Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 55 references

State-of-the-art Methods for Pseudo-Boolean Solving with SCIP

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read SCIP-based solvers win five of six pseudo-Boolean categories in the 2024 competition, with post-competition tuning pushing the sequential solver to 782 solved instances.

desk verdict The PB24 scoreboard is real and the paper is a useful honest engineering report, but the ablation table is far too thin to support the claimed causal role of the new cut families. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03390 v2 pith:LA3YOFL5 submitted 2025-01-06 math.OC

Gioni Mexi , Dominik Kamp , Yuji Shinano , Shanwen Pu , Alexander Hoen , Ksenia Bestuzheva , Christopher Hojny , Matthias Walter
show 3 more authors
Marc E. Pfetsch Sebastian Pokutta Thorsten Koch
This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C1090C5790C27
keywords Pseudo-BooleanSCIPintegerprogrammingbranch-and-cutRLTcutsflowerinequalitiessymmetryhandlingconflictanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports that solvers built on the SCIP constraint-integer-programming framework won five of the six categories in the 2024 Pseudo-Boolean competition, solving 759 of 1,207 instances in the sequential version and 776 with the parallel FiberSCIP. It argues that this success comes from treating pseudo-Boolean problems as integer linear programs and applying a mature branch-and-cut engine, then extends the result with post-competition improvements that raise the sequential solver to 782 solved instances while cutting average runtime by 9 percent. The paper identifies symmetry handling, RLT cuts for AND constraints, flower inequalities, and cut-based conflict analysis as the main contributors. A fair reader should care because the result demonstrates that general-purpose integer-programming machinery can be state-of-the-art for a domain historically dominated by SAT-style solvers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the SCIP branch-and-cut framework, which treats pseudo-Boolean problems as pure integer linear programs over binary variables after linearizing AND constraints. On top of that base, four additions carry the argument: RLT cuts generated for the bilinear terms hidden in AND constraints; k-flower inequalities (k=1,2) separated from the hypergraph of AND constraints in linear time; symmetry handling via detection graphs that find permutation and reflection symmetries, with orbitopal fixing and lexicographic constraints; and cut-based conflict analysis that interprets conflicts as linear combinations, roundings, and cuts. A numerical pre-check that rounds floating-point candidate solutions before evaluating feasibility ensures exactness for large-coefficient constraints.

What would settle it

Run SCIP on a fresh, time-locked set of pseudo-Boolean instances (for example, the next competition's benchmark) with and without each feature individually, using a pre-registered definition of affected instances and a sample large enough for statistical testing; if disabling flower inequalities or RLT cuts no longer slows the solver on affected instances, the paper's attribution fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SCIP, an open-source constraint integer programming solver, is currently a state-of-the-art pseudo-Boolean solver, and that its edge comes from combining LP-based branch-and-cut with domain-specific additions. In the 2024 competition, SCIP placed first or second in every category it entered, and the winner of the optimization category, Mixed-Bag, itself relied on SCIP as a component. After the competition, enabling cut-based conflict analysis and switching the automorphism tool from Nauty to Bliss let the sequential solver solve 782 instances instead of 760, with a 9 percent lower geometric mean runtime. The authors attribute the gains to new separators for RLT cuts and flower inequalities, symmetry detection and handling that covers reflections as well as permutations, and a numerical approach that rounds candidate solutions before feasibility checks.

Load-bearing premise

The causal claim that the described features produce the performance gains rests on an ablation study that defines affected instances after seeing the results and runs on the very benchmark that motivated the features, with very few affected instances for two of the features.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pseudo-Boolean problems can be solved at scale by mapping them to integer linear programs and using an LP-based solver, without specialized SAT-style techniques.
  • Symmetry handling is the single most important feature: disabling it slows affected instances by 35% and loses 13 instances.
  • RLT cuts and flower inequalities produce large relative speedups on the few instances where they apply (26% and 40% slower when disabled), though these instances are rare.
  • Cut-based conflict analysis adds a modest but real improvement of 8 instances and 2% average time on instances where it fires.
  • Parallelizing SCIP with customized racing across 20 cores helps decision problems but not optimization problems, where closing the dual gap matters more.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ablation evidence for RLT cuts and flower inequalities rests on only 3 to 14 affected instances, so the per-feature speedups are not statistically robust and should be re-measured on a larger, unseen benchmark before being taken as general effects.
  • The paper's success suggests that general MIP solvers may close or reverse the historical gap with SAT-based PB solvers; a direct head-to-head on the same benchmark against solvers like RoundingSat would make this concrete.
  • The pre-check rounding technique for exact feasibility could be ported to other exact solvers that use floating-point arithmetic, potentially fixing similar artifacts in instances with huge coefficients.
  • Because the competition benchmark strongly influenced which features were added, the post-competition improvements are at risk of overfitting; a time-locked evaluation on future competition instances would test whether the gains generalize.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports on SCIP and FiberSCIP's participation in the 2024 Pseudo-Boolean competition, in which solvers using the SCIP framework won five of six categories, with SCIP solving 759 and FiberSCIP 776 of 1,207 instances. It describes algorithmic features added or modified for pseudo-Boolean solving: RLT cuts for AND constraints, flower inequalities for multilinear constraints, symmetry handling, numerical feasibility handling, large-integer heuristics, and post-competition cut-based conflict analysis. The paper also presents a post-competition comparison showing that an updated SCIP version solves 782 instances versus 760 for the competition version, with a 9% reduction in geometric mean time, and an ablation study in Table 4 attributing gains to individual features.

Significance. The competition results are independently verified and establish SCIP as a top-performing pseudo-Boolean solver, which is a meaningful contribution. The paper provides a useful description of the solver's features and a reasonable single-machine comparison protocol for the post-competition version. However, the causal attribution of the performance to specific new cut families is not supported by the ablation evidence: RLT cuts and flower inequalities affect only 14 and 3 instances, respectively, with zero change in solved count, and the reported speedups have no per-instance detail or statistical analysis. The lack of exact version identifiers also hinders reproducibility. If the claims are tempered or the experiments are strengthened, the paper would be a valuable record of the competition and the solver's development.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.4, Table 4] The ablation study does not support the paper's causal reading that RLT cuts and flower inequalities are "winning algorithmic ideas." Disabling RLT cuts affects only 14 instances and changes the solved count by 0; disabling flower inequalities affects only 3 instances and also changes the solved count by 0. The reported speedups (1.26x and 1.40x) are computed on post hoc defined "affected" instances, with no per-instance times, confidence intervals, or correction for the fact that these features were tuned on the same competition benchmark. With n=3, a single instance-level anomaly can dominate the quotient, so the data are consistent with noise or feature interactions. The same concern applies to the symmetry and cut-based conflict analysis ablations, which are presented as in-sample aggregate ratios without variance measures. Please provide instance-level detail and statistical analysis, or temper the claims in the abstract and in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
  2. [Section 3.4] The comparison between comp. Scip and post-comp. Scip is not reproducible from the information given. The paper does not provide a commit hash, version number, or exact parameter file for either solver configuration. Since the claimed improvement (782 vs 760 solved instances, 9% geometric mean time reduction) is a central post-competition result, the authors should make the exact code versions and settings available, ideally as a public artifact or precise version identifiers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The integer size distribution entries sum to 1216 (1126+77+9+4), not the stated total of 1,207 instances. Please correct the inconsistency and ensure that the distribution matches the competition totals used elsewhere.
  2. [Section 3.2] The phrase "brand-and-bound tree" should be "branch-and-bound tree."
  3. [Section 3.3] The sentence "As is evident from the analysis in the next section" is confusing because Section 3.4 does not analyze Mixed-Bag's composition; please clarify or remove the cross-reference.
  4. [Section 2.4] The statement "this exclusive upper bound is at least 2^s" appears to be a typo; it should likely be "at most 2^s" (or "less than 2^s") for the subsequent argument that ǫ_f < 2^{-s} implies ǫ_f < 1/(||C||_1+1).
  5. [Figure 1] The figure would benefit from a caption and a description of which solver version's running times are plotted; currently it is referenced in the text but not fully explained.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract says "solvers based on SCIP won five out of six categories" and later refers to "winning algorithmic ideas"; please clarify that the competition wins include results achieved by other solvers that embed SCIP, and ensure the attributed ideas are those actually supported by the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SCIP's competition results are external benchmark facts, and the post-competition ablations are empirical measurements rather than predictions derived from the features themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central performance claims rest on the independent PB24 competition scoreboard (Table 2, cited to [49]), not on any equation in the paper; the numbers 759 and 776 are reported official results, not quantities derived from the paper's assumptions. The post-competition comparison (Table 3) is a re-run of two solver builds on the fixed 1,207-instance benchmark, presented as a measurement; no parameter is fitted to a subset and then reported as an out-of-sample prediction. Table 4 is an ablation study; despite the small affected sets for RLT cuts (14) and flower inequalities (3), the paper explicitly acknowledges the 'limited number of non-linear instances' and does not define 'affected instances' in terms of the performance difference being explained, so the comparison is not tautological. The self-citations ([8], [9], [22], [42], [43]) cite prior algorithmic developments or standard AND-constraint linearization; the paper does not invoke any author-specific uniqueness theorem to force its choices. Weaknesses in causal attribution (in-sample tuning, n=3 evidence, no confidence intervals) are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity, per the review rules. Hence no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper makes no new theoretical postulates; all algorithmic components are grounded in existing MIP and SAT literature. The main unstated burdens are the validity of the external competition benchmark and the in-sample, small-sample ablations used to attribute performance to individual features.

free parameters (3)
  • Absolute feasibility tolerance epsilon_f = 1e-6
    Chosen to guarantee exact rounding for integer constraints; developed while fixing infeasibility detection on instance normalized-prob3 (Section 2.4), so it is tuned to a specific competition instance rather than derived from a general principle.
  • Flower inequality order k = k in {1,2}
    Implementation restricted to k=1,2 for efficient separation (Section 2.2); a design choice based on computational cost, not a fitted value.
  • Racing parameter settings and random seeds = Default, Aggressive Heuristics, SAT-like Search with multiple seeds
    FiberSCIP used three hand-picked parameter settings across 20 cores (Section 3.2); the settings were chosen for the competition and are not systematically justified.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The k-flower inequalities are valid for the multilinear polytope and can be separated in O(|E|) using overlap sets.
    Relies on Del Pia and Khajavirad (Section 2.2), cited as [17]; treated as established result.
  • standard math RLT cuts, generated by multiplying constraints by bound factors and linearizing, are valid for binary programs.
    Based on Adams and Sherali and Bestuzheva et al. (Section 2.1); used without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The PB24 competition instances and scoring rules are a fair and representative benchmark for pseudo-Boolean solver performance.
    The paper's 'state-of-the-art' claim is grounded entirely in this external competition (Sections 3.1, 3.3); if the benchmark is biased, the claim loses force.
  • domain assumption The affected-instance ablation in Table 4 cleanly isolates the contribution of each disabled feature.
    The paper defines affected instances post hoc and does not account for interactions between features (Section 3.4); the measured time quotients are used to attribute performance gains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of State-of-the-art Methods for Pseudo-Boolean Solving with SCIP." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LA3YOFL5

@misc{pith2026250103390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: State-of-the-art Methods for Pseudo-Boolean Solving with SCIP},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LA3YOFL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03390}
}
read the original abstract

The Pseudo-Boolean problem deals with linear or polynomial constraints with integer coefficients over Boolean variables. The objective lies in optimizing a linear objective function, or finding a feasible solution, or finding a solution that satisfies as many constraints as possible. In the 2024 Pseudo-Boolean competition, solvers incorporating the SCIP framework won five out of six categories it was competing in. From a total of 1,207 instances, SCIP successfully solved 759, while its parallel version FiberSCIP solved 776. Based on the results from the competition, we further enhanced SCIP's Pseudo-Boolean capabilities. This article discusses the results and presents the winning algorithmic ideas.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Karen Aardal and Arjen K. Lenstra. Hard equality constrained integer knapsacks. In William J. Cook and Andreas S. Schulz, editors, Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization , pages 350–366, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-47867-6. doi: 10.1007/3-540- 47867-1 25

    doi:10.1007/3-540- 2002

  2. [2]

    Constraint Integer Programming

    Tobias Achterberg. Constraint Integer Programming . Dissertation, Technische Universit¨ at Berlin, 01 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Conflict analysis in mixed integer programming

    Tobias Achterberg. Conflict analysis in mixed integer programming . Discrete Optimization, 4(1):4–20, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.disopt.2006.10.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.disopt.2006.10.006 2007

  4. [4]

    A tight linearization and an algor ithm for zero-one quadratic programming problems

    Warren P Adams and Hanif D Sherali. A tight linearization and an algor ithm for zero-one quadratic programming problems. Management Science , 32(10):1274– 1290, 1986. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.10.1274

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.10.1274 1986

  5. [5]

    Linearization strategies for a class of zero- one mixed integer programming problems

    Warren P Adams and Hanif D Sherali. Linearization strategies for a class of zero- one mixed integer programming problems. Operations Research, 38(2):217–226,

    work page

  6. [6]

    Mixed-integer bilinear program ming problems

    Warren P Adams and Hanif D Sherali. Mixed-integer bilinear program ming problems. Mathematical Programming , 59(1):279–305, 1993. doi: 10.1007/ bf01581249

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Orbitop al fixing for the full (sub-)orbitope and application to the unit commitment problem

    Pascale Bendotti, Pierre Fouilhoux, and C´ ecile Rottner. Orbitop al fixing for the full (sub-)orbitope and application to the unit commitment problem. Mathemat- ical Programming, 186:337–372, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10107-019-01457-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-019-01457-1 2021

  8. [8]

    Timo Berthold, Stefan Heinz, and Marc E. Pfetsch. Solving pseud o-Boolean problems with SCIP. ZIB-Report 08-12, Zuse Institute Berlin, 200 8. URL http:// opus.kobv.de/zib/volltexte/2008/1095/

    work page 2008

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    E fficient separation of RLT cuts for implicit and explicit bilinear terms

    Ksenia Bestuzheva, Ambros Gleixner, and Tobias Achterberg. E fficient separation of RLT cuts for implicit and explicit bilinear terms. Mathematical Programming B, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10107-024-02104-0

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Handbook of Satisfiability , volume 185 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applica- tions

    Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, Hans van Maaren, and Toby Walsh, edit ors. Handbook of Satisfiability , volume 185 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applica- tions. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2009. ISBN 978-1-58603-929-5. URL http://dblp. uni-trier.de/db/series/faia/faia185.html

    2009

  3. [11]

    Pfetsch, Franziska Schl¨ osser, Felipe Serrano , Yuji Shinano, Mark Turner, Stefan Vigerske, Dieter Weninger, and Lixing Xu

    Suresh Bolusani, Mathieu Besan¸ con, Ksenia Bestuzheva, Ant onia Chmiela, Jo˜ ao Dion ´ ısio, Tim Donkiewicz, Jasper van Doornmalen, Leon Eifler, Moham med Ghannam, Ambros Gleixner, Christoph Graczyk, Katrin Halbig, Ivo H edtke, Alexander Hoen, Christopher Hojny, Rolf van der H...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Chai and A

    D. Chai and A. Kuehlmann. A fast pseudo-boolean constraint s olver. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circu its and Systems , 24 (3):305–317, 2005. doi: 10.1109/TCAD.2004.842808. 14

    2005

  5. [13]

    ParLS-PBO: A P arallel Local Search Solver for Pseudo Boolean Optimization

    Zhihan Chen, Peng Lin, Hao Hu, and Shaowei Cai. ParLS-PBO: A P arallel Local Search Solver for Pseudo Boolean Optimization. In Paul Shaw, edito r, 30th Inter- national Conference on Principles and Practice of Constrai nt Programming (CP 2024), volume 307 of Leibniz Internation...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    A class of valid inequ alities for multilinear 0–1 optimization problems

    Yves Crama and Elisabeth Rodr ´ ıguez-Heck. A class of valid inequ alities for multilinear 0–1 optimization problems. Discrete Optimization , 25:28–47, 2017. ISSN 1572-5286. doi: 10.1016/j.disopt.2017.02.001

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Chv´ atal rank in binary poly nomial optimization

    Alberto Del Pia and Silvia Di Gregorio. Chv´ atal rank in binary poly nomial optimization. INFORMS Journal on Optimization , 2021. doi: 10.1287/ijoo.2019. 0049

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    A Polyhedral Study of Binar y Polynomial Programs

    Alberto Del Pia and Aida Khajavirad. A Polyhedral Study of Binar y Polynomial Programs. Mathematics of Operations Research , 42(2):389–410, 2017. doi: 10. 1287/moor.2016.0804

    2017

  9. [17]

    The multilinear polytope for a cyclic hypergraphs

    Alberto Del Pia and Aida Khajavirad. The multilinear polytope for a cyclic hypergraphs. SIAM Journal on Optimization , 28(2):1049–1076, 2018. doi: 10.1137/16M1095998

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Simple odd β-cycle inequalities for binary polynomial optimization

    Alberto Del Pia and Matthias Walter. Simple odd β-cycle inequalities for binary polynomial optimization. In Karen Aardal and Laura Sanit` a, edi- tors, Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization , pages 181–194. Springer International Publishing, 2022. ISBN 978-3-031-0...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Sahinidis

    Alberto Del Pia, Aida Khajavirad, and Nikolaos V. Sahinidis. On the impact of running intersection inequalities for globally solving polynomial optim ization problems. Mathematical Programming Computation , 12(2):165–191, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s12532-019-00169-z

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Cutting to the core of pseudo-Boolean optimization: Com bining core- guided search with cutting planes reasoning

    Jo Devriendt, Stephan Gocht, Emir Demirovi´ c, Jakob Nordst r¨ om, and Peter Stuckey. Cutting to the core of pseudo-Boolean optimization: Com bining core- guided search with cutting planes reasoning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 35:3750–3758, ...

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Dixon and Matthew L

    Heidi E. Dixon and Matthew L. Ginsberg. Inference methods fo r a pseudo-boolean satisfiability solver. In Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 635–640, USA, 2002. American Association for Artificial Int elligence. ISBN 0262511290

    2002

  14. [22]

    A unified framewor k for sym- metry handling

    Jasper Doornmalen and Christopher Hojny. A unified framewor k for sym- metry handling. Mathematical Programming , 0(0):null, 2024. doi: 10.1007/ s10107-024-02102-2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Translating pseudo-boolean constraints into SAT

    Niklas E´ en and Niklas S¨ orensson. Translating pseudo-boolean constraints into SAT. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. , 2:1–26, 2006. doi: 10.3233/sat190014. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4907188

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Divide and conquer: Toward s faster pseudo- Boolean solving

    Jan Elffers and Jakob Nordstr¨ om. Divide and conquer: Toward s faster pseudo- Boolean solving. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18 , pages 1291–1299, 2018. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2018/180. 15

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    A history of satisfiability

    John Franco and John Martin. A history of satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications , 185, 01 2009. doi: 10.3233/978-1-58603-929-5-3

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    Pfetsch, Christia n Puchert, Daniel Rehfeldt, Franziska Schl¨ osser, Felipe Serrano, Yuji Shina no, Jan Merlin Viernickel, Stefan Vigerske, Dieter Weninger, Jonas T

    Ambros Gleixner, Leon Eifler, Tristan Gally, Gerald Gamrath, Pat rick Geman- der, Robert Lion Gottwald, Gregor Hendel, Christopher Hojny, Th orsten Koch, Matthias Miltenberger, Benjamin M¨ uller, Marc E. Pfetsch, Christia n Puchert, Daniel Rehfeldt, Franziska Schl¨ osser, Felip...

    2017

  19. [27]

    PaPILO : A parallel pre- solving library for integer and linear programming with multiprecision su pport

    Ambros Gleixner, Leona Gottwald, and Alexander Hoen. PaPILO : A parallel pre- solving library for integer and linear programming with multiprecision su pport. INFORMS Journal on Computing , 2023. doi: 10.1287/ijoc.2022.0171.cd. URL https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2022.0171

    2023

  20. [28]

    GNU MP: The GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library , 6.3.0 edition, 2023

    Torbj¨ orn Granlund and the GMP development team. GNU MP: The GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library , 6.3.0 edition, 2023. http://gmplib.org/

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hemery and C

    F. Hemery and C. Lecoutre. AbsCon, 2006. URL https://www.cril.univ-artois. fr/PB06/papers/abscon2006V2.pdf

    2006

  22. [30]

    Detecting and handling reflection symmetr ies in mixed- integer (nonlinear) programming

    Christopher Hojny. Detecting and handling reflection symmetr ies in mixed- integer (nonlinear) programming. https://optimization-online.org/?p=26398 , 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Generalized resolution for 0–1 linear inequalities

    John Hooker. Generalized resolution for 0–1 linear inequalities. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , 6:271–286, 03 1992. doi: 10.1007/ BF01531033

    1992

  24. [32]

    Generaliz ed totalizer encoding for pseudo-Boolean constraints

    Saurabh Joshi, Ruben Martins, and Vasco Manquinho. Generaliz ed totalizer encoding for pseudo-Boolean constraints. volume 9255, 07 2015. ISBN 978-3-319- 23218-8. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23219-5 15

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    bliss: A tool for computing au tomorphism groups and canonical labelings of graphs

    Tommi Junttila and Petteri Kaski. bliss: A tool for computing au tomorphism groups and canonical labelings of graphs. http://www.tcs.hut.fi/Software/bliss/, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Volker Kaibel and Marc E. Pfetsch. Packing and partitioning orb itopes. Math- ematical Programming , 114(1):1–36, 2008. ISSN 0025-5610. doi: 10.1007/ s10107-006-0081-5

    2008

  27. [35]

    Volker Kaibel, Matthias Peinhardt, and Marc E. Pfetsch. Orbito pal fixing. Dis- crete Optimization, 8(4):595–610, 2011. ISSN 1572-5286. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.disopt.2011.07.001

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    The Sat4j library, release 2.2

    Daniel Le Berre and Anne Parrain. The Sat4j library, release 2.2 . JSAT, 7:59–6, 01 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Feasibility Jump: an LP -free Lagrangian MIP heuristic

    Bjørnar Luteberget and Giorgio Sartor. Feasibility Jump: an LP -free Lagrangian MIP heuristic. Mathematical Programming Computation , 15(2):365–388, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s12532-023-00234-8

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Symmetry in integer linear programming

    Fran¸ cois Margot. Symmetry in integer linear programming. 50 Years of Integer Programming 1958-2008: From the Early Years to the State-of -the-Art, pages 647–686, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68279-0 17

    1958 doi

  31. [39]

    Marques-Silva and K.A

    J.P. Marques-Silva and K.A. Sakallah. GRASP: a search algorithm f or proposi- tional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers , 48(5):506–521, 1999. doi: 16 10.1109/12.769433

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    Open-WBO : A modular MaxSAT solver,

    Ruben Martins, Vasco Manquinho, and Inˆ es Lynce. Open-WBO : A modular MaxSAT solver,. In Carsten Sinz and Uwe Egly, editors, Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2014 , pages 438–445, Cham, 2014. Springer Inter- national Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-09284-3. d...

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    McKay and Adolfo Piperno

    Brendan D. McKay and Adolfo Piperno. Practical graph isomorp hism, II. Journal of Symbolic Computation , 60:94–112, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.jsc.2013.09.003

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Improving conflict analysis in MIP solvers by pseudo-Boolean reasoning

    Gioni Mexi, Timo Berthold, Ambros Gleixner, and Jakob Nordstr¨ om. Improving conflict analysis in MIP solvers by pseudo-Boolean reasoning. In 29th Interna- tional Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2023), volume 280, pages 27:1–27:19, 2023. doi:...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Cut-based conflict analysis in mixed integer programming, 2 024

    Gioni Mexi, Felipe Serrano, Timo Berthold, Ambros Gleixner, and J akob Nord- str¨ om. Cut-based conflict analysis in mixed integer programming, 2 024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.15110

  36. [44]

    Orbital branching

    James Ostrowski, Jeff Linderoth, Fabrizio Rossi, and Stefano S mriglio. Orbital branching. Mathematical Programming, 126(1):147–178, 2011. ISSN 0025-5610. doi: 10.1007/s10107-009-0273-x

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    Pseudo-Boolean competition 2009, 2009

    Olivier Roussel. Pseudo-Boolean competition 2009, 2009. URL http://www.cril. univ-artois.fr/PB09/

    2009

  38. [46]

    Pseudo-Boolean competition 2010, 2010

    Olivier Roussel. Pseudo-Boolean competition 2010, 2010. URL http://www.cril. univ-artois.fr/PB10/

    2010

  39. [47]

    Pseudo-Boolean competition 2011, 2011

    Olivier Roussel. Pseudo-Boolean competition 2011, 2011. URL http://www.cril. univ-artois.fr/PB11/

    2011

  40. [48]

    Pseudo-Boolean competition 2012, 2012

    Olivier Roussel. Pseudo-Boolean competition 2012, 2012. URL http://www.cril. univ-artois.fr/PB12/

    2012

  41. [49]

    Pseudo-Boolean competition 2024, 2024

    Olivier Roussel. Pseudo-Boolean competition 2024, 2024. URL http://www.cril. univ-artois.fr/PB24/

    2024

  42. [50]

    Construction of an RO BDD for a PB-constraint in band form and related techniques for PB-solver s

    Masahiko Sakai and Hidetomo Nabeshima. Construction of an RO BDD for a PB-constraint in band form and related techniques for PB-solver s. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems , E98.D:1121–1127, 06 2015. doi: 10.1587/transinf.2014FOP0007

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Pueblo: A hybrid pseudo-Boo lean SAT solver

    Hossein Sheini and Karem Sakallah. Pueblo: A hybrid pseudo-Boo lean SAT solver. JSAT, 2:165–189, 03 2006. doi: 10.3233/SAT190020

    2006 doi

  44. [52]

    FiberSCIP—a shared memory parallelization of SCIP

    Yuji Shinano, Stefan Heinz, Stefan Vigerske, and Michael Wink ler. FiberSCIP—a shared memory parallelization of SCIP. INFORMS Journal on Computing , 30 (1):11–30, 2018. doi: 10.1287/ijoc.2017.0762

    2018

  45. [53]

    Yuji Shinano, Daniel Rehfeldt, and Tristan Gally. An easy way to build paral- lel state-of-the-art combinatorial optimization problem solvers: A computational study on solving steiner tree problems and mixed integer semidefinite programs by using ug[scip-*,*]-libraries. In 2019...

    2019

  46. [54]

    Computational a spects of infeasibility analysis in mixed integer programming

    Jakob Witzig, Timo Berthold, and Stefan Heinz. Computational a spects of infeasibility analysis in mixed integer programming. Mathematical Program- ming Computation , 13(4):753–785, March 2021. ISSN 1867-2957. doi: 10.1007/ s12532-021-00202-0. 18

    2021

  47. [1990]

    doi: 10.1287/opre.38.2.217

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.