Constraint acquisition needs better benchmarks

We introduce MathConstraint, a hard, adaptive benchmark for evaluating the combinatorial reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We combine constraint satisfaction problems with rigorous solver-based verification and design an adaptive generator to create instances that remain challenging as the LLMs improve in their reasoning capabilities. Unlike existing benchmarks that quickly saturate on fixed datasets or use LLM-as-a-judge for checking solutions,MathConstraint uses parameterized problem types that enable scalable generation of arbitrarily difficult and automatically verifiable instances. We release MathConstraint-Easy ($266$ instances), on which frontier models achieve between $72.6\%$ (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) and $87.6\%$ (gpt-5.5) accuracy, and MathConstraint ($329$ instances) on which the same models drop to between $18.5\%$ (claude-4.6-sonnet) and $66.9\%$ (gpt-5.5) accuracy, demonstrating the resilience of our benchmark generator against rapid progress in LLM reasoning capabilities. We evaluate 12 frontier and open-weight models with and without access to a sandboxed Python environment that includes generic SAT/SMT solvers. Tool access roughly doubles frontier accuracy on MathConstraint (mean $+28$pp; up to $+52$pp for claude-4.6-sonnet). Further, halving the tool-call budget from $8$ to $4$ rounds erases up to $37$ points -- a sensitivity that most single-budget benchmarks miss. We release the generator, dataset, and evaluation harness as a robust environment for studying combinatorial reasoning and tool-use behavior under adversarially-tunable difficulty.

High pass rates on established programming benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench do not always show whether a model can reason about algorithms. Many fixed benchmarks eventually become part of the public training ecosystem through released problem statements, editorials, and generated solutions, allowing later models to improve partly by exposure rather than by stronger algorithmic ability. We introduce ALGOBENCH, a framework that automatically builds novel algorithmic problems from known competitive-programming problems through structured constraint-shifting transformations. Each accepted ALGOBENCH variant is traceable to a source problem, but must make the original reference algorithm fail. Beyond pass@$k$, we introduce complexity-aware metrics -- including OPTT, OPTS, TRAPRATE, GAPT, and CONSENS -- to test whether a solution is not only functionally correct but also asymptotically suitable for the generated problem. Experiments across multiple LLMs and prompting strategies show that performance drops sharply on ALGOBENCH variants, retrieval can increase reuse of the old algorithm, and many correct-looking solutions fail to meet the required complexity. Error analysis shows that failures are mainly algorithmic rather than implementation-level, suggesting that ALGOBENCH evaluates adaptation beyond functional correctness.

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.