Unverified50% confidenceOpinionExact time
Ordinary Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting can generate seemingly plausible reasoning processes but cannot genuinely constrain the normative structure that legal reasoning should follow.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
9/24/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
VerifiedFormal verification can only guarantee the internal consistency of a reasoning chain; it cannot automatically determine whether the proposition being proved is semantically fully equivalent to the original conjecture.76% similarUnverifiedThe value of a theorem often lies not in obtaining the answer, but in the structure, methods, and ideas revealed by the proof process.70% similarUnverifiedLatent space reasoning lacks natural supervision signals—there is no ground truth to determine whether a given hidden vector represents correct thinking—which remains an engineering challenge that has not been fully resolved.70% similarUnverifiedTo truly achieve reasoning rather than merely attaining in-distribution accuracy, it is not sufficient to simply have the hypothesis class cover the correct rules.69% similarUnverifiedStandard reasoning mode does not use long chain-of-thought, and token consumption is typically one-tenth or even less than that of high reasoning mode.69% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/946206API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/946206MCP
get_claim(id=946206)