Improving Natural-Language Combinatorial-Optimization Accuracy in Resource-Constrained Language Models via Formal Abstractions

This paper introduces SCHEDBench, a natural-language benchmark for evaluating combinatorial scheduling constraint faithfulness under surface-form variation. Grounded in canonical scheduling instances and solver-derived feasibility and optimality, SCHEDBench assesses whether large language models (LLMs) generate schedules with the same constraint-feasible behavior across varied natural-language (NL) surface forms. SCHEDBench spans 1,132 instances across job-shop scheduling problems (JSP), single and multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problems (RCPSP), nurse rostering/scheduling, and curriculum timetabling problems of varying difficulty. Instances are templated into natural language problems using domain-specific templates, themed entities, lexical-syntactic template rephrasing, and constraint-level surface-form variation, with reference solutions verified for feasibility and objective optimality. Across thirteen frontier and open-weight LLMs, we find that models are not reliably invariant to semantically equivalent renderings of the same scheduling problem. Surface-form variation reduces feasibility and induces above-noise shifts in per-instance hard-constraint violations on matched instances. Among the tested isolated axes, constraint reordering yields the clearest above-noise sensitivity.

Large language models (LLMs) typically approach combinatorial optimization as an inference-time procedure, solving each instance separately through sampling, search, or repeated prompting. We ask whether reinforcement learning can instead shift part of this reasoning cost into the weights of a code LLM, so that the model synthesizes a reusable solver for an entire problem family. We study this question on Synergistic Dependency Selection (SDS), a controlled variant of constrained Quadratic Knapsack designed to expose a specific failure mode: local signals and strict feasibility constraints make greedy heuristics attractive but unreliable. Under identical scaffolding, Best-of-64 base-model sampling saturates at an approximately 28.7% gap to the global Virtual Best Solver (VBS); code audits show that the base model often retrieves Simulated Annealing templates but misimplements the Metropolis acceptance rule. We fine-tune Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using a feasibility-gated reward and light structural scaffolding. The resulting policy converges to a constraint-aware Simulated Annealing template in 99.8% of feasible SDS outputs, achieves a 5.0% gap to that VBS, and is 91 times cheaper in post-generation execution/search cost than cumulative Best-of-64 evaluation. A compile-once check shows that one best frozen solver per seed remains highly competitive when reused unchanged across the SDS test set, while an additional-domain evaluation on Job Shop Scheduling provides narrower but positive evidence that the scaffold transfers beyond SDS. Negative ablations reveal the limits of this recipe: standard stabilizers degrade performance, a soft feasibility gate fails, and results remain sensitive to reward normalization and domain-specific design choices.

PyCSP$^3$ provides a productive way to build constraint models for solving combinatorial constrained problems and export them to XCSP$^3$, preserving a complete separation between modeling and solving. However, it lacks native support for scheduling abstractions such as interval variables, sequence variables, and resource functions. As a result, scheduling models must be encoded with low-level integer variables and manual channeling constraints, even though PyCSP$^3$ already provides global constraints like NoOverlap and Cumulative on integer arrays. We present PyCSP$^3$ Scheduling, a library that adds scheduling abstractions to PyCSP$^3$ through 53 dedicated constraints and 27 expressions, and compiles them down to standard PyCSP$^3$/XCSP$^3$ constraints, maintaining the modeling/solving separation that underpins the PyCSP$^3$ ecosystem. On 261 paired instances across 17 model families (5 runs each), both formulations produce identical objectives on all 72 doubly-proved optimal pairs and nearly half of the families (8/17) remain structurally unchanged after compilation; however, runtime performance diverges across families, with clear gains on some (up to 5.8x) and regressions on others due to the overhead of compilation decompositions. Code and benchmarks are available at: https://github.com/sohaibafifi/pycsp3-scheduling