Public solver record · v1.0.0
Cut plans should be reproducible, not mysterious.
These fixed inputs make SawNest's boundary behavior inspectable. Each case states the stock, constraints, expected result, and the specific rule it protects.
Download benchmark JSON4public cases
2D + 1Dplanning engines
18automated launch checks
CC BY 4.0dataset license
B01Cabinet sheet sample
- Input
- Seven mixed cabinet parts on 48 × 96 in stock
- Constraint
- 1/8 in kerf · 1/4 in edge trim · cabinet-side rotation locked
- Expected
- 1 sheet · 7/7 placed · 80.6186% finished-part yield · $74 stock
- Why it exists
- Tests multistart ordering, rotation rules, kerf, trim, cost, and a high-utilization single-sheet result.
B02Exact trim boundary
- Input
- One 46 × 46 in panel on a 48 × 48 in sheet
- Constraint
- 1 in trim on every edge
- Expected
- Fits at 1,1 · 91.8403% finished-part yield
- Why it exists
- Proves that trim is unavailable margin and that a part larger than 46 in on either axis is rejected.
B03Terminal kerf exact fit
- Input
- Two 30 in rails from 60.125 in stock
- Constraint
- 1/8 in kerf
- Expected
- 1 board · 1 internal kerf · 0 in remainder
- Why it exists
- Checks that two finished pieces require one separating kerf, not two hidden kerfs.
B04Kerf boundary failure
- Input
- Three 32 in rails from 96 in stock
- Constraint
- 1/8 in kerf
- Expected
- 2 boards required
- Why it exists
- Shows why nominal lengths alone are insufficient: 96 in of parts plus two kerfs cannot fit in 96 in of stock.
Interpretation
A passing benchmark is a floor, not a ranking claim.
The sheet engine runs fixed sort and split strategies, retains the candidate using the fewest sheets after placing every possible part, and uses stable tie-breaking. The linear engine uses deterministic best-fit decreasing.
These cases verify known behavior; they do not prove global optimality for every large cutting-stock problem. Every displayed layout remains a planning estimate that must be checked against actual stock and a safe shop process.