Overall, corpus growth increasingly favors global candidate ranking: lexical retrieval is the strongest scalable default, while agentic reasoning works best after ranked discovery rather than in place of it.
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) spans lexical and dense retrieval, graph-based indexing, and agentic search, but these paradigms are usually evaluated on different benchmarks at one corpus size, leaving their accuracy-cost scaling unclear. To bridge this gap, we present a controlled study that varies corpus size along 28 strictly nested tiers spanning roughly 450-fold, while holding questions and a fixed bedrock of relevant and adversarial documents unchanged. Under one reader model and one judging protocol, we measure official accuracy, construction and query tokens, and latency. The results reveal a scale-dependent crossover rather than an unconditional winner. File-System Agent leads at the smallest shared tiers, but its sequential exploration costs 39 times more query tokens at the bedrock and becomes less effective as the search space grows. Around 10 million corpus tokens, BM25 overtakes it and leads at every larger shared tier, with a margin approaching 20 points at full scale. BM25 also anchors the low-cost end of the Pareto frontier without LLM-based construction. Dense retrieval remains efficient but less accurate, whereas graph-based RAG encounters construction walls before deployment scale and its scalable variants remain below BM25 at shared tiers. Overall, corpus growth increasingly favors global candidate ranking: lexical retrieval is the strongest scalable default, while agentic reasoning works best after ranked discovery rather than in place of it.
Scientific queries are often brief, while relevant papers use specialized vocabulary. Generated query expansion can bridge this mismatch, but earlier work suggests that its value shrinks as the underlying retriever becomes stronger. We test the four generated formats of term lists, a pseudo-document, multiple pseudo-re...
Ryan C. Barron, Cade W. Trotter, M. Eren et al.· 0 citations
Retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) links a large language model to a set of texts. But RAG works well only when two settings are right: how big each piece of text (a "chunk") is, and how many pieces the model reads. People often choose these by habit, not by data. In this study we tested how both settings change the...
Sajjad Ahmad, Jasim Hussain, Hamza Najeeb et al.· International Journal of Inn...· 0 citations
Open-ended queries in modern Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) are increasingly"diffuse,"requiring a large set of documents to be assembled into a finite LLM context window. To ensure retrieval quality, systems use fast dual-encoders and more expensive cross-encoders (CEs) to score candidates. However, the CE budget...
Eylon Caplan, Shamik Roy, S. Dasgupta et al.· 0 citations
AdaWidth is introduced, which adapts the number of evaluated dimensions to each query within a shared prefix representation, and derives a prefix sufficiency analysis showing that the required number of dimensions is set by the competing documents at the retrieval cutoff.
We describe our system for DocSem, the document-grounded quantitative reasoning shared task at DocInsights 2026, and analyze why it succeeded on labeled data and failed on the test set. The pipeline pairs hybrid block retrieval with Program-of-Thoughts (PoT) generation executed in a sandboxed interpreter, self-consiste...
It is proved that, under an honest-majority assumption and a representation-level separation condition, RAGSentinel exactly recovers a poison-free majority-sized context.
Yueyang Quan, Anjun Gao, Yu Xia et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.