arXiv:2603.29871v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In user-agent interaction scenarios such as recommendation, brainstorming, and code suggestion, Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate sets of candidate recommendations where the objective is to maximize the collective utility of the entire set rather than individual candidates independently. However, existing reinforcement learning post-training paradigms, such as Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), typically assign the same set-level scalar reward to every candidate in the set. This leads to noisy training signals where poor candidates free-ride on the high reward produced by a single strong peer, resulting in suboptimal exploration. To address this, we propose Shapley-Enhanced GRPO (ShapE-GRPO). By leveraging the permutation-invariant nature of set-level utility, we derive a Shapley-enhanced formulation from cooperative game theory to decompose set-level rewards into granular, candidate-specific signals. We show that our formulation preserves the fundamental axioms of the Shapley value while remaining computationally efficient with polynomial-time complexity. Empirically, ShapE-GRPO consistently outperforms standard GRPO across diverse datasets with accelerated convergence during training.

arXiv:2602.19439v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Problem Definition. Supply chain optimization models frequently become infeasible because of modeling errors. Diagnosis and repair require scarce OR expertise: analysts must interpret solver diagnostics, trace root causes across echelons, and fix formulations without sacrificing operational soundness. Whether AI agents can perform this task remains untested. Methodology/Results. OptiRepair splits this task into a domain-agnostic feasibility phase (iterative IIS-guided repair of any LP) and a domain-specific validation phase (five rationality checks grounded in inventory theory). We test 22 API models from 7 families on 976 multi-echelon supply chain problems and train two 8B-parameter models using self-taught reasoning with solver-verified rewards. The trained models reach 81.7% Rational Recovery Rate (RRR) -- the fraction of problems resolved to both feasibility and operational rationality -- versus 42.2% for the best API model and 21.3% on average. The gap concentrates in Phase 1 repair: API models average 27.6% recovery rate versus 97.2% for trained models. Managerial Implications. Two gaps separate current AI from reliable model repair: solver interaction (API models restore only 27.6% of infeasible formulations) and operational rationale (roughly one in four feasible repairs violate supply chain theory). Each requires a different intervention: solver interaction responds to targeted training; operational rationale requires explicit specification as solver-verifiable checks. For organizations adopting AI in operational planning, formalizing what "rational" means in their context is the higher-return investment.