ASTOR: Benchmarking and Improving Autoformulation for Soft-Constraint Optimization with a Formal Grammar

Optimization problems are central to decision-making in manufacturing, logistics, scheduling, and other industrial settings. Translating complicated descriptions of these problems into solver-ready formulations requires specialized operations research (OR) expertise, making it hard to scale. We present AutoOR, a scalable synthetic data generation and reinforcement learning pipeline that trains LLMs to autoformalize optimization problems specified in natural language across linear, mixed-integer, and non-linear categories. AutoOR generates verified training data from standard optimization forms and uses solver execution feedback as the reward signal for RL post-training. AutoOR applied to an 8B model achieves state-of-the-art or competitive results across six established OR benchmarks, matching significantly larger frontier models. For a non-linear problem class involving physical dynamics, where frontier models score near 0%, we introduce a curriculum RL strategy that bootstraps from limited initial training data to make this class tractable for post-training. We believe that methods such as AutoOR can significantly accelerate industrial decision-making with AI.

Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural-language optimization problems into solver-ready formulations, but direct code generation is brittle: schema, indexing, and semantic errors can cause compilation failures, infeasible models, or incorrect objectives, while iterative repair, search, and multi-agent workflows increase inference cost. We present IR2Solve, an intermediate-representation-first autoformulation pipeline that uses a single semantic LLM call to produce a schema-constrained ModelIR, followed by two deterministic stages: verification and IR-to-solver compilation. ModelIR explicitly represents sets, parameters, variables, objectives, and constraints using restricted Python-like expression strings. A concrete scalar-constraint convention represents finite per-index constraint families as individual entries, reducing free-index and implicit-quantification errors while simplifying downstream verification and compilation. Across six cleaned optimization benchmarks, IR2Solve achieves strong objective correctness and remains competitive with recent optimization-modeling systems. A controlled ablation on 153 IndustryOR and ComplexLP instances shows sequential gains from the structured IR interface, the scalar-constraint instruction, and deterministic verification. On a matched ten-instance cost panel, IR2Solve uses one semantic call per instance, whereas Chain-of-Experts and SAC-Opt use 8 and 39 calls per instance and consume 3.3 and 22.9 times the token volume of IR2Solve, respectively. These results show that structured intermediate representations, combined with deterministic post-generation processing, provide a practical accuracy-cost trade-off for LLM-based optimization autoformulation.

Large language models are increasingly applied to operational decision-making where the underlying structure is constrained optimization. Existing benchmarks evaluate whether LLMs can formulate optimization problems as solver code, but leave open a complementary question. Can LLMs directly produce correct solutions to fully specified constrained optimization problems without access to a solver? We introduce ConstraintBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on direct constrained optimization across 10 operations research domains, with all ground-truth solutions verified by the Gurobi solver. Each task presents a natural-language scenario with entities, constraints, and an optimization objective; the model must return a structured solution that a deterministic verifier checks against every constraint and the solver-proven optimum. We evaluate six frontier models on 200 tasks and find that feasibility, not optimality, is the primary bottleneck. The best model achieves only 65.0% feasibility, yet feasible solutions average 89 to 96% of the Gurobi-optimal objective. No model exceeds 30.5% on joint feasibility and optimality within 0.1% of the solver reference. Per-domain analysis shows large variation in difficulty, with average feasibility spanning from 85.0% in the facility location domain to 0.8% in the crew assignment domain. Further, systematic failure modes include duration constraint misunderstanding, entity hallucination, and a feasibility-optimality decoupling in facility location and vehicle routing where models achieve high feasibility but 0% optimality. ConstraintBench and all evaluation infrastructure will be publicly released.