CAMI: Cost-Aware Agent-Guided Multi-Indexing for Semantic Retrieval
arXiv:2606. 28365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: RAG ingestion pipelines frequently augment search corpus index with semantic enrichment indices (e.
arXiv:2607. 19794v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Production LLM-based financial sentiment analysis faces a structural cost trap: most queries are trivially classifiable, yet expensive cloud reasoners process them all, and the bill scales linearly with user count.
arXiv:2606. 28365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: RAG ingestion pipelines frequently augment search corpus index with semantic enrichment indices (e.
arXiv:2609.24002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model agents increasingly answer financial questions by searching regulatory filings. Such questions are often deceptively under-specifi...
When a tool-using agent is given the same task in a different language, does it still take the same steps? Multilingual evaluation rarely asks: it compares final answers and discards the actions.
The study evaluates multi‑agent debate (MAD) in small language models, testing whether cognitive diversity—via personas, sampling temperature, or model identity—drives performance gains. Across 23 models, five tasks, and over 5,500 runs, MAD consistently outperforms single‑model inference but, when matched for generation budget, it ties or falls behind self‑consistency sampling, with persona prompting actually reducing accuracy. The authors find that MAD’s benefits largely stem from the first answer exchange and that many reported gains are due to ensemble‑sampling effects rather than true diversity, highlighting the need for budget‑matched, contamination‑checked baselines. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that MAD’s perceived advantages may be overestimated and that future debate mechanisms must be evaluated against rigorous, budget‑matched baselines to ensure genuine performance improvements."
arXiv:2606. 29914v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent memory systems are increasingly evaluated against RAG and full-context baselines, but reported gains often mix changes in the memory method with changes in the language model, embedding model, or retrieval pipeline, making it unclear what is actually being measured.
arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.
arXiv:2607. 02104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers.
arXiv:2608.22856v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A retrieval-augmented QA system can return different answers after an index expansion even when its requested model identifier, prompt, retrieval pol...
arXiv:2608. 20106v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce OenoBench, a wine-domain knowledge benchmark of 3,266 multiple-choice questions across six pillars (regions, grape varieties, viticulture, winemaking, producers, business) and four difficulty tiers.
arXiv:2607. 22841v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present DS@GT's submission to FinMMEval 2026 Task 1, a multilingual financial exam question answering benchmark spanning English, Spanish, Greek, Chinese, and Hindi.
arXiv:2606. 24976v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Foundation-model agents in multi-step, open-ended environments frequently suffer from compounding errors, where early mistakes contaminate long-horizon trajectories.
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.