Skip to content

FIX: pulp regression issue #907

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
FirePheonix wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

FIX: pulp regression issue #907

Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8b4875a
pulp-issue-test
FirePheonix Apr 8, 2026
1db241b
fix(graph): support PuLP v4 API for variable creation
FirePheonix Apr 8, 2026
665b9fd
fix(graph): support PuLP v4 API for constraints
FirePheonix Apr 8, 2026
333a3f7
switch-from-attributes-to-pulp-version
FirePheonix Apr 9, 2026
799e058
lowercase-pulp4
FirePheonix Apr 9, 2026
6a3849a
PULPv4-to-PULP_GE_4
FirePheonix Apr 11, 2026
1826dbd
move-PULP_GE_4
FirePheonix Apr 11, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
24 changes: 15 additions & 9 deletions libpysal/graph/_matching.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -108,13 +108,14 @@ def _spatial_matching(

mp = pulp.LpProblem("optimal-neargraph", sense=pulp.LpMinimize)
# a match is as binary decision variable, connecting observation i to observation j
match_vars = pulp.LpVariable.dicts(
"match",
lowBound=0,
upBound=1,
indices=zip(row, col, strict=True),
cat="Continuous" if allow_partial_match else "Binary",
)
match_vars = {}

@jGaboardi jGaboardi Apr 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm curious about the need for a for-loop here. Is there no equivalent dicts functionality in pulp4 for batch variable addition?

@FirePheonix FirePheonix Apr 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LpVariable.dicts() names variables using the key directly in the string, so we'd get keys like "match_(0, 1)" instead of tuple keys (i, j).

And the rest of the code indexes match_vars[i, j] as a tuple.
Refactoring around that would add more complexity than the for-loop i think?
But let me if there's a cleaner way you have in mind..

and yeah, there IS addVariables() in pulp4, but it just takes already-created LpVariable objects, it's not a true batch creation equivalent.
The closest would still be LpVariable.dicts() + addVariables(), but that gives string keys like "match_(0,_1)" instead of the tuple keys (i, j)

@ljwolf ljwolf Apr 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we need to hold off on changing this unill they stabilize the 4.0 API.

I've just pulled down 4.0.0a3, which adds a LpProblem.add_variable_dicts() method, which does what we need it to do.

Let's wait until things stabilize with the 4.0 release, and move to the equivalent functionality then Let's keep this PR open for now, but it's very likely our implementation will not change this radically.

@jGaboardi jGaboardi Apr 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I second @ljwolf sentiment here and over in pysal/spopt#527. Well this ride here and allow dev CI to fail -- no harm, no foul.

@jGaboardi jGaboardi Apr 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@FirePheonix -- Let's mark this as Draft so it doesn't accidentally get merged. Same for pysal/spopt#527

for i, j in zip(row, col, strict=True):
name = f"match_{i}_{j}"
cat = "Continuous" if allow_partial_match else "Binary"
if hasattr(mp, "add_variable"):
match_vars[i, j] = mp.add_variable(name, lowBound=0, upBound=1, cat=cat)
else:
match_vars[i, j] = pulp.LpVariable(name, lowBound=0, upBound=1, cat=cat)
# we want to minimize the geographic distance of links in the graph
mp.objective = pulp.lpSum(
[
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -145,11 +146,16 @@ def _spatial_matching(
]
)
sense = int(not allow_partial_match)
mp += pulp.LpConstraint(summand, sense=sense, rhs=n_matches)
if sense == 1:

@jGaboardi jGaboardi Apr 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same sentiment here as above. Did pulp4 really change the API that dramatically?

mp += summand >= n_matches
elif sense == 0:
mp += summand == n_matches
else:
mp += summand <= n_matches
if match_between: # but, we may choose to ignore some sources
for i in range(n_sources):
summand = pulp.lpSum([match_vars[j, i] for j in range(n_targets)])
mp += pulp.LpConstraint(summand, sense=-1, rhs=n_matches)
mp += summand <= n_matches

status = mp.solve(solver)

Expand Down