DeReAct: Decomposed Reasoning and Acting for Reliable AI Agents
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
ReAct-based agents typically rely on a single LLM policy to propose actions, interact with the environment, and decide when a task is complete. This coupling makes action authorization and completion control difficult to enforce independently, allowing errors to propagate and unsupported completion claims to terminate execution. We introduce DeReAct, a modular agent architecture that externalizes two gating policies: a Critic that validates proposed actions before execution, and a Context Manager that reconstructs an environment-supported textscState and certifies task completion. Across GAIA and SWE-bench Verified, DeReAct improves Pass@1 most for weaker Brain models, with gains of 6.5--7.0 points for Qwen3-Coder-480B and 4.2--5.2 points for Claude Sonnet~4.5; gains diminish as Brain capability increases. Trajectory and ablation analyses show that external gating is effective when targeted failures are sufficiently prevalent and the gating policy is itself sufficient. With Claude Opus~4.5, Pass@1 remains comparable to ReAct, while DeReAct produces more evidence-complete and constraint-satisfying trajectories, indicating that completion control can trade earlier termination for stronger grounding. Overall, DeReAct improves weaker agents while retaining grounding benefits as models strengthen.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 17 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.
Builds on
17 of 26 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026ReCreate: Reasoning and Creating Domain Agents Driven by Experience16 Jan
- 2024Smurfs: Multi-Agent System using Context-Efficient DFSDT for Tool Planning9 May
Other references · 15
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,389
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 1,017
- 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 783
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agentscited by 223
- 2025ACON: Optimizing Context Compression for Long-horizon LLM Agentscited by 136
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?
- 2026Second Thought: Reasoning in Parallel as LLM Agents Act and Observe
- 2024Latent State Estimation Helps UI Agents to Reason
- 2026Interlock: From Local Correctness to Task Completion in Long-Horizon Agents
- 2026One Gate Is Not Enough: Composing Stateful Pre-Action Controls for Agentic AI
- 2026Zetta zeta: An Efficient Closed-Loop Embodied Harness for Self-Evolving Physical Intelligence
- 2025Auto-Eval Judge: Towards a General Agentic Framework for Task Completion Evaluation
- 2026Closing the Consistency Gap: Self-Evolving Agents That Learn to Stay on Course