Multi-warehouse inventory allocation is typically formulated as a mixed-integer programming (MIP) problem, yet no single formulation consistently matches heterogeneous instance-level regimes induced by demand concentration, inventory imbalance, replenishment scale, service constraints, and forecast volatility. We study this issue as instance-wise operations research (OR) formulation selection, where each allocation instance is assigned to a solver-executable formulation from a candidate OR expert library. We propose a solver-guided large language model (LLM) framework for OR formulation selection, in which each OR expert corresponds to a MIP formulation encoding a distinct allocation priority. To train the selector, the framework first constructs balanced expert-conditioned supervised fine-tuning (SFT) records for schema learning, and then uses MIP solver evaluation on historical instances to convert solver-evaluated allocation-quality gaps into margin-weighted identity preference optimization (IPO) preferences and per-instance expert-score metadata for reward lookup during group relative policy optimization (GRPO) to assign rewards to sampled responses. Experiments on multi-warehouse inventory allocation instances from JD.com, one of China's largest e-retailers, demonstrate that GRPO substantially improves expert-selection accuracy relative to the SFT+IPO selector and, more importantly, produces higher realized allocation quality than both the preference-trained selector and the best fixed formulation. With GRPO, Hit Ratio@1 and Hit Ratio@2 increase from 21.45% to 50.42% and from 70.47% to 82.31%. The resulting selector achieves an allocation accuracy gain of 12.57 percentage points over the incumbent baseline, outperforming both the SFT+IPO selector and the best fixed OR expert, and reduces the gap to the ex-post oracle to 4.85 percentage points.
Balance-oriented multi-warehouse inventory allocation is a recurring decision problem in large-scale e-commerce supply chains, in which a fixed replenishment quantity is distributed across warehouses to balance post-allocation inventory coverage while accounting for demand forecasts and heterogeneous allocation constraints. In practice, allocation requirements are often scenario-dependent and expressed in semi-structured or natural-language form rather than as ready-to-solve operations research (OR) formulations. We propose an OR-guided Large Language Model (LLM) for Allocation (ORLA) that uses solver feedback to generate, verify, and select OR formulations. ORLA integrates automatic "Problem-Model-Code (PMC)" generation, learning-based formulation selection, and feasibility restoration. We develop three complementary mixed-integer programming formulation families based on deviation minimization, soft band compliance, and knapsack-inspired allocation, together with solver-ready mixed-integer linear programming reformulations, modular constraint extensions, and a penalty-based relaxation mechanism for infeasible cases. The LLM component generates candidate formulations and executable solver code from textual or semi-structured specifications, while the solver provides verification signals for executability, feasibility, and solution quality. To address instance heterogeneity, ORLA estimates the expected quality of candidate formulations, selects promising candidates, and combines their outputs through score-aware aggregation. Experimental results on 29 production evaluation batches from JD.com show that the best single OR formulation improves allocation accuracy by 3.4 percentage points over the incumbent approach, while the full ORLA framework achieves a 4.5 percentage-point overall improvement and improves allocation accuracy in 26 of the 29 evaluation batches.
We ask whether large language models (LLMs) can design effective algorithms for well-specified operations research (OR) problems. We study inventory control, queueing network control, and assortment optimization. We evaluate two levels of LLM use: at level 1, the model receives one problem instance and returns a solution for that instance; at level 2, it receives only the problem class description and broad parameter ranges, and returns an algorithm that maps instance parameters to solutions. Human input is minimal: we give one untuned prompt that describes the problem, and the model has access to a Python sandbox tool with a fixed compute budget. The strongest model we test, gpt-5.6-sol, matches or outperforms the best existing method on almost all evaluated instances. This holds even at level 2, where the returned algorithm is fixed before seeing the evaluation instances. Performance also improves sharply across models released less than eight months apart, suggesting that this capability is moving quickly. Thus, for the well-specified operations problems we study, a single untuned LLM query can already produce algorithms competitive with specialized methods. These results suggest that frontier LLMs can be a serious empirical baseline for algorithm design in well-specified OR problems.
We present JOR-Bench, a collection of five Japanese-language benchmarks for evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to formulate and solve operations research (OR) problems. Each benchmark is a Japanese translation of an existing English benchmark: IndustryOR, MAMO Complex LP, NL4OPT, OptiBench, and OptMATH, covering 1,319 problems spanning linear programming, mixed-integer programming, non-linear programming, and combinatorial optimization. JOR-Bench is a solver-independent benchmark that can be used with any solver or programming language, and consists of pairs of Japanese problem statements and expected numerical answers. We evaluate seven LLMs, including multilingual general-purpose models and Japanese-specialized models, on both the original English and the new Japanese versions, and compare performance across languages. For the main evaluation, we standardize execution with the Python interface to OR-Tools to make model outputs comparable and reproducible with open-source software. Our results show that OR formulation ability is largely language-neutral for strong multilingual models; the overall average accuracy difference between English and Japanese is only −0.3 pp. Yet error analysis reveals subtle cross-lingual differences, including a pragmatic disambiguation failure in some domains that causes models to output decision-variable values instead of the objective value when the prompt is in Japanese.