ORSMT: Unleashing the Potential of Satisfiability Modulo Theories for Semantic Verification and Repair in LLM-Based Optimization

Operations research supports decision-making in domains such as energy, economics, and healthcare. Solving operations research problems typically begins with optimization modeling, which translates a natural-language problem description into executable solver code. LLMs offer a promising way to automate this process, but they remain prone to errors. In practice, these errors can be divided into two categories: syntactic errors refer to solver code that fails to run successfully or is judged infeasible by the solver; semantic errors refer to solver code that successfully returns an objective value but violates the intent of the original problem. Since semantic errors do not trigger runtime failures, they are difficult to detect and rectify. To address this problem, we introduce SemOPT, a semantic-guided framework for correcting LLM-based optimization models. SemOPT combines a semantic reward model that distinguishes faithful math models from plausible but incorrect ones with an adaptive correction system that applies hierarchical reward-guided search over the modeling space. Experiments on seven optimization modeling benchmarks show that SemOPT establishes a new state of the art and achieves an average 7.6% accuracy improvement over the strongest baseline on complex datasets.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in translating and reformulating complex mathematical optimization problems across modeling languages. However, validating such transformations through empirical solver executions alone is unreliable, as solver outcomes may be affected by local minima, structural timeouts, numerical artifacts, and subtle semantic divergence between formulations. We introduce SOVER, an LLM-assisted SMT framework that separates semantic mapping from formal certification: Z3 checks domain cross-feasibility and global objective-order preservation for mixed-integer linear formulations, while dReal provides tolerance-aware feasibility/range and $ε$-argmin checks for continuous nonlinear formulations. We also introduce NLEquiv-150, a public benchmark of 100 equivalent and 50 deliberately hard non-equivalent nonlinear reformulation pairs. With LLM-extracted mappings, SOVER classifies 149/150 pairs (99.33%) correctly, including all 50 hard negatives; the sole error is an incomplete mapping extraction.

Large language models increasingly generate optimization models from natural language, but existing evaluation often reduces a generated model and its ground truth to a single equivalent/not-equivalent verdict or an execution-success rate--labels that are neither independently checkable nor faithful to the multiple distinct senses in which two formulations can agree. We present ModelEquivBench, a certifying, multi-relational evaluation system that reports a per-pair semantic profile E0--E6: model construction and exact ingestion (E0), verified representation alignment (E1), same-space and projected feasible-set relations (E2, E3), objective-order equivalence (E4), optimal-value equality (E5), and optimizer-set equivalence (E6). Each decided entry carries relation-appropriate, independently re-checkable evidence: replayable traces or explicit maps for E0--E1, exact-rational certificates for positive E2--E6 conclusions, and explicit witnesses for supported negatives. Incomplete mapping search, unsupported structure, and resource limits produce typed UNKNOWN or N/A outcomes rather than guesses, while unmet prerequisites are reported as ABSENT. Using ModelEquivBench to evaluate three model snapshots--GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B--on the same frozen cohort of 173 base problems (346 cells per model) under a no-repair protocol, the resulting profiles expose distinctions that coarse baselines do not represent: 49, 35, and 25 cells contain executable candidates that are nevertheless certified negative on at least one supported relation, and 25, 8, and 18 structural rejections occur on pairs for which E2 certifies mapped feasible-set equality under a verified map. The three model snapshots fail at different stages of the profile and therefore cannot be meaningfully reduced to a single accuracy score.