arXiv:2607. 24010v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Active RAG systems decide when to retrieve external knowledge during generation, making them a budget-sensitive case of agentic RAG and self-adaptive retrieval.
arXiv:2606. 02581v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) faces a fundamental three-way tension: deeper retrieval improves factual grounding but inflates token costs and end-to-end latency.
The paper introduces the concept of LLM‑specific utility, defining it as the performance gain a target large language model (LLM) achieves when provided with a passage compared to answering without evidence. A benchmark of utilitarian passages is built for four LLMs (Qwen3‑8B/14B/32B and Llama 3.1‑8B) across three QA datasets, revealing that each model benefits most from its own tailored evidence and that evidence optimized for other models is consistently suboptimal. The authors also create SpecUBench, a benchmark for LLM‑specific utility judgment, and show that current utility‑aware retrieval methods largely capture model‑agnostic usefulness, struggling to estimate LLM‑specific utility. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that retrieval‑augmented generation must consider model‑specific evidence selection to truly improve LLM performance, highlighting a gap in existing utility‑aware methods."
The paper introduces a penalty‑aware evaluation framework for Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) systems that uses asymmetric scoring, knowledge‑gap canaries, and a failure‑attribution pipeline. Applying this framework to three commercial RAG products and a baseline on SimpleQA‑Verified, the authors find that while overall accuracy is similar across systems, canary violation rates vary dramatically, showing that systems differ more in when they answer than in what they answer. The study demonstrates that penalty‑aware scoring can reorder system rankings and is robust across different penalty settings.
arXiv:2607. 00011v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reusable agent skills are emerging as a service-oriented capability layer for Large Language Model (LLM) agents.
The paper introduces “PACE”, a training‑free framework that tackles bottlenecks in Retrieval‑Augmented Generation by frontloading evidence and adaptively budgeting reranking. It first reorders candidate documents based on marginal evidence coverage—prioritizing query‑relevant, complementary, and chain‑forming documents—providing a $(1-1/e)$ approximation guarantee. Then it dynamically adjusts the reranking budget according to the relative pressure of the reranker and the language model, improving evidence recall and reducing p95 latency in multi‑hop QA workloads.
arXiv:2608. 12847v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval can identify a past trajectory that may matter, yet it does not specify how an acting agent should use that trajectory after users, entities, constraints, or environment state have changed.
Clarify-Then-Search is a benchmark that tests whether large language models can ask clarification questions to improve the usefulness of deep search results. It uses 518 real-world query pairs from Baidu, where each intent query is paired with an underspecified version. The evaluation involves a clarifier asking up to three questions, a user answerer providing only explicit information, and a rewriter generating a new query that is then searched; performance is measured by a weighted nugget-recall score.
arXiv:2607. 25600v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation improves knowledge-intensive question answering, but indiscriminate retrieval can introduce irrelevant evidence and unnecessary computation.
arXiv:2607. 27083v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents increasingly depend on diverse external services such as search engines, databases, and connectors, agent harnesses face a fundamental tool-selection challenge: acquiring too few tools leaves the task under-informed, while too many adds cost, context load, and privacy exposure.
arXiv:2606. 08151v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents often fail not because relevant text is absent, but because decisive evidence is not selected, compressed, or surfaced at action time.
arXiv:2609.33676v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM agents increasingly take consequential actions through interactions with users, policies, and external tools. Auditing these agents requires au...
arXiv:2608.29363v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise data agents answer business queries by chaining many tool calls over multiple reasoning steps, routinely accumulating hundreds of thousands...