|
|
---
|
|
|
language:
|
|
|
- en
|
|
|
license: cc-by-4.0
|
|
|
size_categories:
|
|
|
- n<1K
|
|
|
task_categories:
|
|
|
- text-generation
|
|
|
tags:
|
|
|
- optimization
|
|
|
- operations-research
|
|
|
- supply-chain
|
|
|
- retail
|
|
|
- milp
|
|
|
- code-generation
|
|
|
- benchmark
|
|
|
pretty_name: RetailOpt-190
|
|
|
dataset_info:
|
|
|
features:
|
|
|
- name: scenario_id
|
|
|
dtype: string
|
|
|
- name: prompt_schema
|
|
|
dtype: string
|
|
|
- name: prompt_full
|
|
|
dtype: string
|
|
|
- name: data
|
|
|
dtype: string
|
|
|
- name: reference_status
|
|
|
dtype: string
|
|
|
- name: reference_objective
|
|
|
dtype: float64
|
|
|
splits:
|
|
|
- name: test
|
|
|
num_examples: 190
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
# RetailOpt-190: A Retail Supply Chain Benchmark for Text-to-Optimization
|
|
|
|
|
|
**RetailOpt-190** is a solver-validated benchmark for evaluating semantic reliability in text-to-optimization. It tests whether LLM-based agents can reconstruct the intended optimization structure—not just produce runnable code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Dataset Description
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Repository:** [https://github.com/Jacoblian/RetailOpt-190](https://github.com/Jacoblian/RetailOpt-190)
|
|
|
- **Paper:** ReLoop: Detecting Silent Failures in LLM-Generated Optimization Code via Behavioral Verification
|
|
|
- **Point of Contact:** Junbo Jacob Lian
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Dataset Summary
|
|
|
|
|
|
RetailOpt-190 contains 190 retail supply chain optimization instances designed to test compositional consistency in LLM-generated optimization code. Each instance includes a natural-language problem description, structured JSON data, and ground truth solutions from a validated MILP solver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The benchmark spans 8 scenario families and 38 archetypes covering core retail planning mechanisms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Family | Name | Archetypes | Key Mechanisms |
|
|
|
|--------|------|------------|----------------|
|
|
|
| F1 | Core Operations | 4 | Multi-period inventory, seasonal demand, perishability |
|
|
|
| F2 | Assortment & Substitution | 6 | Product substitution, promotions, ultra-short shelf life |
|
|
|
| F3 | Resource Constraints | 4 | Storage bottleneck, supply bottleneck, volumetric limits |
|
|
|
| F4 | Demand Dynamics | 6 | Demand surge, supply risk, peak failure |
|
|
|
| F5 | Feasibility Stress | 4 | Impossible demand, storage overflow, strict service traps |
|
|
|
| F6 | Discrete Logistics | 4 | Lead time, MOQ, pack size, fixed order cost |
|
|
|
| F7 | Network & Multi-Echelon | 6 | Transshipment, hub-spoke, multi-sourcing |
|
|
|
| F8 | Omni-channel | 4 | Reverse logistics, labor constraints, sustainability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Languages
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Two Prompt Formats
|
|
|
|
|
|
RetailOpt-190 provides **two prompt formats** for different evaluation scenarios:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Format | Field | Data Location | Use Case |
|
|
|
|--------|-------|---------------|----------|
|
|
|
| **Schema-based** | `prompt_schema` | External (runtime) | Large datasets, tests data access patterns |
|
|
|
| **Data-embedded** | `prompt_full` | In prompt | Direct comparison with other benchmarks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Why Two Formats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most existing benchmarks (NL4Opt, MAMO, IndustryOR) embed data directly in prompts. RetailOpt-190 supports both approaches to enable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. **Fair comparison**: Use `prompt_full` when comparing with other benchmarks in unified evaluation frameworks
|
|
|
2. **Scalability**: Use `prompt_schema` for production scenarios with large datasets
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both formats provide the **same semantic information**—only the data delivery method differs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Dataset Structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Data Fields
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Field | Type | Description |
|
|
|
|-------|------|-------------|
|
|
|
| `scenario_id` | string | Unique scenario identifier (e.g., `retail_f1_base_v0`) |
|
|
|
| `prompt_schema` | string | Schema-based prompt (data loaded at runtime via `data` variable) |
|
|
|
| `prompt_full` | string | Data-embedded prompt (full JSON data in prompt) |
|
|
|
| `data` | string | JSON-formatted instance data (parse with `json.loads()`) |
|
|
|
| `reference_status` | string | Ground truth solver status (`OPTIMAL`, `INFEASIBLE`, etc.) |
|
|
|
| `reference_objective` | float | Ground truth objective value (null if infeasible) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Data Splits
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Split | Examples |
|
|
|
|-------|----------|
|
|
|
| test | 190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Usage
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Loading the Dataset
|
|
|
|
|
|
```python
|
|
|
from datasets import load_dataset
|
|
|
import json
|
|
|
|
|
|
dataset = load_dataset("Jacoblian/RetailOpt-190", split="test")
|
|
|
sample = dataset[0]
|
|
|
|
|
|
print(sample['scenario_id']) # e.g., "retail_f1_base_v0"
|
|
|
print(sample['prompt_schema'][:200]) # Schema-based prompt
|
|
|
print(sample['prompt_full'][:200]) # Data-embedded prompt
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Option A: Schema-based Evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use `prompt_schema` when you need external data loading (matches production scenarios):
|
|
|
|
|
|
```python
|
|
|
from datasets import load_dataset
|
|
|
import json
|
|
|
|
|
|
dataset = load_dataset("Jacoblian/RetailOpt-190", split="test")
|
|
|
|
|
|
for sample in dataset:
|
|
|
prompt = sample['prompt_schema']
|
|
|
data = json.loads(sample['data'])
|
|
|
|
|
|
generated_code = your_llm(prompt)
|
|
|
exec(generated_code, {'data': data}) # Data pre-loaded
|
|
|
|
|
|
print(f"Reference: {sample['reference_status']}, {sample['reference_objective']}")
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Option B: Data-embedded Evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use `prompt_full` for direct text-to-solution evaluation (compatible with other benchmarks):
|
|
|
|
|
|
```python
|
|
|
from datasets import load_dataset
|
|
|
|
|
|
dataset = load_dataset("Jacoblian/RetailOpt-190", split="test")
|
|
|
|
|
|
for sample in dataset:
|
|
|
prompt = sample['prompt_full'] # Data is already in prompt
|
|
|
|
|
|
generated_code = your_llm(prompt)
|
|
|
exec(generated_code) # Code parses JSON from prompt itself
|
|
|
|
|
|
print(f"Reference: {sample['reference_status']}, {sample['reference_objective']}")
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Evaluation Metrics
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Execution Rate**: Percentage of instances that run without error
|
|
|
- **Accuracy**: Percentage matching ground truth (status + objective within tolerance)
|
|
|
- **Silent Failure Rate**: Executable code with incorrect answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Accuracy Tolerances
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Family | Problem Type | Tolerance |
|
|
|
|--------|--------------|-----------|
|
|
|
| F1-F5, F7-F8 | LP / easy MIP | 0.01% |
|
|
|
| F6 | Hard MIP (MOQ, pack-size) | 10% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Dataset Creation
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Source Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
All instances are synthetically generated from 38 archetype specifications. Each archetype is instantiated with 5 numerical variants (v0-v4) via controlled parameter perturbations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Annotations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ground truth solutions are computed using a validated MILP solver (Gurobi) with the following settings:
|
|
|
- TimeLimit: 60 seconds
|
|
|
- MIPGap: 1%
|
|
|
- Threads: 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Additional Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Citation
|
|
|
|
|
|
```bibtex
|
|
|
@article{lian2026reloop,
|
|
|
author = {Junbo Jacob Lian and Yujun Sun and Huiling Chen and Chaoyu Zhang and Chung-Piaw Teo},
|
|
|
title = {ReLoop: Detecting Silent Failures in LLM-Generated Optimization Code via Behavioral Verification},
|
|
|
journal = {arXiv preprint},
|
|
|
year = {2026}
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
### License
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Code**: MIT
|
|
|
- **Data**: CC BY 4.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Related Resources
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **ReLoop Framework**: [https://github.com/junbolian/ReLoop](https://github.com/junbolian/ReLoop) - Complete implementation of the ReLoop verification pipeline
|
|
|
|