跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+530新增论文
+415其中 AI 相关
+57已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-07 11:13 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-06 13:12各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-06 11:14 — 2026-11-07 11:14(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-07 11:13最近发现新增版本:2026-11-06 13:12库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,055 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-07 11:11(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.23056

Bridging Static and Agentic RAG for Taiwanese Historical Question Answering

Kai-Hsin Chen, Wei-Yu Chen, Xuanjun Chen, Su-Ling Yeh, Jyh-Shing Roger Jang

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables language models to adapt retrieval based on previously retrieved evidence, but it remains unclear whether such adaptive orchestration consistently outperforms well-designed static pipelines. We conduct a controlled comparison of agentic and static RAG for Taiwanese historical question answering, sharing the same generator and hybrid retrieval backend. Despite similar aggregate performance, the two pipelines differ on 70.83% of questions, with their advantages largely canceling out when averaged. An oracle that selects the better response per question improves the composite score by 0.2417 over the better individual pipeline, revealing substantial headroom for question-level selection. We therefore introduce a post-hoc selector that compares the two responses and their cited evidence, significantly outperforming either individual pipeline and recovering 60.34% of the oracle headroom. These results show that aggregate comparisons can obscure meaningful question-level differences between retrieval strategies, suggesting that exploiting their complementarity may be more fruitful than seeking a universally superior pipeline.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL · cs.AI · cs.IR
arXiv ↗PDF ↗