# Gurobi's trial solution is numerically weird on a primitive CTPLN model
**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/gurobis-trial-solution-is-numerically-weird-on-a-primitive-ctpln-model/130294
**Category:** Optimization (Mathematical)
**Tags:** question, gurobi
**Created:** [June 28, 2025, 10:40am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/gurobis-trial-solution-is-numerically-weird-on-a-primitive-ctpln-model/130294 "2025-06-28T10:40:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@WalterMadelim](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/WalterMadelim)
#### Post date: [June 28, 2025, 10:40am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/gurobis-trial-solution-is-numerically-weird-on-a-primitive-ctpln-model/130294/1 "2025-06-28T10:40:34Z")
Although this might not necessarily be deemed a bug, it’s certainly a bit weird. Why?
```julia
julia> import JuMP, Gurobi; GRB_ENV = Gurobi.Env();
Set parameter Username
Set parameter LicenseID to value 2663413
Academic license - for non-commercial use only - expires 2026-05-11
julia> import LinearAlgebra.⋅ as ⋅
julia> import Random; Random.seed!(3);
julia> S, I, J, c, W, w, d = let # Don't care this
S = 8
I = 20
dl, dh = rand(7:14), rand(57:77)
d = rand(dl:dh, I, S)
δ = 1.7e-6
wl, wh = rand(1.3:δ:3.5), rand(7.7:δ:9.7)
w = rand(wl:δ:wh, I)
J = 185
Wl, Wh = rand(9.7:δ:18.3), rand(45.3:δ:60.7)
W = rand(Wl:δ:Wh, J)
c = 0.1rand(0.99:δ:1.99, J) .* W
S, I, J, c, W, w, d
end;
julia> extrema(c) # This vector is numerically normal
(1.1132344320884253, 8.724885200774779)
julia> length(c)
185
julia> begin
St1 = JuMP.Model(() -> Gurobi.Optimizer(GRB_ENV)); # the stage-1 (master) problem
JuMP.@variable(St1, b[1:J], Bin);
JuMP.@variable(St1, θ[1:S]);
JuMP.@expression(St1, common, c ⋅ b);
JuMP.@expression(St1, St1_obj_tbMin, common + sum(θ));
JuMP.@constraint(St1, St1_obj_tbMin ≥ 0);
JuMP.@objective(St1, Min, St1_obj_tbMin);
JuMP.optimize!(St1); JuMP.assert_is_solved_and_feasible(St1; allow_local = false)
end;
Gurobi Optimizer version 12.0.2 build v12.0.2rc0 (win64 - Windows 11.0 (26100.2))
CPU model: 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-1135G7 @ 2.40GHz, instruction set [SSE2|AVX|AVX2|AVX512]
Thread count: 4 physical cores, 8 logical processors, using up to 8 threads
Optimize a model with 1 rows, 193 columns and 193 nonzeros
Model fingerprint: 0x38f34061
Variable types: 8 continuous, 185 integer (185 binary)
Coefficient statistics:
Matrix range [1e+00, 9e+00]
Objective range [1e+00, 9e+00]
Bounds range [0e+00, 0e+00]
RHS range [0e+00, 0e+00]
Found heuristic solution: objective 0.0000000
Found heuristic solution: objective -0.0000001
Presolve removed 1 rows and 193 columns
Presolve time: 0.02s
Presolve: All rows and columns removed
Explored 0 nodes (0 simplex iterations) in 0.02 seconds (0.00 work units)
Thread count was 1 (of 8 available processors)
Solution count 2: -1.19209e-07 0
Optimal solution found (tolerance 1.00e-04)
Best objective -1.192092895508e-07, best bound -1.192092895508e-07, gap 0.0000%
User-callback calls 140, time in user-callback 0.00 sec
julia> JuMP.value.(θ) # The scale of this solution is abnormally large
8-element Vector{Float64}:
-7.000000000000001e8
1.0e8
1.0e8
1.0e8
1.0e8
1.0e8
1.0e8
1.0e8
```
---
### Author:  [@odow](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/odow)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2025, 11:11pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/gurobis-trial-solution-is-numerically-weird-on-a-primitive-ctpln-model/130294/2 "2025-06-29T23:11:27Z")
This is not a bug.
Gurobi doesn’t make any claims about which solution it will return if multiple are available. You Don’t have bounds on `θ`, so any solution that sums to `0.0` is as valid as any other.