Strategy-Aware Optimization Modeling with Reasoning LLMs

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.

Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural-language optimization problems into solver-ready formulations, but direct code generation is brittle: schema, indexing, and semantic errors can cause compilation failures, infeasible models, or incorrect objectives, while iterative repair, search, and multi-agent workflows increase inference cost. We present IR2Solve, an intermediate-representation-first autoformulation pipeline that uses a single semantic LLM call to produce a schema-constrained ModelIR, followed by two deterministic stages: verification and IR-to-solver compilation. ModelIR explicitly represents sets, parameters, variables, objectives, and constraints using restricted Python-like expression strings. A concrete scalar-constraint convention represents finite per-index constraint families as individual entries, reducing free-index and implicit-quantification errors while simplifying downstream verification and compilation. Across six cleaned optimization benchmarks, IR2Solve achieves strong objective correctness and remains competitive with recent optimization-modeling systems. A controlled ablation on 153 IndustryOR and ComplexLP instances shows sequential gains from the structured IR interface, the scalar-constraint instruction, and deterministic verification. On a matched ten-instance cost panel, IR2Solve uses one semantic call per instance, whereas Chain-of-Experts and SAC-Opt use 8 and 39 calls per instance and consume 3.3 and 22.9 times the token volume of IR2Solve, respectively. These results show that structured intermediate representations, combined with deterministic post-generation processing, provide a practical accuracy-cost trade-off for LLM-based optimization autoformulation.

The runtime of Constraint Programming (CP) solvers is highly sensitive to modeling choices, such as symmetry breaking, implied constraints, global constraints, constraint reformulation, and variable representation. Improving these constraint models has traditionally required human expertise, and existing automated reformulation systems are restricted to a predefined library of hand-crafted transformation rules. We introduce an agentic framework that instead reformulates a constraint model from an open-ended space and establishes correctness empirically rather than by construction: a Large Language Model (LLM) agent, given a model and three training instances, proposes alternative formulations, validates each by injecting its solution back into the original model, and diagnoses and repairs failures, returning the best variant it finds in a median of about fifteen minutes. The models are expressed in the CPMpy modeling library, and each proposed model is evaluated on three larger test instances. Across nine combinatorial optimization problems, the generated models outperform the originals on 21 of 27 test instances, and on some problems solve more than two orders of magnitude faster. A comparison against non-agentic baselines that reuse the same validation and selection tools indicates that the gains stem from the agent's iterative diagnosis and repair, not merely from sampling several candidates. These results demonstrate that autonomous agentic methods can support the improvement of constraint models.