Solver-in-the-Loop: MDP-Based Benchmarks for Self-Correction and Behavioral Rationality in Operations Research

TL;DR

This paper introduces two benchmarks that evaluate optimization models within an iterative solver process, emphasizing self-correction and behavioral rationality, and demonstrates improved performance through domain-specific training.

Contribution

It presents novel benchmarks for solver-in-the-loop evaluation in operations research, enabling verifiable feedback and systematic bias measurement, advancing beyond one-shot problem-solving assessments.

Findings

Domain-specific RLVR training improves recovery and diagnostic accuracy.

Models achieve faster resolution steps with targeted training.

Curriculum training reduces systematic bias in OOD scenarios.

Abstract

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.