Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Ruicheng Ao, David Simchi-Levi, Xinshang Wang
Published
Feb 23, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
15% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Domain Experts
Signals refreshed
Feb 24, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
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. We decompose this task into two phases: a domain-agnostic feasibility phase that iteratively repairs any LP using IIS-guided diagnosis, and a domain-specific validation phase that enforces five rationality checks grounded in inventory theory. We test 22 API models from seven families on 976 multi-echelon supply chain problems and train two 8B-parameter models with self-taught reasoning and 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, where API models average 27.6% recovery rate versus 97.2% for trained models. Two gaps separate current AI from reliable model repair: solver interaction, as API models restore only 27.6% of infeasible formulations; and operational rationale, as roughly one in four feasible repairs violate supply chain theory. Each gap requires a different intervention -- targeted training closes the solver interaction gap, while explicit specification as solver-verifiable checks closes the rationality gap. For organizations adopting AI in operational planning, formalizing what 'rational' means in their context is the higher-return investment.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."
Domain Experts
Helpful for staffing comparability.
"Diagnosis and repair require scarce OR expertise: analysts must interpret solver diagnostics, trace root causes across echelons, and fix formulations without sacrificing operational soundness."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.