038I Full problem 19278 rows 1826 columns, reduced to 19278 rows 1815 columns - too large Cbc0010I After 11600 nodes, 224 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.492 (883.77 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11700 nodes, 232 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.492 (888.60 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11800 nodes, 228 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.492 (894.22 seconds) Cbc0010I After 11900 nodes, 224 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.492 (899.48 seconds) Cbc0010I After 12000 nodes, 218 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.492 (904.69 seconds) Cbc0010I After 12100 nodes, 220 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.492 (910.16 seconds) Cbc0010I After 12200 nodes, 228 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.492 (915.63 seconds) Cbc0010I After 12300 nodes, 217 on tree, -95.2612 best solution, best possible -95.4748 (920.49 seconds) Cbc0004I Integer solution of -95.4748 found after 25215 iterations and 12355 nodes (923.06 seconds) Cbc0001I Search completed - best objective -95.47480655853867, took 25215 iterations and 12355 nodes (923.08 seconds) Cbc0032I Strong branching done 606 times (4609 iterations), fathomed 0 nodes and fixed 0 variables Cbc0035I Maximum depth 190, 212385 variables fixed on reduced cost Cuts at root node changed objective from -126.178 to -114.009 Probing was tried 21 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (66.428 seconds) Gomory was tried 1938 times and created 91156 cuts of which 1715 were active after adding rounds of cuts (59.028 seconds) Knapsack was tried 2 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.016 seconds) Clique was tried 2 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.008 seconds) MixedIntegerRounding2 was tried 2 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.052 seconds) FlowCover was tried 2 times and created 0 cuts of which 0 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.140 seconds) TwoMirCuts was tried 2 times and created 382 cuts of which 54 were active after adding rounds of cuts (0.468 seconds) Result - Finished objective -95.47480655853867 after 12355 nodes and 25215 iterations - took 1166.04 seconds (total time 1166.86) Total time 1167.96 1167.96user 0.87system 19:28.94elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+371808minor)pagefaults 0swaps