Fix of objective_value when using TwoLevelTree. - #96
Merged
Conversation
trulsf
reviewed
Jun 15, 2026
trulsf
reviewed
Jun 15, 2026
trulsf
reviewed
Jun 15, 2026
trulsf
approved these changes
Jun 15, 2026
trulsf
left a comment
trulsf
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A few minor comments, otherwise looks good to me.
Co-authored-by: Truls Flatberg <75753981+trulsf@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR introduces a minor fix for the function
objective_valueto have a consistent behavior. This function should theoretically include, e.g., the probability of a branch but did not when using it on strategic periods or strategic nodes.This is adjusted in this PR.