arxiv-2210-03629 SRC-0014 · paper

ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models

Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, Yuan Cao

Created: 2022-10-06 · Ingested: 2026-09-14

While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across tasks in language understanding and interactive decision making, their abilities for reasoning (e.g. chain-of-thought prompting) and acting (e.g. action plan generation) have primarily been studied as separate topics. In this paper, we explore the use of LLMs to generate both reasoning traces and task-specific actions in an interleaved manner, allowing for greater synergy between the two: reasoning traces help the model induce, track, and update action plans as well as handle exceptions, while actions allow it to interface with external sources, such as knowledge bases or environments, to gather additional information. We apply our approach, named ReAct, to a diverse set of language and decision making tasks and demonstrate its effectiveness over state-of-the-art baselines, as well as improved human inter…

In brief

Interleaving free-form reasoning traces with environment actions in a prompt gains more on interactive decision making than on knowledge-intensive QA, where grounding trades against reasoning flexibility. ReAct augments the action space with "thoughts" that change only the context, prompted few-shot on a frozen PaLM-540B.

Tests cover HotpotQA and FEVER via a 3-action Wikipedia API (search, lookup, finish), ALFWorld (134 unseen games), and WebShop (500 test instructions), against Standard, chain-of-thought, CoT with self-consistency, and an actions-only Act ablation.

On HotpotQA ReAct scores 27.4 EM against CoT 29.4, Act 25.7, CoT-SC 33.4; on FEVER 60.9 vs CoT 56.3. Switching between ReAct and CoT-SC reaches 35.1 EM and 64.6 accuracy, and matches 21-sample CoT-SC with 3-5 samples. ALFWorld best-of-6 ReAct hits 71% success vs Act 45%, BUTLER 37%, and IM-style prompting 53%; WebShop success rate 40.0 vs Act 30.1, IL+RL 28.7, human 59.6.

Baselines are ablations of the same trajectories with matched exemplars, so the contribution of thoughts is isolated. A 200-example human error analysis attributes 56% of CoT failures to hallucination vs 0% for ReAct, but 47% of ReAct failures to reasoning errors and 23% to bad search.

Prompted ReAct is worst of 4 methods at PaLM-8/62B and only wins after finetuning on 3,000 trajectories; all prompting results stay far below supervised SoTA (67.5 / 89.5). Treat ReAct as a grounding fix, not a reasoning upgrade.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-15, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

No claims cite this yet.