> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://adhd.mintlify.site/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# ADHD vs CoT & ToT

> How ADHD differs structurally from Chain-of-Thought and Tree-of-Thought — the three load-bearing differences.

Easy to conflate. They are structurally different.

|                            | Chain-of-Thought       | Tree-of-Thought           | **ADHD**                                                                          |
| -------------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Threads**                | one, linear            | one tree, walked          | **N parallel, isolated**                                                          |
| **Branches share context** | yes                    | yes (one session)         | **no — each branch is its own `query()`**                                         |
| **Generator vs critic**    | same step              | same model, alternating   | **separated phases, separate LLM calls, opposite system prompts**                 |
| **Branching driver**       | none                   | next-step variations      | **cognitive frames — re-ask the *whole question* from a different vantage point** |
| **Parallelism**            | sequential             | mostly sequential         | **true concurrent API calls**                                                     |
| **Goal**                   | correct reasoning      | find a solving path       | **escape premature convergence; surface non-obvious viable options**              |
| **Right for**              | math, multi-step logic | search, planning, puzzles | **open-ended design & ideation**                                                  |

## The three load-bearing differences

<Steps>
  <Step title="Isolation, not search">
    CoT and ToT branches share a context window — by step 4, the model has anchored on what it wrote in steps 1–3. ADHD branches **never see each other** during divergence. Anchoring is eliminated **by construction**, not by prompting.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Frames, not next-step variation">
    ToT branches typically vary the next move ("try this number / try that number"). ADHD varies the *entire vantage point of the generator*. It's not "what's the next step from here" — it's *"re-ask the whole question as if you were an immune system."* That produces structurally different ideas, not nearby ones — which is what interdisciplinary work needs.
  </Step>

  <Step title="The generator–critic split is mechanical, not promised">
    In CoT and ToT, the model evaluates as it goes. ADHD makes divergence its own LLM call with a system prompt that *forbids* evaluation. Convergence is a separate call with the opposite posture. Two postures, two passes, mutually exclusive.
  </Step>
</Steps>

## One-sentence version

> CoT makes one head think slower. ToT makes one head search wider. **ADHD makes many heads think differently, in parallel, then has a critic pick.**

## Pop-sci version

> CoT is one careful person reasoning aloud. ToT is one person playing chess looking N moves ahead. **ADHD is a brainstorm room with a hardware engineer, a regulator, a 10-year-old, and a speedrunner in it — then a separate room with the editor.**

## Where it overlaps with ToT

ADHD *is* a tree-of-thought variant: the deepen pass literally expands top-K nodes. What's new is **what drives the branching** (frames, not next-step) and **how the generator/critic split is enforced** (separate LLM calls, separate system prompts, zero shared context during divergence).

## Why prompted alternatives don't replicate parallel divergence

The most common objection: *"Isn't this just spending more tokens? If I prompt one agent to 'consider alternatives' or 'list 5 options first', isn't that the same thing?"*

It is not, and the reason is mechanical, not a matter of degree.

A single chain told to "consider alternatives" generates those alternatives **into one shared context, sequentially**. It anchors on whichever alternative it produces first and reasons forward from there; the attention pattern drags every subsequent "alternative" toward the first one, even while nominally exploring others. The options come out as variations on a theme rather than structurally distinct angles. "List N options" is just CoT with a numbered list.

ADHD's N branches never share a context during divergence. Each is a separate `query()` that cannot see what the others wrote, so there is no first answer to anchor on. Distinctness is produced **by construction** (isolation + different frames), not requested by a prompt and hoped for.

<Note>
  **External corroboration (anecdotal).** A reader running the comparison by hand reported that running the same prompt five times in *parallel* agents surfaces actually-distinct ideas about **3× as often** as a single agent prompted to "list 5 options first." This is directional, not measured — one practitioner's observation, not a controlled result. A controlled `parallel-N` vs `single-prompt-list-N` comparison on the eval suite is tracked as follow-up work on [issue #13](https://github.com/UditAkhourii/adhd/issues/13).
</Note>

The short version: *"list alternatives" varies the **output**; ADHD varies the **generator**. Only the second escapes the anchor.*