Let's Have a Conversation: Designing and Evaluating LLM Agents for Interactive Optimization

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed to solve optimization problems, yet existing benchmarks evaluate them on pre-structured mathematical formulations that bypass the most critical challenge: translating complex business requirements into correct models and solve efficiently. We introduce Opti-Agent-Bench, an end-to-end benchmark that evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) across the complete optimization R&D pipeline, from understanding business-language descriptions through mathematical modeling, algorithm selection, and code implementation, to solution report generation. Our design rests on three pillars: (1) businesssemantic authenticity with anti-template traps that defeat pattern matching; (2) modular evaluation with cross-module consistency checking across Problem Understanding, Formal Modeling, Implementation, and Reporting; and (3) the ORAC bi-level validity framework that simultaneously ensures task quality and scoring integrity. Across several industrialscale tasks spanning integer programming, robust optimization, stochastic programming, and non-convex optimization, we expose critical failure modes of current models, including constraint omission, model-code inconsistency, and report-implementation divergence, that remain invisible under conventional single-metric evaluation.

Multi-objective optimization models are often deployed in settings where decision makers (DMs) must balance some conflicting criteria. In practice, however, stakeholders must translate their qualitative preferences between different criteria into numerical weights, priorities, or reference points required by optimization methods, which can be difficult to specify and interpret. This paper proposes ParetoChat, an LLM (large language model)-based expert-agent interface for interactive multi-objective optimization. The agent translates natural-language user input into structured scalarization parameters, invokes an optimization system, presents candidate solutions, and iteratively elicits feedback. We describe a multi-agent architecture that separates input processing, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) expertise, solution presentation, and feedback processing. We then present a simulation study using an LLM-based DM agent and benchmark ParetoChat against interactive methods implemented in DESDEO, including reference-point and NIMBUS methods. The computational experiments on multi-objective binary knapsack and set-partitioning instances show that ParetoChat can guide the search efficiently toward solutions that match the DM's preferences. An application to historical courier-order assignment instances illustrates how users can explore objective extremes and intermediate trade-offs through natural-language requests. The results indicate that LLM agents may provide a practical interaction layer between business stakeholders and optimization tools.

Optimization modeling underpins real-world decision-making in logistics, manufacturing, energy, and public services, but reliably solving such problems from natural-language requirements remains challenging for current large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we propose Agora-Opt, a modular agentic framework for optimization modeling that combines decentralized debate with a read-write memory bank. Agora-Opt allows multiple agent teams to independently produce end-to-end solutions and reconcile them through an outcome-grounded debate protocol, while memory stores solver-verified artifacts and past disagreement resolutions to support training-free improvement over time. This design is flexible across both backbones and methods: it reduces base-model lock-in, transfers across different LLM families, and can be layered onto existing pipelines with minimal coupling. Across public benchmarks, Agora-Opt achieves the strongest overall performance among all compared methods, outperforming strong zero-shot LLMs, training-centric approaches, and prior agentic baselines. Further analyses show robust gains across backbone choices and component variants, and demonstrate that decentralized debate offers a structural advantage over centralized selection by enabling agents to refine candidate solutions through interaction and even recover correct formulations when all initial candidates are flawed. These results suggest that reliable optimization modeling benefits from combining collaborative cross-checking with reusable experience, and position Agora-Opt as a practical and extensible foundation for trustworthy optimization modeling assistance. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/CHIANGEL/Agora-Opt.