cot-coherence 0.1.0

Detect silent incoherence in AI chain-of-thought reasoning

cot-coherence

Detect silent incoherence in AI chain-of-thought reasoning.

Most evaluation tools check if each reasoning step is correct. cot-coherence checks if the logical progression between steps holds together — schema-level coherence, not step-level accuracy.

Why?

Chain-of-thought reasoning in LLMs silently degrades. Recent research (arXiv, Feb-Mar 2026) shows:

• CoT faithfulness decays at 70-85% of chain length ("Reasoning Horizon")
• Reasoning tokens have a negative effect past this horizon
• No existing tool detects this — current tools check RAG grounding, linguistic flow, or safety. None check logical coherence between steps.

cot-coherence fills this gap.

Install

pip install cot-coherence

With CLI support:

pip install cot-coherence[cli]

Quick Start

import cot_coherence

report = cot_coherence.analyze("""
Step 1: The user asks about Python performance.
Step 2: Python is interpreted, so it's generally slower than compiled languages.
Step 3: Let me discuss the history of JavaScript frameworks.
Step 4: Therefore, Python is definitely the fastest language available.
""", original_question="Is Python fast?")

print(report.overall_score)  # 0.43
print(report.is_coherent)    # False
print(len(report.flags))     # 3+ (scope_creep, conclusion_drift, confidence_inflation)

What It Detects

5 Incoherence Patterns

Pattern	What It Catches	Example
Premise Abandonment	Premises introduced but never referenced again	"Given PostgreSQL uses RLS..." then never mentions DB security
Conclusion Drift	Conclusions that shift topic mid-chain	Concludes about databases, then about Kubernetes
Confidence Inflation	Unjustified jumps from hedging to certainty	"might work" → "definitely always works" with no evidence
Scope Creep	Reasoning that drifts from the original question	Asked about Python, starts discussing Roman architecture
Circular Return	Steps that repeat earlier reasoning	Step 5 restates Step 1 in different words

Reasoning Horizon

Detects the point in a chain where quality starts to degrade — the "Reasoning Horizon" described in recent research. Reports the estimated horizon position and degradation signals.

CLI

# Analyze a trace file
cot-coherence check trace.txt -q "What is quantum computing?"

# Pipe from stdin
echo "Step 1: ..." | cot-coherence check

# JSON output
cot-coherence check trace.txt --json-output

# Adjust sensitivity (0.0=lenient, 1.0=strict)
cot-coherence check trace.txt -s 0.8

# Disable horizon analysis
cot-coherence check trace.txt --no-horizon

Configuration

from cot_coherence import analyze, CoherenceConfig, IncoherenceType

config = CoherenceConfig(
    sensitivity=0.7,                    # 0.0=lenient, 1.0=strict
    enabled_detectors={                 # Enable specific detectors
        IncoherenceType.PREMISE_ABANDONMENT,
        IncoherenceType.CONFIDENCE_INFLATION,
    },
    analyze_horizon=True,               # Enable horizon analysis
    weights={                           # Custom pattern weights
        IncoherenceType.PREMISE_ABANDONMENT: 2.0,
        IncoherenceType.CONFIDENCE_INFLATION: 1.5,
    },
)

report = analyze("Step 1: ...", config=config)

Trace Formats

Auto-detects 4 formats:

# Numbered (default for most LLMs)
"Step 1: First\nStep 2: Second"
"1. First\n2. Second"

# XML (Claude-style thinking)
"<step>First</step><step>Second</step>"
"<thinking>Reasoning here</thinking>"

# Markdown
"## Step 1\nFirst\n## Step 2\nSecond"

# Newline-separated (fallback)
"First block\n\nSecond block"

Or pass pre-split steps:

report = analyze(steps=["First step", "Second step"])

Custom Parsers

from cot_coherence import register_parser
from cot_coherence.models import ReasoningStep

def my_parser(text):
    parts = text.split("|||")
    return [ReasoningStep(index=i, text=p.strip(), raw_text=p)
            for i, p in enumerate(parts) if p.strip()]

register_parser("pipe", my_parser)
report = analyze("First ||| Second ||| Third", trace_format="pipe")

The CoherenceReport

report = analyze(trace)

report.overall_score    # float 0.0-1.0
report.is_coherent      # True if score >= 0.7
report.steps            # list[ReasoningStep]
report.flags            # list[IncoherenceFlag]
report.critical_flags   # flags with CRITICAL severity
report.horizon          # HorizonAnalysis or None
report.pattern_scores   # dict[IncoherenceType, float]

# Each flag contains:
flag.type               # IncoherenceType enum
flag.severity           # LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, CRITICAL
flag.confidence         # 0.0-1.0
flag.step_range         # (start_step, end_step)
flag.summary            # Human-readable description
flag.evidence           # Specific evidence
flag.suggestion         # How to fix it

How It Works

v0.1 uses rule-based heuristics — zero API cost, works offline:

• Premise Abandonment: Extracts premise markers ("given", "assuming"), checks if key entities appear in subsequent steps
• Conclusion Drift: Identifies conclusion markers ("therefore", "thus"), compares topic overlap via Jaccard similarity
• Confidence Inflation: Tracks hedging vs. certainty word ratios, flags unjustified jumps without evidence markers
• Scope Creep: Measures content-word overlap between each step and the original question
• Circular Return: Computes content-word fingerprints, flags high similarity between non-adjacent steps

Scoring: each pattern starts at 1.0, penalties applied per flag based on severity and confidence. Overall score is the weighted average.

Dependencies

Required: pydantic>=2.0

Optional:

• [cli] — click, rich (for terminal interface)
• [llm] — anthropic (for future LLM-powered detection)
• [dev] — pytest, pytest-cov, ruff, mypy

License

Apache 2.0