VERAS: Verification-Guided Adaptive Search for Reliable Operations Research

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step tasks in executable environments, yet their ability to perform realistic operations research (OR) work remains unclear. Existing OR evaluations often decouple modeling from solving, rely on pre-formalized or text-only instances, and rarely test the full workflow from operational artifacts to validated decisions. In this work, we introduce ORAgentBench, an execution-grounded benchmark for evaluating autonomous agents on challenging end-to-end operations research tasks. It contains 107 human-reviewed tasks across diverse operational scenarios, each packaged in an isolated environment with a natural-language brief, multi-file data, configuration artifacts, and a required submission schema. Agents must write and run solution code, and their submissions are evaluated by hidden validators for schema validity, hard-constraint feasibility, and normalized objective quality. Experiments with fourteen frontier agent-model configurations show that current agents remain far from reliable OR practice. The best agent passes only 35.51% of all tasks and 20.59% of hard tasks, and many feasible submissions still fall below the required quality threshold. Failure analysis further shows that errors are dominated by strategic weaknesses, including missed operational rules, brittle formulations, weak feasible-solution construction, and insufficient solution improvement. OR-specific procedural skills increase hard-task feasibility, but do not reliably improve solution quality or pass rate. These results suggest that progress in OR agents requires moving beyond plausible optimization code toward dependable, high-quality operational decision-making.

Can large language model (LLM) agents deliver expert-level operations research (OR) solutions directly from original client materials, without prior expert reformulation? Existing OR benchmarks typically begin with self-contained descriptions or predefined optimization tasks, underrepresenting the translation of original business materials into professionally validated solutions. We introduce OR-License, an end-to-end benchmark of 31 instances across 10 industrial scenarios from paid OR engagements totaling USD 3.68 million. It preserves original requirements, input data, deliverable formats, and information boundaries after de-identification. To study information acquisition, we introduce ORSim, a controlled client simulator that discloses business facts without supplying OR expertise. Hidden evaluation checks feasibility and compares objective quality against original expert solutions accepted by clients before benchmark construction. Deployment-Adjusted Quality (DAQ) averages expert-relative quality across instances, assigning zero to infeasible deliveries. Across 11 frontier LLMs using coding-agent harnesses, several exceed the expert reference in conditional objective quality, but none matches its DAQ; the strongest primary Claude Code configuration achieves 88.39% strict feasibility and a DAQ of 0.87 against the expert reference of 1. Client information acquisition extends beyond clarification into solution development and validation, with some later stages showing higher confirmed issue-resolution proportions. Trajectory analysis identifies formulation and implementation failures, while task-equalized research-chain completion rates range from 24% to 45% across models on evaluable tasks. These findings motivate sustained information-gap resolution, faithful problem formulation, and evidence-linked self-improvement for reliable long-horizon agents.

Operations Research (OR) provides a rigorous framework for high-stakes decision-making, but effective OR modeling requires substantial domain knowledge, mathematical abstraction, and solver expertise. Recent LLM-based systems automate parts of this pipeline, yet remain limited by low accuracy on complex problems, opaque outputs, and narrow solver support. We propose COOPA (COoperative OPerations Agent), a modular LLM-agent architecture for interpretable and scalable OR decision support. It combines three components: iterative confidence-based modeling, which generates multiple candidate formulations, self-evaluates them across modeling dimensions, and selects one using a max-min confidence criterion; element-level provenance and confidence explanations, which link variables, parameters, constraints, and objectives to quoted source text and provide an audit trail for human verification; and multi-solver routing to specialized optimizer agents for different OR problem classes. Across three OR benchmarks, eight LLM backbones, and four baselines under identical conditions, COOPA achieves the best macro-average accuracy on six of eight backbones and improves over the strongest baseline by up to 6.7 percentage points. A within-system ablation isolates the contribution of iterative confidence-based modeling, while additional analyses and case studies illustrate the value of source traceability and multi-solver dispatch.