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 2,101–2,200 of 5,706
Qiu, C., Zhang, Y., Luo, X., Song, S., & Liu, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12571 · Cited by 4
ClinSeekAgent: Automating Multimodal Evidence Seeking for Agentic Clinical ReasoningPreprint
Wu, J., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., Tu, H., Chen, H., Wang, Z., Xie, C., He, Y., Zhao, C., Xu, D., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20176 · Cited by 4
TextReg: Mitigating Prompt Distributional Overfitting via Regularized Text-Space OptimizationPreprint
傅卢成, Yu, Y., Wang, Y., Jin, Y., Jin, H., Prakash, B. A., & Wang, H. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21318 · Cited by 4
From Patches to Trajectories: Privileged Process Supervision for Software-Engineering AgentsPreprint
Ma, M., Chen, T., Lin, Y., Lu, S., Zhu, Q., Gong, Y., Huang, Z., cheng, P., Lu, Y., & Dong, J. S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21996 · Cited by 4
SpecHop: Continuous Speculation for Accelerating Multi-Hop Retrieval AgentsPreprint
Saberi, M., Rezaei, K., & Feizi, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.21965 · Cited by 4
A Simple Plug-in for Improving Eviction-Based KV Cache CompressionPreprint
Lin, Y., Ding, J., Xing, Y., He, P., Tang, J., & Mukherjee, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23258 · Cited by 4
EVE-Agent: Evidence-Verifiable Self-Evolving AgentsPreprint
Arai, Y., & Ichikawa, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.22905 · Cited by 4
Retrying vs Resampling in AI ControlPreprint
Lucassen, J., & Kaufman, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.26047 · Cited by 4
CP-Agent: A Calibrated Risk-Controlled Agent for Feedback-Driven Competitive ProgrammingPreprint
Wang, P., Liu, B., Li, Z., Wang, Y., Ma, Z., Li, Y., & Li, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24693 · Cited by 4
Audio-Mind: An Auditable Agentic Framework for Audio UnderstandingPreprint
Wang, Y., Peng, J., Li, H., Wang, C., Tu, W., Xi, Y., Sun, Z., Yu, K., & Wang, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28480 · Cited by 4
SAAS: Self-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Over-Search Mitigation in Agentic SearchPreprint
Tang, Y., Yang, C., Liu, S., Xiang, Z., Chen, Z., Zhang, Q., & Su, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.29796 · Cited by 4
Provably Secure Agent GuardrailPreprint
Wu, B., Zhang, W., Chen, K., Fang, H., & Yu, N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.29251 · Cited by 4
Post-Deterministic Distributed Systems: A New Foundation for Trustworthy Autonomous InfrastructurePreprint
He, J., & Yu, D. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.01722 · Cited by 4
Self-citationATLAS: Agentic Test-time Learning-to-Allocate ScalingPreprint
Qin, P., Cao, Q., & Xie, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.01667 · Cited by 4
Learning When Not to Act: Mitigating Tool Abuse in Agentic Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Chen, L., Tang, D., Shi, X., Chen, D., Liu, Q., Wu, S., & Wang, L. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.02132 · Cited by 4
Towards World Models in Biomedical ResearchPreprint
Wang, G., Yue, J., Zhang, S., Liu, Y., Wang, X., Meng, M., Ji, C., Han, Z., (213752), Y. W., Yue, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05925 · Cited by 4
Agentic Large Language Models for Automated Structural Analysis of 3D Frame SystemsPreprint
Geng, Z., Franklin, I., Martínez, S., Liu, J., Zhao, Y., & Cheng, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.06525 · Cited by 4
Lean4Agent: Formal Modeling and Verification for Agent Workflow and TrajectoryPreprint
Wang, R., Huang, J., Wang, P., Liu, X., Kong, L., & Zhang, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.06523 · Cited by 4
Self-Evolving Scientific Agent Designs Physically Reasoned White-Box Fluid ControlPreprint
Sun, B., Guo, W., Yu, Z., & (23752), L. Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.08405 · Cited by 4
SearchSwarm: Towards Delegation Intelligence in Agentic LLMs for Long-Horizon Deep ResearchPreprint
Lan, X., Chen, Q., Tao, K., Tang, X., Wang, T., Cao, Q., Kong, X., Wen, Z., Zhang, Z., & Zhou, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.09730 · Cited by 4
Autonomous Incident Resolution at Hyperscale: An Agentic AI Architecture for Network OperationsPreprint
Malik, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.09122 · Cited by 4
OCELOT: Inference-Leakage Budgets for Privacy-Preserving LLM AgentsPreprint
Xie, J., & Li, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12341 · Cited by 4
Alenezi, M. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12986 · Cited by 4
ProPlay: Procedural World Models for Self-Evolving LLM AgentsPreprint
Ma, Y., Wang, Z., Li, Y., Li, Z., Guo, X., Sun, W., Zhang, C., & Ye, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12780 · Cited by 4
LoHoSearch: Benchmarking Long-Horizon Search Agents Beyond the Human Difficulty CeilingPreprint
Zhao, J., Zhang, R., Liu, L., Yang, H., Cai, X., & Su, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12837 · Cited by 4
Self-citationDefending against Adaptive Prompt Injection Attacks via Reasoning-enabled Task AlignmentPreprint
He, L., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., & Asokan, N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.15441 · Cited by 4
MAGE-RAG: Multigranular Adaptive Graph Evidence for Agentic Multimodal RAG in Long-Document QAPreprint
Zuo, Y., Li, X., Yuan, J., Dai, Q., Qin, H., & Li, R. K. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.15906 · Cited by 4
PACT: Privileged Trace Co-Training for Multi-Turn Tool-Use AgentsPreprint
Du, Z., Luo, J., Zheng, Z., Yuan, X., Xia, K., Shi, D., Jin, Q., He, Q., Zou, S., Liang, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.16215 · Cited by 4
Code Isn't Memory: A Structural Codebase Index Inside a Coding AgentPreprint
Bhola, I., Krishnan, A., Kurmala, S., & Mukunda, N. S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.22417 · Cited by 4
Nogueira, I. B. R., & Skogestad, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.30877 · Cited by 4
Think Big, Search Small: Where Capacity Matters in Hierarchical Search Agents?Preprint
Cai, Q., Zhao, Y., & Li, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.07548 · Cited by 4
Agentic Routing: The Harness-Native Data FlywheelPreprint
Liu, X., Zhou, H., Zong, Y., Tian, Y., Song, L., Zhang, S., Li, Y., He, W., Zheng, M., Liu, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.11399 · Cited by 4
HyMobileAgent: Data-Environment Co-Scaling for Efficient GUI AgentsPreprint
HY Vision Team, Shen, H., Tang, Z., Peng, S., Wu, L., Zhang, A. M., Wang, W., Guo, Y., Li, C., Fang, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.14548 · Cited by 4
FORCE-Bench: A Benchmark, Dataset, and Evaluation Harness for Agentic AI in Enterprise FinancePreprint
Pauli, W. M., Panda, S., Admassu, K., Bleik, S., Okerinde, A., & Reynolds, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.19409 · Cited by 4
FedAgentKE: Federated Semantic Knowledge Evolution for Heterogeneous AgentsPreprint
Li, W., Bai, J., & Song, Z. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.21361 · Cited by 4
PILA: Plug-and-Play Insertion for LLM-native AdvertisingPreprint
Zhang, Z., Fu, Y., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Zhang, C., Zhang, X., Kang, Y., Wang, T., & Yang, Y. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.25590 · Cited by 4
AgenticCANN: Automated Ascend C Operator Generation via Knowledge-Augmented Agentic EvolutionPreprint
Qiu, J., Wang, Z., Sun, Y., Ma, Z., Guo, P., & Zhang, Q. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.26661 · Cited by 4
Jena, G., Wanaskar, K., Jain, V., Chadha, A., Sharma, V., & Das, A. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.01851 · Cited by 4
DeepVoyager-VL: Incentivizing Vision-in-the-Loop Search for Long-Horizon Multimodal AgentsPreprint
Zhang, H., Zhou, J., Zhao, R., Shan, Y., Chen, J., Zhou, B., Li, B., Wang, F., Wu, J., Tao, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.01827 · Cited by 4
SearchMaster: Grounded and Regulated Self-Play for Search AgentsPreprint
Tan, W., Cao, Q., Wang, J., & Duan, N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.01822 · Cited by 4
Diagnosing Search Behavior and Failure Modes in Long-Horizon Search AgentsPreprint
Liu, Q., Mao, J., Zhu, F., & Chua, T.-S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.01913 · Cited by 4
Quo Vadis, World Modeling?Preprint
Yang, Y., Yang, X., Wen, L., Kong, L., Hu, X., Lu, D., Chow, W., Huang, X., Feng, Y., Liao, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.02713 · Cited by 4
Fan, S., Li, M., Ma, X., Tan, W., Huang, X., Wu, J., Zhang, L., Shang, S., & Chen, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.03327 · Cited by 4
ToolArtist: Tool-Using Unified Multimodal Models for Agentic Image GenerationPreprint
Zhao, J., Yu, X., Sun, Z., Teng, F., Qin, C., Hu, X., Xu, J., & Yan, S. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.04436 · Cited by 4
Self-citationThe Horizon Gap: Planning, Memory, Execution, Training, and Evaluation for Long-Horizon LLM AgentsPreprint
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.06663 · Cited by 4
Li, R., Zhang, L., Xu, B., Du, M., Fu, Z., & Chen, W. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.12888 · Cited by 4
When May an Agent Stop? Evidence-Carrying Termination for Tool-Using LLMsPreprint
Liu, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.23623 · Cited by 4
Reconciling Process Supervision with Outcome-Based Credit in Agentic Policy OptimizationPreprint
Yang, J., Gan, W., Zhuang, Y., Zhang, W., Chen, J., & Zhang, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.31077 · Cited by 4
EarlyEval: Cheaper Agent Evaluation via Early Outcome PredictionPreprint
Shi, Y., Sun, Z., Dong, J., Wan, C., Lo, D., & Gu, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.02783 · Cited by 4
ECDSA.Fail: Open Autoresearch for Optimizing Elliptic-Curve Point Addition in Shor's AlgorithmPreprint
Long, J., Pender, T., Huang, Z., Santos, M. B., Singh, S. K., Naskręcki, B., Wonka, B., Dallaire-Demers, P.-L., Giannicola, F., Paschoarelli, R. M. L., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.09582 · Cited by 4
StepAudio 3 Realtime Technical ReportPreprint
Lin, B., Zhao, B., Zhang, B., Wu, B., Yan, C., Geng, C., Wu, C., Yi, C., Feng, C., Zhu, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.14005 · Cited by 4
From Human Memory to AI Memory: A Survey on Memory Mechanisms in the Era of LLMs
Wu, Y., Liang, S., Zhang, C., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Guo, H., Tang, R., & Liu, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15965 · Cited by 3
“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].”
R2D2: Remembering, Replaying and Dynamic Decision Making with a Reflective Agentic Memory
Huang, T., Basu, K., Abdelaziz, I., Kapanipathi, P., May, J., & Chen, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1464 · Cited by 4
On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks
Stechly, K., Valmeekam, K., & Kambhampati, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.08115 · Cited by 120
“These take many forms: common search algorithms with the LLM cast in the role of heuristic [37, 11], approaches which reduce error rates by enforcing various consistency conditions [8, 6, 17], and direct LLM self-critique [27, 35, 5, 15, 21, 38].”
MethodFrom Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3
“Consequently, the core technologies remain obscure, leaving future researchers without a clear roadmap of which innovations are robust enough to build upon.”
WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?
Drouin, A., Gasse, M., Caccia, M., Laradji, I. H., Del Verme, M., Marty, T., Boisvert, L., Thakkar, M., Cappart, Q., Vazquez, D., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07718 · Cited by 3
“Other works have also explored web agents that receive HTML as input and produce a series of high-level actions such as click , type , select (Deng et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023a;b; Yao et al., 2023).”
BackgroundLEGOMem: Modular Procedural Memory for Multi-agent LLM Systems for Workflow Automation
Han, D., Couturier, C., Madrigal Diaz, D., Zhang, X., Rühle, V., & Rajmohan, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems · doi:10.65109/vlua1303 · Cited by 3
“Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents to automate complex multi-step workflows [2, 3, 5, 13, 19, 20, 22, 25– 28, 33, 35, 39].”
Language Agents as Optimizable Graphs
Zhuge, M., Wang, W., Kirsch, L., Faccio, F., Khizbullin, D., & Schmidhuber, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.16823 · Cited by 3
Ipa, A. S., Rony, M. A. T., & Islam, M. S. (2025) · Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Language Models for Underserved Communities (LM4UC 2025) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.lm4uc-1.2 · Cited by 3
Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models
Zhang, Q., Hu, C., Upasani, S., Ma, B., Hong, F., Kamanuru, V., Rainton, J., Wu, C., Ji, M., Li, H., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04618 · Cited by 370
JSONSchemaBench: A Rigorous Benchmark of Structured Outputs for Language Models
Geng, S., Cooper, H., Moskal, M., Jenkins, S., Berman, J., Ranchin, N., West, R., Horvitz, E., & Nori, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.10868 · Cited by 3
“Guidance outperforms other frameworks on these dimensions. as web navigation [Yao et al., 2023b], data extraction [Polak & Morgan, 2024], and tool use [Schick et al., 2023].”
Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control
Shi, T., He, J., Wang, Z., Li, H., Wu, L., Guo, W., & Song, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.11703 · Cited by 3
Chain of Draft: Thinking Faster by Writing Less
Xu, S., Xie, W., Zhao, L., & He, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.18600 · Cited by 3
Deep Research Agents: A Systematic Examination And Roadmap
Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Li, K., Zhou, H., Fang, M., Yang, L., Li, X., Shang, L., Xu, S., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.18096 · Cited by 3
Can Language Models Solve Olympiad Programming?
Shi, Q., Tang, M., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10952 · Cited by 3
Self-citationRobust Planning with LLM-Modulo Framework: Case Study in Travel Planning
Gundawar, A., Verma, M., Guan, L., Valmeekam, K., Bhambri, S., & Kambhampati, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.20625 · Cited by 3
Chain-of-Action: Faithful and Multimodal Question Answering through Large Language Models
Pan, Z., Luo, H., Li, M., & Liu, H. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.17359 · Cited by 3
Can A Cognitive Architecture Fundamentally Enhance LLMs? Or Vice Versa?
Sun, R. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.10444 · Cited by 3
Empowering Large Language Model Agent through Step-Level Self-Critique and Self-Training
Zhai, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Lin, T., Xu, K., Yang, C., Feng, D., Ding, B., & Wang, H. (2025) · Proceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3726302.3729965 · Cited by 3
Large Language Models guided Generative Prompt for Dialogue Generation
Liu, S., Fang, Y., Cheng, H. N., Pan, Y., Liu, Y., & Gao, C. (2023) · International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC) · doi:10.1109/cyberc58899.2023.00013 · Cited by 4
Problem-Solving in Language Model Networks
Regan, C., Gournail, A., & Oka, M. (2024) · Conference on Artificial Life (ALIFE) · doi:10.1162/isal_a_00802 · Cited by 3
İSTEM MÜHENDİSLİĞİNİN BÜYÜK DİL MODELLERİNİN PERFORMANSINDAKİ ROLÜ: ANALİZ VE UYGULAMA ÖRNEKLERİ
Tan, F. G., Yüksel, A. S., & Karabıyık, M. A. (2024) · Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi · doi:10.17780/ksujes.1480838 · Cited by 3
AutoRed: Automated Attack Scenario Generation Framework for Red Teaming of LLMs
Wang, Z., & Tayebi, M. A. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825267 · Cited by 3
Viswanathan, G., Samdani, G., & Dixit, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Advanced Information Technology · doi:10.5121/ijait.2025.15202 · Cited by 3
Prompt. Exploit. Repeat: Automating Network Security Testing with LLMs
Rigaki, M., Lukáš, O., Catania, C. A., & García, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-87330-0_2 · Cited by 3
On the potential of agentic workflows for animal training plan generation
Schultz, J. (2025) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1563233 · Cited by 3
Automated Planning in Intelligent Distributed Systems Using a Multi-Agent Approach Based on LLM
Mediakov, O., & Khorkanin, M. (2025) · Visnyk of Vinnytsia Politechnical Institute · doi:10.31649/1997-9266-2025-179-2-111-117 · Cited by 3
Enhancing Human-IDE Interaction in the SDLC using LLM-based Mediator Agents
Li, Z., & Izadi, M. (2025) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/3696630.3728721 · Cited by 3
Strazdas, D., Busch, M., Shaji, R., Siegert, I., & Al-Hamadi, A. K. (2025) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2025.1561188 · Cited by 3
PlanningArena: A Modular Benchmark for Multidimensional Evaluation of Planning and Tool Learning
Zheng, Z., Cui, T., Xie, C., Pan, J., Chen, Q., & He, L. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1499 · Cited by 3
LLMAGENTNET: A COLLABORATIVE NETWORK OF AUTONOMOUS AI AGENTS FOR COMPLEX TASK EXECUTION
Бідочко, А., & Виклюк, Я. І. (2025) · Науковий вісник НЛТУ України · doi:10.36930/40350412 · Cited by 3
Lin, H., Liang, J., Wu, Y., Zhao, R., Zeng, Z., & Li, Z. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) · doi:10.1109/case69030.2026.11704302 · Cited by 3
Ahn, S. (2025) · Korean journal of medical education · doi:10.3946/kjme.2025.351 · Cited by 3
From Queries to Insights: Agentic LLM Pipelines for Spatio-Temporal Text-to-SQL
Redd, M., Zhe, T., & Wang, D. (2025) · doi:10.1145/3764915.3770724 · Cited by 3
Web3Agent: Automating On-Chain Operations via Natural Language Interfaces
Fan, S., & Min, T. (2025) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3777446 · Cited by 3
Edge-Deployable LLMs for Autonomous Vehicle Intelligence
Uprety, I., & Zhao, X. (2025) · ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC) · doi:10.1145/3769102.3774639 · Cited by 3
Teaching Astronomy with Large Language Models
Ting, Y.-S., & O'Briain, T. B. (2026) · The Open Journal of Astrophysics · doi:10.33232/001c.160220 · Cited by 3
Skeleton-of-thought: Prompting LLMs for efficient parallel generation
Ning, X., Lin, Z., Zhou, Z., Wang, Z., Yang, H., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Lirias · Cited by 3
A Comparative Featureset Analysis of Agentic IDE Tools
Shrivastava, M. (2025) · Journal of Cognitive Computing and Extended Realities · doi:10.65157/jccer.2025.001 · Cited by 3
HuggingR4: A Progressive Reasoning Framework for Discovering Optimal Model Companions
Ma, S., Hu, C., Wang, H., Sun, L., Song, M., & Song, J. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.2120 · Cited by 3
ClinicalReTrial: Clinical Trial Redesign with Self-Evolving Agents
Xing, S., Wu, K., Xia, X., He, H., Jiang, M., Chen, J., & Fu, T. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.findings-emnlp.772 · Cited by 3
ARM: Role-Conditioned Neuron Transplantation for Training-Free Generalist LLM Agent Merging
Feng, Z., Chen, K., Zhao, S., Xiong, K., Wang, Y., Yu, M., Nian, J., Xiao, C., Cao, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2026) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.emnlp-main.2115 · Cited by 3
Self-citationTowards Machine-Readable Traffic Laws: Formalizing Traffic Rules into PROLOG Using LLMs
Zin, M. M., Borges, G., Satoh, K., & Fungwacharakorn, W. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/3769126.3769222 · Cited by 3
Simulating human responses to environmental messaging
Drumm, I., & Tate, A. (2026) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00453-0 · Cited by 3
QuantAid : A Quiz-Based Quantum Learning Platform for High-school and Undergraduate Students
Hernandez, K., Patel, K., & Patel, T. (2026) · ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) · doi:10.1145/3770762.3772593 · Cited by 3
Can ChatGPT do the same? ChatGPT and professional editors compared
Janssen, D., Raven, H., van Weelden, L., & Hertog, Y. D. (2026) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2026.17.03.02 · Cited by 3
Song, Z., Cai, Y., Yu, Y., Xiang, P., Li, M., Liu, Z., & Dai, M. (2026) · Materials Genome Engineering Advances · doi:10.1002/mgea.70042 · Cited by 3
Li, S., Liu, Y., Du, S., Zeng, W., Xu, Z., Zhou, M., He, Y., Dong, H., Han, S., & Zhang, D. (2026) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i37.40440 · Cited by 3
Automated Creation and Enrichment Framework for Improved Invocation of Enterprise APIs as Tools
Agarwal, P., Gupta, H., Soni, S., Vallam, R. D., Sindhgatta, R., & Mehta, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i47.41454 · Cited by 3
Gao, D., Wen, X., Lv, J., Si, J., Wang, C., & Bao, J. (2026) · Digital engineering. · doi:10.1016/j.dte.2026.100099 · Cited by 3
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
