Is Model Instability just Noise to be Tolerated or a Property that can be Managed?
Authors: Amirali Rayegan, Lunxiao Li, Tim Menzies
Organizations: North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
In software analytics, rerunning the same analysis twice often yields different models and conclusions. This reduces trust in the model and limits its use. We find that model instability is a major problem. Across 127 multi-objective SE optimization problems (12,700 test cases), repeated runs of a state-of-the-art optimizer agree on only 13.7% of test cases, even under improved settings. We argue that this instability is not merely noise to tolerate, but a property that can be measured and managed. By adjusting how labels are spent, how complex the models become, and how splits are scored, we obtain models that agree 4.8 times as often as the default configuration. The standard deviation of optimization error falls by 22% on average (mean std 17.4 to 13.6), while recommendation quality improves rather than degrades. In terms of quality, the refined settings are statistically top-ranked on 119 of 127 datasets, compared to 74 for the defaults. We then test causal and data-locality interventions and find that they help only partially, suggesting a residual stability floor. Our evidence suggests there are fundamental limits to stability set by the data itself (noise, scarce labels, proxy objectives, and the many near-equivalent models a dataset admits). We conclude that instability should be treated as a standard evaluation axis in SE optimization, which should be routinely measured, reported alongside performance, and used to calibrate trust in any single run. The methods in this paper provide a baseline against which future efforts to reduce SBSE instability can be judged. To support open science, we offer the following reproduction package: https://tinyurl.com/Model-Instability
In large-scale benchmarking of stochastic optimization algorithms, the key challenge is no longer whether repeated runs are needed for reliability, but how to determine when sufficient evidence has been collected without incurring unnecessary computational cost. We study a learning-based extension of a recent empirical online heuristic that adaptively estimates the required number of runs using outlier handling and skewness-based symmetry checks. Using annotated outcomes from 132{,}000 Nevergrad runs on COCO (24 problems in 20 dimensions, 10 instances each, 11 optimizers), we train classifiers on 23 statistical, energy-free, and shape and stability features to predict whether a run-number estimate is reliable, prioritizing detection of incorrect estimates via minority-class recall. We evaluate reliability prediction using a within-configuration learning setup, where models are trained and tested on data sharing the same optimizer. The results show that run-number reliability can be learned in a within-configuration scenario, enabling detection of unreliable estimates with high minority-class recall, although performance remains limited by the restricted data diversity within fixed configurations.
Large language models increasingly generate optimization models from natural language, but existing evaluation often reduces a generated model and its ground truth to a single equivalent/not-equivalent verdict or an execution-success rate--labels that are neither independently checkable nor faithful to the multiple distinct senses in which two formulations can agree. We present ModelEquivBench, a certifying, multi-relational evaluation system that reports a per-pair semantic profile E0--E6: model construction and exact ingestion (E0), verified representation alignment (E1), same-space and projected feasible-set relations (E2, E3), objective-order equivalence (E4), optimal-value equality (E5), and optimizer-set equivalence (E6). Each decided entry carries relation-appropriate, independently re-checkable evidence: replayable traces or explicit maps for E0--E1, exact-rational certificates for positive E2--E6 conclusions, and explicit witnesses for supported negatives. Incomplete mapping search, unsupported structure, and resource limits produce typed UNKNOWN or N/A outcomes rather than guesses, while unmet prerequisites are reported as ABSENT. Using ModelEquivBench to evaluate three model snapshots--GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B--on the same frozen cohort of 173 base problems (346 cells per model) under a no-repair protocol, the resulting profiles expose distinctions that coarse baselines do not represent: 49, 35, and 25 cells contain executable candidates that are nevertheless certified negative on at least one supported relation, and 25, 8, and 18 structural rejections occur on pairs for which E2 certifies mapped feasible-set equality under a verified map. The three model snapshots fail at different stages of the profile and therefore cannot be meaningfully reduced to a single accuracy score.
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.