The DOI matches its DataCite record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 22 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Autonomous AI agents in business deployments exhibit a recurring failure mode: when an incident occurs, responsibility cannot be redirected to a separable contributor. The dominant discourse treats this as a single phenomenon, addressed by sandboxing, human-in-the-loop overload, or what Elish (2019) named the moral crumple zone. This paper argues the phenomenon is two architecturally distinct failure modes that have been conflated, and that the conflation is sustained by a missing positive name and a missing time-axis. The paper introduces two contributions. First, a four-quadrant decomposition of business AI work — along the axes of deterministic vs semantic-judgment and pre-defined vs exploratory — yields a positive name for the cell most current LLM applications occupy: the LLM Workflow Quadrant. The quadrant is defined by a single load-bearing property: the path is decided in advance by humans or by code, and the LLM is called as a single bounded step within that path; the property divides naturally into a conversational sub-form (specialized chat agents) and a batch sub-form (single-purpose LLM functions inside deterministic pipelines). The decomposition distinguishes principled from artificial redirect impossibility: the former intrinsic to autonomous loops, the latter the product of routing workflow work through autonomous-loop architecture by elimination, with four downstream symptoms (the RPA exception-handling bottleneck, the sandbox-strength demand, the structural distortion of human-in-the-loop, and the dissolution of the accountability chain at postmortem). Second, a Phase Separation axis (design vs operation), independent of Quadrant, surfaces a Phase-crossing decision — recorded at deployment time, in one sentence — required when an autonomous-loop component is placed in the operation phase. The Phase axis descends recursively to skill-design granularity, where the Quadrant 3 ↔ Quadrant 4 boundary is a continuous gradient on which model capability is downstream of phase, not the primary lever. The consequence is procedural rather than architectural: deployments make the Phase-crossing decision explicit, designate a pre-named gap-bearer for principled-impossibility placements, and route artificial-impossibility cases to re-architecture. The framework complements existing AI risk-management and management-system standards by recording the judgment layer they presuppose. Both rules are stated as experimental; the open questions are the research agenda.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
ReAct prompts large language models to interleave verbal reasoning traces with task-specific actions, allowing reasoning to guide acting and actions to gather external information. Across question answering, fact verification, and interactive decision-making benchmarks, ReAct improves grounding and performance over act-only baselines and combines well with chain-of-thought self-consistency.
Key findings
- On HotpotQA and Fever with PaLM-540B, ReAct reaches 27.4 EM and 60.9 Acc, versus Act at 25.7 EM and 58.9 Acc; CoT reaches 29.4 EM and 56.3 Acc. The best combinations are ReAct→CoT-SC at 35.1 EM on HotpotQA and CoT-SC→ReAct at 64.6 Acc on Fever.
- On ALFWorld, the best ReAct trial achieves 71% average success rate, versus best Act 45% and BUTLER 37%; even the worst ReAct trial at 48% beats the best trial of both baselines. ReAct’s relative gain over Act ranges from 33% to 90%, averaging 62%.
- On WebShop, ReAct scores 66.6 with 40.0 success rate, versus Act 62.3/30.1, IL 59.9/29.1, and IL+RL 62.4/28.7, an absolute 10% improvement over the previous best success rate; human experts score 82.1/59.6.
- Human analysis of 200 HotpotQA trajectories found CoT hallucination made up 56% of its failures, while ReAct had 0% hallucination failures but 47% reasoning errors and 23% search-result errors; CoT had 16% reasoning errors.
Methods
- ReAct augments the action space with language thoughts, prompting a frozen PaLM-540B with few-shot human trajectories of interleaved thoughts, actions, and observations; thoughts are dense for QA/fact verification and sparse for decision-making tasks.
- Evaluated on HotpotQA, Fever, ALFWorld, and WebShop, using a Wikipedia API with search, lookup, and finish actions; baselines include Standard, CoT, CoT-SC, and Act, plus ReAct↔CoT-SC combinations.
- Also finetuned PaLM-8B/62B on 3,000 correct ReAct trajectories; ALFWorld used 134 unseen evaluation games, WebShop used 500 test instructions, and HotpotQA/Fever used EM/accuracy.
Limitations
- The paper states that complex tasks with large action spaces require more demonstrations, which can exceed in-context input limits; finetuning is initially promising but needs more high-quality human annotations; PaLM is not openly accessible.
- The paper reports that ReAct lags CoT on HotpotQA (27.4 vs. 29.4 EM), has higher reasoning-error rate than CoT (47% vs. 16%), can repetitively loop, and suffers when search returns noninformative results (23% of error cases).
- The text makes evident that prompting methods remain far from supervised SoTA on HotpotQA/Fever (67.5 EM, 89.5 Acc) and from human experts on WebShop (82.1 score, 59.6 SR), and that the Wikipedia action space is weaker than state-of-the-art retrievers.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
46 Own result · 30 Own interpretation · 16 No basis given · 8 Sources not found · 5 Partly supported · 1 Supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Therefore, better incorporation of reasoning abilities might benefit recent Internet-augmented language models (Nakano et al., 2021; Lazaridou et al., 2022; Shuster et al., 2022a) for up-to-date task solving.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nakano et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Lazaridou et al., 2022 source
The Introduction (p. 1) describes this paper’s Internet-augmented model as using web information for up-to-date question answering, so the citation identifies an example of the kind of model named in the sentence. The scaling analysis (p. 7) also reports that retrieval cannot compensate for a general lack of reasoning abilities, consistent with the citing authors’ suggestion that better reasoning might help. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Shuster et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PaLM-62B finetuned ReAct outperforming all 540B prompting methods”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With additional sparse reasoning, ReAct achieves significantly better performance, with an absolute 10% improvement over the previous best success rate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PaLM-8B finetuned ReAct outperforming all PaLM-62B prompting methods”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On Webshop, one-shot Act prompting already performs on par with IL and IL+RL methods.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and make up its major failure mode (56%)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On ALFWorld, the best ReAct trial achieves an average success rate of 71%, significantly outperforming the best Act (45%) and BUTLER (37%) trials.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitatively, we observed that ReAct-IM often made mistakes in identifying when subgoals were finished, or what the next subgoal should be, due to a lack of highlevel goal decomposition.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ReAct outperforms CoT on Fever (60.9 vs. 56.3)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“reaching CoT-SC performance with 21 samples using merely 3-5 samples”
plaindirectn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In SayCan, LLMs were prompted to directly predict possible actions a robot can take, which is then reranked by an affordance model grounded on the visual environments for final prediction.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ahn et al., 2022 source
Section 3 (pp. 3–4) says SayCan prompts an LLM to score candidate robot skills, then combines those scores with affordance values to select a skill. Figure 2 (p. 4) describes affordance values based on the robot’s current observation. The claim’s “reranked” describes this combined scoring, though the LLM scores a fixed set of skills rather than generating unrestricted actions. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“WebGPT (Nakano et al., 2021) uses an LM to interact with web browsers, navigate through web pages, and infer answers to complicated questions from ELI5 (Fan et al., 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nakano et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Fan et al., 2019 source
The citation to Fan et al. identifies ELI5 as the source of the questions, not as evidence for how WebGPT works. The Abstract and Introduction describe ELI5 as a dataset of complex, open-ended questions requiring long-form answers. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Perhaps most relevant to ReAct in this respect are SayCan (Ahn et al., 2022) and Inner Monologue (Huang et al., 2022b), which use LLMs for robotic action planning and decision making.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ahn et al., 2022 source
The Introduction (p. 2) says SayCan uses an LLM to determine useful actions for a robot’s high-level goal and combines it with affordance functions to determine what the robot can execute. Related Work (p. 11) explicitly describes its use of an LLM to interpret instructions and plan how to execute them. The separate claim about Inner Monologue is attributed to Huang et al., not this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Huang et al., 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“We also note that leveraging language as semantically-rich inputs in the process of interactive decision making has been shown to be successful under other settings (Abramson et al., 2020; Karamcheti et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022a; Li et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Abramson et al., 2020 source
Section 2.5.4 (p. 18) describes agents receiving natural-language instructions and acting on them in an interactive setting. Section 3.6 (p. 29) reports that the best agent successfully performed both sides of these interactions in 39.58% of evaluated episodes, supporting the broad claim of success in this setting. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Karamcheti et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Huang et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Perhaps the most well-known work of using LLMs for reasoning is Chain-of-Thought (CoT) (Wei et al., 2022), which reveals the ability of LLMs to formulate their own 'thinking procedure' for problem solving.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wei et al., 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2 (pp. 2–3) says models can generate intermediate reasoning steps to solve problems, which supports the description of a step-by-step ‘thinking procedure.’ But it specifies that this ability is shown in sufficiently large models when chain-of-thought demonstrations are provided in few-shot prompts; the claim leaves those conditions out and could imply that models formulate the procedure unaided. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen in Table 3, ReAct substantially outperforms IM-style prompting ( ReAct-IM ) (71 vs. 53 overall success rate), with consistent advantages on five out of six tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ReAct outperforms Act on both ALFWorld (Table 3) and Webshop (Table 4).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through a diverse set of experiments on multi-hop question-answering, fact checking, and interactive decision-making tasks, we show that ReAct leads to superior performance with interpretable decision traces.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitatively, we saw that, without any thoughts at all, Act fails to correctly decompose goals into smaller subgoals, or loses track of the current state of the environment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also find some HotpotQA questions may contain outdated answer labels”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ReAct is better than Act on both tasks”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find more examples do not improve performance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“they both significantly and consistently outperform CoT-SC across different number of samples”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the advantage of ReAct over Act is consistent across six controlled trials, with relative performance gain ranging from 33% to 90% and averaging 62%.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of all trajectories with correct final answers, those with 7 steps on HotpotQA and 5 steps on FEVER only take up 0.84% and 1.33% respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Failure: Search error”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only ReAct is able to retrieve up-to-date information from the Internet and provide a reasonable answer.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Failure: Reasoning error”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Success: False positive”
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ReAct is able to correctly find the knife, clean it, and then place it on a countertop.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Act is able to correctly find the knife”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Failure: Label ambiguity”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 5 shows that by simply removing a hallucinating sentence in Act 17 and adding some hints in Act 23, ReAct can be made to change its behavior drastically to align with these human thought edits and succeed in the task.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Failure: Hallucination”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ReAct-IM is able to correctly find the knife”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The LLM then gets stuck trying to place this knife on a countertop.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Success: True positive”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find ReAct and Act methods generally benefit from more training steps (and more training data), while Standard and CoT methods degrade soon after finetuning.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which allows the model to perform dynamic reasoning to create, maintain, and adjust high-level plans for acting (reason to act), while also interact with the external environments (e.g. Wikipedia) to incorporate additional information into reasoning (act to reason).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Unlike ReAct , they do not explicitly consider the reasoning procedure either, and also relies on expensive datasets and human feedback collections for policy learning.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shuster et al., 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Glaese et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Hosseini-Asl et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“by interacting with a Wikipedia API, ReAct is able to retrieve information to support reasoning, while also use reasoning to target what to retrieve next, demonstrating a synergy of reasoning and acting.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To increase reproducibility, we have included all used prompts in Appendix C, additional experiments using GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) in Appendix A.1, and associated GPT-3 ReAct prompting code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ReAct-2268/ .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brown et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fever claims for SUPPORTS/REFUTES might only differ by a slight amount (see Appendix D.1), so acting to retrieve accurate and up-to-date knowledge is vital.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Inner Monologue made further improvements by adding the eponymous 'inner monologue”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Huang et al., 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In comparison to ReAct , WebGPT does not explicitly model the thinking and reasoning procedure, instead rely on expensive human feedback for reinforcement learning.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nakano et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as the language space L is unlimited, learning in this augmented action space is difficult and requires strong language priors.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the combination of reasoning and acting also contributes to model interpretability, trustworthiness, and diagnosability across all domains”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, ReAct learns a policy in a much cheaper way, since the decision making process only requires language description of the reasoning procedure.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that this action space mostly can only retrieve a small part of a passage based on exact passage name, which is significantly weaker than state-of-theart lexical or neural retrievers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the simplicity of our method, complex tasks with large action spaces require more demonstrations to learn well, which unfortunately can easily go beyond the input length limit of in-context learning.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, Inner Monologue is the first work that demonstrates such a closed-loop system, which ReAct builds on.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Huang et al., 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as humans can readily distinguish information from model's internal knowledge versus external environments, as well as inspect reasoning traces to understand the decision basis of model actions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“generating human-like task-solving trajectories that are more interpretable than baselines without reasoning traces”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“derails the model reasoning and gives it a hard time to recover and reformulate thoughts”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we observe that the problem solving process demonstrated by ReAct is more factual and grounded, whereas CoT is more accurate in formulating reasoning structure but can easily suffer from hallucinated facts or thoughts.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experiments minimize such risks by limiting the interactions to specific websites (Wikipedia or WebShop) that are free of private information, without any dangerous actions in the action space design (i.e. models cannot really buy products on WebShop the research benchmark, or edit Wikipedia).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast to these methods, ReAct performs more than just isolated, fixed reasoning, and integrates model actions and their corresponding observations into a coherent stream of inputs for the model to reason more accurately and tackle tasks beyond reasoning (e.g. interactive decision making).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the reasoning traces in ReAct for decision making is flexible and sparse, allowing diverse reasoning types (see Section 2) to be induced for different tasks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“demonstrating the value of reasoning to guide acting”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In ReAct , this sequence of subgoals would be concretely captured by each thought.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This paradigm is also more than human dialogue to update the goal or subgoal as in Huang et al. (2022b) - while editing ReAct thoughts can do these, it can also modify the model's internal belief, reasoning styles, or anything the flexible thought space supports, for better task solving.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Huang et al. (2022b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a human perspective, solving such a task becomes significantly easier, from typing tens of actions to only editing a couple of thoughts, which enables new forms of human-machine collaboration.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With ReAct , an existing thought would have concretely identified that the knife had been taken, and that the next subgoal was to go to a sinkbasin to clean it.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that such a policy edit on-the-go is difficult for Act and previous RL methods, as a human cannot change the model parameters, and changing a few actions might not edit the rest of the model behavior.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“ReAct would require 16-20 LLM calls for this task: reasoning before each action (8 actions × 2 calls/action for 'thought' and 'action'), plus initial planning and reflection. MACLA reduces this to 2 calls by retrieving learned procedures, representing an > 85% reduction in LLM inference overhead.”
From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“All of these new use cases require multiple, often dependent, LLM generation calls, showing a trend of using multi-call structures to complete complex tasks [57, 21].”
From SGLang: Efficient Execution of Structured Language Model Programs (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent work has equipped dialogue agents with the ability to use tools such as calculators and calendars, and to consult external websites 24,25 .”
From Role play with large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [25]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In systems designed for long-horizon settings, a common approach is to append all past observations, actions, and thoughts to the context at every turn [55, 61].”
From MEM1: Learning to Synergize Memory and Reasoning for Efficient Long-Horizon Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [61]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Early LLM agents used prompt-based planning [26] and selfcritique [15], but lack persistent 'how-to' procedures - when tasks are similar but not identical, agents must re-plan from scratch, increasing cost and latency.”
From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“(3) inferior planning and reasoning : existing works adopted either CoT (Wei et al., 2023) or ReACT (Yao et al., 2022) for model reasoning, which cannot fully elicit the capabilities stored in LLMs and thus fail to handle complex instructions.”
From Counterfactually Auditable Lifecycle Certification for Autonomous Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“LLM-based approaches may assist by summarizing large-scale interaction logs, extracting structured event representations, or generating hypotheses about plausible attack paths; recent work on tool-augmented language models and automated log analysis suggests their usefulness in triage and forensic workflows (Schick et al., 2023;Solomon et al., 2026;Yao et al., 2022).”
From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Incorporating user profiles and memory modules into agent systems allows them to display a range of behaviors similar to humans, based on their current observations [33].”
From Generative Agents Navigating Digital Libraries (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Most modern agentic workloads follow the ReAct -agent loop [61], alternating between a reasoning step where the LLM interprets context and outputs thoughts, and an action step where it invokes external tools.”
From Continuum: Efficient and Robust Multi-Turn LLM Agent Scheduling with KV Cache Time-to-Live (2025) · cites this paper as [61]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“To that end, we first test ReAct (Yao et al., 2022), a multi-step agent for tool use, which is implemented as a built-in module in DSPy.”
From DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“| Prompt 3: ReAct | Yao et al. (2022) | 593 | 3889 |”
From DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al. (2022)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Yao et al. (2022) achieve 27.4% EM using ReAct with PaLM-540B and 30.8 with text-davinci-002 , with a tool giving it the ability for search using a Wikipedia API. They push their PaLM results to 35.1% EM by applying an additional CoT step with selfconsistency, which may resemble our ensemble approach in the sense of aggregating multiple answers.”
From DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al. (2022)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These agents not only communicate and coordinate with one another but also interface with external resources such as tools, APIs, and structured data sources [24, 16].”
From Collaborative Memory: Multi-User Memory Sharing in LLM Agents with Dynamic Access Control (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“One preliminary approach to achieving this goal involves prompting LLMs to generate explicit plans using their internal knowledge (Yao et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023a; Sun et al., 2023). However, this method is limited by errors in the plans, which arise from the inevitable hallucinations of LLMs.”
From iCLP: Large Language Model Reasoning with Implicit Cognition Latent Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Guiding thought generation with explicit plans (Yao et al., 2022), which are step-wise and question-specific reasoning instructions, is crucial for improving practical usage and reliability of LLMs (Huang et al., 2024; 2022).”
From iCLP: Large Language Model Reasoning with Implicit Cognition Latent Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Current efforts such as ReACT (Yao et al., 2022) and PlaSma (Brahman et al., 2024) that rely on explicit plans face a key limitation: specific and question-oriented instructions often fail to generalize well across diverse problems, and the detailed content involved is prone to errors, making it difficult for the LLM to learn effectively.”
From iCLP: Large Language Model Reasoning with Implicit Cognition Latent Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“ReAct (Yao et al., 2022) prompts LLMs to produce reasoning and action traces where actions are calls to a Wikipedia API to return the summary for a given Wikipedia page title.”
From Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents increasingly rely on external tools to complete tasks beyond text generation (Yao et al., 2022).”
From MemMorph: Tool Hijacking in LLM Agents via Memory Poisoning (2026) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“ReAct Agent (Yao et al., 2022).Maintains full interaction history with a ReAct-style reasoning-acting loop.”
From Git Context Controller: Manage the Context of LLM-based Agents like Git (2025) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We use ReAct [30] as the action generator as Yao et al. [30] has shown success in long trajectory decisionmaking using explicit intermediate thoughts.”
From Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning (2023) · cites this paper as [30]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“ReAct [29] uses chain-of-thought prompting [46] by generating both reasoning traces and action plans with LLMs.”
From Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as [29]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A promising design paradigm for AI agents [65] is to combine an LLM with tools that interact with a broader environment [14, 35, 40, 47, 51, 53, 55, 69].”
From AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents (2024) · cites this paper as [69]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Frameworks integrating reasoning with action selection have shown that models can iteratively parse complex goals, call appropriate tools, and interpret results to inform further reasoning [9].”
From Medical AI Agents for Clinical Decision Support: Viewpoint Using the Planning, Action, Reflection, and Memory (PARM) Analytical Lens (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“ReAct interleaves language reasoning with environment actions [16], while Toolformer demonstrates self-supervised learning of when and how to call external APIs [17].”
From HELIX: Model-Harness Co-evolution for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“advancements in reasoning and decision-making in LLMs have significantly enhanced agent autonomy (52; 58; 36; 45).”
From Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization (2024) · cites this paper as [58]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Early LLM agents used prompt-based planning [26] and selfcritique [15], but lack persistent 'how-to' procedures - when tasks are similar but not identical, agents must re-plan from scratch, increasing cost and latency.”
From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Early frameworks such as ReAct[26] and Reflexion[14] integrate reasoning and acting within the same loop, while trajectory-tuning methods [2, 22] fine-tune models using expert demonstrations.”
From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Large language model (LLM) agents can solve complex, interactive tasks such as web shopping [25] and embodied AI housekeeping [9], by transforming natural-language instructions into sequences of environment actions [26].”
From Learning Hierarchical Procedural Memory for LLM Agents through Bayesian Selection and Contrastive Refinement (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Personal memory helps the system improve its understanding of user behavior and enhances its personalization capabilities, while system memory can strengthen the system's reasoning ability, such as in approaches like CoT (Chain-of-Thought) [23] and ReAct [24].”
From From Human Memory to AI Memory: A Survey on Memory Mechanisms in the Era of LLMs (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These agents, powered by LLMs, typically operate in an iterative loop [39, 29], at each turn they reason about the current state, devise a plan, and execute a tool (e.g., read a file, run tests).”
From The Complexity Trap: Simple Observation Masking Is as Efficient as LLM Summarization for Agent Context Management (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“ReAct (Yao et al., 2022) is a novel approach that prompts LLMs to generate both reasoning traces and task-specific actions in an interleaved manner, fostering synergy between the two processes.”
From The AI Hippocampus: How Far are We From Human Memory? (2026) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In ReAct [230], by leveraging an intuitive prompt, LLMs learn to generate both reasoning paths and task-specific actions alternately when solving a specific task. The execution of specific actions is delegated to corresponding tools, and external feedback obtained from these tools is utilized to validate and guide the reasoning process further.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [230]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Subsequent studies like ToT [228], Plan-and-Solve [229] and ReAct [230] have proposed more advanced techniques for prompt design to assist in guiding LLM to engage in deeper thinking and tool planning.”
From When large language models meet personalization: perspectives of challenges and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [230]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“ReACT (Yao et al., 2022) integrates reasoning with acting by allowing LLMs to give a proper reason for an action and incorporating environmental feedback for reasoning.”
From Counterfactually Auditable Lifecycle Certification for Autonomous Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Reasoning-and-acting traces double as short-horizon working memory; 34% absolute gain on ALFWorld.”
From Memory for Autonomous LLM Agents:Mechanisms, Evaluation, and Emerging Frontiers (2026) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent studies on tool-assisted reasoning have shown how AI systems can intertwine reasoning with action selection, allowing agents to select appropriate tools, interpret the returned information, and update subsequent steps accordingly [9].”
From Medical AI Agents for Clinical Decision Support: Viewpoint Using the Planning, Action, Reflection, and Memory (PARM) Analytical Lens (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“More sophisticated RAG methods, which perform multiple steps of retrieval and generation from an LLM, are even able to integrate information across new or updated knowledge elements[38, 64, 72, 78, 88, 90, 92], another crucial aspect of long-term memory systems.”
From HippoRAG: Neurobiologically Inspired Long-Term Memory for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [90]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which has been shown to improve the quality of reasoning and future actions71,72”
From Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [72]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Both modular-public and triframe/duet incorporate principles from the ReAct framework [46], which interleaves reasoning traces with actions.”
From Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [46]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“More promising recent efforts (Yao et al., 2022; Jiao et al., 2024; Qiao et al., 2024b; Brahman et al., 2024) focus on finetuning LLMs on automatically or manually synthesized samples with explicit plans. Unfortunately, LLMs fine-tuned in this manner still struggle to achieve better performance because the plans required by problems within a single task, as well as across tasks, are vast in number”
From iCLP: Large Language Model Reasoning with Implicit Cognition Latent Planning (2025) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In ReAct [104], the agents are required to answer questions about general knowledge by multiple reasoning steps. They can utilize Wikipedia APIs to obtain external knowledge if they lack information during these steps.”
From A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model-based Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [104]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For instance, accessing external knowledge through Application Programming Interface (API) is a common practice [104, 5].”
From A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model-based Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [104]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Lastly, we note that our QA scores exceed those reported by recent works on few-shot prompting for open-domain QA (ODQA) (Khot et al., 2023;Press et al., 2022;Yao et al., 2022), although a fair apples-to-apples comparison with them isn't possible (cf.Appendix C).”
From Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Previous work introduced non-executable code review and self-reflection (Zhao et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Dong et al., 2023). However, they still face challenges in ensuring code executability and runtime correctness.”
From MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“IRCoT is SOTA for few-shot multistep ODQA.14”
From Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions (2023) · cites this paper as Yao et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“although equipped with a broad array of tools compared to other frameworks17, it remains in an experimental stage, thus limiting clinical applicability.”
From Development and validation of an autonomous artificial intelligence agent for clinical decision-making in oncology (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“Equipping an LLM with a suite of tools, such as calculators or web search, has proven superiority in tasks that require multistep reasoning and planning17,18.”
From Development and validation of an autonomous artificial intelligence agent for clinical decision-making in oncology (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ C.4 ALFWORLD · p. 23
“Table 7: An Act prompt on the ALFWorld clean task. No thoughts are provided.”
§ C.4 ALFWORLD · p. 23
“> think: Now I clean a lettuce (1). Next, I need to put it in/on diningtable 1. OK.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3.1 SETUP · p. 4
“or else suggests top-5 similar entities from the Wikipedia search engine”
§ Original · p. 16
“Similar: ['Adam Clayton Powell III', 'Seventh Avenue (Manhattan)', 'Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building', 'Isabel Washington Powell', 'Adam Powell', 'Adam Clayton Powell (film)', 'Giancarlo Esposito'].”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ C.3 WEBSHOP · p. 22
“Action : think [B078GWRC1J and B078GTKVXY are bright citrus deodorant less then 50 dollars. I can check B078GWRC1J first.”
§ C.3 WEBSHOP · p. 22
“[ B078GTKVXY ] Ginger Fresh Deodorant by Earth Mama | Natural and Safe for Sensitive Skin, Pregnancy and Breastfeeding, Contains Organic Calendula 3-Ounce $10.99”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Alan Baddeley. Working memory. Science , 255(5044):556-559, 1992.
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877-1901, 2020.
- Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2205.09712 .
- Charles Fernyhough. Vygotsky, luria, and the social brain. Self and social regulation: Social interaction and the development of social understanding and executive functions , pp. 56-79, 2010.
- Ehsan Hosseini-Asl, Bryan McCann, Chien-Sheng Wu, Semih Yavuz, and Richard Socher. A simple language model for task-oriented dialogue. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:20179-20191, 2020.
- Siddharth Karamcheti, Megha Srivastava, Percy Liang, and Dorsa Sadigh. Lila: Language-informed latent actions. In CoRL , pp. 1379-1390, 2021. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v164/karamcheti22a.html .
- Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33: 9459-9474, 2020.
- Shuang Li, Xavier Puig, Chris Paxton, Yilun Du, Clinton Wang, Linxi Fan, Tao Chen, De-An Huang, Ekin Akyürek, Anima Anandkumar, Jacob Andreas, Igor Mordatch, Antonio Torralba, and Yuke Zhu. Pre-trained language models for interactive decision-making, 2022. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2202.01771 .
- Aleksandr Romanovich Luria. Ls vygotsky and the problem of localization of functions. Neuropsychologia , 3(4):387-392, 1965.
- Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback, 2021. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2112.09332 .
- Scott Reed, Konrad Zolna, Emilio Parisotto, Sergio Gomez Colmenarejo, Alexander Novikov, Gabriel Barth-Maron, Mai Gimenez, Yury Sulsky, Jackie Kay, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Tom Eccles, Jake Bruce, Ali Razavi, Ashley Edwards, Nicolas Heess, Yutian Chen, Raia Hadsell, Oriol Vinyals, Mahyar Bordbar, and Nando de Freitas. A generalist agent, 2022. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2205.06175 .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,701–1,800 of 5,705
ALAS: Transactional and Dynamic Multi-Agent LLM PlanningPreprint
Geng, L., & Chang, E. Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.03094 · Cited by 7
Building LLM Agents by Incorporating Insights from Computer SystemsPreprint
Mi, Y., Gao, Z., Ma, X., & Li, Q. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04485 · Cited by 6
Enforcement Agents: Enhancing Accountability and Resilience in Multi-Agent AI FrameworksPreprint
Tamang, S., & Bora, D. J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.04070 · Cited by 6
Agentic Mixture-of-Workflows for Multi-Modal Chemical SearchPreprint
Callahan, T. J., Park, N. H., & Capponi, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.19629 · Cited by 7
LangProBe: a Language Programs BenchmarkPreprint
Tan, S., Agrawal, L. A., Singhvi, A., Lai, L., Ryan, M. J., Klein, D., Khattab, O., Sen, K., & Zaharia, M. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.20315 · Cited by 6
Static Vs. Agentic Game Master AI for Facilitating Solo Role-Playing ExperiencesPreprint
Jørgensen, N. H., Tharmabalan, S., Aslan, I., Hansen, N. B., & Merritt, T. R. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.19519 · Cited by 6
Wang, J., Xu, Z., Jin, D., Yang, X., & Li, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12982 · Cited by 6
Kartal, M. Y., Kose, S. K., Sevinç, K., & Aktas, B. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.01386 · Cited by 6
Distributed AI Agents for Cognitive Underwater Robot AutonomyPreprint
Buchholz, M., Carlucho, I., Grimaldi, M., & Pétillot, Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.23735 · Cited by 6
Automating Security Audit Using Large Language Model based Agent: An Exploration ExperimentPreprint
Chin, J. H., Zhang, P., Cheong, Y. X., & Pan, J. Z. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.10732 · Cited by 6
Echo-CoPilot: A Multiple-Perspective Agentic Framework for Reliable Echocardiography InterpretationPreprint
Heidari, M., Mehrabian, A., Roohi, M. A., Jiang, R., Chen, W., Foran, D. J., Grewal, J., & Hacihaliloglu, I. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.09944 · Cited by 6
Löwenmark, K., Strömbergsson, D., Liu, C., Liwicki, M., & Sandin, F. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.09247 · Cited by 6
Exact Flow Linear Attention: Exact Solution from Continuous-Time DynamicsPreprint
Lei, J., Zhang, D., & Poria, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.12602 · Cited by 6
Dynamic Strategy Adaptation in Multi-Agent Environments with Large Language ModelsPreprint
Mallampati, S., Shelim, R., Saad, W., & Ramakrishnan, N. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.02002 · Cited by 6
Ruangtanusak, S., Taveekitworachai, P., & Pipatanakul, K. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.00482 · Cited by 6
Natural Language Tools: A Natural Language Approach to Tool Calling In Large Language AgentsPreprint
Johnson, R. T., Pain, M. D., & West, J. D. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.14453 · Cited by 6
Beyond Protein Language Models: An Agentic LLM Framework for Mechanistic Enzyme DesignPreprint
Jacob, B., Agarwal, K., Baer, M., Rice, P., & Raugei, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.19423 · Cited by 6
Ontology-to-tools compilation for executable semantic constraint enforcement in LLM agentsPreprint
Zhou, X., Bulter, P., Yang, C., Rihm, S. D., Angkanaporn, T., Akroyd, J., Mosbach, S., & Kraft, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.03439 · Cited by 6
McMillan, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.05447 · Cited by 6
Agentic Code ReasoningPreprint
Ugare, S., & Chandra, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.01896 · Cited by 6
Ruan, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.25100 · Cited by 6
Persona-Based Simulation of Human Opinion at Population ScalePreprint
Li, M., & Conrad, F. G. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.27056 · Cited by 6
SafetyDrift: Predicting When AI Agents Cross the Line Before They Actually DoPreprint
Dhodapkar, A., & Pishori, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.27148 · Cited by 6
An AI Agent Execution Environment to Safeguard User DataPreprint
Stanley, R., Verma, A., Tsai, L., Καλλάς, Κ., & Kumar, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.19657 · Cited by 7
Sovereign Agentic Loops: Decoupling AI Reasoning from Execution in Real-World SystemsPreprint
He, J., & Yu, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22136 · Cited by 6
Self-citationNORA: A Harness-Engineered Autonomous Research Agent for End-to-End Spatial Data SciencePreprint
Zhou, B., Huang, X., Ning, H., Wu, Q., Li, D., & Zhang, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.02092 · Cited by 6
Formal Skill: Programmable Runtime Skills for Efficient and Accurate LLM AgentsPreprint
Zhang, X., Gao, M., Zhao, Y., Tan, X., Yao, Y., Wang, F., Wang, Y., Dingsiyi, & Yang, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.19604 · Cited by 6
Frontier: Towards Comprehensive and Accurate LLM Inference SimulationPreprint
Feng, Y., Tan, X., Deng, Y., Jiang, Y., Zhu, Y., & Xu, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21312 · Cited by 6
Wang, C., Xie, Q., He, W., Guo, J., Wang, S., & Xu, C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.22343 · Cited by 6
ExpHarness: Model-Agnostic Experience Learning through a Trainable HarnessPreprint
Feng, T., Ye, C., Yu, F., Luo, T., Xu, X., Xu, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, W., Lei, Z., Hua, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.30712 · Cited by 6
Xu, X., & Wu, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.31408 · Cited by 6
Baidya, A., Liang, X., Guo, R., Gao, X., & Das, K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05414 · Cited by 6
MemToolAgent: Leveraging Memory for Tool Using Agents Based on Environment and User FeedbackPreprint
Er, S. A., Ribeiro, D. N., Virkar, Y. S., Lakew, S. M., Kalyanpur, A., Gung, J., Delteil, T., & Gupta, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.07909 · Cited by 6
Fantastic Scientific Agents and How to Build Them: AgentBuild for Rietveld RefinementPreprint
Shin, W., Bridges, C. A., McDonnell, M. T., & da Silva, R. F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12834 · Cited by 6
SEVRA-BENCH: Social Engineering of Vulnerabilities in Review AgentsPreprint
Melo, R., Fogliato, R., Zhou, S., Thaker, P., & Wu, Z. S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.13757 · Cited by 6
Orchestra-o1: Omnimodal Agent OrchestrationPreprint
Zhang, F., Zhang, V., Qian, S., Li, H., Wu, H., Wu, J., Zhou, D., Zhu, Z., Lian, Z., Wang, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.13707 · Cited by 6
Qu, B., & Chen, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.29771 · Cited by 6
Diagnosing and Mitigating Context Rot in Long-horizon SearchPreprint
Xia, S., Wang, Y., Huang, Z. Z., & Liu, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.29718 · Cited by 6
Next-Generation Agentic Reinforcement Learning Systems Enable Self-Evolving AgentsPreprint
Yan, R., Fu, W., Li, J., Xu, S., Mei, Z., Gao, Zhang, J., Zhang, W., Dai, H., Shen, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01120 · Cited by 6
AutoMem: Automated Learning of Memory as a Cognitive SkillPreprint
Wu, S., Zhu, H., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., & Yeung, S. Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.01224 · Cited by 6
Liu, S., Chen, C., Xiao, J. S., Chen, X., & Simchi‐Levi, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.05863 · Cited by 6
AgentTether: Graph-Guided Diagnosis and Runtime Intervention for Reliable LLM Agent OperationPreprint
Zhao, C., Zhang, S., Gu, W., Sun, Y., Pei, D., Bansal, C., Rajmohan, S., & Ma, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.06273 · Cited by 6
Yijun, Z., Xu, F., Ding, J., Xie, Y., Ding, X., & Zhang, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.06223 · Cited by 6
Artificial PersonsPreprint
Howells-Whitaker, N., & Lazar, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.08695 · Cited by 6
Bad Memory: Evaluating Prompt Injection Risks from Memory in Agentic SystemsPreprint
Gadgil, S. U., Alexander, D., Sunku, S., & Roesner, F. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.14611 · Cited by 6
SearchArt: Training Long-Horizon Search Agent with Scalable Synthetic and Verified TaskPreprint
Mei, L., Yu, X., Chen, C., Liu, L., Chen, X., Ma, J., Feng, C., Huang, L., Mo, S., Kang, S., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.24850 · Cited by 6
TokTier: Exact Stateful CPU+GPU Tokenization for Agentic LLM ServingPreprint
Zhang, Z., & Cao, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.29678 · Cited by 6
Active-SWE: Benchmarking Coding Agents for Proactive Bug Fixing without Issue ReportsPreprint
Li, H., Ping, D., Qian, W., Jiang, L., Huang, Z., Yang, M., & Peng, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.04682 · Cited by 6
Realtime-Venus: A full-duplex interaction system with asynchronous delegationPreprint
Ant Group (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.13814 · Cited by 6
JEV-Star: Fast, Low-Cost StarCraft II Control with Language-Model PlanningPreprint
Ma, W., Zhao, L., Zeng, Y., & Zhao, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.27331 · Cited by 6
Self-citationLi, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.29095 · Cited by 8
Large Language Models as Biomedical Hypothesis Generators: A Comprehensive Evaluation
Qi, B., Zhang, K., Tian, K., Li, H., Chen, Z.-R., Zeng, S., Hua, E., Jinfang, H., & Zhou, B. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.08940 · Cited by 5
“…(Zhu et al., 2023a; Hu et al., 2023), and they are constructed upon the foundation of LLMs. LAAs can autonomously plan sub-goals for complex tasks, execute actions, obtain feedback from the environment, and adjust their behaviors to adapt (Yao et al., 2023b; Xi et al., 2023a; Shinn et al., 2023).”
BackgroundAgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents
Andriushchenko, M., Souly, A., Dziemian, M., Duenas, D., Lin, M., Wang, J., Hendrycks, D., Zou, A., Kolter, Z., Fredrikson, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09024 · Cited by 11
Gödel Agent: A Self-Referential Agent Framework for Recursively Self-Improvement
Yin, X., Wang, X., Pan, L., Lin, L., Wan, X., & Wang, W. Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1354 · Cited by 105
Liu, J., Hao, W., Cheng, K., & Jin, D. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110319 · Cited by 5
Chen, Z., Jiang, Z., Yang, F., He, Z., Hou, Y., Cho, E., McAuley, J., Galstyan, A., Hu, X., & Yang, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3583780.3615314 · Cited by 5
Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Content-Centric Cognitive Agents Using LLMs
Oruganti, S., Nirenburg, S., English, J., & McShane, M. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series · doi:10.1609/aaaiss.v2i1.27703 · Cited by 5
Towards Objectively Benchmarking Social Intelligence of Language Agents at the Action Level
Wang, C., Dai, B., Liu, H., & Wang, B. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.526 · Cited by 5
Agent Trajectory Explorer: Visualizing and Providing Feedback on Agent Trajectories
Desmond, M. J., Lee, J. Y., Ibrahim, I., Johnson, J. M., Sil, A., MacNair, J., & Puri, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i28.35350 · Cited by 5
GlossGPT: GPT for Word Sense Disambiguation using Few-shot Chain-of-Thought Prompting
Sumanathilaka, D. K., Micallef, N., & Hough, J. (2025) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.03.101 · Cited by 5
P alimp C hat : Declarative and Interactive AI analytics
Liu, C., Vitagliano, G., Rose, B. M., Printz, M., Samson, D. A., & Cafarella, M. (2025) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3722212.3725122 · Cited by 5
Go, H., & Park, S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-06469-w · Cited by 5
Barbera, D. L., Lunardi, R., Zhuang, M., & Roitero, K. (2025) · ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval (ICTIR) · doi:10.1145/3731120.3744581 · Cited by 5
Xu, B., Zhao, S., Wu, R., Huang, Z., Wang, J., Hu, Z., Wang, K., Liu, H., Lv, T., Li, L., et al. (2025) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3711896.3736929 · Cited by 5
Zhang, Q., Liao, J., Ying, H., Yi-bo, M., Shen, H., Li, J., Liu, P., Zhang, L., Fang, C., Lee, K., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-demo.11 · Cited by 5
Ni, Z., Li, Y., Yang, N., Shen, D., Lyu, P., & Dong, D. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.509 · Cited by 5
Creative CRAFT: A structured framework for creativity-driven prompt engineering in generative AI
Esteban, A. P. (2025) · International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies · doi:10.53894/ijirss.v8i5.9229 · Cited by 5
An LLM-based Agentic Framework for Accessible NetworkControl
Lin, S., Zhou, J., & Yu, M. (2025) · ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review · doi:10.1145/3764944.3764949 · Cited by 5
DeepPlanner: Scaling Planning Capability for Deep Research Agents via Advantage Shaping
Fan, W., Yao, W., Li, Z., Yao, F., Liu, X., Qiu, L., Yin, Q., Song, Y., & Yin, B. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.370 · Cited by 5
AgentArcEval: An architecture evaluation method for foundation model based agents
Lu, Q., Zhao, D., Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Zhu, L., Xu, X., Shi, A., Tan, T., & Kazman, R. (2025) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2025.112656 · Cited by 5
Hermes: Efficient Serving of LLM Applications with Probabilistic Demand Modeling
Liu, Y., Gan, Z., Gan, Z., Wang, W., Chen, C., Shan, Y., Chen, X., Han, Z., Zhu, Y., Sun, S., et al. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization · doi:10.1145/3803390 · Cited by 5
Lai, Z., Zhu, Z., Hong, X., & Wang, Y. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/3746027.3762011 · Cited by 5
AGENTiGraph: A Multi-Agent Knowledge Graph Framework for Interactive, Domain-Specific LLM Chatbots
Zhao, X., Blum, M., Gao, F., Chen, Y., Yang, B., Márquez-Carpintero, L., Pina-Navarro, M., Fu, Y., Morikawa, S., Iwasawa, Y., et al. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3746252.3761459 · Cited by 5
TALON: A Multi-Agent Framework for Long-Table Exploration and Question Answering
Jin, R., Wang, X., Wang, D., Zheng, H., Qi, Y., Yang, S., & Zhang, M. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1393 · Cited by 5
Monte Carlo Tree Search for Graph Reasoning in Large Language Model Agents
Liu, L. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3746252.3760854 · Cited by 5
OAAgent: Multimodal LLM Agent for Predicting Knee Osteoarthritis Progression
Ahadian, P., Yang, M., Powlison, E., Li, X., Xu, W. F., & Guan, Q. (2025) · IEEE/ACM Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies · doi:10.1145/3721201.3721397 · Cited by 5
Pathways of Thoughts: Multi-Directional Thinking for Long-form Personalized Question Answering
Salemi, A., Li, C., Zhang, M., Mei, Q., Li, Z., Hombaiah, S. A., Kong, W., Chen, T., Zamani, H., & Bendersky, M. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792145 · Cited by 5
Zhao, Y., Li, X., & Du, Y. (2026) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-026-07849-0 · Cited by 5
OPGAgent: An Agent for Auditable Dental Panoramic X-Ray Interpretation
Yu, Z., Yang, L., Babicka, B., Hu, M., Hao, J., Huang, A., Huang, J., Jin, Y., Wu, J., & Ge, Z. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-38062-3_43 · Cited by 5
Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Qiu, Q., Cheng, Y., Hu, W., & Zhuge, Q. (2026) · Journal of Optical Communications and Networking · doi:10.1364/jocn.575402 · Cited by 5
SecAgent: Efficient Mobile GUI Agent with Semantic Context
Xie, Y., Chen, S., Xing, J., Jiang, W., Zhu, Z., Wang, Y., Bu, P., Song, J., Jiang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.1141 · Cited by 5
Resource Consumption Threats in Large Language Models: A Survey
Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Chen, Z., Wang, W., Zhang, Z., Gong, Z., Zhou, Z., Wang, K., Sun, L., Liu, Y., et al. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.1444 · Cited by 5
TRUST-SQL: Tool-Integrated Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning for Text-to-SQL over Unknown Schemas
Jian, A., Zhang, X., Guo, E., Du, W., Ruan, J., Yang, H., Pei, J., Zhang, W., Zeng, K., & Cai, X. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.2560 · Cited by 5
InfiGUIAgent: A Multimodal Generalist GUI Agent with Native Reasoning and Reflection
Liu, Y., Li, P., Wei, Z., Xie, C., Hu, X., Xu, X., Zhang, S., Han, X., Yang, H., & Wu, F. (2026) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.eacl-long.45 · Cited by 5
Who Does What? Archetypes of Roles Assigned to LLMs During Human-AI Decision-Making
Chappidi, S., Singh, J. P., & Krauze, A. V. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791428 · Cited by 5
Jeong, C., & Shin, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1142/s0218194026500695 · Cited by 5
FORGE: Self-Evolving Agent Memory With No Weight Updates via Population Broadcast
Bogdanov, I., Lung, C., Kunz, T., Gao, J., Taylor, A., & Zaman, M. (2026) · ACM Conference on AI and Agentic Systems (CAIS) · doi:10.1145/3786335.3813155 · Cited by 5
ConDABench: Interactive Evaluation of Language Models for Data Analysis
Dutta, A., Gupta, P., Hasanbeig, H., Singh, R. P., Nigam, H., Gulwani, S., Radhakrishna, A., Soares, G., & Tiwari, A. (2026) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3788853.3803099 · Cited by 5
ZipRL: Adaptive Multi-Turn Context Compression with Hindsight Response Replay
Hu, Z., Wang, L., Wang, X., Chai, J., Guo, X., Lin, W., Zhou, X., & Yin, G. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.findings-emnlp.1614 · Cited by 5
Petridis, S., Liu, M. X., Fiannaca, A. J., Cai, C. J., & Terry, M. A. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3812956 · Cited by 5
A Holistic Review of Agentic AI Frameworks, Applications, and Research Trajectories
Peykani, P., Ghanidel, S., Javadi-Sisi, I., Snåšel, V., & Mirjalili, S. (2026) · Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11831-026-10675-8 · Cited by 5
Agentic Time Machine as an Infrastructure for Future-Event Forecasting
Chai, J., Zheng, B., Liu, X., Ҫirkinoğlu, H. O., Zhou, Z., Wang, T., Zhang, K., & Chen, S. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.2020 · Cited by 5
VLN-MME: Diagnosing MLLMs as Language-guided Visual Navigation Agents
Zhao, X., Zhou, G., & Wu, Q. (2026) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1300 · Cited by 5
Personalized Decision Modeling: Utility Optimization or Textualized-Symbolic Reasoning
Zhao, Y., Zhao, Y., Du, H., & Yang, H. F. (2025) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/085713-2988 · Cited by 5
What Breaks When LLMs Code? Characterizing Operational Safety Failures of Agentic Code Assistants
Hasan, A. A., & Biswas, S. (2026) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1145/3832783.3834393 · Cited by 5
Human–artificial intelligence collaboration for comanaging epilepsy in real time
Goldblum, Z., Shi, H., Xu, Z., Ojemann, W. K. S., Aguila, C. A., Long, K. W., Xie, K., Nix, K. C., Walsh, K. G., Chang, E., et al. (2026) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-026-04680-4 · Cited by 5
Watson, W., Cho, N., Balch, T. R., & Veloso, M. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.442 · Cited by 5
From Passive to Active: Towards Conversational In-Vehicle Navigation Through Large Language Models
Du, H., Tao, S., Feng, X., Ma, J., & Wang, H. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1_11 · Cited by 5
Li, K., Qian, C., & Yang, X. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12851-4 · Cited by 6
ChatGraph: Chat with Your Graphs
Peng, Y., Lin, S., Chen, Q., Wang, S., Xu, L., Ren, X., Li, Y., & Xu, J. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde60146.2024.00424 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2210.03629
- OpenAlex
- W4304195432
- Semantic Scholar
- 99832586d55f540f603637e458a292406a0ed75d
- Cited by
- 608
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 130 · 2025: 222 · 2024: 161 · 2023: 95
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- autonomous AI agents, phase separation, accountability, failure modes, sandboxing, human-in-the-loop, AI risk management, AI governance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
