{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2025:7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ","short_pith_number":"pith:7UHD3GLS","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"fd0e3d997283ff938b7045b775faf5b4026ed4e8dce91b7b7e8296b4b8506a04","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2508.19827","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Analysing Chain of Thought Dynamics: Active Guidance or Unfaithful Post-hoc Rationalisation?","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CL"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Nikolaos Aletras, Samuel Lewis-Lim, Xingwei Tan, Zhixue Zhao","submitted_at":"2025-08-27T12:25:29Z","abstract_excerpt":"Recent work has demonstrated that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) often yields limited gains for soft-reasoning problems such as analytical and commonsense reasoning. CoT can also be unfaithful to a model's actual reasoning. We investigate the dynamics and faithfulness of CoT in soft-reasoning tasks across instruction-tuned, reasoning and reasoning-distilled models. Our findings reveal differences in how these models rely on CoT, and show that CoT influence and faithfulness are not always aligned."},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2508.19827","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.AI","submitted_at":"2025-08-27T12:25:29Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.CL"],"title_canon_sha256":"3baa8a3a78fbe81956520f78ff51629160ad8e6dea2796937b25e0757023647e","abstract_canon_sha256":"98a3cdc4a74fa3799a63ee23637e25ed439ef5468b182ae4add1b2f337e28151"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460573Z","signature_b64":"O9gQVmnQOtXT7HWwufDKk7swvbmfdlOGNThju6knY0x0fZv65YiyPiwnCzb752PYT2TwvzfwS5K5ypQz83WRCQ==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"fd0e3d997283ff938b7045b775faf5b4026ed4e8dce91b7b7e8296b4b8506a04","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.459972Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.459972Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Analysing Chain of Thought Dynamics: Active Guidance or Unfaithful Post-hoc Rationalisation?","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.CL"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Nikolaos Aletras, Samuel Lewis-Lim, Xingwei Tan, Zhixue Zhao","submitted_at":"2025-08-27T12:25:29Z","abstract_excerpt":"Recent work has demonstrated that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) often yields limited gains for soft-reasoning problems such as analytical and commonsense reasoning. CoT can also be unfaithful to a model's actual reasoning. We investigate the dynamics and faithfulness of CoT in soft-reasoning tasks across instruction-tuned, reasoning and reasoning-distilled models. Our findings reveal differences in how these models rely on CoT, and show that CoT influence and faithfulness are not always aligned."},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2508.19827","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2508.19827/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2508.19827","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2508.19827v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2508.19827","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"7UHD3GLSQP7Z","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3Q","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"7UHD3GLS","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.23970","citing_title":"Faithful or Fabricated? A Causal Framework for Rationalization Bias in LLM Judges","ref_index":22,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ","json":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/7UHD3GLS"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/7UHD3GLS","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2508.19827&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/7UHD3GLSQP7ZHC3QIW3XL6XVWQ/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T12:00:18.460047+00:00"}