arXiv:2602.19439cs.AIcs.LG2026-02被引 2

用AI自动诊断修复供应链模型错误,准确率超人工两倍

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

  • 分两阶段修复:先用IIS定位问题,再用库存理论验证合理性
  • 训练模型达81.7%修复成功率,远超API模型的42.2%平均值
  • 适合需自动化优化模型的企业,尤其重视运营合理性的场景

供应链优化模型常因建模错误导致不可行。诊断与修复需稀缺运筹学专家经验:分析师须解读求解器诊断、跨层级追溯根因,并修正公式而不破坏运营合理性。当前是否可用AI代理完成此任务尚未验证。本文将任务分解为两个阶段:通用可行性阶段,通过IIS引导迭代修复任意线性规划;特定领域验证阶段,执行基于库存理论的五项合理性检查。在976个多层次供应链问题上测试了七个系列共22个API模型,并训练了两个80亿参数模型,采用自教推理和求解器验证奖励。训练模型达到81.7%理性恢复率(RRR)——即同时满足可行性和运营合理性的修复比例,优于最佳API模型的42.2%,平均仅21.3%。差距集中于第一阶段修复,API模型平均恢复率27.6%,训练模型达97.2%。当前AI与可靠模型修复间存在两大鸿沟:求解器交互能力(仅27.6%修复率),及运营合理性保障(约四分之一可行修复违背供应链理论)。前者需针对性训练弥补,后者需显式设定可验证的合理性检查。对采纳AI进行运营规划的企业而言,在其上下文中明确定义‘合理’是更高回报的投资。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

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.

供应链AI修复运筹优化大模型

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。