Papers › PDLP: A Practical First-Order Method for Large-Scale Linear Programming
PDLP: A Practical First-Order Method for Large-Scale Linear Programming
David Applegate, Mateo Díaz, Oliver Hinder, Haihao Lu, Miles Lubin, Brendan O'Donoghue, Warren Schudy
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
We present PDLP, a practical first-order method for linear programming (LP) designed to solve large-scale LP problems. PDLP is based on the primal-dual hybrid gradient (PDHG) method applied to the minimax formulation of LP. PDLP incorporates several enhancements to PDHG, including diagonal preconditioning, presolving, adaptive step sizes, adaptive restarting, and feasibility polishing. Our algorithm is implemented in C++, available in Google's open-source OR-Tools library, and supports multithreading. To evaluate our method, we introduce a new collection of eleven large-scale LP problems with sizes ranging from 125 million to 6.3 billion nonzeros. PDLP solves eight of these instances to optimality gaps of 1% (with primal and dual feasibility errors of less than 10⁻⁸) within six days on a single machine. We also compare PDLP with Gurobi barrier, primal simplex, and dual simplex implementations. These traditional methods are designed to solve linear programs to much tighter optimality gaps but struggle to solve these instances. Gurobi barrier solves only three instances, exceeding our 1TB RAM limit on the other eight. While primal and dual simplex are more memory-efficient than the barrier method, they are slower and solve only three instances within six days. Compared with the conference version of this work (in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS 2021)), the key new contributions are: (i) feasibility polishing, a technique that quickly finds solutions that are approximately optimal but almost exactly feasible (without which only two of the eleven problems can be solved); (ii) a multithreaded C++ implementation available in Google OR-Tools; and (iii) a new collection of large-scale LP problems. Note that the conference version should be referred to for comparisons with SCS and ablation studies, which we do not repeat in this paper.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2501.07018")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 9 code samples harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper; 7 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 6 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran; community: 3 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
9 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 3 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
fdadc7e6c0d5856d · report
b064029eab8b1791 · report
a178873f45801076 · report
91a1c170660ea3f6 · report
ae9dc9e14f1c761b · report
3d245e14dadd311d · report
a6e67078a082f0df · report
d4ec6c6df72cb4b0 · report
03edfcca135ae5df · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections