Total: 1
Despite the remarkable successes of Large Language Models (LLMs), their fundamental Transformer architecture possesses inherent theoretical limitations that restrict their capability to handle reasoning tasks with increasing computational complexity. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a practical solution, supported by several theoretical studies. However, current CoT-based methods (including ToT, GoT, etc.) generally adopt a "one-prompt-fits-all" strategy, using fixed templates (e.g., "think step by step") across diverse reasoning tasks. This method forces models to navigate an extremely complex prompt space to identify effective reasoning paths. The current prompt designing research are also heavily relying on trial-and-error rather than theoretically informed guidance. In this paper, we provide a rigorous theoretical analysis of the complexity and interplay between two crucial spaces: the prompt space (the space of potential prompt structures) and the answer space (the space of reasoning solutions generated by LLMs) in CoT reasoning. We demonstrate how reliance on a single universal prompt (e.g. think step by step) can negatively impact the theoretical computability of LLMs, illustrating that prompt complexity directly influences the structure and effectiveness of the navigation in answer space. Our analysis highlights that sometimes human supervision is critical for efficiently navigating the prompt space. We theoretically and empirically show that task-specific prompting significantly outperforms unsupervised prompt generation, emphasizing the necessity of thoughtful human guidance in CoT prompting.