Gaurav Malik

Dear Maliheh, I understand. I will keep it in mind for the future. I look forward to Gurobi staff's response on the two posts. Thank you very much in advance! Gaurav 

Dear Maliheh, Thanks for your answer! It is, however, a different issue with a slightly different model (in this case, even a feasible solution can not be found). I am following the other post as w...

Dear Riley,  Thanks for your reply! It was indeed an oversight from my side. On another note, if you allow me the liberty, I am struggling with another issue. I have a non-convex MIQP model. It is ...

Hello Maliheh,    Thanks for the reply. The coefficient matrix only starts from 9e-6 which is almost 1e-5. Do you still think that it is a serious issue?I have already experimented with NoRelHeurTi...

That's indeed a more correct way to put it. Thanks for resolving this issue. It was getting a bit confusing. 

Hi Riley,  Thanks a lot for all the effort! I tried with upper bound on my variables (using solution values as some reference) but unfortunately, the issue still exists.    Anyways, would it be cor...

Hi Riley, Please set these model parameters. m.setParam("NonConvex", 2)m.setParam("NoRelHeurWork",40) I think then you would be able to replicate the issue.

Hi Riley! That's understandable. You can access the mps file (coefficients are a little different so don't expect the exact same values as in the screenshot) here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K...

Thanks Riley for the reply! Your summary is absolutely correct. In fact, it was incorrect for both SolutionNumber =2 and 3. I am using Gurobi Optimizer version 10.0.0 build v10.0.0rc2 (win64) in Py...

Hi Simranjit Thank you very much for your reply. However, if GRB.MAXIMISE is able to identify the -1050 and -1084 as sub-optimal solutions then I do not understand why would the fixed model (fixed ...