Google

Zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (COT) is a prompting technique that elicits step-by-step reasoning from a large language model without providing any preliminary examples or intermediate reasoning steps. Instead, it relies on adding a simple instructional trigger to the prompt—such as appending the phrase "Let's think step by step."—which provokes the model to independently generate its own reasoning process to reach the final answer.

Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought (COT) Prompting

A zero-shot Chain-of-Thought prompt elicits reasoning without providing solved examples. It typically consists of a question followed by an instruction to trigger a step-by-step thought process. For instance:

**Q:** Please calculate the average of the numbers 2, 4, and 9.

**A:** Let’s think step-by-step.

Example of a Zero-Shot COT Prompt

The primary distinction between few-shot and zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting lies in the use of examples. Few-shot CoT requires providing one or more demonstrations of step-by-step reasoning within the prompt. In contrast, zero-shot CoT provides no such examples and instead relies on incorporating a direct instruction to trigger the model's reasoning process.

Comparison of Few-Shot and Zero-Shot CoT Prompting

To elicit a reasoning process from a Large Language Model, various instructional phrases can be used as alternatives to the common 'Let’s think step by step.' Examples of such trigger phrases include 'Let’s think logically' and 'Please show me your thinking steps first,' which also prompt the model to articulate its problem-solving process.

Alternative Phrases for Triggering Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

A user wants a large language model to solve a multi-step word problem. The model's initial attempts provide only a final, incorrect answer. The user's goal is to modify the prompt to encourage the model to generate a detailed, step-by-step thought process first, which should lead to a more accurate final answer. Crucially, the user does not want to include a complete, solved example of another problem in the prompt. Which of the following prompt modifications best achieves this specific goal?

To successfully prompt a language model to generate a step-by-step thought process for a new problem, one must always include a complete, solved example of a similar problem within the prompt.

The structure of a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought prompt for an arithmetic task involves two key components. First, the user's question is stated directly. Second, an instruction is appended to trigger the model's reasoning process. For example, the question 'Q: Please calculate the average of the numbers 2, 4, and 9' would be followed by the instruction 'A: Let’s think step-by-step' to guide the model.

Structure of a Zero-Shot CoT Prompt for an Arithmetic Task

Examine the two prompts below, both designed to have a language model solve a word problem. Identify which prompt (A or B) is an example of the zero-shot, step-by-step reasoning technique. Justify your answer by explaining the key structural difference between the two prompts that defines this technique.

**Prompt A:**
Q: A juggler has 15 balls. He drops 5 and buys 2 more. How many balls does he have?
A: The juggler starts with 15 balls. He drops 5, so he has 15 - 5 = 10 balls. He buys 2 more, so he has 10 + 2 = 12 balls. The answer is 12.

Q: A bakery has 20 loaves of bread. They sell 8 in the morning and bake 12 more in the afternoon. How many loaves do they have now?

**Prompt B:**
Q: A bakery has 20 loaves of bread. They sell 8 in the morning and bake 12 more in the afternoon. How many loaves do they have now?
A: Let's think step by step.

Identifying a Zero-Shot Reasoning Prompt

Your team is rolling out an internal LLM assistant...

You’re building an internal LLM workflow to produc...

You’re building an internal LLM assistant to help ...

You’re leading an internal enablement team buildin...

You are deploying an LLM inside an internal finance tool that must answer multi-step policy questions (e.g., “Is this expense reimbursable given these 6 policy clauses and these 3 trip details?”). Constraints: (1) you have a strict context window budget, so you can include at most ONE short worked example in the prompt; (2) the model’s first-pass answers are often incomplete (it sometimes explains reasoning but forgets to state a final decision); (3) you need a workflow that is reliable across many different question shapes, not just one template.

Write an essay proposing a concrete prompting workflow that combines: in-context learning (if you use it), chain-of-thought prompting (including whether you would use zero-shot CoT), explicit problem decomposition (including whether you would use a least-to-most progression), and an iterative self-refinement loop. Your answer must (a) explain why your chosen combination fits the constraints, (b) describe the exact sequence of LLM calls or prompt sections you would use, (c) explain how intermediate sub-answers feed into later steps, and (d) specify how you will force a clear final decision despite the risk of incomplete zero-shot CoT outputs. Include at least two tradeoffs you are accepting (e.g., latency vs. accuracy, context budget vs. guidance, error propagation vs. transparency) and how you would mitigate them.

Choosing and Justifying a Prompting Strategy Under Context and Quality Constraints

You are deploying an LLM inside a corporate workflow to draft a first-pass analysis for a high-stakes internal decision memo (e.g., whether to approve a vendor contract). The input is a long, messy bundle of notes and constraints, and early pilots show two failure modes: (1) when asked directly, the model misses key constraints and produces confident but shallow conclusions; (2) when you add a generic “let’s think step by step” instruction, it produces lengthy reasoning but sometimes never states a clear final recommendation.

Write a proposed prompting workflow (you may describe it as a sequence of prompts) that uses: in-context learning with demonstrations, chain-of-thought prompting (including a zero-shot trigger where appropriate), least-to-most prompting, explicit problem decomposition, and an iterative self-refinement loop. Your answer must explain how these techniques work together (not independently) to reduce the two failure modes above, and must justify at least two tradeoffs you are making (e.g., latency/cost vs. accuracy, transparency vs. risk of overlong reasoning, fixed vs. dynamic decomposition). Conclude by giving one concrete example of a “final answer formatting” instruction you would include to ensure the model always outputs a clear recommendation at the end.

Designing a Prompting Workflow for a High-Stakes, Multi-Step Task

You are building an internal LLM assistant that helps a finance operations team investigate invoice-payment discrepancies. A typical ticket requires (a) extracting key entities from a messy email thread, (b) reconciling amounts across two systems, (c) identifying the most likely root cause (e.g., duplicate invoice, partial payment, currency conversion, timing), and (d) drafting a customer-facing explanation.

Your first implementation uses a single prompt with the full ticket text and the instruction “Let’s think step by step and give the final answer.” It often produces plausible reasoning but (1) misses a critical sub-check (e.g., currency conversion), (2) sometimes never states a clear final conclusion, and (3) varies in format so downstream automation breaks.

Write an essay that proposes a revised prompting workflow that integrates: in-context learning (demonstrations), explicit problem decomposition, least-to-most sequencing of sub-problems, chain-of-thought prompting (including when you would use zero-shot CoT vs a demonstrated CoT example), and an iterative self-refinement loop. Your answer must explain how these elements work together (not as independent tips), what tradeoffs you are making (e.g., context length, reliability, error propagation), and include at least two concrete prompt snippets (not full prompts) that illustrate (i) how you would elicit structured intermediate reasoning while still forcing a final answer, and (ii) how you would run critique-and-revision in self-refinement without losing the decomposed structure.

Diagnosing and Redesigning a Prompting Approach for a Decomposed Workflow

You are deploying an internal LLM assistant to help procurement analysts decide whether a proposed vendor contract requires (a) a standard review, (b) an enhanced review, or (c) an automatic rejection. The decision depends on multiple interdependent rules (e.g., data types handled, cross-border transfers, subcontractors, and exception clauses). In pilot testing, a single prompt that asks for the final decision often misses a key condition; a zero-shot “Let’s think step by step” prompt sometimes produces a long rationale but forgets to clearly state the final decision; and when you add a few demonstrations, the model becomes more consistent but still makes occasional early-step mistakes that cascade into the wrong outcome.

Design a prompting workflow (you may describe it as a sequence of LLM calls) that uses: (1) in-context learning via demonstrations, (2) explicit problem decomposition in a least-to-most progression, and (3) an iterative self-refinement loop. Your answer must explain how information flows from one step to the next, how you would prevent or detect cascading errors from early steps, and how you would ensure the model always outputs an unambiguous final decision label (a/b/c) even when using chain-of-thought style reasoning.

Stabilizing an LLM Workflow for Multi-Step Policy Compliance Decisions

You are rolling out an internal LLM assistant for Legal Ops to triage vendor contract clauses into three labels: (A) "standard/low risk", (B) "needs legal review", (C) "reject". The assistant must also produce a short justification that can be audited. In a pilot, you observe two recurring failures: (1) on complex clauses, the model gives confident but wrong labels unless it is guided through intermediate reasoning; (2) when you add a simple instruction like "Let’s think step by step," the model often produces a long rationale but sometimes forgets to output a clear final label.

You are not allowed to fine-tune the model. You can only change the prompting workflow and the content placed in the prompt. You have a strict context window budget, so you can include at most ONE worked example in the prompt, and you must keep the number of model calls per clause to no more than 3.

Case: A new clause says: "Vendor may use Customer Data to improve its services and may share Customer Data with affiliates and subcontractors for that purpose. Customer may opt out of data sharing by emailing support within 10 days of signing." Your policy requires: (i) no sharing of Customer Data with third parties for model training/service improvement unless explicitly prohibited or strongly constrained; (ii) opt-out mechanisms are considered insufficient for sensitive data; (iii) subcontractor access must be tightly limited.

Design a prompting workflow (describe the sequence of prompts/calls and what each prompt contains) that uses in-context learning, problem decomposition/least-to-most prompting, chain-of-thought (including zero-shot CoT where appropriate), and self-refinement to reduce both failure modes while staying within the constraints. Your answer must explain how the techniques interact (e.g., why you place a worked example where you do, how you decompose the decision, how you ensure a final label is always produced, and how critique/revision is used without exceeding 3 calls).

Debugging a Multi-Step LLM Workflow for Contract Clause Risk Triage

You are rolling out an internal LLM assistant for SREs to perform root-cause analysis (RCA) from incident artifacts. The assistant receives: (1) a short incident timeline, (2) 30–60 lines of logs, and (3) a list of recent deploys. The desired output is a single RCA summary with: likely cause, supporting evidence, and a recommended next action.

Constraints: You can only include ONE short demonstration in the prompt due to context limits; the assistant must work on novel incidents; and the first pilot showed two failure modes: (a) the model jumps to a plausible cause without checking evidence across artifacts, and (b) when you add “Let’s think step by step,” it sometimes produces a long analysis but forgets to state a clear final RCA.

As the prompt/workflow designer, propose a concrete prompting plan that combines: (i) in-context learning with the single demonstration, (ii) explicit problem decomposition (including a least-to-most style progression of sub-questions), (iii) chain-of-thought elicitation (including how you would use or avoid zero-shot CoT triggers), and (iv) self-refinement (critique + revision) to reduce both failure modes. Your answer must include the exact structure of the prompt(s) you would send (section headings and what each section contains) and explain why each component is placed where it is.

Designing a Robust Prompting Workflow for Multi-Step Root-Cause Analysis with Limited Examples

An example of zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting involves appending the instructional trigger "Let's think step by step." to the end of a prompt, such as the 'Jack's apples' word problem. This prompts the language model to independently generate intermediate reasoning steps to reach the final answer. For instance, the model might output: "1. Initial Quantity: Jack starts with $${}7$$ apples. 2. After Dinner: He eats $${}2$$ apples, so $${}7-2=5$$ apples remain. 3. His Mom Gives More: His mom gives him $${}5$$ more apples, so $${}5+5=10$$ apples are now with him. 4. Giving to John: The next day, Jack gives $${}3$$ apples to his friend John, so $${}10-3=7$$ apples are left. In the end, Jack has $${}7$$ apples left."

Learn Before

Related