{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2025:N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG","short_pith_number":"pith:N5Q5IOPQ","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"6f61d439f0c5cbe717894fe8719977b1968055e4aa97779aa11d6ab1940e3f57","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2509.07339","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Performative Thinking? The Brittle Correlation Between CoT Length and Problem Complexity","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Karthik Valmeekam, Kaya Stechly, Subbarao Kambhampati, Vardhan Palod","submitted_at":"2025-09-09T02:31:16Z","abstract_excerpt":"Intermediate token generation (ITG), where a model produces output before the solution, has been proposed as a method to improve the performance of language models on reasoning tasks. While these reasoning traces or Chain of Thoughts (CoTs) are correlated with performance gains, the mechanisms underlying them remain unclear. A prevailing assumption in the community has been to anthropomorphize these tokens as \"thinking\", treating longer traces as evidence of higher problem-adaptive computation. In this work, we critically examine whether intermediate token sequence length reflects or correlate"},"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":"2509.07339","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.AI","submitted_at":"2025-09-09T02:31:16Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"46ee38986cb5b7c7008e798574ea29aa6b7da268932f56ef089aadc28ac9b0fb","abstract_canon_sha256":"4c3cdaf7278e92e1d25abea29a7e459e4c8d8ab0a11fb8ca69b676ac9e1e625a"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901795Z","signature_b64":"bAr/en25XLEjPreHBBMd1e6Qa1XNWqLUPAaTDx2RlTDmifs8R5eyBjAQyQSCgieZt15seKLT6IHV1v38gEzBBA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"6f61d439f0c5cbe717894fe8719977b1968055e4aa97779aa11d6ab1940e3f57","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901269Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901269Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Performative Thinking? The Brittle Correlation Between CoT Length and Problem Complexity","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Karthik Valmeekam, Kaya Stechly, Subbarao Kambhampati, Vardhan Palod","submitted_at":"2025-09-09T02:31:16Z","abstract_excerpt":"Intermediate token generation (ITG), where a model produces output before the solution, has been proposed as a method to improve the performance of language models on reasoning tasks. While these reasoning traces or Chain of Thoughts (CoTs) are correlated with performance gains, the mechanisms underlying them remain unclear. A prevailing assumption in the community has been to anthropomorphize these tokens as \"thinking\", treating longer traces as evidence of higher problem-adaptive computation. In this work, we critically examine whether intermediate token sequence length reflects or correlate"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2509.07339","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/2509.07339/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":"2509.07339","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2509.07339v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2509.07339","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"N5Q5IOPQYXF6","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4J","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"N5Q5IOPQ","created_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":4,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.18206","citing_title":"Fixed-Point Reasoners: Stable and Adaptive Deep Looped Transformers","ref_index":3,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.16938","citing_title":"Effort as Ceiling, Not Dial: Reasoning Budget Does Not Modulate Cognitive Cost Alignment Between Humans and Large Reasoning Models","ref_index":18,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.06192","citing_title":"The Stepwise Informativeness Assumption: Why are Entropy Dynamics and Reasoning Correlated in LLMs?","ref_index":18,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.11746","citing_title":"When Reasoning Traces Become Performative: Step-Level Evidence that Chain-of-Thought Is an Imperfect Oversight Channel","ref_index":40,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG","json":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/N5Q5IOPQ"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/N5Q5IOPQ","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2509.07339&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/N5Q5IOPQYXF6OF4JJ7UHDGLXWG/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T12:07:19.901338+00:00"}