Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

SoK: Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Taxonomy, Architectures, Evaluation, and Research Directions

Saroj Mishra, Suman Niroula, Umesh Yadav, Dilip Thakur +2 more

Published

Mar 7, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

15/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Domain Experts

Signals refreshed

Mar 7, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
15/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies. Despite rapid industrial adoption, current research lacks a systematic understanding of Agentic RAG as a sequential decision-making system, leading to highly fragmented architectures, inconsistent evaluation methodologies, and unresolved reliability risks. This Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) paper provides the first unified framework for understanding these autonomous systems. We formalize agentic retrieval-generation loops as finite-horizon partially observable Markov decision processes, explicitly modeling their control policies and state transitions. Building upon this formalization, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy and modular architectural decomposition that categorizes systems by their planning mechanisms, retrieval orchestration, memory paradigms, and tool-invocation behaviors. We further analyze the critical limitations of traditional static evaluation practices and identify severe systemic risks inherent to autonomous loops, including compounding hallucination propagation, memory poisoning, retrieval misalignment, and cascading tool-execution vulnerabilities. Finally, we outline key doctoral-scale research directions spanning stable adaptive retrieval, cost-aware orchestration, formal trajectory evaluation, and oversight mechanisms, providing a definitive roadmap for building reliable, controllable, and scalable agentic retrieval systems.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Domain Experts
Unit of annotation
Trajectory (inferred)
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
Long Horizon
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies.
  • Despite rapid industrial adoption, current research lacks a systematic understanding of Agentic RAG as a sequential decision-making system, leading to highly fragmented architectures, inconsistent evaluation methodologies, and unresolved reliability risks.
  • This Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) paper provides the first unified framework for understanding these autonomous systems.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies.
  • Despite rapid industrial adoption, current research lacks a systematic understanding of Agentic RAG as a sequential decision-making system, leading to highly fragmented architectures, inconsistent evaluation methodologies, and unresolved…
  • Building upon this formalization, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy and modular architectural decomposition that categorizes systems by their planning mechanisms, retrieval orchestration, memory paradigms, and tool-invocation behaviors.

Why it matters for eval

  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly evolving into agentic architectures where large language models autonomously coordinate multi-step reasoning, dynamic memory management, and iterative retrieval strategies.
  • Despite rapid industrial adoption, current research lacks a systematic understanding of Agentic RAG as a sequential decision-making system, leading to highly fragmented architectures, inconsistent evaluation methodologies, and unresolved…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.