EOS-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Earth Observation Satellite Scheduling

Progress in neural combinatorial optimization for Dynamic Flexible Job Shop Scheduling Problem (DFJSP) is currently hindered by a methodological tension: static benchmarks encourage benchmark overfitting, while uncalibrated generators obscure algorithmic capability with stochastic noise. To resolve this, we introduce \textbf{DynaSchedBench}, a diagnostic framework for DFJSP that rigorously controls the instance-generation process. Instead of relying on parameter sampling, our approach utilizes Sequential Event-Space Calibrator (SESC) that computes a novel Schedule Stress Index (SSI) to stratify instances by difficulty. We demonstrate that SESC is substantially more computationally efficient than evolutionary baselines while converging reliably to the target metrics. The framework integrates modular components for instance generation, snapshot-based simulation, agents, evaluation, and visualization, thereby enabling rigorous testing of reactive and lookahead-based policies. Leveraging this calibrated environment, we identify key limitations of LLM-based scheduling agents. Specifically, in step-wise online decision-making for dynamic scheduling, we identify an ``Observability Paradox'': providing agents with oracle access to full structural information can degrade policy performance, underperforming concise information. Furthermore, despite substantial token overhead, tool-augmented and refinement strategies fail to reliably improve performance, and most LLM agents fail to consistently surpass strong dispatching baselines-behaving more like robust heuristic approximators than superior optimizers.

Spacecraft operations scheduling is a highly constrained, long-horizon combinatorial optimization problem that traditionally relies on heuristics, constraint programming, or manual planning. We present a scalable deep reinforcement learning framework developed and deployed for NASA's Carruthers Geocorona Observatory mission. Our framework introduces a macro-action abstraction known as activity blocks coupled with dynamic action-masking to navigate the intractably large search space and strictly enforce complex power, thermal, and instrument constraints. The resulting architecture generates globally feasible schedules with overwhelming probability, establishes operational trust, and executes a full training cycle in under six hours, circumventing the need for policy robustness by enabling rapid, on-demand retraining. Further, resulting schedules outperform baseline heuristics in scheduled science quality. The deep reinforcement learning framework was deployed as the default operational scheduler for the Carruthers Geocorona Observatory mission from the outset of the mission, demonstrating that deep reinforcement learning can be trusted for real spacecraft operations under complex, evolving constraints.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step tasks in executable environments, yet their ability to perform realistic operations research (OR) work remains unclear. Existing OR evaluations often decouple modeling from solving, rely on pre-formalized or text-only instances, and rarely test the full workflow from operational artifacts to validated decisions. In this work, we introduce ORAgentBench, an execution-grounded benchmark for evaluating autonomous agents on challenging end-to-end operations research tasks. It contains 107 human-reviewed tasks across diverse operational scenarios, each packaged in an isolated environment with a natural-language brief, multi-file data, configuration artifacts, and a required submission schema. Agents must write and run solution code, and their submissions are evaluated by hidden validators for schema validity, hard-constraint feasibility, and normalized objective quality. Experiments with fourteen frontier agent-model configurations show that current agents remain far from reliable OR practice. The best agent passes only 35.51% of all tasks and 20.59% of hard tasks, and many feasible submissions still fall below the required quality threshold. Failure analysis further shows that errors are dominated by strategic weaknesses, including missed operational rules, brittle formulations, weak feasible-solution construction, and insufficient solution improvement. OR-specific procedural skills increase hard-task feasibility, but do not reliably improve solution quality or pass rate. These results suggest that progress in OR agents requires moving beyond plausible optimization code toward dependable, high-quality operational decision-making.