arXiv:2601.07711cs.CL2026-01ACL被引 4

对比增强型与智能体式RAG,实证揭示各场景优劣。

Is Agentic RAG worth it? An experimental comparison of RAG approaches

  • 用大模型自主调度检索与生成流程,实现动态决策
  • 智能体模式在复杂任务中表现更稳,但成本更高
  • 适合需高可靠性、可解释性的生产级应用

检索增强生成(RAG)系统通常由生成器与检索组件构成,从知识库提取文本上下文以回答用户问题。然而,基础实现存在检索噪声、无关查询误用、查询-文档匹配弱及生成器性能波动或成本高等问题,促使“增强型”RAG发展,引入专用模块解决流程中的特定缺陷。近期,大型语言模型(LLMs)自省能力的提升催生了“智能体式”RAG新范式:由大模型统筹整个流程,自主决定执行动作、时机与迭代。尽管两类范式快速普及,其适用场景仍不明确。本文通过实证评估,在多场景与多维度下对比“增强型”与“智能体式”RAG,揭示两者在性能与成本间的权衡,为实际应用中选择最优RAG设计提供实用指导。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are usually defined by the combination of a generator and a retrieval component that extracts textual context from a knowledge base to answer user queries. However, such basic implementations exhibit several limitations, including noisy or suboptimal retrieval, misuse of retrieval for out-of-scope queries, weak query-document matching, and variability or cost associated with the generator. These shortcomings have motivated the development of "Enhanced" RAG, where dedicated modules are introduced to address specific weaknesses in the workflow. More recently, the growing self-reflective capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled a new paradigm, often referred to as "Agentic" RAG. In this approach, an LLM orchestrates the entire process, deciding which actions to perform, when to perform them, and whether to iterate. Despite the rapid adoption of both paradigms, it remains unclear which approach is preferable under which conditions. In this work, we conduct an empirically driven evaluation of "Enhanced" and "Agentic" RAG across multiple scenarios and dimensions. Our results provide practical insights into the trade-offs between the two paradigms, offering guidance on selecting the most effective RAG design for real-world applications, considering both performance and costs.

RAG大模型智能体实证分析

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。