Add penalties to a conservation planning problem to favor
solutions that have planning units clumped together into contiguous areas.
add_boundary_penalties(x, penalty, edge_factor = rep(0.5, number_of_zones(x)), zones = diag(number_of_zones(x)), data = NULL)
Arguments
| x |
|
|---|---|
| penalty |
|
| edge_factor |
|
| zones |
|
| data |
|
Value
ConservationProblem-class object with the penalties
added to it.
Details
This function adds penalties to a conservation planning problem
to penalize fragmented solutions. It was is inspired by Ball et al.
(2009) and Beyer et al. (2016). The penalty argument is
equivalent to the boundary length modifier (BLM) used in
Marxan. Note that this function can only
be used to represent symmetric relationships between planning units. If
asymmetric relationships are required, use the
add_connectivity_penalties function.
The argument to data can be specified in several different ways:
NULLthe boundary data are automatically calculated using the
boundary_matrixfunction. This argument is the default. Note that the boundary data must be manually defined using one of the other formats below when the planning unit data in the argument toxis not spatially referenced (e.g. indata.frameornumericformat).matrix,Matrixwhere rows and columns represent different planning units and the value of each cell represents the amount of shared boundary length between two different planning units. Cells that occur along the matrix diagonal represent the amount of exposed boundary associated with each planning unit that has no neighbor (e.g. these value might pertain the length of coastline in a planning unit).
data.framecontaining the columns
"id1","id2", and"boundary". The values in the column"boundary"show the total amount of shared boundary between the two planning units indicated the columns"id1"and"id2". This format follows the the standard Marxan input format. Note that this function requires symmetric boundary data, and so the argument todatacannot have the columns"zone1"and code"zone2" to specify different amounts of shared boundary lengths for different zones. Instead, when dealing with problems with multiple zones, the argument tozonesshould be used to control the relative importance of spatially clumping planning units together when they are allocated to different zones.
The boundary penalties are calculated using the following equations. Let
\(I\) represent the set of planning units
(indexed by \(i\) or \(j\)), \(Z\) represent
the set of management zones (indexed by \(z\) or \(y\)), and
\(X_{iz}\) represent the decision
variable for planning unit \(i\) for in zone \(z\) (e.g. with binary
values one indicating if planning unit is allocated or not). Also, let
\(p\) represent the argument to penalty, \(E\) represent the
argument to edge_factor, \(B\) represent the matrix argument to
data (e.g. generated using boundary_matrix), and
\(W\) represent the matrix argument to zones.
$$ \sum_{i}^{I} \sum_{j}^{I} \sum_{z}^{Z} (\mathit{ifelse}(i == j, E_z, 1) \times p \times W_{zz} B_{ij}) + \sum_{i}^{I} \sum_{j}^{I} \sum_{z}^{Z} \sum_{y}^{Z} (-2 \times p \times X_{iz} \times X_{jy} \times W_{zy} \times B_{ij})$$
Note that when the problem objective is to maximize some measure of benefit and not minimize some measure of cost, the term \(p\) is replaced with \(-p\).
References
Ball IR, Possingham HP, and Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation in Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools. Eds Moilanen A, Wilson KA, and Possingham HP. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Beyer HL, Dujardin Y, Watts ME, and Possingham HP (2016) Solving conservation planning problems with integer linear programming. Ecological Modelling, 228: 14--22.
See also
Examples
# set seed for reproducibility set.seed(500) # load data data(sim_pu_raster, sim_features, sim_pu_zones_stack, sim_features_zones) # create minimal problem p1 <- problem(sim_pu_raster, sim_features) %>% add_min_set_objective() %>% add_relative_targets(0.2) %>% add_binary_decisions() %>% add_default_solver() # create problem with low boundary penalties p2 <- p1 %>% add_boundary_penalties(50, 1) # create problem with high boundary penalties but outer edges receive # half the penalty as inner edges p3 <- p1 %>% add_boundary_penalties(500, 0.5) # create a problem using precomputed boundary data bmat <- boundary_matrix(sim_pu_raster) p4 <- p1 %>% add_boundary_penalties(50, 1, data = bmat)#> Optimize a model with 5 rows, 90 columns and 450 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 90 integer (90 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 9e-01] #> Objective range [2e+02, 2e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [6e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 4544.4850483 #> Presolve time: 0.00s #> Presolved: 5 rows, 90 columns, 450 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 90 integer (90 binary) #> Presolved: 5 rows, 90 columns, 450 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 3.899056e+03, 12 iterations, 0.00 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 3899.05601 0 4 4544.48505 3899.05601 14.2% - 0s #> H 0 0 3994.8945897 3899.05601 2.40% - 0s #> #> Explored 1 nodes (12 simplex iterations) in 0.00 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 2: 3994.89 4544.49 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 3.994894589653e+03, best bound 3.899056011987e+03, gap 2.3990% #> Optimize a model with 293 rows, 234 columns and 1026 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 234 integer (234 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [1e+01, 2e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [6e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 18847.196992 #> Found heuristic solution: objective 4724.4850483 #> Presolve time: 0.00s #> Presolved: 293 rows, 234 columns, 1026 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 234 integer (234 binary) #> Presolved: 293 rows, 234 columns, 1026 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 4.064320e+03, 186 iterations, 0.00 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 4064.31993 0 52 4724.48505 4064.31993 14.0% - 0s #> H 0 0 4196.4791919 4064.31993 3.15% - 0s #> #> Explored 1 nodes (186 simplex iterations) in 0.01 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 3: 4196.48 4724.49 18847.2 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 4.196479191930e+03, best bound 4.064319933597e+03, gap 3.1493% #> Optimize a model with 293 rows, 234 columns and 1026 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 234 integer (234 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [1e+02, 4e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [6e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 20287.196992 #> Found heuristic solution: objective 5594.4850483 #> Presolve time: 0.00s #> Presolved: 293 rows, 234 columns, 1026 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 234 integer (234 binary) #> Presolved: 293 rows, 234 columns, 1026 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 4.531725e+03, 219 iterations, 0.00 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 4531.72483 0 234 5594.48505 4531.72483 19.0% - 0s #> 0 0 4604.44812 0 232 5594.48505 4604.44812 17.7% - 0s #> 0 0 4664.43086 0 226 5594.48505 4664.43086 16.6% - 0s #> 0 0 4667.41801 0 229 5594.48505 4667.41801 16.6% - 0s #> 0 0 4669.60093 0 229 5594.48505 4669.60093 16.5% - 0s #> 0 0 4685.75922 0 225 5594.48505 4685.75922 16.2% - 0s #> 0 0 4694.51190 0 204 5594.48505 4694.51190 16.1% - 0s #> 0 0 4694.56564 0 204 5594.48505 4694.56564 16.1% - 0s #> 0 0 4694.56564 0 204 5594.48505 4694.56564 16.1% - 0s #> H 0 0 5330.7252629 4694.56564 11.9% - 0s #> H 0 0 5175.1807047 4694.56564 9.29% - 0s #> #> Cutting planes: #> Gomory: 5 #> #> Explored 1 nodes (456 simplex iterations) in 0.14 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 4: 5175.18 5330.73 5594.49 20287.2 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 5.175180704712e+03, best bound 4.694565636923e+03, gap 9.2869% #> Optimize a model with 293 rows, 234 columns and 1026 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 234 integer (234 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [1e+01, 2e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [6e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 18847.196992 #> Found heuristic solution: objective 4724.4850483 #> Presolve time: 0.00s #> Presolved: 293 rows, 234 columns, 1026 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 234 integer (234 binary) #> Presolved: 293 rows, 234 columns, 1026 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 4.064320e+03, 186 iterations, 0.00 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 4064.31993 0 52 4724.48505 4064.31993 14.0% - 0s #> H 0 0 4196.4791919 4064.31993 3.15% - 0s #> #> Explored 1 nodes (186 simplex iterations) in 0.01 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 3: 4196.48 4724.49 18847.2 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 4.196479191930e+03, best bound 4.064319933597e+03, gap 3.1493%# plot solutions plot(s, main = c("basic solution", "small penalties", "high penalties", "precomputed data"), axes = FALSE, box = FALSE)# create minimal problem with multiple zones and limit the run-time for # solver to 10 seconds so this example doesn't take too long p5 <- problem(sim_pu_zones_stack, sim_features_zones) %>% add_min_set_objective() %>% add_relative_targets(matrix(0.2, nrow = 5, ncol = 3)) %>% add_binary_decisions() %>% add_default_solver(time_limit = 10) # create zone matrix which favors clumping planning units that are # allocated to the same zone together - note that this is the default zm6 <- diag(3) print(zm6)#> [,1] [,2] [,3] #> [1,] 1 0 0 #> [2,] 0 1 0 #> [3,] 0 0 1# create problem with the zone matrix and low penalties p6 <- p5 %>% add_boundary_penalties(50, zone = zm6) # create another problem with the same zone matrix and higher penalties p7 <- p5 %>% add_boundary_penalties(500, zone = zm6) # create zone matrix which favors clumping units that are allocated to # different zones together zm8 <- matrix(1, ncol = 3, nrow = 3) diag(zm8) <- 0 print(zm8)#> [,1] [,2] [,3] #> [1,] 0 1 1 #> [2,] 1 0 1 #> [3,] 1 1 0# create problem with the zone matrix p8 <- p5 %>% add_boundary_penalties(500, zone = zm8) # create zone matrix which strongly favors clumping units # that are allocated to the same zone together. It will also prefer # clumping planning units in zones 1 and 2 together over having # these planning units with no neighbors in the solution zm9 <- diag(3) zm9[upper.tri(zm9)] <- c(0.3, 0, 0) zm9[lower.tri(zm9)] <- zm9[upper.tri(zm9)] print(zm9)#> [,1] [,2] [,3] #> [1,] 1.0 0.3 0 #> [2,] 0.3 1.0 0 #> [3,] 0.0 0.0 1# create problem with the zone matrix p9 <- p5 %>% add_boundary_penalties(500, zone = zm9) # create zone matrix which favors clumping planning units in zones 1 and 2 # together, and favors planning units in zone 3 being spread out # (i.e. negative clumping) zm10 <- diag(3) zm10[3, 3] <- -1 print(zm10)#> [,1] [,2] [,3] #> [1,] 1 0 0 #> [2,] 0 1 0 #> [3,] 0 0 -1# create problem with the zone matrix p10 <- p5 %>% add_boundary_penalties(500, zone = zm10)# solve problems s2 <- stack(category_layer(solve(p5)), category_layer(solve(p6)), category_layer(solve(p7)), category_layer(solve(p8)), category_layer(solve(p9)), category_layer(solve(p10)))#> Optimize a model with 105 rows, 270 columns and 1620 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 270 integer (270 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [2e+02, 2e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [1e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 13103.242827 #> Presolve time: 0.00s #> Presolved: 105 rows, 270 columns, 1620 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 270 integer (270 binary) #> Presolved: 105 rows, 270 columns, 1620 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 1.199145e+04, 211 iterations, 0.00 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 11991.4483 0 18 13103.2428 11991.4483 8.48% - 0s #> #> Explored 1 nodes (211 simplex iterations) in 0.01 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 1: 13103.2 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 1.310324282660e+04, best bound 1.199144828715e+04, gap 8.4849% #> Optimize a model with 975 rows, 705 columns and 3360 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 705 integer (705 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [1e+01, 2e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [1e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 14008.242827 #> Presolve time: 0.01s #> Presolved: 975 rows, 705 columns, 3360 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 705 integer (705 binary) #> Presolved: 975 rows, 705 columns, 3360 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 1.228259e+04, 618 iterations, 0.02 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 12282.5861 0 310 14008.2428 12282.5861 12.3% - 0s #> H 0 0 13450.185104 12282.5861 8.68% - 0s #> #> Explored 1 nodes (618 simplex iterations) in 0.04 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 2: 13450.2 14008.2 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 1.345018510397e+04, best bound 1.228258611787e+04, gap 8.6809% #> Optimize a model with 975 rows, 705 columns and 3360 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 705 integer (705 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [1e+02, 4e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [1e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 22153.242827 #> Presolve time: 0.01s #> Presolved: 975 rows, 705 columns, 3360 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 705 integer (705 binary) #> Presolved: 975 rows, 705 columns, 3360 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 1.362015e+04, 713 iterations, 0.03 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 13620.1452 0 655 22153.2428 13620.1452 38.5% - 0s #> H 0 0 20128.117363 13620.1452 32.3% - 0s #> H 0 0 19796.492982 13620.1452 31.2% - 0s #> 0 0 13772.8695 0 664 19796.4930 13772.8695 30.4% - 0s #> H 0 0 19578.669240 13772.8695 29.7% - 0s #> 0 0 13775.6927 0 659 19578.6692 13775.6927 29.6% - 0s #> 0 0 13798.1920 0 611 19578.6692 13798.1920 29.5% - 0s #> H 0 0 19552.871081 13798.1920 29.4% - 0s #> 0 0 13823.3790 0 611 19552.8711 13823.3790 29.3% - 0s #> 0 0 13823.4016 0 616 19552.8711 13823.4016 29.3% - 0s #> 0 0 13834.6267 0 640 19552.8711 13834.6267 29.2% - 0s #> H 0 0 19360.827217 13834.6267 28.5% - 0s #> 0 0 13867.3124 0 663 19360.8272 13867.3124 28.4% - 0s #> 0 0 13868.1508 0 658 19360.8272 13868.1508 28.4% - 0s #> 0 0 13868.1508 0 658 19360.8272 13868.1508 28.4% - 0s #> H 0 0 16529.592722 13868.1508 16.1% - 0s #> H 0 0 15922.309412 13868.1508 12.9% - 0s #> 0 2 13869.2667 0 658 15922.3094 13869.2667 12.9% - 0s #> H 527 408 15780.713406 14112.4138 10.6% 29.6 4s #> H 527 387 15656.048982 14112.4138 9.86% 29.6 4s #> #> Cutting planes: #> Gomory: 18 #> #> Explored 527 nodes (18491 simplex iterations) in 4.08 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 10: 15656 15780.7 15922.3 ... 22153.2 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 1.565604898208e+04, best bound 1.411241378650e+04, gap 9.8597% #> Optimize a model with 1845 rows, 1140 columns and 5100 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 1140 integer (1140 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [1e+02, 2e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [1e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 8303.2428266 #> Presolve time: 0.02s #> Presolved: 1845 rows, 1140 columns, 6840 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 1140 integer (1140 binary) #> Presolve removed 870 rows and 0 columns #> Presolved: 975 rows, 1140 columns, 4230 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 2.576990e+03, 1905 iterations, 0.06 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 2576.99025 0 235 8303.24283 2576.99025 69.0% - 0s #> H 0 0 2881.3718971 2576.99025 10.6% - 0s #> H 0 0 2794.5621583 2576.99025 7.79% - 0s #> #> Explored 1 nodes (2016 simplex iterations) in 0.14 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 3: 2794.56 2881.37 8303.24 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 2.794562158270e+03, best bound 2.576990253978e+03, gap 7.7855% #> Optimize a model with 1555 rows, 995 columns and 4520 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 995 integer (995 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [3e+01, 4e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [1e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 21613.242827 #> Presolve time: 0.02s #> Presolved: 1555 rows, 995 columns, 5680 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 995 integer (995 binary) #> Presolve removed 580 rows and 0 columns #> Presolved: 975 rows, 995 columns, 3940 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 1.362015e+04, 714 iterations, 0.03 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 13620.1452 0 655 21613.2428 13620.1452 37.0% - 0s #> H 0 0 20845.425726 13620.1452 34.7% - 0s #> H 0 0 19467.036465 13620.1452 30.0% - 0s #> 0 0 13728.2763 0 637 19467.0365 13728.2763 29.5% - 0s #> H 0 0 18893.082095 13728.2763 27.3% - 0s #> 0 0 13729.6980 0 642 18893.0821 13729.6980 27.3% - 0s #> 0 0 13730.2911 0 642 18893.0821 13730.2911 27.3% - 0s #> 0 0 13790.5901 0 627 18893.0821 13790.5901 27.0% - 0s #> 0 0 13801.0123 0 598 18893.0821 13801.0123 27.0% - 0s #> 0 0 13822.5175 0 551 18893.0821 13822.5175 26.8% - 0s #> H 0 0 18751.740399 13822.5175 26.3% - 0s #> 0 0 13826.9360 0 563 18751.7404 13826.9360 26.3% - 0s #> 0 0 13826.9360 0 563 18751.7404 13826.9360 26.3% - 0s #> H 0 0 17431.702421 13826.9360 20.7% - 0s #> H 0 0 17347.291320 13826.9360 20.3% - 0s #> H 0 0 16456.518756 13826.9360 16.0% - 1s #> 0 2 13827.3898 0 563 16456.5188 13827.3898 16.0% - 1s #> H 105 103 16310.857489 13832.3864 15.2% 30.0 1s #> H 510 446 16294.105380 13988.8212 14.1% 29.6 2s #> H 513 426 15987.920808 13988.8212 12.5% 29.4 2s #> H 516 406 15894.561955 13988.8212 12.0% 29.3 3s #> H 523 390 15417.906443 13988.8212 9.27% 28.9 5s #> #> Cutting planes: #> Gomory: 17 #> #> Explored 523 nodes (17825 simplex iterations) in 5.27 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 10: 15417.9 15894.6 15987.9 ... 18893.1 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 1.541790644258e+04, best bound 1.398882115772e+04, gap 9.2690% #> Optimize a model with 1120 rows, 705 columns and 3795 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 705 integer (705 binary) #> Coefficient statistics: #> Matrix range [2e-01, 1e+00] #> Objective range [1e+01, 4e+02] #> Bounds range [1e+00, 1e+00] #> RHS range [1e+00, 2e+01] #> Found heuristic solution: objective 15601.521733 #> Presolve time: 0.01s #> Presolved: 1120 rows, 705 columns, 3940 nonzeros #> Variable types: 0 continuous, 705 integer (705 binary) #> Presolved: 1120 rows, 705 columns, 3940 nonzeros #> #> #> Root relaxation: objective 9.328641e+03, 523 iterations, 0.02 seconds #> #> Nodes | Current Node | Objective Bounds | Work #> Expl Unexpl | Obj Depth IntInf | Incumbent BestBd Gap | It/Node Time #> #> 0 0 9328.64105 0 481 15601.5217 9328.64105 40.2% - 0s #> H 0 0 14404.516545 9328.64105 35.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9376.71069 0 435 14404.5165 9376.71069 34.9% - 0s #> H 0 0 13853.093457 9376.71069 32.3% - 0s #> H 0 0 13263.346834 9376.71069 29.3% - 0s #> 0 0 9388.30013 0 435 13263.3468 9388.30013 29.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9433.68734 0 467 13263.3468 9433.68734 28.9% - 0s #> H 0 0 12771.763887 9433.68734 26.1% - 0s #> 0 0 9440.54053 0 473 12771.7639 9440.54053 26.1% - 0s #> 0 0 9440.69940 0 473 12771.7639 9440.69940 26.1% - 0s #> 0 0 9467.62898 0 467 12771.7639 9467.62898 25.9% - 0s #> H 0 0 12676.412706 9467.62898 25.3% - 0s #> 0 0 9473.57609 0 476 12676.4127 9473.57609 25.3% - 0s #> 0 0 9478.31995 0 478 12676.4127 9478.31995 25.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9479.01242 0 477 12676.4127 9479.01242 25.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9481.17466 0 480 12676.4127 9481.17466 25.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9484.66372 0 479 12676.4127 9484.66372 25.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9485.82314 0 478 12676.4127 9485.82314 25.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9486.99589 0 479 12676.4127 9486.99589 25.2% - 0s #> 0 0 9488.66317 0 465 12676.4127 9488.66317 25.1% - 0s #> H 0 0 12658.741688 9488.66317 25.0% - 0s #> 0 0 9488.66317 0 465 12658.7417 9488.66317 25.0% - 0s #> H 0 0 11278.322052 9488.66317 15.9% - 1s #> 0 2 9489.13316 0 465 11278.3221 9489.13316 15.9% - 1s #> H 27 27 10938.370123 9538.34579 12.8% 61.7 1s #> H 108 52 10332.698302 9546.30398 7.61% 50.0 1s #> #> Cutting planes: #> Gomory: 6 #> Zero half: 9 #> #> Explored 108 nodes (6428 simplex iterations) in 1.54 seconds #> Thread count was 1 (of 4 available processors) #> #> Solution count 10: 10332.7 10938.4 11278.3 ... 15601.5 #> #> Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-01) #> Best objective 1.033269830160e+04, best bound 9.546303983599e+03, gap 7.6107%# plot solutions plot(s2, main = c("basic solution", "within zone clumping (low)", "within zone clumping (high)", "between zone clumping", "within + between clumping", "negative clumping"), axes = FALSE, box = FALSE)
