Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools for numerical optimization. Despite promising results, their intrinsic optimization capabilities and limitations remain poorly understood, particularly in high dimensions. This paper investigates the ability of LLMs to exploit mathematical problem structures and generate feasible, near-optimal solutions. We develop an evaluation framework that distinguishes solution quality from execution failures, including numerical inaccuracies, constraint violations, and output-format errors. Using representative problems from convex optimization, fractional programming, and constrained projection, we assess LLM performance against deterministic reference solvers across different dimensions. Our results reveal that LLMs can capture useful optimization structures and produce near-optimal solutions, even when their outputs fail to satisfy numerical or formatting requirements. However, reliability deteriorates with increasing problem dimension and depends strongly on the underlying optimization structure. To further investigate the limitations, we deploy an iterative refinement mechanism that provides targeted feedback on feasibility and solution quality. The results demonstrate that iterative refinement substantially improves reliability and extends the range of problem dimensions over which LLMs produce valid solutions. Nevertheless, persistent numerical and structural errors limit their applicability as standalone optimizers. These findings provide insights into the capacity and limits of LLM-based optimization and motivate hybrid approaches that combine LLM reasoning with deterministic numerical verification.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.37932
