From LLM Suggestions to Lean Proofs: Verified Redundant Constraints for MiniZinc

LLM-Guided Evolutionary Search for Constraint Model Reformulation to Improve Solver Efficiency

Combinatorial problems appear in numerous industrial applications. A common approach is to formulate these problems as declarative constraint models that can subsequently be compiled to and solved by a range of back-end solvers. Recent work shows that Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce correct models from natural language, but even a correct model can be expensive to solve because performance remains sensitive to modelling choices. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs can automate performance-oriented model reformulation. Inspired by Automatic Heuristic Design (AHD), we use an evolutionary framework in which an LLM proposes candidate reformulations that are verified and benchmarked against the user-defined baseline model. We compare AHD-adapted search strategies that control which prior attempts, instructions, and measured feedback enter each prompt. Existing retention strategies prioritize recency or performance, but do not explicitly diversify the context. To cover this gap, we introduce Profile-Diverse Retention (PDR), which applies Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) to instance-level runtime vectors to retain behaviourally diverse attempts. We systematically evaluate the strategies on eight CSPLib problems using validation-based final model selection. The results show that: (i) iterative reformulation can produce substantial held-out speedups; (ii) strategies that keep the retained context diverse outperform those that retain only recent or the fastest attempts; and (iii) validation-based selection improves the held-out speedup of every strategy.

Improving Constraint Models with LLM Agents

This work introduces an agentic framework that reformulates a constraint model from an open-ended space and establishes correctness empirically rather than by construction, and demonstrates that autonomous agentic methods can support the improvement of constraint models.

Factoring Learned Clauses

LeanCSP: A Framework for Certifying Constraint Reformulation and Solving in Lean

Constraint programming is a core technology for solving complex combinatorial problems in scheduling, planning, configuration, and verification. Trusting its results therefore demands guarantees at two levels: that reformulations applied beforehand are semantics-preserving, and that solvers produce correct answers. In this work, we introduce a framework that addresses both verification levels in the Lean theorem prover: it can be used to prove formulation-level properties, such as equivalence, equisatisfiability, and the correctness of symmetry-breaking constraints, parametrically for entire problem families; and to check solver-produced certificates for individual instances via translation backends to external formats such as MiniZinc, SMT-LIB, and OPB. Combining both levels yields an end-to-end workflow that establishes the satisfiability or unsatisfiability of a constraint problem without trusting the external solver. Experimental results show that our framework's verified symmetry breaking also pays off in practice: a single parametric proof per problem family, reused across all instance sizes, reduces solver search effort by a factor of up to 2x10^7, while the entire in-Lean certification stays affordable, taking at most a few minutes for our largest instances.

Can LLMs Build a MaxSAT Solver from Papers? The CoreForge Experience

We report on CoreForge, an experience in using large language models (LLMs) to build an unweighted MaxSAT solver from research papers rather than from an existing solver codebase. The project focuses on unsatisfiability-based MaxSAT algorithms and follows an iterative workflow that combines paper discussions with ChatGPT, implementation through Codex prompts, and repeated LLM-assisted code audits and revisions. Although the codebase implements several algorithms and solver components, our evaluation focuses on configurations that combine core-guided optimization, lightweight preprocessing, core minimization, integration with integer linear optimization backends, and a new core-sequence lookahead approach. Our experience suggests that LLMs can support solver implementation from papers, while requiring external validation, benchmarking, and human guidance. In our experiments, fuzzing and MaxSAT Evaluation instances did not reveal wrong answers in the tested configurations, although performance remains below the best hand-engineered MaxSAT solvers. We summarize what worked, what remained difficult, and the lessons for future LLM-assisted solver development.

Beyond Core-Guided MaxSAT