Optimizing Prompt Sequences using Monte Carlo Tree Search for LLM-Based Optimization

Open-weight large language models (LLMs) can generate function-level programs from natural-language prompts, but plausible candidates still fail on hidden semantics and repeat mistakes across repair attempts. We present ReMCTS, an execution-grounded, memory-augmented, LLM-guided MCTS-style search framework. It organizes program candidates as tree states, retains branch-local debugging context, retrieves failure experience across branches, and distinguishes failed checks from unavailable evidence. On HumanEval and MBPP-Sanitized, visible-test ReMCTS improves over direct generation in 8 of 10 model-dataset pairs under held-out evaluation, whereas proxy-only search is less stable. Controlled tree-search, sampling, repair, and memory ablations characterize the source and limits of these gains. A 30-task HumanEval-X C++ pilot further demonstrates compatibility with compiler-backed execution, but does not constitute a broad multilingual evaluation.

Optimization modeling formulates real-world decision problems as mathematical programs that solvers can use to find optimal decisions. Large language models (LLMs) can automate this process, but the resulting correct formulations can require substantial time and memory to construct and solve, limiting practical scalability. Therefore, we systematically investigate whether LLMs can identify problem structure from natural-language descriptions and apply suitable optimization modeling techniques to generate mathematical models and solver code that solve the problems correctly and efficiently. To this end, we first curate OptTips, a knowledge base of 50 expert modeling techniques in eight families. Using this knowledge, we develop OptDachshund, a multi-agent framework that transforms problems from existing optimization benchmarks into new tasks for evaluating LLMs' use of modeling techniques. It constructs conventional and expert mathematical models with solver code for the same task and data, providing baselines for correctness and computational cost. The resulting EfficientOpt benchmark contains 561 expert-reviewed tasks with paired reference implementations. Evaluation of 11 representative LLMs reveals an efficiency gap on correctly solved tasks with comparable measurements: for every LLM, most generated programs take longer to solve than their expert counterparts. Within the comparable reference-size subset, 57% of programs with correct objective values and fewer variables and linear constraints have longer recorded solver times. Case studies show that different modeling techniques can achieve the same optimal value at similar recorded cost. Faster solving may not reduce execution time if the code takes longer to prepare data and build the model. LLM optimization modeling should therefore be evaluated for both correctness and computational efficiency.

Verifiable reward training has improved mathematical and coding reasoning, but these domains capture only part of step-by-step decision making. Many real-world tasks require finding a high-value feasible plan among many valid alternatives. We introduce OPT*, a scalable family of optimization-style tasks for training and evaluating LLM step-by-step optimization-like reasoning along a complexity axis: each task provides a feasibility checker and evaluator, while a complexity parameter expands the search space without requiring new human labels. This motivates studying these tasks in two regimes: (i) solver-guided online policy optimization, which uses a solver as a value oracle for partial states and applies rank-based reward shaping to reinforce better next steps, and (ii) search-based offline RL when such solvers are unavailable. Theoretically, we relate success in large search spaces to the information a reasoner extracts per unit of search budget. Empirically, we ablate the ingredients that make search efficient on OPT* and show that training on OPT* improves step-by-step optimization-like reasoning.