ModelEquivBench: Certifying Multi-Relational Evaluation of LLM-Generated Optimization Models

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.

Optimization modeling translates real decision-making problems into mathematical optimization models and solver-executable implementations. Although language models are increasingly used to generate optimization formulations and solver code, existing benchmarks are almost entirely text-only. This omits many optimization-modeling tasks that arise in operational practice, where requirements are described in text but instance information is conveyed through visual artifacts such as tables, graphs, maps, schedules, and dashboards. We introduce multimodal optimization modeling, a benchmark setting in which models must construct both a mathematical formulation and executable solver code from a text-and-visual problem specification. To evaluate this setting, we develop a solver-grounded framework that generates structured optimization instances, verifies each with an exact solver, and builds both the model-facing inputs and hidden reference files from the same verified source. We instantiate the framework as MM-OptBench, a benchmark of 780 solver-verified instances spanning 6 optimization families, 26 subcategories, and 3 structural difficulty levels. We evaluate 9 multimodal large language models (MLLMs), including 6 frontier general-purpose models and 3 math-specialized models, with aggregate, family-level, difficulty-level, and failure-mode analyses. The results show that the task remains far from solved: the best two models reach 52.1% and 51.3% pass@1, while on average across the six general-purpose MLLMs, pass@1 is 43.4% on easy instances and 15.9% on hard instances. All three math-specialized MLLMs solve 0/780 instances. Failure attribution shows that errors arise both when extracting instance data from text and visuals and when turning extracted data into solver-correct formulations and code. MM-OptBench provides a testbed for solver-grounded, decision-oriented multimodal intelligence.

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.