arXiv:2607. 26070v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based agentic search systems are often evaluated as if the underlying LLM were the only component that matters, yet their measured performance also depends on the surrounding search environment: the Wikipedia snapshot, preprocessing pipeline, chunking policy, retrieval backend, tool schema, observation format, and answer submission rule.
By Guanming Xiong, Penghui Zhang
arXiv:2605. 06647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented agents are increasingly the interface to large knowledge bases, yet most treat retrieval as a black box: they issue exploratory queries, inspect snippets, and reformulate until evidence emerges.
By Zeyu Yang, Qi Ma, Jason Chen, Anshumali Shrivastava
Corpus2Skill is a retrieval architecture that transforms an enterprise knowledge base into a hierarchical skill directory, enabling an LLM agent to navigate from high-level summaries to specific documents and backtrack when necessary. On an enterprise customer‑support benchmark, it outperforms single‑shot dense, hybrid, hierarchical‑retrieval, and agentic RAG baselines in answer quality and grounding, with a moderate cost tradeoff. An eleven‑dataset study shows that corpus navigation excels on single‑domain corpora with a recoverable topical taxonomy but is less effective on open‑domain factoid pools or homogeneous‑tabular corpora, providing a design guideline for knowledge‑grounded systems.
By Yiqun Sun, Pengfei Wei, Lawrence B. Hsieh
The paper evaluates how robust large language models (LLMs) are when using retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) in practical settings. It investigates whether RAG always outperforms non‑RAG approaches, whether adding more retrieved documents helps, and whether the order of documents matters, using a benchmark of 1,891 samples across five datasets and three task categories. Experiments with 11 LLMs show generally high retrieval robustness, but performance varies by task and prompting strategy, indicating that adopting RAG should be considered on a case‑by‑case basis.
By Shuyang Cao, Karthik Radhakrishnan, David Rosenberg, Steven Lu, Pengxiang Cheng, Lu Wang, Shiyue Zhang
The paper presents a controlled comparison of six retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) strategies for scientific question answering on a large arXiv corpus. All pipelines use the same LLM generator and evaluation protocol, differing only in retrieval design—ranging from classic dense retrieval to late‑interaction methods like ColBERTv2. The authors also release a synthetic question dataset and code to enable reproducible, large‑scale evaluation of RAG trade‑offs.
By Bhagyesh Rathi, Eshan Chawla, William B. Andreopoulos
arXiv:2606.11350v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) degrades when applied to large, heterogeneous document collections. In RAG systems, dense similarity becomes l...
By Nabaraj Subedi, Ahmed Abdelaty, Shivanand Venkanna Sheshappanavar