# LeAct: Learning to Reason from Expert Actions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21856 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21856/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 40 of its 62 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Reasoning with Language Model is Planning with World Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14992/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08998/) (2023)
- [Scaling Relationship on Learning Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01825/) (2023)
- [Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12917/) (2024)
- [Generative Language Modeling for Automated Theorem Proving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03393/) (2020)
- [ReST-MCTS*: LLM Self-Training via Process Reward Guided Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.03816/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Are Reasoning Teachers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10071/) (2022)
- [Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speaking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09629/) (2024)
- [Teaching Small Language Models to Reason](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08410/) (2022)
- [Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08146/) (2024)
- [ReFT: Reasoning with Reinforced Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08967/) (2024)
- [V-STaR: Training Verifiers for Self-Taught Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06457/) (2024)
- [OpenSpiel: A Framework for Reinforcement Learning in Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09453/) (2019)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Reason with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04642/) (2024)
- [Goedel-Prover-V2: Scaling Formal Theorem Proving with Scaffolded Data Synthesis and Self-Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03613/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Modern reasoning models depend on reasoning data, today sourced from human annotations or distilled from stronger LLMs. However, a rich and largely untapped source of supervision lies in expert systems (e.g., game engines, classical planners, theorem provers), which routinely produce near-optimal actions across diverse domains. But these experts are silent: they commit to an action without writing down the chain of thought (CoT) behind it. Recovering that CoT as natural-language reasoning would distill expert knowledge into a student that generalizes beyond the demonstrated actions. We treat it as a latent variable and study how to recover it from the action alone. Our approach, LeAct (Learning to reason from Actions), optimizes this latent variable: the student samples candidate CoTs for each expert action, and we retain those that measurably improve its own probability of recovering the action. Across imperfect-information games at multiple scales and a simulated robotics benchmark, LeAct reaches the solver's numerical floor on small enumerable games. At larger scale, it is 5× closer to the solver than the strongest expert-iteration baseline. At Flop Hold'em (~ 109 infosets), LeAct wins head-to-head by +60 mbb/g, and on the robotics probe it is the only training recipe that improves on direct imitation. We present a principled framework and the result: expert systems become a categorically new source of reasoning teachers for foundation models.