Across 3,034 problems and six generator sizes, ORSMT improves the model-code match rate in all 72 benchmark and generator combinations before selection and raises the aggregate rate from 43.2% to 88.2% and the share that are both correct and matched from 25.2% to 40.2%.
Abstract
Large language models increasingly automate optimization modeling from natural language problems, producing written mathematics, solver code and a returned report. Verifying one optimization problem across these artifacts requires semantic comparison: unequal models can attain the same objective, equivalent models can use different auxiliary variables, and mutually consistent artifacts can omit the same source requirement. ORSMT provides a typed semantic interface and exact SMT relation queries. It aligns observable decisions, projects auxiliary variables, proves or refutes feasible region and objective relations, localizes refutations to implicated rows or domains and links source texts when available. It then reconstructs one artifact from another, and each adopted candidate passes the required relation checks. Across 3,034 problems and six generator sizes, ORSMT improves the model-code match rate in all 72 benchmark and generator combinations before selection. Protected selection raises the aggregate rate from 43.2% to 88.2% and the share that are both correct and matched from 25.2% to 40.2%. On the 1,905 refuted outputs, certified voting under the shared fallback makes 50.9% of outputs correct and matched, compared with 44.8% for ReLoop and 49.4% for Opt-Verifier. A separate one-round source revision followed by exact reconstruction restores a model-code match for 84.4% of the refuted pairs.
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly serve as reasoning components in modern software systems, yet a model that answers a logical query correctly can contradict itself when the same problem is restated in an equivalent form. Static benchmarks evaluate queries in isolation and therefore fail to expose such inconsis...
Large language models can often identify useful semantic structure in formal artifacts, but their outputs cannot be trusted as proofs or solver decisions. We study whether LLMs can instead guide formal reasoning systems through a narrow, solver-verifiable interface. We instantiate this idea in quantified array SMT solv...
Kun-Hang Lv, Rui Han, Fuqi Jia et al.· 0 citations
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly incorporated into verifier-in-the-loop software engineering systems, yet it remains unclear how the representation of verifier feedback affects their ability to repair incorrect programs. We study this question by isolating feedback representation from model, task, and prom...
Tao-Er Guo· Proceedings of the 7th Inter...· 0 citations
Real-world decision problems combine two qualitatively different kinds of constraints: requirements that must be satisfied, called hard constraints, and preferences that can be violated, called soft constraints. Because these problems are often posed to decision-makers in natural language, large language models offer a...
Amer Goel, Yeganeh Alimohammadi, Andrew Daw· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as formalizers: given a reasoning problem expressed in natural language, they produce a formal specification that a symbolic solver can then solve, with guarantees relative to that specification. Many specifications are runnable yet semantically wrong, encoding incorre...
G. Vaccarino, Emanuele La Malfa, De-Hai Min et al.· 0 citations