On 12/09/2012 23:27, Martin Michalowski wrote: > Hi, > We have been using ECLiPSe in some of our research as the backend solver for models defined > using Minizinc. We have come across an issue that maybe someone on the list could help clarify. > We pass the flatzinc representation of our model to ECLiPSe where the objective function to be > minimized or maximized contains a product expression with floats (specifically ones that are > <1.0 and represent probabilities). The solution returned is the same no matter if we are > maximizing or minimizing the objective function. If we change this expression to contain > integers rather than floats (or floats > 1.0) we get the expected behavior from ECLiPSe > (different answers based on either maximizing or minimizing the objective function). Hi Martin, I suppose you are using fzn_ic as the solver option. This means that ECLiPSe's library(ic) interval solver is used, together with library(branch_and_bound) for the optimization aspect. This requires some care when used with floating point intervals: the branch-and-bound library by default tries to improve the objective in steps of 1.0, which probably is too coarse in your case. You should be able to change this using a solve-annotation like solve ::delta(0.1) minimize ...; These minizinc/flatzinc annotations are described here http://www.eclipseclp.org/doc/bips/lib_public/fzn_ic/index.html and are translated into options for bb_min/3, documented here http://www.eclipseclp.org/doc/bips/lib/branch_and_bound/bb_min-3.html > I would be happy to provide the models if requested. The above is my guess from the information you have given. If you send me a sample model, I can have a closer look! Cheers, JoachimReceived on Sat Sep 15 2012 - 20:01:25 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Sep 25 2024 - 15:13:20 CEST