Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

OptiRepair: Closed-Loop Diagnosis and Repair of Supply Chain Optimization Models with LLM Agents

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

Should you rely on this paper?

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.

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.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

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.

What we could verify

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.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors."

Rater Population

partial

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."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Domain Experts
Expertise required
Medicine
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

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.

Key takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Tool-use evaluation) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • Whether AI agents can perform this task remains untested.
  • 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.

Why it matters for eval

  • Whether AI agents can perform this task remains untested.

Researcher checklist

  • 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.