Procedure GMP::Solution::ConstraintListing(GMP, solution, Filename, AppendMode)


The procedure GMP::Solution::ConstraintListing outputs a detailed description of a generated mathematical program to file. It uses the solution to provide feasibility, left hand side and derivative information.

     GMP,            ! (input) a generated mathematical program
     solution,       ! (input) a solution
     Filename,       ! (input) a string
     [AppendMode]    ! (input/optional) integer, default 0



An element in the set AllGeneratedMathematicalPrograms.


An integer that is a reference to a solution.


The name of the file to which the output is written.


If non-zero, the output will be appended to the file, instead of overwritten.

This function allows one to inspect a generated mathematical program after it is generated, modified, or solved.

Usage example

Given the following declarations:

MathematicalProgram sched;
ElementParameter cp_gmp {
    Range        :  AllGeneratedMathematicalPrograms;
Parameter vars_in_cl {
    Range        :  binary;
    InitialData  :  0;
    Comment      : {
        "When 1 the variables and bounds are printed
       in the constraint listing"

The use of the function GMP::Solution::ConstraintListing is illustrated in the following code fragment.

cp_gmp := gmp::Instance::Generate( sched );
if cp_gmp then
    GMP::Solution::RetrieveFromModel( cp_gmp, 1 );
    block where constraint_listing_variable_values := vars_in_cl ;
        GMP::Solution::ConstraintListing( cp_gmp, 1, "sched.constraintlisting" );
endif ;

The following remarks apply to this code fragment:

  • Directly after generation, the generated mathematical program referenced by cp_gmp does not contain a solution. The current values in the model can be used to obtain such a solution using GMP::Solution::RetrieveFromModel.

  • The actual call to GMP::Solution::ConstraintListing is placed in a block statement, to permit the programmatic control of output steering options. The available output steering options are in the option category Solvers General - Standard Reports - Constraints.


The description that is output by the function GMP::Solution::ConstraintListing is split into a header, a body, and a footer.

The header of a constraint listing

The brief header contains the solve number (the suffix .number) of the mathematical program and the name of the generated mathematical program. Whenever this suffix is less than or equal to twenty, it is written as a word. When the generated mathematical program is a scheduling problem, containing activities as documented in Activity, the problem schedule domain is also printed, as illustrated in the following example:

This is the first constraint listing of mySched.

The schedule domain of mySched is the calendar "TimeLine" containing 61 elements
                                        in the range { '2011-03-31' .. '2011-05-30' }.

This is a constraint listing whereby the scheduling problem mySched is solved once. In addition, the problem schedule domain is detailed.

The body of a constraint listing

The body of the constraint listing contains all details in the rows of the generated mathematical program. The information detailed depends both on option settings and the type of row. Lets begin with a linear row.

An LP row

From AIMMS example Transportation model:

----  MeetDemand  The amount transported to customer c should meet its demand

MeetDemand(Alkmaar) .. [ 1 | 2 | Optimal ]

    + 1 * Transport(Eindhoven ,Alkmaar) + 1 * Transport(Haarlem   ,Alkmaar)
    + 1 * Transport(Heerenveen,Alkmaar) + 1 * Transport(Middelburg,Alkmaar)
    + 1 * Transport(Zutphen   ,Alkmaar) >= 793 ; (lhs=793, scale=0.001)

    name                              lower    level    upper    scale
    Transport(Eindhoven,Alkmaar)          0        0      inf    0.001
    Transport(Haarlem,Alkmaar)            0      793      inf    0.001
    Transport(Heerenveen,Alkmaar)         0        0      inf    0.001
    Transport(Middelburg,Alkmaar)         0        0      inf    0.001
    Transport(Zutphen,Alkmaar)            0        0      inf    0.001

For each group of constraints, the name of that constraint and its text are printed. Next comes each row of that group, whereby the number of rows per symbolic constraint can be limited by the option Number_of_Rows_per_Constraint_in_Listing. A row starts with its name and then, within square brackets, the solve number, the row number, and the solution status of the solution. For that row, it is followed by its contents, whereby all terms containing variables are moved to the left and all terms without variables to the right and summed to mimic the LP form \(Ax \leq b\). Between parentheses the lhs is computed by filling in the values of the variables. In this version of the model the base unit for weight is ton, but the constraint uses the unit kg which is 0.001 * ton. AIMMS computes the LP matrix with respect to the base units and subsequently scales to the units of the variables and constraints. Thus we have a scaling factor of 0.001 for both the constraint and the variables. The coefficients presented are the coefficients after this scaling and as such passed to the solver. The last part of this example shows the variable values, their bounds, and, when relevant, the scaling factor. This last part is obtained by setting the option constraint listing variable values to on.

An NLP row

Consider the arbitrary objective definition

Variable o {
    Range      :  free;
    Definition :  x^3 - y^4 + x / y;

Filling in the definition attribute of variable o will let AIMMS construct the constraint o_definition with the same index domain, empty here, and unit, empty here. This constraint is presented as follows in the constraint listing.

----  o_definition

o_definition .. [ 0 | 2 | not solved yet ]

    + [-4] * x + [5] * y + 1 * o = 0 ; (lhs=-1) ****

    name  lower level upper
    x         1     1     4
    y         1     1     5
    o      -inf     0   inf

                                         x                     y
                      --------------------  --------------------
                   x                    -6                     1
                   y                     1                    10

This example is similar to the example of the linear row, but with some extras. First, the coefficients -4 and 5 are denoted between brackets to indicate that they are not fixed coefficients, but first order derivative values taken at the level values of the variables. We say that the variables x and y appear non-linear in the constraint o_definition. The coefficient 1 before the variable o is also a first order derivative, but the value of this coefficient does not depend on the values of the variables and is therefore not denoted between brackets. We say that the variable o appears linearly in the constraint o_definition. Next, to indicate that the constraint is infeasible, it is postfixed by ****. Finally, the Hessian containing the second order derivative values is presented, by switching the option constraint_listing_Hessian to on. The Hessian is only presented for those variables that appear non-linear in the constraint presented. A typical question concerns the accuracy of these first and second order derivative values. These derivative values are exact when the non-linear expressions in the constraint only reference differentiable AIMMS intrinsic functions. The first order derivative values are approximated using differencing, when there is a non-linear expression in the constraint referencing an external function. The second order derivative values are not available when a non-linear expression references an external function.

A COP row

Consider the artificial constraint:

Constraint element_constraint {
    Definition   :  P(eV) = 7;

This constraint will lead to the following in the constraint listing.

----  element_constraint

element_constraint .. [ 0 | 2 | not solved yet ]

    [1,4,7,10,13,..., 28 (size=10)][eV]
    = 7 ****

    name     lower    level    upper
    eV       'a01'    'a01'    'a10'

The main difference between this example and the previous examples is that the presentation is an instantiated symbolic form of the constraints as the presentation of the first and second order derivatives is meaningless in the context of constraint programming.

Return Value

The procedure returns 1 on success, or 0 otherwise.


A SOLVE statement may produce this constraint listing, depending on the option constraint_listing, in the listing file.

See also

  • The Mathematical Program Inspector is an interactive alternative to constraint listings and has additional facilities such as searching for an irreducible infeasibility set for linear program.

  • The routine GMP::Instance::Generate.