Xinshang Wang
Publications
OptiRepair: Closed-Loop Diagnosis and Repair of Supply Chain Optimization Models with LLM Agents
Problem Definition. Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors. Diagnosis and repair require scarce OR expertise: analysts must interpret solver diagnostics, trace root causes across echelons, and fix formulations without sacrificing operational soundness. Whether AI agents can perform this task remains untested. Methodology/Results. OptiRepair splits this task into a domain-agnostic feasibility phase (iterative IIS-guided repair of any LP) and a domain-specific validation phase (five rationality checks grounded in inventory theory). We test 22 API models from 7 families on 976 multi-echelon supply chain problems and train two 8B-parameter models using self-taught reasoning with solver-verified rewards. The trained models reach 81.7% Rational Recovery Rate (RRR) -- the fraction of problems resolved to both feasibility and operational rationality -- versus 42.2% for the best API model and 21.3% on average. The gap concentrates in Phase 1 repair: API models average 27.6% recovery rate versus 97.2% for trained models. Managerial Implications. Two gaps separate current AI from reliable model repair: solver interaction (API models restore only 27.6% of infeasible formulations) and operational rationale (roughly one in four feasible repairs violate supply chain theory). Each requires a different intervention: solver interaction responds to targeted training; operational rationale requires explicit specification as solver-verifiable checks. For organizations adopting AI in operational planning, formalizing what "rational" means in their context is the higher-return investment.
Solver-in-the-Loop: MDP-Based Benchmarks for Self-Correction and Behavioral Rationality in Operations Research
Operations Research practitioners routinely debug infeasible models through an iterative process: analyzing Irreducible Infeasible Subsystems (\IIS{}), identifying constraint conflicts, and systematically repairing formulations until feasibility is achieved. Yet existing LLM benchmarks evaluate OR as one-shot translation -- given a problem description, generate solver code -- ignoring this diagnostic loop entirely. We introduce two benchmarks that place the \textbf{solver in the evaluation loop}. \textbf{\ORDebug{}} evaluates iterative self-correction through 5,000+ problems spanning 9 error types; each repair action triggers solver re-execution and \IIS{} recomputation, providing deterministic, verifiable feedback. \textbf{\ORBias{}} evaluates behavioral rationality through 2,000 newsvendor instances (1,000 ID + 1,000 OOD), measuring systematic deviations from closed-form optimal policies. Across 26 models and 12,000+ samples, we find that domain-specific RLVR training enables an 8B model to surpass frontier APIs: 95.3\% vs 86.2\% recovery rate (+9.1\%), 62.4\% vs 47.8\% diagnostic accuracy (+14.6\%), and 2.25 vs 3.78 steps to resolution (1.7$\times$ faster). On \ORBias{}, curriculum training achieves the only negative ID$\rightarrow$OOD bias drift among models evaluated (-9.6\%), reducing systematic bias by 48\% (from 20.0\% to 10.4\%). These results demonstrate that process-level evaluation with verifiable oracles enables targeted training that outperforms scale.