Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.12529

Fix What's Wrong, Keep What's Right: Hallucination Repair for LLM-Based Optimization Modeling

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored to automate operations research modeling, reduce modeling time and lower the expertise barrier to optimization based decision support. However, this process often introduces inconsistencies between generated artifacts and the original problem, which we refer to as optimization modeling hallucinations. Despite progress in general-purpose hallucination mitigation, optimization modeling poses a distinct repair challenge: restoring fidelity to the original problem through coordinated model-code updates. We introduce OPT-Kraken, a training-free hallucination repair framework. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first post-hoc framework for repairing hallucinations in LLM-based optimization modeling artifacts. It extracts problem requirements and instance data, localizes errors by checking problem-model fidelity, model-code consistency, and data grounding, and selects repair granularity by the affected scope. For local repair, category rules and instance evidence are compiled into contracts specifying permitted edits, expected effects, and protected content. Experiments on established optimization modeling benchmarks show positive gains across automatic modeling frameworks and fine-tuned models. On zero-shot artifacts from multiple base models, OPT-Kraken effectively repairs optimization modeling hallucinations while preserving initially correct artifacts. These results demonstrate effective and controlled repair for LLM-based optimization modeling artifacts.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jiageng Wu, Chao Shen, Zihan Guo, Junyan Shao, Zongyan Zhang, Jie Song, Zhong Li, Mingyang Sun. 2026-10-08. Fix What's Wrong, Keep What's Right: Hallucination Repair for LLM-Based Optimization Modeling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12529

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CodeArena: A Collective Evaluation Platform for LLM Code Generation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have reshaped code generation by synergizing their exceptional comprehension of natural language and programming syntax, thereby substantially boosting developer productivity. These advancements have prompted numerous efforts to quantitatively evaluate their coding capabilities. However, persistent challenges, such as benchmark leakage, data dissipation, and limited system accessibility, continue to impede a timely and accurate assessment. To address these limitations, we introduce CodeArena, an online evaluation framework tailored for LLM code generation. The key innovation is a collective evaluation mechanism, which dynamically recalibrates individual model scores based on the holistic performance of all participating models, mitigating score biases caused by widespread benchmark leakage. In addition, CodeArena ensures open access to all submitted solutions and test cases and provides automation-friendly APIs to streamline the code evaluation workflow. Our main contributions are: (1) a collective evaluation system for unbiased assessment, (2) a public repository of solutions and test cases, and (3) automation-ready APIs for seamless integration.

cs.SE↗

Towards Functional Correctness of Code Models with Selective Generation

The hallucination of code generation models hinders their applicability to systems requiring higher safety standards. One critical bottleneck in addressing code hallucination is the difficulty of identifying the functional correctness of generated code, due to its unnatural form. We address this core bottleneck by automatically generating unit tests using dynamic code analysis tools, leveraging the \emph{executable nature} of code. Accordingly, we propose a \emph{selective code generator} that abstains from uncertain generations -- based on the functional correctness evaluated by generated unit tests -- to theoretically control the correctness among non-abstained answers, \ie the false discovery rate. Finally, we propose to use generated unit tests in evaluation as well as in learning for precise code evaluation, calling this paradigm \emph{FuzzEval}. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method along with the controllability of code hallucination and reasonable selection efficiency.

cs.SE↗

Red Teaming Program Repair Agents: When Correct Patches can Hide Vulnerabilities

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed for software maintenance tasks such as automated program repair (APR). APR agents automatically fetch GitHub issues and use backend LLMs to generate patches that fix the reported bugs. However, existing work primarily focuses on the functional correctness of APR-generated patches, whether they pass hidden or regression tests, while largely ignoring potential security risks. Given the openness of platforms like GitHub, where any user can raise issues and participate in discussions, an important question arises: Can an adversarial user submit a valid issue on GitHub that misleads an LLM-based agent into generating a functionally correct but vulnerable patch? To answer this question, we propose SWExploit, which generates adversarial issue statements designed to make APR agents produce patches that are functionally correct yet vulnerable. SWExploit operates in three main steps: (1) program analysis to identify potential injection points for vulnerable payloads; (2) adversarial issue generation to provide misleading reproduction and error information while preserving the original issue semantics; and (3) iterative refinement of the adversarial issue statements based on the outputs of the APR agents. Empirical evaluation on three agent pipelines and five backend LLMs shows that SWExploit can produce patches that are both functionally correct and vulnerable (the attack success rate on the correct patch could reach 0.91, whereas the baseline ASRs are all below 0.20). Based on our evaluation, we are the first to challenge the traditional assumption that a patch passing all tests is inherently reliable and secure, highlighting critical limitations in the current evaluation paradigm for APR agents.

cs.SE↗