Abstract
Mathematical optimization is a powerful tool for structured decision-making across domains such as resource allocation and planning. Formulating optimization models faithful to reality, though, remains a significant bottleneck as it typically demands both domain expertise and optimization knowledge that are often scarce. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) promise to bridge this gap, enabling the generation of candidate optimization models from natural language descriptions. However, there is no guarantee that any single LLM-generated model is reliable, and existing approaches that output only one model are therefore risky. In this work, we propose a novel algorithm that generates a portfolio of optimization models, designed to be robust to the limitations of LLMs. Our method exploits the observation that a single LLM can play two distinct roles \unicodex2014 as a stochastic generator and as a reasoning evaluator \unicodex2014 and proposes a unified framework that leverages both capabilities in a complementary manner. We provide theoretical guarantees showing that, as long as either the generator or the evaluator is well-aligned with human preferences, the portfolio is guaranteed to contain high-quality candidates, enabling a principled human-in-the-loop process in which a decision-maker can review multiple candidates before committing to one. We further validate our approach empirically, demonstrating strong performance across a range of optimization modeling tasks.
Explore similar work
May 28, 2026cs.AI
Building mathematical optimization models is critical in operations research (OR), while it requires substantial human expertise. Recent advancements have utilized large language models (LLMs) to automate this modeling process. However, existing works often struggle to verify the correctness of the generated optimization models, without checking the rationality of the constraints and variables or the validity of solutions to the generated models. This hampers the subsequent verification and correction steps, and thus it severely hurts the modeling accuracy. To address this challenge, we propose a novel LLM-based framework with Dual-side Verification (Opt-Verifier) from both structure and solution perspectives, thereby improving the modeling accuracy. The structure-side verification ensures that the modeling structure of the generated optimization models aligns with the original problem description, accurately capturing the problem's constraints and requirements. Meanwhile, the solution-side verification interprets and evaluates the solutions' validity, confirming that the optimization models are logically and mathematically sound. Experiments on popular benchmarks demonstrate that our approach achieves over 20% improvement in accuracy.
Haoyang Liu, Jie Wang, Boxuan Niu +8
Jun 25, 2026cs.AI
Automating optimization modeling from natural language with large language models (LLMs) faces two key challenges. First, training corpora lack structural diversity. Second, data generation pipelines remain static and decoupled from model learning. To address these challenges, we propose EvoOptiGraph, a novel framework where data and model co-evolve, driven by model weaknesses. EvoOptiGraph represents each mixed-integer linear program (MILP) as an attributed bipartite graph and applies validity-preserving evolutionary operators to generate structurally diverse instances. The evolved graphs are converted into solver code and natural language via deterministic compilation and verified back-translation. Training proceeds in two stages: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on an initial dataset, followed by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), where graph-derived weakness signals guide the generation of new instances targeting the model's failures. This forms a closed loop that continuously updates the training distribution. Empirical results on six public datasets show that EvoOptiGraph significantly outperforms larger generalist models, agentic methods, and specialized baselines in accuracy, executability, and generalization. These results demonstrate that targeted data-model coevolution is an effective strategy for improving LLMs on optimization modeling tasks.
Qingcan Kang, Mingyang Liu, Xiaojin Fu +3
Jul 18, 2026cs.SE
Large language models now translate natural-language descriptions of decision problems into solver-ready optimization models, but they fail silently. A generated model often runs and still formulates the wrong problem. This paper develops a theory of falsification-based verification for this setting. Every numeric quantity in the description is a typed slot, and a candidate model is tested only through solver calls on slot-transformed instances; no reference model or label is consulted. From duality, comparative statics, and polyhedral limit arguments we derive a battery of test classes covering directions, curvature, crush probes, prohibitive limits, annihilation, and exchange. Every test is sound, so a violation certifies unfaithfulness and the false-positive rate is zero by design. We characterize what such verification can never see, give conditions under which the canonical error classes are detected with certainty, and prove that no fixed-threshold perturbation tester is simultaneously sound and nontrivial. Experiments on 326 ground-truth models from NL4OPT and four benchmark families confirm the theory. The battery attains a 0.0% false-positive rate against 54.9% for a threshold tester, detects 70.0% of certified conditional-class mutants, convicts 40.4% of the mutants invisible to execution-accuracy scoring, and reproduces the predicted detectability pattern including its zeros.
Haifeng Li, Mo Hai