REVIEW 4 cited by
Holy Grail 2.0: From Natural Language to Constraint Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Twenty-seven years ago, E. Freuder highlighted that "Constraint programming represents one of the closest approaches computer science has yet made to the Holy Grail of programming: the user states the problem, the computer solves it". Nowadays, CP users have great modeling tools available (like Minizinc and CPMpy), allowing them to formulate the problem and then let a solver do the rest of the job, getting closer to the stated goal. However, this still requires the CP user to know the formalism and respect it. Another significant challenge lies in the expertise required to effectively model combinatorial problems. All this limits the wider adoption of CP. In this position paper, we investigate a possible approach to leverage pre-trained Large Language Models to extract models from textual problem descriptions. More specifically, we take inspiration from the Natural Language Processing for Optimization (NL4OPT) challenge and present early results with a decomposition-based prompting approach to GPT Models.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
LogiPlan: A Structured Benchmark for Logical Planning and Relational Reasoning in LLMs
LogiPlan introduces a three-task benchmark with controllable graph complexity, showing that although reasoning models excel at plan generation, all models degrade sharply on cycle detection and deep comparison questions.
-
Text-guided Generation of Efficient Personalized Inspection Plans
A training-free pipeline uses a vision-language model and segmentation to convert text instructions into smooth, order-respecting drone inspection trajectories in known 3D maps.
-
DualSchool: How Reliable are LLMs for Optimization Education?
DualSchool shows that open LLMs explain dualization well but achieve at most 47.8% accuracy on generating correct duals, and fail at verification and error classification.
-
A Systematic Survey on Large Language Models for Evolutionary Optimization: From Modeling to Solving
A literature survey that classifies LLM-based optimization research into modeling and solving, with solving divided into LLMs as optimizers, low-level components, and high-level managers.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.