Authors: Shaghayegh Sadeghi, Stephen L. Smith, David C. Del Rey Fern'andez
Organizations: Future Cities Institute, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada · Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada · Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada
Natural-language descriptions of optimization problems may be incomplete or vague about numerical information that a solver requires, including costs, capacities, demands, bounds, and penalties. A language model can translate the description into code, but when a required value is absent it must either stop or guess. We present SAILOR, a proof-of-concept system that detects such unsupported numerical choices, asks the user targeted follow-up questions, and updates the optimization model before returning a solution. Questions are prioritized using uncertainty and solver-derived estimates of how strongly each missing value affects the current model. We evaluate the pipeline on 1,723 instances from seven masked benchmarks using an idealized simulator that returns ground-truth values. Exact objective-value agreement ranges from 27.0% to 87.6% across datasets, with 1.4--5.7 questions per instance on average. These results establish feasibility under controlled branch-and-reveal feedback; they do not measure performance with human users or general structural model repair. Code is available at: https://github.com/sshaghayeghs/SAILOR.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Parameter sensitivity under uncertainty. In panel (a), perturbing a low-sensitivity parameter across its current belief range barely moves the optimal objective. In panel (b), the same kind of sweep over a high-sensitivity parameter swings the objective sharply. That gap is why we use solver-based sensitivity to decide which parameters to ask about first.
Figure 2: The three conceptual belief-update operations. Each panel shows the prior (dashed gray) and posterior (solid). Panel (a) is a pure binary update, panel (b) an exact update, and panel (c) an optional soft refinement update. Our experiments exercise (b) and (c); see Section 6.1 .
Dataset
Instances
Avg Params
Source
Description
NL4OPT
228
3.5
Ramamonjison et al. (2023)
Simple two-variable linear programs.
NL4LP
178
3.9
Xiao et al. (2025)
Linear programs of moderate complexity.
ReSocratic
403
∼3
Xiao et al. (2025)
Socratic-style optimization problems.
EasyLP
652
∼4
( Huang et al., 2024 )
Small linear programs from MAMO.
ComplexLP
211
8.4
( Huang et al., 2024 )
Complex LPs, up to 87 parameters.
IndustryOR
42
5.8
Xiao et al. (2025)
Industrial scheduling, 15 – 30 parameters.
Table 1: Datasets used in our evaluation. Avg Params is the mean number of numerical parameters per instance, taken from the ground-truth optimization model.
Metric
NL4LP
EasyLP
NL4OPT
ReSocratic
IndustryOR
ComplexOR
ComplexLP
Exact
87.6%
79.8%
78.1%
77.9%
64.3%
50.0%
27.0%
No-interact.
16.3 ↓ 71.3
34.2 ↓ 45.6
13.2 ↓ 64.9
13.1 ↓ 64.8
15.0 ↓ 49.3
5.6 ↓ 44.4
5.7 ↓ 21.3
≤ 1%
88.2% ↑ 0.6
80.2% ↑ 0.4
80.7% ↑ 2.6
81.6% ↑ 3.7
64.3% ↑ 0.0
50.0% ↑ 0.0
32.2% ↑ 5.2
≤ 5%
90.4% ↑ 2.8
82.2% ↑ 2.4
85.1% ↑ 7.0
83.9% ↑ 6.0
64.3% ↑ 0.0
55.6% ↑ 5.6
53.1% ↑ 26.1
≤ 10%
91.6% ↑ 4.0
83.1% ↑ 3.3
87.3% ↑ 9.2
86.6% ↑ 8.7
66.7% ↑ 2.4
61.1% ↑ 11.1
62.6% ↑ 35.6
Gap
5.5%
12.0%
8.1%
8.0%
22.7%
21.1%
25.2%
Table 2: Objective-value agreement across datasets. The No-interact. row solves from the translator’s initial literals without questions. Deltas are percentage-point differences. “Exact” denotes error below 0.01% ; “Gap” is mean objective error capped at 100% per instance; “Resolved” is (\textscKnown+\textscFilled)/all extracted literals .
Configuration
NL4LP
EasyLP
NL4OPT
ReSoc
IndOR
CmplxOR
CmplxLP
Macro avg.
SAILOR
87.6
79.8
78.1
77.9
64.3
50.0
27.0
66.4
w/o importance
89.9 ↑ 2.3
81.3 ↑ 1.5
77.6 ↓ 0.5
76.7 ↓ 1.2
61.9 ↓ 2.4
44.4 ↓ 5.6
30.8 ↑ 3.8
66.1 ↓ 0.3
w/o refinement
86.5 ↓ 1.1
80.7 ↑ 0.9
76.8 ↓ 1.3
77.9 ≈ 0
59.5 ↓ 4.8
38.9 ↓ 11.1
29.4 ↑ 2.4
64.2 ↓ 2.2
Table 3: Ablation: exact objective-value agreement for SAILOR and two ablated variants. Deltas are percentage-point changes relative to SAILOR ; the final column is an unweighted macro-average.
Figure 3: Sensitivity of exact objective-value agreement to the prior range. Narrow and wide priors behave inconsistently across datasets; annotations give aggregate percentage-point differences from the default.
Figure 4: Sensitivity of exact objective-value agreement to question budgets 10 and 50 relative to the default budget 30 . Effects are mixed across datasets.
Figure 5: Objective-value agreement for two translation models. Solid lines show exact agreement; shaded bands extend to agreement within 10% .
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Our masking pipeline. We take the original description, hide the decision-critical numbers, and optionally paraphrase the result so the underspecified version reads naturally.
Optimization problems are pervasive in sectors from manufacturing and distribution to healthcare. However, most such problems are still solved heuristically by hand rather than optimally by state-of-the-art solvers because the expertise required to formulate and solve these problems limits the widespread adoption of optimization tools and techniques. We introduce a Large Language Model (LLM)-based system designed to formulate and solve (mixed integer) linear programming problems from their natural language descriptions. Our system can develop mathematical models, write and debug solver code, evaluate the generated solutions, and improve efficiency and correctness of its model and code based on these evaluations. OptiMUS is designed as a productivity tool for optimization practitioners who understand the problem domain and can describe it precisely, but seek to accelerate the modeling and implementation workflow. OptiMUS-0.3 utilizes a modular structure to process problems, allowing it to handle problems with long descriptions and complex data without long prompts. Experiments demonstrate that OptiMUS-0.3 outperforms direct-prompting baselines by over 43% on easy and 18% on hard instances. It remains competitive with fine-tuned specialist models on benchmark problems, and outperforms them on real-world case studies (28.6% vs. 0%) where fine-tuned models fail to generalize. Ablation studies show that modular architecture with error correction is central to these gains. A key finding is that system architecture is a stronger driver of performance than model capability. Structured decomposition with targeted error correction enables weaker models to match stronger models under naive prompting, and remains competitive with fine-tuned specialist models without retraining costs.
Ali AhmadiTeshnizi, Wenzhi Gao, Herman Brunborg +3
a School of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 · b Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
This paper presents ORPilot, an open-source agentic AI system that translates real-world business problems into solver-ready optimization models. Unlike academic LLM-for-OR tools that assume clean problem specifications with preformatted inline data, ORPilot is designed for production conditions: ambiguous descriptions, large-scale raw operational data, and the need for portability across solver backends. The system introduces four novel components: (1) a conversational interview agent to elicit complete problem specifications, (2) a data collection agent that retrieves data independently of prompts, (3) a parameter computation agent to bridge raw tabular data and model-ready parameters, and (4) a solver-agnostic Intermediate Representation (IR) for deterministic, zero-LLM-call recompilation to Gurobi, CPLEX, PuLP, Pyomo, or OR-Tools solvers. Additionally, self-correcting retry loops utilize solver tracebacks for targeted repairs. ORPilot represents the first attempt to target production-level business problems rather than textbook operations research (OR) cases. Evaluation on real-world problems demonstrates promising results. When tested against traditional academic benchmarks: IndustryOR, NL4OPT and NLP4LP, ORPilot outperformed state-of-the-art tools in accuracy on the IndustryOR benchmark and delivered comparable performance on NL4OPT and NLP4LP.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to formulate optimization models from natural-language problem descriptions, yet realistic operations research (OR) requests are often incomplete: missing objectives, constraints, or business rules can change the resulting mathematical program. Existing evaluations largely assume a complete specification and therefore overlook whether an agent knows when clarification is needed before modeling. We introduce OR-Clarify, a benchmark for pre-formulation clarification. Each task presents a partial public problem description, withholds structured hidden slots, and evaluates agents through bounded interaction with a simulated user. The benchmark supports both openended and choice-based clarification, and measures slot recovery, stopping behavior, silent assumptions, and interaction cost. We further propose Interactive Optimization (InterOPT), a two-stage framework that identifies unresolved formulation-critical gaps and uses them to guide whether to ask the next question or to stop. In our choice-based experiments, InterOPT substantially outperforms all baselines in exact slot recovery; in the open-ended setting, it remains competitive with strong prior methods. Together, OR-Clarify and InterOPT reframe OR assistance as a selective completeness decision: clarify when needed, stop when ready, and quantify what remains missing.
Sihan Ge, Yichen Lin, Chenyu Zhou +3
Cardinal Operations · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China