How to write a math abstract for a conference in an experimentalist dominated field without "specific numerical results" Note that in experimental fields it is not uncommon that an abstract is required to have "specific" unpublished results 9 months or so before the conference. The problem is if you are a theoretical/mathematical researcher in these lab based fields often your mathematical model and derivations are the crux of your research and a numerical exploration comes later. How do you write an abstract for these fields highlighting that you derived the model, proved a bunch of existence and uniqueness properties (that they likely don't care about) and have just started your exploration of numerical examples (likely the only thing they care about) without having anything definitive to say yet about your numerical examples.

The most definitive thing I could say about the numerical examples is, "We show that for a given set of parameter space we observe X and for another set of parameter space we observe Y. This is the consequence of X being true in contrast to Y being true in our field of application". To be clear I don't know anything about the structure of the parameter space that yield the two distinct X and Y scenarios yet, but I do know that both X and Y are possible given some preliminary simulations, and that the difference between X and Y is interesting.  

One thing to note is this is not a conference that includes a proceedings. You have an abstract and a talk, but no paper comes out of it. Papers are strictly for peer reviewed journals in this field. The answers to this question How to write abstract for conference when you have no results yet? seem to be more geared towards fields where papers come out of the conference.
Writing as a mathematical modeler in Epidemiology, and a regular submitter to conferences with these types of requirements, which are dominated by empirical research findings, this is something that's hard, if you approach it from the direction you have - with the numerical results coming at the "end" of your research.

It would be good to have a numerical result, because as has been mentioned, while you might not view these as the crux of your research, it may very well be the crux of why someone is interested in your research. Even as someone who does appreciate the theory side of things, I'm often rather more interested in the numerical results.

That being said, these conferences are mostly looking to avoid "Will be discussed" results, where there's no means to evaluate if you've done anything, or if it will be interesting. The latter is especially hard for deciding whether a presentation becomes an oral or poster presentation, because giving one of the precious oral slots to someone whose going to largely be discussing a slew of null results is (often) irksome.

You do however have results, and that should be enough to make it past the bar. If X and Y are both possible within the parameter space, and that means something for the field, then that is a specific result, and you should expand on why that's interesting.