Ruicheng Ao

Ruicheng Ao, David Simchi-Levi, Xinshang Wang

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.

Ruicheng Ao, Hongyu Chen, Siyang Gao et al.

We study fixed-confidence best-arm identification (BAI) where a cheap but potentially biased proxy (e.g., LLM judge) is available for every sample, while an expensive ground-truth label can only be acquired selectively when using a human for auditing. Unlike classical multi-fidelity BAI, the proxy is biased (arm- and context-dependent) and ground truth is selectively observed. Consequently, standard multi-fidelity methods can mis-select the best arm, and uniform auditing, though accurate, wastes scarce resources and is inefficient. We prove that without bias correction and propensity adjustment, mis-selection probability may not vanish (even with unlimited proxy data). We then develop an estimator for the mean of each arm that combines proxy scores with inverse-propensity-weighted residuals and form anytime-valid confidence sequences for that estimator. Based on the estimator and confidence sequence, we propose an algorithm that adaptively selects and audits arms. The algorithm concentrates audits on unreliable contexts and close arms and we prove that a plug-in Neyman rule achieves near-oracle audit efficiency. Numerical experiments confirm the theoretical guarantees and demonstrate the superior empirical performance of the proposed algorithm.

Ruicheng Ao, David Simchi-Levi, Xinshang Wang

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.