# DeReAct: Decomposed Reasoning and Acting for Reliable AI Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02351 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02351/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18666/) (2025)
- [ACON: Optimizing Context Compression for Long-horizon LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.00615/) (2025)
- [VeriGuard: Enhancing LLM Agent Safety via Verified Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05156/) (2025)
- [ReCreate: Reasoning and Creating Domain Agents Driven by Experience](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11100/) (2026)
- [Smurfs: Multi-Agent System using Context-Efficient DFSDT for Tool Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05955/) (2024)
- [Enhancing LLM-Based Agents via Global Planning and Hierarchical Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16563/) (2025)
- [VLAA-GUI: Knowing When to Stop, Recover, and Search, A Modular Framework for GUI Automation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.21375/) (2026)

## 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.