SAILOR is a proof‑of‑concept system that helps language models translate natural‑language optimization problem descriptions into executable code by detecting missing numerical values. It asks users targeted follow‑up questions, prioritizing them based on uncertainty and solver estimates of impact, and updates the model before returning a solution. In tests on 1,723 benchmark instances, SAILOR achieved exact objective‑value agreement between 27.0% and 87.6% while asking an average of 1.4–5.7 questions per instance.
arXiv:2607. 18256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Optimization modeling is the process of translating real-world decision problems, often described in natural language, into formal mathematical formulations and executable solver code.
arXiv:2602. 15983v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can translate natural language into optimization code, but silent failures pose a critical risk: code that executes and returns solver-feasible solutions may encode semantically incorrect formulations---a feasibility--correctness gap reaching 90 percentage points on compositional problems.
arXiv:2609.38434v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Real-world optimization problems are difficult to model accurately because many objectives and constraints reside in domain experts' tacit knowledge,...
arXiv:2607. 07391v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mathematical reasoning benchmarks typically provide all facts needed to solve each problem, while interactive benchmarks often mix reasoning with tools, retrieval, and long-horizon dialogue.
arXiv:2605. 21751v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Text-to-optimization requires two separable capabilities: modeling -- choosing the right optimization structure -- and binding -- grounding every coefficient, index, and parameter in the concrete problem data.
arXiv:2607. 02141v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Most LP-from-text benchmarks are static datasets of word problems written and labeled by hand.
arXiv:2603. 25450v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Detecting when a language model is wrong without ground truth labels is a fundamental challenge for safe deployment.
arXiv:2608. 11232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical backtest outputs require ground truth from actual code execution.
arXiv:2410. 06458v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Instruction following is a key capability for LLMs.
arXiv:2606. 19559v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent position papers argue that the classical aleatoric/epistemic uncertainty framework is insufficient for interactive large language model (LLM) agents and call for underspecification-aware, decomposed, and communicable uncertainty representations that can unlock new agent capabilities such as proactive clarification seeking and shared mental-model building.
arXiv:2608. 02641v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
arXiv:2608.28725v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as graders, verifiers, and process auditors, but most mathematical evaluations still emphasize final...