Guanhua Chen

Bowen Cao, Dongdong Zhang, Yixia Li et al.

Large language models now solve many benchmark math problems at near-expert levels, yet this progress has not fully translated into reliable performance in real-world applications. We study this gap through contextual mathematical reasoning, where the mathematical core must be formulated from descriptive scenarios. We introduce ContextMATH, a benchmark that repurposes AIME and MATH-500 problems into two contextual settings: Scenario Grounding (SG), which embeds abstract problems into realistic narratives without increasing reasoning complexity, and Complexity Scaling (CS), which transforms explicit conditions into sub-problems to capture how constraints often appear in practice. Evaluating 61 proprietary and open-source models, we observe sharp drops: on average, open-source models decline by 13 and 34 points on SG and CS, while proprietary models drop by 13 and 20. Error analysis shows that errors are dominated by incorrect problem formulation, with formulation accuracy declining as original problem difficulty increases. Correct formulation emerges as a prerequisite for success, and its sufficiency improves with model scale, indicating that larger models advance in both understanding and reasoning. Nevertheless, formulation and reasoning remain two complementary bottlenecks that limit contextual mathematical problem solving. Finally, we find that fine-tuning with scenario data improves performance, whereas formulation-only training is ineffective. However, performance gaps are only partially alleviated, highlighting contextual mathematical reasoning as a central unsolved challenge for LLMs.

Junyou Su, He Zhu, Xiao Luo et al.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is fundamental to adapting large language models, yet training on complete datasets incurs prohibitive costs with diminishing returns. Existing data selection methods suffer from severe domain specificity: techniques optimized for general instruction-following fail on reasoning tasks, and vice versa. We observe that measuring entropy differences between base models and minimally instruction-tuned calibrated models reveals a pattern -- samples with the lowest differential entropy consistently yield optimal performance across domains, yet this principle manifests domain-adaptively: reasoning tasks favor entropy increase (cognitive expansion), while general tasks favor entropy decrease (cognitive compression). We introduce InstructDiff, a unified framework that operationalizes differential entropy as a domain-adaptive selection criterion through warmup calibration, bi-directional NLL filtering, and entropy-based ranking. Extensive experiments show that InstructDiff achieves 17\% relative improvement over full data training on mathematical reasoning and 52\% for general instruction-following, outperforming prior baselines while using only 10\% of the data.