arxiv: 2604.25847 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🧮 math.OC · cs.AI· cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

From Soliloquy to Agora: Memory-Enhanced LLM Agents with Decentralized Debate for Optimization Modeling

Jianghao Lin , Zi Ling , Chenyu Zhou , Tianyi Xu , Ruoqing Jiang , Zizhuo Wang , Dongdong Ge

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC cs.AIcs.LG

keywords optimization modelingLLM agentsdecentralized debatememory banknatural language to optimizationagentic frameworkstraining-free methodsmathematical programming

0 comments

The pith

Decentralized debate among LLM agent teams plus a shared memory bank produces more accurate optimization models from natural language than single LLMs or trained alternatives.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors present Agora-Opt as a way to turn natural-language descriptions into reliable mathematical optimization formulations by letting separate teams of LLM agents each generate complete solutions and then reconcile differences through structured, outcome-focused debate. A read-write memory bank stores solver-verified models and resolutions of past disagreements so the system can draw on prior experience for new problems without any retraining. Experiments across public benchmarks show this combination yields the highest overall success rates compared with zero-shot LLMs, fine-tuned models, and earlier agent systems. The design is deliberately modular, so it can sit on top of different base models and existing pipelines.

Core claim

Agora-Opt lets multiple independent agent teams generate end-to-end optimization models from text, then reconciles them via an outcome-grounded decentralized debate protocol while a memory bank stores solver-verified artifacts and disagreement resolutions; this produces stronger benchmark performance than zero-shot LLMs, training-based methods, and prior agent baselines, and enables recovery of correct formulations even when every initial candidate is wrong.

What carries the argument

The decentralized debate protocol with outcome-grounded reconciliation together with the read-write memory bank inside the modular Agora-Opt agent framework.

If this is right

The framework works across different LLM backbones and transfers to new model families with little extra work.
Decentralized debate gives a measurable edge over simple centralized selection by allowing agents to correct one another through interaction.
Memory accumulation supports training-free gains on repeated or similar optimization tasks.
The system can be added to existing modeling pipelines with minimal changes to the rest of the workflow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same combination of multi-team debate and reusable memory might raise reliability in other structured generation tasks such as constraint programming or scheduling.
Over many problems the memory bank could gradually encode common modeling patterns that individual agents rarely discover on their own.
If the recovery effect holds, organizations could maintain a shared library of verified optimization templates rather than retraining models for each new domain.

Load-bearing premise

That structured debate between separate agent teams will reliably refine or recover correct optimization formulations even when every initial proposal contains errors, and that storing past verified solutions will produce genuine improvement on new problems without any model training.

What would settle it

A set of test problems in which all initial agent outputs are incorrect, the debate step still fails to produce a correct model, and adding the resulting memory entries produces no measurable gain on a fresh but similar problem set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25847 by Chenyu Zhou, Dongdong Ge, Jianghao Lin, Ruoqing Jiang, Tianyi Xu, Zi Ling, Zizhuo Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The illustration of three limitations in most existing methods: (a) base–LLM lock–in of view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of the Agora-Opt framework. (a) Overall framework. A natural language optimization problem is solved by two symmetric agent teams (Formulator–Programmer–Debugger) built on different backbone LLMs, which interact with a unified memory bank and feed their candidate solutions into a decentralized agentic debate. (b) Decentralized agentic debate. The two candidate solutions enter a debate: if they … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: An illustrative trace of Agora-Opt solving the Paint Mixing Problem via agentic view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Sankey diagrams of outcome transitions on view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The performance improvement w.r.t. the number of debate rounds. view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Optimization modeling underpins real-world decision-making in logistics, manufacturing, energy, and public services, but reliably solving such problems from natural-language requirements remains challenging for current large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we propose \emph{Agora-Opt}, a modular agentic framework for optimization modeling that combines decentralized debate with a read-write memory bank. Agora-Opt allows multiple agent teams to independently produce end-to-end solutions and reconcile them through an outcome-grounded debate protocol, while memory stores solver-verified artifacts and past disagreement resolutions to support training-free improvement over time. This design is flexible across both backbones and methods: it reduces base-model lock-in, transfers across different LLM families, and can be layered onto existing pipelines with minimal coupling. Across public benchmarks, Agora-Opt achieves the strongest overall performance among all compared methods, outperforming strong zero-shot LLMs, training-centric approaches, and prior agentic baselines. Further analyses show robust gains across backbone choices and component variants, and demonstrate that decentralized debate offers a structural advantage over centralized selection by enabling agents to refine candidate solutions through interaction and even recover correct formulations when all initial candidates are flawed. These results suggest that reliable optimization modeling benefits from combining collaborative cross-checking with reusable experience, and position Agora-Opt as a practical and extensible foundation for trustworthy optimization modeling assistance. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/CHIANGEL/Agora-Opt.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Agora-Opt pairs decentralized LLM-team debate with a solver-verified memory bank to turn text into optimization models, but the advertised recovery benefit from debate lacks a clear subset breakdown.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper gives us Agora-Opt, a setup where separate teams of LLM agents each write full optimization models from natural language, then run an outcome-grounded debate that uses solver results to reconcile differences, while a shared memory bank keeps track of past verified artifacts and fixes for later use. They report it beats zero-shot LLMs, fine-tuned models, and earlier agent baselines on public benchmarks, and they highlight that the debate step can sometimes recover a correct model even when every initial proposal was invalid.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Agora-Opt, a modular agentic framework for optimization modeling from natural-language specifications. It combines decentralized debate among multiple LLM agent teams (with an outcome-grounded protocol) and a read-write memory bank that stores solver-verified artifacts and past resolutions. The central claims are that this yields the strongest aggregate performance across public benchmarks (outperforming zero-shot LLMs, training-centric methods, and prior agentic baselines), reduces base-model lock-in, and that decentralized debate confers a structural advantage over centralized selection by enabling refinement and recovery of correct formulations even when every initial candidate is solver-invalid.

Significance. If the quantitative claims and the recovery mechanism are substantiated, the work would be significant for providing a training-free, extensible method to improve reliability in LLM-based optimization modeling. The modular design (layerable on existing pipelines, transferable across LLM families) and open code/data are strengths that support reproducibility and practical adoption in domains such as logistics and energy. The emphasis on collaborative cross-checking plus reusable experience addresses a recognized pain point in current LLM agents.

major comments (2)

[§5 (Experimental Results)] §5 (Experimental Results) and abstract: The headline claim that decentralized debate enables recovery of correct formulations even when all initial candidates are flawed is load-bearing for the asserted structural advantage over centralized selection. However, only aggregate accuracy and win-rate numbers are reported; there is no breakdown isolating the subset of instances where solver verification found all pre-debate proposals invalid, nor the post-debate success rate on that subset versus centralized-selection or no-debate controls. Without this isolation it is impossible to attribute gains specifically to the debate interaction rather than to the memory bank, additional agents, or base-model differences.
[§4 (Framework)] §4 (Framework) and §5: The outcome-grounded debate protocol is presented as the key mechanism, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative ablation on how disagreement resolution occurs (e.g., voting rules, solver feedback integration) or how the memory bank is queried/updated during debate. This makes it difficult to verify that the reported gains arise from the advertised interaction rather than from simply executing more LLM calls.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The statement 'robust gains across backbone choices and component variants' is not accompanied by the specific backbones, variants, or effect sizes; these details should be summarized with references to the corresponding tables or figures.
[§5] Throughout: Ensure every benchmark is named, every metric includes error bars or statistical tests, and all ablation controls (e.g., memory-only, debate-only) are explicitly tabulated so readers can reproduce the comparisons.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of Agora-Opt's potential significance, modularity, and reproducibility, as well as for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the experimental support for our claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§5 (Experimental Results)] §5 (Experimental Results) and abstract: The headline claim that decentralized debate enables recovery of correct formulations even when all initial candidates are flawed is load-bearing for the asserted structural advantage over centralized selection. However, only aggregate accuracy and win-rate numbers are reported; there is no breakdown isolating the subset of instances where solver verification found all pre-debate proposals invalid, nor the post-debate success rate on that subset versus centralized-selection or no-debate controls. Without this isolation it is impossible to attribute gains specifically to the debate interaction rather than to the memory bank, additional agents, or base-model differences.

Authors: We agree that isolating the subset of instances where all pre-debate proposals are solver-invalid, along with the corresponding post-debate recovery rates versus controls, is essential to substantiate the recovery mechanism and the structural advantage of decentralized debate. While the manuscript reports aggregate accuracy, win rates, and some component-variant analyses, it does not provide this specific breakdown. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that identifies this subset across benchmarks and reports the post-debate success rates under decentralized debate, centralized selection, and no-debate baselines. This will enable direct attribution of gains to the debate interaction. revision: yes
Referee: [§4 (Framework)] §4 (Framework) and §5: The outcome-grounded debate protocol is presented as the key mechanism, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative ablation on how disagreement resolution occurs (e.g., voting rules, solver feedback integration) or how the memory bank is queried/updated during debate. This makes it difficult to verify that the reported gains arise from the advertised interaction rather than from simply executing more LLM calls.

Authors: We acknowledge that quantitative ablations on disagreement resolution (voting rules, solver-feedback integration) and memory-bank query/update behavior during debate would improve verifiability and help rule out the alternative explanation of simply using more LLM calls. Section 4 describes the protocol and memory usage at a high level, but does not include the requested component-wise ablations. In the revision we will add new ablation experiments that vary voting rules, the timing and form of solver feedback, and memory-query strategies, while controlling for total LLM calls. These results will be reported in §5 to isolate the contribution of the interaction mechanisms. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical framework evaluation on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper introduces an agentic framework (Agora-Opt) combining decentralized debate and a memory bank for LLM-based optimization modeling. It reports aggregate performance on public benchmarks against zero-shot LLMs, training-centric methods, and prior agentic baselines. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations appear in the provided text. Claims about recovery when all initial candidates are flawed are presented as empirical observations from the framework's operation, not as quantities defined in terms of themselves or obtained by renaming prior results. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The work is a design-plus-benchmark comparison whose central assertions rest on external data rather than internal redefinition or self-referential fitting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond high-level framework components; standard assumptions about LLM capabilities for code generation are implicit but unstated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5586 in / 1118 out tokens · 38277 ms · 2026-05-07T15:42:52.288649+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

[1]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19633 , year =

Ali AhmadiTeshnizi, Wenzhi Gao, Herman Brunborg, Shayan Talaei, and Madeleine Udell. Optimus- 0.3: Using large language models to model and solve optimization problems at scale, 2024a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19633. Ali AhmadiTeshnizi, Wenzhi Gao, and Madeleine Udell. OptiMUS: Scalable Optimization Modeling with (MI)LP Solvers and Large Language Mo...

work page arXiv
[2]

Debatecoder: Towards collective intelligence of llms via test case driven llm debate for code generation

Jizheng Chen, Kounianhua Du, Xinyi Dai, Weiming Zhang, Xihuai Wang, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, Weinan Zhang, and Yong Yu. Debatecoder: Towards collective intelligence of llms via test case driven llm debate for code generation. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12055–1...

work page arXiv
[3]

21 Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al

URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2601.19924. 21 Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[4]

DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19437. Haoxuan Deng, Bohao Zheng, Yirui Jiang, and Trung Hieu Tran. Cafa: Coding as auto-formulation can boost large language models in solving linear programming problem. InThe 4th Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI at NeurIPS’24. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving ...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[5]

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

DayaGuo, DejianYang, HaoweiZhang, JunxiaoSong, RuoyuZhang, RunxinXu, QihaoZhu, ShirongMa, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[6]

AI safety via debate

Geoffrey Irving, Paul Christiano, and Dario Amodei. Ai safety via debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[7]

Llmopt: Learning to define and solve general optimization problems from scratch.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13213,

Caigao Jiang, Xiang Shu, Hong Qian, Xingyu Lu, Jun Zhou, AiminZhou, and Yang Yu. Llmopt: Learning to define and solve general optimization problems from scratch.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13213,

work page arXiv
[8]

AlphaOPT: Formulating optimization programs with self-improving LLM experience library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18428, 2025

Minwei Kong, Ao Qu, Xiaotong Guo, Wenbin Ouyang, Chonghe Jiang, Han Zheng, Yining Ma, Dingyi Zhuang, Yuhan Tang, Junyi Li, et al. Alphaopt: Formulating optimization programs with self- improving llm experience library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18428,

work page arXiv
[9]

Swe-debate: Competitive multi-agent debate for software issue resolution

Han Li, Yuling Shi, Shaoxin Lin, Xiaodong Gu, Heng Lian, Xin Wang, Yantao Jia, Tao Huang, and Qianxiang Wang. Swe-debate: Competitive multi-agent debate for software issue resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.23348,

work page arXiv
[10]

Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate

Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Yan Wang, Rui Wang, Yujiu Yang, Shuming Shi, and Zhaopeng Tu. Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate. InProceedings of the 2024 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 17889–17904,

2024
[11]

Breaking mental set to improve reason- ing through diverse multi-agent debate

Yexiang Liu, Jie Cao, Zekun Li, Ran He, and Tieniu Tan. Breaking mental set to improve reason- ing through diverse multi-agent debate. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025a. Yongjiang Liu, Haoxi Li, Xiaosong Ma, Jie Zhang, and Song Guo. Think how to think: Mitigat- ing overthinking with autonomous difficulty cognitio...

work page arXiv
[12]

Optmath: A scalable bidirectional data synthesis framework for optimization modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11102,

Hongliang Lu, Zhonglin Xie, Yaoyu Wu, Can Ren, Yuxuan Chen, and Zaiwen Wen. Optmath: A scalable bidirectional data synthesis framework for optimization modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11102,

work page arXiv
[13]

Ret-llm: Towards a general read-write memory for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14322, 2023

Ali Modarressi, Ayyoob Imani, Mohsen Fayyaz, and Hinrich Schütze. Ret-llm: Towards a general read- write memory for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14322,

work page arXiv
[14]

Augmenting operations research with auto-formulation of optimization models from problem descriptions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15565,

Rindranirina Ramamonjison, Haley Li, Timothy T Yu, Shiqi He, Vishnu Rengan, Amin Banitalebi- Dehkordi, Zirui Zhou, and Yong Zhang. Augmenting operations research with auto-formulation of optimization models from problem descriptions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15565,

work page arXiv
[15]

Nl4opt competition: Formulating optimization problems based on their natural language descriptions

Rindranirina Ramamonjison, Timothy Yu, Raymond Li, Haley Li, Giuseppe Carenini, Bissan Ghaddar, Shiqi He, Mahdi Mostajabdaveh, Amin Banitalebi-Dehkordi, Zirui Zhou, et al. Nl4opt competition: Formulating optimization problems based on their natural language descriptions. InNeurIPS 2022 competition track, pages 189–203. PMLR, 2023a. RindranirinaRamamonjiso...

work page arXiv 2022
[16]

Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligence

Kimi Team, Yifan Bai, Yiping Bao, Guanduo Chen, Jiahao Chen, Ningxin Chen, Ruijue Chen, Yanru Chen, Yuankun Chen, Yutian Chen, et al. Kimi k2: Open agentic intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20534,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[17]

Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models

Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[18]

MIRIX: Multi-Agent Memory System for LLM-Based Agents

Yu Wang and Xi Chen. Mirix: Multi-agent memory system for llm-based agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07957,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[19]

Ormind: A cognitive-inspired end-to-end reasoning framework for operations research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01326,

Zhiyuan Wang, Bokui Chen, Yinya Huang, Qingxing Cao, Ming He, Jianping Fan, and Xiaodan Liang. Ormind: A cognitive-inspired end-to-end reasoning framework for operations research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01326,

work page arXiv
[20]

Retrieval-augmented generation for natural language processing: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13193, 2024

Shangyu Wu, Ying Xiong, Yufei Cui, Haolun Wu, Can Chen, Ye Yuan, Lianming Huang, Xue Liu, Tei- Wei Kuo, Nan Guan, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for natural language processing: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13193,

work page arXiv
[21]

Step-opt: Boosting 24 optimization modeling in llms through iterative data synthesis and structured validation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17637,

Yang Wu, Yifan Zhang, Yurong Wu, Yuran Wang, Junkai Zhang, and Jian Cheng. Step-opt: Boosting 24 optimization modeling in llms through iterative data synthesis and structured validation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17637,

work page arXiv
[22]

A survey of optimization modeling meets llms: Progress and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10047,

Ziyang Xiao, Jingrong Xie, Lilin Xu, Shisi Guan, Jingyan Zhu, Xiongwei Han, Xiaojin Fu, WingYin Yu, Han Wu, Wei Shi, et al. A survey of optimization modeling meets llms: Progress and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10047,

work page arXiv
[23]

A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents

Wujiang Xu, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, Zujie Liang, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110,

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[24]

Qwen3 Technical Report

An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jing Zhou, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[25]

Zhicheng Yang, Yiwei Wang, Yinya Huang, Zhijiang Guo, Wei Shi, Xiongwei Han, Liang Feng, Linqi Song, Xiaodan Liang, and Jing Tang

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09887. Zhicheng Yang, Yiwei Wang, Yinya Huang, Zhijiang Guo, Wei Shi, Xiongwei Han, Liang Feng, Linqi Song, Xiaodan Liang, and Jing Tang. Optibench meets resocratic: Measure and improve llms for optimization modeling, 2025c. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09887. Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. Me...

work page arXiv
[26]

OBJECTIVE_VALUE:

Chenyu Zhou, Tianyi Xu, Jianghao Lin, and Dongdong Ge. Steporlm: A self-evolving framework with generative process supervision for operations research language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.22558, 2025a. Chenyu Zhou, Jingyuan Yang, Linwei Xin, Yitian Chen, Ziyan He, and Dongdong Ge. Auto-formulating 25 dynamic programming problems with large language m...

work page arXiv 2024