Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Accelerating mathematical research with language models: A case study of an interaction with GPT-5-Pro on a convex analysis problem

Published 30 Oct 2025 in math.OC | (2510.26647v1)

Abstract: Recent progress in LLMs has made them increasingly capable research assistants in mathematics. Yet, as their reasoning abilities improve, evaluating their mathematical competence becomes increasingly challenging. The problems used for assessment must be neither too easy nor too difficult, their performance can no longer be summarized by a single numerical score, and meaningful evaluation requires expert oversight. In this work, we study an interaction between the author and a LLM in proving a lemma from convex optimization. Specifically, we establish a Taylor expansion for the gradient of the biconjugation operator--that is, the operator obtained by applying the Fenchel transform twice--around a strictly convex function, with assistance from GPT-5-pro, OpenAI's latest model. Beyond the mathematical result itself, whose novelty we do not claim with certainty, our main contribution lies in documenting the collaborative reasoning process. GPT-5-pro accelerated our progress by suggesting, relevant research directions and by proving some intermediate results. However, its reasoning still required careful supervision, particularly to correct subtle mistakes. While limited to a single mathematical problem and a single LLM, this experiment illustrates both the promise and the current limitations of LLMs as mathematical collaborators.

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates that GPT-5-Pro contributes to a rigorous proof of the first-order Taylor expansion for the gradient of a perturbed convex function.
  • It utilizes advanced techniques like Alexandrov's theorem, local quadratic bounds, and subdifferential analysis to ensure precision in convex analysis.
  • The study highlights the iterative refinement between human experts and the model, emphasizing both the potential and limitations of AI in mathematical research.

Accelerating Mathematical Research with LLMs: A Case Study of GPT-5-Pro on a Convex Analysis Problem

Overview and Motivation

This paper presents a detailed case study of collaborative mathematical research involving a human expert and GPT-5-Pro, OpenAI's latest LLM, focused on a nontrivial problem in convex analysis. The central mathematical objective is to establish a first-order Taylor expansion for the gradient of the biconjugation operator (i.e., the Fenchel biconjugate) applied to a strictly convex function perturbed by a smooth test function. The study not only provides a rigorous proof of the expansion but also documents the iterative interaction between the researcher and the LLM, highlighting both the model's contributions and its limitations.

Mathematical Context and Main Result

The problem is motivated by optimal transport theory, specifically the analysis of perturbations of convex potentials that generate optimal maps. The classical result by Gangbo [gangbo1994elementary] provides a first-order expansion for the Fenchel conjugate of a perturbed convex function. The present work seeks to extend this to the biconjugate and its gradient, aiming to prove that for a strictly convex, twice differentiable function ϕ\phi and a compactly supported C2C^2 function hh, the following holds for almost every xRdx \in \mathbb{R}^d and sufficiently small t|t|: (ϕ+th)(x)=ϕ(x)+th(x)+o(t).\nabla (\phi + t h)^{**}(x) = \nabla \phi(x) + t \nabla h(x) + o(t). The proof establishes that the remainder term o(t)o(t) is in fact zero for t|t| small enough (depending on xx), and provides explicit bounds for the admissible tt.

Technical Proof Structure

The proof leverages the following key ingredients:

  • Alexandrov's Theorem: At almost every xx, a convex function ϕ\phi is twice differentiable with a positive-definite Hessian.
  • Local Quadratic Lower Bound: At such xx, ϕ\phi admits a quadratic lower bound in a neighborhood, which is crucial for controlling the behavior of the perturbed function.
  • Affine Envelope Characterization: The biconjugate ff^{**} at a point xx equals the supremum of all affine minorants of ff that touch ff at xx.
  • Carathéodory's Theorem: Any convex combination in finite dimensions can be represented with at most d+1d+1 points, facilitating the analysis of convex envelopes.
  • Taylor Expansion for hh: The C2C^2 regularity of hh allows for uniform quadratic bounds on its deviation from linearity.

The proof proceeds by constructing an explicit affine minorant at xx and showing, via careful estimates, that for sufficiently small t|t| this minorant remains below $f = \phi + t h$ globally. The argument is split into two regions: inside a small ball around xx, where quadratic bounds dominate, and outside, where a fixed gap (from the quadratic lower bound on ϕ\phi) and boundedness of hh ensure the minorant remains valid. The gradient equality follows from a subdifferential argument that does not require global convexity of ff.

Interaction with GPT-5-Pro: Collaborative Reasoning Process

The documented interaction reveals several important aspects of LLM-assisted mathematical research:

  • Model Contributions: GPT-5-Pro suggested relevant research directions, identified key conjectures, and provided partial proofs and technical lemmas. Notably, the model was able to articulate the necessity of a local (rather than global) argument and recognized the importance of the affine envelope characterization.
  • Model Limitations: The model's reasoning required frequent correction, especially regarding the propagation of quadratic bounds and the distinction between pointwise and neighborhood properties. Several technical errors were identified and addressed by the human expert, particularly in the handling of bounds outside the local ball and the use of Carathéodory's theorem.
  • Iterative Refinement: The proof was ultimately completed through a back-and-forth process, with the human expert guiding the model toward a correct and rigorous argument. The model's ability to adapt and refine its approach in response to feedback was instrumental in reaching the final result.

Implications for Mathematical Research and LLM Evaluation

Practical Implications

  • Accelerated Discovery: The case study demonstrates that state-of-the-art LLMs can significantly accelerate mathematical research by suggesting plausible directions, generating technical lemmas, and providing partial proofs.
  • Expert Oversight Required: Despite their capabilities, LLMs still require careful supervision by human experts to ensure rigor and correctness, especially in subtle technical arguments.
  • Pointwise vs. Uniform Results: The proof highlights the importance of distinguishing between pointwise and uniform statements in analysis, a nuance that LLMs may not consistently handle without explicit guidance.

Theoretical Implications

  • Local Convex Envelope Lemma: The result provides a precise characterization of when the biconjugate of a perturbed convex function coincides with the function itself at a point, with explicit dependence of the admissible perturbation size on local properties.
  • Subdifferential Argument: The approach clarifies the relationship between differentiability and subdifferential inclusions for convex envelopes, extending classical convex analysis results.

Evaluation of LLMs

  • Qualitative Assessment: The study argues that meaningful evaluation of mathematical competence in LLMs increasingly requires qualitative, expert-driven case studies rather than automated benchmarks.
  • Scalability Challenges: Systematic and scalable frameworks for evaluating LLMs as research collaborators remain an open challenge, given the need for extended interactions and subjective judgment.

Future Directions

  • Systematic Evaluation Protocols: Developing protocols for expert-driven, reproducible evaluation of LLMs in mathematical research is a critical next step.
  • Enhanced Reasoning Capabilities: Improving LLMs' ability to handle subtle distinctions in analysis, such as pointwise versus uniform properties, will be essential for their broader adoption in mathematical research.
  • Integration with Formal Verification: Combining LLMs with formal proof assistants could further enhance rigor and reliability in collaborative mathematical discovery.

Conclusion

This case study provides a rigorous proof of a first-order expansion for the gradient of the biconjugate of a perturbed strictly convex function, achieved through collaborative interaction with GPT-5-Pro. The documented process illustrates both the promise and current limitations of LLMs as mathematical research assistants. While LLMs can accelerate progress and suggest valuable directions, expert oversight remains indispensable. The study underscores the need for systematic, qualitative evaluation frameworks and points toward future developments in AI-assisted mathematical research.

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Explain it Like I'm 14

Overview

This paper is about two things:

  • A small but tricky math result in convex analysis (a branch of math that studies “bowl-shaped” functions).
  • A case study showing how a powerful LLM (GPT-5-pro) helped a human mathematician think through and prove that result.

The math result is a local “first-order” expansion for the gradient of a function after applying a special double transform called the biconjugate. It connects to optimal transport, which is about moving mass (like sand) from one place to another in the cheapest way.

Main Topic in Simple Terms

Think of a convex function ϕ\phi as a smooth bowl. Its gradient ϕ\nabla \phi is like a map telling you the direction of steepest climb at each point. Now take a small “perturbation” tht\,h—like a tiny ripple added to the bowl—where tt is a small number and hh is a smooth test function. The paper studies what happens to the gradient after you:

  1. add the ripple, and then
  2. apply a double transform called ^{**} (the biconjugate), which “convexifies” a function if needed.

The key statement they prove is that, near most points where the bowl is nicely curved, the change in the gradient is exactly what you’d expect to first order: (ϕ+th)(x)=ϕ(x)+th(x)+o(t)\nabla(\phi + t h)^{**}(x) = \nabla \phi(x) + t\,\nabla h(x) + o(t), where o(t)o(t) means “an error that is much smaller than tt as tt goes to $0$.”

Key Questions and Objectives

The paper asks:

  • If we add a tiny smooth bump tht\,h to a convex function ϕ\phi and then take the biconjugate, how does the gradient change at a point xx?
  • Can we prove a clean first-order formula for that change, and is the “tiny error” term actually zero for small enough tt at that point?
  • How well can a LLM like GPT-5-pro help with discovering and proving such a math fact?

The main objective is to prove the formula

(ϕ+th)(x)=ϕ(x)+th(x)+o(t)\nabla(\phi + t h)^{**}(x) = \nabla \phi(x) + t\,\nabla h(x) + o(t)

under reasonable assumptions (especially that ϕ\phi is strictly convex and “twice differentiable” at xx, meaning it has a well-defined curvature there), and to document the collaboration with GPT-5-pro.

Methods and Approach Explained Simply

Here’s how they tackled it:

  • Convex analysis tools:
    • A convex function ϕ\phi is “bowl-shaped.” At a good point xx, you can approximate it by a quadratic bowl: ϕ(x+u)ϕ(x)+ϕ(x),u+12u,2ϕ(x)u\phi(x+u) \approx \phi(x) + \langle \nabla\phi(x),u\rangle + \tfrac12\langle u, \nabla^2\phi(x) u\rangle.
    • The Hessian 2ϕ(x)\nabla^2\phi(x) is like a matrix describing the local curvature of the bowl. “Positive definite” means the bowl curves up in all directions (no flat directions).
    • The biconjugate ff^{**} is a way to take any function ff and replace it by the “tightest” convex function above it. If ff is already convex, f=ff^{**} = f everywhere.
  • The core trick:
    • Define f=ϕ+thf = \phi + t\,h.
    • Show that, at the specific point xx, f(x)=f(x)f^{**}(x) = f(x) when tt is small enough. In other words, “convexifying” ff doesn’t change its value at xx for small tt.
    • Use a careful local inequality: the true function stays above its tangent plane at xx with a positive margin—both for points near xx and for points far enough from xx. This margin survives the tiny perturbation tht\,h if tt is small.
    • Once f(x)=f(x)f^{**}(x) = f(x) is known, they use a standard convex analysis argument (subgradients) to conclude the gradient also matches at xx: f(x)=f(x)=ϕ(x)+th(x)\nabla f^{**}(x) = \nabla f(x) = \nabla \phi(x) + t\,\nabla h(x).
    • That gives the desired first-order formula for the gradient.
  • Role of GPT-5-pro:
    • The model suggested promising directions (like focusing on local behavior at the point xx and seeking conditions under which convexification is “inactive” there).
    • It helped prove intermediate inequalities (for example, local lower bounds).
    • It made some mistakes (like assuming strong convexity on a whole neighborhood from pointwise information), and the human author corrected and refined the approach.
    • Together, the process led to a clean and rigorous proof.

Main Findings and Why They Matter

  • The main result:
    • At almost every point xx where ϕ\phi has nice curvature, the gradient of the biconjugate of ϕ+th\phi + t\,h changes exactly as if you had just added tht\,h and taken the gradient:
    • (ϕ+th)(x)=ϕ(x)+th(x)+o(t)\nabla(\phi + t h)^{**}(x) = \nabla \phi(x) + t\,\nabla h(x) + o(t).
    • Even better, the “o(t)o(t)” error is actually zero for t|t| small enough—at that point xx. So locally, for small tt, the equality is exact at xx.
  • Why it’s important:
    • In optimal transport (moving mass as efficiently as possible), the optimal map is the gradient of a convex potential. Understanding how this gradient changes when you slightly tweak the potential helps study sensitivity and dynamics.
    • The result is a neat, practical tool: if you gently perturb a convex potential, the immediate change in the gradient is exactly h\nabla h—no hidden surprise from the convexification step, at least at the point and for small perturbations.
  • About the collaboration:
    • GPT-5-pro sped up problem solving by proposing the right kind of local argument and key conjecture.
    • However, the human researcher still needed to check details, spot errors, and guide the proof to completion.
    • This shows that LLMs can be valuable thought partners in math, but they are not yet fully reliable on their own.

Implications and Impact

  • For mathematics and optimal transport:
    • The result adds a simple, local sensitivity formula for gradients of convex potentials under small perturbations, useful in analysis and applications.
  • For AI-assisted research:
    • This case study shows the promise of advanced LLMs as math collaborators: they can suggest ideas and partial proofs that meaningfully speed up research.
    • It also highlights present limits: careful human oversight is essential to validate and correct the reasoning.
    • More systematic ways to evaluate and use such collaborations could help the math community benefit from AI tools while maintaining rigor and reliability.

Final Takeaway

If you add a tiny, smooth bump tht\,h to a nicely curved convex “bowl” ϕ\phi and then do the standard “make it convex” transformation, the gradient at a good point xx changes exactly by th(x)t\,\nabla h(x)—no extra surprises to first order. And with GPT-5-pro’s help, the authors found and proved this result faster, while showing the importance of human guidance to ensure the math is correct.

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a single, prioritized list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored in the paper, formulated so future researchers can act on it.

Mathematical gaps and extensions

  • Formal literature placement: Clarify whether the first-order expansion for the gradient of (ϕ+th)(\phi+th)^{**} at a point with 2ϕ(x)0\nabla^2\phi(x)\succ0 is novel. Provide precise conditions and citations (e.g., in epi-derivative theory) under which biconjugation preserves first-order jets, and identify where existing results fall short of guaranteeing the pointwise identities proved here.
  • Minimal regularity on the perturbation: The proof assumes hCc2(Rd)h\in C_c^2(\mathbb{R}^d) with global bounds. Determine the weakest regularity and growth conditions on hh (e.g., C1C^1, Lipschitz, W1,W^{1,\infty}, non-compact support with local bounds) under which (ϕ+th)(x)=ϕ(x)+th(x)\nabla(\phi+th)^{**}(x)=\nabla\phi(x)+t\nabla h(x) still holds.
  • Minimal convexity assumptions on ϕ\phi: Assess whether strict convexity and twice differentiability at xx are necessary. Characterize the behavior at points where ϕ(x)\partial\phi(x) is not a singleton, or where 2ϕ(x)\nabla^2\phi(x) exists but is only semidefinite, and identify conditions yielding a first-order gradient expansion or counterexamples when it fails.
  • Local versus pointwise equality: The paper establishes f(x)=f(x)f^{**}(x)=f(x) only at the base point for small t|t|. Provide criteria ensuring local (neighborhood) equality of (ϕ+th)(\phi+th)^{**} and ϕ+th\phi+th—e.g., curvature thresholds, quantitative smallness of tt, or continuity/modulus conditions on 2ϕ\nabla^2\phi—and delineate when convexification necessarily becomes active near xx.
  • Explicit control of the constants: Make txt_x and the auxiliary radius δ(x)\delta(x) quantitative in terms of local data (e.g., λmin(2ϕ(x))\lambda_{\min}(\nabla^2\phi(x)), pointwise Taylor remainder bounds, and local norms of 2h\nabla^2h). Establish computable bounds or a measurable selection xtxx\mapsto t_x suitable for integrating over sets or measures.
  • Uniform-in-xx bounds: Identify conditions (e.g., C2C^2 regularity on a compact set and a uniform lower bound on curvature) that yield a uniform threshold t0>0t_0>0 such that the gradient identity holds for all xx in a given region, enabling measure-level differentiation without pointwise thresholds.
  • Second-order sensitivity: The result gives exact first-order behavior for small tt at xx. Develop second-order expansions for (ϕ+th)(x)\nabla(\phi+th)^{**}(x) (and possibly for (ϕ+th)(x)(\phi+th)^{**}(x) itself), including explicit remainder bounds and conditions under which 2(ϕ+th)(x)\nabla^2(\phi+th)^{**}(x) admits a controlled Taylor expansion in tt.
  • Epi-derivative framework: Provide a rigorous derivation connecting the paper’s pointwise argument to epi-derivatives and proto-derivatives of subdifferentials, specifying exact hypotheses under which the operation fff\mapsto f^{**} preserves first-order derivatives at points with unique subgradients.
  • Extension beyond Fenchel transforms: Investigate whether an analogous gradient expansion holds for cc-transforms (general cost functions) and identify structural conditions on cc ensuring the same first-order behavior of the corresponding “double transform” operator.
  • Non-Euclidean settings: Explore extensions to Banach spaces or Riemannian manifolds, and identify which parts of the argument rely on Euclidean geometry (e.g., Carathéodory-type representations, quadratic expansions) versus those that generalize.
  • Stability for finite tt: Characterize when convexification becomes active as t|t| increases, and provide thresholds or bifurcation criteria for the onset of nontrivial convex envelope effects in (ϕ+th)(\phi+th)^{**}.
  • Measure-level consequences: The optimal transport motivation is to study νt:=(ϕ+th)#μ\nu_t:=\nabla(\phi+th)^{**}\#\mu. The paper does not analyze regularity, continuity, or differentiability in tt of tνtt\mapsto \nu_t, nor derivatives of integral functionals (e.g., entropy). Establish such properties under the paper’s local hypotheses, ideally with uniform-in-xx controls.

Methodological limits in LLM-assisted math

  • Generalizability of the case study: The paper evaluates one problem with one model. Propose a systematic protocol (problem selection, difficulty calibration, expert oversight criteria, error taxonomy) to assess LLM contributions across diverse mathematical domains and levels of rigor.
  • Reproducibility and benchmarking: Provide reproducible artifacts (prompts, transcripts, environment details) and standardized benchmarks for the kind of local convex-analytic reasoning demonstrated, enabling independent validation and comparison across models.
  • Quantifying impact: Develop metrics to measure how LLM suggestions change time-to-proof, error rates, or proof quality (e.g., number and severity of corrections, proportion of salvageable lemmas, novelty of key ideas), rather than purely qualitative narratives.
  • Handling subtle errors: The interaction revealed recurring issues (e.g., conflating local quadratic lower bounds with strong convexity on a neighborhood). Create checklists or automated verifications for common pitfalls in convex analysis (uniform curvature, envelope localization, differentiability transfer through transforms).

Practical Applications

Immediate Applications

Below are actionable uses that can be deployed now, based on the paper’s mathematical result and the documented LLM–human collaboration workflow.

  • Safe local linearization and step-size control for convex potential perturbations (software, ML, optimization)
    • Application: When updating a convex potential φ by adding a small perturbation t·h (e.g., regularization, side constraints, or learned corrections), use the paper’s local thresholds to guarantee that the convex envelope (biconjugate) is inactive at the point x and the gradient update is exact: ∇(φ + t h){**}(x) = ∇φ(x) + t ∇h(x).
    • Tools/workflows: Implement a “local safety check” in Python/Julia OT libraries (e.g., POT, GeomLoss, CVXPy) that:
    • Estimates λ = λmin(∇2φ(x)) (or a numerical proxy) and bounds L = ||∇2 h||∞, M = ||h||_∞.
    • Chooses t within t_x = min(λ/(4L), λ δ2/(64 M)) for a small δ determined by local Taylor control.
    • Applies the exact gradient update without computing conjugates globally.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: φ twice differentiable at x with ∇2φ(x) ≻ 0; h ∈ C2_c; numerical estimation of λ, L, M, and δ available.
  • First-order sensitivity analysis for Monge transport maps (ML, data science, geospatial, imaging)
    • Application: In pipelines that use gradients of convex potentials as transport maps (Brenier maps), compute how the map changes under small perturbations of the potential using the identity ∂/∂t|_{t=0} ∇(φ + t h){**}(x) = ∇h(x) almost everywhere.
    • Tools/workflows: Add a “sensitivity mode” to OT routines that outputs the local velocity field v_0(y) = ∇h(∇φ*(y)) for:
    • Domain adaptation and dataset alignment (ML).
    • Image registration updates and shape morphing (healthcare imaging).
    • Real-time geospatial mass balancing (energy/logistics).
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Availability of φ* numerically (or ∇φ* via inverse map), a.e. differentiability of φ, and smooth h.
  • Faster gradient-based training in convex-potential models and OT-guided generative modeling (ML, software)
    • Application: Use the exact local gradient expansion to compute parameter updates for potential-based models (e.g., normalizing flows with convex potentials, energy models with Fenchel structures) without needing full conjugation steps near well-behaved points.
    • Tools/workflows: A PyTorch/JAX layer that wraps convex-potential modules and switches to the local formula when Hessian checks pass; falls back to standard methods otherwise.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Reliable local Hessian estimation; compactly supported or bounded-curvature perturbations.
  • LLM-in-the-loop mathematical research protocol (academia, education)
    • Application: Adopt the paper’s supervision-centric workflow to use frontier LLMs as math collaborators:
    • Prompt LLMs to propose conjectures and intermediate lemmas.
    • Require human oversight for checking subtle steps (e.g., strong convexity misclaims).
    • Log and annotate interactions for reproducibility and peer review.
    • Tools/workflows: “Research Diary” templates, prompt libraries for convex analysis, and versioned interaction repositories (e.g., Git + Markdown + PDF exports).
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Expert oversight; institutional acceptance of documented LLM contributions; storage of interaction logs.
  • Teaching modules on convex analysis and optimal transport with LLM assistance (education)
    • Application: Use the case study to teach:
    • Fenchel transforms, biconjugation, and convex envelopes.
    • Alexandrov differentiability and local expansion techniques.
    • How to critique and correct LLM-generated proofs.
    • Tools/workflows: Interactive notebooks (Jupyter) with exercises that guide students through local inactivity of convexification and sensitivity of transport maps, coupled with constrained LLM prompts.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Classroom policies on LLM use; curated datasets of prompts and corrections.
  • Lightweight policy guidance for evaluating LLMs as math assistants (policy, R&D ops)
    • Application: Institute immediate guardrails and rubrics:
    • Require local correctness checks and citations for claims.
    • Mandate disclosure of LLM interaction logs in submissions involving LLM-derived insights.
    • Evaluate models on realistic assistant tasks, not only benchmark problem sets.
    • Tools/workflows: Checklists for reviewers; submission templates with “LLM contribution” sections.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Journal/conference buy-in; privacy-safe logging.

Long-Term Applications

The following items require further research, scaling, or development before broad deployment.

  • Scalable, standardized evaluation frameworks for LLM mathematical collaboration (academia, policy, software)
    • Application: Build a multi-institution platform to assess LLMs as math co-authors:
    • Task banks in areas like convex analysis, OT, PDEs, combinatorics.
    • Multi-dimensional scoring (novelty, correctness, utility, transparency).
    • Human-in-the-loop protocols and longitudinal studies.
    • Tools/products: Open datasets of annotated interactions; leaderboards; plugins for formal verification systems (Lean, Isabelle).
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Community governance; funding; interoperability with proof assistants; ethical data policies.
  • Automated theorem discovery pipelines with formal verification backends (software, academia)
    • Application: Combine LLM conjecture generation with automated convex analysis checks and formal proof verifiers to reduce human burden and error rates.
    • Tools/products: “ConvexProof” engines that:
    • Detect local conditions (e.g., Hessian positivity at points).
    • Enforce biconjugation identities and convex envelope characterizations.
    • Interface with formal systems to certify proofs end-to-end.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Advances in formalization of convex analysis; robust LLM–theorem prover integration.
  • High-dimensional OT solvers accelerated by local expansion heuristics (ML, robotics, energy, imaging)
    • Application: Use local inactivity of convexification and first-order sensitivity to:
    • Precondition large-scale OT computations.
    • Warm-start iterative solvers with locally exact linearizations.
    • Enable real-time adaptivity in robotics motion planning and geospatial resource flows.
    • Tools/products: “Local OT Accelerator” modules for industrial solvers; APIs for dynamic map updates.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Reliable detection of “good” regions; robust fallback strategies when local assumptions fail; integration with existing PDE/OT stacks.
  • Generalized first-order expansions for c-transforms and non-quadratic costs (academia, ML)
    • Application: Extend the result beyond Fenchel biconjugation to broader cost structures (c-transforms), improving sensitivity analysis in more general OT settings (e.g., robust transport, Wasserstein variations).
    • Tools/workflows: Research programs to derive analogous local inactivity conditions and gradient expansions for different c-costs; experimental comparison in ML applications.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: New theoretical advances; stronger regularity conditions; empirical validation.
  • Domain-specific LLMs for rigorous mathematical assistance with error-detection modules (software, education)
    • Application: Train math-specialized LLMs that:
    • Flag plausible-but-wrong reasoning steps (e.g., unjustified strong convexity).
    • Suggest minimal counterexamples.
    • Propose multiple proof routes with uncertainty quantification.
    • Tools/products: “MathCopilot” with built-in convex analysis toolkits; examiner modes for classroom use.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: High-quality training data; integration with symbolic computation; acceptance in classrooms and journals.
  • Sensitivity-driven calibration in finance and risk (finance)
    • Application: Use first-order map updates to calibrate transport-based scenario generators and risk transfers under small policy or market perturbations.
    • Tools/products: “OT Risk Calibrator” that uses local expansions for rapid recalibration without full recomputation.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Mapping of financial constraints to convex potentials; accurate local curvature estimation; model risk controls.
  • Medical imaging: robust diffeomorphic registration with local convexification guards (healthcare)
    • Application: Improve registration pipelines by leveraging local inactivity of convexification to:
    • Stabilize updates.
    • Reduce compute on repeated biconjugation.
    • Provide sensitivity maps for clinicians when tuning regularizers.
    • Tools/products: Plugins for ITK/SimpleITK; research prototypes integrated in LDDMM-like frameworks.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Clinical validation; mapping of imaging objectives to convex potentials; regulatory compliance.

Notes on assumptions and dependencies that cut across applications:

  • The key mathematical guarantees are local (pointwise or a.e.), not global; systems must detect and respect validity regions.
  • φ must be twice differentiable at the point of interest with a positive-definite Hessian; h requires bounded curvature (C2 with compact support or similar).
  • Numerical estimation of Hessians and their eigenvalues is nontrivial in high dimensions; robust proxies and uncertainty-aware decisions are needed.
  • LLM-driven research requires expert supervision, transparent logging, and institutional policies that balance innovation with rigor.

Glossary

  • a.e. (almost everywhere): Measure-theoretic qualifier meaning a property holds except on a set of measure zero. Example: "for almost every (a.e.) xdx \in ^d"
  • absolutely continuous (a.c.): A measure is absolutely continuous with respect to another if it assigns zero mass to every set that the other does; for densities, this means having a Lebesgue density. Example: "since μ0,ν0\mu_0,\nu_0 are a.c., we may pick a set GRdG\subset\mathbb R^d of full μ0\mu_0-measure"
  • Alexandrov Hessian: The almost-everywhere defined Hessian of a convex function (second derivative in the sense of Alexandrov). Example: "The Alexandrov Hessian 2ϕ(x)\nabla^2 \phi(x) exists and is symmetric positive definite for a.e. xdx \in ^d"
  • Alexandrov’s second-order expansion: A pointwise quadratic expansion of a convex function at points of twice differentiability. Example: "By Alexandrov’s second-order expansion, for small r>0r>0, ϕ(x+u)=ϕ(x)+ϕ(x),u+122ϕ(x)u,u+o(u2)\phi(x+u)= \phi(x)+\langle \nabla\phi(x),u\rangle + \tfrac12\langle \nabla^2\phi(x)u,u\rangle + o(\|u\|^2)"
  • affine envelope: The supremum of all affine functions lying below a given function; equals the biconjugate for proper lower semicontinuous convex functions. Example: "Using the characterization of ff^{**} as the affine envelope of ff (see~\cite[Section 12]{Roc70}), f(x)=supEf^{**}(x) = \sup E."
  • barycenter: The weighted average (center of mass) of points in a convex combination. Example: "any convex combination with barycenter zB(x,r)z\in B(x,r)"
  • biconjugate: The Fenchel biconjugate of a function, obtained by applying the Fenchel transform twice; denoted ff^{**}. Example: "The biconjugate (f)(f^{*})^{*} of ff is denoted ff^{**}."
  • biconjugation operator: The operator mapping a function to its Fenchel biconjugate. Example: "the biconjugation operator—that is, the operator obtained by applying the Fenchel transform twice—around a strictly convex function"
  • Carathéodory’s theorem (Carathéodory representation): In finite dimensions, points in a convex hull can be represented as convex combinations of at most d+1 points. Example: "By finite-dimensional convex analysis (Carathéodory), one has gt(x) = inf{i=1mλigt(yi) : i=1mλi=1, i=1mλiyi=x, md+1}.g_t^{**}(x)\ =\ \inf\Big\{\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^{m}\lambda_i\,g_t(y_i)\ :\ \sum_{i=1}^m\lambda_i=1,\ \sum_{i=1}^m\lambda_i y_i=x,\ m\le d+1\Big\}."
  • c-transform: A generalized conjugation associated with a cost function c in optimal transport. Example: "This lemma was later extended to cc-transforms by~\citet{gangbo1996geometry}"
  • compact support: A function has compact support if it is zero outside a compact set. Example: "Let hCc2(d)h \in C_c^2(^d) with compact support"
  • convex envelope: The largest convex function lying below a given function. Example: "on B(x,r1)B(x,r_1) the function ϕ+th\phi+t h is already convex (indeed strongly convex), so its convex envelope coincides with itself."
  • convexification: The process of replacing a function by its convex envelope or biconjugate. Example: "the convexification is inactive"
  • distributional Hessian: The second derivative of a function in the sense of distributions, a matrix-valued measure for convex functions. Example: "For a convex function ϕ\phi, the distributional Hessian D2ϕD^2\phi is a symmetric positive matrix-valued measure."
  • epi-convergence: A notion of convergence for functions based on convergence of epigraphs, central in variational analysis. Example: "Epi-convergence and epi-derivatives (Ch. 7, 13)."
  • epi-derivative: A generalized derivative concept defined via epigraphs, used to study variational stability. Example: "Epi-convergence and epi-derivatives (Ch. 7, 13)."
  • epi-differentiability: The property of having epi-derivatives; a framework for first- and second-order analysis of functionals. Example: "The right language is epi-differentiability and tilt-stability in variational analysis."
  • epi-continuity: Continuity with respect to epigraphs; a stability property of function transformations. Example: "biconjugation fff\mapsto f^{**} is epi-continuous and preserves first-order epi-derivatives"
  • Fenchel transform: The convex conjugate of a function, defined by f*(y)=sup_x <x,y>−f(x). Example: "we denote by ff^{*} its Fenchel transform"
  • Fréchet differentiable: A strong notion of differentiability in normed spaces, implying linear approximation with remainder o(∥h∥). Example: "if a scalar function f:RdRf:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R} is twice Fréchet differentiable at a point y0y_0"
  • Lipschitz (L-Lipschitz): A function whose gradient or value changes at most linearly with a constant L. Example: "for every tt \in, (th)\nabla (th) is tL|t|L–Lipschitz."
  • Nesterov ODE: A continuous-time dynamical system modeling Nesterov’s accelerated gradient method. Example: "he could prove the pointwise convergence of the Nesterov ODE with help of GPT-5-pro."
  • pushforward (measure-theoretic): The image measure induced by a map, denoted with the # symbol. Example: "where μ\mu is a given probability measure and #\# the pushforward operation."
  • strictly convex: A function whose epigraph has strictly supporting hyperplanes; line segments lie strictly above the graph except at endpoints. Example: "assuming ϕ\phi is strictly convex:"
  • subdifferential: The set of subgradients (supporting hyperplane slopes) of a convex function at a point. Example: "For every xdx \in ^d, the subdifferential of ff at xx, denoted f(x)\partial f(x)"
  • subgradient reciprocity: The duality relation between subgradients of a convex function and its conjugate at paired points. Example: "subgradient reciprocity + ν0\nu_0-a.e.\ differentiability"
  • tilt-stability: Stability of minimizers under linear perturbations (tilts) of the objective, analyzed via second-order variational tools. Example: "The right language is epi-differentiability and tilt-stability in variational analysis."
  • variational analysis: The study of optimization and stability via generalized differentiation and epigraphical methods. Example: "Rockafellar–Wets, Variational Analysis (1998):"

Open Problems

We found no open problems mentioned in this paper.

Authors (1)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 3 tweets with 151 likes about this paper.