(Feel free to move this topic to offtopic, if desired)
I feel a bit sorry for my situation: I’d been using JuMP+Gurobi for more than 3 years. I thought it should be Gurobi10, at which time users need to set the nonconvex to 2 to support nonconvex optimization (which they don’t have to now).
As suggested by this link As a student at a university in China, how do I request a Free Academic License? – Gurobi Help Center, I’ll no longer have access to the Gurobi optimizer. It’s a bit sad but I think I shouldn’t grieve for something that wasn’t my fault—just like I’m also ineligible to use Claucle (though I’ve heard of it a lot of times), etc…
I would be glad to switch to HiGHS.jl, but I’m not sure if it will be as full-featured as Gurobi’s optimizer. (I’m actually prepared somewhat for the performance variation, if any).
For example, for a Gurobi’s MILP model, when I call optimize!(model) to let it solve for some time and then interrupt, and I call optimize!(model) for the 2nd time, I would just pick up all the information from the last solve. But when I use HiGHS, it seems that the 2nd-time optimize! would be identical to the 1st-time solve—it starts solving the MILP from scratch again. I don’t understand this behavior.
For another example, for a Gurobi’s MILP model, if I modify some objective coefficient and re-optimize, it would show “MIP starts from previous solution”, I’m not sure if HiGHS can also reuse information efficiently (in LPs, in MIPs, respectively).
Another small thing (I’m not sure if it is seen as an issue) is that ctrl+c works only with some small probability when HiGHS is solving a tough MILP.
(Finally, okay, I know there’s a well-known related solver that I could use—I just want to hear some more options. I wonder if there’s more experience that I can learn from. Thanks.)