arXiv Machine Learning By Pin Qian, Su Wang, Chong Peng, Junxian You, Lifei Liu, Haoran Yu, Yihang Chen, Xiaochong Jiang

When Should Active RAG Retrieve? A Budget-Aware Evaluation of Utility, Calibration, and Cost

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 25

LLM-Specific Utility for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

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."

By Hengran Zhang, Keping Bi, Jiafeng Guo, Jiaming Zhang, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Xueqi Cheng
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Why RAGs Hallucinate: Penalty-Aware Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems with Knowledge-Gap Canaries

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.

By Alden Do Rosario, Hussein Younes, Felipe Pires
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Less can be More: Relieving RAG Bottlenecks via Evidence Frontloading and Pressure-Adaptive Budgeting

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.

By Weibin Cai, Reza Zafarani