Position Paper: Post-Solve Robustness in Decision Engines: Feasible Regions and Smoothness Under Perturbations

Large language models are increasingly applied to operational decision-making where the underlying structure is constrained optimization. Existing benchmarks evaluate whether LLMs can formulate optimization problems as solver code, but leave open a complementary question. Can LLMs directly produce correct solutions to fully specified constrained optimization problems without access to a solver? We introduce ConstraintBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on direct constrained optimization across 10 operations research domains, with all ground-truth solutions verified by the Gurobi solver. Each task presents a natural-language scenario with entities, constraints, and an optimization objective; the model must return a structured solution that a deterministic verifier checks against every constraint and the solver-proven optimum. We evaluate six frontier models on 200 tasks and find that feasibility, not optimality, is the primary bottleneck. The best model achieves only 65.0% feasibility, yet feasible solutions average 89 to 96% of the Gurobi-optimal objective. No model exceeds 30.5% on joint feasibility and optimality within 0.1% of the solver reference. Per-domain analysis shows large variation in difficulty, with average feasibility spanning from 85.0% in the facility location domain to 0.8% in the crew assignment domain. Further, systematic failure modes include duration constraint misunderstanding, entity hallucination, and a feasibility-optimality decoupling in facility location and vehicle routing where models achieve high feasibility but 0% optimality. ConstraintBench and all evaluation infrastructure will be publicly released.

Language models turn a worded situation into a numeric plan, and the dominant pipelines (NL4Opt, OptiMUS, ORLM, OR-LLM-Agent) commit to a single objective and point-valued coefficients, then solve once. For decisions that allocate real budget, effort, or clinical attention, that confidence is the failure mode: every objectified number is an assumption, and a plan optimal only if the guesses are exactly right is fragile -- mimicry of computation. YUKTI changes the target of autoformulation. Its representation is a typed-proposition graph whose relationships carry shape priors, coefficient uncertainty, and provenance. YUKTI routes each stage to an exact, nonlinear, or evolutionary solver; couples stages by a distributional Pareto hand-off; and introduces Assumption-Robust Pareto Frontiers (ARPF), resampling assumptions (including structural epsilon-contamination) to score how often each action survives (rho). We prove a bound making rho an exact factor of decision regret, add auditable traceability, and synthesize a benchmark-faithful data foundation when none exists (SRJANA). We validate three ways: under controlled misspecification the robust compromise cuts mean and tail regret by over 90% versus a naive point plan; on a regulated commercial decision we optimize inside a lawful action space and price the downside in euros; and on a real public dataset of 41,188 decisions an out-of-sample backtest beats the logged status quo by 34% and a naive point rule by 4% while reducing the optimizer's curse. The solvers are standard; we claim no benchmark-SOTA win. A head-to-head shows an LLM given the correct numbers, and single-objective optimization, both incur about 47x the held-out regret of YUKTI -- an LLM is a formulator, not a solver. Under long-range causal coupling, the forward hand-off becomes unsound, locating where it must become a backward-induction causal policy.

Automating optimization modeling with LLMs is a promising path toward scalable decision intelligence, but existing approaches either rely on agentic pipelines built on closed-source LLMs with high inference latency, or fine-tune smaller LLMs using costly process supervision that often overfits to a single solver API. Inspired by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, we propose Execution-Verified Optimization Modeling (EVOM), an execution-verified learning framework that treats a mathematical programming solver as a deterministic, interactive verifier. Given a natural-language problem and a target solver, EVOM generates solver-specific code, executes it in a sandboxed harness, and converts execution outcomes into scalar rewards, optimized with GRPO and DAPO in a closed-loop generate-execute-feedback-update process. This outcome-only formulation removes the need for process-level supervision, and enables cross-solver generalization by switching the verification environment rather than reconstructing solver-specific datasets. Experiments on NL4OPT, MAMO, IndustryOR, and OptiBench across Gurobi, OR-Tools, and COPT show that EVOM matches or outperforms process-supervised SFT, supports zero-shot solver transfer, and achieves effective low-cost solver adaptation by continuing training under the target solver backend.