Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the impact of prompt engineering on LLMs' ability to perform formal mathematical reasoning, specifically determining equational law implication over magmas. Through a systematic evaluation of over 40 prompt variants across three models, the study reveals a "single-prompt ceiling" where performance plateaus despite significant engineering effort. The authors identify mathematical undecidability, complexity-induced performance drops in weaker models, and fragile prompt ordering effects as key factors contributing to this ceiling.
LLMs hit a surprising performance ceiling in mathematical reasoning, suggesting that simply scaling prompt complexity won't overcome fundamental limitations in their ability to handle undecidable problems and complex rule systems.
We present a systematic empirical study of prompt engineering for formal mathematical reasoning in the context of the SAIR Equational Theories Stage 1 competition. The task requires deciding whether one equational law implies another over all magmas -- a problem that is undecidable in general but decidable for FALSE via finite model search. Over five weeks, we designed, tested, and analyzed more than 40 prompt variants, ranging from 0 to 4,878 bytes, across four evaluation splits and three language models (gpt-oss-120b, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 4 31B). Our central finding is a single-prompt ceiling: despite substantial engineering effort, balanced hard accuracy plateaus in an empirical saturation region of approximately 60--79% for gpt-oss-120b, compared to a 59.75% no-cheatsheet baseline. We identify three mechanisms underlying this ceiling: (1) the mathematical undecidability of the TRUE case limits what any finite prompt can encode; (2) complex rule systems decrease performance on weaker models (Llama 3.3 70B collapses to 0% TRUE recall with prompts exceeding 2KB); and (3) prompt ordering effects interact with model attention in fragile, non-monotonic ways. Our best submission (AN45c, 2,252 bytes) achieves 79.25% accuracy on hard3 (n=400; 95% CI: [75.0%, 82.9%]), with TRUE recall of 95.9% and FALSE recall of 63.4%, representing a +19.5 percentage-point improvement over the no-cheatsheet baseline (59.75%). We release all prompt variants, evaluation scripts, and results at https://github.com/israelcazares/sair-prompt-engineering