Large Language Models for Mathematical Analysis

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2501.00059
• Title: Large Language Models for Mathematical Analysis
• Authors: Ziye Chen (Boston University), Hao Qi (Boston University)
• Classification: cs.CL cs.AI
• Publication Date: December 28, 2024
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00059

Abstract

Mathematical problem-solving is a key field in artificial intelligence (AI) and a critical benchmark for evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). While extensive research has focused on mathematical problem-solving, most existing work and datasets concentrate on computational tasks, leaving gaps in areas like mathematical analysis, which demands rigorous proofs and formal reasoning. We developed the DEMI-MathAnalysis dataset, comprising proof-based problems from mathematical analysis topics such as Sequences and Limits, Infinite Series, and Convex Functions. We also designed a guiding framework to rigorously enhance LLMs' ability to solve these problems. Through fine-tuning LLMs on this dataset and employing our framework, we observed significant improvements in their capability to generate logical, complete, and elegant proofs. This work addresses critical gaps in mathematical reasoning and contributes to advancing trustworthy AI capable of handling formalized mathematical language.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problem

The core problem this research addresses is the lack of rigorous proof-solving capabilities in existing large language models within the mathematical analysis domain. Specifically:

1. Limitations of Existing Datasets: Current mathematical datasets primarily focus on computational tasks (such as algebra, geometry, and statistics), almost entirely avoiding proof-based problems
2. Insufficient Formal Reasoning Capabilities: LLMs perform poorly when handling mathematical analysis problems requiring rigorous logical reasoning and formal methods (such as ε-δ proofs)
3. Lack of Specialized Evaluation Benchmarks: There are no specialized evaluation datasets and methods specifically targeting the quality of mathematical proofs

Importance of the Problem

Mathematical analysis, as a core branch of mathematics, emphasizes rigorous proofs and formal methods. Enhancing LLMs' capabilities in this domain is significant for:

• Building trustworthy AI systems
• Advancing AI's development in processing formalized mathematical language
• Providing intelligent auxiliary tools for mathematical education and research

Research Motivation

Through analysis, the authors discovered that proof-based problems are extremely rare in existing mathematical datasets, with most problems being computational tasks with finite answers. This causes LLMs to lack the ability to handle open-ended mathematical proofs requiring rigorous logical reasoning.

Core Contributions

1. Construction of the DEMI-MathAnalysis Dataset: The first dataset specifically designed for mathematical analysis proof problems, encompassing topics such as Sequences and Limits, Infinite Series, and Convex Functions
2. Proposal of a Guiding Framework: Design of a comprehensive framework incorporating problem classification, knowledge retrieval, and solution generation
3. Achievement of Significant Performance Improvements: Through fine-tuning and framework application, small models achieve performance approaching that of large models on rigorous mathematical reasoning tasks
4. Provision of Evaluation Methods: Establishment of a five-dimensional evaluation system based on correctness, completeness, clarity, relevance, and insight

Methodology Details

Task Definition

The task studied in this paper is enabling LLMs to solve proof problems in mathematical analysis, specifically including:

• Input: Formally stated mathematical analysis problems (in LaTeX format)
• Output: Logically rigorous, complete, and clear mathematical proofs
• Constraints: Must adhere to formal methods in mathematical analysis (such as ε-δ definitions)

Dataset Construction

DEMI-MathAnalysis Dataset Structure

The dataset is sourced from two authoritative textbooks:

• Problems in Mathematical Analysis (Demidovich, 1964)
• Problems and Solutions in Real Analysis (Hata, 2007)

Each data entry contains four components:

1. Number: Sequential identifier associated with the original material
2. ProblemType: Problem classification by mathematical domain
3. Problem: Problem statement in LaTeX format
4. Solution: Detailed step-by-step solution

Data Distribution

The dataset covers nine major topics:

• Sequences and Limits
• Infinite Series
• Continuous Functions
• Differentiation
• Integration
• Improper Integrals
• Series of Functions
• Approximation by Polynomials
• Convex Functions

Guiding Framework Architecture

Core Components

The framework contains four key modules:

1. Problem Identification Module
   • Uses a lightweight LLM classifier to analyze and classify input problems
   • Trained on metadata from the DEMI-MathAnalysis dataset
   • Ensures subsequent steps are customized to the mathematical domain of the problem
2. Prompt Construction Module
   • Constructs detailed prompts containing complete problem statements
   • Integrates problem types determined by the classifier
   • Dynamically retrieves relevant supplementary knowledge from the knowledge base
3. Knowledge Base Integration
   • Curated repository containing mathematical analysis-specific concepts, rules, and formal methods
   • Covers key definitions (such as the ε-δ definition of limits)
   • Includes theorems and properties (such as those related to series convergence or convexity)
   • Provides problem-specific heuristics
4. Solution Generation Module
   • Uses fine-tuned LLMs to generate detailed solutions
   • Emphasizes logical rigor, completeness, and clarity
   • Integrates formal reasoning techniques

Technical Innovations

1. Dynamic Prompt Adaptation: Customizes prompts dynamically based on problem type and retrieved knowledge
2. Formal Reasoning Integration: Explicitly incorporates formal methods such as ε-δ proofs and series convergence theorems into the solution process
3. Modular Design: Each component can be independently optimized and replaced

Experimental Setup

Model Selection

The experiments employed multiple language models of different scales:

• Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct: Meta's 3B parameter model
• Qwen-2.5-Math-7B: Alibaba's 7B parameter mathematics-specialized model
• OpenAI o1-preview: Comparison baseline representing performance ceiling

Training Configuration

Efficient fine-tuning using the Unsloth framework with main hyperparameter settings:

• per_device_train_batch_size = 2
• gradient_accumulation_steps = 4
• warmup_steps = 5
• max_steps = 300
• learning_rate = 2e-4
• optim = "adamw_8bit"

Evaluation Metrics

GPT-4o was employed as an expert evaluator based on five key metrics (total score of 10):

1. Correctness: Logical rigor and adherence to problem requirements
2. Completeness: Complete argumentation for all steps and handling of assumptions
3. Clarity: Structured presentation and consistency in mathematical notation
4. Relevance: Appropriate use of methods and avoidance of irrelevant details
5. Insight: Conceptual understanding and elegance of the solution

Experimental Results

Main Results

Key Findings

1. Complete Baseline Failure: Untuned models scored 0 on rigorous proof tasks, highlighting the dataset's challenge level
2. Significant Improvements from Fine-tuning: Fine-tuning alone achieved 30-40% performance improvements
3. Further Enhancement from Framework: The guiding framework provided additional performance gains for fine-tuned models
4. Small Models Approaching Large Model Performance: Optimized small models achieved performance approaching state-of-the-art large models

Case Analysis

The paper presents a concrete example in Appendix A, comparing GPT-4o's performance with and without the guiding framework. While unguided GPT-4o understood the connection between function limits and continuity, it failed to provide rigorous proofs using precise definitions.

Related Work

Mathematical AI Benchmarks

• GSM8K: Elementary mathematics word problem dataset
• MATH: Challenging competition problems
• MathVerse: Multi-disciplinary problems with diagrams
• GeoEval: Geometry problem-solving evaluation
• TAL-SCQ5K: Chinese and English multiple-choice questions

LLM Mathematical Capability Research

• AlphaGeometry: Euclidean plane geometry theorem prover
• Chain-of-Thought (CoT): Enhanced mathematical performance through reasoning examples
• OpenAI Achievements: Strong performance on American Mathematical Olympiad qualifying exams

The paper notes that existing research primarily focuses on geometry or algebra problems with quickly verifiable results, overlooking the importance of the solution process.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. The DEMI-MathAnalysis dataset successfully fills the gap in mathematical analysis proof problems
2. The proposed guiding framework effectively enhances LLMs' capabilities in formal mathematical reasoning
3. Even smaller models can achieve good performance on proof tasks through appropriate fine-tuning and guidance

Limitations

1. Stability of Evaluation System: LLM-based evaluation results may fluctuate within certain ranges
2. Dataset Scale: The volume of proof-based problems remains limited compared to computational mathematics datasets
3. Absence of Formal Verification: Lack of capability to convert outputs to automated proof languages such as Lean

Future Directions

1. Dataset Expansion: Inclusion of broader mathematical topics
2. Improved Evaluation System: Development of more robust proof evaluation systems, considering conversion to Lean language
3. Framework Generalization: Enhancement of framework universality and adaptability

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Fills Important Gap: First systematic approach to addressing LLMs' deficiencies in mathematical analysis proofs
2. Methodological Innovation: The proposed guiding framework features good modular design and extensibility
3. Reasonable Experimental Design: Comparison across models of different scales yields convincing results
4. Comprehensive Evaluation System: Five-dimensional evaluation metrics comprehensively cover key elements of mathematical proofs

Weaknesses

1. Evaluation Subjectivity: Reliance on GPT-4o for evaluation may introduce bias; lacks human evaluation verification
2. Dataset Scale Limitations: Relatively smaller scale compared to other mathematical datasets
3. Unknown Generalization Ability: Validation only in mathematical analysis domain; performance in other domains requiring rigorous reasoning remains unknown
4. Missing Computational Cost Analysis: Lacks detailed computational cost analysis for fine-tuning and inference

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Opens new directions in AI mathematical reasoning research, particularly in formal proof domains
2. Practical Value: Provides potential intelligent auxiliary tools for mathematical education and research
3. Reproducibility: Publicly available code and datasets facilitate subsequent research

Applicable Scenarios

1. Mathematical Education: Assisting students in learning mathematical analysis proof methods
2. Mathematical Research: Providing proof drafts and inspirational insights for mathematicians
3. AI Research: Serving as a benchmark for evaluating and improving LLMs' formal reasoning capabilities
4. Automated Theorem Proving: Combined with formal verification systems, building more reliable proof assistants

References

The paper cites multiple important related works, including:

• Cobbe et al. (2021): GSM8K dataset
• Hendrycks et al. (2021): MATH dataset
• Wei et al. (2023): Chain-of-thought reasoning methods
• Trinh et al. (2024): AlphaGeometry system
• Multiple recent mathematical AI benchmarks and LLM mathematical capability research

This work holds pioneering significance in the AI mathematical reasoning domain, particularly in formal proof—a previously overlooked critical direction. Despite certain limitations, its contributions establish an important foundation for future development of more trustworthy and comprehensive AI mathematical assistants.