Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey on Agentic RAG

Aditi Singh, Abul Ehtesham, Saket Kumar, Tala Talaei Khoei, Athanasios V. Vasilakos · Jan 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Apr 1, 2026, 3:51 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Apr 10, 2026, 10:49 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced artificial intelligence by enabling human-like text generation and natural language understanding. However, their reliance on static training data limits their ability to respond to dynamic, real-time queries, resulting in outdated or inaccurate outputs. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a solution, enhancing LLMs by integrating real-time data retrieval to provide contextually relevant and up-to-date responses. Despite its promise, traditional RAG systems are constrained by static workflows and lack the adaptability required for multi-step reasoning and complex task management. Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Agentic RAG) transcends these limitations by embedding autonomous AI agents into the RAG pipeline. These agents leverage agentic design patterns reflection, planning, tool use, and multi-agent collaboration to dynamically manage retrieval strategies, iteratively refine contextual understanding, and adapt workflows through operational structures ranging from sequential steps to adaptive collaboration. This integration enables Agentic RAG systems to deliver flexibility, scalability, and context-awareness across diverse applications. This paper presents an analytical survey of Agentic RAG systems. It traces the evolution of RAG paradigms, introduces a principled taxonomy of Agentic RAG architectures based on agent cardinality, control structure, autonomy, and knowledge representation, and provides a comparative analysis of design trade-offs across existing frameworks. The survey examines applications in healthcare, finance, education, and enterprise document processing, and distills practical lessons for system designers and practitioners. Finally, it identifies key open research challenges related to evaluation, coordination, memory management, efficiency, and governance, outlining directions for future research.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

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

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.