Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

TriVAL adds explicit validation at semantic, mathematical, and code stages to stop errors from propagating in LLM-based optimization modeling.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 21:58 UTC pith:5LMQKZSD

load-bearing objection TriVAL adds three-stage validation loops and the NL4COP benchmark to LLM optimization modeling, but the abstract supplies no numbers or implementation details, leaving the consistency of revisions untested. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.23966 v1 pith:5LMQKZSD submitted 2026-05-12 cs.CL cs.AIcs.SYeess.SYmath.CO

TriVAL: A Tri-Validation Framework for Faithful Automatic Optimization Modeling

Ziyang Fang , JinXi Wang , Jinghui Zhong , Yew-Soon Ong This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.SYeess.SYmath.CO
keywords automatic optimization modelinglarge language modelstri-validation frameworkconstruct-validate-revise loopNL4COP benchmarkcombinatorial optimizationerror propagationfaithful modeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces TriVAL to fix the problem that existing LLM methods for turning natural-language descriptions into optimization models allow early mistakes to reach the final solver input. It applies a construct-validate-revise loop at each of three stages—semantic specification, mathematical formulation, and code generation—using stage-specific checks to catch and correct issues before they compound. The authors also release NL4COP, a new benchmark of 150 instances across 50 problem types chosen for tighter constraints and more complex logic than prior test sets. Experiments on NL4COP and older benchmarks show consistent gains over prior methods, with the biggest improvements on the hardest instances.

Core claim

TriVAL is a tri-validation framework that performs explicit validation at three stages of automatic optimization modeling: semantic specification, mathematical formulation, and code generation. At each stage it follows a construct-validate-revise loop that assesses the current output against stage-specific criteria and revises it when needed, thereby identifying and correcting errors before they accumulate across stages and preserving faithfulness throughout the modeling process.

What carries the argument

Tri-validation framework using construct-validate-revise loops applied independently at the semantic-specification, mathematical-formulation, and code-generation stages.

Load-bearing premise

The construct-validate-revise loops at each stage can reliably detect and correct errors using only the stage-specific criteria and LLM revision without introducing new inconsistencies that propagate downstream.

What would settle it

A direct comparison on the NL4COP benchmark in which the final solver-ready models produced by TriVAL show the same or higher rate of semantic or formulation errors than single-pass baselines on the same problem instances.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Errors introduced at any one stage are corrected before reaching later stages, reducing the chance that an incorrect model reaches the solver.
  • Accuracy gains appear on both the new NL4COP benchmark and on established benchmarks, with the largest improvements on problems that have more complex decision logic and tightly coupled constraints.
  • The three-stage structure provides a systematic way to maintain faithfulness when LLMs translate natural-language problem statements into executable optimization code.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same staged-validation pattern could be applied to other multi-step LLM pipelines that generate formal artifacts from text, such as constraint programming or simulation model creation.
  • If the validation criteria at each stage are made public, they could serve as reusable checklists for human modelers working on similar problems.
  • The introduction of NL4COP implies that future automatic-modeling systems should be evaluated on instances whose constraint coupling and decision complexity exceed those of current public benchmarks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TriVAL, a framework for automatic optimization modeling from natural-language descriptions that applies explicit construct-validate-revise loops at three stages—semantic specification, mathematical formulation, and code generation—using stage-specific criteria to detect and correct errors before they propagate. It also presents NL4COP, a benchmark of 150 instances across 50 combinatorial problem types designed to be more challenging than prior benchmarks. Experiments on NL4COP and existing benchmarks are reported to show that TriVAL outperforms state-of-the-art methods, with the largest gains on the most difficult instances.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust and attributable to the tri-validation design, the work would be a useful engineering contribution to LLM-based optimization modeling pipelines. The introduction of NL4COP addresses a clear gap in benchmark difficulty. The structured validation approach is a practical idea that could improve reliability, though its value hinges on whether the LLM-driven revisions reliably preserve consistency across stages without formal verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (TriVAL Framework description): The construct-validate-revise loops are defined using only stage-specific criteria (semantic, mathematical, code) with no cross-stage consistency checks or formal verification mentioned. This is load-bearing for the central faithfulness claim, because a revision at the formulation stage could alter variable definitions or constraints in ways that violate the semantic specification yet still pass local code validation, especially on the tightly coupled NL4COP instances where largest gains are claimed.
  2. [Experiments] Experiments section (and abstract): The claim of consistent outperformance with largest gains on challenging problems is presented without reported quantitative metrics, error analysis, ablation studies isolating the contribution of each validation stage, or details on how the stage-specific criteria are implemented and measured. This prevents verification that the tri-validation mechanism is responsible for the gains rather than other factors.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Typo in 'state-ofthe-art' should be 'state-of-the-art'.
  2. [§3] The paper should clarify the exact prompting strategies and decision thresholds used in the validate and revise steps for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation for major revision. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the faithfulness claims and experimental rigor. We respond point-by-point below and will incorporate the suggested changes in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (TriVAL Framework description): The construct-validate-revise loops are defined using only stage-specific criteria (semantic, mathematical, code) with no cross-stage consistency checks or formal verification mentioned. This is load-bearing for the central faithfulness claim, because a revision at the formulation stage could alter variable definitions or constraints in ways that violate the semantic specification yet still pass local code validation, especially on the tightly coupled NL4COP instances where largest gains are claimed.

    Authors: We agree that the current §3 description relies on stage-specific criteria without explicit cross-stage checks, which leaves open the possibility of inconsistencies introduced during revision. While the sequential pipeline is intended to mitigate error propagation, this is a valid concern for the faithfulness claim on challenging instances. In the revision we will add a new paragraph in §3 that introduces an explicit cross-stage consistency check: after each revision, the updated artifact is compared against the semantic specification (via LLM-assisted alignment of variables, constraints, and objectives) and any detected violations trigger further revision. We will also report the frequency of such cross-stage revisions on NL4COP. This addition directly addresses the load-bearing issue while remaining within the LLM-driven paradigm; formal verification remains outside the paper's scope. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments section (and abstract): The claim of consistent outperformance with largest gains on challenging problems is presented without reported quantitative metrics, error analysis, ablation studies isolating the contribution of each validation stage, or details on how the stage-specific criteria are implemented and measured. This prevents verification that the tri-validation mechanism is responsible for the gains rather than other factors.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current experimental reporting is insufficient to isolate the contribution of tri-validation. The manuscript presents aggregate outperformance but omits the requested details. In the revised version we will expand the Experiments section (and update the abstract accordingly) with: (i) quantitative metrics including per-stage accuracy, overall success rates with 95% confidence intervals, and statistical significance tests; (ii) a categorized error analysis of failure modes across stages; (iii) ablation studies that successively disable each validation stage to quantify incremental gains; and (iv) implementation details including the exact stage-specific criteria, prompt templates, and measurement rubrics. These additions will enable verification that the reported gains, especially on NL4COP, are attributable to the tri-validation design. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical framework with no derivation or fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper presents TriVAL as an engineering framework of three construct-validate-revise loops evaluated empirically on NL4COP and other benchmarks. No equations, parameters, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked as load-bearing premises for any claimed derivation. The performance claims rest on experimental results rather than any reduction to the framework's own inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation for non-derivational papers and the reader's assessment of score 2.0 with no equations or fitted parameters.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the untested premise that LLMs can perform reliable stage-specific validation and revision. No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced; the main addition is the TriVAL procedure itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption LLMs can assess outputs against stage-specific criteria and produce useful revisions when errors are detected.
    Invoked implicitly in the construct-validate-revise loop description; no evidence or prior citation is given in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • TriVAL framework no independent evidence
    purpose: To enforce faithfulness by inserting explicit validation at semantic, formulation, and code stages.
    New procedure introduced by the paper; no independent evidence outside the claimed experiments.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5773 in / 1365 out tokens · 22563 ms · 2026-06-30T21:58:01.361796+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Optimization modeling serves as the pivotal bridge between natural-language problem descriptions and optimization solvers, and remains a cornerstone for bringing operations research (OR) into real-world decision making. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have driven significant progress in automatic optimization modeling. However, existing methods still lack explicit validation during the modeling process, allowing errors introduced in earlier stages to carry through the pipeline and ultimately reduce final modeling accuracy. To address this challenge, we introduce TriVAL, a tri-validation framework that performs explicit validation at three stages of automatic optimization modeling: semantic specification, mathematical formulation, and code generation. At each stage, TriVAL follows a construct-validate-revise loop that assesses the current result against stage-specific criteria and revises it when needed. This design helps identify and correct errors before they accumulate across stages, helping preserve faithfulness throughout the modeling process. To evaluate automatic optimization modeling on more challenging combinatorial problems, we further introduce NL4COP, a benchmark of 150 instances across 50 diverse problem types with more complex decision logic, more tightly coupled constraints, and more demanding modeling requirements than existing benchmarks. Experiments on NL4COP and established benchmarks show that TriVAL consistently outperforms state-ofthe-art methods, with the largest gains on the most challenging problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23966 by Jinghui Zhong, JinXi Wang, Yew-Soon Ong, Ziyang Fang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of TriVAL. The framework organizes automatic optimization modeling around three validation gates for the semantic specification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Semantic validation targets the semantic specification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Formulation validation targets the mathematical formulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Code validation targets the generated code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of modeling complexity across benchmarks. NL4COP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solving accuracy versus benchmark complexity under DeepSeek-V3.2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Case study: formulation-side validation identifies an incorrect capacity constraint in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Falsification-Based Verification of LLM-Generated Optimization Models: Sound Test Batteries and Their Detection Limits

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0

    A sound, threshold-free battery of optimization-theoretic tests can catch unfaithful LLM-generated MILP models while never flagging faithful ones, and provably cannot catch certain error classes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Optimization of supply chain networks with inclusion of labor: Applications to covid-19 pandemic disruptions,

    A. Nagurney, “Optimization of supply chain networks with inclusion of labor: Applications to covid-19 pandemic disruptions,”International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 235, p. 108080, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Learning to solve large-scale security-constrained unit commitment problems,

    ´A. S. Xavier, F. Qiu, and S. Ahmed, “Learning to solve large-scale security-constrained unit commitment problems,”INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 739–756, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    The two-echelon production-routing problem,

    C. M. Schenekemberg, C. T. Scarpin, J. E. Pecora Jr, T. A. Guimar ˜aes, and L. C. Coelho, “The two-echelon production-routing problem,” European journal of operational research, vol. 288, no. 2, pp. 436–449, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    H. P. Williams,Model building in mathematical programming, 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    A survey of optimization modeling meets llms: progress and future directions,

    Z. Xiaoet al., “A survey of optimization modeling meets llms: progress and future directions,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ser. IJCAI ’25, 2025. 13

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Large language models in operations research: Methods, applications, and challenges,

    Y . Wang and K. Li, “Large language models in operations research: Methods, applications, and challenges,” 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    LLMOPT: Learning to define and solve general optimization problems from scratch,

    C. JIANGet al., “LLMOPT: Learning to define and solve general optimization problems from scratch,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Autoformulation of mathematical optimization models using llms,

    N. Astorga, T. Liu, Y . Xiao, and M. Van Der Schaar, “Autoformulation of mathematical optimization models using llms,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2025, pp. 1864–1886

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Optimization modeling and verification from problem specifications using a multi-agent multi-stage llm framework,

    M. Mostajabdaveh, T. T. Yu, R. Ramamonjison, G. Carenini, Z. Zhou, and Y . Zhang, “Optimization modeling and verification from problem specifications using a multi-agent multi-stage llm framework,”INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 599– 617, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Enhancing decision making through the integra- tion of large language models and operations research optimization,

    S. Wasserkruget al., “Enhancing decision making through the integra- tion of large language models and operations research optimization,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 27, 2025, pp. 28 643–28 650

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Orlm: A customizable framework in training large models for automated optimization modeling,

    C. Huanget al., “Orlm: A customizable framework in training large models for automated optimization modeling,”Operations Research, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 2986–3009, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Optmath: A scalable bidirectional data synthesis framework for optimization modeling,

    H. Lu, Z. Xie, Y . Wu, C. Ren, Y . Chen, and Z. Wen, “Optmath: A scalable bidirectional data synthesis framework for optimization modeling,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2025, pp. 40 769–40 802

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Solver-informed RL: Grounding large language models for authentic optimization modeling,

    Y . Chen, J. Xia, S. Shao, D. Ge, and Y . Ye, “Solver-informed RL: Grounding large language models for authentic optimization modeling,” inThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Tdag: A multi-agent framework based on dynamic task decomposition and agent generation,

    Y . Wang, Z. Wu, J. Yao, and J. Su, “Tdag: A multi-agent framework based on dynamic task decomposition and agent generation,”Neural Networks, vol. 185, p. 107200, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Chain-of-experts: When LLMs meet complex opera- tions research problems,

    Z. Xiaoet al., “Chain-of-experts: When LLMs meet complex opera- tions research problems,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Optimai: Optimization from natural language using llm-powered ai agents,

    R. Thind, Y . Sun, L. Liang, and H. Yang, “Optimai: Optimization from natural language using llm-powered ai agents,” 2026

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    Or-llm-agent: Automating modeling and solving of operations research optimization problems with reasoning llm,

    B. Zhang, P. Luo, G. Yang, B.-H. Soong, and C. Yuen, “Or-llm-agent: Automating modeling and solving of operations research optimization problems with reasoning llm,” 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, “CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,”J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 17, no. 83, pp. 1–5, Jan. 2016

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Accessed: Mar

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC,Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, 2025, version 13.0. Accessed: Mar. 2, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://docs.gurobi.com/projects/optimizer/en/current/

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Perron and V

    L. Perron and V . Furnon,OR-Tools, Google, 2024, version 9.10, released May 7, 2024. Accessed: Mar. 2, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://developers.google.com/optimization/

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Optibench meets resocratic: Measure and improve LLMs for optimization modeling,

    Z. Yanget al., “Optibench meets resocratic: Measure and improve LLMs for optimization modeling,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Optimind: Teaching llms to think like optimization experts,

    X. Zhanget al., “Optimind: Teaching llms to think like optimization experts,” 2026

    work page 2026

  23. [23]

    Holy grail 2.0: From natural language to constraint models,

    D. Tsouros, H. Verhaeghe, S. Kadıo ˘glu, and T. Guns, “Holy grail 2.0: From natural language to constraint models,” 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Optimus: Scalable opti- mization modeling with (mi) lp solvers and large language models,

    A. Ahmaditeshnizi, W. Gao, and M. Udell, “Optimus: Scalable opti- mization modeling with (mi) lp solvers and large language models,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2024, pp. 577–596

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Optitree: Hierarchical thoughts generation with tree search for LLM optimization modeling,

    H. Liu, J. Wang, Y . Cai, X. Han, Y . Kuang, and J. HAO, “Optitree: Hierarchical thoughts generation with tree search for LLM optimization modeling,” inThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Constraint Modelling with LLMs Using In-Context Learning,

    K. Michailidis, D. Tsouros, and T. Guns, “Constraint Modelling with LLMs Using In-Context Learning,” in30th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2024), ser. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), P. Shaw, Ed., vol. 307. Dagstuhl, Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum f ¨ur Informatik, ...

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Sac-opt: Semantic anchors for iterative correction in optimization modeling,

    Y . Zhanget al., “Sac-opt: Semantic anchors for iterative correction in optimization modeling,” 2026

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback,

    A. Madaanet al., “Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. Oh, T. Nau- mann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, Eds., vol. 36. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023, pp. 46 534–46 594

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Let’s verify step by step,

    H. Lightmanet al., “Let’s verify step by step,” inThe Twelfth Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Teaching large language models to self-debug,

    X. Chen, M. Lin, N. Sch ¨arli, and D. Zhou, “Teaching large language models to self-debug,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    CRITIC: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing,

    Z. Gouet al., “CRITIC: Large language models can self-correct with tool-interactive critiquing,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    From flat logs to causal graphs: Hierarchical failure attribution for llm-based multi-agent sys- tems,

    Y . Wang, W. Wu, J. Wang, and Q. Wang, “From flat logs to causal graphs: Hierarchical failure attribution for llm-based multi-agent sys- tems,” 2026

    work page 2026

  33. [33]

    Optiver: Unleashing the power of LLMs for optimization modeling via dual-side verification,

    H. Liuet al., “Optiver: Unleashing the power of LLMs for optimization modeling via dual-side verification,” 2026

    work page 2026

  34. [34]

    An agent-based frame- work for the automatic validation of mathematical optimization models,

    A. Zadorojniy, S. Wasserkrug, and E. Farchi, “An agent-based frame- work for the automatic validation of mathematical optimization models,” 2026

    work page 2026

  35. [35]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

    S. Yaoet al., “React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,” inThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Code repair with llms gives an exploration-exploitation tradeoff,

    H. Tanget al., “Code repair with llms gives an exploration-exploitation tradeoff,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 117 954–117 996, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Cp-bench: Evaluating large language models for constraint modelling,

    K. Michailidis, D. Tsouros, and T. Guns, “Cp-bench: Evaluating large language models for constraint modelling,” 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Hard constraints meet soft generation: Guaranteed feasibility for llm-based combinatorial optimization,

    Y . Liu, C. Zhou, Y . Chen, S. Zhang, X. Lin, and X. Wang, “Hard constraints meet soft generation: Guaranteed feasibility for llm-based combinatorial optimization,” 2026

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

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

    R. Ramamonjisonet al., “Nl4opt competition: Formulating optimization problems based on their natural language descriptions,” inNeurIPS 2022 competition track. PMLR, 2023, pp. 189–203

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Llms for mathe- matical modeling: Towards bridging the gap between natural and math- ematical languages,

    X. Huang, Q. Shen, Y . Hu, A. Gao, and B. Wang, “Llms for mathe- matical modeling: Towards bridging the gap between natural and math- ematical languages,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, 2025, pp. 2678–2710

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Deepseek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models,

    DeepSeek-AIet al., “Deepseek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models,” 2025

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT,

    OpenAI, “GPT-5.1: A smarter, more conversational ChatGPT,” OpenAI Official Website, Nov. 2025, accessed: Mar. 2, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-1/

    work page 2025